whatsoever For I am of opinion there is no need of excommunicating or suspending a man after he is dead nor of judging of him in order thereunto §. 4. 4. Mr. W. tells us Papists are Christians But we need not suspend them from the Lords Supper their phansie of transubstantiation and other heretical Mormoes save us the labour I know not why Papists may not without destroying their principles tender themselves to receive with us unless the necessity of their obedience to the Popes prohibition hinder them and yet that is not a principle to the French Papists But if a Papist remaining such and owning transubstantiation Popish Indulgencies merit in the Jesuits sense prayers to Saints religious adoration or worshipping of Images c. tender himselfe to receive will Mr. W. admit him why them doth he not plainly say he would as indeed his doctrine leads him to admit him if the Papist be not excommunicated in such sense as I thinke none in England are But those words of his save us the labour I suppose intimate that if they did not withdraw themselves from our Communion but should tender themselves to receive we should be at the labour of suspending them And yet Papists are not forbidden to come to Church nor separated from all other Ordinances in the Church And then the universal negative Mr. W. pretends to defend that no baptized person adult intelligent not excommunicated may be debarred the Lords Supper if he tender himselfe is againe battered by another Instance which his own pen hath afforded May not a Papist be baptized adult intelligent and not excommunicated the publique Congregations if he exclude not himselfe as some others doe And yet I thinke Mr. W. grants he may be kept back from the Lords Supper whiles he professedly remaines a Papist and it s to my admiration that this Gentleman can so confidently defend the said universal negative before mentioned and yet overthrow it by divers such concessions as this in his booke §. 5. 5. Mr. W. tells me I delude men with the contracted notion of saving faith and I may tell him 1. that he doth as much delude men with the contracted notion of doctrinal or dogmatical faith 2. And that it s not the notion of saving faith but the resting in a common verbal profession of Christianity crying Lord Lord which will be found to be the great deluder of men when the day of trying all things shall come And then he informes us that Sacraments are not seales of a personal and inward faith only They are visible scales of the righteousnes of faith i. e. of the doctrine of faith in Christ unto justification in the sight of God without the workes of the Law From whence he inferres And why should not all baptized persons adult and not excommunicated personally testifie their assent to this doctrine by taking the consecrated bread and wine into their hands as the visible similitudes of the body of Christ sacrificed for us c. To which I reply Who hath said that they are seales of a personal faith only But doth not Mr. W. here grant as well he may that they are seales of a personal inward faith though not only Sacraments are considered 1. in respect of the Institutor and Author 2. of the Receiver both wayes they are seales In respect of the Author they seale his tender of the Covenant of grace wherein salvation is freely promised to all that beleeve In respect of the Receivers they are instituted and appointed by God for their solemn sealing or testifying their beleeving and obediential embracing of the Covenant of grace in the blood of Christ And as the Administrator is to attend both so in subserviency to his Master both these are to be designed by him in the celebration of the holy mysteries The seales as is often said are commensurate with the Covenant sealed If a single covenant or meere promise tendered to all who will beleeve that they shall be saved might be sealed with the Sacraments there were nothing in the nature of the Sacraments which should hinder the administring of them to heathens remaining such to whom this Gospel is to be preached Mark 16.15 John 3.16 But it s manifest these seales can be administred only where there is visibly a mutual covenant viz. God promising justification on the condition of faith to the Communicant and the Communicant visibly closing with that condition of beleeving to justification This is manifest in that famous text Mr. W. relates to which is Rom. 4.11 concerning Abraham his receiving Circumcision as a seale of the righteousness of faith §. 6. This text requires our most serious perusall And here I shall observe That though Gods sealing or confirming his promise or single covenant of grace is not excluded yet this text doth very eminently refer to the sealing or confirming of Abrahams personal faith and that not only a dogmatical but justifying and saving faith professed by him in receiving Circumcision The Question Paul disputes in the context is whether a man may be justified without the works of the Mosaical Law as such and he proves our affirmative in the example of Abraham Abraham was a righteous person and justified by faith his faith was imputed to him for righteousness that is God dealt with him and accepted of him through Christ as if he had been perfectly righteous in himselfe having pardoned his sins as the phrase is explicated v. 6 7 8. That this is the cleere and easie importance of the phrase of imputing a thing to another I thinke I first learned from our learned Wotton on John 1.12 a notion much better than fine gold which is demonstrated by two places of this Epistle where the same manner of speech is used Rom. 2.26 If the uncircumcision keep the Law shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is he shall fare no worse than if circumcised so Rom. 9 8. Now that Abraham was thus justified without those Mosaicall works the Apostle proves 1. In that he was justified before the workes of the Law as such were in force For he was justified before he received Circumcision one use whereof afterwards was to engage the receivers thereof to all the Mosaical Law Gal. 5.3 2. In that Circumcision in its designe and intendment and to Abraham effectually was to be a seale of the righteousness of faith before received and hence as well as from other texts Divines so unanimously conclude that the Sacraments are not instituted for the unconverted but converted I say instituted For its vaine to speake of the possibility of conversion in the event by or at the Sacrament as thence to inferre the manifestly prophane and unconverted may be admitted For no one can say of an heathen or excommunicated person if he be sinfully present and partake that he shall not may not be converted at or by that sinfull partaking The spirit bloweth where it listeth The concurrent judgement
of Divines English and Forreine Episcopal and Presbyterian herein that man of vast and digested reading the learned Baxter hath demonstrated at large in sixty Testimonies produced in the second of his five disputations concerning Right to the Sacraments Sundry of which Testimonies have many in them being the judgement of many Churches and many learned men therein And many more might be easily brought forth I shall take leave to mention only two or three in reference to this text in special not cited by him Oecumenius in locum Maximo Florentino Interp. saith Nullam aliam ob rem circumcisus suit Abraham quam ut pro signo ac demonstratione ipsam circumserret circumcisionem justitiae illius quae in praeputio substitit ipsi Abrahae Si verò signorum ac sigilli loeo accepit circumcisionem nihil ipsi ad justitiam prosuit sed hâc solumodo ratione justificatum esse significavit hoc est quod cum in praeputio esset adhuc justitiâ dignus habitus fuit Arctins in loc saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 autem circumcisio proprie fuit respectu electorum nam in his geminum usum retinuit scilicet obsignare justitiam eis collatam Pareus quotes Lyra expounding it thus Accepit signaculum justitiae fidei hoc est ut esset signaculum justitiae fidei latentis in mente When the Rhemists on this place had said the heretiques that is the Protestants in their language would hereby shew that the Sacraments of the Church give no grace or justice of faith but that they be notes markes and badges only of our remission of sins had by faith before because Abraham was just before and took this Sacrament for a seale thereof only c. These Rhemists are thus answered herein by our learned Cartwright St Paul saith he doth not only call Circumcision a signe but a seale whereby it is evident that God so wrought by this signe that thereby he came to a further assurance of his righteousnesse which he had before the setting to of the seale And whereas they the Papists would have this righteousnesse which was before the seale thereof to be peculiar unto Abraham and that in others the righteousnesse is not before the seale but with it It is directly contrary to the whole discourse of the Apostle 2 Then It is absurd that thus the seale is supposed to be put before the justice whereof it is the seale And thus the Lord which for mens better understanding borroweth his Sacraments from the common usage of their compacts and Covenants as neere as may be is brought first to seale and then to write that which he sealeth cleane contrary to that usage of men from whence he draweth the resemblance of his Sacraments c. Behold here the old Protestant Doctrine aslerted in opposition to the Papists viz. that a personal faith or justice is according to this text sealed or confirmed and supposed to be existent in one before he comes to partake of the Sacrament Which designes the sealing of his righteousnesse upon his beleeving supposed And that the contrary opinion is absurd Now alas what impudent times are we fallen into when men have the confidence to tell us against our owne eyes that It is a novelisme and heterodox upstart doctrine now among us that Sacraments are instituted and designed only for the converted and for the confirming not working of faith when as I thinke it will be hard for them to produce so much as a Protestant Catechisme which asserts not the same This booke of Cartwrights I have quoted so largely was written as the Title and Preface shew by order of the chiefe Instruments of Queene Elizabeth and the State at the special Request of many most famous and eminent Divines Goad Whitaker Fulk and sundry others Furthermore that this text doth point to Abrahams faith as that which was sealed by the Sacrament and not only Gods promise may be shewed from severall hints thereof in the text and context As 1. It was the seale of the righteousnesse he had before Circumcision which at least according to our translation denotes an inherent qualification in him which he received a seale of by submitting to that ordinance of God appointed for the testifying of his faith and obedience 2. That faith was sealed in respect whereof he is the Father of them who beleeve now that was a faith inherent in him and not only the doctrine of faith revealed to him and others also in common And they are Abrahams children in the sense of the text who walk in the steps of our Father Abraham v. 12. And Christ tells many of the Jewes flatly who yet had the same doctrine of faith revealed to them as Abraham had If ye were Abrahams children ye would do the works of Abraham John 8.39 Although he acknowledgeth them Abrahams seed too after the flesh v. 37. Let me lastly Insert D Hammonds Paraphrafe on the text Rom. 4.11 And Abraham being justified after this Evangelical manner upon his saith without and before Circumcision he received the Sacrament of Circumcision for a seale on his part of his performing those commands of God given him his walking before him sincerely Gen. 17.1 upon which the Covenant is made to him and thus sealed v. 2 4 10. and on Gods part c. I conclude therefore according to this text the Sacraments are seales of the mutual covenant which only indeed is a covenant properly and strictly viz. not only of Gods tender of grace to us through Christ upon the condition of faith but also seales whereby according to Gods institution we are to ratifie our accepting of those Gospel termes for justification in Christs blood and in so doing receive a further confirmation of Gods love towards us in such degree as we are capable of the sense of it And though God requires all them to whom the Gospel is revealed to seale their acceptance thereof yet God requires no man to seale he doth what he doth not nor hath he any proper visible right to the Sacraments who visibly rejects these Gospel termes §. 7. 6. Mr. W. tells us God makes men beleevers by Baptisme p. 66. If he meane they are solemnly to signifie the same herein I grant it But if that they are not Christians before I deny it upon evident Reason 1. For they are baptized because Christians not forfeiting the priviledges of such therefore they are Christians before I shall here only refer to Peter Martyr the Author Mr. W. so often mentions with honour in his booke as well he may loc com cl 4 cap. 8. § 3. et 7. c. Where he gives an account of the baptizing Infants of Christian parents upon the Churches hope of their election as being the seed of the holy Neque parvulos baptizaremus nisi jam eos ad ecclesiam et ad Christum arbitraremur pertinere And he saith Those are not to be heeded who move a scruple in this matter and say What if
been baptized 4 There are two manifest Instances of private baptisme the one of the Eunuch Act. 8.35 36. the other of the Jaylor and his houshold Act. 16.33 5 That of Pauls baptism is more doubtful Act. 9 11 17 18. 22.16 The probabilities â—â—me rather to cast it among the Instances of publique baptisme according to the opportunities of those times which appeare by laying these circumstances together 1. Paul was miraculously converted in his going to Damascus struck blind neer to Damascus to which place he was led 2. In Damascus there was a brotherhood of Christians a Church at this time Act. 9.19 3. This miraculous conversion of Paul could not be concealed from these brethren there For there were divers with Paul when he was miraculously converted who heard the voyce from heaven who were likely to speak of it the very novelty and wonder of the matter would make them divulge it besides also they being Pauls companions on his journey and probably assisting to him in his persecuting designe could not be insensible of their concernment in the voyce speaking Saul Saul why persecutest thou me which would be an obligation on them to give God the glory of the vision by declaring it And what story could they make in Damascus to satisfie them who should enquire concerning Pauls blindnesse who was led by them but they must tell the truth the weightiness and strong influence of the present providence not permitting a dissimulation of the matter And the same may be said over againe much more to shew that Paul himselfe was not likely to conceale this thing 4. Paul was three dayes blind at Damascus before Ananias came to him 5. It s very probable Paul after his conversion being now under the terrour of his former cruelty against Christ in his members and at present blind would desire to be conducted to the house of some disciple at Damascus or at least send for some disciples to him 6. And as probable it is that many disciples would flock in to him hearing of the mighty work of God done on him 7. It s also noted that he fasted the three dayes and three nights of his blindnesse and that likely for a religious end and then he would joyn solemn prayer therewith to which I suppose the voyce speaking to Ananias especially refers which saith of Paul Behold he prays i.e. now he is praying or joyning in prayer having set himselfe seriously to be humbled for his former sin 8. And now it s not likely he spent 3 dayes in prayer all alone It s probable therefore there were the Disciples in Damascus gathered to him into the house of Judas whither Ananias was instructed to goe to Paul and where he baptized him Neither may it be forcibly objected that because of his former rage against Christianity the disciples in Damascus would not so soon trust him as to come unto him Upon which account some time after the Church at Hierusalem durst not receive him into their company For these at Damascus who heard of his vision might see him humbled under his blindnesse would hereby be made fearlesse of receiving hurt from him And yet the Disciples at Hierusalem who wanted those advantages of confidence might prudently scruple at a suddain admission of him into their society If all these taken together wil not amount to a probability that here were with Paul a considerable number of Christians and a free invitation of them hither which in those times might be such an assembly as used there solemnly to joyn in publique ordinances who might be present when Paul was baptized by Ananias yet I thinke more will hardly be said for a probability of the contrary and so I leave it 6 It appears then that in all cases it was not unfit much less unlawful to administer Baptism privately yet there seem to be but two cleere undoubted examples thereof in Scripture when as all the persons baptized by John and so probably those baptized by Christs Disciples before Christs death seem to have been openly baptized And we have perused 5 Scriptures which speak of many multitudes thousands baptized after Christs ascension whose baptisme was as publiquely administred as was the preaching of the word ordinarily in the Christian Churches Hence I think I may reasonably conclude 7 That publique baptisme is according to the ordinary common Rule private is the Anomalon or an exception in some peculiar extraordinary Cases These two conclusions are to be handled distinctly and first of the first 8 It s according to the ordinary common Rule of the N. T. that baptisme be administred publiquely i e. as is aforesaid according to the opportunity of the times and so that it be as publique as ordinary preaching in the Church assemblyes is This I shall further illustrate and shew in these Reasons hereof ensuing 1. The nature of this ordinance is a publique seale of the covenant of grace and so annexed to the Gospel therefore it s fit it should be annexed to the preaching of the Gospel and be as publique as that is ordinarily Matth. 28.19 20. 2. One effect of Baptism is the solemne admission of Christians into the visible Church 1 Cor. 12.13 Therefore its fit to be done ordinarily in the face of a Congregation I say solemn admission for they are Christians before now the solemnity requires publiquenesse so far as may â—â—e 3. The great use and benefit of having this ordinance publiquely pleads against the private administration thereof where it may be publike 1 In â—egard of the person baptized to have the prayers of 〈◊〉 Congregation 2 With respect to the parents that they may be more quickned by the solemnity of the ordinance in renewing their covenant with God on this occasion 3 For the whole Congregation to be minded of the nature of this ordinance and the engagements which have been layd upon them herein for themselves and their children they have formerly in baptisme devoted to God 4 And lastly the Minister herein hath opportunity to approve himselfe publiquely in the administration hereof in a right manner and to subjects capable of the same according to Gospel Rule 4. The horrible abuse formerly and now in some places making many baptismes private transactions with a few women only present besides the Minister Father of the infant baptized as also the observation that this is generally the imployment of scandalous Ministers should make us lesse free in complying with them herein least we bring contempt on our persons function and Ministry 5. The contempt in our dayes cast on this sacred ordinance by many and the aptness we see in divers of our people to make it a matter of state formality for the entertainmeÌ„t of friends not regarding the prayers of the Congregation rather then a business of serious devotion should provoke us to labour after a greater solemnity in the administration hereof 6. The exceeeding great snares and inconveniences which private baptisme brings
some Ministers in his neighbourhood who associated with some few of their members in one Church to administer the Sacrament there neglecting it wholly in their own proper Churches It s better to be too charitable if I may so speake in judging them capable who are not then too censorious in judging them not capable who are so Better it were that some have what belongs not to them than any should be deprived of their due I conjecture by the places I know that there are few places in England where a Minister can sufficiently excuse himself in neglect of administring the Sacrament to his charge by the pretence of want of a competent number of visibly capable Communicants And that the want of Elders is no plea sufficient hath been proved by many pens which I heartily assent unto and therefore would earnestly desire Ministers not to neglect the celebration of the Sacrament in their owne places upon such pretences although in such want of government a greater burthen must needs lye upon their own shoulders In short I would be as charitable as might be in judging and discerning who are in wayes of wickedness visibly inconsistent with any exercise of faith And yet to prevent abuse of this doctrine it must be remembred that we are to judge our selves by a stricter Rule in discerning of our conditions than others may make use of in probable discerning concerning us And 2. we may have strong suspitions and jealousies concerning others so as to admonish them sharply whom yet we cannot judge ecclesiastically and use as such whom we feare them to be But that such as are notoriously thus wicked have any right or may be regularly admitted to the Sacrament I flatly dâ—ny upon the Grounds and Reasons before memioned But it s now high time to take our refreshing PSALM 119. part 7th G. 49 Grant to thy servant that good word Whereon I hope by thee 50 Great joy this doth in straits afford For thou hast quickned mee 51 Graceless proud men in scoffes waxt hold Yet kept I thy Law sound 52 Good Lord I minde thy Judgements old And therein comfort found 53 Grim horrours seas'd on me because Men breake thy Statutes sage 54 Glad songs to me have been thy Lawes In th' house of pilgrimage 55 Grave thoughts I had of thy Name Lord By night and thy Law kept 56 Guiding my steps after thy Word This blest fruit I have reap't CHAP. VIII §. 1. THese three last Chapters being duely weighed by the attentive Reader and compared with Mr W. his discourse from pag. 47. to 62. I hope he shall not want an answer for most there alledged pertinently to the matter we are upon Extravagancies we shall not now deale with Yet some more particular Answer shall be given to what remaines any thing considerable in those pages of his He often harps upon one base You mis-judge saith he in judging the morbid members of our parochial Assemblies to be Infidels and unbeleevers positively as Pagans p. 50. Give over your herterodoxall brownisme such words as this and mormo and mormonize fill his mouth compleatly and honour the Christian Religion by putting a divinely positive difference between the unbeleevers among us and the unbeleevers of Pagans p. 53. And I know not how many times over doth he in such like expressions informe our dulnesse that there is a difference betwixt our unbeleevers and Pagans and with great vehemency perswades us to beleeve that Pagans were not baptized nor do they professe the Christian faith as ours do As Augustine said to Cresconius l. 2. contra Cresconium Grammaticum ne quisquam vel nimis acutus id quod semel breviterque dixisses interpretari aliter conaretur etiam obtusis auribus et cordibus tuam curasti immergere atque inculcare sententiam One would be apt to thinke I had denied this which he urgeth so hotly or els that he hath such a stomack to confute me he will beat a brat that no body owns on my back Did ever any one deny to put a difference betwixt baptized persons and unbaptized yea those who are but catechumens But if the Question be whether Unbeleever is a name applicable by Scripture warrant to some baptized persons I have answered it already when I routed his sorry distinction and shewed that it is in divers Instances And if further the Question be what kinde of beleeving is the condition of visible title to sacramental admission I have shewed that it is that beleeving which doth connote visible actual saving faith and repentance And that the due administration of the Sacraments doth necessarily suppose in the judgement of the Church or Minister that the person to whom they are dispensed is a sincere beleever and a converted person is a position wherein I thinke I shall never see Mr Baxter answered though he have so grave and learned an Antagonist engaged against him therein And indeed Mr W. and I might well have been silent to have heard our Betters argue the matter That 's my opinion I cannot say it was his §. 2. P. 50. Mr W. will needs shew us how they who are ignorant and disorderly can be beleevers and saith The very best of us are sinners and Saints but in a diverse respect sinners ex peccato remanenti Saints ex gratiâ renovantis or sinners quoad reliquias vetustatis Saints quoad primitias spiritus i. e. if I may english his latine because he doth not to this sense we are sinners because of sin in us and Saints because of grace in us Well now what will he do with this distinction he tells us So our morbid Church members are in a divers respect beleevers and unbeleevers Beleevers positively as soederally and professedly of the Christian perswasion Unbeleevers negatively as in works they practically deny the faith under which they positively and professedly stand by baptisme and visible submission to the outward meanes of faith and reformation not as aliens but as of the houshold of faith putting themselves under the Churches cure not justifying their miscarriages but coming to our solemnities as to the meanes of better carriage professedly hoping in Christ for salvation and in no other And then he shews how some of the children of Israel were Rulers of Sodom by their sinful practice yet children of God and of the Prophets and the Church a severed and holy people by the holiness of the Covenant under which they professedly stood First for the similitude of one to the other compared As we are sinners because we have sin in us and Saints because of grace so some are Saints or an holy people though they have no holiness in them but only engaged positively to be holy Wherein is the likeness As some having learning are learned so some engaged or professing to be learned are learned Is not this good And then againe As we are Saints and sinners in divers respects so are persons beleevers and unbeleevers in divers respects The comparison
though suspended or excommunicate §. 4. I know no difficulty here but that concerning receiving their children to baptism But that I find not mentioned by Mr W. And if their children should be debarred baptism that is no argument against debarring them the Lords Supper It s no good reason that nothing should be done in a business because all is not done which some think and suppose rightly should be done So far we are satisfied that the parents being so notoriously wicked as aforesaid should be debarred the Lords Table Whether also their children must be debarred baptism is another thing to be enquired into This Controversie is weighty and large and I shall not presume to designe a just discussion of it here yet may I not wholly omit it Concerning the baptizing of the children of both parents notoriously ungodly and suspended or excommunicate I would briefly hint these few things 1. Some solve the difficulty by saying We receive their children to baptism on other accounts than on their right from their immediate parents as Mr Drake answered Mr Humphreys on this point 2. But by the immediate though notoriously ungodly suspended or excommunicate parent I humbly conceive a right is conveighed for the baprism of his infant Supposing that the parent desire it otherwise none can meddle with the dedicating of his Infant which is parentum juris at the parents disposal For §. 5. 1. All Pedobaptists use this Argument Church-members may be baptized Some children are Church-members Ergo. And doubtless they understand their Major proposition here of Church-members not sinfully debarring themselves For a son of a believer who hath not been baptized in infancy though he be a Church-member may when he is adult by his scandalous life hinder himselfe of receiving baprism as well as one baptized may of the Lords Supper Now the child of a notoriously ungodly and suspended or excommunicated parent is a Church-member and doth not sinfully hinder or put a bar to his own baptism That he is a Church-member is proved If the parent be a Church-member then so is the infant this consequence I think none I have to deal with will deny But that he is a Church-member still hath been proved above chap. 3. § 6. That this child doth not put a bar to his own baptism I need not prove Upon this ground I add 2. The child is not to be punished for the fathers sin which yet he were if he should not be baptized 1. Admit the parent be visibly a believer when his child is born or rather when the child is begotten according to 1 Cor. 7.14 which is said to describe the childs birth-priviledge as it is called though it seems rather to be a generation-priviledge and that he delay the baptizing his child a month perhaps longer and in the mean time he for some notorious wickednesse is suspended or excommunicated Certainly his infant had a right to baptism at least coram Ecclesia and supposing the parent to have true grace coram Deo too after it was born and therefore it cannot be said that to deny it baptisme is no punishment as not depriving it of any right it ever had and therefore the denying it baptisme now is to cut it off from what it had and lost not by its own default 2. It will not I think be denied that it is a priviledge and great mercy which the gracious providence of God hath disposed unto this infant that it hath or had right to baptisme If it were onely the priviledge of the parent that he might have his child baptized it were more imaginable how his child might be debarred upon his forfeiture But since it is a priviledge to the child it cannot be debarred but it must be punished as well as its parent and that for its parents personall miscarriage He himselfe indeed may keep it from baptisme but as in that he sins and doth it wrong so should they who refuse to do their office for the baptizing of it upon the parents defire §. 6. 3. It is not nothing that the Jewish children were to be circumcised the eighth day although the parents by legall or moral uncleanness might be debarred the Passeover or excommunicated which it should seeme would not have been if the censure upon the parents had reached any further then to the suspension of him from some personal priviledges whereby he was as an heathen in some respects and did not extend to make his child as an heathen in any respect particularly that it should be debarr'd circumcision as the child of an heathen should though the parent were debarr'd the Passcover and so dealt with in that respect as though he had been an Heathen 4. He may be admitted to Baptisme who is holy by consecration and being rightly devoted to Christs service doth no way reject the same But such is the condition of the child of a notoriously scandalous Christian yea excommunicated Ergo he may be admitted to Baptisme Of the first there is no question I thinke The latter proposition is cleere in both its parts 1. This child is holy by consecration and being rightly devoted to God For when the parent entred or seemed to enter Covenant with God as therein God tendered himselfe his God and the God of his or his seed So his restipulation was answerable thereunto that he and his his seed should be the Lords people Whether this parent was sincere in this covenanting or no he and his are engaged thereby and so his seed is a seed holy by consceration and being rightly devoted to God and the service of Christ and as he himselfe is to be accounted really justified or dealt with as such till he notoriously contradict his professed engagements to Christs service Deut. 26.17 so also is his seed which in devoting himselfe he also devoted to God Deut. 29.11 12. to be treated as holy ones and as justified ones are to be dealt with till that they by notorious disobedience contradict the engagements which lye on them And thus the children which some wicked Jewes offered to Idols God claimes as his in a special and peculiar sense as having been devoted to him and his service Ezek. 16.20 27. 23.27 §. 7. 5. Although the learned and worthy Mr. Baxter in his third disputation about Right to the Sacraments asserts and copiously labours to defend that the Infants of notoriously ungodly parents have no right to Baptisme In answering of whom this controversie might have its just disquisition which it cannot be expected I should undertake yet in that same disputation p. 264 265. he most reasonably asserts That all God requireth in the free universal Covenant of grace to our participation of his benefits is our consent And children do consent by those whose they are For they that owe them or whose they are have the disposall of them and so of their wills interpretatively and may among men make any Covenant for them which is for their good at least
appeare to be of a right faith and doctrinally true beleevers And againe saith he p. 61. By our administration to beleevers is meant such beleevers as we may have a certainty that they are beleevers Now if we must know them to be beleevers by hearing them say the Creed and testifying their beleefe of every Article therein before we can have a certainty they are beleevers capable of admission to the Supper then they must give an understanding visible account of their faith in order to their admission Their having been baptized in infancy is no demonstration and less then demonstration will not serve for the infallible certainty Mr. W. requires of their personall doctrinal faith this doctrinal faith they cannot be expected to have without instruction preceding and the meanes of instruction afforded to them is no proof of their proficiency therefore according to Mr. W. his own concessions they must give an account of their proficiency under the meanes of instruction they have had for the attaining this indispensably necessary doctrinal faith which we must saith he have an infallible certainty of before we administer unto them 4. The same Reason which will justifie the requiring a Parents renewing his profession of faith and renouncing what is contrary thereunto when he presents his childe to baptisme will as effectually prove that he should personally professe the faith before he was admitted to the Lords Supper And therefore whereas an ancient Divine in this Country as I am informed at the celebration of a Baptisme having asked the Parent the usuall Questions then offered to his Brethren Why that parent might not be admitted to the Lords Supper without any further Examination before Minister or Eldership since he had now made an open profession of his faith at the baptisme of his child It may be answered 1. That if he please to give a reason to warrant his demanding that profession from the Parent before the infant should be baptized the same will shew what he desired He may try at his leasure to give a Reason for the one which will not as effectually reach the other 2. Yea much more strong will it be in the latter than former case In his datum than quaesitum supposing the parent had been upon a personall owning the Covenant engagements admitted before that time to the Lords Supper 3. I should readily grant if this parent have not or not upon a personal confession of the faith been admitted to the Lords Supper before that this profession he was occasioned to make at the baptisme of his infant may so far as it goes serve without renewing of it at his admission to the Lords Supper But then it should be considered whether the answering in that forme I beleeve I renounce for sake c. may be reasonably judged an understanding owning of the Covenant where it appeares not by previous conference with him or a present more full explication of himselfe or some other probable way that he doth understand what he answers unto 4. Lastly I answer That the parent who is to be admitted to the Lords Supper ought not only understandingly to own the Covenant and baptisme as one seale thereof which he makes profession of at the baptisme of his infant but also particularly the ordinance of the Lords Supper the signification of the sacramental elements and actions therein and the end of celebrating the same that he may be in a visible capacity of discerning the Lords body And therefore there is manifest reason why he should make a further profession supposing he hath not done it before for his own admission to the Communion then was required from him at the admission of his Infant to baptisme And so much in answer to this proposall of the Minister aforesaid of which I desire his candid acceptance Some other passages mentioned by him at the same time I neglect as savouring of calumny and passion The tide may turne and the brooke therewith I grudge him not the liberty of Retract on but then it were seemly to be without detraction from others who still own the opinion he was lately most zealous for I now proceed 3 It makes no alteration as to the matter in hand whether this understanding profession of the faith be immediately before a persons first admission to the Sacrament or a longer time before so that the thing be done And therefore where Confirmation was in use and seriously managed that might serve this purpose sufficiently according to the direction of the Common prayer book before recited Ch 4. § 3. 4 If persons have been unduely admitted to the Lords Supper without making this understanding profession of the Christian faith before that excuseth them not from being now called to make it in order to their present admission this will stand good till it can be evinced that a neglect excuseth from duty that that must never be done which hath been sinfully left undone and that because of that irregular omission although as fit an opportunity is againe afforded for the doing of it as that was which formerly was not taken hold of as it should have been for the same And indeed as the Provincial Synod of London in their Vindication hath observed The great Odium cast upon the Presbyterial way is occasioned by the shameful neglect formerly of the Rules then appointed for Examination of all before they should have been admitted to the Lords Table And now the Reformation endeavoured in this thing is not so much for the amending the Rule which before was prescribed as in calling people up to a stricter observation of the same Rule for matter and substance 5 It hath bin already shewed that the Presbyterian Government which is that confirmed by the Parliament after advice had with the Assembly of Divines not what some Presbyterians may hold doth not require all persons now should be againe examined who have formerly upon the due profession of their faith been admitted to the Sacrament But it forbidding the ignorant to be admitted only inferres that such as hitherto have not understandingly owned the Covenant of grace should now be called to do it if they would partake of the Sacrament And therefore where any have formerly performed that in substance which is now required from them who are to be first admitted to the Supper and can make it appear there is no necessity according to Presbyterian principles for their rene wall of it as to their present communicating 6 This profession must be made before sufficient and comperent witnesses else it cannot be a satisfactory profession But who those must be is a consideration of another nature For this may vary according to the different circumstances of persons times and places and the judgement of the Church thereupon or of those who are most eminently concerned in the management of such things pertaining to the prudential order thereof so that the end be attained for the good of the persons admitted and the satisfaction and edification