act of the Parents corruption of Nature is propagated their act it is tho not voluntary in them So by the act of the Parents in this it is a voluntary act by Faith laying hold upon the Promise of God in that Sacrament is obtained for the Infant and bestowed upon him the Grace of Regeneration This to be the root and spring of future holines and righteousnes as the other was the root and spaun of wickednes and profaness Ob. It is said That every man must live by his own faith not by anothers Sol. By his faith indeed it is said that the just shall live Hab. 2.4 It is not said Not by anothers this is not in the text of the Prophet Nor doth the text speak simply of the Benefit it self gained by Faith but of the Pre-assurance ther-of No pre-assurance of Salvation but by Faith But this doth not prove That by his faith the Parent may not obtain for his child this benefit of Baptism the Remedy for that Malady We read in the Gospell That the woman of Canaan obtained mercy for her daughter The man for his lunatick sonn the Centurion for his servant the friends and neighbours for the Palsie-sick man Which instances have been alleged by Divines to manifest this point in hand viz. The Benefit of Baptism obtained for the child by the Faith of the Parents Bernard Seâ—m 66. in Cantica Ecbertus contra Cathacos Serm. 7. Remigius on Mat. 15.21 Calvin Harmon on MÃ t 9. That note of Remigius is worth the noting She saith not Help my daughter but help me and have mercy on me and so Mar. 9.21 The father of the Lunatick saith If thou canst do any thing have compassion on us and help us He puts himself in as a Co-partner of his childs misery Say the same here It is a mercy to the Father that he can prevail for his child who if he do rightly understand himself suffereth in his child yea not only by the way of compassion but as feeling the smart and punishment of himself And therfore hath need to sue unto God for the Removing of that punishmâ—nt which lyeth upon himself in his child Yea he hath this reason to châ—llenge it at the hand of God by the prayer of Faith that so he may obtain the fulnes of the Promise made to the faithful in the Covenant of Grace Infants are part of their Parents So that the promise of Grace mentioned in the Covenant betwixt God and the Faithfull Gen. 17. is not ratified to the whole Parent except also it do extend to his Infants So then it is the Faith of the Parent laying hold on the Promise which qualifieth his Infant for the Grace and good effect of Baptism Nay yet more This text on which the Argument was grounded Mat. 19. cometh yet neerer to the point For first the blessing of Christ which the Parents sought and found for their children was not terminated in an externall and corporall Benefit as per-adventure it might be replyed touching those former Instances Doubtless the Blessing of Christ extended to the good of their souls and yet procured by the Faith of the Parents without any concurrence of Faith in the Infants I will not per-emptorily affirm it But probable enough it is that these Parents having been by Johns Baptism directed to Christ when they knew him brought their children to Him to receiv a further blessing from him even that which John told them he could not give but they must expect it from another even from Christ Next it may be worth the noting That our Saviour saith Suffer little children to come unto mee To come not To be brought The act of the Parent is reputed the act of the child That none may deride the saying of the Ancient Credit in alio sicut peccavit in alio He beleeveth and cometh to Christ in and by his Parent as formerly he had sinned in the loins of another Corollary To conclude this first Argument Since by that text of our Blessed Saviour we have ground to believ That Infants presented to him are accepted Since what persons might be brought to him may be presented to his Ordinance There being no barr put in by any word of Christ to keep them of Nay more Since the Faith of the Parent doth lay hold upon the promise of Grace not only for himself but for his Infants yea ther is ground to believ the imputation of the Parents faith to the Infant I conclude ther is sufficient ground in Scripture to warrant Parents to present their Infants to this Ordinance and that with expectation to obtain the Grace and Benefit of the same The second Argument THis I ground upon the words of our Saviour Mat. 28.0 A charge given to the Apostles to instruct the Nations whom they should convert to the Faith to instruct them I say in the observation of all such Ordinances as Christ had commended to them This Observation enjoyned hath speciall reference to matters of Discipline for the right Ordering and Government of the Churches and Assemblies of Christians in which he instructed his Apostles no lesse than in matters of Faith and Doctrine as it is evident out of Act. 1.2 where is mention made of some Commandements which Christ gave to his Apostles touching things pertaining to the kingdom of God And it is no less evident by some passages in the New Testament ex gr Cor. 11.2 2 Thes 2.15 2 Tim. 2.2 that some things were delivered to the Churches and particularly to the Ministers ther-of which were not then committed to writing but delivered from Hand to Hand called therfore Traditions These were not matters of Doctrine especially not Articles of Faith None such do we acknowledge but what are delivered and set down in the writings of the Holy Apostles and Evangelists But matters of Discipline and Rules of good order in the Church These Ordinances sett up and practised by th'appointment of the Apostles are equivalent in Authority to what Christ himself hath immediatly ordained Hence that of St. Paul Cor. 14.37 Consequently a Ground on which Conscience may build and therby may assure it self that ther-in it doth not sinn against God Of the which we cannot doubt if reading that of Cor. 11.16 we note what is the Question and what is the Resolution The Question is Whether it were indifferent for men and women to be covered or not covered in the Church-assemblies as they listed St. Paul saith No it is not but the Men must do so and the Women so Now saith he If any man be contentious q d if he will presumptuously contend against all reason that the thing is indifferent and so he may in this use his own liberty What then why saith he We have no such Custome nor the Churches of God q d The Custome of the Church which is establisht must over-rule mens froward fancies and stand for a law to quiet the conscience of him that is willing to be satisfied So
then the Customes of the Church ordained by the Apostles are a Ground of satisfaction Nor are they therfore in themselves less authenticall because they are not mentioned in the text of Scripture as prescribed by the Apostles if yet it may appear that from them they fetch their first Originall It is not the writing that giveth things their Authority See Hooker Ecclesiasticall Polity lib. 1 sect 14. pag 44. Field on the Church lib. 4.20 but the worth and credit of Him that delivereth them tho but by word and lively voice onely More certainty to us-ward things have by writing but not more Authority in themselves ex gr That saying of our Saviour not mentioned by the Evangelists yet now known to be his by the Allegation of St. Paul Act. 20.35 That Prophâ—cy of Enoch Jude 14. These in themselves were noâ— less authentick truths before than after those allegations So for Apostolicall Customes Those mentioned in the Scripture have a more unquestioned Certainty than Traditions but not greater Authority Neither is this to sett up Tradition as do the Papists to the prejudice of the Scripture Because we admit none for Apostolicall which either are contrary to the Scripture or which may not by good reason from some text of Scripture be confirmed for Apostolicall You see whither all this tendeth viz. To make way for this Assumption That if the Baptizing of Infants may reasonably be judged one of those Apostolicall Traditions one of these Church-Customs which were established in the Churches according to the commandement of Christ Then is ther sufficient Ground in Scripture to warrant the use and practise of it And tho ther be no mention of it in the text of Scripture yet if it may appear to have been ordained by th'Apostles and used by the Churches even from the dayes of the Apostles why should it not be acknowledged to be the commandement of Christ and so a Ground for Conscience to build upon Well But you will say how may it appear to have been a custome of the Churches ordained by the Apostles Here it may be worth our Observation That the pattern and president from whence most if not all of them was â—aken was the custome of Israel in the Old Testament It is the observation of Jerome Ut sciamus traditiones Apostolicas sumptas ex veteri Teâ—â—amento Quod Aâ—ron fiâ—â— ejus atque Levitâ—e in Templo â—â—crunt hoc sibi Episcopi Presbyteri atque Diaconi vendâ—â—ant in Ecclia Hieron Epla 85. ad Evagrium And this may be one speciall reason why the Providence of God did not take so much care for the writing of every Custome and Ordinance for the Government of the Church-Assemblies in the New Testament Because as ther was not so much danger of Corruption in them as in points of Doctrine So the President from whence they were take being at hand if any aberration did creep in it might easily be amended by reducing it to the pattern Yea and who can tell whether the wisdom of God did not hereby provide to uphold the credit of the Church of Israel and the Authority of the writings of Moses and the Prophets against the frowardnes of some who were but too apt and ready to dis-esteem them That the Institutions of God by Moses for the Church of Israel were the Pattern for the Apostolicall Traditions which were appointed for the Discipline and Order to be observed in the Christian Congregations it will appear more evidently if we consider that the subject matter of these Orders are Times Places Persons and the like In all which the Apostles by the Commandement of Christ setled such Rules as were consonant to what had been formerly in the Church of Israel That we might know that no better Orders for the Church can be devised than such as in Conformity to the Church of the Old Testament may justly and without wrong to the time of Truth and Grace be framed and as it were thence translated Was it not for this cause that divers particulars which should be in the Christian Churches are prophetically described in phrases taken from the Church of Israel See these texts Esai 66.21 23. Zech. 12.16 I said Without wrong to the time of Truth and Grace Because as some judiciall lawes were peculiar to that Nation and to that Age of the World and so may not be now taken into the Statutes of the Common-wealth So some Ecclesiasticall Rites were peculiar to that Age of the Church and may not now be taken into the Canons of the Christian Church tho others may which are more morall and so more perpetuall Ex. gr In the Old Testament ther was one day in seven set a part to be a Day of Holy Rest i. e. a time for the Assemblies and Holy Convocations meeting together for the works of Piety and Devotion In imitation where-of th'Apostles by the Direction of our Blessed Saviour consecrated the first day of the week to the same ends and uses and gave it that honourable name which still it beareth The Lords Day Then for Places Israel had their Synagogues beside the Temple And who knoweth not that even in th'Apostles times ther were places sett apart for the Assemblies to meet in and even then began to be called Churches So for Persons Israel had those who were sett apart to the service of the Altar and the Temple Accordingly the Apostles ordained in severall Churches certain Elders men sett apart and separated to the work and office of the Ministry who by that solemn Rite and Ceremony of their Ordination might be known and acknowledged to receiv from God a speciall designation to that function from which they might not return to secular employments and the cares of the world The maintenance of them doth St. Paul affirm to be ordained of the Lord in conformity to the Ordinance of the Old Testament Cor. 9.13.14 And whether the subordination of Some in the Ministery to other in the same Order were not likewise an Apostolicall Institution appointed by Christ and this also fetcht from the pattern of Moses I dispute not But this I make no question will be acknowledged by all That the Censures of the Church That the Directions given to the Church how to proceed in the execution of those Censures That these I say were received from Israel and that not only by the Apostles appointing them Cor. 5. Tit. 3. but also by our Saviour himself Mat. 18.15 That the Liberty which women have to come to the Table of the Lord must be acknowledged a Tradition of the Apostles taken from the Pattern of the Passover Nay yet more The Custome of the Apostles to baptise the whol housholds of them that beleeved and that immediatly upon the Conversion of the Master of the family and his subscription to the Faith of Christ whence they should have it except from that like pattern and President in the Old Testament viz. Abraham circumcising all the
Teachers and Officers in the Church They must indeed put a difference betwixt things holy and profane they must separate the precious from the vile pronouncing mercy to the one denouncing judgement to the other admitting the one to the Holy things keeping of the other This must they do and if not they deserve a just reproof But what is this to the cause in hand Doth this countenance the course of such who condemn those that do not put themselves from the Holy things of Gods because those be admitted which ought not Is not this rather to make sad the Heart of the righteous That of Esay 65.11 Yee are they that forsake the Lord that prepare a Table for the Troup and furnish a drink-offering for the number This I say hath been alledged to tax the negligence of them who admit the promiscuous multitude to the Table of the Lord As if the Prophet had blamed Israel for the like carelesness in their Passover and Peace-offering wheras the text doth blame their Idolatry not their profaness Idolatry in sacrificing to Jupiter and Mercury to the Host of Heaven But admit it as a tax of negligence and profaness yet must it not fall upon every particular person Apply it to the Church officers and spare not but blame not them who because the promiscuous multitude are not turn'd away do not turn away themselves from the Table of the Lord. And so much for the first Argument c. The second Argument NO man may neglect either the Duty that he oweth to God or the Benefit which God reacheth forth to Him upon pretence that another man doth not perform his Duty or is not fitted to receive the Benefit with Him Shall not the Husband pray or Hear and Receiv because the wife of his Bosome is passionate and irreconciliable Shall not Lot make hast out of Sodome because his son-in-laws do not prepare to go with him That it is a Duty to receiv the Sacrament is plain enough by that precept Do this in Remembrance of mee That ther is a Benefit reached forth to us in it is as evident by that word of our Saviour This is my Body This is my Blood He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life Nay more This Benefit cannot be had without this duty Except yee eat the flesh of the Son of man and drinke his blood yee have no life in you Joh. 6.53 You will perhaps reply That Duties must be performed in a right manner otherwise we may provoke God Israel must eat the Passover yet not in their uncleanness nor with the unclean say the same of Christians I grant the Proposition for sound and good The instance of Israel doth not reach home to the point in hand It doth not appear by any text of Scripture That if the Master of the familie did neglect to exclude such as were unclean that therupon the children or servants did or might lawfully forbear the Passover Add this also To bring home the Argument more particularly to the cause in hand where a prepared Heart may comply with the principall end of Receiving the Sacrament ther ought he not to absent himself for want of the secondary Reason giveth it That wher ther is a Duty to be done a Benefit to be expected If ther be divers Ends of doing that duty some more some less principall No reason to neglect that by which the Principall end may be obtained because we cannot obtain thâ— sâ—condary Now then As God hath appointed and ordained this Sacrament 1. To hold forth the Benefit of Christs death to the worthy Receiver that by partaking of Christs flesh and blood the Christian may be more neerly united to Christ himself in the first place and then to the members of Christ 2. To call for and cause in the Society of the faithfull a publick Testification of their mutuall love and charity one to another as members of the same mysticall body So the principall end of Receiving is to continue the Union and Communion with Christ and all good Christians the living members of Christ which was begun in Baptism And the secondary is to make profession of it by joining with this and that Assembly of Christians Now then since the primary end of Receiving is our Union with Christ and our union with Christians is but the secondary For we are not united to Christ by being received into the Congregation but indeed received into the Congregation because first united to Christ Nay since the primary end is Union and our Profession or Testification therof is but the second or third end of Receiving Therfore where the Primary end may be obteined why should the want of the second or perhaps the third be accounted any just barr to keep us off Now howsoever the mixture of bad with the good or the scandalous courses of over-many in the Assembly might seem a just barr to our Profession of Communion and Fellowship with this or that Congregation yet since it cannot hinder us in obtaining our desire of Union with Christ and his mysticall Body why should this mixture be any barr to the Duty enjoined In very deed if that Profession of our selves to be of the Number of them who hold of Christ and his Church if this I say were the principall end of Receiving the Sacrament Then were there some shew of Reason to forbear joining with a mixt Assembly But now it is otherwise It were indeed to be wished that the whole Congregation were such as that we might affectionatly desire to continue in Communion and Fellowship with them But if it fall out otherwise through the fault of other men Can that be a sufficient reason to hinder us from the Sacrament The prime fruit and Benefit wher-of we may partake of even in the mixt Assembly Add this also That it is charitably supposed ther be some Saints in the Congregation and in our address to the Sacrament we do profess our desire of Union and Communion with them if others intrude themselves we came not thither to meet with them Now the Question is whether we may neglect the good and godly Christians and that Duty which we ow to God in respect of them because of the bad and wicked whom finding ther we have not power to remove The third Argument TThat Opinion which in the best Ages of the Church hath been condemned of errour And that which necessarily casteth Christians upon inextricable difficulty's and discomforts is in all probability erroneous and therfore not to be embraced Such is the opinion of them who hold it sinfull for a Christian tho well-prepared for the holy Sacrament by self-examination according to the Doctrine of the Apostle to draw neer to the Table of the Lord in the company of them that are unjustly permitted to come to that holy Ordinance That it hath been condemned as erroneous in the best ages of the Church is evident by the story of the Novatians first and the
Donatists afterward who upon such grounds made a separation from the Church of God Against the Donatists doth St. Augustin dispute as did St. Cyprian before him against the Novatians Note here that often in his books De Bapt. contra Donatist contra Crescon Gram. lib. 2. cap. 15. doth St. Austin cite an Authority out of Cyprian lib de lapsis to prove the conclusion that we have in hand Nos non communicare peccatis aliorum etiamsi cum iis in Sacramentorum communione maneamus and set up select Congregations of their own utterly condemning those Churches and Assemblies who admitted of any such to the Communion of the Church whom they accounted fit to be suspended from the Sacrament and the society of the faithfull That it doth necessarily cast many Christians upon inextricable difficulties and discomforts is evident in this That if it be unlawfull to receiv the Sacramant in a mixt Assembly Then it may fall out that some Christians may for ever be deprived of that Ordinance and so want that comfort both in life and death which they might have by it For why some have not liberty nor means of separation and seeking elsewhere ex gr Wives children servants which are under the Covert and command of their Husbands Parents Masters Some again are shut up in prison others banished or confined to such a place where this Doctrine is not beleeved nor is that Sacrament any where to be had but in the Parochiall Assemblies of that Place and People Now for all such to be deprived of the Sacrament and of the comfort which cometh by it is a matter of such inconvenience that it cannot in any probability be allowed as an Order and Appointment of Christ Consequently I conclude That the Opinion which denyeth it lawfull for a Christian to communicate in a mixt Assembly is in all probability erroneous and not to be received This also may be cast in to make up full weight and measure That we find in the Gospel our Blessed Saviour not excluding Iudas from the Passover even when he knew that he had conspired with the Priests to betray him Nor do any of the Disciples when our Saviour told them Yee are not all clean One of you shall betray me not any of them do call upon Christ to turn out the Traitour no not when by the Sopp given to Judas Christ had manifested him to be the man Wher-in if the Apostles were to blame so it may be these men may think as not sufficiently at that time carefull to have an Holy Communion by separating the pretious from the vile yet certainly our blessed Saviour did not at all transgress the Rule of Holiness Nor would he have permitted Iudas to sit so neer them if any of them might therby fail of Receiving the Benefit that might upon self-preparation be justly expected from that Sacrament Nor do I know what can be excepted against this unless any would deny the Necessity of morall cleanness to the preparing and fitting of the Jews for the worthy receiving of the Passover or boldly avouch that nothing more was required of them but a care of Ceremoniall purity and legall purifications of the Flesh which I suppose is an opinion so gross and absurd that none of understanding would own it and avouch it We read Hezekiah urging the Preparation of the Heart as an Argument to prevail with God to pardon the neglect of Ceremoniall purification which had been of no force at all if those Purifications had not been required only in the way of signification and commonefaction to put them in mind of that spirituall and morall duty the Preparation of Heart If God took any pleasure in washing the hands and scouring the flesh why doth our Saviour blame the Pharisees who were but too diligent and observant of their Ceremonies No no Evident it is that Sacrifices and Ceremonies were acceptable only as Institutions and Admonitions of Morall Duties As at other times So in their Preparation of themselves to the Holy Sacrament Nor was it enough for Iudas that he was clean as farr as the water could reach no not enough that his feet were washed if washed they were by Christ Since the Heart was full of covetousnes and divelish intentions Whose uncleanness might it be an hinderance to the Residue in receiving the Benefit of the Sacrament Can we with reason beleev that our Saviour would not have shutt him out and so have taught them upon such an occasion the Necessity of what these men call for with so much importunity I close up all in a word Since neither Scripture nor Reason do conclude it unlawfull Nay since the Scripture being silent in the cause neither prohibiting nor reprehending Reason doth draw us to conclude against the opinion of these men I conclude It is not sinfull for a Christian to receiv the Sacrament in a mixt Assembly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Appendix Extracted out of a Responsary Letter To your two Questions propounded in the close of the Letter I return this breef Answer for your satisfaction To the first viz. Whether it be not a sinn in the Minister to deliver the Sacrament to him that is scandalous i. e. to him who having been such hath not as yet reconciled himself to God and the Church by publik evidences of his Repentance I cannot admit the Affirmative for a Truth viz. It is sin in him except with these limitations 1. When ther is power in the Hand of the Minister to keep such men off and to bring them to the Testification of their Repentance 2. Where it is evident to the Minister that the man hath not reconciled himself to God and the Congregation 3. When the man is indeed scandalous i. e. notoriously known to have given offence But the case is otherwise when either the Minister hath not power in his hand or when he is not certain of the Mans Non-Repentance and Non-Reconciliation Or thirdly when the man is not indeed scandalous I say Not indeed Because some men account some things to be scandalous which indeed are not Ther is a scandal to a weak brother in the want of a charitable use of Christian Liberty Ther is a scandal to them that are without This latter is only that scandal that deserveth repulse from the Communion Not the other To the second viz Whether it be not a sinn in the People to communicate with any such i. e. To receiv the Communion in the Society of such a Minister and such a scandalous Brother I say as before I cannot affirm it sinfull except with these limitations 1. When it is evident to the Christian that such a person is indeed scandalous and hath not reconciled himself 2. When it is in the liberty of the Communicant to chuse or refuse such company But the case is otherwise when it is not evident to him that the other hath not reconciled himself or when it is not in the liberty of the Comunicant to refuse Now as it is not in the liberty of the Christian saving the Duty that he oweth to God to abstein altogether from the Sacrament So neither is it in his liberty saving his duty that he oweth to the Magistrat to abstain from that Congregation wher-of by vertue of his house and Habitation he is known to be a Member At the Communion of the sick peradventure he may forbear from joining in society with such if they should desire Not so from the publick Congregation FINIS Imprimatur CHARLES HERLE