not oppose Sect. XVIII We find proof thar ordinarily Churches were first planted in Cities there being not then in the Villages Christians enough to make Churches But we find no proof that when there are Christians enough to constitute Churches they may not be planted in Villages also Nor yet that there may not be more Churches than one in the same City For so Grotius saith There were even then when Christians were comparatively but few and that they were as the Jewish Synagogues in this respect And Dr. Hamond largely asserteth that Peter had a Church of Jews and Paul another of Gentiles at Rome and that so it was in other Cities Sect. XIX Much less is it by Divine Institution that Bishops and their Churches or Seats be only in such as we now call Cities which by their priviledges are distinct from other great Towns and Corporations whenas the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then signified a great Town or Corporation such as our Market-Towns and Corporations now are Sect. XX. But it is the Law of God that all things about Churches and Church-affairs which he hath left to humane prudence should be done according to such general Rules as he hath prescribed for their regulation SECT IV What Princes and Pastors may do in such matters I. THese foresaid General Laws of God do both give the Rulers their Power for determining things committed to them and also limit their power therein II. These General Laws are that All things be done to Edification the circumstances fitted to the End the Glory of God and the Publick Good the promoting of Truth and Godliness that all be done in Love to the promoting of Love and Unity and that all be done in Order and Decently and as may avoid offence or scandal to all both those without and those within Gal. 6. 15 16. Phil. 3. 15 16. 1 Cor. 14. 3 5 12. 26. 17. Rom. 14. 19. 15. 2. 1 Cor. 10. 23. Ephes 4 12 16 19. 2 Cor. 12. 19. 6. 3. 11. 7. 1 Cor. 8. 13. III. Therefore no Rulers Civil or Ecclesiastical have their power to scandalize and destroy but only to edifie being the Ministers of God for good Rom. 13. 3 4 5. 2 Cor. 10. 8. 13. 10. IV. The great Dispute is handled excellently against the Papists for Kings by Bishop Bilson of Christian Obedience Bishop Andrews Tortura Torti Bishop Buckeridge Spalatensis and many more whether the Kings of Christian Kingdoms have not the same power about Church-matters as the Kings of Israel and Judah had David Solomon Hezekiah Josiah c. which cannot be answered by an only Yea or Nay without a more particular consideration of the compared Cases V. We suppose it certain that Christian Kings have no lesser power than the Kings of Israel except 1. What any such King had as a Prophet or in peculiar by an extraordinary grant 2. And what alteration is made by alteration of Church-offices Laws and Worship which may make a difference of which hereafter VI. And 1. It must be remembred that God then reserved the Legislation to himself which he exercised by Revelation and by special Prophets And so the Prophet Moses delivered them that Law which no King had power to abrogate suspend or alter by adding or diminishing Deut. 12. 32. Jos 1. But they had a mandatory power and of making some subordinate By-laws as Cities and Corporations have from and under the King VII 2. Yea great and special Mandates were oft sent from God by Prophets against which the Kings of Israel had no power VIII 3. The Executive or Judicial Power was divided part was in the Kings and Magistrates and part was in the Priests and Levites which the King could not usurp himself as appeareth in Uzziahs offering Incense nor yet forbid the Priests to use it according to God's Law nor change or abrogate their Office For he and they were subject to God's Laws IX 4. God himself settled the High Priesthood on the line of Aaron and all the Priesthood on the Tribe of Levi and it was not in the power of the King to alter it X. 5. God stated the High Priesthood on the Priests during life Numb 35. 25 28. Jos 20 6 c. which Law the Kings had no power to violate XI 6. There are more particular Laws made by God for the duty of the Priests describing their office and work than for any other particular case as many hundred Texts will tell us And none of these Laws might be altered or suspended by the Kings of Israel Nor those by which God stated some of the Judicial Power in the Congregation Num. 35. 12. to 26. XII 7. Solomon's putting out Abiathar and putting in Zadok is not contrary to any of this For supposing the words 1 King 2 35. to be not only a history of the bare matter of fact but a justification of it de jure 1. It poseth learned men to resolve how Zadok and Abiathar are oft said to be both High Priests before and Zadok still put before Abiathar 2. It is certain that Zadok had the right both of Inheritance and especial Promise Numb 25. 11 12 13. 1 Chron. 6. 3 4 c. And what Solomon did was that the word of the Lord might be fulfilled How the possession came into the hands of the line of Ithamar Expositors cannot find It is like it was by occasion of the confusions of their oft Captivity and Anarchy in the interspace of the Judges 3. Even the Priests were the King's subjects and might be punished for their crimes so it were according to God's Laws And if Abiathar forfeited his life he forfeited his Office XIII 8. The Priesthood then depended not on the institution or will of the King or People He might not put out a lawful Priest that had not forfeited his Life or Office He might not have put any one in his place that had not right from God or that was unqualified He might not have forbid the Priests the work appointed them by God But yet if he had injurioâ—slâ— deposed one Abiathar and put in a Zadok the loss had been little to the Church But if he had deposed so great a number of the Priests and Levites as that a great part of God's commanded work must needs thereby have been lest undone and Religion so far destroyed or had as Jeroboam put of the basest of the people or uncapable persons into the Priesthood the loss had been greater and the thing unwarrantable and such as he had not power from God to do XIV And the quality of Moses Law and its Works as different from the Laws of Christ and the Works thereof must be considered that we may discern the difference of the Cases A man that did attempt to draw the people to Idolatry was then to be put to death yea the City to be destroyed that concealed him Deut. ch â—3 so were they that blasphemed and such as committed other heinous
to forbid it 2. If the Gospel be hid from the mind though not from the Ear it is hid to them that are lost 2. Cor. 4. 3. And without holiness none shall see God Heb. 12 14. Christ will come in flaming Fire to render vengeance to them that know not God and obey not the Gospel 2. Thes 1. 10. 11. All they shall be damned that obey not the truth but have pleasure in unrighteousness 2. Thes 2. 11. 12. They that live after the flesh shall die and they that have not the spirit of Christ are none of his Rom. 8. 9. 13. It is not then easie to think of a greatet hurt than to forbid men such means without which experience assureth us that few comparatively are thus inlightened and renewed to God and with which more Comparatively are renewed To say that God can bless to us an ignorant heartless Carnal Teacher is no answer while experience certifieth us that Comparatively he doth not do it If the people would chuse such Pastors Rulers must do their best to change their minds and to provide better for them But that 's not the case that we are now speaking to If people would run into Sects and Heresies Rulers may punish and restrain false Teachers that dangerously corrupt the Christian doctrine and seduce the peoples souls But they may not therefore silence the faithful Ministers of Christ And adhereing to such Ministers doth not any hurt of it self Nor any way tend to the furthering of so much hurt as the contrary would do 3. For who knoweth where to bound his obedience to such silencers as aforesaid If a thousand or two thousand faithful Ministers must cease Preaching when so forbidden why not 3000 why not 4000 If half a Kingdom can you satisfie the consciences of the other half that they must not do so too and so all Christian Kingdoms conform to Moscovie when the Prince commandeth it And if 1000 or 2000 or 3000 Parishes must choose the apparent hazard of their souls and refuse such helps as experience certifieth us they greatly need in obedience to man why must not the rest of the Parishes do so also May I give away the needfull helps to my salvation because others have them as if their salvation might satisfie me instead of my own 4. We acknowledge it a very great Mercy of God to have a Christian Prince and that every Kingdom should be Christian and that Princes must do what they can to accomplish it And that they are the Governours of Paâ—tors as well as of Physicians as is aforesaid and that it is most desireable that the Church and Kingdom should be commensurate and none in their Kingdoms reject the Gospel and that Pastor or people who will do any thing contrary to this or will not further it with all their power are great transgressours But yet the old saying is true owned even by the Papists vid. Pet. De Marcâ— De Eccl. Const that Ecclesia est in impe rio And none but prosessed consenters are Christians And the Temple is a prison and not a Church as men are there forcibly driven against their wills so far is it from saving the souls of any Yet constraining the ignorant and Heretical to hear sound Teachers we are far from opposing But when Paul hath said Not a Novice If Rulers will silence better Teachers and set up Novices that are unskilful in that great and sacred work and never felt that work of faith love and heavenlyness on their own souls which they must Preach to others this will do more hurt than the peoples choice of better men 5. Yea if men of such doctrine could once make Princes and people believe that the people ought to receive only such Pastors as Princes choose for them it may do more harm than all our sects do For sects cannot cast out religion at once Nay usually they perish themselves by their own divisions and shame before they can ruine the Church But Princes might change Religion as oft as the Moon changeth And if good Princes were but the tenth part as rare as they thought that said In uno annulo c. what then would become of Religion in the World LIV. And though we profess our great detestation of Church-Schisms and our lamentation for the sad case of these Nations and the Christian world by reason of them believeing that Schism should be odious to all Christians yet we are past doubt that aggravating some differences and breaches passionately by odious names hath been Schismatical by makeing the distance seem much greater than it was and rendering Dissenters odious to others and teaching Adversaries and ignorant persons to reproach men as guilty of more Schism than they are guilty of indeed Among the Papists if they unite in the Pope they pass not for Schismaticks or Hereticks who differ in all those many and great points which H. Fowlis Montaltus the Jesuits Morals Mr. Clarkson c. reeâ—â—e viz. about Murder Adultery Fornication King killing seldom Loving God c. And among us a man that doth but scruple certain Oaths Subscriptions Covenants Declarations or a Ceremony is charged by some with Schism LV. The Distance of Doctrines or Objective Religion must be distinguished from the passion and peevishness of subjective distance of mens minds e. g. Suppose Grammarians differ about a Criticism whether Vergilius or Virgilius be the truer spelling and Philosophers differ de vacuo de definitione spatii temporis c. de causa motus projectorum c. and Divines differ of the translation of a Text of the antiquity of the Hebrew points of the time of Easter day of a Ceremony or Form of Prayer of the lawfulness of a Lay-Chancellors use of the Church-Keys Would not an impartial stranger say How concordant and happy are these men that differ in no greater matters And if they all fall together by the ears about such things as these it is an aggravated Subjective Schism and a shame to such wranglers who deserve the remedy of scolds But sure they that peaceably and calmly differ about the aforesaid things viz. whether we are bound to Love God once a year whether the Pope may excommunicate and depose Kings that will not extirpate all Protestants Whether an excommunicate King may be murdered as no King c these are far more distant really in point of Religion than the other LVI And we must lament that we find in Church-History and by too much experience that there hath been and is in too many Pastors such a selfishness and high esteem of their own judgments and so little sense of the common weakness of mankind and the lowness of our highest degrees of knowledge and so little Love to others as to themselves that by envy and impatience they raise or increase Schisms in the Church by making a causless outcry against Schism or making little differences seem great They that cannot bear with Persons and Congregations who in little matters
they have obliged him and his Subscription hath secured his Obedience 4. And some of them say that it is not the Priest that refuseth them for he would Baptize them with the Cross if the parent sent the Child or the Adult person came But we need not strive about the word The thing we are agreed of viz. That the Priest consenteth not to Baptize them who dare not receive it with the use of the Cross Whether this be to be called a rejecting them or denying them Baptism unless they will be so crossed we need not call for extraordinaty accurateness to judge 5. No Conformists do pretend that this use of this Image of the Cross is of divine institution But all confess that Baptism is of divine institution and that Christ hath Commanded Math. 28. 19. 20. That they that are discipled should be Baptized and that one may be a disciple of Christ without the Image of the Cross 6. Some of the Nonconformists hold their use of the Cross it self here unlawful But others that would venture to use it rather than be silenced yet fear the guilt of denying Baptism Christendom and certain salvation as the Church judgeth to all that dare not receive it or present their Children to receive it believing that murdering natural life is a less hurt than undoing souls 7. But Covenanting by deliberate subscription and declaration to do it how oft soever they fear more than the actual doing of it rarely not daring to do their part to damn the Children of all that are against Baptizing with the Cross nor all the unbaptized adult that are of that opinion XI And as they fear rejecting such as will not be so Crost from Baptism so they much fear the English use of the Cross themselves and that much more than Crossing our selves on ordinary occasions or setting up Crosses on our doors or Churches or by the high waies and yet much more than they fear such using of the Cross as Augustine de Civ Dei and other ancients mention as an open Indication to Heathens that we are not ashamed of a Crucified Christ Much less are they against civil uses of a Cross 2. The name Sacrament signifying primarily any solemnization of a Covenant by Oath and Ceremony as the sacramentum militare among the Romans especially a Covenant which engageth one in a new relation and more largely any sacred mystical Ceremony the question here is whether the Cross be not made not only a sacrament in a larger sense as ordination and Matrimony may be called sacraments but even a sacrament of the Covenant of grace or so very neer it as to have the greatest part of that sacramental nature 3. The Church Catechism defineth a Divine sacrament thus An outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace given to us ordained by Christ himself as a means whereby we receive the same and a pledge to assure us thereof 4. That it be ordained by Christ himself is not essential to a sacrament in genere but to a sacrament of Gods making in specie as distinct from one that 's made by man as is evident in the reason of the name 5. The true nature of this Crossing is known by the Liturgy 2. And the Canon 1. The Liturgy appointeth it to be used at Baptism not as a part of our Baptism but as a thing added immediately after the words I Baptize thee c. even in our Covenanting with God 2. It thus describeth and appointeth it we receive this Child into the Congregation of Christs flock here the Priest shall make a Cross upon the forehead and do sign him with the sign of the Cross in token that hereafter he shall not be ashamed to confess the faith of Christ Crucified and manfully to fight under his banner against sin the world and the devil and to continue Christs faithful servant and souldier unto his lives end Amen 2. The Rubrick to which we Assent and Consent referreth us to the 30th Canon as giving us the true explication thereof and the just reasons c. The Canon saith Christians signed their Children therewith when they were Christned to dedicate them by that badge to his service whose benefits bestowed on them in Baptism the name of the Cross did represent The Church of England accounteth it a lawful outward Ceremony and honourable badge whereby the Infant is dedicated to the service of him that dyed on the Cross as by the words used in the Common Prayer it may appear 3. The Liturgy's Preface of Ceremonies saith that they serve to a godly discipline and are such as be apt to stir up the dull mind of man to the remembrance of his duty to God by some notable and special signification whereby he might be edifyed 4 We suppose that here 1. The sign is the transient Image of the Cross used in Gods service 2. The particular service in which it is used is our Baptismal Covenanting with God 3. The thing signified by the sign it self is the Cross and passion of Christ 4. The thing signified by the Receiving of it is that we do as Covenanters profess and oblige our selves not to be ashamed to confess the faith of Christ Crucified and manfully to fight under his banner against sin the world and the Devil and to continue Christs faithful servants and souldiers to our lives end And that by this we are dedicated to God And that we take it as an honourable badge hereof 5. Note that the Minister speaketh as Gods Officer from him and doth not represent the Child nor speak as in his name that being the part assigned to the Godfathers And the thing signified by him in his using this sign is that he doth as Christs Minister dedicate him by this sign to the service of him that dyed on the Cross the name whereof represents the benefits bestowed on him in Baptism which are all the benefits of that Covenant and to oblige him to this end not to be ashamed to confess the faith of Christ Crucified and manfully to fight under his banner as aforesaid And that this be a badge or symbol of his Christian profession 5. The great fear of the Nonconformists is lest this be a second sacrament of the Covenant of graee made by man added to Baptism or at least have most of the nature and uses of it And lest Christ will take it as an invasion of his prerogative so to use it and to make a new badge or symbol of our Christianity As the King would take it ill of one that would without him make a badge or symbol for his subjects as subjects or of the order of the Knights of the Garter as such And the rather because it is the use of an Image though transient in Gods Worship and to such high ends XII The Rubrick which we must Assent Approve and consent to saith that There shall none be admitted to the holy Communion till such time as he be confirmed
may use it in other Churches when called thereto and by consequence it may reach further For few Bishops will think if another Bishop come into their Diocesses or Parishes and excommunicate divers of their flocks that they and all others are bound to stand to such mens sentence and to hold such excommunicate That which a Pastor doth in ordinary Excommunicating is to declare after proof that This person is by his sin and impenitency made uncapable of Communion with the Church and therefore to require him to forbear it and the people to avoid Communion with him and to pronounce him unpardoned before God till he repent Now if this be done by one known to be heretical with whom the other Churches have no Communion those other Churches are not bound to deny that man Communion Nor yet if he offer himself to their Communion and they examine the matter and find him wronged It is concord in good and not in evil that we are bound to by the command of God Therefore if any man be wrongfully put out of this Church the next may and should receive him And what necessity is there then of going a thousand or an hundred miles to a Pope or Patriarch or Diocesan to right him And whoever thought that there was need of an Universal Physician or Schoolmaster or a General Council of such to receive appeals from Patients and Scholars that are wrongfully turned out of the Hospital or School The Caviller will here tell you of disparities in the cases but the question is whether the disrities be such as alter the reason of the Conclusion What man of conscience will be a Physician Schoolmaster or Pastor that hath not power to judge whom to receive for his Patient Scholar or part of his flock but must take all that some other man shall send to him or command him to receive and give them what others command him to give An Apothecary may do so but not a Physician What if a man had no other scandal but to say I will not take you for my Pastor nor take my self obliged to answer you speak with you give you any account of my self nor be questioned by you on any accusation must I be constrained to suppose this man to be one of my flock In despite of his own denyal If the freedom of consent be not mutual but I must be constrained to take those for my charge as Christians that renounce such a relation or will not own it a Pastor is not a free man nor hath any power of the Church-Keys but is as an irrational Slave a Cryer or Executioner that must but execute another mans commands 2. But if there be need of appeals and our own actions must not be free why will not the Synods of Neighbour-Pastors met only for Counsel and Concord and not to command the Pastors suffice for such persons to appeal to And what if I turn a servant out of my house or from his meat and he may take another Master when he will must there be an universal Judge of all family cases that shall force me to keep my servant against my will Is it not enough that I know why I am unwilling to keep him who am no way more bound to him than to others but by my own consent What if as Nazianzen left Sasimis Constantinople and Nazianzum at last I should give up my whole Charge and Bishoprick and say I will be a Pastor to none of them any more upon sufficient reasons as Latimer did Is it not better for the people to take another than to accuse me at Rome or Canterbury as wronging them 3. But if all this serve not neither the sufficiency of Pastors for one single Parish nor yet the Counsel of all the Neighbour-Pastors or Bishops what is there more to be done which the authority of Princes and Magistrates may not do All Christians confess almost that no Bishops or Pastors as such have from Christ any forcing power over the flocks that belongeth to the Magistrates only And they are to keep peace and force us to our certain duty And I would ask the contrary-minded whether if Bishops Patriarchs and Councils had no forcing power but only to excommunicate by the application of Gods word and leaving all men to their consciences would this sort of Government serve their turn and keep out Heresies or maintain order and unity They say no themselves And next whether it be not certain and confessed that the Pastors have no other power but the Magistrates only Obj. But shall all men gather Churches and teach Heresie and do what they will Answ 1. The power of Popes Patriarchs or Councils did not prevent it when there were all the Heresies that fill Epiphanius Volumns And when the far greatest part of the Clergy was long Arrian And when the Nestorians and Futychians so greatly multiplied after the condemnation of the Councils And when the Novatians lived so many years in reputation and when the Donatists nor they were not diminished by Prelates or Councils Censures till the sword dispersed them And cannot the Sword be drawn without such as have no power of it 3. And as to the last and greatest reason that the Apostles have successors who must orderly exercise their Government it is answered 1. The common doctrine of the Church was that all Bishops are their Successors so far as they have successions and every Church of one Altar had a Bishop in the daies of Ignatius and long after 2. The Council of Carthage said None of us calleth himself Bishop of Bishops 3. But if any be set as the Bishop of many Bishops and Churches so be it they use no violence but govern volunteers as all the old Bishops did and sorbid them nothing commanded of God nor command them any thing which God forbiddeth and destroy not the order doctrine worship or discipline of the lesser particular Churches we have before said that we shall submit to such §41 IV. As to the question whether the Government setled by Christ in National Churches be as to the Clergy from all parts Monarchical Aristocratical or Democratical and who must have the summam potestatem The disagreement of the persons that we have herein to do with puts us into utter despair of any solution And what good will it do us to believe that some must be obeyed if we cannot be certain who it is §42 V. And to the question Whether the King be the formal or only the accidental Church-head We find no more agreement 1. Some think that the King as Melchizedek is a mixt person secular and Clergy and hath both Offices to use and communicate as they say the Princes before Aaron had 2. Others say that this is not so but that the Clergy-jurisdiction distinct from the Priestly common power is a branch of the Christian Magistrates power and so derived from the King 3. Others say that the Church formally is distinct from the Civil
State though not alwaies materially And that the King as King is but an Accidental Civil Head as he is over Physicians and Schoolmasters being neither himself and that the National Church must have a formal Clergy-head Personal or Collective which shall in suo genere be the highest though under the Magisttates Civil Government as Physicians are 4. The Papists say that all National Churches are under the Pope as Universal Pastor who may alter them as he seeth cause 5. Some moderate men say that only Diocesan and Metropolitical Churches are jure Divino and that they are called National only improperly from one King or concording association as ab accidente and not properly from any formal Clergy-head § 43. VI. Lastly which is the formal Head of the Church of England and so what that Church is we are left as much uncertain 1. If it be only a Civil Head that denominateth it One then it is but a Christian Kingdom which we never questioned And Dr. Rich. Cosins in his Tables of the English Church-Policy saith That the King hath Administrationem supremam magisque absolutam quae dicitur Primatus Regius And Tho. Crompton in his dedication of it to K. James saith Ecclesiastica Jurisdictio plane Regia est Coronae dignitatis vestrae Regiae prima praecipua indivisibilis pars Ecclesiasticae leges Regiae sunt neque alibi oriuntur aut aliunde sustentantur aut fulciuntur penes Ecclesiasticos judices per Archiepiscopos Episcopos derivata a Rege potestate jurisdictio Ecclesiastica consist it And yet our Kings and Church explaining the Oath of Allegiance declare that the King pretendeth not to the Priesthood or power to administer the Word and Sacraments but as Crompton adds from Constantine is extra Ecclesiam constitutus a Deo Episcopus alii intra Ecclesiam Episcopi This is plain If they hold to this and claim no power in the English-Policy but as the Kings Officers in that part which belongeth to Christian Magistrates who will oppose them But this reacheth not to the Keys Preaching or Sacraments 2. Some say that the King is partly a Clergy man as Melchizedek and so that he is the formal Head and might perform the Priestly Office if he would But this our Kings have themselves renounced 3. Some say that the Archbishop of Canterbury is the formal Head but that cannot be because he is no Governour over the Arch-Bishop of York or his Province 4. Most say that the Convocation is the formal Church-Head which makes it One Political Church But 1. If so then why saith the Canon that the Convocation is the true Church of England by Representation and those excommunicate that deny it We enquire after the Church-Head or Governour And that which is but the Church it self by representation is not its Head unless the Head and Body be the same and the Church govern it self and so it be Democratical The governed and Governours sure are not the same 2. And the Supream Power is supposed by those that take Episcopacy for a distinct Order to be in the Supream Order only But the far greater part of the Convocation are not of the Supream Order Nay thus the Presbyters should be partly the chief Governours of the Bishops while they make Canons for them 3. When we did but motion that according to Arch-Bishop Ushers form of the Primitive Episcopacy Presbyters might joyn with the Bishops in proper executive Church-government instead of Lay-Chancellors and such like they decryed it as Presbytery and call us Presbyterians ever since And if they say that the Presbyters have so great a part in the Supream Government it self which obligeth all the Nation how much more would they be themselves Presbyterians which they so abhor § 44. Having oft said that we desire Christian Kingdoms as the great blessing of the world we mean not either that 1. All in a Kingdom should be forced to be baptized or profess themselves Christians whether they are so or not For lying will not save men nor please God and even the Papists are against this 2. Nor that all should be supposed to be Christians that are in the Kingdom But that the Kings be Christians and the Laws countenance Christianity and the most or ruling part of the Kingdom be Christians and all just endeavours used to make all the rest so The Ancient Churches continued them Catechumens till they were fit for Baptism and though they were for Infant-Baptism they compelled none to be baptized in Infancy or at Age but left it to free choice They baptized but twice a year ordinarily They kept many offenders many years from communion And if Crabs Roman Council sub silvest be true they at Rome admitted not penitents till fourty years understand it as you see cause The true Elibertine Canons kept many out so many years and many till death and many absolutely as shewed that they were far from taking all the Nation into the Church And the Christian Emperours compelled none It was long before the greatest part of the Empire were Christians In the daies of Valens the Bishops were some of them banished into places that had few Christians if any In France it self even in St. Martin's daies the Christians of his flock were not the most but he wrought miracles to convince the Heathens that raged against Christianity where he dwelt c. § 1. There are two appendent Controversies handled by some that write for National Churches which need but a brief solution The first is whether it be not an Independent Errour to expect real holiness in Church-members as necessary in the judgment of charity The second Whether it be not such an Errour to require the bond of a Covenant beside the Baptismal Covenant § 2. To the first we say that so much is written on this point by one of us in a Treatise called Disputations of Right to Sacraments c. that we think meet to say no more The Opponents now confess that it must be saving Faith and Consent to the Baptismal Covenant that must be professed And Papists and Protestants agree with all the Ancient Church that Baptism putteth the true Consenter into a state of certain pardon and title to life And God maketh not known lying a condition of Church-communion He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved It is true that God hath not made Ministers Arbitrary Judges of mens secret thoughts but hath limited them in judging to take their tongues that profess Faith and Consent to be the Indices of their minds But sure the power of the Keys containeth a power of judging according to Christ's Law who is to be taken into the Church by Baptism and who not If only the seeker be made Judge it will be a new way of Church-Government and a bad And then the question is 1. Whether he that accepts ones profession seemingly serious of Faith and Consent and that de praesente is not bound to hope in charity that such