cohabit or dwell near The confutation is I conceive he is out Ans. What is he against Parish Churches after all this No He only denieth it of a transient Member pro tempore as a Traveller and granteth it as to a stated Member And yet I am out Many and many a time have I written of Churches and use to distinguish first of the Equivocal Name saying That an occasional meeting of Christians for Worship may be called a Church and a transient Christian pro tempore a Member I have written more this way than ever he did But declared that it is a settled Political Society that I defined when I speak of what he now accuseth And why should a wise and good Man thus hastily trouble the World and make discord by pretending because he cannot have leisure to know what he speaks against § 3. My third Error is That to the being of a particular Church there is necessary a mutual Covenant or exprest consent between Pastor and People even every Member and the more express the better And I define a Church to be a Society of Christians consisting of Pastor and People associated by consent The force of the Confutation is I conceive he is out But wherein is it We have here such work as I never met with before 1. He granteth that none are to each other Pastor and People against their Wills Good still And yet do I err But saith he as Christ is Christ and a Saviour by Office whether Sinners will or not So faithful Ministers are Pastors by Office whether the People accept them or no. Reader it is not the least blemish of my Writings that on divers occasions I oft repeat the same things And many a time have I distinctly said 1. That the Ordainers judge who shall be a Minister of Christ in general 2. The Magistrate is judge whom he will Countenance Maintain or Tolerate 3. And the People must be consenting judges to whom they will trust the conduct of their Souls As it 's one thing to be a Licensed Physician and another to be Physician to this Hospital or Person If this Brother mean otherwise what meant he by saying that No Man can be a Pastor to a People against their will Doth he say and unsay in the next Lines Is Christ any Man's actual Saviour whether they believe in him and accept him or not I have oft said that in divers Cases the People may be bound in duty to Consent as all are bound to be Christians But they are no Christians or Church-members till they do Consent What then is it that he meaneth as our Difference § 4. Yes He saith No more is necessary to the being or well-being of a particular Church than this A company of Christians met together in publick for the Solemn Worship of God by Iesus Christ having a Pastor or Minister with them to guide and govern the Congregation and edifie himself and them by the Word and Sacraments where there is no Assembly of Pastor and People there is no Church and no longer than the Assembly lasteth are they a Church Ans. Did the World ever here this Doctrine before When the Church at Ierusalem Corinth Cenchrea Colosse Laodicea c. and the Churches in Iudea Galatia c. are mentioned when the Apostles ordained them Elders in every Church Acts 14. 23. Tit. 1. 3 5. c. Is the word Church here taken for no Christians longer than they are Assembled Doth not Scripture Canons Fathers and all Writers speak of Churches as Associated Christians remaining Churches all the Day and Year and not only while Assembled If the word Church may be taken for a Transient Assembly doth it follow that there is no other Have we so many Books of Ecclesiastical Policie if there be no Political Society that is a particular Church What an unpleasing talk is it to be put on a defence against such an Opponent § 5. Saith he I would but ask Mr. Baxter what is it that you mean by Associated by consent Ans. Have I in the Books cited by you so largely told you what I mean and must you print the Question before you will take an Answer Saith he Either you mean bare Assembling or some other thing Ans. Will you better understand me if I write it again than you did before When I told you at large in what Cases express consent by words or other signs is meet and that where the Laws settle Parish Churches ordinary attendance and submission to the Pastor's Office must be taken for express Consent But then I do hold that there is such a Church as I describe and that the Parish is not Unchurcht when the Assembly is dismist § 6. He saith When the Assembly breaks up the Church for that time ceaseth till the Meeting be renewed till which time they remain Christian Inhabitants Neighbours Families Parishioners or Sojourners the Pastor of the place dwelling among them Ans. In your Equivocal sense of a Church this is true In the Political sense they are a Church still as the Parliament Citizens Souldiers are a Parliament City Army when they Assemble not If your wrangle be de re do you deny their continued Relation If it be de nomine let the Scripture and all Nations judge whether the name Church belong to them no longer than they are Assembled 1. Then all that stay at Home or are Sick are no Church-members 2. Then the Bishop or Pastor hath no Church but while Assembled And he hath no Duty to perform for his Church but while Assembled 3. This is quite contrary to our Diocesans who say as honest Mr. Cawdry himself that a Diocess is the first particular Church and that it is no matter how many Assemblies it consist of and that there is no Church without a Bishop and so that we have no more Churches than Bishops 4. If a Bishop build a Temple on London Road where Travellers shall be his ordinary Hearers whom he shall never see again this is a Temporary Transient Church but verily it is another sort Church that is described in Scripture and by Ignatius Cyprian and all Church-writers And when the Bishop was to visit the Sick and take care of the Poor and to exhort from House to House it was as for a Church and not meerly as for Christian Neighbours And do you think no more consent was necessary to his special Duty to these more than to others and theirs to him than bare Assembling Atheists Infidels Hereticks may Assemble with the rest and Catechumens ordinarily did so and were never made themselves the judges whether and when they should be Baptized and admitted to Communion but the Pastors were the judges § 7. As to your oft mentioning the words Covenants and Oaths for such Church Associations as if I had written for Oaths or had not written against all needless Covenants which though you say not your words would make the Reader believe whilst over and over it is
Sabbath as I have proved in a peculiar Treatise Men may set apart one day in a year for special Thanksgivings or Commemorations and one day in a week e. g. in a time of Plague and danger to fast and pray c. But if any should make another weekly day of holy observance to commemorate the same work of Christ's Resurrection or our Redemption which Christ did separate that day to commemorate I think he would be both an unjust accuser of Christ's Law as insufficient and an unjust usurper of his Prerogative 4. And it is considerable to me that though Christ so extraordinarily Commissioned and Qualified his Apostles to record his Words and Acts in Scripture and settle Church-Orders and Inferiour Offices and teach the Nations to observe all that he had Commanded them yet even them did did he never Commission to make a new Sacrament of the Covenant of Grace nor did they ever make one but contrarily rebuked those that would but have kept up some of the old Ceremonies Divine or Humane And was not the Cross a stumbling and foolishness to the World in the Apostles Days and yet they never made such a Sacrament And who hath equal Power with them § 2. If any say the Church doth not make it a Sacrament I answer 1. It is not the Name that we contend about but the thing 2. I have before proved it by the Constitutive parts which you answer not 3. If Christ had Instituted the Cross as the Church doth as a Badg of our Christianity dedicating the Child to God as a solemn Covenanting Figure by which the Minister in God's Name and in the Persons pronounceth him Consecrated and engaged as signifying both God's part or Grace of the Covenant and Mans part or Duty I ask Whether you would not have câ—â—led this a Sacrament And if it want but Divine Institution and Benediction it wanteth indeed a due Efficient but it is still a Humane Sacrament though not a Divine and therefore an unlawful Sacrament I would but know whether Men may make New Sacraments of the Covenant of Grace or not If yea how many and Quo jure § 3. And God's Prohibition Deut. 12. of adding or diminishing is not washt away so easily as your words would make Men believe You say It reacheth to the whole Duty of Man and Government of the Church c. Ans. There be some things in the Duty of Man and Church-Matters that God hath left to Man To do those is no addition to God's Laws But to do the like work that God by his Law hath done which he never left to Man seemeth to me the Addition there forbidden e.g. If Men had made another Tabernacle another Ark of the Covenant another holy Vestment for Aaron another Sacrament like Circumcision or the Passeover he that so reproved their worshiping in the High Places would have reproved these § 4. But the sum of your defence is ad Hominem to my self for granting the lawfulness of humane private professing Signs and of the Cross as such It 's strange to me that you that are so judicious can discern no more difference between 1. Private and publick Church-actions And 2. Between a bare professing Sign in genere and a Sacramental Covenanting-dedicating Symbolical Sign in specie 1. Every Sacramental Symbol is a professing Sign But every professing Sign is not a Sacramental Symbol a solemn Sacramental Celebration of a Mutual Covenant by an investing signification of the parts of both the Covenants Doth it follow then that because Men yea any Man may make a professing Sign of his Mind that Man yea every Man may make a new Sacrament An Israelite might have lift up his Hand to signifie consent to a Duty or to answer a Question But might he therefore have imitated Circumcision or the Passeover When a Man is Baptized if you ask him whether he consent he may signifie it by Bowing lifting up his Hand by Writing which are all but to the same use as Speech But he must Sacramentally signifie it by the reception of Baptism as the instituted solemn Covenanting Symbol of his Religion But for any to make to the Church of Christ a new Sacramental Symbol for such a Covenanting use is another Matter A Man that at the Lord's Supper is asked whether he consent to Christ's Covenant may signifie it as aforesaid But he may not therefore joyn to the Sacrament such another Covenanting Symbol of Christianity e. g. To make or consent to and approve and use a Law that all Christians shall solemnly after the Eucharist have their Heads anointed with Oyl to signifie that they are Members of Christ and hereby Covenant with him and the Holy Ghost as signifying his Grace received and their Duty performed and promised and this applied by a Minister Officiating as by his Commission § 4. I perceive by your mistaking Inferences that you understood not my distinction of Private and Publick and thought I had meant Secret or Open or before Few or Many Whereas I speak in the sense that these words are commonly used in Politicks e. g. When they distinguish Index publicus privatus Res publicae privatae Actiones publicae privatae c. Publick is that which either belongeth to the Society or a Publick Officer as such As a meer Subject is Homo privatus so his Actions and Affairs meerly as his are private The Aerarium of the Commonwealth though kept secretly is the publick Treasure The judgment of a publick Judge when few are present in his Chamber is Iudicium publicum and the judgment of a meer Arbitrator before thousands is Iudicium privatum A private Man's arbitrary Words or Actions in Westminster-Hall at the Bar are Actiones privatae § 5. I have more reverence for the Ancient Christians than to be a bold condemner of all their Actions which I wish they had not done and had they foreseen the Consequents they would not have done And I must Fide humanâ give some credit to those ancient Writers specially such as Augustine who tells us of Miracles adjoyned to some use of the Cross And considering how they used it I find it was when those things were done as a private arbitrary professing Sign such as it would have been to say by words I am a Christian or I trust in Christ or I am not ashamed of a Crucified Saviour And if when one asked them of their Faith or derided them for trusting in a Crucified Man they answered by crossing I judge them not for so doing The occasions and Persons might excuse such a private professing Action But if they would turn this into a publick Church-Ordinance by a Law and into a Humane Sacrament of the Covenant of Grace requiring all to receive it as the common Badge of Christianity I reproach not the approvers but I dare not approve it or so use it § 6. You say We must reduce what is said in the Canon to the words in the
great pretended Proof is That all the Males of Israel were Circumcised Ans. 1. If you had proved that they were all saved you had said more to the matter 2. To open here the nature of the Iews Covenant of Peculiarity as one select Nation of whom Christ should come as distinct from and as conjunct with the common antecedent Covenant of Grace and to shew the reasons of the Institution of Circumcision of Abraham's peculiar Seed and not for all that from Adam and Noah were under the common Law of Crace would be a work which such a light occasion would not warrant me here to stand upon 3. The sign of Circumcision was but the seal anexed to the Covenant And the meer External Act as Water in Baptism entered them but into the External Church-state 4. Almost all the gross Sinners at least if presumptuous and impenitent were to be put to death by that Law And dead Men beget not Children But I have so largely handled this in my 3d Disp. of Right to Sacraments that while you leave it unanswered I will not repeat it on so slight a Cause § 6. And what if you had proved the Salvation of all wicked Christians Baptized Infants what 's that to our Question which extendeth to all not excepting the Children of profest Atheists Infidels Sadduces or Heathens that have but God-Fathers § 7. But pag. 8 9. you tell us that Infants by reason of their innocent harmless state seem to be Christ's Off-spring and to be a subordinate Root and Bottom to themselves and to stand by their own innocency under Christ and by his Divine Grace Look what Regeneration is to the Adult that in some sort the Infant-state may be to Infants that is All Infants are in a New and Second state by Christ So the word Regeneration doth properly import Pag. 10. Christ alone without Parents Godliness is able to the Salvation of all the Infant World I am not able to prove that bare having of Circumcision and Baptism doth save any nor that the bare want thereof doth bar any from Salvation Ans. 1. But what is this to Conformity Did you think that this was the meaning of the Liturgy that all Infants are saved when it saith All the Baptized 2. It doth not follow that Christ saveth all because he is able to save them 3. I have said so much to prove Original Sin and some participation of Guilt from our Parents Sins and to prove God's Promises to the Faithful and their Seed which are not made to the Infidels and Wicked in two Disputations of Original Sin that I refer you thither for your Answer to this unproved Fiction of the Salvation of all Infants and their Regenerate Innocency 4. Woful experience tells us as soon as they can but speak and go how far their Natures are from an innocent disposition And to be void of holy Dispositions is not to be innocent 5. If they be conceived and born Innocent what need have they of Baptism for Remission of Sin If you say that Christ Regenerateth all as he is the Giver of their Nature the Church hath condemned this in the Pelagians that make Nature as from Christ to be the same with Grace 6. If all be Pardoned all have the Holy Ghost for Baptism giveth right to both But that 's not so § 8. Page 11. Did you satisfie your Conscience in expounding But now are they holy 1 Cor. 14. after what we have said of it to Mr. Tombes Is it Your Children are pure to you as your Meat is § 9. When you ask me Why I say notoriously ungodly You consulted not the credit of your knowledg to tell Men in Print that you know not what Notorious signifieth no not in Notation or common use As if it signified more than ordinary Notorious is that which is certainly openly easily Knowable I have told you of some of my own Parishioners that live in the open opposition to Christianity seeking in their Converse to persuade Men that the Scripture is a Book of Lyes and Christianity a meer Deceit and they will bring their Children to Baptism for Law and Custom-sake and say all the Creed and words required it was in the time when I had leave to admit the Parent to enter his own Child in the Covenant with God We know now abundance of the followers of Hobbes and Spinosa and many that deride Scripture and the hopes of Heaven and the fears of a Hell and think Man is but a subtle sort of Beast Yet these will all have their Children Baptized and to avoid the penalty of the Law will receive the Eucharist And there are others who are common scorners of Serious Religiousness and persecutors of it to their power and hate him that will tell them of the evil of the common Drunkenness and Whoredom which they live in and glory in their Shame We look for better proof than your Wrigling-nothings to make us undoubtedly certain from God's Word that the Baptized Infants of all these are saved The Rubrick meaneth Quia qua Baptized and you mean Because innocent and Christ died for them and all the Unbaptized are saved But as I see none of your proof of the latter so I will not crookedly crawl into Conformity by the fallacious Exposition And you that were in your last Book uncertain your self of what you can now prove certain do so quickly Change and so quickly publish your Change that your judgment hath the less power by any reverence of it to the changing of mine QUEST II. WHether may Unconverted ones within the Church demand and receive the Lord's Supper Mr. Baxter saith flatly they may not Right to Sacram. pag. 140. The Confutation followeth § 1. Ans. I can bethink me but of one of these three Ends of this your Writing 1. Either barely to make a confession of your Faith and Judgment 2. Or to save me from my Error by Conviction 3. Or to save the Readers of my Book from the danger of them 1. If the first be your Work I confess your words I conceive are suitable But Confessions use to be otherwise concisely and orderly formed and no Adversaries names besides Pilate's needed to be put into your Creed 2. If the second or third be your Work you seem to think very contemptible of my Judgment and of every such Readers when you expect that when I have written and they have read full Disputations opening the state of the Question proving what I assert by many Arguments and Scripture vindicating twenty Arguments of Mr. Galespies from all that is answered to them we should after this be convinced that our Cause is wrong by one that neither will be at the labour distinctly to state the Controversy nor to reply to my Answers already given to all his Reasonings and much more nor to answer the many Arguments which I and others urge but saith little more of any moment than I am induced to think thus though I once
Vow falsly But the harder it is for him to know his own Mind the more excusable he is And a false entrance is not a Sin that is unpardonable nor is the Sinner uncurable but may be converted in the Church though he came in unlawfully § 6. While preposterously you tell us who you think hath right to Baptism and the Lord's Supper you pass over the Fundamental Controversie as if you knew it not which is What Baptism and the Lord's Supper are This is it that we are mostly disagreed about End this and end all I suppose you take Baptism to be the first Sacrament and that less is not necessary to the Lord's Supper than to it And I presume to tell you that Christ never ordained nor the Church ever used any other Baptism of the Adult than 1. That which delivered the present Remission of Sin and right to Life to the just receiver of Baptism 2. and that which contained on the part of the Receiver his present profession of saving Faith and Repentance that is his true consent to the Covenant § 7. The Scripture telleth us that Baptism saveth as containing the answer of a good Conscience to God And that as many as are Baptized into Christ have put on Christ and have professed that they are buried with him by Baptism into his Death and raised with him to newness of Life c. § 8. God in great Mercy hath delivered down to us from the Apostles the form of Baptism by a fuller Tradition than the words of the Scripture or any things else of our Religion are delivered All Ages and Churches to this Day have retained the same form as to all the Essential parts The very words of the Baptizer and the Baptized the Credo Abrenuncio c professed full shew that all used this one Baptism which was a professed Vow and Covenanting with God and renouncing of the Flesh the World and the Devil for present delivered pardon and right to Christ and Life See the long List in Gataker against Davenant of the Ancients that took all the Baptized for justified In a word If you make another Species of Baptism which hath lower Conditions and Gifts only than these I am past doubt 1. That you introduce a new sort of Christianity 2. That you hereby would change the very Essence of the Church and wofully corrupt it A worse thing than to impose new Ceremonies 3. That by denying the truth of so universal concurrent Tradition as the form of Baptism hath you will shake Mens Faith by weakning the Credit of that Tradition by which we have received the Bible It being a harder matter to keep all the words of such a Book than the Form of Baptism used on every Christian in the World 4. That you will too grosly reproach all the Christian Churches as if they had in all Ages and Places been ignorant what Christening and Christianity is and had used a false Baptism till of late 5. You will contradict the Church of England which you Conform to and all the Churches now in the World which in their form of Baptizing and their Catechisms and Confessions tell us of no Baptism but what is a present Covenanting with God the Father Son and Holy Ghost as consenters to his Covenant giving up our selves to him in the foresaid Relations for present Pardon c. See Dr. Hammona's Pract. Cat. of the Baptismal Vow And is all this fit Work for two or three singular Men To deny the said History is to be grosly Ignorant or Immodest § 9. And now I am ashamed to trouble you and the Reader with the opening of all your Impertinencies and Contradictions of That Man will not be persuaded to consent to the Baptismal Covenant and to be a Christian indeed doth yet sigh and grown and pray for that which he would not have and that the Impenitent must penitently use this means for Penitence and because whosoever will must come and take the Water of Life therefore they that will not take it must take the Sacrament And that the outward Act which is false Vowing themselves to God and saying They consent to the Covenant when they do not is the means of Grace appointed for their Conversion in which they do well and are accepted And that Non-consenters may fly to Christ as a merciful Physician to save Souls and cast themselves at his Feet Repenting Praying and crying for Mercy which they would not have and yet if they come with particular ill intentions away with them Confute what I have written to the contrary if you would convince me or any Man that hath read my Five Disputations QUEST III. WHether a Minister may put from the Sacrament those of his Parish who be Christned People and come to Church and joyn in the Publick Worship and tender themselves to receive being under no sentence of Excommunication You say He may not Ans. § 1. 1. What 's this to the Primitive Churches that were not Parishes Or to the Countries that yet are not settled into Parish Churches Or to such Churches as are but tolerated among Papists Parishes 2. And all that is here mentioned the Papists did for the first ten Years of Queen Elizabeth 3. And remember that we have in our Parishes many that are open Atheists Infidels Sadduces Persecutors Scorners of the Scripture and Religion open boasting impenitent Whore-mongers Blasphemers Drunkards c. and many that openly deny the Ministry and Sacraments and yet to avoid Penalty and for Custom will do all that is here named though they deride it And that all these are to be received though also you suppose that they never so much as professed consent to the Baptismal Covenant you take on you to prove 1. Because it is the Will of Christ. Oh! Brother dread such additions to Christ's Words And how is that proved Why None but Dogs and Swine must be denied holy things Ans. 1. Where found you that None else 2. How prove you that none of these are Dogs or Swine 3. Yea are not all they swinish despisers of Grace who will not be persuaded to consent that God shall be their God and Christ their Saviour and the Holy Ghost their Sanctifier and give up themselves to him in these Relations § 2. Yet Page 30. the Case is this If the People being Christened do make a credible profession of true Christianity or a profession of true Christianity which we cannot prove to be false at least by a violent Presumption we must accept their Profession and admit them Ans. This is mine as cited and the plain truth But 1. Did you think that a credible profession of true Christianity is not a credible profession of Conversion Are not true Christians saved What else are Men to be Converted to 2. Do all such as are afore described make such a credible profession of true Christianity § 3. You tell us that the Standard that Christ hath set is that If now thou be