may receive without recourse to the Law of God in Specie Without Scripture it may be known that a Precept is not the same thing with a Promise or Deed of Gift and that a Power of Administring to one that demandeth is different from a Power to demand it or any just Title that may warrant a claim 4. If this will not serve you I add Lex distinguit ergò distinguendum est 1. You confess that a Dogmatical Faith is necessary to our Title And what is that equally Coram Deo Exclesiâ If a Jew say I will go and deride Mr. Blake I will tell him to day that I believe in Christ and I will be Baptized by him and tomorrow I will scorn Christ to his face will you say that this man hath equall Right Deo judice as he hath Ecclesia judice I will not be too confident of my understanding your minde but upon consideration I think you will not 2. Matth. 22. and Luke 14. The servants had power to bring in by perswasion that person that had not on the wedding garment though they were to perswade him to come as a meet guest and so with that garment yet the performance they left to himself But yet he had no warrant for his access in that condition and he meets there with a judgement of God which was distinct from that of the Church which with a Friend how camest thou in hither c. left him speechless Nor would it have saved him to have said Lord I was taught by learned Divines that there is no Forum Dei to judge of my Right to Sacraments besides the Forum Ecclesiae and I had Right in the judgement of the Church and therefore so I have in thine And thousands will finde this Plea prove uneffectual if they shall be encouraged to use and trust to it 3. 1. Cor. 11.31 32. I think there is a judgement of the Lord mentioned against unworthy receivers that is not the same with the judgement of the Church Nor is it my opinion that it was the Churches judgement which laid some of them in sickness some in weakness and some asleep God took cognisance of mens not examining themselves and eating and drinking unworthily which was an eating and drinking damnation to themselves and of their not discerning the Lords Body and that further then the Church did 4. It hath till now been taken for granted that there is a twofold forum or judgement exprest in Mat. 16.19 and Mat. 18.18 Where binding on earth and binding in heaven are distinguished and loosing on earth and loosing in heaven The Treatisers that have wrote of the power of the Keyes and the Expositors upon this Text have not thought that these two were but one nor did offer so injuriously that I say not reproachfully to expound Christs words If you say that though they be not the same yet they agree for that shall be bound or loosed in heaven which is bound or loosed on earth I answer that is quando clavis non errat When the Church judgeth justly as the truth is For God will not judge erroneously or unjustly because man doth so Yea though the Churches error be inculpable as if they absolve or excommunicate a man upon the full testimony of false witness c. yet God will not therefore judge as they Though he will justifie their act of judging yet he will not censure the true Title of the person to communion accordingly nor binde or loose in heaven according to any mistaking sentence Many other Texts do sufficiently evidence this distinction But because Mr. Blake doth pag. 187. and often so peremptorily renounce this distinction in this controversie I shall yet add one or two Reasons to shew the necessity of it Arg. 1. If the judgment of God the judgment of the Church concerning mens Right and claim here be all one then either the Churches judgement is infallible in this matter or Gods judgement is fallible But neither is the Churches judgement infallible nor Gods judgement fallible Therefore they are not both one The force of the consequence is evident And for the Minor 1. To say Gods judgement is fallible even that which he doth himself immediately exercise of which we speak is to Blaspheme 2. To say that mans judgement here is infallible is to speak 1. That which cannot be proved 2. More than the Papists yea more than the Italian Papists say of the Popes For Bellarmine himself will confess him fallible about such personal causes as these whether such a mans cause be good or bad c. 3. If the judgement of man be in this case infallible then no man was ever wrongfully admitted by the Church and so the argument would hold à facto ad jus such a one was admitted therefore he had Right to claim and Receive But the consequent is intolerable For 1. It hindereth all hypocrites in the world that should believe it from repenting of their unjust claim and Receiving and justifieth them all Coram Deo but sure it will prove an uneffectual justification 2. The same it doth by all Ministers that ever administred the Sacraments It teacheth them to justifie themselves as infallible and to disclaim Repentance for any mistake He that dare tell all the Ministers in the world that they never gave a man a Sacrament without Right Coram Deo or all the Receivers in the world that they never received it without such Right as will warrant their claim and Receiving will shew whether the weakness even of good mens arguings may seduce Moreover if the Minister be infallible in this case then either by an ordinary ability of discerning or by extraordinary priviledge The latter is not pretended by any Protestants or Papists that I know of The former cannot be said unless it be also said 1. That all other men as wise be Infallible as well as they 2. And that therefore the case hath such evidence that no Minister can possibly be mistaken in it But this cannot reasonably be said For 1. If an Infidel or Pagan come in scorn to be Baptized and profess a Dogmatical faith when he hath it not the Minister cannot know his heart 2. And if Mr. Blake will say that the very scornful words of such a Professing Pagan are a sufficient title coram Deo yet the Minister may possibly mistake his words and think he saith I do believe when he saith I do not believe 3. Or the Minister may easily mistake the extent and nature of Mr. Blakes Dogmatical faith and think that the Infidel doth profess that Dogmatical faith when it is but some faith yet lower than it or but part of it Furthermore if Ministers be thus infallible then none of their Acts can be Nullities but the contrary is true and hath been the Judgement of the Church expressed in many Councils de rebaptizandis non legitime baptizatis quoad essentiam baptismi And this would put us hard to the
others have no such thoughts of 2. More particularly I cannot yet see that I can be excused or disobliged from having a positive Hope taking Hope in the vulgar sense of the saving estate of that man that professeth seriously and soberly that he truly Repenteth and Believeth in Christ and hath not yet utterly forfeited the Credit of his word Charity thinketh no evil believeth all things hopeth al things 1 Cor. 13.5 7. I think the very Maxims of Nature cleared and enforced by Christ in the Gospel do teach me to believe that my brother is not a Lyar till I see convincing evidence of the contrary I confess I judge my self to owe this charitable construction and judgement of his serious Profession especially in so so great a cause to my Neighbour who hath not evidently disobliged me even as much as I owe my bread to the hungry and clothes to the naked yea or the liberty of the common Ayr or earth if it were in my power to restrain it 3. And I do not find myself at least ordinarily and easily capable of suspending my judgement of the truth or falshood of a mans Profession and being wholly neutral in it 4. Yea I perceive that it is the judgement of this Reverend Brother that we should noâ— be Neutral nor suspend our judgement about the Truth of the Profession which we require but that we should seek after that which he calleth a Moral Sincerity herein yea and sometime delay and try them further who offer a suspicious Profession 5. And I must confess that I take it for a great sin to censure my Brother positively to be a Lyar and to be a child of the Devil â—nd in a state of Damnation without clear convincing Evidence 6. And it seems to me a thing utterly Improbable if not certainly unâ—rue that God should require any man as sine qua non to his Church-entrance or admittance that he profess true Faith and Repentance to the Minister and Church as before them and yet that both Minister and people are bound to receive this Profession abstractively as to the Faith and Repentance so professed God knoweth the heart without Profâ—ssion it is therefore because of us that know not mens hearts that profession is required And must we then receive such a profession abstractively from the thing professâ—d Every word iâ— ordainâ—d to be a sign of the mind and a profession is formally a Relative Being The Matter of the Sign viz. The Word or the like a Bruit a Parrot may possiblâ— have And if the very Essence of a profession qua talis contein its Relâ—tion to the thing professed and the mind of the Professor then is it destructive to the very ends and Use of a Profesâ—ion to abstract the material Sign from the thing professed If you sâ—y that it is not Regeneration which they are supposed to profess I answer it is true Repentance and Faith in Christ which they are supposed to profess and that is Regeneration or the principal part of it in sensu passivo To what purpose should we imagine that men should be obliged by God to make so solemn a profession which none of the hearers are in the least obliged to believe to be true 7. We are certainly bound to believe a sober credible person of proved fidelity in other things when he solemnly professeth to Repent and believe else we must deny credit to that which beareth plain Evidence of Credibility therefore we must believe all others according to the proportion of their Credibility and not deny them credit without just cause 8. I never yet heard any assign any other cause why God should require an open profession than the revealing of the thing professed and the consequents thereof therefore till we hear a proof of some other Reason we have cause to adhere to this 9. All men are bound to judge that God would have no man to tell a lye therefore they are bound to judge that God would have no man to profess that he Repenteth when he doth not therefore he that is to judge my Profession to be by Gods commanding and approving Will is also to judge it to be a true Profession But the Ministers and the Church are judicio charitatis fide humana to judge that the Profession of the person is such as God doth require and accept as to the main substance before they baptize him and receive him into Communion upon the account of that Profession 10. I conceive that this Reverend Brother granteth in effect the thing which I dispute for while he affirmeth that such a Moral Sincerity may be lookt after as that All Circumstances considered by which Ingenuity is estimate among men there appears no reason why the man may not and ought not to be esteemed as to the matter to think and purpose as he speaketh For I plead for no more then this Object But this is nothing to the Principle that it proceedeth from special or common Grace Answ. A true Repentance and saving faith can come from none but a supernatural Principle of special Grace and therefore he that professeth this Repentance and Faith doth thereby profess that supernatural Principle therefore if am bound to believe that he speaks as he thinks then I am bound to believe that he is a truly penitent Believer if he know his own heart and he is liker to know it better then I. Moreover he saith that To ground a positive Act of Judgement that a man is Regenerate in foro exteriori there is requisite some seemingness of spiritual sincerity that is that he doth it from a spiritual principle motives c. To which I say that a serious Profession of Faith and Repentance is a Credible seemingness of Faith and Repentance And he that professeth true Faith and Repentance must needs profess them as from a spiritual Principle and Motives and to a spiritual End for they cannot be from any other principle or motives principally nor to any other ultimate End I am therefore forced to dissent from the main reason of this Reverend Brothers judgement herein viz. That there cannot be had a pâ—sitâ—ve pâ—obâ—ble Evidence of this ordinarily without observation of a mâ—ns way after Profession for a time c. For though câ—nfâ—ss this is fuller Evidence which he pleadeth for yet still I judge that a sober sâ—rious Profession is a credible Evidence of the thing professed till the person have quite forfeited the Credit of his word And ouâ—ward Reformation may be forced or counterfeit as well though not easily aâ— words 〈◊〉 it was a saving faith and Repentance which Peter invited the Iâ—ws to Act. 2 and Paul the Jaâ—lor Act 16. c. So doubt not but they took the following profession of these men as a credible Evâ—dence of the same saving Faith which they profest Argum. 4. That which hath Evidence of Credibiliâ—y ought to be believed But the profession of men or their bare words who have not forfeited
two sorts of Teaching are confounded which Christ distinguisheth Mat. 28.19 20. That teaching which draweth men to Christ and maketh them Disciples and that which instructeth them when they are his Disciples that which perswadeth them to receive Christ Jesus the Lord and that which perswadeth them accordingly to walk in him For they take him for a Disciple that is but learning to be a Disciple meerly because he submitteth to learn and hath learned before some preparatory truths though yet he be not made a Disciple indeed nor profess so to be Mr. Blake is deeply offended with me for saying that Hypocrites that seem not only to be found Believers and profess a Justifying faith when they have it not are only equivocally or analogically Christians or members of the Church c. But I shall say somewhat more concerning those Believers that are described by him who do not so much as profess a saving faith viz. that they are no members of the Church at all if notorious and are not so much as to be named Christians nor to be admitted into the visible Church No man can prove that ever one man was admitted a Church-member in all the New Testament upon the Profession of any lower kind of faith than that which is the condition of Justification Otherwise we should have two distinct Churches specifically different or two sorts of Christianity and Christians differing totâ specie because the faith which is here made their qualification doth specifically differ by a moral specification When the Jaylor Act. 16 30 31 32 33 34. was admitted into the Church by Baptism with his houshold it was upon the Professing of such a believing by which both he and his houshold might be saved as is before shewed And so of all others in those times Argum. 19. If we once admit men to baptism or the Lords Supper upon the Profession of any other than Justifying faith we shall be utterly confounded and not be able to give any satisfactory Description of that Faith and so never be able to Practise our Doctrine as being utterly uncertain whom to baptize That I may the better manifest this I shall examine all the considerable Descriptions of that faith which I can meet with The Papists themselves are not agreed in this business sometime they speak as if a bare Assent would serve the turn but commonly they add that there is a Necessity also of consent 1. To be subject to the Church 2. To live under the Ordinances And if they take the Intention of the party or Parents or their Godfathers and Godmothers to be necessary as they do the Intention of the Priest then a bare Profession with them will not serve nor can they tell when any one is baptized Mr. Blake doth speak so much and purposely of this Point that one would think we may expect an exact Description of this faith from him if from any man especially in his last Book when I had so earnestly Intreated him before to do it because of the omission of it in his former Book And yet even in this hath he done nothing but involve and obscure his meaning more than before though I had purposely urged him to a plain discovery of his sense even somewhat beyond the bounds of modesty as it is esteemed of in common cases For I perceived that the stress of our differences did rest much in this because no wise man will leave his grounds till he see where he may have better unless he mean to be for nothing or of no Religion there 's no reason a man should upon every opposed difficulty relinquish that he hath And here that I may do Mr. Blake no wrong I shall cite his mind in his own words and gather as many of his disclosures of it as I can find For what he hath said in his Book of the Covenants I have spoken to it already in my Apologie And I write nor for those lazy Readers that had rather err than be at the pains of reading what is already written I shall therefore suppose that and gather what he saith in his Treatise of the Sacraments Pag. 109. he saith I confess as much of Repentance in them as was required in any to the acceptation of Baptism namely A Renunciation of their false way and a professed Acceptation of the tender of the Gospel And after to renounce his way of Paganism Judaism and to profess and engage to a Christian faith conversation Here I understand not Mr. Blake's english if he do not plainly renounce his cause and say the same that I do and so make vain his industrious opposition The tender of the Gospel is the tender of Christ and pardon and life to all true Acceptors of it If the professed Accepâ—aâ—ion of this tender be not professed saving faith beyond all common faith I must despair of knowing what faith is and consequently being sure that I have it and that I may be saved by it And if professing a true Christian faith and conversation and engaging thereto be not a professing of that which is proper to the sanctified I mean in the special sense then Mr. Blake hath made a new Christian Faith and Conversation which Scripture never prescribed nor described Pag. 172. He gives another but the most express answer which is likest to be his mind For a direct answer I say it it not profession to say we have this faith but a profession of our assent to the necessity of it with engagement to it that gives this little so P. 173. I say do profess of those that have those secret reservations wrapt up in their breasts not yet from under the power of lusts yet convinced of their duty and acknowledging the Necessity that it is the mind of God that they should be Baptized and have admission to Ordinances in order to bring them more sincerely and unreservedly to God And this being the will of God as you seem to yield when you say we are bound to Baptize them I say they have right in the sight of God to Baptism I shall begin my Reply with his last passage and I must needs say that Mr. Blake doth unworthily abuse me and my words in saying that I seem to yield that we are bound to baptize them Them What them My own words which he citeth to prove this by me are these Vocation which is effectual only to bring men to an outward Profession of saving faith is larger then Election that makes men such whom we are bound to baptize Forsooth in these words I contradict my self I seem to give Mr. Blake the cause I cannot but say that it is pity the Church should be troubled with such an undigested undistinguishing management of controversies for men to write so learnedly and industriously before they observe what they say Is the outward Profession of a saving faith which I say makes men such as we are bound to baptize the same thing with the
Congregations which the Countrey knoweth to be such as you have done pag. 142 143. upon the credit of your false reporters If I have deserved such dealing from you the Christian Assemblies of Worcestershire have not Restrain your indignation to me and abuse not your Brethren that meddle not with you And what is it that is denyed unanimously by other Congregations Surely not the necessity of professing a faith that 's more than Dogmatical at least I know no such Congregations and I hope I shall never know such For all your frequent and confident intimations that yours is the common opinion of Divines and mine is singular If paper could blush abundance of such passages would confute themselves and prevent the delusion of your credulous reader who will believe you to save the labor of a tryal Pag. 185. The words of mine that are cited as against my self are these Vocation which is effectual only to bring men to an outward profession of faith is larger then Election and makes men such whom we are bound to baptize true How unhappy am I that must contradict my opinion in the very words which contain it But still will you perswade men that an outward professing of true saving faith is all one with another kind of faith no man I think knows what which you are busily promoting to be the Title to Sacraments I shall not stand to search Mr. Blake's book for more of my self-contradictions or trouble the Reader with a further vindication For in thus much he may see the face of the rest and discern the judiciousness and equity of the Charge But as Mr. Blake dealeth by me so doth he by the Authors whom he alledgeth for his opinions as pag. 152.153 154 155. and elswhere He sticks not to cite them as owning his cause who in the very words recited by him do condemn it For in those words they make the Church as visible to consist of professors as distinct from true believers and know no members but true Christians and Hypocrites who therefore pretend to that Faith which they have not or else how are they Hypocrites And what 's this to Mr. Blake's new visible members that profess only some other kind of faith or how will this warrant his new kind of Baptism which must be administred upon the Profession of another sort of Faith The Lord illuminate us and pardon all the wrong we have done to his Church and Truth through our darkness and self-conceitedness The third Disputation Quest. Whether the Infants of Notoriously-ungodly baptized Parents have Right to be Baptized Tertullian Apologet. cap. 16. Sed dices Etiam de nostris excedere quosdam à Regulâ Disciplinae Desunt tum Christiani haberi penès nos Philosophi verò illi cum talibus factis in nomine honore sapientiae perseverant Thes. Salmuriens Vol. 3. Pag. 59. Thes. 39. Sacramenta non conferuntur nisi iis qui vel fidem habent vel saltem eam prae se ferunt adeò ut nullis certis argumentis compertum esse possit eam esse ementitam Aaron's Rod Blossoming pag. 514. I believe No conscientious Minister would adventure to baptize one who hath manifest and infallible signs of Unregeneration Sure we cannot be answerable to God if we should minister Baptism to a man whose works and words do manifestly declare him to be an unregenerated unconverted person And if we may not Initiate such a one how shall we bring him to the Lords Table Rutherford Due Right of Presbyteries pag. 231. n. 2. But saith Robinson most of England are ignorant of the first Rudiments and Foundation of Religion and therefore cannot be a Church Answ. Such are materially not the visible Church and have not a Profession and are to be taught and if they wilfully remain in that darkness are to be cast out The third Disputation Quest. Whether the Infants of Notoriously ungodly Baptized Parents have Right to be Baptized THE Question is of the greater moment because about Matter of Practice and that in a Point wherein the Honor of God on one side and the Rights of mens Souls on the other are so much concerned It supposeth first that Baptism is Gods Ordinance of continued Use and that some are to be Baptized Secondly that it is a Benefit or else we could not in the sense now used be said to have Right to it Thirdly It supposeth that some Infants have Right to be Baptized This Question therefore is not to be disputed with the Anabaptists who deny the presupposed And they that are so indifferent in the former as to take it for an inconsiderable matter Whether Infants be baptized or not must needs judge this Question of the Infants of the Ungodly to be much more inconsiderable Fourthly Yet doth it not suppose that the Infants of any ungodly persons have this Right as if it were only the Right of Notorious ones that were disputable but the word Notorious is added to limit our present Dispute to that sort for several Reasons at this time passing by the other but not taking it for granted Fifthly Nor doth the Addition of the term Baptized to Parents take it for granted that no children of unbaptized Parents have such Right But it limits the Question to that sort only as fitter in several respects for our Dispute For the explication of the terms 1. By Infant we mean Children not yet come to the use of Reason so that as they are not sui Juris but at anothers dispose so they are uncapable naturally in any Contract to dispose of themselves being unfit to give consent through a natural defect of that understanding which is pre-requisite By a natural Defect I mean of nature in it self considered and not as corrupted by sin nor as neglected sinfully by our selves or others So that I see not but that Ideots are in the same condition as Infant children But of that let every one think as they see cause In Law homo primae aetatis is an Infant even after he can speak though as to the Etymologie he be called an Infant quia fari nescit i. e. loqui non potest ut Isidor lib. 11.2 2. By Parents we mean principally Natural Parents those who begat those Infants but secondarily also as I suppose those that have Adopted them or bought them or received them as given or delivered to them so that they any way become Their Own and they have the dispose of them and are enabled to enter them into Covenant so as to oblige them on the highest terms Though I know it is not properly that these are called Parents The word Parent is primarily applicable to the Mother only as not being à Parendo but à Pariendo and thence to the Father also because of the Relation between Gigno Pario and so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is sometime used for Genero And though the word Parens be not usually applied to those that Adopt yet Pater is And not unfitly
doubt of their Dogmatical faith as of any Now what will you do with all these If you take their faith it self though common to be their Title then they must according to you all keep a way while they doubt of it And if it be but the verbal profession of that Dogmatical faith that is their Title before God and their own Conscience then any infidel may make himself a Title at pleasure by a lye and the bare opus operatum of speaking the words which he never believed but derideth the sence while he uttereth the terms As you will save your own Communicants from condemning themselves then for want of Assurance of their Lower faith so shall you direct us to do by ours I will only add this Question What Description must that man give of the faith short of Justifying which entitles to Baptism who takes Justifying faith it self to lie but in Assent You know my meaning It will be certainly another kinde of faith than Mr. Blake describeth that such a man must require I had thought I had done with you at this time and this day I received a Book of Mr. Prins writing containing the fruit of your Doctrine and therein I finde a passage of yours cited from pag. 125. which makes me think it may deserve further consideration than I thought to have taken of it You say Giving and Receiving being Relata all those Texts that prove it the duty of any to Receive the Sacrament doth eo nomine oblige the Minister to deliver it to them or admit them because posito uno Relatorum ponitur alterum Answ. Must Logick do the deed at last If so it will give us leave to distinguish between Relata secundùm dici secundùm esse simplices duplices relationes c. Ponitur autem hoc unum Relatorum vel in esse vel in debito If you speak of the former then you know 1. that our Giving is not effectual Giving but Offering when it goes before Receiving and 2. that as scibile may be sine scientiâ as existent so Offering may be without Receiving though not Receiving in our present sense without Offering therefore one of these may be put without the other But I suppose it is Debitum offerendi recipiendi which you think are thus related But 1. here the debitum offerendi goes first and the debitum recipiendi comes after and is but conditional and not actual till the very act of oblation You may be bound to Offer your people the Sacrament and not perform your duty they are not bound to Receive it when you are bound to Offer it but only on condition or supposition that you actually do Offer it so that it is not your duty and theirs that are connexed as Relata else they should be bound to Receive that which is not offered them for you may neglect your duty Nor is it your actual Offering and their actual Receiving that are inseparably connexed as perfect Relates for you may offer it when it shall be refused But you 'l say At least the thing intended stands good that posito recipiendi debito ponitur etiam debitum offerendi I answer Not alwaies so neither unless you take the Duty of Reception to be actual and absolute and not conditional For you may be bound to Receive on supposition that I offer both this and many other things which I am not bound to offer Much less am I eo nomine as you strongly say obliged to deliver it to you You may be obliged to give me Thanks supposing I bestow a Benefit on you and your thanks hath relation to my Benefit and yet I do not yet understand that I am eo nomine obliged to give you that Benefit because you must be thankful if I do Your Obligation to receive is plainly consequential and hypothetical supposing I actually offer it and that cannot so necessarily infer the duty of Offering For I make little doubt to prove that in many Cases when the Minister sinneth in his Offer it is yet the Peoples duty to receive it if he do offer it The Scribes and Pharisees might unjustly usurp the Chair of Moses and yet it may be the peoples duty to hear them The Priests may usurp their place and yet the cleansed Leper may be bound to shew himself to them Nero may sin by asking Tribute when it may be my duty to give it him if he ask it If Mr. Prin had thought that your Argument would justifie a Thief in taking his purse by the high way I do not think he would have cited it Giving and Taking here are Relatives too If a Thief demand your purse resolving to kill you if you deny it it may be your duty to Give it to save your life when in my opinion it is not eo nomine his duty to Demand or Take it Well! but this is not the chief part of my answer to you If you had laid better grounds for it and well limited it I might well grant you that when the People are bound to Receive it implyeth the Ministers duty to offer it them But then you must take duty as you finde it entirely at least essentially and you must not cut off a piece of a duty yea leave out the essentials and turn it into a sin God commandeth people first to Repent and Believe and then to profess it by words and sacramental actions and therewith receive the seals of his special grace This is your Duty Perform your duty so far as is antecedent to mine and I shall confess that mine will follow and I must offer you the Sacraments But if you will refuse to repent or Believe or to profess that you do so in a credible sort or will by word or life profess that you do not so and yet will demand the Sacrament you do not your duty and so I am not obliged Prove that it is a mans duty to receive the Sacraments without Faith and Repentance yea or a credible Profession of them or to profess by that Reception that he Takes Christ and Believeth in him when it is a lie and then you say somewhat All men are bound mediately to receive the Sacrament that is first to seek after the Word and then to hear it and then to believe and repent and then to seek the Sacraments but it followeth not that they may do the last first and receive before they repent Moreover as the Receiver is bound ad ordinem modum and not simply and any how to receive so I am bound ad ordinom modum and not any how to give And therefore I must first know my call to it as a Pastor and I must do my best to help the people to a due preparation and I must do it Decently in Order and to Edification and the miss of one of these may turn the duty into a sin I am not therefore of your opinion as you next express it that there is as