Right to Sacraments, Disputation 3 (1 of 3)

Right to Sacraments · Disputation 3 (1 of 3)

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.

Gilespie, 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.

p. 247The 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 p. 248unbaptized 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 foreign is sometime used for Genero. And though the word [Parens] be not usually applied to those that Adopt, yet Pater is: And not unfitly, if, as some suppose, the word foreign came from foreign, alo, to nourish; for so men may do by children that are any way their own. But it is only the immediate Parents that we here mean; though Festus saith, that Juris prudentes avos & proavos, avias & proavias parentum nomine appellari dicunt. And though the word Parens be sometime taken pro Consanguineo: And Hierom saith advers. Ruffin. lib. 2. That militari vulgaríque consuetudine cognati & assines nominantur Parentes. But of this more anon.

The term [Ungodly) is it that needeth the most wary and p. 249exact Explication, as on which the greatest stress of the Controversie doth depend. It is not one only sense in which the words foreign, Pius & Impius, Godly and Ungodly, are used. Some think that Pius comes from an obsolete Greek word, now difused, foreign, to which foreign & foreign do refer; and so that the primary signification is of one that worships God wi…h the Fat of Sacrifice, as Abel did, with the best of his service and not the refuse or lean. Meliùs ad rem fuerit, saith Mertinius [Pius derivare à foreign, quod Cretensibus est Deus, ex foreign: quia pius est qui Deo addictus est & devotus, eum que sequitur; ut Angli Pium Godly, tanquam Divinum. Ità Objectum Pii indicaretur. Si ad actum respiciamus, idonra originatio erit foreign, quippe quae est vox religiosae operationis.] Vide plura ibid. Our English word [Godly] is the most clear for Etymology and sense; And for the right understanding of it, we must consider, 1. What God is, and in what Relationn to Man he stands. 2. What is required from Man towards God.

1. As God is in himself most perfectly Good, (from whence some think in English he is called God), so is he to Man; 1. The Principal efficient Cause of all his Good; 2. And the chief Objective matter, and ultimate end; so that in him alone can we be happy. He is our α and ω, our very All. he stands Related to Man as his Creator, Governour, Redeemer, and Preserver.

2. From whence Man is obliged to acknowledge God, in these Relations,Quid est Pic. tas, nisi Dei cultus? & unde il…e colitur, nisi Charitate? Aug. Epist. 29 whether Naturally or Supernaturally made known; and to consent to them; and to love and honour him as God, (though it be not perfectly, which is now above his strength, yet must it be) sincerely, even comparatively and superlatively above any Creature whatsoever. He that doth thus, is a Godly man, that is, a man that doth sincerely believe in God, the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, and is devoted to God.

Besides this principal sense, there are some others common, both in the defect, and in the excess; 1. Among Heathens he is called Pious, 1. who is a devout honourer of their Gods, though Idols; 2. or who is merciful to people in misery; 3. or who is an Honourer of Parents and Superiors, or who is conscientious according to their insufficient light. 2. Among p. 250Christians, 1. Some call any man Godly, that is, zealous in Religious matters, though so unsound in the fundamentals, that he worshippeth he knows not what, or so ignorant about Gods very nature and his relations to him, that it is not God indeed as God that he worshippeth: and though he be actually incapable of true Love and Devotedness to God, for want of right conceivings of him, even in those respects that are essential to the Object of the Christian faith. 2. Some call a man Godly that makes a sound Confession, and knows the Christian Doctrine, and saith he believeth it, though he notoriously manifest that his Will doth not consent, that the God whom he confesseth shall be his God, (his Ruler and Felicity,) nor the Christ whom he confesseth, shall be his Saviour on his own terms; nor the Holy Ghost his Guide and Sanctifier. 3. On the other side, Many will call no Man Godly, that is not noted for some eminent difference, in Parts and Zeal, from others that live about him. If they see him neglect some Duties that he is bound to, as not to come to some private Meetings that are used regularly and to Edification, or not to Read, or Hear so frequently or diligently as he should, or not to Pray in his family (which in some Cases its possible a Godly man may neglect), or if he commit some sins, which yet its possible a Godly man may commit, they account him ungodly, though possibly it may be otherwise in the main▪ so that no man is by them esteemed Godly, unless he go beyond the weakest sort of true Christians. As for them that call none Godly but their own parties, or sect-fellows, I will pass them, as not worthy our further mention.

Among all these senses, it is the first in which we here take the word [Godly] so that it is only Christian Godliness that we mean, which is a sincere believing in God, the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, even with true intellectual Assent, and hearty Consent: from which heart-Godliness, there follows that sincere Obedience to the will of God (to first and second Table) which is the proper fruit of it: and Repentance after disobedience known. It is therefore such a Godliness as is proper to them that have the promise of Justification and Salvation that we mean, comprehending Repentance towards God, and p. 251Faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ. Of the contrary to this only is the Question.

4. By (Notoriously) ungodly, we mean such as do evidently manifest their ungodly hearts, 1. either by verbal professing it; 2. or by their rebellious ungodly lives, that they leave to those that converse with them, no just & reasonable ground to judge them in probability to be Godly, but are certainly known by those that live about them, yea, by the Church (if they are members of any particular Church,) who have an ordinary competent ability to discern, to be ungodly persons, that is, not to believe in God as aforesaid, but to be indeed contemners of God, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, as all are that are not Godly, though not all in a like degree. They that are notoriously known to be thus ungodly, or unholy, or unbelievers, are those here intended.

5. By (Baptized) Parents, we mean only such as have had the external sign joyned to a Profession of the Christian faith, and Dedication to God; and so have covenanted ore tenus with God by themselves, or parents: and not those that have been sincerely Dedicated to him, and so have God re-engaged unto them: For it is a contradiction for to call such at the time of such Devotedness [notoriously ungodly:] and to say that they fall from it, is contrary to the judgement of those whom we now deal with, and therefore not to be expected. Some do so define Baptism, as to make it essentially to be Gods actual sealing and exhibiting, of an actual pardon to the person baptized. But we take it not thus: We speak only of those that have so formla…y performed and received the externals of that Ordinance, as that the Church doth justly take them for her baptized Members, though yet they werr not truly united to Christ, nor was God ever actually reconciled to them, as his People.

So much for the Subject: For the predicate, we must first explain the term Right.

Concerning which, I must refer you mostly to what I have said to Mr. Blake, pag. 5 SECT. 39. more fully than here I may stay to express my self.

1. In the properest sense, Right respecteth some Good which p. 252we have Right to; and that Good is the matter of some Gift, or other civil Action, which may confer Right: so that a man may afterwards claim it as his own, or the Use or Profession of it as his Due, according to the Nature of the thing, and of the Grant. 2. In a more diminute and less proper sense, a man is said to have Right which is accidentially in his Profession, without his unjust Usurpation, though he know not whether he shall keep it a moment, nor hath any civil right given him thereto. 3. In a sense yet less proper, a man may be said to have Right to that Action, which it is another mans Duty to perform to him, or that Good which another man is bound to do to or for him, though properly he have no Title to it himself. 4. In a sense, though proper, quoad relationis fundamentum, yet Catachrestical as to the Denomination of the thing; a man is said to have right to an Evil: as to that punishment which according to Law and Justice in his Due, or which he is obliged to bear.

According to the first of these senses, every man hath a Right to or in Gods Benefits, to whom he hath Given them by any Promise, Covenant, Grant, or other Moral act; which may be the Foundation of Right, called a Title.

According to the second sense, all those have Right to Gods blessing that have them in Possession, through a meer natural collation of Providence, without their sinful seizure. As if you see a man by the way lie naked, and cast your cloak over him, and say nothing to him: Though you may take it away again at your pleasure, and assure him not of the use of it for a moment, yet he hath right to possess it while you permit him. Thus every Pagan hath Right to his Life and Time, and Food and Raiment, while God doth providentially vouchsafe them to him.

According to the third sense, All those have a Right to Gods mercies, to whom we are bound as Instruments to conser them, though it be but by accident that we are so obilged, and though God be in no Covenant-engagement to the persons, nor give them any proper right or claim to the thing: So if God bid me Give to him that needeth: and because I know not all that need, he bids me judge upon probable appearances: Hereupon if a rich man go in rags and pretend necessity, p. 253it is my Duty to give to him; and so far this Rich man hath a Right to my Alms, as that he is a rightfull Object of it, as to the righteousness of my action. So if God bid me forgive him that wrongeth me, if he Repent: and then direct me to judge whether he repent by the Evidences (there being no other way:) and these Evidences being only probable, and not demonstrastive: here it is my duty to forgive him that repenteth not, if he seem to repent, and so he may have such an improper right to my forgiveness. So if a Heathen seem to be a true Christian, and yet dissemble, I am bound to use him as a Christian; and and so far he may improperly be said to have right to any Christian Ordinance, which I am bound to dispense to him, If he claims this Ordinance of me, he sins against God, and requireth that which properly, and before God, he hath no right to, and which he ought not to claim: but yet he clams nothing but what I am bound to give him upon such a claim. You may see then that here may be three distinct questions according to this three-fold sense [of Right] For the fourth I will pass, as not concerning our present business.) 1. Whether such subjects have any Right to Baptism by any gift or grant of God to themselves! 2. Whether they have right from Gods providence putting them into possession of it. 3. Whether it be a Ministers duty to baptize them? And I think it necessary to handle all these, or at least the first and last distinctly, because that one dependeth on the other, and we know not which is ordinarily meant when this question is put. Only to the Explication of the last term, we must speak a word: viz. what is meant by that Baptism, the Right whereto we are now enquiring after? It is one question whether they have Right to the thing signified, viz. Christ and his Benefits; the pardon of sin, and Adoption, &c. It is another question, whether they have Right to the bare sign, and the consequential Priviledges with the Church, arising from their reputing such a man to be a true Christian. And another question, whether they have Right to Both these? Also it is one thing to ask, Whether men have right to performance of their own part in Baptism, in part? or in whole? And another, Whether they have right to Gods part? We make no question but every man hath liberty given him to do p. 254his own part entirely, yea it is his Duty: And so every Infidel is bound to bring his child to Baptism; that is, To cease his Infidelity, and to Dedicate himself and child to Christ, and seal it with being Baptized. But this is nothing to prove that he hath Right to Gods part in Baptism, that is, either to the Washing as Gods seal and sign; or to the cleansing signified, and other Benefits conveyed by it. 2. Nor is it any thing to prove that he hath a Liberty to do the latter and external part of his own duty, without the internal and former precedent; that is, to be baptized before he consent to the terms of the Covenant. As a man that is bound to consent in mind to any thing, and promise with the mouth, yet may not promise before he consent; that is, Dissemble or Lye.

I shall now briefly determine the Question as to each of the three forementioned sorts of right distinctly: And as to the first I take the Question to lie thus (supposing it only the external Baptism thats meant.)

Whether the Infant Children, especially natural, of men externally baptized, but now notoriously ungodly, have by any Gift of Covenant-Grant from God, a right to external Baptism? Which I determine Negatively; They have no such right.

And herein the justest order, it belongeth to the Affirmer to prove such a right. He that brings his claim, must shew his Title. No more therefore can be required of me but this Argument.

If such Infants can shew no good Title to such Baptism, (nor any for them) then have they no Right to it. But they can shew no good Title. Ergo▪ &c.

The Major is undeniable; for Titulus est fundamentum Juris. For the Minor I argue thus: If they can shew any good Title, it is either some grant of God written in his word, or seeme not written. But neither written, nor not written: therefore none at all.

Those sober persons that we have to do with, will not plead an unwritten grant. If any do so, they must make it evident to a Minister, before he can take it for currant.

If there be any written grant, let them shew it; for we know of none.

p. 255But yet we shall attempt the proof of the Negative, and then examine the Arguments which are usually brought for the Affirmative.

If the Children of such Parents have such Right to Baptism, it is either for their own sake (i.e. some Title or ground in themselves.) 2. or for their immediate parents, 3. or their Ancestors, 4. or some Undertakers, 5. or the Church. These five grounds are pleaded by some: And though our Question directly speaketh only of the second; and therefore if any of the rest be proved, it nothing makes against our Negative determination, because we take it Reduplicativè (of the children of such Parents as theirs:) yet we judge it most usefull to our main end, that we touch upon each of these several Claims.

And 1. If the Infants of such Parents have any such Right from any thing in themselves, it is either from somewhat proper to themselves and some others such as they, or somewhat common to all Infants: But neither of these; Ergo — 1. For the first Member, I know nothing said but this: [Possibly they may have some seed of Grace in them, we know not the contrary.] Answ. 1. As to us, its all one, non esse, & non apparere: we must have some Evidence of such a seed of Grace, or else we cannot discern it. 2. Else we must baptize the children of all or any Heathen or Infidel; because for ought we know, they may have some seed of Grace.

For the second Member, it is thus argued by some: God requireth nothing but Consent on our parts, to our enterance into Covenant with him, seeing it is a Covenant of free Grace: but all Infants must by us be supposed to Consent: therefore all must be supposed to have Right to Baptism.] The Major we grant. The Minor they would thus prove: It is a Rule in the Civil Law, That it is supp…sed that a man will be willing of his own Good; And another Rule there is, That the Law supposeth a man to be what he ought to be, till the contrary appear; therefore Infants, who make not the contrary appear, are by us to be judged virtual Consenters or Accepters of the Covenant; and consequently to be Baptized. Answ. These Rules may hold in dealings between man and man, about such things as Nature may both discern to be Good, and desire; but they cannot hold in the Case in hand; p. 2561. Because Nature cannot sufficiently discern the Desirableness of the Blessings of the Covenant, compared with those things that must be renounced. 2. Nor can it truly desire them without Grace. 3. And the common Experience of the world telleth us, that the most of men, by far, do not truly consent, when they hear the terms of the Covenant. This therefore may not be supposed: For Natures Inclination to our own Good, is no sufficient ground of the supposition: Nor yet any Obligation that can lie on us to charitable thoughts of Infant's Inclinations. For it is one of the Principles of our Religion, that Nature is so depraved, as that every man is the great Enemy of himself consequentially, as being inclined to the way of his own ruine; till Christ the Physitian of Nature do work a Cure. 4. And if this Argument would hold, it would prove that all the Infants of the world have right to Baptism; which is not to be supposed. 5. Yea it wou…d prove that they have equal right with Christians, which is yet more evidently false. 6. Infants in such Covenants are reputed to be as their Pa…nt, who …huse for them that cannot chuse for themselves. If therefore the Parents consent not, it is supposed that the Child consen…s not; and no parent can truly consent for his childe that re useth for himself. 7. The Covenant hath not only benefits on Gods part to be conferred, but also duties on our part required; and it cannot be supposed that all will faithfully perform such duties. So much for the first pretended Title.

The second pretended Title of such Infants to Baptism, is upon the account of the Interest of their immediate Parents; and because this is both the proper subject of our question, and also the great difficuly, and most insisted on, I shall say somewhat more to it: And I prove the Negative thus.

1. If notoriously ungodly Parents have no right themselves to the Benefits of the Covenant, nor to be Baptized if it were now to do: then cannot their children have a right upon the account of any interest of theirs. But the Antecedent is true: Therefore the validity of the consequence is evident; in that no man can give that he hath none to give, nor can we derive any Interest from him that hath none himself. If any say, he may have an Interest for his child that hath none for himself; p. 257I Reply. 1. Then the childe hath not his interest in and with the Parent, nor as reputed a member of him. 2. That Interest must be produced and proved. I have not yet heard what it should be save what the next Objection intimates.

Why then may not the same be said of an Infidel, that he may have a right for his child, though none for himself? It is objected, that being himself baptized, he once had right to Church-membership for himself and his child; and though he hath lost this by Apostacy himself, yet there is no reason why his child should be a loser by his fall. Answ. 1. According to this objection the children of all Infidels, Jews, Turks, and Heathens should have right for their Parents sake, supposing those Parents to have been once baptized, and now to be Apostates. 2. But those children were either born before their Parents Apostacy, or after. If before, then I grant the Parent loseth not the childs right by Apostacy, because that right was fixed upon the child himself, upon the account of the Parents interest. And we may suppose him baptized thereupon, and so there is no cause for a doubt: For as the case is rare for a man that before was rightfully a Church-member to the outward appearance, to Apostatize between the Birth and Baptism; so I will purposely shun that Controversie, Whether the child by such Apostacy loseth his right, or whether a Baptized Infant be supposed excommunicate in the Fathers excommunication? For my part, I affirm no such thing: But if the child be born after the Parents Apostacy from faith or a godly life, then no man can say the childe loseth any right by the Parents sin; for how can he los… that which he never had. If you say the Parent had it for himself and his child; I answer, true, had he been sincere on supposition he had children; but not for those children he had not, though if he continue in the faith till he have them, he then hath …hose Priviledges for himself and them; they can be no subjects of right that had no existence; I grant he may have a grant of such right to him and his seed, as a Prince may grant to a faithful subject to him and to his heirs: But 1. This is on supposition that he will have heirs. 2. That he forfei…s no… his right before he hath heirs: otherwise as he apparen…ly …s…th it to himself, so doth he to them: p. 258if he make an intercision, he stops the conveyance of the benefit by a prevention, so that it never comes to the Heir: But because it is the antecedent that requires all the proof [that notoriously ungodly Parents have no Interest themselves to be Church-members, and to be baptized, if it were to be done again] I shall prove it as followeth.

1. Argu. They that have not that faith which is the condition of the Covenant, and notoriously shew that they have it not, have no right to Baptism. But such are all they who are notoriously ungodly. Ergo. &c.

Or they that notoriously manifest that they consent not to the terms of the Covenant, have no right to Baptism. But, &c. Ergo.

The Major is proved hence. 1. What else is there to hinder any Heathen from the like Right? 2. Because that the probable Profession of such a further consent is necessary to justifie baptizing of them. 3. Because mutual consent is necessary to a mutual Covenant; and the Covenant must be mutual: no man hath right to Gods part that refuseth his own. This is all so far past question, that I pass it over the more lightly. All the doubt then is of the Minor, [Whether no man have the necessary condition of the baptismal Covenant on Gods part that is notoriously ungodly] or [Whether all such ungodly men do notoriously manifest that they consent not to the terms of the Covenant] I speak not here of any subsequent condition which God imposeth upon the Covenanter only for the future; but only of the condition which God imposeth upon us that he may be in Covenant with us, and that it may be a bargain; and that this is a true inconsistent with notorious ungodliness, I was going about at large to prove it; But I remember that I have done it already in 26. Arguments, against Mr. Blake's, and therefore I think it better for you & me that I refer you thither, than to write them here over again, or needlesly to add any more to the same purpose: If any say that though God require as a duty such a Faith as is inonsistent with notorious ungodliness, yet not as Absolutely necessary that he may be engaged to us in Covenant, or that we may have proper right to Baptism; I answer, God hath but one Covenant p. 259of Grace which Baptism sealeth; our sound believing is the condition of that one Covenant; that is, that it may be a Mutual Actual Covenant: If then there be any other Covenant having other Conditions, we must wait till both Covenant and Conditions be made known. Were it worth the while, or a thing necessary, I would stand to prove the Negative, viz. that there is no Covenant sealed by Baptism which only promiseth Baptism as the Benefit, or any other meer Externals; but that the Covenant which Baptism sealeth is only that which promiseth Remission, Salvation, and outward Mercies as appurtenances and means so far as necessary.

Arg. 2. They that have no right to Remission of sin, have no right given them by God to Baptism; but the Notoriously Ungodly have no right to remission of sin. Ergo. &c. The Minor will not be denied. The Major is proved thus: God hath appointed no Baptism as his gift, but what is for remission of sin, as the thing sealed and exhibited by it. Therefore, They that have no right to Remission, have no right to Baptism. The Antecedent is undoubted; The Consequent is grounded on this truth, that God hath made no Covenant to any man of the bare seals without the thing signified: shew such a Promise if you affirm it. 2. What God hath joyned so nearly as the exhibiting sign and thing exhibited no man may lawfully put asunder: Its a mans sin to take the sign without the thing signified. It is not probable therefore that God hath made any Promise of the naked sign without the thing signified: If God give right to such an ungodly man to be baptized, then he gives him right to be Baptized for Remission of sin (for this is his express and affixed Use and signification,) but he doth not give him right to be Baptized for the Remission of sin. Ergo. &c.

The Minor I prove thus. If he give him Right to be baptized for the Remission of sin, then either for actual Remission (to be sealed by Baptism) or for Conditional future Remission; but for neither of these. Ergo.

Not for Actual Remission; for then Notoriously Ungodly persons are Actually remitted; which is not true: Nor for p. 260Condit…onal; for then no more is given then all the World hath (at least that hear the Gospel) even persecuting Infidels; and then all they may as well be baptized; for God pardoneth all upon condition they repent and believe.

Argu. 3. If God be not at all actually obliged in Covenant to any notorious ungodly man, then is he not obliged to give him Baptism. But God is not obliged so to him. Ergo.

The Minor is unquestionable; The Major is granted by most of our Divines, who make the contrary Doctrine Pelagianism, that God should be obliged to man in the state of Nature, in such a Covenant: If God be obliged to give them Baptism, then if he should not give it them, he breaks Promise with them; But the Consequence is unsound; Ergo, &c. Nor doth he give them power to claim it from the Church-Officers; for they can shew no Title.

Argum. 4. If God have given a Covenant-Right to a notorious ungodly man to be baptized, then either to baptism only, or other blessings with it; but neither of these, Ergo, &c. The first will not be affirmed: What then be the other blessings? Either they are special and spiritual, but that's not defended; or outward and common, which is like is meant; for they call it an outward Covenant. Bu… as God hath given outward things but conditionally to Believers; so there is no such Covenant of outward mercies alone that can be shewed in the word which is now in force to us.

Arg. 5. According to the definition of most of our Divines, the outward washing alone without inward Grace, is not Baptism: Therefore if God give them right to the washing without the Grace, he gives them not right to Baptism: but this is but ad hominem.

I do but superficially touch these things. 1. Because (as I said) the Arguments to Mr. Blake are full. 2. Because I am informed that all this is granted with those Divines with whom I have debated this point, and that they confess that none but sound Believers have engaged God in actual Covenant to them, but only in the common conditional Covenant, and consequently it is not by Covenant grant that the notoriously ungodly have p. 261right to Baptism, but by other waies which we are next to speak to. I am informed that this is all granted; but then I must add, that they yield that such men have no true proper right at all: for such proper right is of the nature of the debitum, the dueness of the Benefit. So that a man may thence lay claim to it as his due. And the right (between God and Man) we receive only by Gods moral Gift, which is by some promise or grant by his word or revelation of his Will de debito habendi; for this dueness or right is a moral thing, and must come by his moral act, such as among men we call political or civil.

But mark how the other two sorts of right differ from this: That which follows Gods Physical disposal by Providence, gives a man no proper right of dueness, but only makes it non injustum, and I think not prope…l positively justum, that he should possess it: as if I see a man ready to dye for cold, and cast a garment on him: only these two things follow; first that is is not unjust for him to possess it; 2. That it is unjust for any other to deprive him of it; but this is no dueness: or if he have any proper right, it is after the possession, and not before.

And then the third sort of right which ariseth from a precept to others concerning the manner of their duty, is properly no right, as not giving a due or title to the Benefit, but only it makes my act of application to be just, and him to be the Object of a just Act; not just because of his Title, from a gift of God; but from a precept to me: so that as the three Instruments differ, Gift or Covenant, Natural disposal, and Precept, so do these three sorts of right differ: the first only being debitum, the second non injustum, the third justum: and the Subject of the third is but my act ▪ and not the person who is the Object. It is just that I obey God, and so do such an Act on him.

Having said thus much for preparation, I shall anon speak more particularly to the two later sorts of right: but first we shall touch briefly the third pretended title, which some insist on, of such Infants proper right to baptism.

The third was upon the account of their Ancestors true faith, though the immediate Parents weee notoriously ungodly p. 262They that plead this title, will not prove it good: 2. I thus disprove it.

Agrum. 1. If the Promise to the faithfull and their Seed to many generations, doth necessarily suppose an uninterrupted succession of faithful Progenitors of that seed, then that promise gives no right to the Infants of notoriously ungodly Parents. But the Antecedent is true: therefore so is the Consequent. The Consequent I suppose to be manifested before: the Antecedent I prove by these following Arguments: 1. If the promise suppose not an uninterrupted succession of faithful Progenitors, then by virtue of the Promise to Noah all the world have Right to baptism. But the Consequent is false: therefore so is the Antecedent. If they urge the words of the second Commandment, it is certain that it is not a thousand generations since Noah. This Question is commonly put to our Brethren in this case, [Where shall we stop, and on what grounds shall we stop, if it extend not to all the world?] and they answer variously: One reverend Brother, Mr. Blake on the Covenant, pag. 140. saith [He knows few that say the Predecessor gives right without the immediate Parent. But all concur in a joint way to communicate a Covenant Interest.] This yields the necessity of a non-intercision. Others say, first out of Calvin and Ames, [Vbi non prorsus interciditur Christianismi professio, & ubi praesumuntur esse Christiani.] to which I answer; If it be a profession of Christianity properly so called, then the right may come by the immediate parent, and there is no intercision. But if it be in a profession equivocally so called, that is, such as is not a probable sign of the thing professed, then I suppose I have proved that such a profession is indeed not a profession, gives no title, and such is that of every notorious ungodly parent. 2. It is answered by others, that it must be by some Ancestors alive that will undertake their education. To which I reply; then the Ancestor gives him not a right as an Ancestor, but as an Vndertaker (of which more anon;) though he be no fitter to be an Undertaker than another. Others say, that the children of Christians known or presumed to be such, living or dead, may baptized. Repl. Then all the children under the Turks, whose Ancestors were p. 263known Christians, may be baptized; and why not all the world, when Noah and Adam were known to be in Covenant? or all this Nation, if they had been Heathens this hundred years, because their Ancestors were justly presumed to be Christians?

Argum. 2. In the common sense of such a Covenant amongst men, it would necessarily suppose an uninterrupted succession of faithfull Progenitors, that make no forfeiture before any right can be conveyed to their issue: therefore it must be so interpreted in our present case, seeing we must not go from the known use or sense of words, without some apparent reason, whereof here is none that I see; And the Antecedent is a known case. If a Prince do convey certain priviledges & Honors to a man and his Heirs and Posterity for ever, this word certainly implies this supposition or condition, that neither he nor any after him do make a forfeiture: for if they turn Traytors, the Covenant is broke, the Grant is void, and they cannot by that convey any such right to Posterity.

Argum. 3. If the Promise aforesaid did not imply a necessary non-interruption of faithfull Progenitors, then the Promise and threatning could not be verified: but the Consequent is not to be admitted; therefore the Consequence is plain, in that as the Promise is to many generations of those that love God and keep his Commandments; so the Threatning is, that he will visit the sins of the Fathers on the children to the third and fourth generation of, &c. Exod. 20.34. where God proclaims it with his name; and doubtless both the Threatning and the Promise is such, that it cannot be that the same persons are under both at once: being certainly therefore under the Threatning, they are from under the Promise.

Argum 4. The Threatning to the third and fourth generation is necessary to be understood on supposition, that there be an uninterrupted succession of wicked Progenitors: therefore by proportion so must the Promise be understood, as to a necessary succession of faithful Progenitors.

Argum. 5. The natural Interest that Ancestors have in such Posterity is not immediate, but mediante Parente proximo: therefore so is the Covenant-Interest; because it proceedeth on supposition p. 294of the Natural. We receive nothing from a Grandfather but by a Father, but what dependeth on his free will: an intercision therefore preventeth our Priviledges. It is here objected, that it is harsh to affirm that the immediate Parents sin depriveth Posterity of the Benefit, though the Ancestors were never so godly; for so the children should suffer for the Parents sin. Ans. 1. the children never had right, therefore never lost it. 2. Its just that they suffer for the Parents sin: when Parents have lost their right, they cannot convey it to others. Object. Paul saith of the Jews, They are beloved for the Fathers sake. Answ. So far beloved, as that God will reclaim them in after-ages, and now convert a remnant: but not so far beloved, as that any child of an unbelieving Jew had right to Baptism for Abraham or any Ancestors sake, and that Love was from a part of the Covenant proper to Abrahams seed. Object. Th…re could not be a higher evidence of Ap…stacy, than to gi…e their children to a false God; yet this did the children of Israel, and yet their Posterity had right to Circumcision. Answ. I will reserve the answer of this to the end, where we shall have further reason to consider it, and next proceed to the fourth pretended Title of such Infants.

The fourth part of this Question is, Whether the Infants of notorious ungodly parents may not have right to Baptism, on the account of some Vndertakers? Answ. If this be so, its nothing against our Negative determination of the main Question, viz. Whether they have right for their Parents sake? 2. We distinguish of Undertakers; some are such as will undertake that another man shall bring up his child well: 2. Some will undertake to do it themselves, yet not to educate it as their own, but as another mans, and at his disposal: neither of these undertakings can give any right. 3. But if the child do either by the total resignation of the Parent, or by adoption or the death of the Parents, or by purchase, or any other just means, become his Own that undertakes for him: so that the child is ejus juris, as his own children are, and at his dispose, then the Question is much harder. And for my part, I encline to judge that such a child hath Right upon that mans account: 1. Because that in a Law-sense this man is his Father. 2. Because all that God requireth in the free universal Covenant of Grace, to our participation p. 265of his Benefits, is our consent: and children do consent bo those whose they are: For they that owe them, or whose they are, have the disposal of them, and so of their Wills interpretatively; and may among men make any Covenant for them which is for their good (at least,) and oblige them to the performance of conditions. 3. Because God so determined it with Abraham, when he called him so solemnly to renew his Covenant, and so to the Israeliets after. Of which for brevity, see what I have said in my book of Baptism, chap. 29. pag. 101, 102. which I need not here recite. Let every man see with his own eyes: but for my part, I resolve (till I see better reasons for the contrary) to admit no child to baptism, u…on the undertaking of any other susceptors, such as our Godfathers and Godmothers were, without a better Title then their susception: but if any will say, This child is mine, and at my disposal, though not mine by natural generation, I will not dare to refuse to Baptize it, if the person that presenteth it and devoteth it to God, be capable of so doing, as being himself a Believer. And I think that it is a considerable work of Charity to get the children of Infidels or such among us are nominal Christians and Infidels indeed, that they may have that benefit by you which they cannot have from their natural parents.

The 5th. Title that is commonly pleaded for the Right of the children of notoriously ungodly Parents to baptism, is, upon the account of the Churches faith, and the Magistrates Authority over them. For this, it is pleaded, 1. That the Magistrate or soveraign Ruler hath power to dispose of his Subjects, and therefore to make Covenants for them, and in their names, as much as a Parent hath: for the power of a Magistrate is greater than of a Parent, in that the Mag…strate may put children to death, and so may not a Parent.

Answ. 1. The Soveraign hath a Governing power above a Parent: but it is not on that the great contract or right is grounded. But the Parent hath a greater propriety in the child than the Governor; and so hath more Right to dispose of him in this case. The Soveraigns power is in order to the Good of the Common-wealth; the Parents is for the Good of the Child directly. 2. Bodin (and some others) think that p. 266the Roman Custom was good, that Parents should have power of Life and Death as to their Children: though few approve his Judgement or reasons. 3. I doubt not but a Soveraign may use his Authority to procure the baptizing of Children by the Parents dedication of them to God. But still it must be modiante parente vel proparente, by procuring their consent, who have the nearest Interest in the child, and greater than the Magistrate can have; though not greater ruling power. Obje. But there are some Rulers that are Domini as well as Rectores, and the people and all that they have are theirs; so that there is no proprietary in the Nation but themselves: and in such a case it seems that they may dispose of the consent of their subjects. An. 1. ye… Its lis sub judice, whether this be not meer unlawfull Tyranny, or Usurpation, and so the Title Null because against the Law of God in nature. 2. Or if any think that the example of Joseph, or of the Israelites buying children, will prove the contrary, yet 1. It can be but to their Civils, as Goods, Lands, &c. their Right wherein is adventitious and accidental; and not to the fruit of their bodies, where their right is so natural that none can take it by violence from them: I say therefore that here it cannot be without the Parents voluntary Alienation and Resignation of their Children to the Soveraign; which they cannot do but upon weighty considerations. 2. The Soveraign in this case hath the same right in Adult subjects, as in Infants, seeing they are all Vassals to him as their Lord. And yet it is manifest in Scripture, that God will have the personal consent of the Adult, before they shall have any interest in his Covenant: Because when their Soveraign Lord hath all the right that is possible, he leaveth them the power of their own wills: And so as they have still naturally a nearer right in themselves (than he hath) which they cannot alienate; so it seems they have in their children. 3. At least this is nothing to almost all the world, where the Rulers claim no such absolute Dominion and Propriety. 4. God in Scripture requireth Parents and not Rulers to circumcise their children, and to educate them: And Joshua would promise for no more but himself & his houshould to serve the Lord, and bids the people choose whom they would serve. Yet I will not deny but that a Ruler may use some p. 267sharp means to procure the consent of Parents, in some cases. And I also confess that this Argument, though least insisted on, hath (in my opinion) much more plausible appearance of strength, and better deserves a further consideration, than the great and common Argument of the Parents. Right by such a Profession as consisteth with Notorious Ungodliness, upon which most build almost all t…eir Cause. …astly, I conceive that as a Governors Right is in the Common-wealth and main body of the Nation, enabling him to Rule them in the fear of God, so I will not deny but that he may call together the chief part of them, or a Representative body, and urging and procuring their consent, he may devote them by a National Covenant to G…d and promise himself to rule them in his fear. And I would this duty and the Scripture Patterns for it were better laid to heart. But still this leaves the Parent that nearer Natural Interest in his Individual children, on which God hath pleased rather to ground his Promises and Threatenings to Infants.

The second Argument is drawn from Mat. 28.19, 20. Go and disciple me all Nations, baptizing them: From whence it is argued, that the Infants of notorious ungodly Parents being Members of a Discipled Nation, may therefore be baptized as such Members. Answ. 1. If the nearer Interest of their Parents be not supposed necessary, then this Argument makes as much for the Right of the child of any Jew or Heathen, as of a Christian, for they may be Members of that Nation which is Discipled. 2. But they must be Members of it quà tales, as discipled; and that they are not till they are themselves Disciples. The Apostles are first commanded to Disciple Nations, and then to Baptize them on supposition that they be discipled: therefore they must baptize none but those that are discipled. They must endeavour the discipling of each Individual; but if they prevail but with the greater and Ruling part, it may be called a Discipled Nation, and a Kingdom that is become the Kingdom of Christ: but yet as it is but for the sake of the chief part that the whole is so denominated, so it is only that part that is to be baptized; seeing a bare denomination of the whole, gives not right to any part that hath none of the ground of that denomination. p. 268Nor did the antient Churches so understand this Text: For when Constantine and Theodosius and other Christian Emperors had the Rule, they did not judge that all their Subjects should be baptized.

The 3d. Argument is drawn from the Interest of the Church: They say, Those that are born within the Church, though of unworthy Parents, the Church may take them and present them to baptism. Answ. How are those born within the Church, whose Parents are no Members of the Church? (Of which more anon.) If the Parent be utterly unworthy, and the child can have no Right upon his account, then certainly he is not to be reckoned in the Church. And if you mean, that all those that are born among the members of the Church, or where they have Civil Rule, may by them be presented to Baptism; then the argument must be the same with that before, or so vain as to need no confutation: Unless the Church will accept the Children as their Own, according to the sense of the fourth fore-mentioned Title; and then any one Member may better do it than the whole Church.

Having spoken to the five pretended Titles distinctly, and shewed you how far they are any of them allowable, and how far not; I shall proceed to the second Question in the begining propounded, viz. [Whether that the Eventual Disposal of God by a Physical Act of Providence, do give any Right to the children of notoriously ungodly Parents to be baptized?] And I need not say much to this: 1. Because I know of none that plead this Right. 2. Because it is but a non-injustum, and I think scarcely so much as a Justum much less a Debitum, that is here grounded. 3. But especially, because it is unquestionably evident, that if this give any kind of Right, it is but to a Possession ad libitum Donatoris, after the reception; and not at all to the first Reception. And therefore it cannot with the least shew of Reason be pleaded before-hand to enable any mans claim to Baptism, nor to enable a Minister to baptize any, nor yet ex post facto to justifie the Act of the Baptizer or of the Baptized.

Yet how far it may prohibite any man to dispossess them of the state or priviledges of the baptized, till God give them a clear warrant, is worthy consideration.

p. 2693. But it is the third Question concerning the third sort of Right that most of all concerneth us to discuss; seeing as far as I can perceive, it is this that our Brethren of the contrary judgement do intend to insist upon, as discerning some inconvenience in affirming, God to be any otherwise than conditionally engaged in Covenant with any Notorious ungodly men, yea or any that are unregenerate. To this therefore we must next speak.

The Question is [Whether it be Gods command, that Ministers should baptize Children of notoriously ungodly men?] Or [Whether it be their duty?] Or [Whether such Children be the Objects of our Just, and Justifiable Action of Baptizing?]

And I conclude the Question Negatively, supposing that we speak both of Parents natural and civil, and so that they come in upon no better account than the Title of such Parents, as is before explained. Here 1. I grant, that if the natural Parents be ungodly, we may baptize on the the Title of their civil Parents, or Pro-parents; I mean any that truly Own them as Theirs. 2. Much more if any one of the Parents be godly, though the other be ungodly. 3. Also, If there be a probable profession of Godliness, though indeed there be not Sincerity, it is our duty to baptize the children of such. Because 1. we have no natural capacity of judging but according to evidence, and we have no evidence for a certain judgement concerning the estate of another mans heart. 2. I have elsewhere made it appear (and more abundantly might easily do) that when God mentioneth any person qualified with such a Qualification which to us is uncertain to be the object of our Act, his meaning is that we should rationally and charitably judge of men according to evidence whether they are such or no, and so take them, and use them accordingly, the Apparere being here as the Esse to us. So when he bids us, if a Brother wrong us oft, and oft say It repenteth me, forgive him: it is all one with that other [If he repent, forgive him.] We know not certainly whether he repent or not; but we must take him probably to repent, that giveth us the evidence of a probable profession. So if we are to baptize those that repent and believe, or their children, how can we judge of them but by a p. 270probable profession. 4. It is therefore granted, that though such a degree of Ungodliness as is consistent with sincere Godliness, be Notorious, yet that's not the subject of our Question: for that doth not denominate a man (ungodly) seeing it is from the predominant part that he must be denominated. The Doubt remaineth therefo…e abou… Ungodliness in the proper sense Notorious, as is before explained. And I shall now defend the Negative as follow…th.

Arg. 1. We have no word of God commanding or Authorizing us to baptize the children of the notoriously ungodly (as theirs:) Therfore is it not our duty, or lawfull.

What command or warrant is pretended from Scripture, we shall examine anon.

Arg. 2. We may not bapt…ze them who are Notoriously without true Covenant Right to Baptism. But such are the children of notorious ungodly Parents. Ergo.

The Minor is proved before; the Major needs no proof, I think: We should give each his Right.

Arg. 3. If it be the very reason why we must Baptize the Ungodly and the…r Seed, who profess Godliness, because that by professing it they seem probably to be godly; then must we not baptize them who do not seem probably to be godly (or, if you had rather, to be true Believers:) But the Antecedent is true. Therefore so is the Consequent.

For the Antecedent, I have said enough for it to Mr. Blake. If it were not propter fidem significandam, that profession were required, but propter se as the condition of the Covenant: then 1. God would not have said (He that believeth and is baptized, &c. And, if thou believe with all thy heart thou mayst be baptized: and, Repent and be baptized, &c.) but rather (if thou wilt but say thou believest thou mayst be baptized, &c.) 2. And then all that profess should be justified: For all that be in the Mutual Covenant with God actually, are justified. 3. And then such profession would be of flat necessity to Salvation, as well as faith, which it is not, but on supposition of Opportunity, a Call, &c. I think I may take it for granted, that Profession is required sub ratione signi, as a sign of the thing professed: nor can any man, I think, give a better reason of its necessity, p. 271though another after this may be, because God will have the outward man to serve him, by thus signifying by its operations what are the Elicite Acts and dispositions of the Will.

The Consequence of the foresaid Major proposition is past doubt, I suppose. If any think otherwise, the next Argument may rectifie them.

Argu. 4. He that is not to be judged a credible professed Christian or the child of such is not the just object of our act of baptizing (Or, We ought to baptize none but those whom we should judge true professed Christians, and their children) But the notoriously Ungodly are not to be judged true professed Christians, nor their Children the Children of such: therefore not to be baptized.

As the word [Profession] signifieth a pretended discovering of the mind (with an intention to deceive) so I confess it may be called a profession Physically or Metaphysically true: But it is not this natural Truth that we here mean: nor yet do I stretch the word so high as to comprehend the full gradual correspondency of the Act to the Object: but I plainly mean a [Moral Truth] opposed to [a Lye] or Falshood:] And being speaking about moral-Legal things, the terms must be necessarily understood according to the Subject: So that it were proper in this Case, If I simply maintained that such are [Not Professors of Christianity] at all; because in a moral Law-sense they are not such. For no man is to give credit to a notorious lye; so to speak, is equal to silence, as to any obligation that it can lay upon another, either to believe him, or to use him as one that is believed. My meaning therefore is, that we are not to baptize that man or his child, upon a profession which is notoriously false; so that our selves and the Congregation do certainly know, or have sufficient Reasons to be confident, that the man doth lye.

For the proof of the Minor (which I know will be denied) thus I prove it: If either the Profession be evidently but Equivocally called a true Profession, or the Christianity professed be but equivocally called Christian…ty, then the notoriously ungodly are not to be judged true professed Christans. p. 272But the one of these is so with all notoriously ungodly persons. Ergo.

The Major is past doubt, seing there must be the true profession of true Christianity, that must justly denominate a man (at age) a true Professor of Christianity. If he notoriously want the first, he is morally no Professor: If he want the later, he professeth not …hristianity. To prove the Minor, we will begin with the later. We speak not now of any Accidentals that pertain not to the Being, but tend only to the well-Being of a Christian. Now I hope it is past controversie among us all, that it is essential to our Christianity, that it be in the Intellect and Will, whatever we say of the outward Man: and for the Intellect, that we believe in God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost: And it is essential to our believing in God, that we believe him to be our Creator, Chief Ruler, and chief End and Happiness. And to believe in the Son Essentially, containeth a believing that he is Jesus Christ our Lord, that is, that he is the Redeemer of the world, who shed his blood to save his people from their sins by pardon and sanctification, and who will raise them from the dead, and judge them to everlasting Blessedness: and who is their Lord and Ruler on this ground, and to this end; to believe in the Holy Ghost essentially, containeth a believing that his Testimony of Christ was true, and that he is the Sanctifier of those that shall be saved. It is as much essential to Christianity, to consent that God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost be such to us as we profess them to be, as aforesaid: which is included in believing in God, and in Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost: And therefore the sum of the Covenant is [I will be your God (upon Redempition by Christ) and you shall be my people] Now the Notoriously Vngodly do either profess to believe and consent to all this, or but to part: If to All, then they lye, of which more anon: If but to part; then 1. it is not the Christian Faith, no more then a heart, or a l…ver is a man; it is but part of it: 2. and our Divines wil… say, that he that doth not believe and consent to the whole Essence of Christianity, doth not truly believe or consent to any Essential (though for that I determine it not) But were their Faith never so firm in any one p. 273part, it is not Christianity, or the Christian Faith, without the whole. If it be the Christian Faith to believe in God the Father only, then those that deny Christ, are Christians. If it be the Christian Faith to believe only in Christ, though they deny the Father, or the Holy Ghost, then men worse then Infid…ls or most Heathens, are Christians. Indeed there is so necessary a connexion, that it is not possible truly to believe in God the Son, without believing in the Father and the Holy Ghost, and believing the Eternal Glory to which he hath Redeemed us and will lead us. If it be Christianity to believe all the Creed by meer Assent; then first, the Devils are Christians; for they believe and tremble. Secondly, and then it would be a Profession of Christianity to say, [I do believe Christ to be my Lord, by right of Redemption, but his Laws are so strict, and cross to my pleasures, that I am resolved he shall not rule me, and I will venture all rather than I will take him for my Ruler on such terms.] Or to say, [I believe the Holy Ghost is the Sanctifier of Gods Elect; but I will not consent that he shall Sanctifie me] Or to say, [I believe that Christ dyed to save his people from their sins, but he shall not save me from mine, because I cannot spare them.] Who dare say that any of these were a Profession of Christianity? We must believe with the heart, if we be Christians. Christianity is not a bare Opinion: It lyeth in the covenant of the soul with God, and it is the consent of the Will that is that covenanting. It is therefore sometime expressed by loving Christ above all. They that said, [This is the Heir] believed in a sort with the Assent of the brain: but when they add, [Come, let us kill him, that the Inheritance may be ours] I think they shewed that they professed not Christianity. He that saith, [I will not have this man to raign or rule over me.] disclaimeth Christianity. He that disclaimeth an Essential part, disclaimeth the whole. It is not the Being without these part.

All this laid together, shews us that Christianity, or the Christian Faith, truly and properly so called, which denominateth a man properly a Christian, is specifically distinct (as to a moral specification) from the faith of the highest unregenerate man: (When Mr. K. wrote a digression against me on a p. 275mistake that, I had denyed this, I did not think that others would so call me out to the defence of it.) And seeing that they differ by a moral specification, it is clear that they admit not of the same Definition; and that the term [Faith] or [Christianity] applyed to both these, cannot mean the same thing: but must here be an equivocal. Thus I have cleared it, that to profess the belief of one part of the Christian faith only, is not to profess the Christian faith, or to profess to be a Christian: and therefore such are not to be baptized, seeing we must baptize them into the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, if we will baptize them with Christian Baptism.

2. Next I shall shew that if any Notorious ungodly person do say he believes the whole, even in God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, such saying is not a true Profession, nor valid to its uses. To this end let us enquire what it is to Profess: Profiteor is publicè fateor. Fateor, inquit Perottus, est à fando, quasi vehementer loquor & affirmo; Fateri enim est sponte aliquid affirmare: Confiteri aliquo modo coactum; Profiteri, ad Gloriam aliquid prae se ferre. Martinius rather a foreign dicendus, fandus: foreign fatenda, so foreign est sermo. Now the natural use of speech is to signifie our mind to others. And the very essence of a Profession lyeth in the open declaring of the mind, in the very signifying use of the words or actions. For it containeth (as other signs do) 1. The thing signifying, or the matter of the sign, and that is either words, writings or other Actions capable of this use (of which there are divers.) 2. the thing signified; which is our Internal Assent and consent. 3. The party to whom we signifie it. 4. The actual signification, or Aptitudinal: that is, that it be a sign Aptitudinal in it self, and actual, when rightly observed by others: in which Aptitude lyeth the very formal nature of the sign. This being so, it is most evident that if it have not an Aptitude to signifie our mind, it is not a sign. You may say, if he dissemble, yet he may make profession, yet profession is no sign of his mind. I answer, it is no true sign of the thing professed, but the end which he pretendeth to use it for is, to be a sign: and as a sign we expect and receive it; and did we know the heart as God doth, we need not ask men whether they believe, but presently go to their hearts and see, and so baptize p. 274them or refuse them (or their Children.) It being then the very use that the Church makes of mens profession to signifie mens minds, it is clear 1. that where there is nothing that we can justly take as the signification of a mans mind, that he believeth as a Christian, there is no moral profession of it: and where a man signifieth his mind that he doth not so believe, there he professeth not to believe: And if he make two contrary professions, one that he doth believe, and the other that he doth not, if we know one to be certain and undissembled, and the other to be false, the later is Null, and the former to be received. All this being evident, it next followeth, that we shew, that no Notorious ungodly man doth make true profession of Christianity: For 1. If it be evident that he useth words not understood, as a Parrat, then is it not a profession: For Ignorantis non est consensus: and so nec Professio: else a Parrat may be a Professor. 2. He maketh openly the contrary Profession; For he doth by words or deeds, or both, profess that he will not be ruled by Christ, that he will not be sanctified or released from his sin: that he will not take God and Glory to come for his chief Good, but the things of this life, and will obey the flesh before God. It it be in plain known sins, which they can find no vain excuse for, some of them will say words of equal force to these: but though most will not do so; yet their Actions openly profess it.

But because this is the thing that will be denyed, I add further. 1. Actions are capable of signifying a mans mind as well as words: though not ordinarily so soon, or easily, yet some Actions do; yea, and much more certainly. 2. God plainly tels us of some, that profess that they know God, yet in works they deny him: so that works can speak as plain as words, and deny God, and unsay what a deceitful tongue hath said. 3. If these persons in question do not thus deny Christ by their works, or do not Profess, to be no Christians, then either it is because ungodliness is consistent with Christianity, or doth not comprehend or imply Infidelity, or else because the [Notoriousness] of this ungodliness is no Profession. The first cannot be said: For 1. As Godliness in a Christian sense comprehendeth Christianity, p. 276and even the true acknowledgement of the God-head it self; so ungodliness containeth the disowning of God and the refusing of all true Love of him, or seeking him as our End, and it comprizeth in it the refusal of Christ to bring us back to God, and of the Spirit to conform our souls and lives to his Will. As therefore God is the Ultimate End, and Christ as Mediator but the means or way; and as loving God is a more excellent duty than believing in Christ in it self considered, so ungodliness which is contrary to the Love of God, is a greater sin than unbelief in it self, as to Jesus Christ the Mediator: yea and ever containeth this unbelief as its second and lower part, though it be denominated from the opposition to God, as the greater part of the sin. 2. However no man will deny but that they are concomitant, and that every ungodly man is an unbeliever. 3. Yea as ungodliness is contrary to our subjection to the Lord Redeemer, it is a real part of Infidelity it self. I may well conclude therefore that to be Notoriously ungodly, is to be Notoriously no Christian, but an Unbeliever.

2. And that this Notoriousness is a certain profession, is evident. For 1. the mind is declared by it: Christ himself telleth us that out of the heart come Murthers, Adulteries, &c. and out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. If you say, men may do such and such things against their will, I answer, 1. Then they are not Notoriously ungodly; if they do not Notoriously shew their wilfulness. 2. The Will hath the command of the outward man. 2. And as it declareth the mind, so doth it certainly declare it. For first, else still it were not notorious ungodliness. 2. Words may be easier counterfeited than Deeds, especially the scope of a mans life. 3. And hence it is that the Lord Jesus himself when he comes to Judgement, will try more by Deeds than verbal Profession, and will reject such Professions when they are contradicted by evil actions, as Mat. 7. Not every one that saith unto one Lord, Lord, shall enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, but he that doth the will of my Father. Mat. 25. Christ will convince those by their not feeding, cloathing, &c. his members, that they were no true Believers, who still go about to justifie themselves. And they that shall say, Lord have not we eat, drunk, &c. Cast out Devils, & preacht in thy p. 277name; shall be answered with a Depart from me ye workers of iniquity, I know you not. Men shall all be judged according to their works. It is clear then that Notorious ungodliness is a Profession or signification of the very mind and will: yea and a profession most certain; for it cannot be dissembled. He that is notoriously ungodly is most certainly no true Christian: But the profession which this contradicteth, is not so certain; nay it is most certainly false. So that as God doth, so man must take mens works and lives for a Discovery of their mind, and judge them by it.

I have stood the larger on this, because that profession of Christianity is the common title that is pleaded for such persons; and therefore I have shewed that they are not to be reputed for credible Professors. If it be not a probable sign, it is not to be taken for a valid profession: But words contradicted by the Notorious tenor of the life, are no probable sign, but these works are a certain sign of the contrary. Ergo.

If any man yet do think that any words, though not probably signifying the mind, are a valid profession, and to be taken for a Title; then it will follow, that if a man should laugh in your face, and foretel you that he will come and make a profession in scorn of Christ, or if he tell you that though he speak such words, it is not from his heart, but through fear, or to get some honour with men; or if when he baptized his child in the name of Christ, he tell you that he intendeth not that he shall serve him; or if he say of himself he will baptized in tht name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, and renounce the world, flesh and Devil, but he intendeth not to stand to it, nor to do as he promiseth, &c. any of these must be taken for a Profession, and this man for a Christian: which no wise man I think will affirm. If an affirmation presently contradicted by words as express and certain, be not to be taken for a profession, then much less is an affirmation more certainly contradicted by the tenor of the life, yea and too oft by professed impenitency.

The sum is this, We must not baptize him into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost (or his children for his faith) who we are sure doth not believe in the Father, Son, and p. 278Holy Ghost: But such is every Notorious Ungodly man, Ergo.

Or we must not baptize him (or his child) as a Christian, that certainly dec…areth himself to be none. But so doth, &c Ergo. So much of the fourth Argument.

Arg. 5. We must not baptize those that certainly declare to us that they repent not (nor any for their sakes:) But all notorious ungodly men do certain…y declare that they repent not, (unless equivocally:) Ergo.

The Major is proved, in that Repentance is a necessary condition in him that hath right to Baptism before …od; and the Profession of it necessary to him that we mu… baptize. The Apostles r…quired it. The Minor needeth no proof I think.

Arg. 6. We must not bap…ize him (or any for his sak…) that will not renounce the world, flesh, and the D…vil; o… that declareth certainly that he will not renounce th…m at that time. But such are all notorious ungodly men. Therefore the Church hath ever required this in Baptism.

Arg. 7. We may not baptize those whom we notoriously know to be at present uncapable of receiving remission of sins: (for that is the use of the Ordinance according to Gods institution.) But such are all the notoriously ungodly. Therefore I need not here, I suppose, with those I deal with, answ…r the Antinomian's Objection from Rom. 4. of justifying the ungodly. I have said enough to that against Lud. Colvinus, and others.

Arg. 8. Men that be notoriously unfit for Marriage with Christ, to be solemnized, are unfit by us to be baptized, (or any for them:) But such are all the notoriously ungodly, Ergo, &c.

Arg. 9. We may not baptize those that we know do notoriously dissemble in making the Baptismal Covenant. But such are all notoriously ungodly, Ergo, &c.

Arg. 10. We may not give him the Seal of the righteousness of Faith, who notoriously declareth that he hath not that Righteousness. But such are all notoriously ungodly, Ergo, &c.

p. 276Arg. 11. From Matth. 28.19, 20. Before we baptize men, (or any for their sakes) we must see in probability that they are made Disciple. But so are not the notoriously ungodly. Ergo, &c.

Arg. 12. Those that we must Baptize (or any for their sakes) must seem to believe with all their hearts, Acts 8.37. And to receive the word gladly, Acts 2.38.39, 41. And to believe with a saving faith, Mark. 16.15, 16. Acts 16.31, …2, 33. But so do not any that are notoriously ungodly. Ergo.

These Texts and many such like are our Directory whom to Baptize.

Arg. 13. From 1 Cor. 7.14. Else were your children unclean] If one of the immediate Parents be not a Believer, their children are unclean, and consequently not to be baptized. But notorious ungodly ones are not Believers. Ergo.

As they must be Believers, that they may have Right, and be Holy: so must they seem Believers, that they may seem to have Right, and so be baptized by us warrantably. But such seem not to have Faith, who are notorio…sly Ungodly.

It is Objected that this Text determineth of one way of Covenant-Right to Infants, but doth not thereby deny all other. Answ. 1. It is peremptory in the Negative [Else were your children unclean] as well as in the Affirmative [but now are they Holy.] 2. It therefore excludeth expresly all other wayes of interest in the Covenant by Birth-Priviledge: Else how could that Negative be true? But I confess it doth not exclude all means else of an after acquisition or reception of Covenant-Right: For he that is born unclean, may become by purchase or contract the child of a Believer▪ or at age may believe himself; And then he ceaseth to be unclean. 3. At least it seems yielded by th…m, that if both Parents be unbelievers, the child can have no Right A… theirs or on the…r account.

Its Objected that this was true of the Corinthians, whose Ancestors …ere Infidels▪ and thems…lves the first Converts, their children were unclean, if one of them were not a believer▪ but it holdeth not of them that had pious Ancestors. Answ. 1. This p. 280yieldeth the point which is now in question, that is, that On their Parents account, such children have no right. 2. It contradicteth the Apostle's express Affirmation, who saith that [they are unclean:] which can extend to no less than the denyal of Holiness by B…rth-Priviledge. 3. Noah was the Progenitor remote of those Corinthians; and he was not unclean. Yet that makes not them Holy: Else no man shoul'd be unholy.

Arg. 14. Rom. 11. The Israelites and their children with them, are broken off because of Unbelief. Therefore Notorious Unbelievers, and their children, are to be judged as no Church-members, nor to be baptized. And that all Notorious Ungodly ones, are Notorious Unbelievers, I have proved, and may yet refute the ordinary Objections to the contrary.

Arg. 15. We may not lawfully baptize those children for their Parents sake, whose Parents are ipso jure Excommunicated from the society of Christians as such, or are justly to be pronounced No Members of the Universal Church Visible or Invisible. But all Notoriously Ungodly are in one of these ranks. Ergo.

To explain my meaning in this Argument, Observe 1. that I take not the common doctrine for true, that a particular Political or Organized Church, or incorporated Society of Christians, is a meer Homogeneal part of the universal Visible Church: All the Universal Church doth not consist of such Societies, no more than all this Common-wealth doth consist of Corporations. For a particular Church, is as a particular Body-Corporate; and all the Members of the Universal are not so: Though all ought to be so that can attain it, yet all cannot attain it, and all do not what they ought: Even in an Army a Souldier may be lifted by a General Officer into the Army in general, long before he is placed in any Regiment or Troop; yea there are some that are Messengers, and for other employments, that are not to be of any Regiment. So sometime a man is baptized, as the Eunuch, before he be entred into any particular Church, perhaps long: And some were of Churches which are dissolved, and stay long before they can joyn p. 281themselves to others▪ And some live as Merchants, in a moveable travelling, condition: And some are bound for the good of the Common-wealth to be Embassadors, or Agents, or Factors, &c. resident among Infidels, where is no Church: And some may be called to preach up and down among Infidels for their conversion, as the Apostles did, and fix themselves to no particular Church: And some may be too ignorant or neglective of their duty in incorporating with any: And some upon infirmity and scrupulosity hold off. So that its apparent that all the Visible Church is not thus Incorporated into particular Churches.