Right to Sacraments, Disputation 3 (3 of 3)

Right to Sacraments · Disputation 3 (3 of 3)

p. 3162. If it hold not, let the Objectors answer themselves, who say that a Dogmatical faith gives right to Baptism: We have abundance of people that have not so much as a Dogmatical Faith; that know not who Christ is, nor what he hath done; nor are they in most places (since the Directory was in use) called to profess their faith when they offer their children to Baptism; Are the children of these persons to be re-baptized? or themselves, if it were their case? or is the Administration of the Lords Supper to such a Nullity, or only unprofitable? I have had the aged here, that have said, Christ the Son of God was the Sun in the Firmament: yet they have had both Sacraments. Answer this for your selves.

3. But suppose the persons covenanting be essential to Baptism, let us so far advantage the Objectors as to deal with them on that ground.

Answ. 1. I distinguish between [the Nullity of the external part, commonly called, Baptism, containing the Ministerial Administration, and the persons Reception of the Water and Washing, with his profession, or external covenant to God;] And [the Nullity of Gods Engagement or Covenant to the sinner actually; and so of the sinners Reception of the Benefits of Baptism] Among which Benefits I distinguish, [the special and spiritual, as pardon, Adoption, &c.] from the more common and external, such as are [the external Priviledges of the Visible Church.] Whereupon I answer first to the Matter in these following Propositions: and then to the Argument, as in form.

Pr…po. 1. If any essential part of the exterior Ordinance be wanting, then it is Null: As if the party he not (more or less) washed. If he be not baptized into the Name of the Father, p. 317Son, and Holy Ghost, (at least implicitely, if not by full Verbal expression) If the party use but the bare name of God, while he professeth, or openly discovereth that it is not indeed God the Father, Son or Holy Ghost that he meaneth. If he openly put in any exception against any essential part of the Christian Faith or Covenant; as to say, I will only be pardoned by Christ, but not sanctified; then, I conceive, it is no Baptism. But if there be all the exterior Essentials, there the exterior Baptism is not Null nor to be repeated. 2. The foresaid exterior Baptism is effectual to the engaging or obliging of the person so baptized: And so his own part of the Covenant is not Null. A Dissembling promise bindeth the Promiser in Law: for his dissimulation cannot hinder his own Obligation, though it may anothers. Nemini debetur commodum ex proprio delicto; 3. But if there be not sincerity in the Covenanter, beyond all this, his Baptism is not available to the pardon of his sin, or to convey to him a R…ght from God in any of the Covenant benefits (directly as given to him) common or special. 4. Nor should the Minister or People believe this man, if by Notorious Ungodliness he give them reason to take his present Profession to be false, and himself now to dissemble. 5. But yet seeing a Natural Profession it is, though false; and the falshood is not declared by him at that time in the Ordinance, but disclaimed, but only is declared before he comes thither, therefore it seems to me, that there is the whole external Essence of Baptism, and therefore it is not Null, nor to be Repeated: But if that person do afterward come to the sense of his own Dissimulation, and of the want of Truth in his Profession and Covenanting, he is to do then that which he did omit before, that is, to Covenant Truly; but not that which he did perform before, that is, to be externally Baptized. Such a person therefore should in the face of the Congregation, when he comes to Repentance, bewail (with the rest of the sins of his life) that falseness in the Baptismal Covenant, and there unfeignedly renew it: To which end, among others, in the antient Churches, it was usual in Confirmation to renew the Covenant more solemnly, where any flaw was found in the Baptism, which yet did not prove a Nullity. 6. And for external Church Priviledges, I conceive, that as God doth not p. 328by Covenant give this person a right to them, so it is the Ministers and Peoples Duty to deny them to the Parent himself, while he continueth notoriously ungodly: and the Error of wrong baptizing him, (or continuing him in the Church till now) will not oblige them to continue communion with him. But yet being admitted by Baptism, he should be solemnly cast out. But if the Guides of the Church be faulty and will not cast him out, then must the people distingu…sh between communion with him as a Christian in general, and as a member of that particular Church; as also between communion Moral, and meerly Natural; and so, First, they must avoid …hristian communion with him in ordinary wayes wherein they are free; as all private or voluntary open familiarity: Secondly, But if he intrude (by the Pastors approbation) into Publike communion, in Prayer, Prayses, or Sacrament, they ought not to withdraw from the communion of the …hurch, because of his presence First, because they have the Liberty of esteeming him as they please; Secondly, because it is not their fault, but the Pastors. Thirdly, and therefore it is but a Physical and not a Moral communion that they have with him. Fourthly, because they are bound to hold communion with the Church in the use of Ordinances.

And as for the Infant on that account baptized, i… is so few acts of communion that an Infant is capable of, that the question seems to be of no great moment, how far we should have communion with them. But I conceive, we should take them as baptized persons externally, and so far members of the Church, though wrongfully admitted.

7. To which purpose, it is not altogether inconsiderable, that the Minister being by Office the Baptizer, and so the Judge of his own Actions, whom he ought to Baptize, and whom not; the action is not Null, though he mistake in his Judgement, and apply the Ordinance to one that he should have refused. For he doth but an act belonging to his Office, though he do it amiss, or on a wrong subject. As if a Judge do pass sentence mistakingly, yet may it be valid, as to some execution; For though he have no power given him directly to pass a wrong Judgement, yet in order to passing a right Judgement, he hath power to follow his own discretion, and to pass such a p. 319Judgement as shall (at least in tantum) stand, though it prove wrong. I confess the Ministerial Power somewhat differeth from a strict Decisive Judicial power; but yet there is so much resemblance as may serve to illustrate the matter in hand.

Object. Then if a Minister Baptize a Heathen, it is not Null, because he is Judge whom to baptize.

Answ. 1. On the grounds we now go on, it it a contradiction to baptize a Heathen, that by a present profession is such. For Baptizing essentially containeth the persons external Covenant, or Profession of Believing in, and Dedication to the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. If there be not by the person and Minister such a Dedication, it is not Baptism: for if the bare external Washing were Baptism, then we were every day baptized. Now he that is Baptized into the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, doth thereby renounce Heathenism so far: Though whether his Profession shall be credited, dependeth on the probability of its verity or falsity. But on the first mentioned Definition of Baptism, it will be granted you, that Baptizing a Heathen is not a Nullity, as to the outward Baptism, though it be unprofitable and sinful. But to go on former grounds, I further answer, 2. It is one thing for a Judge to mis-judge a Cause that belongeth to his Judgement; and another to mis-judge a cause that is wholly exempted from his Judgement, and belongeth not to him. In the former, his Judgement may stand, in divers cases, because he was made Judge. In the later it is wholly Null, for he is but a Private man, and hath nothing to do in the business: and therefore whether he judge right or wrong, it is Null; As if a Judge go to another Bench, or into another Circuit, which is out of his Commission: So here, where a man layeth claim to Baptism, and professeth himself a Christian the Minister is to judge whether he do it truly, or falsly; and therefore though he mistake, the Baptism is not Null; For though the man be notoriously ungodly yet it is supposed that the Notoriousness is not absolutely unquestionable, and that the person doth not profess it when he comes to Baptism, but deny it, by professing Faith and Repentance; and so though the Church have sufficient ground to discredit that profession, by reason of h…s contradicting Life, yet a Controversie p. 320it is, while the person claims a Right in Baptism for his child; and being a Controversie, the Pastor is judge. But if he baptize a Heathen that makes No Profession of Christianity, true or false, then he medleth in a matter exempted from his Power, and out of his Commission, and contrary to it, and that which can be no Controversie fit for his determination: and therefore it is Null, and indeed no Baptism.

Object. If the Pastor be thus Judge, how can you say as before, That the Notoriously Ungodly are ipso Jure Excommunicated?

Answ. 1. Ministers are limited in their judgement by the Law of God, which telleth how far they may or may not Judge, and how far it shall or shall not be effectual. The people are not absolutely tied to follow their judgement when they err. 2. God hath directed his Precepts for the avoiding of notorious ungodly ones to every Christian directly; and not only to the Pastors directly, and to the people only from them; so that if a Pastor command us to have communion and familiarity with such, we are yet to avoid them (as far as was before expressed) for all that, because Gods command is contrary to the Pastors. And the Law openly declareth that such are not true Christians (or Believers;) and therefore a Pastors sentence cannot make them such: His erring judgement may do more to bring a man into the Church than to keep him in; and in keeping him in as to possession, it may do more to the conveyance of those Priviledges which are to come meerly from his own hands and administration, than those wherein the people are to be instruments: Because he is more the Determiner of his own Actions, such as are baptizing, administring the Lords Supper, &c. than of theirs: For his own Erring Judgement may ligare, etsi non obligare, entangle him in a kind of necessity of sinning, till that Judgement be changed; but it cannot tye them, nor so necessitate them to sin, though it may bring them under some inconveniences; and for Order and the Peace of the Church, they must quietly, peaceably, and submissively dissent. By the Law of the Land, the Kings Judges in his Courts and Assizes; were the lawfull Judges of a Traitor that was brought before them; and yet in some notorious Cases I p. 321suppose he is condemned ipso Jure, and any man that can come at him might lawfully stab him without Judgement, yea is bound to do it: as if they had stood by and seen the Kings Person assaulted, as the Lord Major of London did by Wat Tyler: Or if it were not in defence, but in avenging of the Treason, if hainous; and in several Cases they might kill them in a forcible apprehension if they resist, as they did by the Powder-Traitors here neer us at Holbetch House. But what need I mention these things, when it is so commonly known that in several Cases the Law enableth us for to Execute without Judgement, and yet this is no denial of the Authority of a Judge. So much to the matter of this Argument.

And now in Sum to the Argument as in Form, 1. I deny the first Consequence, if it speak of the Nullity of the External Baptism, and not only of the Effect, and of Gods Engagement to them.

2. And consequently I deny the two later Consequences.

3. Yea if our Parents Infant-Baptism were null, it followeth not that so is their childrens, which they had on their account. For our Parents might get a Personal Right in Christ and the Covenant after their Baptism, before they presented us in Baptism, though themselves had not been Baptized. 4. And I believe it will be no easie matter to prove that our Parents (any, or many at least) were notoriously ungodly at our birth. 5. Lastly, if all this satisfie not, but any man will yet needs believe, that it is an unavoidable consequence of our Doctrine, that [The Baptism of the Infants of Notoriously Ungodly Parents is null] though I am not of h…s minde, yet I think it is a less dangerous opinion, and less improbable then theirs whom we now oppose. I know no such great ill effects it would have, if a man that mistakingly did suppose his Baptism Null, to satisfie his Conscience were baptized again, without denying the baptism of Infants, or any unpeaceable disturbing of the Church in the management thereof. I confess I never had any Damning or Excommunicating thoughts in my mind against Cyprian, Firmilian, and the rest of the African Bishops and Churches, who rebaptized those that were baptized by Hereticks, and in Council determined it necessary, and were so zealous for it. And, though p. 322while I captivated my judgement to a Party and to admired Persons, I embraced the new Exposition of Acts 19. which Beza thankfully professeth to have received from Marúixius, who as some say was the first Inventer of it; yet I must confess, that both before I knew what other men held, and since I better know who expound it otherwise, and on what grounds, I can no longer think that is the meaning of the Text, especially when I impartially peruse the words themselves. Calvin did not think that the 5th vers… was Paul's words of John's Hearers, but Luke's words of Paul's Hearers: and had no way to avoid the Exposition which admitted their rebaptizing, but by supposing that Paul did not Baptize them again with Water, but with the Holy Ghost only. (and that of that, the fifth verse is meant.) I never read that John Baptist did Baptize in the name of the Lord Jesus expresly and denominatively, but only as Paul here speaks, that they should believe on him that should come after, whom Paul here Expositorily denominateth the Lord Jesus. And the words [When they heard this] seem to me plainly to refer to Paul's saying, as the thing which they heard. Also the Connexion of the fifth verse to the sixth shews it: For else there is no reason given of Pauls proceeding to that Imposition of Hands, nor any satisfaction to the doubt at which he stuck, or which he propounded. And I confess, if I must be swayed by men, I had rather think well of the judgment of the Fathers, and Church of all Ages, who, for ought I find, do all (that have wrote of it) with one consent place a greater difference then we do between John's Baptism and Christs, and did expound this Text so as to assert that these 12 Disciples were baptized again by Paul, or on his Preaching. And for that great and unanswerable Argument wherewith Beza and others do seek to maintain the necessity of their sense, I confess it rather perswades me to the contrary: For whereas they imagine it intolerable for us to conclude or think that Christ was not Baptized with Christian Baptism, which himself did institute or command, I must needs say, I think it much more probable that he was not, seeing the Christ an Baptism is Essentially a Covenanting and Sealing of our Covenant with God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, as our Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier, and appointed to be p. 323Gods Seal of his washing away our sins by Christs blood; all which I know Christ was not capable of; And I suppose it more credible that Christ himself should be the Instituter of such an Evangelical Ordinance than John; and that he came to fulfill all Legal Righteousness, rather than that Evangelical Righteousness which consisteth in obeying himself, by doing those things which he hath appointed to redeemed sinners as such for their recovery. But of this let every man judge as he is illuminated. If I err, my danger and deserved reproach, I think, is no greater than the Ancient Fathers and the Church for so many hundred years that were of the same mind: Even they that were nearer to that Age when these matters of Fact were done.

But for our case, its apparent there's no need of Re-baptizing; for there is no Nullity.

I have done with the Argument, but yet there is one Question more that may not be passed over, though but on the by; and that is, Whether the Baptism of all those persons be not Null, and they to be Re-baptized, who were baptized by such as were Notoriously or Secretly unordained men, and no true Ministers? To which I only say in brief, No: 1. If they were not known to be no Ministers, it was no fault of ours: we waited in Gods appointed way for his Ordinances; and therefore though they were sins to them, they are valid blessings to us, that were not guilty. 2. If they were Notoriously no Ministers, though it might be our Parents sin that we were presented to such for Baptism, yet it is not Null: For in these Relations these Instruments are not Essential to the Relation, nor to the Ordinance at all; Though I would be loth, as the Fathers and Papists did, to allow a Lay person (yea a woman saith Tertullian) to baptize in case of Necessity: yet should I not be very hasty to Re-baptize such, supposinig that they had all the substance of the Ordinance, as being baptized into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

Argu. 10. Whoever ought in Duty to dedicate his Child to God, in the holy Covenant, ought also to Baptize him. But all notorious ungodly men ought so to dedicate their children to God Ergo, &c.

p. 324Answ. I grant the Conclusion: It is every mans duty on earth that hears the Gospel, to be baptized, and give up his children (if he have any) to Christ in Baptism: that is to believe and consent to the Covenant of Grace, and so to be baptized. But it followeth not that it is their Duty to be Externally Baptized without Faith and such Consent.

2. Note also that this Argument as well proves that all the Children of persecuting Heathens should be baptized, as ungodly pretended Christians: For it is their Duty too.

Object. But when they present their Children, they do their Duty, though but part of their Duty; and we ought not to refuse any part of a mans Duty.

Answ. 1. It is not a duty, but a sin to do the External later part without the former Internal part. It is a duty to intend to relieve the poor, and perhaps to express it by promise, but to promise without any intent to perform it, is to lye, and so to sin. The tongue must not go before and without the heart, because the action of both is a duty. It were better say nothing at all. 2. The Sacrament of Baptism is not appointed to be affixed to every kind of duty, but to our dedication to God, and Gods acceptance of us.

Object. If their Profession may engage them, then may we seal it by baptism; but it may engage them. Ergo. &c.

Answ. I deny the Consequence. A false dissembling may oblige the Promiser: but Baptism was not appointed to seal every notorious false promise. It is also Gods Seal as well as mans: Circumcision is his sign, and called his Covenant, Gen. 17. And Abraham received it as a seal, Rom. 4. And it signifieth Gods action of washing the soul by the blood of Christ. Therefore where we are sure God disclaimeth it, and withdraweth his Action, there may we not apply the Mutual Seal and Sign.

Object. We see in New England the sad effects of denying baptism to the children of the unregenerate, now they are all come to be obstinate Infidels.

Answ. Th…s is more than I have heard any good testimony of, p. 325and therefore am not bound to believe it, Secondly, They in N. England, as we hear do refuse to baptize all that are not children of the members of their own Churches; but so do not we: they baptize not the members of the Universal Church, unless they be in a particular Church; but we do otherwise. And its reported that they requ…red positive proof of Conversion, beyond a profession of faith and Repentance; but so do not we. Thirdly, Mens obstinacy in sin, and proceeding worse, will not warrant us to take an unlawful course in pretence to do them good. Fourthly, Do you give us any reason to believe that a notorious ungodly person in your Church is in any better a state than an Infidel? Nay, that they are not in a state much worse? It is they therefore that should chiefly move you to compassion. Can you so lament the estate of the less miserable, and not of the more miserable?

Object. But it is good that at least in words they confess Christ.

Answ. Either you speak of a Good of Duty, or a Good of Means: For the first, it is a Duty, and so good to confess Christ with heart and tongue; but if with the tongue alone, it is a sin, and no duty; Indeed the tongue conjunct with the heart doth part of the duty; but separated, it loseth the Goodness. And as a means, First, to their own salvation, it is not good, but rather condemneth them. Secondly, As to Gods honor, if he make it a means in providence thereto, thats no thanks to them.

And if you did not now speak of the Notoriously Ungodly, but should suppose men to be near to the Kingdom of God, it doth not follow that therefore they must be baptized, because they have some good in them, (for some good must go before the nearest aptitude) nor yet that this good is the effect of Baptism in the unlawfully baptized; or if it were occasioned by Baptism, it followeth not that therefore unmeet persons should in hope of it be baptized. Use Gods means to his appointed Ends, and do not frame a course of means of your own heads for Gods ends. For it is the means of his appointment and blessing that must succeed.

Though I have done with the Ques…ion it self, yet I suppose p. 329it is not the least matter; in reference to our practice, that is yet behind, though I shall dispatch it in brief.

What the better are we to know that we may not baptize the children of the Notoriously ungodly, till we know who these are; Let us therefore answer this Question, Whom must we take for Notoriously ungodly?

As in all that is gone before, I doubt not but I shall be thought too rigid; so in this which followeth I as little question, but I shall be censured as too loose in my Doctrine, and charitable beyond the warrant of reason. But Truth is Truth, which I will search after as well as I can.

And first on the Negative, I lay down these Propositions.

Proposition. 1. In General, We are not Certain of every mans ungodliness, whom we probably, strongly, and groundedly suspect to be ungodly. We may have more reason of fear than of hope concerning them, and yet not be able to conclude that they are certainly ungodly. Secondly, In General, It is not easie judging of the certainty of mens ungodliness at a distance, nor by some actual gross sins, till we have spoke to them, and admonished them, and discern what degree of obstinacy, and impentency, and wilfulness they are guilty of, or till we understand this certainly by those that have admonished them, and heard their Answers. Thirdly, It is hard judging of the certainty of a mans ungodliness by one, or two, or a few Actions, without knowing the course and scope of a mans life. Fourthly, I think it is few among a thousand of the common people that we can say are certainly ungodly, though we have reason to think that the most by far are so. More particularly Fifthly, A man must be guilty of more sin than Noah was, than Peter was in denying and forswearing Christ, that is notoriously ungodly: Yea than Lot was, who was drunk two nights together, and committed Incest with his own Daughters twice, & that after the miraculous destruction of Sodom, of his own Wife & his own miraculous deliverance.

The Opinion of most of our Divines, is, that a man that is Notoriously Ungodly (in the sense in hand) or unsanctified, must be a greater sinner than Solomon was, 1 King. 11. He loved p. 327many strange women of the Nations which God forbad the Israelites to joyn with (such as Ez…a caused them to put away after Marriage:) He kept three hundred Concubines, besi…es seven hundred Wives: When he was old his Wives turned away his heart after other gods, and his heart was not perfect with the Lord, as Davids was. He went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, and after Milcom the abomination of the Amonites; and he did evil in the sight of the Lord. He built an high place for Chemosh the abomination of Moab in the hill that is before Jerusalem, and for Molech the abomination of the children of Ammon. And likewise did he for all his strange Wives, which burnt Incense, and sacrificed to their gods. And the Lord was a…gry with him, because his heart was turned from the Lord God of Israel, which appeared to him twice, and had commanded him that he should not go after other gods, but he kept not that which the Lord commanded: he kept not the Covenant nor Statutes of the Lord.

Perhaps you will Object, If this be not Notorious ungodliness, what is? The sin was more hainous than Drunkenness, Fornication, yea or Murder it self; to be an Idolater, and to set it up to defile the Land: and it was a sin lived in who knows how long? besides his fleshly life, in having three hundred Concubines and seven hundred wives: If all this may stand with Godliness, then we cannot know any man to be ungodly, & then you will harden all the wicked in their presumption. Answ. 1. If I should but look on it as a thing uncertain whether Solomon had true grace at that time, or whether any intercision were made in his Justification and true Sanctification, I should incur the heavy censure of many Divines. If I question not the certainty of his grace and perseverance, then I am supposed to make every common scandalous sinner to be fit for the reputation of a Saint, and to contradict the Apostle, who saith, If ye live after the flesh ye shall die; and neither Whoremonger, nor Idolater shall inherit the Kingdom of God. What is to be done in this strait? I will tell you plainly what I think safest, and let men think what they please. 1. It is not improbable that Solomon committed much of this sin meerly under temptation to please his Wives. 2. And that more of it lay in tolerating their Idolatry, than in his own committing it. 3. And that he did in other things continue his worship of the p. 322true God. 4. And that he repented and wrote the Book Ecclesiastes on his Repentance, though the Historie make no mention of it. 5. Yet because the Holy Ghost doth so expresly charge him with having his own heart turned after other gods, and going after them, and building high places to them, and his heart. turning from the Lord] and because the very setting up of so many Idols for others (his 700 Wives) is it self so hainous, I think it is undeniable that he was an Idolater, and lived in that sin, besides his living with 300 Concubines, and taking so fully the pleasure of his flesh, as in Ecclesiastes he doth confess. We are certain that all these are hainous sins, and hazardous to a mans salvation.

7. If the Devil tempt any wicked man upon the consideration of this Example, to presume that he is in a state of Grace, and to think with himself [why may not I live in whoredom, or drunkenness, or worldliness, and yet be in a justified estate, as well as Solomon, who did worse,] he may do well to bethink himself that 1. It is certain that he that liveth after the flesh shall die, and that such gross sinners shall not enter into the Kingdom of God. But we are not certain whether Solomon were justified and in a state of salvation at that time: it is a Controversie among wise godly learned men; and many of the Antient Fathers thought that he was not. 3. And therefore any prudent man will take heed of venturing his salvation upon such uncertainty; and will look more at the certainty which is on the other side, of perishing if he live in such sins. 4. And he may do well to consider, that though Godliness be the same in all Ages in the main, and equally necessary, yet some sins may be more damning at some time than other. In those daies of Solomon God had for some just reasons permitted or connived at the multiplicity of Wives, and little is said against Concubines: he had in his promises to his people made the most full and express mention of temporal blessings, as Children, long Life, prosperity, &c. and in his threatnings most expresly mentioned temporal evils: Spiritual and Eternal things were mentioned more obscurely and sparingly. This Honor was reserved to Christ and the Gospel, to bring Life and Immortalty (more) to light, and to promise Spiritual and Eternal p. 329blessings, and threaten Spiritual and Eternal misery, more expresly and fully: And consequently some sins of the flesh might not then be so certain marks of ungodliness as now: and as it is a greater measure of spiritual refining and purity that is promised and justly expected under the Gospel, so a greater measure must be looked after, by every man in himself, and by the Guides of the Church in its members; and we must go directly to Jesus Christ for our Direction in such Cases. So much to prevent the hurt of the wicked by this Example.

Yet I thought it necessary to make mention of it, 1. because it is objected by the opposers of Discipline, whose Objections must be answered. 2. and because there is something in it (at least ad hominem) that the over-censorious have reason to consider of, as to the point in hand. How far we must take notice of such Examples in Discipline, we shall further shew anon. The rest of our propositions for the Negative shall be introduced by way of Answer to some Questions.

Quest. 7. May we not take a man for Notoriously Ungodly, that hath been oft drunk, or oft committed fornication? Answ. The Practice is ungodly, and his Case sad; but we cannot certainly say he is graceless on that account alone, unless he live in it impenitently. Lot was twice drunk and incestuous: And it is not possible for us to say just how oft a man may commit such a sin, and yet have true grace.

Quest. 8. May we not be certain that he is graceless or ungodly, that is a frequent Swearer?

Answ. It is a very dangerous case; but simply considered, no certain evidence of the point in question. For 1. We know many that we see great signs of Grace in, and that are well reputed of as eminent for Godliness, that do frequently commit as great sins as some kind of rash swearing seems to be: For example, it is too rare to meet with a person so conscionable that will not frequently backbite, and with some malice or envie speak evil of those that differ from them in Judgement, or that they take to be against them, or that they are fallen out with: They will ordinarily censure them unjustly, and secretly endeavour to disgrace them, and take away their good name, and love p. 330those that joyn with them in it: So how many Professors will rashly rail and lye in their passions? How few will take well a Reproof, but rather defend their sin? How many in these times that we doubt not to be godly, have been guilty of disobedience to their Guides, and of Schism, and doing much to the hurt of the Church: A very great sin. 2. Peter, Lot, and its like David, did oft commit greater sins.

Quest. 9. But what if they live many years in Sweating, or the like sin, is not that a certain sign of Ungodliness?

Answ. It is very sinfull and dangerous. But. 1. we know not what information or Conviction they have had of it, which much varies the Case. In some countries, where some oaths are grown customarie, and of no great ill repute, it is possible for a godly man to be long guilty of them, as it is known that many well reputed of for Godliness, are in Scotland.

Reputation doth much with many even that are Godly, to make sin seem great or small: with us now a Swearer is reputed so great a sinner, that he is reckoned with Adulterers, and Drunkards; but Censoriousness, Backbiting, Church-division, disobeying those that rule over us in the Lord, spiritual Pride, &c. that are greater then some swearing, do not so brand a man, nor make him odious with us. But God judgeth not of sin thus by the custom of Countries, but according to the nature of the thing. In England a Sabbath-breaker is taken for a sin inconsistent with Grace: In the Low-Countries, Helvetia, France and most other of the Reformed Churches, much of it taken for no sin at all, but we are censured for superstitious herein. Every one is not ungodly there that lives and dies in that sin, without particular Repentance. Men that have not heard much of the evil of some petty oaths, may not understand the evil of them; and custom may do much. And it is not inconsiderable, as to the extenuation of some mens sin, that its not a little doubtfull whether it be indeed swearing, if a man do use those words which are the ordinary matter of an oath, and doth not know it to be an oath, nor intend the form of an oath in it: As if one use the terms of an oath in Latine or another Language which he understandeth not, he is not formally a Swearer: And if men do know it, and yet do not at that time intend p. 331any such thing as a calling any creature to witness, or appealing to them as sufficient to avenge a lye, but only use a customarie term inobservantly, it is a sin; but whether formally swearing, may be questioned. But if it be the Name of God that they abuse in swearing, or if they indeed put any creature in his stead, appealing to it as the Avenger of a lye or perjurie, that is a hainous sin, and cannot easily be done in ignorance. 2. It is judged by Divines that David lay a twelve monethmonth in his sin of Adulterie and Murder unrepented of: Certain it is that he was long contriving and executing that horrid murder of Vriah, that his own shame might be covered, and he might enjoy his wife▪ How long Asah or Solomon, sinned we know not: Nor can any man possibly determine just how long a man may live in the practice of such a sin, and yet have true special Grace, and a state of Justification.

Qu. 10. But what if they are Neglecters of Gods Worship, as Prayer in their families, or the keeping of the Sabbath, or publike hearing the Word, or godly discourse; is it possible that in such there should be saving Grace? They that love God will seek him in his Worship.

Answ. It is not enough for the certain knowledge of a mans ungodliness, or gracelesness, to know that he neglecteth this duty of outward worship, unless it be known with what mind, and on what reasons he neglecteth it. For example, Many a man neglecteth Prayer in his Family, as supposing himself unable to perform it; and that this alone is not a certain sign of gracelesness, appeareth thus. 1. God hath not said that all that neglect it are graceless, or shall perish: As for the Text of Jer. [Pour out thy wrath on the Heathens tha… know thee not, and the Families that call not on thy name] Its past question that by Families is meant Tribes or Nations, and calling on Gods name, is put for [Owning and Worshipping the true God] without any mention of the special sort of prayer in a Familie (though I believe the dueness of that may be hence gathered.) 2. Many that we have reason to hope are godly, have of late years given over Familie prayer, as supposing (though very blindly) that it is not a duty required by God. 3. Many godly people do as much neglect Teaching their Families as some of these in question p. 332do Praying in their Families, and yet it is more expresly commanded, Deut. 6 & 11, &c. And for the Observation of the Sabbath, I answered before, that most of the Godly in the Reformed Churches (as far as I can learn by their Writings, or by Report) are against it in strictness: And therfore I suppose that sin is consistent with godliness And for [Godly Discourse] I would no godly people were not so neglective of it, that their company becomes too unprofitable thereby. Some are much disabled to good discourse by natural impediments, as Bashfulness, &c. want of words through ill Education, and disuse may hinder much. It is only those that privately live and converse with people, that will be able to judge of them certainly on this account, and not all such neither.

And Lastly, For hearing the Word, it will not alone make a certain discovery: For 1. we know not what may keep a man away till we speak with him. 2. Its possible for a godly man to be of the opinion of the Separatists, that think it unlawful to hear our Ministers, or in our Assemblies, and having, no other to joyn with, may hear none at all; as I have known it the case of some in the Bishops times. So that the Certainty of Ungodliness is not discernable by this alone.

Quest. 11. But there are some that will scorn and deride or revile the Godly, yea and persecute them, where they have power: Is not that a certain Note of one Graceless?

Answ. It is one thing to scorn or persecute a Godly man, and another to scorn at Godliness: Or, it is one thing to persecute and scorn a man as he is Godly, directly on that account, and another thing to scorn and persecute him for something else; as upon some personal falling out, or for some sin, or false opinion, or the like cause. The later can be no certain discovery of an Ungodly man.

Quest. 12. But what if they deride and persecute Godliness it self, or a man because he is Godly?

Answ. It is certainly a heinous sin: But we must distinguish between the deriding of a man for the Essentials of Christianity, or for Godliness, as such; and deriding him for some doctrine or practice of Godliness, which is not essential: also between a known Truth and Duty, and an unknown. It is too possible p. 333for a Godly man to persecute and deride the Godly for some Truths which he took to be Errors, or some Duties which he mistook to be Sins, or to be no Duties; or for the manner of some Duties which he took to be wrong. Alas I how common is it for the Separatists and Anabaptists (many of them) to deride our Ministry, Assembles and Duties: and many among us to deride theirs? And they are the bitterest taunts and persecutions that come from blinde zeal. These times have by sad experience convinc't us, that men seeming otherwise Godly may both scorn (in press and pulpit) persecute and kill each other. As one Godly man may persecute another for some Truths and Duties, which he knows not to be such; so in particular, it is possible that such may imagine that private Meetings tend to schism or proud singularity, and so may deride them: Or he may by strangeness to them entertain some false report of the stricter Professors of Religion, as if they were proud, humorous, schismaticks, disobedient, and differed only in these things, and not in true piety from others. And I believe I have known some in former times that were such; who had such thoughts as these of all the Godly that were not conformable, and of others that used any private Meetings, living where they had little acquaintance with any of them, save two or three that by scandals increased their prejudice, and hearing no better language of them, these persons would reproach them as bitterly as most that ever I heard, and yet themselves lived not only uprightly to men, but so piously, that they seemed to hate all profaness, and spent more time in secret prayer and reading, then most I have known. It is not therefore all scorn or persecution of Godly persons, Doctrines, or Duties that will prove a man to be Notoriously Graceless or Ungodly.

But again, left any Ungodly person take occasion of presumption from all this, let me add this much more: 1. Though another cannot know such to be certainly ungodly, yet they may know it by themselves; who know their own ends and reasons better then we can do. And (alas!) the souls of such are never the safer, because we are bound to judge charitably of them. This is but to prevent our wronging them, but it will not prevent their damnation. 2. Though we know them not p. 334to be certainly ungodly, yet God doth: and it is he that must judge them. And therefore he will put many a thousand out of heaven, whom we may not put out of the Church. When the Tares and Wheat are so mixed, that we cannot pluck up the Tares without plucking up the Wheat (that is, in doubtfull inevident cases) there we must let both grow till the time of harvest (both in forbearing persecution by the sword, and Excommunication:) but then God will sever the wicked from the just, and gather out of his Kingdom all things that offend, and them that work iniquity, and cast them out into the lake of fire. 3. And our selves may see cause enough to bewail the misery of many as too probable, whom yet we cannot certainly conclude to be miserable: yea, we have cause to call them out of our communion: of which more anon. I must therefore intreat two sorts of Readers that they do not mis-interpret these foregoing passages. First, The Vngodly are desired to beware that they pervert not this to their own delusion nor to the opening of their mouths against the teachings and censures of the Church. I cannot but fore-see that such will be prone to draw venom out of necessary truths; and to say, I may be godly and be saved, though I pray not in my family, though I swear, or be drunk, &c. But such must know, 1. That [they cannot be saved, if in the bent of their lives they live after the flesh, and if God be not dearer to them than all the world, and if their hearts be not more on heaven than on earth, and if the main aim and business of their lives be not for God and the life to come; nor can they be Godly or saved unless they truly hate their sin, and long to be rid of it, and are willing to be at the cost and labour of using Gods means by which they may be rid of it; unless in the bent of their lives they overcome gross sin, and live not in it, and groan under their infirmities desiring to be rid of them feeling the need of a Saviour, and flying to his blood for pardon, and to his word and spirit for cure.] All this must be in every one at age, that will be saved. Now though we may be uncertain of a mans ungodliness by one or more such fals as Peters or Davids were, when the bent of his life appeareth to be holy; yet if the bent of your lives be carnal, and you have not all this that I have now mentioned, p. 335then you may be sure that you are Graceless, though you never commit any scandalous sin; much more when you live in them. 2. And remember that you may know your own hearts and secret lives, when we cannot. Its no comfort to you therefore that a Minister is not certain of your Gracelesness, if you be indeed Graceless: what if we must hope the best, who know not the worst? alas this will be no relief to your souls.

Nor should you be offended, if Ministers in preaching and personal reproof, do speak terror to you for all this: For 1. they preach to you as described in a graceless state and not named. 2. They must tell you what every sin deserves, and whither it leads, and tell you of the sad probabilites of your damnable state, though they have not a certainty.

2. I foresee also that some Godly people will think that these passages, though true, may accidentally harden the wicked in their sin, and therefore that this will do more harm than good. To whom I say, 1. That the wicked will draw evil from the most certain truths, and all must not be concealed which they will abuse. 2. Yet I must confess, that my own heart made this Objection; which caused me to think this Paper my self unfit to be published; and so I did this two years lay it by: And had I not understood that from the Coppy which I sent one friend, so many are communicated, and at such a distance into the hands of strangers, and that somewhat defective, and had I not been acquainted that they will print it, if I will not, it might have yielded still to this Objection for ought I know: for had I been left to my own choice, I should have laid it in the dark.

Now for the Affirmative, I will shew you, whom we may take for Notoriously ungodly: and then I will shew you whom we must judge probably to be godly, and whether we must not exclude some persons, and refuse their Infants, who yet are not Notoriously ungodly.

1. A man that (not inconsiderately, or in a Temptation but) deliberately and obstinately denieth any fundamental Article of the Christian faith, is notoriously ungodly: for he cannot have a godly heart, that excludeth the necessary principles of p. 339Godliness from his head. I mean those Truths without which there is no salvation; for surely without them there can be no Grace. He that denieth thus the God head, or the Goodness, Wisdom, or Power of God; or the Incarnation, Holiness, Death, Ransom of man thereby, Resurrection, Rule, or Judgement of Jesus Christ, or the everlasting life that he giveth to Believers, or the necessity of our holiness and Obedience to him: He that denieth the Holy Ghost, the Truth of his Miracles by which he sealed Christs Doctrine, or the necessity of his Sanctification: this man is Notoriously ungodly, if he Notoriously deny these: for he professeth ungodliness it self; So doth he that denieth Christ hath any Church on earth, and that denieth to have communion with his Church.

2. That man is notoriously ungodly, that is notoriously utterly ignorant of God and his son Jesus Christ, of the Goodness, Wisdom or Power of God; of the Incarnation, Death and Resurection of Christ, and his Redemption of us hereby: of the necessity of Faith and Holiness, and of the evil of sin, and of the everlasting blessedness that is promised to the Saints. I will now only say, (excluding not the rest) that the Ignorance of any one of these is inconsistent with true Godliness. But I must tell you anon, that there is need of much wariness in judgeing of such Ignorance.

3. All those are Notoriously ungodly, that do Notoriously, upon Deliberation, and with Obstinacy, profess that they will not take God for their God and Governour; or that they will not take Christ for their Redeemer and Lord, nor be Ruled by him, nor Trust in him for pardon and salvation; or that they will not believe his word, nor will be sanctified by his Spirit.

4. All those are Notoriously ungodly, that deliberately, and ordinarily, when they are themselves, do Notoriously profess that they set more by the Pleasures, Profits, or Honors of this world, than by the promised Blessedness in the life to come: and that they will not part with these for the hopes of that Blessedness.

5. All those are such also, who, though in the general they will say, that they will be Ruled by God, saved by Christ, Sanctified by the Holy Ghost, and guided by Gods Laws, yet when p. 337it come's to particulars, do deliberately in their ordinary frame profess that they will not part with their known sins, at the command of God, but resolve to displease him rather than obey.

6. Such also are all those, that though in general they profess to prefer Heaven before Earth, yet when it comes to practice and trial, do Notoriously, and deliberately in their Habituated frame profess, that they will not let go particular known sins for the hopes of Heaven.

7. Such also are all they, who living in gross sin, and being convinced of it, will not promise a sincere endeavour to reform: nor will remove from or put away the removeable occasions which draw them to sin: nor will be perswaded to use those known means which God hath commanded for the curing of their sin; as to hear the Word, to change their Company, to confess their sin, and take shame to themselves, and profess Repentance. They that Notoriously thus refuse Reformation, when by Ministers or discreet Christians they are urged to it, or that refuse Gods means which they are convinced he requireth of them, and this obstinately, are notoriously ungodly, though they do not profess it in words: For though it be exceeding hard to determine how great, many, or long, the sins of a true Believer may be, yet we are certain that he cannot manifest such a Love to them, or Habituated unwillingness to be cured of them. For that will not stand with true Repentance.

8. All those are Notoriously ungodly, that profess or express notoriously a Hatred of those that would draw them from their sins, (not for their harsh or indiscreet management of a reproof, nor upon a meer mistaken conceit that the Reprover oweth him ill will, but) on that very account, because they would draw them from known sin. For this is Notorious impenitency, and shews a Love of sin, and the Reign of it in the Will.

9. All those are Notoriously ungodly, who do by Scorns, Threatnings, Persecutions, or otherwise Notoriously express a Deliberate, Habituated Hatred prevailing in their hearts, against God, Christ, the Spirit, the Scripture, or Godly men because p. 338they are godly, that is, because they do Believe, love God, and live a Holy life, and obey God in those things which they are convinced that he commandeth. For this shews that Ungodliness prevaileth in the heart.

10. All those are Notoriously ungodly, that being convinced that its a Duty to pray, to hear the Word, to mind the Life to come, and prefer it before this, and to live a holy Life, do yet so far dislike all this, or any of this, that they profess themselves resolved never to practice it, and that they will venture their souls, come on't what will, rather than they will make so much ado, or live such a life; yea, though they will not profess this, yet if they will not on the contrary be perswaded to profess that they resolve to live such a life, and will not be drawn actually to the practice of it in their endeavours; thereby manifesting that it is not so much for want of Ability, as from a predominant unwillingness to be Holy in Heart and Life: I say, if this be Notorious, then is it Notorious that these people are ungodly: and accordingly to be judged and used by the Church.

Though I understand that many think that it is too rigid to go so far as I have already done in maintaining the Negative of the former Question; yet I think it necessary to go further, and to determine, that [It is our Duty to refuse to baptize the Children of more th…n the Notoriously Vngodly.]

If you would know who else it is that we must exclude or refuse, remember that before I told you of Excommunication from 1. A particular Church; for some reason proper thereto or to some more, but not common to all. 2. From all Incorporated Congregations, as such. 3. From the society of Christians, as such: and that this last is either for a time because of the scandalousness of the sin, and the credit of the Gospel with those without, though we may yet see signs of Repentance in the sinner. 2. Or for the Infectiousness of the sin as a Leprosie: As if a man take himself bound to perswade all men to some greater and dangerous Error, which yet may stand with Grace and Salvation, but makes it very difficult and much hindereth it; and if no means can convince this man of his Error, nor take him off; this is a kind of a Heretick, who must p. 363be excluded from all Christian Communion▪ but is not certainly and notoriously graceless. 3. There is also exclusion from the society of all Christians, upon an evident Proof that the man is no true Christian; that is, that he is Notoriously an Unbeliever or Ungodly person: This I have spoke to all this while. 4. But then there is also an exclusion upon a violent Presumption, or very strong Probability, though short of a Certainty that such a man is graceless or ungodly.

Hereupon I lay down what I take to be the Truth, in the Propositions following.

Proposition 1. I may not deny the right of the Infant to Baptism meerly because the Parents are excluded from one or more particular Churches: because Baptism doth necessarily and directly enter them among the number of Christians, but not into any one particular Church. And therefore I will not forbid or disswade the baptizing of such.

Pr…position 2. Yet do I take it to be no duty of mine to baptize any such more than any other Ministers, further than I have a special Call or Reason: For Example: Here live some hundreds in this Parish, that upon publike Proposal, Whether they take me for their Pastor, and themselves for members of this Church? do disown it, or not own it, when they are told that their owning or declaring it shall be taken as the sign to know it; I take my self no more bound to baptize their children than any strangers else: For I cannot be their Pastor whether they will or not; nor can I take them for any special charge of mine, that will not take themselves to be so, nor take me for their Pastor. Therefore they can no more blame me than any stranger, if I refuse to baptize their children: Though yet I deny not their right to Baptism.

I am not bound to baptize all the children in the Countrey; and therefore not theirs.

Proposition 3. It ordinarily falls out that a Minister hath more work to do in his own special charge than five men are able to do: So that he cannot bestow so much time as to Baptize the children of others and to take an account of them concerning their Faith or Profession (such as is more necessary from strangers, and refusers of Discipline, than others) without neglecting p. 340some duty to his own Charge the while: While I am speaking to them, there are twenty poor souls of my own Charge that call for my help. And I am more strictly tied to those of my special charge than to others.

Proposition 4. Yet in case that, for the avoiding of offence, or for an advantage to win them to a better temper, or the like reason, I see any special cause for it, I doubt not but I must rather omit a lesser duty to my own Charge, than a greater to others.

Proposition 5. If a man reject Church-communion, or withdraw himself from one Church upon a reason common to all Churches as Incorporated, (as for Example, because he will not be under any Discipline) he gives us reason to question his very Christianity: And therefore we must call him to account on what grounds he doth this: And if the grounds are found such as are consistent with Christianity, we may not deny the right of his Infants to Baptism: though our selves may have no Call to baptize them.

Proposition 6. If the Parents do either produce no Title to the baptizing of their child, that is, do not seem Christians or Godly; Or if they give us grounds of a violent presumption that their profession is false and counterfeit, in either of these cases, as we are to exclude them from Christian communion, so are we to refuse the baptizing of their children, that is, to suspend both, till such a Title be shewed, or till the grounds of that strong presumption be removed: Although we may not declare such persons to be no members of the universal Church, nor absolutely deny their children to have any Right in the Covenant, or fundamentally and remotely to Baptism; as not being certain, that their Parents are in a Graceless ungodly state.

This last Proposition is it that I am now to give my Reasons of. For indeed it is a matter of such exceeding difficulty, to conclude another man to be certainly graceless, that it is not one of multitudes, nay, it is but few of the commonly scandalous gross sinners that we should be able to prove it by (which I desire the Cesorious well to consider of.) But yet a strong presumption we may have of more that they are graceless, and p. 341thereupon may suspend them and their Children, as is said before.

Arg. 1. If the Parent have given just cause for us to question his own Christianity, and Right to Christian communion thereupon, then hath he given us sufficient cause to question his childs right to Baptism: (and so to suspend the baptizing it:) But the Antecedent is confessed: For our dissenting Brethren in this case will suspend, yea excommunicate the Parent. Ergo.

The reason of the Consequence is clear, in that the Right of the Infant to Baptism is meerly on the Parents account, and on supposition of his Right to Membership of the Universal Church. If therefore his Right be justly questioned, and …e suspended, then the Infants Right must be questioned, and it suspended on the same ground. For Baptism Sealeth a right of Union, and putteth into actual communion of the Body Catholick.

Argum. 2. We ought not to dispense Gods Seals and Church-Priviledges to any without a produced Title: (Else we must give them to all, that we can.) But for the baptism of such mens children, as are aforementioned, there can be, or is, no Title produced; Ergo.

The Major, is further clear, in that Non esse & non Apparere, are to us all one: For it must be discernable to us by some evidence. or else it is naturally impossible for us to know it.

For the Minor, its clear that if the Parents Title to membership be questionable the Infants is so too: because the ground is the same, and it is from the Parent that the Infant must derive it: and no man can give that which he hath not.

Argum 3. In civil Administrations, and according to the Rules of right Reason, a very high probability, commonly called Violenta Praesumptio, sufficeth to sentence and execution: especially when it is but in the withdrawing or suspending of a Priviledge. Therefore it must be so here. Because 1. here is no reason to put a difference. 2. Because our distance from other mens hearts, doth in most cases make us uncapable of more. Impenitency and …nfidelity lie within: and we cannot know them but by their signs and fruits. And 3. It is their fault in p. 342giving occasion of such presumption, and in being so like the ungodly, if we deny them the Priviledges of the Godly; and not our fault. The Antecedent is clearly known. If a man be known to bear another malice, and be found standing by him with a bloody sword, the person being murdered, the Judge will justly condemn him for the murder; though yet it be not absolutely certain that he did it. If a man be found nudus in lecto cum nuda, he shall be judged a Fornicator or Adulterer, though it be uncertain. So in other cases.

Argum. 4. If such violent presumption must not stand for sufficient proof for such suspension of parent and child, then all Discipline (and all civil justice, if it be not so there) will be eluded. For then, (as no vice almost, or but few, will be punished among men, nor few men have right) so, almost no ungodly or scandalous sinners, or few that ought, will be excluded or suspended: And the fruit of Discipline, its like, will be judged scarce worth the trouble, so few causes will be brought, as will bring it to be strange.

But Discipline must not be so eluded. Ergo.

Argum. 5. Christ telleth us, that by their Fruits we should know them: therefore by fruits of Godliness or ungodliness we must judge of men as Godly or Ungodly, as to these acts of administration and communion. We must judge that to be a Vine which hath Grapes, and that to be no Thistle that hath Figgs. We judge not usually of the certainty of mens Impenitency, or Infidelity, but of the strong probability. Its possible a mans own words may be false.

Argum. 6. We must admit of a weak presumption, or probability for admitting men to Priviledges: therefore we may admit of strong presumption for denying them. If we must take a probability in one, then in the other: only allowing the difference, as aforesaid, that we must have a stronger presumption for denying, than for granting is necessary. For we must be content with less evidence for a man, than against a man.

Quest. 1. But what is that we may take for a sufficient reason of a mans claim? And. 2 Quest ▪ What must we take for a violent presumption, of the unsoundness of his claim?

To the first I say in brief; 1. If a Heathen that yesterday was p. 343guilty of the grossest sin, do come to me this day, and with seeming sorrow confess his fault, and with seeming seriousness profess to believe in God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost; that is, to believe all the essential Articles of Christian Religion, and profess his consent to take God for his only God, and portion; Christ for his only Redeemer, and the Holy Ghost for his Sanctifier, renouncing the World, Flesh, and Devil; I shall take this Verbal profession for a sufficient Reason of his claim, unless any just Bar of exception be put in against him to invalidate it.

2. The same Title I shall take for valid for the Baptism of his Infants.

3. If a man have made the same profession, and after long continuance in the Church doth offer his Child to Christ in Baptism, and offer to renew that profession, and enter his child into the same Covenant, I shall suppose his claim just, till some sufficient reason be brought to prove it unjust.

1. I find that the Apostles took such a profession as a sufficient proof of the justice of the claim, at the Parents own baptism: Not as being it self the Condition (called by many, the Title) but as being such an evidence of the Title to us, as we are bound to accept. 2. In equity and reason if the condition of a mans interest (or his Title, as they call it) do lie in the heart, out of mans reach, we must take his own profession as evidence sufficient, unless he give himself the lye, and give us other reason to discredit him. If a man say he is a Believer, and profess himself to be a godly man, that is, a Lover and Honorer of God; I will take him for a Believer, and a godly man, till I can disprove his profession. I am not not bound to believe an evident Lye: but I am bound to believe a man till the falshood of his speeches be evident. Charity believeth all (such) things; and thinketh not evil without sufficient evidence. I need not go to a mans life for his evidence of his first Title. And for his Right to after-communion and priviledges; though other mens Testimony of a Godly conversation be a good confirmation, yet I am not alwaies bound to seek or require that, nor yet to have a personal knowledge of it: But if any from his life will bring a p. 344cross evidence to disprove his own verbal profession of faith and obedience, I will take it into consideration.

And I could wish that all Christians would proceed according to this Rule, and call no man ungodly when they cannot prove h…m to be such, at least, so far as to a strong presumption: But that they would take all for Godly that say they are Godly, till they can disprove them. I know they will say, then you will miscall men, and call those Godly that are not, and then you must not difference the Precious from the Vile: this is large charity indeed. To which I answer 1. We call them but what they seem; and 2. what God warranteth us to call them, the Apostles telling such themselves, that they [were all the Sons of God by faith, heirs, saints, justified, &c.] Gal. 3. 1 Cor. 1.1. & 6.2. We difference as far as we have evidence to lead us; and further we must not. As I said before, we must imitate God in this: where the mixture is such that the Tares cannot be pulled up without pulling up the Corn, both must grow together till the Harvest: we must not think to difference so exactly, and search and sift so neer to the bran, as God will then do. If the case be so uncertain and inevident, that we may on such Grounds condemn the Righteous with the wicked, we must let Righteous and wicked go together as if all were Righteous, and call the whole field a Corn field, for all the Tares.

Obj. Then must we judge falsly, for we must judge men to be what they are not. Answ. 1. If it were so, it is no sin in you, but in them that profess falsly. When ever you judge the most glorious hypocrite to be Godly, you judge falsly; but not sinfully: for every mistake is not our sin. 2. But I say you are not to judg falsly neither. For you are not to judge that it is certain that these are Godly men, but only that its probable. And note well, that there is a difference to be made within the Church, between the better and worser Members, as well as between the Church and those without. And observe, that there are divers degrees of this probability of mens sincerity: some do so fully second their profession by a Godly life, that we have a very strong confidence of their sincerity (though not a certainty). Some do give us some good hopes, but not so strong a perswasion. p. 345Some are so dull and negligent, and faultie in their lives, that we have much fear of their perdition, though we are bound because of their profession, to keep up some hopes of them, as being not without some probability of their honesty. I doubt the common sort of Christians are but such as these. And therefore we may even in the Church preach for mens Conversion and Regeneration: because though we know not certainly who they be that are unregenerate, yet we know that many such there are that profess Religion, and have great cause of fear and jealousie concerning many in particular. So that we must place a great difference between those whom we must permit in the same Church-communion and must administer the same Sacraments to: we rejoyce in our hopes of some: we have much fear of the condemnation of others. Yet if it come not to a strong or violent presumption grounded on sufficient evidence, we may not suspend or cast them out.

In a word, it is a verbal profession seemingly serious, and not again contradicted by a cross profession of word or action, that is the evidence of mens Interest in Church-Priviledges, particularly of the Baptism of their Infants.

Quest. What take you for a sufficient disproof of a verbal profession? or a ground for such a violent presumption that a man doth lye and dissemble, and is no Christian?

Answ. I mentioned you ten particulars before, on which we may judge men Notoriously ungodly. Look over those again, and ye may see what to take for a violent presumption.

1. A man that denyeth any Essential part of Christian Religion, though we are uncertain whether he do it resolvedly and deliberately, yet if he will not upon sufficient invitation, reverse that denial, and profess Repentance of it; Or if upon a just call a man refuse to profess his Belief of the Chr…stian faith; It is ground of a violent presumption that he is no Christian or godly man.

2. Those that are not only unable to give any account of their knowledge of the Essentials of Religion, but also do by their contrary answers (when we put them but to affirm or deny) shew that they understand them not, and this often, though its possible they may be amazed, or oblivious, yet its a violent p. 346presumption that they are utterly ignorant of the Essentials.

And here I advise all to be very tender how they exclude people on point of meer ignorance, if they 1. are but able in private, to those that they are familiar with, to give a tolerable account of essentials. 2. Or if they answer truly with a [yea] or a [Nay] when you contrive the matter into your question. 3. And if they be diligent in the use of means, and willing to Learn and live uprightly. And to this purpose consider of these things following. 1 Fundamentals or essentials are but few. 2. Many poor people are of such natural bashfulness, or hesitancy, that they cannot speak what they know. 3. Specially when Rustical education increaseth it. 4. And especially when it is in publike, or to a Minister whom they reverence. 5. There are indigested ruder Conceptions, which may be found, and yet not formed ready for expression, even in some that can speak well. We see some Ministers in Examinations too deficient: And the best find sometime a light which they cannot utter: and the force of a reason in their minds, which is no whit ready for the tongue. 6. Scripture examples in this point observed would moderate us. What did the Apostles require? 7. He that gives a true [Yea] or a [Nay] shews that he believes the Truth. 8. He that in his life seeks heaven before earth, shews that he knows it to be better than earth. I speak these things but to moderate some men. I add 9. It is commonly as much the Ministers fault, that he hath not a satisfactory Answer, as the persons. I have noted it, that most Ministers, either speak roughly or indiscreetly, discouragingly, provokingly, or of things not essential; and that it is a matter requiring greater wisdom than most have, to draw out the minds of the most ignorant sort of our people. 10. And if they know not the essentials, may we not help them to a tolerable knowledge of them at the present, before we part with them? At least, we should trie.

3. While men do wilfully delay upon a sufficient Call to profess their Consent to the matters in the third Article (forementioned) viz. to take God for their God, Christ for their Saviour, the Spirit for their Sanctifier, the Word for their p. 347Rule, we must delay our using them as Godly.

4. He that professeth to esteem this world more than that to come, add reverseth it not, though we know not certainly whether he spoke it deliberately, must be presumed ungodly till he reverse it.

5. He that professeth not to leave his known sins, but rather to venture on Gods displeasure, though its possible he may speak it hastily in a temptation, yet is to be presumed ungodly till he manifest Repentance, that he is now of another mind.

6. So they that profess that they will venture or lose their Interest in Heaven, rather than forsake their sins, till they repent manifestly of this, are to be presumed to be ungodly.

7. So they that live constantly in the commission of gross sins, though they profess Repentance, and promise Reformation, yet have over and over broke their promises, and still continue in the sin, such mens words are not any more to be credited (else all Discipline may be eluded) till they actually reform: And though we cannot certainly tell just how much gross sin may stand with Grace: yet because we must judge by probable evidence, and the Apostle telleth us that such shall not inherite the Kingdom of God, and that if we live after the Flesh we shall die, we must presume that men are what they appear to be. Had we such a man as Solomon in his sin to deal with, we ought to use him as an ungodl… man, I think. So those that have lately committed scandalous Notorious sin, and will not on sufficient perswasion manifest any satisfactory repentance for it: we must presume them ungodly till they will manifest repentance: For we know, except they repent they shall perish; and an undiscovered repentance is to us as none. And our Divines at Dort conclude, that though a Godly man lose not his Justification by gross sinning, yet he contracts such an incapacity of coming to heaven in that state that must be removed by repentance, or else he could not be saved.

8. Those that will not hearken to them that would admonish them, but refuse to obey their counsel for the forsaking of known sin, and also despise and abuse them meerly for that: Though its possible this may be as As… did in a temptation, yet we must presume till he repenteth, that he is ungodly; for we p. 348know, that he that being oft reproved hardeneth his neck, shall be destroyed without remedy: specially when it is a Minister of acknowledged sobriety and authority that doth reprove; and the Reproof hath nothing in it that should seem injurious.

9. Those that do deride or slander or persecute the generality of Godly men about them, for their apparent Godly practices, in matters of weight in Religion: though its possible in a Temptation they may do it upon some mis-reports and mis-apprehensions, yet till they manifest repentance, we have sufficient reason to presume that they are ungodly men. So for those that evidently endeavour the disgracing or extirpation of Godliness.

10. Those that either profess to take a godly life as an unnecessary, or that being convinced, or having full evidence which might convince them, do yet refuse to hear the word, to pray at all, to seek heaven in the first place, to hold communion with any Christian Church, or to be guided by the Ministers of Christ according to his Word, while they refuse to perform these necessary parts of Christian duty, after due admonition, and give no tolerable reason of their refusal, are groundedly to be presumed to be persons ungodly.

Object. But (I know some dissenting Brethren will say) what a Labyrinth do you bring the Church into on your grounds? while we must judge of mens sincerity, we are left at uncertainty; and who knows among al these difficulties whom to judge godly, and whom ungodly? Thus Ministers are made Lords of the Consciences of men, or enabled to tyrannize.

Answ. 1. Where the case is most Notorious, there needeth no Judge. Where the Probabilities are such as require a Determiner, it is the Ministers Office: and a main part of his work, of necessity to the Church, and not to be called or accounted Tyranny. 2. But, it is an easie matter to cavil at large against almost any cause; Destructive arguing is the easiest. But incommodum non solvit Argumentum. The thing I would see is a better way. Do our Brethrens Grounds afford us any better footing? Quest. 1. Will you take any verbal profession as a title, or not? If any whatsoever; then if a man tell you I will come such a day, p. 349and in scorn to Christ profess Christianity, or if he tell you when he hath done, I did but dissemble, for fear or favour, or if he deride while he doth it, or contradict it in other words, you will take it for good. Or if a man come drunk to present his child in Baptism (as they have done to me to require it) Or if he fall a swearing and cursing at the Ordinance: Or say, I will never be ruled by Christ or Scripture: If any profession must serve, then these; But I hope not so. If not any whatever; Then, 1. Tell us how you will distinguish; will you not reject all that is apparently lying? How will you difference between Truth and a lye? what cross evidence will you take for currant? tell us that we may also know. If only words, than what if a man worship actively the Sun or Moon, while verbally he makes the Christian profession? will it not disable and discredit his profession with you? what if he have for twenty years (O that I had none such neer me) been drunk, once a week or fortnight, and sometime thrice a week, and still confess it and promise amendment? Is his word to be taken? 2. If you were to baptize an Aged man, that comes new into Christianity would not you be the judges whether his profession seemed serious or not? and proceed on meer probabilities, as well as we? 3. Do you not in admitting persons to the Lords Supper, make your selves judges whether his profession be serious, yea and take in his conversation for evidence? and are you not put in all this upon the same uncertainties, and to the use of probabilities as we? 4. So you do, I suppose in excommunication for impenitency: Or at least, in case of absolution of the penitent, will not you be judges on probable grounds, whether his Repentance seem serious? and take a violent presumption as ground for some determinations? Yet I hope in all this you are no tyrants. There is a necessity of a standing Ministry to decide such matters, and rule the Church: therefore are such matters to be decided by them.