Right to Sacraments, Disputation 3 (2 of 3)

Right to Sacraments · Disputation 3 (2 of 3)

p. 2812. I do firmly believe that Baptism as Baptism, doth list, enter, or admit us only into the Universal Church directly, and not into any particular Church; but yet consequentially it oft doth both: And as the Parent is, so is it supposed that the Infant is. If the Parent live an itinerant life, and bring his child to Baptism, that child is entered into the Universal Church only, except he leave the child resident in any particular Church, and desire it may be a member of it: But if the Parent be a member of a particular Church, when we Baptize his child, we receive it first into the universal Church, and then into that particular (as an imperfect member:) For we justly suppose it is the Parents desire, which is it that determineth this Case.

3. I firmly believe that the common opinion is an Error, that All that are cast out of a particular Church, are cast out of the universal.

4. Yea, or that he that is put out of one particular incorporated Church, must be avoided by all other such Churches.

5. Yet do I believe that it is a worse Error to say that all that are cast out of one such Church, may be received into communion by other Churches, or single Christians.

6. I do therefore distinguish of such Exclusion as we commonly call Excommunication, or casting out of Churches, or suspending from communion. 1. As to the ground and cause of the Exclusion. 2. As to the Terminus ad quem, or the in quantum, or intended effect of the Exclusion. 1. It is one thing p. 282to be excluded on a cause that is supposed exclusive of Christianity it self: and another thing to be excluded on a cause that supposeth him uncapable of the Priviledge of all incorporated Churches: and a third thing to be excluded on a cause that makes men uncapable of Member-ship with that one Church only, or some particulars, and not all. 2. So as to the effect, It is one thing to be excluded from the number of Christians as such; Another thing to be excluded from all Incorporated Churches as such: And a third thing to be excluded from one particular Church only, or some more on the like ground that are in the like case. Besides all this, I distinguish between an Exclusion upon the certain Nullitie of the Title; and a suspension while the Title is under tryall, upon a just occasion of questioning it. From hence I hold as followeth.

1. That there may be just reason to cast a man out of a particular Church, who yet is not denied to joyn with other particular Churches. For example, if a member of this particular Church hold me to be no true Minister, and that he may not communicate with me, supposing him to mistake; or if he hold it his duty to contradict the Doctrine and Practice of Infant-Baptism, or the like, he may make himself utterly uncapable of communion with this Church, who yet may be capable of communion with other Churches. The like oft falls out where Churches differ about lesser Doctrines or Ceremonies, or Ordination of Pastors; a man that will in a troubling zeal suppose himself bound to be a continual disquiet to that Church where the occasion is, may be cast out from that, and uncapable of joyning with any of that same opinion and way, and not with others that are of his own way and Opinion.

2. A man may be cast out of a particular incorporated Church as such, and consequently be at present uncapable of being a member of any such particular Church on Earth, and yet not be cast out of the Universal Visible Church, or number of Christians, much less of the Invisible. As for example: If a man hold and maintain that there are no true Ministers in Office in any particular Church on earth by reason of an interruption in the succession of Ordination; that man is become p. 283uncapable of being a member of any such Church: and yet while he holdeth the whole Doctrine of Christianity besides, and openly professeth it, and supposeth that private gifted-men may Teach and Baptize, he may still be a vi…ible Christian, and therefore not fit to be cut off from the Universal Church of Christians. So in any the like Case. Quer. Whether this be not the Case of those that place all Church-power in the Major vote of the people, so that the Church must be governed only by such Vote, and the Pastor is but the mouth of the People, to act according to their Vote? Whether men of this judgement, declaring and professing it, be capable of being members of any true incorporated Church on Earth (though they may be members of such Societies as their own, of humane invention, contrary to the Word, and to the very Essence of a true Political Church.)

3. I also distinguish between the excluding of a man from communion as No true Christian, and excluding him as a scandalous or infectious Christian. As it was one thing for the Jews to remove the dead, and another to remove a Leper from the camp. And I suppose that 1. Ordinarily we are not to exclude any from our communion for a scandalous sin openly repented of. 2. Yet it is possible that it may be of so hainous a nature, that for the Credit of Religion, and the avoiding of all occasion of Reproach by those without, it is not meet to admit such an Offender into our communion, till after some convenient time and larger manifestation of our disowning their crime, and of their extraordinary repentance of it. But this is but temporary. 3. It is possible also that a man may have such an itching zeal to propagate a false opinion, though consistent with Christianity, that we may be bound to exclude him our actual communion, to avoid the infection of the Church: As also that his crime may so induce others to imitation, that though it be consistent with Christianity, we must exclude him as an infectious Leper, because a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.

4. I conceive that an open Apostate needs no decisive sentential Excommunication, but only declarative. We cut off no man from Christ, but declare who they be that cut off themselves from that Christianity which they seemed to have.

p. 2845. Yet I conceive that an actual Apostate, that is not totally an Infidel, but renounceth only some parts of the essentials of Christianity, and is loath to confess himself no Christian, and will intrude into the communion of Christians, whether to avoid shame, or disquiet of conscience, or danger, &c. I say, such a One is the fittest object for the sentence of highest excommunication, even from the number of Christians, supposing him notoriously to be such. As if a man should call himself a Christian, and thrust into their communion, and yet maintain, that Christ is but a Prophet, such as Mahomet; or as the Arrians, that he is not God, or that there is no Resurrection or Life to come, or that there is no Holy Ghost; or that Christ is not to be obeyed when the Flesh is against it; and that every man may live the life that best pleaseth his flesh; or that he himself will obey his flesh before Christ, or not let go his sin for the hopes of Glory, at the command of God. Among these I reckon a Notorious ungodly man, who will in words call himself a Christian, but by a more certain discovery make known that indeed he is none. Here the Church is not only to declare him none, but to sentence him none: For a meer Declaration supposeth not a Controversie, but a Sentence or Decision doth: and his vain pretence and unjust intrusion made it a Controversie, as between him and the Church, though to the Church the Case be notorious. This man then is cast out as No-Christian: when I conceive that such a man as David, Solomon, &c. (were they now with us) while they lay in that sin, should be removed from actual communion, as Lepers, or scandalous Christians, or (at most) as such as have given us reason to question their Godliness.

6. There is also a threefold suspension: The first is from some special act or part of communion only, (as the Sacrament of the Lords Supper) during the time of a mans just tryal. A duty not being at all times a duty, it is meet that he forbear while he is under such tryal, who hath given just occasion of suspicion and accusation. I mean here, only the tryal whether they are guilty of the fault that they are accused of or not. This suspension is not penal, but the orderly doing of duties. Another suspension is, when the Crime is confest, or proved. p. 285and the only thing in doubt is, Whether the person be penitent or impenitent? supposing the Crime an heinous Scandal, the person may be excluded all special communion; with this limitation, Till they manifest Repentance. And this is the most common censure, I think, that the Church hath use for. The third sort of suspension is, that before-mentioned, when though we are satisfied of the persons Repentance, yet the heinousness of the Crime, or the scandalousness and occasion of Reproach to the Enemy, or the Infectiousness, may necessitate us to delay his Re-admission. In these two later there is somewhat of Excommunication▪ mixt with the suspension: In the former, not so. In these two later, we judge the person to have no Right at that time to enjoy communion, because no aptitude to possess it; but not that he hath lost all Right to future communion. But yet his Right will not be plenary for the future, unless he repent and get an aptitude for communion. Bu… if we cast out a man as no true Christian, then we deny him to have any Right for the future; that is, his chief Title is Null, and he must have a new Title, as the foundation of his Right, before he can have any Right: whereas the scandalous Christian hath his fundamental Title still; but only hath a barr put in his way from present Possession.

I have been the larger on this, that you may fully know the meaning of the Argument; and on what ground all Objections are to be Answered.

And now you see that I speak not of every sort of Excommunication here, but only that which justly excludeth from all Christian communion, as Christian: and not that which excludeth only from any or all particular Churches (Though of this last I suspend my determination); And I speak not of meer suspension at least, of the first or third sort. Indeed my opinion is this▪ 1. That all so excommunicated can give their children no right to Baptism (nor be fit mediums of the conveyance of it) 2. That all justly suspended from communion of Christians, till they manifest Repentance, having given the Church great cause strongly to suspect them of utterly graceless Impenitency, should have their children, who are born while p. 286they are in that condition, suspended from Baptism (unless they have a better Right than from them.)

Lastly note that I mention, not only actual Excommunication by sentence, but Excommunication ipso jure: For if it be Excommunication, all's one; and the later the most unquestionable.

I now prove the Major thus: If such Infants cannot receive union and communion with the Universal Church, on the account of their Parents Interest, then neither can they receive Baptism on that account. But the Antecedent is certain; which I prove thus: Such Parents cannot be the means of conveying that to their Children, which they have not themselves. But they have no such Union and Communion themselves; Ergo.

I know in some cases (as in working Grace on others) a man may be a means of effecting that in another which he hath not himself. But that it is not so here, I think will be granted; for the Parents Right is all the condition (in Question now) of the childs Right: and it is only this kind of Conveyance that we mean.

The Consequence needs no proof: To be baptized, is to be put into union and communion with the visible Church. (This is one inseparable use of it:) therefore he that cannot be a fit medium to convey one, cannot for the other.

For the Father and Mother to be put out, or judged out, and yet the child taken into the same body as a branch of them, and on their account, is plainly to Do and Undo, and contradict our selves.

To this it is said by some, That an Excommunicate man loseth but his Jus inre, and not adrem; and retaineth still his fundamental Right; and therefore as to this, is still a Church-member: he is but suspended from present benefit, and not cut off from all Title. To which I answer; 1. If this be true of all Excommunicate persons, then is it impossible so much as by a Declarative Excommunication, to cut off any from the Universal Church: If a man maintain that Christ is neither God, nor Redeemer, but a Prophet, second to Moses or Mahomet, p. 287and yet will call himself a Christian, and usurp communion, if we cast him out, he hath still a Fundamental Right. Can any man have a fundamentall Righ…, that denyeth any Fundamental Truth? But if any will say, That this is not Excommunication, but Declaring or Judging a man to be an Apostate: I reply, Rather than we will differ about the Name, call it what you please, as long as you know what we mean. He that notoriously sheweth that he hath not Christ, hath no fundamental Right. Whether Matth. 18. and 2 Thes. 3.14. 1 Cor. 5. speak of this or that sort of Excommunication, is little to our Question.

It is further objected, [Either the excommunicate persons sin divests the child, or the Churches Censure. But neither; Ergo, &c. Not the former: for no sin but that of Nature descends to Posterity: Man transmits not his personal Vices, Fault or Guilt, no more than his Graces.]

Answ. As if the Question had been about divesting a child of a Right which he had before, and not rather of the conveying of a Right which he had not. We suppose the child born after the Parents are excommunicate: And had that child a Right be…ore he had a Be…ng? and so before it could be any subject of Right, you talk of uncloathing him that was born naked and never cloathed. We rather suppose that the new-born child must then receive a Right from the excommunicate Parent, or have none: and therefore conclude it hath none, unless on some other Interest then theirs.

It is further objected as to the Censure, [I never read that Church-Censures were like that plague laid on Gehazi, to cleave to him and his seed: See Deut. 24 16.]

Answ. Church censures deprive not the child of any Right that it had; for we suppose it unborn: but they shew the Father to be in an incapacity of conveying it that Right which it never had. I say therefore to your Argument, The sin of the Parent preventeth the childs Right; and the Church censure declareth and judgeth it so prevented And on your grounds and arguing, why may not you say that the child of every Turk and Indian on earth hath Right? for their Parents p. 288did no more divest them of it than these; and their sins can no more be transmitted.

But though it be not necessary to be asserted, to the upholding of the present Cause, yet I must tell you that I believe that Parents transmit more of their sin than of their Graces to Posterity; and I am somewhat confident that you say what you can never prove, and deny a Guilt which it better beseemed you to acknowledge and lament.

Next to the proof of the Minor of the main Argument, viz. [that notoriously ungodly persons are excommunicated from the society of Christians, as such, ipso Jure; or are to be pronounced no members of the Universal Church,] To be excommunicate ipso Jure, is when the Law is so express, and so fully applyeth it self to the case of the offending person, that there may or must be an execution of it by the people, though there do no sentence of the Judge intervene; when the plainness of the Law, and the notoriousness of the Case may warrant an execution without Judgement. And that it is so here, I prove thus.

The Case is supposed Notorious, and the Law is plain, and commandeth all men to execute it, whether there be any Judgement or not: Therefore such are ipso Jure, excommunicate. 1. In a lower sort of Excommunication, the meer Law may require our execution without a sentence: therefore much more in a grosser and plainer case. We must not eat with the scandalous, 1. Cor. 5.11. We must avoid them that cause Division, Rom. 16.17. We must note such men as are disobedient, and have no company with them, that they may be ashamed: yea, we are flatly commanded in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that we withdraw our selves from every brother that walketh disorderly, 2 Thes. 3.6, 14. All this we must do, though no Ecclesiastical Judge do sentence them, when the case is notorious. We must reject a known Heretick after the first and second admonition: we must turn away from wicked Livers, though they have a form of Godliness, 2 Tim. 3:5.

2. Concerning those that are not Christians: we are bid come out from among them, and separate our selves, and touch p. 289no unclean thing, 2 Cor. 6.17, 18 For what communion hath Light with darkness, and Christ with Belial, or a Believer with an Infidel? ver. 14. we have the estates of Infidels, Apostates and ungodly men described to us, and we must judge them to be as they undoubtedly appear to be, and use them accordingly. John bids a woman, that [If any come to them and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: for he that bideth him God speed, is partaker of his evil deeds.] Here is an Excommunication ipso Jure: for he doth not name the persons, but leave them to discern them, and execute according to evidence. And these seem to be persons much in the case as now we have to do with: such as professed themselves Christians in name, and yet denied the fundamentals, and lived wickedly: v. 7.8, 9. of Ep. 2. [Mary deceivers are entered into the World, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a very Deceiver, and Antichrist; whosoever transgresseth and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ hath not God.] whether this was written to a Lady, or a Church, whether of the Gnosticks or other Sect, it differs not much as to our case. Also God calls all his people, whom it did concern, to come out of Babylon, that they pertake not of her sins, & receive not of her plagues, Rev. 18.4. But I need not prove, I hope, that we are not of the same body with known unbelievers; and that unbelieving expresseth as small, if not a smaller evil than ungodliness, and is comprehended in it, I have already manifested: And its known that we are to shun the company of a wicked man, that will take on him the name of a Christian Brother, more then of an unbeliever that pretendeth not to be one of us: For with the later we may eat, 1 Cor. 10 27. though we may not communicate with him in his false worship (ver. 16.17, 18, 20, 21.) but with the former we may not.

And whether the ungodly be any more of our Body, or fit for our communion than Infidels that so profess themselves in words, let Scripture judge. When God separateth his own People from others, it is not only as from unbelevers, but he most freqently giveth the reason from their Pollutions; so that it is from them as from the unclean. Lev. 20 24. I am the Lord your God which have separated you from other People: Ye shall p. 290therefore put difference between clean beasts and unclean, &c. which I have separated from you as unclean: And ye shall be holy unto me; for I the Lord am holy, and have severed you from other People, that ye should be mine] So answerable hereunto all Gods People under the Gospel are called Saints as well as Believers: and Paul tels all the Corinthians, not only that they are changed from Infidelity to Faith, but [such were some of you (that is, wicked Livers); but ye are washed, ye are sanctified, ye are justified, in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God, 1 Cor. 6 11.] And he is blinde that seeth not how in all the ceremonial Institutions of Moses, which were Types of Christs cleansing his Church, the Lord doth most eminently declare his Purity, and hatred of sin, and the necessity of Holiness and Purity in his People, as well as the necessity of pardon by Christ: Answerable whereunto in the Gospel, Christ is as eminently declared the sanctifier as the Pardoner of men: He saveth his people from their sins, themselves; and washeth, and sanctifieth, and cleanseth his Church, that he may present it spotless to God. Lev. 15.31. & 12.2, 3, 5, &c. Neh. 13.3. & 9.2. & 10.28. Ezr. 6.21. Exod. 33.16. Lev. 5.2. & 11. throughout. & 13. & 14. Num. 19. Isa. 52.1. the Gospel-Church is accordingly described: Put on thy beautiful Garments, O Jerusalem the holy City: for henceforth then shall no more come into thee the uncircumcised and unclean] Ezek. 22.26. [Her Priests have violated my Law, and profaned my holy things: they have put no difference between the Holy and Profane, neither have they shewed difference between the unclean and the clean.] Ezek. 44.23. Jer. 15.19. [If thou wilt take forth the pretious from the vile, thou shalt be as my mouth; let them return to thee, but return not thou to them. Eph. 5.5. 2 Cor. 12.21. Ezek. 36.29.

I think it is clear, that those whom Paul describeth, 2 Tim. 3. are to be avoided by all Christians, as not in the Christian body: and he describeth them by their unholiness, and particular vices; and saith of their Teachers, that they are [Men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith]; yet have their Disciples a form of Godliness. And doubtless [Reprobates concerning the faith] if so known, are not to be numbred with Christians. Those from whom we are to be separated here and hereafter, are stiled oft [The Vngodly] Psal. 1. And as in some places the distinction p. 291is between Believers and Vnbelievers, so in others, between the righteous and wicked or ungodly, 1 Pet. 4.17, 18. where all these are descriptions of the same men, [ungodly and sinners], such as are not of the house of God [men that know not God] And it was the world of the Vngodly that God brought the Flood upon; and to be an example to those that after should live ungodly, was Sodom and Gomorrah destroyed, 1 Pet. 2.5, 6. And John tell us, that in this the children of God are known from the children of the Devil; he that doth wickedness is not of God.

Note well the description of these, Jude 4. On one side they pretended to be Christians, for they are said to be [crept in] among them; [to turn the Grace of God into lasciviousness;] they were [spots in their Feasts, clouds without water, carried about of winds, without fruit, twice dead] vers. 12. It is apparent then that they were Baptized ones. Yet the Apostle excludeth them from the very number of Christians, calling them [twice dead, plucked up by the roots, men that denyed the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ, ver. 4.12.] And the Desciption of them, is, that they are ungodly Hereticks, that taught and practised ungodliness: as you may see, ver. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 17, 18. walking after their own ungodly lusts, sensual, having not the spirit, of whom Enoch prophesied, saying. Behold the Lord cometh with ten thousand of his Saints, to execute Judgement on all, and to convince all that are ungodly, of all their ungodly deeds, which they have ungodly committed.] And [the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who imprison the truth in unrighteousness, Rom. 1.18.] If Rom. 1 & 2. speak of Baptized persons turned Hereticks, as some Expositors judge, then they are put in as vile a character, and as distant from Christians, as Heathens are. It is the world as distinct from the Church that, lie in wickedness ▪ 1 Jo. 5.19. Psal. 50.16. To the wicked saith God, What hast thou to do to declare my statutes, or that thou shouldest take my Covenant in thy mouth, seeing thou hatest Instruction, and castest my word behind thee?] The Sacrifice of the wicked is an Abomination to the Lord, Prov. 21.27. so then must his false promising in Baptism. So Prov. 15.8 9.26. whatever they may say with their mouths for God, and Christ, and the Faith, yet [The transgression of the wicked saith within my heart, that there is no fear of God b…fore his e…s,] p. 292Ps. 36.1. And David could see by the life of the fool, that he saith in his heart, There is no God: even when they do evil, and not good, and hate the people of God, and call not upon God, Psa. 14. See Mal. 3.18. Church censures are, as Tertul. speaks, praejudiciū futuri judicii and therefore must go on the grounds of Gods judgment; which is [to sever the wicked from the just, Mat. 13.49.] and that according to works ▪ & not meer words, as was said before, Eccl. 3.17. Prov. 15.29. We are not to gather those into the Church, whom we know to be far from God, and he putteth away: but such are wicked. Psal. 119.119. Thou puttest away all the wicked of the earth like dross, 155. ver. Salvation is far from the wicked; They are estranged from the womb, Psal 58.3. Acts 3.23. every soul that wil not hear that prophet shal be destroyed frō among the people.

All these passages, with multitudes more, shew that the name of a Christian unworthily usurped, maketh not a notorious ungodly man to be in any capacity of a better esteem with God or the Church, or any good men therein, than are openly professed Infidels, especially that want the means which they enjoy: For all this pretence of theirs can give us no probability of any more then a superficial Assent, less then that of the Devils, and this is but knowing their Masters will, which prepareth these Rebels to be beaten with many stripes. And should that which makes them the greater sinners, give them right of admittance into the Church? It is Agustines Argument. lib de fide & oper.

3. The case is yet more clear that such are excommunicated ipso jure, when we consider that it is far more usual for Gods Law to serve without a sentence, then mans: most of the matters of our lives are there determined to our hand, and we must obey the Law, whether there be any judgement of man to intervene, or not: God hath not left so much to the judicial Decision of man, as humane Laws do. It is a great doubt whether there be any power, properly Decisive-judicial in the Church-Guides or not? but doubtless, it is more limitedly and imperfectly Decisive than is the power of Judges in the matters of the Commonwealth. So that if all the Rulers in the Church should forbear to Censure Notorious Apostates, Hereticks, Ungodly ones, yea if they all command us to hold communion with them, because they call themselves Christians, we are nevertheless p. 293bound to disobey them, and to avoid such as to Religious communion: For else we should obey man against God, who hath directed many of these precepts to all Christians, and not only to the Governours of the Church. If the Guides will suffer the woman Jezabel to teach and seduce, and the Nicolaitans to abide among them, whom for their filthiness God did hate, it is the peoples duty for all that to avoid them, if they will be Guiltless. Yea Cyprian tels the people that it belongs to them to forsake and to reject an unworthy Minister that is by others set over them, or doth intrude. I conclude therefore that as all Christians must (beyond dispute) use an open Infidel as such, though it belong not to the Church to judge them that are without, because the Law here serves turn without a judgement, the case being past controversie: so also a Notorious ungodly man, though pretending to Christianity, and entertained by the Church, is to be avoided by every good Christian, as being ipso jure excommunicated by God.

Most of the Objections that I have heard against this, are from men that not understanding this phrase of Excommunication ipso jure, through their unacquaintedness with Law-terms, have supposed that we meant no more but de jure, or that they merited Excommuication, or it was their due: But ipso jure means ex vi solius Legis, sine sententia Judicis: Its common for Legislators in several Cases, either where Judges or other Officers are needless, or cannot be had, or may not be staid for, to enable the subject to do execution, without any more judgement. And so we are bound to avoid such Notorious ungodly ones, as being as Notoriously no Christians.

2. But if all this were unproved, yet still it is sufficient to our purpose in hand, that the Church-Guides are at present bound to Excommunicate them. And sure they cannot at one and the same time be bound to cast out him and take in his child upon his Right into the number of Christians.

Its Objected, The Excommunicate are members under cure. Ans. Those that are but pro tempore suspended from some particular acts or parts of communion, are so; and those that are only cast out of an Incor…orated Church, and not the Universal, or from among Christians as Christians. But for the rest that are so cast p. 294out, the case is otherwise. Many different acts of the Church, and cases of the persons, are usually confounded under this one word [Excommunication.]

Object. Austin complains of one that had Excommunicated one Classicanus, and with him his whole Family; which he dislikes, because the son must not suffer for the fathers sin.

Answ. What is this to our business? We plead not for Excommunicating any child for the Parents sin; but for not Admitting them at first into communion, when the Parents have lost their Right, and the child is born after. 2. What if by the Law of the Land a Traitors Estate be forfeit? if his Heir therefore receive not that which he could not give him because he had lost it, will you say that this is contrary to Gods Ordination, that the Son shall not suffer for the Parents sin? The Son may yet have some priviledge, from a Father, which he could not have, were that Father an Infidel or excommunicate person; and therefore all the world have not the same Priviledges as the Church. So much of that Argument.

Arg. 16. Those whom we may justly Baptize (supposing them of age and natural capacity) we may justly admit to the Lords Supper while they are no worse than they were at Baptism. But we may not admit a notorious ungodly person to the Lords Supper: Therefore we may not justly Baptize such: And consequently, not their children upon their account.

The Major is plain: No Church-member ought to be kept from Church-communion in the Lords Supper, but upon some just Accusation of a crime which he is since guilty of, more than he was at his Admittance. But the Baptized are Church members. Ergo, &c.

It is by one objected, that this is the Anabaptists Argument (or one to this purpose) to keep out Infants, because they are not to be admitted to the Lords Supper. Answ. That is for want of natural capacity to use the Ordinance; and not for want of a Right, if they had such capacity. But for men at age, I suppose it past doubt that you may admit them to the Supper on the same qualifications as to state worthiness, on which you may admit them to Baptism. Object. The Baptized are Incipientes; the Communicants Proficientes; Therefore there must be more in all Communicants p. 295then is requisite in the Baptized. Answ. There ought to be more, because they ought to grow in grace. But 1. it is not requisite that they be in any other state then the Baptized: Nor 2. Is it absolutely necessary that they have any further degree of grace. For 1. the Lords Supper is the means of increasing grace, and doth not ever suppose it encreased. 2. The Apostles admitted the new baptized into their communion, to breaking of bread and prayer presently, Act. 3. and 4. Indeed there is requisite in the Receiving, and before, thoughts suitable to that Ordinance, according to its difference from other Ordinances; and so there is in each Ordinance according to its nature: And in that sense, as to some acts, its as true that there is somewhat more required also in Baptism, then in receiving the Lord Supper. But thats nothing to the case.

The Minor is granted me by almost all, on supposition that we can have a Classis to exclude the offender: And many grant that every Minister may suspend one from the Lords Supper in this case, by forbearing his own act. I wonder how so palpable a mistake did come to be so common with wise men, as that a single Pastor (at least when he is the sole Governor of that Church) may not exclude on just occasions? Doubtless they may without a Classis take in men into the Universal Church (for a Classis was not called for every mans Baptism:) Therefore if one man may be the sole Ruler of a particular Church (of which there's little reason to doubt) why may he not do the Office of a Ruler? But there's much to be said for this on a fitter occasion. See Gilesp. Aarons Rod. l. 3. c. 15. pag. 541.

The last Consequence I take for granted, on what is said before, and the meer nothing that is said against it; viz. that if the Parents be in such a state in which they may not be admitted to baptism, were it then to do, then may not the children be admitted on their right or Interest, because they are to come in as Theirs.

Argu. 17. Those that are Notoriously the children of the Devil, may not be baptized, nor their Infants on their account; But the Notoriously ungodly are Notoriously the children of the Devil: Ergo.

p. 296I prove the Major: 1. Baptism is ordained to admit all the baptized to be visible children of God: those that are Notoriously the children of the Devil, cannot be admitted to be (at that time) the visible children of God. Therefore they may not be Baptized.

For the proof of the Major, see Gal, 3.26, 27, 28 29. For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus: For as many of you as have been b…ptized into Christ, have put on Christ: And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abrahams seed, and heirs according to promist. The Minor is plain.

For the Minor of the main Argument, see 1 John 3.7, 8, 9, 10. Let no man deceive you; he that doth righteousness is Righteous: He that committeth sin is of the Devil. In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the Devil. Whosoever doth not Righteousness is not of God.—] This Text proves also the inconsistencie of these two Estates.

Argu. 18. He that will not be Christs servant, may not be baptized (nor others on his account) But notorious ungodly ones, while such will not be Christs servants. Ergo. &c.

The Major is proved, in that it is part of Christianity in the Essence of it: He is to be believed in, and accepted as Lord and King: All his Subjects are his servants. The Minor is proved from Rom. 6.16. Know ye not that to whom ye yield your selves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey? whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness.

Argu. 19. He that will not hear Christ as the Prophet of the Church, may not be baptized: But notorious ungodly Ones will not hear Christ as the Prophet of the Church: Therefore ought not to be baptized: (nor any on their account.)

The Major is proved 1, In that it is part of Christianity: And to be baptized into his name, is to take him as our Prophet. 2. Such should be cut off, Acts, 3.23. (Mr. Gilespie and others expound Moses cutting off, of Excommunication:) therefore not admitted in such a condition.

Argu. 20. If notoriously ungodly baptized Parents are notoriously uncapable of presenting and dedicating their children to Christ, & covenanting with him on their behalf, then are they p. 297Notoriously uncapable of Interesting their children in the Covenant or Baptism (Or, Then may we not baptize them on their account) But the Antecedent is true; as I prove thus. 1. A man that notoriously refuseth to accept of Christ himself, and to take him as he is offered, to covenant truly with him, is Notoriously uncapable of doing the same on the behalf of another: For he that hath no true faith for himself, cannot have it for his child: (though perhaps he may be content that his child let go some sins for Christ, which he cannot spare himself.) but, &c. Ergo.

2. He that is, Notoriously a perfidious Breaker of his own verbal covenant, is while such, uncapable of covenanting with Christ for another. For such a mans word is not to be taken; he hath forfeited his credit, till he repent and return to his fidelity: But such are all the notorious Ungodly. Ergo. &c.

The Consequence of the main Argument, is clearly good, because he that brings any child to be baptized, must covenant for it with Christ; for it is a mutual Covenant that must be entered in Baptism. The child cannot consent or covenant by it self, therefore it must do it by others, and that must be those that present it, as having Right on their Account: And he that is not Willing for himself, cannot Consent for another.

Argu. 21. From the second Commandment, with all those other Texts that express Gods differencing the seed of the wicked and godly. If it be Gods will that there shall be visible notes of his displeasure on the children of the Notoriously ungodly, as theirs, in comparison of the children of the godly, then we ought not to baptize them. But the Antecedent is true; Therefore so is the Consequent.

Here note, 1. That we speak not of any children of ungodly men, who at age renounce their Parents waies, and themselves fear God (of whom Ezek. 18. speaks:) but only of them, while Infants, and as theirs. 2. In the Antecedent I mean that God hath so visibly noted out the children of the Notoriously ungodly, as such, to lie under his displeasure, that he would have the Church and all take notice of it, and esteem of p. 298them accordingly. The reason of the Consequent is, because Baptizing puts them among those that are visibly under Gods favour, the Church being called the Body of Christ, the House of the Living God, &c. But those that be visibly from under his special favour, should not be put into such a Body.

The Antecedent I prove 1. from the second Commandment: where note 1. that the parties differenced are the Posterity of them that hate God on one side, and on the other those that love him and keep his Commandments: Not only between Professors of Faith, or of Infidelity, but between godly and ungodly: it being usual in Scripture to call the ungodly Haters of God, and justly; and it is those that love him not, and keep not his Commandments, that are called haters of him. 2. Note, that it is a visible mark of his favour which he there putteth on the seed of the godly, from whence we may well gather their Church-membership, as I have shewed elsewhere. Therefore it is a visible note of his disfavour which he putteth on the Notoriously ungodly; from whence we may gather that they are not to be visible Church-members. 3. Note also that this is in the Decalogue, and a standing determination of God, and not ceremonial or transitorie.

Note also how the Scripture all along concurs. The seed of Cain are called the children of men, though its like they acknowledged God to be their Maker, who might have heard Adam tell them of the creation. And indeed it is ungodliness and wickedness that God drowned the World for. Yet are these children of Cain as an excommun…cate brood, whom the children of God might not joyn with. The Infants of all the wicked of the world are drowned with their Parents in the Flood: The Infants of Sodom and Gomorrah are destroyed with their Parents, who are said by Jude to suffer the vengeance of eternal fire, as an example (not of original sin) but to those that after should live ungodly. The children of the Egyptians are destroyed for their Parents sins, while Israels are preserved. The children of Da…han and Abiram, and their confederates were swallowed up with them for their Rebellion: yet did their parents confess the true God, and were circumcised. Achans children p. 299were all stoned to death and burned for his sin, Josh. 7.15.26. It was Gods command to Israel, that if any City were reduced and drawn away to serve other gods, that City, infants and all should be destroyed, Deut. 13.12, 13. &c. God commanded Israel to put to death all the Infants of all the Nations that were given them for Inheritance, Deut. 20.16, 17. which was for the Parents abomination. The Amalekite's infants must all be slain: So are all the Males among the little ones of the Midianites, Numb. 31.17. The children of Daniels Accusers are cast into the Den of Lions, Dan. 6.24. And Babylones little ones must be dash't against the stones, Psal. 137.9. The wicked are cursed in the fruit of their body, yea, It is cursed, Deut. 28.18.32.41. Christ would have gathered the children of Jerusalem great and small, but did not, because they would not. On that Generation he brought all the righteous blood that was shed from Abel; and takes witness from their own mouths, that They were the children of them that killed the Prophets. Now I think, if the children of the notoriously ungodly lie under Gods visible displeasure thus far, they should not by Baptism (as theirs) be taken into that society that are visibly in his favour, and distinguished from all the world as a Peculiar people, a Holy Priesthood, a Royal Nation, the Children of God, the Body and Spouse of Christ, and the Temple of the Holy Ghost.

Argu. 22. That Doctrine is not found which confoundeth the Catechumeni, as to their description, which the rightfull members of the Church. But such is the Doctrine that we oppose; yea worse. For the Catechumeni might understand and believe the fundamentals (which is all the Title that these men can produce by their profession: But they were not to be admitted into the Church till they had more, even resolutions (expressed) to obey: Nay, many such without the Church had some willingness to learn, and waited long on teaching to that end: But so will not many of these in question. I plead not for any Error of the Antients, in keeping men from Baptism that were fit for it; but only mention such as were but in preparation to such fitness.

Argum. 23. That Doctrine is at least much to be suspected, p. 300which by contradicting the very Natural Principles of Religion, doth tend strongly to disgrace Jesus Christ, and tempt the world to Infidelity. But such is the Doctrine which we oppose. Ergo.

For the proof of the Minor, Note, 1. That it is a natural certain Verity, that the Righteous Lord loveth Righteousness, and that he is a hater of sin in whomsoever, and delighteth in that Holiness which is his very Image; and that God is no Accepter of persons, but in every Nation, he that feareth him, and worketh Righteousness, is accepted of him.

2. Note, That the Doctrine which we oppose, holdeth, that Jesus Christ doth set so much by the bare believing that He is the Son of God, yea the verbal profession of it, and so little by Holiness, that if men will but make that profession, let them live how they will, let them be Adulterers, Murderers of Fathers or Mothers, perjured to God and Man, &c. yet they lose not their Right to this Priviledge, that even the children of their bodies shall be of the family of Christ upon their Interest or Account: yea though themselves will not so much as soberly promise to amend, yea though they be Persecutors of any that would reform them, or any other way notoriously ungodly. Doth not this strongly tempt men to imagine that Jesus Christ came not to cure souls, and bring men back to God, and save them from sin, but to seek himself and his own honor, and that he preferred the acknowledgement of his dignity before the Interest of God, and mens souls? Doth it not tempt men to think that Christianity is no better than the other Religions of the world, when it owneth such Monsters as the Children of the Church? When we justly condemn a Seneca, Cicero, Fabrit…us, Socrates, &c. as miserable for not believing in Christ, whom they never heard of (most of them;) and priviledge the children of one worse than Nero, Surdanapalus, Machiavel, and that for the sake of such a Parent▪ and as a member of him, to be in Covenant with Christ, and of the beloved Society, and Houshold of Faith: In my opinion this will he a horrid stumbling block to those without, and give them such cause to blaspheme our holy profession, as our Lord never gave them, who came purposely into the world to destroy the works of the Devil, p. 301and to bring back revolted man to the Holy Image and obedience of his Maker, and who professed himself but the Way to the Father, and therefore established and valued faith in himself, but in order to the acknowledgement and love of God, and so of Godliness and Holiness, as its end and a greater good; yea that hath purchased us by his blood to a glory which doth consist in the fruition of God, in the perfection of Holiness, and hath sent forth his spirit into the souls of men to be in office their Sanctifier, and to make such wondrous changes on mens hearts, as shameth all the rest of the Religions of the world: yea who hath made his Kingdom to consist in Righteousness, and Peace, and Joy in the Holy Ghost; and the heavenly wisdom to be first Pure, then Peaceable, Gentle, easie to be entreated, full of mercy and good fruits, and who hath sanctified to himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works, and makes so strict and holy a Law to guide them as he hath done. In my opinion, so loose a doctrine should not be pinned on the sleeve of so Holy a Saviour.

Argum. 24. That doctrine and practice is not by good Christians to be received, which (besides the forementioned evidence of Scripture) contradicteth the doctrine and practice of all the Primitive Church. But such is this. Ergo.

I admire that grave men among us, and Godly, who will stretch their wits to the uttermost to defend that which is the more common opinion of Divines of best repute among whom they live, before they will differ from them, can yet make so small a matter of differing from the Fathers, and universal consent of the Primitive Churches, (as far as we have any means to disprove it.) That it was their Judgement and practice to refuse to baptize any Notorious ungodly person, while such, appears past all doubt. 1. By their requiring a profession of Repentance. 2. And a profession of Believing in the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, and renouncing the world, the flesh and the Devil, and promising a new life. 3. By their Judging the Baptized to be in a state of salvation, which was on supposition of their true sanctification. 4. By their too much care in delaying the Catechumeni (in later times) lest they should be unmeet.

p. 302Let me recite the testimonies of one or two of our own, and one of those Antients, each of the highest Authority in the present case.

1. Mr. Gilespie, Aarons Rod. l. 3. ch. 15 pag. 544. saith, [It were a Profanation of the Sacrament of Baptism, to Baptize a Catechumene, a Jew, or a Pagan, professing a Resolution to turn Christian, he being manifestly under the power of abominable Reigning sins, and being still a prophane and wicked liver, although he were able to give a sound and orthodox Confession of Faith.] From whence he argueth, that therefore the same men are not to be admitted to the Lords Supper.

2. Spanhemius Epist. ad D. Buch. pa. 14. gives three reasons to prove that Athrists, Epicures, Profane men, qui vitam inter flagitia traducunt, & aperte ostendunt se non habere fidem, quâ creditur, nec spiritum sanctificationis secundum ullum ejus gradum, quamdiu in ista impietate perstant, nec poenitentiam tum profitentur tum spondent, may not lawfully be baptized.

And our Divines commonly say, In Baptism we engage our selves to a holy Life: those therefore which live not holily are covenant-Breakers, and herefore have not Right to the benefits of the covenant. See Piscat. in Mat. 3. Obser. ex v. 6 8.10. & in Mat. 28. v. 19. & Davenane is Col. 2.12. Peter Martyr in Rom. 6.3. Zanch. in Ephes. 5. loc. de Bapt. cap. 3 Thes. 37. many more I omit.

3. The Doctrine of the Antients I have given a touch of elsewhere, as to these points. All that I shall now say is to desire the learned Reader (that hath not done it) to peruse all over that book of Augustine de fide & operibus, which is wholly written on this subject. There were then some Christians, whose opinion was, that if a Heathen lived in whoredom, when he turned Christian, he was not to be refused Baptism till he would promise Reformation, and would put away his whore; but because that the Apostles baptized upon believing, and required obedience afterward, and works are to be the consequent fruit of Faith, therefore the Pastor should first baptize them on their profession of Faith, and then help them on to obedience afterward. Yet were these men so far from imagining that it was not Justifying faith that is required to Baptism that upon that p. 303supposition, they run into another error, which Augustine takes to be their worst and the root of the rest; and that was, That this Belief in Christ was the foundation, (meaning a dogmatical faith) and that an evil life of such baptized believers was but hay and stubble built on the foundation, and such should be saved, though as by fire. Against all this Augustine wrote that Book, and proves that such may neither be saved nor baptized, and that Faith is another thing, and Obedience of another necessity than they imagined. The Reading of this Book I expect will do more in this present Argument, to perswade most dissenters, than the perusing of all my Arguments, because of the Authority of Augustine, and especially of the Church, whose Practice he discovereth.

If it be said that this concerneth not Infants, I answer, I suppose it will be but few that will not by what is said, be perswaded, that no man in an estate unfit for Baptism, can convey a right to his Infants to be baptized. Read also Augustin. Epist. 23. ad Bonifac. where is much worthy observation. And ad Laurent Euchrid. c.

We come next to answer the chief Arguments of the Dissenters, which are not already answered in what went before, in way of defence to the several Arguments as we propounded them.

Argum. 1. The children of Notorious ungodly parents had right to circumcision, before Christs Incarnation: therefore the children of such have right to Baptism since.

This is the great Argument, besides which there is scarce any that hath a shew of difficulty.

Answ. 1. It is certain that the Fabrick of the Jewish Politie, especially the grounds and Reasons of all Gods Institutions of those times, are so imperfectly known by us, that it is utterly unfit to reduce so many clear Gospel Arguments to one dark one from those Laws. For it is a most necessary Rule, that in all our Disquisitions, we must reduce Uncertainties to Certainties, and not Certainties to Uncertainties: our Argument must be à notioribus ad mi…ùs nota. Mr. Blake confesseth it very dangerous to argue from meer analog…e, and professeth that he doth not so, but from the ground of the Institution: p. 304And how dark are those grounds in some Cases to us?

2. I yet see no proof of the Proposition, that then such Infants of notoriously ungodly parents had (on their account) a right to Circumcision.

Where first note, that we must first denominate men Godly or Ungodly, as principally in their respect to God himself, so next from their respect to the Rule of Godliness then in force; which being not the same in many things then as now it is, Godliness was not in the exercise, the same materially then in all things as it is now. The sum of it was, to take the Lord that Redeemed them from bondage to be their God, and to give themselves in consent to be his people, and obey his Laws.

Now let us see where is their proof of the proposition. They say, all Israelites whatsoever were to be Circumcised, by right; I answer, that's no proof: Let us look to the Institution, Gen. 17.7, 8, 9, 10. and there we shall find, 1. That the Covenant goes before the Seal; and this Covenant is, that God will be a God to them, which they were on their parts to take him to be. 2. This Covenant is with Abraham and his seed after him. 3. Next follows an Injunction that he and his seed do keep Gods Covenant. 4. And then is Circumcision Instituted (though called the Covenant, yet but) the Token of the Covenant, as it is called ver. 11. By all which it appeareth that the seal Instituted supposeth the Covenant Instituted, and the seal applied supposeth the Covenant entered, and then by that it is signed between God and them: As if the Prince confer such Lands and honors on a Noble man and his seed in all generations, and require every Heir to come, and upon taking the Oath of Allegiance, to receive the great seal for the confirming of his Title: This supposeth that this Noble man and all his seed, that expect that benefit, do continue their Allegiance; that for all this Grant, If any of them turn Traytor, his Posterity can receive no right from him, but it is prevented.

Moreover, it is known that every Israelite was oft to renew this Covenant with God: yea all the Body of the People often together did it in Moses daies, and they owned God continually in Sacrifices, and other Holy Worship. Moreover consider, that the People at that time seem to be generally or mostly p. 305such as were not of the strain that now we are enquiring about, viz. Notoriously ungodly. To evidence this, Observ. 1. That they had holy, excellent Teachers, Moses, Aaron, &c. and God among them in signs and wonders. 2. They were generally zealous in their way of Religiousness, which was very costly and laborious in comparison of what is now commonly done. 3. That they had most strict Laws, prohibiting all uncleanness; yea even Ceremonial, to teach them the evil of the greater Moral uncleanness. 4. They are oft called a Holy and peculiar people: and God frequently chargeth them to hold to it, and remember that he was a Holy and Jealous God. 5. There were more severe penalties then, and less indulgence to Offenders then is under the Gospel. 6. Even Balaam testifieth for them, that God saw not iniquity in Jacob, nor transgression in Israel; that is no such Idolatry or ungodliness as was among the Heathen. 7. Note that the visible sins which they are most at that time accused of, and destroyed for, seem to be but either some particular Facts under Temptation, or some sad discoveries of their Mutabil…y and wavering not in the main; Whether they should renounce their God (or at least they did not actually and visibly renounce him) but about his Power in a strait and difficult case, or some the like: From which a man could not conclude them notoriously ungodly, though their sin was very great, and God that knew their hearts might discern ungodliness in them, and men might suspect them, and fear the worst. 8. Note also, that even for such particular sins before they could manifest fixed impeni…ency and obstinacy, or a course of ungodliness, God usually let loose against them his Jealousie, and by some destroying Calamities cut them off. 9. When the Psalm…st doth aggravate their sin Psal 78. and 104. it is particular sins, and unstedfastness of heart, but still with professions of Repentance and Returning under their frequent afflictions. 10. Yet I must desire that none here mistake me, as if I would free the Israelites from any charge that God layeth on them by his Prophets: I speak not now of their times of greatest Apostacy and Rebellion: And I know that afterward, when the Princes and Rulers were evil or negligent, then the Church must needs be defiled, and the Laws of God unexecuted. p. 306And perhaps I may mis-interpret some texts of Scripture to a more gentle sense then others do, or then is meet: Of this let every man judge as he please: its no time now to call all such texts to account. If any be offended at my charitable thoughts of the body of the Jews (Gods only peculiar people on earth) let them blot out these fore going considerations, or take them as non dicta; for I lay not the stress of my Cause upon them. But the Principal thing which I would have observed is this. That by Gods Political Law of this Commonwealth, all Notorious ungodly persons were to be put to death; yea, and many far short of that degree. I know it is a controversie among Divines, what is meant by all those places, that speak of [Cutting off from his people.] Mr. Gilespie with others think it is meant of Excommunication. Others think it is meant of the Magistrates punishing them with death, or Gods doing it extraordinarily if the Magistrate should be negligent. The main reason brought against this Exposition, is, that it seems too bloody. But it must be considered how terrible the Law was, and how God designed in it the manifestation of his Jealousie, Holiness and hatred of sin. If every man that did ought presumptuously might be cut off from the Church, why not from the Living? The Apostle in Acts 3.23. reciting that of Moses, saith, [He that will not hear that Prophet shall be destroyed from the People.] However let that phrase mean what it will, we have proof enough beside, that not only all notorious Ungodly ones, but also many Godly ones that fell into gross sin, were all to be put to death. From whence I argue thus:

If it was the Law of God that all such persons should be presently put to death, then was it not the will of God, that their Infants should have Right to Circumcision for their sakes, no nor on any other account: But the Antecedent is true, therefore the Consequent.

The Reason of the Consequence is this: Either th…se mens children were born before the parents turned ungodly, or after. If before then were they circumcised the eighth day, as the children of the Godly. If after, then it was against Gods Law, that they should be born, much less circumcised. For if Gods Law had been fulfilled, the parents had been put to death, (we speak p. 307of both parents) and then how could they have had a child?

All the doubt then lying in the Antecedent, I shall from Scripture put it is past doubt. Let us look over all the Commandments, and see whether Death were not to be inflicted for the gross breach of them, except the last, which is secret in the heart.

For the first Commandment, see Deut. 13. If a Prophet wrought wonders to entice to worship strange Gods, or if the nearest kinsman secretly enticed them to it [to thrust them out of the way which the Lord commanded them to walk in, ver. 5.] he must be put to death. If a City be withdrawn by such, they are all to be put to death; Children, Cattle, and Goods were to be destroyed and consumed.

Deut. 20.18. They were not to save alive any person, no not Infants, of the Cities that God delivered them to dwell in, Lest they teach them to do according to their abominations.

Exod. 22.20. He that sacrificeth to any God, save the Lord only, shall utterly be destroyed.

The breach of the second Commandment is punished with Death, Exod. 32.26.27, 28. The Priests of Baal are slain, 1 Kin. 18.40. 2 Kin. 10.21.22, to 29. & 23.5, 19, 20. Yea, in one word, he that would not be Godly positively, was put to death, 2 Chron. 15.12, 13. It is spoken in their commendations, that they entered into a Covenant, to seek the Lord God of their Fathers with all their heart, and with all their soul; that whosoever would not seek the Lord God of Israel, should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.]

Lev. 24.15, 16. Whosoever blasphemeth the name of the Lord, was to be put to death: So ver. 23.

Every one that did any work on the sabbath, or defiled it, was to be put to death, Exod. 31.14, 15. & 35.2.

He that smitteth or curseth his Father or Mother, must be put to death, Exod, 21.15.

Murderers, Man-stealers, Incestuous, Sodomites, Adulteres, Wizards were to be put to death, Exod. 21. Lev. 20. yea and those that turn after Wizards. Any Prophet that shall presume to speak a word in Gods name, which he hath not commanded him to speak, or that speaketh in the name of other Gods, p. 308must die, Deut. 13.20. In some cases Fornicators must die, Deut. 22. Every man that forsook God and broke his Covenant was to be stoned to death, Deut. 17.2, 3, 4, 5, 6.

Many the like passages might be cited; but I will conclude with two or three of chief note for this purpose.

Deut. 21.18, 19, 20, 21. If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voyce of his father, or the voyce of his mother, and that when they have chastened him will not hearken unto them, then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the Elders of his City, and to the Gate of his place: and they shall say unto the Elders of his City, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voyce, he is a Glutton and a Drunkard: And all the men of his City shall stone him with stones that he die: So shall you put away evil from among you, and all Israel shall hear and fear.]

Here I suppose it will be granted, that it is the Parents duty to restrain their children from all ungodliness; and that Gluttony and Drunkenness are but instanced in, as part, in stead of all the rest. And if all children must be put to death that will not be ruled for good by their Parents, then when they are dead they will beget no children who may claim Right to Circumcision for their sakes.

But if any say, that this extendeth not to those that are from under their Parents tutorage or Government, I answer, First, Sure the same sin deserveth the same punishment afterward from the Magistrate, if they are obstinate against his pious precepts. Secondly, but to put the case out of doubt, see Deut. 17.12. And the man that will do presumptuously, and will not hearken unto the Priest, that standeth to minister there before the Lord thy God, or unto the Judge, even that man shall die, and thou shalt put away the evil from Israel, and all the people shall hear and fear, and do no more p…esumptuously.] To these Deut. 29.19, 20. From all which it is evident, that as Impenitency or Obstinacy in sin is the great cause of Excommunication now, so was it then to be punished with Death; and consequently that the evident discoveries of a state of Ungodliness (and many more) were then punished with Death according to Gods Law.

And then it must needs follow, that no child of a man Notoriously p. 309ungodly, born of his procreation in that condition, had right to Circumcision: For dead men do not procreate.

And whether [Cutting off from his people] be meant of capital punishment, such places as Exod. 31.14, 15. would make one doubt: [Ye shall keep the Sabbath therefore, for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it, shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from amongst his people.] See also Levit. 20.17, 18.

And if it be meant of Excommunication, if the parent be [cut off from his people,] then cannot his son for any Interest of his, be …nnumerated to that people, and entred among them.

The first Observation and this last laid together, clear the whole Cause, viz. that the Magistrate was not to force any barely to be Circumcised, but to enter into Gods Covenant, and so to be circumcised: and therefore was he not to force any out of the Covenant to be circumcised: and then, that he was to cut off the Covenant-breakers, or notoriously ungodly ones.

11. The next Observation that I would give towards the Answering of this Objection, is, that it could not be expected that any Magistrate, Priest, or other in Power, should hinder any Israëlite from circumcising his children. For to circumcise them was every mans Duty, and to baptize them is every mans Duty in the world now: that is, to give up himself and his child in sincere Covenant to God, and seal it, as he hath appointed: but not dissemblingly to use the sign, without the Covenanting and Resignation on his part. Now if any Israëlite were unfit for this Ordinance, it being the Magistrates duty to put him to death, or cut him off, he could not judge him unfit, and so forbid him the Ordinance, without condemning himself. The first thing that lay upon him was, to cut him off for the sin which caused his unfitness.

12. Note also that Circumcision much differed from Baptism in this, that it was not the Priests work but Parents to circumcise his children: this being so, no wonder if there were not the scruples about the persons fi…ness and worthiness, and the childrens right, as now there is in Baptism. For what man is so prone to scruple or question his own Right or his childrens, as another may be? And the same reason that p. 310should move a Parent to question his Right, would move him also to Repent and Recover his Right. No wonder therefore if the Execution answered not Gods Institution.

To all this it is objected, that we read not that any Infants were kept back, or that God blamed them for it.

Answ. 1. I have given sufficient Reasons. 2. God would rather blame them for that sin which caused their unfitness, it being not the Circumcising then, in the Baptism now, that he is against directly, but the ungodliness; and therefore would not have the ordinances forborn, but on supposition that the sin will not be forborn: tha's the disease that he would have them heal both then and now.

Obj. Joshua is commanded by God to Circumcise them, and accordingly he doth Circumcise all the people: yet no doubt many of them were Notoriously ungodly. Josh. 5. Answer 1. Joshuah did but command it to be done. 2. I have given the reason why all should be Circumcised. 3. It is unproved that any one of them were know to Joshuah to be ungodly. To clear this further, I will add two more observations.

13. Note that all those that were charged with Murmuring, Unbelief, &c. in the wilderness, were all destroyed there, and also that for 40 years their Children had been uncircumcised. Only Caleb and Joshua were left. So that those of 40 or 30 or 20 years of age must be Circumcised on the account of their own Covenanting, and not plead the right of their Parents.

14. Note also, that the very examples of Gods Judgements do intimate that Notorious Ungodliness was not so common among them as some imagine. Multitudes are thought very Godly now, that murmur in lesser straits than they were then in, and that are palpably guilty of much unbelief, or less temptations. All Israel was put to the worse for the sake of one Achan, that plundred no man unjustly, but only thought to rescue some desirable treasures from the flames: I wish that no soldiers would now do worse that are reputed extraordinarily Godly, and are never blemished by such actions in their own eyes or any others. I will not stand to add more, because I have been so long.

p. 311If any man Judge that all this is no sufficient answer to their Argument from Circumcision, I further add. 2. Though this be my own thoughts, yet it is not a few of those Divines that are Godly and Learned, that give one of these two following answers.

1. That External and Ceremonial Purity was then most openly looked at, which was but a Type of the spiritual purity under the Gospel: and therefore no wonder if God that then permitted Polygamie without reproof, permitted the circumcision of all Jews, yea encouraged it, seeing that the Body of that People were Gods visible Heritage, as a Type of the Catholick visible Church now. The Magistrates therefore might compell them as Jews to be Circumcised, but so may not ours compell us as Englishmen.

2. That Circumcision was not only appointed to be the seal of the Covenant of grace, but also a peculiar Covenant annexed to Abraham and his seed: and that not all, but those only that were to possess the land of Canaan: And therefore as it was not all the people that God had on earth that were promised to possess the land of Canaan, but only the Israelites, and those proselites that came over to inhabite among them; so neither was Circumcision commanded to all, nor was necessary to them: but to a Jew it was necessary as a Jew, how ungodly soever.

Though this be none of my answer, yet among many Improbable opinions, I see not but the Thesis which I deny, is much more improbable than this is; and therefore if I needs must hold one, I see not but that I should rather hold this.

Nor will this weaken our Argument for Infant-Baptism, fetcht from the Infant Church-membership of the Jews (which is the great objection) as long as the whole species of Infants are of distinct consideration from a Jews Infant, as such; and as long as the grand Covenant of grace, and the peculiar promise to the Jews, are so distinct; yea and Church-membership, and Circumcision so distinct as they are, Let them leave us to make good our Arguments in this.

Argu. 2. We may lawfully Baptize the Infants of any Church-members. p. 312Notoriously ungodly persons are Church-members, therefore we may lawfully Baptize their Infants.

Ans. 1. I deny the Major. Because some Church-members are in such a condition as that the first thing you are bound to do with them, is to cast them out, (or suspend them till then) When you are bound presently to cast him out, you are not at the same time to give him the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, nor his Infants on his account the Sacrament of Baptism.

Indeed if they had Right to Church-membership, their Infants might have so too.

2 I deny the Minor. Other ungodly persons are visible members: but notorious ungodly ones are not, They are pso jure excommunicate, not meerly as m…riting i…, but on the Notoriousness of their incapacity, and the pleasure of the Legislator, as is afore declared.

Obj. The Notorious ungodly were Church-members among the Jews, therefore they may be s… now.

Answ. 1. Prove the Antecedent. 2. The question is not what men mis-judged them, but how God esteemed or pronounced them. 3. God would not have them to be Church-members, while such, whom he commanded the Magistrate to put to death. But, &c. Ergo.

Obj They were not to be excommunicate or put away from the Passover. Answ. 1. He that is stoned to death is excommunicate and put away from the Passover. He that is cut off from the living, is put out of the Church on earth. 2. I will not waste time to prove Jewish excommunication, till I know of some tolerable answer given to that which Mr, Gilespie (beside many others) hath written so largely already.

Argum. 3. Infants in Covenant have right to Baptism The Infants of Notorious Ungodly Parents are in Covenant. Ergo.

Ans. I have in my account to Mr. Blake, told you so fully, how far they are in Covenant, and how far not, that I must refer you thither, and not here recite it. I deny that God is actually engaged to them in the covenant of Grace, which Baptism sealeth; but conditionally only, and so he is to Infidels that persecute p. 313it. Though they may be engaged more to God by their own Verbal covenant to him; but that altereth not the case.

Argu. 4. Dogmatical faith giveth Right to Baptism. Notoous ungodly Parents have a Dogmatical faith. Ergo. &c.

Answ. I have said so much to Mr. Blake on this, that I need not now to add any more.

Obje. Simon Magus had a faith which gave him right to baptism. But Simon Magus was then a Notorious ungodly man; therefore a Notorious ungodly man may have a faith that may entitle him and his to baptism. Ans. See what is said to this in the place before cited. Further 1. I yield that Simon had a faith of superficial Assent, such as the Devils have in a greater measure: and that he professed more than he had; and that hereupon the Apostle was warranted to baptize him. 2. But I deny the Minor that he was then notoriously ungodly. Consider well of Psalm. 50.16.

Argu. 5. Josiah was lawfully Circumcised upon the Right of Manasseh and Ammon; but Manasseh and Ammon were Notoriously ungodly: Ergo.

Ans Either Josiah was born before his Father Ammon proved Notoriously ungodly, or after. If before, then he received not his right from a Notoriously ungodly Parent. If after, 1. Then was it contrary to Gods Laws, and so could be no true Right. For by Gods Laws Manasseh and Ammon should have been put to death. And if it be said that these Laws were not to be executed on the Soveraign; I answer, the want of a power of execution doth not hinder, but that they notoriously lost their Right, though they kept possession, and therefore could convey no Right. It follows therefore that either Josiah was circumcised without Right (if it be first proved that his father was such at the time of his birth): or else that he had his right some other way, intimated in the General answer to the Jews case. And to them that think the former a hard saying, I shall anon shew that the rule holds good in this case that Quod fieri non debet, factum valet.

Argu. 6. Deut. 24 16. The Children shall not be put to death for the Fathers sin; and we read not that Ecclesiastical censure should be more severe. The child of a Thief is not p. 314committed with him to prison; and I see no reason that he is committed with him to Sathan: therefore there is right to Baptism in the child of an excommunicate person.

Answ. The question is not of excommunicating a child, or committing him to Satan, but of addmitting him into the Church at first: The Parent cannot convey to the child the Right whith he hath lost; we speak only of the Children born after the Parents are excommunicated vel sententiâ vel ipso Jure. But of this enough (I think) before: the state of the question is by these Arguers strangely over-lookt.

Argu. 7. Those that the Apostles Baptized had been ungodly immediately before, only at the present they did profess Repentance: And so do many of these that you call Notoriously ungodly. Ergo.

Answ. 1. If it be a probably serious and credible profession (fit for that name) then are they not Notoriously ungodly. 2. According both to Scripture, and Reason, and common use, a mans first or second profession may be credited. But if he frequently break his word, his credit is lost: he is not capable at present of covenanting again, till he have by actual Reformation recovered his credit. I have such Neighbours as this twenty years together have been constant drunkards, and lament it, and promise Reformation when they have done, and yet once a week or fortnight usually are still drunk. To take these mens oft breaking words were to delude Scripture and all Discipline, and cross common Reason.

Yet here we must carefully distinguish between Repentance for such gross sins, as continued in, are inconsistent with true Grace; and Repentance for such infirmities as may stand with Grace, not only to live in, but not to have, or manifest a particular Repentance of: As those which are not convinced to be sins: &c. We speak now of the first.

Argum. 8. By denying them Baptism, we may exasperate the wicked to engage themselves against Christ, and us.

Answ. The Primitive Church under Heathen Princes had much more cause to fear this than we have: and yet it did not change their course. I take not such carnal Reasons to be worthy to have place among the servants of such a Master who p. 315fears not his enemies, and will make them bend and return to him, but will not himself bend and return to them.

The truth is, had we Magistrates that would so severely punish notorious ungodliness, as (I think) they should do according to Gods Laws▪ that most of this Controversie would be ended: and instead of driving men from Gods Ordinances, they should be driven from such ungodliness. But when Magistrates are so tender of hurting mens Bodies, that they let their souls perish, or are so much against formality and outside Reformation, that they had rather men were Heathens, and openly wicked, and sinned with Body and Soul too, than with the Soul alone; this puts us upon a necessity of doing the more in a separation by Church power, than else we should do.

Arg. 9. If no Children of notorious ungodly parents have Right to Baptism, 1. then is their Baptism Null. 2. And then ours is Null which we received, on supposition of the Right of such parents. And 3. then must many be baptized again; For if Ministers had no power to do it, it must needs be Null. The determination of this Question about the nullity of Baptism, depends upon the true definition of Baptism: some only put Gods part and the Ministers into the definition, and not the receivers act of profession, covenanting or self-resigning to Christ; taking him to be no Agent in the Essentials of the Ordinance, but a recipient; and that the Acts on his part are only Integrals, or Duties necessary to his participation of the benefits of the Covenant. If this definition hold (most common with our Divines) then the resolution is most easie. For the Minister performed all that was essentiall to Baptism: And therefore that which is undone, is only the mans duty on his own or childs behalf: that which was well done (as to the act) is not to be done again, that is, the Ministerial Baptism (though sinfully misapplyed;) but that which was undone; that is▪ 1. the persons duty; 2. and thereupon Gods Grant (actually) of the benefits. According to this definition of baptism, if through error a Pagan be baptized in the true form, it is not Null as to that form of the Ordinance, nor to be done again when he is converted; but only his own duty was Null, and to be done again For example; if one that cannot speak p. 316our Language should be thought to profess faith in Christ by signs, and be baptized thereupon, and it after appear that it was no such profession, but contrary: so if we should mistake a Pagans child for a Christians. I pretend not to decide the Question, Whether this be the rightest definition of Baptism, or best Answer to the present Doubt; but if this hold (as it is common) all is clear against the pretended Nullity or re-baptizing.