A Discourse of the Two Covenants, Book 2 · Chapter 4 · Section 2 (2 of 3)

A Discourse of the Two Covenants · Book 2 · Chapter 4 · Section 2 (2 of 3)

p. 218Queſt. 5 §. 5. Is this federal right to the children only the priviledge of parents, and ſo conveyed unto the child from the parents, one or both of them being Believers? or is there any other way of conveyance? We read Gen. 17.12. how not only they came under Abrahams Covenant that were of his ſeed, but he that was born in his houſe, that was not of his ſeed, or bought with his money, or any ſtranger, he was to come under Abrahams Covenant, and was to be circumciſed as well as any that did come out of Abrahams loyns; and we find that the Church of God did therefore ordain Sureties, which were to take upon them the care of the education of ſuch children, anſwerable unto that Religion into which they were baptized; and they were admitted thereunto by their proparentes right, which otherwiſe had no right thereunto by their natural parents; and this is ſo ancient, that I find in the ſecond Century Hyginus; Suſceptores ad baptiſmum Chriſtianorum adjecit, &c. Magdeb. And Tertullian has a hint of it, as in uſe in his time alſo,Tertul. de coron. milit. Auguſt. which hath been juſtified by Divines ſince, and therefore practiſed in the Church of God in ſucceeding ages to this day: Aliquando filiis infidelium per ſtatum haec gratia ut baptizentur, cùm occulta Dei providentia in p. 219manu piorum qumodocun que perveniunt, Aug. de Grat. & lib. And hence our Divines generally have concluded, that as there is a ſpiritualis foreign which Chriſt doth convey unto the Saints, a ſonſhip before God, ſo there is a priviledge that belongs to Chriſtians of thoſe that are taken by them into their care and charge,Et adoptati pro liberis ſunt habendi, Gerh. loc. com. de baptiſ. p. 582. they have a priviledge to convey a kind of ſonſhip unto them by a ſpiritual Adoption. And Mr. Calvin in an Epiſtle to Farel about the baptizing of a child of a Papiſt by father and mother, the Grandmother being a Proteſtant, and deſiring the child might be baptized, Calvin inquires, if ſhe would ingage to the Church for the education of the child, the child then might be baptized, and had an intereſt in the Covenant by her right, undertaking for its education, though it had no inteteſt nor right by the immediate parents. And Mr. Perkins and many others,Caſtes of Conſcience, pag. 76. And Am. Caſes of Conſc. ſays, That infantes illegitimè nati & excommunicatorum, interventu ſponſorum idoneorum poſſunt baptizari, ſi ab aliis piis educatio eorum ſuſcipiatur, p. 232. though they look upon ſureties as not of divine inſtitution, and only for a civil uſe, teſtifying the abundant care of the Church, of the education of thoſe that were received by them, and not as ſimply neceſſary unto the Sacrament of Baptiſm; yet they conceive them lawful, and not to be rejected, ſo as they be qualified for ſo great a truſt, and do faithfully diſcharge it in the fear of God. By this it will appear our Divines generally judge, that there is a kind of ſpiritual Adoption, that a godly man may convey a right by, and give an intereſt in the Covenant, and the priviledges of the Covenant unto thoſe that are not his ſeed, and …hoſe that from their natural parents have no right at all.

Now to croſs the judgment of ſo many reverent and holy men, both ancient and modern, hath been a very great trouble to me, and upon the moſt ſerious debate I did deſire, …hat the balance might have been caſt the contrary way; but at laſt conſidering that the …cripture is unto them and us the Rule of Doctrines, and the Judge of Controverſies, unto which they bind themſelves, and that if an Apoſtle, or an Angel from Heaven do ſpeak the contrary, it's becauſe there is no light in them; and becauſe we have learnt from themſelves,Eſa. 8.20.Isa 8:20 …at they were not ſatisfied with their own light in many things, but writ according to their …reſent apprehenſions, with a deſire ſtill to a further and clearer diſcovery:De catechiſ. rudib. c. 1. Mihi prope ſemper …rmo meus diſplicet & melioris avidus ſum; and therefore our Divines generally forſake them …n many things, as not walking with a right foot towards the truths of the Goſpel; and Luther profeſſes of his works, If the Lord Jeſus Chriſt was willing to give an account of his do…trine when he asked, Quantò magìs ego faex, non niſi errare potens, &c. Et primus ero qui libellos meos in ignem projiciam.and therefore he doth …eſeech men by the mercy of God, That if any man could convince him of his errours he would, for he was ready to retract them. This hath incouraged me with all ſubmiſſion to ſpeak my …pprehenſions out of the word, though they are contrary unto that doctrine that hath been …o anciently taught, and ſo commonly received.

Herein I would ſpeak unto three things. (1) I would lay this for a ground, That only …rents can give the child a federal right. (2) I would anſwer the inſtance given of the circumciſing of ſervants born in Abrahams houſe, or bought with his money, though they were not of his ſeed, and how far they had their right from Abraham. (3) I would ſpeak ſomething to the ancient cuſtom of Sureties or Godfathers in the primitive times.

1. Only parents can give their children a federal right, and none elſe; and that I ſhall endeavor to make manifeſt to you by theſe arguments, 1. From the nature of the Covenant, which doth only take in his ſeed, Abraham and his ſeed, Noah and his ſeed, the woman and her ſeed, Gen. 3.35. & 9.9. & 17.7. Pſal. 89.29.Gen 3:35Gen 9:9Gen 17:7Ps 89:29David and his ſeed; the holineſs of branches, it's ſpoken of a federal holineſs, becauſe it is applied to branches that were broken off, therefore it is meant of a childs holineſs, and it doth proceed from the holineſs of the root, upon which they grew,Rom. 11.16.Rom 11:16 and ſuch a holineſs as the converted Gentiles had for their ſeed, by virtue of the ſame Covenant; and therefore the children of believing parents are called the children of the Covenant, Acts 3.25.Acts 3:25as being a birthright that belongs to them; and as we may not with ſome, deny them that which is their right, ſo we are not of our own authority to appoint them coheirs, ſome that ſhall ſhare with them therein. Mr. Calvin indeed ſaith, Hîc certè locum habet regula vulgaris, favores ſunt ampliandi; yet we ſhould not limit the grace of the Covenant, and ſtretch it beyond the rule of the Word, and our grace in receiving men muſt not be larger than Gods grace manifeſted in the Covenant that he hath eſtabliſhed, wherein we do learn that the childs federal right is the confederate parents priviledge, but never that a perſon in covenant hath a power, having no ſeed, to adopt any unto himſelf for ſpiritual priviledges, or that he may extend them to any but thoſe that God hath taken into covenant with him, which is his ſeed; an adoption in things temporal is allowed by the Law of God and man, but that there ſhould be in men adoption in things that are ſpiritual in reference to a covenant-right, that is to extend the terms of the covenant beyond the line that God hath in his Word ſtretched forth. It's true,Divinus ſeſe obſtrinixit Chriſto homini in perſona Abrahami, Zanch. Abraham was a publick perſon in the covenant of grace with whom as it were the covenant eminently began, and he was (as one hath well obſerved) therein a type of Chriſt, as David, Pſal. 89.34. and therefore Abraham is ſaid to be p. 220the father of us all, Rom. 4.16. the father of many Nations; but this is only in reſpect of the ſpiritual grace of the covenant, and not the external ſpiritual priviledges of the covenant, for the children of the promiſe are accounted for his ſeed; though they were not of the ſeed of Abraham according to the fleſh,Rom. 4.12.Rom 4:12 yet they did walk in the ſteps of Abraham, and were the children of his faith, though not of his fleſh: but other Chriſtians are not made publick perſons in this reſpect, as Adam, Abraham, and David were; and therefore in reference to theſe outward ſpiritual priviledges they can convey them unto none but unto their ſeed, whom the Lord takes into covenant with himſelf, as appears in the Text; and our grace muſt not be larger than Gods.

1 Cor. 7.14.1 Cor 7:142. The Apoſtle, 1 Cor. 7.14. lays down the rule plainly, That the holineſs of the child comes from the holineſs of the immediate parent, one or both; and on the contrary, the uncleanneſs of the child comes from the uncleanneſs of the parent, elſe were they unclean, but now are they holy; it's ſpoken here of a federal holineſs, as we have before proved, and the Divines before quoted do grant, if one of the parents be not in this reſpect holy, the Apoſtle pronounceth their children unclean; that is, they have no federal holineſs; and if the Lord ſay, that they are unclean, who is it that can by his undertaking for their education make them holy, till God by a work of converſion make them ſo? It would make federal holineſs, which is one of the great priviledges of the ſecond Covenant, and an expreſſion of the free grace of the Goſpel, to be a thing of ſmall account, if any man might ſay of the children of a Heathen, It's true, neither of their parents was a Believer, and the children are unclean by their birth, but I will make them holy, for I will undertake for their education; this ſeems to be a way of holineſs that was never appointed by the Spirit of God, and was unknown to the Apoſtles and to the Church of God in the times of the Apoſtles; for he puts the holineſs or the uncleanneſs of the child upon the holineſs or uncleanneſs of the parents only, either one or both.

3. It would make this title to be a vain thing in the ſight of God, and all adminiſtrations of the Church grounded thereupon to no purpoſe; as if a Jew ſhould have taken the child of a Heathen and circumciſed it, it had not been an Ordinance of God, neither ſhould that child have been looked upon as circumciſed; as it's obſerved by Cyprian: De ratione circumciſionis. Cunaeus de Repub. Hebraeor. l. 3. c. 5. Jer. 9.25. So Mont. renders the word circumciſed in uncircumciſion.Jer 9:25Non tantùm in Hebraeos, ſed etiam in Phoenices & Arabes haec traditio inolevit. So Jerome in Jerem. 9.25. and yet the Lord ſays, I will puniſh them that are circumciſed with the uncircumciſed; and all the houſe of Iſrael are uncircumciſed in their heart; they did uſe Circumciſion, but it was not an Ordinance of God to them, neither did he count them circumciſed, being out of covenant with him; whatever Church-adminiſtrations are uſed towards men, not as an Ordinance of God to them, are in Gods account of none effect. Now there are but two ways that we read of in Scripture of bringing men into covenant, either by a perſonal right from the parties by converſion, or by parental right, which by the grace of the covenant is extended from the parents unto the children in a way of federal ſanctification.

4. This Doctrine of federal right by Sponſors lays three abſurdities inevitably, which I conceive thoſe very Divines cannot admit. (1) It puts the childs federal right upon his education, and a perſons undertaking for it to the Church, which the Scripture doth put upon a mans generation, making it a birth-priviledge; whatever his education be, that cannot take away the right of a child, till by his ſin through the Ordinance of Excommunication he be as a branch broken off from the root upon which he did formerly grow. (2) It makes that which is an act of Gods free grace, to be mans free gift; no man is bound to adopt or to undertake the education of the child of another man; whereas it is of free grace that God only takes parents into covenant with their children alſo; and to put this upon the act of man as an act of his grace, I cannot but look upon it as derogatory to the grace of God. (3) This will juſtifie that which generally our Divines condemn, namely the Papiſts ſtealing of the children of the Heathen to baptize them, there being ſome ſureties that will undertake to the Church for their education. It's true that it doth not juſtifie the theft, but yet as to the baptizing of them it doth, which our Divines generally and many of the Popiſh Divines themſelves condemn.

Jerh. loc. com. de Baptiſmo, pag. 584. Aquin. 22. q. 10, 11.2. For the inſtance out of Gen. 17.12. That all the males in Abrahams houſe were to be circumciſed, whence it's inferred, That Chriſtians have the ſame priviledge upon thoſe that are per media legitima brought into their power, whether they be born in their houſe, or bought with their money, or taken in war, and that they undertaking for their education, they are to be looked upon as having a federal right by adoption conveyed to them, and may therefore be baptized;This is the anſwer Pareus eives on Gen. 17.11.Gen 17:11 it is anſwered, There are two ways by which men come to have a federal right, either perſonal, or parental; all the men grown being in Abrahams family were inſtructed in the knowledge of the true God, and the ways of his will and worſhip, p. 221as we ſee his ſervant Eleazar of Damaſcus was; and therefore they are called,Abrahamum officii ſui admonebat, ut ſervos doctrina foederis diligenter imbutos & ſymbolo initiatos Deo conſecraret. Non quidem inviti erant ad circumciſionem adigendi infideles ſervi, ne foedus profanaret, contemptores verò in familiis patrum & in Eccleſia ferendi non erant. Gen. 14.14. his catechized ſervants, and ſo the word will bear, and God gave that teſtimony of him, Gen. 18.19. That he did command his children and his houſhold: foreign diſciplinâ & pietate imbutos: therefore thoſe were circumciſed in their own right, that is, by their own conſent; and it's the obſervation of a learned Jeſuit, Menoch. de Reg. Hebrae. l. 3. c. 170.9. Ad circumciſionem nullus invitus adigi poterat. Non poterant Hebraei habere domi ſervos incircumciſos, and either they ought not to buy them, or not to retain them; therefore they that were men in Abrahams family were circumciſed by their own right, as a viſible Church by their own conſent, and for the children of ſuch they were not circumciſed in Abrahams right, as is ſuppoſed, though they were taken into his Covenant, but in the right of their own immediate parents, who were themſelves circumciſed and Church members, as all the children of the Jewiſh Proſelytes were, their fathers being circumciſed and admitted into the Church of the Jews; which the Prophet doth call being joyned to the Lord, their children were alſo taken into the ſame Covenant in the right of their parents, they being Proſelytae foederis, and had an intereſt in it, being received into it by their own conſent, they and their ſeed as well as the Jews themſelves had.

3. For that ancient cuſtom of Sponſors or Sureties in the Church, I think Auſtin gives the ground of it, when he ſaith, There were many that were converted from Paganiſm that were not well inſtructed in the principles of Religion; and therefore to teſtifie their great care of thoſe that by Baptiſm they received into the Church, in reference to their education, though their parents were Chriſtian, and ſo their children had a right, yet ſome able and faithful men of known integrity and authority in the Church were as ſureties together with the parents to ingage themſelves to take care that they were inſtructed and educated according to the principles of that Religion into which they were baptized. Yet this was no inſtitution of God, but a prudential act of the Church to a holy and a good end; neither doth it make any thing for the giving of the children a right by any but the immediate parents; neither were ſuch ſureties uſed in the baptizing of the children of Pagans, or any but thoſe that were Chriſtians and themſelves converted to the faith.

Queſt. 6 §. 6. If only parents can give the children a federal right, is this right from the immediate parents only, or from thoſe that are more remote alſo? For anſwer to it our Divines commonly ſay, that the right is from either the immediate or the remote parents. There is an Epiſtle of Mr. Farells that he wrote unto Calvin in this caſe.Nobis minimè dubium eſt quin ſoboles ex ſanctis & piis atavis progenita, quamvis apoſtatae fuerint avi & parentes, ad Eccleſiae tamen corpus pertineant, Calv. Epiſt. pag. 442. Calv. epiſt. pag. 174, 175. There was one of the Church had married her daughter to a Papiſt, and the Grandmother deſired that their child might be baptized, which Mr. Farell refuſed, Ego reſpondi non admittendum quòd in foedere non ſit, cùm neuter parens ſit fidelis, and this cauſed ſome difference between him and his Collegue or Fellow-labourer in the work of the Miniſtry. And to decide this controverſie he writes to Mr. Calvin, and in anſwer to it he laid down two poſitions. (1) That it's unlawful for us to baptize the children of Papiſts: Abſurdum eſt ut eos baptizemus, qui corporis noſtri membra cenſeri nequeunt; & cùm in hoc ordine ſint Papiſtarum liberi, quomodo baptiſmum illis adminiſtrare liceat non videmus, &c. (2) The Grandmother deſires it, and there's the difficulty, upon that he anſwers, Cùm Dominus gratiam ſuam in multas aetates extendat, eam aſtringere non eſt noſtrum, &c. Calv. Epiſt. pag. 174, 175. And it's the ordinary anſwer of our Divines, That the infant is not to be debarred from the priviledges of the Covenant for the ſins of the immediate parents; for thoſe that deſcended from Abraham and David had a right to Circumciſion, and were within the Covenant, though the immediate parents for ſome foregoing generations were wicked, as Pſal. 106.35. they were mixed among the Heathen, and had learned their works, and ſerved their Idols, yet he regarded their affliction when he heard their cry, and remembred for them his Covenant,verſ. 44. even the Covenant that he made with Abraham, &c. The promiſe is to you and your children; and yet it's clear,Acts 2.39.Acts 2:39 that their immediate parents were a wicked generation, that had killed the Prophets, as they themſelves had a hand in crucifying the Lord of glory; concerning the Goſpel it's ſaid of the Jews, That they are enemies for your ſakes, Rom. 11.28.Rom 11:28but as touching the election they are beloved for their fathers ſake; their immediate fathers were wicked and enemies to the Goſpel, and yet is there a holineſs that comes from Abraham the root unto the Jews, when they ſhall be converted; for God ſhews mercy unto them that love him to a thouſand generations; and Joſhua had little reaſon to have circumciſed the people at Gilgal for the holineſs of their immediate parents, whoſe carkaſſes fell in the Wilderneſs, and yet he did circumciſe them there as being within the Covenant, and did thereby roll away from them the reproach of Egypt: and hence they do ſay,Mortons Appeal l. 4. c. 6. §. 1. Rutherford the due right of Presbyt. pag. 2. c. 4. §. 6. p. 259. that the children of Papiſts and excommunicated Proteſtants born within the viſible Church are to be baptized, if any of their forefathers have been found in the faith.

And I could gladly have reſted in this ſo received a judgment of godly and learned men, p. 222but that ſome conſiderations have put me upon a further inquiry; for I find in the adminiſtration of the ſeals of the Covenant as well as in the application of the promiſes of the Covenant, that they are to be adminiſtred with judgment in the parties that do adminiſter them, and that there is a great truſt and a ſpecial charge committed to them therein, Mat. 7. Give not that which is holy unto dogs; It's a dangerous evil for a man either wittingly or negligently to diſpenſe the Ordinances of God and the priviledges of the Covenant to thoſe unto whom God did never intend them, as it is to deny them unto thoſe whoſe right they are. As to apply the promiſes unto wicked men, and make glad the ſouls of the unrighteous, and to ſew a pillow under every arm-hole, and provide a kerchief for every head, is as bad as it is to deny the promiſes unto men whoſe right they are; ſo to make glad the ſouls of the wicked by applying the ſeals to their ſeed, is as bad as to make ſad the ſouls of the righteous by denying them. It was that Chryſoſtom ſtood much upon in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, he would rather ſuffer his own blood to be poured out, than to give the blood of Chriſt to be profaned by an unworthy receiver; and ſurely if ſo much care and diligence be to be uſed in Church-Officers in diſpenſing of one Sacrament, the other is not to be ſo careleſly and promiſcuouſly adminiſtred as it is; and therefore it was the great offence that Mr. Farell took at the Collegue joyned with him in the Miniſtry: Quòd omnia profanare & improbiſſimos velle admittere non-vereretur, That he feared not to profane all things, and admit the moſt wicked. Theſe thoughts have put me upon farther inquiry concerning the perſons unto whom the Sacrament of Baptiſm is to be adminiſtred, and to whom the priviledges of the Covenant do belong, and the apprehenſions that I have of it out of the word I ſhall deſire with all ſubmiſſion to propoſe to you. (1) I'le lay down in ſeveral propoſitions what. I conceive to be the truth. (2) I ſhall anſwer the objections that are commonly made againſt them; and ſo I hope the truth may be cleared, or at leaſt hereby an occaſion given to them that are better able to judge, of further inquiry.

Reaſons why federal right comes to children from their immediate parents only.1. I conceive that federal right comes to the children only from the immediate parents; and the Reaſons that induce me to conceive ſo are theſe.

1. In Scripture I find that when God took parents into Covenant, he alſo took in their children with them, and whenſoever God caſt parents out, the immediate parents, he did caſt out their children alſo. When he took the Jews into Covenant, he made this Covenant alſo with their ſeed; and becauſe the root was holy, from thence came alſo an holineſs upon the branches: and when he did caſt off the immediate parents and called them Loammi, he did alſo caſt off their ſeed; and it would have been in vain to the Jews to have ſaid, We have Abraham for our father, and therefore have ſtill a federal right, when God had given unto their immediate parents a bill of divorce, and looked upon them as a people in Covenant with him no more: as therefore, though none of their predeceſſors were holy and in Covenant, yet the faith of the immediate parents and their intereſt in the Covenant does make the children holy, and brings them under the priviledges of the Covenant; ſo though many of their predeceſſors were holy, yet if the immediate parents reject and caſt off the Covenant, and be rejected of God, the children alſo are caſt out with them; there is the ſame reaſon of rejection by immediate parents, that there is of reception; but the rejection may be in the one without reſpect unto Anceſtors, therefore it muſt be ſo in the reception alſo.

1. There are ſome Ordinances that are purely ſo, and may be diſpenſed to all that will partake in them; but there are ſome Ordinances that are ſuch as carry alſo priviledges with them, and belong not unto all men that will receive them, but in Scripture are appointed to ſome only; and amongſt theſe chiefly are the ſeals of the Covenant which are not to be adminiſtred to all men; for Chriſt did never appoint his Miniſters to baptize all mankind, but Believers only, and their ſeed whom he takes into Covenant with himſelf.

2. I look upon Baptiſm as a great Ordinance: (1) As being one of the firſt Inſtitutions of the New Teſtament, and which the Lord Jeſus Chriſt himſelf ſubjected unto by the hand of a ſervant. (2) In reſpect of the things ſignified and ſealed thereby, which are our firſt union with Chriſt, the great promiſe of the Spirit of Sanctification, our Redemption by Chriſt, and communion with him in his Death and Reſurrection. (3) It being the Ordinance of publick admiſſion into the viſible Church; for as under the Old Teſtament the admiſſion was by Circumciſion, ſo under the New it has always been by Baptiſm: They were baptized and added to the Church.

3. It being an admiſſion into the viſible Church, it is a power committed unto men, unto whom the power of the Keys is committed; for as admiſſion into the Church inviſible is an immediate act of Chriſt, ſo admiſſion into the Church viſible is committed unto the Officers under Chriſt:Mat. 16.19.Matt 16:19 I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: in Scripture a p. 223Key is ſymbolum poteſtatis, a ſymbol of power, as Eſa. 22.22. and this power is twofold. (1) Supreme and abſolute, which is in the hand of Chriſt, who is ſaid to have a double power, the Keys of Hell and Death, and the Key of the Church, called the Key of David; Rev. 1.18. & 3.7.Rev 1:18Rev 3:7and this is by ſome called the Key of Royalty, he being the Head and King of the Church: but there is alſo (2) A power ſubordinate and limited, poteſtas oeconomi, the power of a ſteward, as Beza does expound it, a power of Miniſtry, by which all the affairs in his houſe as viſible may be acted and ordered according to his mind for the ends that he has propoſed; and this is a Key of Miniſtry, which ſome do call a Key of Charity; Eſa. 22.22. Rev. 3.7.Isa 22:22Rev 3:7and theſe Keys are for opening and ſhutting the doors of the viſible Church; and therefore the perſons to whom they are committed, whether they be committed to the Church firſt, as the firſt ſubject, or to the Officers, we need not now diſpute; they both have an authority to open the Kingdom of Heaven unto ſome, and to ſhut it unto others.

4. Chriſt owns their acts no further than in them they walk by his rule and obſerve his order; as it is in Excommunications and Ejections, if they be clave errante, they do not bind in Heaven; as we ſee in the putting out of the Synagogue by the Phariſees, and by Diotrephes his uſurped power; as alſo by that of Antichriſt, who ordains,Joh. 3.10. Rev. 13.17. Mede.John 3:10Rev 13:17 That no man muſt buy or ſell ſave he that had the mark; anathematis Eccleſiaſtici cenſura innuitur. Now as ſuch Ejections are not owned by Chriſt, ſo neither are Admiſſions that are not according to the ſame rule; becauſe they are exerciſed errante clave, and therefore all that labour is in vain, and is a meer abuſe of the power of the Keys, and ſo a diſhonour put upon the Ordinance of Chriſt in the one, as well as in the other, becauſe the rule is tranſgreſſed in both; for he has in his Word given rules for the one as well as for the other.

5. The truſt committed unto Officers in this kind is exceeding great, and therefore the account will be dreadful; for what is a particular viſible Church, but a golden Candleſtick, and the Sponſe of Chriſt, and the Body of Chriſt? Now how great a truſt is it to be imployed in things of ſo high concernment, and how dangerous muſt the errour needs be to eſpouſe a ſoul to Chriſt that he neither can nor will owne for his? How great a wrong is it? Now the nearer the relation, the greater the tranſgreſſion; and ſo it is to place a member in the body of Chriſt that he abhors: and therefore Admiſſions and Ejections of Church-members are ſome of the greateſt acts of mens lives, and ſhould be done with greateſt heed and the greateſt ſolemnity; and how ſhall that Officer appear before the Lord at the laſt day, who through ignorance knows not,Judicatur magno cum pondere, ut apud certos de Dei conſpectu ſummum que futuri judicii praejudicium, Apol. c. 37, 39. or through careleſneſs or cuſtom regards not the rules of Chriſt in either of them? which Tertullian ſays, was the greateſt miſchief that could befal the Heathen: Hoc ſolum ſufficit neutra ultioni, quòd vacua exinde poſſeſſio immundis ſpiritibus pateret: To leave men out of the Church as a poſſeſſion of Satan, to leave a man to Satan, and to deliver him to Satan, admits not much difference; and ſo for their receptions, they were ſolemn things; for what can be greater than to receive a man into the Kingdom of Heaven, or to deliver a man unto Satan, and bind his ſins upon his conſcience until the coming of the Lord?

6. There ought to be as great care in one Sacrament, that it be not miſapplied, as there is in the other. It is granted, that to adminiſter the Supper of the Lord in a promiſcuous manner to all without diſtinction were a great evil, a giving of the childrens bread to dogs, a great means to harden the hearts of profane men in an evil way, looking upon themſelves as having a right to all the priviledges of the Saints, though they be ſuch as hate holineſs; and by this means great breach of truſt in them that do adminiſter it: and therefore the Church in ancient times did proceed with much warineſs and tenderneſs in it, as appears by the inſtance of Chryſoſtome; and they took the ſame care for Baptiſm alſo, they muſt be audientes, and afterwards competentes before they were admitted unto Baptiſm; and therefore the rule in the Nicene Council, as it is recorded by Balſam. is this: foreign, That no unbeliever be baptized without ſufficient inſtruction and tryal, &c. They were firſt to be inſtructed in the Principles of Religion, and if well catechized, yet not by and by to be admitted unto Baptiſm, becauſe the tryal of thoſe things do require time: and if a man had ſcandalouſly ſinned, there was a great deal of care taken of readmiſſion; as we ſee how much there was of the inceſtuous Corinthian, before he was received; at firſt they did too little chaſtiſe, and then afterwards they did too much; the Church had much ado to obſerve the order of God in it; and ſo it was in Auſtins time, for ſome ſins per triennium erant inter catechumenos, and in ſome ſins quin que annos exigant inter catechumenos, nay ſometimes it is poenitentes erant cum catechumenis ſeptem vel decem annos, the Penitents were with the Catechumeni ſeven or ten years, and for ſome ſins they were not admitted all their life time. Now if there be ſo much to do about Readmiſſions,As Albaſpinus hath it, p. 329, 330. ſurely there ſhould be a great care had of the firſt Admiſſions. As therefore in admiſſion to deny it to thoſe to whom Chriſt by a Legacy hath p. 224bequeathed it, would ſeem highly derogatory to the goodneſs and rich grace of the Teſtator (as the Anabaptiſts do) ſo alſo to miſplace it upon thoſe that by divine warrant have no right to it, is as great a breach of truſt, and a diſhonour unto him that did inſtitute this myſterious Ordinance, and beſtow it as a priviledge upon the Church, as I fear we too commonly have done. Theſe conſiderations have put me upon a further inquiry into it, as deſirous to ſee divine warrant for the perſons to whom I do adminiſter one Sacrament as well as the other, and not to take up a tradition which has deceived many.

And herein, though I grant, that there is unto children a federal holineſs, and they have a parental right unto Baptiſm,Nazianz. orat. 40. p. 6, 48. and I ſay with Nazianzen, Let him be ſanctified and offered unto God in his infancy; yet I ſay, that this being by a parental, and not by perſonal right, we are to inquire into this right, whether it does lawfully deſcend from the parents or no; and if it do, it muſt be from the remote or immediate parents, or both, or either. Now upon conſideration I conceive, that the Scripture wholly carries it unto immediate parents only, and that there is no other title to Baptiſm, or to any federal holineſs but this only, and that upon theſe reaſons.

1. Whereſoever God has taken parents into Covenant, he has taken their children alſo; and when he has caſt out the immediate parents, he has caſt out their children with them, as before.

2. If there be ſuch an aſcending as this is, where ſhall we ſtay? for if we go upwards, one parent has no more priviledge to give a child a right than another, and ſo by this means we ſhall take in the children of Turks, and Jews, and all, for ſome of their predeceſſors were holy, and men in Covenant, and that in far leſs than a thouſand generations; and therefore there will be no way to ſtop, but by this rule we muſt baptize all mankind: and whereas this Ordinance as well as the other is to be adminiſtred with judgment by him that adminiſters it, that it may be done in faith, in this federal right from remote parents there is nothing but uncertainty; ſo that no man is able to conclude any thing from it. I confeſs that mans judgment is not to be the rule, but the application of the rule is to be by him as well in one Sacrament (I conceive) as in another; as he that ſhall ſay he does not conceive ſuch a man fit to receive the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, and ſuch a man he does, this does not make his judgment the rule, but leaves unto him the application of the rule in reference to the truſt committed unto him; and this will make all to go upon doubtful and uncertain grounds all their days, that a man knows no holineſs by his immediate parents, and yet he can ſuppoſe ſome of his remote parents were holy; and by this means he knows not how to adminiſter it upon the known unholineſs of his immediate parents, and yet he knows not how to withhold it from the ſuppoſed holineſs of the remote parents; and this has brought in, I ſay, the promiſcuous baptizing of all amongſt us without diſtinction.

1 Cor. 7.14.1 Cor 7:143. The Apoſtles expreſſion argues as much, Elſe were your children unclean; it had been in vain to have ſaid that they were unclean, if one of the parents be not a Believer; for it may be ſaid, that the Grandfather and the Grandmother might be ſo, and who can give that teſtimony? it puts men upon impoſſibilities to ſearch: but the Apoſtles argument is from the immediate parents; if neither of them were a Believer, their children were unclean,foreign. but if either ſo, then they are holy: now the word in the Greek implies, that there is no other way to make the children holy but by a federal holineſs; for elſe it may be replied, though neither parent be a Believer, yet their children may be holy by the Covenant intereſt of their Anceſtors, and therefore it matters not what the immediate parents are in reference to the holineſs of the child, but if any of his Anceſtors were ever Believers, the child doth never loſe his right, the Covenant-right does lineally deſcend upon their poſterity unto ſucceeding generations; but this doth quite croſs the Apoſtles reaſon, taking it from the immediate parents.

4. There is much ſaid to this purpoſe by our Divines touching the children of parents that are profane,Calv. epiſt. pag. 175. Papiſts, or excommunicated perſons. Calvin, as you have heard in his Epiſtle to Mr. Farell, ſpeaks of the children of Papiſts, and the ſame was the judgment of Mr. Hilderſham in Joh. 4. pag. 128.Abſurdum eſt, ut eos baptizemus qui corporis noſtri membra cenſeri nequeunt: quum in hoc ordine ſunt Papiſtarum liberi, quomodo baptiſmum illis adminiſtrare liceat non videmus, Calv. In curia illa neutiquam poteſt excuſari, quâ promiſcuè, & ſine diſcrimine qulcun que ad baptiſmum admittuntur, Ameſ. caſ. p. 231. It's a great contempt done unto Gods publick Worſhip when all without difference are admitted into the priviledges of the Church, as if they had equal intereſt in them with the people of God, when ſuch as are known to the Congregation to have committed whoredom, have their children inſtantly admitted unto Baptiſm, before themſelves have given ſatiſfaction to the Congregation by their repentance; and ſo for children whoſe immediate parents are excommunicated, which was not fit to be done, as Ames has it; therefore in his judgment, if the immediate parents were cut off, ſo were the children alſo cut off with them; and they that have no actual right unto Church priviledges themſelves, cannot convey an actual right to others; and that is alſo Mr. Calvins rule, Epiſt. 16. Perſona quae Eccleſiae communione p. 225indigna eſt, multò minùs poteſt aliis in eam aditum patefacere, Epiſt. ibid.

The**Object. 1. Objections that I meet with againſt it are mainly three, the firſt taken out of the ſecond Commandment, Exod. 20.5. He ſhews mercy to thouſands in them that love him and keep his commandments. Thus God extends Covenant-mercy not only to parents, but to their children alſo, and that to ſucceeding generations; and we muſt not limit the grace of God, for that were to limit the holy One of Iſrael. For Anſwer hereto, (1) if the meaning here be of the priviledges of the Covenant which are conveyed by the parents unto the child, then if any of them were godly from the beginning of the world, this Scripture will intail Church-priviledges upon them by a lineal deſcent unto the end of the world; for it's likely there ſhall not be a thouſand generations from the beginning of the world to the end thereof, becauſe theſe are called the latter times; wherefore this is but a certain for an uncertain number, and therefore in this caſe we muſt know where to ſtop; there muſt be a period put, that a man may be able to ſay, none of them was holy in the ſecond, third, or fourth generation, and therefore now the federal holineſs that was this mans or this childs is expired. (2) If it ſhould be underſtood of Church-priviledges and a federal holineſs that deſcends upon the child from the parents, then how ſhall this promiſe and threatning be both made good? for it may be ſome of the Anceſtors have been godly, but the immediate parents are wicked and profane, why may we not as well and much rather ſay, that God will viſit the iniquity of the immediate parents upon the children, as that he will ſhew mercy unto the children for the grace and holineſs of their remote parents? (3) Of what mercy ſoever it's thus underſtood, whether of ſaving mercies, or of outward bleſſings, it's plain, that it's only unto thoſe children which walk in the ſame ways of holineſs with their parents; for God will viſit the iniquity of the parents upon the children, and if his hatred to children to the third and fourth generation be of them that walk in the ways and wickedneſs of the fathers, then his mercy to thouſands is upon them that walk in the ways of their fathers obedience. So much I conceive the laſt words imply, verſ. 6. Shewing mercy to them that love me and that keep my commandments: if this be the meaning, it will be eaſily granted, that the children of godly parents, who walk in the ſame ways of holineſs with their parents, ſhall obtain mercy from God unto many ſucceeding generations; but that is nothing to the thing in hand, which does ſuppoſe children to grow wicked, and to degenerate from the holineſs of their parents, and yet men would infer, that their fathers priviledges do unto many generations deſcend unto them, which I conceive is far from the ſcope and intent of the Holy Ghoſt.

Object. 2 But the Iſraelites were circumciſed, though their immediate parents were wicked, of which the inſtances before given are many, and therefore our children ſhould be baptized, though the immediate parents be wicked; and if the profaneneſs of a Jew did not prejudice the childs right, why then ſhould the profaneneſs of a Chriſtian take away the childs title? are not our priviledges as large as theirs?

In anſwer hereto, Anſw. (1) of Circumciſion there was no ſet Officer appointed by God to adminiſter it, and therefore commonly the parents did it, and it's plain by thoſe that write their ſtories, that women did it commonly: now there being no ſet Officer to adminiſter it, there was no ſet Officer to ſuſpend it. But in the Chriſtians Baptiſm it's not ſo, there is a ſet Officer, who is to adminiſter it with judgment, and as he is to deny it to none to whom it belongs, ſo he is to diſpenſe it to none, but ſuch to whom it belongs. (2) The Lord took the whole Nation of the Jews into a Church-covenant, and they became a peculiar people unto him, and whoever was born of that Nation, was therefore born a Church-member, and had right unto the priviledges of the Church; it is not ſo with any other people under Heaven, there is ſomething more required to make a man a Church-member than barely to be born of ſuch a Nation; and therefore while they continued Church-members, though they were never ſo profane and wicked, this could not prejudice the priviledge of the Church. And though ſuch deſerve to be caſt out, yet as long as the Church doth through negligence or connivence continue ſuch in a ſtate of memberſhip, they cannot deny them the priviledge of members; but yet it doth appear, that now under the Goſpel many men that live in the Church are not true members of the Church; or if they be caſt out, then they and their children are juſtly deprived of the priviledges of members, becauſe it doth not belong unto them; and though the poſterity of Iſmael and Eſau did uſe Circumciſion after they were ſeparated from the Church of God, yet it was unto them only a vain and an empty ſign, and no Church-ordinance, neither was it unto them a Church-priviledge any longer than they continued Church-members. (3) This ſeems to be demonſtrative, that none are to be looked upon as within the Covenant, and to have right unto the ſeals but Church-members, and that the Church-memberſhip of children is a priviledge that they receive from their immediate parents only, and that it's p. 226not barely a parents being baptized, and making a profeſſion of Chriſt, that doth de jure give him a right to memberſhip; and therefore if parents profeſs Chriſt, and yet are not to be looked upon as members of the Church, then Calvins rule I think will hold, He that is not a Church-member himſelf cannot convey a right of memberſhip unto his children.

Here are three things to be proved.

1. That none have a right to the ſeals of the Covenant, but thoſe that are members of the Church. This Calvin in an Epiſtle to Mr. Knox clearly aſſerts: Semper attentè cavendum eſt, ne profanetur hujus myſterii ſanctitas, quod fieri certum eſt, ſi promiſcuè alicui conceditur, vel quiſpiam recipitur, qui inter legitimos Eccleſiae cives numerari nequeat. Therefore they that are baptized muſt be Cives Eccleſiae, thoſe that have a title to memberſhip; for the Ordinance of Baptiſme is profaned, if it be applied unto any other, and the clear grounds of it are theſe. The ſcals are the priviledges of Church-members only, and if they be adminiſtred unto any whoſe priviledge they are not, they are certainly profaned; for Chriſt admitted none but Diſciples,Act. 2.Acts 2 and his Diſciples afterward admitted none but Diſciples: They that believed were of one heart, and they continued in breaking of bread, and prayer, &c. and afterwards when the Church grew more corrupt and more remiſs, that ſuch were admitted who did manifeſt they had no right unto this priviledge, they were looked upon as ſpots in their feaſts, and it was judged a diſhonour unto that Church. And for this cauſe in the primitive times, though the Catechumeni were admitted to hear, and were called Audientes and Orantes, yet thoſe that they did excommunicate they did allow thoſe Ordinances to, and therefore they did uſe to ſentence them, Orent per triennium inter Catechumenos, or ſometimes more years, according to the nature of the fact; but yet they ſtill did deprive them of the ſeals, as being a priviledge of members only. (2) Baptiſm is a Sacrament of initiation, and the Ordinance of viſible admiſſion into the Church; and that muſt not be done promiſcuouſly, and without diſcrimination; for, as it's a ſin to keep out thoſe whoſe right it is, ſo it's a ſin alſo to admit them that have no right, becauſe thereby the Ordinances of Chriſt are abuſed and miſplaced where he never intended them, and for whom he never inſtituted them. Now a perſon muſt have a right to memberſhip before ever he is to be admitted a member, and he has no right to claim admiſſion of thoſe who have the power of the Keys, unleſs it be upon this ground, that a right of memberſhip does belong unto him; and therefore he does upon this deſire admiſſion as a member, that ſo he be not defrauded of his right. And Calvin profeſſes in another Epiſtle, Niſi inter vos vigeat diſcrimen aliquod, ut prohibeantur, qui ſine craſſa Dei injuria admitti nequeunt, pro confeſſo ſumo, tam baptiſmum, quam coenam profanari. To whom is this ſpoken? It was not to Jews and Turks, and the admiſſion of Heathens, but unto Chriſtians and Profeſſors; and yet he ſays, that there muſt be among them diſcriminatio quaedam, a certain diſcrimination; though they were Chriſtians in profeſſion, yet that did not give them all a title, if it had, there needed no difference to be put: and obſerve, he will have this difference to be put in reference to the Sacrament of Baptiſm, as well as the Supper of the Lord; and he complaineth of this diſorder of adminiſtring the Sacrament promiſcuouſly, and exhorteth the Miniſters to endeavour the reforming it; if they could not ſay how it was lawful for them to hold their places, certè ubi rogando & hortando nihil proficitur, ac fruſtra etiam conqueſti ſumus, nos religione conſtringi, ne pergamus ſcientes & volentes ſacra Dei myſteria profanare; in tam confuſa ordinis perturbatione quomodo ſtare nobis liceat, neſcio.

2. Right of memberſhip conveyed unto children from the immediate parents is a truth that the whole Scripture ſeems to hold forth. [1] When-ever the immediate parents were taken into Covenant, whatever their Anceſtors have been, their poſterity were taken into Covenant alſo, and had a right to memberſhip together with their parents; Abrahams father was Terah, And he with his father ſerved other gods beyond the river, Joſh. 24.2. and yet as ſoon as the Lord took Abraham into Covenant, he took in his poſterity alſo with him immediately; and therefore the children of thoſe that are Church-members are called the children of the Covenant, Act. 3.25.Acts 3:25ſo as their intereſt in the Covenant comes upon them as their birth-right. For it is true, that there are but two ways of conveying a Covenant-right unto men, either perſonal by their own faith, or parental; and this is not of nature, for by nature one mans child has as much right as anothers, none are born Chriſtians, but it's a gift of grace, and which doth follow upon the child by virtue of the parents Covenant; and though none of his Anceſtors were Believers, but ſerved other gods, yet the immediate parents being Believers can give a right without reſpect unto the condition of their Anceſtors: and ſo it was with the Proſelytes among the Jews, their children were taken into Covenant with their immediate parents, though their Anceſtors were for many generations wicked. Many inſtances of this have been given before. [2] Children taken into Covenant have with their immediate parents been caſt out; Iſmael was taken into Covenant, p. 227and received the ſeal of the Covenant; but when he was caſt out, though Abraham was alive, yet Iſmaels family was never after looked upon as in Covenant, or as members of the viſible Church of God: ſo it was with Eſau and his poſterity the Edomites, their father being put out of Covenant, though they did attain Circumciſion, which was a ſeal of the Covenant, yet it was not Circumciſion in Gods account; for they were never by God accounted a Church unto him. But that's a remarkable inſtance amongſt the Jews, when the Church of God had continued in that Nation for many generations, and though God had there a greater income of holineſs once, than he had in all the world beſide, and was not aſhamed to be called their God, and to call them of all the nations of the earth his peculiar people; yet when the Lord caſt off their immediate parents, and gave them a bill of divorce, he did alſo caſt off their children, who can never claim a right from their Anceſtors; neither would any man by this claim (I conceive) admit a Jew unto the ſeals of the Covenant. And yet after this long interruption, wherein wrath is come upon them to the uttermoſt; when the immediate parents ſhall be converted, and taken into Covenant with God again, then alſo ſhall their children be gathered in together with them; and this, as far as I underſtand, is the whole tenour of the Scripture, and I know no inſtance that children were taken into Covenant, whatever their Anceſtors were, unleſs their immediate parents were Church-members.

3. The right of memberſhip does not conſiſt barely in being baptized, and making a profeſſion of the name of Chriſt; and therefore parents may have both theſe, and yet not be judged Church-members. (1) Being baptized doth not give a man a right unto Church-memberſhip, and the grounds of it are theſe. [1] That which is the ſeal of our admiſſion into the viſible Church, cannot give a man a right to it, ſo as to make a man a member; that is, if a man ought to have the right of memberſhip before he be baptized, then his Baptiſm does not give him this right, but ſeal it only, and gives a viſible confirmation thereunto; but Baptiſm is a ſeal of a mans admiſſion; therefore it's not Baptiſm that gives him a right of admiſſion, but the promiſe, Act. 2.39. For the promiſe is to you and your children, therefore ſays the Apoſtle, Be baptized; therefore it's ſomething before Baptiſm that gives a right of memberſhip, by virtue of which a man lays claim to Baptiſm; for the ſeals belong to Church-members only. [2] If Baptiſm make a man a member of the viſible Church, then while the Baptiſm remains firm, the memberſhip remains; for forma dat eſſe rei; but we ſee that is not ſo in a double caſe, 1. In the caſe of wilful Apoſtaſie, when men withdraw themſelves from the Church, They went out from us, 1 Joh. 2.19.1 John 2:19becauſe they were not of us; theſe were baptized, and their Baptiſm did remain, and yet they did wilfully ſeparate from the Church of God; wherefore according to this opinion they are to be looked upon ſtill as Church members; becauſe Baptiſm which gave them a right does remain, and there is nothing can take away their right but that which does null their Baptiſm and makes it void. 2. In the caſe of Excommunication; as the former does caſt off the Church, ſo is the latter caſt off by the Church; and as the one renounceth fellowſhip with the Church, ſo does the Church renounce fellowſhip with this man. Now if there be a power of the Keys, as 'tis commonly granted, then as there is a power of admiſſion, ſo there is alſo a power of ejection; and therefore Chriſt ſays of ſuch a man, You are to account him a Heathen and a Publican, that is, no Church-member; and yet this mans Baptiſm remains, and the man may be truly godly, and a member of the Church inviſible, as the inceſtuous Corinthian was, and yet juſtly caſt out of the Church viſible, and to be looked upon, according to the rules of Chriſt, as one that had no right unto viſible memberſhip, nor to be reckoned among that number. [3] This will evidence the Church of Rome to be a true Church, and the Papiſts among us to be true members; for all the members of the Church of Rome have received true Baptiſm, and therefore they are members of the true Church; and yet we know that the Scripture calls Rome, Babylon the great, the mother of Harlots, Rev. 11.Rev 11and that ſhe is ſpiritually Egypt and Sodom; the Lord has given her a bill of divorce; and our Divines generally will not acknowledge Rome to be a true Church, and therefore the members thereof not to be true members; and yet it is as generally acknowledged, that their Baptiſm is true Baptiſm, therefore 'tis not Baptiſm that gives a man a right unto Church-memberſhip. (2) It's not an outward profeſſion in a Chriſtian Church that gives a man a right of memberſhip: now by a profeſſion I mean an aſſent unto the Doctrine of Faith and life, as it is in the Word of God delivered unto us, as it ſtands in oppoſition unto practice, and ſo we uſually oppoſe it; for if profeſſion and practice go together, as far as man can judge, then there is ſomething to judge of ſuch a mans memberſhip by beſides profeſſion only; but profeſſion only will not ſuffice, [1] Becauſe the members of a viſible Church muſt be viſible Saints; for the matter of the Church viſible and inviſible is the ſame, that is, Saints only; the one are Saints in Gods account, who diſcerns them by the p. 228judgment of certainty and infallibility, becauſe it's God that admits into the Church inviſible; and the other are Saints in the account of thoſe to whom the power of the Keys is committed, who judge only by the judgment of charity; and therefore what there is in the one in truth, muſt be in the other in ſhew and appearance, for it muſt be a judicious, and not a blind charity.Calv. Inſtit. l. 4. c. 108. Apoll. de qualif. membrorum. Now our Divines generally ſay, that there are three things that do concur to make a man a viſible Saint. (1) They muſt be men inſtructed in the Principles of Religion, and able in ſome meaſure to give an account of the reaſon of the hope that is in them. (2) They muſt yield a willing ſubjection to the Goſpel, 2 Cor. 9.13. and they that gladly receive the word, as Act. 2. (3) They muſt walk unblameably in their converſation; but the fooliſh Virgins as well as the wiſe had oyl in their lamps, and made a ſhew, a profeſſion before men, and did ſeem to ſhine as lights in the world, and yet their hearts were not upright and ſound with God. It's true, that ſome there are that grow higher in the qualification of members, but we will content our ſelves with theſe in reference to the thing in hand; and if a viſible Saintſhip doth make a man a member, and that viſible Saint muſt be in this manner qualified, then it's not barely profeſſion will do it; but many a man amongſt us holds forth the profeſſion of Chriſt, who is ignorant even in the Principles of Religion, and knows little more of the Religion that he profeſſes, than if he were a meer Pagan, yea is ſo far from ſubjection unto the duties of Holineſs, that he is a profeſſed enemy and ſcorner of them, and whoſe life is full of nothing elſe but profaneneſs and the moſt profligate wickedneſs. Now I cannot conceive, that a mans profeſſion of the name of Chriſt, and calling himſelf a Chriſtian, can give him a right of memberſhip, becauſe it cannot conſtitute him a viſible Saint, which is acknowledged by all to be the matter of a viſible Church. [2] It will appear that profeſſion will not do it, by this, becauſe perſons who are Church-members may ſcandalouſly fall, as the inceſtuous Corinthian did, and may by the ſcandal of their fall juſtly deſerve Excommunication, and thereby be cut off from the Church, and yet the mans profeſſion ſtill remain. And being caſt out, profeſſion is not enough to reſtore a man to the right of memberſhip; for there muſt be a humiliation and an anſwerable converſation upon tryal, proving that humiliation to be true, or elſe all the profeſſion in the world will never be a ground unto them that have the power of the Keys to reſtore ſuch a man, as in the inceſtuous Corinthian it doth appear: neither was meer profeſſion a ground of admiſſion in the primitive times; and therefore, though men had embraced the Chriſtian Faith, and made a profeſſion of it, yet they were not admitted Church-members, till they were baptized; and they were Catechumeni ſome of them a great while, to be inſtructed in the Principles of Religion, and that an exact account might be taken of their converſation, before they were baptized. Now if this be true, that the childrens right of memberſhip is from parents that are members, and that none are members but viſible Saints, and viſible Saints are ſuch only as are inſtructed in the Principles of Religion, and profeſs to ſubject themſelves to the Ordinances of Chriſt, and walk outwardly anſwerably thereunto; then ſurely many of them who are counted Church-members, really are not ſo, and if in their viſible ſtanding they be yet ſo, becauſe not caſt out, yet de jure they ought not to be ſo reputed, for they ought to be caſt out. Calvin confeſſeth,Calv. epiſt. pag. 438. Nullam eſſe legem quae coenae & baptiſmi ſanctitatem cuſtodiat, ne utrum que myſterium contemptui & ludibrio expoſitum ſit, remiſſio eſt minimè excuſabilis, &c. And truly if the parents have no right, what can they convey unto their children? Nil dat quod in ſe non habet, That which hath nothing can give nothing. And if the generality of men be ſuch as de jure have no right, then they can derive no right unto thoſe that come from them: and as Calvin ſaith of the woman that lived in the Church, and married her daughter to a Papiſt, and afterward did demand Baptiſm for the child in her own name, becauſe ſhe was a member of the Church, he ſays, the queſtion might have been eaſily anſwered: Si vigeret legitima diſciplina, excommunicatione digna erat, quae Eccleſiam unâ re fraudaverat, Epiſt. pag. 175.&c. and if it had been done, there had been an end put to the controverſie; and ſo I ſay it is here; for if they be without the Church, they are not to be admitted, being not qualified for members; and if any man will ſay, that they are within, they are to be caſt out, becauſe they walk ſo unanſwerably unto the profeſſion of members; and ſo which way ſoever it be, they can convey but a mean right unto their children, who have none at leaſt de jure according to the rules of the word themſelves.

2. That only immediate Parents can give a right, will appear by the great Inconveniencies of the contrary doctrine, which muſt needs follow upon it. (1) This does make way for the Baptizing of all promiſcuouſly that live amongſt us; for if we acknowledge, that by their immediate Parents they have no right, yet in the judgement of Charity it's ſaid, that we are to conceive, that ſome of their Anceſtors were Believers, and therefore we may upon this judgment baptize them, which Divines do commonly ſay, is a p. 229Profanation of the Ordinance, as Calvin, and Ames, Caſ. Conſc. p. 232. Diſtinctio aliqua inter puros & impuros debet obſervari in omnibus ſacris; Inſtituta Dei non aliter poſſunt ab omni pollutione conſervari. It's ſpoken in the caſe of Baptiſm, and putting a difference between perſons that are received thereunto; and Hilderſham makes it a contempt done to the Ordinance. (2) By this means they that are Officers are put to act upon great uncertainties, as having no Rule to admit by; for there is certainly a time when the federal Right of Anceſtors will ceaſe, it doth not laſt in all ſucceeding Generations; and how ſhall a man be able to judge of this? Now I conceive we had need be as careful in Admiſſions as in Ejections, and have as ſure a Rule, and as clear for the one as for the other, if we look upon it as an Ordinance, and an Inſtitution of Chriſt. And truly were we as careful of Admiſſions as we ought to be, we ſhould have leſs need of Ejections than now we have. (3) By this means we put a great deal of difference between the Seals of the ſame Covenant, as if one were far more honourable than the other; therefore we muſt have ſuch Rules to ſatisfie us for admiſſion to the one, but we may goe upon any uncertainty, which we will call the Judgment of Charity, for the other. (4) By this means ungodly men are nouriſhed in an evil way, and are born up with a good conceit of themſelves, of their eſtates, that they are in as good a condition as any, and their Children have as good a right unto all Church-priviledges as any other men, though they be never ſo wicked and prophane, nay though they deſerve to be caſt out; and by this means mens hearts are ſtrangely hardened in a way of ſinning; for they ſay, all the Lords people are holy, every one of them, Color omnibus unus; and therefore the world have ever been great enemies to all differencing wayes whatſoever; becauſe all muſt goe under the common notion of Chriſtians and of Proteſtants, though it be in opprobrium Chriſti. (5) I find that in the ancient Church there was a great deal of care and exactneſs this way, touching him who was admitted unto Baptiſm, as well as to the Supper of the Lord; and ſo great was the ſtrictneſs, that Calvin ſayes, Nimia fuit auſteritas in veteribus, non permittere indignos, qui arceri legitimo judicio nequeunt; ſpeaking unto this very caſe, thinking it unlawfull to deprive ſuch of what he did conceive to be their right: but yet ſuch was the ſtrictneſs and exactneſs of the Ancients in this Ordinance, and the adminiſtration of it, that he looks upon it as too great ſeverity.

And for that Objection of the Jews, Object. That the wickedneſs of the immediate Parents could not prejudice the Child of a Jew in his federal right, and therefore (ſay they) it cannot the right of a Chriſtian; for we are gathered into the ſame Covenant, and do enjoy the ſame Priviledges, for our ſelves, and our Poſterity, and the Covenant-grace of God is ſo far from being reſtrained under the New Teſtament, that it is enlarged; and therefore Calvin ſaith, Ʋbicunque non prorſus extincta eſt chriſtianiſmi Profeſſio, fraudantur ſuo jure infantes, ſi à communi Symbolo arceantur; Epiſt. p. 442.

1. This is but aſſerted, Anſw. That a wicked Parent amongſt the Jews could not prejudice the childs Covenant-right, and therefore all their Children were circumciſed; but this is but gratis dictum; for that there were Church-cenſures amongſt the Jews is commonly granted, and that theſe cenſures did in ſome caſes reach not only to the Perſons but unto their Poſterity alſo; and we are told by men judged to be very skilful in the Antiquities, as Buxtorf, Godwin, and Gilleſpy in Aarons rod bloſſoming, p. 64. that perſons excommunicated, if they remained impenitent, their puniſhment was to be increaſed according to the pleaſure of the Judge, and in the mean time their male-children were not circumciſed; and if that the Prophaneneſs of an immediate Parent might ſo far prejudice the Covenant-right of a child amongſt the Jews, it may alſo amongſt the Chriſtians; but I build not much upon this, becauſe it is a humane teſtimony, without the Word, eâdem facilitate quâ aſſeritur, rejicitur.

2. There is a great deal of difference in the conſtitution of the Jewiſh Church, and of the Churches under the Goſpel; theirs was National; which is plain, becauſe they are National Officers, and National Ordinances, and a ſet place for the Church-meeting of the whole Nation, to which by the command of God the Nation was to repair three times a year; and therefore all that were of that Nation were to be admitted Church-members, and to receive the Seal of admiſſion, and no man might live among them if they were uncircumciſed. Non poterant Hebraei habere domi ſervos incircumciſos, The Hebrews might not have ſervants uncircumciſed; but if they were ſuch as would not ſubject themſelves unto the Ordinance of Admiſſion, which was Circumciſion, either they ought not to buy them, or they might not lawfully retain them: but it is not thus with the Gentile-Churches under the New Teſtament, the Lord doth not take in Nations into Covenant with him, but he takes them in man by man; and therefore even in the ſame Nation, ſome may be within, and ſome without; neither is there any neceſſity, that all that are born in the p. 230Nation ſhould therefore be members of the Churches of God in that Nation; hence the Lord when he did caſt them off, did caſt off the whole Nation, and the ejection was not of particular perſons,Iſa. 66.8.Isa 66:8 and God will convert the Nation again, and they ſhall have national Ordinances and a national Covenant, and therein they are diſtinguiſhed from all other Churches, and ſhall be; but ſeeing our taking in is perſonal, and our ejection perſonal, it's not ſo with us, but the father may be taken in with the children, and the father caſt out with the children, and yet the Covenant be continued to the reſt of the people, and the Churches of Chriſt amongſt them.

3. The Jews continued in a Church-ſtate though they were prophane, till the Nation was caſt off, and cut off from being a Church unto God; now the queſtion is not, Whether an ungodly man living in the Church, while he keeps his viſible ſtanding there, and is not caſt out, may not claim a viſible right unto all the Ordinances, for himſelf and his Poſterity, for certainly, while he keeps his viſible ſtanding, though he be a wicked-man, yet it cannot be deny'd him; and ſo it was amongſt the Jews: But if any amongſt us, through the negligence of the Church, be continued in our Churches ſo profane, and we do not bear them as burdens, and caſt them off, as judging that a little leven will leven the whole lump; it is the ſin of the Church, that ſuch men ſhould have a viſible ſtanding, therefore they ought to be caſt out; and ſo de jure they have no right, and if they be once caſt out and excommunicated, then they that are judged themſelves to have no right unto Church-Ordinances, cannot give this right unto others. And it is that which we muſt look upon as the great ſin of this Nation, that we will intitle the whole Nation to a Church-ſtate, and every particular perſon a Church-member; and yet no care is taken that either they walk as does become Members, or elſe that they be excluded from ſuch a pretended right; and the Reformation of this Nation will never be thorough, according to the Rules of the Goſpel, till this be done in all Priviledges, Ordinances, one as well as another.

There are two more queſtions have been propounded to me concerning this caſe; (1) By this means what difference will be put between the Children of Chriſtians, and the Children of Pagans? (2) If that they were baptized, their Parents having no federal right, whether is their Baptiſm null, and muſt they then be rebaptized?

(Queſt. 1.)1. To the firſt I anſwer, that though it be a thing that may ſound harſh, and carry an Odium with it, yet the Scripture does commonly call them Heathens, even thoſe that were wicked within the Church; Rulers of Sodom, and People of Gomorrha, Saul is call'd Cuſh; the Ethiopians, and the Ziphims, though they were Jews, David calls Strangers or Aliens, &c. and the Papiſts, though they profeſs Chriſt, and take upon themſelves the title of Churches,Rev. 11.2.Rev 11:2 yet they are call'd Gentiles. And we muſt know this, that all men are either without, or within; if without, though ſome are nearer, and ſome are further off, and therefore have greater opportunity of entrance than others, yet they are ſtill without; and if they are within, they muſt be viſible Saints, or elſe they ought not to be within, and it will be judged by God the ſin and profaneneſs of the Church, and the Officers thereof, if they are ſuffer'd to continue within as Members. Now if we lay aſide the hateful name of Turks and Pagans, and if we ſay, that the Parents either are not within, or ought not to be within, then I conceive he being unto me by Chriſts rule as a Heathen man and a Publican, I cannot think his Children in a better condition in reference unto a Covenant-right, than they can receive from their Father, which I am well aſſured he has not to give.

(Queſt. 2.)And as for the Second Queſtion, it has been generally concluded by Divines ancient and modern, that they are not to be rebaptized, but that when they come to believe and repent, they then reap the benefit of that Baptiſm which before they had no fruit of, becauſe they had no right to it; yet when once they come by Faith to have a right to it, then their Baptiſm availeth, and ſo is not null to them; nor need there a ſecond Baptiſm; but this would be entring into a new controverſie, which I ſhall have a fitter place in this diſcourſe to handle, where it will more directly fall in; and therefore I muſt beg your patience in whoſe minds this does raiſe any ſcruple, that you will ſpare me for a full anſwer unto it till then. And ſo much ſhall ſerve to be ſpoken to the ſixth Queſtion.

Queſt. 7 §. 7. If the Childs federal right be onelyonly by the confederate Parents priviledge, what is it in the Parent that gives the Child a right? Is it converting and regenerating Grace? or is it an external Profeſſion onelyonly? When the Apoſtle ſayes, the Ʋnbelieving wife is ſanctified by the believing husband, elſe were your Children unclean, doth he mean there juſtifying Faith, which the Scripture calls the Faith of the Elect? and is the holineſs of the Child ſo from the faith of the Parent?Lawrence, c. 6. p. 191. or is it from an outward Profeſſion of faith only? It's affirmed by ſome, that it's onelyonly regenerating Grace, ſaving Faith, that does bring the father within p. 231the Covenant, and therefore it's this in the father, and nothing elſe, that can entitle the child to it, which is proved from Rom. 4.16. Abraham is the Father of us all, not only of the Jews, but of the Gentiles alſo; becauſe the Covenant-right after a ſort began in him, he is the root upon which they all did grow that came after; now that brings us under Abrahams Covenant, which gives us a title to be call'd Abrahams ſeed. And it's plain,Rom. 11.Rom 11 that there were two ſorts of ſeed or children, and ſo in Abraham a double Paternity; there was Abraham begetting, and there was Abraham believing; and anſwerably to theſe two there are children according to the fleſh, and children of the faith of Abraham; and though while the Jews continued, they might claim Circumciſion as belonging to them by generation, becauſe they did deſcend from the loyns of Abraham, yet we can claim no title by carnal generation, and therefore our title muſt be from our faith, walking in the ſteps of the faith of Abraham; andſo the Apoſtle, writing to the Galatians that were Gentiles, tells them, there is no way of being ſons of Abraham, and entering into his Covenant, but by believing; Know you therefore that they which are of faith, &c.Gal. 3.7.9.Gal 3:7Gal 3:9 And if it be only the faith of the Parent, that doth intitle unto the Covenant of Abraham, ſurely then if the Childrens right come from the Parent, it muſt be from the faith of the Parent, which only gives himſelf a right thereunto.

Here are four things to be ſpoken of: Anſw. (1) That it's not the Grace and ſaving faith of the Parents that gives either them or their children right unto external Church-Priviledges: (2) That it's a viſible Profeſſion of faith that does it. (3) Yet it is not a bare Profeſſion, and a bare living in a Chriſtian Church, that is ſufficient either for the Perſon to claim a title, or for the Church to admit of it. (4) I will give an anſwer to the Objections that are before mention'd, of the entrance into Abrahams Covenant, and having a title to be call'd Abrahams Children.

1. I ſay, it is not Grace regenerating and ſanctifying, that gives a title either to the Parent or to his ſeed; and that I ſhall prove by theſe particulars:

1. If men that have no Grace, that were never regenerated, never new-born to God, may have a Covenant-title; then that which gives a man a title is not Grace; but a man that has no Grace, that was never born from above, may have a true title; therefore, it's not their Grace that gives them this title. Here conſider, (1) That the Church of God is either Inviſible, or Viſible; the Inviſible Church is the Church of the firſt-born, Heb. 12.23.Heb 12:23whoſe names are written in Heaven, and conſiſts only of regenerate, and Believers in truth; this is the body of Chriſt, the Spouſe of Chriſt, and the fulneſs of him that filleth all in all: But as for the Viſible Church, it is made up of viſible Saints, and it does enjoy viſible Ordinances, as we ſee in the Church of the Jews, and in all the converted Churches of the Gentiles, they did all imbody for the publick Worſhip of God. (2) This viſible Church has viſible Members, and viſible Priviledges; as the Church inviſible has inviſible members, and inviſible Priviledges: Indeed it is unto theſe that all the ſpiritual Promiſes of the Covenant do belong, and all the ſaving Graces of the Covenant are conferr'd; but yet there are many viſible Priviledges of the viſible Church, which none but the viſible members, according to the Rules of the Word, are to partake of; we have theſe ſummed up in eight particulars, Rom. 9.4, 5, 6. Theſe are the viſible Priviledges of the viſible Church. (3) Unto theſe a man that has no ſaving Grace may have a right, according to the Rules of the Word; and being looked upon by the Word as a viſible member of a Church, he has by the ſame Rule a right to the viſible Priviledges which belong unto a Church-member. A man may be a true member of the viſible Church without Grace; for the Net gathers of every kind, ſome good, and ſome bad;Matth. 13.47.Matt 13:47 and into this Society many are called that are not choſen; there be fooliſh as well as wiſe Builders, and Virgins; unclean, as well as clean Beaſts; branches in Chriſt, as he ſpreads himſelf upon Earth into a viſible Church, that bear no fruit, and yet are truly ſaid to be members, and grow as members of the Church; and therefore the Jews are ſaid to be broken off, Rom. 11.19.Rom 11:19that the Gentiles might be grafted in; now what were the Gentiles grafted into? not into the Church inviſible, for many of them have no ſaving Grace, never were regenerated, therefore they were grafted into Chriſt ſpreading himſelf into a viſible Church upon Earth; and what were the Jews caſt off from? not from being members of the Church Inviſible, for there the calling and election of God is without repentance, he knows who are his, and he never caſts out whom he knows to be his: All the Jews were call'd Loammi, they are not my people, Rom. 9.26.Rom 9:26they were once owned by God as a peculiar people, and as a holy Nation unto him; but now he will be no more ſtyled their God: and as men may have a viſible ſtanding in the Church, and a viſible right of memberſhip, without Grace, ſo a man may partake in and have a right to the viſible priviledges of a member, though he have no Grace, Rom. 11.17. Thou being a wild Olive Tree, waſt grafted in amongſt them; and to what end were they p. 232ingrafted? it was, that they might with them partake of the root and fatneſs of the Olive-tree; this root and fatneſs cannot be meant of ſaving grace; for if they had partaken of them,Pareus. they had never been broken off, therefore it's meant of outward priviledges only; therefore the Gentiles have their priviledges into which they are ingrafted, that is, inſtalled, as well as the Jews had, and yet it's not ſaving grace in them that entitles them unto this priviledge, becauſe he ſays, Let them alſo take heed for all this, leſt they alſo be broken off, as the Jews the natural branches were.

2. Theſe external priviledges are ſuch as belong to the viſible Church, into which men muſt admit, and they cannot judge of the truth of grace and regeneration by an infallible judgment, and therefore there muſt be ſome viſible ſigns which, as rules, they are to act by in things of ſo high a nature. As the Church is diſtinguiſhed into viſible and inviſible, ſo there is a double power of the Keys anſwerable. (1) The Lord Chriſt has a Key of Royalty, Rev. 3.7.Rev 3:7as you have heard, the Key of David, which I conceive to have reſpect to the Church only; and he admits into the Church inviſible, and it's by vocation and union with Chriſt, which is the end or terminus of vocation. (2) There is a Key of charity, as ſome call it, though improperly, yet true in this reſpect, becauſe it's only the judgment of charity, that they can proceed by, and not of infallibility; and this is an act belonging properly to Church-officers,Mat. 6.19.Matt 6:19 by virtue of an inſtitution of Chriſt unto that end, and they that are imployed in this work cannot judge infallibly of the truth of grace in any they admit. Though it's true, that the tree is much known by the fruit, yet we find that Peter did baptize Simon Magus, and the Church admitted Ananias and Saphira, and thoſe mentioned in 1 Joh. 2.19. they were admitted amongſt them, though afterwards they appeared not to be of them; and that which was ſaid of Iſrael, is true ſtill of the viſible Church, They are not all Iſrael that are of Iſrael. The Church inviſible has no Officer but Chriſt alone, and he admits by a judgment of infallibility; but the viſible Church has viſible Officers, who are to proceed by a known rule, and Baptiſm being the ordinance of admiſſion, is by them to be adminiſtred to perſons as viſible, and not as inviſible members of the Church; all theſe therefore that are to be admitted by them, muſt be admitted by a known rule, which they can judge of, which is not truth of grace, for that they cannot know, it belongs to the Lord Jeſus Chriſt only, who knows both the counſels of God, and the hearts of men; and therefore they muſt admit ſuch as in appearance and in the judgment of charity are ſo, though it may be in truth and verity afterwards they prove not ſo to be.

3. Excommunication breaks a man off from the viſible Church and the viſible priviledges thereof, but it cannot cut a man off from the Church inviſible and the truth of grace in the heart, which the Lord has promiſed to continue to the end; for into what a man is admitted by the Keys, out of that by the Keys he may be ejected; but no man is admitted for grace, neither can he be ejected for want of grace, if viſibly a member, Mat. 18.15. Let him be unto thee as a Publican: it's not ſpoken of one without, but of one within, for it's an offending brother; and he ſays, he ſhould be put into the ſame condition with a Heathen and Publican. Amongſt the Jews they did not hold communion with Heathens and Publicans; Heathens were not admitted into Ordinances as Church-members, till they became circumciſed Proſelytes; ſo that the meaning is, count them unworthy to be admitted to publick Ordinances and the publick priviledges of the Church, which other Church-members may challenge a right unto, and they themſelves had a right before their ſcandal and ejection: 1 Cor. 5.5. Deliver ſuch a man unto Satan, which I conceive cannot be meant of any miraculous work, becauſe the Apoſtle commits it to the Church to do it in the Name of God, and by virtue of the authority committed to them in the Name of the Lord Jeſus Chriſt; and therefore I conceive it to be nothing elſe but caſting a man out of the ſociety of the Church, and leaving him amongſt the ſociety of ungodly men, over whom Satan rules; and being put out of the Kingdom of Chriſt, which is the Church, and the care of the Church, he is truly delivered to Satan to carry him whither he will, as ungodly men are called by the Father foreign, &c. and yet the inceſtuous Corinthian was a godly man, and he was not caſt out from the promiſes of grace and the workings of the Spirit, but from the external priviledges of the Church; and ſo may a godly man for ſcandalous falls juſtly be, and yet his grace continue an immortal ſeed, and he remain a member of the inviſible Church ſtill, even when he is caſt out of the viſible Church; as Job and many of the Saints were members of the inviſible Church, and yet had not opportunity to joyn themſelves unto any viſible Church any further than their own family were ſuch. The Church then can caſt a man out of what he was by them admitted to; but that was not grace, but outward priviledges, and they can only caſt men out of theſe. It is not grace gives a man a right to external admiſſion; for then a man that had grace, what offence ſoever he committed, could not be ejected; but a man that p. 233has true grace may, for a ſcandalous offence, be according to the rules of the word, lawfully ejected, therefore it was not his grace that gave him his admiſſion; neither is it grace that in his ejection he can be deprived of; that being an act of God, but they can only hinder him from viſible communion.

2. A viſible profeſſion will give unto a man in foro Eccleſiae, a right of memberſhip. (1) Men can go upon no other ground; for if the matter of a Church muſt be Saints, they can judge no further of Saintſhip than by the viſibility of it; and becauſe they cannot have certitudinem fidei; ergo Deus judicium charitatis eis ſubſtituit; for the Key of Miniſtry committed unto Officers doth but open and ſhut in reference unto the external priviledges and benefits of the Church, into which a viſible profeſſion will give unto a man a viſible right, and is proper and proportionable thereunto. (2) Upon this ground admiſſions have always been: it was ſo that the Jews admitted Proſelytes; called Proſelytae foederis, upon their profeſſion of the Jewiſh Religion, and a ſubjection unto the Ordinances of God there; and yet many of them were the children of Hell after they were made Proſelytes, as Chriſt himſelf tells us; and ſo John Baptiſt admitted unto Baptiſm, they were baptized of him after they had confeſſed their ſins, &c. and Peter, Simon Magus, and Philip the Eunuch on his confeſſion of the Faith; and we read, 2 Cor. 9.13. of a profeſſed ſubjection to the Goſpel, foreign, it's in the Original a ſubjection, or confeſſion of the Goſpel; and all their after-obedience is but a manifeſtation of the truth of that profeſſion of theirs: and therefore I conclude, that it's but outward profeſſion will give a man a right in the external court of the Church.

3. Yet I conceive it's not a bare profeſſion, how unanſwerable ſoever a mans converſation be, that will bring in a man being without, or being within keep him from being caſt out; and this will appear in theſe particulars.

(1) The Lord in his Word requires that they ſhould be viſible Saints, which we heard before a bare profeſſion would not entitle them unto; therefore Eſa. 54.12. He will lay their foundations with precious ſtones, &c. it's not to be interpreted de doctrina, of doctrine, Calvin.according to that 1 Cor. 3 10. but de hominibus, ex quibus spirituale Eccleſiae aedificium conſtruitur, of men, whereof the Church is compoſed. Rev. 22.15. Without ſhall be dogs, Rev. 22.15.Rev 22:15and every one that loves and makes a lye. Some do expound it of Hypocrites; though I conceive that not to be the meaning, but it is ſuch whoſe heart does love and hanker after a way of idolatry, ſpecially that lye of Antichriſt, which ſhould then be deſtroyed; and when once the members of the Church began to be corrupt and degenerate, it became an outward court, into which all were admitted, even without diſtinction; then the Lord caſt it out, and gave it unto the power of Antichriſt to tread it under foot in a moſt cruel and tyrannous way,Rev. 11.2.Rev 11:2 Rev. 11.2. The court which is without the temple, leave out, &c. and therefore it concerns all Churches to look that they become an outward court, in alluſion to the Atrium Gentium, the Court of the Gentiles among the Jews; for it was that which ſet up Antichriſt, and gave him in judgment that power that he has exerciſed over them. And it was a great tryal (how lightly ſoever we conceive of it) that the Apoſtles had of all they did admit: for if we ſuppoſe they did only require of them a confeſſion that Chriſt was the Son of God, and that upon this they were added to the Church; yet if we conſider that this was the great truth then oppoſed and perſecuted, the great controverſie of the age, and that which betrayed them to perſecution immediately;Joh. 9.John 9 for whoever did confeſs him was to be put out of the Synagogue; and this made many men to keep off from embracing of the Goſpel; wherefore it was then a great mark of ſincerity for a man to embrace a perſecuted Truth in times of Perſecution; and to endure a great fight of afflictions, and yet receive the Word in much affliction, with joy in the Holy Ghoſt, it was a very great ground for a mans judicious charity to reſt on. As it were now a ſmall matter for a man to preach againſt Tranſubſtantiation, the real preſence of Chriſt in the Sacrament; yet for a man to bear witneſs againſt that errour, and to maintain the truth in Queen Mary's days, when all the power of the Kingdom was againſt it, and when ſo many were ſent to Heaven in a fiery Chariot for the ſame, that had been a great ground for judicious charity to have reſted upon for the ſincerity of the man; and therefore it's ſaid, Phil. 1.6, 7. He that hath begun the good work in you will perfect it; it is but an equal and juſt thing for me to think ſo of you all; they were all ſuch of whom he might have ſome ground in charity to hope and judge, that they had a good work begun in them, which ſhould be perfected in the day of the Lord.