Certain disputations of right to sacraments, and the true nature of visible Christianity defending them against several sorts of opponents, especially against the second assault of that pious, reverend and dear brother Mr. Thomas Blake / by Richard Baxter ...

The third Disputation. Quest. Whether the Infants of Noto∣riously-ungodly baptized Parents have Right to be Baptized. (Book 3)

Tertullian. Apologet. cap. 16.

Sed dices; Etiam de nostris excedere quosdam à Regulâ Disciplinae: Desunt tum Christiani haberi penès nos. Philosophi verò illi cum talibus factis in nomine & honore sapientiae perseverant.

Thes. Salmuriens. Vol. 3. Pag. 59. Thes. 39.

Sacramenta non conferuntur nisi iis qui vel fidem habent, vel saltem eam prae se ferunt, adeò ut nullis certis argumentis compertum esse possit eam esse ementitam.

Gilespie, Aaron's Rod Blossoming. pag. 514.

I believe, No conscientious Minister would adventure to baptize one who hath manifest and infallible signs of Unregenerati∣on. Sure, we cannot be answerable to God, if we should mi∣nister Baptism to a man whose works and words do manifestly declare him to be an unregenerated unconverted person. And if we may not Initiate such a one, how shall we bring him to the Lords Table?

Rutherford, Due Right of Presbyteries, pag. 231. n. 2.

But, saith Robinson, most of England are ignorant of the first Rudiments and Foundation of Religion; and therefore can∣not be a Church.

Answ. Such are materially not the visible Church, and have not a Profession; and are to be taught; and if they wilfully re∣main in that darkness, are to be cast out.

(Book 3)

(Book 3)

The third Disputation. Quest. Whether the Infants of Notoriously un∣godly Baptized Parents have Right to be Baptiz∣ed? (Book 3)

THE Question is of the greater moment, be∣cause about Matter of Practice, and that in a Point wherein the Honor of God on one side, and the Rights of mens Souls on the other, are so much concerned. It suppo∣seth first, that Baptism is Gods Ordinance, of continued Use, and that some are to be Bap∣tized. Secondly, that it is a Benefit, or else we could not, in the sense now used, be said to have Right to it. Third∣ly. It supposeth that some Infants have Right to be Bapti∣zed. This Question therefore is not to be disputed with the Anabaptists, who deny the presupposed. And they that are so indifferent in the former, as to take it for an inconsiderable matter. Whether Infants be baptized, or not, must needs judge this Question of the Infants of the Ungodly, to be much more inconsiderable. Fourthly, Yet doth it not suppose that the Infants of any ungodly persons have this Right, as if it were only the Right of Notorious ones that were disputable: but the word [No∣torious] is added to limit our present Dispute to that sort, for several Reasons; at this time passing by the other, but not taking it for granted. Fifthly, Nor doth the Addition of the term [Baptized] to [Parents] take it for granted that no children of

unbaptized Parents have such Right; But it limits the Que∣stion to that sort only, as fitter in several respects for our Dis∣pute.

For the explication of the terms; 1. By Infant we mean Children not yet come to the use of Reason; so that as they are not sui Juris, but at anothers dispose; so they are unca∣pable naturally in any Contract to dispose of themselves, being unfit to give consent, through a natural defect of that under∣standing which is pre-requisite. By [a natural Defect] I mean of nature in it self considered, and not as corrupted by sin, nor as neglected sinfully by our selves or others. So that I see not but that Ideots are in the same condition as Infant children. But of that let every one think as they see cause. In Law homo primae aetatis is an Infant, even after he can speak; though as to the Ety∣mologie he be called an Infant, quia fari nescit, i. e. loqui non po∣test, ut Isidor. lib. 11.2.

2. By Parents we mean principally Natural Parents, those who begat those Infants; but secondarily also (as I suppose) those that have Adopted them, or bought them, or received them as given or delivered to them, so that they any way become Their Own, and they have the dispose of them, and are enabled to enter them into Covenant, so as to oblige them on the highest terms; Though I know it is not properly that these are called Pa∣rents; The word [Parent] is primarily applicable to the Mo∣ther only, as not being à Parendo, but à Pariendo, and thence to the Father also, because of the Relation between Gigno & Pario; and so 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is sometime used for Genero. And though the word [Parens] be not usually applied to those that Adopt, yet Pater is: And not unfitly, if, as some suppose, the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 came from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, alo, to nourish; for so men may do by children that are any way their own. But it is only the immediate Parents that we here mean; though Festus saith, that Juris prudentes avos & proavos, avias & proavias parentum nomine appellari dicunt. And though the word Parens be sometime taken pro Consangui∣neo: And Hierom saith advers. Ruffin. lib. 2. That militari vul∣garíque consuetudine cognati & assines nominantur Parentes. But of this more anon.

The term [Ungodly) is it that needeth the most wary and

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

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

2. From whence Man is obliged to acknowledge God, in these Relations,* 1.1 whether Naturally or Supernaturally made known; and to consent to them; and to love and honour him as God, (though it be not perfectly, which is now above his strength, yet must it be) sincerely, even comparatively and su∣perlatively above any Creature whatsoever. He that doth thus, is a Godly man, that is, a man that doth sincerely believe in God, the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, and is devoted to God.

Besides this principal sense, there are some others common, both in the defect, and in the excess; 1. Among Heathens he is called Pious, 1. who is a devout honourer of their Gods, though Idols; 2. or who is merciful to people in misery; 3. or who is an Honourer of Parents and Superiors, or who is con∣scientious according to their insufficient light. 2. Among

Christians, 1. Some call any man Godly, that is, zealous in Reli∣gious matters, though so unsound in the fundamentals, that he worshippeth he knows not what, or so ignorant about Gods very nature and his relations to him, that it is not God indeed as God that he worshippeth: and though he be actu∣ally incapable of true Love and Devotedness to God, for want of right conceivings of him, even in those respects that are es∣sential to the Object of the Christian faith. 2. Some call a man Godly that makes a sound Confession, and knows the Christian Doctrine, and saith he believeth it, though he notoriously ma∣nifest that his Will doth not consent, that the God whom he confesseth shall be his God, (his Ruler and Felicity,) nor the Christ whom he confesseth, shall be his Saviour on his own terms; nor the Holy Ghost his Guide and Sanctifier. 3. On the other side, Many will call no Man Godly, that is not noted for some eminent difference, in Parts and Zeal, from others that live about him. If they see him neglect some Duties that he is bound to, as not to come to some private Meetings that are used regularly and to Edification, or not to Read, or Hear so fre∣quently or diligently as he should, or not to Pray in his fami∣ly (which in some Cases its possible a Godly man may neglect), or if he commit some sins, which yet its possible a Godly man may commit, they account him ungodly, though possibly it may be otherwise in the main▪ so that no man is by them esteemed Godly, unless he go beyond the weakest sort of true Christi∣ans. As for them that call none Godly but their own parties, or sect-fellows, I will pass them, as not worthy our further mention.

Among all these senses, it is the first in which we here take the word [Godly] so that it is only Christian Godliness that we mean, which is a sincere believing in God, the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, even with true intellectual Assent, and hearty Con∣sent: from which heart-Godliness, there follows that sincere Obedience to the will of God (to first and second Table) which is the proper fruit of it: and Repentance after disobedi∣ence known. It is therefore such a Godliness as is proper to them that have the promise of Justification and Salvation that we mean, comprehending Repentance towards God, and

Faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ. Of the contrary to this only is the Question.

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

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

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

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

1. In the properest sense, Right respecteth some Good which

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

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

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

According to the third sense, All those have a Right to Gods mercies, to whom we are bound as Instruments to conser them, though it be but by accident that we are so obilged, and though God be in no Covenant-engagement to the per∣sons, nor give them any proper right or claim to the thing: So if God bid me Give to him that needeth: and because I know not all that need, he bids me judge upon probable appearan∣ces: Hereupon if a rich man go in rags and pretend necessity,

it is my Duty to give to him; and so far this Rich man hath a Right to my Alms, as that he is a rightfull Object of it, as to the righteousness of my action. So if God bid me forgive him that wrongeth me, if he Repent: and then direct me to judge whe∣ther he repent by the Evidences (there being no other way:) and these Evidences being only probable, and not demonstra∣stive: here it is my duty to forgive him that repenteth not, if he seem to repent, and so he may have such an improper right to my forgiveness. So if a Heathen seem to be a true Christian, and yet dissemble, I am bound to use him as a Christian; and and so far he may improperly be said to have right to any Christian Ordinance, which I am bound to dispense to him, If he claims this Ordinance of me, he sins against God, and requireth that which properly, and before God, he hath no right to, and which he ought not to claim: but yet he clams nothing but what I am bound to give him upon such a claim. You may see then that here may be three distinct questions ac∣cording to this three-fold sense [of Right] For the fourth I will pass, as not concerning our present business.) 1. Whe∣ther such subjects have any Right to Baptism by any gift or grant of God to themselves! 2. Whether they have right from Gods provi∣dence putting them into possession of it. 3. Whether it be a Ministers duty to baptize them? And I think it necessary to handle all these, or at least the first and last distinctly, because that one dependeth on the other, and we know not which is ordinarily meant when this question is put. Only to the Explication of the last term, we must speak a word: viz. what is meant by that Baptism, the Right whereto we are now enquiring after? It is one question whether they have Right to the thing signified, viz. Christ and his Benefits; the pardon of sin, and Adoption, &c. It is another question, whether they have Right to the bare sign, and the consequential Priviledges with the Church, arising from their reputing such a man to be a true Christian. And another question, whether they have Right to Both these? Also it is one thing to ask, Whether men have right to perfor∣mance of their own part in Baptism, in part? or in whole? And another, Whether they have right to Gods part? We make no question but every man hath liberty given him to do

his own part entirely, yea it is his Duty: And so every Infidel is bound to bring his child to Baptism; that is, To cease his Infidelity, and to Dedicate himself and child to Christ, and seal it with being Baptized. But this is nothing to prove that he hath Right to Gods part in Baptism, that is, either to the Washing as Gods seal and sign; or to the cleansing signified, and other Benefits conveyed by it. 2. Nor is it any thing to prove that he hath a Liberty to do the latter and external part of his own duty, without the internal and former precedent; that is, to be baptized before he consent to the terms of the Covenant. As a man that is bound to consent in mind to any thing, and promise with the mouth, yet may not promise before he consent; that is, Dissemble or Lye.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But yet we shall attempt the proof of the Negative, and then examine the Arguments which are usually brought for the Affir∣mative.

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

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

For the second Member, it is thus argued by some: God re∣quireth nothing but Consent on our parts, to our enterance into Co∣venant with him, seeing it is a Covenant of free Grace: but all In∣fants must by us be supposed to Consent: therefore all must be sup∣posed to have Right to Baptism.] The Major we grant. The Minor they would thus prove: It is a Rule in the Civil Law, That it is supp••sed that a man will be willing of his own Good; And another Rule there is, That the Law supposeth a man to be what he ought to be, till the contrary appear; therefore Infants, who make not the contrary appear, are by us to be judged virtual Con∣senters or Accepters of the Covenant; and consequently to be Ba∣ptized. Answ. These Rules may hold in dealings between man and man, about such things as Nature may both discern to be Good, and desire; but they cannot hold in the Case in hand;

1. Because Nature cannot sufficiently discern the Desirableness of the Blessings of the Covenant, compared with those things that must be renounced. 2. Nor can it truly desire them without Grace. 3. And the common Experience of the world telleth us, that the most of men, by far, do not truly consent, when they hear the terms of the Covenant. This therefore may not be sup∣posed: For Natures Inclination to our own Good, is no suffici∣ent ground of the supposition: Nor yet any Obligation that can lie on us to charitable thoughts of Infant's Inclinations. For it is one of the Principles of our Religion, that Nature is so de∣praved, as that every man is the great Enemy of himself conse∣quentially, as being inclined to the way of his own ruine; till Christ the Physitian of Nature do work a Cure. 4. And if this Argument would hold, it would prove that all the Infants of the world have right to Baptism; which is not to be supposed. 5. Yea it wou••d prove that they have equal right with Christi∣ans, which is yet more evidently false. 6. Infants in such Cove∣nants are reputed to be as their Pa••••nt, who ••huse for them that cannot chuse for themselves. If therefore the Parents con∣sent not, it is supposed that the Child consen••s not; and no pa∣rent can truly consent for his childe that re useth for himself. 7. The Covenant hath not only benefits on Gods part to be conferred, but also duties on our part required; and it cannot be supposed that all will faithfully perform such duties. So much for the first pretended Title.

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

1. If notoriously ungodly Parents have no right themselves to the Benefits of the Covenant, nor to be Baptized if it were now to do: then cannot their children have a right upon the account of any interest of theirs. But the Antecedent is true: Therefore the validity of the consequence is evident; in that no man can give that he hath none to give, nor can we derive any Interest from him that hath none himself. If any say, he may have an Interest for his child that hath none for him∣self;

I Reply. 1. Then the childe hath not his interest in and with the Parent, nor as reputed a member of him. 2. That Interest must be produced and proved. I have not yet heard what it should be save what the next Objection intimates.

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

if he make an intercision, he stops the conveyance of the benefit by a prevention, so that it never comes to the Heir: But because it is the antecedent that requires all the proof [that no∣toriously ungodly Parents have no Interest themselves to be Church-members, and to be baptized, if it were to be done again] I shall prove it as followeth.

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

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

The Major is proved hence. 1. What else is there to hinder any Heathen from the like Right? 2. Because that the pro∣bable Profession of such a further consent is necessary to justi∣fie baptizing of them. 3. Because mutual consent is necessary to a mutual Covenant; and the Covenant must be mutual: no man hath right to Gods part that refuseth his own. This is all so far past question, that I pass it over the more lightly. All the doubt then is of the Minor, [Whether no man have the ne∣cessary condition of the baptismal Covenant on Gods part that is notoriously ungodly] or [Whether all such ungodly men do notoriously manifest that they consent not to the terms of the Covenant] I speak not here of any subsequent condition which God imposeth upon the Covenanter only for the future; but only of the condition which God imposeth upon us that he may be in Covenant with us, and that it may be a bar∣gain; and that this is a true inconsistent with notorious ungodliness, I was going about at large to prove it; But I re∣member that I have done it already in 26. Arguments, against Mr. Blake's, and therefore I think it better for you & me that I refer you thither, than to write them here over again, or need∣lesly to add any more to the same purpose: If any say that though God require as a duty such a Faith as is inonsistent with notorious ungodliness, yet not as Absolutely necessary that he may be engaged to us in Covenant, or that we may have pro∣per right to Baptism; I answer, God hath but one Cove∣nant

of Grace which Baptism sealeth; our sound believing is the condition of that one Covenant; that is, that it may be a Mutual Actual Covenant: If then there be any other Cove∣nant having other Conditions, we must wait till both Cove∣nant and Conditions be made known. Were it worth the while, or a thing necessary, I would stand to prove the Nega∣tive, viz. that there is no Covenant sealed by Baptism which only promiseth Baptism as the Benefit, or any other meer Ex∣ternals; but that the Covenant which Baptism sealeth is only that which promiseth Remission, Salvation, and outward Mercies as appurtenances and means so far as neces∣sary.

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

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

Not for Actual Remission; for then Notoriously Ungodly persons are Actually remitted; which is not true: Nor for

Condit••onal; for then no more is given then all the World hath (at least that hear the Gospel) even persecuting Infidels; and then all they may as well be baptized; for God pardoneth all upon condition they repent and believe.

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

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

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

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

I do but superficially touch these things. 1. Because (as I said) the Arguments to Mr. Blake are full. 2. Because I am in∣formed that all this is granted with those Divines with whom I have debated this point, and that they confess that none but sound Believers have engaged God in actual Covenant to them, but only in the common conditional Covenant, and consequently it is not by Covenant grant that the notoriously ungodly have

right to Baptism, but by other waies which we are next to speak to. I am informed that this is all granted; but then I must add, that they yield that such men have no true proper right at all: for such proper right is of the nature of the debi∣tum, the dueness of the Benefit. So that a man may thence lay claim to it as his due. And the right (between God and Man) we receive only by Gods moral Gift, which is by some promise or grant by his word or revelation of his Will de debito habendi; for this dueness or right is a moral thing, and must come by his moral act, such as among men we call political or civil.

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

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

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

The third was upon the account of their Ancestors true faith, though the immediate Parents weee notoriously ungodly

They that plead this title, will not prove it good: 2. I thus disprove it.

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

known Christians, may be baptized; and why not all the world, when Noah and Adam were known to be in Cove∣nant? or all this Nation, if they had been Heathens this hun∣dred years, because their Ancestors were justly presumed to be Christians?

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

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

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

Argum. 5. The natural Interest that Ancestors have in such Posterity is not immediate, but mediante Parente proximo: there∣fore so is the Covenant-Interest; because it proceedeth on sup∣position

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

The fourth part of this Question is, Whether the Infants of notorious ungodly parents may not have right to Baptism, on the account of some Vndertakers? Answ. If this be so, its nothing against our Negative determination of the main Question, viz. Whether they have right for their Parents sake? 2. We di∣stinguish of Undertakers; some are such as will undertake that another man shall bring up his child well: 2. Some will under∣take to do it themselves, yet not to educate it as their own, but as another mans, and at his disposal: neither of these underta∣kings can give any right. 3. But if the child do either by the total resignation of the Parent, or by adoption or the death of the Parents, or by purchase, or any other just means, become his Own that undertakes for him: so that the child is ejus juris, as his own children are, and at his dispose, then the Question is much harder. And for my part, I encline to judge that such a child hath Right upon that mans account: 1. Because that in a Law-sense this man is his Father. 2. Because all that God requireth in the free universal Covenant of Grace, to our par∣ticipation

of his Benefits, is our consent: and children do con∣sent bo those whose they are: For they that owe them, or whose they are, have the disposal of them, and so of their Wills inter∣pretatively; and may among men make any Covenant for them which is for their good (at least,) and oblige them to the per∣formance of conditions. 3. Because God so determined it with Abraham, when he called him so solemnly to renew his Cove∣nant, and so to the Israeliets after. Of which for brevity, see what I have said in my book of Baptism, chap. 29. pag. 101, 102. which I need not here recite. Let every man see with his own eyes: but for my part, I resolve (till I see better reasons for the contrary) to admit no child to baptism, u••on the undertaking of any other susceptors, such as our Godfathers and God∣mothers were, without a better Title then their susception: but if any will say, This child is mine, and at my disposal, though not mine by natural generation, I will not dare to refuse to Baptize it, if the person that presenteth it and devoteth it to God, be capable of so doing, as being himself a Believer. And I think that it is a considerable work of Charity to get the children of Infidels or such among us are nominal Chri∣stians and Infidels indeed, that they may have that benefit by you which they cannot have from their natural parents.

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

Answ. 1. The Soveraign hath a Governing power above a Parent: but it is not on that the great contract or right is grounded. But the Parent hath a greater propriety in the child than the Governor; and so hath more Right to dispose of him in this case. The Soveraigns power is in order to the Good of the Common-wealth; the Parents is for the Good of the Child directly. 2. Bodin (and some others) think that

the Roman Custom was good, that Parents should have power of Life and Death as to their Children: though few approve his Judgement or reasons. 3. I doubt not but a Soveraign may use his Authority to procure the baptizing of Children by the Parents dedication of them to God. But still it must be modi∣ante parente vel proparente, by procuring their consent, who have the nearest Interest in the child, and greater than the Magi∣strate can have; though not greater ruling power. Obje. But there are some Rulers that are Domini as well as Rectores, and the people and all that they have are theirs; so that there is no proprie∣tary in the Nation but themselves: and in such a case it seems that they may dispose of the consent of their subjects. An. 1. ye•• Its lis sub judice, whether this be not meer unlawfull Tyranny, or Usurpa∣tion, and so the Title Null because against the Law of God in na∣ture. 2. Or if any think that the example of Joseph, or of the Isra∣elites buying children, will prove the contrary, yet 1. It can be but to their Civils, as Goods, Lands, &c. their Right wherein is adventitious and accidental; and not to the fruit of their bodies, where their right is so natural that none can take it by violence from them: I say therefore that here it cannot be without the Parents voluntary Alienation and Resignation of their Children to the Soveraign; which they cannot do but up∣on weighty considerations. 2. The Soveraign in this case hath the same right in Adult subjects, as in Infants, seeing they are all Vassals to him as their Lord. And yet it is manifest in Scri∣pture, that God will have the personal consent of the Adult, before they shall have any interest in his Covenant: Because when their Soveraign Lord hath all the right that is possible, he leaveth them the power of their own wills: And so as they have still naturally a nearer right in themselves (than he hath) which they cannot alienate; so it seems they have in their children. 3. At least this is nothing to almost all the world, where the Rulers claim no such absolute Dominion and Pro∣priety. 4. God in Scripture requireth Parents and not Ru∣lers to circumcise their children, and to educate them: And Joshua would promise for no more but himself & his houshould to serve the Lord, and bids the people choose whom they would serve. Yet I will not deny but that a Ruler may use some

sharp means to procure the consent of Parents, in some cases. And I also confess that this Argument, though least insisted on, hath (in my opinion) much more plausible appearance of strength, and better deserves a further consideration, than the great and common Argument of the Parents. Right by such a Profession as consisteth with Notorious Ungodliness, upon which most build almost all t••eir Cause. ••astly, I conceive that as a Governors Right is in the Common-wealth and main bo∣dy of the Nation, enabling him to Rule them in the fear of God, so I will not deny but that he may call together the chief part of them, or a Representative body, and urging and pro∣curing their consent, he may devote them by a National Cove∣nant to G••d and promise himself to rule them in his fear. And I would this duty and the Scripture Patterns for it were better laid to heart. But still this leaves the Parent that nearer Natu∣ral Interest in his Individual children, on which God hath plea∣sed rather to ground his Promises and Threatenings to In∣fants.

The second Argument is drawn from Mat. 28.19, 20. Go and disciple me all Nations, baptizing them: From whence it is ar∣gued, that the Infants of notorious ungodly Parents being Members of a Discipled Nation, may therefore be baptized as such Members. Answ. 1. If the nearer Interest of their Parents be not supposed necessary, then this Argument makes as much for the Right of the child of any Jew or Heathen, as of a Chri∣stian, for they may be Members of that Nation which is Disci∣pled. 2. But they must be Members of it quà tales, as discipled; and that they are not till they are themselves Disciples. The A∣postles are first commanded to Disciple Nations, and then to Baptize them on supposition that they be discipled: therefore they must baptize none but those that are discipled. They must endeavour the discipling of each Individual; but if they prevail but with the greater and Ruling part, it may be called a Disci∣pled Nation, and a Kingdom that is become the Kingdom of Christ: but yet as it is but for the sake of the chief part that the whole is so denominated, so it is only that part that is to be baptized; seeing a bare denomination of the whole, gives not right to any part that hath none of the ground of that deno∣mination.

Nor did the antient Churches so understand this Text: For when Constantine and Theodosius and other Christi∣an Emperors had the Rule, they did not judge that all their Subjects should be baptized.

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

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

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

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

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

And I conclude the Question Negatively, supposing that we speak both of Parents natural and civil, and so that they come in upon no better account than the Title of such Parents, as is before explained. Here 1. I grant, that if the natural Parents be ungodly, we may baptize on the the Title of their civil Parents, or Pro-parents; I mean any that truly Own them as Theirs. 2. Much more if any one of the Parents be godly, though the other be ungodly. 3. Also, If there be a probable pro∣fession of Godliness, though indeed there be not Sincerity, it is our duty to baptize the children of such. Because 1. we have no natural capacity of judging but according to evidence, and we have no evidence for a certain judgement concerning the estate of another mans heart. 2. I have elsewhere made it appear (and more abundantly might easily do) that when God mentioneth any person qualified with such a Qualificati∣on which to us is uncertain to be the object of our Act, his meaning is that we should rationally and charitably judge of men according to evidence whether they are such or no, and so take them, and use them accordingly, the Apparere being here as the Esse to us. So when he bids us, if a Brother wrong us oft, and oft say It repenteth me, forgive him: it is all one with that other [If he repent, forgive him.] We know not certainly whether he repent or not; but we must take him pro∣bably to repent, that giveth us the evidence of a probable profession. So if we are to baptize those that repent and be∣lieve, or their children, how can we judge of them but by a

probable profession. 4. It is therefore granted, that though such a degree of Ungodliness as is consistent with sincere Godliness, be Notorious, yet that's not the subject of our Question: for that doth not denominate a man (ungodly) seeing it is from the predominant part that he must be denominated. The Doubt remaineth therefo••e abou•• Ungodliness in the proper sense No∣torious, as is before explained. And I shall now defend the Ne∣gative as follow••th.

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

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

Arg. 2. We may not bapt••ze them who are Notoriously with∣out true Covenant Right to Baptism. But such are the children of notorious ungodly Parents. Ergo.

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

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

For the Antecedent, I have said enough for it to Mr. Blake. If it were not propter fidem significandam, that profession were re∣quired, but propter se as the condition of the Covenant: then 1. God would not have said (He that believeth and is baptized, &c. And, if thou believe with all thy heart thou mayst be bap∣tized: and, Repent and be baptized, &c.) but rather (if thou wilt but say thou believest thou mayst be baptized, &c.) 2. And then all that profess should be justified: For all that be in the Mutual Covenant with God actually, are justified. 3. And then such profession would be of flat necessity to Salvation, as well as faith, which it is not, but on supposition of Opportu∣nity, a Call, &c. I think I may take it for granted, that Profes∣sion is required sub ratione signi, as a sign of the thing profes∣sed: nor can any man, I think, give a better reason of its ne∣cessity,

though another after this may be, because God will have the outward man to serve him, by thus signifying by its operations what are the Elicite Acts and dispositions of the Will.

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

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

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

For the proof of the Minor (which I know will be denied) thus I prove it: If either the Profession be evidently but E∣quivocally called a true Profession, or the Christianity profes∣sed be but equivocally called Christian••ty, then the notori∣ously ungodly are not to be judged true professed Christans.

But the one of these is so with all notoriously ungodly persons. Ergo.

The Major is past doubt, seing there must be the true profes∣sion of true Christianity, that must justly denominate a man (at age) a true Professor of Christianity. If he notoriously want the first, he is morally no Professor: If he want the later, he profes∣seth not ••hristianity. To prove the Minor, we will begin with the later. We speak not now of any Accidentals that pertain not to the Being, but tend only to the well-Being of a Christian. Now I hope it is past controversie among us all, that it is essen∣tial to our Christianity, that it be in the Intellect and Will, whatever we say of the outward Man: and for the Intellect, that we believe in God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost: And it is essential to our believing in God, that we believe him to be our Creator, Chief Ruler, and chief End and Hap∣piness. And to believe in the Son Essentially, containeth a be∣lieving that he is Jesus Christ our Lord, that is, that he is the Redeemer of the world, who shed his blood to save his people from their sins by pardon and sanctification, and who will raise them from the dead, and judge them to everlast∣ing Blessedness: and who is their Lord and Ruler on this ground, and to this end; to believe in the Holy Ghost essenti∣ally, containeth a believing that his Testimony of Christ was true, and that he is the Sanctifier of those that shall be saved. It is as much essential to Christianity, to consent that God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost be such to us as we profess them to be, as aforesaid: which is included in believing in God, and in Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost: And therefore the sum of the Covenant is [I will be your God (upon Redem∣pition by Christ) and you shall be my people] Now the No∣toriously Vngodly do either profess to believe and consent to all this, or but to part: If to All, then they lye, of which more anon: If but to part; then 1. it is not the Christian Faith, no more then a heart, or a l••ver is a man; it is but part of it: 2. and our Divines wil•• say, that he that doth not believe and consent to the whole Essence of Christianity, doth not truly believe or consent to any Essential (though for that I de∣termine it not) But were their Faith never so firm in any one

part, it is not Christianity, or the Christian Faith, without the whole. If it be the Christian Faith to believe in God the Fa∣ther only, then those that deny Christ, are Christians. If it be the Christian Faith to believe only in Christ, though they deny the Father, or the Holy Ghost, then men worse then In∣fid••ls or most Heathens, are Christians. Indeed there is so ne∣cessary a connexion, that it is not possible truly to believe in God the Son, without believing in the Father and the Holy Ghost, and believing the Eternal Glory to which he hath Re∣deemed us and will lead us. If it be Christianity to believe all the Creed by meer Assent; then first, the Devils are Christians; for they believe and tremble. Secondly, and then it would be a Profession of Christianity to say, [I do believe Christ to be my Lord, by right of Redemption, but his Laws are so strict, and cross to my pleasures, that I am resolved he shall not rule me, and I will venture all rather than I will take him for my Ruler on such terms.] Or to say, [I believe the Holy Ghost is the Sanctifier of Gods Elect; but I will not consent that he shall Sanctifie me] Or to say, [I believe that Christ dyed to save his people from their sins, but he shall not save me from mine, be∣cause I cannot spare them.] Who dare say that any of these were a Profession of Christianity? We must believe with the heart, if we be Christians. Christianity is not a bare Opini∣on: It lyeth in the covenant of the soul with God, and it is the consent of the Will that is that covenanting. It is there∣fore sometime expressed by loving Christ above all. They that said, [This is the Heir] believed in a sort with the Assent of the brain: but when they add, [Come, let us kill him, that the In∣heritance may be ours] I think they shewed that they professed not Christianity. He that saith, [I will not have this man to raign or rule over me.] disclaimeth Christianity. He that disclaimeth an Essential part, disclaimeth the whole. It is not the Being with∣out these part.

All this laid together, shews us that Christianity, or the Christian Faith, truly and properly so called, which denomi∣nateth a man properly a Christian, is specifically distinct (as to a moral specification) from the faith of the highest unrege∣nerate man: (When Mr. K. wrote a digression against me on a

mistake that, I had denyed this, I did not think that others would so call me out to the defence of it.) And seeing that they differ by a moral specification, it is clear that they admit not of the same Definition; and that the term [Faith] or [Christianity] applyed to both these, cannot mean the same thing: but must here be an equivocal. Thus I have cleared it, that to profess the belief of one part of the Christian faith only, is not to profess the Christian faith, or to profess to be a Christian: and there∣fore such are not to be baptized, seeing we must baptize them in∣to the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, if we will bap∣tize them with Christian Baptism.

2. Next I shall shew that if any Notorious ungodly person do say he believes the whole, even in God the Father, Son and Ho∣ly Ghost, such saying is not a true Profession, nor valid to its uses. To this end let us enquire what it is to Profess: Profiteor is pub∣licè fateor. Fateor, inquit Perottus, est à fando, quasi vehemen∣ter loquor & affirmo; Fateri enim est sponte aliquid affirmare: Confiteri aliquo modo coactum; Profiteri, ad Gloriam aliquid prae se ferre. Martinius rather a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 dicendus, fandus: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 fa∣tenda, so 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 est sermo. Now the natural use of speech is to signifie our mind to others. And the very essence of a Professi∣on lyeth in the open declaring of the mind, in the very signifying use of the words or actions. For it containeth (as other signs do) 1. The thing signifying, or the matter of the sign, and that is ei∣ther words, writings or other Actions capable of this use (of which there are divers.) 2. the thing signified; which is our In∣ternal Assent and consent. 3. The party to whom we signifie it. 4. The actual signification, or Aptitudinal: that is, that it be a sign Aptitudinal in it self, and actual, when rightly observed by others: in which Aptitude lyeth the very formal nature of the sign. This being so, it is most evident that if it have not an Aptitude to signifie our mind, it is not a sign. You may say, if he dissemble, yet he may make profession, yet profession is no sign of his mind. I answer, it is no true sign of the thing pro∣fessed, but the end which he pretendeth to use it for is, to be a sign: and as a sign we expect and receive it; and did we know the heart as God doth, we need not ask men whether they be∣lieve, but presently go to their hearts and see, and so baptize

them or refuse them (or their Children.) It being then the very use that the Church makes of mens profession to signifie mens minds, it is clear 1. that where there is nothing that we can justly take as the signification of a mans mind, that he be∣lieveth as a Christian, there is no moral profession of it: and where a man signifieth his mind that he doth not so believe, there he professeth not to believe: And if he make two contrary professions, one that he doth believe, and the other that he doth not, if we know one to be certain and undissembled, and the other to be false, the later is Null, and the former to be received. All this being evident, it next followeth, that we shew, that no Notorious ungodly man doth make true profession of Christianity: For 1. If it be evident that he useth words not understood, as a Parrat, then is it not a pro∣fession: For Ignorantis non est consensus: and so nec Professio: else a Parrat may be a Professor. 2. He maketh openly the con∣trary Profession; For he doth by words or deeds, or both, profess that he will not be ruled by Christ, that he will not be sanctified or released from his sin: that he will not take God and Glory to come for his chief Good, but the things of this life, and will obey the flesh before God. It it be in plain known sins, which they can find no vain excuse for, some of them will say words of equal force to these: but though most will not do so; yet their Actions openly profess it.

But because this is the thing that will be denyed, I add fur∣ther. 1. Actions are capable of signifying a mans mind as well as words: though not ordinarily so soon, or easily, yet some Actions do; yea, and much more certainly. 2. God plain∣ly tels us of some, that profess that they know God, yet in works they deny him: so that works can speak as plain as words, and deny God, and unsay what a deceitful tongue hath said. 3. If these persons in question do not thus deny Christ by their works, or do not Profess, to be no Christians, then either it is because ungodliness is consistent with Christianity, or doth not com∣prehend or imply Infidelity, or else because the [Notoriousness] of this ungodliness is no Profession. The first cannot be said: For 1. As Godliness in a Christian sense comprehendeth Chri∣stianity,

and even the true acknowledgement of the God-head it self; so ungodliness containeth the disowning of God and the refusing of all true Love of him, or seeking him as our End, and it comprizeth in it the refusal of Christ to bring us back to God, and of the Spirit to conform our souls and lives to his Will. As therefore God is the Ultimate End, and Christ as Me∣diator but the means or way; and as loving God is a more ex∣cellent duty than believing in Christ in it self considered, so un∣godliness which is contrary to the Love of God, is a greater sin than unbelief in it self, as to Jesus Christ the Mediator: yea and ever containeth this unbelief as its second and lower part, though it be denominated from the opposition to God, as the greater part of the sin. 2. However no man will deny but that they are concomitant, and that every ungodly man is an unbeliever. 3. Yea as ungodliness is contrary to our subjection to the Lord Redeemer, it is a real part of Infidelity it self. I may well con∣clude therefore that to be Notoriously ungodly, is to be Notori∣ously no Christian, but an Unbeliever.

2. And that this Notoriousness is a certain profession, is evi∣dent. For 1. the mind is declared by it: Christ himself telleth us that out of the heart come Murthers, Adulteries, &c. and out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. If you say, men may do such and such things against their will, I answer, 1. Then they are not Notoriously ungodly; if they do not Notoriously shew their wilfulness. 2. The Will hath the command of the outward man. 2. And as it declareth the mind, so doth it certainly declare it. For first, else still it were not no∣torious ungodliness. 2. Words may be easier counterfeited than Deeds, especially the scope of a mans life. 3. And hence it is that the Lord Jesus himself when he comes to Judge∣ment, will try more by Deeds than verbal Profession, and will reject such Professions when they are contradicted by evil actions, as Mat. 7. Not every one that saith unto one Lord, Lord, shall enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, but he that doth the will of my Father. Mat. 25. Christ will convince those by their not feed∣ing, cloathing, &c. his members, that they were no true Believers, who still go about to justifie themselves. And they that shall say, Lord have not we eat, drunk, &c. Cast out Devils, & preacht in thy

name; shall be answered with a Depart from me ye workers of ini∣quity, I know you not. Men shall all be judged according to their works. It is clear then that Notorious ungodliness is a Profession or signification of the very mind and will: yea and a profession most certain; for it cannot be dissembled. He that is notorious∣ly ungodly is most certainly no true Christian: But the pro∣fession which this contradicteth, is not so certain; nay it is most certainly false. So that as God doth, so man must take mens works and lives for a Discovery of their mind, and judge them by it.

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

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

The sum is this, We must not baptize him into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost (or his children for his faith) who we are sure doth not believe in the Father, Son, and

Holy Ghost: But such is every Notorious Ungodly man, Er∣go.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arg. 13. From 1 Cor. 7.14. Else were your children un∣clean] If one of the immediate Parents be not a Believer, their children are unclean, and consequently not to be bap∣tized. But notorious ungodly ones are not Believers. Er∣go.

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

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

Its Objected that this was true of the Corinthians, whose An∣cestors ••ere Infidels▪ and thems••lves the first Converts, their children were unclean, if one of them were not a believer▪ but it holdeth not of them that had pious Ancestors. Answ. 1. This

yieldeth the point which is now in question, that is, that On their Parents account, such children have no right. 2. It con∣tradicteth the Apostle's express Affirmation, who saith that [they are unclean:] which can extend to no less than the de∣nyal of Holiness by B••rth-Priviledge. 3. Noah was the Proge∣nitor remote of those Corinthians; and he was not unclean. Yet that makes not them Holy: Else no man shoul'd be un∣holy.

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

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

To explain my meaning in this Argument, Observe 1. that I take not the common doctrine for true, that a particular Po∣litical or Organized Church, or incorporated Society of Chri∣stians, is a meer Homogeneal part of the universal Visible Church: All the Universal Church doth not consist of such Societies, no more than all this Common-wealth doth consist of Corporations. For a particular Church, is as a particular Body-Corporate; and all the Members of the Universal are not so: Though all ought to be so that can attain it, yet all can∣not attain it, and all do not what they ought: Even in an Ar∣my a Souldier may be lifted by a General Officer into the Army in general, long before he is placed in any Regiment or Troop; yea there are some that are Messengers, and for other employ∣ments, that are not to be of any Regiment. So sometime a man is baptized, as the Eunuch, before he be entred into any particular Church, perhaps long: And some were of Chur∣ches which are dissolved, and stay long before they can joyn

themselves to others▪ And some live as Merchants, in a movea∣ble travelling, condition: And some are bound for the good of the Common-wealth to be Embassadors, or Agents, or Factors, &c. resident among Infidels, where is no Church: And some may be called to preach up and down among Infidels for their conversion, as the Apostles did, and fix themselves to no parti∣cular Church: And some may be too ignorant or neglective of their duty in incorporating with any: And some upon infir∣mity and scrupulosity hold off. So that its apparent that all the Visible Church is not thus Incorporated into particular Churches.

2. I do firmly believe that Baptism as Baptism, doth list, en∣ter, 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 on∣ly, 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 in∣corporated 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 commu∣nion by other Churches, or single Christians.

6. I do therefore distinguish of such Exclusion as we com∣monly 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

to be excluded on a cause that is supposed exclusive of Christi∣anity 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 sus∣pension while the Title is under tryall, upon a just occasi∣on 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 par∣ticular 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 Cere∣monies, or Ordination of Pastors; a man that will in a trou∣bling 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 Opi∣nion.

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 num∣ber 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 in∣terruption in the succession of Ordination; that man is be∣come

uncapable of being a member of any such Church: and yet while he holdeth the whole Doctrine of Christiani∣ty 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 Univer∣sal 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 ve∣ry 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 scan∣dalous 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 na∣ture, 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 tempora∣ry. 3. It is possible also that a man may have such an itching zeal to propagate a false opinion, though consistent with Christiani∣ty, 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 consi∣stent 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 senten∣tial Excommunication, but only declarative. We cut off no man from Christ, but declare who they be that cut off them∣selves from that Christianity which they seemed to have.

5. 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 excommu∣nication, 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 Arri∣ans, 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 him∣self 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 rec∣kon 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 suppo∣seth 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 God∣liness.

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.

and 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 limita∣tion, Till they manifest Repentance. And this is the most com∣mon 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 Excom∣munication▪ 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 re∣pent 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 funda∣mental 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 Excom∣munication here, but only that which justly excludeth from all Christian communion, as Christian: and not that which ex∣cludeth 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 con∣veyance 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

they are in that condition, suspended from Baptism (unless they have a better Right than from them.)

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

I now prove the Major thus: If such Infants cannot receive union and communion with the Universal Church, on the ac∣count 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 grant∣ed; for the Parents Right is all the condition (in Question now) of the childs Right: and it is only this kind of Convey∣ance 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 contra∣dict our selves.

To this it is said by some, That an Excommunicate man lo∣seth 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 Maho∣met,

and yet will call himself a Christian, and usurp communi∣on, 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 Ex∣communication, but Declaring or Judging a man to be an A∣postate: 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 Poste∣rity: 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 convey∣ing of a Right which he had not. We suppose the child born af∣ter 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 Fa∣ther 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 cen∣sure 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

did 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 uphold∣ing 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 be∣seemed 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 pro∣nounced no members of the Universal Church,] To be ex∣communicate 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 plain∣ness of the Law, and the notoriousness of the Case may war∣rant 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 Judge∣ment 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 scan∣dalous, 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 notori∣ous. 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

no 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, Apo∣states 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 ex∣ecute 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 enter∣ed into the World, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a very Deceiver, and Antichrist; whosoever transgres∣seth and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ hath not God.] whether this was written to a Lady, or a Church, whether of the Gno∣sticks 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 Ba∣bylon, 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 ex∣presseth 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 unbe∣liever 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 for∣mer 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

therefore 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 In∣fidelity to Faith, but [such were some of you (that is, wicked Li∣vers); 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 Insti∣tutions 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 san∣ctifier 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 beauti∣ful 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 sti∣led oft [The Vngodly] Psal. 1. And as in some places the distin∣ction

is 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 Je∣sus 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 prophe∣sied, 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 unrighteous∣ness, 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 wick∣ed saith within my heart, that there is no fear of God b••fore his e••s,]

Ps. 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 In∣fidels, 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 inter∣vene, or not: God hath not left so much to the judicial De∣cision of man, as humane Laws do. It is a great doubt whe∣ther 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, Un∣godly ones, yea if they all command us to hold communion with them, because they call themselves Christians, we are never∣theless

bound to disobey them, and to avoid such as to Religi∣ous 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 Guilt∣less. Yea Cyprian tels the people that it belongs to them to for∣sake and to reject an unworthy Minister that is by others set over them, or doth intrude. I conclude therefore that as all Christi∣ans must (beyond dispute) use an open Infidel as such, though it belong not to the Church to judge them that are without, be∣cause 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 meri∣ted Excommuication, or it was their due: But ipso jure means ex vi solius Legis, sine sententia Judicis: Its common for Legisla∣tors 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

out, 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, be∣cause the son must not suffer for the fathers sin.

Answ. What is this to our business? We plead not for Ex∣communicating any child for the Parents sin; but for not Admit∣ting 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 Sup∣per: Therefore we may not justly Baptize such: And conse∣quently, 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 mem∣bers. 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 ad∣mitted 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 qualificati∣ons as to state worthiness, on which you may admit them to Ba∣ptism. Object. The Baptized are Incipientes; the Communicants Proficientes; Therefore there must be more in all Communicants

then is requisite in the Baptized. Answ. There ought to be more, because they ought to grow in grace. But 1. it is not requi∣site 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 Ordi∣nance, 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 Sup∣per 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 ad∣mitted to baptism, were it then to do, then may not the chil∣dren 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.

I prove the Major: 1. Baptism is ordained to admit all the baptized to be visible children of God: those that are Noto∣riously 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 Righte∣ous: 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: There∣fore 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:) there∣fore not admitted in such a condition.

Argu. 20. If notoriously ungodly baptized Parents are no∣toriously uncapable of presenting and dedicating their children to Christ, & covenanting with him on their behalf, then are they

Notoriously uncapable of Interesting their children in the Co∣venant 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, be∣cause 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 Notorious∣ly ungodly, as theirs, in comparison of the children of the god∣ly, 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 un∣godly 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 Notori∣ously ungodly, as such, to lie under his displeasure, that he would have the Church and all take notice of it, and esteem of

them 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 un∣der his special favour, should not be put into such a Bo∣dy.

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 No∣toriously 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 chil∣dren of God might not joyn with. The Infants of all the wick∣ed of the world are drowned with their Parents in the Flood: The Infants of Sodom and Gomorrah are destroyed with their Pa∣rents, who are said by Jude to suffer the vengeance of eternal fire, as an example (not of original sin) but to those that af∣ter should live ungodly. The children of the Egyptians are de∣stroyed 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

were 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 Midia∣nites, 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 Jerusa∣lem 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 Bap∣tism (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 op∣pose; yea worse. For the Catechumeni might understand and be∣lieve 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 (expres∣sed) 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,

which by contradicting the very Natural Principles of Religi∣on, 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 cer∣tain 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 work∣eth 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 Fa∣thers 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 In∣terest 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, Fa∣brit••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 stum∣bling block to those without, and give them such cause to blas∣pheme our holy profession, as our Lord never gave them, who came purposely into the world to destroy the works of the De∣vil,

and 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 him∣self, 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 Chri∣stians 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 con∣sent of the Primitive Churches, (as far as we have any means to disprove it.) That it was their Judgement and practice to re∣fuse to baptize any Notorious ungodly person, while such, ap∣pears past all doubt. 1. By their requiring a profession of Re∣pentance. 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 Bap∣tized to be in a state of salvation, which was on supposition of their true sanctification. 4. By their too much care in delay∣ing the Catechumeni (in later times) lest they should be un∣meet.

Let 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 Reign∣ing 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 fla∣gitia traducunt, & aperte ostendunt se non habere fidem, quâ creditur, nec spiritum sanctificationis secundum ullum ejus gra∣dum, 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 bene∣fits 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 writ∣ten on this subject. There were then some Christians, whose opi∣nion 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 be∣cause 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 after∣ward. Yet were these men so far from imagining that it was not Justifying faith that is required to Baptism that upon that

supposition, 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 dogmati∣cal 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 dis∣senters, 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 sup∣pose it will be but few that will not by what is said, be per∣swaded, 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 Lau∣rent Euchrid. c.

We come next to answer the chief Arguments of the Dissen∣ters, 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 utter∣ly 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 Argu∣ment 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:

And how dark are those grounds in some Cases to us?

2. I yet see no proof of the Proposition, that then such In∣fants 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, God∣liness 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 Cove∣nant, 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 generati∣ons, 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 continual∣ly in Sacrifices, and other Holy Worship. Moreover consi∣der, that the People at that time seem to be generally or mostly

such 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 gene∣rally zealous in their way of Religiousness, which was very cost∣ly 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 Mo∣ral 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 Offen∣ders 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 di∣scern ungodliness in them, and men might suspect them, and fear the worst. 8. Note also, that even for such particular sins be∣fore they could manifest fixed impeni••ency and obstinacy, or a course of ungodliness, God usually let loose against them his Jea∣lousie, 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 after∣ward, when the Princes and Rulers were evil or negligent, then the Church must needs be defiled, and the Laws of God un∣executed.

And perhaps I may mis-interpret some texts of Scri∣pture 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 up∣on them. But the Principal thing which I would have ob∣served is this. That by Gods Political Law of this Common∣wealth, all Notorious ungodly persons were to be put to death; yea, and many far short of that degree. I know it is a contro∣versie 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 Jea∣lousie, 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 Un∣godly 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 pre∣sently 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 chil∣dren 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

of both parents) and then how could they have had a child?

All the doubt then lying in the Antecedent, I shall from Scri∣pture put it is past doubt. Let us look over all the Command∣ments, 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 on∣ly, 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 Fa∣thers with all their heart, and with all their soul; that whosoever would not seek the Lord God of Israel, should be put to death, whe∣ther 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,

must 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 un∣to 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 ru∣led 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 pu∣nished with Death; and consequently that the evident discove∣ries of a state of Ungodliness (and many more) were then punish∣ed with Death according to Gods Law.

And then it must needs follow, that no child of a man Notori∣ously

ungodly, 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 capi∣tal 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 who∣soever 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 An∣swering 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 Bap∣tism 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

should 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 un∣godly. To clear this further, I will add two more obser∣vations.

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 Pa∣rents.

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 tempta∣tions. 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.

If 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 follow∣ing 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 circumcisi∣on of all Jews, yea encouraged it, seeing that the Body of that People were Gods visible Heritage, as a Type of the Catho∣lick visible Church now. The Magistrates therefore might com∣pell 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 pro∣mised 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 necessa∣ry to them: but to a Jew it was necessary as a Jew, how ungod∣ly soever.

Though this be none of my answer, yet among many Im∣probable 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.

Notoriously 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 In∣fants 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 No∣toriousness of their incapacity, and the pleasure of the Legisla∣tor, 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 pro∣nounced 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 excom∣municate 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 (be∣side 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 en∣gaged to them in the covenant of Grace, which Baptism sealeth; but conditionally only, and so he is to Infidels that persecute

it. 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. Noto∣ous 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 bap∣tism. 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 mea∣sure: and that he professed more than he had; and that here∣upon 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 ex∣ecution 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 circumci∣sed 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

committed 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 ip∣so 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 Repen∣tance: And so do many of these that you call Notoriously un∣godly. 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 fre∣quently break his word, his credit is lost: he is not capable at pre∣sent 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 pro∣mise 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 particu∣lar 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 wor∣thy to have place among the servants of such a Master who

fears 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 Reforma∣tion, that they had rather men were Heathens, and openly wic∣ked, and sinned with Body and Soul too, than with the Soul alone; this puts us upon a necessity of doing the more in a se∣paration 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 re∣ceivers 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 com∣mon 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 bap∣tism, 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

our 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-bap∣tizing.

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

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

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

Pr••po. 1. If any essential part of the exterior Ordinance be wanting, then it is Null: As if the party he not (more or less) washed. If he be not baptized into the Name of the Fa∣ther,

Son, and Holy Ghost, (at least implicitely, if not by full Verbal expression) If the party use but the bare name of God, while he professeth, or openly discovereth that it is not indeed God the Father, Son or Holy Ghost that he meaneth. If he openly put in any exception against any essential part of the Christian Faith or Covenant; as to say, I will only be pardoned by Christ, but not sanctified; then, I conceive, it is no Baptism. But if there be all the exterior Essentials, there the exterior Baptism is not Null nor to be repeated. 2. The foresaid ex∣terior Baptism is effectual to the engaging or obliging of the person so baptized: And so his own part of the Covenant is not Null. A Dissembling promise bindeth the Promiser in Law: for his dissimulation cannot hinder his own Obligation, though it may anothers. Nemini debetur commodum ex proprio delicto; 3. But if there be not sincerity in the Covenanter, beyond all this, his Baptism is not available to the pardon of his sin, or to convey to him a R••ght from God in any of the Covenant be∣nefits (directly as given to him) common or special. 4. Nor should the Minister or People believe this man, if by Notorious Ungodliness he give them reason to take his present Profession to be false, and himself now to dissemble. 5. But yet seeing a Natural Profession it is, though false; and the falshood is not declared by him at that time in the Ordinance, but disclaimed, but only is declared before he comes thither, therefore it seems to me, that there is the whole external Essence of Baptism, and therefore it is not Null, nor to be Repeated: But if that per∣son do afterward come to the sense of his own Dissimulation, and of the want of Truth in his Profession and Covenanting, he is to do then that which he did omit before, that is, to Covenant Truly; but not that which he did perform before, that is, to be externally Baptized. Such a person therefore should in the face of the Congregation, when he comes to Repentance, bewail (with the rest of the sins of his life) that falseness in the Baptismal Co∣venant, and there unfeignedly renew it: To which end, among others, in the antient Churches, it was usual in Confirmation to renew the Covenant more solemnly, where any flaw was found in the Baptism, which yet did not prove a Nullity. 6. And for external Church Priviledges, I conceive, that as God doth not

by Covenant give this person a right to them, so it is the Mi∣nisters and Peoples Duty to deny them to the Parent himself, while he continueth notoriously ungodly: and the Error of wrong baptizing him, (or continuing him in the Church till now) will not oblige them to continue communion with him. But yet being admitted by Baptism, he should be solemnly cast out. But if the Guides of the Church be faulty and will not cast him out, then must the people distingu••sh between com∣munion with him as a Christian in general, and as a member of that particular Church; as also between communion Moral, and meerly Natural; and so, First, they must avoid ••hristian com∣munion with him in ordinary wayes wherein they are free; as all private or voluntary open familiarity: Secondly, But if he in∣trude (by the Pastors approbation) into Publike communion, in Prayer, Prayses, or Sacrament, they ought not to withdraw from the communion of the ••hurch, because of his presence First, because they have the Liberty of esteeming him as they please; Secondly, because it is not their fault, but the Pastors. Thirdly, and therefore it is but a Physical and not a Moral communion that they have with him. Fourthly, because they are bound to hold communion with the Church in the use of Ordinances.

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

7. To which purpose, it is not altogether inconsiderable, that the Minister being by Office the Baptizer, and so the Judge of his own Actions, whom he ought to Baptize, and whom not; the action is not Null, though he mistake in his Judge∣ment, and apply the Ordinance to one that he should have re∣fused. For he doth but an act belonging to his Office, though he do it amiss, or on a wrong subject. As if a Judge do pass sentence mistakingly, yet may it be valid, as to some execution; For though he have no power given him directly to pass a wrong Judgement, yet in order to passing a right Judgement, he hath power to follow his own discretion, and to pass such a

Judgement as shall (at least in tantum) stand, though it prove wrong. I confess the Ministerial Power somewhat differeth from a strict Decisive Judicial power; but yet there is so much re∣semblance as may serve to illustrate the matter in hand.

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

Answ. 1. On the grounds we now go on, it it a contradiction to baptize a Heathen, that by a present profession is such. For Baptizing essentially containeth the persons external Covenant, or Profession of Believing in, and Dedication to the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. If there be not by the person and Mi∣nister such a Dedication, it is not Baptism: for if the bare ex∣ternal Washing were Baptism, then we were every day bapti∣zed. Now he that is Baptized into the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, doth thereby renounce Heathenism so far: Though whether his Profession shall be credited, depend∣eth on the probability of its verity or falsity. But on the first mentioned Definition of Baptism, it will be granted you, that Baptizing a Heathen is not a Nullity, as to the outward Baptism, though it be unprofitable and sinful. But to go on former grounds, I further answer, 2. It is one thing for a Judge to mis-judge a Cause that belongeth to his Judgement; and an∣other to mis-judge a cause that is wholly exempted from his Judgement, and belongeth not to him. In the former, his Judge∣ment may stand, in divers cases, because he was made Judge. In the later it is wholly Null, for he is but a Private man, and hath nothing to do in the business: and therefore whether he judge right or wrong, it is Null; As if a Judge go to another Bench, or into another Circuit, which is out of his Commissi∣on: So here, where a man layeth claim to Baptism, and pro∣fesseth himself a Christian the Minister is to judge whether he do it truly, or falsly; and therefore though he mistake, the Bap∣tism is not Null; For though the man be notoriously ungodly yet it is supposed that the Notoriousness is not absolutely unque∣stionable, and that the person doth not profess it when he comes to Baptism, but deny it, by professing Faith and Repentance; and so though the Church have sufficient ground to discredit that profession, by reason of h••s contradicting Life, yet a Con∣troversie

it is, while the person claims a Right in Baptism for his child; and being a Controversie, the Pastor is judge. But if he baptize a Heathen that makes No Profession of Christi∣anity, true or false, then he medleth in a matter exempted from his Power, and out of his Commission, and contrary to it, and that which can be no Controversie fit for his determination: and therefore it is Null, and indeed no Baptism.

Object. If the Pastor be thus Judge, how can you say as be∣fore, That the Notoriously Ungodly are ipso Jure Excommu∣nicated?

Answ. 1. Ministers are limited in their judgement by the Law of God, which telleth how far they may or may not Judge, and how far it shall or shall not be effectual. The people are not absolutely tied to follow their judgement when they err. 2. God hath directed his Precepts for the avoiding of notorious ungodly ones to every Christian directly; and not only to the Pastors directly, and to the people only from them; so that if a Pastor command us to have communion and fami∣liarity with such, we are yet to avoid them (as far as was be∣fore expressed) for all that, because Gods command is contra∣ry to the Pastors. And the Law openly declareth that such are not true Christians (or Believers;) and therefore a Pastors sen∣tence cannot make them such: His erring judgement may do more to bring a man into the Church than to keep him in; and in keeping him in as to possession, it may do more to the con∣veyance of those Priviledges which are to come meerly from his own hands and administration, than those wherein the people are to be instruments: Because he is more the Determiner of his own Actions, such as are baptizing, administring the Lords Supper, &c. than of theirs: For his own Erring Judge∣ment may ligare, etsi non obligare, entangle him in a kind of ne∣cessity of sinning, till that Judgement be changed; but it can∣not tye them, nor so necessitate them to sin, though it may bring them under some inconveniences; and for Order and the Peace of the Church, they must quietly, peaceably, and submis∣sively dissent. By the Law of the Land, the Kings Judges in his Courts and Assizes; were the lawfull Judges of a Traitor that was brought before them; and yet in some notorious Cases I

suppose he is condemned ipso Jure, and any man that can come at him might lawfully stab him without Judgement, yea is bound to do it: as if they had stood by and seen the Kings Person as∣saulted, as the Lord Major of London did by Wat Tyler: Or if it were not in defence, but in avenging of the Treason, if hai∣nous; and in several Cases they might kill them in a forcible ap∣prehension if they resist, as they did by the Powder-Traitors here neer us at Holbetch House. But what need I mention these things, when it is so commonly known that in several Cases the Law enableth us for to Execute without Judgement, and yet this is no denial of the Authority of a Judge. So much to the matter of this Argument.

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

2. And consequently I deny the two later Consequences.

3. Yea if our Parents Infant-Baptism were null, it followeth not that so is their childrens, which they had on their account. For our Parents might get a Personal Right in Christ and the Covenant after their Baptism, before they presented us in Ba∣ptism, though themselves had not been Baptized. 4. And I be∣lieve it will be no easie matter to prove that our Parents (any, or many at least) were notoriously ungodly at our birth. 5. Last∣ly, if all this satisfie not, but any man will yet needs believe, that it is an unavoidable consequence of our Doctrine, that [The Baptism of the Infants of Notoriously Ungodly Parents is null] though I am not of h••s minde, yet I think it is a less dan∣gerous opinion, and less improbable then theirs whom we now oppose. I know no such great ill effects it would have, if a man that mistakingly did suppose his Baptism Null, to satisfie his Conscience were baptized again, without denying the baptism of Infants, or any unpeaceable disturbing of the Church in the ma∣nagement thereof. I confess I never had any Damning or Ex∣communicating thoughts in my mind against Cyprian, Firmilian, and the rest of the African Bishops and Churches, who rebapti∣zed those that were baptized by Hereticks, and in Council deter∣mined it necessary, and were so zealous for it. And, though

while I captivated my judgement to a Party and to admired Per∣sons, I embraced the new Exposition of Acts 19. which Beza thankfully professeth to have received from Marúixius, who as some say was the first Inventer of it; yet I must confess, that both before I knew what other men held, and since I better know who expound it otherwise, and on what grounds, I can no lon∣ger think that is the meaning of the Text, especially when I im∣partially peruse the words themselves. Calvin did not think that the 5th vers•• was Paul's words of John's Hearers, but Luke's words of Paul's Hearers: and had no way to avoid the Exposi∣tion which admitted their rebaptizing, but by supposing that Paul did not Baptize them again with Water, but with the Holy Ghost only. (and that of that, the fifth verse is meant.) I never read that John Baptist did Baptize in the name of the Lord Jesus expresly and denominatively, but only as Paul here speaks, that they should believe on him that should come after, whom Paul here Expositorily denominateth the Lord Jesus. And the words [When they heard this] seem to me plainly to refer to Paul's say∣ing, as the thing which they heard. Also the Connexion of the fifth verse to the sixth shews it: For else there is no reason given of Pauls proceeding to that Imposition of Hands, nor any satisfaction to the doubt at which he stuck, or which he propounded. And I confess, if I must be swayed by men, I had rather think well of the judgment of the Fathers, and Church of all Ages, who, for ought I find, do all (that have wrote of it) with one consent place a greater difference then we do be∣tween John's Baptism and Christs, and did expound this Text so as to assert that these 12 Disciples were baptized again by Paul, or on his Preaching. And for that great and unanswerable Argument wherewith Beza and others do seek to maintain the necessity of their sense, I confess it rather perswades me to the contrary: For whereas they imagine it intolerable for us to conclude or think that Christ was not Baptized with Christian Baptism, which himself did institute or command, I must needs say, I think it much more probable that he was not, seeing the Christ an Baptism is Essentially a Covenanting and Sealing of our Covenant with God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, as our Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier, and appointed to be

Gods Seal of his washing away our sins by Christs blood; all which I know Christ was not capable of; And I suppose it more credible that Christ himself should be the Instituter of such an Evangelical Ordinance than John; and that he came to fulfill all Legal Righteousness, rather than that Evangelical Righteousness which consisteth in obeying himself, by doing those things which he hath appointed to redeemed sinners as such for their recovery. But of this let every man judge as he is illuminated. If I err, my danger and deserved reproach, I think, is no greater than the Ancient Fathers and the Church for so many hundred years that were of the same mind: Even they that were nearer to that Age when these matters of Fact were done.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Answ. Th••s is more than I have heard any good testimony of,

and therefore am not bound to believe it, Secondly, They in N. England, as we hear do refuse to baptize all that are not chil∣dren of the members of their own Churches; but so do not we: they baptize not the members of the Universal Church, unless they be in a particular Church; but we do otherwise. And its reported that they requ••red positive proof of Conversion, be∣yond a profession of faith and Repentance; but so do not we. Thirdly, Mens obstinacy in sin, and proceeding worse, will not warrant us to take an unlawful course in pretence to do them good. Fourthly, Do you give us any reason to believe that a no∣torious ungodly person in your Church is in any better a state than an Infidel? Nay, that they are not in a state much worse? It is they therefore that should chiefly move you to compassion. Can you so lament the estate of the less miserable, and not of the more miserable?

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

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

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

Though I have done with the Ques••ion it self, yet I suppose

it is not the least matter; in reference to our practice, that is yet behind, though I shall dispatch it in brief.

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

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

And first on the Negative, I lay down these Propositi∣ons.

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

The Opinion of most of our Divines, is, that a man that is Notoriously Ungodly (in the sense in hand) or unsanctified, must be a greater sinner than Solomon was, 1 King. 11. He lo∣ved

many strange women of the Nations which God forbad the Israelites to joyn with (such as Ez••a caused them to put away af∣ter Marriage:) He kept three hundred Concubines, besi••es seven hundred Wives: When he was old his Wives turned away his heart after other gods, and his heart was not perfect with the Lord, as Da∣vids was. He went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, and after Milcom the abomination of the Amonites; and he did evil in the sight of the Lord. He built an high place for Chemosh the abomination of Moab in the hill that is before Jerusalem, and for Molech the abomination of the children of Ammon. And likewise did he for all his strange Wives, which burnt Incense, and sacrifi∣ced to their gods. And the Lord was a••gry with him, because his heart was turned from the Lord God of Israel, which appeared to him twice, and had commanded him that he should not go after other gods, but he kept not that which the Lord commanded: he kept not the Covenant nor Statutes of the Lord.

Perhaps you will Object, If this be not Notorious ungod∣liness, what is? The sin was more hainous than Drunkenness, Fornication, yea or Murder it self; to be an Idolater, and to set it up to defile the Land: and it was a sin lived in who knows how long? besides his fleshly life, in having three hundred Con∣cubines and seven hundred wives: If all this may stand with Godliness, then we cannot know any man to be ungodly, & then you will harden all the wicked in their presumption. Answ. 1. If I should but look on it as a thing uncertain whether Solomon had true grace at that time, or whether any intercision were made in his Justification and true Sanctification, I should incur the heavy censure of many Divines. If I question not the certainty of his grace and perseverance, then I am supposed to make every com∣mon scandalous sinner to be fit for the reputation of a Saint, and to contradict the Apostle, who saith, If ye live after the flesh ye shall die; and neither Whoremonger, nor Idolater shall inherit the Kingdom of God. What is to be done in this strait? I will tell you plainly what I think safest, and let men think what they please. 1. It is not improbable that Solomon committed much of this sin meerly under temptation to please his Wives. 2. And that more of it lay in tolerating their Idolatry, than in his own committing it. 3. And that he did in other things continue his worship of the

true God. 4. And that he repented and wrote the Book Ecclesiastes on his Repentance, though the Historie make no mention of it. 5. Yet because the Holy Ghost doth so expres∣ly charge him with having his own heart turned after other gods, and going after them, and building high places to them, and his heart. turning from the Lord] and because the very setting up of so many Idols for others (his 700 Wives) is it self so hainous, I think it is undeniable that he was an Idolater, and lived in that sin, besides his living with 300 Concubines, and taking so fully the pleasure of his flesh, as in Ecclesiastes he doth confess. We are certain that all these are hainous sins, and hazardous to a mans salvation.

7. If the Devil tempt any wicked man upon the consideration of this Example, to presume that he is in a state of Grace, and to think with himself [why may not I live in whoredom, or drunkenness, or worldliness, and yet be in a justified estate, as well as Solomon, who did worse,] he may do well to bethink himself that 1. It is certain that he that liveth after the flesh shall die, and that such gross sinners shall not enter into the King∣dom of God. But we are not certain whether Solomon were justified and in a state of salvation at that time: it is a Contro∣versie among wise godly learned men; and many of the Anti∣ent Fathers thought that he was not. 3. And therefore any prudent man will take heed of venturing his salvation upon such uncertainty; and will look more at the certainty which is on the other side, of perishing if he live in such sins. 4. And he may do well to consider, that though Godliness be the same in all Ages in the main, and equally necessary, yet some sins may be more damning at some time than other. In those daies of Solomon God had for some just reasons permitted or connived at the multiplicity of Wives, and little is said against Concubines: he had in his promises to his people made the most full and express mention of temporal blessings, as Chil∣dren, long Life, prosperity, &c. and in his threatnings most expresly mentioned temporal evils: Spiritual and Eternal things were mentioned more obscurely and sparingly. This Honor was reserved to Christ and the Gospel, to bring Life and Im∣mortalty (more) to light, and to promise Spiritual and Eter∣nal

blessings, and threaten Spiritual and Eternal misery, more expresly and fully: And consequently some sins of the flesh might not then be so certain marks of ungodliness as now: and as it is a greater measure of spiritual refining and purity that is promised and justly expected under the Gospel, so a greater measure must be looked after, by every man in himself, and by the Guides of the Church in its members; and we must go directly to Jesus Christ for our Direction in such Ca∣ses. So much to prevent the hurt of the wicked by this Ex∣ample.

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

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

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

Answ. It is a very dangerous case; but simply considered, no certain evidence of the point in question. For 1. We know many that we see great signs of Grace in, and that are well repu∣ted of as eminent for Godliness, that do frequently commit as great sins as some kind of rash swearing seems to be: For ex∣ample, it is too rare to meet with a person so conscionable that will not frequently backbite, and with some malice or envie speak evil of those that differ from them in Judgement, or that they take to be against them, or that they are fallen out with: They will ordinarily censure them unjustly, and secretly endea∣vour to disgrace them, and take away their good name, and love

those that joyn with them in it: So how many Professors will rashly rail and lye in their passions? How few will take well a Reproof, but rather defend their sin? How many in these times that we doubt not to be godly, have been guilty of disobe∣dience to their Guides, and of Schism, and doing much to the hurt of the Church: A very great sin. 2. Peter, Lot, and its like David, did oft commit greater sins.

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

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

Reputation doth much with many even that are Godly, to make sin seem great or small: with us now a Swearer is reputed so great a sinner, that he is reckoned with Adulterers, and Drun∣kards; but Censoriousness, Backbiting, Church-division, diso∣beying those that rule over us in the Lord, spiritual Pride, &c. that are greater then some swearing, do not so brand a man, nor make him odious with us. But God judgeth not of sin thus by the custom of Countries, but according to the nature of the thing. In England a Sabbath-breaker is taken for a sin incon∣sistent with Grace: In the Low-Countries, Helvetia, France and most other of the Reformed Churches, much of it taken for no sin at all, but we are censured for superstitious herein. Every one is not ungodly there that lives and dies in that sin, without particular Repentance. Men that have not heard much of the evil of some petty oaths, may not understand the evil of them; and custom may do much. And it is not inconsiderable, as to the extenuation of some mens sin, that its not a little doubtfull whether it be indeed swearing, if a man do use those words which are the ordinary matter of an oath, and doth not know it to be an oath, nor intend the form of an oath in it: As if one use the terms of an oath in Latine or another Language which he understandeth not, he is not formally a Swearer: And if men do know it, and yet do not at that time intend

any such thing as a calling any creature to witness, or appeal∣ing to them as sufficient to avenge a lye, but only use a cu∣stomarie term inobservantly, it is a sin; but whether formal∣ly swearing, may be questioned. But if it be the Name of God that they abuse in swearing, or if they indeed put any creature in his stead, appealing to it as the Avenger of a lye or perjurie, that is a hainous sin, and cannot easily be done in ignorance. 2. It is judged by Divines that David lay a twelve moneth in his sin of Adulterie and Murder unrepented of: Certain it is that he was long contriving and executing that horrid murder of Vriah, that his own shame might be covered, and he might enjoy his wife▪ How long Asah or Solomon, sinned we know not: Nor can any man possibly determine just how long a man may live in the practice of such a sin, and yet have true special Grace, and a state of Justification.

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

Answ. It is not enough for the certain knowledge of a mans ungodliness, or gracelesness, to know that he neglecteth this duty of outward worship, unless it be known with what mind, and on what reasons he neglecteth it. For example, Many a man neglecteth Prayer in his Family, as supposing himself un∣able to perform it; and that this alone is not a certain sign of gracelesness, appeareth thus. 1. God hath not said that all that neglect it are graceless, or shall perish: As for the Text of Jer. [Pour out thy wrath on the Heathens tha•• know thee not, and the Families that call not on thy name] Its past question that by Families is meant Tribes or Nations, and calling on Gods name, is put for [Owning and Worshipping the true God] without any mention of the special sort of prayer in a Familie (though I believe the dueness of that may be hence gathered.) 2. Many that we have reason to hope are godly, have of late years given over Familie prayer, as supposing (though very blindly) that it is not a duty required by God. 3. Many godly people do as much neglect Teaching their Families as some of these in que∣stion

do Praying in their Families, and yet it is more expresly commanded, Deut. 6 & 11, &c. And for the Observation of the Sabbath, I answered before, that most of the Godly in the Re∣formed Churches (as far as I can learn by their Writings, or by Report) are against it in strictness: And therfore I suppose that sin is consistent with godliness And for [Godly Discourse] I would no godly people were not so neglective of it, that their company becomes too unprofitable thereby. Some are much dis∣abled to good discourse by natural impediments, as Bashfulness, &c. want of words through ill Education, and disuse may hin∣der much. It is only those that privately live and converse with people, that will be able to judge of them certainly on this ac∣count, and not all such neither.

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

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

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

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

Answ. It is certainly a heinous sin: But we must distinguish between the deriding of a man for the Essentials of Christiani∣ty, or for Godliness, as such; and deriding him for some do∣ctrine or practice of Godliness, which is not essential: also be∣tween a known Truth and Duty, and an unknown. It is too pos∣sible

for a Godly man to persecute and deride the Godly for some Truths which he took to be Errors, or some Duties which he mistook to be Sins, or to be no Duties; or for the manner of some Duties which he took to be wrong. Alas I how com∣mon is it for the Separatists and Anabaptists (many of them) to deride our Ministry, Assembles and Duties: and many among us to deride theirs? And they are the bitterest taunts and per∣secutions that come from blinde zeal. These times have by sad experience convinc't us, that men seeming otherwise Godly may both scorn (in press and pulpit) persecute and kill each other. As one Godly man may persecute another for some Truths and Duties, which he knows not to be such; so in particular, it is possible that such may imagine that private Meetings tend to schism or proud singularity, and so may deride them: Or he may by strangeness to them entertain some false report of the stricter Professors of Religion, as if they were proud, humo∣rous, schismaticks, disobedient, and differed only in these things, and not in true piety from others. And I believe I have known some in former times that were such; who had such thoughts as these of all the Godly that were not conformable, and of others that used any private Meetings, living where they had little acquaintance with any of them, save two or three that by scandals increased their prejudice, and hearing no better lan∣guage of them, these persons would reproach them as bitterly as most that ever I heard, and yet themselves lived not only up∣rightly to men, but so piously, that they seemed to hate all pro∣faness, and spent more time in secret prayer and reading, then most I have known. It is not therefore all scorn or persecution of Godly persons, Doctrines, or Duties that will prove a man to be Notoriously Graceless or Ungodly.

But again, left any Ungodly person take occasion of presum∣ption from all this, let me add this much more: 1. Though another cannot know such to be certainly ungodly, yet they may know it by themselves; who know their own ends and rea∣sons better then we can do. And (alas!) the souls of such are never the safer, because we are bound to judge charitably of them. This is but to prevent our wronging them, but it will not prevent their damnation. 2. Though we know them not

to be certainly ungodly, yet God doth: and it is he that must judge them. And therefore he will put many a thousand out of heaven, whom we may not put out of the Church. When the Tares and Wheat are so mixed, that we cannot pluck up the Tares without plucking up the Wheat (that is, in doubtfull inevident cases) there we must let both grow till the time of harvest (both in forbearing persecution by the sword, and Ex∣communication:) but then God will sever the wicked from the just, and gather out of his Kingdom all things that offend, and them that work iniquity, and cast them out into the lake of fire. 3. And our selves may see cause enough to bewail the misery of many as too probable, whom yet we cannot certainly conclude to be miserable: yea, we have cause to call them out of our communion: of which more anon. I must therefore intreat two sorts of Readers that they do not mis-interpret these fore∣going passages. First, The Vngodly are desired to beware that they pervert not this to their own delusion nor to the opening of their mouths against the teachings and censures of the Church. I cannot but fore-see that such will be prone to draw venom out of necessary truths; and to say, I may be godly and be saved, though I pray not in my family, though I swear, or be drunk, &c. But such must know, 1. That [they cannot be saved, if in the bent of their lives they live after the flesh, and if God be not dearer to them than all the world, and if their hearts be not more on heaven than on earth, and if the main aim and business of their lives be not for God and the life to come; nor can they be Godly or saved unless they truly hate their sin, and long to be rid of it, and are willing to be at the cost and labour of using Gods means by which they may be rid of it; unless in the bent of their lives they overcome gross sin, and live not in it, and groan under their infirmities desiring to be rid of them feeling the need of a Saviour, and flying to his blood for pardon, and to his word and spirit for cure.] All this must be in every one at age, that will be saved. Now though we may be uncertain of a mans ungodliness by one or more such fals as Peters or Davids were, when the bent of his life appeareth to be holy; yet if the bent of your lives be carnal, and you have not all this that I have now mentioned,

then you may be sure that you are Graceless, though you never commit any scandalous sin; much more when you live in them. 2. And remember that you may know your own hearts and secret lives, when we cannot. Its no comfort to you there∣fore that a Minister is not certain of your Gracelesness, if you be indeed Graceless: what if we must hope the best, who know not the worst? alas this will be no relief to your souls.

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

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

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

1. A man that (not inconsiderately, or in a Temptation but) deliberately and obstinately denieth any fundamental Article of the Christian faith, is notoriously ungodly: for he cannot have a godly heart, that excludeth the necessary principles of

Godliness from his head. I mean those Truths without which there is no salvation; for surely without them there can be no Grace. He that denieth thus the God head, or the Good∣ness, Wisdom, or Power of God; or the Incarnation, Holiness, Death, Ransom of man thereby, Resurrection, Rule, or Judge∣ment of Jesus Christ, or the everlasting life that he giveth to Believers, or the necessity of our holiness and Obedience to him: He that denieth the Holy Ghost, the Truth of his Miracles by which he sealed Christs Doctrine, or the necessity of his Sanctification: this man is Notoriously ungodly, if he Noto∣riously deny these: for he professeth ungodliness it self; So doth he that denieth Christ hath any Church on earth, and that denieth to have communion with his Church.

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

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

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

5. All those are such also, who, though in the general they will say, that they will be Ruled by God, saved by Christ, San∣ctified by the Holy Ghost, and guided by Gods Laws, yet when

it come's to particulars, do deliberately in their ordinary frame profess that they will not part with their known sins, at the command of God, but resolve to displease him rather than obey.

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

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

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

9. All those are Notoriously ungodly, who do by Scorns, Threatnings, Persecutions, or otherwise Notoriously express a Deliberate, Habituated Hatred prevailing in their hearts, against God, Christ, the Spirit, the Scripture, or Godly men be∣cause

they are godly, that is, because they do Believe, love God, and live a Holy life, and obey God in those things which they are convinced that he commandeth. For this shews that Ungod∣liness prevaileth in the heart.

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

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

If you would know who else it is that we must exclude or refuse, remember that before I told you of Excommunication from 1. A particular Church; for some reason proper there∣to or to some more, but not common to all. 2. From all In∣corporated Congregations, as such. 3. From the society of Christians, as such: and that this last is either for a time because of the scandalousness of the sin, and the credit of the Gospel with those without, though we may yet see signs of Repentance in the sinner. 2. Or for the Infectiousness of the sin as a Leprosie: As if a man take himself bound to perswade all men to some greater and dangerous Error, which yet may stand with Grace and Salvation, but makes it very difficult and much hindereth it; and if no means can convince this man of his Er∣ror, nor take him off; this is a kind of a Heretick, who must

be excluded from all Christian Communion▪ but is not certainly and notoriously graceless. 3. There is also exclusion from the society of all Christians, upon an evident Proof that the man is no true Christian; that is, that he is Notoriously an Unbeliever or Ungodly person: This I have spoke to all this while. 4. But then there is also an exclusion upon a violent Presumption, or ve∣ry strong Probability, though short of a Certainty that such a man is graceless or ungodly.

Hereupon I lay down what I take to be the Truth, in the Pro∣positions following.

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

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

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

Proposition 3. It ordinarily falls out that a Minister hath more work to do in his own special charge than five men are able to do: So that he cannot bestow so much time as to Baptize the children of others and to take an account of them concerning their Faith or Profession (such as is more necessary from stran∣gers, and refusers of Discipline, than others) without neglecting

some duty to his own Charge the while: While I am speaking to them, there are twenty poor souls of my own Charge that call for my help. And I am more strictly tied to those of my special charge than to others.

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

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

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

This last Proposition is it that I am now to give my Reasons of. For indeed it is a matter of such exceeding difficulty, to con∣clude another man to be certainly graceless, that it is not one of multitudes, nay, it is but few of the commonly scandalous gross sinners that we should be able to prove it by (which I desire the Cesorious well to consider of.) But yet a strong pre∣sumption we may have of more that they are graceless, and

thereupon may suspend them and their Children, as is said be∣fore.

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

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

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

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

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

Argum 3. In civil Administrations, and according to the Rules of right Reason, a very high probability, commonly cal∣led Violenta Praesumptio, sufficeth to sentence and execution: especially when it is but in the withdrawing or suspending of a Priviledge. Therefore it must be so here. Because 1. here is no reason to put a difference. 2. Because our distance from other mens hearts, doth in most cases make us uncapable of more. Impenitency and ••nfidelity lie within: and we cannot know them but by their signs and fruits. And 3. It is their fault in

giving occasion of such presumption, and in being so like the ungodly, if we deny them the Priviledges of the Godly; and not our fault. The Antecedent is clearly known. If a man be known to bear another malice, and be found standing by him with a bloody sword, the person being murdered, the Judge will justly condemn him for the murder; though yet it be not absolutely certain that he did it. If a man be found nudus in lecto cum nuda, he shall be judged a Fornicator or Adulterer, though it be un∣certain. So in other cases.

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

But Discipline must not be so eluded. Ergo.

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

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

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

To the first I say in brief; 1. If a Heathen that yesterday was

guilty of the grossest sin, do come to me this day, and with seem∣ing sorrow confess his fault, and with seeming seriousness pro∣fess to believe in God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost; that is, to believe all the essential Articles of Christian Religion, and pro∣fess his consent to take God for his only God, and portion; Christ for his only Redeemer, and the Holy Ghost for his San∣ctifier, renouncing the World, Flesh, and Devil; I shall take this Verbal profession for a sufficient Reason of his claim, unless any just Bar of exception be put in against him to invalidate it.

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

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

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

cross evidence to disprove his own verbal profession of faith and obedience, I will take it into consideration.

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

Obj. Then must we judge falsly, for we must judge men to be what they are not. Answ. 1. If it were so, it is no sin in you, but in them that profess falsly. When ever you judge the most glorious hypocrite to be Godly, you judge falsly; but not sin∣fully: for every mistake is not our sin. 2. But I say you are not to judg falsly neither. For you are not to judge that it is certain that these are Godly men, but only that its probable. And note well, that there is a difference to be made within the Church, between the better and worser Members, as well as between the Church and those without. And observe, that there are divers degrees of this probability of mens sincerity: some do so fully second their profession by a Godly life, that we have a very strong confidence of their sincerity (though not a certain∣ty). Some do give us some good hopes, but not so strong a per∣swasion.

Some are so dull and negligent, and faultie in their lives, that we have much fear of their perdition, though we are bound because of their profession, to keep up some hopes of them, as being not without some probability of their honesty. I doubt the common sort of Christians are but such as these. And therefore we may even in the Church preach for mens Conversion and Regeneration: because though we know not certainly who they be that are unregenerate, yet we know that many such there are that profess Religion, and have great cause of fear and jealousie concerning many in particular. So that we must place a great difference between those whom we must permit in the same Church-communion and must administer the same Sacraments to: we rejoyce in our hopes of some: we have much fear of the condemnation of others. Yet if it come not to a strong or violent presumption grounded on sufficient evidence, we may not suspend or cast them out.

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

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

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

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

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

presumption that they are utterly ignorant of the Essenti∣als.

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

3. While men do wilfully delay upon a sufficient Call to profess their Consent to the matters in the third Article (fore∣mentioned) viz. to take God for their God, Christ for their Saviour, the Spirit for their Sanctifier, the Word for their

Rule, we must delay our using them as Godly.

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

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

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

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

8. Those that will not hearken to them that would admonish them, but refuse to obey their counsel for the forsaking of known sin, and also despise and abuse them meerly for that: Though its possible this may be as As•• did in a temptation, yet we must presume till he repenteth, that he is ungodly; for we

know, that he that being oft reproved hardeneth his neck, shall be destroyed without remedy: specially when it is a Mi∣nister of acknowledged sobriety and authority that doth re∣prove; and the Reproof hath nothing in it that should seem in∣jurious.

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

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

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

Answ. 1. Where the case is most Notorious, there needeth no Judge. Where the Probabilities are such as require a Deter∣miner, it is the Ministers Office: and a main part of his work, of necessity to the Church, and not to be called or accounted Tyranny. 2. But, it is an easie matter to cavil at large against al∣most any cause; Destructive arguing is the easiest. But incommo∣dum non solvit Argumentum. The thing I would see is a better way. Do our Brethrens Grounds afford us any better footing? Quest. 1. Will you take any verbal profession as a title, or not? If any whatsoever; then if a man tell you I will come such a day,

and in scorn to Christ profess Christianity, or if he tell you when he hath done, I did but dissemble, for fear or favour, or if he de∣ride while he doth it, or contradict it in other words, you will take it for good. Or if a man come drunk to present his child in Baptism (as they have done to me to require it) Or if he fall a swearing and cursing at the Ordinance: Or say, I will never be ruled by Christ or Scripture: If any profession must serve, then these; But I hope not so. If not any whatever; Then, 1. Tell us how you will distinguish; will you not reject all that is apparently lying? How will you difference between Truth and a lye? what cross evidence will you take for currant? tell us that we may also know. If only words, than what if a man worship actively the Sun or Moon, while verbally he makes the Christian profession? will it not disable and discredit his profession with you? what if he have for twenty years (O that I had none such neer me) been drunk, once a week or fortnight, and sometime thrice a week, and still confess it and promise amendment? Is his word to be taken? 2. If you were to baptize an Aged man, that comes new into Christianity would not you be the judges whether his profession seemed serious or not? and proceed on meer probabilities, as well as we? 3. Do you not in admitting persons to the Lords Supper, make your selves judges whether his profession be serious, yea and take in his conversation for evi∣dence? and are you not put in all this upon the same uncertain∣ties, and to the use of probabilities as we? 4. So you do, I sup∣pose in excommunication for impenitency: Or at least, in case of absolution of the penitent, will not you be judges on probable grounds, whether his Repentance seem serious? and take a vio∣lent presumption as ground for some determinations? Yet I hope in all this you are no tyrants. There is a necessity of a standing Ministry to decide such matters, and rule the Church: therefore are such matters to be decided by them.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Quid est Pic. tas, nisi Dei cultus? & unde il••e coli∣tur, nisi Cha∣ritate? Aug. Epist. 29