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 Affirmative If the Children of such Parents have such Right to Baptism it is either for their own sake i.e. some Title or ground in themselves 2. or for their immediate parents 3. or their Ancestors 4. or some Undertakers 5. or the Church These five grounds are pleaded by some And though our Question directly speaketh only of the second and therefore if any of the rest be proved it nothing makes against our Negative determination because we take it Reduplicativè of the children of such Parents as theirs yet we judge it most usefull to our main end that we touch upon each of these several Claims And 1. If the Infants of such Parents have any such Right from any thing in themselves it is either from somewhat proper to themselves and some others such as they or somewhat common to all Infants But neither of these Ergo 1. For the first Member I know nothing said but this Possibly they may have some seed of Grace in them we know not the contrary Answ. 1. As to us it s all one non esse non apparere we must have some Evidence of such a seed of Grace or else we cannot discern it 2. Else we must baptize the children of all or any Heathen or Infidel because for ought we know they may have some seed of Grace For the second Member it is thus argued by some God requireth nothing but Consent on our parts to our enterance into Covenant with him seeing it is a Covenant of free Grace but all Infants must by us be supposed to Consent therefore all must be supposed to have Right to Baptism The Major we grant The Minor they would thus prove It is a Rule in the Civil Law That it is suppâ—sed that a man will be willing of his own Good And another Rule there is That the Law supposeth a man to be what he ought to be till the contrary appear therefore Infants who make not the contrary appear are by us to be judged virtual Consenters or Accepters of the Covenant and consequently to be Baptized Answ. These Rules may hold in dealings between man and man about such things as Nature may both discern to be Good and desire but they cannot hold in the Case in hand 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 supposed For Natures Inclination to our own Good is no sufficient ground of the supposition Nor yet any Obligation that can lie on us to charitable thoughts of Infant 's Inclinations For it is one of the Principles of our Religion that Nature is so depraved as that every man is the great Enemy of himself consequentially as being inclined to the way of his own ruine till Christ the Physitian of Nature do work a Cure 4. And if this Argument would hold it would prove that all the Infants of the world have right to Baptism which is not to be supposed 5. Yea it wouâ—d prove that they have equal right with Christians which is yet more evidently false 6. Infants in such Covenants are reputed to be as their Paâ—â—nt who â—huse for them that cannot chuse for themselves If therefore the Parents consent not it is supposed that the Child consenâ—s not and no parent can truly consent for his childe that re useth for himself 7. The Covenant hath not only benefits on Gods part to be conferred but also duties on our part required and it cannot be supposed that all will faithfully perform such duties So much for the first pretended Title The second pretended Title of such Infants to Baptism is upon the account of the Interest of their immediate Parents and because this is both the proper subject of our question and also the great difficuly and most insisted on I shall say somewhat more to it And I prove the Negative thus 1. If notoriously ungodly Parents have no right themselves to the Benefits of the Covenant nor to be Baptized if it were now to do then cannot their children have a right upon the account of any interest of theirs But the Antecedent is true Therefore the validity of the consequence is evident in that no man can give that he hath none to give nor can we derive any Interest from him that hath none himself If any say he may have an Interest for his child that hath none for himself 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. According to this objection the children of all Infidels Jews Turks and Heathens should have right for their Parents sake supposing those Parents to have been once baptized and now to be Apostates 2. But those children were either born before their Parents Apostacy or after If before then I grant the Parent loseth not the childs right by Apostacy because that right was fixed upon the child himself upon the account of the Parents interest And we may suppose him baptized thereupon and so there is no cause for a doubt For as the case is rare for a man that before was rightfully a Church-member to the outward appearance to Apostatize between the Birth and Baptism so I will purposely shun that Controversie Whether the child by such Apostacy loseth his right or whether a Baptized
and consequently that the evident discoveries of a state of Ungodliness and many more were then punished with Death according to Gods Law And then it must needs follow that no child of a man Notoriously 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 capital punishment such places as Exod. 31.14 15. would make one doubt Ye shall keep the Sabbath therefore for it is holy unto you every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death for whosoever doth any work therein that soul shall be cut off from amongst his people See also Levit. 20.17 18. And if it be meant of Excommunication if the parent be cut off from his people then cannot his son for any Interest of his be â—nnumerated to that people and entred among them The first Observation and this last laid together clear the whole Cause viz. that the Magistrate was not to force any barely to be Circumcised but to enter into Gods Covenant and so to be circumcised and therefore was he not to force any out of the Covenant to be circumcised and then that he was to cut off the Covenant-breakers or notoriously ungodly ones 11. The next Observation that I would give towards the Answering of this Objection is that it could not be expected that any Magistrate Priest or other in Power should hinder any Israëlite from circumcising his children For to circumcise them was every mans Duty and to baptize them is every mans Duty in the world now that is to give up himself and his child in sincere Covenant to God and seal it as he hath appointed but not dissemblingly to use the sign without the Covenanting and Resignation on his part Now if any Israëlite were unfit for this Ordinance it being the Magistrates duty to put him to death or cut him off he could not judge him unfit and so forbid him the Ordinance without condemning himself The first thing that lay upon him was to cut him off for the sin which caused his unfitness 12. Note also that Circumcision much differed from Baptism in this that it was not the Priests work but Parents to circumcise his children this being so no wonder if there were not the scruples about the persons fiâ—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 ungodly To clear this further I will add two more observations 13. Note that all those that were charged with Murmuring Unbelief c. in the wilderness were all destroyed there and also that for 40 years their Children had been uncircumcised Only Caleb and Joshua were left So that those of 40 or 30 or 20 years of age must be Circumcised on the account of their own Covenanting and not plead the right of their Parents 14. Note also that the very examples of Gods Judgements do intimate that Notorious Ungodliness was not so common among them as some imagine Multitudes are thought very Godly now that murmur in lesser straits than they were then in and that are palpably guilty of much unbelief or less temptations All Israel was put to the worse for the sake of one Achan that plundred no man unjustly but only thought to rescue some desirable treasures from the flames I wish that no soldiers would now do worse that are reputed extraordinarily Godly and are never blemished by such actions in their own eyes or any others I will not stand to add more because I have been so long 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 following answers 1. That External and Ceremonial Purity was then most openly looked at which was but a Type of the spiritual purity under the Gospel and therefore no wonder if God that then permitted Polygamie without reproof permitted the circumcision of all Jews yea encouraged it seeing that the Body of that People were Gods visible Heritage as a Type of the Catholick visible Church now The Magistrates therefore might compell them as Jews to be Circumcised but so may not ours compell us as Englishmen 2. That Circumcision was not only appointed to be the seal of the Covenant of grace but also a peculiar Covenant annexed to Abraham and his seed and that not all but those only that were to possess the land of Canaan And therefore as it was not all the people that God had on earth that were promised to possess the land of Canaan but only the Israelites and those proselites that came over to inhabite among them so neither was Circumcision commanded to all nor was necessary to them but to a Jew it was necessary as a Jew how ungodly soever Though this be none of my answer yet among many Improbable opinions I see not but the Thesis which I deny is much more improbable than this is and therefore if I needs must hold one I see not but that I should rather hold this Nor will this weaken our Argument for Infant-Baptism fetcht from the Infant Church-membership of the Jews which is the great objection as long as the whole species of Infants are of distinct consideration from a Jews Infant as such and as long as the grand Covenant of grace and the peculiar promise to the Jews are so distinct yea and Church-membership and Circumcision so distinct as they are Let them leave us to make good our Arguments in this Argu. 2. We may lawfully Baptize the Infants of any Church-members Notoriously ungodly persons are Church-members therefore we may lawfully Baptize their Infants Ans. 1. I deny the Major Because some Church-members are
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 Teacher of the Church in KEDERMINSTER The Second Edition corrected and amended Mark 16.16 He that Believeth and is Baptized shall be saved and he that believeth not shall be damned Luke 14.33 Whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath he cannot be my Disciple Acts 3.23 Every soul which will not hear that Prophet shall be destroyed from among the People LONDON Printed by R. W. for Nevil Simmons Book seller in Kederminster and are to be sold by him there and by Nathaniel Ekins at the Gun in Pauls Church-Yard 1658. Disput. 1. Whether Ministers may admit persons into the Church of Christ by Baptism upon the bare verbal Profession of the true Christian saving faith without staying for or requiring any further Evidences of sincerity Disput. 2. Whether Ministers must or may Baptize the Children of those that profess not saving Faith upon the profession of any other Faith that comes short of it Disput. 3. Whether the Infants of Notoriusly-ungodly baptized Parents have Right to be Baptized Disput. 4. Whether any besides Regenerate Believers have a Right to the Sacraments given them by God and may thereupon require them and receive them Disput. 5. De Nomine Whether Hypocrites and other Vnregenerate persons be called Church-members Christians Believers Saints Adopted Iustified c. Vnivocally Analogically or Equivocally Some Reasons fetcht from the rest of M â— Blake's Assaults and from Doctor Owen's and M â— Robertson's Writings against me which acquit me from returning them a more particular answer To the faithful servants of Christ the Associated Ministers of Worcestershire Reverend and dear Brethren AS I ow you an account of my Doctrine when you require it so do I also in some regards when it is accused by others which accordingly I here give you and with you to the rest of the Church of God I take my self also to have a Right to your Brotherly admonitions which I earnestly crave of you when you see me go aside And that I may begin to you in the exercise of that faithfulness which I crave from you I humbly exhort you that in the study and practice of such points as are here disputed yea and of all the Doctrine of Christ you would still most carefully watch against Self and suffer it not once to come in and plead its Interest lest it entice you to be Man-pleasers when it hath first made you Self-pleasers and so no longer the servants of Christ. You are deservedly honored for your Agreements and Undertakings but it is a faithful Performance that must prepare you for the Reward and prevent the Doom of the slothfull and unfaithful Mat. 25.23 26. But this will not be done if you consult with Flesh and Blood Self-denial and the Love of God in Christ do constitute the New-man The exercise of these must be the daily work of your Hearts and Lives and the preaching of these the summ of your Doctrine Where Love doth constrain you and Self-denial clense your way you will finde alacrity and delight in those works which to the carnal seem thorny and grievous and not to be attempted This will make you to be up and doing when others are loytering and wishing and pleasing the flesh and contenting themselves with plausible Sermons and the repute of being able pious men If these two Graces be but living in your hearts they will run through your thoughts and words and waies and give them a spirituall and heavenly tincture They will appear in your Sermons and exemplary lives and give you a special fertility in good works They will have so fruitful an influence upon all your flock that none of them shall pass into another world and take possession of their everlasting State till you have done your best for their Conversion and salvation and therefore that we may daily live in the Love of God in Self-denial and Christian unity is the summ of the praiers of Your unworthy Brother Richard Baxter Kederminster Jan. 17. 1656. The Preface IT is not long ago since it was exceeding far from my thoughts that ever I should have been so much imployed in Controversies with dear and Reverend Brethren as since that time I have been I repent of any temerity unskilfulness or other sin of my own which might occasion it and I am much grieved that it hath occasioned offense to some of the Brethren whom I contradict But yet I foresee that some light is like to arise by this collision and the Church will receive more good then hurt by it We are united in Christ and in hearty Love to one another which as my soul is certainly conscious of so I have not the least doubt of it in most of my Brethren with whom I have these Debates we are so far agreed that we do without scruple profess our selves of the same faith and Church and where the Consequences of our Differences may seem to import any great distance which we are fain to manifest in our Disputes we lay that more upon the opinion then the persons as knowing that they discern not and own not such Consequences And if any salt be mingled in our Writings which is usual in Disputes that are not lifeless or it is intended rather to season then to fret or to bite that which each one takes to be an error rather then the man that holdeth it If there be two or three toothed contenders that have more to do with persons then with doctrines that 's nothing to the rest And thus on both sides those that erre and those that have the truth do shew that Error is the thing which they detest and would disclaim it if they saw it and that Truth is it which they love and are zealous for it so far as they know it And doubtless the comparing of our several Evidences will be some help to the unprejudiced to the attainment of a clearer discovery of the Truth The greatest thing that troubleth me is to hear that there are some men yea which is the wonder some Orthodox Godly Ministers though I hope but few that fetch an Argument from our Disputes against the motions to Peace and Unity and unquestionable Duties which on other occasions are made to them and if any Arguments of mine be used to move them they presently reply If he would promote peace he should not break it by dissenting from or writing against his Brethren But what if I were as bad as you can imagine will you therefore refuse any Evidence that shall be brought you or neglect any duty that God shall call you to Will my unpeaceableness excuse yours But stay Brethren do you build the Churches Peace on such terms as these Will you have Union and Communion with none but
the best Or is not this a contradiction 3. What kind of holy Ordinance is this wherein neither Charity nor Reason must be put to it when the state of another is presented to our consideration 4. What is the more sure Rule for our proceeding which is here mentioned I must profess that upon my most diligent search with a willingness to discover it I am not yet able to know what Mr. Blakes Rule is sure or not sure I mean what that qualification is which he saith doth entitle to Baptism Though he call it a Dogmatical Faith yet he requireth the will's consent but to what I am not able to discern he doth so vary his Phrase and contradict himself Onle by his Title on the top of the Leaf I know that it is A Faith short of Justifying which he meaneth which telleth me what faith it is not though not what it is 5. Either he will require a Profession of true Faith or not If not then we are not yet fit to dispute about the ends to which that Profession is requisite seeing we are not agreed whether the Profession it self be requisite in those whom we must admit If the Profession it self be acknowledged necessary then either for it self or for another thing Not for it self For 1. There is nothing in the thing 2. Nor in Scripture to intimate any such thing But on the contrary 1. It is signum mentis and therefore is required to signifie what is in the mind 2. Else a false Profession should be requisite and acceptable as well as a true if it were Profession quâ talis and propter se that were requisite If it be not for the signification of what is in the mind then though it signifie not the mind it is acceptable But that cannot be for God hath forbidden lying and never accepteth it nor maketh it a condition of our Title to his benefits as given to us by him 3. It is not any one sign that God tyeth us to Not speaking for then the dumb could not profess Not writing for then none could be Professors that cannot write But it s any thing that may signifie the mind which plainly shews that it is required to this end that it may signifie the mind God never encouraged any to speak the bare words be they true or false but only to speak the truth 6. Suppose it were only another species of Faith which is necessary to be professed in order to Baptism would not Mr. Blake put either his Charity or Reason to it to judge whether the person do in probability mean as he speaks If not 1. Then he will not sanctifie God in his Ordinances but abuse them and wrong his Neighbour by laying by Charity and Reason so much in the administration 2. And then if he knew that they came in scorn or learn the word as a Parrot he would accept them which I will not imagine But if he will put his Charity and Reason to it to judge of the truth of a common Profession let him shew us his warrant and it shall serve us to prove that we must do so also in case of a special Profession What ever the Faith professed be If you say your Profession is required propter se for the matter of the sign and not for the formality and use of signifying it were not only groundless but a reproachful ascribing that to God which we would not ascribe to the silliest man or woman about us that hath the free use of Reason And if the Profession be given and taken and so required not propter se materially but ut signum mentis for the signifying of our minds then sure I need not dig deep into Scripture or Reason to prove that both the Reason and Charity of the minister is here to be Imployed to judge whether indeed it do signifie the mans mind according to his pretences or not It grieveth me for the Churches sake to read Mr. Blake's words of the Ministers he meets with for if they do scarce any of them so much regard the probability of the Parents Regeneration in the administration of that Sacrament then they either Baptize upon an apparent Lye if the Parent profess saving Faith when he hath not the least probability of it or else they take up with the Profession of another species of Faith as Mr. Blake doth And I crave their patient sober enquiry Whether that be not to make another species of Baptism and of visible Christianity and also whether they have yet well discerned and determined what that Faith is that must be profest and whether the world have ever yet seen an exact or satisfactory definition or description of it and where and in what words and also whether they have not the same uncertainty of the sincerity of that lower Faith in the Professors as of true saving Faith and consequently Whether Mr. Blakes doctrine have delivered them from difficulties or ensnared them I crave of all those Reverend Brethren whom Mr. Black meets with and are guilty of what he chargeth them with that they would once more consider the matter 2. Having thus shewed that a Profession is necessary and that in its formal nature and to its proper end as it is a signification of a man's mind and in order to the discovery of the mind and not barely for the very terms or signs of Profession I am next to shew what things are necessary besides the bare words or other signs to the Being of a Profession or what properties or requisites are sine quibus non to the validity of it to its End that it may be indeed taken by us to be signum mentis and not be accounted Null and vain And in General it is necessary that the Profession seem true for a Profession that is notoriously fals is uncapable of the Ends atd use that it is required for for such a one will not signifie a mans mind but the contrary More particularly 1. The Professon which we must take as valid must seem to be made in a competent understanding of the Matter which is Professed It 's a known rule in Law that Consensus non est ignorantis If a Parrot be taugh to repeat the Creed it is not to be called a Profession of Faith The same we may say of any such Ideot or child or persons at age who are notoriously ignorant of the matter which they speak therefore it is the duty of those that require such Professions to endeavor to discern whether the person understand what he professeth before he do it and therefore in the ancient Churches their Catechists or other Teachers did first see to their understanding the sum of the Christian Faith before they baptized any at age and so should the Parents themselves be examined before we baptize their children upon the account of their Profession except it be when we have just cause to presume that the person understandeth the matter professed Yet if
to Baptize the Child I have known a man of eighty years of age that took God the Son to be the sun in the firmament If before I had understood him this man had professed to believe in God the Father Son and Holy Ghost and presented his child to baptism with this profession and I had no ground before to suspect his error or to examine him about his faith it had been my duty to baptize his child For though in the intended sense of the speaker here was not so much as the Profession of an Historical faith much less of a saving faith yet I know not his heart and the common use of those words as to another signification than he intended and therefore I was Innocent in being deceived 2. I meddle not here with the claim that is laid upon the account of the Ancestors Adopters or undertakers that profess saving faith but only with the claim laid on the account of Parents or any others that profess not saving faith 3. When I assert the unlawfulness I do not intend thereby to assert the Nullity of all such baptism when performed though unlawfully For though it may be Null or vain as to the special uses and benefits yet it followeth not that therefore it is Null as to the true form and being of the Externall Ordinance nor that this is to be re-iterated And with these explications I affirm that Ministers may not Baptize the children of those that Profess not saving faith upon the Profession of any other faith that comes short of it And here you must remember that our question supposeth the determination of the controversie whether the same faith that is necessary in the aged themselves if they were to be baptized be necessary to their childrens baptism on their account For it seems strange to me that any should imagine that a lower belief in the Parent will help his child to a Title than that which is necessary to his own baptism But if any will insist on such a conceit because we will not now make more controversies then that in hand let such all along suppose our dispute to be about the aged themselves whether we might baptize the aged upon the Profession of any faith short of saving And I thus prove the contrary Argum. 1. If we must not baptize any who profess not true Repentance then must we not baptize any that profess not saving faith But the Antecedent is true speaking of the Adult Concerning whom as the more noble subject we shall carry on the Argumentation for brevity still implying the lâ—ke necessity of their professing saving faith for their childrens baptism as for their own therefore c. The Consequence of the Major I prove thus 1. True repentance and saving faith are inseparable therefore if one be of necessity so is the other and the profession of true Repentance cannot be separated from the profession of saving faith therefore if one be necessary so is the other Some learned Divines take repentance and faith to be all one some take repentance to be part of faith but all take it to be as inseparable from it It were easie by describing the requisite Professions of both to shew that they are so interwoven that no man can profess the one wâ—thout the other but I think it is needless because few will deny it By Repentance here I mean that true Evangelical Repentance which is a special grace of God accompanying salvation and not any common preparatory Repentance The Antecedent is easily proved from Scripture and I know not whether any Protestant deny it many Papists indeed distinguish of Repentance and Faith and say that it is only a profession of a preparatory Repentance and sides informis a faith without love that is necessarily to be expected from them before Baptism But I prove the contrary 1. That Repentance 2. And such as is proper to the effectually called is necessary to be professed by all that we may Baptize I will joyn the proof of both together Argum. 1. If John Baptist required the Profession of true Repentance in men before he would baptize them then so must we But John did so therefore the Consequence is clear 1. For either Johns Baptism and Christs were the same as most of our Divines against the Papists do maintain though Zanchy and some few more follow the Judgement of the ancient Doctors in this or as Calvin Institut saith the difference seems to be but this that John baptized them into the Messiah to come and the Apostles into the name of the Messiah already come 2. Or if the difference be greater we may argue à fortiori If Johns Baptism required a Profession of Repentance then much more Christs for certainly Christ required not less then John nor did he take the impenitent into his Kingdom whom John excluded The Antecedent I prove 1. From Mark 1 34. He preached 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And doubtless that Repentance which is in Remissionem peccatorum is true special Repentance One of our Divines and many of the Papists have found out another evasion that is that John did engage them to repent but not requiring a Profession or Repentance as foregoing baptism But 1. this is against the whole current of expositors ancient and modern and 2. against the plain scope of the text The words in Mat. 3.6 are They were baptized of him in Jordan confessing their sins This confession was with yea before their baptism and this Confession was the Profession of the Repentance that John required Maldonate on the text having first railed at Calvin and slandered him as turning baptism into preaching as if he had expounded Johns baptizing not of water-baptism but preaching when he only shews that both should go together doth tell the Protestants that they cannot prove by this text that confession went before baptism because it is named after but that he might not seem utterly impudent he confesseth that the thing is true and that it is the sense of the text and that this he confesseth because he must rather be a faithfull expositor then a subtile adversary And if any should say that it 's only confession that 's required which is no certain sign of true Repentance I answer when John saith If we confess our sins he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins he took that confession to be a sign of true Repentance And our Expositors and the Ancients before them agree that it was such a confession as was conjunct with a detestation and renouncing of the sin And it is expounded by that of Acts 19.18 as Grotius noteth to have a special detestation of the sin accompaneing it where to the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is added 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And it may sufficy that the baptism to which this Confession was required is the baptisme of Repentance But it is objected that in the 11. vers of Mat. 3. it is said by Iohn I Baptize you
necessarily as the other And I would fain know of him how meer Dogmatical believers are sure that they have a Dogmaticall faith 1. Many of them know not what that faith is nor what the essentials of Christianity are nor know not those essentials themselves as I before said from sad experience They might therefore be sure that they have not a true Dogmatical faith but not that they have it and yet they are as confident they have it as other men 2. Many that believe the same truths as others believe them but side humanâ and not divinâ and therefore have no true Dogmatical faith 3. Many do but half believe them and think they may be true they may be false and cannot tell whether they may believe them or not but indeed do not their unbelief being more predominant and therefore from it must be denominated 4. Many true saving believers are sorely tempted about the Truth of the Gospel and troubled with doubts and their Dogmatical or Historical faith is but weak and mixed with much unbelief so that they cannot tell whether their belief or unbelief be predominant and consequently whether they believe or not And for my part I see no reason but that it should be as hard to a true Christian to know whether he truly believe the Dogmata Christiana the Articles of Faith the truth of the Gospel as to know whether he truly rest upon Christ or love God above all And I know many learned wise and godly men to all appearance that are in doubt and long have been of the truth of their assent to the Gospel and are troubled with no other doubtings of their sincerity in any great measure but only as the doubts of this doth cause them Some of the ablest men that ever I knew have groaned out many a complaint O I am afraid I am an Infidel I cannot believe the Word of God! I know not whether I believe it or not A Turk may have some thoughts or motions that it may be true but if he be more perswaded of the falsness than of the Truth he is not to be denominated a believer Now if Mr. Blake will but tell us plainly how he would deal with these that doubt of their very historical faith and what he would have them do then I will tell him the like by them that doubt of their saving faith 5. Nay see what a desperate plunge he puts his believers to He requireth them to perform impossibilities They must engage to believe savingly that is they must profess a consent so to do And this they must know that they do sincerely or else they cannot do it in faith as the Objection saith when as it is a thing that no unregenerate man can do sincerely If he engage to believe savingly he doth it not sincerely but ignorantly or dissemblingly At least few of them know that they do it sincerely as themselves will here confess what then must these do in such a case 6 At least let the heart and light of a godly man and an ungodly be compared and I will appeal to Mr. Blakes own judgement whether a Godly man be not as likely to know his sincerity in saving faith as an ungodly man to know that he haâ—h truly a Dogmatical faith and doth truly engage to believe savingly I could soon shew such disadvantages that a wicked man hath to know his own heart even in this point that me thinks might easily determine this Controversie if it were needfull to stand upon it 7. It is the duty of the godly to give God thanks for his saving Grace for converting them giving them the Holy Ghost Justifying Adopting them c. Must none perform this duty but they that have attained Assurance of their Conversion Justification Adoption c Then it is not many that must perform it But if others may and must do this on the same ground they may and must perform the other It is the duty of every child of God to pray and praise God in the relation of a child in a special sense and to call God Father in a special sense and to plead those Promises with him that are the proper portion of his Children And must all omit this that have no assurance or subjective Certainty It it the duty of each member of the mystical body of Christ to love the Saints and assist them as fellow-members Must none do this that is not certain of his own member-ship If I should instance in all the particulars of Christian Duty that this case extendeth to you would see that this your principle reduced to practice would make buâ— unhappy work in the Church and would do much to the extirpation of a very great part if not the far greatest of the service of God 8. In all such Cases our Actions must follow the smallest prevalent perswasions of our Judgement though far short of full Assurance If a true Believer do think himself to be such he may profess himself such When so far as he knoweth his own heart he doth believe and repent he may profess that he doth believe and repent implying or expressing that he speaketh according to the knowledge he hath of his own heart We are so strange to our selves that if only Certainty must move us to Action I think we should sleep out the most of our lives He speaks sincerely that speaks according to his perswasion and as he thinks though he be not certain 9. In such cases it condemneth not to act in doubting but the same man that doubteth may act in faith Indeed if the doubting be so predominant that a man is more perswaded that he doth not believe than that he doth whether dogmatically or savingly then he may not profess that he doth believe that is he may not think one thing and speak another and speak or do against his Conscience And also if it be in an indifferent thing as about meats or drinks or indifferent daies where he is certain to be innocent if he forbear and uncertain to be innocent if he act then he must take the safer side and therefore forbear And the Apostles words will reach no further than to these two points He that hath unbelief and therefore doubing may say Lord I believe help thou mine unbelief 10. The thing that is necessarily required to the Sacramental participation is not an Assurance that our faith is sincere and saving but that it be really that Faith which is sincere and saving whether we know it so to be or not Many a man knoweth that he hath that faith which is saving and yet knoweth not that it is saving And many one knoweth that he performeth the saving act but through vain scruples understandeth not whether he do it sincerely And many think or hope they are sincere that yet doubt of it I have met with many that have lived in deep distress for want of perceiving the truth of their faith that have cried out
if as some suppose the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 came from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 alo to nourish for so men may do by children that are any way their own But it is only the immediate Parents that we here mean though Festus saith that Juris prudentes avos proavos avias proavias parentum nomine appellari dicunt And though the word Parens be sometime taken pro Consanguineo And Hierom saith advers Ruffin lib. 2. That militari vulgarÃque 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 Controversie doth depend It is not one only sense in which the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pius Impius Godly and Ungodly are used Some think that Pius comes from an obsolete Greek word now difused 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do refer and so that the primary signification is of one that worships God wiâ—h the Fat of Sacrifice as Abel did with the best of his service and not the refuse or lean Meliùs ad rem fuerit saith Mertinius Pius derivare à 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quod Cretensibus est Deus ex 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quia pius est qui Deo addictus est devotus eumque sequitur ut Angli Pium Godly tanquam Divinum Ità Objectum Pii indicaretur Si ad actum respiciamus idonra originatio erit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quippe quae est vox religiosae operationis Vide plura ibid. Our English word Godly is the most clear for Etymology and sense And for the right understanding of it we must consider 1. What God is and in what Relationn to Man he stands 2. What is required from Man towards God 1. As God is in himself most perfectly Good from whence some think in English he is called God so is he to Man 1. The Principal efficient Cause of all his Good 2. And the chief Objective matter and ultimate end so that in him alone can we be happy He is our α and ω our very All. he stands Related to Man as his Creator Governour Redeemer and Preserver 2. From whence Man is obliged to acknowledge God in these Relations whether Naturally or Supernaturally made known and to consent to them and to love and honour him as God though it be not perfectly which is now above his strength yet must it be sincerely even comparatively and superlatively above any Creature whatsoever He that doth thus is a Godly man that is a man that doth sincerely believe in God the Father Son and Holy Ghost and is devoted to God Besides this principal sense there are some others common both in the defect and in the excess 1. Among Heathens he is called Pious 1. who is a devout honourer of their Gods though Idols 2. or who is merciful to people in misery 3. or who is an Honourer of Parents and Superiors or who is conscientious according to their insufficient light 2. Among Christians 1. Some call any man Godly that is zealous in Religious matters though so unsound in the fundamentals that he worshippeth he knows not what or so ignorant about Gods very nature and his relations to him that it is not God indeed as God that he worshippeth and though he be actually incapable of true Love and Devotedness to God for want of right conceivings of him even in those respects that are essential to the Object of the Christian faith 2. Some call a man Godly that makes a sound Confession and knows the Christian Doctrine and saith he believeth it though he notoriously manifest that his Will doth not consent that the God whom he confesseth shall be his God his Ruler and Felicity nor the Christ whom he confesseth shall be his Saviour on his own terms nor the Holy Ghost his Guide and Sanctifier 3. On the other side Many will call no Man Godly that is not noted for some eminent difference in Parts and Zeal from others that live about him If they see him neglect some Duties that he is bound to as not to come to some private Meetings that are used regularly and to Edification or not to Read or Hear so frequently or diligently as he should or not to Pray in his family which in some Cases its possible a Godly man may neglect or if he commit some sins which yet its possible a Godly man may commit they account him ungodly though possibly it may be otherwise in the main so that no man is by them esteemed Godly unless he go beyond the weakest sort of true Christians As for them that call none Godly but their own parties or sect-fellows I will pass them as not worthy our further mention Among all these senses it is the first in which we here take the word Godly so that it is only Christian Godliness that we mean which is a sincere believing in God the Father Son and Holy Ghost even with true intellectual Assent and hearty Consent from which heart-Godliness there follows that sincere Obedience to the will of God to first and second Table which is the proper fruit of it and Repentance after disobedience known It is therefore such a Godliness as is proper to them that have the promise of Justification and Salvation that we mean comprehending Repentance towards God and 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 members of any particular Church who have an ordinary competent ability to discern to be ungodly persons that is not to believe in God as aforesaid but to be indeed contemners of God the Father Son and Holy Ghost as all are that are not Godly though not all in a like degree They that are notoriously known to be thus ungodly or unholy or unbelievers are those here intended 5. By Baptized Parents we mean only such as have had the external sign joyned to a Profession of the Christian faith and Dedication to God and so have covenanted ore tenus with God by themselves or parents and not those that have been sincerely Dedicated to him and so have God re-engaged unto them For it is a contradiction for to call such at the time of such Devotedness notoriously ungodly and to say that they fall from it is contrary to the judgement of those whom we now deal with and therefore not to be expected Some do so define Baptism as to make it essentially to be Gods actual sealing and exhibiting
of an actual pardon to the person baptized But we take it not thus We speak only of those that have so formlaâ—y performed and received the externals of that Ordinance as that the Church doth justly take them for her baptized Members though yet they werr not truly united to Christ nor was God ever actually reconciled to them as his People So much for the Subject For the predicate we must first explain the term Right Concerning which I must refer you mostly to what I have said to Mr. Blake pag. 5 SECT 39. more fully than here I may stay to express my self 1. In the properest sense Right respecteth some Good which 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 himself 4. In a sense though proper quoad relationis fundamentum yet Catachrestical as to the Denomination of the thing a man is said to have right to an Evil as to that punishment which according to Law and Justice in his Due or which he is obliged to bear According to the first of these senses every man hath a Right to or in Gods Benefits to whom he hath Given them by any Promise Covenant Grant or other Moral act which may be the Foundation of Right called a Title According to the second sense all those have Right to Gods blessing that have them in Possession through a meer natural collation of Providence without their sinful seizure As if you see a man by the way lie naked and cast your cloak over him and say nothing to him Though you may take it away again at your pleasure and assure him not of the use of it for a moment yet he hath right to possess it while you permit him Thus every Pagan hath Right to his Life and Time and Food and Raiment while God doth providentially vouchsafe them to him According to the third sense All those have a Right to Gods mercies to whom we are bound as Instruments to conser them though it be but by accident that we are so obilged and though God be in no Covenant-engagement to the persons nor give them any proper right or claim to the thing So if God bid me Give to him that needeth and because I know not all that need he bids me judge upon probable appearances Hereupon if a rich man go in rags and pretend necessity 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 whether he repent by the Evidences there being no other way and these Evidences being only probable and not demonstrastive here it is my duty to forgive him that repenteth not if he seem to repent and so he may have such an improper right to my forgiveness So if a Heathen seem to be a true Christian and yet dissemble I am bound to use him as a Christian and and so far he may improperly be said to have right to any Christian Ordinance which I am bound to dispense to him If he claims this Ordinance of me he sins against God and requireth that which properly and before God he hath no right to and which he ought not to claim but yet he clams nothing but what I am bound to give him upon such a claim You may see then that here may be three distinct questions according to this three-fold sense of Right For the fourth I will pass as not concerning our present business 1. Whether such subjects have any Right to Baptism by any gift or grant of God to themselves 2. Whether they have right from Gods providence putting them into possession of it 3. Whether it be a Ministers duty to baptize them And I think it necessary to handle all these or at least the first and last distinctly because that one dependeth on the other and we know not which is ordinarily meant when this question is put Only to the Explication of the last term we must speak a word viz. what is meant by that Baptism the Right whereto we are now enquiring after It is one question whether they have Right to the thing signified viz. Christ and his Benefits the pardon of sin and Adoption c. It is another question whether they have Right to the bare sign and the consequential Priviledges with the Church arising from their reputing such a man to be a true Christian. And another question whether they have Right to Both these Also it is one thing to ask Whether men have right to performance of their own part in Baptism in part or in whole And another Whether they have right to Gods part We make no question but every man hath liberty given him to do 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 external Baptism that 's meant Whether the Infant Children especially natural of men externally baptized but now notoriously ungodly have by any Gift of Covenant-Grant from God a right to external Baptism Which I determine Negatively They have no such right And herein the justest order it belongeth to the Affirmer to prove such a right He that brings his claim must shew his
cannot do but upon weighty considerations 2. The Soveraign in this case hath the same right in Adult subjects as in Infants seeing they are all Vassals to him as their Lord. And yet it is manifest in Scripture that God will have the personal consent of the Adult before they shall have any interest in his Covenant Because when their Soveraign Lord hath all the right that is possible he leaveth them the power of their own wills And so as they have still naturally a nearer right in themselves than he hath which they cannot alienate so it seems they have in their children 3. At least this is nothing to almost all the world where the Rulers claim no such absolute Dominion and Propriety 4. God in Scripture requireth Parents and not Rulers to circumcise their children and to educate them And Joshua would promise for no more but himself his houshould to serve the Lord and bids the people choose whom they would serve Yet I will not deny but that a Ruler may use some 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 tâ—eir Cause â—astly I conceive that as a Governors Right is in the Common-wealth and main body of the Nation enabling him to Rule them in the fear of God so I will not deny but that he may call together the chief part of them or a Representative body and urging and procuring their consent he may devote them by a National Covenant to Gâ—d and promise himself to rule them in his fear And I would this duty and the Scripture Patterns for it were better laid to heart But still this leaves the Parent that nearer Natural Interest in his Individual children on which God hath pleased rather to ground his Promises and Threatenings to Infants The second Argument is drawn from Mat. 28.19 20. Go and disciple me all Nations baptizing them From whence it is argued that the Infants of notorious ungodly Parents being Members of a Discipled Nation may therefore be baptized as such Members Answ. 1. If the nearer Interest of their Parents be not supposed necessary then this Argument makes as much for the Right of the child of any Jew or Heathen as of a Christian for they may be Members of that Nation which is Discipled 2. But they must be Members of it quà tales as discipled and that they are not till they are themselves Disciples The Apostles are first commanded to Disciple Nations and then to Baptize them on supposition that they be discipled therefore they must baptize none but those that are discipled They must endeavour the discipling of each Individual but if they prevail but with the greater and Ruling part it may be called a Discipled Nation and a Kingdom that is become the Kingdom of Christ but yet as it is but for the sake of the chief part that the whole is so denominated so it is only that part that is to be baptized seeing a bare denomination of the whole gives not right to any part that hath none of the ground of that denomination Nor did the antient Churches so understand this Text For when Constantine and Theodosius and other Christian Emperors had the Rule they did not judge that all their Subjects should be baptized The 3d. Argument is drawn from the Interest of the Church They say Those that are born within the Church though of unworthy Parents the Church may take them and present them to baptism Answ. How are those born within the Church whose Parents are no Members of the Church Of which more anon If the Parent be utterly unworthy and the child can have no Right upon his account then certainly he is not to be reckoned in the Church And if you mean that all those that are born among the members of the Church or where they have Civil Rule may by them be presented to Baptism then the argument must be the same with that before or so vain as to need no confutation Unless the Church will accept the Children as their Own according to the sense of the fourth fore-mentioned Title and then any one Member may better do it than the whole Church Having spoken to the five pretended Titles distinctly and shewed you how far they are any of them allowable and how far not I shall proceed to the second Question in the begining propounded viz. Whether that the Eventual Disposal of God by a Physical Act of Providence do give any Right to the children of notoriously ungodly Parents to be baptized And I need not say much to this 1. Because I know of none that plead this Right 2. Because it is but a non-injustum and I think scarcely so much as a Justum much less a Debitum that is here grounded 3. But especially because it is unquestionably evident that if this give any kind of Right it is but to a Possession ad libitum Donatoris after the reception and not at all to the first Reception And therefore it cannot with the least shew of Reason be pleaded before-hand to enable any mans claim to Baptism nor to enable a Minister to baptize any nor yet ex post facto to justifie the Act of the Baptizer or of the Baptized Yet how far it may prohibite any man to dispossess them of the state or priviledges of the baptized till God give them a clear warrant is worthy consideration 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 judgement do intend to insist upon as discerning some inconvenience in affirming God to be any otherwise than conditionally engaged in Covenant with any Notorious ungodly men yea or any that are unregenerate To this therefore we must next speak The Question is Whether it be Gods command that Ministers should baptize Children of notoriously ungodly men Or Whether it be their duty Or Whether such Children be the Objects of our Just and Justifiable Action of Baptizing And I conclude the Question Negatively supposing that we speak both of Parents natural and civil and so that they come in upon no better account than the Title of such Parents as is before explained Here 1. I grant that if the natural Parents be ungodly we may baptize on the the Title of their civil Parents or Pro-parents I mean any that truly Own them as Theirs 2. Much more if any one of the Parents be godly though the other be ungodly 3. Also If there be a probable profession of Godliness though indeed there be not Sincerity it is our duty to baptize the children of such Because 1.
we have no natural capacity of judging but according to evidence and we have no evidence for a certain judgement concerning the estate of another mans heart 2. I have elsewhere made it appear and more abundantly might easily do that when God mentioneth any person qualified with such a Qualification which to us is uncertain to be the object of our Act his meaning is that we should rationally and charitably judge of men according to evidence whether they are such or no and so take them and use them accordingly the Apparere being here as the Esse to us So when he bids us if a Brother wrong us oft and oft say It repenteth me forgive him it is all one with that other If he repent forgive him We know not certainly whether he repent or not but we must take him probably to repent that giveth us the evidence of a probable profession So if we are to baptize those that repent and believe or their children how can we judge of them but by a 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 therefoâ—e abouâ— Ungodliness in the proper sense Notorious as is before explained And I shall now defend the Negative as followâ—th Arg. 1. We have no word of God commanding or Authorizing us to baptize the children of the notoriously ungodly as theirs Therfore is it not our duty or lawfull What command or warrant is pretended from Scripture we shall examine anon Arg. 2. We may not baptâ—ze them who are Notoriously without true Covenant Right to Baptism But such are the children of notorious ungodly Parents Ergo. The Minor is proved before the Major needs no proof I think We should give each his Right Arg. 3. If it be the very reason why we must Baptize the Ungodly and theâ—r Seed who profess Godliness because that by professing it they seem probably to be godly then must we not baptize them who do not seem probably to be godly or if you had rather to be true Believers But the Antecedent is true Therefore so is the Consequent For the Antecedent I have said enough for it to Mr. Blake If it were not propter fidem significandam that profession were required but propter se as the condition of the Covenant then 1. God would not have said He that believeth and is baptized c. And if thou believe with all thy heart thou mayst be baptized and Repent and be baptized c. but rather if thou wilt but say thou believest thou mayst be baptized c. 2. And then all that profess should be justified For all that be in the Mutual Covenant with God actually are justified 3. And then such profession would be of flat necessity to Salvation as well as faith which it is not but on supposition of Opportunity a Call c. I think I may take it for granted that Profession is required sub ratione signi as a sign of the thing professed nor can any man I think give a better reason of its necessity 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 discovering of the mind with an intention to deceive so I confess it may be called a profession Physically or Metaphysically true But it is not this natural Truth that we here mean nor yet do I stretch the word so high as to comprehend the full gradual correspondency of the Act to the Object but I plainly mean a Moral Truth opposed to a Lye or Falshood And being speaking about moral-Legal things the terms must be necessarily understood according to the Subject So that it were proper in this Case If I simply maintained that such are Not Professors of Christianity at all because in a moral Law-sense they are not such For no man is to give credit to a notorious lye so to speak is equal to silence as to any obligation that it can lay upon another either to believe him or to use him as one that is believed My meaning therefore is that we are not to baptize that man or his child upon a profession which is notoriously false so that our selves and the Congregation do certainly know or have sufficient Reasons to be confident that the man doth lye For the proof of the Minor which I know will be denied thus I prove it If either the Profession be evidently but Equivocally called a true Profession or the Christianity professed be but equivocally called Christianâ—ty then the notoriously 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 profession of true Christianity that must justly denominate a man at age a true Professor of Christianity If he notoriously want the first he is morally no Professor If he want the later he professeth not â—hristianity To prove the Minor we will begin with the later We speak not now of any Accidentals that pertain not to the Being but tend only to the well-Being of a Christian. Now I hope it is past controversie among us all that it is essential to our Christianity that it be in the Intellect and Will whatever we say of the outward Man and for the Intellect that we believe in God the Father Son and Holy Ghost And it is essential to our believing in God that we believe him to be our Creator Chief Ruler and chief End and Happiness And to believe in the Son Essentially containeth a believing that he is Jesus Christ our Lord that is that he is the Redeemer of the world who shed his blood to save his people from their sins by pardon and sanctification and who will raise them from the dead and judge them to everlasting Blessedness and who is their Lord and Ruler on this ground and to this end to believe in the Holy Ghost essentially containeth a believing that his Testimony of Christ was true and that he is the Sanctifier of those that shall be saved It is as much essential to Christianity to consent that
yet have their Disciples a form of Godliness And doubtless Reprobates concerning the faith if so known are not to be numbred with Christians Those from whom we are to be separated here and hereafter are stiled oft The Vngodly Psal. 1. And as in some places the distinction 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 Jesus Christ ver 4.12 And the Desciption of them is that they are ungodly Hereticks that taught and practised ungodliness as you may see ver 8 9 10 11 12 13 17 18. walking after their own ungodly lusts sensual having not the spirit of whom Enoch prophesied saying Behold the Lord cometh with ten thousand of his Saints to execute Judgement on all and to convince all that are ungodly of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed And the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who imprison the truth in unrighteousness Rom. 1.18 If Rom. 1 2. speak of Baptized persons turned Hereticks as some Expositors judge then they are put in as vile a character and as distant from Christians as Heathens are It is the world as distinct from the Church that lie in wickedness 1 Jo. 5.19 Psal. 50.16 To the wicked saith God What hast thou to do to declare my statutes or that thou shouldest take my Covenant in thy mouth seeing thou hatest Instruction and castest my word behind thee The Sacrifice of the wicked is an Abomination to the Lord Prov. 21.27 so then must his false promising in Baptism So Prov. 15.8 9.26 whatever they may say with their mouths for God and Christ and the Faith yet The transgression of the wicked saith within my heart that there is no fear of God bâ—fore his eâ—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 praejudiciuÌ„ 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 froÌ„ among the people All these passages with multitudes more shew that the name of a Christian unworthily usurped maketh not a notorious ungodly man to be in any capacity of a better esteem with God or the Church or any good men therein than are openly professed Infidels especially that want the means which they enjoy For all this pretence of theirs can give us no probability of any more then a superficial Assent less then that of the Devils and this is but knowing their Masters will which prepareth these Rebels to be beaten with many stripes And should that which makes them the greater sinners give them right of admittance into the Church It is Agustines Argument lib de fide oper 3. The case is yet more clear that such are excommunicated ipso jure when we consider that it is far more usual for Gods Law to serve without a sentence then mans most of the matters of our lives are there determined to our hand and we must obey the Law whether there be any judgement of man to intervene or not God hath not left so much to the judicial Decision of man as humane Laws do It is a great doubt whether there be any power properly Decisive-judicial in the Church-Guides or not but doubtless it is more limitedly and imperfectly Decisive than is the power of Judges in the matters of the Commonwealth So that if all the Rulers in the Church should forbear to Censure Notorious Apostates Hereticks Ungodly ones yea if they all command us to hold communion with them because they call themselves Christians we are nevertheless bound to disobey them and to avoid such as to Religious communion For else we should obey man against God who hath directed many of these precepts to all Christians and not only to the Governours of the Church If the Guides will suffer the woman Jezabel to teach and seduce and the Nicolaitans to abide among them whom for their filthiness God did hate it is the peoples duty for all that to avoid them if they will be Guiltless Yea Cyprian tels the people that it belongs to them to forsake and to reject an unworthy Minister that is by others set over them or doth intrude I conclude therefore that as all Christians must beyond dispute use an open Infidel as such though it belong not to the Church to judge them that are without because the Law here serves turn without a judgement the case being past controversie so also a Notorious ungodly man though pretending to Christianity and entertained by the Church is to be avoided by every good Christian as being ipso jure excommunicated by God Most of the Objections that I have heard against this are from men that not understanding this phrase of Excommunication ipso jure through their unacquaintedness with Law-terms have supposed that we meant no more but de jure or that they merited Excommuication or it was their due But ipso jure means ex vi solius Legis sine sententia Judicis Its common for Legislators in several Cases either where Judges or other Officers are needless or cannot be had or may not be staid for to enable the subject to do execution without any more judgement And so we are bound to avoid such Notorious
and Soul too than with the Soul alone this puts us upon a necessity of doing the more in a separation by Church power than else we should do Arg. 9. If no Children of notorious ungodly parents have Right to Baptism 1. then is their Baptism Null 2. And then ours is Null which we received on supposition of the Right of such parents And 3. then must many be baptized again For if Ministers had no power to do it it must needs be Null The determination of this Question about the nullity of Baptism depends upon the true definition of Baptism some only put Gods part and the Ministers into the definition and not the receivers act of profession covenanting or self-resigning to Christ taking him to be no Agent in the Essentials of the Ordinance but a recipient and that the Acts on his part are only Integrals or Duties necessary to his participation of the benefits of the Covenant If this definition hold most common with our Divines then the resolution is most easie For the Minister performed all that was essentiall to Baptism And therefore that which is undone is only the mans duty on his own or childs behalf that which was well done as to the act is not to be done again that is the Ministerial Baptism though sinfully misapplyed but that which was undone that is 1. the persons duty 2. and thereupon Gods Grant actually of the benefits According to this definition of baptism if through error a Pagan be baptized in the true form it is not Null as to that form of the Ordinance nor to be done again when he is converted but only his own duty was Null and to be done again For example if one that cannot speak 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-baptizing 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 called to profess their faith when they offer their children to Baptism Are the children of these persons to be re-baptized or themselves if it were their case or is the Administration of the Lords Supper to such a Nullity or only unprofitable I have had the aged here that have said Christ the Son of God was the Sun in the Firmament yet they have had both Sacraments Answer this for your selves 3. But suppose the persons covenanting be essential to Baptism let us so far advantage the Objectors as to deal with them on that ground Answ. 1. I distinguish between the Nullity of the external part commonly called Baptism containing the Ministerial Administration and the persons Reception of the Water and Washing with his profession or external covenant to God And the Nullity of Gods Engagement or Covenant to the sinner actually and so of the sinners Reception of the Benefits of Baptism Among which Benefits I distinguish the special and spiritual as pardon Adoption c. from the more common and external such as are the external Priviledges of the Visible Church Whereupon I answer first to the Matter in these following Propositions and then to the Argument as in form Prâ—po 1. If any essential part of the exterior Ordinance be wanting then it is Null As if the party he not more or less washed If he be not baptized into the Name of the Father 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 exterior Baptism is effectual to the engaging or obliging of the person so baptized And so his own part of the Covenant is not Null A Dissembling promise bindeth the Promiser in Law for his dissimulation cannot hinder his own Obligation though it may anothers Nemini debetur commodum ex proprio delicto 3. But if there be not sincerity in the Covenanter beyond all this his Baptism is not available to the pardon of his sin or to convey to him a Râ—ght from God in any of the Covenant benefits directly as given to him common or special 4. Nor should the Minister or People believe this man if by Notorious Ungodliness he give them reason to take his present Profession to be false and himself now to dissemble 5. But yet seeing a Natural Profession it is though false and the falshood is not declared by him at that time in the Ordinance but disclaimed but only is declared before he comes thither therefore it seems to me that there is the whole external Essence of Baptism and therefore it is not Null nor to be Repeated But if that person do afterward come to the sense of his own Dissimulation and of the want of Truth in his Profession and Covenanting he is to do then that which he did omit before that is to Covenant Truly but not that which he did perform before that is to be externally Baptized Such a person therefore should in the face of the Congregation when he comes to Repentance bewail with the rest of the sins of his life that falseness in the Baptismal Covenant and there unfeignedly renew it To which end among others in the antient Churches it was usual in Confirmation to renew the Covenant more solemnly where any flaw was found in the Baptism which yet did not prove a Nullity 6. And for external Church Priviledges I conceive that as God doth not by Covenant give this person a right to them so it is the Ministers and Peoples Duty to deny them to the Parent himself while he continueth notoriously ungodly and the Error of wrong baptizing him or continuing him in the Church till now will not oblige them to continue communion with him But yet being admitted by Baptism he should be solemnly cast out But if the Guides of the Church be faulty and will not cast him out then must the people distinguâ—sh between communion with him as a Christian in general and as a member of that particular Church as also between communion Moral and meerly Natural and
to Execute without Judgement and yet this is no denial of the Authority of a Judge So much to the matter of this Argument And now in Sum to the Argument as in Form 1. I deny the first Consequence if it speak of the Nullity of the External Baptism and not only of the Effect and of Gods Engagement to them 2. And consequently I deny the two later Consequences 3. Yea if our Parents Infant-Baptism were null it followeth not that so is their childrens which they had on their account For our Parents might get a Personal Right in Christ and the Covenant after their Baptism before they presented us in Baptism though themselves had not been Baptized 4. And I believe it will be no easie matter to prove that our Parents any or many at least were notoriously ungodly at our birth 5. Lastly if all this satisfie not but any man will yet needs believe that it is an unavoidable consequence of our Doctrine that The Baptism of the Infants of Notoriously Ungodly Parents is null though I am not of hâ—s minde yet I think it is a less dangerous opinion and less improbable then theirs whom we now oppose I know no such great ill effects it would have if a man that mistakingly did suppose his Baptism Null to satisfie his Conscience were baptized again without denying the baptism of Infants or any unpeaceable disturbing of the Church in the management thereof I confess I never had any Damning or Excommunicating thoughts in my mind against Cyprian Firmilian and the rest of the African Bishops and Churches who rebaptized those that were baptized by Hereticks and in Council determined it necessary and were so zealous for it And though while I captivated my judgement to a Party and to admired Persons I embraced the new Exposition of Acts 19. which Beza thankfully professeth to have received from Marúixius who as some say was the first Inventer of it yet I must confess that both before I knew what other men held and since I better know who expound it otherwise and on what grounds I can no longer think that is the meaning of the Text especially when I impartially peruse the words themselves Calvin did not think that the 5th versâ— was Paul's words of John's Hearers but Luke's words of Paul's Hearers and had no way to avoid the Exposition which admitted their rebaptizing but by supposing that Paul did not Baptize them again with Water but with the Holy Ghost only and that of that the fifth verse is meant I never read that John Baptist did Baptize in the name of the Lord Jesus expresly and denominatively but only as Paul here speaks that they should believe on him that should come after whom Paul here Expositorily denominateth the Lord Jesus And the words When they heard this seem to me plainly to refer to Paul's saying as the thing which they heard Also the Connexion of the fifth verse to the sixth shews it For else there is no reason given of Pauls proceeding to that Imposition of Hands nor any satisfaction to the doubt at which he stuck or which he propounded And I confess if I must be swayed by men I had rather think well of the judgment of the Fathers and Church of all Ages who for ought I find do all that have wrote of it with one consent place a greater difference then we do between John's Baptism and Christs and did expound this Text so as to assert that these 12 Disciples were baptized again by Paul or on his Preaching And for that great and unanswerable Argument wherewith Beza and others do seek to maintain the necessity of their sense I confess it rather perswades me to the contrary For whereas they imagine it intolerable for us to conclude or think that Christ was not Baptized with Christian Baptism which himself did institute or command I must needs say I think it much more probable that he was not seeing the Christ an Baptism is Essentially a Covenanting and Sealing of our Covenant with God the Father Son and Holy Ghost as our Creator Redeemer and Sanctifier and appointed to be 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 Question more that may not be passed over though but on the by and that is Whether the Baptism of all those persons be not Null and they to be Re-baptized who were baptized by such as were Notoriously or Secretly unordained men and no true Ministers To which I only say in brief No 1. If they were not known to be no Ministers it was no fault of ours we waited in Gods appointed way for his Ordinances and therefore though they were sins to them they are valid blessings to us that were not guilty 2. If they were Notoriously no Ministers though it might be our Parents sin that we were presented to such for Baptism yet it is not Null For in these Relations these Instruments are not Essential to the Relation nor to the Ordinance at all Though I would be loth as the Fathers and Papists did to allow a Lay person yea a woman saith Tertullian to baptize in case of Necessity yet should I not be very hasty to Re-baptize such supposinig that they had all the substance of the Ordinance as being baptized into the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost Argu. 10. Whoever ought in Duty to dedicate his Child to God in the holy Covenant ought also to Baptize him But all notorious ungodly men ought so to dedicate their children to God Ergo c. 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 Consent 2. Note also that this Argument as well proves that all the Children of persecuting Heathens should be baptized as ungodly pretended Christians For it is their Duty too Object But when they present their Children they do their Duty though but part
the Infant to Baptism meerly because the Parents are excluded from one or more particular Churches because Baptism doth necessarily and directly enter them among the number of Christians but not into any one particular Church And therefore I will not forbid or disswade the baptizing of such Prâ—position 2. Yet do I take it to be no duty of mine to baptize any such more than any other Ministers further than I have a special Call or Reason For Example Here live some hundreds in this Parish that upon publike Proposal Whether they take me for their Pastor and themselves for members of this Church do disown it or not own it when they are told that their owning or declaring it shall be taken as the sign to know it I take my self no more bound to baptize their children than any strangers else For I cannot be their Pastor whether they will or not nor can I take them for any special charge of mine that will not take themselves to be so nor take me for their Pastor Therefore they can no more blame me than any stranger if I refuse to baptize their children Though yet I deny not their right to Baptism I am not bound to baptize all the children in the Countrey and therefore not theirs Proposition 3. It ordinarily falls out that a Minister hath more work to do in his own special charge than five men are able to do So that he cannot bestow so much time as to Baptize the children of others and to take an account of them concerning their Faith or Profession such as is more necessary from strangers and refusers of Discipline than others without neglecting 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 reason I see any special cause for it I doubt not but I must rather omit a lesser duty to my own Charge than a greater to others Proposition 5. If a man reject Church-communion or withdraw himself from one Church upon a reason common to all Churches as Incorporated as for Example because he will not be under any Discipline he gives us reason to question his very Christianity And therefore we must call him to account on what grounds he doth this And if the grounds are found such as are consistent with Christianity we may not deny the right of his Infants to Baptism though our selves may have no Call to baptize them Proposition 6. If the Parents do either produce no Title to the baptizing of their child that is do not seem Christians or Godly Or if they give us grounds of a violent presumption that their profession is false and counterfeit in either of these cases as we are to exclude them from Christian communion so are we to refuse the baptizing of their children that is to suspend both till such a Title be shewed or till the grounds of that strong presumption be removed Although we may not declare such persons to be no members of the universal Church nor absolutely deny their children to have any Right in the Covenant or fundamentally and remotely to Baptism as not being certain that their Parents are in a Graceless ungodly state This last Proposition is it that I am now to give my Reasons of For indeed it is a matter of such exceeding difficulty to conclude another man to be certainly graceless that it is not one of multitudes nay it is but few of the commonly scandalous gross sinners that we should be able to prove it by which I desire the Cesorious well to consider of But yet a strong presumption we may have of more that they are graceless and thereupon may suspend them and their Children as is said before Arg. 1. If the Parent have given just cause for us to question his own Christianity and Right to Christian communion thereupon then hath he given us sufficient cause to question his childs right to Baptism and so to suspend the baptizing it But the Antecedent is confessed For our dissenting Brethren in this case will suspend yea excommunicate the Parent Ergo The reason of the Consequence is clear in that the Right of the Infant to Baptism is meerly on the Parents account and on supposition of his Right to Membership of the Universal Church If therefore his Right be justly questioned and â—e suspended then the Infants Right must be questioned and it suspended on the same ground For Baptism Sealeth a right of Union and putteth into actual communion of the Body Catholick Argum. 2. We ought not to dispense Gods Seals and Church-Priviledges to any without a produced Title Else we must give them to all that we can But for the baptism of such mens children as are aforementioned there can be or is no Title produced Ergo. The Major is further clear in that Non esse non Apparere are to us all one For it must be discernable to us by some evidence or else it is naturally impossible for us to know it For the Minor its clear that if the Parents Title to membership be questionable the Infants is so too because the ground is the same and it is from the Parent that the Infant must derive it and no man can give that which he hath not Argum 3. In civil Administrations and according to the Rules of right Reason a very high probability commonly called Violenta Praesumptio sufficeth to sentence and execution especially when it is but in the withdrawing or suspending of a Priviledge Therefore it must be so here Because 1. here is no reason to put a difference 2. Because our distance from other mens hearts doth in most cases make us uncapable of more Impenitency and â—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 uncertain So in other cases Argum. 4. If such violent presumption must not stand for sufficient proof for such suspension of parent and child then all Discipline and all civil justice if it be not so there will be eluded For then as no vice almost or but few will be punished among men nor few men have right so almost no ungodly or scandalous sinners or few that