faith 2. But a proper right from promise or proper gift which may warrant them to claim or require the thing from God or man this I deny to any but true believers and their seed They may not lawfully require it though we must give it them if they do require it upon such a profession 3. But without a profession of saving faith they may neither require it nor we give it if they do require it whatever other short faith they have or profess 4. Thus also the Case was with the Jews allowing the difference made by the foresaid peculiar Promise to them ARGUMENT II. Mr Blake Those that are a People by Gods gracious dispensation nigh to God comparative to others have right in the sight of God to visible admittance to this more near relation This I think is clear men have right to be admitted to their right But those that come short of Justifying faith are a people by Gods gracious dispensations nigh unto God comparative to others this is plain in the whole visible Nation of the Jews as appears Deut. 4 7. Psal. 147.19 and 148.14 Those therefore that are short of Justifying faith have right in the sight of God to admission to this nearer relation ANSWER The Jews were nigher to God than other people 1. In that they had the offers of Grace which other people had not 2. And many great Deliverances and temporal priviledges which others had not Both these Infidels and Heathens may now have and therefore they prove no Right to Baptism 3. They were nigher by some promises peculiar to that Nation which is nothing to us 4. They were nigher by their Consent to the offers of Grace and the Covenant of the Lord which was proper in sincerity to the sanctified 5. And by their profession of Consent and external engaging themselves to the Lord whether they had inwardly faith or not Now to the Major I grant it but add that the three first sorts of Nearness give not right to Baptism All admission to near Relation comparatively to others is not by Circumcision or Baptism But it is only a Nearness in the two last senses that are questionable as to this And I have before shewd in what sense true Consent to the Covenant gives right and in what sense an outward profession of Consent gives right and that your common faith gives none in either sense Lastly if your conclusion were granted it s nothing to our question For as is said all admission to near relation is not by baptism One Infidel may be nearer God and the Kingdom of Heaven then another and yet 〈◊〉 be baptizable for all that ARGUMENT III. Mr. Blake Those that God ordinarily calls his People and owns as his openly avouching himself to be their God have right in the sight of God to the signs and cognizance of his People and are to have admission into the society and Fellowship of his People This is plaâ—n if God in Covenant will own servants then his stewards may open the door to them if he will own sheep his servants doubtless may mark them But God owns all in visible communion though short of faith that is Justifying as his People and openly avouches himself to be their God as in abundant places of Scriture is evident See Deut. 26.18 These have therefore right to the signs and cognizances of his people to admission into the Society and Fellowship of his People ANSWER 1. To the Major with the fore-mentioned distinction of Right applyed as before I grant it 2. To the Minor I say God owneth them as his people by internal consent and covenanting who indeed are so and he owneth them as his People by outward Covenanting or Expression or Profession of consent who are such But those that have neither of these but only profess some shorter faith or consent to some other Covenant or but part of this he will not own in either relation nor would have them taken into the Communion of his Church Nor do you prove any such thing for Deut. 26.18 is so much against you that I marvel you were not troubled at the citing of it For that Text alone is enough to confute all your pompous allegations out of the Old Testament from the Church state of the Jews The words are Thou hast avouched the Lord this day to be thy God and to walk in his waies and to keep his Statutes and his Commandments and his Judgements and to hearken to his voice And the Lord hath avouched thee this day to be his peculiar people c. Do you think that they that in heart consent that the Lord be their God and to walk in his waies c. have not saving faith Then there was no such thing then on the earth And if they had such faith who sincerely consented then they Professed such faith that Professed such consent And the word avouching sheweth that it was present profession and not only a promise for some distant futurity This Argument therefore is but like the rest ARGUMENT IV. Mr. Blake Those whom the Spirit of God ordinarily calls by the name of Circumcision they had a right in Gods sight to Circumcision and those of like condition have like right to baptism This I think is clear the Spirit of God doth not mis-name doth not nick-name nor ordinarily at least give equivocal names But men short of Justifying faith are called by the Spirit of God by the name of Circumcision as needs no proof Christ was a Minister of the Circumcision Rom 15.8 And he was sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel Those then of a faith short of that which is Justifying have right in the sight of God to Baptism ANSWER 1. I have no need to deny the Major but it is not sound for they are called the Circumcision i. e. the Circumcised because they were actually Circumcised and not because that all that were so had right to it 2. To the Minor I grant it but with this note that it is not because of their short faith that they were to be circumcised but upon the Parents or their own profession and sincere consent to the Covenant The Conclusion again containeth not your Thesis There 's nothing in it about giving title or any thing of necessary connexion ARGUMENT V. Mr. Blake Those that are the servant of God whom God owns as his servants have right in his sight to be received into his house and to be entitled to the Priviledges of his Church This we think should not be denyed and that God will take it ill if any shall deny it But men short of that faith which Justifies are owned of God as his servants as is clear Lev. 25.41 42. There every Israelite that was sold to any of the Children of Israel and his Children are called of God his servants and that as Israelites of which a great part were void of that faith which Justifies Therefore those that are short of faith
seal of the righteousness of that faith which they had or professed to have being yet uncircumcised Gen. 17.11 12. Rom. 4.11 That is the Parent for himself and his child professed a true consent to the Covenant And this Consent I have before proved to be saving faith or inseparable from it And so Covenanting was then as strictly required as Circumcision Object But every male was to be cut off that was not circumcised Answ. I shall not now stand to enquire into the meaning of that cutting off But whatever it was it is certain that there is as much threatned to them that did not covenant with the Lord. Obj. But that cannot import a sincere Covenanting in saving Faith For then how great a part of the people must be cut off Answ. It plainly speaks of the profession of sincerity in Covenanting 2. Chron. 15.12 13. And they entred into a covenant to seek the Lord God of their Fathers with all their heart and with all their soul that whosoever would not seek the Lord God of Israel should be put to death whether small or great whether man or woman Obj. But saith Mr. Blake though they covenant to believe savingly yet they do not profess that they do so and it is not covenanting that proves men in a state of justification and salvation but keeping the Covenant Answ. He that covenanteth from that time forward to take the Lord for his God sincerely doth by that Covenant at present express that he consenteth to have the Lord for his God upon the Covenant terms but he that professeth such a Consent doth eo nomine profess saving faith which is nothing else but Assent and that consent producing affiance There is no act proper to saving faith if Consent be not 2. As therefore faith which is or is inseparably joyned with as others confess the hearts consent doth justifie a man before he express it in works of actual obedience so it is but the same thing which we say that heart-covenanting or consent doth justifie or prove a man justified before he do any further keep that Covenant by any positive effects of it For it is the performance of the conditions of Gods promise that first prove us justified and God promiseth Christ and Justification with him to all that believe or receive Christ or accept him as offered And this receiving or accepting is the same thing with consent or heart-covenanting So that all that we oblige our selves to for the future in our sincere covenanting with Christ are not any means of our Justification as begun but only of the continuance or not losing of it 3. Yet still we easily grant that or all covenanting without the hearts consent will save none Ob. Is it credible that all Israel must be forced to profess themselves true believers when many were not Answ. God required them first to be such and upon pain of damnation and then to profess themselves such and seal it by his Sacrament He warranteth no man to profess a falshood but that they truly consent and then profess it Though Asa and the other Rulers could search no deeper then an External Profession or Covenant and their practice in seeking God because they did not know the heart And that it was indeed no other then that which then was saving faith which was professed and so required in that Covenant doth appear in the terms of it It was to take God to be their only God and to give up themselves to be his people and the mention of their deliverance from the Egyptian bondage and the nature of Circumcision shew that it was in Deum Misericordem Redemptorem they that professed to believe with such respect to the blood of the Messiah as those darker times required The terms in Deut. 26.16 17 18. do plainly express that faith which then was proper to the saved The Lord thy God hath commanded thee to do these statutes and judgements thou shalt therefore keep and do them with all thy heart and with all thy soul Thou hast avouched the Lord this day to be thy God and to walk in his wayes and keep his statutes and his commandments and his judgements and to hearken to his voice And the Lord hath avouched thee this day to be his peculiar people as he hath promised thee c. Sincerely to take the Lord for our God is the sum of all Religion and the very nature of Sanctification For it is not the bare Name of God but God himself that is here meant And this can be no less in any tolerable sense then to take him by Assent and Consent for our absolute Lord and Soveraign and chief Good or End And that the Jews themselves thus understood the Covenant of Circumcision Ainsworth on Gen 17. sheweth out of their Rabbies in these words Ex lib. Zohar At what time a man is sealed with this blessed seal of this sign thenceforth he seeth the holy blessed God properly and the holy soul is united with him If he be not worthy that he keepeth not this sign what is written By the breath of God they perish Job 4.9 For that this seal of the holy blessed God was not kept but if he be worthy and keep it the Holy Ghost is not separated from him And after v. 12. ex Maimonid By three things did Israel enter into the Covenant by Circumcision and Baptism and Sacrifice c. And so in all ages when an Ethnick is willing to enter into the Covenant and gather himself under the wing of the Majesty of God and take upon him the yoke of the Law he must be circumcised and baptized and bring a Sacrifice c. When a man or woman cometh to joyn a Proselite they make diligent enquiry after such lest they come to get themselves under the Law for some riches that they should receive or for dignity that they should obtain or for fear If he be a man they enquire whether he have not set his affection on some Jewish woman or a woman her affection on some young man of Israel If no such like occasion be found in them they make known unto them the weightiness of the yoke of the Law and the toil that is in the doing of it above that which people of other Lands have to see if they will leave off If they take them upon them and withdraw not and they see them that they come of love then they receive them as it is written When she saw that she was stedfastly minded to go with her then she left speaking unto her Ruth 1.18 Therefore the Judges received no Proselites all the dayes of David and Solomon Not in David's dayes left they should have come of fear Nor in Solomon's lest they should have come because of the Kingdom and great prosperity which Israel then had For who so cometh from the Heathens for any thing of the vanities of this world he is no righteous Proselite Notwithstanding there were
Regenerate because he saith as many of you I answer it is manifest that he speaks of all 1 Because it was all of them that were baptized into Christ. 2. He expresly saith as much in the next foregoing words vers 26. For ye are all the Children of God by faith in Christ Jesus To which the words following are annexed as the proof For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. The assumption is implied But you have all bin baptized into Christ therefore ye have all put on Christ and so in him are all the Children of God 2. Note that they are the special gifts of saving grace that are here ascribed to all the Baptized 3. Note also that all this is said and proved to be by faith 4. Note also that it is expresly said to be a â—ustifying faith before vers 24. That we we might be justifyed by faith Indeed this Text affordeth us divers Arguments 1. The Apostle supposeth all the Baptized to profess a justifying faith among the Galathians therefore so must we suppose of others and expect that they do it The Antecedent is proved from vers 24 25. and 27. compared 2. All the Baptized are said to have put on Christ therefore they are supposed to profess that faith by which Christ is put on But that is only justifying faith 3. All that are duly Baptized are baptized into Christ therefore they are supposed to profess that faith by which men are united or ingraffed into Christ but that is only justifying faith But the rest of the Arguments here will be further touched on anon Mr. Blake saith p. 152. Whether all union with Christ imply Regeneration let John 15.2 be consulted where an union with Christ is clearly held out Yet Mr. Baxter brings that text among others to prove that there are some saints that shall never be saved Answ. 1. But I told you that by Saints I meant only those that profess an Acceptance of Christ and not your Saints that only profess a lower faith In this you do by me as you use 1. Union with Christ in the primary and proper sense is proper to the sound believer or else no Title or benefit on earth is proper to him But as those are believers in profession that are not so in heart so those are united to or ingraffed into the Church and so to Christ by an outward Profession who are not so in heart And this is called a Union because they profess that inward Union which they have not which is the famosius significatum Whether these be only equivocally said to be united to Christ we shall enquire in season But tell me where any man was ever said in scripture to be united to Christ without saving faith or the Profession of it 3. I suppose you know how many of our Divines do expound Iohn 15 of a saving Union and take the cautions about unfruitfulness and Apostacy to be de rebus nunquam futuris purposely given that they might not be future But this I stick not on Next he citeth Mr. Cobbet Mr. Hudson and Mr. Ames to shew that Christ is the head of the visible Church and hath many unfruitful members c. Answ. As pertinent as most Citations that I there have met with that is utterly impertinent It 's yielded that as they have a Profession of saving faith so by profession they are members of the visible Church But prove if you can that ever any are such visible members but the professors of a saving faith and their Children I conclude then that Christ hath appointed no Baptism but what is for a visible marriage of the soul to himself as the Protestants ordinarily confess therefore he hath appointed no Baptism but for those that profess to take Jesus Christ for their Husband and to give up themselves to him as his Espouse But this is a Profession of Justifying faith For heartily to take Christ for our Head and Husband is true saving faith and proper to his own Regenerate people if any thing in the world be so And no man can profess to be married to Christ that doth noâ— profess to take him for a Husband Therefore for my part I never intend to baptize any without profession of saving faith As for Mr. Blakes answer that we are oftener said here to be espoused to Christ then married I think that this and many hundred such passages do need no answer But yet I shall say 1. Either will serve my turn No unregenerate man is truly espoused to Christ. 2. Though the whole Church in one be solemnly to be married to Christ at judgement that is presented perfect justified and glorified yet that particular believers are married to Christ here I am resolved by Gods assistance to believe while I believe Isa. 54.5 Eph. 5. and many other Texts of scripture Arg. 10. If Paul account all the Baptized Saints or sanctified men dead with Christ and risen with him such as have put on Christ sons of God by Adoption Abraham seed Heirs according to promise and justified then did they all profess a true justifying faith But the Antecedent is certain ergò so is the consequent The Antecedent Mr. Blake confesseth And I shall prove it by parts The consequence is that which lieth chiefly on me to prove and I shall do both together The Apostle in the beginning of his Epistle to the Corinthians and in may other places calls the whole Church Saints 1 Cor 6.11 He saith to them But ye are washed ye are sanctified c That part of the Antecedent then is certain The consequence I prove thus There are none called Saints in all the new Testament but only such as where in heart Devoted to Christ by a saving faith or Professed so much therefore the word Saints in this case must signifie only such If any will prove a third sort of Saints viz. such as profess a faith not saving they must do that which I never yet saw done 2. The first and most famous signification of the word Saints or Sanctified in the new Testament is only of them that are in heart devoted to Christ by true faith therefore the borrowed or Analogical or less proper signification call it what you list must be of that which hath the likeness or appearance of this and that is only the profession of it and not the profession of another thing 3. Let us peruse the texts and see whether it be not a special Saint-ship which Paul ascribeth to these and therefore as to appearance and Profession they had 1 Cor. 6.11 such were some of you but ye are washed ye are sanctified ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the spirit of our God and that sanctification whâ—ch is joyned with justification which is wrought by the spirit of God cleansing men from their former reigning sins which else would have kept them out of the Kingdom of God and which
profess to assent to the truth of that Doctrine and no moâ—e unless as that Assent may imply the Consent of the Will are not Saints But let us peruse some other Texts besides these that Mr. Blake citeth The Congregations of the Saints are mentioned in the Old Testament as Psal. 89 5 7. and 149 1. But what Saints these were may appear by the Promises made to them Ps. 149.5 9 4 16.3 37.28 97.10 132.9 16. 145 10. The Children of Israel a people neer unto him are called Saints Psal. 148.14 but it is because they are a part of them his people in heart and the rest profess themselves to be his People in a saving sense And if there were any that did not so he was not an Israelite by Religion nor to be of that Common-wealth but to be cut off from his People Acts 9.13 The Saints at Jerusalem that Paul persecuted were such as not only professed saving Faith but also had the witness of Martyrdom and Persecutions to testifie their Sincerity They that continued stedfastly in the Apostles Doctrine and Fellowship and breaking bread and prayers having all things common selling their possessions and goods and parting them to all men as every man had need praising God c. did profess more then a Faith and Repentance short of that by which we are saved But so did the Church at Jerusalem Act. 2.41 42. to the end yea the multitude of them that Believed were of one heart one soul and great grace was upon them all c. Acts 4.32 to 36. so that we may see what Saints the Church at Jerusalem were And if all were not such we see evidently that the whole was denominated from such The Church of Rome were all called Saints Rom. 1.7 True But what was meant by that word and what Saints did they appear to Paul by their Profession to be Even such as were beloved of God whose Faith was spoken of throughout the world that were dead to sin but alive to God that had obeyed from the heart that form of Doctrine delivered to them and being made free from sin became the servants of Righteousness and of God having their fruit to holiness and the end everlasting life Rom. 1.7 8. and 6 11 14 17 18 21. whose obedience was come abroad to all men Rom. 16.19 Here is more then the Profession of a common Faith The Corinthians are called Saints True But what is meant by Saints such as called on the name of the Lord Iesus Christ having much of his grace enriched by him in all things coming behind in no Gift waiting for the coming â—f our Lord Iesus Christ who shall confirm them to the end that they may be blameless at his coming 1 Cor. 1.2 to ver 10. all was theirs 1. Cor. 3.22 23. They were such Saints as were washed and sanctified and justified in the name of the Lord Iesus and by the Spirit of God and such as were to â—udge the World and the Angels Chap. 6.3 11. delivered from that unrighteousness that would have kept from Heaven ver 9.10 11. such as had no temptation but what was common to man whom the faithful God would not suffer to be tempted above their strength c. Chap. 10.13 such as were not so much as to eat with the notoriously wicked Chap. 5 11. and therefore doubtless Professed Godliness themselves in whom godly sorrow had wrought carefulness clearing of themselves zeal c. 2 Cor. 7.11 in whom the Apostle had confidence in all things ver 16. Object But Paul saith they were carnal and taxeth them with some gross Errors and Sins Answ. 1. So are all the Regenerate carnal in part and guilty of too many sins And it is not Impenitency after admonition that he chargeth them with Their sin was no worse to our eye than David's or Solomon's 2. If any were so bad as to be notoriously ungodly those are not of that number whom he calleth Saints as they are not of them that have the following Descriptions of Saints which I have cited but only were among them but not of them The Galathians I find not called Saints but to call them a Church of Christ or Believers is Equipollent And what Saints were they Why they were all the Sons of God by Faith in Christ Jesus having been baptized into Christ and put him on and were all one in him and were Abraham's seed and heirs according to the Promise Gal. 3.26 27 29. And because they were sons God sent the Spirit of his Son into their hearts by which they cryed Abba Father and therefore were no more servants but sons and if sons then heirs of God through Christ. Object But Paul was afraid of them lest he bestowed upon them labour in vain Answ. 1. It appeareth by what is said that it was not such a fear as made him take them for ungodly 2. This confirmeth what I maintain that the Apostles judgement of them proceeded according to the Evidences of probability He took himself bound to believe their Profession so far as they contradicted it not and according to the prevalency of their Errors which were against it he was jealous of their condition and if they had proceeded so far as to have declared themselves certainly ungodly Paul would have denominated them a Church no more The Church of Ephesus are called Saints Eph. 1.1 But what Saints such as were blessed with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ chosen before the foundation of the world to be holy and without blemish before him in love pâ—edestinated to the adoption of Children by Jesus Christ according to the good pleasure of his will to the praise of the glory of his Grace wherein he made them accepted in the beloved in whom they had redemption through his blood the remission of sins and have obtained an Inheritance being predestinated c. Who trusted in Christ and were sealed with the Holy Spirit of Promise which is the earnest of their Inheritance they were such as believed in the Lord Jesus and loved all the saints and were quickened who had been dead in trespasses and sins were raised up together and made to sit in heavenly places If Mr. Blake while he abhorreth the name of a Saint or Church equivocally so called would not make all words equivocal that in Scripture are used to denominate or describe a Church or Saint we might easily be resolved by such passages as these what Paul meaneth by a Church or Saint See further Eph. 3.18 All Saints comprehend what is the breadth and length depth height and Christ dwelleth in their hearts by faith and they rooted and grounded in love Eph. 3.17 18. But Mr. Blakes Saints do none of this therefore they are no Saints in Scripture sense With this text compare Eph. 2.19 and see what a Church is and what it is to be fellow-Citizens with the Saints and of the houshold of God and
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 It s 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 Incorâ—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 because the son must not suffer for the fathers sin Answ. What is this to our business We plead not for Excommunicating any child for the Parents sin but for not Admitting them at first into communion when the Parents have lost their Right and the child is born after 2. What if by the Law of the Land a Traitors Estate be forfeit if his Heir therefore receive not that which he could not give him because he had lost it will you say that this is contrary to Gods Ordination that the Son shall not suffer for the Parents sin The Son may yet have some priviledge from a Father which he could not have were that Father an Infidel or excommunicate person and therefore all the world have not the same Priviledges as the Church So much of that Argument Arg. 16. Those whom we may justly Baptize supposing them of age and natural capacity we may justly admit to the Lords Supper while they are no worse than they were at Baptism But we may not admit a notorious ungodly person to the Lords Supper Therefore we may not justly Baptize such And consequently not their children upon their account The Major is plain No Church-member ought to be kept from Church-communion in the Lords Supper but upon some just Accusation of a crime which he is since guilty of more than he was at his Admittance But the Baptized are Church members Ergo c. It is by one objected that this is the Anabaptists Argument or one to this purpose to keep out Infants because they are not to be admitted to the Lords Supper Answ. That is for want of natural capacity to use the Ordinance and not for want of a Right if they had such capacity But for men at age I suppose it past doubt that you may admit them to the Supper on the same qualifications as to state worthiness on which you may admit them to Baptism Object The Baptized are Incipientes the Communicants Proficientes Therefore there must be more in all Communicants then is requisite in the Baptized Answ. There ought to be more because they ought to grow in grace But 1. it is not requisite that they be in any other state then the Baptized Nor 2. Is it absolutely necessary that they have any further degree of grace For 1. the Lords Supper is the means of increasing grace and doth not ever suppose it encreased 2. The Apostles admitted the new baptized into their communion to breaking of bread and prayer presently Act. 3. and 4. Indeed there is requisite in the Receiving and before thoughts suitable to that Ordinance according to its difference from other Ordinances and so there is in each Ordinance according to its nature And in that sense as to some acts it s as true that there is somewhat more required also in Baptism then in receiving the Lord Supper But that 's nothing to the case The Minor is granted me by almost all on supposition that we can have a Classis to exclude the offender And many grant that every Minister may suspend one from the Lords Supper in this case by forbearing his own act I wonder how so palpable a mistake did come to be so common with wise men as that a single Pastor at least when he is the sole Governor of that Church may not exclude on just occasions Doubtless they may without a Classis take in men into the Universal Church for a Classis was not called for every mans Baptism Therefore if one man may be the sole Ruler of a particular Church of which there 's little reason to doubt why may he not do the Office of a Ruler But there 's much to be said for this on a fitter occasion See Gilesp Aarons Rod. l. 3. c. 15. pag. 541. The last Consequence I take for granted on what is said before and the meer nothing that is said against it viz. that if the Parents be in such a state in which they may not be admitted to baptism were it then to do then may not the children be admitted on their right or Interest because they are to come in as Theirs Argu. 17. Those that are Notoriously the children of the Devil may not be baptized nor their Infants on their account But the Notoriously ungodly are Notoriously the children of the Devil Ergo. I prove the Major 1. Baptism is ordained to admit all the baptized to be visible children of God those that are Notoriously the children of the Devil cannot be admitted to be at that time the visible children of God Therefore they may not be Baptized For the proof of the Major see Gal 3.26 27 28 29. For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus For as many of you as have been bâ—ptized into Christ have put on Christ And if ye be Christ's then are ye Abrahams seed and heirs according to promist The Minor is plain For the Minor of the main Argument see 1 John 3.7 8 9 10. Let no man deceive you he that doth righteousness is Righteous He that committeth sin is of the Devil In this the children of God are manifest and the children of the Devil Whosoever doth not Righteousness is not of God This Text proves also the inconsistencie of these two Estates Argu. 18. He that will not be Christs servant may not be baptized nor others on his account But notorious ungodly ones while such will not be Christs servants Ergo. c. The Major is proved in that it is part of Christianity in the Essence of it He is to be believed in and accepted as Lord and King All his Subjects are his servants The Minor is proved from Rom. 6.16 Know ye not that to whom ye yield your selves servants to obey his servants ye are to whom ye obey whether of sin unto death or of obedience unto righteousness Argu. 19. He that will not hear Christ as the Prophet of the Church may not be baptized But notorious ungodly Ones will not hear Christ as the Prophet of the Church Therefore
know that afterward when the Princes and Rulers were evil or negligent then the Church must needs be defiled and the Laws of God unexecuted And perhaps I may mis-interpret some texts of Scripture to a more gentle sense then others do or then is meet Of this let every man judge as he please it s no time now to call all such texts to account If any be offended at my charitable thoughts of the body of the Jews Gods only peculiar people on earth let them blot out these fore going considerations or take them as non dicta for I lay not the stress of my Cause upon them But the Principal thing which I would have observed is this That by Gods Political Law of this 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 controversie among Divines what is meant by all those places that speak of Cutting off from his people Mr. Gilespie with others think it is meant of Excommunication Others think it is meant of the Magistrates punishing them with death or Gods doing it extraordinarily if the Magistrate should be negligent The main reason brought against this Exposition is that it seems too bloody But it must be considered how terrible the Law was and how God designed in it the manifestation of his Jealousie Holiness and hatred of sin If every man that did ought presumptuously might be cut off from the Church why not from the Living The Apostle in Acts 3.23 reciting that of Moses saith He that will not hear that Prophet shall be destroyed from the People However let that phrase mean what it will we have proof enough beside that not only all notorious Ungodly ones but also many Godly ones that fell into gross sin were all to be put to death From whence I argue thus If it was the Law of God that all such persons should be presently put to death then was it not the will of God that their Infants should have Right to Circumcision for their sakes no nor on any other account But the Antecedent is true therefore the Consequent The Reason of the Consequence is this Either thâ—se mens children were born before the parents turned ungodly or after If before then were they circumcised the eighth day as the children of the Godly If after then it was against Gods Law that they should be born much less circumcised For if Gods Law had been fulfilled the parents had been put to death we speak of both parents and then how could they have had a child All the doubt then lying in the Antecedent I shall from Scripture put it is past doubt Let us look over all the Commandments and see whether Death were not to be inflicted for the gross breach of them except the last which is secret in the heart For the first Commandment see Deut. 13. If a Prophet wrought wonders to entice to worship strange Gods or if the nearest kinsman secretly enticed them to it to thrust them out of the way which the Lord commanded them to walk in ver 5. he must be put to death If a City be withdrawn by such they are all to be put to death Children Cattle and Goods were to be destroyed and consumed Deut. 20.18 They were not to save alive any person no not Infants of the Cities that God delivered them to dwell in Lest they teach them to do according to their abominations Exod. 22.20 He that sacrificeth to any God save the Lord only shall utterly be destroyed The breach of the second Commandment is punished with Death Exod. 32.26.27 28. The Priests of Baal are slain 1 Kin. 18.40 2 Kin. 10.21.22 to 29. 23.5 19 20. Yea in one word he that would not be Godly positively was put to death 2 Chron. 15.12 13. It is spoken in their commendations that they entered into a Covenant to seek the Lord God of their Fathers with all their heart and with all their soul that whosoever would not seek the Lord God of Israel should be put to death whether small or great whether man or woman Lev. 24.15 16. Whosoever blasphemeth the name of the Lord was to be put to death So ver 23. Every one that did any work on the sabbath or defiled it was to be put to death Exod. 31.14 15. 35.2 He that smitteth or curseth his Father or Mother must be put to death Exod 21.15 Murderers Man-stealers Incestuous Sodomites Adulteres Wizards were to be put to death Exod. 21. Lev. 20. yea and those that turn after Wizards Any Prophet that shall presume to speak a word in Gods name which he hath not commanded him to speak or that speaketh in the name of other Gods 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 unto them then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him and bring him out unto the Elders of his City and to the Gate of his place and they shall say unto the Elders of his City This our son is stubborn and rebellious he will not obey our voyce he is a Glutton and a Drunkard And all the men of his City shall stone him with stones that he die So shall you put away evil from among you and all Israel shall hear and fear Here I suppose it will be granted that it is the Parents duty to restrain their children from all ungodliness and that Gluttony and Drunkenness are but instanced in as part in stead of all the rest And if all children must be put to death that will not be ruled for good by their Parents then when they are dead they will beget no children who may claim Right to Circumcision for their sakes But if any say that this extendeth not to those that are from under their Parents tutorage or Government I answer First Sure the same sin deserveth the same punishment afterward from the Magistrate if they are obstinate against his pious precepts Secondly but to put the case out of doubt see Deut. 17.12 And the man that will do presumptuously and will not hearken unto the Priest that standeth to minister there before the Lord thy God or unto the Judge even that man shall die and thou shalt put away the evil from Israel and all the people shall hear and fear and do no more pâ—esumptuously To these Deut. 29.19 20. From all which it is evident that as Impenitency or Obstinacy in sin is the great cause of Excommunication now so was it then to be punished with Death
of their Duty and we ought not to refuse any part of a mans Duty Answ. 1. It is not a duty but a sin to do the External later part without the former Internal part It is a duty to intend to relieve the poor and perhaps to express it by promise but to promise without any intent to perform it is to lye and so to sin The tongue must not go before and without the heart because the action of both is a duty It were better say nothing at all 2. The Sacrament of Baptism is not appointed to be affixed to every kind of duty but to our dedication to God and Gods acceptance of us Object If their Profession may engage them then may we seal it by baptism but it may engage them Ergo. c. Answ. I deny the Consequence A false dissembling may oblige the Promiser but Baptism was not appointed to seal every notorious false promise It is also Gods Seal as well as mans Circumcision is his sign and called his Covenant Gen. 17. And Abraham received it as a seal Rom. 4. And it signifieth Gods action of washing the soul by the blood of Christ. Therefore where we are sure God disclaimeth it and withdraweth his Action there may we not apply the Mutual Seal and Sign Object We see in New England the sad effects of denying baptism to the children of the unregenerate now they are all come to be obstinate Infidels Answ. Thâ—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 children of the members of their own Churches but so do not we they baptize not the members of the Universal Church unless they be in a particular Church but we do otherwise And it s reported that they requâ—red positive proof of Conversion beyond a profession of faith and Repentance but so do not we Thirdly Mens obstinacy in sin and proceeding worse will not warrant us to take an unlawful course in pretence to do them good Fourthly Do you give us any reason to believe that a notorious ungodly person in your Church is in any better a state than an Infidel Nay that they are not in a state much worse It is they therefore that should chiefly move you to compassion Can you so lament the estate of the less miserable and not of the more miserable Object But it is good that at least in words they confess Christ. Answ. Either you speak of a Good of Duty or a Good of Means For the first it is a Duty and so good to confess Christ with heart and tongue but if with the tongue alone it is a sin and no duty Indeed the tongue conjunct with the heart doth part of the duty but separated it loseth the Goodness And as a means First to their own salvation it is not good but rather condemneth them Secondly As to Gods honor if he make it a means in providence thereto that 's 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 Quesâ—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 beyond the warrant of reason But Truth is Truth which I will search after as well as I can And first on the Negative I lay down these Propositions Proposition 1. In General We are not Certain of every mans ungodliness whom we probably strongly and groundedly suspect to be ungodly We may have more reason of fear than of hope concerning them and yet not be able to conclude that they are certainly ungodly Secondly In General It is not easie judging of the certainty of mens ungodliness at a distance nor by some actual gross sins till we have spoke to them and admonished them and discern what degree of obstinacy and impentency and wilfulness they are guilty of or till we understand this certainly by those that have admonished them and heard their Answers Thirdly It is hard judging of the certainty of a mans ungodliness by one or two or a few Actions without knowing the course and scope of a mans life Fourthly I think it is few among a thousand of the common people that we can say are certainly ungodly though we have reason to think that the most by far are so More particularly Fifthly A man must be guilty of more sin than Noah was than Peter was in denying and forswearing Christ that is notoriously ungodly Yea than Lot was who was drunk two nights together and committed Incest with his own Daughters twice that after the miraculous destruction of Sodom of his own Wife his own miraculous deliverance The Opinion of most of our Divines is that a man that is Notoriously Ungodly in the sense in hand or unsanctified must be a greater sinner than Solomon was 1 King 11. He loved many strange women of the Nations which God forbad the Israelites to joyn with such as Ezâ—a caused them to put away after Marriage He kept three hundred Concubines besiâ—es seven hundred Wives When he was old his Wives turned away his heart after other gods and his heart was not perfect with the Lord as Davids was He went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians and after Milcom the abomination of the Amonites and he did evil in the sight of the Lord. He built an high place for Chemosh the abomination of Moab in the hill that is before Jerusalem and for Molech the abomination of the children of Ammon And likewise did he for all his strange Wives which burnt Incense and sacrificed to their gods And the Lord was aâ—gry with him because his heart was turned from the Lord God of Israel which appeared to him twice and had commanded him that he should not go after other gods but he kept not that which the
Lord commanded he kept not the Covenant nor Statutes of the Lord. Perhaps you will Object If this be not Notorious ungodliness what is The sin was more hainous than Drunkenness Fornication yea or Murder it self to be an Idolater and to set it up to defile the Land and it was a sin lived in who knows how long besides his fleshly life in having three hundred Concubines and seven hundred wives If all this may stand with Godliness then we cannot know any man to be ungodly then you will harden all the wicked in their presumption Answ. 1. If I should but look on it as a thing uncertain whether Solomon had true grace at that time or whether any intercision were made in his Justification and true Sanctification I should incur the heavy censure of many Divines If I question not the certainty of his grace and perseverance then I am supposed to make every common scandalous sinner to be fit for the reputation of a Saint and to contradict the Apostle who saith If ye live after the flesh ye shall die and neither Whoremonger nor Idolater shall inherit the Kingdom of God What is to be done in this strait I will tell you plainly what I think safest and let men think what they please 1. It is not improbable that Solomon committed much of this sin meerly under temptation to please his Wives 2. And that more of it lay in tolerating their Idolatry than in his own committing it 3. And that he did in other things continue his worship of the 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 expresly charge him with having his own heart turned after other gods and going after them and building high places to them and his heart turning from the Lord and because the very setting up of so many Idols for others his 700 Wives is it self so hainous I think it is undeniable that he was an Idolater and lived in that sin besides his living with 300 Concubines and taking so fully the pleasure of his flesh as in Ecclesiastes he doth confess We are certain that all these are hainous sins and hazardous to a mans salvation 7. If the Devil tempt any wicked man upon the consideration of this Example to presume that he is in a state of Grace and to think with himself why may not I live in whoredom or drunkenness or worldliness and yet be in a justified estate as well as Solomon who did worse he may do well to bethink himself that 1. It is certain that he that liveth after the flesh shall die and that such gross sinners shall not enter into the Kingdom of God But we are not certain whether Solomon were justified and in a state of salvation at that time it is a Controversie among wise godly learned men and many of the Antient Fathers thought that he was not 3. And therefore any prudent man will take heed of venturing his salvation upon such uncertainty and will look more at the certainty which is on the other side of perishing if he live in such sins 4. And he may do well to consider that though Godliness be the same in all Ages in the main and equally necessary yet some sins may be more damning at some time than other In those daies of Solomon God had for some just reasons permitted or connived at the multiplicity of Wives and little is said against Concubines he had in his promises to his people made the most full and express mention of temporal blessings as Children long Life prosperity c. and in his threatnings most expresly mentioned temporal evils Spiritual and Eternal things were mentioned more obscurely and sparingly This Honor was reserved to Christ and the Gospel to bring Life and Immortalty more to light and to promise Spiritual and Eternal 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 Cases So much to prevent the hurt of the wicked by this Example Yet I thought it necessary to make mention of it 1. because it is objected by the opposers of Discipline whose Objections must be answered 2. and because there is something in it at least ad hominem that the over-censorious have reason to consider of as to the point in hand How far we must take notice of such Examples in Discipline we shall further shew anon The rest of our propositions for the Negative shall be introduced by way of Answer to some Questions Quest. 7. May we not take a man for Notoriously Ungodly that hath been oft drunk or oft committed fornication Answ. The Practice is ungodly and his Case sad but we cannot certainly say he is graceless on that account alone unless he live in it impenitently Lot was twice drunk and incestuous And it is not possible for us to say just how oft a man may commit such a sin and yet have true grace Quest. 8. May we not be certain that he is graceless or ungodly that is a frequent Swearer Answ. It is a very dangerous case but simply considered no certain evidence of the point in question For 1. We know many that we see great signs of Grace in and that are well reputed of as eminent for Godliness that do frequently commit as great sins as some kind of rash swearing seems to be For example it is too rare to meet with a person so conscionable that will not frequently backbite and with some malice or envie speak evil of those that differ from them in Judgement or that they take to be against them or that they are fallen out with They will ordinarily censure them unjustly and secretly endeavour to disgrace them and take away their good name and love 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 disobedience to their Guides and of Schism and doing much to the hurt of the Church A very great sin 2. Peter Lot and its like David did oft commit greater sins Quest. 9. But what if they live many years in Sweating or the like sin is not that a certain sign of Ungodliness Answ. It is very sinfull and dangerous But. 1. we know not what information or Conviction they have had of it which much varies the Case In some countries where some oaths are grown customarie