A Sober Reply to the Sober Answer of Cawdrey, Text

A Sober Reply to the Sober Answer of Cawdrey · Text

p. 1A SOBER REPLY TO A SOBER ANSVVER, &c.

IF Baptiſme were a means of Regeneration, as is the Preaching of the Word, then I ſhould not dare to refuſe the Baptizing of any perſon, what ever: or if Baptiſme were ſo neceſſary to Salvation, that all thoſe Children which are Baptized, and die in their Infancy ſhall be ſaved, and thoſe which are not Baptized, and die in their Infancy ſhall periſh [as Auguſtine affirmes (I think) ten times in one Epiſtle] then Mr. Cawdrey did juſtly taxe me with rigidneſſe [as be doth P. 28. and if he had ſaid worſe I ſhould have ſubmitted] for non-admitting of ſome Children to Baptiſme. But neither the firſt(a)(a)Walae. To. 1. p. 85. & 491. Syney. pu. th diſ…. 44. th. 27.28. nor the ſecond(b)(b)Chamier. To. 4 l. 5. c. 8. Bell. Ezerv. To 3 d. 2. c. 1. doe our Orthodox Divines affirme. Baptiſme then being not appointed to bring perſons into union with Chriſt, but ſuppoſe union, or to bring perſons into the Covenant, but ſuppoſe a perſon already within the Covenant, being a Scale of it, and of all thoſe glorious priviledges contained in the Covenant, certainly this is not an Ordinance that is lightly to be regarded, [nor ſhall be I am confident when Chriſt comes to reforme his Church indeed] but thoſe who doe Adminiſter this (being ſtewards of it) had need looke to whom they give out this ſacred priviledge. Had God tied up Miniſters ſo, that we ſhould adminiſter it onelyonly to reall Believers, then we had a hard taske. he hath left us a greater latitude, but whether ſuch a latitude as now the queſtion mentions, is that we are ſearching out. Reverend Mr. Cawdrey hath yeelded P. 16. That ſuch a perſon as the queſtion mentions is not ſufficiently qualified to be a Church member. Alſo P. 17. he ſaith thus, when we ſay a Profeſſion of the Faith is ſufficient to qualifie a Man to be made or p. 2continued a Member: we do not meane a bare profeſſion with his mouth, that be believes in Jeſus Chriſt, though viſibly he lives like an infidell: but thus at leaſt, when nothing in his life appeares to the contrary, though there be yet no great poſitive ſignes of his holineſſe. Let there be little poſitive ſignes added to a competent meaſure of Knowledge, and Converſation as you ſay, and we ſhall agree in that point. Alſo in his Review of Mr. Hooker, P. 89. he affi…meth; That, wicked Men are no fit materialls of a viſible Church. And p. 94. 95. he moves a queſtion becauſe it is hard to judge of the minimum quod ſic of Knowledge or Holineſſe to make a man a fit matter of a Church, whether it were not ſafer for the Church to proceed by …egations at her then Affirmation: That is, in admitting or allowing of members, there is nothing appears to the contrary, but that the p…ty they have ſo much of ſaving Knowledge, and ſo faire a converſation in holineſſe, as may conſiſt with true grace? This is very faire, and certainly there will be ſome little poſitive ſignes in ſuch a perſon, and you may admit him by affirmation. Mr. Cawdrey hath fully confirmed me in that which is the ground of my ſcruple, for when I obſerved divers perſons came to demand Baptiſme of me, for their children, and I found them groſſely ignorant in the neceſſary points of Salvation, and farre from underſtanding the nature of the Sacrament, and alſo when their converſation was proved by witneſſe to … ſcandalous, and far from what Mr. Cawdry hath ſet down, I queſtioned whether I was bound to give away ſuch a ſeale as this, and did therefore lovingly requeſt them to forbear a little, and lay in for more knowledge (offering to helpe them) and ſo to labour to reforme their ſcandalous converſations, then I would doe it.

M. Cawdry condemns my practiſe,P. 15. and tells the World I have confuted my Opinion and my Practiſe, and while I goe about to prove the Nega…e, I have concluded the Affimative: and that is by one ſentence which I have affirmed, viz. So long as wicked perſons are telerated they may challenge, &c. [what my ſentence is I ſhall preſently give it you plainely.] This ſentence (ſaith he) confutes (as it contradicts) both his Queſtion and his Practice, and it unto gives us an anſwer to all his Arguments. You have ſaid enough; He ſaith in the ſame Page that I have three times at leaſt affirmed that Propoſition: what I have affirmed I will owne, there is a fourth place where I have ſaid the ſame words in P. 41. 4. 2. (it ſhould be, the numbers are falſe printed) That ſuch perſons as are ignorant and ſcandalous, if they be owned for Church members, they have a remote right to Baptiſme, … and to the Lords Supper, you muſt not deny it, by theſe words, you muſt not deny it; I ſuppoſe you do not underſtand me, you muſt not deny ſuch the Lords Supper, that is far from my thoughts, for then I ſhould condemne our old holy Divines and others now, who alone will keepe back, it may be halfe their Pariſh from the Lords Supper, I condemne them not at all, but thinke they have done well,As you ſay Review Mr. Hooker p. 94. though you ſcarce think ſo by your paſſage. P. 21. that then is the meaning of it, You muſt not deny it, but they have a Remote Right to the one as well as to the other. But I ſuppoſe you well underſtood p. 3my minde, that I … no more there there th…in the ſ… pla…, which now I ſhall conſider in may Booke, … there you ſay I have it t…ies, once from the … giving of title to Circumciſion ſo long as Church members. For the Iewes I ſhall ſay this once for all: if you can prove unto me that the grounds of the Iewes adminiſt…ing Circumciſion were onelyonly the ſame and no other of our adminiſtring Baptiſme, then I ſhall be very much ſwayed with Arguments you draw from them: but if there were ſomething peculiar to them as being ſuch a Seed, and ſuch a Church, (which I doe verily believe, and ſhall ſpeake to afterwards) then what Arguments you draw from them (excepting this, that as God made a Covenant with believing Abrabam, and gave him the Scale, and likewiſe his Children, (being reputed believers with their believing Father) ſo the believing Gentiles, who are Abrahams ſeed have right to the Scale of Baptiſme for themſelves and their children, which I ſee confirmed in the Goſpe I do very little regard.

You mention the ſame Page againe e it is true ſir, there I have ſ… down my minde plainly, and that I will ſtand to. There was a queſtion moved, whether ſuch a b… profeſſion (as the caſ… which I ſta…ed mentions) with groſſe ignorence, &c. were ſufficient to make and continue a Man a Church-member!

I ſaid ſuppoſe that our Divines, who Baptize all goe upon this Notion, all perſons in England do profeſſe they believe in Chriſt, hence all are Church members, Ergo all are Baptized.

My anſwer to this was thus: This I confeſs as ſome diſadvantage to me, [Mr. Cawdry might have ſhowen me ſo much favour as to let his Reader know, that what ſtrength he hath againſt me, I gave it him knowingly, but he never mentions that I ſaw the difficulty, though I have expreſſed it, but triumphs over me, as if what I had ſaid was unawares, but I looke for no favour as his hand.] For if a Man be looked upon as a viſible Saint, and reputed a Member of is true Church, if that Member be very ſcandalous, and the Church let him alone, and not d…le with him, that perſon may challenge any Ordinance in the Church, both Baptiſme and the Lords Supper: This I have ſaid and will not recall, make of it what you can't and here you have my minde fully, with the next words adjoyned, which I will rehearſe preſently.

From this you have drawn up a …yllogiſme to ſhew the World,Page 15. how I have Confuted and Comtradicted my ſelfe, and thus you have caſt it.

The Child of a ſandalous Member tolerated, may be Baptized. But the Child of a ſcandalous Member not Excommunicated, is the Child of a ſcandalous Member tolerated.

Ergo, it may be Baptized, and is Miniſter may lawfully Baptize i….

Thus you have killed me with my own Weapon, but ſir when I looke on your Syllogiſme, it comes at firſt view as if you muſt out off one of the ſee…e of it, for I … it … on foure: I pray wheat was this …me, p. 4and a Miniſter may lawfully [that is, the word binds him to it, which is the pinch of the Queſtion] Baptize is, diſpoſed in the premiſſes? if you ſay, it was included in the Major, when I ſaid it may be Baptized. Sir I cannot tell that, if a Miniſter will admit a Man into the Church as a Member, though the Man be not qualified as you have told us Members muſt be, but very ſcandalous in converſation, and groſly ignorant, yet the Miniſter thinkes he have enough to admit him a Member, and conſequently hee Baptizeth him; Such a Miniſter may Baptize him if he will, he may ſay, (A Member admitted may be Baptized, but this is a Member admitted) But the word doth not binde him, no, he prophanes the Ordinace, though he will admit him a Member.

However Sir you ſhould have expreſſed this in the Major, as you have done in the Concluſion, then your Major I would have denyed; you will ſay to me, the Major is my one propoſition, and upon that I argue, and ſhow you and the World how you have confu…ed your ſelfe. No Sir I do utterly deny it; ſhew me ſuch a paſſage where I have ſaid that Scandalous Members [ſuch us our Engliſh perſons are, named in the Queſtion] tollerated, may have their Children Baptized, and the word bindes Miniſters to do it. Shew your Reader that, and then you ſay ſomething: but how farre I was from thinking or ſpeaking ſo, the very next words unto that which you ſay is my ſentence, and out of which I have conſuted my ſelfe, do declare: my words are theſe.

But I conceive ſuch a perſon is not ſufficiently qualified to make a Member of a Church, nor ought to be continued a Member of the Church: but the Church ought to ſeeke to reforme him, or if not, to caſt him out, ſo that if the Church will let ſuch a perſon alone, and give him theſe Ordinances, there will be guilt charged upon that Church.

This ſentence I conceive (if the Reader be but indifferent, and not prejudiced againſt me) will ſave me from ſelfe-confutation: if the ſentence be not true, but Mr. Cawdry had proved that the Miniſter is not too blame though he lets him alone, and yet may lawfully Baptize. Then had he ſpoken to my ſcruple indeed, and I would have thanked him heartily, but then I had not confuted my ſelfe.

But ſtill Mr. Caw. will urge from my owne words, thus I have ſaid, Scandalom Members, if tolerated, let alone by the Church, they have a remote right to Baptiſme and the Supper; Ergo, they may lawfully have their Children Baptized, and the word binds Miniſters to do it.

To this I ſhall anſwer, firſt to the Antecedent, then to the Conſequence.

To the Antecedent I anſwer, firſt [according to our Congregationall Principles] that which gives a Man the firſt right to a Sacrament, viz. his intereſt in the Covenans of the Goſpel [which you uſe very much againſt Mr. Hooker taking the words from himſelfe] this Man hath not: for he… doth viſibly declare to the Churches that he hath no intereſt in that Covenant, p. 5and your ſelfe deny it not, by what you have affirmed concerning the qualifications of Church-members. So then he hath no right, in that reſpect, all the right he hath is by the toleration of the Church, which the Church had beſt looke to, now I do confeſſe that firſt right is the maine in my eſteeme, though not all that is required: as in a Miniſter, the great matter is the qualification of the perſon, which is his inward call, yet it is not all, but his Ordination is alſo requiſite: but if Biſhops, or Presbyters ſhould ordaine a ſcandalous and ignorant ſot, not able to teach himſelfe, nor the Church, I ſhould extreamely doubt of ſuch a Miniſter: ſo here I conceive this firſt right is the chiefe, but yet as Mr. Hoolter ſaith Baptiſme he muſt come by in a right Order, i.e. he muſt be a Member of ſome congregation; and not an individuum vagum, belonging to no particular Congregation, nor any body to have inſpection over him. But if Miniſters will admit perſons that have not this firſt right, and continue ſuch amongſt them, here indeed is a kinde of right, but this let the Miniſters look to.

2. I anſwer according to your Principles: you make a Mans Chriſtianity 2alone, without his joyning of himſelfe to any congregation, to be that which gives him right, and you oppoſe Mr. Hooker, and the Congregationall Divines for requiring that joyning to any particular Church before they will Baptize: thus you ſay; All Children of Chriſtians, as Chriſtians have ſuch right to Baptiſme, and in the ſame Page,Diatri. p. 186. All Children of Chriſtians, as ſuch, have right to Baptiſme. Thus in your anſwer to me P. 12. you ſay, a perſon Excommunicated gives right to his childs Baptiſme, becauſe for ſtate be is a Chriſtian, and retains his Baptiſme. Now Sir I hope you meane it muſt be ſuch Chriſtianity as your ſelfe have ſaid is fit to make a Church-member [I hope you do not meane ſuch Chriſtianity as our queſtion ſpeakes of] by vertue of that ſay you he is a Member of the Catholike-church. Now Sir if that onelyonly gives a Man right and his Children, and yet a Man have not that, I can ſee no right he hath at all, it ſeemes ſtrange to me that Men ſhould be Members of a particular Church and not of the Catholike-Church, of the latter theſe are not Members, for they have not ſo much as ſhould give them a right to that Memberſhip, if you will hold to what you have ſaid about the qualifications of the matter of a Church: for only ſuch Chriſtianity makes Men Members of the Catholike-church, which theſe fall very ſhort of. We uſe to unwinde a bottome the ſame way we wound it, if you will winde the bottome thus, a Profeſſor, or Believer (ſuch a one as you ſay is fitly qualified) as ſuch, have by vertus of his profeſſion onelyonly, a right to his own and Childs Baptiſme, then I unwinde it the ſame way, he that is no… a Profeſſour as you mention, hath no right at all. Such are thoſe our Caſe ſpeakes of.

Now Sir here lay my trouble, that ſince theſe perſons in the firſt and maine reſpect have no right, but what they have is onelyonly by my toleration, this queſtion aroſe; whether in the beginnings of Reformation [wherein as Innius ſaith, ſomething will be extraordinary] the perſons being numerous, and not ſo fit it may be to Excommunicate in regard of p. 6number … though in reſpect of their wilfull igno…, and co… nuing ſcandalous after admonitions, they deſ… … not the Church ſuſpend ſuch from the Seal of the Cover… a for thus I conceive while I firſt adm…niſh people …on their ignorance, and ſcandalous living,Suſpenſion is Excommunicatio Minor. and they refuſing to heare me, I doe with …e conſen… of the Church ſuſpend I do not rol…ort… but you ſpeak as if there were nothing oppoſite… to Toleration, but Excommunication.

Or thus, according to our Congregationall Principles; which maintain… a Non-communion in caſe Excommunication cannot be exerciſed againſt a multitude; ſo I do here exclude them from ſuch Ordinances as doe hold forth Communion, and ſo it is Non commanion in effects. Noncommunion or Separation in ſome caſes when there is a … …de, the L…yden Proſeſſort ††Synop. pur. Theol. dicp. 48. Theſ. 28.29.maintaine.

To the Conſequence I anſwer, by denying it, viz Miniſters are not bound by the word to Baptize all the Children of perſons groſly ignorant, and ſcandalous, though tolerated.

I ſtill carry it in reference to England, where you ſay all are Chriſtians, and Church members: here now I ſhall ſpeaks more then I would have done, feeling the temptation of my Brethren in my own hear…; but your triumphing over me, and celling the World, how I have at once confuted my ſelfe, makes me by way of diſcourſe to clear my ſelf…, though I think it is done already. Thus then I argue.

1. If ſuch Members as the queſtion ſpeakes of be continued ſuch, 1. Argumant.through the Miniſters negligence and contifulnce, then the word doth not bind Miniſters to give the Seal of the Covenant to their Children, but the Antecedent is true, Ergo, the conſequent is true.

The Antecedent I had rather have applied onelyonly to my ſelfe, then any other Miniſters being far more holy then my ſelfe, I ſhould thinke …ay ſelfe to have been guilty of connivance, but my queſtion, and Mr. Caw. (as I ſaid before) puts me upon this.

If the Antecedent be denied, I prove it.

When Miniſters have power put into their hands, whereby they may reforme if they will, and will not, then their Toleration comes from connivance; and ſo is ſinfull.

But Miniſters have now power put into their hands, whereby they may reform if they will, &c. Ergo:

The Minor is cleare: for what power oppoſes? Church power there is none above the Miniſters; for the civill power that doth not oppoſe, but that power actually defends ſuch Miniſters, and Churches as doe reforme, and doe deny Baptiſme to ſuch ſcandalous ones; This favour once would have beene eſteemed very great: what ever we conceive of Toleration, as now it ſtands, yet this benefit we have by Toleration, that Miniſters need not Tolerate ſuch perſons if they will. It is an ill wind, blowes no body good.

But I perceive your Anſwer in P. 30: you tell us, of a Pope-like power p. 7… ſuch a Miniſter doth uſurp, who alone ſhall reforme though by ſu…ention: you ſuppoſe others will charge us with it, but whether Mr. Cawdrey will not ſay ſo alſo. I ſomewhat doubt, by obſerving this place and Page 20.21. I will not conclude ſo of him; but that he is againſt any Miniſter that ſhall doe ſo, that is cleare. By a Miniſter alone, if you meane thus, that a Miniſter alone without his people, or againſt the Chriſtians conſent ſhall ſuſpend, whom he pleaſe, indeed I doubt of ſuch a practiſe: but if the Members (viſible Believers) ſhall come and bring in witneſſe againſt perſons, and deſire to have them debarred, till they will amend, and thus they conſent to their Officer in ſuſpending. I know of no Pope-like power here uſuped.

To this therefore I will anſwer further.

1. If you and ten Miniſters more, or as many as you pleaſe, will combine 1together, and ſet up a Claſſi…ll forme of Government [and then you conceive you have power] you may if you will, who hinders you? I know of no power that oppoſe you. Therefore this is not a ſufficient P….

2. But is … your meaning (in good earneſt) to deny to a particular 2Church, a power to reform its own Members (as you ſeeme to expreſſe) in that manner I have ſet downe? I hope we ſhall finde divers Claſſicall Divines of another Opinion: I pray what is your meaning, when you ſay; As for Reverend and Learned Whitaker, whoſe Teſtimony he makes uſe of P. 52. …as he grants but what w…, Review Mr. Hooker p. 111.that every particular Church hath a power owen … own Members, what power you meane is plaine by the D…ſcourſ… of Mr. Hookers and learned Whitaker M. Cawdrey writes himſelfe, Paſtor of the Church at Billing; Now I pray give me a reaſon why ſo godly and able a Paſtor with his Church ſhould not have power over his own Members, unleſſe he will contradict himſelfe (as he ſaith, I doe) but I hope you doe not meane, there is no particular Church, but a Claſſicall Church, for that appoſeth what before you have ſaid of your ſelfe: our … runnes 14 miles in length, and 20 ſeverall Pariſhes in it, to make all … o… particular Church, is very hard, but if the Church at Billing have power over its own members, why may not the Church at Shalford have the ſame power?

3. Would you have Ruling Elders to joyne with me? I obſerve divers 3of the Claſſicall Divines queſtion, whether there be any ſuch Officer diſtinct from the Preaching Elder. But though I have not Elders actually ordained [I perceive alſo here you doe not ordaine your Elders, which is ſtrange, if Deacons were] yet I have thoſe whom I looke upon to be Elders, and without whom I do nothing that concerns Diſcipline. That which hath hindred us, is … uncertainty of my maintenance, being cut off from a …o… put which I …, from a Sequeſtration, when I was firſt called; The maintenance their if from the place being not ſufficient to maintaine my charge, I am uncertaine of my abode here.

4. When I was ordained by the Pr…sbytery, I thought I had the power p. 84of a Paſtour conveyed to me: now one part is to Rule, I thinke, but to ſay I cannot put forth that power alone, but I muſt have more Elders to joyne with before I can doe any thing; I deſire to ſee a Scripture for that, becauſe Diſcipline was carried on by more then one in the Examples we have in the Scripture, there being more then one Officer in thoſe Churches, muſt this needs conclude; Therefore the power of a Paſtour muſt lie dormant, if he have no other Elders to joyne with him, though his people doe as I ſaid before, I ſhould deny this conſequence.

5. 5Suppoſe I ſtay till the Claſſis be formed and Act, ſhall wee have power then to reform? But ſuppoſe my people aske other Miniſters of the Claſſis beſides my ſelfe, what power they have to reforme them, who made them Rulers over the people againſt their wills and conſent, having called none but my ſelf for their Paſtour? you muſt have a call you ſay to put forth your power actu ſecundo, in another Church.

6. 6Suppoſe there were a Church on an Iſland, where there was onelyonly a Paſtour, ſhould he and his people be denyed to reforme, ſince there is no other Church neere him? if you will give him power, I pray give me, for it is all one to be on an Iſland, where there are no more Churches that can combine, and ſo helpe one another, as to be in another place where are thouſands, but none will: it is cannot there, it is will not heare. Yet Sir, there is a Congregationall Church in the next Towne, and when need is I ſeeke counſell of that reverend Officer Mr. Dan Rogers.

I could ſay more, but I forbeare. What you ſay concerning Mr. Icanes, I have not ſeene that worthy Mans labours, for I live in an obſcure Village remote from London, and ſeldome heare of Bookes, neither will my meanes allow me to buy all Bookes that come out. But Sir, I take your Opinion, for you ſay in your Epiſtle, it is hard to judge, whether his way or mine be the beſt, or worſt way of Cure. Now if it be hard to ſay, then I perceive you are not clear your ſelfe, for what he hath writ.

So much for the Antecedent; now I come to the Conſequence. viz. If it be connivance and negligence that is the cauſe of this Toleration [which I doubt is true in many] then the word doth no… bind me, or I may not lawfully Baptize.

If ſinfull admiſſions will not juſtifie a Miniſter in adminiſtring the Ordinance of Baptiſme, then neither will ſinfull Tolerations juſtifie a Miniſter in adminiſtring Baptiſme.

But the Antecedens is true, Ergo, the conſequent is true.

Sinfull admiſſions will not:A…ro. rod. p. 515. learned Gilleſpy ſaith: no Conſciencious Miniſter would adventure to Baptize one, who hath manifeſt and infallible ſignes of unregeneration, we cannot be anſwerable to God if we ſhould.

Alſo he ſaith,Page 544. it were a prophanation of Baptiſmel, to Baptize a Catechumene, being manifeſtly under the power of abominable finnes, although he could give a ſound, and Orthodox confeſſion of Faith. This is more then thouſands of the Church members of England can doe, and yet live under the power of ſinnes bad enough. His grounds I have quoted before p. 9with Auguſtine, and the Schoolemen, Aquinas, Durandus, Serious Queſt. p. 21, 22, 23.Greg. de Val.

For the conſequence, if it be ſaid, there is more required in one who is a Member, he muſt firſt be caſt out: this takes not off the force of the Argument, the perſon is ſinfully tolerated, as well at firſt ſinfully admitted; as he might have beene and ſhould have beene denyed admiſſion, and ſo the Ordinance had been ſaved, ſo this perſon may and ought to be dealt with (there being now power in the hands of Miniſters) ſo the Ordinance is ſaved, ſinfull admiſſion cauſed the Ordinance at firſt to be prophaned, ſinfull toleration cauſe it now to be prophaned.

If you would turne me off here (as you doe afterward) by telling me the Argument ſhould proceed of the ſame perſon, which it doth not, the Child and the Parent are different perſons. Sir, this will not ſerve the turne, my Argument proceeds upon one and the ſame Title, the Parents Title is the Childs Title, the Child hath no other Title, nor pleads any other but the Parents Title, the Parent expreſſes his Title for himſelfe, and his Child being a branch of that ſtock; if the child pleaded a Title diſtinct from the Parents, as a Title of its own, then my Argument were fallacious [as I ſhall charge you anon] but if the child could ſpeake, it could plead only this, my Parent is within the Covenant, the Covenant is made with the Believing Parent, and his or her ſeed; Therefore …give me the Scale: by vertue of him, or her it is made with me.

You tell me afterward. P. 25. I may Baptize the Child of the prophaneſt Man in England, as of the godli…ſt [my Argument tends to that] Man; only you would have me grieve that I cannot reform this abuſe.

Whence I obſerve. Firſt, this ordinance may be abuſed. Secondly, de Facto it is abuſed in this adminiſtration to ſuch vile perſons; only ſay you his ſaves all, you have no power to reform this Abuſe, and for that I much grieve; but this I deny, I have power, and ſo have you and many more, but by you I cannot conceive the Ordinance is abuſed, for if the word bindes me to give ſuch a perſon the Ordinance; I know not how I abuſe it in following of the command of the word, ſo that I have no ſuch cauſe to grieve in reſpect of the adminiſtring of the Ordinance, for that is well enough, while ſuch a one is tolerated; I am bound to do it [that is our Queſtion] ſay you, the griefe muſt be in regard of the Mans toleration in the Church. But Sir, remember one thing more, you tell us though ſuch a perſon be Excommunicated, yet becauſe be is a Chriſtian, and retaines his Baptiſme; Page 12.Therefore the Miniſter muſt Baptize his Child: what cauſe of grieving is there now, for what power is there beyond Excommunication? ſo that you do but deceive us in talking of Reformation.

If Toleration, though ſinfull, will ſave us from prophaning of Ordinances, then Miniſters may take their eaſe as to that point, and let all corrupt, and vile Members alone, let them partake of both Seals, for ſo long as tolerated, the word binds you …o give them Baptiſme, and the Supper, and the word doth not binde me to prophane an Ordinance.

p. 10So much for my firſt Argument.2. Argument. I come to a ſecond Argument, viz. to prove, though ſcandalous Members in England are tolerated, and by vertue of that Toleration they will challenge any Ordinance, yet the word binds not me to give.

If ſo, then the Miniſters of England are bound to adminiſter the Lords Supper to the groſſeſt ignorant perſons, horribly ſcandalous, Ranters, &c. in England.

But the Conſequent is falſe; Ergo, the Antecedent is falſe.

The Conſequence is cleare, they are Church-members tolerated, ſaith Mr. Caw. we have no power to helpe; Therefore they may by vertue of that Principle, by which he hath me on the hip, as he thinks.

I thinke Sir you ſpeake the ſame words,P. 94. in Review of Mr. Hooker, notoriouſly ſcandalous Men, tolerated in a Church, whilest tolerated they are Members to all Ordinances for themſelves, and their poſteritie. Then all the Ranters, &c. are members to the Lords Supper, and you have no power, you ſay to helpe it. Yet I preſume you would ſinde power before you would admit all ſuch to the Supper.

This I would ſaine have cleared to me, that the Officers are bound to looke to the Members more in admitting them to the Supper then to Baptiſme: and the Supper, reſpect both the ſame Covenant, there is but one condition [whether there be Conditio propri…dicta **Twiſſ. Vind. grapraefa. Sect. 8.in the Covenant of grace is another queſtion] of the coun…ll of grace, viz. That man then, who can rightly take a Seale, or Convey a Seale of this Covenant to his, muſt viſibly appeare to have the condition of the Covenant, [which is the firſt and maine right,Ames Medal. Th. c. 24. Th. 19. Rhaetorſ.Exar. Apol. p. 313.] if he do ſo appeare, and therefore can convey the Seale to his Child, why he may not have the other Seale for himſelfe, appearing to be a Believer, and alſo being in right Order for my part, I ſee no reaſon.

I muſt not here condemne the holy Divines, who have before kept this Ordinance; neither dare I ſay the Aſſembly of Divines did very weakly, to trouble the Parliament in requeſting the Houſes to make an Act againſt ſuch perſons, that they might be debarred from the Lords Supper, which I muſt doe, if they were bound to give it while ſuch were tolerated Members, they would finde hard worke to have Excommunicated all theſe. If any ſay I condemne the former Divines for Baptizing all: I pray let them ſay no more then they heare me ſay, I do not do ſo, onelyonly I would gladly ſee the reaſon of the practiſe, and for thoſe, who lived before theſe times, I can anſwer my ſelfe another way.

I pray remember my Queſtion, how it can be proved that the Officers muſt looke more to this Seale then the other. 1 Cor. 11. It is ſaid, Let a man examine himſelf, &c. True, ſo he hath need before he comes to Baptiſme: but what is this to the Officers of Corinth, the Lords Supper was adminiſtred every Lords Day in thoſe times, what muſt the Officers examine them every weeke? here is worke enough, they looked to them [or ſhould have done] when they firſt tooke them in to be Members, and ſo if they did p. 11not walke as ſuch ought to do, they were to looks after them, reforme, or caſt out, but in ſo doing they ſaved other Ordinances as well as this. But we have a notion taken up, as if Diſcipline were appointed onelyonly to ſave the Lords Supper from being prophaned, and no other Ordinance.

Will the 44 foreign 9 prove it? I pray prove that Sanctuary (there mentioned) meanes only the Lords Supper, that Sanctuary and Lords Supper are foreign, thoſe who interpret, they ought to prove their interpretation, which you muſt clear to make your anſwer good, in P. 26.

Will 1 Cor. 4.2. prove it? Stewards must be faithfull, this muſt be only in the Lords Supper.

Will Mat. 7.6. prove it? Holy things muſt not be given to Dogs. De Bapt.Tertullian applies this Text to the Adminiſtration of Baptiſme, as well as to the Supper. And if it muſt be at the firſt, then why not as well when it comes to be adminiſtred by vertue of one, who is a Dog. [The word I love not to uſe in reſpect of others, knowing my wicked heart] there may be many who are Church-members by reaſon of Toleration onelyonly (and that Toleration its doubted if it be not ſinful who yet are ſuch Dogs as that Text mentions, and upon this Notion Miniſters have before excluded them from the Supper. Your ſelfe ſpeake to this purpoſe Diatar. Page 184.

3. One Argument more to prove, though ſuch may challenge by reaſon of my Toleration, yet I am not bound to give, 3. Argument.and here I will give examples of of what I have found, and know concerning ignorance, then draw up my Argument.

In my owne Pariſh, I was queſtioning with one about his eſtate, hee had lived long in Eſſex that which the Man builded upon was this, ſaid he, I have been no Drunkard, and I Repent. What it was to Repene? he could not tell: but then I enquired what knowledge he had of Chriſt; The Man I perceived knew nothing of him, but when I told him how Chriſt was God-man ſent to fulfill the Law, to die, to make ſatisfaction to Divine Juſtice, and ſuch ordinary plaine things. The Man wondered to heare ſuch things, in ſo much indeed that I could not but wonder my ſelfe that a man ſhould live above 50 years in ſuch a place as Eſſex is, and not know theſe plaine things.

Another was asked, what Chriſt was? the man could give him no anſwer: to help him, he was asked againe, whether he were a God, or a Man? he anſwered plainely hee could not tell, but ſaid, he thought he was a Spirit.

This is an Obſervation that I have made, [becauſe Mr. Gaw. ſayes we are all Chriſtians, P. 4.] when I have beene diſcourſing with people about their conditions, they will tell me ſtories of what they have not been, and ſome other ſilly matters, but for Chriſt, not one word of him, unleſſe when I have put it upon them; what is Chriſt nothing? then they will tell me, yes, they muſt believe in Chriſt, God forbid the contrary, but to know Chriſt, and what it is to believe in him, alas they are far ſhort of this. And p. 12this is not onelyonly my obſervation, but a godly Miniſter in Northamptonſhire told mee the very ſame thing he obſerved in his Pariſh, not one word of Chriſt, till he put it into their minds, then having taken up Chriſt by Tradition, they muſt ſay ſomething.

But for the Covenant of Grace (which Baptiſme reſpects alſo) that is the ſtrangeſt thing to people, they know not what it meanes.

For Sin, people have a Tradition that there is that which people call Sin, but for themſelves to be guilty of any particular ſinne, I have beene forced to run over the Commandements, open them, and tell them how my ſelf have been guilty, and yet could I ſcarce convince ſome, they were guilty, only all are ſinnes, and ſo are they.

A godly friend of mine told me he asked a Woman that was talking with him, what ſhee had for Heaven? ſhee anſwered him roundly, ſhe had never effended God in all her Life: yet ſhee was above 50 yeares of Age.

Another told him, ſhe had kept all the Commandements: ſhee was not ſo old indeed, but he had much a doe to convince her, ſhe had broke one, yet theſe perſons lived where there had been excellent Preaching.

Another comming to a neere friend of mine to have his Child Baptized, he asked him why he would have it Baptized? he anſwered, becauſe others had the asked him what good it would do his Child? he anſwered, As much as heretofore.

Another came to him, he asked him, how many Gods there were? he anſwered, Ten; ſuppoſing he miſtooke himſelfe, for the Commandements he asked him, how many Commandements there were? he anſwered Two, he asked him which was the firſt? he anſwered Salvation; the ſecond I know not what it was: the Man profeſſed he did anſwer as well as he could.

I thinke you are not much better in Northhamptonſhire, for a godly Miniſter told me of one in his Pariſh, that had a Prayer, but I think there was never ſuch a one heard before, this ſentence was often repeated, And Jeſus was Her Name.

Theſe inſtances have been ſince our Reformation began, and if Miniſters ſhould ſearch all, certaintly we ſhould be amazed to heare the Anſwers.

Now Sir, I apply this: you ſay all theſe are Church-Members tolerated, they can therefore challenge Baptiſme, and becauſe their Toleration give them a Right, Therefore the word bindes me to Baptize their Childen. But Sir, may I not better put theſe off for a time untill by Catechizing of them, they come to underſtand Sinne, Chriſt, and the Covenant of Grace? the word ſaith, Teach and Baptize, yea ſay you, at the firſt conſtitution; but if we finde ſuch perſons as you call Members, continued in conſtituted Churches that are ignorant in the knowledge of Sin, Covenant of Grace, yea and of Chriſt [ſave onelyonly they have taken up ſuch a Name that there is one Chriſt, and the Nation receives him] as p. 13are the very Heathen, (nay for ſin, the Heathen know more) is there not as much and more reaſon to Teach theſe before I will Baptize by vertue of them, let the Reader judge.

Am I bound to Baptize a Child preſently ſo ſoon as it is brought? They make nothing to keepe Children a fortnight, a monethmonth, yea more (according as their occaſions are) before they will offer them to Baptiſme, may not I th…n, finding the Parents unfit, delay if it be two moneths, till they are taught before I will Baptize? What is the danger, where is the Rule broken, where am I tyed to Baptize one ſo ſoone as offered, though never ſo unfit? the eight day that was ſet for Circumciſion, concernes not us, we can Baptize before if we will.

So for Scandall, if uncleane perſons ſhall bring their Baſtards, the Ranters, or who you will, muſt I preſently Baptize, becauſe you ſay a Church member tolerated will challenge a right to the Ordinance? ſhall I not firſt require Repentance?

John required Repentance: yea ſay you at firſt conſtitution, he and Apoſtles did. But Sir,You know Tertullians minde, concerning Adulterers, 2.1. De pudicitid. And Cyprian te's us it was the practiſe of ſome not to receive ſuch againe. Ep. 52. Synop pur. Disp. 48. Tb. 31. ſhall perſons now be as vile and worſe [for the continuance in the Church, aggravates their ignorance and ſcandall,] then at the firſt conſtitution, and ſhall I not now require Repentance of ſuch before I Baptize by vertue of them? yea, and that the Repentance may in judgement of Charity give hopes of a true Repentance: and if any will grant it for this one ſcandall; I know not but the ſame Rule will reach for other Scandalls.

If you will Baptize all theſe ignorant ones, and the Scandalous ones without any more a doe, but to preſſe the Covenant [which they know not] on them, as you ſay, do if you pleaſe.

To conclude this Head of Selfe confutation: I am not yet beaten off, but that paſſage of the Leyden Profeſſors, doe a little favour me, the queſtion was, whether if there be a great number in the Church, who off…nd in Doctrine of Life, may we now uſe Excommunication? The anſwer is, If men be openly and contumaciouſly corrupt, Let the multitude be great, yet to ſuch, godly Paſtours ought not, nor may give the Sacraments of Divine Grace, but with one conſent they muſt be denyed, and commit the event to God: becauſe godly Paſtours may not communicate the Signes of Grace to them, to whom Christ doth openly deny them, and forbids the Communicating of them.

Here I obſerve, they doe not ſtand for the Excommunication of a multitude, for theſe words Sacraments, and Signes of Grace, if there be Enallage numeri, that they ſhould meane onelyonly the Lords Supper. I ſhould marvell at it, that there ſhould be ſo much paines taken in ſolving of the queſtion, and then to come and tell us onelyonly of Suſpenſion fromthe Supper, which is ſo common a thing.

But for their reaſon I would make uſe of that, and when they have brought me the Scripturall ground, where Chriſt forbids the Miniſters to give the Parent one Signe of Grace, I will ſee if the ſame ground will not …eny us to give the Child the other ſigne of Grace, by vertue of this Parent.

p. 14For your Pro-parent, and Adoption, that comes in to be confidered in another place, I muſt now anſwer to ſelfe-confucation.

Dr. Ames ſpeakes ſomething for me.Conſe. l. 4. c. 27. Sect. 6. Qui aliquo modo in profeſſione ſua ad Eccleſiam pertinent, ſed foedus tamen Des apert… violant, corum Infantes cum aliquo diſcrimine debent Baptizari: it a ſcilicèt ut quod foedus requirit, & in ipfis deeſt, per aliquos quantum fieri poteſt ſuppleatur. 1. Nam diſtinctio aliqua inter puros & impuros debet in ſacris omnibus obſervari, ad bonorum conſolationem; correctionem malorum, & omnium adificationem. 2. Inſtituta Dei non poſſunt aliter ab omni pollutione couſervari. The Doctor I ſuppoſe would have Sureties joyned, but if theſe Sureties cannot bee proved to be an appointment of God, then hee is yet ſtronger for mee.

By this time I hope I have cleared my ſelfe in the Judgement of an indifferent Reader from Selfe-confutation; I knew this Church-memberſhip was the ſtrongeſt Argument that could be brought, and therefore mentioned it; that Church-members might challenge any Ordinance, while let alone, I could not thinke otherwiſe, but that therefore I was bound to adminiſter the Seals, as if their challenging, which comes onelyonly by reaſon of their Toleration in the Church, would make my Adminiſtration warrantable, though they are never ſo wicked, and tolerated ſinfully, this I could not believe. So that my Selfe confutation ariſeth from ſomething, you put upon mee, which I owne not; the great ſtrength then of your Booke againſt me, I hope is weakned, and all thoſe anſwers from hence, which you make great uſe of, are no anſwers.

Before I paſſe to a further examination of your Anſwer, let me propound one thing more, wherein I heartily deſire ſatisfaction from you, being not cleare in the thing my ſelfe, viz. Whether all the People in England (under which we comprehend Wales) be Members of true Churches? for if it can be proved that all the Congregations in England, are not true Churches, then I ſhould have an Argument ſtrong enough againſt you: but ſir, I am not ſo ſatisfied to ſay they are not, nor yet ſo cleare to ſay they are; Therefore I deſire to learne.

In my Booke P. 43. I ſaid I did but faintly acknowledge ſuch a thing that all are Church members: but afterward when I came to write in defence of the godly Presbyteriall Miniſters [whom I honour and reverence] againſt the Separatiſts, I ſaid I dare not undertake to prove all the Congregations in England to be true Churches: ſo that I doe not fly back, becauſe of your Booke,Page 4. it was done long before, ſeriouſly debating with my ſelfe, what the Separatiſts would urge againſt me, thus I phanſied they would argue.

A Church is a company of thoſe who are called [and this call muſt be anſwered, or elſe it is nothin To the viſible profeſſion of Faith in Chriſt, and obedience unto Chriſt, Ius Divin. p. 37according to the Gospell. This is the Preybyterians definition, ſay they.

p. 15But divers of the Congregations in the North of England, and Wales, and other places, are not ſuch Companies, &c. Ergo, they are no Churches.

Definitio conſtat ex eſſentialibus: and definitions if true are eternally true. Now how can there be the effect where there is not the eſſentiall cauſe, according to their own grant?

I would have anſwered, if you ſpeake of a pure viſible Church, you ſay right: but there may be a true Church viſible, though divers corrupt Members, as in Corinth, Sardis, &c. To this I conceived they would reply thus, as for Corinth, Sardis, &c. We doe not deny it, for there were reall Chriſtians, and viſible Chriſtians alſo, (though there were corrupt ones,) and theſe held up the eſſentiall cauſe of the Church: but in divers of theſe Pariſhes we ſhall not ſinde foure it may be ſo much as viſible Saints, if we take in knowledge, and what that definition, and Mr Cawdrys qualifications require for a viſible Saint.

Beſides what Corinth and Sardis had,Ibidem. was only by way of Calling as ſay the London Miniſters: but what ours are, was and is by the Sword of the Magiſtrate, King Henry the highth he left us Popiſh. King Edward the ſixth, he takes away the Maſſe-booke, and ſends the booke o… Common-prayer, though the people love the other way, yet if the King will have it ſo, it muſt be ſo. Queene Mary comes and ſhee turnes about againe, the people follow her. Queene Elizabeth ſhee takes away Maſſe againe, if it were ten times in a yeare ſaith Mr. Rogers,Fox Mart. vol.3. the people will turne with the state. This is the Call, and what have we now? but divers ignorant ſo…s ſent into theſe places to read a booke of Common prayer, and this is their profeſſion: this is ſtrange making of Churches, this was not ſo in the times when Churches were firſt conſtituted.

Such Churches they were at their firſt conſtitution, according to Mr. Cawdric Papge 7. who doth not regard what they were before this time, ſo from firſt to laſt it is hard to ſay of divers Pariſhes that there have been ſo many viſible Saints as might make a Church.

In the ſame Page you tell us. That ſome people received the Gospell after the Example of Kings, and were Baptized for company (as Simon Magus it ſeemes) but ſtay ſir, the Text ſaith, he believed (I know not in truth) and continued with Philip… his converſation was ſuch as for ought I can ſee till Peter came downe, they had good opinion of him.8 Act. 13.Acts 13 Reverend Calvin upon the Text doth not judge ſo ſlightly as you here expreſſe, and your ſelfe, Pape 17. ſpeake more clearly of Simon Magus, then you doe here, and neerer the truth.

Now ſir you ſay though the People thus follow onelyonly for company [though the caſe was otherwiſe here, for the People would not have changed had they been left to their own Libertie, but the ſeare of a King or a Queen compelled them] Yet if they take upon them an outward profeſſion, that was ſufficient to give a right to themſelves, and their children for Baptiſme: and conſequently they were a true Church, though not a perfect and pure Church.

p. 16But ſir, you are ſpeaking of the firſt Title to Baptiſme, what a ſtrange Profeſſion doe you make here to give Title, how much different from what you have ſaid before, is required to make a Church-member?

You ſay,Page 7. it is a true Church, how will you predicate Truth of an effect, when it wants the eſſentiall cauſe? to predicate verum or vere of …us is good, but how is here the entity of a Church, when the materiall cauſe is wanting? and if the materiall be wanting, the formall is alſo, The formall cauſe, ſuppoſe the materiall which it doth informe, and diſtinguiſh, &c.

I ſhould further have objected againſt the Separatiſts; what will you make of thoſe Pariſhes, are they Infidells? They would anſwer, let them be what they will, they are not, nor ever were (that we know, or others) fit matter for Churches; if the Presbyterians will ſtand to their own Definition, but they would ſay againe, they are State-chriſtians made ſuch by the power of the Civill Sword, not Church-christians made by the spirituall Sword. And this ſhewes it that in their Religion, they will not go one ſtep beyond, what the State commands: and had the State let them alone, they would ſtill have held to their Popery. And talke to them of any other Church, but the place they met in, they underſtand you not.

Had I ſaid, But they are Baptized, they would anſwer, if men will abuſe Baptiſme, as if a Miniſter ſhould go and Baptize Indians, muſt we needs ſay therefore they are a Church? Baptiſme doth not make a Church, for it preſuppoſeth a Church.

The ſum is, I ſaw ſo much difficulty that I did rather avoid that, ſo undertooke to prove that many Congregations were true Churches, beſides thoſe which you call Independent Churches.

In this therefore I deſire ſatisfaction, and hope I ſhall ſee ſomething by this occaſion, but I am ſure it would trouble holy Miniſters to goe into ſuch places, and Adminiſter Baptiſme to the people abiding, as now they are.

And now ſir, I come to examine your anſwer, and the many faults you finde with me, I ſhall take the Booke as it lies, and goe over every page, as brieſly as I can.

Firſt,Page 1. your queſtion, whether I meane that all theſe meete in one perſon, Ignorant, Scandalous, &c. or ſingly of any of them. Sir, I was thinking of it my ſelfe, but I did ſuppoſe the Reader would underſtand me to meane ſingly, if men were groſſely ignorant, and would continue ſo wilfully, though they are intreated, and aſſiſtance offered to helpe, but will not (as is the caſe with us) ſuch deſerve Excommunication, and you affirme as much P. 17:19.

For Scandalous converſations, Scoffing at godlineſſe, I ſuppoſed no queſtion would be made of it.

For Submitting to Church-Diſcipline, Page 2.though I know ſome few Eraſtins did deny it, yet the bulke of Chriſtians would never queſtion it, being ſo plaine; but however you finde afterward that I ſpeake of ſuch as are p. 17convinced of it (which was my caſe) but becauſe I did not put it into the queſtion (though I expreſſe it afterwards) you take advantage againſt me p. 18, 19, 20.25. no leſſe then ſoure times to make it ſerve for an anſwer torne. Well Sir, I perceive your minde is not to make any favourable conſtruction, though you have my minde cleared in another place, onelyonly you lye on the catch.

Come on then Sir, ſince this is your ſpirit, let us ſee whether this will give you ſuch an advantage: the queſtion is, whether Miniſters are bound to baptize Children of Parents groſlyignorant, &c. Yes, ſaith Mr. C. the Parents are Church-members, and though notoriouſly ſcandalous they are Members to all Ordinances, while they are tolerated: tolerated ſay I, what meane you by that? you anſwer, the Church hath not proceeded to Cenſure and Excommunicate, for till excommunicated they are Church-members [yea and then alſo by your Doctrine] but then ſay I, for excommunication, I know no ſuch thing, nor any Church-diſcipline: you ſay there are godly ones not covinced of this Ordinance, and if godly ones, then not wicked ones, ſure enough they may as well renounce it: thus Diſcipline is rejected by all: ſo then non-excommunication, non-cenſuring doth not help one whit, but their groſſe ignorance, &c. is ſufficient for me, for Excommunication there is no ſuch thing, ſo my arguments ſtand the ſtronger, unleſſe there be a way to help by the pro-parent and Adoption, which are your notions.

I ſee Sir you will plead any thing to make an anſwer, and ſeeme to ſhake hands with the Eraſtians, but if you and other Miniſters (as I perceive ſome ſuch) be ſo favourable to the opinion, then never open your mouths more for Church government: O ſay you and others, there are godly people of the opinion, well Sir, what then? put caſe Maſter Caw. is not of the opinion, but his Members are; ſuppoſe there were ſome ſcandalous Member to be excommuicated, you would doe it, and you exhort the body to conſent to you in it [to doe it, renitente plebe is a poore thin they riſe up, no ſir, wee will not conſent to you in it, for wee know no ſuch Ordinance, wee will hold Communion with him, theſe are godly perſons, now what will you doe? what brave worke we make in pleading for opinions.

For the explicite Church-Covenant you ſpeake of in this page, I will let it alone till p. 5. where you revive it againe.

Then your chearſe Mr. Hookers ſentence and there ſinde that I doe not accord with him: If not, then I pray lee this convince you, that you have not ſpoken right, when you ſaid, I borrow my grounds from Mr. Hooker,In your Epiſt. to the Reader. how doe I borrow my grounds from him to whom I goe Croſſe, as you ſay I doe? if I had done ſo, Mr. Hooker is a man of whom one may borrow, but I doe not remember what ground I borrowed, but I was glad when I ſaw ſo learned and holy a man to defend ſome things which before I conceived were right but, as to this difference here, I am ſure Mr. Hooker were now alive in England he would not baptize all the children of p. 18any of the Congregalons d… England without any more adoe, I can gather ſo much out of his Booke, and therefore we doe not differ in this.

Then you come to my firſt premiſe, which is, [The Infant abſtracted from the Parens,Page 3. gives no reaſon why it ſhould be baptized] this ſay you is otherwiſe propounded by Mr. Hooker [then its unlikely to be borrowed of him] then you tell me it is not rightly propoſed: yes Sir; very right: it is ordinary with Divines to lay a propoſition firſt further off,Page 4. then to come nearer; neither doe I ſee that you have one whit conſured it but yeelded it: doe you baptize any Child in your pariſh without conſidering it in relation to a Parent? do you conſider it in it ſelſe abſtracted from any other, and yet baptize it? I pray make an argument out of that Tex… in your Titlepage, Mar, 10.14. (which I preſlime you bring for Infants baptiſme) and conſider the Infant alone as abſtracted from the Parent: you ſay preſently here, the Children of England are Chriſtians borne, how? by reaſon of the houſe, ſoile, or the Parent? then its a Chriſtian child, and in relation to ſuch a one it is baptiſed. Thus you finde fault with Mr. Hooker, but if you will croſſe him,Diatr. 185. or my ſelft [who am not worthy to be named in the day with him] lay downe this propoſition, viz. The Infants of England quâ ſic, conſidered as abſtracted from any where, ought to be baptiſed; if you will maintaine this, then I confeſſe you may finde faule.

For your ſecond Anſwer, when any body practiſe as you ſay there, then let ſuch a one conſider it: you might have ſpared thoſe lines, for I know none ſuch: I doe it before the child is brought.

Then you come to the ſecond premiſe; [The child is baptiſed as conſidered in relation to a parent one or: both; that is the ſumme] You ſay M. Hooker and I meane the taxt parent; and this you have conſured largely (that is your meaning) in Diatr. p. 187. of that hereafter. Only now you adds,

Firſt, your ſay, thin ineffect is the ſame with the former: one the Negative, the other the Affirmative: true Sir, I know it before, onelyonly for cleareneſſe ſuke, as we uſe to openitings firſt by ſhewing what they are not [as ſaith, love, union with Chriſts &c.] then what they are, ſo I did here, and I hope no fault in ſo doing.

Secondly, you tell me of two other wayes for children to come to Baptiſme beſides the next parent:Page 5. of which hereafter.

Next, you ſay I take occaſion to deſine a Church. A ſociety of viſible Sains joyned togethers by way of covenant, &c. Here you obſerve two things 1. That I owne no Cathelique Church but a particular Congregation, nor any Members of a Church, but of ſuch a Church; then you clime of a man being a Member onelyonly of the Catholike Church, and by vertue of that requires Baptiſme for his child:

… For a Catholike Church, yes I owne it, neither doe I know any underſtanding man deny it, but I doubt you forget one word, you meane Catholike viſible Church: but if you had ſaid ſo, yes in I owne that alſo, p. 19but whether it be one Organitall body, I ſaw ſome difficulties in that, and left in for further time to diſcover: the Congregationall men for ought I can diſcerne owne it ſo as nothing, but Nor. and Ex part you and them in the concluſion in point of Diſcipline. I know for adminlſtring the Seals in another Congregation, which that notion brings in, there ſome Congregationall men differ, and ſo for one Miniſter to excommunicate in another Congregation, that they will not owne (nor doe you but upon a call) they will goe along with other Officers and aſſiſt them in clearing out things, and helping them what may be, onelyonly they will not put forth ſuch power againſt ſuch to whom they are no Officers. I trouble not theſe holy men, in that thoſe who will differ with ſuch men upon theſe points I thinke doe not well. The other part doth not concerne my queſtion, neither am I ſo cleare in it as I wiſh I were, I ſhall humbly propound my thoughts.

1. If a man muſt firſt be a Member of a particular-viſible-Church before he can be of the Catholike-viſible-Church, then your notion will not hold, but the Antecedent is true Ergo, the Conſequent is true.

Antec. I prove:

If a man muſt firſt be caſt our of a particular-Church before hee can out of the Catholike, then a man muſt firſt be a Member of a Particular before he can be of the Catholike Church: but the Antecedent is trues … Ergo.

Conſequence is cleare to me on this ground.

Elſe I cannot ſee how he who is caſt out of a particular Church, can be caſt out of the Catholique Church:Though excommunicated unjuſtly, yet till caſe be heard, Communion denyed. Concil. Sa…ll. Can. 17. if a man be firſt a Member of a particular Church, and by vertue of this comes to have communion with all other Churches, this latter depending on the former, then the reaſon is cleare; caſt him out of a particular Church you cut him off from all Communion with others.

But if a man be firſt a Member of the Catholique Church, and his being a Member of this particular Church, depends upon that, then I ſee no reaſons for though you have caſt him out of your particular Church which is ſecond, yet his memberſhip to the Catholique Church, which is firſt and independent upon this, ſtill remaines; and you doe in excommunication but caſt him into, that ſtate he was in before he joyned to you; ſo that ſtill he is a Member of the Catholique Church, and may demand ordinances elſewhere. Other Churches deny not communion before the particular doth of which he is a Member, then they follow: hence their Act depefids on this: if depend, then not firſt.

2. This ſeemes a little odde to me, a man is a Member of the Catholike Church onelyonly: thence he will require Baptiſme of this Church, of another Church he will require the Lords Supper, in another there he will beare, to he may go to all Churches, in the world (if he could) and demand any Ordinances, yet Member of no particular Church; ſo let this man walke as diſorderly as he will (as the latitude ſometimes you give of a Church-Member p. 20will allow a man to be bad enough) in this Towne or another Towne, he have owned no particular Church, onelyonly the Catholike, what hath this particular Church to doe to meddle with him more then any other? wee muſt have Catholike Church-Officers to caſt him out, who are ſuch, not onelyonly actu primo but actu ſecundo, which you ſay no Miniſter is to another that is not of his particular Congregation unleſſe he be Called to it, but to be ſure this man will never call you to it, who then can give you a Call, ſo that this man cannot come to be reformed, and yet he may goe up and downe to any Church? I am a Chriſtian, therefore give me the Ordinances, excommunicated I am not, for none can excommunicate him unleſſe all the Officers of the Churches in the world ſhould meet to caſt him out.

If you ſay,Which you affirm, Diatr. 194. Where he firſt came to be baptized, of that particular Church he is a Member, and that Officer hath power, &c.

No Sir, I cannot believe this doctrine, that my baptizing of another makes him member to our particular Church. I have had three of my children baptized by Miniſters who never looked on me as member to their Church, though I dwelt in the Town, I have done the ſame for others (being called to it) yet none of my members. Your ſelfe acknowledge, Baptiſme doth not make a member of a viſible Church, Revie. Mr. Hooker c. …. then not of this particular viſible Church.

If you ſay,So you expreſs your mind. pag. 194. Diat. But a Chriſtian muſt not doe thus, he muſt joyne to a particular Church: the queſtion is not what he muſt doe, but what he will doe: will not you baptize his child or him unleſſe he will joyne? If not, you have ſaid enough.

3. To be a Church-member ſeemes to be more then a Chriſtian, i. e. a Chriſtian member of ſuch a Society and w…king under ſuch a policy; and that policy ſuppoſe Officers. You ſay there is no eſſentiall Homogeneall Church exiſting without Officers, mentioned in the Scripture, it is a fancy you ſaye and repeat it againe,Review Maſter Hooker, pag. 75 77. oppoſing Mr. Hooker, a Church-member then muſt be under Officers, under ſuch a policie, as in the Catholike Church, but how that can be unleſſe he be a member of ſome particular Church (which is a member of the Catholike, as you ſay) I know not: the Catholique Church hath no policy, extra eccleſias particulares.

The hardeſt matter is the Apoſtles baptizing which is often abledged, this makes me doubtfull on the other ſide, onelyonly theſe thoughts I have bad.

1. They had ſuch power as we have none, they could exerciſe their power any where without any call. Paul was an Actuall Officer to the Jaylour, and ſo other Apoſtles where they came, hence they could reach them in caſe of irregular walking without a ſecond Call, but ſo much cannot we.

2. I doe not remember they baptized any ſingle perſons but ſuch as were members of the Jewiſh Church, which was a Goſpel-Church under ceremonies. For others they baptized ſo many at once for ought I can ſee p. 21that might lay the foundation of a particular Church; the Jaylour Act. 16. 32. how many were in his houſe I know not, He and all his houſe believed in God. So Cornelius, there was company enough to begin a particular Church, for ought I can ſee, though how many its uncertaine: Paul and Puer Officers to theſe. In beginnings ſome things may be extraordinary, as were they Officers extraordinary.

I eaſily ſee difficulties,In N. E. if one or two Indians ſhould ſeeme to be converted, but becauſe their language cannot joyne to an Engliſh Church, ſhould now the Miniſter delay to baptize him? but then there is this alſo, if theſe two or one ſhould prove vile and ſcandalous, what ſhall that Miniſter doe with him? other ſcruples about this I could caſt in; but it concernes not my queſtion.

The next fault you finde is, That requiring an explicite covenant to ſuch a Church, I ſeeme not only to contradict my ſelfe, but alſo to unchurch moſt of our Engliſh Churches.

Here I muſt ſtay a while, having occaſion given to looke back into your Epiſtle. What doe I heare of contradictions againe? you have a ſtrange Art in finding out contradictions: but how come this about? it ſeemes I require an explicite Covenant: But Sir, are you ſure the word explicite is in the definition? nay, you are ſure tis not: Can there be no Covenant in a Church but explicite? I ſuppoſe yes, and I ſuppoſe you thinke ſo alſo, ſo doe Appollonius, we will heare him ſpeake preſently; is this fai…e dealing to force a word upon me when I have clearely before expreſſed my ſelſe another way? I am farre enough then from contradictions, or from unchurching the faithfull Congregations of England though they have not an expl… Covenant: your ſelfe p. 25. mention the externall Covenant of the Church, but what you meane by it I know not.

You are a paſſage in my Boiſtle which is this [Some Miniſters ſcorne the notion that an explic…ie Covenant is the forme of a Church viſible, and ſome profeſſours are ſo rigid for it that without it, they deny all Churches] of the latter ſort is Mr. Hooker, ſay you; Sir, you wrong him exceedingly, and I wonder a man of your grace ſhould doe thus when he hath ſo expreſly declared his minde to the concrary; to your knowledge the next words you mention ſhew as much, and in his Epiſtle p. 11. he ſpeaks as plaineſy. But of him anon.

That paſſage ſhall cleare me from making no Churches but where there is an explicite Covenant; I ſaw in ſome Congregations where there were both viſible and reall Saints (as we may judge) when the Lords Supper was to be adminiſtred, ſome profeſſours would not joyne in the Ordinance for want of that (ſo farre as I could learne) ſuppoſing they were not in a right Church-way. Now this I could not approve of ſince there were ſo many Chriſtians to depart from the Ordinance upon ſuch a ground.

In my owne Congregation I thus practiſe; Some of other Pariſhes have deſired to joyne with us at the Lords Supper, if we have not knowne them p. 22well, I have deſired them to bring a Teſtimony from their Miniſter, and they have done ſo: Others whom we knew well I have not deſired it, but admitted theſe to the Lords Supper, yet they were under no explicite Covenant, but an implicite Covenant (I knew they cloſed with their Paſtors) in their Churches. If need had beene I would have baptized their children, had they brought them to me. I hope now you are convinced.

Afterward you ſay againe I recall it, becauſe I ſaid, [that this expliciteneſs is almoſt eſſentiall to the government of the Church.]

Why doe you not take notice of the word Almoſt, which implies there may be ſome government without it? but it will not go on ſo ſtrongly nor comfortably, but caſt what you have ſaid into a Syllogiſme, and ſee how I recall it.

If expliciteneſs of covenant be requiſite to the eſſe of Church-government, …hen an explicit covenant is requiſite to the eſſe formale of a Church.

But the Antecedent is true: Ergo, I ſee no reaſon for the Conſequence.

But for Church-government, try you what you can doe onelyonly by vertue of their Chriſtianity, and implicite Covenant, I have tryed it and found it not ſufficient, but the other I have had good experience of. But for Church-convenant a few words.

Firſt ſet us heare Apollonius ſpeake who is a Presbyterian.Page 17.

Concedimus foedus aliquod tacitum ſeu virtuale eſſe inter membra unius &, …juſdem particularis Eccleſiae externae: quo obligantur ad mutua illa officia praeſtanda, quae à membris Eccleſiae viſibilis ad particularem ſuam Eccleſiasticam Communicnem exiguntur: quod nempe ſuis paſtoribus corum Curae & diſciplinae ſubeſſ… …undum publicum divinum Cultum frequentare, cadem lege & juriſdictione Ecc…ſticae gubernare velint: ex quo foedere etiam jus ſibi acquirunt, ad illa qua buic particulari Eccleſiae eju…qu: membris ſint propria, & altis Eccleſ…is particularibus nou Comp…tunt. This man ſpeakes rationally, and thoſe words are worth the obſervation, ex quo foedere jus ſibi acquirunt, &c. ſo that all the right and power that Officers or particular Churches have over their members ariſe from this Covenant: and this is certaine, for ſuppoſe one be a Chriſtian, and ſuppoſe he owne Church-Diſcipline, yet how doe I in particular come to be bound to diſpenſe Baptiſme or Lords Supper to him more then any other Miniſter? or how doe I and this Church in particular more then another come to have power over another in reſpect of Diſcipline, but by his covenanting, conſenting (call it what you will) with me and this Church, and not with another? for elſe he will ſay, though I doe owne Church. Diſcipline, yet who gave you power over me more then another Officer or Church?

For me to ſay you dwell in my Bariſh, is a ſilly anſwer, unleſſe it can be proved that Pariſhes were by divine inſtitution to ſuch an end: there are thoſe in my pariſh that come not to heare me, nor ever choſe me to be their Officer, nor will owne the Church in this time of reforming, but I ſhould p. 23thinke it abſurd to tell them you dwell in this Pariſh, therefore you are bound to heare me, &c.

One word more about Pariſhes: I would put this queſtion, it is a practiſe in England for a Patron to preſent, of late I know where a godly Miniſter was choſen by the people, yet it being a Sequeſtration, the Incumbent dying, the gift fell into the hand of the Patron; he being an idle companion turned out the godly Miniſter, and put in another that is, &c. the people with one conſent did declare againſt him, and oppoſed him at his comming, yet it ſeemes becauſe the Law of the Land will have it ſo, this man is he that hath the place; but is he therefore their Paſtour becauſe he pre…chech in their Pariſh? I thinke it were ſtrange for any man to affirme it, and this practiſe is very common: I hope the meere pariſh doth not make him their Paſtour, nor the people his Members. This is a wofull plague to godly people, and teach the way to Separation, though it will not juſtify others where the caſe is not the ſame.

Doctor Ames tells us of a vinculum ſpeciale which he calls Foedus, Medul. Th…ol. cap. 32.and ſo as no man is rightly admitted into the Church, but by confeſſion of Faith, and promiſe of Obedience. And this Apollonius ownes, pag. 13, 14.

The Belgick Churches ſaw ſomething in it,Apol. c. 1. p. 9. that it was concluded upon in ſixe Synods, that thoſe who came to the Lords Supper, ſhould promiſe expreſly to be ſubject to Diſcipline: and had the Chu…ches of England, the godly Officers (eſpecially) made all thoſe who came into their Pariſhes, and would have either Baptiſme or Supper, to declare their choiſe of them for their Officers, and ſubjection to all Chriſts Ordinances, they might have had more ſtrength againſt the Separation: indeed they have ſtrength enough againſt moſt of them who have owned the Miniſters, and conſtantly attended, and received the Ordinances from them, of which I have ſpoken elſewhere.

Further, I ſhould much deſire that thoſe who oppoſe the Church-Covenant, would lay down a Church-member in his eſtentiall cauſes, then they teach cleareſt: as for profeſſion, Chriſtianity [or what you will call this is but the cauſa materialis of a Church member, for it is not Man quâ ſio (for then all) but Man quâ profeſſing, as Saint viſible, that is the materialis cauſa, this then is not the formalis cauſa, for to have the ſame thing to be Cauſa materialis & formalis respectu ejuſdem effecti is ſtrange: therefore till I ſee a better I muſt ſay, that this Chriſtians conſenting or covenanting with this particular Church, and theſe Officers in it, to walke according to the Goſpell, &c. is the formall cauſe of this Church-member.

In ſome ſenſe we may ſay, the matter doth diſtinguiſh things, a lump of Gold, from a lump of Clay differs materially: but one Golden veſſel differs not from another, but per formam: Chriſtians as viſible Saints or Churches conſtituted of ſuch, differ materially from all other Societies of Men, but how one Church, a Golden Candleſtick differ from one another, but per formam, I know not, which is this that our Congregationall men ſpeak of.

p. 24Act. 5.13. Of the reſt durſt none joyne (foreign) what was that foreign that glewed them to the Church? they were not ſcared from owning of Chriſt, or loving of the Diſciples, they might hear the Apoſtles preach, &c. there was ſomething expreſſed ſure, much more now when ſo many Churches: the ſame word is uſed of the prodigall, Luke 15.15. foreign the Covenant between. Maſter and Servant, is the glue that joynes each to other; ſo for ought I know it muſt be here.

You tell me,Epiſtle. that the relation of Chriſtians one to another, is not free but after a ſort naturall, as that of Father and Child.

I was there ſpeaking of Church-government, how we came to have power, &c. now it ſeems by you it is as naturall for any Chriſtian to be under my power in particular, and this Church in particular, as for a child to be under his Fathers government, and I may naturally claim this officiall power over him, whether he will chooſe me or not, nay though he declare he will not own me for an officer, this is ſtrange Doctrine. Is his relation to me Naturall (as I am an officer) or free?

As for the expliciteneſſe of the Covenant, I have ſeen ſo much order and comlineſſe in Churches by reaſon of it, that if I can ever attaine it I will, and ſo would M Gawdry, had he ſeen what I have ſeeen in N. England, yet I will not null all Churches for want of an explicite Covenant. I can diſtinguiſh between eſse and melius eſse.

M. Hudſon ſhall winde up all:Vi…dici. Cath. pag. 19. I deny not (ſaith he) but mutual conſent of perſons within ſuch a Vicinity, to joyn together conſtantly in the Ordinances of God, under the Inspection of ſuch and ſuch officers, is requiſite to a particular Congregation.

Now give me leave to examine a little what you have writ againſt reverend M. Hooker, ſince the providence of God hath joyned me with ſo holy and learned a man (O that I had his Mantle) much of his diſcourſe fals in with mine, and ſo your anſwers to him ſerve againſt me, but that part I ſhall let alone.

His Queſtion is this,

Whether perſons non confederate,Survey part 3. pag. 11, 12. and ſo (in our ſenſe not Members of the Church) doe entitle their children to the ſeate of Baptiſme, being one of the priviledges of the Church, their Parents (though godly) being yet unwilling to come into Church-fellowſhip?

You make very great uſe of theſe words, that perſons non. Confederate are in his ſenſe no Members of a Church: now Sir, let me move one queſtion, Whether only perſons that are in explicite Conſederacy, are to be eſteemed in M Hookers ſenſe Members of a Church? if M. Hooker have expreſſed the contrary, as he hath moſt fully, pag. 47, 48. of his firſt part, and in Preface, pag. 11. where he ſaith expreſly, The Faithfull Congregations in England are true Churches, then that cannot be M. Hokers ſenſe. In pag. 47, 48. he ſhewes how the Covenant is acted after a double manner, Explicitely, and Implicitely, and there ſhewes how it is acted in the Churches of England. Then adds,

p. 25This Mr. R. cannot be ignorant of as our opinion and profeſſed apprehenſion: and I would intreat the Reader to obſerve once for all: that if he meet (with ſuch accuſations [ſuch an accuſer is Mr. Cawdrey] that we nullifie all Churches beſides our owne; that upon our grounds received there muſt be no Churches in the world, but in New-England, or ſome few (obſerve this) ſet up lately in Old: that we are rigid Separatiſts, &c. ſuch bitter clamours, a wiſe meek spirit paſſeth by them, as an unworthy and ungrounded asperſion, &c. then ſhewes that Implicite and Explicite are but Adjuncts of the Covenant: and in ſome caſes an Implicite Covenant may be ſully ſufficient: could any man living ſpeak more clearly then Mr. Hooker? and could any man living ſpeak more perverſly then Mr. Caw. Epiſtle to Sob. Anſw.that Mr Hooker deny all Churches where there is not an explicite Covvenant?

To returne to his queſtion: Two things I deſire the Reader to obſerve in it:

1. By perſons non-Confederate, he doth not mean godly Parents that are not confederate explicitely, but if they be members of true Churches, walking in Church fellowſhip though there be not an explicite Covenant, but implicite, Mr. Hooker doth not looke on theſe as falling under his queſtion, ſo have nothing to doe with ſuch now. This is moſt cleare by what I have alledged out of him.

Hence there is not one ſyllable of the word explicite put into the queſtion: and afterwards [the ſame page] when Mr. Hooker ſhewes why he inclines to the negative, being moved thereto from the nature of the Church-Govenant: he doth not ſay explicite Church-covenant. Yet ſee how Mr. Cawdrey interprets theſe words, that is,Diatr. 185. indeed the neceſſity of an explicite Covenant, and in page 184. he hath ſtated the queſtion thus: [Whether the Infants of Believers not in Covenant explicite with a particular viſible Church, may be baptized?] This is none of Maſter Hooker's queſtion.

Hence firſt, thoſe arguments which Mr. Cawdrey hath drawne up in his Diatr. with Mr. Hooker from the Infants of the godly Membe…s of our Churches here in England, they all labour with the diſeaſe called, Ignoratio Elenthi, for he hath changed the queſtion, and doth not ſpeake ad idem.

2. Hence ſecondly, all that paines Mr. Cawdrey ſpends to prove that Children may be baptized by vertue of Grandfather, or Adoption, [if he can make it out that they may be ſo] yet if ſuch a Grandfather or perſon who Adopts, be confederate, and walk in Church-fellowſhip (though not explicitely Confederated) this doth not trouble Mr. Hookers queſtion: if that Grandfather, or perſon who Adopts, be not Confederate, then the queſtion falls upon them indeed, not elſe.

Mr. Hookers queſtion then concernes onelyonly ſuch godly Parents as are Members of no particular viſible Church, and being no Members but comming to joyne with a Church; now the queſtion will be, what expliciteneſſe may be required.

p. 262. The ſecond thing I obſerve in his queſtion is, That the godly Parents are unwilling to come into Church-followſhip: and here lyes the pinch of the queſtion. But this plainly implyes That Church fellowſhip is to be had, and this perſon is required by him to whom be offers his Child to be baptized, to joyne in Church fellowſhip: Acts 5.13. There was a Church, and joyning to it I doubt not before the Apoſtles would baptiſe.Acts 5:13if Chu…ch fellowſhip be not to be had, then how ſhall his willingneſſe or unwil ingueſſe be knowne? let there be an object bonum or malum which the will ſhould chuſe or reject. Hence then if there could be no anſwer elſe given to what Mr. Ca. urgeth from the Jaylour, who was baptiſed though not confederate; this troubles not the queſtion, if there were no Church which did require him to joyne in fellowſhip; had there b…en a Church in Philippi, and Paul had required him to joyne in fellowſhip with the Church, and the Jaylour would not, then indeed Mr. Ca had brought ſomething againſt Mr. Hooker, if Paul would have baptized him.

But yet Mr. Ca. will force it upon Mr. Hooker that he muſt mean it of an explicite Confederacy whether he will or no,Diatr. p. 200. Mr. Stone knew his mind, vid. ch. 5. yea though he hath expreſly ſpoken to the contrary: but what is his ground? This.

In N. England (ſaith he) They refuſe to admit either our Members (though godly) to the Lords Supper, or their Children to Baptiſme, unleſſe they enter their expreſs Covenant: This is the ground.

One paſſage I obſerve, you call the godly Ones our Members, but doe you looke on them as your Members, who are gone 3000. miles from you, never to ſee you more, where you can never have any inſpection over them, let them walke as they will? I am ſure they doe not thinke you are their Officers, nor doe call you ſo, how then they ſhould be ſtill your Members I cannot tell: let therefore Mr. Hooker ſpeak for himſelfe, and out of him I will give you an anſwer, and ſhew you the reaſon is not as you ſay: Mr. Hooker thus, The faithfull Congregations of England are true Churches; Members that come commended from ſuch Churches to ours here, ſo that it doth appeare to the judgement of the Church,P…eface, p. 11. whence they come, that they are by t…em approved and not ſcandalous, they ought to be received to Chu…ch. Communion with us, as Members of other Churches with us in New England, in like caſe ſo commended and approved. Hence then Sir, is the plain reaſon, the people that goe from hence, doe quite depart from theſe Churches, ſo that they never come more under the Inſpection of the Officers and Church…s here: they n…ver b…ing Letters teſtimoniall from you, to ſhew they are Members ſtill with you, and approved by you, and ſo commended, as ſaith Mr. Hooker to thoſe Churches there, but thither they come free from all Churches (even in their owne account) and there let them walk as they will, there are no Churches have power to reach them, unleſſe they will joyne themſelves to one there, as they have disjoyned themſelves from your Churches here. But now make this tryall, let there go out of the faithfull Congregations of England, perſons, whoſe intent is not to disjoyne themſelves from you, onelyonly they go as Merchants on ſome other errand, let the godly Officers of ſuch Congregations, give a certificate under their hands, ſuch perſons p. 27that now àre comming to you in New England, are godly perſons, Members of our Churches, and walk in Church-fellowſhip with us, and th…t orderly, though we have no explicite Covenant; we deſire ſuch may for the time of their abode with you, be admitted to the Lords Supper, if a Child he borne to them, let it be bapt…zed: and thoſe perſons when they come there walk accordingly, I ſay try the Miniſters there, and I dare warrant you ſuch perſons ſhall not be denyed Communion though you have not an explicite Covenant.

And here Sir they require no more of you, then they will give; for if any who are Members of their Churches ſhould come over from them hither, and bring no Letters of recommendation to the Churches here, ſhewing that they are Members with them there, and walk approvedly among them; if ſuch ſhould require the Lords Supper or Baptiſme here, if you will refuſe them [unleſſe they will ſhew or make it out, that they are Members there, and walk orderly, (onelyonly their occaſions call them hither now for a time) or will joyne with you if they have left thoſe Churches] the Churches there will not be diſpleaſed with you: therefore the Members that come from thence bring Letters of recommendation with them, ſhewing what I have ſaid before, and deſiring of Churches here their care over them while here they abide. And now you have the plaine reaſon.

But one word more: pag. 29. you ſpeak againſt thoſe who meddle with other Miniſters charges: thoſe who go to New England you call your Members, ſhould then the Miniſters of New England baptize, and excommunicate (out of what Church I know not but yours, for of theirs they are no Members) your Members, they ſhould meddle with your charge, and doe a ſtrange act to excommunicate your Members when your ſelfe doe not, this is more then Claſſicall or Epiſcopall power.

But here you will charge Maſter Hooker with a Contradiction: becauſe hee ſeemes to bee againſt this practiſe, that Members of one Congregation ſhould partake of the Sacraments in another Congregation.

Had Mr. Hooker lived to have filed over his work againe, I do believe he would have conſidered this place again; but the other places are moſt plain. Yet ſomething may be ſaid for him.

That Maſter Hooker ſhould be againſt the giving of the Sacrament to a Member of another Congregation, who hath occaſion to be abſent from his ow…e, and is commended and approved by his own Church, this I cannot believe.

I will give you my reaſon. A neer friend of mine in New England living divers miles from Mr. Hooker, had occaſion to be in his Towne on the Sabbath: my friend being a Miniſter [I cannot tell whether at that time in Office or no to the Church, in the Towne where he lived] Mr. Hooker got him to preach in the forenoone in his Church; at that time there was a Sacrament in the Church; my friend when he had done preaching (b…ing p. 28ſad and oppreſſed in his ſpirits) went downe out of the Deske, and would not have ſtayed the Sacrament, but Mr. Hoo: ſteps after him, and claps hold on his ſhoulder, and pulled him back againe, and made him ſtay the Sacrament: my friend told me it was the beſt Sacrament that ever he enjoyed.

This practice of his clears him from Contradiction, and therefore that cannot be his meaning.

This then I preſume is his true meaning: it was the practice of divers of us in N. E. at the firſt planting we did joyne our ſelves to this or that Church; afterwards when other Plantations were erected, for conveniencie of dwelling, (the former Plantations being too full) we would remove and dwell there, retaining ſtill our memberſhip in thoſe churches to which we firſt joyned, and by vertue of it having letters of recommendation, did partake of the Sacraments in thoſe churches where we lived, and hence divers members lived many miles, twenty or ſixty from their owne churches, and from the inſpection of thoſe officers who had power to call them to account, and obſerve their Converſations, and yet would partake of the Sacraments ſixe or eight yeeres together in another Congregation: this indeed he oppoſed, in ſo much that when I came away the Elders would not ſuffer it any longer: this is but rationall, and this I conceive is his true meaning.

Here then as I ſaid is all the queſtion; whether or no if a godly man be member of no particular Church, and comes to demand baptiſm; may not I require him firſt, if you will have baptiſm, (being it is a church priviledge, and chriſtians ought to walke orderly,) then joyne to ſome particular church.

If you require it of me,Or ſo if there be more Officers then one. then may not the officer demand, doe then you chooſe me as your officer, to whom you will ſubmit under Chriſt? doe you looke on this particular church as a true church of Chriſt, and will you walke with the members of … according to Chriſts rule? will you ſubject to all Chriſts ordinances? I pray why may I not demand theſe? Conſider what Apollonius, Ames, Mr Hudſon have ſaid, the light of nature will carry as much; for if this man will not owne me for his officer, if he will not joyne with the Church, if not ſubmit to Ordinances, what reaſon have I in particular to baptize his Child, or I and the church in particular to take more care of him then any other Church? if you ſay by his requiting baptiſm of me he profeſſe all this; no Sir, by no means, I have anſwered this already: and he may doe as ſome have done with me, that have required baptiſm of me, and have confeſſed to me that Diſcipline was an Ordinance of God, but to promiſe ſubjection to it, and to me with the Church that we in particular ſhould have power over them, they would not do it, and could tell me that I had no power over them without that their conſent; and they ſpeak truely, for they had not choſen me for their officer, though they are in the pariſh, and by their Chriſtianity I could claime no power over them more then another Miniſter.

p. 29So that if you will yeeld me this we ſhall at laſt prove that explicite conſent will be neceſſary at the firſt admiſſion.

Thus Sir I thinke you have a full anſwer to your Diatribe, with Mr. Hooker, as to the point of Confederacy, with what I have ſaid I thinke to wipe off all your Arguments, as to that point, I doe not tun over all, becauſe my booke will ſwell into too big a volume; for the other things in the Diatrebe, they concerne me with him. Now then I, proceed.

In p. 5. you tell me our Arguments for Infants-Baptiſme ſtand upon the notion of an Explicite Covenant. How true this is,Page 5. let the Reader judge.

Then you tell me I have miſtaken Ameſius his argument for Infants Baptiſme,Page 6. [becauſe Children are capable of the grace of Baptiſme, for all are Patients, &c.] this is brought you ſay to anſwer the objection of the Anabaptiſts; what you tell me of thoſe is no newes: but I pray ſee if Doctor Ames be anſwering an objection; hee makes is his fifth argument: ſee alſo Mr Marſhall his Sermon upon Infants Baptiſme. p. 41.43. I know it ſerves againſt an objection, and yet conſider the child with the parent, it may ſerve for a ground alſo for Baptizing.

Then you tell me I ſpeake not properly, becauſe I put a Morality in that Command to Abraham &c.] Sir you may well know by the next words I did but borrow the word from the morality of the ſecond commandement which I had uſed for illuſtration: and is there onelyonly A…alogy in it, when we ſee the Command is not repealed, but rather confirmed in the New Teſtament?Acts 2.38, 39.Acts 2:38Acts 2:39 but I perceive your ſcope is to ſpye out what faults you can, though they do not concerne the queſtion, and ſometimes when you can finde none, yet you will make ſome.

Then you bring me to the queſtion about predeceſſors,Page 7. which you have largely diſcuſſed in the Diatrebe, you ſay, for that promiſe in the ſecond Commandement you ſay you would not plead it.

Sir then you doe not help my adverſaries at home, who have pleaded onelyonly that promiſe, and therefore I onelyonly mentioned that, not having ſeene your booke.

Before I come to ſee what you have ſaid, let me ſpeake one word, as to the queſtion, whether if a godly grand-father being of the Church, and being Orthodoxe [you put it in thus twice in one page, godly, living, Orthodoxe] ſhould bring a grand-child to me, to baptize it by vertue of him taking it to himſelf, Diatr. 187. and ſo in this p. 7. godly.as his own, and cugaging for the Education of it, whether now I ſhould refuſe it? truely I cannot tell; it is a hard queſtion, and becauſe I ſee ſo many holy learned men, and ſome alſo Congregationall men are of that Opinion, I am the more ſhaken, thinking God will reveale more to them then to ſuch a wretch as I am, but I am not reſolved what I ſhould doe, if I were put upon the practiſe.

But ſuppoſe I yeeld this, yet you trouble me not at all but ſave my queſtion, for if I baptize it not as it is the immediate Seed of theſe Scandalous parents, but the mediate ſeed of a godly grand father or grandmother, p. 30who take it as theirs and engage for Education, then I doe not Baptize the children of ſuch as the queſtion mentions by vertue of them. This will ſerve to take off many of your Anſwers.

But then I come againe, What ſhall I doe with the Infants of ſuch whoſe parents are ſuch as the Q. men…ions, and ſo are, and were their pro-parents? I have divers ſuch, of whom I have enquired.

Thus then I could eaſily depart from this, but for diſcourſe ſake, to beat it out more clearely, I will try what you have ſaid.

The text you give me is Gen. 17.7. and in this p. and p. 11. you require of me an expeſſe Scripture that ſhews, the promiſe reach but to the next generation. What meane you by this? do you look on me as an Anabaptiſt? when I diſpute againſt them I take their owne principles, but doe you therfore require it of me? I doubt you have not given expreſſe Scriptures for all you have ſaid in your books. Nay Sir, (which is ſtrange) if you will prove the Grandfather might circumciſe the Grandchild, if the immediate parent had loſt his right [which come neereſt to our Q.] you muſt draw it out by conſequence: I pray call for no more then you give.

Becauſe you ſpeak ſo of your full and large diſcuſſing of this queſtion in your Diatr. I made account you had beſtowed much paines upon the text to prove it out, and cleare the text, but I ſee you onelyonly propound the text, and no more. It is worth the paines ſometimes to cleare out a text, which you have not done; that which lookes moſt likely is, that you ſay, Jacob had power to diſpoſe of Joſephs Children; Diatr. 188. The iſſue which thou begetteſt after them ſhall be thine.you might have ſet downe a Text: if you meane 48. Gen. 5. the 6. v. will help to an anſwer, * and as for the 5. v. if you pleaſe to peruſe famous Rivet on the Text, who clearely opens it; I cannot ſee how any thing can be drawne from thence to your purpoſe, to prove it by any thing elſe you have ſaid, I can ſee nothing.

But to the Text: I will eſtabliſh my Covenant betweene me and thee, and thy ſeed after thee in their generations for an everlaſting? Covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy ſeed after thee.

1. Its true, God made his Covenant not onelyonly with Abraham, but his ſeed after him. His Seed, either 1. Such as were Carnally and Spiritually. So Jacob, David, &c. who were really within the Covenant of grace.

2. Or his Seed onelyonly Carnally. So thoſe ten Tribes when revolted, and the Jewes when went whoring after Gods, not cleaving to the God of Abraham:

3. Who onelyonly Spiritually not Garnally: So the believing Proſ…lites then, and believing Gentiles: which I conceive may be ſub-divided, into his Seed really ſo, or viſibly ſo, that in judgement of charity appeare ſo, but not truly ſo. So ſome of the Jewes alſo, as well as Gentiles.

2. He ſaith Hee will be a God to them, thoſe who were really and ſpiritually Abrahams Seed, had him for their God indeed: for others he was a God ſo to them as he owned them only of all nations to be his Church, giving to them his Statutes and Ordinances; they alſo His holy People, i. e. ſeparated from other people.

p. 313. It is true, God did hold this Governant with them, he did not caſt off his Seede in the 6. or 10. generation, and take in another Seed to make his Church of, ſo long as that Policie was to endure.

4. However the Covenant for the ſubſtance was given to Adam, yet I conceive (under favour) it was not drawne formally into a Covenant before now: (Noahs Covenant was a Covenant with the Creature as well as with Man.) Hence God appoints a Signe and Seale of this Covenant.

Covenants uſe to be fealed, not bare promiſes. This Seale is to be adminiſtred to Abrahams ſeed who were taken into Covenant.

The Queſtion is, whether this Seale of the Cou… was to be adminiſtred to the ſeed of Abraham as ſuch, i. e. onelyonly Carnally ſo, though they had changed their God, who was Abrahams God, and worſhipped ſuch Gods as Abraham abhorred: though they had plainely rejected the Covenant, 2 Kings 17. from 8. to 18. v. though they were worſe then the Heathen; 2 Kings 21.9.11. ſo that nothing of the Covenant appeared in them, or was to be adminiſtred to ſuch (as viſible at leaſt) did walke as Abraham their Father did? If that be true which Maimony quoted by Ainſw. ſay it ſhould ſeem ſo. It is a generall rule, that he onelyonly is Abrahams Seed, that reteineth his Law, and his Right way: and theſe are they that ought to be Circumciſed: if none elſe, then they did ill in Circumciſing abundance; but for ought I can learn out of the chapter, Abrahams Seed, as ſuch, though onelyonly his ſeed according to the fleſh were to be circumciſed.

5. Out of this I cannot ſee, but that any Child whoſe… Father was of Abrahams ſeed, might as well be circumciſed, by vertue of a Predeceſſour who was Abrahams ſeed, though he were dead ſix hundred years before, yea by vertue of Abraham himſelfe (and that is moſt likely) as well as by vertue of a Grandfather.

6. It ſeemes a vaine thing to talke of a Grandfather giving right to Circumciſion,Sir I pray prove this that ever any did ſo. It was my 9th Argument, p. 12. in caſe the immediate parent had forfeited his right (as our queſtion would intimate) for if we conſider who were to adminiſter this Circumciſion, and the immediate parent being of Abrahams ſeed, it ſhould ſeem there is no room for ſuch a thought.

Thoſe who did adminiſter it were their Parents, Magiſtrates, or Maſters, (if Servants) yea themſelves ſay Maimony, when wax…n great,Ainſw. Gen. 17.12. Buxto. Synag. Jud. c. 2.Gen 17:12Judg 2 if the thing were hid from the Judges, yea learned Rivet agrees with Abulen. who ſaid women as well as men; ſo ſay others whom I could quote, there was none deſigned of God to the work; and ſtill among the Jewes, he that can doe it moſt neatly he adminiſters it, whom they call Mohel; and he practiſes firſt upon the children of poorer ſort of Jewes, then others.

This ſpeaks plainly to me that it is vain to talk who gave right there, it appears plain enough.

But come to us: Believers onelyonly are Abrahams ſeeds the fleſh hath nothing to doe here, there muſt be fleſh as a ſuſtra…um that's true, or elſe there can be no Believer, but not ſuch fleſh that comes from Abraham. p. 32Believing Gentiles, ſuch as viſible, walk as Abraham did; theſe are eſteemed his ſeed, and with theſe God makes his Covenant, theſe have the Seale adminiſtred, and their Children, God is a God to them alſo, takes them into his viſible Church, and appoints the Seale for them: but if theſe Children grow up and make it plainely appeare (that they reject the Covenant of their Fathers, and they prove contumacious, theſe ceaſe to be Abrahams ſeed, the fleſh here will not help them: whilſt Infants they were eſteemed his, but now they declare the contrary; if then they declare openly they are not his ſeed, how can they give title to the Seale of the Covenant which they have rejected?

Had this Covenant (the Seale I meane) beene to be adminiſtred to Abrahams ſpirituall ſeed only, ſo that if any of his carnall ſeed had manifeſted a rejection of the Covenant made with Abraham, then they had forfeited their right; had it beene committed to the Prieſts or Levites to adminiſter with a care that it were not abuſed; and could it be made cleare that the immediate parent might forfeit his right, and then the Grandfather gave the Title; then there were good arguing from hence; but thoſe things are yet to prove. Doth God ſay to any believing Gentile, I will bee the God of thee and thy ſeede, to many Generations, though thy ſeede caſt me off? But I will come to argument.

1. If the Grandfather by vertue of this promiſe can give the Title to Baptiſme, then the Children of Carpocrates, Marcion, Valentinus [let us ſuppoſe theſe mens parents to be godly and Church Members, and theſe Hereticks to have Children] ought to be baptiſed.

But the Conſequent is falſe. Ergo, the Antecedent is falſe:

If you ſay, that if their Grandfathers were living, and would take thoſe Children and educate them, its true they might.

I pray Sir why doe you tye up the Text to living Grandfathers, there is nothing like it in the Text, let the Grandfathers be living or dead, thats nothing in the Text: if they were ungodly or Hereticall, there is nothing, they were Abrahams ſeed according to the fleſh.

There is nothing neither of a Grandfather taking the Grandchild to himſelfe, ſtill they were Abrahams ſeed; neither can I diſcerne how you can draw it out by neceſſary conſequence.

If you ſay they are Apostates and ſo have no right: Sir the Text ſpeakes not of Abrahams ſeed, if they doe not Apoſtatize, you know they did ſo, and yet were circumciſed; and that by vertue of a grand-father is not proved. Such a Chriſt as theſe Hereticks phanſied they did owne: ſo for Arrians, Photinians, they will owne a Chriſt.

For the Baptizing of Hereticks children,To. 494. loc. com. To. 4.648. you have Walaeus againſt you, and Gerhard, the clauſe they put in, if the Hereticks ſay they will bring up their children in their Hereſie is but needleſſe, as if Hereticks would not doe ſo; what they ſay for this I can turne as well againſt ſcandalous living; but I ſhall not trouble my ſelfe.

p. 332. You ſay this promiſe [I will be the God of thee and thy Seed] reached not onelyonly to the next Children, but their poſterity in a ſecond or third generation: then you make an &c. that is true as I have ſaid before, and it troubles not me: but now under the Goſpel to how many generations will this extend, that the Grandfather ſhall give title to Baptiſme? you name the third and then adde, &c. How many doe you include in & coetera: thus you have ſpoken in another place, and there another &c.Diatr. p. 188.212. It is indeed uſuall to put an &c. when mens mindes are clearly knowne, and there is no matter of conſequence attended upon it, ſo ſpare our writing, and the Printer; but if any matter of conſequence depends, then it is very poore to put in & coetera, you know &c. in the Biſhops Oath was an untoward thing, and here it is a troubleſome thing; if to the third, why not to the 103 generation? & coetera will go further. But ſay you p. 11. this is their common Objection, [his head is very ſhallow that ſhould not reach but you have fully anſwered it elſewhere: Come on then Sir, ſince you ſay you have fully anſwered it, I will turne to your Diatribae, and there looke for it, ſuppoſing that a man of your parts who doth ſlight ſo extreamly other mens arguments, calling them very weake, &c. when you ſay you anſwer fully, you have done ſo indeed; in p. 212. I ſee you have it there to anſwer. I perceive you ſinde it a troubleſome objection, and there recite the opinions of ſome men, whom I honour as much as your ſelfe, if there were nothing but an opinion of a man to be deſi…ed: you ſumme up their opinions, and it amounts to this; It ſcomes that the Children of Chriſtians knowne or preſumed to be ſuch, whe…her living or dead, may be baptiſed. then you give us an alluſion from thoſe who could not prove their Genealogy. Ezra 2.62: Whether you will ſtand to this as your anſwer I know not: but then you adde, But all the Children of knowne Believers, Chriſtians, Orthodox and yet living, whether next or remoter may ſeeme to challenge a right to Baptiſme: this is the full anſwer; but twice you uſe the word ſeeme, which ſhewes you rather propound your opinion modeſtly, but I pray Sir doe not ſay this is ſo fully anſwered, it is no anſwer at all, (it is your opinion indeed) for by all the diſcou…ſe I have met with as yet in that book, you have not proved that living Grandfathers may give a title, onelyonly you propound a text, which will prove the dead as well as the living may give a title if a Grandfather at all may: if you meane no more then the living Grandfather, your & caetera will ſoone be run out.

In p. 8. you meet with an argument of mine which is this,Page 8. [If the wickedneſſe of the immediate parent cut him off; from the Lords Supper; though his parent be godly, why doth not the ſame wickedneſſe cut him off from giving right to his childs Baptiſme? if the parent cannot claime one Seale of the Covenant for himſelfe, appearing plainely not to have the condition of it, muſt not the child ſuffer who depends upon him for its title? The parent ſuffers, therefore the child muſt needes.

You ſay no, not for Temporall puniſhment [Gehezi, Achan, Corah, &c. their p. 34children did] nor ſpirituall. To this I anſwered [they cannot be abſtracted from their parents in this, and therefore may: as the child comes to have its right by a parent, ſo the child may loſe by a parent: it doth not loſe ſalvation nor regeneration by it.

You anſwer 4. waies: 1. From the Jewes; which doth not availe with me, there was ſomething peculiar to them in adminiſtration of Circumciſion, as is cleare before, and ſhall be made cleare hereafter.

2. Your ſecond is the diſtinguiſhing betweene a perſons generall ſtate and perſonall wickedneſse; his ſtate is a chriſtian, &c.

I anſwer; if you meane by perſonall wickedneſse, ſome particular falls (as you bring in Noah and David ſtrangely afterward) I think ſo indeed; but if you meane a continued ſetled courſe in wickedneſſe, wilfull ignorance then I ſay; ſuch a perſon hath loſt his firſt right to his owne or his childs baptiſme [you may call him a Chriſtian, but let his Christianity be ſuch as you have ſaid may qualifie him for a Church-Member, or elſe it is not worth a ruſh.] Such a one I looke at as one that ought to be excommunicated, for he deſerves it, (we muſt prove that perſons ought to be excommunicated before they are.) Now ſince he ought, the queſtion is, why he is not? [if he be, the child ſuffers for his ſtate being a non-Member] in foro Dei he is, and ought to be in foro Eccleſiaſtico: if the caſe ſtand ſo as through the multitude of ſuch, it cannot conveniently be ſo, Then yet let the Miniſters go as farre as they can. I pray Sir let this ſatisfie to your anſwers which you give about Excommunication; for you would gather from me, that till Excommunication, Miniſters ought to baptiſe.

Thus far I yeild it, till Excommunication, or that which doth deſerve Excommunication, ſo that the perſons ought to be excommunicated, though from ſome other externall impediments (as multitude, &c.) they cannot be excommunicated; yet then a ſeparation from ſuch, or non-communion may help.

3. You ſay, you have largely confuted this notion of the immediate parent: I think not ſo.

4. You ſay, I have deſtroyed it my ſelfe: the right he hath is onelyonly by the Churches toleration, let the Officers looke to that: the firſt and maine right hee hath none, and none at all according to your doctrine.

For p. 9. the diſtinction of the Phyſical and Moral right in Diatr. 188. if you had ſtrongly proved the Moral right of the Grandfather would clearely have taken off that wrong meant. Sir I will receive an anſwer when I ſee I am anſwered. But that there ſhould be as lit…le right of the Mother over the Childe when compared with her Husband, as is of the Grandfather compared with the Father (which you would ſeeme to intimate) is ſtrange, I am ſure the Mother communicates as much and more to the being of the Childe, then the Father doth.

For Aquina…, he may enjoy his opinion, yet I think Ch…mier (of whom p. 35anon) is not full for him. For my needleſſe exception, you mention, it is well if nothing needleſſe have come from you.

Then you tell me I renew my plea,Page 10. which is this [who ſhall educate this child? the Ignorant perſon cannot, the Scandalous teach it how to breake the Covenant, Predeceſſors are dead, &c.] Here firſt you tell me of a Law of the Land, which bath taken care for the education of Papiſts Children, and Orphans, providing Schooles and Hoſpitalls. Hence firſt I gather, you doe not care whether the Grandfather be living or dead, which in another place you expreſſe otherwiſe; here the immediate groſly ignorant and ſcandalous perſons give title: but for what you ſay, I pray pardon my ignorance of the Lawes that have been ſo many yeares out of England; I did not know the State had made ſuch a Law, That if an Ignorant or Scandalous Parent have a child baptiſed, then thoſe who are knowing and godly men (at leaſt ſober men, converſation comely) ſhould take the child, and bring it up, and inſtruct it in the Covenant of grace, which muſt be the anſwer or nothing; this were wofull trouble, if good People or viſible Saints ſhould be thus charged with all the children of perſons who are as the queſtion mentions: As for the other part, you ſay, The Church ſhould take care, as in caſe both the Parents dye whileſt they are little Children: and then you give a nip to the Congregationall Churches: you ſay right for the Churches care, but how ſhall we doe whilſt theſe parents live and keepe them at home, and teach them to breake Covenant, and though they are intreated to ſend their children to catechiſing, yet will not, as I have too bad experience? For the children of Church members, the parents dying whilſt they are young, I wiſh I could ſee as good examples of your parochiall Cnogregations taking care for the Chriſtian education of ſuch, as I could give you in the Congregationall Churches in New England, but then the title was not queſtioned, there was that eaſe, and wee did not know but thoſe godly parents might live to educate them.

Then p. 11. you turne an argument upon me from my ſelfe,Page 11. [becauſe I could plead a promiſe by vertue of may Father, ſo may the Grandchild by vertue of a godly Grandfather, and ſo bid me change Parent into Progenitors.] Sir I am glad I could give you ſo good an argument, and I could beteame to let it alone, for it will not hurt my queſtion, as I ſaid before. OnelyOnly a word, you bid me change Parent into Progenitors; ſo I will, let it be the great Grandfather of the childs great Grandfather, and one that is fourty generations before him, for your & coetera will give me leave, (I know not how to ſet bounds to & coetera) yet I may goe ſo farre for a title, and the text you bring doth not limit me.

You grant an Apoſtate loſeth his owne baptiſme, p. 12.Yet you cannot ſee how a parents Apoſtacy can juſtly cut off his child. Diatr. p. 190. ſo his right is cut off; ſuppoſe the pro-parents be dead here is interciſio Chriſtianiſmi as you quoted Calvin before, then I know not how this Apoſtates child can be Baptized, by any parentall right: yet if this child ſhould come to underſtanding, and there ſhould be movings on the heart of it, and it ſhould plead the Covenant of a Grandfather [I ſhould not queſtion to baptiſe it without reſpect to parents if it came to that.] Yet Sir, this will ſhew there is a p. 36great difference betweene the pro-parents right [if it can clearely be proved at all,] giving a title to baptiſme, and the immediate parents, for that may be cut off by the immediate parent juſtly, but the immediate parents title cannot be cut off.

Now we are come to the laſt Argument.Page 12, 13.

If by vertue of the Grandfather, then the child of one Apoſtatiz'd or excommunicated perſon may be baptiſed: but not Ergo.

For an Apoſtate you tell me of the kindred taking care of it, or ſuſceptores: this notion will come in afterwards.

For excommunicated perſons there you beſtow paines, and I perceive you care not ſo much for a pro-parent here, but by vertue of the immediate parent himſelfe though excommunicated.

For my owne part I ſhould not here yeeld to a pro-parent, neither doe I ſee our New England Divines (that could beteame a Grandchild under the Grandfathers tuition to be baptized by vertue of him) will allow, it if the immediate parents be excommunicated, for this hinders the working of the Ordinance; it is of greater force to worke when a man ſhall ſee not onelyonly himſelfe cut off, but even his very children alſo, this hath beene a means to awaken ſome in N. England, who were not excommunicated, but onelyonly not admitted, to ſee their poſterity alſo ſuffer for their ſakes, it hath ſo wrought as to make ſome truly godly (ſo farre as we may judge) and others it hath brought into externall order in converſation.

But ſince you have here maintained it by vertue of the immediate parent excommunicated, I ſhall deſire to conſider it.

It is granted there is a difference betweene an excommunicated perſon and a Heathen. As

1. He may ſtill hold his profeſſion:Revie. M. Hoo. 119. [but as you ſay, it is violated by his ſcandall, and it must be renewed before he can be received againe.] Though he holds his profeſſion ſtill, yet that now violated is not ſufficient to give himſelfe a title to Baptiſme if he were not now baptiſed, much leſſe the child who depends wholly on his title.

If his profeſſion be ſufficient to give his child by vertue of him a title to one Seale of the Covenant, why the ſame profeſſion ſhould not be ſufficient to give himſelfe a title to the other Seale of the Covenant, [one faith being the condition of it, and you ſay he hath that,] I can ſee no reaſon.

That profeſſion which is not ſufficient to make a man a Church member, is not ſufficient to give title to a Church-priviledge, conſequently not to baptiſme.

But the profeſſion of a perſon excommunicated is not ſufficient, &c. Ergo the Minor is cleare: his profeſſion is vioalated, and muſt be renewed before he can be received, ſay you. Then tis not ſufficient.

This is further cleare, for if it be ſufficient to make him a Church-member when caſt out, why was it not ſufficient to keepe him p. 37within whilſt bee was within? ſo he ſhould not have needed to bee caſt out.

This then is cleare, that there is great difference betweene the profeſſion of a perſon who was never admitted, and another who is caſt out: the firſt may have leſſe knowledge by farre, weaker gifts and poſſibly more infirmities which may yet be ſuch, as a Church may admit, when the other who hath violated his profeſſion, may not.

2. He is under cure, but his cure is non-memberſhip, a member cut off from the body: a Heathen is not under cure.

3. When he hath renewed his profeſſion by repentance, and ſo the Church received him againe, he is not re-baptiſed: but this doth not prove that therefore whilſt he is extra Eccleſiam, that he can give title to a priviledge of the Church: it is not his being baptiſed that is the ground of his childs baptiſme whilſt he is in the Church, therefore that cannot give the title when he is out of the Church.

But Heathens muſt be baptiſed when they are admitted: the other is received again, not therefore baptiſed. That his baptiſme is not the ground of his childs baptiſme, I ſhall prove afterward.

But I will come to Argument.

1. If a child may be baptiſe by vertue of an excommunicated parent, then that parent is not excommunicated; and this is to make a contradiction.

But the parent is excommunicated. Ergo.

To baptiſe is to give Communion, baptiſed into one body, 1 Cor. 12.13.1 Cor 12:13then there is Communion given with the body, by an excommu…icated perſon: is not this a contradiction? Communion is moſt properly ſeene in Baptiſme and Lords Supper.

What is excommunication, ſaith M. Rutherf. but to deny all Communion with thoſe who were once in the Church? Peac: plea 222but all Communion is not here denyed.

You will object, as you anſwer, pag. 13. All Communion with himſelf, but not with the child, for that is borne a Chriſtian, and ſo bath right.

Anſ. Hath the child right to Communion any other way with the Church then by the paren…? is it not he that brings him in as a branch of himſelf? is it not a Chriſtian borne by vertue of the parents Chriſtianity? but his parents Chriſtianity can give himſelfe no title to Church-priviledges, as I ſaid before of profeſſion, which is all one. Doth the child plead a title diſtinct from the parent? if ſo, then your anſwer you give were ſomething, but I know of no title it hath but the parents, who expreſſes his own title for himſelfe and his ſeed. Now it is ve…y rationall, that if the child have Communion given onelyonly by vertue of the parents Communion, [for before the parent was admitted a Church-member the child could have none] then the parent having forf…ited Communion for himſelfe, muſt needs forfeit it for his depending child alſo.

What Tertullian ſaith of Excommunication, Apol c. 39. and l. 2. ad uxorem you know.

p. 38If Claſſian…s his wiſe were a Church-member though her husband were caſt out,Aug …p. 75. we doe not approve his practice who would not baptize his child by vertue of her; but it ſeems they apprehended that there was ſome equitie if both were caſt out. No wonder though Auguſtine were again… it upon his principle.

2. If excommunication be the caſting out of a member of a Church, 1 Cor. 5. ult. and conſequently rendring him a non-member, then an excommunicated perſon cannot give title to his childs Baptiſme.

But excommunication is caſting a man out &c.

The conſequence is cleare, how can one who is a non-member of a Church give title to a Church-priviledge?

Excommunication renders him a non-member, cutting him off from Communion, and admitting him to no other Ordinances then a non-member is.

The phraſe, caſt out, ſhewes he is no Member.

So the phraſe of cutting off, Aar. rod. l. 1. c. 5.which learned Gilleſpy hath excellently opened to be meant of Excommunication, and there brings in Buxtorf. and Godwin, who report out of the Rabbius, that their children were not circumciſed. This you ſay, pag. 14. is not Orthodox, and it was a corrupt Invention of the latter Jews having no ground for it in the Scripture: you ſay elſewhere, I thinke in the Diatr. that the Scripture doth not ſpeak for nor againſt it, ſo far as) ou can ſe…; but then Sir what ever I make of it, it concerns you to prove it to be a corrupt invention, though I could yeild it from what I obſerved before of their Circumciſion, and yet not hurt my ſelfe.

But you anſwer to this Argument, p. 13. That he is a member ſtill, though much diſeaſed; he was much diſeaſed before, whilſt under Church admonitions, ſuſpenſions, and becauſe thoſe Medicines would not cure him he was cut off; a member under cure, ſay you, his cure is non memberſhip.

But this is pretty, a man ſhall be cut off the body, and yet be a member of the body; a man ſhall be caſt out of the Church, and yet ſhall'be within the Church; a man ſhall be no member of a Church, as ſay you p. 24. and p. 14. and yet be a member of a Church; how you who are ſo Eagle eyed to ſpie out contradictions in other men will now cleare your ſelfe, I cannot tell. Member, no Member, are contradicentia I thinke, and to find a medium in contradicentibus is new Logick to me, I though ens & non ens had admitted none.

3. Excommunication is the putting of a man out of the viſible Kingdome of Chriſt, into the Kingdome of Satan. So the beſt Expoſitors I meet with,1 Cor. 5.1 Cor 5 Maſter Cartwright, &c. expounds that delivering up to Satan.

Hence I ague, To adminiſter the Seale of the Covenant to a child by vertue of one who is even Eccleſiaſticè in the Church repute under the Kingdome of Satan, is very unwarrantable.

To make Chriſt a Politicall head to one under Satans Kingdome, ſeemes very ſtrange.

p. 394. Excommunication is the rendering of a man as a Heathen to the Church, Mat. 18. we doe not differ here, but agree that Excommunication is meant here what ever the Eraſtians **Here let me have leave to put in a word. The Eraſtians expound this of civill injuries, or perſonall civill treſpaſſes onelyonly, and will prove it by comparing of Luke 17.3, 4. with this; his Argument being, Becauſe it is ſuch a trespaſſe as a brother may forgive: Mr. Gillespy beſtowes paines here, and to good purpoſe; but let it be ſuppoſed the Texts run parallel, which M Gilleſpy thinks not. 1. That Luke 17. ſaith, that a brother may forgive ſuch a treſpaſſe, as it were better a milſtone were …angedi about his neck who offers it. But 2, we finde in 2 Cor. 27.10. that Paul forgave, and the Church of Corinth forgave, what, a treſpaſs done againſt them? No ſure, the inceſtuous perſons act was no evill treſpaſſe againſt Paul nor the Church, yet they forgive. If then they can forgive, why may not a private brother alſo forgive? Thus it is ſuppoſed, that the ſcandall which is here given, & for which the private brother dealeth with the offendour privately, is but a private ſcandall, (for if it be publique, this way of dealing ceaſeth) if then this private brother dealing with the offendour finds the man to acknowledge his ſin, and repent, why may not he be ſaid to forgive him alſo? [as in caſe it had been a publike fact and caſt out, upon his repentance the Church forgive] ſo that now he embraceth him in his heart againe, proceedes not to call any other to deale with him, nor to tell it to the Church, but the ſcandall is buried, forgiven, forgotten, Eccleſiaſticè: I know no abſurdity in this, and ſo the forgiveneſs doth not prove it to be a civill treſpaſſe onelyonly.Luke 17:3Luke 17:4Luke 17ſay.

Had Chriſt ſaid, let him be a Heathen (with reverence be it ſpoken) it ſhould ſeeme not to have beene ſo proper a ſpeech, for he may not be a Heathen, for he may hold his profeſſion though caſt out, and ſo is not properly a Heathen, but as a Heathen he is to the Church; now what that is Mr. Gilleſpy tells us (and not he alone, but others) plainely:Aaro. rod 382. he is to be uſed no better then an Heathen or prophane Publican, and is not to be admitted to any Ordinance, except ſuch as Heathens and prophane Publicans were admitted to. But were they admitted to the Circumciſion of their children?Page 392. againe he opens it, let him be eſteemed as one that hath no part in the Communion of Saints, in Church-memberſhip (obſerve that, no Member then) in the holy things, in the Covenants, of promiſe, more then a heathen man. How then ſuch a one ſhould give title to the ſcale of the Covenant I cannot tell.

For the text you bring in Diatr. 2 Theſ. 3.14, 15.Page 218. Rhem. Teſt. If you pleaſe to view Mr. Cartwright on the text, you will finde he gives reaſons why that text moſt properly is meant of Suſpenſion not Excommunication; ſo in his Harmony upon Mat. 18.17. he expounds this of Suspenſion: the text ſaith you are to account him a Brother, but the excommunicated perſon (till repentance) is no otherwaies to be eſteemed then as a Heathen; ſaith he, true, that which is cauſe of Suſpenſion is cauſe of Excommunication, if not repented of. But I believe this text is the cleareſt you can have for Suſpenſion.

That learned Mr. Cartwright is againſt the baptiſing of the Infants of excommunicated parents, M. Rucherf: acknowledgeth.Pe…c. plea. Page 176.

If then I fall in this point, I ſhall fall with excellent men, M. Cartwright, p. 40Hooker, Cotton and others of our N. E. Divines, and others (it is likely) whom I know not.

Generall rules ſtand, when we have ſuch a particular caſe (as you mention, p. 13.) falls our, we ſhall conſider it, I give you no caſes but ſuch as have really beene.

Before I proceed further, I muſt have recourſe to your Diatr. with Mr. Hocker for another way of admitting children to Baptiſme, viz. by Adoption or Suretiſhip: for this is one of my errours that I ſuppoſe the next parent onelyonly can give the title to Baptiſme: and this was Mr. Hookers errour as well as mine; you tell us two other wayes: 1. The remoter parents [which I have diſpatched, if it can be proved by better grounds then yet you have brought, yet it hurts not me nor Mr. Hooker, the queſtions ſtand firme ſtill as we handle them:] The 2. is Adoption or Suretiſhip, ſo that you give three or rather foure wayes how children may come to Baptiſme; for Adoption and Sur…tiſhip, I conceive differ very much. Yet theſe ſhall not hinder me neither, no more then Mr. Hocker, though you can prove them, if you will let them be perſons rightly qualified for Church members, who do Adops. &c. and by vertue of whom the child is baptiſed, ſo that I could eaſe my ſelfe that way: I like not this ſo well as the former. I will turn to Gen. 17.

Where we will obſerve who were to be circumciſed, 1. Abraham, 2. his naturall ſeed, 3. his ſervants then in his familie, whom he had taught the way of Jehovah,Ai…ſw. 17. Gen. 27.Gen 27 Gen. 18.19. and who ſhould ſeeme by faith to obey ſo hard a precept, their children alſo if they had any borne in the houſe. So afterwards thoſe who were bought with money, which I conceive were only ſervants, theſe we finde in this chap. here then (under favour) I finde no Adoption, which I conce…ive is, the taking of a ſtranger, or one who is not of our naturall ſeed, into the ſtate of filiation. But that Abraham, or the J…wes afterwards, tooke the children of Heathens into a ſtate of filiation, I finde no ſuch thing: I queſtion much whether the Jewes could doe as we doe in Adopting make ſuch our Heires; they could not I doubt give any of the Land of Canaan away to a Heathen, though they were Adopted, of which I finde no footſteps. To ſay th…y Adopted other Jewes children, and ſo circumciſed them, this is vaine. Hence then I conceive if we cleave to the chapter, baptiſing by Adoption cannot be proved, becauſe there was no circumciſing by Adoption.

If it be objected; If thoſe who were bought, if ſervants might be circumciſed, then thoſe who are Adopted may be Baptiſed.

I pray let us make no Syllogiſmes for firſt inſtitutions; had Adoption there beene mentioned, and by vertue of that Circumciſion adminiſtred, then the argument had beene fairer to prove baptining by Adoption; but there appeares no ſuch thing in the firſt Inſtitution.

If you will take liberty to make Inſtitutions by ſyllogiſmes, we ſhall open a gap quickly.

2. This way of Adoption will ſeldome trouble us, for it is ſo rare a thing that I never as yet knew one that was thus Adopted, I have heard of p. 41one, who alſo had his name changed, and inherited Lands, but I knew him not; I know ſuch as have no children, and they have been offered children, but they would never accept any.

3. Which is yet rarer, I never heard of any that did adopt children whilſt they were Infants, but when grown up, ſo as they tooke liking of their manners and carriage; and ſure it they came once to that, they ſhould be inſtructed before baptiſed.

But howe … this troubles me not if you can prove it, if all thoſe who are children of ſuch parents, as the queſtion men ions, muſt come to be baptiſed by Adoption, ſome p…rſons ſhall have children enough.

But for ſervants there the text is cleare, only whether it will hold under the Goſpel? that is a queſtion.

Give me leave humbly to propound my thoughts, I conceive that might be peculiar to that Church of the Jewes, who were the onelyonly Church God had upon the earth, all the world beſides them being ſhut out as ſo many Dogges, not allowed any meanes to enlighten them in the knowledge of God, but onelyonly the Book of the Creature, Chriſt not allowing his Diſciples ſo much as to go into their way to preach unto them,Pareus tells us of a Jew that called him Ba…land Gentile as he he was paſſing by him. Rom. 11.29.Rom 11:29 till the wall was broken downe; yet in that time the poore Gentiles had this priviledge, if they would become ſervants to the Jews, they might be admitted to the Seal of the Covenant.

But when as the partition wall was broken downe, and Miniſters ſent out to preach to the whole world; now the Covenant was as free for the G…ntiles as the Jewes, teach and baptiſe, you may go into Turky, India, where you will, there is no wall to binder you: ſo now that which was the ground of that adminiſtration being taken away, that to me ſeemes to ceaſe. This alſo moves me to think ſo, becauſe in the New Teſtament, after the wall was broken downe, we finde no mention of any ſuch thing whence we ſhould ground this practiſe; for children of Believers we finde ground enough: if I did not ſee more for that in the New Teſtament then for ſervants, I ſhould be very much ſhaken for Infant baptiſme.

You ground is this: It was ſo then for Circumciſion Ergo, now for Baptiſme. Your Conſequence you prove, becauſe priviledges are not ſtraitned under the Goſpel.

I anſwer, 1. had God after Chriſt taken one Nation (ſuppoſe England, as then Canaan) and tyed up his Church to ſuch a nation, ſo that no other people could partake in the O dinances but by joyning to England, then the argument had beene good, for ſtill here had beene a wall which ſhut out the other nations, which was the ground of that Adminiſtration; but now the Church may be any where.

2. God hath recompenced that priviledge with a wit…eſſe I think when he ſends his Goſpel to all the world, which before was tyed up to little Canaan.

2. If this ſtill hold, then let the vileſt monſter in England [I have ſeene p. 42ſuch ſtand for ſureties in former times when that cuſtome was uſed, that the Indians are honeſt men in compariſon of them] bring a ſervant which he hath bought, and become ſurety for (ſo ignorant the man is that hee had neede be carechiſed himſelfe) let him bring ſuch a one to godly M. Cawdrey (if ſuch a villaine lived in his pariſh) and bid Mr. …at baptiſe him, as he is his ſervant, would you doe it? you muſt doe it according to that text, for when they were Apoſtatiz'd they did, no queſtion, circumciſe them if they tooke them: … ſuch a villaine be excommunicated, … gives title alſo for ought I can diſcerne by you, for though … …es were excommunicated, yet I ſee by your doctrine they might circumciſe ſuch.

To ſay no, I would have ſuch as are underſtanding and godly men only, (or not ſcandalous) who do undertake for them, able to inſtruct them, &c. Sir, you have nothing in the text for any ſuch thing; beſides if you can prove it, you hurt not my queſtion.

3. I obſerve a vaſt difference betweene their ſervants and ours, they had ſtrong power over their ſervants, Exod. 21.20, 21. I obſerved in New England, the Indians whom we had taken in warre, or others who lived with us ſometimes halfe or a whole yeare, yet if they could handſomly get away from us they would, and did; we ſhould have done finely to have baptiſed them; we buy no ſervants who are Engliſh men, or Chriſtians, as you call them, to be under our power as they were. Hence learned Rives ſaith, there bad ne…de be a great caution leſt the Ordinance be prophaned, for our ſervants are not as theirs. In Gen. 17. p. 443. laſt Ed. To. 4. l. 5. c. 11. ſ. 2.Gen 17And lea…ned Chamier ſpeakes very warily upon the queſtion: Servi ſi fim verè ſervi quales olim, non diffitear…nam Abrahamo legimus imperatum ut circumcideret ſuos omnes ſervos, ſed quales hodià not ſerves babem… ut plurimum quia verè liberi ſuns, non putem ſic tractandus, non cor quidem qui jure belli fiunt ſubditi principibus, nam hoc genus ſubditorum tamen liberum manet: De natu ergo ex parentibus inſidelibus liberis, ſi conſentiant parentes, diſtinguendum putem: Conſentiunt enim vel ip…i facti fideles, ac tune nulla difficultas, &c. vel perſeverates in infidelitate, ac tum non putem baptizandor, &c. For thoſe who are …rè ſervi which it ſeemes we have none, but if we had ſuch, ſhould we baptiſe them being adulti before they be taught the Covenant, and ſee if they will owne it? Teach and Baptize; for Infants, I thinke we never buy ſuch ſervants.

4. For ſuretiſhip that comes not in this way by being bought as they were, I have nothing to ſay to it, if you can prove it to be a divine Inſtitutioon I will attend to it, but I think it will prove but an humane Invention; for ſureties being joyned with parents,Caranz p. 17. Pet. Mart. lo…. com. 822. we know who was the parent of that invention.

Higin… was no Apoſtle: if you have a better parent for your ſuretiſhip I pray bring him forth.

… if any man hath a minde to be a ſurety for other folkes children let him, per me lices. I thinke thoſe who have children of their owne, and know what is to educate them, will not be forward to be ſureties for others: I doubt many men if they examine how they have diſcharged their ſuretiſhip p. 43heretoforē, have cauſe to be humbled, for I thinke moſt never regarded it; and how to diſcharge…t when they have them not under their charge, and remove ſo commonly as we do, I know not.

But you with tell me of the ſtream of Divines are for it; there is a little Rivules that is not acknowledged by Gerhard, loc. co. To. 4. p. 583. he quotes Galvin, Beza, Bucanus; and for Beza, Walaeus doth acknowledge, tutius judicat ut priuserudiantur. Hunnius alſo, Rivet, S…ith is againſt it.To. 1. p. 492. on Gen. 17. p. 343. de bapt.Gen 17

Let me adde one more of no ſmall note, Tertullian in thoſe words, veniant dum adoleſcunt, veniant dum diſcunt, which words you muſt either underſtand as ſome doe againſt Infant-baptiſme altogether, as divers doe, ſaith Lauren. upon Te…tul. and conclude from hence, and a place of Nazian. Orat. in San…. Lavac. that theſe two Fathers were againſt Infant-baptiſm [though I think Nazianzen ſpeaks enough in that Ocation to cleare his minde] or if you will not rake it ſo, you muſt take it that Tertullian there ſpeaks againſt baptiſing by ſureties, and he that reads two lines before ſhall eaſily perceive that is his meaning; and ſo Mr. Marſhall interpre…s him, and that clearely:Againſt Tombs p. 36. ſo then you have not all on your ſide. So much for your way of Adoption.

Now I returne to your anſwer;Page 15. p. 15. you tell me there I have ſtarted a new queſtion: Sir, you know I ſaid at the firſt, I muſt move two queſtions, and for this had I not moved it, I had ſaid nothing, for what if I had proved that it is onelyonly the n…xt parent gives right to Baptiſme? yet if ſuch parents as theſe in the Q. were judged fit Church members, and ſo fit to give title, I had ſaid nothing, that therefore was my ſcope to prove theſe were not fit, and conſequently ought to be reformed, or ſhut out of the Church; of which before.

You ſay not much to my firſt Argument to prove they are not,Page 16. viz. becauſe they are not viſible Saints; you acknowledge they are not, nor ought to be admitted, if now they were to be admitted: then reforme ſuch, or caſt them out: for that you ſay of Corinth, I ſay it is no wonder though Paul call the whole Church Saints, making denomination from the melior, and it is likely the Major part, as viſible Saints: but had they beene all ſuch as you ſay, groſly ignorant, or ſcandalous, whether the Apoſtle would then have called them Saints or no I cannot tell.

What you ſay about profeſſion of faith that is requiſite to give a man admiſſion, I have elted it before p. 1. you ſay preſently:Page 17. This is ſufficient for admiſſion, but as there muſt he more to, continue ſuch in the Church, &c. you ſay p. 19. more is required to firſt admiſſion, then to continuance in the Church. I know not how to reconcile theſe.

For poſitive matter for Excommuncation, you ſay right, there muſt be ſo indeed, and I think we are not to ſeek for that: but for Excommunication I gave you my thoughts before.

For my ſecond Argument that falls you ſay alſo: I doe not know that my firſt is fallen yet, for you have yeilded the Argument. I pray what is the queſtion? I muſt ſet it downe becauſe of theſe two anſwers p. 44you give to my two next Arguments, which you mightily contemne.

They doe but ſay they believe in him, when whole converſation manifeſts the contrary.The Q. is, Whether is this bare profeſſion of ſaith in Christ [for thouſands in England doe but barely ſay it, that they beleeve in him, they know nothing of Faith, nor of Chriſt, only the Name, ſuch a one their Father; or ſome body told them of, I gave you ſome inſtances before] though parents be groſsely ignorant, ſcandulous, and refuſe to ſubject to Church Diſcipline, ſufficient to make a man, and continue him a Member of the viſible Church? The firſt Argument ſtands as yet.

My ſecond Argument was this, If this bare profeſſion be ſufficient, then nonen can be caſt out for the vileſt ſins, Hereſie, &c. becauſe he is the ſame now as when he was admitted.

You anſwer, The conſequence is unſound, and the proofe like it [you are very nimble methinks, but why ſo unſound?] for when he was firſt admitted upon his profeſſion, no ſuch ſcandall appeared, but now it doth, there he is not the ſame that he was, when admitted.

To this I ſay, by profeſſion you either meane ſuch a profeſſion, as you have mentioned above in this page, as I thinke you doe, and ſo you ſpeake not ad idem; or if you meane ſuch a profeſſion as the queſtion ſtared mentions, then Sir it is not ſo, for either groſſe ignora…ce, or ſcandall did appeare, unleſſe you meane that juſt at that time when he came to you and told you he did believe in Chriſt, be did not manifeſt any ſcand …ll to you; was not drunke, or did not ſweare, or ſhew uncleanneſſe, &c. juſt a… that time: for ſo thoſe who come to require Baptiſme for their children, doe not come drunk, or ſweare. &c. in that very inſtant time, but before they cameth y would, and when the child is baptiſed, can ſweare, &c. and its well if divers be not drunk, if they have boone companions to joyne with; ſome have been little better. So that for all your haſt, the Argument is ſound enought, but ſo is no… your Anſwer.

The third Argument you ſay is like the former, very weake: I pray leave out ve…y, and let weake be …nought, it is poſſible it will not prove weak. What is the Argument?

A Rebell oppoſing Chriſt in his viſible Kingdome is not fit to be a Member of it, becauſe no ſubject.

You anſwer, be is not fit to be admitted if no Member before: Sir, what is the Q. whether is ſuch a bare profeſſion, &c. fit to make, &c. to make a Member? then this is not ſit your pen hath affirmed: but then the Argument is not very weake, but very ſtrong to prove one part of the queſtion, your ſelfe acknowledge it in your firſt words, and ſo you have done before, p. 16. [but ſay you, he is fit to be continued till tryall of Reformation be paſt:] Sir you ſaid above in this page, that a bare profeſsion with the mouth that he believes in Jeſus Chriſt, though viſibly he lives like an Infidell, is not ſufficient to qualifie a man to be made or continued a Member. The queſtion ſpeaks of ſuch a bare profeſſion; if you will ſay a moral converſation, though groſly ignorant, will ſarve the turne, there hath beene as good, and now are among Infidels, p. 45and thoſe who doe profeſſe Chriſt, for drunkenneſſe, ſwearing, &c. uncleanneſſe, lying, ſtealing, diſobedience to parents, when growne up, &c. are as bad and worſe then Infidels, Indians will ſhame them, ſo that the ſufficiency of his profeſston is not that which doth continue him a Church menber, but the Churches continuance, or impotency if the Church went about to reforme and could not, as in the time of the Hierarchie; if it be the ſufficiency of his profeſsion keepes him in, for ought I know you may let him alone when power is in your hand to caſt him out.

Moſt of this page is ſpoken to before,Page 18. only to two propoſitions (as you call them) of mine.

You anſwer: That which conſtitutes a Church, continues a Church; if then a bare profeſſion be not ſufficient to make a Member, nor is it enough to continue a man a Member of a Church.

You anſwer, both Propoſitions are faulty: the Minor, for we have proved that a profeſsion of faith, nothing appearing to the contrary, will conſtitute a Member, and ſo a Church of many Members though all Hypocrites.

But Sir, the profeſsion of faith you ſpeake of here, is not the profeſsion of faith the queſtion ſpeaks of, for the queſtion ſpeakes of ſuch a profeſsion as hath groſſe ignorance, or open ſcandall appeating, therefore you ſpeak not ad idem.

For all Hypocriter: there is (as M. Car…wright ſaith) difference between Tares and Acorns, Goats and Swine.

The Major is faulty, ſay you, becauſe more is required to a firſt Admiſſion,Page 19. then to a Continuance in the Church, as is evident in men of yeares converted from Infidels; a perſonall profeſ…ion of faith is neceſſary to ſuch, but their children are admitted and continued without it.

Sir, you ſhould have proved that more is required to the Admiſſion then the Continuance of the ſame perſon: ſpeake ad idem, there ſhould ſeeme rather that more is required to Continuance then Admiſsion, for being longer under means he ſhould have attained more in that time, then he had when firſt admitted. You ſay children are admitted and continu…d without perſonall profeſſion: I grant it, but admitted it ſeemes they are, and ſurely that is, becauſe they are reputed in the parents for viſible Saints,1 Cor. 7. but now, Holy.1 Cor 7 ſit matter for a Church, let them continue ſuch as they were reputed to be at their admiſſion and it is well enough, no more ſhall be required. Or it there be any difference it is this, more is required to their continuance: for they to their admiſſion, were required to be but viſible Saints by vertue of their parents, reputed ſuch for their ſakes, but for their continuance they muſt when growne up manifeſt actually they are ſuch, or elſe be caſt out: ſo more is required for Continuance then Admiſsion, and ſo your propoſition is falſe.

For your laſt clauſe in that Paragraph, [there is another way to reforme a conſtituted Church but corrupted, then firſt to conſtitute a Church, viz. Diſcipline] p. 46I know not what ſenſe to make of it, I ſuppoſed there was ſome …our in the Printer, but I finde no Errata printed, and ſo cannot tell what to ſay to it: I ſaid let Diſcipline be exerciſed, and ſo the Churches reduced to their firſt conſtitution, viz. to be ſuch as Churches ought to be. I…perceive your next heads are to oppoſe this, you have no Government ſettled; you may have it if you will, as I ſaid before, parties refuſe to ſubmit to it, ſay you, then I am the ſtronger; for if there be no Excommunication, I am not tyed to baptiſe till they be excommunicated, which you urge ſo much.

You aske me agains, would I have ſuch ſuddainly ejected? why Sir is there no Church-Diſcipline but Excommunication? we uſe unleſſe offences he very notorius (and we have enough ſuch) firſt to admoniſh perſons ſeriouſly to bring perſons to repentance; if that will not doe, we ſuſpend; if that will not doe,So ſome conceive non-Communion to be an Act of Church-Diſcipline. then excommunicate. I ſaid before, the times we now are caſt in are to be conſidered, as the …eyden Profoſſours ſpeake in the ſame caſe, but becauſe you cannot excommunicate you will doe nothing: and when you have excommunicated it is all one with you, ſo that you doe but delude us. I doe not abſolutely deny any Baptiſme, but conditionally if they will not come to be inſtructed, and give us ſome better teſtimony of their converſation: but before they will be catchiſed by me, and give any better teſtimony they will fling away.

Now ſay you all his argumet … will be caſily diſſolved, Page 20.its well. What you have ſpoken to in this page 20. I have anſwered before; onelyonly whereas you ſay, I have often confeſſed that perſons tolerated ought not to bro excluded the Lords Supper. Sir, I will keepe to the title of my Booke, it ſhall be A Sober Reply, and I ſay, I have not once ſaid any ſuch thing.

But then you call to Miniſters to examine whether they have done well in excluding halfe (it may bee) of their Pariſh from the Supper by their owns power alone. And page 26.28. you ſeeme to condemne this practiſe; ô brave Reformation! in the Biſhops time a Miniſter alone made no queſtion to doe this; and now every Miniſter is a Biſhop, as I am ſure you will grant, that a Biſhop and Presbyter is all one; yet now Miniſters muſt not doe it, but let all come to the Supper, till a Glaſſis be ſet up.

Here you tell us we cry out againe, and call people to ſeparate from you becauſe you want an Ordinance, Page 21.then adde, The Lord judge betweene us in this matter: this ſentence you uſe alſo in your other book, but I pray apply it to thoſe who ſo call for ſeparation from you, my conſcience cleares me from any ſuch thing: therefore Sir doe you not uſe ſuch a ſentence vainely.

Then you come to anſwer the weak Argument:

Such as the queſtion mentions, dejure ought, and de facto pre excluded from the Lords ſupper, Ergo, ought alſo to be excluded from their Infants Baptiſme.

This you ſay you deny with all the proofes of is, the Proofe is as weake as the p. 47conſequence, viz. Becauſe Baptiſme ſeales to the ſame Govenan…, as the Lords Supper doth. Ergo, if excluded from one Seale, then from the other.

The proof againe is like to the formar, viz. Becauſe ſuch perſons appeare peare not to be thoſe to whom the Seal of the Lords Supper doth belong, having no right in thoſe priviledges; therefore Baptiſme ſignifying and fealing as great priviledges as the Lords Supper, they cannot convey a title unto that Seale for their children, but ought to be excluded.

All is weake that Mr. Cawdrey oppoſes; there are in Logick thoſe wayes of anſwering, which Logicians call Solutiones apparcutes, one of them is, foreign, this you are well acquainted with, to ſlight the Arguments brought againſt you, tell your Reader they are weak; and thats halfe and anſwer at leaſt.

All are not of your minde concerning this Argument:His Vindication of free Admiſſ. to L. Sup. p. 24. Mr. Humphries ſaith, thoſe who have gone about to anſwer this, bad better happily ſaid nothing, for our free courſe of baptiſme, and a deny all of this is ſuch a Seam-rent as will never be hanſomly drawns up, though ſtitchs together. For his judgment in Admiſſion of all to Lords Supper I leave it.

But let us ſee how weak you ſhew it: your anſwer is this,

The Argument ought to procced of the ſame perſons, viz. ſuch as ought to be excluded from the Lords Supper, ought (if now they were to be baptiſed) alſo to be excluded from Baptiſme for themſelves: but this doth not reach the children, for they being borne Chriſtians, of Chriſtians have right to Baptiſme.

What Sir, have you catched me in that fallacy, I have taken you ſo often in? I hope not: I have ſpoken before to this, the title of the parents and the children is but one and the ſame.

1. I doubt not but Maſter Cawdrey conceives there are thouſands in England that dejure ought to be excluded the Lords Supper, elſe be muſt condemne the Aſſembly for injudicious men that ſhould trouble the Parliament for an Act, &c.

2. Theſe Mr. Caws yeilds, were they now to be baptiſed ought not to be baptiſed, the argument proceeds cleare againſt them.

3. Yet the children of ſuch parents being bo…ne Chriſtians, of ſuch Chriſtians as ought not to be baptiſed themſelves (if they were not baptiſed) theſe may: which is ſtrange to me, that children which have their title becauſe borne of ſuch parents they may be baptiſed, but the parents themſelves who give the title, muſt not:

Therefore I reply, if the argument proceeds ſo ſtrongly againſt the parents themſelves, then much more againſt the children, for If may ſelfe who muſt have title firſt for my ſelfe, and then for my child, ought to be denyed it, then much more my child, whoſe title is mine, and depends wholly upon me for it: for this I conceive to be a ſound truth, if a perſon have ten or twenty children, and theſe be baptiſed becauſe Chriſtians, born of ſuch a parent, then I doe twenty times juſtifie that the parent from whom p. 48theſe children proceed, have right and title to Baptiſme. So that which you ſay is not a ſound aſſertion, p. 24. (which how it came under the third argument I know not, for it belongs to the firſt,) viz. If I can give the child one Seale of the Covenant by vertue of the parent, I will give the parent the other, I think is a very ſound aſſertion, it never troubled me as yet. But what makes it ſo? ſay you, I may ſee reaſon to deny the parent the Lords Supper, and yet baptiſe his child, becauſe more is required of the one then the other.

For the child I require nothing of it, but looke to the parent from whom it derives its tith, if you require any thing of me, ſaith the child, goe to my parent from whom I deſcended: why then doe you ſay, you require more of the one, then the other? neither 2. doe I ſee what more you are to require of a perſon to admit him to the Lords Supper, then his child to baptiſme: If a perſon doe viſibly appeare to have the condition of the Covenant, he being a Church-member, how you can deny him the Lords Supper I know not: ſo for baptiſme. If there were two conditions of the Covenant of grace, and that Baptiſme reſpected one, and the Lords Supper the other, then there might be ſome eaſon, why the Church ſhould looke to one more then another, but I know but of one condition.

Page 21.You ſay moreover: The young children of members are unfit to be admitted to the Lords Supper, yet not to be excluded from Baptiſme, The reaſon is becauſe more is required to the Lords Supper, then to their Baptiſme.

To which I ſay: 1. If children did as much depend on their parents for the Lords Supper, as they doe for Baptiſme, then for ought I know, they may have (as was the old cuſtome) the Lords Supper, as Baptiſme.

2. You ſhould have proved that leſſe is to be required of thoſe who doe give them title to their Baptiſme, then for themſelves to the Lords Suppe….

Page 22.So that whereas you ſay, all my falſe conſequences are grounded upon my firſt (falſe) premiſed ſuppoſition, viz. [That the child hath no right but in relation to the next parent] (the word next (by your favour) was not there put in,I may conſider the Parent and Child, as, argumentum primum & ortum in Logick: primum babet arguendi vim in ſe, & à ſe: ortum in ſe ſed non à ſe. Its but derived.,) ſo I ſay your anſwer to this argument, runs upon a falſe ſuppoſition, viz. that children are baptized by vertue of a title diſtinct from their parents, If you can prove that, viz. that the parent requires baptiſme for himſelfe by one title, and the child by another title diſtinct from his, then your anſwer will be ſtrong; elſe it is as weake and weaker then the argument, which you ſo much ſlight: for the reſt of your anſwer, I have ſpoken to it before, and therefore repeace nothing for the examples of Scripture or Hiſtory: will you doe nothing but what you have example for? is not argument drawne from Scripture-grounds ſufficient for me, though there be not examples ſet downe? For the perſonall default I have ſpoken to it before.

For my Dilemma which you would turne upon me, I ſee you take that for granted which I have not yeilded, therefore my Dilemma ſtands as it did before againſt you.

Page 23.For my Querie (Whether the child may not be ſuſpended in caſe the parent he p. 49ſuſpended continuing obſtinate) you would anſwer me out of principles which are not mine: I pray prove, that juspenſion is an Ordinance inſtituted onelyonly with respect to the Lords Supper. Secondly,Being it is called by Divines Excommunicatio Minor. prove that the caſe now ſtanding with us as now it doth, in beginning of Reformation, wee may not deny the ſigna gratiae as the Layden profeſſors ſay, though by reaſon of the multitude we cannot proceed to Excommunication. 3. Why may we not proceed to non-communion?

My ſecond Argument was this.

Such Parents if now they were to be Baptized, ought not to be Baptized, Ergo, they cannot challenge it for their Children: Baptiſme belongs primatily to the Parent.

You againe deny the conſequence and the prooſe of it.

Firſt you ſay: It is a received maxime amongſt the Lawyers, quod fieri non debuit, factum valet: Suppoſe an unfit perſon Baptized, his Baptiſme is not null, be is a Member till legally exeluded, and ſo hath right for himſelfe and his to be conſequent Priviledges.

Hence firſt thoſe Indians whom the Fryars Baptized in the Weſt Indies without inſtruction,Heylen. Geog. P. 773. have right and title for themſelves and theirs to all Church priviledges. The perſons were unfit who were Baptized I an… yet ſaith Mr. Ca. unfitneſſe doth not debarre, till excluded. No nor then neither. Let others doe as thoſe Fryars did, yet this Argument holdes.

Secondly, this anſwer earrieth it, That Baptiſme makes a Member of a viſible Church: obſerve his words, ſuppoſe an unfit perſon Baptized, If unfit to be Baptized, then unfit to be a Member.his Baptiſme is not null, be is a Member: which way came this man to be a Member? not by his Chriſtianity, (which you uſe to ſay) for he is a perſon unfit you ſay: but his Baptiſme made him thus, which is

Firſt, croſſe to your own propoſition: Review of Mr. Hoo. P. 94. Baptiſme doth not make a man a Member of a Church

Secondly, if Baptiſme doth make a Member, and conſequently gives 2the title to his Childs Baptiſme, Then Conſtantine, Valentinianes, &c. thoſe who deferred their Baptiſme, were ſo long no Members of the Church, nor could give title to their Childrens Baptiſme.

Thirdly, Primum in unoquoque genere eſt meuſura aliorion: ſo take the firſt in genere Baptizatorum, what was the cauſe of their Baptizing; becauſe 3cauſe they hearing of the word Taught, Believed, and joyned to the Church; it was not becauſe any other was Baptized, ſo the ſame holds now, a perſon being reputed a Believer and a Church-member [whether in the Parents or otherwiſe] this is the ground of its Baptiſme; then it is not anothers being Baptized that is the ground of my Baptiſme.

Fourthly, the ground of the ſealing of the Covenant, is becauſe the 4perſon appeares to be in Covenant, not becauſe it was firſt ſealed to another. The Child is looked upon within the Covenant by reaſon of the Parent, as was I ſhmael before Abraham was circumciſed, if in the Covenant, p. 50then (ſay you) the child is a Church-member: then it is not the Parents being Baptized that gives the title. Hence your Notion in the ſame Page 23. [If the Parents ſin did annull his own Baptiſme, it were a queſtion whether it did not hinder his childes Baptiſme] which alſo implies it is the Parents Baptiſme that is the cauſe of his childes Baptiſme] comes to nothing.

Your ſecond anſwer, is from none of my Principles.

Your third I have ſpoken to alſo. I did not expreſſe excommunication as a qualification in the queſtions it is true, I have ſpoken to this alſo before.

What you have ſaid to the third Argument, I have alſo ſpoken to before, my fourth Argument ran thus: [To give the ſeale of the Covenant of grace to a child by vertue of one who appeares to be in covenant with the Devill, is a prophaning of the Ordinance.]

To this you anſwer foure wayes, the laſt I have ſpoken to, but not the other three, which I will conſider.

Page 25.Firſt, you deny that ſuch perſons as the Q. memions are viſibly in Covenant with Satan, eſpecially if tolerated, for ſo long they are viſibly in the externall covenant of the Church.

What you meane by this Externall Covenant of the Church I cannot imagine: not Baptiſme I hope; nor the Externall Church covenant wee ſpeake of, and you ſo much oppoſe; for the Covenant of grace, they are not viſibly under that: there needs no Covenant formally betweene the Devill and us, naturally hee hath us ſtrong enough though wee make no formall Covenants with him. But when are men ſaid to be under the Covenant of Grace? is it not when they,

1. Seeke to underſtand it,

2. Chooſe it as their greateſt joy and portion,

3. Rejoyce in nothing ſo as when under the power of it,

4. When will not endure to be drawne from under the Dominion of it, but their hearts ſinke with ſorrow when the old man rebells againſt it,

5. When externally their Converſation anſwers it,

6. When delight in thoſe who are in Covenant with themſelves alſo, &c.

Turne it now, when perſons care not for underſtanding of that Covenant, but they are wiſe in wayes of ſinne, chooſe thoſe wayes, their joy is when they are in the enjoyment of ſuch wayes, cannot endure to be pulled off from them, but troubled when ſtopped in their courſe, viſibly thus they walke in their courſe, and chooſe ſuch for their companions, what ſhall wee judge of theſe? What ever Covenant you meane, I am ſure they are not under that Covenant viſibly, of which Baptiſme is a Seale.

3Secondly, you ſay, ſuppoſe a Perſon be Excommunicate, and ſo delivered unto Satan (as the incefluous Perſon was) yet it were hard to ſay he were viſibly in Covenant with Satan, though at the preſent under his Power.

To be under a Church-cenſure, which is appointed for cure of a Perſon, is far different from the eaſe now we ſpeak of.

p. 51That power of Satan the excommunicate perſon is under, is an afflicting power, therefore not choſen by the perſon, as is the other.

Thoſe who are not Excommunicated may be viſibly in Covenant with Satan in that ſenſe the Argument ſpeaks of, when one who is Excommucated may not be ſo, as the inceſtuous perſon repenting, and ſunke with ſorrow.

Thirdly, you ſay, every groſſe ſin (as in Noah and David, &c.) does not 3conclude a man viſibly in Covenant (with Satan you meane) much leſſe ignorance, as in children and youths Baptized.

To this I ſay 1. If I had not reverenced your grace and Parts, I would have given you another anſwer, ſir it is ſtrange that when I in the proofe of the Minor ſaid, [A perſon whoſe courſe and Trade of Life is to live in ſin] that yet you ſhould anſwer from Noah and David, their particular acts, repented of, &c. You would make me a ſilly fellow that could not diſtinguiſh betweene the courſe of a mans life (when I expreſſed it) and a particular act.

2. In Baptizing of Infants, I doe not conſider them as ignorant perſons, but viſible Saints with their Parents, and thoſe muſt have knowledge.

3. How are we gone from the ignorance of the Parent, to the ignorance of the Infant?

Then you come in with your Epiphonema, [ſee whither this new way leades its followers.] Yes, I pray ſee by what you have anſwered, whither it leades: I think you might have ſpared your triumphing here, unleſſe your anſwer had beene ſtronger.

For my fifth Argument, the jumbling of the moſt prophane and godly in the ſame Ordinance and under the ſame Prayers: you tell me I may doe it, ſo I do but grieve, &c. of this before: but fir when conſcience flies in a mans face for giving away the ſeale of the Covenant to ſuch a one, this will not quiet conſcience to tell it, Mr. Gawdrey ſaith you may do it. You know what Dr. Ames ſaid before.

Page 26.Then you come to the great Objection. The Jewes circumciſing of all. My firſt anſwer to this Objection was, I would ſee a proofe that the Prieſts did debarre many from the Paſſeover, for morall uncleaneneſſe, many yeares, (as ours doe from the Supper) and yet had their children circumciſed.

To this you anſwer: The Prieſts are blamed for admitting the Morally uncleane to ſome Ordinances, but it concernes him to prove where ever they were blamed for circumciſing the Children of ſuch. 44. Ezek. 9.

To which I ſay, 1. That Text ſpeakes of the times under the Goſpell, and it cannot be accompliſhed under the Old Teſtament, as our Annotations make it cleare, it ſpeakes of a time when circumciſion is out of date.

2. Circumciſion was never committed to the Prieſts as now Baptiſme p. 52to the Miniſters, therefore there was no blame to them due for that point.

3. Since it reſpects the Goſpell, it concerns thoſe who practiſe ſo as if by Sanctuary were meant onelyonly the Lords Supper, to prove that there, where the Prieſts are blamed for bringing into the Sanctuary ſuch perſons, he meanes onelyonly admiſſion to the Lords Supper, thoſe who interpret muſt prove. It ſhould ſeeme very faire, that Sauctuary is more then Lords Supper, I ſuppoſe thoſe who were brought into the Sanctuary might come to the Paſſeover in old time.

Your ſecond anſwer is, you Question the Practice of our Miniſters, whether it can be juſtified. I ſee you are pinched, but no doubt their keeping of that holy Ordinance is juſtifiable enough.

My ſecond anſwer was, [I conceived ſome thing was peculiar to that Church in that Ordinance, and ſo conceive ſtill. I ſhall add ſomething more.]

1. In that there was no Miniſter ſeparated by God to the diſpenſing of it, as is now of Baptiſme: but Parents, Maſters, Judges, Men or Women, yea themſelve; might adminiſter it.

2. It did not runne to his ſeed onelyonly as Spirituall, [as doth Baptiſme now, for onelyonly Believers are Abrahams Seed] but to his Seed as ſuch. The ground indeed of Gods giving of the Seale of the Covenant at firſt was, becauſe of that Covenant God was in with Abraham, but this Covenant they (many of them) did never regard but reject, taking Circumciſion onelyonly to be the Covenant, ſo being his Seed in whom they did ſo glory,Mat. 3.9. Joh. 8.39.44.Matt 3:9John 8:39John 8:44 they would circumciſe their Children, though the Devill was their Father.

3. From the nature of the Seale and Signe being an abiding Marke in the fleſh (which Baptiſme is not.) And by that they were diſtinguiſhed from the Heathens by an apparent marke, it made me thinke there was ſomething God further aimed at in it, in reference to them: which I perceive Juſtin Martyr will ſecond me in: when Trypho had beene urging the neceſity of Circumciſion,Dialog. cum Tryph. foreign. hee anſwers him; God foreſeeing you ſhould be ſcattered, and beaten out of Jeruſalem, and not returne thither againe, left Circumciſion a Marke in your fleſh, now by no other note can you be knowne but by your Circumciſion. This is part of his anſwer. And ſurely there ſeemes to be ſomething in it, for had it not beene for Circumciſion, in theſe many yeares they have beene ſcattered, they might eaſily have loſt their Diſtinction from the Gentiles, at leaſt abundance of them, but by this they are knowne to this day.

4. This much prevailes with me to thinke ſomething was peculiar, becauſe 17. Gen. 14. Thoſe who were not Circumciſed were to be Cut off Whether by the Magiſtrate, or by Excommunication, as ſaith learned p. 53Gilleſpy, take it how you will, will you ſay the ſame of Infants not baptiſed? muſt the Magiſtrate cut ſuch off? or ſhall the Church excommunicate all ſuch? I trow Mr. Marſhall will take up the Cudgels againſt you,In his Sermon before the L. Major on Eaſter Monday. 1652. p. 28. 2. Ed. for he is ſo farre from thinking that Churches ſhould excommunicate Anabaptiſts, if godly, that he chargeth that Church with Schiſme, which ſhall deny them Communion becauſe ſuch. Expound it how you will, (ſo it be true) that wil ſhew ſome difference, and argue ſomething was peculiar.

5. I ſaid [when the Jewes came to requite Baptiſme, it was not enough we are Abrahams ſeed, Ergo, baptiſe us, [this was enough to Circumciſion] but John requires Repentance.

To this you anſwer, it was a new Ordinance, in which Repentance was required in the first parents.

1. But what then? though new, it was but a Seale to the ſame Covenant they were in before, and they being viſibly under the ſame Covenant, why ſhould more be required of them, if there were not ſome difference between the adminiſtrations of theſe Ordinances?

2. But was not Repentance required in Circumciſion? did not Circumciſion note the cutting off the Old Man? 2 Col. ix.and is that done without Repentance? if repentance were not required there as well as in Baptiſme, you wi…l confirme me the more, and weaken the arguing from Circumciſion to Baptiſme, very much in my apprehenſion.

6. This made me to think ſo, becauſe when they fell to their foule Apoſtle…, yet they Circumciſed: I pray Sir ſpeake our plainely, if one of your Members ſhould ſacrifice his children to Mole…b, worſh…p thoſe vile and uncleane Gods, which they did, would you baptiſe his child without any more adoe?

If none but ſuch as Maymony (before quoted) ſaith, ought to be circumciſed, then their Circumciſion was irregular, for they threw oft Abrahams way, and his God: but if all Abrahams ſeed, as ſuch, meerely according to the fleſh, had a title to Circumciſion, then it was peculiar to them, and they were regularly enough circumciſed. But this helps not us.

7. That place Ezra 10.3. the children borne of the ſtrange wives were to be put away,foreign Ut proficiamus: vulg e…ici…mus; Vata. as well as the ſtrange wives; its very likely they would circumciſe them, but yet put away: if they ought not to be circumciſed or were not, yet it will imply ſome difference.

For all the reſt to p. 29. I have ſpoken to before: there after you had condemned my rigidneſſe for non-admiſſion of the children of ſome parents, then you ſhew your Judgement, that all ought to be Baptized.

1. You ſay if one Miniſter will not baptize, another will, [let others doe as they pleaſe, I muſt give account of my Stewardſhip… not his] it will increaſe diviſions betwixt Miniſters, by others intermedling with their charges. [I was never yet offended with any man who did Baptiſe the children of ſuch as dwell in our pariſh: I thought intermedling with other folkes charges had been no offence to the Claſſicall Government, which will excommunicate a perſon in another mans charge.]

p. 541. It will make the next generation, no better then Infidels being unbaptiſed.

This may prevent abundance of ſinne and ignorance, making parents looke about them, working (as experience hath proved in N. England, to reall converſion (as in charity we may judge) at leaſt to knowledge and outward conformity in divers here alſo in England, in your owne ſhire: the proofe is made, a godly miniſter that lives there told me, he will not baptiſe without a good account given him, and to this day (he told me at the Commencement) two in his pariſh were unbaptiſed; the people obſerving this, he told me they beſtirre themſelves to get knowledge, and give better account.

This is the fruit already tried, but what then if all Miniſters did ſo?

Becauſe unbaptiſed, Ergo Infidels, Conſtantine, Valentinianus and others, were unbaptiſed a long time, therefore they were Infidels, and Valentinianus dyed an Infidel, becauſe he dyed unbaptiſed.

This will exaſperate parents you ſay.

Wee muſt looke for rubs at firſt, our life is not ſuch as to have the good word and will of every body; but this daintineſſe muſt come downe.

1. Whilſt we have the civill power to ſtand by, it may be done the more caſily.

2. If one of the parents give any comfortable account, it is ſufficient.

3. Wome, their ſexe commands them more modeſty, and their education helps, if there be knowledge, they have advantage alſo of affections, and ſo eaſier moved upon by preaching the Word.

4. For number, we ſhall find the moſt oppoſition will be in the poorer ſort, where horrible ignorance beſides prophaneneſſe abounds.

5. It is but viſible Saintſhip that is required; you have ſaid enough, in my opinion, as for maintenance (which you mention) thouſands of Miniſters in England have the advantage of me, N. England voyage having broken and ſpoyled our Eſtates, but ordinarily Miniſters have Lands of their owne, and ſome good Glebe-Lands, wherein they are before me.

I obſerve but two things,

1. For what you ſay; you would have the Magiſtrate ſettle aright Government which all Congregatious ſhould be bound to ſubmit to.

Sir, you ſpeake of a hard thing, the Magiſtrate muſt needes be troubled to know which is that right Government, when there is ſo much difference among the Miniſters who call for it; one ſayes it is Claſſicall Government, another it is Congregationall, and both ſides very godly men: The Ark muſt needes ſhake when the Oxen stumble.

2. Yet ſuch is the neereneſſe of the agreement between the Congregationall, and Claſſicall Government, that though one be not bound to ſubmit to the other, yet Church-government might goe on well enough, (were it p. 55not for this Separation, which will undermine both) if there were brotherly yeilding on both ſides but a little; if the peace of the Churches were as much valued as it hath been by other holy men before times, wee would not, we dare not doe as we doe.

The Magiſtrate doth give leave for theſe two, which in reſpect of Government are ſo neere, that they need not be called two; but this fearfull blaſting of the Ordinances by the ſore hand of God, and this horrible diſunion betweene the Congregationall and Claſſicall men, and others who are godly, ſay in my heart, there hangs a ſcourge over both Congregationall and Claſſicall men, and other profeſſours.

For the reſt, p. 30. there is little to anſwer:

2. For your bringing in the Authority of the civill Magiſtrate, to reforme our people as Church-members; this will be poore Reformation: I thought Church-members had been formed and reformed, by the ſword of the Spirit, not of the Magiſtrate, they can ſcarce make better Lawes then they have made, for reforming of Morall vices, I think the fault lyes not in them, they cannot be Judges and Witneſſes too.

For your laſt, p 31. that you would have us preſſe the conditions of the Covenant on thoſe that we baptiſe, and that is ſufficient now.

If I were onelyonly a Teacher this might ſuffice, but I thinke I am (or ſhould be) a Ruler, as well as a Teacher.

If this be enough, then admit all England to the Lords Supper without ſcruple.

Thus Sir I have replyed to your Booke, with as much brevity as I could; I know ſuch a man as you are will not be quiet thus, but will write againe; (I foreſee ſome things (and poſſibly you may make uſe of my Booke againſt the Separation againſt me) which I could have prevented, but upon ſome reaſons moving me I let them alone:) and it will be hard (though I am but weak) if I ſhould not ſpy out ſome things in your writing which I might oppoſe againe, but I ſee there will be no end of writing, wherefore I am reſolved to make an end; onelyonly if I finde you bring out more ſtrength then yet I have ſeene, and that which giveth me ſatisfaction, I will returne you very hearty thanks, and publiſh it to the world that you have ſatisfied me; if not, I will be ſilent.