A Just Defense of Hearing the Sermons, Chapter 5 · Section 8
Sect 8. The admission of vitious persons to Communion, justifies not separation.
8. That wicked and ungodly persons, and their seed, are lawful members of the Church, and if they consent not willingly to be so, they may be compelled thereunto: contrary to Psal. 110.3. Acts 2.40, 41, 47. and 19 9. 2 Cor. 6.14, 17. and 9.13.
Answ. This Author shews not where the Law is, nor when or how the Ministers subscribes to a Constitution of this instance, not know I where to find either. It is said, Psal. 110.3. Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power. But it doth not therefore follow, that men may not be compelled by pecuniary mulcts, or other penalties, to come to Common Prayer or the Communion. For however the question be resolved about liberty of Conscience, and toleration in the New Testament, yet David meant not that there must none be then compelled; if so, neither Asa nor Josiah did well in urging the people to swear to cleave to God, and to stand to it, 2 Chron. 34.32. If understood of the times of the New Testament it proves that members of the Church should be a willing people, but not that no other may be lawful members, or admitted or caused by commands of Rulers, or penalties to joyn with the Church in Gods Worship. For then it must be the duty of them that admit members into the Church to know that they whom they admit are a willing people, which I think none now can do. It is true Acts 2.40. Peter exhorted the Jews to save themselves from that perverse generation of them that opposed Christ, and v. 41. Then they that gladly received his Word were baptized; and v. 47. The Lord added to the Church such as should be saved; but how this proves that wicked and ungodly persons may not be admitted as lawful members of the visible Church Christian, nor compelled thereunto, I discern not. Sure Judas was admitted to the Apostleship, and to the Passover, if not to the Lords Supper; Ananias and Saphira were taken as lawful members, Simon Magus baptized, we find none blamed for admission to the Lords Supper, of disorderly Corinthians. And for compulsion from Idolatrous Worship, and other evils, if Parents may correct these in their children, Princes may do it in their Subjects; and if Parents may by penalties compel their children to conform to true Religion, so may Princes. The separation, Acts 19 9. is nothing to countenance the separation from the Service and assemblies of the Church of England: for that separation was not because of the presence of professed Christians of vitious life; but because of divers who were hardned and believed not, but spake evil of the way of Christ before the multitude, and so endeavour to disturb them in the practice of Christian Religion. The words 2 Cor. 6.14. whether we read it, be not unequally yoked, or unevenly ballanced to the other side with Infidels; and whether we expound it of marriage, or familiar converse, or (as the words v. 16. What agreement hath the Temple of God with Idols, do plainly evince it to be meant) do not joyn with the Idolaters in their Idol Temples to eat there things offered to Idols, which he had forbidden, 1 Cor. 8.7, 10. to partake of the table of Devils, 1 Cor. 10.21. it is manifest from, v. 15. to be meant of professed Infidels opposite to him that believeth, and therefore cannot be understood of not joyning in prayer and the Lords Supper with a professed Believer, though of vitious life. Nor can the separation from among men, v. 17. be understood of any other than professed Infidels; nor the the touching the unclean thing be any other then joyning in service of Idols mentioned, v. 16. and therefore is manifestly impertinent to the separation from Believers by profession in the service of God by reason of their personal wickedness. The last Text 2 Cor. 9.13. is less to the purpose: For what shew of consequence is there in this? Christians glorifie God for others professed subjection, or the subjection of their Confession, or consent to the Gospel of Christ; therefore wicked persons, and such as consent not willingly, are not to be taken for lawful members of the Church, nor may be compelled thereto. It is added:
9. That women may administer the Sacrament of Baptism, contrary to 1 Cor. 14.34. 1 Tim. 2.12. Matth. 28.18, 19, 20. Ephes. 4.11.
Answ. That it is true that in Q. Elizabeths time Baptism by Women in supposed case of necessity, was in the English Churches either tolerated or allowed; and the like hath been in the Lutheran Churches, and Mr. Hooker in his fifth Book of Ecclesiastical Policy, sect 62. saith somewhat for it; yet since the Conference at Hampton Court in the beginning of King James his reign to the Rubrick of private Baptism in the Common Prayer Book, the words [lawful Minister] were added, which still continue; the Baptism of Women is not allowed by any constitution, nor owned by the present Ministers that I know, and therefore this instance is unjustly here recited. Yet thus much may be said, that notwithstanding Women are excluded from any Ordinary Ministery of the Word or Sacraments in the Church by the Texts alledged, 1 Cor. 14.34. 1 Tim. 2.12. and from baptizing, Mat. 28.18, 19, 20. Ephes. 4.11. Sith we find that Philip the Evangelist had four daughters that did prophesie, Acts 29.1. mention is made of the woman praying or prophesying, 1 Cor. 11.5. we cannot exclude them from extraordinary Ministry, when God gives such a gift; nor, sith Priscilla instructed Apollos, Acts 18.26. can we exclude them from private teaching of the most able, if they be fitted thereto.