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 any of the Congregalons dâ—â— 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 it s 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 Texâ— in your Title-page 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 it s 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 onely 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 onely 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 but 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 onely 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 Saâ—â—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 onely 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
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 Pâ—eface p. 11. whence they come that they are by tâ—em approved and not scandalous they ought to be received to Chuâ—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 Churchâ—s here they nâ—ver bâ—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 onely they go as Merchants on some other errand let the godly Officers of such Congregations give a certificate under their hands such persons that now à re comming to you in New England are godly persons Members of our Churches and walk in Church-fellowship with us and thâ—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 baptâ—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 onely 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 owâ—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 bâ—ing sad 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
should thinke â—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 〈◊〉 such a Minister doth usurp who alone shall reforme though by suâ—â—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 together and set up a Classiâ—â—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 Pâ—â—â— 2. But is 〈◊〉 your meaning in good earnest to deny to a particular Church 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. â—as he grants but what wâ—â—â—â— Review Mr. Hooker p. 111. that every particular Church hath a power owen 〈◊〉 own Members what power you meane is plaine by the Dâ—scoursâ— 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 〈◊〉 oâ—â— 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 of 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 â—oâ—â— 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 Prâ—sbytery I thought I had the power of 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. Suppose 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. Suppose there were a Church on an Island where there was onely 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 noâ— 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 Aâ—ro rod. p. 515. learned Gillespy saith no Consciencious Minister would adventure to Baptize one who hath manifest and infallible
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 Viâ—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 This 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 Membeâ—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 onely 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 2. 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 if Chuâ—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 bâ—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
is excommunication saith M. Rutherf but to deny all Communion with those who were once in the Church Peac plea 222 but 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 parenâ— 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 veâ—y rationall that if the child have Communion given onely by vertue of the parents Communion for before the parent was admitted a Church-member the child could have none then the parent having forfâ—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 If Classianâ—s his wise were a Church-member though her husband were cast out Aug â—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 againâ—â— 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 seâ— 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. 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 4. 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 onely 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 â—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 onely say 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
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 Secondly 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 That 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 conclude 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 to 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 onely the Lords Supper to prove that there where the Priests are blamed for bringing into the Sanctuary such persons he meanes onely 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 onely as Spirituall as doth Baptisme now for onely 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 onely to be the Covenant so being his Seed in whom they did so glory Mat. 3.9 Joh. 8.39.44 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. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 Gillespy 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