Selected quad for the lemma: christian_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
christian_n	baptism_n	baptize_v	infant_n	1,991	5	9.3594	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A41334	A sober reply to the sober answer of Reverend Mr. Cawdrey, to A serious question propounded viz. whether the ministers of England are bound by the word of God to baptise the children of all such parents, which say they believe in Jesus Christ, but are grosly ignorant, scandalous in their conversations, scoffers at godliness, and refuse to submit to church dicipline ... : also, the question of Reverend Mr. Hooker concerning the baptisme of infants : with a post-script to Reverend Mr. Blake / by G.I. Firmin ...	Firmin, Giles, 1614-1697.; Hooker, Thomas, 1586-1647. Covenant of grace opened.	1653 (1653)	Wing F966; ESTC R16401	67,656	64

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 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 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 Tex● 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 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 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

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. it s well What you have spoken to in this page 20. I have answered before onely 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 consequence 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this you are well acquainted with to slight the Arguments brought against you tell your Reader they are weak and that 's 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 these 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

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 and 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 alone 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 onely 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 onely 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 onely 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 number 〈◊〉 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 Non-communion 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 onely to my selfe then any other Ministers being far more holy then my selfe I

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 will allow a man to be bad enough in this Towne or another Towne he have owned no particular Church onely 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 onely 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 onely 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 that 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 t is 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 well 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

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 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 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 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 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 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