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. â— 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 wâ—â—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 faiâ—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 explâ—â—â— 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 explicâ—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
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 â—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 onely 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 â—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 subessâ—â—â—undum publicum divinum Cultum frequentare cadem lege jurisdictione Eccâ—â—â—â—sticae gubernare velint ex quo foedere etiam jus sibi acquirunt ad illa qua buic particulari Ecclesiae ejuâ—qu membris sint propria altis Ecclesâ—is particularibus nou Compâ—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 thinke 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 preâ—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 Thâ—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 Chuâ—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 Act. 5.13 Of the rest durst none joyne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what was that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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
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 heâ— 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 noâ— 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 coâ—â—â— nuing scandalous after admonitions they desâ—â—◠〈…〉 not the Church suspend such from the Seal of the Coverâ—â—â— a for thus I conceive while I first admâ—nish people â—on their ignorance and scandalous living Suspension is Excommunicatio Minor and they refusing to heare me I doe with â—â—e consenâ— of the Church suspend I do not rolâ—â—ortâ— but you speak as if there were nothing oppositeâ— to Toleration but Excommunication Or thus according to our Congregationall Principles which maintainâ—â— 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 〈◊〉 â—â—â—â—de the Lâ—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 hearâ— 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 selfâ— 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
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 offâ—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 onely 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 onely 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 â—eny us to give the Child the other signe of Grace by vertue of this Parent For 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 apertâ— 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 onely 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. 37 according to the Gospell This is the Preybyterians definition say they But 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 oâ— 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
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