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
place and there another c. Diatr p. 188.212 It is indeed usuall to put an c. when mens mindes are clearly knowne and there is no matter of consequence attended upon it so spare our writing and the Printer but if any matter of consequence depends then it is very poore to put in coetera you know c. in the Bishops Oath was an untoward thing and here it is a troublesome thing if to the third why not to the 103 generation coetera will go further But say you p. 11. this is their common Objection his head is very shallow that should not reach but you have fully answered it elsewhere Come on then Sir since you say you have fully answered it I will turne to your Diatribae and there looke for it supposing that a man of your parts who doth slight so extreamly other mens arguments calling them very weake c. when you say you answer fully you have done so indeed in p. 212. I see you have it there to answer I perceive you sinde it a troublesome objection and there recite the opinions of some men whom I honour as much as your selfe if there were nothing but an opinion of a man to be desiâ—ed you summe up their opinions and it amounts to this It scomes that the Children of Christians knowne or presumed to be such wheâ—her living or dead may be baptised then you give us an allusion from those who could not prove their Genealogy Ezra 2.62 Whether you will stand to this as your answer I know not but then you adde But all the Children of knowne Believers Christians Orthodox and yet living whether next or remoter may seeme to challenge a right to Baptisme this is the full answer but twice you use the word seeme which shewes you rather propound your opinion modestly but I pray Sir doe not say this is so fully answered it is no answer at all it is your opinion indeed for by all the discouâ—se I have met with as yet in that book you have not proved that living Grandfathers may give a title onely you propound a text which will prove the dead as well as the living may give a title if a Grandfather at all may if you meane no more then the living Grandfather your caetera will soone be run out In p. 8. you meet with an argument of mine which is this Page 8. If the wickednesse of the immediate parent cut him off from the Lords Supper though his parent be godly why doth not the same wickednesse cut him off from giving right to his childs Baptisme if the parent cannot claime one Seale of the Covenant for himselfe appearing plainely not to have the condition of it must not the child suffer who depends upon him for its title The parent suffers therefore the child must needes You say no not for Temporall punishment Gehezi Achan Corah c. their children did nor spirituall To this I answered they cannot be abstracted from their parents in this and therefore may as the child comes to have its right by a parent so the child may lose by a parent it doth not lose salvation nor regeneration by it You answer 4. waies 1. From the Jewes which doth not availe with me there was something peculiar to them in administration of Circumcision as is cleare before and shall be made cleare hereafter 2. Your second is the distinguishing betweene a persons generall state and personall wickednesse his state is a christian c. I answer if you meane by personall wickednesse some particular falls as you bring in Noah and David strangely afterward I think so indeed but if you meane a continued setled course in wickednesse wilfull ignorance then I say such a person hath lost his first right to his owne or his childs baptisme you may call him a Christian but let his Christianity be such as you have said may qualifie him for a Church-Member or else it is not worth a rush Such a one I looke at as one that ought to be excommunicated for he deserves it we must prove that persons ought to be excommunicated before they are Now since he ought the question is why he is not if he be the child suffers for his state being a non-Member in foro Dei he is and ought to be in foro Ecclesiastico if the case stand so as through the multitude of such it cannot conveniently be so Then yet let the Ministers go as farre as they can I pray Sir let this satisfie to your answers which you give about Excommunication for you would gather from me that till Excommunication Ministers ought to baptise Thus far I yeild it till Excommunication or that which doth deserve Excommunication so that the persons ought to be excommunicated though from some other externall impediments as multitude c. they cannot be excommunicated yet then a separation from such or non-non-communion may help 3. You say you have largely confuted this notion of the immediate parent I think not so 4. You say I have destroyed it my selfe the right he hath is onely by the Churches toleration let the Officers looke to that the first and maine right hee hath none and none at all according to your doctrine For p. 9. the distinction of the Physical and Moral right in Diatr 188. if you had strongly proved the Moral right of the Grandfather would clearely have taken off that wrong meant Sir I will receive an answer when I see I am answered But that there should be as litâ—le right of the Mother over the Childe when compared with her Husband as is of the Grandfather compared with the Father which you would seeme to intimate is strange I am sure the Mother communicates as much and more to the being of the Childe then the Father doth For Aquinaâ— he may enjoy his opinion yet I think Châ—mier of whom anon is not full for him For my needlesse exception you mention it is well if nothing needlesse have come from you Then you tell me I renew my plea Page 10. which is this who shall educate this child the Ignorant person cannot the Scandalous teach it how to breake the Covenant Predecessors are dead c. Here first you tell me of a Law of the Land which bath taken care for the education of Papists Children and Orphans providing Schooles and Hospitalls Hence first I gather you doe not care whether the Grandfather be living or dead which in another place you expresse otherwise here the immediate grosly ignorant and scandalous persons give title but for what you say I pray pardon my ignorance of the Lawes that have been so many yeares out of England I did not know the State had made such a Law That if an Ignorant or Scandalous Parent have a child baptised then those who are knowing and godly men at least sober men conversation comely should take the child and bring it up and instruct it in the Covenant of grace which
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
the Cudgels against you In his Sermon before the L. Major on Easter Monday 1652. p. 28. 2. Ed. for he is so farre from thinking that Churches should excommunicate Anabaptists if godly that he chargeth that Church with Schisme which shall deny them Communion because such Expound it how you will so it be true that wil shew some difference and argue something was peculiar 5. I said when the Jewes came to requite Baptisme it was not enough we are Abrahams seed Ergo baptise us this was enough to Circumcision but John requires Repentance To this you answer it was a new Ordinance in which Repentance was required in the first parents 1. But what then though new it was but a Seale to the same Covenant they were in before and they being visibly under the same Covenant why should more be required of them if there were not some difference between the administrations of these Ordinances 2. But was not Repentance required in Circumcision did not Circumcision note the cutting off the Old Man 2 Col. ix and is that done without Repentance if repentance were not required there as well as in Baptisme you wiâ—l confirme me the more and weaken the arguing from Circumcision to Baptisme very much in my apprehension 6. This made me to think so because when they fell to their foule Apostleâ— yet they Circumcised I pray Sir speake our plainely if one of your Members should sacrifice his children to Moleâ—b worshâ—p those vile and uncleane Gods which they did would you baptise his child without any more adoe If none but such as Maymony before quoted saith ought to be circumcised then their Circumcision was irregular for they threw oft Abrahams way and his God but if all Abrahams seed as such meerely according to the flesh had a title to Circumcision then it was peculiar to them and they were regularly enough circumcised But this helps not us 7. That place Ezra 10.3 the children borne of the strange wives were to be put away 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ut proficiamus vulg eâ—iciâ—mus Vata as well as the strange wives it s very likely they would circumcise them but yet put away if they ought not to be circumcised or were not yet it will imply some difference For all the rest to p. 29. I have spoken to before there after you had condemned my rigidnesse for non-admission of the children of some parents then you shew your Judgement that all ought to be Baptized 1. You say if one Minister will not baptize another will let others doe as they please I must give account of my Stewardshipâ— not his it will increase divisions betwixt Ministers by others intermedling with their charges I was never yet offended with any man who did Baptise the children of such as dwell in our parish I thought intermedling with other folkes charges had been no offence to the Classicall Government which will excommunicate a person in another mans charge 1. It will make the next generation no better then Infidels being unbaptised This may prevent abundance of sinne and ignorance making parents looke about them working as experience hath proved in N. England to reall conversion as in charity we may judge at least to knowledge and outward conformity in divers here also in England in your owne shire the proofe is made a godly minister that lives there told me he will not baptise without a good account given him and to this day he told me at the Commencement two in his parish were unbaptised the people observing this he told me they bestirre themselves to get knowledge and give better account This is the fruit already tried but what then if all Ministers did so Because unbaptised Ergo Infidels Constantine Valentinianus and others were unbaptised a long time therefore they were Infidels and Valentinianus dyed an Infidel because he dyed unbaptised This will exasperate parents you say Wee must looke for rubs at first our life is not such as to have the good word and will of every body but this daintinesse must come downe 1. Whilst we have the civill power to stand by it may be done the more casily 2. If one of the parents give any comfortable account it is sufficient 3. Wome their sexe commands them more modesty and their education helps if there be knowledge they have advantage also of affections and so easier moved upon by preaching the Word 4. For number we shall find the most opposition will be in the poorer sort where horrible ignorance besides prophanenesse abounds 5. It is but visible Saintship that is required you have said enough in my opinion as for maintenance which you mention thousands of Ministers in England have the advantage of me N. England voyage having broken and spoyled our Estates but ordinarily Ministers have Lands of their owne and some good Glebe-Lands wherein they are before me I observe but two things 1. For what you say you would have the Magistrate settle aright Government which all Congregatious should be bound to submit to Sir you speake of a hard thing the Magistrate must needes be troubled to know which is that right Government when there is so much difference among the Ministers who call for it one sayes it is Classicall Government another it is Congregationall and both sides very godly men The Ark must needes shake when the Oxen stumble 2. Yet such is the neerenesse of the agreement between the Congregationall and Classicall Government that though one be not bound to submit to the other yet Church-government might goe on well enough were it not for this Separation which will undermine both if there were brotherly yeilding on both sides but a little if the peace of the Churches were as much valued as it hath been by other holy men before times wee would not we dare not doe as we doe The Magistrate doth give leave for these two which in respect of Government are so neere that they need not be called two but this fearfull blasting of the Ordinances by the sore hand of God and this horrible disunion betweene the Congregationall and Classicall men and others who are godly say in my heart there hangs a scourge over both Congregationall and Classicall men and other professours For the rest p. 30. there is little to answer 2. For your bringing in the Authority of the civill Magistrate to reforme our people as Church-members this will be poore Reformation I thought Church-members had been formed and reformed by the sword of the Spirit not of the Magistrate they can scarce make better Lawes then they have made for reforming of Morall vices I think the fault lyes not in them they cannot be Judges and Witnesses too For your last p 31. that you would have us presse the conditions of the Covenant on those that we baptise and that is sufficient now If I were onely a Teacher this might suffice but I thinke I am or should be a Ruler as well as a Teacher If this
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
must be the answer or nothing this were wofull trouble if good People or visible Saints should be thus charged with all the children of persons who are as the question mentions As for the other part you say The Church should take care as in case both the Parents dye whilest they are little Children and then you give a nip to the Congregationall Churches you say right for the Churches care but how shall we doe whilst these parents live and keepe them at home and teach them to breake Covenant and though they are intreated to send their children to catechising yet will not as I have too bad experience For the children of Church members the parents dying whilst they are young I wish I could see as good examples of your parochiall Cnogregations taking care for the Christian education of such as I could give you in the Congregationall Churches in New England but then the title was not questioned there was that ease and wee did not know but those godly parents might live to educate them Then p. 11. you turne an argument upon me from my selfe Page 11. because I could plead a promise by vertue of may Father so may the Grandchild by vertue of a godly Grandfather and so bid me change Parent into Progenitors Sir I am glad I could give you so good an argument and I could beteame to let it alone for it will not hurt my question as I said before Onely a word you bid me change Parent into Progenitors so I will let it be the great Grandfather of the childs great Grandfather and one that is fourty generations before him for your coetera will give me leave I know not how to set bounds to coetera yet I may goe so farre for a title and the text you bring doth not limit me You grant an Apostate loseth his owne baptisme p. 12. Yet you cannot see how a parents Apostacy can justly cut off his child Diatr p. 190. so his right is cut off suppose the pro-parents be dead here is intercisio Christianismi as you quoted Calvin before then I know not how this Apostates child can be Baptized by any parentall right yet if this child should come to understanding and there should be movings on the heart of it and it should plead the Covenant of a Grandfather I should not question to baptise it without respect to parents if it came to that Yet Sir this will shew there is a great difference betweene the pro-parents right if it can clearely be proved at all giving a title to baptisme and the immediate parents for that may be cut off by the immediate parent justly but the immediate parents title cannot be cut off Now we are come to the last Argument Page 12 13. If by vertue of the Grandfather then the child of one Apostatiz'd or excommunicated person may be baptised but not Ergo. For an Apostate you tell me of the kindred taking care of it or susceptores this notion will come in afterwards For excommunicated persons there you bestow paines and I perceive you care not so much for a pro-parent here but by vertue of the immediate parent himselfe though excommunicated For my owne part I should not here yeeld to a pro-parent neither doe I see our New England Divines that could beteame a Grandchild under the Grandfathers tuition to be baptized by vertue of him will allow it if the immediate parents be excommunicated for this hinders the working of the Ordinance it is of greater force to worke when a man shall see not onely himselfe cut off but even his very children also this hath beene a means to awaken some in N. England who were not excommunicated but onely not admitted to see their posterity also suffer for their sakes it hath so wrought as to make some truly godly so farre as we may judge and others it hath brought into externall order in conversation But since you have here maintained it by vertue of the immediate parent excommunicated I shall desire to consider it It is granted there is a difference betweene an excommunicated person and a Heathen As 1. He may still hold his profession Revie M. Hoo. 119. but as you say it is violated by his scandall and it must be renewed before he can be received againe Though he holds his profession still yet that now violated is not sufficient to give himselfe a title to Baptisme if he were not now baptised much lesse the child who depends wholly on his title If his profession be sufficient to give his child by vertue of him a title to one Seale of the Covenant why the same profession should not be sufficient to give himselfe a title to the other Seale of the Covenant one faith being the condition of it and you say he hath that I can see no reason That profession which is not sufficient to make a man a Church member is not sufficient to give title to a Church-priviledge consequently not to baptisme But the profession of a person excommunicated is not sufficient c. Ergo the Minor is cleare his profession is vioalated and must be renewed before he can be received say you Then t is not sufficient This is further cleare for if it be sufficient to make him a Church-member when cast out why was it not sufficient to keepe him within whilst bee was within so he should not have needed to bee cast out This then is cleare that there is great difference betweene the profession of a person who was never admitted and another who is cast out the first may have lesse knowledge by farre weaker gifts and possibly more infirmities which may yet be such as a Church may admit when the other who hath violated his profession may not 2. He is under cure but his cure is non-membership a member cut off from the body a Heathen is not under cure 3. When he hath renewed his profession by repentance and so the Church received him againe he is not re-baptised but this doth not prove that therefore whilst he is extra Ecclesiam that he can give title to a priviledge of the Church it is not his being baptised that is the ground of his childs baptisme whilst he is in the Church therefore that cannot give the title when he is out of the Church But Heathens must be baptised when they are admitted the other is received again not therefore baptised That his baptisme is not the ground of his childs baptisme I shall prove afterward But I will come to Argument 1. If a child may be baptise by vertue of an excommunicated parent then that parent is not excommunicated and this is to make a contradiction But the parent is excommunicated Ergo. To baptise is to give Communion baptised into one body 1 Cor. 12.13 then there is Communion given with the body by an excommuâ—icated person is not this a contradiction Communion is most properly seene in Baptisme and Lords Supper What