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-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-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-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-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-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
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
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-particular-visible-Church before he can be of the catholike-visible-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-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
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-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-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-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-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-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-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
Naturall as I am an officer or free As for the explicitenesse of the Covenant I have seen so much order and comlinesse in Churches by reason of it that if I can ever attaine it I will and so would M Gawdry had he seen what I have seeen in N. England yet I will not null all Churches for want of an explicite Covenant I can distinguish between esse and melius esse M. Hudson shall winde up all Viâ—dici Cath. pag. 19. I deny not saith he but mutual consent of persons within such a Vicinity to joyn together constantly in the Ordinances of God under the Inspection of such and such officers is requisite to a particular Congregation Now give me leave to examine a little what you have writ against reverend M. Hooker since the providence of God hath joyned me with so holy and learned a man O that I had his Mantle much of his discourse fals in with mine and so your answers to him serve against me but that part I shall let alone His Question is this Whether persons non confederate Survey part 3. pag. 11 12. and so in our sense not Members of the Church doe entitle their children to the seate of Baptisme being one of the priviledges of the Church their Parents though godly being yet unwilling to come into Church-fellowship You make very great use of these words that persons non Confederate are in his sense no Members of a Church now Sir let me move one question Whether only persons that are in explicite Consederacy are to be esteemed in M Hookers sense Members of a Church if M. Hooker have expressed the contrary as he hath most fully pag. 47 48. of his first part and in Preface pag. 11. where he saith expresly The Faithfull Congregations in England are true Churches then that cannot be M. Hokers sense In pag. 47 48. he shewes how the Covenant is acted after a double manner Explicitely and Implicitely and there shewes how it is acted in the Churches of England Then adds This Mr. R. cannot be ignorant of as our opinion and professed apprehension and I would intreat the Reader to observe once for all that if he meet with such accusations such an accuser is Mr. Cawdrey that we nullifie all Churches besides our owne that upon our grounds received there must be no Churches in the world but in New-England or some few observe this set up lately in Old that we are rigid Separatists c. such bitter clamours a wise meek spirit passeth by them as an unworthy and ungrounded aspersion c. then shewes that Implicite and Explicite are but Adjuncts of the Covenant and in some cases an Implicite Covenant may be sully sufficient could any man living speak more clearly then Mr. Hooker and could any man living speak more perversly then Mr. Caw Epistle to Sob Answ that Mr Hooker deny all Churches where there is not an explicite Covvenant To returne to his question Two things I desire the Reader to observe in it 1. By persons non-Confederate he doth not mean godly Parents that are not confederate explicitely but if they be members of true Churches walking in Church fellowship though there be not an explicite Covenant but implicite Mr. Hooker doth not looke on these as falling under his question so have nothing to doe with such now This is most cleare by what I have alledged out of him Hence there is not one syllable of the word explicite put into the question and afterwards the same page when Mr. Hooker shewes why he inclines to the negative being moved thereto from the nature of the Church-Govenant he doth not say explicite Church-covenant Yet see how Mr. Cawdrey interprets these words that is Diatr 185. indeed the necessity of an explicite Covenant and in page 184. he hath stated the question thus Whether the Infants of Believers not in Covenant explicite with a particular visible Church may be baptized This is none of Master Hooker's question Hence first those arguments which Mr. Cawdrey hath drawne up in his Diatr with Mr. Hooker from the Infants of the godly Membeâ—s of our Churches here in England they all labour with the disease called Ignoratio Elenthi for he hath changed the question and doth not speake ad idem 2. Hence secondly all that paines Mr. Cawdrey spends to prove that Children may be baptized by vertue of Grandfather or Adoption if he can make it out that they may be so yet if such a Grandfather or person who Adopts be confederate and walk in Church-fellowship though not explicitely Confederated this doth not trouble Mr. Hookers question if that Grandfather or person who Adopts be not Confederate then the question falls upon them indeed not else Mr. Hookers question then concernes onely such godly Parents as are Members of no particular visible Church and being no Members but comming to joyne with a Church now the question will be what explicitenesse may be required 2. The second thing I observe in his question is That the godly Parents are unwilling to come into Church-followship and here lyes the pinch of the question But this plainly implyes That Church fellowship is to be had and this person is required by him to whom be offers his Child to be baptized to joyne in Church fellowship Acts 5.13 There was a Church and joyning to it I doubt not before the Apostles would baptise if Chuâ—ch fellowship be not to be had then how shall his willingnesse or unwil inguesse be knowne let there be an object bonum or malum which the will should chuse or reject Hence then if there could be no answer else given to what Mr. Ca. urgeth from the Jaylour who was baptised though not confederate this troubles not the question if there were no Church which did require him to joyne in fellowship had there bâ—en a Church in Philippi and Paul had required him to joyne in fellowship with the Church and the Jaylour would not then indeed Mr. Ca had brought something against Mr. Hooker if Paul would have baptized him But yet Mr. Ca. will force it upon Mr. Hooker that he must mean it of an explicite Confederacy whether he will or no Diatr p. 200. Mr. Stone knew his mind vid. ch 5. yea though he hath expresly spoken to the contrary but what is his ground This. In N. England saith he They refuse to admit either our Members though godly to the Lords Supper or their Children to Baptisme unlesse they enter their express Covenant This is the ground One passage I observe you call the godly Ones our Members but doe you looke on them as your Members who are gone 3000. miles from you never to see you more where you can never have any inspection over them let them walke as they will I am sure they doe not thinke you are their Officers nor doe call you so how then they should be still your Members I cannot tell let therefore Mr. Hooker speak for himselfe
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
so faire a conversation in holinesse as may consist with true grace This is very faire and certainly there will be some little positive signes in such a person and you may admit him by affirmation Mr. Cawdrey hath fully confirmed me in that which is the ground of my scruple for when I observed divers persons came to demand Baptisme of me for their children and I found them grossely ignorant in the necessary points of Salvation and farre from understanding the nature of the Sacrament and also when their conversation was proved by witnesse to 〈◊〉 scandalous and far from what Mr. Cawdry hath set down I questioned whether I was bound to give away such a seale as this and did therefore lovingly request them to forbear a little and lay in for more knowledge offering to helpe them and so to labour to reforme their scandalous conversations then I would doe it M. Cawdry condemns my practise P. 15. and tells the World I have confuted my Opinion and my Practise and while I goe about to prove the Negaâ—â—â—e I have concluded the Affimative and that is by one sentence which I have affirmed viz. So long as wicked persons are telerated they may challenge c. what my sentence is I shall presently give it you plainely This sentence saith he confutes as it contradicts both his Question and his Practice and it unto gives us an answer to all his Arguments You have said enough He saith in the same Page that I have three times at least affirmed that Proposition what I have affirmed I will owne there is a fourth place where I have said the same words in P. 41. 4. 2. it should be the numbers are false printed That such persons as are ignorant and scandalous if they be owned for Church members they have a remote right to Baptisme 〈◊〉 and to the Lords Supper you must not deny it by these words you must not deny it I suppose you do not understand me you must not deny such the Lords Supper that is far from my thoughts for then I should condemne our old holy Divines and others now who alone will keepe back it may be halfe their Parish from the Lords Supper I condemne them not at all but thinke they have done well As you say Review Mr. Hooker p. 94. though you scarce think so by your passage P. 21. that then is the meaning of it You must not deny it but they have a Remote Right to the one as well as to the other But I suppose you well understood my minde that I 〈◊〉 no more there there thâ—â—â—in the sâ—â—â—â—â— plaâ—â—â— which now I shall consider in may Booke 〈◊〉 there you say I have it tâ—â—ies once from the 〈◊〉 giving of title to Circumcision so long as Church members For the Iewes I shall say this once for all if you can prove unto me that the grounds of the Iewes administâ—ing Circumcision were onely the same and no other of our administring Baptisme then I shall be very much swayed with Arguments you draw from them but if there were something peculiar to them as being such a Seed and such a Church which I doe verily believe and shall speake to afterwards then what Arguments you draw from them excepting this that as God made a Covenant with believing Abrabam and gave him the Scale and likewise his Children being reputed believers with their believing Father so the believing Gentiles who are Abrahams seed have right to the Scale of Baptisme for themselves and their children which I see confirmed in the Gospe I do very little regard You mention the same Page againe e it is true sir there I have sâ—â— down my minde plainly and that I will stand to There was a question moved whether such a bâ—â—â— profession as the casâ— which I staâ—ed mentions with grosse ignorence c. were sufficient to make and continue a Man a church-Church-member I said suppose that our Divines who Baptize all goe upon this Notion all persons in England do professe they believe in Christ hence all are Church members Ergo all are Baptized My answer to this was thus This I confess as some disadvantage to me Mr. Cawdry might have showen me so much favour as to let his Reader know that what strength he hath against me I gave it him knowingly but he never mentions that I saw the difficulty though I have expressed it but triumphs over me as if what I had said was unawares but I looke for no favour as his hand For if a Man be looked upon as a visible Saint and reputed a Member of is true Church if that Member be very scandalous and the Church let him alone and not dâ—â—le with him that person may challenge any Ordinance in the Church both Baptisme and the Lords Supper This I have said and will not recall make of it what you can't and here you have my minde fully with the next words adjoyned which I will rehearse presently From this you have drawn up a â—yllogisme to shew the World Page 15. how I have Confuted and Comtradicted my selfe and thus you have cast it The Child of a sandalous Member tolerated may be Baptized But the Child of a scandalous Member not Excommunicated is the Child of a scandalous Member tolerated Ergo it may be Baptized and is Minister may lawfully Baptize iâ— Thus you have killed me with my own Weapon but sir when I looke on your Syllogisme it comes at first view as if you must out off one of the seeâ—e of it for I 〈◊〉 it 〈◊〉 on foure I pray wheat was this â—â—â—me and a Minister may lawfully that is the word binds him to it which is the pinch of the Question Baptize is disposed in the premisses if you say it was included in the Major when I said it may be Baptized Sir I cannot tell that if a Minister will admit a Man into the Church as a Member though the Man be not qualified as you have told us Members must be but very scandalous in conversation and grosly ignorant yet the Minister thinkes he have enough to admit him a Member and consequently hee Baptizeth him Such a Minister may Baptize him if he will he may say A Member admitted may be Baptized but this is a Member admitted But the word doth not binde him no he prophanes the Ordinace though he will admit him a Member However Sir you should have expressed this in the Major as you have done in the Conclusion then your Major I would have denyed you will say to me the Major is my one proposition and upon that I argue and show you and the World how you have confuâ—ed your selfe No Sir I do utterly deny it shew me such a passage where I have said that Scandalous Members such us our English persons are named in the Question tollerated may have their Children Baptized and the word bindes Ministers to do it Shew your Reader that and then you say something but how farre
as such ought to do they were to looks after them reforme or cast out but in so doing they saved other Ordinances as well as this But we have a notion taken up as if Discipline were appointed onely to save the Lords Supper from being prophaned and no other Ordinance Will the 44 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 9 prove it I pray prove that Sanctuary there mentioned meanes only the Lords Supper that Sanctuary and Lords Supper are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those who interpret they ought to prove their interpretation which you must clear to make your answer good in P. 26. Will 1 Cor. 4.2 prove it Stewards must be faithfull this must be only in the Lords Supper Will Mat. 7.6 prove it Holy things must not be given to Dogs De Bapt. Tertullian applies this Text to the Administration of Baptisme as well as to the Supper And if it must be at the first then why not as well when it comes to be administred by vertue of one who is a Dog The word I love not to use in respect of others knowing my wicked heart there may be many who are Church-members by reason of Toleration onely and that Toleration its doubted if it be not sinful who yet are such Dogs as that Text mentions and upon this Notion Ministers have before excluded them from the Supper Your selfe speake to this purpose Diatar Page 184. 3. One Argument more to prove though such may challenge by reason of my Toleration yet I am not bound to give 3. Argument and here I will give examples of of what I have found and know concerning ignorance then draw up my Argument In my owne Parish I was questioning with one about his estate hee had lived long in Essex that which the Man builded upon was this said he I have been no Drunkard and I Repent What it was to Repene he could not tell but then I enquired what knowledge he had of Christ The Man I perceived knew nothing of him but when I told him how Christ was God-man sent to fulfill the Law to die to make satisfaction to Divine Justice and such ordinary plaine things The Man wondered to heare such things in so much indeed that I could not but wonder my selfe that a man should live above 50 years in such a place as Essex is and not know these plaine things Another was asked what Christ was the man could give him no answer to help him he was asked againe whether he were a God or a Man he answered plainely hee could not tell but said he thought he was a Spirit This is an Observation that I have made because Mr. Gaw sayes we are all Christians P. 4. when I have beene discoursing with people about their conditions they will tell me stories of what they have not been and some other silly matters but for Christ not one word of him unlesse when I have put it upon them what is Christ nothing then they will tell me yes they must believe in Christ God forbid the contrary but to know Christ and what it is to believe in him alas they are far short of this And this is not onely my observation but a godly Minister in Northamptonshire told mee the very same thing he observed in his Parish not one word of Christ till he put it into their minds then having taken up Christ by Tradition they must say something But for the Covenant of Grace which Baptisme respects also that is the strangest thing to people they know not what it meanes For Sin people have a Tradition that there is that which people call Sin but for themselves to be guilty of any particular sinne I have beene forced to run over the Commandements open them and tell them how my self have been guilty and yet could I scarce convince some they were guilty only all are sinnes and so are they A godly friend of mine told me he asked a Woman that was talking with him what shee had for Heaven shee answered him roundly she had never effended God in all her Life yet shee was above 50 yeares of Age. Another told him she had kept all the Commandements shee was not so old indeed but he had much a doe to convince her she had broke one yet these persons lived where there had been excellent Preaching Another comming to a neere friend of mine to have his Child Baptized he asked him why he would have it Baptized he answered because others had the asked him what good it would do his Child he answered As much as heretofore Another came to him he asked him how many Gods there were he answered Ten supposing he mistooke himselfe for the Commandements he asked him how many Commandements there were he answered Two he asked him which was the first he answered Salvation the second I know not what it was the Man professed he did answer as well as he could I thinke you are not much better in Northhamptonshire for a godly Minister told me of one in his Parish that had a Prayer but I think there was never such a one heard before this sentence was often repeated And Jesus was Her Name These instances have been since our Reformation began and if Ministers should search all certaintly we should be amazed to heare the Answers Now Sir I apply this you say all these are Church-Members tolerated they can therefore challenge Baptisme and because their Toleration give them a Right Therefore the word bindes me to Baptize their Childen But Sir may I not better put these off for a time untill by Catechizing of them they come to understand Sinne Christ and the Covenant of Grace the word saith Teach and Baptize yea say you at the first constitution but if we finde such persons as you call Members continued in constituted Churches that are ignorant in the knowledge of Sin Covenant of Grace yea and of Christ save onely they have taken up such a Name that there is one Christ and the Nation receives him as are the very Heathen nay for sin the Heathen know more is there not as much and more reason to Teach these before I will Baptize by vertue of them let the Reader judge Am I bound to Baptize a Child presently so soon as it is brought They make nothing to keepe Children a fortnight a moneth yea more according as their occasions are before they will offer them to Baptisme may not I thâ—n finding the Parents unfit delay if it be two moneths till they are taught before I will Baptize What is the danger where is the Rule broken where am I tyed to Baptize one so soone as offered though never so unfit the eight day that was set for Circumcision concernes not us we can Baptize before if we will So for Scandall if uncleane persons shall bring their Bastards the Ranters or who you will must I presently Baptize because you say a Church member tolerated will challenge a right to the Ordinance shall I not first require
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-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
state This is the Call and what have we now but divers ignorant soâ—s sent into these places to read a booke of Common prayer and this is their profession this is strange making of Churches this was not so in the times when Churches were first constituted Such Churches they were at their first constitution according to Mr. Cawdric Papge 7. who doth not regard what they were before this time so from first to last it is hard to say of divers Parishes that there have been so many visible Saints as might make a Church In the same Page you tell us That some people received the Gospell after the Example of Kings and were Baptized for company as Simon Magus it seemes but stay sir the Text saith he believed I know not in truth and continued with Philipâ— his conversation was such as for ought I can see till Peter came downe they had good opinion of him 8 Act. 13. Reverend Calvin upon the Text doth not judge so slightly as you here expresse and your selfe Pape 17. speake more clearly of Simon Magus then you doe here and neerer the truth Now sir you say though the People thus follow onely for company though the case was otherwise here for the People would not have changed had they been left to their own Libertie but the seare of a King or a Queen compelled them Yet if they take upon them an outward profession that was sufficient to give a right to themselves and their children for Baptisme and consequently they were a true Church though not a perfect and pure Church But sir you are speaking of the first Title to Baptisme what a strange Profession doe you make here to give Title how much different from what you have said before is required to make a church-Church-member You say Page 7. it is a true Church how will you predicate Truth of an effect when it wants the essentiall cause to predicate verum or vere of â—us is good but how is here the entity of a Church when the materiall cause is wanting and if the materiall be wanting the formall is also The formall cause suppose the materiall which it doth informe and distinguish c. I should further have objected against the Separatists what will you make of those Parishes are they Infidells They would answer let them be what they will they are not nor ever were that we know or others fit matter for Churches if the Presbyterians will stand to their own Definition but they would say againe they are State-christians made such by the power of the Civill Sword not Church-christians made by the spirituall Sword And this shewes it that in their Religion they will not go one step beyond what the State commands and had the State let them alone they would still have held to their Popery And talke to them of any other Church but the place they met in they understand you not Had I said But they are Baptized they would answer if men will abuse Baptisme as if a Minister should go and Baptize Indians must we needs say therefore they are a Church Baptisme doth not make a Church for it presupposeth a Church The sum is I saw so much difficulty that I did rather avoid that so undertooke to prove that many Congregations were true Churches besides those which you call Independent Churches In this therefore I desire satisfaction and hope I shall see something by this occasion but I am sure it would trouble holy Ministers to goe into such places and Administer Baptisme to the people abiding as now they are And now sir I come to examine your answer and the many faults you finde with me I shall take the Booke as it lies and goe over every page as briesly as I can First Page 1. your question whether I meane that all these meete in one person Ignorant Scandalous c. or singly of any of them Sir I was thinking of it my selfe but I did suppose the Reader would understand me to meane singly if men were grossely ignorant and would continue so wilfully though they are intreated and assistance offered to helpe but will not as is the case with us such deserve Excommunication and you affirme as much P. 17 19. For Scandalous conversations Scoffing at godlinesse I supposed no question would be made of it For Submitting to Church-Discipline Page 2. though I know some few Erastins did deny it yet the bulke of Christians would never question it being so plaine but however you finde afterward that I speake of such as are convinced of it which was my case but because I did not put it into the question though I expresse it afterwards you take advantage against me p. 18 19 20.25 no lesse then soure times to make it serve for an answer torne Well Sir I perceive your minde is not to make any favourable construction though you have my minde cleared in another place onely you lye on the catch Come on then Sir since this is your spirit let us see whether this will give you such an advantage the question is whether Ministers are bound to baptize Children of Parents groslyignorant c. Yes saith Mr. C. the Parents are church-Church-members and though notoriously scandalous they are Members to all Ordinances while they are tolerated tolerated say I what meane you by that you answer the Church hath not proceeded to Censure and Excommunicate for till excommunicated they are Church-members yea and then also by your Doctrine but then say I for excommunication I know no such thing nor any Church-discipline you say there are godly ones not covinced of this Ordinance and if godly ones then not wicked ones sure enough they may as well renounce it thus Discipline is rejected by all so then non-excommunication non-censuring doth not help one whit but their grosse ignorance c. is sufficient for me for Excommunication there is no such thing so my arguments stand the stronger unlesse there be a way to help by the pro-parent and Adoption which are your notions I see Sir you will plead any thing to make an answer and seeme to shake hands with the Erastians but if you and other Ministers as I perceive some such be so favourable to the opinion then never open your mouths more for Church government O say you and others there are godly people of the opinion well Sir what then put case Master Caw is not of the opinion but his Members are suppose there were some scandalous Member to be excommuicated you would doe it and you exhort the body to consent to you in it to doe it renitente plebe is a poore thin they rise up no sir wee will not consent to you in it for wee know no such Ordinance wee will hold Communion with him these are godly persons now what will you doe what brave worke we make in pleading for opinions For the explicite Church-Covenant you speake of in this page I will let it alone till p.
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
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-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-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
recompenced that priviledge with a witâ—esse I think when he sends his Gospel to all the world which before was tyed up to little Canaan 2. If this still hold then let the vilest monster in England I have seene such stand for sureties in former times when that custome was used that the Indians are honest men in comparison of them bring a servant which he hath bought and become surety for so ignorant the man is that hee had neede be carechised himselfe let him bring such a one to godly M. Cawdrey if such a villaine lived in his parish and bid Mr. â—at baptise him as he is his servant would you doe it you must doe it according to that text for when they were Apostatiz'd they did no question circumcise them if they tooke them 〈◊〉 such a villaine be excommunicated 〈◊〉 gives title also for ought I can discerne by you for though 〈◊〉 â—â—â—es were excommunicated yet I see by your doctrine they might circumcise such To say no I would have such as are understanding and godly men only or not scandalous who do undertake for them able to instruct them c. Sir you have nothing in the text for any such thing besides if you can prove it you hurt not my question 3. I observe a vast difference betweene their servants and ours they had strong power over their servants Exod. 21.20 21. I observed in New England the Indians whom we had taken in warre or others who lived with us sometimes halfe or a whole yeare yet if they could handsomly get away from us they would and did we should have done finely to have baptised them we buy no servants who are English men or Christians as you call them to be under our power as they were Hence learned Rives saith there bad neâ—de be a great caution lest the Ordinance be prophaned for our servants are not as theirs In Gen. 17. p. 443. last Ed. To. 4. l. 5. c. 11. s 2. And leaâ—ned Chamier speakes very warily upon the question Servi si fim verè servi quales olim non diffitearâ—nam Abrahamo legimus imperatum ut circumcideret suos omnes servos sed quales hodià not serves babemâ—â— ut plurimum quia verè liberi suns non putem sic tractandus non cor quidem qui jure belli fiunt subditi principibus nam hoc genus subditorum tamen liberum manet De natu ergo ex parentibus insidelibus liberis si consentiant parentes distinguendum putem Consentiunt enim vel ipâ—i facti fideles ac tune nulla difficultas c. vel perseverates in infidelitate ac tum non putem baptizandor c. For those who are â—â—rè servi which it seemes we have none but if we had such should we baptise them being adulti before they be taught the Covenant and see if they will owne it Teach and Baptize for Infants I thinke we never buy such servants 4. For suretiship that comes not in this way by being bought as they were I have nothing to say to it if you can prove it to be a divine Institutioon I will attend to it but I think it will prove but an humane Invention for sureties being joyned with parents Caranz p. 17. Pet. Mart. loâ— com 822. we know who was the parent of that invention Higinâ—â— was no Apostle if you have a better parent for your suretiship I pray bring him forth 〈◊〉 if any man hath a minde to be a surety for other folkes children let him per me lices I thinke those who have children of their owne and know what is to educate them will not be forward to be sureties for others I doubt many men if they examine how they have discharged their suretiship heretoforeÌ„ have cause to be humbled for I thinke most never regarded it and how to dischargeâ—t when they have them not under their charge and remove so commonly as we do I know not But you with tell me of the stream of Divines are for it there is a little Rivules that is not acknowledged by Gerhard loc co To. 4. p. 583. he quotes Galvin Beza Bucanus and for Beza Walaeus doth acknowledge tutius judicat ut priuserudiantur Hunnius also Rivet Sâ—ith is against it To. 1. p. 492. on Gen. 17. p. 343. de bapt Let me adde one more of no small note Tertullian in those words veniant dum adolescunt veniant dum discunt which words you must either understand as some doe against Infant-baptisme altogether as divers doe saith Lauren. upon Teâ—tul and conclude from hence and a place of Nazian Orat. in Sanâ— Lavac that these two Fathers were against Infant-baptism though I think Nazianzen speaks enough in that Ocation to cleare his minde or if you will not rake it so you must take it that Tertullian there speaks against baptising by sureties and he that reads two lines before shall easily perceive that is his meaning and so Mr. Marshall interpreâ—s him and that clearely Against Tombs p. 36. so then you have not all on your side So much for your way of Adoption Now I returne to your answer Page 15. p. 15. you tell me there I have started a new question Sir you know I said at the first I must move two questions and for this had I not moved it I had said nothing for what if I had proved that it is onely the nâ—xt parent gives right to Baptisme yet if such parents as these in the Q. were judged fit Church members and so fit to give title I had said nothing that therefore was my scope to prove these were not fit and consequently ought to be reformed or shut out of the Church of which before You say not much to my first Argument to prove they are not Page 16. viz. because they are not visible Saints you acknowledge they are not nor ought to be admitted if now they were to be admitted then reforme such or cast them out for that you say of Corinth I say it is no wonder though Paul call the whole Church Saints making denomination from the melior and it is likely the Major part as visible Saints but had they beene all such as you say grosly ignorant or scandalous whether the Apostle would then have called them Saints or no I cannot tell What you say about profession of faith that is requisite to give a man admission I have elted it before p. 1. you say presently Page 17. This is sufficient for admission but as there must he more to continue such in the Church c. you say p. 19. more is required to first admission then to continuance in the Church I know not how to reconcile these For positive matter for Excommuncation you say right there must be so indeed and I think we are not to seek for that but for Excommunication I gave you my thoughts before For my second Argument that falls you say also I doe not know that my
first is fallen yet for you have yeilded the Argument I pray what is the question I must set it downe because of these two answers you give to my two next Arguments which you mightily contemne They doe but say they believe in him when whole conversation manifests the contrary The Q. is Whether is this bare profession of saith in Christ for thousands in England doe but barely say it that they beleeve in him they know nothing of Faith nor of Christ only the Name such a one their Father or some body told them of I gave you some instances before though parents be grossely ignorant scandulous and refuse to subject to Church Discipline sufficient to make a man and continue him a Member of the visible Church The first Argument stands as yet My second Argument was this If this bare profession be sufficient then nonen can be cast out for the vilest sins Heresie c. because he is the same now as when he was admitted You answer The consequence is unsound and the proofe like it you are very nimble methinks but why so unsound for when he was first admitted upon his profession no such scandall appeared but now it doth there he is not the same that he was when admitted To this I say by profession you either meane such a profession as you have mentioned above in this page as I thinke you doe and so you speake not ad idem or if you meane such a profession as the question stared mentions then Sir it is not so for either grosse ignoraâ—ce or scandall did appeare unlesse you meane that just at that time when he came to you and told you he did believe in Christ be did not manifest any scand â—ll to you was not drunke or did not sweare or shew uncleannesse c. just aâ— that time for so those who come to require Baptisme for their children doe not come drunk or sweare c. in that very instant time but before they cameth y would and when the child is baptised can sweare c. and it s well if divers be not drunk if they have boone companions to joyne with some have been little better So that for all your hast the Argument is sound enought but so is noâ— your Answer The third Argument you say is like the former very weake I pray leave out veâ—y and let weake be â—nought it is possible it will not prove weak What is the Argument A Rebell opposing Christ in his visible Kingdome is not fit to be a Member of it because no subject You answer be is not fit to be admitted if no Member before Sir what is the Q. whether is such a bare profession c. fit to make c. to make a Member then this is not sit your pen hath affirmed but then the Argument is not very weake but very strong to prove one part of the question your selfe acknowledge it in your first words and so you have done before p. 16. but say you he is fit to be continued till tryall of Reformation be past Sir you said above in this page that a bare profession with the mouth that he believes in Jesus Christ though visibly he lives like an Infidell is not sufficient to qualifie a man to be made or continued a Member The question speaks of such a bare profession if you will say a moral conversation though grosly ignorant will sarve the turne there hath beene as good and now are among Infidels and those who doe professe Christ for drunkennesse swearing c. uncleannesse lying stealing disobedience to parents when growne up c. are as bad and worse then Infidels Indians will shame them so that the sufficiency of his professton is not that which doth continue him a Church menber but the Churches continuance or impotency if the Church went about to reforme and could not as in the time of the Hierarchie if it be the sufficiency of his profession keepes him in for ought I know you may let him alone when power is in your hand to cast him out Most of this page is spoken to before Page 18. only to two propositions as you call them of mine You answer That which constitutes a Church continues a Church if then a bare profession be not sufficient to make a Member nor is it enough to continue a man a Member of a Church You answer both Propositions are faulty the Minor for we have proved that a profession of faith nothing appearing to the contrary will constitute a Member and so a Church of many Members though all Hypocrites But Sir the profession of faith you speake of here is not the profession of faith the question speaks of for the question speakes of such a profession as hath grosse ignorance or open scandall appeating therefore you speak not ad idem For all Hypocriter there is as M. Carâ—wright saith difference between Tares and Acorns Goats and Swine The Major is faulty say you because more is required to a first Admission Page 19. then to a Continuance in the Church as is evident in men of yeares converted from Infidels a personall profesâ—ion of faith is necessary to such but their children are admitted and continued without it Sir you should have proved that more is required to the Admission then the Continuance of the same person speake ad idem there should seeme rather that more is required to Continuance then Admission for being longer under means he should have attained more in that time then he had when first admitted You say children are admitted and continuâ—d without personall profession I grant it but admitted it seemes they are and surely that is because they are reputed in the parents for visible Saints 1 Cor. 7. but now Holy sit matter for a Church let them continue such as they were reputed to be at their admission and it is well enough no more shall be required Or it there be any difference it is this more is required to their continuance for they to their admission were required to be but visible Saints by vertue of their parents reputed such for their sakes but for their continuance they must when growne up manifest actually they are such or else be cast out so more is required for Continuance then Admission and so your proposition is false For your last clause in that Paragraph there is another way to reforme a constituted Church but corrupted then first to constitute a Church viz. Discipline I know not what sense to make of it I supposed there was some â—â—our in the Printer but I finde no Errata printed and so cannot tell what to say to it I said let Discipline be exercised and so the Churches reduced to their first constitution viz. to be such as Churches ought to be Iâ—perceive your next heads are to oppose this you have no Government settled you may have it if you will as I said before parties refuse to submit to it say you then
conditions of the Covenant of grace and that Baptisme respected one and the Lords Supper the other then there might be some eason why the Church should looke to one more then another but I know but of one condition Page 21. You say moreover The young children of members are unfit to be admitted to the Lords Supper yet not to be excluded from Baptisme The reason is because more is required to the Lords Supper then to their Baptisme To which I say 1. If children did as much depend on their parents for the Lords Supper as they doe for Baptisme then for ought I know they may have as was the old custome the Lords Supper as Baptisme 2. You should have proved that lesse is to be required of those who doe give them title to their Baptisme then for themselves to the Lords Suppeâ— Page 22. So that whereas you say all my false consequences are grounded upon my first false premised supposition viz. That the child hath no right but in relation to the next parent the word next by your favour was not there put in I may consider the Parent and Child as argumentum primum ortum in Logick primum babet arguendi vim in se à se ortum in se sed non à se It s but derived so I say your answer to this argument runs upon a false supposition viz. that children are baptized by vertue of a title distinct from their parents If you can prove that viz. that the parent requires baptisme for himselfe by one title and the child by another title distinct from his then your answer will be strong else it is as weake and weaker then the argument which you so much slight for the rest of your answer I have spoken to it before and therefore repeace nothing for the examples of Scripture or History will you doe nothing but what you have example for is not argument drawne from Scripture-grounds sufficient for me though there be not examples set downe For the personall default I have spoken to it before For my Dilemma which you would turne upon me I see you take that for granted which I have not yeilded therefore my Dilemma stands as it did before against you Page 23. For my Querie Whether the child may not be suspended in case the parent he suspended continuing obstinate you would answer me out of principles which are not mine I pray prove that juspension is an Ordinance instituted onely with respect to the Lords Supper Secondly Being it is called by Divines Excommunicatio Minor prove that the case now standing with us as now it doth in beginning of Reformation wee may not deny the signa gratiae as the Layden professors say though by reason of the multitude we cannot proceed to Excommunication 3. Why may we not proceed to non-communion My second Argument was this Such Parents if now they were to be Baptized ought not to be Baptized Ergo they cannot challenge it for their Children Baptisme belongs primatily to the Parent You againe deny the consequence and the proose of it First you say It is a received maxime amongst the Lawyers quod fieri non debuit factum valet Suppose an unfit person Baptized his Baptisme is not null be is a Member till legally exeluded and so hath right for himselfe and his to be consequent Priviledges Hence first those Indians whom the Fryars Baptized in the West Indies without instruction Heylen Geog. P. 773. have right and title for themselves and theirs to all Church priviledges The persons were unfit who were Baptized I anâ—â—â—â— yet saith Mr. Ca. unfitnesse doth not debarre till excluded No nor then neither Let others doe as those Fryars did yet this Argument holdes Secondly this answer earrieth it That Baptisme makes a Member of a visible Church observe his words suppose an unfit person Baptized If unfit to be Baptized then unfit to be a Member his Baptisme is not null be is a Member which way came this man to be a Member not by his Christianity which you use to say for he is a person unfit you say but his Baptisme made him thus which is First crosse to your own proposition Review of Mr. Hoo. P. 94. Baptisme doth not make a man a Member of a Church Secondly if Baptisme doth make a Member and consequently gives the title to his Childs Baptisme Then Constantine Valentinianes c. those who deferred their Baptisme were so long no Members of the Church nor could give title to their Childrens Baptisme Thirdly Primum in unoquoque genere est meusura aliorion so take the first in genere Baptizatorum what was the cause of their Baptizing because cause they hearing of the word Taught Believed and joyned to the Church it was not because any other was Baptized so the same holds now a person being reputed a Believer and a Church-member whether in the Parents or otherwise this is the ground of its Baptisme then it is not anothers being Baptized that is the ground of my Baptisme Fourthly the ground of the sealing of the Covenant is because the person appeares to be in Covenant not because it was first sealed to another The Child is looked upon within the Covenant by reason of the Parent as was I shmael before Abraham was circumcised if in the Covenant then say you the child is a Church-member then it is not the Parents being Baptized that gives the title Hence your Notion in the same Page 23. If the Parents sin did annull his own Baptisme it were a question whether it did not hinder his childes Baptisme which also implies it is the Parents Baptisme that is the cause of his childes Baptisme comes to nothing Your second answer is from none of my Principles Your third I have spoken to also I did not expresse excommunication as a qualification in the questions it is true I have spoken to this also before What you have said to the third Argument I have also spoken to before my fourth Argument ran thus To give the seale of the Covenant of grace to a child by vertue of one who appeares to be in covenant with the Devill is a prophaning of the Ordinance To this you answer foure wayes the last I have spoken to but not the other three which I will consider Page 25. First you deny that such persons as the Q. memions are visibly in Covenant with Satan especially if tolerated for so long they are visibly in the externall covenant of the Church What you meane by this Externall Covenant of the Church I cannot imagine not Baptisme I hope nor the Externall Church covenant wee speake of and you so much oppose for the Covenant of grace they are not visibly under that there needs no Covenant formally betweene the Devill and us naturally hee hath us strong enough though wee make no formall Covenants with him But when are men said to be under the Covenant of Grace is it not when
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
having a legall worke by the power of the Word Thirdly Receiving the Word Fourthly Repenting they are Baptized this is more still 3. Acts Though there is not mention made of the Samaritans repentance who were Apostatized from the Jews but laid claime to the Paniaâ—ks Jo. 4.20 expected Christ v. 25. worshipped God Ezva 4.2 Yet that Philip should know them to be so abominable in conversation and yet Baptize them that is to be proved since that others required repentance I believe there was a more then ordinary presence at that time to enlighten so to aw their hearts the same answer we may give for these that Augustin doth for the Eunuch Baptâ—zavit cum Philippus intelligi voluis impleta omnia quae licet taceanâ—â—r in Scripturis gratia brevitatâ—â—â—amen scrie traditionis sciâ—us implenda Irenaeus and Tertullian have said enough for the Eunuch besides Augustin Ubi prius c. 9. and the Text is plaine If this be not a giving Holy things to Dogs which Tertullian and Augustine give warning of even in Baptizing I know not what is Let a man be a notorious Ranter Sodomite Scoffer at Godlinesse Drunkard no matter what this is known and proved yet a Christian nomine tenus Therefore you must Baptize him That Repentance as well as Faith was looked to in Baptizing it appeares by the ages following the Apostles for those who would live in their lusts they deferred their â—aptisme knowing what that required So a De toenit Tertullian and b Ora. 40. Nazianzen intimate who exhort them to confession of their sinne from the example of John Just Mart. Apol. 2. is cleare for more then you mention For the Cate humeni they were strict we see Concil Neocas Can. 5. Concil Niâ— Can. 13. Concil Elib Can. 42. a good conversation they required thouâ— for their long deferring I approve not that Believer and Saint you say are Sâ—nonoma's Dr. Ames gives the reason which will not help you sir Medul Theo. c. 32. 〈◊〉 For the ill Members in Gorinth and Sardiâ— 1. Sir you must prove the Apostles knew them to be such when they admitted them and Baptized them that they wallowed in their filth 2. That the Churches were not too blame in letting them alone 3. To have a Name to live is more then you speake of For ignorance you quote the Hebrews which I thinke hurts not me that of 1 Cor. 15.34 Is the most likely but sir do you thinke it was such grosse ignorance as I have given instance was not Paul as true to his worke as Abraham or the Jews were to be in admitting to circumcision which you mention Page 445. I have found so much ignorance that the persons deserved shame but yet dared not keepe from the Lords Supper because I found such a worke on the heart which showed they had the thing though could not expresse the thing in a definition For the * Lord. min Jâ—â— Div. Page 115. 〈◊〉 and others Gilles Aar rod. Page 482 154 515 544 555. To. 4. disp 4. q 3 p. 3. Presbyterians they have delivered their mind otherwise the Fathers Councells and Schoolemen are of another Opinion as appeares by Grug de val but I quote no more then I have read I hope then you will pardon me though I differ For your Answers to my Arguments Your distinction of the word Sains I accept and doubt not but your eyes are so good that you can see a difference betweene a man who is but nomine tenâ—â— a Christian and wallowes in his filth and another who walkes outwardly like a Saint though hee have not the reall qualifications of a Saint The second Argument must cost you two lines more before it be answered If a man be but Nomine tenus a Christian though never so abominable in his conversation yet must be admitted a Member then hee cannot be cast out of the Church for any vile sin so long as he is nomine tenus a Christian he is now as he was when you admitted him You say the Consequence is erroneous because be did not make profession of his sin but of his Faith As Simon Magus Then it seemes the man must professe his sin with his own mouth as his Faith though Mr. Blake knowes he is a Ranter c. The Members of the Church witnesse it yet because the mans own mouth doth not professe it you admit him Then sir though you know the same abominations afterward and your Members testifie it witnesses come in you must not cast him out unlesse he will professe it If Knowledge and Witnesses will cast him out whether his mouth will professe it or no why will not the same keepe him out at first We shall never find such 〈◊〉 thinke as you speake of they will give you good words when they come to require Baptisme though they will sweare and be drunk before and after in the same day For Simon Magus I have spoken to him before Aar rod. 482. and Mr. Gillespic answers for me What is that Censure you would have passed upon a manifest opposer of Christ in his visible Kingdome he was no subject I said Therefore not sit for a Church-member But sir I have not liberty to go further onely this I must adde I follow this dispute with much sadnesse in respect of mine own heart for your else and Mr. Ca. I honour you both your graces your abilities I acâ—knowledge are before mine but in this point I must see more light before 〈◊〉 yeild as for the bond of Unity I hope by my piece against the Separation you will conceive me to be one who will hold it firme with you in this Point I leave you to your own light and shall conclude with the words of Cyprian though some may say I am in an errour as he was Manente concordiae vinâ—ulo perseverante Catholicae Ecclesiae individuâ— Sacramento Ep. 52. actum suum disponit dirigit unusquisque Episcopus raâ—iâ—nem prepâ—fiti sui Domino redditurus FINIS To the Reader I Had but three houres liberty and that in the night to run over my book and correct it I did not observe many faults which would trouble the sense those I leave to the Courteous Reader to correct these among others I observed Pag. 10. l. 21. r. propriè l. 22. r. Govenant for Councell p. 22. â—undem p. 43. for Smith r. saith
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 â—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 Govenanâ— 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 boâ—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-Church-member how you can deny him the Lords Supper I know not so for baptisme If there were two