signes of unregeneration we cannot be answerable to God if we should Also he saith Page 544. it were a prophanation of Baptismel to Baptize a Catechumene being manifestly under the power of abominable finnes although he could give a sound and Orthodox confession of Faith This is more then thousands of the Church members of England can doe and yet live under the power of sinnes bad enough His grounds I have quoted before with Augustine and the Schoolemen Aquinas Durandus Serious Quest p. 21 22 23. Greg. de Val. For the consequence if it be said there is more required in one who is a Member he must first be cast out this takes not off the force of the Argument the person is sinfully tolerated as well at first sinfully admitted as he might have beene and should have beene denyed admission and so the Ordinance had been saved so this person may and ought to be dealt with there being now power in the hands of Ministers so the Ordinance is saved sinfull admission caused the Ordinance at first to be prophaned sinfull toleration cause it now to be prophaned If you would turne me off here as you doe afterward by telling me the Argument should proceed of the same person which it doth not the Child and the Parent are different persons Sir this will not serve the turne my Argument proceeds upon one and the same Title the Parents Title is the Childs Title the Child hath no other Title nor pleads any other but the Parents Title the Parent expresses his Title for himselfe and his Child being a branch of that stock if the child pleaded a Title distinct from the Parents as a Title of its own then my Argument were fallacious as I shall charge you anon but if the child could speake it could plead only this my Parent is within the Covenant the Covenant is made with the Believing Parent and his or her seed Therefore â—give me the Scale by vertue of him or her it is made with me You tell me afterward P. 25. I may Baptize the Child of the prophanest Man in England as of the godliâ—st my Argument tends to that Man only you would have me grieve that I cannot reform this abuse Whence I observe First this ordinance may be abused Secondly de Facto it is abused in this administration to such vile persons only say you his saves all you have no power to reform this Abuse and for that I much grieve but this I deny I have power and so have you and many more but by you I cannot conceive the Ordinance is abused for if the word bindes me to give such a person the Ordinance I know not how I abuse it in following of the command of the word so that I have no such cause to grieve in respect of the administring of the Ordinance for that is well enough while such a one is tolerated I am bound to do it that is our Question say you the griefe must be in regard of the Mans toleration in the Church But Sir remember one thing more you tell us though such a person be Excommunicated yet because be is a Christian and retaines his Baptisme Page 12. Therefore the Minister must Baptize his Child what cause of grieving is there now for what power is there beyond Excommunication so that you do but deceive us in talking of Reformation If Toleration though sinfull will save us from prophaning of Ordinances then Ministers may take their ease as to that point and let all corrupt and vile Members alone let them partake of both Seals for so long as tolerated the word binds you â—o give them Baptisme and the Supper and the word doth not binde me to prophane an Ordinance So much for my first Argument 2. Argument I come to a second Argument viz. to prove though scandalous Members in England are tolerated and by vertue of that Toleration they will challenge any Ordinance yet the word binds not me to give If so then the Ministers of England are bound to administer the Lords Supper to the grossest ignorant persons horribly scandalous Ranters c. in England But the Consequent is false Ergo the Antecedent is false The Consequence is cleare they are Church-members tolerated saith Mr. Caw we have no power to helpe Therefore they may by vertue of that Principle by which he hath me on the hip as he thinks I thinke Sir you speake the same words P. 94. in Review of Mr. Hooker notoriously scandalous Men tolerated in a Church whilest tolerated they are Members to all Ordinances for themselves and their posteritie Then all the Ranters c. are members to the Lords Supper and you have no power you say to helpe it Yet I presume you would sinde power before you would admit all such to the Supper This I would saine have cleared to me that the Officers are bound to looke to the Members more in admitting them to the Supper then to Baptisme and the Supper respect both the same Covenant there is but one condition whether there be Conditio propriâ—dicta * Twiss Vind. grapraefa Sect. 8. in the Covenant of grace is another question of the counâ—â—ll of grace viz. That man then who can rightly take a Seale or Convey a Seale of this Covenant to his must visibly appeare to have the condition of the Covenant which is the first and maine right Ames Medal Th. c. 24. Th. 19. Rhaetors Exar Apol. p. 313. if he do so appeare and therefore can convey the Seale to his Child why he may not have the other Seale for himselfe appearing to be a Believer and also being in right Order for my part I see no reason I must not here condemne the holy Divines who have before kept this Ordinance neither dare I say the Assembly of Divines did very weakly to trouble the Parliament in requesting the Houses to make an Act against such persons that they might be debarred from the Lords Supper which I must doe if they were bound to give it while such were tolerated Members they would finde hard worke to have Excommunicated all these If any say I condemne the former Divines for Baptizing all I pray let them say no more then they heare me say I do not do so onely I would gladly see the reason of the practise and for those who lived before these times I can answer my selfe another way I pray remember my Question how it can be proved that the Officers must looke more to this Seale then the other 1 Cor. 11. It is said Let a man examine himself c. True so he hath need before he comes to Baptisme but what is this to the Officers of Corinth the Lords Supper was administred every Lords Day in those times what must the Officers examine them every weeke here is worke enough they looked to them or should have done when they first tooke them in to be Members and so if they did not walke
answered this already and he may doe as some have done with me that have required baptism of me and have confessed to me that Discipline was an Ordinance of God but to promise subjection to it and to me with the Church that we in particular should have power over them they would not do it and could tell me that I had no power over them without that their consent and they speak truely for they had not chosen me for their officer though they are in the parish and by their Christianity I could claime no power over them more then another Minister So that if you will yeeld me this we shall at last prove that explicite consent will be necessary at the first admission Thus Sir I thinke you have a full answer to your Diatribe with Mr. Hooker as to the point of Confederacy with what I have said I thinke to wipe off all your Arguments as to that point I doe not tun over all because my booke will swell into too big a volume for the other things in the Diatrebe they concerne me with him Now then I proceed In p. 5. you tell me our Arguments for Infants-Baptisme stand upon the notion of an Explicite Covenant How true this is Page 5. let the Reader judge Then you tell me I have mistaken Amesius his argument for Infants Baptisme Page 6. because Children are capable of the grace of Baptisme for all are Patients c. this is brought you say to answer the objection of the Anabaptists what you tell me of those is no newes but I pray see if Doctor Ames be answering an objection hee makes is his fifth argument see also Mr Marshall his Sermon upon Infants Baptisme p. 41.43 I know it serves against an objection and yet consider the child with the parent it may serve for a ground also for Baptizing Then you tell me I speake not properly because I put a Morality in that Command to Abraham c. Sir you may well know by the next words I did but borrow the word from the morality of the second commandement which I had used for illustration and is there onely Aâ—alogy in it when we see the Command is not repealed but rather confirmed in the New Testament Acts 2.38 39. but I perceive your scope is to spye out what faults you can though they do not concerne the question and sometimes when you can finde none yet you will make some Then you bring me to the question about predecessors Page 7. which you have largely discussed in the Diatrebe you say for that promise in the second Commandement you say you would not plead it Sir then you doe not help my adversaries at home who have pleaded onely that promise and therefore I onely mentioned that not having seene your booke Before I come to see what you have said let me speake one word as to the question whether if a godly grand-father being of the Church and being Orthodoxe you put it in thus twice in one page godly living Orthodoxe should bring a grand-child to me to baptize it by vertue of him taking it to himself Diatr 187. and so in this p. 7. godly as his own and cugaging for the Education of it whether now I should refuse it truely I cannot tell it is a hard question and because I see so many holy learned men and some also Congregationall men are of that Opinion I am the more shaken thinking God will reveale more to them then to such a wretch as I am but I am not resolved what I should doe if I were put upon the practise But suppose I yeeld this yet you trouble me not at all but save my question for if I baptize it not as it is the immediate Seed of these Scandalous parents but the mediate seed of a godly grand father or grandmother who take it as theirs and engage for Education then I doe not Baptize the children of such as the question mentions by vertue of them This will serve to take off many of your Answers But then I come againe What shall I doe with the Infants of such whose parents are such as the Q. menâ—ions and so are and were their pro-parents I have divers such of whom I have enquired Thus then I could easily depart from this but for discourse sake to beat it out more clearely I will try what you have said The text you give me is Gen. 17.7 and in this p. and p. 11. you require of me an expesse Scripture that shews the promise reach but to the next generation What meane you by this do you look on me as an Anabaptist when I dispute against them I take their owne principles but doe you therfore require it of me I doubt you have not given expresse Scriptures for all you have said in your books Nay Sir which is strange if you will prove the Grandfather might circumcise the Grandchild if the immediate parent had lost his right which come neerest to our Q. you must draw it out by consequence I pray call for no more then you give Because you speak so of your full and large discussing of this question in your Diatr I made account you had bestowed much paines upon the text to prove it out and cleare the text but I see you onely propound the text and no more It is worth the paines sometimes to cleare out a text which you have not done that which lookes most likely is that you say Jacob had power to dispose of Josephs Children Diatr 188. The issue which thou begettest after them shall be thine you might have set downe a Text if you meane 48. Gen. 5. the 6. v. will help to an answer * and as for the 5. v. if you please to peruse famous Rivet on the Text who clearely opens it I cannot see how any thing can be drawne from thence to your purpose to prove it by any thing else you have said I can see nothing But to the Text I will establish my Covenant betweene me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting Covenant to be a God unto thee and to thy seed after thee 1. It s true God made his Covenant not onely with Abraham but his seed after him His Seed either 1. Such as were Carnally and Spiritually So Jacob David c. who were really within the Covenant of grace 2. Or his Seed onely Carnally So those ten Tribes when revolted and the Jewes when went whoring after Gods not cleaving to the God of Abraham 3. Who onely Spiritually not Garnally So the believing Prosâ—lites then and believing Gentiles which I conceive may be sub-divided into his Seed really so or visibly so that in judgement of charity appeare so but not truly so So some of the Jewes also as well as Gentiles 2. He saith Hee will be a God to them those who were really and spiritually Abrahams Seed had him for their God indeed for others he
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
the world if he could and demand any Ordinances yet Member of no particular Church so let this man walke as disorderly as he will as the latitude sometimes you give of a Church-Member will allow a man to be bad enough in this Towne or another Towne he have owned no particular Church onely the Catholike what hath this particular Church to doe to meddle with him more then any other wee must have Catholike Church-Officers to cast him out who are such not onely actu primo but actu secundo which you say no Minister is to another that is not of his particular Congregation unlesse he be Called to it but to be sure this man will never call you to it who then can give you a Call so that this man cannot come to be reformed and yet he may goe up and downe to any Church I am a Christian therefore give me the Ordinances excommunicated I am not for none can excommunicate him unlesse all the Officers of the Churches in the world should meet to cast him out If you say Which you affirm Diatr 194. Where he first came to be baptized of that particular Church he is a Member and that Officer hath power c. No Sir I cannot believe this doctrine that my baptizing of another makes him member to our particular Church I have had three of my children baptized by Ministers who never looked on me as member to their Church though I dwelt in the Town I have done the same for others being called to it yet none of my members Your selfe acknowledge Baptisme doth not make a member of a visible Church Revie Mr. Hooker c. â— then not of this particular visible Church If you say So you express your mind pag. 194. Diat But a Christian must not doe thus he must joyne to a particular Church the question is not what he must doe but what he will doe will not you baptize his child or him unlesse he will joyne If not you have said enough 3. To be a Church-member seemes to be more then a Christian i. e. a Christian member of such a Society and wâ—â—king under such a policy and that policy suppose Officers You say there is no essentiall Homogeneall Church existing without Officers mentioned in the Scripture it is a fancy you saye and repeat it againe Review Master Hooker pag. 75 77. opposing Mr. Hooker a Church-member then must be under Officers under such a policie as in the Catholike Church but how that can be unlesse he be a member of some particular Church which is a member of the Catholike as you say I know not the Catholique Church hath no policy extra ecclesias particulares The hardest matter is the Apostles baptizing which is often abledged this makes me doubtfull on the other side onely these thoughts I have bad 1. They had such power as we have none they could exercise their power any where without any call Paul was an Actuall Officer to the Jaylour and so other Apostles where they came hence they could reach them in case of irregular walking without a second Call but so much cannot we 2. I doe not remember they baptized any single persons but such as were members of the Jewish Church which was a Gospel-Church under ceremonies For others they baptized so many at once for ought I can see that might lay the foundation of a particular Church the Jaylour Act. 16. 32. how many were in his house I know not He and all his house believed in God So Cornelius there was company enough to begin a particular Church for ought I can see though how many its uncertaine Paul and Puer Officers to these In beginnings some things may be extraordinary as were they Officers extraordinary I easily see difficulties In N. E. if one or two Indians should seeme to be converted but because their language cannot joyne to an English Church should now the Minister delay to baptize him but then there is this also if these two or one should prove vile and scandalous what shall that Minister doe with him other scruples about this I could cast in but it concernes not my question The next fault you finde is That requiring an explicite covenant to such a Church I seeme not only to contradict my selfe but also to unchurch most of our English Churches Here I must stay a while having occasion given to looke back into your Epistle What doe I heare of contradictions againe you have a strange Art in finding out contradictions but how come this about it seemes I require an explicite Covenant But Sir are you sure the word explicite is in the definition nay you are sure t is not Can there be no Covenant in a Church but explicite I suppose yes and I suppose you thinke so also so doe Appollonius we will heare him speake presently is this faiâ—e dealing to force a word upon me when I have clearely before expressed my selse another way I am farre enough then from contradictions or from unchurching the faithfull Congregations of England though they have not an explâ—â—â— Covenant your selfe p. 25. mention the externall Covenant of the Church but what you meane by it I know not You are a passage in my Boistle which is this Some Ministers scorne the notion that an explicâ—ie Covenant is the forme of a Church visible and some professours are so rigid for it that without it they deny all Churches of the latter sort is Mr. Hooker say you Sir you wrong him exceedingly and I wonder a man of your grace should doe thus when he hath so expresly declared his minde to the concrary to your knowledge the next words you mention shew as much and in his Epistle p. 11. he speaks as plainesy But of him anon That passage shall cleare me from making no Churches but where there is an explicite Covenant I saw in some Congregations where there were both visible and reall Saints as we may judge when the Lords Supper was to be administred some professours would not joyne in the Ordinance for want of that so farre as I could learne supposing they were not in a right Church-way Now this I could not approve of since there were so many Christians to depart from the Ordinance upon such a ground In my owne Congregation I thus practise Some of other Parishes have desired to joyne with us at the Lords Supper if we have not knowne them well I have desired them to bring a Testimony from their Minister and they have done so Others whom we knew well I have not desired it but admitted these to the Lords Supper yet they were under no explicite Covenant but an implicite Covenant I knew they closed with their Pastors in their Churches If need had beene I would have baptized their children had they brought them to me I hope now you are convinced Afterward you say againe I recall it because I said that this expliciteness is almost essentiall to the government of the
place and there another c. Diatr p. 188.212 It is indeed usuall to put an c. when mens mindes are clearly knowne and there is no matter of consequence attended upon it so spare our writing and the Printer but if any matter of consequence depends then it is very poore to put in coetera you know c. in the Bishops Oath was an untoward thing and here it is a troublesome thing if to the third why not to the 103 generation coetera will go further But say you p. 11. this is their common Objection his head is very shallow that should not reach but you have fully answered it elsewhere Come on then Sir since you say you have fully answered it I will turne to your Diatribae and there looke for it supposing that a man of your parts who doth slight so extreamly other mens arguments calling them very weake c. when you say you answer fully you have done so indeed in p. 212. I see you have it there to answer I perceive you sinde it a troublesome objection and there recite the opinions of some men whom I honour as much as your selfe if there were nothing but an opinion of a man to be desiâ—ed you summe up their opinions and it amounts to this It scomes that the Children of Christians knowne or presumed to be such wheâ—her living or dead may be baptised then you give us an allusion from those who could not prove their Genealogy Ezra 2.62 Whether you will stand to this as your answer I know not but then you adde But all the Children of knowne Believers Christians Orthodox and yet living whether next or remoter may seeme to challenge a right to Baptisme this is the full answer but twice you use the word seeme which shewes you rather propound your opinion modestly but I pray Sir doe not say this is so fully answered it is no answer at all it is your opinion indeed for by all the discouâ—se I have met with as yet in that book you have not proved that living Grandfathers may give a title onely you propound a text which will prove the dead as well as the living may give a title if a Grandfather at all may if you meane no more then the living Grandfather your caetera will soone be run out In p. 8. you meet with an argument of mine which is this Page 8. If the wickednesse of the immediate parent cut him off from the Lords Supper though his parent be godly why doth not the same wickednesse cut him off from giving right to his childs Baptisme if the parent cannot claime one Seale of the Covenant for himselfe appearing plainely not to have the condition of it must not the child suffer who depends upon him for its title The parent suffers therefore the child must needes You say no not for Temporall punishment Gehezi Achan Corah c. their children did nor spirituall To this I answered they cannot be abstracted from their parents in this and therefore may as the child comes to have its right by a parent so the child may lose by a parent it doth not lose salvation nor regeneration by it You answer 4. waies 1. From the Jewes which doth not availe with me there was something peculiar to them in administration of Circumcision as is cleare before and shall be made cleare hereafter 2. Your second is the distinguishing betweene a persons generall state and personall wickednesse his state is a christian c. I answer if you meane by personall wickednesse some particular falls as you bring in Noah and David strangely afterward I think so indeed but if you meane a continued setled course in wickednesse wilfull ignorance then I say such a person hath lost his first right to his owne or his childs baptisme you may call him a Christian but let his Christianity be such as you have said may qualifie him for a Church-Member or else it is not worth a rush Such a one I looke at as one that ought to be excommunicated for he deserves it we must prove that persons ought to be excommunicated before they are Now since he ought the question is why he is not if he be the child suffers for his state being a non-Member in foro Dei he is and ought to be in foro Ecclesiastico if the case stand so as through the multitude of such it cannot conveniently be so Then yet let the Ministers go as farre as they can I pray Sir let this satisfie to your answers which you give about Excommunication for you would gather from me that till Excommunication Ministers ought to baptise Thus far I yeild it till Excommunication or that which doth deserve Excommunication so that the persons ought to be excommunicated though from some other externall impediments as multitude c. they cannot be excommunicated yet then a separation from such or non-communion may help 3. You say you have largely confuted this notion of the immediate parent I think not so 4. You say I have destroyed it my selfe the right he hath is onely by the Churches toleration let the Officers looke to that the first and maine right hee hath none and none at all according to your doctrine For p. 9. the distinction of the Physical and Moral right in Diatr 188. if you had strongly proved the Moral right of the Grandfather would clearely have taken off that wrong meant Sir I will receive an answer when I see I am answered But that there should be as litâ—le right of the Mother over the Childe when compared with her Husband as is of the Grandfather compared with the Father which you would seeme to intimate is strange I am sure the Mother communicates as much and more to the being of the Childe then the Father doth For Aquinaâ— he may enjoy his opinion yet I think Châ—mier of whom anon is not full for him For my needlesse exception you mention it is well if nothing needlesse have come from you Then you tell me I renew my plea Page 10. which is this who shall educate this child the Ignorant person cannot the Scandalous teach it how to breake the Covenant Predecessors are dead c. Here first you tell me of a Law of the Land which bath taken care for the education of Papists Children and Orphans providing Schooles and Hospitalls Hence first I gather you doe not care whether the Grandfather be living or dead which in another place you expresse otherwise here the immediate grosly ignorant and scandalous persons give title but for what you say I pray pardon my ignorance of the Lawes that have been so many yeares out of England I did not know the State had made such a Law That if an Ignorant or Scandalous Parent have a child baptised then those who are knowing and godly men at least sober men conversation comely should take the child and bring it up and instruct it in the Covenant of grace which
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
they 1. Seeke to understand it 2. Choose it as their greatest joy and portion 3. Rejoyce in nothing so as when under the power of it 4. When will not endure to be drawne from under the Dominion of it but their hearts sinke with sorrow when the old man rebells against it 5. When externally their Conversation answers it 6. When delight in those who are in Covenant with themselves also c. Turne it now when persons care not for understanding of that Covenant but they are wise in wayes of sinne choose those wayes their joy is when they are in the enjoyment of such wayes cannot endure to be pulled off from them but troubled when stopped in their course visibly thus they walke in their course and choose such for their companions what shall wee judge of these What ever Covenant you meane I am sure they are not under that Covenant visibly of which Baptisme is a Seale Secondly you say suppose a Person be Excommunicate and so delivered unto Satan as the incefluous Person was yet it were hard to say he were visibly in Covenant with Satan though at the present under his Power To be under a Church-censure which is appointed for cure of a Person is far different from the ease now we speak of That power of Satan the excommunicate person is under is an afflicting power therefore not chosen by the person as is the other Those who are not Excommunicated may be visibly in Covenant with Satan in that sense the Argument speaks of when one who is Excommucated may not be so as the incestuous person repenting and sunke with sorrow Thirdly you say every grosse sin as in Noah and David c. does not conclude a man visibly in Covenant with Satan you meane much lesse ignorance as in children and youths Baptized To this I say 1. If I had not reverenced your grace and Parts I would have given you another answer sir it is strange that when I in the proofe of the Minor said A person whose course and Trade of Life is to live in sin that yet you should answer from Noah and David their particular acts repented of c. You would make me a silly fellow that could not distinguish betweene the course of a mans life when I expressed it and a particular act 2. In Baptizing of Infants I doe not consider them as ignorant persons but visible Saints with their Parents and those must have knowledge 3. How are we gone from the ignorance of the Parent to the ignorance of the Infant Then you come in with your Epiphonema see whither this new way leades its followers Yes I pray see by what you have answered whither it leades I think you might have spared your triumphing here unlesse your answer had beene stronger For my fifth Argument the jumbling of the most prophane and godly in the same Ordinance and under the same Prayers you tell me I may doe it so I do but grieve c. of this before but fir when conscience flies in a mans face for giving away the seale of the Covenant to such a one this will not quiet conscience to tell it Mr. Gawdrey saith you may do it You know what Dr. Ames said before Page 26. Then you come to the great Objection The Jewes circumcising of all My first answer to this Objection was I would see a proofe that the Priests did debarre many from the Passeover for morall uncleanenesse many yeares as ours doe from the Supper and yet had their children circumcised To this you answer The Priests are blamed for admitting the Morally uncleane to some Ordinances but it concernes him to prove where ever they were blamed for circumcising the Children of such 44. Ezek. 9. To which I say 1. That Text speakes of the times under the Gospell and it cannot be accomplished under the Old Testament as our Annotations make it cleare it speakes of a time when circumcision is out of date 2. Circumcision was never committed to the Priests as now Baptisme to the Ministers therefore there was no blame to them due for that point 3. Since it respects the Gospell it concerns those who practise so as if by Sanctuary were meant onely the Lords Supper to prove that there where the Priests are blamed for bringing into the Sanctuary such persons he meanes onely admission to the Lords Supper those who interpret must prove It should seeme very faire that Sauctuary is more then Lords Supper I suppose those who were brought into the Sanctuary might come to the Passeover in old time Your second answer is you Question the Practice of our Ministers whether it can be justified I see you are pinched but no doubt their keeping of that holy Ordinance is justifiable enough My second answer was I conceived some thing was peculiar to that Church in that Ordinance and so conceive still I shall add something more 1. In that there was no Minister separated by God to the dispensing of it as is now of Baptisme but Parents Masters Judges Men or Women yea themselve might administer it 2. It did not runne to his seed onely as Spirituall as doth Baptisme now for onely Believers are Abrahams Seed but to his Seed as such The ground indeed of Gods giving of the Seale of the Covenant at first was because of that Covenant God was in with Abraham but this Covenant they many of them did never regard but reject taking Circumcision onely to be the Covenant so being his Seed in whom they did so glory Mat. 3.9 Joh. 8.39.44 they would circumcise their Children though the Devill was their Father 3. From the nature of the Seale and Signe being an abiding Marke in the flesh which Baptisme is not And by that they were distinguished from the Heathens by an apparent marke it made me thinke there was something God further aimed at in it in reference to them which I perceive Justin Martyr will second me in when Trypho had beene urging the necesity of Circumcision Dialog cum Tryph. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hee answers him God foreseeing you should be scattered and beaten out of Jerusalem and not returne thither againe left Circumcision a Marke in your flesh now by no other note can you be knowne but by your Circumcision This is part of his answer And surely there seemes to be something in it for had it not beene for Circumcision in these many yeares they have beene scattered they might easily have lost their Distinction from the Gentiles at least abundance of them but by this they are knowne to this day 4. This much prevailes with me to thinke something was peculiar because 17. Gen. 14. Those who were not Circumcised were to be Cut off Whether by the Magistrate or by Excommunication as saith learned Gillespy take it how you will will you say the same of Infants not baptised must the Magistrate cut such off or shall the Church excommunicate all such I trow Mr. Marshall will take up
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-member how you can deny him the Lords Supper I know not so for baptisme If there were two