Selected quad for the lemma: word_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
word_n	catholic_a	church_n	visible_a	3,379	5	9.5057	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

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

5. where you revive it againe Then your chearse Mr. Hookers sentence and there sinde that I doe not accord with him If not then I pray lee this convince you that you have not spoken right when you said I borrow my grounds from Mr. Hooker In your Epist to the Reader how doe I borrow my grounds from him to whom I goe Crosse as you say I doe if I had done so Mr. Hooker is a man of whom one may borrow but I doe not remember what ground I borrowed but I was glad when I saw so learned and holy a man to defend some things which before I conceived were right but as to this difference here I am sure Mr. Hooker were now alive in England he would not baptize all the children of any of the Congregalons d●● England without any more adoe I can gather so much out of his Booke and therefore we doe not differ in this Then you come to my first premise which is The Infant abstracted from the Parens Page 3. gives no reason why it should be baptized this say you is otherwise propounded by Mr. Hooker then it s unlikely to be borrowed of him then you tell me it is not rightly proposed yes Sir very right it is ordinary with Divines to lay a proposition first further off Page 4. then to come nearer neither doe I see that you have one whit consured it but yeelded it doe you baptize any Child in your parish without considering it in relation to a Parent do you consider it in it selse abstracted from any other and yet baptize it I pray make an argument out of that Tex● in your Title-page Mar 10.14 which I preslime you bring for Infants baptisme and consider the Infant alone as abstracted from the Parent you say presently here the Children of England are Christians borne how by reason of the house soile or the Parent then it s a Christian child and in relation to such a one it is baptised Thus you finde fault with Mr. Hooker but if you will crosse him Diatr 185. or my selft who am not worthy to be named in the day with him lay downe this proposition viz. The Infants of England quâ sic considered as abstracted from any where ought to be baptised if you will maintaine this then I confesse you may finde faule For your second Answer when any body practise as you say there then let such a one consider it you might have spared those lines for I know none such I doe it before the child is brought Then you come to the second premise The child is baptised as considered in relation to a parent one or both that is the summe You say M. Hooker and I meane the taxt parent and this you have consured largely that is your meaning in Diatr p. 187. of that hereafter Only now you adds First your say thin ineffect is the same with the former one the Negative the other the Affirmative true Sir I know it before onely for clearenesse suke as we use to openitings first by shewing what they are not as saith love union with Christs c. then what they are so I did here and I hope no fault in so doing Secondly you tell me of two other wayes for children to come to Baptisme besides the next parent Page 5. of which hereafter Next you say I take occasion to desine a Church A society of visible Sains joyned togethers by way of covenant c. Here you observe two things 1. That I owne no Cathelique Church but a particular Congregation nor any Members of a Church but of such a Church then you clime of a man being a Member onely of the Catholike Church and by vertue of that requires Baptisme for his child 〈◊〉 For a Catholike Church yes I owne it neither doe I know any understanding man deny it but I doubt you forget one word you meane Catholike visible Church but if you had said so yes in I owne that also but whether it be one Organitall body I saw some difficulties in that and left in for further time to discover the Congregationall men for ought I can discerne owne it so as nothing but Nor. and Ex part you and them in the conclusion in point of Discipline I know for adminlstring the Seals in another Congregation which that notion brings in there some Congregationall men differ and so for one Minister to excommunicate in another Congregation that they will not owne nor doe you but upon a call they will goe along with other Officers and assist them in clearing out things and helping them what may be onely they will not put forth such power against such to whom they are no Officers I trouble not these holy men in that those who will differ with such men upon these points I thinke doe not well The other part doth not concerne my question neither am I so cleare in it as I wish I were I shall humbly propound my thoughts 1. If a man must first be a Member of a particular-visible-Church before he can be of the Catholike-visible-Church then your notion will not hold but the Antecedent is true Ergo the Consequent is true Antec I prove If a man must first be cast our of a particular-Church before hee can out of the Catholike then a man must first be a Member of a Particular before he can be of the Catholike Church but the Antecedent is trues 〈◊〉 Ergo. Consequence is cleare to me on this ground Else I cannot see how he who is cast out of a particular Church can be cast out of the Catholique Church Though excommunicated unjustly yet till case be heard Communion denyed Concil Sa●●ll Can. 17. if a man be first a Member of a particular Church and by vertue of this comes to have communion with all other Churches this latter depending on the former then the reason is cleare cast him out of a particular Church you cut him off from all Communion with others But if a man be first a Member of the Catholique Church and his being a Member of this particular Church depends upon that then I see no reasons for though you have cast him out of your particular Church which is second yet his membership to the Catholique Church which is first and independent upon this still remaines and you doe in excommunication but cast him into that state he was in before he joyned to you so that still he is a Member of the Catholique Church and may demand ordinances elsewhere Other Churches deny not communion before the particular doth of which he is a Member then they follow hence their Act depefids on this if depend then not first 2. This seemes a little odde to me a man is a Member of the Catholike Church onely thence he will require Baptisme of this Church of another Church he will require the Lords Supper in another there he will beare to he may go to all Churches in

the world if he could and demand any Ordinances yet Member of no particular Church so let this man walke as disorderly as he will as the latitude sometimes you give of a Church-Member will allow a man to be bad enough in this Towne or another Towne he have owned no particular Church onely the Catholike what hath this particular Church to doe to meddle with him more then any other wee must have Catholike Church-Officers to cast him out who are such not onely actu primo but actu secundo which you say no Minister is to another that is not of his particular Congregation unlesse he be Called to it but to be sure this man will never call you to it who then can give you a Call so that this man cannot come to be reformed and yet he may goe up and downe to any Church I am a Christian therefore give me the Ordinances excommunicated I am not for none can excommunicate him unlesse all the Officers of the Churches in the world should meet to cast him out If you say Which you affirm Diatr 194. Where he first came to be baptized of that particular Church he is a Member and that Officer hath power c. No Sir I cannot believe this doctrine that my baptizing of another makes him member to our particular Church I have had three of my children baptized by Ministers who never looked on me as member to their Church though I dwelt in the Town I have done the same for others being called to it yet none of my members Your selfe acknowledge Baptisme doth not make a member of a visible Church Revie Mr. Hooker c. ● then not of this particular visible Church If you say So you express your mind pag. 194. Diat But a Christian must not doe thus he must joyne to a particular Church the question is not what he must doe but what he will doe will not you baptize his child or him unlesse he will joyne If not you have said enough 3. To be a Church-member seemes to be more then a Christian i. e. a Christian member of such a Society and w●●king under such a policy and that policy suppose Officers You say there is no essentiall Homogeneall Church existing without Officers mentioned in the Scripture it is a fancy you saye and repeat it againe Review Master Hooker pag. 75 77. opposing Mr. Hooker a Church-member then must be under Officers under such a policie as in the Catholike Church but how that can be unlesse he be a member of some particular Church which is a member of the Catholike as you say I know not the Catholique Church hath no policy extra ecclesias particulares The hardest matter is the Apostles baptizing which is often abledged this makes me doubtfull on the other side onely these thoughts I have bad 1. They had such power as we have none they could exercise their power any where without any call Paul was an Actuall Officer to the Jaylour and so other Apostles where they came hence they could reach them in case of irregular walking without a second Call but so much cannot we 2. I doe not remember they baptized any single persons but such as were members of the Jewish Church which was a Gospel-Church under ceremonies For others they baptized so many at once for ought I can see that might lay the foundation of a particular Church the Jaylour Act. 16. 32. how many were in his house I know not He and all his house believed in God So Cornelius there was company enough to begin a particular Church for ought I can see though how many its uncertaine Paul and Puer Officers to these In beginnings some things may be extraordinary as were they Officers extraordinary I easily see difficulties In N. E. if one or two Indians should seeme to be converted but because their language cannot joyne to an English Church should now the Minister delay to baptize him but then there is this also if these two or one should prove vile and scandalous what shall that Minister doe with him other scruples about this I could cast in but it concernes not my question The next fault you finde is That requiring an explicite covenant to such a Church I seeme not only to contradict my selfe but also to unchurch most of our English Churches Here I must stay a while having occasion given to looke back into your Epistle What doe I heare of contradictions againe you have a strange Art in finding out contradictions but how come this about it seemes I require an explicite Covenant But Sir are you sure the word explicite is in the definition nay you are sure t is not Can there be no Covenant in a Church but explicite I suppose yes and I suppose you thinke so also so doe Appollonius we will heare him speake presently is this fai●e dealing to force a word upon me when I have clearely before expressed my selse another way I am farre enough then from contradictions or from unchurching the faithfull Congregations of England though they have not an expl●●● Covenant your selfe p. 25. mention the externall Covenant of the Church but what you meane by it I know not You are a passage in my Boistle which is this Some Ministers scorne the notion that an explic●ie Covenant is the forme of a Church visible and some professours are so rigid for it that without it they deny all Churches of the latter sort is Mr. Hooker say you Sir you wrong him exceedingly and I wonder a man of your grace should doe thus when he hath so expresly declared his minde to the concrary to your knowledge the next words you mention shew as much and in his Epistle p. 11. he speaks as plainesy But of him anon That passage shall cleare me from making no Churches but where there is an explicite Covenant I saw in some Congregations where there were both visible and reall Saints as we may judge when the Lords Supper was to be administred some professours would not joyne in the Ordinance for want of that so farre as I could learne supposing they were not in a right Church-way Now this I could not approve of since there were so many Christians to depart from the Ordinance upon such a ground In my owne Congregation I thus practise Some of other Parishes have desired to joyne with us at the Lords Supper if we have not knowne them well I have desired them to bring a Testimony from their Minister and they have done so Others whom we knew well I have not desired it but admitted these to the Lords Supper yet they were under no explicite Covenant but an implicite Covenant I knew they closed with their Pastors in their Churches If need had beene I would have baptized their children had they brought them to me I hope now you are convinced Afterward you say againe I recall it because I said that this expliciteness is almost essentiall to the government of the

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 Vi●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 Membe●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 Chu●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 b●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

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 wi●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 Apostle● yet they Circumcised I pray Sir speake our plainely if one of your Members should sacrifice his children to Mole●b worsh●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 e●ici●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 Stewardship● 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