TWo things I must premise, which will give occasion to move two Questions, which tend much to the clearing of the question in hand:

1 The first thing I premise is this; The Infant that is to be Baptized, if we consi­der it in it selfe as abstracted from the Pa­rent, gives no reason for it selfe why it should be Baptized; I baptize not this Childe rather then that, by vertue of any Argument drawne from the childe; considered as it is in its selfe without relation to the Parent, this appeares presently; for suppose in a Parish there should live Christians, Indians, Turkes, and all had Children, and one should bring a childe to the Minister to Baptize it, and he knew not whose it was, I suppose he would aske the question whose is it? for it might be a Turkes, or Indians childe, as well as a Christi­ans, now what need he aske the question, Whose is it? it is Homo, whose soever it is, Baptize it; no sure, no Minister would doe thus.

[Page 2]2 All children then are Baptized by vertue of the Parent, one or both, ever considering the childe in relation to the Parent, being the branch of such a root, and so I take in the childe together with the Parent. Hence we say commonly, they must be children borne in the Church; that is, of such Parents as are members of the Church, being a society of vi­sible Saints, joyned together by way of Covenant, to exercise an holy communion with God in Christ, and so one with a­nother according to the order of the Gospel, for I presume none are so sottish to understand a Church to be that place, which (by a metonymie of the subject) we call a Church, nor the Parishes men live in, which never were of an Eccle­siasticall constitution.

Upon this ground stand all our arguments against the Ana­baptists, and if this be taken away, Infant-baptisme must fall.

There is indeed one argument used by our Divines, A­mesius, and others with him, but it is not an argument drawne from what the childe doth give, but what it can receive. This it is; in the working of that inward grace, of which Baptism is the signe and seale, all who partake of that grace, are but meere Patients, and contribute no more then a Childe, ergo, it may be baptized. But here if we consider the childe with this argu­ment, without respect to the Parent; see how the argument will run.

All that are Subjects capable of that grace to which Bap­tisme is a signe and seale, they may be baptized.

But the children of Turkes, and Indians, are Subjects capa­ble of that grace, to which Baptisme is a signe and seale; Er­go their Children may be baptized.

Hence then that argument which is so often (but indis­creetly) used; what though the Parents be never so wicked, what doe you know what the childe may prove; many a wicked man may have good children, they may be elect; Et contra, this I say proves an argument of no strength; for election is no rule for me to goe by, I will say the same of the Indians children, especially now in New England, what do you know but that this or that Childe may be Elect, prove godly, though the Father be an Indian. A supposition De futuro, is no rule for me to give the seale of the Covenant at this pre­sent, [Page 3]but I must look at the Childe as a Covenanter, but that is in the Parent.

This rule warrants any Minister comfortably to admini­ster that Ordinance; here is a Parent, (one or both) vi­sibly in Covenant with God, and a visible member of Christs Church, I doe therefore administer the seale of the Covenant unto this childe by vertue of this Parent, according to that command given to Abraham, the Father of Beleevers, with whom when the Lord entred into Covenant, and layed the foundation of the Church visible in his Family, he took his Seed into Covenant with him, and commanded that they with him should keep that seale of his Covenant. Now as the second Commandement bindes us, that whatever Worship, or Ordinances God shall set up, whether those under the Old Testament, or these under the New Testament, yet be sure they be kept pure; the morality of the command is the same, though the forme of Worship is changed: So the morality (as I may say) of that command stands thus; that let God appoint that Seale of Circumcision to be the initiating Seale under the Old Testament, or this of Baptisme under the New Testament, yet the children of visible Beleevers must have the initiating Seale. This I doe beleeve upon many grounds moving me to it, and shall doe so, till the Anabap­tists can bring me expresse Scriptures out of the New Testa­ment, where God hath cast off the children of beleeving Pa­rents, whom under the Old Testament he tooke into Cove­nant with their Parents; The Anabaptists will buy by the measure of expresse Scriptures, let them sell by the same measure.

Quest. But here now comes in a Question; What Parent doe you meane, the immediate Parent only, or the Predecessors? for suppose the immediate Parent be as your question mentions, yet it may be the Grand-father, or some of the Predecessors have been godly, doth not that promise, Exod. 20.6. warrant the baptizing by vertue of them?

Ans. I perceive divers of our Divines help themselves here, and some in discourse are content to loose that ground of the immediate Parent, and fly to this; men whom I dare not thinke slightly of, but doe reverence their holinesse, and ho­nour their Learning in my heart.

Yet with submission to these men, I shall desire to pro­pound some few scruples that trouble me.

And first, It would not be amisse to cast our eyes back to our Predecessors, and see how this English Nation came to be a Church, and the Persons made Beleevers; the Story is wel knowne, and therefore I doe but touch it. It cannot be de­nied but that England was one of them Isles, Isa. 42.4. which soone received the Law of Christ, that there were reall Chri­stians among them Christians, who dare say the contrary, when so many thousands of them suffered under that bloudy Tyrant (Dioclesian) for the Name of Christ; this Tyrant though he made wofull havock in the Church, yet it doth not appeare by Story that he did quite destroy all the Christians, but there was a remnant left, which continued even when the Soxons over-run the Nation.

When Austin came into England, the Waters began to be brackish at Rome; neither Worship (especially) nor Do­ctrine so pure as before; after he had converted King Ethel­bert to the profession of the Faith in Christ, many also received the same Faith; none being compelled by the King, saith the Story [which yet is no ground for Toleration in our times] and thus England in a short time received the Faith; But whe­ther all did it by the Word enlightning, convincing, &c. and not rather as people follow Court fashions, so the Court re­ligion, King Ethelbert is become a Christian, and Baptized, so will we, and so upon Tradition others that succeeded tooke up Christianity, it is much to be doubted; for wee know in what state the Churches were when Austin came from Rome, and dark night of Popery followed presently; so that I doe not reckon them Christians brought to the faith by Austin, to be like them who before were slaine: Thus we held the name of Christianity under the Romish yoke, till of late times the State threw it off, and then the people follow­ing the State [as they will doe, saith Master Rogers the Pro­to Martyr in Queen Maries dayes, if the State change ten times in one yeare, the people would ever be ready at hand to change with it] they threw off that yoke also, and so England is become Protestant. I doubt not but God had his number in those darke Times, but what were those few in [Page 5]comparison of the body of the people, our Predecessors. Since the time of the Gospel restored to its purity, God hath won­derfully appeared in England; but those who use the argu­ment of Predecessors run very high; now I will a little consider the text in reference to them.

1 Mercy unto thousands, of whom? of them who love me, and keepe, &c. This then is cleare, that this promise is made to such as are really godly, and no children can claime this pro­mise, but the children of such Parents as did love God, and keep his Commandements, and this Commandement of the purity of his Worship in a speciall manner, as some of our Divines doe interpret it. I hope formall Professors, Shepheard. moral. Sab. p. 1. Thes. 61. and others. such as have no truth of Grace in them, will not be judged such per­sons as God mentioned in his Promise, to be lovers of him, and keepers of his Worship in purity; for the latter, our Predecessors in those darke times of Popery, they did not keep that Commandement purely. Such then as bring this Promise to prove their right to their childrens Baptisme, must bring this proofe, That their Predecessors were really such as the Promise is made to; this will helpe me a little in refusing to Baptize many children, for there are divers who as their immediate Parents are wicked, so we cannot learne that their Grand-father, or great Grand-father, or Grand-mother, &c. were so much as esteemed godly.

Obj. But though you, nor others know of any, yet in charity you must judge they had some were godly?

Ans. I love charity as much as another, but I would have it have eyes; Justice indeed we use to picture blinde-folded, that it might give to every one that which is suum, and not be per­verted by the sight of mens persons, &c. but to have charity thus blind-folded in the Administration of the Ordinances of Christ, is not safe.

Besides, this will prove a troublesome rule, for I can easier judge of a visible Saint, whom I know and live by, then judge of the reality of a mans godlinesse, especially when they are dead, or I know him not.

2. Againe, That threat of Gods visiting iniquity, &c. I hope you will limit it to such children as are followers of their Fathers wicked steps, not of others; Jeroboam, Jehu, and [Page 6]their posterity finde it true; but good Hezekiah not follow­ing wicked Ahaz, it doth not reach him; Why then is not this promise to be limited as well to such as follow their Pa­rents steps, but if the Sonne be a scorner, an opposer of God, and his Commandements, must he needs challenge this mercy of Baptisme for his Childe, and the Minister bound to give it him? doth not God rather fulfill the threat, in visiting his iniquity upon his childe, thus to debarre it of this Ordi­nance?

3 Againe, I am not satisfied how that can be a setled rule for us to administer Baptisme by, wherein we see the Lord taking his liberty. Doth God ever visite the iniquity, as the threat runs? Doth he ever shew mercy to all the Po­sterity, In 2. in Pryn. &c? Zanchy saith of the threat; Quamvis non semper ha­beat locum, non proptereà tumen efficitur, quin verissima sit, & quam saepissimè suam habeat efficacitatem. So he saith of the Promise, he gives a caution there also. So Mr. Perkins, We may not surmise that this excellent Promise is made to every one particularly, who is borne of faithfull Parents. If then God will reserve a liberty of bestowing temporall mercies, and eternall mercies to the po­sterity of good and bad, why must God be tied up by this promise, that he may not deny the posterity of a wicked Pa­rent, [who had godly Parents] the seale of the Covenant; why must he have no liberty in this mercy as well as in them?

Obj. But we see among the Jewes, wicked Parents had their chil­dren Circumcised?

Ans. But was it by vertue of this Promise that God had tyed up himselfe so, or from some other ground? for the ob­jection it selfe I shall consider it in another place.

4 If the godly Predecessors by vertue of this Promise doe give a right to Baptisme, though the immediate wicked Pa­rent doth not; then suppose a childe whose immediate Pa­rent is very godly, and baptized by vertue of him, growing up, proves very scandalous, yet I hope the Promise made to his immediate Parent, will give him right to the Lords Sup­per, though otherwise he must be debarred; for mercy to thousands, &c. the Lords Supper is a mercy as well as Bap­tisme.

Obj. No, the person himselfe doth obicem ponere

Ans. If the wickednesse of this childe growne up, doth put a barre betweene the immediate godly Parent and the Lords Supper, why doth not the scandalous vile conversation of the immediate Parent, put in a barre betweene his Predeces­sors, and the childe to be baptized?

Obj. The childe must not suffer for the Parents sinne? Ezek. 18.

Ans. 1. True, for eternall death, if not guilty it selfe.

2 These children which complaine, and therefore were adulti, had not they walked in their steps, should not have met with those punishments; but the sowre Grapes were found in their mouthes also. But for their Infants, how many suf­fered with the Parents.

3 It is true, the childe shall not suffer for the Parent in such things wherein the childe may be considered absolutely without relation to, or dependance upon the Parent, as it may in things temporall, eternall; but if the childe cannot so be considered, but alwaies in relation to the Parent, as gi­ving the right [as in this case] it may suffer by him, and it will appeare so after.

4 If the childe walk not in the Parents steps; now though the childe cannot be said actually to follow the Parents steps, yet the childe is reputed; and relatively is esteemed as the Pa­rent, holy with him, or unholy with him; an Infidels childe is an Infidell, though actually it doth not follow its fathers steps.

5 That text, 1 Cor. 7.14. The unbeleeving Wife is sancti­fied by the beleeving Husband, else were your Children un­cleane; but now are they holy. This text seemes to tye the federall holinesse of the childe to the immediate Parent, doth not say, the childe is holy by vertue of a great Grand-father.

Let us suppose in the Church of Corinth some persons who may be sixty yeares of age, this Husband and Wife thus old have children, but they are Infidels, they will not owne Christ, nor his holy Government, &c. now these Infidels have children borne, so that the old man of sixty yeares, is a Grand-father to this young infant of his Sonne an Infidell; would now a Minister take this infant though the father be [Page 8]an Infidell, and baptize it by vertue of the Grand-father? I suppose it would trouble a Consciencious Minister. The Grand-father is old, may dye quickly before the childe grow up, the Infidell his Father breeds him up in his Idolatry; let the Church take it say you, but the Infidell will not, he scornes the Church, and their religion. So suppose the Infidell will not let his Father take his childe to baptize it, what will you doe, who have most right over the childe, the Father, or Grand-father? You must also suppose the Grand-father and the childe to dwell together, that he may bring it up, and Catechize it, &c. this is strange to force this, which we may suppose many things to hinder. I cannot see how they be proper subjects to convey the right of Baptisme to another, who may have just hinderances in the conveyance of it; A­quinus saith, Filii infidelium, cum ante usum liberi arbitrii sub parentum cura sunt, Pag 3. q. 68. a. 10. To. 4. D [...]s. 4. q. 3. p. 3.non sunt eo tempore invitis parentibus Baptizandi. So Greg, de val. Ʋt rectè Baptizentur parvuli filii infidelium, requiritur consen­sus parentum in quorum potestate sunt, it a ut his invitis, quamdiu quidem in ipsorum potestate & cura sunt parvuli minime liceat ipsos Baptizare. He gives the reason, Jure naturae sunt parvuli sub cura & potestate pa­rentum; ergo fieret parentibus injuria, si ipsis invitis baptizarentur, &c.

The immediate Parent, let all the Predecessors be Infidels, it hinders not him in his conveyance, &c. Ergo he is the per­son to whom the right of conveying the Seale doth belong, and not he that even in foro Ecclesiae have hinderances in the conveyance; the Church must not act against the Law of Nature.

6 If that promise doth give this power to Predecessors, &c. then though there are none to educate this childe [for the ignorant, prophane Parents will not, but teach them how to breake the Covenant; the Predecessors cannot, they are dead, and are not] yet we must seale to this childe, &c. Where doe you see Churches take care of such children, they must be of some bignesse and understanding before the Church meddle with them, the immediate prophane person brings him up in ignorance and prophanenesse; neither will take care to have his childe instructed by the Church; as ex­perience witnesse too much.

7 If the Predecessor may by this promise give right to [Page 9]Baptisme without the immediate Parent, then I pray tell us, how farre we may goe for this Predecessor? how many Ge­nerations? Where hath Gods Word limited Ministers, you may goe to this Predecessor, and no farther? I know of no text that limits but this, and this will allow us to goe to the thousand Generation to finde a Predecessor; if so we should, strange things would follow.

8 If by vertue of that promise, Predecessors may without the immediate parent give right to Baptisme, then the chil­dren of an immediate Parent Apostatized from the Faith, and excommunicated from the Church, may be baptized.

But the Consequent is false, ergo the Antecedent.

The consequence is plaine, for the Predecessors give right without the immediate Parent, then let him be what he will, yet his children may be Baptized by vertue of them; and if so, then the children of our English-men now in Turkey, who are apostatized from their Faith to that religion, may be bap­tized, and so many of those who are the posterity of the se­ven Churches of Asia, and it is to be feared are turned to that religion may by vertue of their Predecessors be baptized. See Gerhard moving this question; Whether the children of such Hereticks as professe they will bring up their children in their Heresie ought to be baptized? He concludes for the negative: His first Argument is; Pari passu ambulant, cum Infantibus infide­lium, cum parentes ipsorum itidem sint extra Ecclesiam, à qua nefari­um facere divortium. He adds more Arguments, and answers Objections: but if that be a good argument in Gerhards ac­count. I hope it will be as good for me, in the next branch of my Argument, and doth also help to this first branch; I hope an Apostate from the Faith (such a one as now I speake of) is as bad as an Heretick, yet it may be this Hereticks fa­ther might be Orthodox.

For the Excommunicate person; If I may baptize the children of an excommunicate Parent, then I may baptize the children of one who is no member of a Church [for so is the excommunicate person] so consequently the children of a Turke, or Indian, for they are no Members of a Church, and the excommunicate person is no other in respect of his com­munion in Church priviledges.

If you give me leave to baptize persons out of the pale (as they say) of the Church, I may then goe any whither; but this person is without the pale.

Baptisme notes communion with the Church, 1 Cor. 12.13 how then is he excommunicated if his childe be baptized?

If this Parent were a Heathen, and not a Member of the Church, should his children be baptized? why then since by his excommunication he is made as a Heathen, and in some respect below a Heathen [for with a Heathen I may eate, 1 Cor. 10.27. but with him I must not eate, 1 Cor. 5.11.] should his children be baptized?

If you say, there is difference between him and a Heathen, for he still holds his profession of Faith, and may belong to God, &c. I deny not this, but as to Church Communion, and Church Priviledges, I know not but we may admit a Heathen to them as wel as he, and so it was in New England, the Indians did enjoy as much as an excommunicated person.

If the childe be a member of the Church with the parent, and reputed so only by vertue of the parent, then if the pa­rent be a Non-member, the childe also is a non-member. I presume none will deny this; and then to baptize such a childe, is to baptize a non-member.

To prove it by this text, is petitio principii. I suppose both parents excommunicated, or, but one a member, for if the Mother continues a member of the Church, the excom­municated Father hinders not.

It is worth the consideration, what learned Gillespie ob­serves out of Buxtorf. Aar. rod. p. 58. He tells us, that this difference was put between him that was guilty of cutting off, and of him that was guilty of death. Reus mortis, ipse tantum, non semen ejus; paena excidii comprehendit ipsum & semen ejus. Now if the punish­ment of death was personall only, and the punishment of cutting off, comprehensive not only of them but of their Seed, how can this agree so well to any thing else, as to excom­munication, especially if that hold which Goodwin in his Mo­ses and Aaron, Lib. 5. cap. 2. tells us, that the children of ex­communicated persons were not circumcised. Thus Master Gillespie.

Chemnitius also seemes to me to be of this Opinion, upon [Page 11]them words, Mat. 18.17. Let him be to thee as an Heathen: Hoc est, excemmunicetur; non admittatur ad absolutionem, non ad Com­munionem Sacramentorum, sive Baptismi sive Coenae dominicae, &c. Now how shall we interpret this his non-admission to Bap­tisme but in his children; this person was baptized before, for he must be a Brother (saith he) that is to be excommu­nicated. What, would not he have the person re-baptized? The Lutherans were againstere baptizing, as appeares by Ger­hard, Loc. Com. To. 4. de bapt. cap. 8.

Zanchy I know is against me, and quotes Augustin against it also, he names not the Epistle, but I suppose he meanes his 75. Epistle, Ad Auxilium: His argument is, Anima quae pe [...]ca­verit, ipsa morietur; but so had not the sonne of Classicianus, he was not guilty of his sinne. We say with Augustin, That soule indeed shall dye, the childe shall not be damned for the Fa­ther, but to this I have answered before, only this I adde; ‘Those that know Austines opinion concerning Infants dy­ing unbaptized, will not wonder though he were for the baptizing of the children of excommunicated parents; but I suppose our Divines are not of his judgement in that point.’

I have there mentioned Mr. Perkins, I saw him just as it had done, but now I send the answer thus:

Holy and learned Perkins I finde also to be against me. Cas. Cons. ch. 9. q. 3

I shall briefly run over what he saith.

First, he saith, Children of Parents that are professed Members of the Church (though cut off for a time, upon some offence committed) have right to Baptisme, because it is not in the power of man to cut them off from Christ, though they be excommunicated.

Ans. 1. This hath little in it, who say, They are absolutely cut off from Christ (or can be, if once in him?) let secret things goe, though he be not so, yet from Church Com­munion I hope he is cut off; he hath nothing to doe with Church Priviledges.

2 Upon this ground I would give him the Lords Supper still, for he is not cut off from Christ, though excommuni­cated.

3 Visibly he appeares, and is reckoned as no member of Christ. Statu quo [Cut off for a time] he saith; but who knows how long?

Secondly, The personall sinne of the Parent may not keepe the bles­sing from the Childe, &c. Ergo.

Ans. This I have answered before; I say now, though Personall sinne may not deprive it, yet the Personall state of the Parent may deprive the childe; for the childe is reputed as the parent in respect of Church membership, the childe is wholly dependent on the parent in this point.

Thirdly, We must alway put a difference between them which doe not make separation from the Church, and yet are grievous offenders; and open Apostataes, that joyne themselves with the enemies of the Church, &c.

Ans. 1. His first part doth not amount to the question in hand, for one may be a grievous offender, and not separate from the Church, and yet not excommunicated.

2. Though he hath not separated from the Church, yet the Church hath separated him, and Christ hath ratified the sentence.

3. He should have proved, we must put such a difference, as to baptize the childe of the one, and not the other. We can­not say, De caus. Dei, l. 1. p. 29. as (excellently) Bradwardin; Nonne cuilibet Christia­no, imo & prophano pro Demonstratione sufficere debet, Deus dicit; so it is sufficient demonstration, Perkinsius dicit; yet I thinke I honour him as much as any man living.

4 Suppose, that Apostata be not excommunicated by the Church, and should now require Baptisme for his childe, what will you doe?

Fourthly, He saith; We must put a difference between such excom­municated Persons, and Infidels.

Ans. He is to be reputed as a Heathen in Church account, Mat. 18.17. The question still is, whether such a difference, as I said in answer to the former objection.

Fifthly, he saith; The mercy of God enlargeth it selfe to thou­sands, &c.

Ans. It is true in some sence, but to bring that place to prove the question in hand, is Petitio principii.

9 I pray prove it to me, that the children of such Jewes who were wicked [which is the strongest Argument I meete with] had their children circumcised, only with reference to the predecessors, and not the immediate parent, who was of Abrahams seed according to the flesh, not excommunica­ted, [Page 13]and doubtlesse so long the immediate parent was not cast off from giving a right to his childe.

If then that promise will prove this opinion of the prede­cessors giving right to the childe without the immediate pa­rent, yet it must be supposed that the immediate parent is not Apostatized from the Faith, nor excommunicate; for I observe some made doubt of it then, who are for this opini­on; and what is this but to say, a man must be a visible be­leever, and a member of the Church, and then why not by vertue of the immediate parent?

Only this gives occasion to move another question, which helps to cleare our way.

Quest. Whether is this bare profession of faith in Christ, [though Parents be grosly ignorant, scandalous, and refuse to subject to Church Discipline] sufficient to make a man, and continue him a mem­ber of the visible Church?

Ans. Those Divines who baptize all children I suppose doe it upon this ground, England hath received the Faith, and so all our English people are beleevers; they looke on them all as Church members, and therefore baptize all.

This I confesse is some disadvantage to me, for if a man be looked upon as a visible Saint, and reputed a member of a true Church, if that member be very scandalous, and the Church let him alone, and not deale with him, that person may challenge any Ordinance in the Church, both Baptism, and Lords Supper. 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.

That such a one is not fit to be a Member, I prove.

1 Members of Churches according to the Gospell, are Saints visible;

But such a person as the question mentions, is not a visible Saint: Ergo.

The major is plaine enough; The Saints at Philippi, Saints at Rome, Saints at Corinth, Saints in Caesars Houshold, &c. this is common.

The minor; such as will say that such a person as the question mentions is a visible Saint, I thinke his eyes are not good. He that tells me, the Saints which Paul mentions in those places, were no other then such a person as is in the question, he must pardon me though I beleeve him not.

2 If a bare profession of faith in Christ, be sufficient to make a member of a Church, then no person can justly be ex­communicated out of a Church for the vilest sins, or heresies, provided he doth but hold this profession of his faith.

The consequence is cleare; the person is the same now which he was when you tooke him into the Church; why then should you cast him out? The incestuous person did pro­fesse his faith in Christ, when admitted, that was sufficient, no more was required of him, why is he now cast out? The stone is now, as it was when you layed it on to the building.

This were a wilde course, a man professes he beleeves in Christ, and that is all; grosly ignorant, he lives in scanda­lous sins, you know it, yet because he saith he beleeves in Christ you admit him, and within a fortnight it may be you must goe about to cast him out againe.

3 He that manifestly opposeth Christ in his visible King­dome, is not fit to be a member of a Church; but such a per­ion as the question mentions, doth manifestly oppose Christ in his visible kingdome: Ergo.

The major is plaine, for to be a member of a visible Church is to be a subject of Christs visible kingdome; that visible po­litick Body, over whom he is as Head, and King, by politi­call government, 1 Cor. 12.

But a manifest Opposer, a Rebell, is no Subject; those who oppose him in his Lawes, and Discipline, surely oppose him in his visible kingdome; such as professe they will not sub­mit their necks to his yoke.

Obj. But all are not convinced that Church Discipline is an Ordi­nance of God?

Ans. But I speake of such as have been convinced, and ac­knowledged it from that text, in Matth. 18.15. &c. but yet would not submit to it.

I wonder not though the Erastians have laboured to dash that Ordinance out of the Church; for we finde, to walke [Page 15]close according to Christs rule herein, as Mat: 18.15 &c. guides us, it will cost some crossing of the flesh; it is an excellent means to keep love among Christians, curb sin, beantifie a Church,; we could easily yeeld it up to the Erastians, but be­cause we find it crosse to our flesh, we know there is something of God in it.

Though Erastus was a good Phisitian, yet he wanted a lit­tle Helebore himselfe; Mr. Gillespie hath prepared it for his follow­ers.

Many more Arguments might be given, but I spare them. Let us hear what others say.

Just Martyr seems to intimate that more is required, Apol 2. p. 63. then a bare profession of faith. For relating to the Emperour the manner how they did dedicate themselves to God; it was in this manner, [...] &c. I observe three things in it: First, Such as were perswaded and did beleeve the things to be true which were taught. Where we finde no civill power, no Court Religion to have had any place; it was the right way, Go teach all Nations. [The things which they taught them] it should seem then, it was more then barely to say, I beleeve in Christ, and many of our ignorant people know little else, neither do they understand that, so much as these did, [...]. The second thing was a promise to live according to thore tules which had been taught. Where (by the way) we may observe, a kind of Covenant made in them times in admissions, the verb. [...], from [...] policeor, pro­mitto, imply as much, they promised so to live, the verb [...] carries a little more in it, but take it in the easiest sence, [...], &c. [...]. The third was, they taught them, by prayer and fasting to seek the pardon of their former sins, they joyning also with them in the duty, then they baptized them. This is more then a bare profession of faith.

Apollonius [de qualificatione membrorum ecclesiae] opposing first that ridged examination [in that I consent with him] sets down the qualifications of persons whom Ministers may ad­mit into a visible Church, and thus he describes them. Qui veram Christi religionem & fidem profitentur absquè scandalo vitam traducunt, aut in scandala prolapsi rescipiscentia illa abluunt in fore ec­clesiae Disciplinae sese subjiciunt, omnia divini cultus exercitia publice [Page 16]frequentant, & ecclesiasticam communionem nobiscum expetunt. Five things he requires; these are more then a bare sleight profes­sing that I beleeve in Christ.

Amesius, [...]ul. Thl. 1.32 Th. 8. Having given the definition of a Church, takes the essentiall Causes, matter, and forme asunder, and speaks to them severally, for the matter he said it was, societas fid [...] ­lium, But then adds, Quia autem vera fides conjunctam habet sanctitatem, quam efficacitèr operatur, Act. 15.9. atque adeó professio verae fidei non potest dis-jungi à professione sanctitatis, id­circo promiscuè, & eodem sensu dicitur ecclesia societas fidelium, & soci­etas sanctorum, Eph. 1.1. 1 Cor. 1. 2 col. cum. 2 Cor. 1.1. &c.

So that a profession of holinesse must be, as well as a profes­sion of faith.

The London Ministers in their preface, Jus. Div. where they make the paralell between the Independant and Presbyterian, say, the matter of a Church visible are, Persons professing true faith in Christ, and obedience to him, according to the rules of the Gospell. But shall then those who are grosly ignorant about Christ, and the Articles of Faith, and in their lives actually professe ma­nifest disobedience against Christ, and refuse to subject to his Discipline, be esteemed fit matter of a Church?

Afterwards when they give the notation of the Word, [...], p. 37. three things they say are implyed, 1. The terme from which they are called. 2 The terme to which they are called. 3 the Medium by which they are brought from one term to ano­ther, viz. by Calling. If the Integrum be thus, then all the Mem­bers that are essentiall to that Integrum, must by calling be brought from one term to another. Therefore, after they adde, Avisible Church is, a company of those that are called to the visible Profession of the Faith in Christ, Ibid.and Obedience unto Christ, according to the Gospell. But are men called, when they doe not visibly answer the Call, but are quite opposite? They describe the matter of the Church visible, but [with honour to so Learned Men] here is something omitted which was expressed in the Notation, Viz: The Terme from which they are Called. Indeed, wee may gather by the Terme to which they are Called [which is expres­sed] what they meane, but I conceive it would have been more cleare, especially because some thinke onely a [Page 17] Calling from Idols to be the terminus à quo; the question in the old forme of baptizing seemes to expresse this terme from which: Doest thou forsake the Devill and all his Workes, the vaine Pomp, &c?

That which is not sufficient to entitle a man to Baptisme, is not sufficient to make a man a member of a Church.

But the profession of faith of such a person as the question mentions is not sufficient to make him a Church Member: Ergo.

The major is granted of all, and must be especially of those who say, Baptisme makes us members of a Church.

The minor I shall prove afterwards.

Obj. This is true, if the Churches of England were now in their first constitution, but here have been a succession of Churches for many yeares.

Ans. That which doth constitute a Church in its being, doth continue a Church in its being; if therefore a bare sleight profession be not enough at first to make a man a member of a Church, it is not enough to continue a man a member of a Church.

Let Churches then be constituted according to the rule, and let them be continued according to their first constituti­on, or else exercise Discipline, and reduce them to their first constitution. But this is the sad condition which want of faithfull Ministers, Catechizing, and Discipline hath brought our Churches to.

Succession then answers nothing to continue such mem­bers of a Church, unlesse they be such as should be in the first constitution. We may as well answer this, as our Divines answer Bellermin his fifth note of a Church, Successio Apostolica, but I will not trouble the Reader.

Our Churches then shew what need we have of Discipline, if Excommunication be too hard, being they are numerous, who are no other then the question mentions; [not that I meane we should presently fall upon excommunication be­fore we have tried other meanes, and patiently waited, this were a wilde course] then let us see if some other way may be found out to bring our Churches to some better reforma­tion. I shall humbly present my thoughts at the end of the booke.

Having thus made way, I shall propound one Argument or two for the Negative, viz. That Ministers by the Gospell are not bound to baptize the children of such parents.

My first Argument I take from the practise of my reverend Fathers, and Brethren.

1 Such persons as (De jure) ought, and (De facto) are ex­cluded by godly Ministers from the Lords Supper, ought also to be excluded from their childrens baptisme.

But such persons as the question mentions (Dè jure) ought, and (De facto) are excluded from the Lords Supper:

Ergo.

The minor I need not prove; our Ministers print their Books to defend the jus of it, they have gotten the Act of Par­liament to back them in it, and defacto we see they doe it.

The major must be proved.

If Baptisme doth seale to the same Covenant which the Lords Supper doth, and doth signifie and seale as great bles­sings and priviledges as the Lords Supper doth, then those who are excluded from the Lords Supper, ought also to be excluded from their childrens baptisme: But the Antecedent is true, ergo the Consequent is true.

For the Antecedent; The Lords Supper is a seale belong­ing to the Covenant of Grace, so is Baptisme as well as that. See the Assem­blies large Ca­techism upon the question.

Baptisme is a signe and seale of our ingrafting into Christ, of remission of sins by his Bloud, of regeneration by his Spi­rit, of Adoption, &c. What higher priviledges have you in the Lords Supper? the ingrafting or being, is more then growth.

The Consequence I prove thus:

If the ground of exclusion from the Lords Supper be, be­cause these persons doe not appeare to the regular judgement of charity, to be such to whom those Priviledges doe belong that there are held out; then the same ground excludes them from their childrens Baptisme; where are as high priviledges as in the Supper:

But that is the ground of exclusion; ergo.

My Argument runs upon my first supposition, that the childe brings nothing with it; confidered as abstracted [Page 19]from the parent, but it is the parent gives the right.

I have observed, if the Lords Supper be administred at noon, it may be halfe the Parish is excluded; but let any of them, if fix or more of them should come in the afternoon to have their children baptized, they are admitted without any scruple.

I pray, those whom you did exclude at noon, were they such as did visibly appeare to be under the Covenant of grace or not? if they did, why are they excluded? if not, why then do you give that Ordinance to the childe which must suppose the parent to be within the Covenant, and so the childe taken in with him? here is a Beleever and no beleever in three houres distance, it may be, and yet the man the same.

Obj. A man may have a fundamentall right to the Lords Supper, but through some sinne into which he is fallen and obstinate, he may be suspended from it, and yet have his right to Baptisme?

Ans. 1. I am not against suspension in some sence, Ames. Med. Theo. l. 1. c. 37. Th. 20. though I know many are; graduall and tender proceedings in weigh­ty matters I approve of, unlesse the case be very notorious; the incestuous person cast out without any suspension.

2 But then I would make this Quaere; Whether the parent being under sinne, and obstinate, and thereupon suspended from the Supper, may not his childe also be suspended for the present, till he declares his repentance, for the childe de­pendeth on the parent, and is esteemed as he is in this case of Baptisme?

3 But for the suspension as it is in England, I know not what to thinke of it.

1 Did the Church proceed regularly, bring in their Wit­nesses, and labour to convince him, bring him to a sight of his sinne, and humiliation for it, before they did suspend him? alas, it is no such matter; nay, the people are so ac­customed to this, that they never trouble their Ministers to de­fire the Supper of them.

2 When you have suspended, what doe you with them? what, follow them stil to bring them to confession of, and hu­miliation for their sinne? No such matter, I never knew it to be so, if any doe so, I would not wrong them.

3 Suspend them, but for how long? what, a yeare, nay [Page 20]three, six, ten years, as many are, and more, and let them alone and proceed no further? This is strange suspension, how will you warrant this? Medul. Theo. l. 1. c. 37. th. 22. Well, saith learned Ames, who doth ap­prove of suspension; but saith he, In istoc tamen gradu non est subsistendum, sed resipiscentia hoc pacto & spacio urgenda, & illa des­perata, progrediendum tandem ad segregationem completam a commu­nione fidelium.

Mr. Aar. rod, p. 482 Gillespie in an answer to an Argument of Mr. Prynns thus saith; ‘Those who have been admitted to Baptisme, ought to be admitted to the Lords Supper, Caeteris paribus; if the proportion hold in particulars, if they be as free from scan­dalous sins now when they desire to receive the Lords Sup­per, as they were when they desired to receive baptisme:’ so I say, Caeteris paribus, if a man be as he was when his childe was baptized by vertue of him, if I can give the childe one seale of the Covenant by vertue of him, I will give him the other seale surely; and it was never any scruple to me to give that man the Lords Supper, by vertue of whom I could bap­tize his childe.

The next Argument proceeds thus:

Such Parents, as if they themselves were now to be bapti­zed, ought not to be baptized, cannot justly challenge Bap­tisme for their children, neither are we bound to admini­ster it.

But such Parents as the Question mentions, if they now were to be baptized, ought not to be baptized: Ergo.

The reason of the major lyes in this, because Baptisme doth primarily belong to the parent, and but secondarily to the childe by vertue of the parent; now if he who should convey this right to the childe, have no right to it himselfe, then he cannot give the right to the childe. The Lawyer saith, Anon habente potestatem, Acts are frustrate; I justifie the parents right to Baptisme, in baptizing of his children.

For the minor, that such parents have no right, and ought not to be baptized; the grounds which I brought before, to prove that such a one was not fit matter for a Church, prove this also: But I shall adde more.

Obj. The Apostles required no more to Baptisme but a profession of their beleefe, as Acts 10.47. & 8.37. & 16.31.34. but these doe [Page 21]professe so much: Ergo the Parents have right to Baptisme, and con­sequently the childe.

Ans. 1. Peter did require more, Act. 2.38. John did require more constantly.

2. To the places alledged I answer; There was not so much need of requiring more, for they in Acts 10. you may see what manner of persons they were, by their conversation. The Eunuch, Acts 8. we may see what manner of person he was, comming to worship, and how he spent his time going home; the Jaylor now under the legall worke in a lost con­dition for him to beleeve, it was his next worke; what is this to our sleight profession of Faith, but ignorant, or scandalous, &c. they were not.

3 Augustine directly answers to this Objection; Some it seems in his time upon a bare profession of faith would baptize per­sons, though otherwise scandalous, and objected this text of the Eunuch, in his booke, De fide, & op. cap. 9. in the begin­ning of the Chapter you may see what points of Catechisme they were instructed in before Baptisme, besides the beleeving Jesus Christ to be the Son of God, but how grosly ignorant are our people in them points, which I doe not transcribe. Then to the objection he answers, In eo quod ait, Baptizavit eum Philippus, intelligi voluit impleta omnia, quae licet taceantur in Scripturis gratia brevitatis, tamen serie traditionis scimus implenda. Those who read the whole Chapter will finde him strong e­nough against this objection.

As for that Booke, De fide & operibus, in his Retractions, l. 2. c. 39. He gives the reason why he wrote the Booke, and what his scope was in it: In quo disputavi non solum quemadmodum vivere debeant gratia Dei regenerati, verum etiam quales ad lavacrum regenerationis admitti. Those who will bestow the reading of Chap. 6. & 8. & 12. & 17. & 18. especially, of that Book, shall finde I have a Champion on my side, proving that a bare pro­fession of faith is not sufficient to entitle a man to baptisme.

The Catechumeni in the Primitive times were such, as Imake no doubt for knowledge & conversation out-went thous [...]s of our English Protestants, they soon got more knowledge, & did quickly in two dayes, nay the first day, when they gave them­selves up to become Christians, attaine as much as many of our ignorant sort have, they owned Christ the first day, [Page 22]and many of ours do no more. What these Catechumeni were instructed in, Augustin gives a short compendium, de fide & op. c. 6. towards the end. But these Catechumeni were not at the very first baptized, but after they came to be competentes, &c.

If we aske the Schoolmen, they will tells us, there is more required to Baptisme, then a bare sleight profession of faith.

Alex. p. 4 q. 8. ar. 2.Hales saith, in adulto accedente ad Baptismum requiritur contritio, licet originale peccatum non impediat gratiam baptismalem quando habeat effectum in baptizato, tamen actuale impedit in adulto non contrito.

Aquinas saith, p. 3 q 68. a. 4. Peccatoribus, voluntatem peccandi, & in peccato perseverendi propositum habentibus, baptismus minime conferendus est, &c.

And in his Answer to the second Argument he speaks plain­ly. Spiritualis medecus scil: Christus, operatur dupliciter, uno modo in­terius per seipsum, & sic praeparat voluntatem hominis, ut bonum velit, & malum odiat: alio modo operatur per ministros exterius adhibendo Sa­cramenta, & sic operatur perficiendo exterius id quod est interius incho­atum. Et ideo, Sacramentum Baptismi non est exhibendum, nisi ei, in quo interioris conversionis aliquod signum apparet: sicut nec medicina corporalis ad hibetur infirmo, nisi in eo aliquis motus vitalis naturae appareat.

Who desires more then Aquinas hath affirmed.

Greg: de Valen. He also is strong against this, and bestowes paines about the question, To. 4. disp. 4. q. 3 p. 3. he saith, ut adulti recte accipiant bap­tismum, atque etiam ut eis rectè i.e. sine mortali peccato Administre­tur, necessarium est ut eos praeteritorum peccatorum mortalium poeniteat & est certissima ecclesiae doctrina contra nonnullos veteres haereticos, qui solam fidem, ut baptismus prodesset, requirendam putabant. In his e­steeme then they are but Hereticks that say onely Faith is e­nough to intitle to Baptism, and quotes that book of Augustin of which I made mention before: this he doth not barely assert, but proves, by Act: 2. where Peter bids them repent, &c. he quotes other Texts to good purpose, Heb: 6. and Rom: 6. and 1 Pet. 6.3. and Matth: 7. give not that which is holy unto dogs, and Matth: 28. Docete omnes gentes, baptizantos, &c. i.e. persuadete si­mul, ut velint esse & fieri Christi discipuli, abjecta veteri consuetudine [Page 23]peccaterum per paenitentiam. So Matth. 3. John required repen­tance.

After this he moves a question, what manner of repentance is required? and answers, Sufficere qualemcunque paenitentiam im­perfactam, quae tamen absolutè removeat Affectum ad peccatum, i. e. fa­ciat ut non amplius vigeat. Whether this repentance be caused from sin, as it is an offence to God, or as it hath the guilt of eternall death accompanying it, or what ever cause (though some, he saith after, as Navarrus, &c. contend that it must be for sin, as it is an offence to God) yet he saith, from what principles soever this repentance for sin flowes, it must have this effect, to take away the affection to sin, so as it may not grow nor flourish more.

So also Durandes, who denies indeed, l. 4. disp. 4. q. 2. that Contritio must be necessarily required before Baptisme, yet there is, quaedam dis­plicentia peccati Commissi licet informis & imperfecta, quae dicitur attri­tio, quae licet non sit sufficiens ad dolendum peccatum, est tamen dispositio sufficiens ad suscipiendum baptismum, eò quod tollit Fictionem. And this saith he is meant in Act. 2.

Repentance then must be joyned with faith in those who are admitted to baptisme (if adulti) in the Schoolmens opinion. This is more then a sleight profession, to say, I beleeve in Christ: yea, ora sleight confession of sin; which M. Prynn speaks of.

Learned Gillespie I find very strong for me in this point. Aar. rod 482.

Whereas Mr. Prynn had affirmed that in the Apostles times, a meer externall sleight confession of sin [which is more] and profession of Faith, was sufficient to inable sinners to be bapti­zed. He Answers, I utterly deny it as most false, and as a re­proach cast upon the Apostles, and so answers to that of Phillips baptizing Simon magus, he should have proved (saith he) that Simon Magus was known to be in the gall of bitternesse, when Phillip baptized him.

After this he saith, P 514. we read of no persons of age baptized by the Apostles, except such as did professe faith in Christ, gladly received the Word, and in whom some begun work of the spirit of grace did appear [though it may be not real.] A­quinas said as much before. p. 515.

I beleeve (saith he) no consciencious Minister would adven­ture to baptize one who hath manifest and infallible signes of [Page 24]unregeneration, wee cannot be answerable to God if wee should, &c.

If it were a prophanation of baptisme, to baptize a Catechu­meni, a Jew, or a Pagan professing a resolution to turne Chri­stian, he being manifestly under the power of abominable reigning sins, p. 544. and still a wicked liver, although he were able to give a sound and Orthodox Confession of Faith, then the Lords Supper, &c.

His minde then is, a bare profession of Faith is not suffici­ent.

Thousands of ours can give no Orthodox confession, they are so ignorant, and thousands as scandalous.

The Minor is proved.

Obj. But the Parent is baptized, and that gives right. Ergo. This supposition is nothing.

Answ: Does the Church perform their duty, in suffering such a person to continue in the Church, who show not so much as giveth a right to Baptisme? Exercise Discipline then.

But this intimates clearly, that it is the Parents being bap­tized which gives the Title, yea, and this alone, for though the person cannot be judged fit to give the right upon other grounds, as being a visible Saint, and Church member, yet his baptism will do it.

1 Hence I argue, If the Parents baptism gives the right to the Infants baptism, then an excommunicate person may justly challenge baptisme for his child. The Consequence is clear.

The Excommunicate person doth not loose his Bap­tisme.

But the excommunicate person cannot justly challenge: As before proved?

Ergo:

2 I would put this case, suppose a man to be newly converted to the faith, and so as he appears a reall Convert, he also is admitted into the Church this day, but possibly, not baptized that day, but it is deferred to the next; but on the sudden he is taken sick, and by reason of this, baptisme cannot be admi­nistred unto him, and possibly he dyeth of his disease: [the story of Valentinianus sending to Ambrose for his baptisme, is [Page 25]well knowne, who dyed before he was baptized] suppose in this time while he lyes in his sicknesse, he should have a childe borne unto him, now what would our Divines doe with this childe, baptize it or not? the Father is not baptized as yet, nor can receive it, but he is a member of the Church, and for ought we can see a godly man, I presume charity would strain hard before we would deny the childe baptisme; then it is not the baptisme of the parent that conveyes the right, for here is one baptised [the excommunicate person] and yet his childe ought not to be baptized, and here is one not baptized, and yet his childe may be baptized

So that I conceive it is the Parents being visibly in Cove­nant, and joyned to the Church, which as it is the ground of his owne baptisme, so it is that which doth primarily, and radically convey the right to the childe.

For those who conceive that it is baptisme which makes us members of a Church, my former supposition will be sleigh­ted by them; but I am sure all Divines are not of that mind, nor will reason force it. What were all the children of the Jewes before they were eight dayes old? or in case they were sick, and so their Circumcision was deferred, were they not looked upon as members of the Jewish Church, together with their parents? if so, then Circumcision did not make them members.

Baptisme is a priviledge belonging only to a Church, there­fore it supposes a Church, and that Organicall, for none but Officers can dispense it, what was it then first made this Church?

If baptisme make a man a member of a Church, what doe you when you dismember a man by excommunication, doe you null his baptisme.

Amesius answering to Bellarm. who had said, Bull. ener. to. 2. l. 2. c. 1. Non bapti­zati haeretici excommunicati, &c. non sive de ecclesia, saith thus: De infantibus fidelium, & fidelibus nondum baptizatis, adeò mani­festè falsum est quod affirmatur, ut nisi habendi tales essent pro membris ecclesiae, non deberent baptizari Baptismus enim sua natura est sigil­lum insitionis jam factae in Christum atque adeo in ecclesiam, Act. 10.47, 48.

3 My third argument is this:

If Ministers in baptizing are bound to hold to their Com­mission, then the children of such parents as the question men­tions are not to be baptized.

But the Antecedent is true, none will deny that; ergo the Consequence is true.

The Consequence: Ministers by their Commission [Matth. 28.19. [...]] are bound to baptize Disciples.

But these are no Disciples: Ergo.

My Argument tends to this; If the parent be not a Disci­ple, the childe is none; but such a parent is none, ergo his childe is none.

The Anabaptists here triumph. This is the text they thinke overthrowes all who baptize infants; but I easily can distin­guish between a Church as it is constituenda, & constituta; as now in New England, they preach to the Indians, and labour to make them Disciples, having so done, no doubt when the parents are baptized, the insants shall also be baptized. Our Divines have cleared that text I think sufficiently, that it is no hinderance, but rather proves the baptizing of infants. I shall desire to adde one answer more then yet I finde.

1 Suppose Christ had not at all changed the Seale of the Covenant of Grace, but let Circumcision have been the ini­tiating seale to the Gentiles as well as to the Jewes, yet no doubt when Christ sent forth his Disciples with his Commis­sion, he would have said, [...] Goe teach all Nations, circumcising them; for I hope he would not have them circumcised before they had been taught; but if it had been so, who would ever have doubted but if the Father had been circumcised, the childe had been also, when they saw it was so practised among the Jewes, and Proselytes also for so ma­ny hundred yeares, I am confident none would ever have que­stioned the thing; the converted Jewes, Acts 21.21. did not thinke their children excluded, but they would circumcise their children, though now Circumcision was abolished; but Circumcision was a seale of the Covenant of Grace as well as Baptisme; why therefore should this text make more against Baptizing then Circumcision? This for the text.

2 Further, the Anabaptists make the silence of the New Testament concerning infant baptisme to be a great argument [Page 27]against it, to me it is a great argument for it, which I make thus to appeare.

We know the nulling of Circumcision, what a dust it made in the Churches in the Apostles time, how they were troubled with it, as witnesse Pauls Epistle to the Galatians, so to the Philippians, and that, Act. 15. a long journey it cost him, the Sy­nod is called, the businesse is about Circumcision, the clearest ground we have for a Synod was occasioned upon this questi­on; now Circumcision was but an externall seale of the Co­venant of Grace, and that a painfull Ordinance; when it was removed they had another come in the roome, as significant as that, and more easie, it is but the change of the Seale; now if the change only of a Seale made such a stirre in the Churches, as I have showne, then surely the casting out of all their Posterity, and not giving them any initiating seale in the roome of Circumcision would have made a greater dust; For circumcision it is a fair answer; O Jews, we have done you no harme, though you have this removed, here is another come in the roome of it more easie, significant, &c. But sup­pose the Jewes and Gentiles converted had said; But what doe you with our Posterity, must not they have this Ordinance as well as we? what, do you cast them out of the Church? where shall we finde an answer to this in all the New Testament, for the children being excluded, there is not one text or fillable [...] quidem, in all the New Testament, as I said, Act. 21.21. they did thinke their Children should be taken in with them; had Paul taught them, you must not Circumcise your Chil­dren, nor Baptize them, this had been something, but the stirre, as you may see by Act. 15. was not in regard of the sub­ject, the childe, but the Circumcision.

I am confident it would have been as great a block to hin­der the Jewes from receiving of Christ, as could be. What, this is a strange Doctrine, that whereas our children have be­fore been owned with us under the Covenant; here is a Do­ctrine casts them out, and leaves them as the Heathen.

The Anabaptists then must bring me as expresse texts, to prove that the Infants of Beleevers must now be left out, and not owned in the Covenant with their parents, as I can bring them expresse texts, that Circumcision is abolished, or [Page 28]else I will never beleeve their Doctrine.

3 Another Argument fell in my course, preaching through the second of the Ephesians, in vers. 11. the Apostle to make the Ephesians highly to prize the estate they were brought into by the Free Grace of God, and Christ, he puts them in minde of their miserable and forlorne condition they were in before; this is reckoned up as one thing to set it out, they were Gentiles in the flesh, called uncircumcision by that which is called Circumcision; this was the initiating seale then: Now, who are called thus unci rcumcision? The Gentile parent and his childe; Who called him so? The Jew Circumcised and his childe, if then the Gentile beleever is baptized himselfe, but the children are not, then this which is reckoned as a note of the miserable and forlorn condition of the Gentile before his conversion, is still upon him after his conversion, in the greatest part; the Ephesians might well have answered; nay Paul, you shall not need to reckon up that as one thing to set out our misery by, for that still is upon us in greatest part, for though we our selves are taken into Covenant, and have the initiating seale, yet our children have it not, but are left as Heathens still, but so were not they who call us the uncircumcision. Let there­fore the parent and the children also be taken in, then it is re­moved, as no doubt the 19. ver. proves. fellow Citizens.

4 Another argument I would use is this; we finde many promises made to the posterity of godly parents, Gen. 17.7. Exod. 20.6. Psal. 112.2. Prov. 20.7. Isc. 44.3, 4. & 54.13. now if the children of such parents shall grow up, and though they are but young, yet reading, they finde such promises, or heare of them; it seemes these poore children must not now goe and lay hold of the Promise, claime it by vertue of their parents; if they should goe and spread these promises before the Lord, and plead; Lord, hast not thou made these pro­mises to the children of godly parents, I am sure my Father, or my Mother was such a one, now Lord make good these promises to me, who am the childe of such; this were no­thing, for sure if God will not so much as give them an out­ward seale of the Covenant by vertue of the parent, the poore childe cannot plead these promises which come by the parent; but what use such promises are of to the children of such pa­rents [Page 29](I thank God) I know by experience, who [though I have a most wretched heart] would not part with these pro­mises out of Gods book for the best estate of any Anabaptist in England, the Lord (I praise him) hath taught me from a youth to plead the promises, yea, and when I could finde no other bottome to pitch on in times of temptations and searchings, I have run to these promises and pleaded, Lord I own my Fathers Covenant, I stand to that; and have resolved to go to hel with these Promises if I do go, and here I have sound some stay. Now the word having experience joyned to it, is to me more then all the talk of Anabaptists.

To put an end to this, and so return to our Argument. The more I study this Doctrin of the Anaptists, I thank God the more I see into the falsehood and vilenesse of it, Survey of Dis. p. 38. and do think that holy and learned Mr. Hooker hath not passed too sharpe a censure upon it, when he calls it, The wretched Doctrin of the A­nabaptists.

Now to return to the Commission, Persons made Disciples, by teaching or calling [as say the London Ministers before] these are such as must be baptized. Some of our Divines observing what use the Anabaptists make of [...] make ye Disciples they answer it is a Criticism, and so wave it; but I think we sha, not need to be so shy of it, let them take their notion, it shall not trouble me; for I make no question when I baptize th [...] Infant of a parent that is a Disciple, I baptize also an In-e fant Disciple. But if the parent be not a Disciple, then I can­not look at the child as such, which is the thing my Argument looks at.

But for this word, [...], to be thus rendred, certain­ly that John 4.1. doth make it clear, when the Pharisee heard, [...], &c. Whence Mr. Cartwright, quod autem dicitur fecisse & baptizasse discipulos, sicut Mat. 28.19. [...]. Docetur prius esse Discipulos Christi, quam baptis­mi Sacramento obsignantur: adversus illos qui baptismo Christianos fie­ri putant, &c. He then renders the word so, and so doe others who are no Anabaptists: As Zanchy. Constituite mihi discipulos, In secon. par. p. 440.hoc enim est propriè [...], facere, [...]. So Gerhard in loc. So Pareus in loc.

Nay, reason will force it, for what if you teach the Nati­ons, suppose they will not receive your doctrine, will you bap­tize [Page 30]them? no sure, but as Mr. Gillespy cited before, None were baptized except such as did professe their faith in Christ, gladly re­ceived the word, and some worke of the spirit of grace begun (at least apparenter.) Now these are Disciples, and preaching is to bring people to this. He speaks de adultis, You must teach the Co­venant, and they must understand it, and submit to it (ap­pearingly at least) before we can give the seale of the Cove­nant.

Now shall we call them persons in the question, Disciples, when as they are sottishly ignorant in the very fundamentalls of Religion, or scandalous, or scoffers, or being convinced of discipline, yet will not stoop to it? Wil we admit of such Schollars into a School, that wil come and learn as they please, and do what they please, but tel their Master he shal use no dis­cipline? no sure.

For making them Disciples by calling. I am very much incli­ned to think, that much of our Religion is grounded upon the State, & taking up by tradition; it appears so, by many in their wofull ignorance, and so Ministers speak in their Sermons. But for calling by the word, either by Catechism when they were young, or by the word preached. I beleeve the word never had any offect upon them, hence we find them have a notion, God is merciful, and we must repent, and this is all. For the State, though I conceive the State is bound to compel the Subjects to attend upon converting Ordinances, yet they have not power to compell the Ministery to give the Sacraments, but where the word doth seem (at least apparentèr) to have had some effect. To call very ignorant persons, scandalous, scor­ners of the Members of Christ, that can jeer at them, and hate them, and who refuse to stoop to his discipline, Christs dis­cipels, I think no serious Minister wil do it. If then the parent be no Disciple, the childe is none, therefore I go beyond my commission when I baptize such a one.

4 I shall but touch two Arguments more.

To administer the seale of the Covenant of grace to a childe, by vertue of him who is visibly in Covenant with Satan, must needs be a prophaning of the Ordinance.

But to administer baptisme to a child by vertue of such a one as the question mentions, is to administer the seal of [Page 31]the Covenant of grace to a child by vertue of one who is vi­sibly in Covenant with Satan. Ergo.

For the Major, you say it is a prophaning of the Lords Supper to admit such an one to it, ergo, you exclude him, and may not the Sacrament of baptisme be prophaned as well, hav­ing as great priviledges signified by it?

For the Minor. A person grosly ignorant in the fundamen­talls of Religion, his course of life, his trade, is to live in sinne, scandalous, &c. what shall wee say of such an one: though he doth not formally make a Covenant with the De­vill, yet we know in what sense we take such expressions of our Ministers.

I wonder how Ministers pray when they baptize the childe of such an one, they cannot but have some eye to Gods Cove­nant, and do we not mention so much to the Lord, that he having taken the parent into Covenant with himselfe, he doth also the seed of the Parent; and so we plead the Covenant, and a blessing, &c. but when a godly Minister shall carry the parent in his heart thus, doth not his heart check him, trouble him in the thought of the Parent?

If you say the parent is in Covenant, for he is baptized, I should give my former answer. And further I say, if he be in Covenant, why doe you constantly exclude him from the Lords Supper, and not proceed, as I said in my first Argu­ment?

If you say it is not by vertue of him but his Predecessors, I shall desire to see more light first, and what I have said to that question clearly removed.

5 I shall not draw these into form, but I desire they may be seriously considered.

1 How exceedingly this Ordinance is sleighted, abused, through this heedles administring of the Ordinance, for we see persons never minde the Ordinance before hand, nor after; but come let us have our children baptized, and that is all, if they can make a Feast and drinke after it, that is well. Why do we tell people of preparing themselves to the Lords Sup­per, and not as wel to this, I know of no Ordinance so abused as this is, and this hardens men, and settleth them on their sees, for if they come to Church, and have their children baptized what care they for more.

[Page 32]2 Besides, it is strange to see how we jumble the most holy and prophane men in the Nation together; if Master Greenham, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rogers, Mr. Dod, or whom you will, should come and bring their children to be baptized, let the most ignorant sot, Drunkard, Swearer, uncleane person, scor­ner of godlinesse, &c. come, he shall have his childe baptized as well as they; Have they their children taken into Cove­nant? so have I, sayes the Drunkard, Swearer, &c. Shall we owne all these men alike under the Covenant, so as to give the seale of the Covenant alike to all?

Would not a serious Minister having two children brought together to baptize, the parents of these children stand by, the father of the one a holy man, the father of the other a very wretch, a mock-God, (the mothers of the children also disser as much) for the Minister now to joyne both these together in his prayer, and administer the seale of the Covenant to both alike by vertue of these parents, would it not trouble him in his Act?

Obj. But to come to the great objection; The Jewes though very wicked, had their children circumcised; ergo.

Ans. I confesse this is a hard knot to untye, I desire some who have better fingers then I, would lend their help here, I shall propound my thoughts by way of answer.

There was excommunication among the Jewes, Aar. rod. c. 4. those who deny it let them grapple with stout Gillespie, who proves it, and shewes the causes of their excommunication, some where­of Christians may be guilty of; if persons were excommuni­cated, some say their children were not circumcised, as I quoted Mr. Gillespie before; but I doe not much presse this.

2 I conceive for ignorance they were not so guilty as are many of ours, though the knowledge of Christ was very lit­tle, Synag. Jud. c. 3. yet in Moses Law they trained up their children, better then thousands of ours; what care they have Buxtorfe re­ports, though it is very much to observe, they should be so unacquainted with the Prophets, where Christ is most made knowne under the Old Testament, as he relates.

But to come more close to the answer.

1 I desire my reverend Fathers and Brethren would give me cleare proofe, that the Priests did debarre thousands of [Page 33]the people from the Passeover for morrall uncleannesses [for as for Ceremoniall uncleannesses they doe not trouble us, we can admit such to the Lords Supper] and thus they did de­barre them six, ten, twenty yeares together [as our Divines doe thousands in this Kingdome, though they have the Lord; Supper oftner then they had the Passeover] and yet though they were thus debarred, they did circumcise their children, [as our Divines doe baptize, notwithstanding their suspen­sion, and that without any paines to bring them to humilia­tion, &c.] this now will speake something if it can be pro­ved, but I must have good grounds to beleeve it.

2 I conceive there was something peculiar to them in the constitution of their Jewish Nationall Church, from ours under the Gospell; there God takes Abraham, enters into Covenant with him, layes the foundation of the Church in his Family, and commands him to circumcise his seed; the constitution of our Churches doe not begin with any particu­lar person, but, make Disciples, and baptize. Now though I con­ceive the discending from Abraham according to the flesh was not the sole ground of administring Circumcision, yet I am apt to thinke there was something peculiar to them, in being Israel after the flesh; and these grounds lead me to think so.

1 When these Jewes came to Johns baptisme, they were not admitted without any more adoe, but he required con­fession of sins first, repentance; it was not sufficient to plead we are Abrahams Seed, therefore baptize us, as well as we are circumcised by being his Seed; but as I said, Aar. rod, p. 553 he requireth re­pentance, yea and so as Mr. Gillespie conceives, that John did not baptize those Pharisees, p. 555. and concludes with the Centu­rists, John did not cast pearls before Swine; he did not admit rashly any that would, to baptisme, but such as confessed their sins; that is, only such as were tryed, and did repent, but the contumacious, and the defen­ders of their impieties he did reject.

2 We observe when they fell into that foule Apostasie, yet their children were Circumcised, whether regularly or no I leave that; but I would desire whether if any of our Church-Members should apostatize to so foule Idolatries, as the Calves at Dan and Bethel, Baal, the offering of their children to Mo­loch, that uncleane god Priapus [which learned Divines con­ceive [Page 34]to be the meaning of that place, Burrough on the text. Hos. 4.14. Themselves are separated with whores, &c. Would you baptize their children? I doubt holy men would not doe it, you would suspend their baptisme a while till they had repented, and declared their hatred against such Idols.

3 I observe, when they admitted any Heathens into the Church of Israel, they were very exact, as Mr. Ainsworth notes out of Maimonid. on Gen. 17.12. they make diligent inquiry, lest they come to get themselves under the Law for riches, dignity, or feare, or love to some Jewish woman, or man; if no such like occasion be found in them, then they make knowne to them the weightinesse of the yoke of the Law, and the toyle that is in doing thereof, to see if they will leave off; if they see they with-draw not, and see them that they come of love, then they receive them, as Ruth. 1.18. now this is more then for one to come and professe he did beleeve in the God of Israel, therefore Circumcise me, &c. as some conceive a bare professi­on that they beleeve in Christ gives right to baptism; the Jews being trained up in their Fathers religion, and the religion of the Nation, may seeme all of them to have this which they required of the Proselytes, but I should preferre these things in a Proselyte, before the same things in a meere carnall Jew.

3 It is true, the wicked Jewes being members of that Na­tionall Church so long as their Membership held, they might challenge Circumcision; so for wicked persons so long as they continue members, and the Church lets them alone, they may challenge baptisme; but our question is, whether such persons should be let alone, is not that Church to blame? though they are de facto, members through want of the exer­cise of Discipline, yet the question is de jure, ought such to be members?

4 I conceive what-ever the Church of the Jewes was, the Churches under the Gospel must look to some with more strict­nesse, though I allow not that strictnesse and ridgednesse which some would have, (for an errour on the right hand is an errour as well as an errour on the left) yet I beleeve some more strictnesse; there is ground why it should be so.

1. We have more light then ever the Jews had, in the know­ledge of Christ especially; they had the shadow, we the body; [Page 35]hence the Apostle, Gal. 4.1. &c. compares the time of the Jewish Church, to the time of child-hood.

2 The Spirit of God is more given out under the Gospel then before, if we consider the bulke of Christians, Gods peo­ple have more of the Spirit now then his owne had under the Law, and so I beleeve the same Spirit doth restraine more un­der the Gospel, such as come not to reality of grace; I will not enlarge upon this head.

1 Hence we finde in Scripture, Ezek. 44.7.9. (which re­spects the Churches under the Gospel) God reproveth not only the bringing of Strangers into his Sanctuary who were uncircumcised in the flesh, but the bringing of those who were uncircumcised in heart; that is, known to be such, for De secret is non judicat ecclesia; such ought not to have fellowship in holy things.

2 Hence againe we finde the condition of the Churches under the New Testament set downe, Isa. 52.1. Aar. rod. p. 107. which Master Gillespie proves to be understood of a Church visible, and mini­steriall.

3 Hence we finde the Churches of Asia commended, or re­proved, as they kept their Churches from pollution, or suf­fered wicked persons to live in them, Revel. 2.

4 Hence we finde Church Discipline more clearly layed o­pen in the New Testament then in the Old, Mat. 18.15, &c.

5 Hence, 2 Thes. 3.12.14. we finde Paul writing to the Churches, to note such persons who did not obey the Word, though but an idle person.

6 Hence we finde a command to exercise Discipline against severall persons, 1 Cor. 5.11.

Of this last text a few words; No not to eate. Some, and most Divines that I see say, it doth prove suspension from the Lords Table, and Excommunication; some Divines I have heard, [but read very few] say it is meant only of civill familiarity; so I heard Mr. Edwards once in the Pulpit, so another, whom I must reverence. Mr. Prynne he is so peremptory in it, that he scornes all the Divines who have affirmed the contrary.

For the godly Ministers who are of Mr. Prynns judgement, I shall but only propound one question to them; If that be your opinion of the place, then what is the reason your Parishes [Page 36]have been so long destitute of the Lords Supper? Why are you so troubled to thinke of one? Is it not because there are com­panies of rusty, rugged, rich fellowes in our Parishes, bad e­nough, who will croud in if we goe about it? but what I pray would you have these doe, keep off? sure if so, you will con­firme the interpretation to be meant of suspension at least, that is, Excommunicatio minor, and what is the cause of that, if obsti­nacy continues, will deserve the higher excommunication; I would never scruple the giving of the Lords Supper to all my Parish [if they have but knowledge] if that text respects only civill familiarity.

Put I shall proceed, and set down some Divines of no small note, who are for the first interpretation, and that it is meant of Excommunication, I doe not set downe their words, be­cause of trouble, but if you please to read these places I referre to, you shall finde what I affirme.

August. Homil. 50. Calvin in Loc. & institu. l. 4. c. 12. Sect. 4, 5 Beza his Annota. on the ninth v. of the Chap. Zanch. in 4th. Pre­cep. p. 742, 743. Chemniti. in Joh. 9.22. & Mat. 18.17. Hemming. in Loc. Pareus in loc. Piscator in his fourth and fifth observations upon the chap. The Heyden Profess. Synop. Theol. disp. 48. Thes. 25. Ames. de consc. l. 4. c. 29. Th. 30. Dicson in loc. Diodati his Annot. up­on the text, our English Annot. upon the 9. & 11 ver. of the cha. Mr. Hooker. Surv of Chur. Discip. par. 3. p. 39. the Synod of New Eng­land, their confession of Church Discipline, Mr. Gillespie, who an­swers Mr. Prynne, and quotes P. Martyr, Gualter, Tossanus, the Cen­turists [which I have not] all which expound it of Excom­munication.

Now though I doe not pin my faith upon any mans sleeve, yet I would see very good reasons why I should differ so much in the interpretation of a text, from so many men, so holy and learned as many of these were, and are, whom I have quoted; neither had Mr. Prynne been esteemed the lesse godly and lear­ned, if he had showne more respect to such as have interpreted for suspension, or excommunication.

For Mr. Vindica. p. 2. Prynne I leave him to Mr. Gillespie, only one thing I take notice of, he is content to yeeld that some persons may be excommunicated, and all the warrant he gives us for excom­munication is from 1 Cor. 5.13. It is readily yeelded, that grosse note­rious, [Page 37]scandalous, obstinate sinners, who presumptuously persevere in their iniquities, after private and publike admonitions, without remorse of Con­science, or amendment, may be justly excommunicated from the Church, the society of the faithfull, and all publick Ordinances, after due proof, and le­gall conviction of their scandalous lives; and that, 1 Cor. 5.13. warrants thus much, notwithstanding the various readings of thetext. Thus M. Pryn

I perceive according to Master Prynne, excommunica­tion reacheth but a few, and Ministers will have much trouble when they goe about it; for the persons must be grosse notorious sinners, obstinate, such as doe presumptu­ously persevere? What need these words? Paul saith, 2 Thess. 3.14. If any man obey not our word, &c. note that man; though but an idle person who will not labour, ver. 12. Now is this such a grosse notorious sin with Mr. Pryn? the incestuous person, we doe not finde he did presumptuously persevere after private and publike admonition, for the Church was negli­gent, yet Paul bids them put him away. Why will not obsti­nacy in a lesser sin, though not so grosly notorious, deserve ex­communication? for the exclusion of excommunicate per­sons from all Ordinances [the word preaching, which is the meanes to convince and humble, and to which the Heathens are admitted] it is more then ever I saw practised among the Churches of New England, neither can I see any reason for it, but I aime at something else; that text, he saith, warrants excom­munication, but none else in all the Bible; for he disputes a­gainst all the rest, that our Divines bring for excommunica­tion, at least the most eminent texts, as Matthew 18.17. which is not meant he saith of excommunication; the warrant then Master Prynne gives us is from these words, Therefore put away from your selves that wicked person. I suppose when Mr. Prynne tells us what persons he would have ex­communicated, he means all such persons so quallified as he there sets down. Though he hath not put the note of univer­sality to his long Proposition, yet he meanes, it is a univer­sall Proposition. Then let us see how that Text proves his pro­position.

The Apostle in those words doth but apply his former dis­course unto that particular incestuous person, then Mr. Prynns argument must run thus.

The Incestuous person was to be excommunicated.

Ergo, All grosse notorious sinners, that presumptuously persevere after admonitions [which it seems this person had not] are to be excommunicated.

What logick have we here? a universall Conclusion in a Contract Syllogisme? draw it into forme and see how it runs.

The Incestuous person was a notorious sinner, &c. as Mr. Prynne describes.

The Incestuous person was excommunicated.

Ergo, All notorio us sinners, &c. are to bee Excommuni­cated.

This is no good logicke, since Mr. Prynn denies all other Texts to prove excommunication but this, I cannot tell how he will prove that any but such Incestuous persons as this per­son was, of whom the Text speakes, should be excommunica­ted.

Pauls logick is very good.

All scandalous impenitent sinners within the Church, are to be excommunicated, v. 11.

The Incestuous person, is a scandalous impenitent sinner within the Church.

Ergo, The Incestuous person is to bee excommunica­ted.

If any Object. Neither can we prove the excommunication of all notorious, obstinate sinners from that, v. 11. Ergo, Nei­ther is your logick good,

I Answer, There was no need why the Apostle should reckon up all scandalous sinners that must be excommunicated in one verse. But.

1 We having a general rule, Mat. 18.15, 16, &c. [it is a very ab­surd conceit of them, who expound the offence there menti­oned, to be only some private injury which my brother may offer me; it is spoken to often enough, therefore I leave it.]

2 We having other texts that guide us, as 2 Thess 3.14. which is also a generall rule, and Tit. 3.10. & 1 Tim. 1.20. for he­resie.

3 The Apostle in this eleventh verse, enumerating divers Sins, Fornication, Drunkennesse, Idolatry, Extortion, Co­vetousnesse, railing, [not speaking of one particular person, [Page 39]as that clause in the 13. v. expresseth] he Apostle need not rec­kon up all sins: These by a rule of proportion, with other texts being laid together, will help us to draw out a universall pro­position concerning persons that should be excommunicated, better then that one particular example, which only he will allow us to be a warrant for excommunication of all notori­ous sinners; I could draw out the proposition from these three heads, but it is so obvious to any intelligent Readers eye, that I spare the paines, I leave Mr. Prynne, and goe to the text. It is worth the observation what Mr. Gillespie saith: Aar. rod. 4 [...]7. Had the Apostle said simply, not to eate, the argument for civill familiarity had been more colourable; but after he had twice said, not to keep company, to adde, no not to eate, doth plainly intimate the Apostle argu­eth from the lesse to the greater, and that there is some other fellowship with such a one, &c.

For my part, it seemes strange to me, that a man should be reputed a Brother, a member of a Church, admitted to all the Ordinances, under no Censure, and yet I must not shew him so much familiarity as I may a Heathen, to whom I may goe if he invites me: 1 Gor. 10.27. but not to my brother, af­ter excommunication, indeed the verse takes place; ‘Os, orare, vale, convivia, mensa negatur:’ but before excommunication I never heard that it did, I have eate with Indians divers times, and that was no trouble to me; but one time being at a godly friends house, where one of the Family (a Sonne) was excommunicated, Vindic p. 28. it did a little at first trouble me, [not out of any self conceited holinesse, which Mr. Prynne thinks is the ground why Ministers do thus labour to keep Churches cleare; such as upon any such grounds doe refuse to goe to a Sacrament, let them beare the blame] but I at last re­called my selfe; for Politicall and Oeconomicall communion which hath its obligation from the Law of Nature, and Ex­communication doth not solve from that; yet I did desire to deale faithfully with the party afterward.

Further, the Argument the Apostle uses in the sixth and se­venth verses, Vid. Pasca. Pa­re. in loc. to move the Church to cast out the incestuous person, that is, from the dangerous effect which may follow, set out under that similitude taken from leaven, it is of force a­gainst these sins mentioned in ver. 11. for surely Fornicators, [Page 40]Drunkards, &c. are as apt to leaven others as the incestuous person was; Impunitas vitiorum alios ad peccandum invitat, as Pa­reus notes; and here Mr. Prynn may see the reason why we would be carefull to exclude such, not because we conceive our selves to be too holy for such to communicate with; but be­cause our hearts are dough fit to be infected with such leaven; That the Church may be a pure and cleane body, something like other blessed head, as the seventh verse implies. That we may be faithfull Stewards in dispensing the holy things of God, Doida. in loc. 1 Cor. 4.2. That we may use all means to save the soule, verse 5.

Something I observe out of ver. 12. which seemes to me to prove this no not to eate, must be meant of excommunication, or suspension at least, the verse doth depend upon the 10. & 11. vers. that is cleare enough; therein he gives a reason of the precedent limitation to the members of the Church; for what have I to doe to judge, &c. Doe not ye judge them that are within? so that by this verse hanging on the former, it should seeme Paul did there judge such persons; now what judgement hath the Church but Suspension and Excommunication? doctrinall judging is not only meant, the next verse still makes it cleare; but them that are without God judgeth, therefore put away from your selves that wicked person: Here Paul judges, and the Church doth judge; judging then here is excommunication, I see I am not alone in my notion, but upon search I found some others who back me in my interpretation. Piscator is plaine, his second Aphorisme (as he calls it) is this; Excommunicatio est judicium seu decretum, seu denique sententiae dictio, colligitur ex verbis Apostoli, ver. 3. Ego judicavi jam ut praesens. Item. ver. 12. Nonne de eis qui intus sunt, vos judicatis? So also Pareus upon the word judicatis; Docet igitur censuras Ecclesiasticas non stringendas in extraneos, sed circa eos, qui cum intra Ecclesiae pomeria versentur, tamen ut extraneos se gerunt, exercendas esse. This judging then he understands to be Church Censures, but this judging is to be referred to ver. 11.

Further, I desire any Christian to consider, whether they think the Apostle would have Christians to have intimate fa­miliarity with a Heathen that was a Fornicator, Drunkard, &c? Is there not danger of a Christian who shall familiarly converse with a Heathen, whose mouth is full of uncleane fil­thy [Page 35]speeches, and base gestures? so to be in a Drunkards com­pany, to sit quaffing with such a one, is there not danger though he be a Heathen? if you say, yes sure, we ought to take heed of all occasions of sinne, our hearts are as tinder to the sparkes; therefore intimate familiarity is to be avoyded with such: Then I say, if no not to eate, be meant only of inti­mate civill familiarity, then Paul did judge those who were without, as well, and as much, as those who were within, and he makes no difference between the judging of the one and the other, but this twelfth verse saith, He had nothing to doe with those who were without.

Further, this judging doth imply some power and authori­ty put forth upon the persons judged, in ver. 11. here is the act of Rulers, the Officers of the Church, together with the fraternity consenting with the Officers; in excommunication this is seene indeed, but not in the denying of civill intimate familiarity with one, which I can also deny to one, over whom I have no power nor authority.

This discourse I have run into by occasion of my last answer to the Objection, so that for the present I am not much mo­ved with the Argument: though I know it is that which is most used; I hope some others will give better answers, pre­suming that since they practise as they doe, and have beene longer at their studies then I have been, they are better fur­nished then I am with arguments to defend their practise.

There is but one more Objection, Object. and that is commonly u­sed; if you practise thus, you will make abundance in Eng­land, and in your Parish, to be no better then Heathens.

I answer; Answ. 1 Thousands of our people are suspended from the Lords Supper many yeares together, and your suspension is excommunicatio minor; follow home your Discipline, and I doubt you must come to excommunicate thousands, and if so, you will make them as Heathens; you doe a great deale to­wards it.

2 I doe not looke upon all those whose children I admit not to Baptisme as Heathens, but as Church-members in a large sense, through want of Catechizing and Discipline, o­ver-grown with ignorance and profanenesse, I conceive they have a fundamentall or remote right (as I may say) to the bap­tisme [Page 34]of their children, yea and to the Lords Supper, you must not deny it, if you owne them to be Church-members, how­ever custome hath prevailed to the exclusion of them from it, without regular proceeding, and labouring to bring them to repentance; and that I doe not look at them as Heathen, &c. this is one demonstration, for such as I doe now refuse to bap­tize, it may be the next childe God giveth the Party I doe bap­tize it, the Parent gives now some better hopes then before, his conversation is more reformed, &c. but this parent I doe not baptize, which I should doe if I looked on him as a Hea­then, and no member of a Church, being he was not excom­municated. Heathens, and non-members of Churches (who were never excommunicated) when they are taken into a Church, they are baptized; and thus it is in New England, those whom they take into their Churches; they doe not baptize a­gaine [the parents I meane.] The Anabaptists who deny the Churches of England, doe so indeed.

3 Since then our Churches through want of Catechizing, and Discipline, are growne thus ignorant and corrupt, and to exercise Discipline it is very hard, the persons are numerous, who are as the Question mentions: A question propounded. I propound this Question; Whether it were not better for the Ministers of England, as they doe suspend persons from the Lords Supper, so also for a time to suspend them from baptizing of their Children, and in the meane time, Mini­sters to follow Catechizing close, and labour to reforme them from a scan­dalous conversation, by all the gentle perswasions, and meeknesse of wis­dome, which God shall give us, that so when by our Catechizing they have gotten knowledge, and we finde the Word have so much power as to rectifie their conversations, we may then with more comfort give this Ordinance?

My shallow head cannot thinke of any way to reforme our Congregations but this, and surely if all Ministers did thus, it would make people more to looke about them; this may we doe, and the Civill Power will backe Ministers in so doing, and not suffer their maintenance to be kept from them by such as you shall for a time thus suspend (as I have experi­ence) and this must be acknowledged to be a great mercy we enjoy, though we have many discouragements from the er­rours and schismes of the times.

I tell my people, I doe not absolutely deny to baptize their Children, but desire them to forbeare a while, and if they wil answer me in the Assembly as others doe, or come to my house and be Catechized there, so that they may get knowledge, and if they will reforme their conversations from scandalous walking, set up religious duties as well as they can in their Families, and subject themselves to Discipline, then I will doe it.

If any say I have overthrown my selfe in affirming all to be Church-members; they may answer themselves by what I have said before, we receive them indeed from our Predeces­sors, who owned them for such and baptized all, and it is but faintly that I acknowledge it, and I say de facto they are so e­steemed, but de jure they ought not to be so; only they are so numerous that now we come to Reformation, we know not what to do, therefore I go this way, as the mildest course I can take.

Obj. If you say this doth but draw men into a formality of religion. Object.

I answer, if a man shall professe this unto me, Answ. that God hath made him see himselfe utterly undone without Christ, and so doth trust and rest upon Christ for salvation, and to this pro­fession the things I mentioned are adjoyned, viz. Competent knowledge, conversation not scandalous, sets up religious du­ties in the family, and subjects to Discipline; I look upon such a one as a visible Saint, and I am confident such a person should have been received in the Apostles times.

Those who contemne this, and must have stricter rules to go by, Let them set pen to paper, if their arguments be cogent I will yeeld, if not, somebody will be ready to answer them. I had rather grapple with those who think I am too large [as there are some about me, but I cannot get them to disputati­on] then with those who judge me to be too streight.

Concerning this suspension from both the Sacraments for a time, though I confesse the Leyden Professours are against me,Synops. par. Theol. disp. 44. th. 50. unto which I conceive some answer hath been given in my former discourse: Yet Disp. 48. they seem to allow this, at the 27 Thesis, there is a question moved, whether if there be a great multitude in the Church, who offend in do­ctrine or life, may we now use excommunication, or exclu­sion [Page 38]from the Sacraments? the reason of the question they give, in the 28 Thes: they seem to be for non-communion, a secession from them if overgrowne with heresie; but as to the life in Thes: 31. they give their answer. I shall rehearse it, begin­ning about the midst of the Thesis. Sedsi ecclesiae Rectores pleriquè in bonum conspirent, existimo, ejusmodi hominibus apertè & contumaci­ter corruptis quantalibet sit multitudo, ab iisdem Pastoribus divinae gra­tiae Sacramenta communicari nec posse nec debere, sed unanimi consensu iis esse neganda, & Deo eventum commendandum; quia pii Pastores sig­na gratiae iis Communicare non possunt, quibus Christus ea apertè negat, & ne communicentur prohibet; & quia exempla in ecclesiis nostri tem­poris reperiri possunt, ubi ejusmodi negatio publica, in publica morum corruptela, medium fuit & instrumentum, quo ecclesia ad meliorem sta­tum sit reducta, & morum major integritas revocata.

Whereas they say Sacramenta, and Signa gratiae, they must needs include baptisme, for they owned but two Sacraments, and thus it seems they have done, and found good successe. I am mistaken if they speak not the very thing, I have been pleading for.

Thus I have troubled the Reader, in giving account of my actions, I trust I shall not be offensive to any of my reverend Fathers or Brethren, if I hold on my practice till I see these grounds removed. I hope I have not so handled the question, as to deserve a sharp Answer, I have endeavoured to give all due respect to those Ministers who I see practise otherwise then I doe, esteeming their holinesse, gifts, and learning far beyond mine. Willing I am to receive light from others, and shal rea­dily lay down my opinion and practise when I see strength of Argument compels me; it is no temptation to me, to fall on the charitable side, but I shall leave the controversie to more able heads and better hearts.

The mercifull Lord once againe return to his Ordinances, that we may see his goings in his Sanctuary, as we have seen heretofore, and grant that pure Ordinances and pure hearts may meet together.