IF Baptisme were a means of Regeneration, as is the Preaching of the Word, then I should not dare to refuse the Baptizing of any person, what ever: or if Baptisme were so necessary to Salva­tion, that all those Children which are Baptized, and die in their Infancy shall be saved, and those which are not Baptized, and die in their Infancy shall perish [as Augustine affirmes (I think) ten times in one Epistle] then Mr. Cawdrey did justly taxe me with rigidnesse [as be doth P. 28. and if he had said worse I should have submitted] for non-admitting of some Children to Baptisme. But neither the first Walae. To. 1. p. 85. & 491. Syney. pu. th dis [...]. 44. th. 27.28. nor the second Chamier. To. 4 l. 5. c. 8. Bell. Ezerv. To 3 d. 2. c. 1. doe our Orthodox Divines affirme. Baptisme then being not appointed to bring persons into union with Christ, but suppose union, or to bring persons into the Covenant, but suppose a person already within the Covenant, being a Scale of it, and of all those glorious priviledges contained in the Covenant, certainly this is not an Ordinance that is lightly to be regarded, [nor shall be I am confident when Christ comes to reforme his Church indeed] but those who doe Administer this (being stewards of it) had need looke to whom they give out this sacred priviledge. Had God tied up Ministers so, that we should administer it onely to reall Believers, then we had a hard taske. he hath left us a greater latitude, but whether such a latitude as now the question mentions, is that we are searching out. Reverend Mr. Cawdrey hath yeelded P. 16. That such a person as the question mentions is not suffici­ently qualified to be a Church member. Also P. 17. he saith thus, when we say a Profession of the Faith is sufficient to qualifie a Man to be made or [Page 2]continued a Member: we do not meane a bare profession with his mouth, that be believes in Jesus Christ, though visibly he lives like an infidell: but thus at least, when nothing in his life appeares to the contrary, though there be yet no great positive signes of his holinesse. Let there be little positive signes ad­ded to a competent measure of Knowledge, and Conversation as you say, and we shall agree in that point. Also in his Review of Mr. Hooker, P. 89. he affi [...]meth; That, wicked Men are no fit materialls of a visible Church. ‘And p. 94. 95. he moves a question because it is hard to judge of the mi­nimum quod sic of Knowledge or Holinesse to make a man a fit matter of a Church, whether it were not safer for the Church to proceed by [...]egations at her then Affirmation:’ That is, in admitting or allowing of members, there is nothing appears to the contrary, but that the p [...]ty they have so much of saving Knowledge, and so faire a conversation in holinesse, as may consist with true grace? This is very faire, and certainly there will be some little positive signes in such a person, and you may admit him by affirma­tion. Mr. Cawdrey hath fully confirmed me in that which is the ground of my scruple, for when I observed divers persons came to demand Baptisme of me, for their children, and I found them grossely ignorant in the ne­cessary points of Salvation, and farre from understanding the nature of the Sacrament, and also when their conversation was proved by witnesse to [...] scandalous, and far from what Mr. Cawdry hath set down, I questioned whether I was bound to give away such a seale as this, and did therefore lovingly request them to forbear a little, and lay in for more knowledge (offering to helpe them) and so to labour to reforme their scandalous conversations, then I would doe it.

M. Cawdry condemns my practise, P. 15. and tells the World I have confuted my Opinion and my Practise, and while I goe about to prove the Nega­ [...]e, I have concluded the Affimative: and that is by one sentence which I have affirmed, viz. So long as wicked persons are telerated they may chal­lenge, &c. [what my sentence is I shall presently give it you plainely.] This sentence (saith he) confutes (as it contradicts) both his Question and his Practice, and it unto gives us an answer to all his Arguments. You have said enough; He saith in the same Page that I have three times at least af­firmed that Proposition: what I have affirmed I will owne, there is a fourth place where I have said the same words in P. 41. 4. 2. (it should be, the num­bers are false printed) ‘ That such persons as are ignorant and scandalous, if they be owned for Church members, they have a remote right to Baptisme, [...] and to the Lords Supper, you must not deny it,’ by these words, you must not deny it; I suppose you do not understand me, you must not deny such the Lords Supper, that is far from my thoughts, for then I should condemne our old holy Divines and others now, who alone will keepe back, it may be halfe their Parish from the Lords Supper, I condemne them not at all, but thinke they have done well, As you say Review Mr. Hooker p. 94. though you scarce think so by your passage. P. 21. that then is the meaning of it, You must not deny it, but they have a Remote Right to the one as well as to the other. But I suppose you well under­stood [Page 3]my minde, that I [...] no more there there th [...]in the s [...] pla [...], which now I shall consider in may Booke, [...] there you say I have it t [...]ies, once from the [...] giving of title to Circumcision so long as Church members. For the Iewes I shall say this once for all: if you can prove unto me that the grounds of the Iewes administ [...]ing Circumcision were onely the same and no other of our administring Baptisme, then I shall be very much swayed with Arguments you draw from them: but if there were something peculiar to them as being such a Seed, and such a Church, (which I doe verily believe, and shall speake to afterwards) then what Arguments you draw from them (excepting this, that as God made a Covenant with believing Abrabam, and gave him the Scale, and like­wise his Children, (being reputed believers with their believing Father) so the believing Gentiles, who are Abrahams seed have right to the Scale of Baptisme for themselves and their children, which I see confirmed in the Gospe I do very little regard.

You mention the same Page againe e it is true sir, there I have s [...] down my minde plainly, and that I will stand to. There was a question moved, whether such a b [...] profession (as the cas [...] which I sta [...]ed mentions) with grosse ignorence, &c. were sufficient to make and continue a Man a Church-member!

‘I said suppose that our Divines, who Baptize all goe upon this No­tion, all persons in England do professe they believe in Christ, hence all are Church members, Ergo all are Baptized.’

My answer to this was thus: ‘ This I confess as some disadvantage to me, [Mr. Cawdry might have showen me so much favour as to let his Reader know, that what strength he hath against me, I gave it him knowingly, but he never mentions that I saw the difficulty, though I have expressed it, but triumphs over me, as if what I had said was unawares, but I looke for no favour as his hand.] For if a Man be looked upon as a visible Saint, and reputed a Member of is true Church, if that Member be very scandalous, and the Church let him alone, and not d [...]le with him, that person may challenge any Ordinance in the Church, both Baptisme and the Lords Supper:’ This I have said and will not recall, make of it what you can't and here you have my minde fully, with the next words adjoyned, which I will rehearse pre­sently.

From this you have drawn up a [...]yllogisme to shew the World, Page 15. how I have Confuted and Comtradicted my selfe, and thus you have cast it.

The Child of a sandalous Member tolerated, may be Baptized. But the Child of a scandalous Member not Excommunicated, is the Child of a scandalous Member tolerated.

Ergo, it may be Baptized, and is Minister may lawfully Baptize i [...].

Thus you have killed me with my own Weapon, but sir when I looke on your Syllogisme, it comes at first view as if you must out off one of the see [...]e of it, for I [...] it [...] on foure: I pray wheat was this [...]me, [Page 4] and a Minister may lawfully [that is, the word binds him to it, which is the pinch of the Question] Baptize is, disposed in the premisses? if you say, it was included in the Major, when I said it may be Baptized. Sir I cannot tell that, if a Minister will admit a Man into the Church as a Member, though the Man be not qualified as you have told us Members must be, but very scandalous in conversation, and grosly ignorant, yet the Minister thinkes he have enough to admit him a Member, and consequently hee Baptizeth him; Such a Minister may Baptize him if he will, he may say, (A Member admitted may be Baptized, but this is a Member admitted) But the word doth not binde him, no, he prophanes the Ordinace, though he will admit him a Member.

However Sir you should have expressed this in the Major, as you have done in the Conclusion, then your Major I would have denyed; you will say to me, the Major is my one proposition, and upon that I argue, and show you and the World how you have confu [...]ed your selfe. No Sir I do utterly deny it; shew me such a passage where I have said that Scandalous Members [such us our English persons are, named in the Question] tollerated, may have their Children Baptized, and the word bindes Ministers to do it. Shew your Reader that, and then you say something: but how farre I was from thinking or speaking so, the very next words unto that which you say is my sentence, and out of which I have consuted my selfe, do declare: my words are these.

‘But I conceive such a person is not sufficiently qualified to make a Member of a Church, nor ought to be continued a Member of the Church: but the Church ought to seeke to reforme him, or if not, to cast him out, so that if the Church will let such a person alone, and give him these Ordinances, there will be guilt charged upon that Church.’

This sentence I conceive (if the Reader be but indifferent, and not pre­judiced against me) will save me from selfe-confutation: if the sentence be not true, but Mr. Cawdry had proved that the Minister is not too blame though he lets him alone, and yet may lawfully Baptize. Then had he spoken to my scruple indeed, and I would have thanked him heartily, but then I had not confuted my selfe.

But still Mr. Caw. will urge from my owne words, thus I have said, Scandalom Members, if tolerated, let alone by the Church, they have a remote right to Baptisme and the Supper; Ergo, they may lawfully have their Children Baptized, and the word binds Ministers to do it.

To this I shall answer, first to the Antecedent, then to the Con­sequence.

To the Antecedent I answer, first [according to our Congregationall Principles] that which gives a Man the first right to a Sacrament, viz. his interest in the Covenans of the Gospel [which you use very much against Mr. Hooker taking the words from himselfe] this Man hath not: for he [...] doth visibly declare to the Churches that he hath no interest in that Cove­nant, [Page 5]and your selfe deny it not, by what you have affirmed concerning the qualifications of Church-members. So then he hath no right, in that respect, all the right he hath is by the toleration of the Church, which the Church had best looke to, now I do confesse that first right is the maine in my esteeme, though not all that is required: as in a Minister, the great matter is the qualification of the person, which is his inward call, yet it is not all, but his Ordination is also requisite: but if Bishops, or Presbyters should ordaine a scandalous and ignorant sot, not able to teach himselfe, nor the Church, I should extreamely doubt of such a Minister: so here I conceive this first right is the chiefe, but yet as Mr. Hoolter saith Baptisme he must come by in a right Order, i.e. he must be a Member of some congregation; and not an individuum vagum, belonging to no particular Congregation, nor any body to have inspection over him. But if Ministers will admit persons that have not this first right, and continue such amongst them, here indeed is a kinde of right, but this let the Ministers look to.

2. I answer according to your Principles: you make a Mans Christia­nity 2 alone, without his joyning of himselfe to any congregation, to be that which gives him right, and you oppose Mr. Hooker, and the Congregati­onall Divines for requiring that joyning to any particular Church before they will Baptize: thus you say; All Children of Christians, as Christians have such right to Baptisme, and in the same Page, Diatri. p. 186. All Children of Chri­stians, as such, have right to Baptisme. Thus in your answer to me P. 12. you say, a person Excommunicated gives right to his childs Baptisme, because for state be is a Christian, and retains his Baptisme. Now Sir I hope you meane it must be such Christianity as your selfe have said is fit to make a Church-member [I hope you do not meane such Christianity as our question speakes of] by vertue of that say you he is a Member of the Catholike-church. Now Sir if that onely gives a Man right and his Chil­dren, and yet a Man have not that, I can see no right he hath at all, it seemes strange to me that Men should be Members of a particular Church and not of the Catholike-Church, of the latter these are not Members, for they have not so much as should give them a right to that Member­ship, if you will hold to what you have said about the qualifications of the matter of a Church: for only such Christianity makes Men Members of the Catholike-church, which these fall very short of. We use to unwinde a bottome the same way we wound it, if you will winde the bottome thus, a Professor, or Believer (such a one as you say is fitly qualified) as such, have by vertus of his profession onely, a right to his own and Childs Baptisme, then I unwinde it the same way, he that is no [...] a Professour as you mention, hath no right at all. Such are those our Case speakes of.

Now Sir here lay my trouble, that since these persons in the first and maine respect have no right, but what they have is onely by my tolera­tion, this question arose; whether in the beginnings of Reformation [wherein as Innius saith, something will be extraordinary] the persons being numerous, and not so fit it may be to Excommunicate in regard of [Page 6]number [...] though in respect of their wilfull igno [...], and co [...] nuing scandalous after admonitions, they des [...] [...] not the Church suspend such from the Seal of the Cover [...] a for thus I con­ceive while I first adm [...]nish people [...]on their ignorance, and scandalous living, Suspension is Excommunicatio Minor. and they refusing to heare me, I doe with [...]e consen [...] of the Church suspend I do not rol [...]ort [...] but you speak as if there were nothing opposite [...] to Toleration, but Excommunication.

Or thus, according to our Congregationall Principles; which maintain [...] a Non-communion in case Excommunication cannot be exercised against a multitude; so I do here exclude them from such Ordinances as doe hold forth Communion, and so it is Non commanion in effects. Non­communion or Separation in some cases when there is a [...] [...]de, the L [...]yden Prosessort Synop. pur. Theol. dicp. 48. Thes. 28.29. maintaine.

To the Consequence I answer, by denying it, viz Ministers are not bound by the word to Baptize all the Children of persons grosly ignorant, and scandalous, though tolerated.

I still carry it in reference to England, where you say all are Christians, and Church members: here now I shall speaks more then I would have done, feeling the temptation of my Brethren in my own hear [...]; but your triumphing over me, and celling the World, how I have at once confuted my selfe, makes me by way of discourse to clear my self [...], though I think it is done already. Thus then I argue.

1. If such Members as the question speakes of be continued such, 1. Argumant. through the Ministers negligence and contifulnce, then the word doth not bind Ministers to give the Seal of the Covenant to their Children, but the Antecedent is true, Ergo, the consequent is true.

The Antecedent I had rather have applied onely to my selfe, then any other Ministers being far more holy then my selfe, I should thinke [...]ay selfe to have been guilty of connivance, but my question, and Mr. Caw. (as I said before) puts me upon this.

If the Antecedent be denied, I prove it.

When Ministers have power put into their hands, whereby they may reforme if they will, and will not, then their Toleration comes from connivance; and so is sinfull.

But Ministers have now power put into their hands, whereby they may reform if they will, &c. Ergo:

The Minor is cleare: for what power opposes? Church power there is none above the Ministers; for the civill power that doth not oppose, but that power actually defends such Ministers, and Churches as doe reforme, and doe deny Baptisme to such scandalous ones; This favour once would have beene esteemed very great: what ever we conceive of Toleration, as now it stands, yet this benefit we have by Toleration, that Ministers need not Tolerate such persons if they will. It is an ill wind, blowes no body good.

But I perceive your Answer in P. 30: you tell us, of a Pope-like power [Page 7] [...] such a Minister doth usurp, who alone shall reforme though by su [...]ention: you suppose others will charge us with it, but whether Mr. Cawdrey will not say so also. I somewhat doubt, by observing this place and Page 20.21. I will not conclude so of him; but that he is against any Minister that shall doe so, that is cleare. By a Minister alone, if you meane thus, that a Minister alone without his people, or against the Christians consent shall suspend, whom he please, indeed I doubt of such a practise: but if the Members (visible Believers) shall come and bring in witnesse against persons, and desire to have them debarred, till they will amend, and thus they consent to their Officer in suspending. I know of no Pope-like power here usuped.

To this therefore I will answer further.

1. If you and ten Ministers more, or as many as you please, will com­bine 1 together, and set up a Classi [...]ll forme of Government [and then you conceive you have power] you may if you will, who hinders you? I know of no power that oppose you. Therefore this is not a sufficient P [...].

2. But is [...] your meaning (in good earnest) to deny to a particular 2 Church, a power to reform its own Members (as you seeme to expresse) in that manner I have set downe? I hope we shall finde divers Classicall Divines of another Opinion: I pray what is your meaning, when you say; As for Reverend and Learned Whitaker, whose Testimony he makes use of P. 52. [...]as he grants but what w [...], Review Mr. Hooker p. 111. that every particular Church hath a power owen [...] own Members, what power you meane is plaine by the D [...]s­cours [...] of Mr. Hookers and learned Whitaker M. Cawdrey writes himselfe, Pastor of the Church at Billing; Now I pray give me a reason why so godly and able a Pastor with his Church should not have power over his own Members, unlesse he will contradict himselfe (as he saith, I doe) but I hope you doe not meane, there is no particular Church, but a Classicall Church, for that apposeth what before you have said of your selfe: our [...] runnes 14 miles in length, and 20 severall Parishes in it, to make all [...] o [...] particular Church, is very hard, but if the Church at Billing have power over its own members, why may not the Church at Shalford have the same power?

3. Would you have Ruling Elders to joyne with me? I observe divers 3 of the Classicall Divines question, whether there be any such Officer distinct from the Preaching Elder. But though I have not Elders actually ordained [I perceive also here you doe not ordaine your Elders, which is strange, if Deacons were] yet I have those whom I looke upon to be Elders, and without whom I do nothing that concerns Discipline. That which hath hindred us, is [...] uncertainty of my maintenance, being cut off from a [...]o [...] put which I [...], from a Sequestration, when I was first called; The maintenance their if from the place being not sufficient to maintaine my charge, I am uncertaine of my abode here.

4. When I was ordained by the Pr [...]sbytery, I thought I had the power 4 [Page 8]of a Pastour conveyed to me: now one part is to Rule, I thinke, but to say I cannot put forth that power alone, but I must have more Elders to joyne with before I can doe any thing; I desire to see a Scripture for that, be­cause Discipline was carried on by more then one in the Examples we have in the Scripture, there being more then one Officer in those Churches, must this needs conclude; Therefore the power of a Pastour must lie dor­mant, if he have no other Elders to joyne with him, though his people doe as I said before, I should deny this consequence.

5. 5 Suppose I stay till the Classis be formed and Act, shall wee have power then to reform? But suppose my people aske other Ministers of the Classis besides my selfe, what power they have to reforme them, who made them Rulers over the people against their wills and consent, having called none but my self for their Pastour? you must have a call you say to put forth your power actu secundo, in another Church.

6. 6 Suppose there were a Church on an Island, where there was onely a Pastour, should he and his people be denyed to reforme, since there is no other Church neere him? if you will give him power, I pray give me, for it is all one to be on an Island, where there are no more Churches that can combine, and so helpe one another, as to be in another place where are thousands, but none will: it is cannot there, it is will not heare. Yet Sir, there is a Congregationall Church in the next Towne, and when need is I seeke counsell of that reverend Officer Mr. Dan Rogers.

I could say more, but I forbeare. What you say concerning Mr. Icanes, I have not seene that worthy Mans labours, for I live in an obscure Vil­lage remote from London, and seldome heare of Bookes, neither will my meanes allow me to buy all Bookes that come out. But Sir, I take your Opinion, for you say in your Epistle, it is hard to judge, whether his way or mine be the best, or worst way of Cure. Now if it be hard to say, then I per­ceive you are not clear your selfe, for what he hath writ.

So much for the Antecedent; now I come to the Consequence. viz. If it be connivance and negligence that is the cause of this Toleration [which I doubt is true in many] then the word doth no [...] bind me, or I may not lawfully Baptize.

If sinfull admissions will not justifie a Minister in administring the Ordinance of Baptisme, then neither will sinfull Tolerations justifie a Minister in admi­nistring Baptisme.

But the Antecedens is true, Ergo, the consequent is true.

Sinfull admissions will not: A [...]ro. rod. p. 515. learned Gillespy saith: no Consciencious Mi­nister would adventure to Baptize one, who hath manifest and infallible signes of unregeneration, we cannot be answerable to God if we should.

Also he saith, Page 544. it were a prophanation of Baptismel, to Baptize a Catechu­mene, being manifestly under the power of abominable finnes, although he could give a sound, and Orthodox confession of Faith. This is more then thousands of the Church members of England can doe, and yet live under the power of sinnes bad enough. His grounds I have quoted before [Page 9]with Augustine, and the Schoolemen, Aquinas, Durandus, Serious Quest. p. 21, 22, 23. Greg. de Val.

For the consequence, if it be said, there is more required in one who is a Member, he must first be cast out: this takes not off the force of the Argu­ment, the person is sinfully tolerated, as well at first sinfully admitted; as he might have beene and should have beene denyed admission, and so the Ordinance had been saved, so this person may and ought to be dealt with (there being now power in the hands of Ministers) so the Ordinance is saved, sinfull admission caused the Ordinance at first to be prophaned, sin­full toleration cause it now to be prophaned.

If you would turne me off here (as you doe afterward) by telling me the Argument should proceed of the same person, which it doth not, the Child and the Parent are different persons. Sir, this will not serve the turne, my Ar­gument proceeds upon one and the same Title, the Parents Title is the Childs Title, the Child hath no other Title, nor pleads any other but the Parents Title, the Parent expresses his Title for himselfe, and his Child being a branch of that stock; if the child pleaded a Title distinct from the Parents, as a Title of its own, then my Argument were fallacious [as I shall charge you anon] but if the child could speake, it could plead only this, my Parent is within the Covenant, the Covenant is made with the Believing Parent, and his or her seed; Therefore [...]give me the Scale: by vertue of him, or her it is made with me.

You tell me afterward. P. 25. I may Baptize the Child of the prophanest Man in England, as of the godli [...]st [my Argument tends to that] Man; only you would have me grieve that I cannot reform this abuse.

Whence I observe. First, this ordinance may be abused. Secondly, de Facto it is abused in this administration to such vile persons; only say you his saves all, you have no power to reform this Abuse, and for that I much grieve; but this I deny, I have power, and so have you and many more, but by you I cannot conceive the Ordinance is abused, for if the word bindes me to give such a person the Ordinance; I know not how I abuse it in following of the command of the word, so that I have no such cause to grieve in respect of the administring of the Ordinance, for that is well enough, while such a one is tolerated; I am bound to do it [that is our Question] say you, the griefe must be in regard of the Mans toleration in the Church. But Sir, remember one thing more, you tell us though such a person be Excommuni­cated, yet because be is a Christian, and retaines his Baptisme; Page 12. Therefore the Minister must Baptize his Child: what cause of grieving is there now, for what power is there beyond Excommunication? so that you do but deceive us in talking of Reformation.

If Toleration, though sinfull, will save us from prophaning of Ordi­nances, then Ministers may take their ease as to that point, and let all cor­rupt, and vile Members alone, let them partake of both Seals, for so long as tolerated, the word binds you [...]o give them Baptisme, and the Supper, and the word doth not binde me to prophane an Ordinance.

So much for my first Argument. 2. Argument. I come to a second Argument, viz. to prove, though scandalous Members in England are tolerated, and by vertue of that Toleration they will challenge any Ordinance, yet the word binds not me to give.

If so, then the Ministers of England are bound to administer the Lords Supper to the grossest ignorant persons, horribly scandalous, Ranters, &c. in England.

But the Consequent is false; Ergo, the Antecedent is false.

The Consequence is cleare, they are Church-members tolerated, saith Mr. Caw. we have no power to helpe; Therefore they may by vertue of that Principle, by which he hath me on the hip, as he thinks.

I thinke Sir you speake the same words, P. 94. in Review of Mr. Hooker, notori­ously scandalous Men, tolerated in a Church, whilest tolerated they are Members to all Ordinances for themselves, and their posteritie. Then all the Ranters, &c. are members to the Lords Supper, and you have no power, you say to helpe it. Yet I presume you would sinde power before you would admit all such to the Supper.

This I would saine have cleared to me, that the Officers are bound to looke to the Members more in admitting them to the Supper then to Bap­tisme: and the Supper, respect both the same Covenant, there is but one condition [whether there be Conditio propri [...]dicta Twiss. Vind. grapraefa. Sect. 8. in the Covenant of grace is another question] of the coun [...]ll of grace, viz. That man then, who can rightly take a Seale, or Convey a Seale of this Covenant to his, must visibly appeare to have the condition of the Covenant, [which is the first and maine right, Ames Medal. Th. c. 24. Th. 19. Rhaetors. Exar. Apol. p. 313.] if he do so appeare, and therefore can convey the Seale to his Child, why he may not have the other Seale for himselfe, appear­ing to be a Believer, and also being in right Order for my part, I see no reason.

I must not here condemne the holy Divines, who have before kept this Ordinance; neither dare I say the Assembly of Divines did very weakly, to trouble the Parliament in requesting the Houses to make an Act against such persons, that they might be debarred from the Lords Supper, which I must doe, if they were bound to give it while such were tolerated Mem­bers, they would finde hard worke to have Excommunicated all these. If any say I condemne the former Divines for Baptizing all: I pray let them say no more then they heare me say, I do not do so, onely I would gladly see the reason of the practise, and for those, who lived before these times, I can answer my selfe another way.

I pray remember my Question, how it can be proved that the Officers must looke more to this Seale then the other. 1 Cor. 11. It is said, Let a man examine himself, &c. True, so he hath need before he comes to Baptisme: but what is this to the Officers of Corinth, the Lords Supper was administred every Lords Day in those times, what must the Officers examine them every weeke? here is worke enough, they looked to them [or should have done] when they first tooke them in to be Members, and so if they did [Page 11]not walke as such ought to do, they were to looks after them, reforme, or cast out, but in so doing they saved other Ordinances as well as this. But we have a notion taken up, as if Discipline were appointed onely to save the Lords Supper from being prophaned, and no other Ordinance.

Will the 44 [...] 9 prove it? I pray prove that Sanctuary (there men­tioned) meanes only the Lords Supper, that Sanctuary and Lords Supper are [...], those who interpret, they ought to prove their interpreta­tion, which you must clear to make your answer good, in P. 26.

Will 1 Cor. 4.2. prove it? Stewards must be faithfull, this must be only in the Lords Supper.

Will Mat. 7.6. prove it? Holy things must not be given to Dogs. De Bapt. Tertullian applies this Text to the Administration of Baptisme, as well as to the Sup­per. And if it must be at the first, then why not as well when it comes to be administred by vertue of one, who is a Dog. [The word I love not to use in respect of others, knowing my wicked heart] there may be many who are Church-members by reason of Toleration onely (and that To­leration its doubted if it be not sinful who yet are such Dogs as that Text mentions, and upon this Notion Ministers have before exclu­ded them from the Supper. Your selfe speake to this purpose Diatar. Page 184.

3. One Argument more to prove, though such may challenge by reason of my Toleration, yet I am not bound to give, 3. Argument. and here I will give examples of of what I have found, and know concerning ignorance, then draw up my Argument.

In my owne Parish, I was questioning with one about his estate, hee had lived long in Essex that which the Man builded upon was this, said he, I have been no Drunkard, and I Repent. What it was to Repene? he could not tell: but then I enquired what knowledge he had of Christ; The Man I perceived knew nothing of him, but when I told him how Christ was God-man sent to fulfill the Law, to die, to make satisfaction to Divine Justice, and such ordinary plaine things. The Man wondered to heare such things, in so much indeed that I could not but wonder my selfe that a man should live above 50 years in such a place as Essex is, and not know these plaine things.

Another was asked, what Christ was? the man could give him no an­swer: to help him, he was asked againe, whether he were a God, or a Man? he answered plainely hee could not tell, but said, he thought he was a Spirit.

This is an Observation that I have made, [because Mr. Gaw. sayes we are all Christians, P. 4.] when I have beene discoursing with people about their conditions, they will tell me stories of what they have not been, and some other silly matters, but for Christ, not one word of him, unlesse when I have put it upon them; what is Christ nothing? then they will tell me, yes, they must believe in Christ, God forbid the contrary, but to know Christ, and what it is to believe in him, alas they are far short of this. And [Page 12]this is not onely my observation, but a godly Minister in Northamptonshire told mee the very same thing he observed in his Parish, not one word of Christ, till he put it into their minds, then having taken up Christ by Tra­dition, they must say something.

But for the Covenant of Grace (which Baptisme respects also) that is the strangest thing to people, they know not what it meanes.

For Sin, people have a Tradition that there is that which people call Sin, but for themselves to be guilty of any particular sinne, I have beene forced to run over the Commandements, open them, and tell them how my self have been guilty, and yet could I scarce convince some, they were guilty, only all are sinnes, and so are they.

A godly friend of mine told me he asked a Woman that was talking with him, what shee had for Heaven? shee answered him roundly, she had never effended God in all her Life: yet shee was above 50 yeares of Age.

Another told him, she had kept all the Commandements: shee was not so old indeed, but he had much a doe to convince her, she had broke one, yet these persons lived where there had been excellent Preaching.

Another comming to a neere friend of mine to have his Child Baptized, he asked him why he would have it Baptized? he answered, because others had the asked him what good it would do his Child? he answered, As much as heretofore.

Another came to him, he asked him, how many Gods there were? he answered, Ten; supposing he mistooke himselfe, for the Commandements he asked him, how many Commandements there were? he answered Two, he asked him which was the first? he answered Salvation; the second I know not what it was: the Man professed he did answer as well as he could.

I thinke you are not much better in Northhamptonshire, for a godly Minister told me of one in his Parish, that had a Prayer, but I think there was never such a one heard before, this sentence was often repeated, And Jesus was Her Name.

These instances have been since our Reformation began, and if Mi­nisters should search all, certaintly we should be amazed to heare the Answers.

Now Sir, I apply this: you say all these are Church-Members tole­rated, they can therefore challenge Baptisme, and because their Tolerati­on give them a Right, Therefore the word bindes me to Baptize their Childen. But Sir, may I not better put these off for a time untill by Catechizing of them, they come to understand Sinne, Christ, and the Covenant of Grace? the word saith, Teach and Baptize, yea say you, at the first constitution; but if we finde such persons as you call Members, con­tinued in constituted Churches that are ignorant in the knowledge of Sin, Covenant of Grace, yea and of Christ [save onely they have taken up such a Name that there is one Christ, and the Nation receives him] as [Page 13]are the very Heathen, (nay for sin, the Heathen know more) is there not as much and more reason to Teach these before I will Baptize by vertue of them, let the Reader judge.

Am I bound to Baptize a Child presently so soon as it is brought? They make nothing to keepe Children a fortnight, a moneth, yea more (ac­cording as their occasions are) before they will offer them to Baptisme, may not I th [...]n, finding the Parents unfit, delay if it be two moneths, till they are taught before I will Baptize? What is the danger, where is the Rule broken, where am I tyed to Baptize one so soone as offered, though never so unfit? the eight day that was set for Circumcision, concernes not us, we can Baptize before if we will.

So for Scandall, if uncleane persons shall bring their Bastards, the Ranters, or who you will, must I presently Baptize, because you say a Church member tolerated will challenge a right to the Ordinance? shall I not first require Repentance?

John required Repentance: yea say you at first constitution, he and Apostles did. But Sir, You know Ter­tullians minde, concerning A­dulterers, 2.1. De pudicitid. And Cyprian te's us it was the practise of some not to re­ceive such a­gaine. Ep. 52. Synop pur. Disp. 48. Tb. 31. shall persons now be as vile and worse [for the continuance in the Church, aggravates their ignorance and scandall,] then at the first constitution, and shall I not now require Repentance of such before I Baptize by vertue of them? yea, and that the Repentance may in judgement of Charity give hopes of a true Repentance: and if any will grant it for this one scandall; I know not but the same Rule will reach for other Scandalls.

If you will Baptize all these ignorant ones, and the Scandalous ones without any more a doe, but to presse the Covenant [which they know not] on them, as you say, do if you please.

To conclude this Head of Selfe confutation: I am not yet beaten off, but that passage of the Leyden Professors, doe a little favour me, the questi­on was, whether if there be a great number in the Church, who off [...]nd in Doctrine of Life, may we now use Excommunication? The answer is, If men be openly and contumaciously corrupt, Let the multitude be great, yet to such, godly Pastours ought not, nor may give the Sacraments of Divine Grace, but with one consent they must be denyed, and commit the event to God: because godly Pastours may not communicate the Signes of Grace to them, to whom Christ doth openly deny them, and forbids the Communicating of them.

Here I observe, they doe not stand for the Excommunication of a mul­titude, for these words Sacraments, and Signes of Grace, if there be Enallage numeri, that they should meane onely the Lords Supper. I should marvell at it, that there should be so much paines taken in solving of the question, and then to come and tell us onely of Suspension fromthe Supper, which is so common a thing.

But for their reason I would make use of that, and when they have brought me the Scripturall ground, where Christ forbids the Ministers to give the Parent one Signe of Grace, I will see if the same ground will not [...]eny us to give the Child the other signe of Grace, by vertue of this Parent.

For your Pro-parent, and Adoption, that comes in to be confidered in another place, I must now answer to selfe-confucation.

Dr. Ames speakes something for me. Conse. l. 4. c. 27. Sect. 6. Qui aliquo modo in professione sua ad Ecclesiam pertinent, sed foedus tamen Des apert [...] violant, corum Infan­tes cum aliquo discrimine debent Baptizari: it a scilicèt ut quod foedus re­quirit, & in ipfis deest, per aliquos quantum fieri potest suppleatur. 1. Nam distinctio aliqua inter puros & impuros debet in sacris omnibus observari, ad bonorum consolationem; correctionem malorum, & omnium adificationem. 2. Instituta Dei non possunt aliter ab omni pollutione couservari. The Doctor I suppose would have Sureties joyned, but if these Sureties cannot bee proved to be an appointment of God, then hee is yet stronger for mee.

By this time I hope I have cleared my selfe in the Judgement of an in­different Reader from Selfe-confutation; I knew this Church-membership was the strongest Argument that could be brought, and therefore men­tioned it; that Church-members might challenge any Ordinance, while let alone, I could not thinke otherwise, but that therefore I was bound to administer the Seals, as if their challenging, which comes onely by rea­son of their Toleration in the Church, would make my Administration warrantable, though they are never so wicked, and tolerated sinfully, this I could not believe. So that my Selfe confutation ariseth from something, you put upon mee, which I owne not; the great strength then of your Booke against me, I hope is weakned, and all those answers from hence, which you make great use of, are no answers.

Before I passe to a further examination of your Answer, let me pro­pound one thing more, wherein I heartily desire satisfaction from you, be­ing not cleare in the thing my selfe, viz. Whether all the People in England (under which we comprehend Wales) be Members of true Churches? for if it can be proved that all the Congregations in England, are not true Chur­ches, then I should have an Argument strong enough against you: but sir, I am not so satisfied to say they are not, nor yet so cleare to say they are; Therefore I desire to learne.

In my Booke P. 43. I said I did but faintly acknowledge such a thing that all are Church members: but afterward when I came to write in defence of the godly Presbyteriall Ministers [whom I honour and reverence] against the Separatists, I said I dare not undertake to prove all the Congregations in England to be true Churches: so that I doe not fly back, because of your Booke, Page 4. it was done long before, seriously debating with my selfe, what the Separatists would urge against me, thus I phansied they would argue.

A Church is a company of those who are called [and this call must be answered, or else it is nothin To the visible profession of Faith in Christ, and obedience unto Christ, Ius Divin. p. 37 according to the Gospell. This is the Preybyte­rians definition, say they.

But divers of the Congregations in the North of England, and Wales, and other places, are not such Companies, &c. Ergo, they are no Churches.

Definitio constat ex essentialibus: and definitions if true are eternally true. Now how can there be the effect where there is not the essentiall cause, ac­cording to their own grant?

‘I would have answered, if you speake of a pure visible Church, you say right: but there may be a true Church visible, though divers corrupt Members, as in Corinth, Sardis, &c.’ To this I conceived they would re­ply thus, as for Corinth, Sardis, &c. We doe not deny it, for there were reall Christians, and visible Christians also, (though there were corrupt ones,) and these held up the essentiall cause of the Church: but in divers of these Parishes we shall not sinde foure it may be so much as visible Saints, if we take in knowledge, and what that definition, and Mr Caw­drys qualifications require for a visible Saint.

Besides what Corinth and Sardis had, Ibidem. was only by way of Calling as say the London Ministers: but what ours are, was and is by the Sword of the Magistrate, King Henry the highth he left us Popish. King Edward the sixth, he takes away the Masse-booke, and sends the booke o [...] Common-prayer, though the people love the other way, yet if the King will have it so, it must be so. Queene Mary comes and shee turnes about againe, the people follow her. Queene Elizabeth shee takes away Masse againe, if it were ten times in a yeare saith Mr. Rogers, Fox Mart. vol. 3. the people will turne with the state. This is the Call, and what have we now? but divers ignorant so [...]s sent into these places to read a booke of Common prayer, and this is their professi­on: this is strange making of Churches, this was not so in the times when Churches were first constituted.

Such Churches they were at their first constitution, according to Mr. Cawdric Papge 7. who doth not regard what they were before this time, so from first to last it is hard to say of divers Parishes that there have been so many visible Saints as might make a Church.

In the same Page you tell us. That some people received the Gospell after the Example of Kings, and were Baptized for company ( as Simon Magus it seemes) but stay sir, the Text saith, he believed (I know not in truth) and continued with Philip [...] his conversation was such as for ought I can see till Peter came downe, they had good opinion of him. 8 Act. 13. Reverend Calvin upon the Text doth not judge so slightly as you here expresse, and your selfe, Pape 17. speake more clearly of Simon Magus, then you doe here, and neerer the truth.

Now sir you say though the People thus follow onely for company [though the case was otherwise here, for the People would not have changed had they been left to their own Libertie, but the seare of a King or a Queen compelled them] Yet if they take upon them an outward profession, that was sufficient to give a right to themselves, and their children for Baptisme: and consequently they were a true Church, though not a perfect and pure Church.

But sir, you are speaking of the first Title to Baptisme, what a strange Profession doe you make here to give Title, how much different from what you have said before, is required to make a Church-member?

You say, Page 7. it is a true Church, how will you predicate Truth of an effect, when it wants the essentiall cause? to predicate verum or vere of [...]us is good, but how is here the entity of a Church, when the materiall cause is wanting? and if the materiall be wanting, the formall is also, The formall cause, sup­pose the materiall which it doth informe, and distinguish, &c.

I should further have objected against the Separatists; what will you make of those Parishes, are they Infidells? They would answer, let them be what they will, they are not, nor ever were (that we know, or others) fit matter for Churches; if the Presbyterians will stand to their own Defini­tion, but they would say againe, they are State-christians made such by the power of the Civill Sword, not Church-christians made by the spirituall Sword. And this shewes it that in their Religion, they will not go one step beyond, what the State commands: and had the State let them alone, they would still have held to their Popery. And talke to them of any other Church, but the place they met in, they understand you not.

Had I said, But they are Baptized, they would answer, if men will abuse Baptisme, as if a Minister should go and Baptize Indians, must we needs say therefore they are a Church? Baptisme doth not make a Church, for it pre­supposeth a Church.

The sum is, I saw so much difficulty that I did rather avoid that, so un­dertooke to prove that many Congregations were true Churches, besides those which you call Independent Churches.

In this therefore I desire satisfaction, and hope I shall see something by this occasion, but I am sure it would trouble holy Ministers to goe into such places, and Administer Baptisme to the people abiding, as now they are.

And now sir, I come to examine your answer, and the many faults you finde with me, I shall take the Booke as it lies, and goe over every page, as briesly as I can.

First, Page 1. your question, whether I meane that all these meete in one person, Ignorant, Scandalous, &c. or singly of any of them. Sir, I was thinking of it my selfe, but I did suppose the Reader would understand me to meane singly, if men were grossely ignorant, and would continue so wilfully, though they are intreated, and assistance offered to helpe, but will not (as is the case with us) such deserve Excommunication, and you affirme as much P. 17:19.

For Scandalous conversations, Scoffing at godlinesse, I supposed no question would be made of it.

For Submitting to Church-Discipline, Page 2. though I know some few Erastins did deny it, yet the bulke of Christians would never question it, being so plaine; but however you finde afterward that I speake of such as are [Page 17]convinced of it (which was my case) but because I did not put it into the question (though I expresse it afterwards) you take advantage against me p. 18, 19, 20.25. no lesse then soure times to make it serve for an answer torne. Well Sir, I perceive your minde is not to make any favourable con­struction, though you have my minde cleared in another place, onely you lye on the catch.

Come on then Sir, since this is your spirit, let us see whether this will give you such an advantage: the question is, whether Ministers are bound to baptize Children of Parents groslyignorant, &c. Yes, saith Mr. C. the Parents are Church-members, and though notoriously scandalous they are Mem­bers to all Ordinances, while they are tolerated: tolerated say I, what meane you by that? you answer, the Church hath not proceeded to Censure and Excommunicate, for till excommunicated they are Church-members [yea and then also by your Doctrine] but then say I, for excommunication, I know no such thing, nor any Church-discipline: you say there are godly ones not covinced of this Ordinance, and if godly ones, then not wicked ones, sure enough they may as well renounce it: thus Discipline is rejected by all: so then non-excommunication, non-censuring doth not help one whit, but their grosse ignorance, &c. is sufficient for me, for Excommunication there is no such thing, so my arguments stand the stronger, unlesse there be a way to help by the pro-parent and Adoption, which are your no­tions.

I see Sir you will plead any thing to make an answer, and seeme to shake hands with the Erastians, but if you and other Ministers (as I perceive some such) be so favourable to the opinion, then never open your mouths more for Church government: O say you and others, there are godly people of the opinion, well Sir, what then? put case Master Caw. is not of the opinion, but his Members are; suppose there were some scanda­lous Member to be excommuicated, you would doe it, and you exhort the body to consent to you in it [to doe it, renitente plebe is a poore thin they rise up, no sir, wee will not consent to you in it, for wee know no such Ordinance, wee will hold Communion with him, these are godly persons, now what will you doe? what brave worke we make in pleading for opinions.

For the explicite Church-Covenant you speake of in this page, I will let it alone till p. 5. where you revive it againe.

Then your chearse Mr. Hookers sentence and there sinde that I doe not accord with him: If not, then I pray lee this convince you, that you have not spoken right, when you said, I borrow my grounds from Mr. Hooker, In your Epist. to the Reader. how doe I borrow my grounds from him to whom I goe Crosse, as you say I doe? if I had done so, Mr. Hooker is a man of whom one may bor­row, but I doe not remember what ground I borrowed, but I was glad when I saw so learned and holy a man to defend some things which before I conceived were right but, as to this difference here, I am sure Mr. Hooker were now alive in England he would not baptize all the children of [Page 18]any of the Congregalons d [...] England without any more adoe, I can gather so much out of his Booke, and therefore we doe not differ in this.

Then you come to my first premise, which is, [The Infant abstracted from the Parens, Page 3. gives no reason why it should be baptized] this say you is otherwise propounded by Mr. Hooker [then its unlikely to be borrowed of him] then you tell me it is not rightly proposed: yes Sir; very right: it is ordinary with Divines to lay a proposition first further off, Page 4. then to come nearer; neither doe I see that you have one whit consured it but yeelded it: doe you baptize any Child in your parish without considering it in relation to a Parent? do you consider it in it selse abstracted from any other, and yet baptize it? I pray make an argument out of that Tex [...] in your Title­page, Mar, 10.14. (which I preslime you bring for Infants baptisme) and consider the Infant alone as abstracted from the Parent: you say present­ly here, the Children of England are Christians borne, how? by reason of the house, soile, or the Parent? then its a Christian child, and in relation to such a one it is baptised. Thus you finde fault with Mr. Hooker, but if you will crosse him, Diatr. 185. or my selft [who am not worthy to be named in the day with him] lay downe this proposition, viz. The Infants of England quâ sic, considered as abstracted from any where, ought to be baptised; if you will main­taine this, then I confesse you may finde faule.

For your second Answer, when any body practise as you say there, then let such a one consider it: you might have spared those lines, for I know none such: I doe it before the child is brought.

Then you come to the second premise; [The child is baptised as consi­dered in relation to a parent one or: both; that is the summe] You say M. Hooker and I meane the taxt parent; and this you have consured largely (that is your meaning) in Diatr. p. 187. of that hereafter. Only now you adds,

First, your say, thin ineffect is the same with the former: one the Negative, the other the Affirmative: true Sir, I know it before, onely for clearenesse suke, as we use to openitings first by shewing what they are not [as saith, love, union with Christs &c.] then what they are, so I did here, and I hope no fault in so doing.

Secondly, you tell me of two other wayes for children to come to Ba­ptisme besides the next parent: Page 5. of which hereafter.

Next, you say I take occasion to desine a Church. A society of visible Sains joyned togethers by way of covenant, &c. Here you observe two things 1. That I owne no Cathelique Church but a particular Congregation, nor any Members of a Church, but of such a Church; then you clime of a man being a Member onely of the Catholike Church, and by vertue of that requires Baptisme for his child:

[...] For a Catholike Church, yes I owne it, neither doe I know any under­standing man deny it, but I doubt you forget one word, you meane Catho­like visible Church: but if you had said so, yes in I owne that also, [Page 19]but whether it be one Organitall body, I saw some difficulties in that, and left in for further time to discover: the Congregationall men for ought I can discerne owne it so as nothing, but Nor. and Ex part you and them in the conclusion in point of Discipline. I know for adminlstring the Seals in another Congregation, which that notion brings in, there some Congre­gationall men differ, and so for one Minister to excommunicate in another Congregation, that they will not owne (nor doe you but upon a call) they will goe along with other Officers and assist them in clearing out things, and helping them what may be, onely they will not put forth such power against such to whom they are no Officers. I trouble not these holy men, in that those who will differ with such men upon these points I thinke doe not well. The other part doth not concerne my question, neither am I so cleare in it as I wish I were, I shall humbly propound my thoughts.

1. If a man must first be a Member of a particular-visible-Church before he can be of the Catholike-visible-Church, then your notion will not hold, but the Antecedent is true Ergo, the Consequent is true.

Antec. I prove:

If a man must first be cast our of a particular-Church before hee can out of the Catholike, then a man must first be a Member of a Particu­lar before he can be of the Catholike Church: but the Antecedent is trues [...] Ergo.

Consequence is cleare to me on this ground.

Else I cannot see how he who is cast out of a particular Church, can be cast out of the Catholique Church: Though ex­communicated unjustly, yet till case be heard, Com­munion deny­ed. Concil. Sa [...]ll. Can. 17. if a man be first a Member of a particular Church, and by vertue of this comes to have communion with all other Churches, this latter depending on the former, then the reason is cleare; cast him out of a particular Church you cut him off from all Com­munion with others.

But if a man be first a Member of the Catholique Church, and his being a Member of this particular Church, depends upon that, then I see no rea­sons for though you have cast him out of your particular Church which is second, yet his membership to the Catholique Church, which is first and independent upon this, still remaines; and you doe in excommunication but cast him into, that state he was in before he joyned to you; so that still he is a Member of the Catholique Church, and may demand ordinan­ces elsewhere. Other Churches deny not communion before the particular doth of which he is a Member, then they follow: hence their Act depefids on this: if depend, then not first.

2. This seemes a little odde to me, a man is a Member of the Catholike Church onely: thence he will require Baptisme of this Church, of another Church he will require the Lords Supper, in another there he will beare, to he may go to all Churches, in the world (if he could) and demand any Ordinances, yet Member of no particular Church; so let this man walke as disorderly as he will (as the latitude sometimes you give of a Church-Mem­ber [Page 20]will allow a man to be bad enough) in this Towne or another Towne, he have owned no particular Church, onely the Catholike, what hath this particular Church to doe to meddle with him more then any other? wee must have Catholike Church-Officers to cast him out, who are such, not onely actu primo but actu secundo, which you say no Minister is to another that is not of his particular Congregation unlesse he be Called to it, but to be sure this man will never call you to it, who then can give you a Call, so that this man cannot come to be reformed, and yet he may goe up and downe to any Church? I am a Christian, therefore give me the Ordinances, excommunicated I am not, for none can excommunicate him unlesse all the Officers of the Churches in the world should meet to cast him out.

If you say, Which you affirm, Diatr. 194. Where he first came to be baptized, of that particular Church he is a Member, and that Officer hath power, &c.

No Sir, I cannot believe this doctrine, that my baptizing of another makes him member to our particular Church. I have had three of my chil­dren baptized by Ministers who never looked on me as member to their Church, though I dwelt in the Town, I have done the same for others (be­ing called to it) yet none of my members. Your selfe acknowledge, Bap­tisme doth not make a member of a visible Church, Revie. Mr. Hooker c. [...]. then not of this particular visible Church.

If you say, So you express your mind. pag. 194. Diat. But a Christian must not doe thus, he must joyne to a particular Church: the question is not what he must doe, but what he will doe: will not you baptize his child or him unlesse he will joyne? If not, you have said enough.

3. To be a Church-member seemes to be more then a Christian, i. e. a Christian member of such a Society and w [...]king under such a policy; and that policy suppose Officers. You say there is no essentiall Homogeneall Church existing without Officers, mentioned in the Scripture, it is a fancy you saye and repeat it againe, Review Master Hooker, pag. 75 77. opposing Mr. Hooker, a Church-member then must be under Officers, under such a policie, as in the Catholike Church, but how that can be unlesse he be a member of some particular Church (which is a member of the Catholike, as you say) I know not: the Catholique Church hath no policy, extra ecclesias particulares.

The hardest matter is the Apostles baptizing which is often abledged, this makes me doubtfull on the other side, onely these thoughts I have bad.

1. They had such power as we have none, they could exercise their power any where without any call. Paul was an Actuall Officer to the Jay­lour, and so other Apostles where they came, hence they could reach them in case of irregular walking without a second Call, but so much can­not we.

2. I doe not remember they baptized any single persons but such as were members of the Jewish Church, which was a Gospel-Church under cere­monies. For others they baptized so many at once for ought I can see [Page 21]that might lay the foundation of a particular Church; the Jaylour Act. 16. 32. how many were in his house I know not, He and all his house believed in God. So Cornelius, there was company enough to begin a particular Church, for ought I can see, though how many its uncertaine: Paul and Puer Officers to these. In beginnings some things may be extraordinary, as were they Officers extraordinary.

I easily see difficulties, In N. E. if one or two Indians should seeme to be con­verted, but because their language cannot joyne to an English Church, should now the Minister delay to baptize him? but then there is this also, if these two or one should prove vile and scandalous, what shall that Mini­ster doe with him? other scruples about this I could cast in; but it con­cernes not my question.

The next fault you finde is, That requiring an explicite covenant to such a Church, I seeme not only to contradict my selfe, but also to unchurch most of our En­glish Churches.

Here I must stay a while, having occasion given to looke back into your Epistle. What doe I heare of contradictions againe? you have a strange Art in finding out contradictions: but how come this about? it seemes I require an explicite Covenant: But Sir, are you sure the word explicite is in the definition? nay, you are sure tis not: Can there be no Covenant in a Church but explicite? I suppose yes, and I suppose you thinke so also, so doe Appollonius, we will heare him speake presently; is this fai [...]e dealing to force a word upon me when I have clearely before expressed my selse a­nother way? I am farre enough then from contradictions, or from un­churching the faithfull Congregations of England though they have not an expl [...] Covenant: your selfe p. 25. mention the externall Covenant of the Church, but what you meane by it I know not.

You are a passage in my Boistle which is this ‘[Some Ministers scorne the notion that an explic [...]ie Covenant is the forme of a Church visible, and some professours are so rigid for it that without it, they deny all Churches]’ of the latter sort is Mr. Hooker, say you; Sir, you wrong him exceedingly, and I wonder a man of your grace should doe thus when he hath so expresly declared his minde to the concrary; to your knowledge the next words you mention shew as much, and in his Epistle p. 11. he speaks as plainesy. But of him anon.

That passage shall cleare me from making no Churches but where there is an explicite Covenant; I saw in some Congregations where there were both visible and reall Saints (as we may judge) when the Lords Sup­per was to be administred, some professours would not joyne in the Ordi­nance for want of that (so farre as I could learne) supposing they were not in a right Church-way. Now this I could not approve of since there were so many Christians to depart from the Ordinance upon such a ground.

In my owne Congregation I thus practise; Some of other Parishes have desired to joyne with us at the Lords Supper, if we have not knowne them [Page 22]well, I have desired them to bring a Testimony from their Minister, and they have done so: Others whom we knew well I have not desired it, but admitted these to the Lords Supper, yet they were under no explicite Co­venant, but an implicite Covenant (I knew they closed with their Pastors) in their Churches. If need had beene I would have baptized their children, had they brought them to me. I hope now you are convinced.

Afterward you say againe I recall it, because I said, [that this explicite­ness is almost essentiall to the government of the Church.]

Why doe you not take notice of the word Almost, which implies there may be some government without it? but it will not go on so strongly nor com­fortably, but cast what you have said into a Syllogisme, and see how I re­call it.

If expliciteness of covenant be requisite to the esse of Church-govern­ment, [...]hen an explicit covenant is requisite to the esse formale of a Church.

But the Antecedent is true: Ergo, I see no reason for the Conse­quence.

But for Church-government, try you what you can doe onely by vertue of their Christianity, and implicite Covenant, I have tryed it and found it not sufficient, but the other I have had good experience of. But for Church-convenant a few words.

First set us heare Apollonius speake who is a Presbyterian. Page 17.

Concedimus foedus aliquod tacitum seu virtuale esse inter membra unius &, [...]jus­dem particularis Ecclesiae externae: quo obligantur ad mutua illa officia praestanda, quae à membris Ecclesiae visibilis ad particularem suam Ecclesiasticam Communicnem exiguntur: quod nempe suis pastoribus corum Curae & disciplinae subess [...] [...]undum publicum divinum Cultum frequentare, cadem lege & jurisdictione Ecc [...]sticae gubernare velint: ex quo foedere etiam jus sibi acquirunt, ad illa qua buic particulari Ecclesiae eju [...]qu: membris sint propria, & altis Eccles [...]is particularibus nou Comp [...]tunt. This man speakes rationally, and those words are worth the observation, ex quo foedere jus sibi acquirunt, &c. so that all the right and power that Officers or particular Churches have over their members arise from this Covenant: and this is certaine, for suppose one be a Christian, and suppose he owne Church-Discipline, yet how doe I in particular come to be bound to dispense Baptisme or Lords Supper to him more then any other Minister? or how doe I and this Church in particular more then another come to have power over another in respect of Discipline, but by his covenanting, consenting (call it what you will) with me and this Church, and not with another? for else he will say, though I doe owne Church. Discipline, yet who gave you power over me more then another Officer or Church?

For me to say you dwell in my Barish, is a silly answer, unlesse it can be proved that Parishes were by divine institution to such an end: there are those in my parish that come not to heare me, nor ever chose me to be their Officer, nor will owne the Church in this time of reforming, but I should [Page 23]thinke it absurd to tell them you dwell in this Parish, therefore you are bound to heare me, &c.

One word more about Parishes: I would put this question, it is a pra­ctise in England for a Patron to present, of late I know where a godly Minister was chosen by the people, yet it being a Sequestration, the In­cumbent dying, the gift fell into the hand of the Patron; he being an idle companion turned out the godly Minister, and put in another that is, &c. the people with one consent did declare against him, and opposed him at his comming, yet it seemes because the Law of the Land will have it so, this man is he that hath the place; but is he therefore their Pastour because he pre [...]chech in their Parish? I thinke it were strange for any man to af­firme it, and this practise is very common: I hope the meere parish doth not make him their Pastour, nor the people his Members. This is a wofull plague to godly people, and teach the way to Separation, though it will not justify others where the case is not the same.

Doctor Ames tells us of a vinculum speciale which he calls Foedus, Medul. Th [...]ol. cap. 32. and so as no man is rightly admitted into the Church, but by confession of Faith, and promise of Obedience. And this Apollonius ownes, pag. 13, 14.

The Belgick Churches saw something in it, Apol. c. 1. p. 9. that it was concluded upon in sixe Synods, that those who came to the Lords Supper, should promise expresly to be subject to Discipline: and had the Chu [...]ches of England, the godly Officers (especially) made all those who came into their Parishes, and would have either Baptisme or Supper, to declare their choise of them for their Officers, and subjection to all Christs Ordinances, they might have had more strength against the Separation: indeed they have strength enough against most of them who have owned the Ministers, and constant­ly attended, and received the Ordinances from them, of which I have spoken elsewhere.

Further, I should much desire that those who oppose the Church-Cove­nant, would lay down a Church-member in his estentiall causes, then they teach clearest: as for profession, Christianity [or what you will call this is but the causa materialis of a Church member, for it is not Man quâ sio (for then all) but Man quâ professing, as Saint visible, that is the materialis causa, this then is not the formalis causa, for to have the same thing to be Causa materialis & formalis respectu ejusdem effecti is strange: therefore till I see a better I must say, that this Christians consenting or covenanting with this particular Church, and these Officers in it, to walke according to the Gospell, &c. is the formall cause of this Church-member.

In some sense we may say, the matter doth distinguish things, a lump of Gold, from a lump of Clay differs materially: but one Golden vessel differs not from another, but per formam: Christians as visible Saints or Churches constituted of such, differ materially from all other Societies of Men, but how one Church, a Golden Candlestick differ from one ano­ther, but per formam, I know not, which is this that our Congregationall men speak of.

Act. 5.13. Of the rest durst none joyne ( [...]) what was that [...] that glewed them to the Church? they were not scared from owning of Christ, or loving of the Disciples, they might hear the Apostles preach, &c. there was something expressed sure, much more now when so many Churches: the same word is used of the prodigall, Luke 15.15. [...] the Covenant between. Master and Servant, is the glue that joynes each to other; so for ought I know it must be here.

You tell me, Epistle. that the relation of Christians one to another, is not free but after a sort naturall, as that of Father and Child.

I was there speaking of Church-government, how we came to have power, &c. now it seems by you it is as naturall for any Christian to be un­der my power in particular, and this Church in particular, as for a child to be under his Fathers government, and I may naturally claim this officiall power over him, whether he will choose me or not, nay though he declare he will not own me for an officer, this is strange Doctrine. Is his relation to me Naturall (as I am an officer) or free?

As for the explicitenesse of the Covenant, I have seen so much order and comlinesse in Churches by reason of it, that if I can ever attaine it I will, and so would M Gawdry, had he seen what I have seeen in N. England, yet I will not null all Churches for want of an explicite Covenant. I can di­stinguish between esse and melius esse.

M. Hudson shall winde up all: Vi [...]dici. Cath. pag. 19. I deny not (saith he) but mutual consent of persons within such a Vicinity, to joyn together constantly in the Ordinances of God, under the Inspection of such and such officers, is requisite to a particular Congregation.

Now give me leave to examine a little what you have writ against reve­rend M. Hooker, since the providence of God hath joyned me with so holy and learned a man (O that I had his Mantle) much of his discourse fals in with mine, and so your answers to him serve against me, but that part I shall let alone.

His Question is this,

Whether persons non confederate, Survey part 3. pag. 11, 12. and so (in our sense not Members of the Church) doe entitle their children to the seate of Baptisme, being one of the priviledges of the Church, their Parents (though godly) being yet unwilling to come into Church-fellowship?

You make very great use of these words, that persons non. Confederate are in his sense no Members of a Church: now Sir, let me move one question, Whether only persons that are in explicite Consederacy, are to be esteemed in M Hookers sense Members of a Church? if M. Hooker have expressed the contrary, as he hath most fully, pag. 47, 48. of his first part, and in Pre­face, pag. 11. where he saith expresly, The Faithfull Congregations in England are true Churches, then that cannot be M. Hokers sense. In pag. 47, 48. he shewes how the Covenant is acted after a double manner, Explicitely, and Implicitely, and there shewes how it is acted in the Churches of Eng­land. Then adds,

This Mr. R. cannot be ignorant of as our opinion and professed apprehension: and I would intreat the Reader to observe once for all: that if he meet (with such accusations [such an accuser is Mr. Cawdrey] that we nullifie all Churches be­sides our owne; that upon our grounds received there must be no Churches in the world, but in New-England, or some few (observe this) set up lately in Old: that we are rigid Separatists, &c. such bitter clamours, a wise meek spirit pas­seth by them, as an unworthy and ungrounded aspersion, &c. then shewes that Implicite and Explicite are but Adjuncts of the Covenant: and in some cases an Implicite Covenant may be sully sufficient: could any man li­ving speak more clearly then Mr. Hooker? and could any man living speak more perversly then Mr. Caw. Epistle to Sob. Answ. that Mr Hooker deny all Churches where there is not an explicite Covvenant?

To returne to his question: Two things I desire the Reader to observe in it:

1. By persons non-Confederate, he doth not mean godly Parents that are not confederate explicitely, but if they be members of true Churches, walking in Church fellowship though there be not an explicite Covenant, but im­plicite, Mr. Hooker doth not looke on these as falling under his question, so have nothing to doe with such now. This is most cleare by what I have alledged out of him.

Hence there is not one syllable of the word explicite put into the questi­on: and afterwards [the same page] when Mr. Hooker shewes why he in­clines to the negative, being moved thereto from the nature of the Church-Go­venant: he doth not say explicite Church-covenant. Yet see how Mr. Cawdrey interprets these words, that is, Diatr. 185. indeed the necessity of an explicite Covenant, and in page 184. he hath stated the question thus: [Whether the Infants of Believers not in Covenant explicite with a particular visible Church, may be baptized?] This is none of Master Hooker's que­stion.

Hence first, those arguments which Mr. Cawdrey hath drawne up in his Diatr. with Mr. Hooker from the Infants of the godly Membe [...]s of our Churches here in England, they all labour with the disease called, Ignoratio Elenthi, for he hath changed the question, and doth not speake ad idem.

2. Hence secondly, all that paines Mr. Cawdrey spends to prove that Children may be baptized by vertue of Grandfather, or Adoption, [if he can make it out that they may be so] yet if such a Grandfather or person who Adopts, be confederate, and walk in Church-fellowship (though not ex­plicitely Confederated) this doth not trouble Mr. Hookers question: if that Grandfather, or person who Adopts, be not Confederate, then the question falls upon them indeed, not else.

Mr. Hookers question then concernes onely such godly Parents as are Members of no particular visible Church, and being no Members but comming to joyne with a Church; now the question will be, what explicite­nesse may be required.

2. The second thing I observe in his question is, That the godly Parents are unwilling to come into Church-followship: and here lyes the pinch of the question. But this plainly implyes That Church fellowship is to be had, and this person is required by him to whom be offers his Child to be baptized, to joyne in Church fellowship: Acts 5.13. There was a Church, and joyning to it I doubt not be­fore the Apo­stles would baptise. if Chu [...]ch fellowship be not to be had, then how shall his willingnesse or unwil inguesse be knowne? let there be an object bo­num or malum which the will should chuse or reject. Hence then if there could be no answer else given to what Mr. Ca. urgeth from the Jaylour, who was baptised though not confederate; this troubles not the question, if there were no Church which did require him to joyne in fellowship; had there b [...]en a Church in Philippi, and Paul had required him to joyne in fellowship with the Church, and the Jaylour would not, then indeed Mr. Ca had brought something against Mr. Hooker, if Paul would have bapti­zed him.

But yet Mr. Ca. will force it upon Mr. Hooker that he must mean it of an explicite Confederacy whether he will or no, Diatr. p. 200. Mr. Stone knew his mind, vid. ch. 5. yea though he hath expresly spoken to the contrary: but what is his ground? This.

In N. England (saith he) They refuse to admit either our Members (though godly) to the Lords Supper, or their Children to Baptisme, unlesse they enter their express Covenant: This is the ground.

One passage I observe, you call the godly Ones our Members, but doe you looke on them as your Members, who are gone 3000. miles from you, never to see you more, where you can never have any inspection over them, let them walke as they will? I am sure they doe not thinke you are their Officers, nor doe call you so, how then they should be still your Members I cannot tell: let therefore Mr. Hooker speak for himselfe, and out of him I will give you an answer, and shew you the reason is not as you say: Mr. Hooker thus, The faithfull Congregations of England are true Churches; Mem­bers that come commended from such Churches to ours here, so that it doth ap­peare to the judgement of the Church, P [...]eface, p. 11. whence they come, that they are by t [...]em approved and not scandalous, they ought to be received to Chu [...]ch. Com­munion with us, as Members of other Churches with us in New England, in like case so commended and approved. Hence then Sir, is the plain reason, the people that goe from hence, doe quite depart from these Churches, so that they never come more under the Inspection of the Officers and Church [...]s here: they n [...]ver b [...]ing Letters testimoniall from you, to shew they are Members still with you, and approved by you, and so commended, as saith Mr. Hooker to those Churches there, but thither they come free from all Chur­ches (even in their owne account) and there let them walk as they will, there are no Churches have power to reach them, unlesse they will joyne them­selves to one there, as they have disjoyned themselves from your Churches here. But now make this tryall, let there go out of the faithfull Congre­gations of England, persons, whose intent is not to disjoyne themselves from you, onely they go as Merchants on some other errand, let the godly Offi­cers of such Congregations, give a certificate under their hands, such per­sons [Page 27]that now àre comming to you in New England, are godly persons, Mem­bers of our Churches, and walk in Church-fellowship with us, and th [...]t orderly, though we have no explicite Covenant; we desire such may for the time of their abode with you, be admitted to the Lords Supper, if a Child he borne to them, let it be bapt [...]zed: and those persons when they come there walk according­ly, I say try the Ministers there, and I dare warrant you such persons shall not be denyed Communion though you have not an explicite Cove­nant.

And here Sir they require no more of you, then they will give; for if any who are Members of their Churches should come over from them hi­ther, and bring no Letters of recommendation to the Churches here, shew­ing that they are Members with them there, and walk approvedly among them; if such should require the Lords Supper or Baptisme here, if you will refuse them [unlesse they will shew or make it out, that they are Members there, and walk orderly, (onely their occasions call them hither now for a time) or will joyne with you if they have left those Churches] the Churches there will not be displeased with you: therefore the Mem­bers that come from thence bring Letters of recommendation with them, shewing what I have said before, and desiring of Churches here their care over them while here they abide. And now you have the plaine rea­son.

But one word more: pag. 29. you speak against those who meddle with other Ministers charges: those who go to New England you call your Mem­bers, should then the Ministers of New England baptize, and excommuni­cate (out of what Church I know not but yours, for of theirs they are no Members) your Members, they should meddle with your charge, and doe a strange act to excommunicate your Members when your selfe doe not, this is more then Classicall or Episcopall power.

But here you will charge Master Hooker with a Contradiction: because hee seemes to bee against this practise, that Members of one Congregation should partake of the Sacraments in another Congrega­tion.

Had Mr. Hooker lived to have filed over his work againe, I do believe he would have considered this place again; but the other places are most plain. Yet something may be said for him.

That Master Hooker should be against the giving of the Sacrament to a Member of another Congregation, who hath occasion to be absent from his ow [...]e, and is commended and approved by his own Church, this I can­not believe.

I will give you my reason. A neer friend of mine in New England living divers miles from Mr. Hooker, had occasion to be in his Towne on the Sabbath: my friend being a Minister [I cannot tell whether at that time in Office or no to the Church, in the Towne where he lived] Mr. Hooker got him to preach in the forenoone in his Church; at that time there was a Sacrament in the Church; my friend when he had done preaching (b [...]ing [Page 28]sad and oppressed in his spirits) went downe out of the Deske, and would not have stayed the Sacrament, but Mr. Hoo: steps after him, and claps hold on his shoulder, and pulled him back againe, and made him stay the Sa­crament: my friend told me it was the best Sacrament that ever he en­joyed.

This practice of his clears him from Contradiction, and therefore that cannot be his meaning.

This then I presume is his true meaning: it was the practice of divers of us in N. E. at the first planting we did joyne our selves to this or that Church; afterwards when other Plantations were erected, for conveni­encie of dwelling, (the former Plantations being too full) we would re­move and dwell there, retaining still our membership in those churches to which we first joyned, and by vertue of it having letters of recommendation, did partake of the Sacraments in those churches where we lived, and hence divers members lived many miles, twenty or sixty from their owne churches, and from the inspection of those officers who had power to call them to account, and observe their Conversations, and yet would partake of the Sacraments sixe or eight yeeres together in another Con­gregation: this indeed he opposed, in so much that when I came away the Elders would not suffer it any longer: this is but rationall, and this I conceive is his true meaning.

Here then as I said is all the question; whether or no if a godly man be member of no particular Church, and comes to demand baptism; may not I require him first, if you will have baptism, (being it is a church priviledge, and christians ought to walke orderly,) then joyne to some particular church.

If you require it of me, Or so if there be more Offi­cers then one. then may not the officer demand, doe then you choose me as your officer, to whom you will submit under Christ? doe you looke on this particular church as a true church of Christ, and will you walke with the members of [...] according to Christs rule? will you subject to all Christs ordinances? I pray why may I not demand these? Consider what Apollonius, Ames, Mr Hudson have said, the light of na­ture will carry as much; for if this man will not owne me for his officer, if he will not joyne with the Church, if not submit to Ordinances, what reason have I in particular to baptize his Child, or I and the church in particular to take more care of him then any other Church? if you say by his requiting baptism of me he professe all this; no Sir, by no means, I have answered this already: and he may doe as some have done with me, that have required baptism of me, and have confessed to me that Discipline was an Ordinance of God, but to promise subjection to it, and to me with the Church that we in particular should have power over them, they would not do it, and could tell me that I had no power over them without that their consent; and they speak truely, for they had not chosen me for their officer, though they are in the parish, and by their Christianity I could claime no power over them more then another Minister.

So that if you will yeeld me this we shall at last prove that explicite consent will be necessary at the first admission.

Thus Sir I thinke you have a full answer to your Diatribe, with Mr. Hooker, as to the point of Confederacy, with what I have said I thinke to wipe off all your Arguments, as to that point, I doe not tun over all, because my booke will swell into too big a volume; for the other things in the Diatrebe, they concerne me with him. Now then I, pro­ceed.

In p. 5. you tell me our Arguments for Infants-Baptisme stand upon the notion of an Explicite Covenant. How true this is, Page 5. let the Reader judge.

Then you tell me I have mistaken Amesius his argument for Infants Baptisme, Page 6. [ because Children are capable of the grace of Baptisme, for all are Patients, &c.] this is brought you say to answer the objection of the Anabaptists; what you tell me of those is no newes: but I pray see if Doctor Ames be answering an objection; hee makes is his fifth argument: see also Mr Marshall his Sermon upon Infants Baptisme. p. 41.43. I know it serves against an objection, and yet consider the child with the parent, it may serve for a ground also for Baptizing.

Then you tell me I speake not properly, because I put a Morality in that Command to Abraham &c.] Sir you may well know by the next words I did but borrow the word from the morality of the second commande­ment which I had used for illustration: and is there onely A [...]alogy in it, when we see the Command is not repealed, but rather confirmed in the New Testament? Acts 2.38, 39. but I perceive your scope is to spye out what faults you can, though they do not concerne the question, and sometimes when you can finde none, yet you will make some.

Then you bring me to the question about predecessors, Page 7. which you have largely discussed in the Diatrebe, you say, for that promise in the se­cond Commandement you say you would not plead it.

Sir then you doe not help my adversaries at home, who have pleaded onely that promise, and therefore I onely mentioned that, not having seene your booke.

Before I come to see what you have said, let me speake one word, as to the question, whether if a godly grand-father being of the Church, and being Orthodoxe [you put it in thus twice in one page, godly, living, Orthodoxe] should bring a grand-child to me, to baptize it by vertue of him taking it to himself, Diatr. 187. and so in this p. 7. godly. as his own, and cugaging for the Education of it, whether now I should refuse it? truely I cannot tell; it is a hard question, and because I see so many holy learned men, and some also Congregationall men are of that Opi­nion, I am the more shaken, thinking God will reveale more to them then to such a wretch as I am, but I am not resolved what I should doe, if I were put upon the practise.

But suppose I yeeld this, yet you trouble me not at all but save my question, for if I baptize it not as it is the immediate Seed of these Scan­dalous parents, but the mediate seed of a godly grand father or grand­mother, [Page 30]who take it as theirs and engage for Education, then I doe not Baptize the children of such as the question mentions by vertue of them. This will serve to take off many of your Answers.

But then I come againe, What shall I doe with the Infants of such whose parents are such as the Q. men [...]ions, and so are, and were their pro-parents? I have divers such, of whom I have enquired.

Thus then I could easily depart from this, but for discourse sake, to beat it out more clearely, I will try what you have said.

The text you give me is Gen. 17.7. and in this p. and p. 11. you re­quire of me an expesse Scripture that shews, the promise reach but to the next ge­neration. What meane you by this? do you look on me as an Anabaptist? when I dispute against them I take their owne principles, but doe you therfore require it of me? I doubt you have not given expresse Scriptures for all you have said in your books. Nay Sir, (which is strange) if you will prove the Grandfather might circumcise the Grandchild, if the immediate parent had lost his right [which come neerest to our Q.] you must draw it out by consequence: I pray call for no more then you give.

Because you speak so of your full and large discussing of this question in your Diatr. I made account you had bestowed much paines upon the text to prove it out, and cleare the text, but I see you onely propound the text, and no more. It is worth the paines sometimes to cleare out a text, which you have not done; that which lookes most likely is, that you say, Jacob had power to dispose of Josephs Children; Diatr. 188. The issue which thou begettest after them shall be thine. you might have set downe a Text: if you meane 48. Gen. 5. the 6. v. will help to an answer, * and as for the 5. v. if you please to peruse famous Rivet on the Text, who clearely opens it; I cannot see how any thing can be drawne from thence to your purpose, to prove it by any thing else you have said, I can see no­thing.

But to the Text: I will establish my Covenant betweene me and thee, and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting? Covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.

• 1. Its true, God made his Covenant not onely with Abraham, but his seed after him. His Seed, either 1. Such as were Carnally and Spiritually. So Jacob, David, &c. who were really within the Covenant of grace.
• 2. Or his Seed onely Carnally. So those ten Tribes when revolted, and the Jewes when went whoring after Gods, not cleaving to the God of Abraham:
• 3. Who onely Spiritually not Garnally: So the believing Pros [...]lites then, and believing Gentiles: which I conceive may be sub-divided, into his Seed really so, or visibly so, that in judgement of charity appeare so, but not truly so. So some of the Jewes also, as well as Gentiles.

2. He saith Hee will be a God to them, those who were really and spi­ritually Abrahams Seed, had him for their God indeed: for others he was a God so to them as he owned them only of all nations to be his Church, giving to them his Statutes and Ordinances; they also His holy People, i. e. separa­ted from other people.

3. It is true, God did hold this Governant with them, he did not cast off his Seede in the 6. or 10. generation, and take in another Seed to make his Church of, so long as that Policie was to endure.

4. However the Covenant for the substance was given to Adam, yet I conceive (under favour) it was not drawne formally into a Co­venant before now: ( Noahs Covenant was a Covenant with the Creature as well as with Man.) Hence God appoints a Signe and Seale of this Cove­nant.

Covenants use to be fealed, not bare promises. This Seale is to be admi­nistred to Abrahams seed who were taken into Covenant.

The Question is, whether this Seale of the Cou [...] was to be admini­stred to the seed of Abraham as such, i. e. onely Carnally so, though they had changed their God, who was Abrahams God, and worshipped such Gods as Abraham abhorred: though they had plainely rejected the Covenant, 2 Kings 17. from 8. to 18. v. though they were worse then the Heathen; 2 Kings 21.9.11. so that nothing of the Covenant appeared in them, or was to be admi­nistred to such (as visible at least) did walke as Abraham their Father did? If that be true which Maimony quoted by Ainsw. say it should seem so. It is a generall rule, that he onely is Abrahams Seed, that reteineth his Law, and his Right way: and these are they that ought to be Circumcised: if none else, then they did ill in Circumcising abundance; but for ought I can learn out of the chapter, Abrahams Seed, as such, though onely his seed according to the flesh were to be circumcised.

5. Out of this I cannot see, but that any Child whose [...] Father was of Abrahams seed, might as well be circumcised, by vertue of a Predecessour who was Abrahams seed, though he were dead six hundred years before, yea by vertue of Abraham himselfe (and that is most likely) as well as by vertue of a Grandfather.

6. It seemes a vaine thing to talke of a Grandfather giving right to Cir­cumcision, Sir I pray prove this that ever any did so. It was my 9th Argument, p. 12. in case the immediate parent had forfeited his right (as our que­stion would intimate) for if we consider who were to administer this Cir­cumcision, and the immediate parent being of Abrahams seed, it should seem there is no room for such a thought.

Those who did administer it were their Parents, Magistrates, or Masters, (if Servants) yea themselves say Maimony, when wax [...]n great, Ainsw. Gen. 17.12. Buxto. Synag. Jud. c. 2. if the thing were hid from the Judges, yea learned Rivet agrees with Abulen. who said women as well as men; so say others whom I could quote, there was none de­signed of God to the work; and still among the Jewes, he that can doe it most neatly he administers it, whom they call Mohel; and he practises first up­on the children of poorer sort of Jewes, then others.

This speaks plainly to me that it is vain to talk who gave right there, it appears plain enough.

But come to us: Believers onely are Abrahams seeds the flesh hath no­thing to doe here, there must be flesh as a sustra [...]um that's true, or else there can be no Believer, but not such flesh that comes from Abraham. [Page 32]Believing Gentiles, such as visible, walk as Abraham did; these are esteemed his seed, and with these God makes his Covenant, these have the Seale ad­ministred, and their Children, God is a God to them also, takes them into his visible Church, and appoints the Seale for them: but if these Children grow up and make it plainely appeare (that they reject the Covenant of their Fathers, and they prove contumacious, these cease to be Abrahams seed, the flesh here will not help them: whilst Infants they were esteemed his, but now they declare the contrary; if then they declare open­ly they are not his seed, how can they give title to the Seale of the Covenant which they have rejected?

Had this Covenant (the Seale I meane) beene to be administred to Abrahams spirituall seed only, so that if any of his carnall seed had manife­sted a rejection of the Covenant made with Abraham, then they had for­feited their right; had it beene committed to the Priests or Levites to administer with a care that it were not abused; and could it be made cleare that the immediate parent might forfeit his right, and then the Grandfather gave the Title; then there were good arguing from hence; but those things are yet to prove. Doth God say to any believing Gentile, I will bee the God of thee and thy seede, to ma­ny Generations, though thy seede cast me off? But I will come to argu­ment.

1. If the Grandfather by vertue of this promise can give the Title to Baptisme, then the Children of Carpocrates, Marcion, Valentinus [let us sup­pose these mens parents to be godly and Church Members, and these Here­ticks to have Children] ought to be baptised.

But the Consequent is false. Ergo, the Antecedent is false:

If you say, that if their Grandfathers were living, and would take those Children and educate them, its true they might.

I pray Sir why doe you tye up the Text to living Grandfathers, there is nothing like it in the Text, let the Grandfathers be living or dead, thats nothing in the Text: if they were ungodly or Hereticall, there is nothing, they were Abrahams seed according to the flesh.

There is nothing neither of a Grandfather taking the Grandchild to himselfe, still they were Abrahams seed; neither can I discerne how you can draw it out by necessary consequence.

If you say they are Apostates and so have no right: Sir the Text speakes not of Abrahams seed, if they doe not Apostatize, you know they did so, and yet were circumcised; and that by vertue of a grand-father is not proved. Such a Christ as these Hereticks phansied they did owne: so for Arrians, Photinians, they will owne a Christ.

For the Baptizing of Hereticks children, To. 494. loc. com. To. 4.648. you have Walaeus against you, and Gerhard, the clause they put in, if the Hereticks say they will bring up their children in their Heresie is but needlesse, as if Hereticks would not doe so; what they say for this I can turne as well against scandalous living; but I shall not trouble my selfe.

2. You say this promise [I will be the God of thee and thy Seed] reached not onely to the next Children, but their posterity in a second or third generation: then you make an &c. that is true as I have said before, and it troubles not me: but now under the Gospel to how many generations will this extend, that the Grandfather shall give title to Baptisme? you name the third and then adde, &c. How many doe you include in & coetera: thus you have spoken in another place, and there another &c. Diatr. p. 188.212. It is indeed usuall to put an &c. when mens mindes are clearly knowne, and there is no matter of consequence attended upon it, so spare our writing, and the Printer; but if any matter of consequence depends, then it is very poore to put in & coetera, you know &c. in the Bishops Oath was an untoward thing, and here it is a troublesome thing; if to the third, why not to the 103 genera­tion? & coetera will go further. But say you p. 11. this is their common Objection, [his head is very shallow that should not reach but you have ful­ly answered it elsewhere: Come on then Sir, since you say you have fully answered it, I will turne to your Diatribae, and there looke for it, supposing that a man of your parts who doth slight so extreamly other mens argu­ments, calling them very weake, &c. when you say you answer fully, you have done so indeed; in p. 212. I see you have it there to answer. I per­ceive you sinde it a troublesome objection, and there recite the opinions of some men, whom I honour as much as your selfe, if there were nothing but an opinion of a man to be desi [...]ed: you summe up their opinions, and it amounts to this; It scomes that the Children of Christians knowne or pre­sumed to be such, whe [...]her living or dead, may be baptised. then you give us an allusion from those who could not prove their Genealogy. Ezra 2.62: Whether you will stand to this as your answer I know not: but then you adde, But all the Children of knowne Believers, Christians, Orthodox and yet living, whether next or remoter may seeme to challenge a right to Baptisme: this is the full answer; but twice you use the word seeme, which shewes you ra­ther propound your opinion modestly, but I pray Sir doe not say this is so fully answered, it is no answer at all, (it is your opinion indeed) for by all the discou [...]se I have met with as yet in that book, you have not proved that living Grandfathers may give a title, onely you propound a text, which will prove the dead as well as the living may give a title if a Grandfather at all may: if you meane no more then the living Grandfather, your & caete­ra will soone be run out.

In p. 8. you meet with an argument of mine which is this, Page 8. ‘[If the wic­kednesse of the immediate parent cut him off; from the Lords Supper; though his parent be godly, why doth not the same wickednesse cut him off from giving right to his childs Baptisme? if the parent cannot claime one Seale of the Covenant for himselfe, appearing plainely not to have the condition of it, must not the child suffer who depends upon him for its title?’ The parent suffers, therefore the child must needes.

You say no, not for Temporall punishment [Gehezi, Achan, Corah, &c. their [Page 34]children did] nor spirituall. To this I answered [they cannot be abstracted from their parents in this, and therefore may: as the child comes to have its right by a parent, so the child may lose by a parent: it doth not lose salvation nor regeneration by it.

You answer 4. waies: 1. From the Jewes; which doth not availe with me, there was something peculiar to them in administration of Circumci­sion, as is cleare before, and shall be made cleare hereafter.

2. Your second is the distinguishing betweene a persons generall state and per­sonall wickednesse; his state is a christian, &c.

I answer; if you meane by personall wickednesse, some particular falls (as you bring in Noah and David strangely afterward) I think so indeed; but if you meane a continued setled course in wickednesse, wilfull ignorance then I say; such a person hath lost his first right to his owne or his childs baptisme [you may call him a Christian, but let his Christianity be such as you have said may qualifie him for a Church-Member, or else it is not worth a rush.] Such a one I looke at as one that ought to be excommunicated, for he deserves it, (we must prove that persons ought to be excommunica­ted before they are.) Now since he ought, the question is, why he is not? [if he be, the child suffers for his state being a non-Member] in foro Dei he is, and ought to be in foro Ecclesiastico: if the case stand so as through the multitude of such, it cannot conveniently be so, Then yet let the Ministers go as farre as they can. I pray Sir let this satisfie to your answers which you give about Excommunication; for you would gather from me, that till Excommunication, Ministers ought to baptise.

Thus far I yeild it, till Excommunication, or that which doth deserve Ex­communication, so that the persons ought to be excommunicated, though from some other externall impediments (as multitude, &c.) they cannot be excommunicated; yet then a separation from such, or non-communion may help.

3. You say, you have largely confuted this notion of the immediate parent: I think not so.

4. You say, I have destroyed it my selfe: the right he hath is one­ly by the Churches toleration, let the Officers looke to that: the first and maine right hee hath none, and none at all according to your doctrine.

For p. 9. the distinction of the Physical and Moral right in Diatr. 188. if you had strongly proved the Moral right of the Grandfather would clearely have taken off that wrong meant. Sir I will receive an answer when I see I am answered. But that there should be as lit [...]le right of the Mother over the Childe when compared with her Husband, as is of the Grandfather compared with the Father (which you would seeme to intimate) is strange, I am sure the Mother communicates as much and more to the being of the Childe, then the Father doth.

For Aquina [...], he may enjoy his opinion, yet I think Ch [...]mier (of whom [Page 35]anon) is not full for him. For my needlesse exception, you mention, it is well if nothing needlesse have come from you.

Then you tell me I renew my plea, Page 10. which is this ‘[who shall educate this child? the Ignorant person cannot, the Scandalous teach it how to breake the Covenant, Predecessors are dead, &c.]’ Here first you tell me of a Law of the Land, which bath taken care for the education of Papists Children, and Orphans, providing Schooles and Hospitalls. Hence first I gather, you doe not care whether the Grandfather be living or dead, which in another place you expresse otherwise; here the immediate grosly ignorant and scandalous persons give title: but for what you say, I pray pardon my ignorance of the Lawes that have been so many yeares out of England; I did not know the State had made such a Law, That if an Ignorant or Scandalous Parent have a child baptised, then those who are knowing and godly men (at least sober men, conversation comely) should take the child, and bring it up, and instruct it in the Covenant of grace, which must be the answer or nothing; this were wofull trouble, if good People or visible Saints should be thus charged with all the children of persons who are as the question mentions: As for the other part, you say, The Church should take care, as in case both the Parents dye whilest they are little Children: and then you give a nip to the Congregationall Chur­ches: you say right for the Churches care, but how shall we doe whilst these parents live and keepe them at home, and teach them to breake Covenant, and though they are intreated to send their children to catechising, yet will not, as I have too bad experience? For the children of Church members, the parents dying whilst they are young, I wish I could see as good examples of your parochiall Cnogregations taking care for the Christian education of such, as I could give you in the Congregationall Churches in New England, but then the title was not questioned, there was that ease, and wee did not know but those godly parents might live to educate them.

Then p. 11. you turne an argument upon me from my selfe, Page 11. [because I could plead a promise by vertue of may Father, so may the Grandchild by vertue of a godly Grandfather, and so bid me change Parent into Progenitors.] Sir I am glad I could give you so good an argument, and I could beteame to let it alone, for it will not hurt my question, as I said before. Onely a word, you bid me change Parent into Progenitors; so I will, let it be the great Grand­father of the childs great Grandfather, and one that is fourty generations before him, for your & coetera will give me leave, (I know not how to set bounds to & coetera) yet I may goe so farre for a title, and the text you bring doth not limit me.

You grant an Apostate loseth his owne baptisme, p. 12. Yet you can­not see how a parents Apo­stacy can just­ly cut off his child. Diatr. p. 190. so his right is cut off; suppose the pro-parents be dead here is intercisio Christianismi as you quoted Calvin before, then I know not how this Apostates child can be Baptized, by any parentall right: yet if this child should come to under­standing, and there should be movings on the heart of it, and it should plead the Covenant of a Grandfather [I should not question to baptise it with­out respect to parents if it came to that.] Yet Sir, this will shew there is a [Page 36]great difference betweene the pro-parents right [if it can clearely be proved at all,] giving a title to baptisme, and the immediate parents, for that may be cut off by the immediate parent justly, but the immediate parents title cannot be cut off.

Now we are come to the last Argument. Page 12, 13.

If by vertue of the Grandfather, then the child of one Apostatiz'd or ex­communicated person may be baptised: but not Ergo.

For an Apostate you tell me of the kindred taking care of it, or susceptores: this notion will come in afterwards.

For excommunicated persons there you bestow paines, and I perceive you care not so much for a pro-parent here, but by vertue of the immediate parent himselfe though excommunicated.

For my owne part I should not here yeeld to a pro-parent, neither doe I see our New England Divines (that could beteame a Grandchild under the Grandfathers tuition to be baptized by vertue of him) will allow, it if the immediate parents be excommunicated, for this hinders the working of the Ordinance; it is of greater force to worke when a man shall see not onely himselfe cut off, but even his very children also, this hath beene a means to awaken some in N. England, who were not excommunicated, but onely not admitted, to see their posterity also suffer for their sakes, it hath so wrought as to make some truly godly (so farre as we may judge) and others it hath brought into externall order in conversa­tion.

But since you have here maintained it by vertue of the immediate parent excommunicated, I shall desire to consider it.

It is granted there is a difference betweene an excommunicated person and a Heathen. As

1. He may still hold his profession: Revie. M. Hoo. 119. [but as you say, it is violated by his scandall, and it must be renewed before he can be received againe.] Though he holds his profession still, yet that now violated is not sufficient to give him­selfe a title to Baptisme if he were not now baptised, much lesse the child who depends wholly on his title.

If his profession be sufficient to give his child by vertue of him a title to one Seale of the Covenant, why the same profession should not be sufficient to give himselfe a title to the other Seale of the Covenant, [one faith being the condition of it, and you say he hath that,] I can see no reason.

That profession which is not sufficient to make a man a Church mem­ber, is not sufficient to give title to a Church-priviledge, consequently not to baptisme.

But the profession of a person excommunicated is not sufficient, &c. Ergo the Minor is cleare: his profession is vioalated, and must be renewed be­fore he can be received, say you. Then tis not sufficient.

This is further cleare, for if it be sufficient to make him a Church-member when cast out, why was it not sufficient to keepe him [Page 37]within whilst bee was within? so he should not have needed to bee cast out.

This then is cleare, that there is great difference betweene the profession of a person who was never admitted, and another who is cast out: the first may have lesse knowledge by farre, weaker gifts and possibly more infirmi­ties which may yet be such, as a Church may admit, when the other who hath violated his profession, may not.

2. He is under cure, but his cure is non-membership, a member cut off from the body: a Heathen is not under cure.

3. When he hath renewed his profession by repentance, and so the Church received him againe, he is not re-baptised: but this doth not prove that therefore whilst he is extra Ecclesiam, that he can give title to a priviledge of the Church: it is not his being baptised that is the ground of his childs baptisme whilst he is in the Church, therefore that cannot give the title when he is out of the Church.

But Heathens must be baptised when they are admitted: the other is re­ceived again, not therefore baptised. That his baptisme is not the ground of his childs baptisme, I shall prove afterward.

But I will come to Argument.

1. If a child may be baptise by vertue of an excommunicated parent, then that parent is not excommunicated; and this is to make a contradi­ction.

But the parent is excommunicated. Ergo.

To baptise is to give Communion, baptised into one body, 1 Cor. 12.13. then there is Communion given with the body, by an excommu [...]icated person: is not this a contradiction? Communion is most properly seene in Baptisme and Lords Supper.

What is excommunication, saith M. Rutherf. but to deny all Communion with those who were once in the Church? Peac: plea 222 but all Communion is not here de­nyed.

You will object, as you answer, pag. 13. All Communion with himself, but not with the child, for that is borne a Christian, and so bath right.

Ans. Hath the child right to Communion any other way with the Church then by the paren [...]? is it not he that brings him in as a branch of himself? is it not a Christian borne by vertue of the parents Christianity? but his pa­rents Christianity can give himselfe no title to Church-priviledges, as I said before of profession, which is all one. Doth the child plead a title distinct from the parent? if so, then your answer you give were something, but I know of no title it hath but the parents, who expresses his own title for him­selfe and his seed. Now it is ve [...]y rationall, that if the child have Commu­nion given onely by vertue of the parents Communion, [for before the parent was admitted a Church-member the child could have none] then the parent having forf [...]ited Communion for himselfe, must needs forfeit it for his depending child also.

What Tertullian saith of Excommunication, Apol c. 39. and l. 2. ad uxorem you know.

If Classian [...]s his wise were a Church-member though her husband were cast out, Aug [...]p. 75. we doe not approve his practice who would not baptize his child by vertue of her; but it seems they apprehended that there was some equitie if both were cast out. No wonder though Augustine were again [...] it upon his principle.

2. If excommunication be the casting out of a member of a Church, 1 Cor. 5. ult. and consequently rendring him a non-member, then an ex­communicated person cannot give title to his childs Baptisme.

But excommunication is casting a man out &c.

The consequence is cleare, how can one who is a non-member of a Church give title to a Church-priviledge?

Excommunication renders him a non-member, cutting him off from Communion, and admitting him to no other Ordinances then a non-mem­ber is.

The phrase, cast out, shewes he is no Member.

So the phrase of cutting off, Aar. rod. l. 1. c. 5. which learned Gillespy hath excellently open­ed to be meant of Excommunication, and there brings in Buxtorf. and Godwin, who report out of the Rabbius, that their children were not cir­cumcised. This you say, pag. 14. is not Orthodox, and it was a corrupt In­vention of the latter Jews having no ground for it in the Scripture: you say elsewhere, I thinke in the Diatr. that the Scripture doth not speak for nor against it, so far as) ou can se [...]; but then Sir what ever I make of it, it concerns you to prove it to be a corrupt invention, though I could yeild it from what I observed before of their Circumcision, and yet not hurt my selfe.

But you answer to this Argument, p. 13. That he is a member still, though much diseased; he was much diseased before, whilst under Church ad­monitions, suspensions, and because those Medicines would not cure him he was cut off; a member under cure, say you, his cure is non mem­bership.

But this is pretty, a man shall be cut off the body, and yet be a member of the body; a man shall be cast out of the Church, and yet shall'be within the Church; a man shall be no member of a Church, as say you p. 24. and p. 14. and yet be a member of a Church; how you who are so Eagle eyed to spie out contradictions in other men will now cleare your selfe, I cannot tell. Member, no Member, are contradicentia I thinke, and to find a medium in con­tradicentibus is new Logick to me, I though ens & non ens had admitted none.

3. Excommunication is the putting of a man out of the visible King­dome of Christ, into the Kingdome of Satan. So the best Exposi­tors I meet with, 1 Cor. 5. Master Cartwright, &c. expounds that delivering up to Satan.

Hence I ague, To administer the Seale of the Covenant to a child by vertue of one who is even Ecclesiasticè in the Church repute under the Kingdome of Satan, is very unwarrantable.

To make Christ a Politicall head to one under Satans Kingdome, seemes very strange.

4. Excommunication is the rendering of a man as a Heathen to the Church, Mat. 18. we doe not differ here, but agree that Excommunication is meant here what ever the Erastians Here let me have leave to put in a word. The Erastians expound this of civill injuries, or personall civill trespasses onely, and will prove it by comparing of Luke 17.3, 4. with this; his Argument being, Because it is such a trespasse as a brother may forgive: Mr. Gillespy bestowes paines here, and to good purpose; but let it be supposed the Texts run parallel, which M Gillespy thinks not. 1. That Luke 17. saith, that a brother may forgive such a trespasse, as it were better a mil­stone were [...]angedi about his neck who offers it. But 2, we finde in 2 Cor. 27.10. that Paul forgave, and the Church of Corinth forgave, what, a trespass done against them? No sure, the incestuous persons act was no evill trespasse against Paul nor the Church, yet they forgive. If then they can forgive, why may not a private brother also forgive? Thus it is supposed, that the scandall which is here given, & for which the private brother dealeth with the offen­dour privately, is but a private scandall, (for if it be publique, this way of dealing ceaseth) if then this private brother dealing with the offendour finds the man to acknowledge his sin, and repent, why may not he be said to forgive him also? [as in case it had been a publike fact and cast out, upon his repentance the Church forgive] so that now he embraceth him in his heart againe, proceedes not to call any other to deale with him, nor to tell it to the Church, but the scandall is buried, forgiven, forgotten, Ecclesiasticè: I know no absurdity in this, and so the forgiveness doth not prove it to be a civill trespasse onely. say.

Had Christ said, let him be a Heathen (with reverence be it spoken) it should seeme not to have beene so proper a speech, for he may not be a Heathen, for he may hold his profession though cast out, and so is not pro­perly a Heathen, but as a Heathen he is to the Church; now what that is Mr. Gillespy tells us (and not he alone, but others) plainely: Aaro. rod 382. he is to be used no better then an Heathen or prophane Publican, and is not to be admitted to any Ordinance, except such as Heathens and prophane Publicans were admitted to. But were they admitted to the Circumcision of their children? Page 392. againe he opens it, let him be esteemed as one that hath no part in the Communion of Saints, in Church-membership (observe that, no Member then) in the holy things, in the Covenants, of promise, more then a heathen man. How then such a one should give title to the scale of the Covenant I cannot tell.

For the text you bring in Diatr. 2 Thes. 3.14, 15. Page 218. Rhem. Test. If you please to view Mr. Cartwright on the text, you will finde he gives reasons why that text most properly is meant of Suspension not Excommunication; so in his Harmony upon Mat. 18.17. he expounds this of Suspension: the text saith you are to account him a Brother, but the excommunicated person (till repentance) is no otherwaies to be esteemed then as a Heathen; saith he, true, that which is cause of Suspension is cause of Excommunication, if not repented of. But I believe this text is the clearest you can have for Suspension.

That learned Mr. Cartwright is against the baptising of the Infants of excommunicated parents, M. Rucherf: acknowledgeth. Pe [...]c. plea. Page 176.

If then I fall in this point, I shall fall with excellent men, M. Cartwright, [Page 40]Hooker, Cotton and others of our N. E. Divines, and others (it is likely) whom I know not.

Generall rules stand, when we have such a particular case (as you menti­on, p. 13.) falls our, we shall consider it, I give you no cases but such as have really beene.

Before I proceed further, I must have recourse to your Diatr. with Mr. Hocker for another way of admitting children to Baptisme, viz. by Adopti­on or Suretiship: for this is one of my errours that I suppose the next parent onely can give the title to Baptisme: and this was Mr. Hookers errour as well as mine; you tell us two other wayes: 1. The remoter parents [which I have dispatched, if it can be proved by better grounds then yet you have brought, yet it hurts not me nor Mr. Hooker, the questions stand firme still as we handle them:] The 2. is Adoption or Suretiship, so that you give three or rather foure wayes how children may come to Baptisme; for Adoption and Sur [...]tiship, I conceive differ very much. Yet these shall not hinder me nei­ther, no more then Mr. Hocker, though you can prove them, if you will let them be persons rightly qualified for Church members, who do Adops. &c. and by vertue of whom the child is baptised, so that I could ease my selfe that way: I like not this so well as the former. I will turn to Gen. 17.

Where we will observe who were to be circumcised, 1. Abraham, 2. his na­turall seed, 3. his servants then in his familie, whom he had taught the way of Jehovah, Ai [...]sw. 17. Gen. 27. Gen. 18.19. and who should seeme by faith to obey so hard a precept, their children also if they had any borne in the house. So after­wards those who were bought with money, which I conceive were only ser­vants, these we finde in this chap. here then (under favour) I finde no Adoption, which I conce [...]ive is, the taking of a stranger, or one who is not of our naturall seed, into the state of filiation. But that Abraham, or the J [...]wes afterwards, tooke the children of Heathens into a state of filiation, I finde no such thing: I question much whether the Jewes could doe as we doe in Adopting make such our Heires; they could not I doubt give any of the Land of Canaan away to a Heathen, though they were Adopted, of which I finde no footsteps. To say th [...]y Adopted other Jewes children, and so circum­cised them, this is vaine. Hence then I conceive if we cleave to the chapter, baptising by Adoption cannot be proved, because there was no circumcising by Adoption.

If it be objected; If those who were bought, if servants might be circum­cised, then those who are Adopted may be Baptised.

I pray let us make no Syllogismes for first institutions; had Adoption there beene mentioned, and by vertue of that Circumcision administred, then the argument had beene fairer to prove baptining by Adoption; but there appeares no such thing in the first Institution.

If you will take liberty to make Institutions by syllogismes, we shall o­pen a gap quickly.

2. This way of Adoption will seldome trouble us, for it is so rare a thing that I never as yet knew one that was thus Adopted, I have heard of [Page 41]one, who also had his name changed, and inherited Lands, but I knew him not; I know such as have no children, and they have been offered children, but they would never accept any.

3. Which is yet rarer, I never heard of any that did adopt children whilst they were Infants, but when grown up, so as they tooke liking of their man­ners and carriage; and sure it they came once to that, they should be instru­cted before baptised.

But howe [...] this troubles me not if you can prove it, if all those who are children of such parents, as the question men ions, must come to be baptised by Adoption, some p [...]rsons shall have children e­nough.

But for servants there the text is cleare, only whether it will hold under the Gospel? that is a question.

Give me leave humbly to propound my thoughts, I conceive that might be peculiar to that Church of the Jewes, who were the onely Church God had upon the earth, all the world besides them being shut out as so many Dogges, not allowed any meanes to enlighten them in the knowledge of God, but onely the Book of the Creature, Christ not allowing his Disci­ples so much as to go into their way to preach unto them, Pareus tells us of a Jew that called him Ba [...]land Gentile as he he was passing by him. Rom. 11.29. till the wall was broken downe; yet in that time the poore Gentiles had this priviledge, if they would become servants to the Jews, they might be admitted to the Seal of the Covenant.

But when as the partition wall was broken downe, and Ministers sent out to preach to the whole world; now the Covenant was as free for the G [...]ntiles as the Jewes, teach and baptise, you may go into Turky, India, where you will, there is no wall to binder you: so now that which was the ground of that administration being taken away, that to me seemes to cease. This also moves me to think so, because in the New Testament, after the wall was broken downe, we finde no mention of any such thing whence we should ground this practise; for children of Believers we finde ground e­nough: if I did not see more for that in the New Testament then for ser­vants, I should be very much shaken for Infant baptisme.

You ground is this: It was so then for Circumcision Ergo, now for Bap­tisme. Your Consequence you prove, because priviledges are not straitned under the Gospel.

I answer, 1. had God after Christ taken one Nation (suppose England, as then Canaan) and tyed up his Church to such a nation, so that no other people could partake in the O dinances but by joyning to England, then the argument had beene good, for still here had beene a wall which shut out the other nations, which was the ground of that Administration; but now the Church may be any where.

2. God hath recompenced that priviledge with a wit [...]esse I think when he sends his Gospel to all the world, which before was tyed up to little Canaan.

2. If this still hold, then let the vilest monster in England [I have seene [Page 42]such stand for sureties in former times when that custome was used, that the Indians are honest men in comparison of them] bring a servant which he hath bought, and become surety for (so ignorant the man is that hee had neede be carechised himselfe) let him bring such a one to godly M. Cawdrey (if such a villaine lived in his parish) and bid Mr. [...]at baptise him, as he is his servant, would you doe it? you must doe it according to that text, for when they were Apostatiz'd they did, no question, circumcise them if they tooke them: [...] such a villaine be excommunicated, [...] gives title also for ought I can discerne by you, for though [...] [...]es were excommunicated, yet I see by your doctrine they might circumcise such.

To say no, I would have such as are understanding and godly men only, (or not scandalous) who do undertake for them, able to instruct them, &c. Sir, you have nothing in the text for any such thing; besides if you can prove it, you hurt not my question.

3. I observe a vast difference betweene their servants and ours, they had strong power over their servants, Exod. 21.20, 21. I observed in New En­gland, the Indians whom we had taken in warre, or others who lived with us sometimes halfe or a whole yeare, yet if they could handsomly get away from us they would, and did; we should have done finely to have bapti­sed them; we buy no servants who are English men, or Christians, as you call them, to be under our power as they were. Hence learned Rives saith, there bad ne [...]de be a great caution lest the Ordinance be prophaned, for our servants are not as theirs. In Gen. 17. p. 443. last Ed. To. 4. l. 5. c. 11. s. 2. And lea [...]ned Chamier speakes very warily upon the question: Servi si fim verè servi quales olim, non diffitear [...]nam Abrahamo legimus imperatum ut circumcideret suos omnes servos, sed quales hodià not serves babem [...] ut plurimum quia verè liberi suns, non putem sic tractandus, non cor quidem qui jure belli fiunt subditi principibus, nam hoc genus subditorum tamen liberum manet: De natu ergo ex parentibus insidelibus liberis, si consentiant parentes, distinguendum putem: Consentiunt enim vel ip [...]i facti fideles, ac tune nulla difficultas, &c. vel perseverates in infidelitate, ac tum non putem baptizandor, &c. For those who are [...]rè servi which it seemes we have none, but if we had such, should we baptise them being adulti before they be taught the Covenant, and see if they will owne it? Teach and Baptize; for Infants, I thinke we never buy such servants.

4. For suretiship that comes not in this way by being bought as they were, I have nothing to say to it, if you can prove it to be a divine Institutio­on I will attend to it, but I think it will prove but an humane Invention; for sureties being joyned with parents, Caranz p. 17. Pet. Mart. lo [...]. com. 822. we know who was the parent of that invention.

Higin [...] was no Apostle: if you have a better parent for your sureti­ship I pray bring him forth.

[...] if any man hath a minde to be a surety for other folkes children let him, per me lices. I thinke those who have children of their owne, and know what is to educate them, will not be forward to be sureties for others: I doubt many men if they examine how they have discharged their sureti­ship [Page 43]heretoforē, have cause to be humbled, for I thinke most never regar­ded it; and how to discharge [...]t when they have them not under their charge, and remove so commonly as we do, I know not.

But you with tell me of the stream of Divines are for it; there is a little Rivules that is not acknowledged by Gerhard, loc. co. To. 4. p. 583. he quotes Galvin, Beza, Bucanus; and for Beza, Walaeus doth acknowledge, tutius judicat ut priuserudiantur. Hunnius also, Rivet, S [...]ith is against it. To. 1. p. 492. on Gen. 17. p. 343. de bapt.

Let me adde one more of no small note, Tertullian in those words, veniant dum adolescunt, veniant dum discunt, which words you must either under­stand as some doe against Infant-baptisme altogether, as divers doe, saith Lauren. upon Te [...]tul. and conclude from hence, and a place of Nazian. Orat. in San [...]. Lavac. that these two Fathers were against Infant-baptism [though I think Nazianzen speaks enough in that Ocation to cleare his minde] or if you will not rake it so, you must take it that Tertullian there speaks against baptising by sureties, and he that reads two lines before shall easily perceive that is his meaning; and so Mr. Marshall interpre [...]s him, and that clearely: Against Tombs p. 36. so then you have not all on your side. So much for your way of A­doption.

Now I returne to your answer; Page 15. p. 15. you tell me there I have started a new question: Sir, you know I said at the first, I must move two questions, and for this had I not moved it, I had said nothing, for what if I had pro­ved that it is onely the n [...]xt parent gives right to Baptisme? yet if such pa­rents as these in the Q. were judged fit Church members, and so fit to give title, I had said nothing, that therefore was my scope to prove these were not fit, and consequently ought to be reformed, or shut out of the Church; of which before.

You say not much to my first Argument to prove they are not, Page 16. viz. be­cause they are not visible Saints; you acknowledge they are not, nor ought to be admitted, if now they were to be admitted: then reforme such, or cast them out: for that you say of Corinth, I say it is no wonder though Paul call the whole Church Saints, making denomination from the melior, and it is likely the Major part, as visible Saints: but had they beene all such as you say, grosly ignorant, or scandalous, whether the Apostle would then have called them Saints or no I cannot tell.

What you say about profession of faith that is requisite to give a man admission, I have elted it before p. 1. you say presently: Page 17. This is sufficient for admission, but as there must he more to, continue such in the Church, &c. you say p. 19. more is required to first admission, then to continuance in the Church. I know not how to reconcile these.

For positive matter for Excommuncation, you say right, there must be so indeed, and I think we are not to seek for that: but for Excommunication I gave you my thoughts before.

For my second Argument that falls you say also: I doe not know that my first is fallen yet, for you have yeilded the Argument. I pray what is the question? I must set it downe because of these two answers [Page 44]you give to my two next Arguments, which you mightily contemne.

They doe but say they be­lieve in him, when whole conversation manifests the contrary. The Q. is, Whether is this bare profession of saith in Christ [for thousands in England doe but barely say it, that they beleeve in him, they know no­thing of Faith, nor of Christ, only the Name, such a one their Father; or some body told them of, I gave you some instances before] though parents be grossely ignorant, scandulous, and refuse to subject to Church Discipline, suffi­cient to make a man, and continue him a Member of the visible Church? The first Argument stands as yet.

My second Argument was this, ‘If this bare profession be sufficient, then nonen can be cast out for the vilest sins, Heresie, &c. because he is the same now as when he was admitted.’

You answer, The consequence is unsound, and the proofe like it [you are ve­ry nimble methinks, but why so unsound?] for when he was first admitted upon his profession, no such scandall appeared, but now it doth, there he is not the same that he was, when admitted.

To this I say, by profession you either meane such a profession, as you have mentioned above in this page, as I thinke you doe, and so you speake not ad idem; or if you meane such a profession as the question stared mentions, then Sir it is not so, for either grosse ignora [...]ce, or scandall did appeare, unlesse you meane that just at that time when he came to you and told you he did believe in Christ, be did not manifest any scand [...]ll to you; was not drunke, or did not sweare, or shew uncleannesse, &c. just a [...] that time: for so those who come to require Baptisme for their children, doe not come drunk, or sweare. &c. in that very instant time, but before they cameth y would, and when the child is baptised, can sweare, &c. and its well if divers be not drunk, if they have boone companions to joyne with; some have been little better. So that for all your hast, the Argument is sound enought, but so is no [...] your Answer.

The third Argument you say is like the former, very weake: I pray leave out ve [...]y, and let weake be [...]nought, it is possible it will not prove weak. What is the Argument?

A Rebell opposing Christ in his visible Kingdome is not fit to be a Member of it, because no subject.

You answer, be is not fit to be admitted if no Member before: Sir, what is the Q. whether is such a bare profession, &c. fit to make, &c. to make a Mem­ber? then this is not sit your pen hath affirmed: but then the Argument is not very weake, but very strong to prove one part of the question, your selfe acknowledge it in your first words, and so you have done before, p. 16. [but say you, he is fit to be continued till tryall of Reformation be past:] Sir you said a­bove in this page, that a bare profession with the mouth that he believes in Jesus Christ, though visibly he lives like an Infidell, is not sufficient to qualifie a man to be made or continued a Member. The question speaks of such a bare pro­fession; if you will say a moral conversation, though grosly ignorant, will sarve the turne, there hath beene as good, and now are among Infidels, [Page 45]and those who doe professe Christ, for drunkennesse, swearing, &c. un­cleannesse, lying, stealing, disobedience to parents, when growne up, &c. are as bad and worse then Infidels, Indians will shame them, so that the suffici­ency of his professton is not that which doth continue him a Church men­ber, but the Churches continuance, or impotency if the Church went a­bout to reforme and could not, as in the time of the Hierarchie; if it be the sufficiency of his profession keepes him in, for ought I know you may let him alone when power is in your hand to cast him out.

Most of this page is spoken to before, Page 18. only to two propositions (as you call them) of mine.

You answer: ‘That which constitutes a Church, continues a Church; if then a bare profession be not sufficient to make a Member, nor is it enough to continue a man a Member of a Church.’

You answer, both Propositions are faulty: the Minor, for we have proved that a profession of faith, nothing appearing to the contrary, will constitute a Member, and so a Church of many Members though all Hy­pocrites.

But Sir, the profession of faith you speake of here, is not the profession of faith the question speaks of, for the question speakes of such a profession as hath grosse ignorance, or open scandall appeating, therefore you speak not ad idem.

For all Hypocriter: there is (as M. Car [...]wright saith) difference between Tares and Acorns, Goats and Swine.

The Major is faulty, say you, because more is required to a first Admission, Page 19. then to a Continuance in the Church, as is evident in men of yeares converted from Infidels; a personall profes [...]ion of faith is necessary to such, but their children are admitted and continued without it.

Sir, you should have proved that more is required to the Admission then the Continuance of the same person: speake ad idem, there should seeme rather that more is required to Continuance then Admission, for being lon­ger under means he should have attained more in that time, then he had when first admitted. You say children are admitted and continu [...]d without personall profession: I grant it, but admitted it seemes they are, and surely that is, because they are reputed in the parents for visible Saints, 1 Cor. 7. but now, Holy. sit matter for a Church, let them continue such as they were reputed to be at their admission and it is well enough, no more shall be required. Or it there be any difference it is this, more is required to their continuance: for they to their admission, were required to be but visible Saints by vertue of their parents, reputed such for their sakes, but for their continuance they must when growne up manifest actually they are such, or else be cast out: so more is required for Continuance then Admission, and so your proposition is false.

For your last clause in that Paragraph, [there is another way to reforme a constituted Church but corrupted, then first to constitute a Church, viz. Discipline] [Page 46]I know not what sense to make of it, I supposed there was some [...]our in the Printer, but I finde no Errata printed, and so cannot tell what to say to it: I said let Discipline be exercised, and so the Churches reduced to their first constitution, viz. to be such as Churches ought to be. I [...]perceive your next heads are to oppose this, you have no Government settled; you may have it if you will, as I said before, parties refuse to submit to it, say you, then I am the stronger; for if there be no Excommunication, I am not tyed to baptise till they be excommunicated, which you urge so much.

You aske me agains, would I have such suddainly ejected? why Sir is there no Church-Discipline but Excommunication? we use unlesse offences he very notorius (and we have enough such) first to admonish persons seri­ously to bring persons to repentance; if that will not doe, we suspend; if that will not doe, So some con­ceive non-Communion to be an Act of Church-Disci­pline. then excommunicate. I said before, the times we now are cast in are to be considered, as the [...]eyden Profossours speake in the same case, but because you cannot excommunicate you will doe nothing: and when you have excommunicated it is all one with you, so that you doe but delude us. I doe not absolutely deny any Baptisme, but conditionally if they will not come to be instructed, and give us some better testimony of their conversation: but before they will be catchised by me, and give any better testimony they will fling away.

Now say you all his argumet [...] will be casily dissolved, Page 20. its well. What you have spoken to in this page 20. I have answered before; onely where­as you say, I have often confessed that persons tolerated ought not to bro excluded the Lords Supper. Sir, I will keepe to the title of my Booke, it shall be A Sober Reply, and I say, I have not once said any such thing.

But then you call to Ministers to examine whether they have done well in excluding halfe (it may bee) of their Parish from the Supper by their owns power alone. And page 26.28. you seeme to condemne this practise; ô brave Reformation! in the Bishops time a Minister alone made no question to doe this; and now every Minister is a Bishop, as I am sure you will grant, that a Bishop and Presbyter is all one; yet now Ministers must not doe it, but let all come to the Supper, till a Glassis be set up.

Here you tell us we cry out againe, and call people to separate from you because you want an Ordinance, Page 21. then adde, The Lord judge betweene us in this matter: this sentence you use also in your other book, but I pray apply it to those who so call for separation from you, my conscience cleares me from any such thing: therefore Sir doe you not use such a sen­tence vainely.

Then you come to answer the weak Argument:

‘Such as the question mentions, dejure ought, and de facto pre excluded from the Lords supper, Ergo, ought also to be excluded from their Infants Baptisme.’

This you say you deny with all the proofes of is, the Proofe is as weake as the [Page 47]consequence, viz. ‘Because Baptisme seales to the same Govenan [...], as the Lords Supper doth. Ergo, if excluded from one Seale, then from the other.’

The proof againe is like to the formar, viz. ‘Because such persons ap­peare peare not to be those to whom the Seal of the Lords Supper doth belong, having no right in those priviledges; therefore Baptisme signifying and fealing as great priviledges as the Lords Supper, they cannot convey a title unto that Seale for their children, but ought to be excluded.’

All is weake that Mr. Cawdrey opposes; there are in Logick those wayes of answering, which Logicians call Solutiones apparcutes, one of them is, [...], this you are well acquainted with, to slight the Argu­ments brought against you, tell your Reader they are weak; and thats halfe and answer at least.

All are not of your minde concerning this Argument: His Vindica­tion of free Admiss. to L. Sup. p. 24. Mr. Humphries saith, those who have gone about to answer this, bad better happily said nothing, for our free course of baptisme, and a deny all of this is such a Seam-rent as will never be hansomly drawns up, though stitchs together. For his judgment in Admission of all to Lords Supper I leave it.

But let us see how weak you shew it: your answer is this,

The Argument ought to procced of the same persons, viz. such as ought to be excluded from the Lords Supper, ought (if now they were to be baptised) also to be excluded from Baptisme for themselves: but this doth not reach the chil­dren, for they being borne Christians, of Christians have right to Bap­tisme.

What Sir, have you catched me in that fallacy, I have taken you so often in? I hope not: I have spoken before to this, the title of the parents and the children is but one and the same.

1. I doubt not but Master Cawdrey conceives there are thousands in England that dejure ought to be excluded the Lords Supper, else be must condemne the Assembly for injudicious men that should trouble the Parliament for an Act, &c.

2. These Mr. Caws yeilds, were they now to be baptised ought not to be baptised, the argument proceeds cleare against them.

3. Yet the children of such parents being bo [...]ne Christians, of such Christi­ans as ought not to be baptised themselves (if they were not baptised) these may: which is strange to me, that children which have their title because borne of such parents they may be baptised, but the parents themselves who give the title, must not:

Therefore I reply, if the argument proceeds so strongly against the pa­rents themselves, then much more against the children, for If may selfe who must have title first for my selfe, and then for my child, ought to be denyed it, then much more my child, whose title is mine, and depends wholly upon me for it: for this I conceive to be a sound truth, if a person have ten or twenty children, and these be baptised because Christians, born of such a parent, then I doe twenty times justifie that the parent from whom [Page 48]these children proceed, have right and title to Baptisme. So that which you say is not a sound assertion, p. 24. (which how it came under the third argument I know not, for it belongs to the first,) viz. ‘If I can give the child one Seale of the Covenant by vertue of the parent, I will give the parent the other, I think is a very sound assertion, it never troubled me as yet.’ But what makes it so? say you, I may see reason to deny the parent the Lords Supper, and yet baptise his child, because more is required of the one then the other.

For the child I require nothing of it, but looke to the parent from whom it derives its tith, if you require any thing of me, saith the child, goe to my parent from whom I descended: why then doe you say, you require more of the one, then the other? neither 2. doe I see what more you are to require of a person to admit him to the Lords Supper, then his child to baptisme: If a person doe visibly appeare to have the condition of the Covenant, he be­ing a Church-member, how you can deny him the Lords Supper I know not: so for baptisme. If there were two conditions of the Covenant of grace, and that Baptisme respected one, and the Lords Supper the other, then there might be some eason, why the Church should looke to one more then another, but I know but of one condition.

Page 21. You say moreover: The young children of members are unfit to be admitted to the Lords Supper, yet not to be excluded from Baptisme, The reason is because more is required to the Lords Supper, then to their Baptisme.

To which I say: 1. If children did as much depend on their parents for the Lords Supper, as they doe for Baptisme, then for ought I know, they may have (as was the old custome) the Lords Supper, as Baptisme.

2. You should have proved that lesse is to be required of those who doe give them title to their Baptisme, then for themselves to the Lords Sup­pe [...].

Page 22. So that whereas you say, all my false consequences are grounded upon my first (false) premised supposition, viz. [ That the child hath no right but in relation to the next parent] (the word next (by your favour) was not there put in, I may consider the Parent and Child, as, argumentum primum & or­tum in Logick: primum babet arguendi vim in se, & à se: ortum in se sed non à se. Its but deri­ved.,) so I say your answer to this argument, runs upon a false supposition, viz. that children are baptized by vertue of a title distinct from their parents, If you can prove that, viz. that the parent requires baptisme for himselfe by one title, and the child by another title distinct from his, then your answer will be strong; else it is as weake and weaker then the argument, which you so much slight: for the rest of your answer, I have spoken to it before, and therefore repeace nothing for the examples of Scripture or History: will you doe nothing but what you have example for? is not argument drawne from Scripture-grounds sufficient for me, though there be not examples set downe? For the personall default I have spoken to it before.

For my Dilemma which you would turne upon me, I see you take that for granted which I have not yeilded, therefore my Dilemma stands as it did before against you.

Page 23. For my Querie (Whether the child may not be suspended in case the parent he [Page 49]suspended continuing obstinate) you would answer me out of principles which are not mine: I pray prove, that juspension is an Ordinance instituted onely with respect to the Lords Supper. Secondly, Being it is cal­led by Divines Excommunicatio Minor. prove that the case now stand­ing with us as now it doth, in beginning of Reformation, wee may not deny the signa gratiae as the Layden professors say, though by reason of the multitude we cannot proceed to Excommunication. 3. Why may we not proceed to non-communion?

My second Argument was this.

‘Such Parents if now they were to be Baptized, ought not to be Baptized, Ergo, they cannot challenge it for their Children: Baptisme belongs primatily to the Parent.’

You againe deny the consequence and the proose of it.

First you say: It is a received maxime amongst the Lawyers, quod fieri non debuit, factum valet: Suppose an unfit person Baptized, his Baptisme is not null, be is a Member till legally exeluded, and so hath right for himselfe and his to be consequent Priviledges.

Hence first those Indians whom the Fryars Baptized in the West Indies without instruction, Heylen. Geog. P. 773. have right and title for themselves and theirs to all Church priviledges. The persons were unfit who were Baptized I an [...] yet saith Mr. Ca. unfitnesse doth not debarre, till excluded. No nor then neither. Let others doe as those Fryars did, yet this Argument holdes.

Secondly, this answer earrieth it, That Baptisme makes a Member of a visible Church: observe his words, suppose an unfit person Baptized, If unfit to be Baptized, then unfit to be a Member. his Bap­tisme is not null, be is a Member: which way came this man to be a Mem­ber? not by his Christianity, (which you use to say) for he is a person unfit you say: but his Baptisme made him thus, which is

First, crosse to your own proposition: Review of Mr. Hoo. P. 94. Baptisme doth not make a man a Member of a Church 1

Secondly, if Baptisme doth make a Member, and consequently gives 2 the title to his Childs Baptisme, Then Constantine, Valentinianes, &c. those who deferred their Baptisme, were so long no Members of the Church, nor could give title to their Childrens Baptisme.

Thirdly, Primum in unoquoque genere est meusura aliorion: so take the first in genere Baptizatorum, what was the cause of their Baptizing; be­cause 3 cause they hearing of the word Taught, Believed, and joyned to the Church; it was not because any other was Baptized, so the same holds now, a person being reputed a Believer and a Church-member [whether in the Parents or otherwise] this is the ground of its Baptisme; then it is not anothers being Baptized that is the ground of my Bap­tisme.

Fourthly, the ground of the sealing of the Covenant, is because the 4 person appeares to be in Covenant, not because it was first sealed to ano­ther. The Child is looked upon within the Covenant by reason of the Parent, as was I shmael before Abraham was circumcised, if in the Cove­nant, [Page 50]then (say you) the child is a Church-member: then it is not the Parents being Baptized that gives the title. Hence your Notion in the same Page 23. [If the Parents sin did annull his own Baptisme, it were a question whether it did not hinder his childes Baptisme] which also implies it is the Parents Baptisme that is the cause of his childes Baptisme] comes to nothing.

Your second answer, is from none of my Principles.

Your third I have spoken to also. I did not expresse excommunication as a qualification in the questions it is true, I have spoken to this also before.

What you have said to the third Argument, I have also spoken to be­fore, my fourth Argument ran thus: ‘[To give the seale of the Cove­nant of grace to a child by vertue of one who appeares to be in covenant with the Devill, is a prophaning of the Ordinance.]’

To this you answer foure wayes, the last I have spoken to, but not the other three, which I will consider.

Page 25. First, you deny that such persons as the Q. memions are visibly in Cove­nant with Satan, especially if tolerated, for so long they are visibly in the externall covenant of the Church.

What you meane by this Externall Covenant of the Church I cannot imagine: not Baptisme I hope; nor the Externall Church covenant wee speake of, and you so much oppose; for the Covenant of grace, they are not visibly under that: there needs no Covenant formally betweene the Devill and us, naturally hee hath us strong enough though wee make no formall Covenants with him. But when are men said to be under the Covenant of Grace? is it not when they,

• 1. Seeke to understand it,
• 2. Choose it as their greatest joy and portion,
• 3. Rejoyce in nothing so as when under the power of it,
• 4. When will not endure to be drawne from under the Dominion of it, but their hearts sinke with sorrow when the old man rebells against it,
• 5. When externally their Conversation answers it,
• 6. When delight in those who are in Covenant with themselves also, &c.

Turne it now, when persons care not for understanding of that Cove­nant, but they are wise in wayes of sinne, choose those wayes, their joy is when they are in the enjoyment of such wayes, cannot endure to be pulled off from them, but troubled when stopped in their course, visibly thus they walke in their course, and choose such for their companions, what shall wee judge of these? What ever Covenant you meane, I am sure they are not under that Covenant visibly, of which Baptisme is a Seale.

3 Secondly, you say, suppose a Person be Excommunicate, and so delivered unto Satan (as the incefluous Person was) yet it were hard to say he were visibly in Covenant with Satan, though at the present under his Power.

To be under a Church-censure, which is appointed for cure of a Person, is far different from the ease now we speak of.

That power of Satan the excommunicate person is under, is an afflicting power, therefore not chosen by the person, as is the other.

Those who are not Excommunicated may be visibly in Covenant with Satan in that sense the Argument speaks of, when one who is Excommu­cated may not be so, as the incestuous person repenting, and sunke with sorrow.

Thirdly, you say, every grosse sin (as in Noah and David, &c.) does not 3 conclude a man visibly in Covenant (with Satan you meane) much lesse ignorance, as in children and youths Baptized.

To this I say 1. If I had not reverenced your grace and Parts, I would have given you another answer, sir it is strange that when I in the proofe of the Minor said, [A person whose course and Trade of Life is to live in sin] that yet you should answer from Noah and David, their particular acts, repented of, &c. You would make me a silly fellow that could not distinguish betweene the course of a mans life (when I expressed it) and a particular act.

2. In Baptizing of Infants, I doe not consider them as ignorant persons, but visible Saints with their Parents, and those must have knowledge.

3. How are we gone from the ignorance of the Parent, to the ignorance of the Infant?

Then you come in with your Epiphonema, [see whither this new way leades its followers.] Yes, I pray see by what you have answered, whither it leades: I think you might have spared your triumphing here, unlesse your answer had beene stronger.

For my fifth Argument, the jumbling of the most prophane and godly in the same Ordinance and under the same Prayers: you tell me I may doe it, so I do but grieve, &c. of this before: but fir when conscience flies in a mans face for giving away the seale of the Covenant to such a one, this will not quiet conscience to tell it, Mr. Gawdrey saith you may do it. You know what Dr. Ames said before.

Page 26. Then you come to the great Objection. The Jewes circumcising of all. My first answer to this Objection was, ‘I would see a proofe that the Priests did debarre many from the Passeover, for morall uncleanenesse, many yeares, (as ours doe from the Supper) and yet had their children circum­cised.’

To this you answer: The Priests are blamed for admitting the Morally uncleane to some Ordinances, but it concernes him to prove where ever they were blamed for circumcising the Children of such. 44. Ezek. 9.

To which I say, 1. That Text speakes of the times under the Gospell, and it cannot be accomplished under the Old Testament, as our Annotations make it cleare, it speakes of a time when circumcision is out of date.

2. Circumcision was never committed to the Priests as now Bap­tisme [Page 52]to the Ministers, therefore there was no blame to them due for that point.

3. Since it respects the Gospell, it concerns those who practise so as if by Sanctuary were meant onely the Lords Supper, to prove that there, where the Priests are blamed for bringing into the Sanctuary such persons, he meanes onely admission to the Lords Supper, those who interpret must prove. It should seeme very faire, that Sauctuary is more then Lords Sup­per, I suppose those who were brought into the Sanctuary might come to the Passeover in old time.

Your second answer is, you Question the Practice of our Ministers, whether it can be justified. I see you are pinched, but no doubt their keeping of that holy Ordinance is justifiable enough.

My second answer was, [I conceived some thing was peculiar to that Church in that Ordinance, and so conceive still. I shall add something more.]

1. In that there was no Minister separated by God to the dispensing of it, as is now of Baptisme: but Parents, Masters, Judges, Men or Women, yea themselve; might administer it.

2. It did not runne to his seed onely as Spirituall, [as doth Bap­tisme now, for onely Believers are Abrahams Seed] but to his Seed as such. The ground indeed of Gods giving of the Seale of the Covenant at first was, because of that Covenant God was in with Abraham, but this Covenant they (many of them) did never regard but reject, taking Circumcision onely to be the Covenant, so being his Seed in whom they did so glory, Mat. 3.9. Joh. 8.39.44. they would circumcise their Children, though the Devill was their Father.

3. From the nature of the Seale and Signe being an abiding Marke in the flesh (which Baptisme is not.) And by that they were distinguish­ed from the Heathens by an apparent marke, it made me thinke there was something God further aimed at in it, in reference to them: which I perceive Justin Martyr will second me in: when Trypho had beene urging the necesity of Circumcisi­on, Dialog. cum Tryph. [...]. hee answers him; God foreseeing you should be scattered, and beaten out of Jerusalem, and not re­turne thither againe, left Circumcision a Marke in your flesh, now by no other note can you be knowne but by your Circumcision. This is part of his answer. And surely there seemes to be something in it, for had it not beene for Circumcision, in these many yeares they have beene scat­tered, they might easily have lost their Distinction from the Gen­tiles, at least abundance of them, but by this they are knowne to this day.

4. This much prevailes with me to thinke something was peculiar, be­cause 17. Gen. 14. Those who were not Circumcised were to be Cut off Whether by the Magistrate, or by Excommunication, as saith learned [Page 53] Gillespy, take it how you will, will you say the same of Infants not baptised? must the Magistrate cut such off? or shall the Church excommunicate all such? I trow Mr. Marshall will take up the Cudgels against you, In his Sermon before the L. Major on Easter Monday. 1652. p. 28. 2. Ed. for he is so farre from thinking that Churches should excommunicate Anabaptists, if godly, that he chargeth that Church with Schisme, which shall deny them Communion because such. Expound it how you will, (so it be true) that wil shew some difference, and argue something was peculiar.

5. I said [when the Jewes came to requite Baptisme, it was not enough we are Abrahams seed, Ergo, baptise us, [this was enough to Circumcision] but John requires Repentance.

To this you answer, it was a new Ordinance, in which Repentance was re­quired in the first parents.

• 1. But what then? though new, it was but a Seale to the same Covenant they were in before, and they being visibly under the same Covenant, why should more be required of them, if there were not some difference between the administrations of these Ordinances?
• 2. But was not Repentance required in Circumcision? did not Circum­cision note the cutting off the Old Man?
  2 Col. ix.
  and is that done without Repen­tance? if repentance were not required there as well as in Baptisme, you wi [...]l confirme me the more, and weaken the arguing from Circumcision to Baptisme, very much in my apprehension.

6. This made me to think so, because when they fell to their foule Apostle [...], yet they Circumcised: I pray Sir speake our plainely, if one of your Mem­bers should sacrifice his children to Mole [...]b, worsh [...]p those vile and uncleane Gods, which they did, would you baptise his child without any more adoe?

If none but such as Maymony (before quoted) saith, ought to be circum­cised, then their Circumcision was irregular, for they threw oft Abrahams way, and his God: but if all Abrahams seed, as such, meerely according to the flesh, had a title to Circumcision, then it was peculiar to them, and they were regularly enough circumcised. But this helps not us.

7. That place Ezra 10.3. the children borne of the strange wives were to be put away, [...] Ut proficiamus: vulg e [...]ici [...]mus; Vata. as well as the strange wives; its very likely they would cir­cumcise them, but yet put away: if they ought not to be circumcised or were not, yet it will imply some difference.

For all the rest to p. 29. I have spoken to before: there after you had condemned my rigidnesse for non-admission of the children of some pa­rents, then you shew your Judgement, that all ought to be Baptized.

1. You say if one Minister will not baptize, another will, [let others doe as they please, I must give account of my Stewardship [...] not his] it will in­crease divisions betwixt Ministers, by others intermedling with their charges. [I was never yet offended with any man who did Baptise the children of such as dwell in our parish: I thought intermedling with other folkes charges had been no offence to the Classicall Government, which will excommunicate a person in another mans charge.]

1. It will make the next generation, no better then Infidels being unbap­tised.

This may prevent abundance of sinne and ignorance, making parents looke about them, working (as experience hath proved in N. England, to reall conversion (as in charity we may judge) at least to knowledge and outward conformity in divers here also in England, in your owne shire: the proofe is made, a godly minister that lives there told me, he will not baptise without a good account given him, and to this day (he told me at the Commencement) two in his parish were unbaptised; the people ob­serving this, he told me they bestirre themselves to get knowledge, and give better account.

This is the fruit already tried, but what then if all Ministers did so?

Because unbaptised, Ergo Infidels, Constantine, Valentinianus and others, were unbaptised a long time, therefore they were Infidels, and Valentinianus dyed an Infidel, because he dyed unbaptised.

This will exasperate parents you say.

Wee must looke for rubs at first, our life is not such as to have the good word and will of every body; but this daintinesse must come downe.

• 1. Whilst we have the civill power to stand by, it may be done the more casily.
• 2. If one of the parents give any comfortable account, it is suffi­cient.
• 3. Wome, their sexe commands them more modesty, and their educa­tion helps, if there be knowledge, they have advantage also of affections, and so easier moved upon by preaching the Word.
• 4. For number, we shall find the most opposition will be in the poorer sort, where horrible ignorance besides prophanenesse abounds.
• 5. It is but visible Saintship that is required; you have said enough, in my opinion, as for maintenance (which you mention) thousands of Mini­sters in England have the advantage of me, N. England voyage having bro­ken and spoyled our Estates, but ordinarily Ministers have Lands of their owne, and some good Glebe-Lands, wherein they are before me.

I observe but two things,

1. For what you say; you would have the Magistrate settle aright Govern­ment which all Congregatious should be bound to submit to.

Sir, you speake of a hard thing, the Magistrate must needes be troubled to know which is that right Government, when there is so much difference among the Ministers who call for it; one sayes it is Classicall Government, another it is Congregationall, and both sides very godly men: The Ark must needes shake when the Oxen stumble.

2. Yet such is the neerenesse of the agreement between the Congregatio­nall, and Classicall Government, that though one be not bound to submit to the other, yet Church-government might goe on well enough, (were it [Page 55]not for this Separation, which will undermine both) if there were brotherly yeilding on both sides but a little; if the peace of the Churches were as much valued as it hath been by other holy men before times, wee would not, we dare not doe as we doe.

The Magistrate doth give leave for these two, which in respect of Go­vernment are so neere, that they need not be called two; but this fearfull blasting of the Ordinances by the sore hand of God, and this horrible dis­union betweene the Congregationall and Classicall men, and others who are godly, say in my heart, there hangs a scourge over both Congregationall and Classicall men, and other professours.

For the rest, p. 30. there is little to answer:

2. For your bringing in the Authority of the civill Magistrate, to reforme our people as Church-members; this will be poore Reformation: I thought Church-members had been formed and reformed, by the sword of the Spirit, not of the Magistrate, they can scarce make better Lawes then they have made, for reforming of Morall vices, I think the fault lyes not in them, they cannot be Judges and Witnesses too.

For your last, p 31. that you would have us presse the conditions of the Cove­nant on those that we baptise, and that is sufficient now.

If I were onely a Teacher this might suffice, but I thinke I am (or should be) a Ruler, as well as a Teacher.

If this be enough, then admit all England to the Lords Supper without scruple.

Thus Sir I have replyed to your Booke, with as much brevity as I could; I know such a man as you are will not be quiet thus, but will write againe; (I foresee some things (and possibly you may make use of my Booke a­gainst the Separation against me) which I could have prevented, but upon some reasons moving me I let them alone:) and it will be hard (though I am but weak) if I should not spy out some things in your writing which I might oppose againe, but I see there will be no end of writing, wherefore I am resolved to make an end; onely if I finde you bring out more strength then yet I have seene, and that which giveth me satisfaction, I will returne you very hearty thanks, and publish it to the world that you have satisfied me; if not, I will be silent.