BEfore I fall upon the Discourse it self, I shall take leave, a little to consider the state of the question. And I desire to be satisfied by the Reverend Authour, whether he intend, that all these quali­fications in his question, must meet joyntly in one man, or he meaneth it separately, and singly of any one of them, as sufficient to debarr his children Baptisme. If joyntly, that all these must con­cur, he will hardly, or very rarely find all these toge­ther in one man. For a man may be grosly ignorant, and yet not of a scandalous conversation: Or very Scanda­lous, and yet very knowing, or both those, and yet no [Page 2] professed s [...]orner of Godliness. Or none of all those, yet (not being convinced of the necessity of it) refuse to submit to Church discipline. If any one of these sing­ly, will strip him of that priviledge, then the last alone will do it, viz. ‘[ Refusal to submit to Church-discipline]’ be a man never so knowing, and godly in conversation. And then, I pray, what differs he from the Independents in their Explicite Church-covenant? This is the Reso­lution of M. Hooker, whom our Author follows in most of his discourse) Survey part 3, p. 11. ‘[ The pinch of the question lyes here, whe­ther persons Non-confoederate (and so in our sence not members of the Church) do entitle their children to the seal of Baptisme, their parents (though godly) being yet unwilling to come into Church-fellowship]’ And he re­solves it Negatively, (as our Authour does, upon his grounds partly, and chiefly.) Inconsist. of Independ. way &c. part 3. But in that special sence, the Diatribe is ready to give him satisfaction: as for the present question before us, Mr. Hooker rejects it, as out of question; for thus he writes; ibid. ‘[ Its not then the question, whether wicked members, while they are tolerated sinfully in the Church, they and their children may partake of the priviledges? for this is beyond question, nor do I know, nor never heard it de­nyed by any of o [...]rs.]’ Had he lived till this time, he might have known, and heard of some of ours, (if not still theirs) this question negatively resolved, and ear­nestly (though modestly) defended. And to say the truth, this question springs from his, and seems a rea­sonable consequence thereof; for if one refusing onely to submit to Church-discipline, loses this priviledge of Ordinances for himself and his, be he never so knowing and godly, it seems very reasonable, that such [Page 3] as were grosly ignorant, and scandalous in their conversa­tion, &c. should much more justly be debarred the same. If it is said, these are Church-members, though sin­fully tolerated, but so are not those that Refuse to come into Church-fellowship: I answer,

1. These are Church members also, at least of the Ca­tholike Church, as more then professours onely, true be­lievers and godly, and therefore are (we think) unjustly debarred the priviledg of Ordinances, for themselves and theirs not being convinced of the necessity of their Church-government; as is largely discoursed in the place aforesaid.

2. We may suppose easily that some, that were from their Infancy Church-members, yet growing up are scru­pled in the point of Church-discipline, and so not willing to submit to it. These also, are yet tolerated (I say not sinfully) in the Church, and so ought not to be debar­red the former Priviledges by his own principles.

3. Our Author, that hath started a new question, (out of question with M ^r. Hooker:) oftentimes pro­fesses, (as we shall hear anon) that the worst of these tolerated (sinfully) while tolerated, have right to Ordinances, for themselves and theirs. And so the controversie were at an end; This principle answers and overthrows all his Arguments. But because, the former Diatribe with M ^r. Hooker, may receive light, and strength from this Contest; I shall take into considerati­on, those things, to which little is said, in that Discourse, as being then out of question.

2 His first premise is this; ‘[ The Infant abstracted from the Parent, gives no reason why it should be Baptized]’ To which (otherwise propounded by M ^r. Hooker) we have [Page 4] answered already; Diatrib. 6. p. 18 [...]. and now explain our selves further, thus.

1. This is not rightly proposed (of all children, or any whatsoever:) as appears, because he speaks indiffe­rently of the child of a Turk, Indian, or Christian, li­ving together in a Parish, or place. A Minister, in such a case, had reason to ask, whose child it is; because two sorts of the three, have no right to Baptisme, for themselves or theirs. But the question intends to speak onely of Christians children; for so it was propoun­ded; not, whether a Minister at large in any place, but of England, where all are Christians, and professe to believe in Jesus Christ: then, it is supposed he would not ask, whose it is in that respect, for it is not onely Home, but a Christian born.

2. If he would (as he may) ask the question, when a Christians child is brought to be Baptized, it is not to know whether he be ignorant, scandalous, not sub­mitting to Church-discipline, &c. or godly (such que­stions were never asked till these last over-curious dayes) but that the Parent may be present, to undertake for the education of the child, in the true Religion.

3 The second premise, is this; ‘[ All children are Bap­tized by virtue of the Parent, one or both, considered in relation to them]’ This is Mr. Hookers second premised conclusion; onely restrained to the next Parents; which is intended by our Authour also: Ibid. p. 187. To which much hath been said; and now we add.

1. This in effect, is the same with the former; That the Negative; the child brings nothing of it self to Baptisme; This the Affirmative; the Parent onely gives it right thereto.

2. It takes for granted (what is denyed) these two things. First, that there is no way to admit a childe to Baptisme, but Parental, by virtue of, and relation to the Parent. Secondly, and that not the pro-parent, or predecessours, but the next Immediate Parent, which are two questions, the first whereof, he medles not with at al.

3. In stating of this second premise, he takes occa­sion to define a Church; ‘[ A Society of visible Saints joyned together, by way of Covenant, &c.]’ where two things are to me observable. 1. That he seems to own no Catholike Church, but a Particular Congregati­on; nor any members of a Church, but of such a Church; For else a new question may arise; whether a man converted to the Faith, but as yet confoederate with no particular Church, but (if of any) onely of the Catholick Church, be to be reputed a Church mem­ber, and have any right to require Baptisme for his child. 2. He requiring an explicite Covenant to such a Church, seems not onely to contradict himself, in his Epistle, where he grants an Implicite Covenant to be sufficient, but also to un-Church most of our English Churches, for want of this Explicite Covenant, and consequently to agree with the Independents, as in that point, so in this, in denying Baptisme to any children, but of members explicitely in Covenant.

4 Having premised thus, he infers this conclusion ‘[ upon this ground, all our Arguments against the Anabaptists stand; and if this be taken away, Infant Baptisme must fall]’ To which I say; Our arguments against the Anabaptists stand not upon this ground only; But their Arguments against Infant Baptisme, stand upon the notion of an Ex­plicite Covenant, to be made by every one that is Bapti­zed. [Page 6] And if we had no better ground, than an Explicite Covenant, our cause must fall. Diatrib. 6. p. 186. The difference is not great: The Anabaptists exclude children, because they are not able to Covenant in person, in the Covenant of grace: The Independents exclude children of Parents not joyned to gether in a Church-Covenant, and so in their sence no Members of a Church, as was said elsewhere.

5 As for that argument pag. 2. charged upon Amesius and others; it is, (I suppose) mistaken. For it is not brought immediately to prove childrens Baptisme, ‘[ Be­cause they are capable of the grace of Baptisme; men al­so being but meer Patients, in the first receiving of it]’ but by way of answer to an objection made against it by the Anabaptists. They plead that children have not, nor are capable of the grace of Faith and Repentance, ergo not to be baptized: Our Divines deny the conse­quence upon this ground. They are capable of grace, as well as men of years, both being alike but Patients in the first receiving of Grace; therefore that can be no barr to their Baptisme. But enough of that.

6 It is not properly spoken, pag. 3. to say, ‘[ The Mora­lity of that command (to Abraham to circumcise his seed, with himself) stands thus, that the children of Believers must have the Imitating seal.]’ The Analogy indeed stands fair, under several dispensations of the same Covenant; that, as circumcision then, so Baptisme how, belongs to believers and their children, unless God reveal himself to the contrary, which concerns Anabaptists to prove, by expresse Scripture, (as he sayes) which they can ne­ver do. Nay the contrary is evidently continued, Act. 2.38. &c. 1 Cor. 7.14. &c. The seed is holy by the Pa­rents. If he should plead a Morality in that command, [Page 7] the Anabaptists would easily deny it, and put the dif­ference; there was expresse Command for childrens Circumcision, not so for their Baptisme; It is enough it can be proved by consequence from Scripture.

7 Concerning the question about predecessours giving right to childrens Baptisme, much need not to be said here, It is largely discussed in the foresaid Diatribe with Mr. Hooker, pag. 188. and afterwards. All that I shal say now, is this. 1. What England was when Austin came into England, we need not much enquire. For we look at England, as many years since reformed, we need not go to many generations past, there are some alive, that had, or have predecessours known to be godly, let the question be of them; and two of them under­taking for the Christian education of the childe. And though it be true, that some people received the Gospel after the example of their Kings, and were Baptized for company (as Simon Magus it seems was) and sup­posing it was but in outward profession onely, yet that was sufficient to give them right to Baptisme, for them­selves and theirs, and consequently they were a true Church, though not a perfect and pure Church. For my part, I should not plead that promise in the second Commandment, shewing mercy to thousands, &c. but rather that to Abraham, ‘[ I am thy God, and the God of thy seed]’ which, whoever will restrain to the next ge­neration onely, it concerns him to prove, by expresse Scripture, (as he required above in a like case, of Ana­baptists) that God is not the God of the seed of a god­ly Christian, in a second or third generation, but onely of the first; which I believe he cannot do.

8 It may truely be said; Though the immediate Parent [Page 8] godly, do give right to his child for Baptisme, yet if that child growing up, prove Scandalous, his Parents godli­nesse doth not give him now right to the Lords Supper, because he himself puts in a bar, to keep him from the Supper; the reason is, because more is required of him for the Supper, than for Baptisme. But then sayes he; ‘[ If so, why doth not the Scandalous life of the Immediate Parent put a bar between the child to be Baptized, and his predecessours?]’ The answer is, the child must not suffer for the Parents personal sin. True (sayes he) for Eternal punishment. But we say, not for Temporal or Spiritual punishments. He replyes; ‘[ Not indeed when it is considered without relation to the Parent; which it cannot in this case, and so may suffer by him]’ To which we answer.

1. The Jews children could no more be considered without relation to their Parents, than ours, yet the wickednesse of a Jew hindred not their Circumcision.

2. We must distinguish between the general state or a Parent, and his Personal wickednesse: If his state be that of an Infidel, the child suffers with him; but if he be for state a Christian, the child is born a Christian, and the Parents Personal sin, is not imputed to the child, to hinder his Baptisme. It hath, besides its relation to its Parent, a Birth-priviledge as born of Christian pre­decessours, and thereby may challenge the seal of Bap­tisme.

3. All this proceeds upon his former supposition, that there is no way to admit children to Baptisme, but the Parent, and that the next and Immediate Parent, which is largely confuted, in the Diatribe, chap. 2.

Lastly, all this discourse is destroyed, by what he [Page 9] often yields, ‘[ That a wicked Parent tolerated, may give right to a childs Baptisme.]’

9 His case, of one in Corinth converted old, having children Infidels, which have also children; ‘[ whether would a minister Baptize the Infants, by virtue of the Grandfather]’ Is not our ease, where both father and grandfather are Christians? Yet what Minister that understands himself, would scruple to Baptize the child of an Infidel Parent, supposing him either dead, or re­signing his child up to the Grandfather, to be Christian­like educated? All that he sayes against it, is but some accidental inconveniences that may follow. As first, ‘[ The Grandfather is old, may dye quickly, before the child grow up, &c.]’ So may the Father, though a Christian and never so godly, yea both the Parents; who then shall take care for it? Again ‘[ The Infidel will not let his fa­ther Baptize the child; who have most right over the child, the father or Grandfather?]’ But suppose the Infi­del willing to give up his child to the Grandfather: what sayes he then? That many things may fall out to hin­der the Act of Baptisme of such an Infant, is nothing to the question: the question is, whether it can hinder its right? If the Grandfather also will undertake for it, or some other friend, what sayes he then? If the mo­ther be a Christian, though the father an Infidel, yet she can give a right to the childes Baptisme: this he con­fesses pag. 10. But the father an Infidel, will not suffer it to be Baptized, or if Baptized, will breed it up in his Idolatry; I ask, as he, ‘[ who hath most right over the child, the father or the mother?]’ yet the child unde­nyably, hath right to Baptisme by the mother. So then, there may be a right to Baptisme, where no power to [Page 10] act it; See Diatrib. p. 188. so it may be in the Grandfather, for ought is yet said.

Its true, that Aquinas saith, in his 8. pag. ‘[ chil­dren of Infidels are not to be Baptized, white they are un­der their care and power, against their wills]’ But this seems to grant, that if they were willingly resigned to the care and power of a Christian undertaker, they might be Baptized, and then the Church does not act against the Law of Nature; which is his fear and needlesse ex­ception.

10 But he renewes his plea; ‘[ Then though there are none to educate this child, for the ignorant profane Parents will not but teach them how to break the Covenant; predeces­sours cannot, they are dead, yet we must seal to this child]’ Let the Church take it, and take care of it say we; But sayes he, ‘[ Where do you see Churches take care of such children, &c.]’ we answer, He need not go far to see this; he may perhaps see it in his own Parish. Our Church or State have ordered very commendably, and charitably, that the children of very Papists, are taken from them, and bred up Protestants. Yea every Parish is ordered to take care of their own poor Orphants. If they cannot, the State, with the charity of good men, hath provided Hospitals and Schooles for such childrens education: we will put him a case. Suppose both the next Parents, being Church-members, dye, and leave In­fants, having no known kindred in, or neer that place: who shall take care of them? we say the Church where­of the Parents were members: for the children bap­tized, are members of that Church, and the Church ought to take care of them. If the Congregational Church, neglect this, they come short of our Paro­chial [Page 11] Churches, though they pretend not onely more piety, but more charity also to their own members. In a Christian Church or State, there ought to be a care of children, of Parents deceased, both in temporal and spiritual respects.

11 And now we are come to the common objection. See ubi Suprae p. 212. ‘[ where shall we stay? how far may we go, for this prede­cessor? how many generations? &c.’ This is fully an­swered elsewhere: we onely once again desire him to prove by expresse Scripture, that the promise ‘[ I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed,]’ extends not onely to the next generation; or to how many generations it is limited. Something he speaks to this purpose, pag. 28. ‘[ We find many promises made to the posterity of god­ly Parents, Gen. 17.7. &c. now if the children of such Parents grow up, and though but young, yet reading they find such promises, or hear of them; it seems these poor children must not lay hold of the promise, and claime it by virtue of their parents, and plead it with God, &c. for sure if God will not so much as give them an outward seal of the Covenant, by virtue of the parent, the poor child cannot plead these promises, which come by the pa­rent]’ Thus he, and well, argued against the Ana­baptists. Do but but change the word parent into pro­genitors, grandfather, or grandmother, and the plea is strong against himself: Lord, I am sure my grandfa­ther, &c. was a godly man, my grandmother, a godly woman; thou hast made many promises to the posterity of such, not onely to the next, but as I think, remote ge­nerations, though my next parents, were both wicked and profane; yet my pre-parents were godly. It seems, by this new Doctrine, to use his own words ‘[ This poor [Page 12] child must not now go and lay hold of this promise, and spread it before God, &c. for surely if God will not so much as give to this grandchild the outward seal of the Cove­nant by virtue of the pro-parent, or grandfather, it can­not plead the promises, which come by him]’ Let his own experience, in making use of these promises, teach him more mercy and charity to grandchildren.

12 But he argues against us, thus: ‘[ If predecessours give right, then the children of an Immediate Parent Aposta­tiz'd from the faith, and excommunicated from the Church may be Baptized, &c. and then the children of our English Apostates in Turky may be baptized, &c.]’ We fear not to affirm, they may, if either they will re­sign them up to those that are Christians, their kindred or others, or any will undertake for their education. But in particular; First, for the case of an Apostate, it is an­swered elsewhere, in the Diatrib. p. 188. And we add now, that an Apostate renouncing his Christanity, re­nounce also with it his Baptisme, and so turns Heathen; and that alters the case, except, as afore, he be willing to give it up, to such as will undertake for it. But then secondly, for the Excommunicate Parents (for if but one be a member, the child hath right to Bap­tisme) for such Parents we say their case is not the same, with an Apostate, or Heathen: For though in some re­spects, an Excommunicate person is worse than an Infidel, (as the Apostle speaks of a man that provides not for his family, though not excommunicated) because he should be better, &c. yet in regard of State and Church-priviledges, he is better.

For first, he is for state still a Christian, and retains his Baptisme, which an Infidel hath not.

2. He is a members still, though diseased much, and a member under cure, (as the leper of old, shut out of the camp was) which an Infidel is not. He is I say, a mem­ber in a large sense, as he speaks of a scandalous person tolerated, p. 41.

3. ‘[ Heathen and non-members of Churches, when they are taken into a Church, they are Baptized]’ they are his own words, pag. 42. But so is not an Excommuni­cate person, therefore his State is better than theirs; He is neither Heathen nor non-member: ergo a member at large.

Fourthly, if in regard of Church-priviledges, he be no better than an Heathen, yet that is still in respect to him­self, not to his child, who being born a Christian of a Christian, hath right to Baptisme, as shall appear in some cases at least. The child that is debarred Baptisme, for the Parents Excommunication; falls into this punish­ment, either when it is born before his Excommunication or after he is Excommunicated; If before his Excom­munication it be born, but not Baptized before he is Ex­communicated, then his Excommunication cannot hinder its Baptisme, for it is born a member of the Church, being born of one that was yet a member, when it was born: and the personal sin of the Parent, cannot prejudice its right: (Baptisme makes not a member, it was one before; as he speaks pag. 25. of a Jewes child, a member before circumcision) whence thus I argue upon his own principles; ‘[ A member of the Church, may be Baptized. But a child of a wicked, not yet excommuni­cated, is born a member; ergo it may be Baptized]’ though it should happen (as it may) that it be not Baptized be­fore the Excommunication. It remains then to say, [Page 14] either it loses this right to Baptisme, if it be born af­ter the parents Excommunication, or not at all. And now we are fallen upon his argument, p. 9. ‘[ If I may Baptize the child of an excommunicate person, then I may Baptize a child of a non-member of a Church, and so of an Indian or Turk, for they are non members, &c. and he is no other, in respect of communion, in Church-priviledges]’ we answer, by distinction of the Assump­tion; I may Baptize the child of a Non-member, that is, of one that at present is accounted no member; as is plain in the case of a child born, but not baptized before the Parents Excommunicated. And therefore this conse­quence of his is unsound; ‘[ If the parent be a non-member, the child is a non-member also]’ for that child is a member born, though the Parents at present stand Excommu­cated. It is true onely of an Infidel, or Apostate; who are no members: but an Excommunicate person, is in some sence a member still, as was said above; and then to Baptize such an one, is not to Baptize a Non-member.

13 That Observation of Reverend Gillespy, from Buxtorf, &c. is not very Orthodox, though true perhaps in the practice of the latter Jews: ‘[ That a child of an ex­communicate, ought not to be circumcised]’ It was, if done, a corrupt Invention, and Tradition of their own, of which there is no ground in Scripture. And there­fore, pag. 32. he does well to wave it.

14 We shall not stand to vindicate those holy and learn­ed men, Zanchy, and Perkins, who plead for the Baptisme of children of Parents Excommunicated, p. 11. That which hath been said, may help towards it, we come to a new question started, p. 13 ‘[ whether profession of faith in Christ, though parents be grosly ignorant, scandalous, [Page 15] &c, be sufficient to make a man, and continue him a mem­ber of the visible Church:]’ To which, we say in ge­neral, That our main question is not about making or continuing a man a member of a Church, but whe­ther a man qualified as in the question, continued and tolerated a member of the Church, can give right to to his childrens Baptisme. And this he doth expresly resolve in the affirmative at least three times. Once thus of a Jewish Parent wicked not excommunicated, ‘[ Doubtlesse so long the immediate Parent was not cast off from giving a right to his child, p. 13.]’ Again, in the same pag ‘[ If a member be very scandalous, and the Church let him alone, that person may challenge any Ordinance in the Church, both Baptisme and Lords Supper:]’ Again pag. 34 ‘[ wicked persons so long as they continue members, and the Church lets them alone, they may challenge Bap­tisme]’ whence I would conclude the contradictory to his conclusion, in this manner. ‘[ The child of a scanda­lous 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 a minister may lawfully Baptize it.]’ All he sayes to this, is this, pag. 13. and 34, ‘[ Our question is, whether such persons should be let alone, is not that Church too blame?]’ But by his favour, the question is not, whether such persons should be suffered, or the Church be too blame to suffer them: but whether such being suffered in the Church, their children ought to be Baptized; and though he undertake the Negative, yet he determins the question here Affirmatively: ‘[ So long as wicked persons continue members, and the Church lets them alone, they may challenge Baptisme.]’ which [Page 16] one sentence confutes, (as it contradicts) both his que­stion and practice, in his refusal to Baptize the children of such; and at once gives us an answer to all his ar­guments following: But we shall further consider what he sayes, to shew his mistakes, and give him fuller satisfaction.

15 The next undertaking is to prove, that such (as in the question) are not fit to be members; first thus: ‘[ Mem­bers are visible Saints; but such are not visible Saints, ergo.]’ 1. We must distinguish between a first admission into a Church, and continuance in a Church, by such as are born of members of a Church: Such, if now to be admitted, in their own persons, are not fit to be members, nor ought to be admitted. But if children of members, prove ignorant or scandalous, they are to be continued, and accounted members, till they be le­gally convicted, and cast out: we grant such a one, ‘[ is not qualified sufficiently, to make a member, nor ought to be continued, continuing such; but the Church ought to reform him, or eject him]’ which are partly his own words. But then, while the Church is in reforming him, he is a member, and consequently hath right to give his child Baptisme. He should have proved, (with re­spect to the first and main question) that such are not members, during the Churches toleration of them, and then infer, their children have no right, because children of Non-members. 2. Church-members and visible Saints, are taken in Scripture, sometimes improperly; even such as in the question, ignorant, scandalous, &c. are sa­luted, with the whole Church as Saints, 1 Cor. 1. &c. and called brethren, 1 Cor. 5.11. 2 Thess. 3.14,15. Now brethren and members are aequivalent terms; if [Page 17] they be accounted brethren, they may be accounted members, in a large sense, as he confesseth pag. 41. 3. when we say a profession of the faith is sufficient to qua­lifie a man to be made or continued a member; we do not mean a bare profession with his mouth, that he believes in Jesus Christ, though visibly he live like an Infidel; but thus at least, when nothing in his life appears to the contrary Conversati­not scanda­lous, he seems to require no more, pag. 43.; though there be yet no great positive signes of his holinesse. Thus we think the Eunuch, at least, Simon Magus was admitted. This indeed is suffici­ent for Admission; but as there must be more to continue such in the Church, so there must be something positive, of obstinacy, in ignorance or grosse wicked­nesse in life, to cast out again. The Church cannot up­on the Negative (if once admitted) cast them out; nay, nor upon positive appearances, but after legal procee­dings with them; therefore so long, they are to be ac­counted members, &c.

16 Upon this ground, his second argument pag. 14. falls also; ‘[ If (sayes he) a bare profession be sufficient, then none can be cast out for the vilest sins, Heresie, &c. because he is the same now, as when he was admitted.]’ The conse­quence is unsound, and proof like it. For when he was first admitted, upon his profession, no such scandal appea­red; but now it doth; therefore he is not the same, that he was, when admitted.

17 The third Argument, is like the former, very weak, ‘[ A Rebel opposing Christ in his visible Kingdom, is not fit to be a member of it, because no subject;]’ I answer, he is not fit to be admitted, if no member before; but fit to be continued till tryal of Reformation be past, and this himself confesseth after, pag. 17. of which here­after. [Page 18] A Rebel is a Subject, (though not an honest Sub­ject) till reformed, or outlawed, or cut off. And we desire to see the place in Scripture, where those, who are within the outward Covenant, are presently dis-cove­nanted, if they walk contrary to the conditions of the Covenant.

18 Object. All are not convinced that Church-discipline is an Ordinance of God?

Answ. ‘[ I speak (saies he) of such as have been convin­ced, and acknowledged it, from Matth. 18.15. but yet would not submit to it]’ Reply. Then say we, a man not convinced of it, may be a member, though he refuse to submit to discipline, if out of ignorance onely of this particular. But this qualification, is not in his question; but generally, ‘[ If he refuse to subject to Church-disci­pline.’

19 To all his Authorities, Ancient and modern, pag. 15. &c. That more then a bare profession is required to make a member, we assent; but still with our distinction, that more is required to the first admission, than to the conti­nuance of one born a member in the Church. And this leads us to that consideration, of a Church to be now con­stituted, & one already constituted, p. 17. The Churches of England are not now in constituting, but a succession for many years. To this he sayes: ‘[ That which constitutes a Church, continues it 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.]’ We 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. The Major, be­cause [Page 19] more is required to a first admission; than to conti­nuance in the Church. As is evident, in men of years converted from Infidels: a personal profession of faith is necessary to such: but their children are admitted, and continued without it, by their Birth priviledg, &c. till they give evidences of their ignorance or scandal, and be orderly proceeded with, for their reformation. And this is his own resolution and remedy to reform them without a new constitution, for so he sayes: ‘[ Let Churches be constitute according to the rule, and so con­tinued; or (mark it) exercise discipline, and reduce them to their first constitution]’ This makes it clear, that there is another way to reform a constituted, but corrupted Church, than first to constitute a Church; viz. disci­pline. But then I would object.

1. How can we exercise discipline, (I say not where no Government is settled, but) when the parties refuse to submit to discipline, as not convinced of the Divine Au­thority of it?

2. Would he have men, ignorant or scandalous, or refusers of discipline, suddenly ejected? Not so, he sayes, ‘[ Not that I mean we fall presently upon excom­munication, before we have tryed other means, and pati­ently waited.]’ Well, then the person is yet a member, and the Church, a Church in being, or constituted (else no discipline could be exercised by it) though cor­rupted: then have those members under cure, right to all Ordinances for themselves, and theirs: and so the Church needs no new constitution▪ But if his arguing be good, our Churches are no true Churches, our mem­bers, no true members, for the greatest part, having no right to Ordinances for themselves, or theirs (why else [Page 20] are they debarred from both Sacraments) and so we are at once un-churched, and dismembred, and a new frame to be moulded, which is flat Independentisme, Brownisme, (if not Anabaptisme) which this our Authour seems to have renounced.

20 And now his arguments will be easily dissolved. The first is this: ‘[ Such persons (as the question mentions) de jure ought, and de facto are excluded from the Lords Sup­per, therfore they ought to be excluded from their childrens Baptisme.]’ First, I deny the Antecedent, in the first part of it. Some of the persons mentioned in the que­stion, ought not de jure to be excluded from the Lords Supper; as namely, such as refuse to submit to discipline, if godly, but not convinced yet of the divine Autho­rity of discipline. This is nothing but the rigid way of the Independents, who exclude from the Lords Supper, and Church-communion, those that cannot subscribe to their Church Covenant Explicite, be they never so god­ly and knowing, as was said above. Secondly, all those that the question mentions, ought not to be excluded from the Lords Supper, while they are tolerated in the Church. This is his own confession often: and conse­quently ought not to be excluded from their childrens Baptisme. Then for the latter part, that they are de facto excluded, admits a question, whether they are not unjustly excluded. And it is resolved to be so, not on­ly by Mr. Jeans his arguments; but as a consequence of the former: If de jure, they ought not to be excluded, then de facto, they are unjustly excluded: which is worthy all Ministers consideration, who for many years have had no Sacraments for fear of admitting such, as the question mentions: whereby, pretending [Page 21] they want power of an Eldership, no Government be­ing settled, they usurp (inconsiderately perhaps) a power above the Elderships to exclude, not onely such, but their whole Parish, by their own single power: But see into what streights the New way hath brought us? They cryed out of our Churches, and separated from them, because of our mixt communions; And now Ministers abstaining from the administration of the Supper, for fear of a mixture; they cry out again, and call people to separate from us, because we want an Ordinance. The Lord judge between us in this mat­ter. But now for the consequence, ‘[ that therefore they ought to be excluded from their childrens Baptisme;]’ it is also denyed, and all the proofs thereof. For it should proceed of the same, not of several persons, thus; Those that de jure ought, and de facto are exclu­ded from the Lords Supper, ought (if now they were to be Baptized) also to be excluded from Baptisme for themselves. As backward, if excluded justly from Baptisme, much more from the Lords Supper. But it holds not with respect to their children; (as we have heard by his own confession.) 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. The proof is as weak, as the consequence; ‘[ Baptisme seals to the same Covenant, as the Lords Supper doth ergo, if excluded from one they ought to be exclud [...]d from the other.]’ It holds good against themselves, not their children. The proofe of this is like the former; ‘[ The ground of exclusion from both, is the same, viz: be­cause those persons appear not such, as to whom those pri­viledges do belong:]’ this is false in respect to their [Page 22] children: And all these consequences are grounded up­on his first (false) premised supposition, at the begin­ing; viz. ‘[ that the child hath no right, but in relation to the next Parent]’ which is confuted above. And now we add briefly. 1. Its Birth-priviledge, that being born a Christian of a Christian gives it right, as of old to circumcision. 2. It may have right from a grandfa­ther, or by adoption, &c. 3. Neither the Scripture nor any History (that we remember) gives an instance, that the personal default of a Christian Parent Baptized, ever hindred the child from Baptisme. 4. Himself con­futes his own argument, by often granting, that such (as in the question) tolerated by the Church, have right for themselves and theirs: Let him consider it.

Whereupon, his observation pag. 19. of admitting the children to Baptisme, in the afternoone, whose Parents in the morning were excluded from the Supper, need not seem so strange, and his Dilemma may be retorted upon himself, thus: He grants, a wicked person tolerated, may be admitted to the Lords Supper, and his child to Baptisme; onely he sayes, de jure he ought to be exclu­ded. Now I would ask, (as he) does such a man ap­pear to be under the Covenant of Grace or no? If so, why should he de jure be excluded? If not, why should he, de facto, be admitted? or why does he give Baptisme to the childe, which (sayes he) must suppose the Parent to be within the Covenant? So here is a believer, and no believer, in a short time, and yet the same man. Let him answer one, and both.

21 He grants Suspension from the Lords Supper, in some sence; pag. 19. of one fallen into some grosse sin: and I think, he does not deny Baptisme to the children of such, which if he yield, he destroyes his own argu­ment [Page 23] and question. As for his Quaere, ‘[ whether if the parent be suspended from the Supper, his child may not also be suspended for the present, till he repent, being the child depends on the Parent, &c.]’ may be thus answer­ed, by his own principles: The Parent, though suspen­ded from the Supper, is yet a Church-member, till he be Excommunicated, then hath he right to give his child Baptisme. If the Parents sin, did annul his own Bap­tisme or render him an Heathen again, it were a question whether it did not hinder his childes Baptisme. But suspension does not that, nor excommunication but ut­ter Apostacy onely: Besides, it would be proved, that that which suspends from one priviledge suspends from all: and that for his child, as well as for himself. The child (we say) having a native right, it seems unreasona­ble and injurious, that the Parents personal fault, should suspend it. Else in this case there is no difference, be­tween the child of a Christian and of an Infidel.

22 The next argument proceeds thus. ‘[ Such Parents, if they were now to be Baptized, ought not to be Baptized; ergo, cannot challenge it for their children. The reason is, because Baptisme belongs primarily to the Parent, if ergo, he have no right, he can give none]’ The consequence is again denyed, and the proof of it;

For first, it a received Maxime amongst the Lawyers; Quod fieri non debuit, factum valet. Suppose an unfit person Baptized, his Baptisme is not null, he is a mem­ber till legally excluded, and so hath right for himself and his, to the consequent priviledges.

2. He confutes this argument also, by granting, a wicked member tolerated, to have right to all Ordinan­ces; yet if he were now to be Baptized, he ought not so to be accounted.

3. His reason is of no force: for it should thus pro­ceed, because Beptisme belongs, both primarily, and onely to the next parent, which we have above denyed, and disproved. In a word; this argument holds onely in respect to the person himself, not to his child. For certainly the child that is Baptized when an Infant, be­ing the child of a member, had right to Baptisme then, though if when it growes up, it proves ignorant or scan­dalous, we may truly say, if he were now to be Baptized, he ought not to be Baptized. Hence it may appear, that the question will fall onely upon such persons when Excommunicate, which yet is no qualification, expressed in his question: For till they are ejected, they have right (by his own confession) for himself and theirs. But of Excommunicate Persons, we have spoken above.

The third argument is like the former: ‘[ Such a Pa­rent, is no disciple, ergo, the child is none: and then Ministers are not bound to baptize it, by their Commissi­on]’ we answer, 1. That Commission was for the first gathering of Churches; not of Churches constituted; 2. We have proved above, the child may be a mem­ber, when the Parent at present is none, being Excom­municated. Now a disciple and a member, is all one. 3. Such Parents tolerated are members, and so disciples; ergo, the child is a disciple. That then is not a sound asserti­on, pag. 20. ‘[ If I can give the child one seal of the Co­venant, by virtue of the Parent, I will give the Parent the other]’ for I may see reason to deny the Parent the Lords Supper, and yet Baptize his child: because more is required of the one, than of the other.

24 His fourth Argument runs thus: ‘[ To give the seal to the child of one visibly in Covenant with the Devil, is a [Page 25] profaning of the Ordinance, &c.]’ But we deny that eve­ry ignorant, scandalous person, and the rest in the que­stion, is visibly in Covenant with the devil; especially if tolerated by the Church, for so long he is visibly in the external Covenant of the Church. 2. Suppose the person be Excommunicate, and so delivered unto Satan, (as the incestuous person was) yet it were hard to say, he were visibly in Covenant with Satan, though at pre­sent under his power. 3. Every grosse sin (as in Noah, David, &c.) does not conclude a man visibly in Cove­nant; Diatrib. p. 190 much lesse ignorance, as in children and youths Baptized. 2. Last of all, one not convinced, and there­fore not submitting unto discipline. See whether this new way leads its followers.

25 His fifth argument is taken from mischiefs attending the common Baptizing of the children of such; ‘[1. The slighting of this Ordinance; without any preparation to it.]’ But all this may be amended by pressing the due reverence to this, as to the other Sacrament; better then by debarring the child its right, for the Parents fault. 2. ‘[ Its a jumbling of the children of the most ho­ly with the profanest, &c.]’ This falls upon himself; For if the wicked Parents be tolerated, he will not, he may not deny to Baptize their children; no more, than of the holiest Parent. He may grieve that he cannot reform this abuse, but need not scruple to Baptize their chil­dren; nor to pray for them, as for the other.

26 And now he comes to the great objection; ‘[ The Jews, though very wicked, had their children circumci­sed, ergo.]’ He answers many wayes.

1. He mentions again that observation of Gillespy, that some said, ‘[ that the children of Excommunicated [Page 26] Jews were not circumcised]’ But he does well to wave it; as for what we said to it above; so because it is nothing to the question, which is not of excommunicated pa­rents, but wicked Parents tolerated.

2. ‘[ He supposes they were not so guilty of ignorance, as many of ours.]’ But thats nothing to the question; their children were as ignorant as ours, and the Parents never Excommunicated for ignorance, nor their children denyed circumcision for that reason. But closer to the point he sayes.

3. He would see a proof, ‘[ that the Priests did debar many from the Passeover, for moral uncleanness, many years, as ours do from the Supper, and yet had their chil­dren circumcised]’ We answer. 1. The Priests are blamed for admitting the morally unclean, to some Or­dinances, but it concerns him to prove, where ever they were blamed, for circumcising the children of such. See Ezech. 44.7.9. cited by himself, pag. 35. to the same end. 2. It is doubtful at least, whether the practise of those ministers can be justified, who suspend any so long from the Supper, and yet Baptize their children: therefore that can be no safe ground to debar children of such from Baptisme: Of which see Mr. Jeanes.

4. He conceives ‘[ Something peculiar to them, in that National constitution, from ours: Gods enters Covenant with Abraham, and his family; commands him to cir­cumcise his seed: the constitution of our Churches, does not begin with any particular person; but makes disciples, and Baptize them]’ But this makes no great difference: For a Church Christian may begin with a person and his familie; Suppose one of a numerous family, when he is discipled, his house is discipled with him; and there may be a Church in his house; yea every houshol­der [Page 27] converted to the faith, was a child of Abraham, in one sense; and a root to his posterity in another, and so the promise is made to him and his seed, not onely of the next, but of remoter generations, till they Apo­state, as Ishmael and Esau did: He yields pag. 33. that descent by the flesh, was one, though not the sole ground of circumcision. And so it is now, 1 Cor. 7.14. Let us see what was peculiar to them.

1. ‘[ When they came to Johns Baptisme, it was not suf­ficient to plead, we are Abrahams seed, ergo, Baptize us.]’ True, because this was a new dispensation, a new Ordi­nance, to which repentance was required in the first Pa­rents, but not of their Infants. And just so it was in Circumcision of Proselytes, to the Jewish Religion.

2. ‘[ When they fell to foul Apostacy, their children were still Circumcised, whether regularly, he leaves it.]’ Yes regularly, for ought appears to the contrary: The Rule was, ‘[ Abraham and his seed must be circumcised.]’ And so the proportion holds for Baptism. If the parents fall into Apostacy, the children may regularly be baptiz­ed, for ought appears in the Gospel to the contrary, if they will give them up to their pro-parents or friends, and they will undertake for them. And in such a case a Minister would Baptize them.

3. ‘[ They were very exact in admission of Heathens: more required, than to professe they did believe in God, &c.]’ So would we be, in admission of Infidels: but thats nothing to admission of their children.

4. 28 ‘[ It is true, that wicked Jews being members of that Church National, might challenge circumcision, so for wicked persons, so long as they continue members, and the Church lets them alone, they may challenge Baptisme.]’ Now this expresly yields both the present argument, [Page 28] from the Jews, to be good: and also the main question, that such persons, if tolerated, may give right to their childrens Baptisme, and Ministers not onely may, but are bound to Baptize them, against which he hath all this while disputed. Onely he sayes; ‘[ Our question is, whether such persons should be let alone? is not that Church too blame? ought such de jure to be members?]’ No, the question was, whether such persons, while suffered in the Church, have right to give their children Baptisme? And that is fully granted.

5. 29 For more exactnesse in the Churches of the Gospel, in divers respects, we dissent not, so it be not beyond the Rule. But as he dislikes the rigidnesse, which some (he means the Independents) would have, in admission of members, to Church-communion, so we dislike his ri­gidnesse, in admission of children to Baptisme.

30 All that discourse concerning the sense of 1 Cor. 5.11. for many pages together, I purposely passe by, as lead­ing into another controversie. I shall onely consider, that Question propounded, pag. 42. as his Advice for the Re­formation of our Congregations, which is this; ‘[ Whether it were not better for the Ministers of England, as they do suspend persons from the Lords Supper, so also for a time to suspend them from Baptizing their children, and in the mean time, Ministers to follow Catechizing close, &c?]’ To which I have these things to say.

1. It proceeds upon an erroneous, at least a doubtful practice, that Ministers have done well, in suspending so long, such men, their whole Parishes, from the Lords Supper; of which something hath been said above. This way as it hath given occasion to some to separate, and joyn themselves to Independent Churches, as want­ing with us an Ordinance; so it hath made others [Page 29] more profane than before, who were something awed, by their approaches to that Sacrament.

2. For the Inference from that practice; I say, If they did, and do well, in suspending such from the Sup­per, yet it is not safe or expedient (in my judgment) to suspend them from the other, for their children, as things now stand in England: for besides what hath been said, in behalf of poor children above, I ob­serve.

1. If one Baptize them not, another of another Judg­ment shall, and will, and who can hinder it? This in­creaseth the D [...]visions betwixt ministers, by others in­termedling within their charges, and Congrega­tions.

2. This will be one way, to make the next generati­on, no better than Infidels, for the most part, being all unbaptized; or else profane and ignorant, as being without the care of the Churches.

3. This will exasperate the Parents, being profane and desperate enough already, against their Ministers, and so not onely prejudice them in their maintenance (how­ever he findes it otherwise by the power of some friends) but also alienate their minds more from the de­sired Reformation.

4. This is contrary to the expresse Rule, to punish the poor children for the Parents personal faults; at least in some cases, as is manifested above.

5. This is contrary to his own principles, who hath often granted, that while such Parents (as in the que­stion) are suffered in the Church, they have right for themselves and theirs, ‘[ and you must not deny it, if you own them for Church-members, however custome hath [Page 30] prevailed to the exclusion of them from it, without regu­lar proceeding, &c.]’ pag. 42. If the Church shall tolerate such evils, &c. they cannot de­ny them the pri­viledg of mem­bers, Survey, part 3. p. 11. and he instan­ces in the Church of Sar­dis, &c. Now both Mr. Hooker, Survey, part 3. pag. 11. and himself hath often yield­ed them to be members to all priviledges of the Church, while (sinfully) tolerated. And as for that regular proceeding to reform them by suspension, or eject them by Excommunication, it is not in the power of any Minister alone, and therefore not onely unjust if they should usurp it, but also impossible, as our Churches yet stand, for the most part, unpresbytered, and without a settled Government. Whence a new ground of obloquie and reproach, would be offered to Ana­baptists and Independents, yea and to profane people too, to charge our Churches, at least our Ministers as An­tichristian, for usurping not onely a Bishop-like, but a Pope-like power in every Parish; the thing so much fea­red in the Presbytery.

31 What remains then, but that it were a better way to reform our Congregations; if the Magistrates could be prevailed with, to settle a right Government in the Church, which all Congregations should be bound to submit to, or else to execute Justice upon notorious Offendors, and scandalous persons; the Ministers in the mean time, ‘[ following Catechizing close, to breed knowledg in their people, and labouring to reform them from a scandalous conversation, by all the gentle perswa­sions, and meeknesse of wisdom, which God shall give them:]’ that so, when the Authority of the Magistrate hath civillized at least their conversation, and by Cate­chizing, they have gotten knowledg, we may then with more comfort give them the priviledge of both the Ordinances. In the mean time, (such are the [Page] straits some men have brought us into) no better way (in my shallow head) than to presse hard upon such Pa­rents, the conditions of the Covenant of grace, at the times of Baptisme, or other times, the duties of Parents with respect to their own Baptisme, and their childrens; as by this seal, engaged both of them to be Gods people, that is, ‘[ to know him, to fear him, to love him, to trust in him, to delight in him, and to obey him in all his holy commands delivered in the Word;]’ and all this, as they expect the performance of the Covenant on Gods part, to be their God. By all which faithfully and earnestly pressed upon them, they may, (by the blessing of God, upon our labours) be qualified according to his own Rules, delivered in his Epistle, by which he practices; viz. ‘[1. See and profess the sense of their own undone condition by sin, and utter inability to help themselves; but by relying upon Christ. 2. Have com­petent knowledg. 3. Have their conversation such, as doth not cross their profession, by living in any known sin, or omitting any known duty, as praying and Catechising in their families, &c. And lastly, profess (if it be necessa­ry) their subjection to discipline;]’ to tye them faster by a new obligation, to a duty, to which they were bound before, by their Covenant of Christianity.