A Serious QUESTION STATED: Viz: Whether the Ministers of England are bound by the Word of God to Baptize the Children of all such Parents which say, they believe in Jesus Christ; but are grossly ignorant, scandalous in their Conversations, Scoffers at godliness, and refuse to submit to Church-Discipline?  
THE Negative( with submission to better Judgements,) is modestly defended. Some things that concern our congregational Churches are, in the Epistle to the Reader briefly touched.  
AS ALSO A little Addition made to the controversy against the Anabaptists, in the following Discourse,  
By G: Firmin, Minister to the Church in Shalford in Essex.  1 COR: 4.2. Moreover it is required in Stewards that a man be found faithful. 
LONDON Printed by R: I: for Stephen Bowtell at the sign of the Bible in Popes head-Alley. MDCLI.   

TO THE Courteous Reader.  
IT is very uncomfortable when two Physitians shall join together to cure the same sick person, that these two cannot agree, neither in the Disease what it is, nor in the causes of the Disease, nor in their prognostics, nor in their indications of cure. It is so with us in regard of England( the sick Patient) the children of God[ and especially those who are such in the Magistracy and ministry] should be they( under God) who should help to heal the Nation: But such is the different judgement among these, they neither agree in the Causes of the Disease; nor in the indications of Cure, nor in their prognostics; but some foretell glorious healthful dayes coming, nay, the light already appears: Some others say, they are very sad daies, and fear what will become of the sick Nation. Rob. Purnell 
In his word to the Presbyterians. They do but dream he saith, in saying these are bad times, p. 66.  wonders to hear any say they are sad times, in bis learned Epistle( forsooth) to the presbyterial Ministers, wherein be takes upon him to imitate Christ, telling them( as other Churches) what he observes commendable in them, but then tells them he hath a few things against them,( Sir, a little more reverence would well have become you;) then he falls upon them for saying they are sad times. If I should say the Church enjoys nothing desirable, I should bee very injurious to God and Man; I shall at the end of my discourse set down a great benefit we have, but yet let me tell him, in divers respects they may well be called sad times. As  
1 Sad times, When apostasy among professors abounds.  
2 Sad times, When the converting power of the Ordinances is gone; we see not God in this respect as we have done heretofore, whether any men( as second causes) in casting scorn upon the ministry, be any hindrance here[ what ever the Decrees of God be, which are none of our rules] let them provide to answer for that.  
3 Sad times, When God is so dark to his own people, who have found him heretofore, could walk in the light of his countenance and have their conversations in some measure as become Saints, but now they walk in the dark, and are so beset with temptations, that they have much a do to hold up, yet God seems not to regard prayers. Most sincere Christians that I meet with, complain of this.  
4 Sad times, When those for whom Christ hath  shed his blood, are ready to  shed the blood one of another.  
5 Sad times, When Christians that enjoy all the Ordinances and Liberties which Christ hath left to his Church, yet they cannot tell how to walk humbly and regularly under them, but if a whim take them in the head, Officers must stoop to their humours and errors, or else they crack, and rend all into pieces, making no more of unity[ for which Christ prayed, and to which Paul from Christ so much exhorted] then of the dirt under their shoes.  
6 Sad times, When Errors, Heresies and schisms abound, yea, and those who seemed to be true Christians, shall receive that for true doctrine, which before they would have abhorred, as the doctrine of arminianism, which doctrine I wonder how any that have any experience of God in their own hearts can receive: nay, if it were true, they cannot receive it, it is so opposite to what experience[ besides the Word] witness daily.  
Was not the idol of free-will heretofore esteemed among Christians as an Image of jealousy; if any had in their Sermons set it up, would not they with indignation have cried it down? but now that poison is drunk down and esteemed wholesome liquour.  
Is it not sufficient to say the will acts as freely in Conversion,[ is as clear from all coaction] as it did in sinning? it is led by as pure rational grounds, and complains not of the least hindrance of its freedom, witness those strong desires, earnest affections wherewith the soul is carried till it come to in joy Christ Jesus, and that sweet joy and content the heart findeth in possessing of him: the will was free sure in this; nay I think it no false divinity to say, that quantum ad actus elicitos, The will cannot be compelled by the blessed God himself. For What is such an act but inclinatio quaedam procedens ab interiori principio cognoscente; and since that motus coactus sit à principio extrinseco passo non conferente vim, i.e. resistente per propriam inclinationem, tum si voluntas, cogi potest ad volendum aliquid, velvet& nollet idem objectum, quod est impossibile.  
But though I say the will is thus free, yet I say with Alvarez. 
De Auxil. diu. gra: disp: 57.  Deus per auxilium gratiae praevenientis, elevat intellectum& voluntatem,& eam movet, ut eliciat actus supernaturales: sieve illi sint liberi, aut deliberati, sivè indeliberati: cum ante hujusmodi auxilium, nullam habeat proximam virtutem; vel activitatem intellectus noster& voluntas, ad eliciendos actus supernaturales, etiam ind liberatos,& ut aiunt, primo primos.  
I say also with him, 
Disp. 19.  quod omnis causa secunda, sivè naturalis, sieve libera in ordine ad illud praevium auxilium Dei, se habet Passivè. Though a man be converted, and have grace.  
There is enough said in his 18, 20, 21, 22, 23. Disputations to crush this Idol.  
I could quote enough out of Bradwardin also, l. 1. c. 40, 41, 
De causa Dei, l. 3. c. 29.  42. and l. 2. c. 7. and 9. But I will content myself with one passage which did much move me when I red it. Dico, illum nolo pro Deo nostro habere, qui non sit oimpotens in agendo, qui non habeat omnipotentiffimum dominatum supper meam debilem voluntatem, qui non posset omnipotentissimè facere me velle& facere quicquid velvet, qui non habeat voluntatem universaliter efficacem, infrustrabilem& necessariam in causando, imo cujus voluntas non sit mihi necessitas, &c. Could an Arch-Bishop of Canterbury in the midnight of Popery[ for it is above 300 years since Bradwardin dyed] and could an Arch Bishop of spain, see so much cause to exalt Free grace, and debase Free will, and shall English Professors now cry up this idol, when Grace and Christ have been so long taught?  
So that other vile uncomfortable error, of final falling away from true grace once received.  
Is the Surety of the new Covenant grown so poor? Heb: 7.22.  
Is the Promise now come to be nay, and yea? 2 Cor: 1.20.  
Is the Power of God grown weak? 1 Pet: 1.5. can it not preserve my faith also?  
Is the Decreeing will of God become mutable? 2 Tim: 2.19.  
Is the Free eternal Love of God, become unconstant? Joh: 13.1.  
What saith Bradwardin: 
De causa Dei. l. 1. c. 43.  Credo, quòd Deus intrinsecè quantum scilicet ad actum seu affectum intrinsecum voluntatis, semper omnino aequaliter, aequè gratuitò, aeque charè dilexit, diligit,& diliget, justificandum, seu justicatum quemcunque, put a Paulum, antè conversionem, in ipsa,& post ipsam.  
Alvarez saith, Perseverantia est Donum, non omnibus commune said praedestinatorum proprium, so say we; 
De auxil diu. gra. disp. 107. n. 2.  but he saith moreover. Donum perseverantiae, in ratione Doni perseverantiae,& efficatia illius, non dependet etiam ut a conditione, sine qua non, 
Ib: disp. 122. n. 18.  ex cooperatione nostri arbitrii, said ex proposito, decreto Dei absoluto efficient, ut homo usque in finem perseveret.  
There is a 7th. yet to add. Sad times, When godly men shall take up such principles which if they be followed, will undermine and destroy all our reformation, which have cost so many prayers, and such vast expenses of estates, lives, and blood. Let this be one, If errors be not in the fundamentals, we should indeed labour to convince Christians, but if we cannot, we must go no further, but must carry ourselves to such persons in all Church respects as we do to the Orthodox and Godly. When we ask what do you call fundamentals? we find they are penned up in a very narrow compass: a foundation we know is that which lieth in the lowest place of the building, and beareth up all that is built upon it; and remove that, you destroy the building: That then must be a fundamental point upon which our salvation is so built, as deny that, and you destroy our salvation. Arminianism is denied to be within this compass of fundamentals, by these godly men as I have heard them, yea, such men as I am sure are clear enough from Arminianism, and such as I much reverence. Then let us follow this opinion.  
Suppose then there be in a Church some members who deny baptism, they aclowledge no such thing, neither of Infants nor others, but onely the inward baptism of the spirit( as I know such) these then you must labour to convince, but if they will not be convinced you must proceed no further,[ for I believe you will not say a man cannot be saved without Baptism, that then is no fundamental point] these persons being let alone infect others: so at last baptism is lost in that Church, and if it be lost in one Church, it may be in two, &c.  
So for the Lords Supper; suppose others should deny that, as I know one who hath been reputed for a very godly Christian, and is I believe still so reputed by many. A brother of mine being in discourse with this person about the Lords Supper, the Party did affirm unto him, He might go to the Bakers shop, and take a loaf there, and it would do him as much good as that, i.e. the bread in the Sacrament. We know if we consider the Bread as bread only, that bread will do no good; but the Party spake in way of scorn of the Sacrament, as the speech also implies. Suppose many more be of that mind in a Church, as now we know how many are above Ordinances; yea, and I have heard them who I believe are truly godly, say for the Sacraments, they are external things;[ but with your favour, they have Divine Authority for their institution, they have the Spirit of God to attend them] and so long as they had Preaching and Prayer they did not much stand upon them, though I am persuaded they would enjoy them if they could to their mind: but if once this notion, they are external things[ and so are all Ordinances, though some the light of Nature do more dictate, others are more juris positivi] be taken in, we may fear what will be next; now I say, suppose your Members should deny the Lords Supper, you must labour to convince them, but proceed no further; for I hope you do not tie salvation to this; if so, then those Ministers have done very ill, that have had no Sacraments for divers yeares together: The Lords Supper, that is gone also by this opinion.  
So for Discipline, that the Erastians tell us, doth not belong to the Church, but to the Civill Magistrate; and some Churches have wanted it also: That is gone also by this opinion.  
For singing of psalms, that is esteemed ridiculous, and omitted by abundance of Church Members. Some deny the Ordinance,( as I know such) some omit it under a whim of the mixed multitude, such we have in some Churches, whose consciences are very tender, for joining with mixed multitudes in such Ordinances; but if you ask what persons are these in their conversations, I can say, that for pride, and for following of fashions they are so noted, that most do abhor them, where they live. O tender Conscience.  
We have no Ordinances left then, but Prayer and Preaching, for preaching by persons in office, that is cried down, a gifted Brother is as good as any Black-coate. As for Prayer, when the Spirit moves us[ suppose but once in a month, or quarter of a year] then we will pray, and not else; so that for my part I cannot see but this Opinion will stub up all the Ordinances; where then is our Reformation that hath cost so much?  
These few things I have mentioned, that Rob. Purnell may see the presbyterial Ministers are not in a dream when they say, they are sad times; when God heals these things, I believe they will say, they are good times.  
If you say, No, I doubt they will not, they must have your congregational Churches down first.  
I believe for many of them, sober, moderate, learned, and godly men, they do not stand upon that, if congregational men would but forbear one thing; and for my part[ with respect to our congregational men] I must needs join with the presbyterial brethren in that point, as I have done ever since I came into England: that is in this. Suppose a godly Ministerable, &c. liveth in a Parish, he hath twenty or more, it may be a hundred, 
Dedham,  nay two hundred visible Saints in his Parish; they all have this liberty, if any come to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, who are known to any of the Brethren to be guilty of some sins, which make them unfit for the Ordinance. Let them come in and testify against them,[ which they must do in any Church however constituted] they are debarred unless they can give satisfaction, all persons are, besides all examined by the Officers; the Brethren have free power given them in election of Officers[ as in Dedham] where the Ministers gave the people so much liberty in the choice of their ruling Elders, that they would not so much as nominate any, but freely left it to the Fraternity, to nominate the persons whom they would have, as the case stood in that Church there might be some reason, but else I should( under favour) blame those Ministers for doing so; were not you members of the Church as well as they? and ought not you,( having more skill to judge of the fitness of a person for the Office) to have gone before them in the Election?] but yet all this will not do, though they called the Minister, or Ministers to the place, have joined with them in all Ordinances before, constantly attended upon their ministry, have this liberty granted, and may partake in Ordinances without sin, yet a great part of these depart from the Officer, from the Church, 
His Preface to his survey of Chur. Disc.  Schismatically[ I cannot esteem it less] and another Minister living by, he takes these into his Church. Holy Hooker thought, To separate from Congregations for want of some Ordinances, or to separate from the true Worship of God, because of the sin of some Worshippers, is unlawful.  
If congregational men would take what they find in their own Parishes, and if there be another Parish by, where there is no Minister[ as such there are] or if so few fit to partake of the Lords Supper, that the Minister cannot with comfort administer it in his own Parish, and so himself, and the few he hath join with this Church; or if a Minister will give his consent to let his people join with this congregational Church; I know the presbyterial Ministers will allow this, for they practise it themselves, if indeed there be no Minister in a place, and afterward a godly man be chosen into the Parish then they would resign up those Members which live in his Parish to him again, and this is good; for my part, those who will not be content with this, but will practise according to that dividing Principle that some do, to take away the godly Christians against a godly Ministers consent, when he hath sufficient comfortably to go through all Ordinances, that man shall not be esteemed in my heart for one who followeth peace, but a seeker of division.  
If any Christian have a mind to enjoy something which may be had in another Church, let him.[ I know what could be said here] remove his dwelling into that town, and then there is no offence given; if you think it will hinder you a little in your estate, &c. friend, they who went to New England for true Liberty of Conscience, payed dearer for it then you do here.  
Neither am I satisfied concerning the practices of some congregational Churches here, as 1. In that ridged examination they make of their Members( some I am sure, whether all their Members are so examined I know not:) The Rules I have set down are these. 1. A Person professing the sense of his undone condition by sin, an utter emptiness in himself to help himself out from that condition, and so professeth his relying upon Jesus Christ only for salvation. 2. His knowledge competent. 3. His Conversation such as doth not cross his Profession, by living in any known sin, or omitting any known duty. 4. His subjection to Discipline. 1 go by these rules, and think they are as strait as the rules the Apostles went by; but I am blamed by some for being too large, and have other notions buzzed into the Heads of my people,[ though( through mercy) I know of none of my people, either fly-blown with the errors of the times, nor any crack among us, but we are all one, the Lord continue it:] As persons who are admitted into Churches must give an account from point to point, how God carried them on in conversion; also some Church must have the Members give account, in what Promises God hath manifested himself to them, as requisite to their admission. For these persons and practices I shall give them one word at the end of my book.  
Learned Amesius[ to whom the congregational men are not a little beholden, 
Hellarm. Ener. Tom. 2. l. 2. c. 1. no. 5.  and I am sure he is much honoured among us] saith, in answer to Bellarmin: It is false, that inward real graces are required of the reformed Churches, to make a man a member of a visible Church; his words carry that sense I am sure: Falsum est, internas virtutes requiri a nobis, ut aliquis sit in Ecclesia quoad visibilem ejus statum. I wrong not his sense though I. put in other words.  
The Churches of New England say, 
The Synod of New England, confess. of Chur. dis. c. 12. p. 3.  In admission, severity of examination must be avoided.  
For my part, I look at the conversation most, that is, Argumentum artificiale; all their Relations, Discourses,[ though some, where conversation answer, it is excellent to hear their relations of Gods working] are but Argumenta inartificilia.  
1 That strictness which will content Christ in his visible kingdom may well content us.  
2 Neither am I satisfied in this: The putting of persons to make their Relations of the work of Grace, before all the Church. The Brethren say they will have it so; and here we must have a great many persons to please, and their wills must be the rule of admission. 
Hook. Surv. Chur. Dis pa. 3. c. 1.   
To have persons examined by the Elders[ to whose office it doth belong, and not to the Fraternity, by your leave] and to have those relations brought to the Fraternity by the Elders, and owned by the person as in Gods presence, this will not give content, but all the brethren must hear the person himself, or herself make the relation before them: And now we have John and Robert, &c. to please, they have some thing to question, and the person must suite all their humors, or else some stir is made. It is a miserable thing when the pleasing of several mens humours is made the rule of admission. Let those Johns and Roberts observe what is the Market measure, and bring their spirits to that, and let not every mans spirit be the measure in admissions,  
Object. But we must know them whom we admit into our Society?  
Ans: So you do in their Conversation as well as your Officers, and this is the main. The other also you know mediately by your Officers.  
The best Scripture that ever I heard alleged by these, is that of 1 Pet. 3.15. But if you strain that place to prove that every one that is to be admitted into a Church, must personally give a relation before all the Church of the work of God upon them from point to point, I doubt you will wring the Text till blood come. Much might be said concerning this Text, but I leave it. Other Scriptures I have heard alleged to prove this, but so weakly that I will not name them.  
That is not the way of admission, wherein the least Lamb of Christ should be beaten off.  
But in this way, many lambs of Christ must be beaten off; for do we think all true Christians are able to give an account before a whole Church? Nay, I know the contrary, many are so fearful, confounded( as I may say) they know not what to say, and hence sometimes go away with discouragement.  
Besides, do not Ministers know what pains they are forced to take with some poor Christians when they are alone, to draw out from them, what God hath done for them,[ like Daniel, they must go and tell nabuchadnezzar his dream] and these very godly ones, but to put these to speak before others, is to have them say nothing.  
In New England divers Churches admit women thus by their relating first to the Elder, 
See Mr. Hooker also in his Church. See S●rv. of Church dis. part. 3. p. 6.  or Elders, and then to the Church, but many women are more able to speak and relate the work of God on their hearts then many men are, and yet godly persons also.  
Object. But you Elders are apt to be corrupted, and you may so deceive us.  
Answ. But their conversation you know, whether it doth contradict the relation made by your Elders.  
Do you think that persons making their relations before you, is the sure way to keep out all Hypocrites, if so; you said something. But I have known by experience such as have made relations of the work of God on their hearts from point to point, before all the Congregation, whom yet at that time I did fear to be but rotten, and so it proved.  
But to put an end to this, Let me give the Reader one story, There was a godly poor plain woman in New England, who lay sick[ which sickness ended her life] the 
Mr. Wooster of Salisbury.  Pastor of the Church went to visit her, and treating with her concerning eternity, how she was provided, the woman it seems did never use to speak, but little, but now she opened her heart more: O Sir, said she, to the Minister, when the Sabbath came, I was in heaven, &c. The Minister  told me that if that woman had been received as others were in some Churches, she must never have been joined to the Church: tell me I pray you how many of our Church Members are in heaven, when the Sabbath comes. Away then with ridgednesse, and these ways of admission, whereby many a sincere heart may bee beaten off.  
What our congregational Churches do with errors I know not, for I am but seldom abroad to inquire; but the general frame of Independents is, to be very large in that way of tolerating such stuff in the Churches: I shal say no more but this, I know the Elders of New England very well, their learning, holinesse, close-walking with God, their strictness against errors in their Churches, if our congregational Churches be not so, but are gone beyond New England, I only say, farewell.  
Now to give an account to the Reader why I appear in Print,[ being conscious to myself of my own weakness, being broken from my study in the prime of my years, from eighteen years of age to twenty eight, and what time I could get in them years I spent in the study and practise of physic in that wilderness, till these times changed, and then I changed my studies to Divinity:] The reason, I say, of my appearing thus is this. I being branded by Mr. Edwards for an Independent, in the first part of his Gangrene, where there is one whole Letter concerns me, and that is all false, being merely mistakes, the next Letter( half of it) concerns me also, and[ excepting that I preached and was not in orders] that also is false. I believe the Gentleman that wrote those Letters, if they were now to be written would not do it. I cannot point the Reader in what page. to find those Letters, for I have not the book. But being by him branded thus, and so others looked upon me, when I was ordained, I did declare to the Elders and the Congregation, how far I owned Independency, that is. That a Church Organized and walking regularly, might execute all the power of the keys within itself. But if this were the meaning of it, viz. Here is a Church, and we have all power within ourselves, therefore wee will practise thus, or so as we please, and wee will maintain such or such Opinions, and will give no account to other Churches which shall desire a reason of our Opinions, and practise, and so give an account, as either to prove out what we do by arguments drawn from the Word, or else submit to the judgement of other Churches, our practices and opinions being confuted by the Word; or if the case be more dark, and cannot so quickly be determined, then to walk with such tenderness, and due respect to other Churches, as it may appear to be only pure conscience that is the ground of any different practise, cleaving close in the mean time to those other Churches in all other points where we agree, against errors, Sects, &c. such Independency as deny this, I conceive it to he an invention of a white devil, to make a religious bridge over to all errors in opinion and practise.  
Hence[ having divers such persons in my Parish as the question mentions, who when they come to me to have their children Baptized, all the argument they give me is, other Ministers do baptize all; and therein I practise differently from other Ministers, whom I esteem far before me in holinesse, learning, and gifts] I thought I was bound to give an account to other Ministers, what are the grounds of my practise, in refusing such for the present; that I might thereby get answer to my scruples, and stir up more able men, who practise as I do, to undertake the controversy; that so when I have seen the question fairly, and lovingly discussed, I may either practise as they do, if I see all is taken off that can be said; or otherwise may not have ill thoughts conceived against me for this different practise.  
I have not in my Question set up a man of Straw, and shoot at him myself, as if there were no such persons amongst us; there are many Families of which it may be truly said, They are families that call not on thy name; some go to their meate like Swine, for ignorance in my Parish; I am not willing to print what I have found[ and yet means they have had before I came, lively and quick] but the ignorance is such of some, and also in other Parishes, that if I should print what answers I have had from some, and others also have found in their Parishes, when they brought their children to be baptized, and this in Essex, not in Cumberland and them parts; the Reader would scarce believe it were possible to be true. Some to whom I related things by word of mouth, could not have believed the things, only they had that charitable opinion of me, that I would not lie. Search, O Ministers especially, in your Country Parishes, and you will find ignorance enough I fear; it made me call to mind that famous story which blessed Pemble relates in his Sermon of, the mischief of Ignorance, concerning a man of sixty yeares of age; Who had heard in his life time between two and three thousand Sermons, and lived civilly, who being questioned on his Death-bed what he thought of God, answered, He thought he was a good old man; And what of Christ? That he was a towardly young youth; And of his soul? It was a great bone in his body; And what should become of his soul after he was dead? That if he had done well he should have been put into a pleasant green meadow. This man is not alone saith Mr. Pemble.  
As for profaneness, and scoffing at godliness, I wish we had not too much proof of it.  
For non-submission to Discipline; I know such as cannot deny but that Church Discipline is an Ordinance of God, the light of Mat. 18.15, 16, &c. doth convince them; they have also acknowledged, that if they did not promise me to subject to Discipline, I had no power over them, and yet they would not subject to Discipline; Shall men come and pick what Ordinances they list, and walk as they list, and I shall have no power over them, to help to re-gaine them?  
Concerning this one word; I know many Ministers scorn that Notion, that an explicit Covenant is the form of a particular visible Church; some Professors are so rigid for the explicitenesse of the Covenant, as without it they deny all Churches, and will not join in a Sacrament with them: These, if we tell them Mr. Hooker, and the Elders of New England dare not put the formality of a Church in the expliciteness of the Covenant, they make very light of them men,[ Ignorance and Pride meet together] then I have bid such, give me one good Argument to prove it; but though they could make so light of such Worthies, all the wit they had could not produce one Scripture, or one Argument. I never met with the like pride and ignorance in Professors, and yet think themselves able to teach others, and scorn the Blackecoates.  
But if our Divines cast off a Covenant, or mutual Engagement,[ call it what you will] to walk with God, and one with another, &c. from being the form of a Church, let the Covenant be explicit, or implicit, I would gladly see what they make the Form; I have red something, and heard something concerning it, but for ought I can see, they are either such things as follow a Church, constituted in its essential causes, and so cannot be the form; or they do not do that which a form must, i.e. Distinguere Ecclesiam ab Ecclesia.  
But this I will affirm, though explicitenesse be not essential to the Esse formale of a Church, yet you will find it almost required to the esse of the Government of the Church: for though I grant, there is an implicit consent to Church-Government in that implicit Covenant which is in every parochial Congregation, yet when you come to exercise Discipline, you will find some Members explicitly stubborn, stiff, and then this implicit consent, they will spurne at their heels.  
I know it by good experienee, when a Church member hath fallen, if I had only the implicit consent of being under Discipline, myself, and the rest of the Brethren, when we went privately first to bring such a one to a sight of his sin, &c. we might have returned as wise as we went; but having this hold upon the person, by his Covenant to be subject to that rule, Mat. 18, &c. we could not leave him, being engaged to him,[ else we would have done it, through that too much stiffness we found in the person] nor could he fly off from us, until( God blessing our endeavours) we obtained our end.  
Apollonius, who writeth against Independents, 
Pag. 4.  and a Church Covenant, yet in his first chap. where he sheweth what qualifications they require in Members, saith this is one; Ut Disciplinae se se subjiciant, in his second Chap. concerning the Church Covenant, he saith thus; Concedimus, foedus aliquod tacitum seu virtuale esse inter membra unius& ejusdem particularis ecclesiae externae; quo obligantur ad mutua illa officia praestanda, quae a membris ecclesiae visibilis ad particularem suam ecclesiasticam communionem exiguntur, &c. and for the expliciteness of the Covenant, he saith, it is not unlawful; but it seems they must explicitly promise to be subject to Discipline, I think what he saith will very well content congregational men.  
If Discipline be an Ordinance, then the constitution of a Church must be such, as that Ordinance may regularly be executed, or else here is an Ordinance, but no way to execute it. But how can this be executed without a free consent unto it, being this Church relation is not natural[ as Father and child] but free?  
What learned Mr. Hooker, and Mr. Norton hath said, to prove this to be the Form, I suppose, is not lightly esteemed by learned men.  
Now though I differ from other Ministers in this practise, yet I hope our difference is not so great, because it is onely in the extent of the Ordinance; as for christian, there, I fully accord with them. And further I will say  
First I do it not out of any affectation to be thought more boly then others; I have such a heart within, that I loath such a thought.  
Secondly, Neither do I esteem other Ministers the less, or censure them for baptizing more largely then I do.  
Thirdly, I can truly say, It hath been and is a matter of shane to me, to think I should differ from other Ministers so Holy and Learned, considering my own vileness and weakness.  
Fourthly, Neither dare I say it is pure Conscience that makes me thus practise, for to have a pure tender conscience indeed, 
Bib. Cons. p. 19  I look on it as such an excellent thing, that I consent to Mr. Rutherford, saying, he that challengeth it, doth challenge the flower and garland of all godliness.  
Fiftly, This I promise, that if I cannot find that which shall clearly answer me, and so may differ a little in this practise from other godly Ministers, yet in other points, against Anabaptists, Antinomians, Anti-Sabbatarians, Non Singers of psalms, Arminians, Socinians, with the rout of these new upstart Preachers, I shall cleave as close to them as I can. For these latter, although the Errors wherewith all of them[ I think I may say] are tainted, be argument sufficient against them, yet I would add one word more.  
The affirmative part of the second Commandement is, that the ordinances, or means of instituted worship be kept pure according to the institution; Now as Christ hath appointed Ordinances, so he hath appointed Officers orderly to dispense these, and hath set them down what Officers he will have in his Church, the rules also how these Officers must be qualified and set apart to these Offices. These Officers then are reduced to this second Commandement by able Divines, 
Ames. med. th: l. 2. c. 13th. 17.  and since they must be reduced to some Commandement[ for it is not in our power to set up what Officers wee list] then certainly they belong to that Commandement: In setting up Officers then, men must hold to the Institution the Commandement binds us, now the rule tells us besides their personal qualities, for ministerial qualities, they must be 2 Tim. 2.2. able men, able to teach their hearers, able to oppose gain sayers, Tit. 1.9. 
Ames: med the, l. c. 39. th. 31.  The election by the people that is granted,[ though much might here be said, what need the people have of the assistance of the neighbour Ministers to judge of the abilities of the Minister whom they choose.] Then the ordination of this person, which whether it be in the power of the Fraternity to give it formally, I would gladly see more then I have done as yet, but wheresoever the power is, Ordination must be, Heb: 6.2. it is one of the heads of the Catechism. Many expound that laying on of hands, to be of Confirmation; but besides the judgement of Pareus, Mr. Johnson the Separate, Mr. Hooker of New England, Dickson Gillespie, &c. all which expound it of Ordination, good reasons may be given why it must be so interpnted, and not of Confirmation.  
Thus then to observe these Rules is to walk according to the Commandement, but else, to omit these, is to cross the mind of the Commandement. Do these upstart Preachers answer these Rules? I wonder at the boldness of men, who think that the work of a Minister is only to speak a few honest things, and hence they having heard much, and having English books by them[ scorning the learned men who were the Authors of them] and a bold face with them, think it enough to surnish them for a Pulpit: I do not desire to Idolize learning so much as to have the souls of people starved for want of learned Preachers: But if there were men found out, well gifted, godly, sound in the Truth, separated to the work, with some able learned Divines to go along with them into those dark corners, let them go, and the will of God be done: But if learning had received so much encouragement as it might,[ though not to make Ministers Arch-Bishops] we need not have gone to the London Apprentices for Ministers, we might have had able young scholars to have filled the Churches of England, without this erroneous Generation, that now sow their seed wheresoever they do come.  
I am confident the ablest Minister in England findeth so much in the study of Divinity, that if his life were to be as long again as it is, he should find enough to fill his head and heart, and yet say, I come short. Rob. Purnell labours much about that text, 2 Pet. 3.16. in his Epistle to the Presbyterians, the which Epistle the more I red it, and observe his language to them, being many of them very holy, gracious, able learned men, the more my spirit rises against him, the Spirit of Christ would have taught him more manners towards such equals( if they be his equals) it may be they are his superiors in age and place; I know nothing of the man but by his book, which I wonder any savoury Christian should delight in, but I shall say this only to him; Let all Christians which are not learned, bless the Lord for learned ones, the learned and godly Black-coats; do not discover your folly in asking, Why so? 2. I say this, many a man with the common gifts of the Spirit, shall by the help of Arts and Tongues sinned out the meaning of Pauls Epistles, and other parts of the word, when a Christian who hath sound grace, but wanting learning, shall be able to give no interpretation, or a false one, as I have heard eminent Saints do, yea in plain Scriptures. 3. I would answer him in the words of blessed Burroughs, 
iron. p. 88, 89.  I dare avow this, that never since the beginning of the world, could a man be found to speak against Learning, but an ignorant man; neither is it like, nay I may aver, it is impossible that any but such will be found to the end of the world: Learning hath so much of God in it, that it never had, nor will have any enemy but ignorance.  
Let me but trouble the reader with one thing more, and then I shall proceed. Some possibly take advantage from New England, where at the first the Fraternity did ordain their Officers[ since I came away I hear the Ministers of other Churches have ordained Elders in their neighbour Churches] but that doth not help our wild practices here, for( omitting other things) when ever there was any Church to be gathered in a new Plantation, there was notice first given to the Country, the civill Magistrate, and the Ministers, with Messengers from other Churches were there present, to hear those persons relate their work of grace, and also their confession of faith, that be sure they were sound in the faith, else the Civill Power would soon have taken a course with them. The Minister they choose, especially if a young man, before he came to the day of Ordination, preached at some Lecture where the Elders met and heard him, and thus all was carried on with the presence of these Persons: but what is this to your gathering of Churches here, when a company of Anabaptists( or others) shall meet together in a chamber, and choose one out from them, and ordain him for a Pastor( forsooth) as in a town by us, they have made a Hop-merchant their Pastor, a fellow all the week long up to the ears in the world, and when the Sabbath comes, he preaches ( they say) and give that which they call the Lords Supper, to his company.  
If any shall object against me, my preaching so long without Ordination, I answer: 1. I never contemned the Ordinance. 2. I would never have come into a Pulpit, if I had not intended to have been Ordained. 3. I did endeavour to have some Ministers to ordain me, two yeares before I could obtain it, because of troubles. 4. The reason why I did delay it, was, because I would have it in the place where I was chosen, and not in another place from my people, which I apprehended not to be so regular.  
The blessed Prophet of his Church, Teach us; the same blessed King, led us, not unto, but into all his Truths, theoretical, practical: Fortiter, suaviter.  
So prays the unworthiest of all Christs Ministers: G. F.   

A serious Question stated: VIZ. Whether the Ministers of England are bound by the Word of God, to Baptize the Children of all such Parents, which say, they believe in Jesus Christ; but are grossly ignorant, scandalous in their conversations, scoffers at godliness, and refuse to submit to Church-Discipline?  
TWo things I must premise, which will give occasion to move two Questions, which tend much to the clearing of the question in hand:  
1 The first thing I premise is this; The Infant that is to be Baptized, if we consider it in itself as abstracted from the Parent, gives no reason for itself why it should be Baptized; I baptize not this child rather then that, by virtue of any Argument drawn from the child; considered as it is in its self without relation to the Parent, this appears presently; for suppose in a Parish there should live Christians, Indians, Turkes, and all had Children, and one should bring a child to the Minister to Baptize it, and he knew not whose it was, I suppose he would ask the question whose is it? for it might be a Turkes, or Indians child, as well as a Christians, now what need he ask the question, Whose is it? it is Homo, whose soever it is, Baptize it; no sure, no Minister would do thus.  
2 All children then are Baptized by virtue of the Parent, one or both, ever considering the child in relation to the Parent, being the branch of such a root, and so I take in the child together with the Parent. Hence we say commonly, they must be children born in the Church; that is, of such Parents as are members of the Church, being a society of visible Saints, joined together by way of Covenant, to exercise an holy communion with God in Christ, and so one with another according to the order of the Gospel, for I presume none are so sottish to understand a Church to be that place, which( by a metonymy of the subject) we call a Church, nor the Parishes men live in, which never were of an ecclesiastical constitution.  
Upon this ground stand all our arguments against the Anabaptists, and if this be taken away, christian must fall.  
There is indeed one argument used by our Divines, Amesius, and others with him, but it is not an argument drawn from what the child doth give, but what it can receive. This it is; in the working of that inward grace, of which Baptism is the sign and seal, all who partake of that grace, are but mere Patients, and contribute no more then a child, ergo, it may be baptized. But here if we consider the child with this argument, without respect to the Parent; see how the argument will run.  
All that are Subjects capable of that grace to which baptism is a sign and seal, they may be baptized.  
But the children of Turkes, and Indians, are Subjects capable of that grace, to which baptism is a sign and seal; Ergo their Children may be baptized.  
Hence then that argument which is so often( but indiscreetly) used; what though the Parents be never so wicked, what do you know what the child may prove; many a wicked man may have good children, they may be elect; Et contra, this I say proves an argument of no strength; for election is no rule for me to go by, I will say the same of the Indians children, especially now in New England, what do you know but that this or that child may be Elect, prove godly, though the Father be an Indian. A supposition De futuro, is no rule for me to give the seal of the Covenant at this present, but I must look at the child as a Covenanter, but that is in the Parent.  
This rule warrants any Minister comfortably to administer that Ordinance; here is a Parent,( one or both) visibly in Covenant with God, and a visible member of Christs Church, I do therefore administer the seal of the Covenant unto this child by virtue of this Parent, according to that command given to Abraham, the Father of believers, with whom when the Lord entred into Covenant, and laid the foundation of the Church visible in his Family, he took his Seed into Covenant with him, and commanded that they with him should keep that seal of his Covenant. Now as the second Commandement binds us, that whatever Worship, or Ordinances God shall set up, whether those under the Old Testament, or these under the New Testament, yet be sure they be kept pure; the morality of the command is the same, though the form of Worship is changed: So the morality( as I may say) of that command stands thus; that let God appoint that seal of Circumcision to be the initiating seal under the Old Testament, or this of baptism under the New Testament, yet the children of visible believers must have the initiating seal. This I do believe upon many grounds moving me to it, and shall do so, till the Anabaptists can bring me express Scriptures out of the New Testament, where God hath cast off the children of believing Parents, whom under the Old Testament he took into Covenant with their Parents; The Anabaptists will buy by the measure of express Scriptures, let them sell by the same measure.  
Quest. But here now comes in a Question; What Parent do you mean, the immediate Parent only, or the Predecessors? for suppose the immediate Parent be as your question mentions, yet it may be the Grand-father, or some of the Predecessors have been godly, doth not that promise, Exod. 20.6. warrant the baptizing by virtue of them?  
Ans. I perceive divers of our Divines help themselves here, and some in discourse are content to loose that ground of the immediate Parent, and fly to this; men whom I dare not think slightly of, but do reverence their holinesse, and honour their Learning in my heart.  
Yet with submission to these men, I shall desire to propound some few scruples that trouble me.  
And first, It would not be amiss to cast our eyes back to our Predecessors, and see how this English Nation came to be a Church, and the Persons made believers; the Story is well known, and therefore I do but touch it. It cannot be denied but that England was one of them Isles, Isa. 42.4. which soon received the Law of Christ, that there were real Christians among them Christians, who dare say the contrary, when so many thousands of them suffered under that bloody Tyrant ( Dioclesian) for the Name of Christ; this Tyrant though he made woeful havoc in the Church, yet it doth not appear by Story that he did quiter destroy all the Christians, but there was a remnant left, which continued even when the Soxons over-run the Nation.  
When Austin came into England, the Waters began to be brackish at Rome; neither Worship( especially) nor Doctrine so pure as before; after he had converted King Ethelbert to the profession of the Faith in Christ, many also received the same Faith; none being compelled by the King, saith the Story[ which yet is no ground for Toleration in our times] and thus England in a short time received the Faith; But whether all did it by the Word enlightening, convincing, &c. and not rather as people follow Court fashions, so the Court religion, King Ethelbert is become a Christian, and Baptized, so will we, and so upon Tradition others that succeeded took up Christianity, it is much to be doubted; for wee know in what state the Churches were when Austin came from Rome, and dark night of Popery followed presently; so that I do not reckon them Christians brought to the faith by Austin, to be like them who before were slain: Thus we held the name of Christianity under the Romish yoke, till of late times the State threw it off, and then the people following the State[ as they will do, saith Master Rogers the Proto Martyr in Queen Maries dayes, if the State change ten times in one year, the people would ever be ready at hand to change with it] they threw off that yoke also, and so England is become Protestant. I doubt not but God had his number in those dark Times, but what were those few in comparison of the body of the people, our Predecessors. Since the time of the Gospel restored to its purity, God hath wonderfully appeared in England; but those who use the argument of Predecessors run very high; now I will a little consider the text in reference to them.  
1 Mercy unto thousands, of whom? of them who love me, and keep, &c. This then is clear, that this promise is made to such as are really godly, and no children can claim this promise, but the children of such Parents as did love God, and keep his Commandements, and this Commandement of the purity of his Worship in a special manner, as some of our Divines do interpret it. I hope formal Professors, 
shepherd. moral. Sab. p. 1. Thes. 61. and others.  such as have no truth of Grace in them, will not be judged such persons as God mentioned in his Promise, to be lovers of him, and keepers of his Worship in purity; for the latter, our Predecessors in those dark times of Popery, they did not keep that Commandement purely. Such then as bring this Promise to prove their right to their childrens baptism, must bring this proof, That their Predecessors were really such as the Promise is made to; this will help me a little in refusing to Baptize many children, for there are divers who as their immediate Parents are wicked, so we cannot learn that their Grand-father, or great Grand-father, or Grand-mother, &c. were so much as esteemed godly.  
Obj. But though you, nor others know of any, yet in charity you must judge they had some were godly?  
Ans. I love charity as much as another, but I would have it have eyes; Justice indeed we use to picture blinde-folded, that it might give to every one that which is suum, and not be perverted by the sight of mens persons, &c. but to have charity thus blind-folded in the Administration of the Ordinances of Christ, is not safe.  
Besides, this will prove a troublesone rule, for I can easier judge of a visible Saint, whom I know and live by, then judge of the reality of a mans godliness, especially when they are dead, or I know him not.  
2. again, That threat of Gods visiting iniquity, &c. I hope you will limit it to such children as are followers of their Fathers wicked steps, not of others; Jeroboam, Jehu, and their posterity find it true; but good Hezekiah not following wicked Ahaz, it doth not reach him; Why then is not this promise to be limited as well to such as follow their Parents steps, but if the son be a scorner, an opposer of God, and his Commandements, must he needs challenge this mercy of baptism for his child, and the Minister bound to give it him? doth not God rather fulfil the threat, in visiting his iniquity upon his child, thus to debar it of this Ordinance?  
3 again, I am not satisfied how that can be a settled rule for us to administer baptism by, wherein we see the Lord taking his liberty. Doth God ever visit the iniquity, as the threat runs? Doth he ever show mercy to all the Posterity, 
In 2. in Pryn. & c? Zanchy saith of the threat; Quamvis non semper habeat locum, non proptereà tumen efficitur, quin verissima sit,& quam saepissimè suam habeat efficacitatem. So he saith of the Promise, he gives a caution there also. So Mr. Perkins, We may not surmise that this excellent Promise is made to every one particularly, who is born of faithful Parents. If then God will reserve a liberty of bestowing temporal mercies, and eternal mercies to the posterity of good and bad, why must God be tied up by this promise, that he may not deny the posterity of a wicked Parent,[ who had godly Parents] the seal of the Covenant; why must he have no liberty in this mercy as well as in them?  
Obj. But we see among the Jews, wicked Parents had their children Circumcised?  
Ans. But was it by virtue of this Promise that God had tied up himself so, or from some other ground? for the objection itself I shall consider it in another place.  
4 If the godly Predecessors by virtue of this Promise do give a right to baptism, though the immediate wicked Parent doth not; then suppose a child whose immediate Parent is very godly, and baptized by virtue of him, growing up, proves very scandalous, yet I hope the Promise made to his immediate Parent, will give him right to the Lords Supper, though otherwise he must be debarred; for mercy to thousands, &c. the Lords Supper is a mercy as well as baptism.  
Obj. No, the person himself doth obicem ponere  
Ans. If the wickedness of this child grown up, doth put a bar between the immediate godly Parent and the Lords Supper, why doth not the scandalous vile conversation of the immediate Parent, put in a bar between his Predecessors, and the child to be baptized?  
Obj. The child must not suffer for the Parents sin? Ezek. 18.  
Ans. 1. True, for eternal death, if not guilty itself.  
2 These children which complain, and therefore were adulti, had not they walked in their steps, should not have met with those punishments; but the sour Grapes were found in their mouths also. But for their Infants, how many suffered with the Parents.  
3 It is true, the child shall not suffer for the Parent in such things wherein the child may be considered absolutely without relation to, or dependence upon the Parent, as it may in things temporal, eternal; but if the child cannot so be considered, but always in relation to the Parent, as giving the right[ as in this case] it may suffer by him, and it will appear so after.  
4 If the child walk not in the Parents steps; now though the child cannot be said actually to follow the Parents steps, yet the child is reputed; and relatively is esteemed as the Parent, holy with him, or unholy with him; an Infidels child is an infidel, though actually it doth not follow its fathers steps.  
5 That text, 1 Cor. 7.14. The unbelieving Wife is sanctified by the believing Husband, else were your Children unclean; but now are they holy. This text seems to tie the federal holinesse of the child to the immediate Parent, doth not say, the child is holy by virtue of a great Grand-father.  
Let us suppose in the Church of Corinth some persons who may be sixty yeares of age, this Husband and Wife thus old have children, but they are Infidels, they will not own Christ, nor his holy Government, &c. now these Infidels have children born, so that the old man of sixty yeares, is a Grand-father to this young infant of his son an infidel; would now a Minister take this infant though the father be an infidel, and baptize it by virtue of the Grand-father? I suppose it would trouble a conscientious Minister. The Grand-father is old, may die quickly before the child grow up, the infidel his Father breeds him up in his Idolatry; let the Church take it say you, but the infidel will not, he scorns the Church, and their religion. So suppose the infidel will not let his Father take his child to baptize it, what will you do, who have most right over the child, the Father, or Grand-father? You must also suppose the Grand-father and the child to dwell together, that he may bring it up, and Catechize it, &c. this is strange to force this, which we may suppose many things to hinder. I cannot see how they be proper subjects to convey the right of baptism to another, who may have just hindrances in the conveyance of it; Aquinus saith, Filii infidelium, cum ante usum liberi arbitrii sub parentum cura sunt, 
Pag 3. q. 68. a. 10. To. 4. D●s. 4. q. 3. p. 3.  non sunt eo tempore invitis parentibus Baptizandi. So Greg, de val. Ut rectè Baptizentur parvuli filii infidelium, requiritur consensus parentum in quorum potestate sunt, it a ut his invitis, quamdiu quidem in ipsorum potestate& cura sunt parvuli minime liceat ipsos Baptizare. He gives the reason, Jure naturae sunt parvuli sub cura& potestate parentum; ergo fieret parentibus injuria, si ipsis invitis baptizarentur, &c.  
The immediate Parent, let all the Predecessors be Infidels, it hinders not him in his conveyance, &c. Ergo he is the person to whom the right of conveying the seal doth belong, and not he that even in foro Ecclesiae have hindrances in the conveyance; the Church must not act against the Law of Nature.  
6 If that promise doth give this power to Predecessors, &c. then though there are none to educate this child[ for the ignorant, profane Parents will not, but teach them how to break the Covenant; the Predecessors cannot, they are dead, and are not] yet we must seal to this child, &c. Where do you see Churches take care of such children, they must be of some bigness and understanding before the Church meddle with them, the immediate profane person brings him up in ignorance and profaneness; neither will take care to have his child instructed by the Church; as experience witness too much.  
7 If the Predecessor may by this promise give right to baptism without the immediate Parent, then I pray tell us, how far we may go for this Predecessor? how many Generations? Where hath Gods Word limited Ministers, you may go to this Predecessor, and no farther? I know of no text that limits but this, and this will allow us to go to the thousand Generation to find a Predecessor; if so we should, strange things would follow.  
8 If by virtue of that promise, Predecessors may without the immediate parent give right to baptism, then the children of an immediate Parent apostatised from the Faith, and excommunicated from the Church, may be baptized.  
But the Consequent is false, ergo the Antecedent.  
The consequence is plain, for the Predecessors give right without the immediate Parent, then let him be what he will, yet his children may be Baptized by virtue of them; and if so, then the children of our English-men now in Turkey, who are apostatised from their Faith to that religion, may be baptized, and so many of those who are the posterity of the seven Churches of Asia, and it is to be feared are turned to that religion may by virtue of their Predecessors be baptized. See Gerhard moving this question; Whether the children of such heretics as profess they will bring up their children in their heresy ought to be baptized? He concludes for the negative: His first Argument is; Pari passu ambulant, cum Infantibus infidelium, cum parentes ipsorum itidem sint extra Ecclesiam, à qua nefarium facere divortium. He adds more Arguments, and answers Objections: but if that be a good argument in Gerhards account. I hope it will be as good for me, in the next branch of my Argument, and doth also help to this first branch; I hope an Apostate from the Faith( such a one as now I speak of) is as bad as an heretic, yet it may be this heretics father might be Orthodox.  
For the Excommunicate person; If I may baptize the children of an excommunicate Parent, then I may baptize the children of one who is no member of a Church[ for so is the excommunicate person] so consequently the children of a turk, or Indian, for they are no Members of a Church, and the excommunicate person is no other in respect of his communion in Church privileges.  
If you give me leave to baptize persons out of the pale( as they say) of the Church, I may then go any whither; but this person is without the pale.  
baptism notes communion with the Church, 1 Cor. 12.13 how then is he excommunicated if his child be baptized?  
If this Parent were a Heathen, and not a Member of the Church, should his children be baptized? why then since by his excommunication he is made as a Heathen, and in some respect below a Heathen[ for with a Heathen I may eat, 1 Cor. 10.27. but with him I must not eat, 1 Cor. 5.11.] should his children be baptized?  
If you say, there is difference between him and a Heathen, for he still holds his profession of Faith, and may belong to God, &c. I deny not this, but as to Church Communion, and Church privileges, I know not but we may admit a Heathen to them as well as he, and so it was in New England, the Indians did enjoy as much as an excommunicated person.  
If the child be a member of the Church with the parent, and reputed so only by virtue of the parent, then if the parent be a Non-member, the child also is a non-member. I presume none will deny this; and then to baptize such a child, is to baptize a non-member.  
To prove it by this text, is petitio principii. I suppose both parents excommunicated, or, but one a member, for if the Mother continues a member of the Church, the excommunicated Father hinders not.  
It is worth the consideration, what learned Gillespie observes out of Buxtorf. 
Aar. rod. p. 58.  He tells us, that this difference was put between him that was guilty of cutting off, and of him that was guilty of death. Reus mortis, ipse tantum, non seemen ejus; paena excidii comprehendit ipsum& seemen ejus. Now if the punishment of death was personal only, and the punishment of cutting off, comprehensive not only of them but of their Seed, how can this agree so well to any thing else, as to excommunication, especially if that hold which Goodwin in his Moses and Aaron, Lib. 5. cap. 2. tells us, that the children of excommunicated persons were not circumcised. Thus Master Gillespie.  
Chemnitius also seems to me to be of this Opinion, upon them words, Mat. 18.17. Let him be to thee as an Heathen: Hoc est, excemmunicetur; non admittatur ad absolutionem, non ad Communionem Sacramentorum, sieve Baptismi sieve Coenae dominicae, &c. Now how shall we interpret this his non-admission to baptism but in his children; this person was baptized before, for he must be a Brother( saith he) that is to be excommunicated. What, would not he have the person rebaptized? The Lutherans were againstere baptizing, as appears by Gerhard, Loc. come. To. 4. de bapt. cap. 8.  
Zanchy I know is against me, and quotes Augustin against it also, he names not the Epistle, but I suppose he means his 75. Epistle, Ad Auxilium: His argument is, Anima quae pe●caverit, ipsa morietur; but so had not the son of Classicianus, he was not guilty of his sin. We say with Augustin, That soul indeed shall die, the child shall not be damned for the Father, but to this I have answered before, only this I add; Those that know Austines opinion concerning Infants dying unbaptised, will not wonder though he were for the baptizing of the children of excommunicated parents; but I suppose our Divines are not of his judgement in that point.  
I have there mentioned Mr. Perkins, I saw him just as it had done, but now I sand the answer thus:  
Holy and learned Perkins I find also to be against me. 
case. Cons. ch. 9. q. 3   
I shall briefly run over what he saith.  
First, he saith, Children of Parents that are professed Members of the Church( though cut off for a time, upon some offence committed) have right to baptism, because it is not in the power of man to cut them off from Christ, though they be excommunicated.  
Ans. 1. This hath little in it, who say, They are absolutely cut off from Christ( or can be, if once in him?) let secret things go, though he be not so, yet from Church Communion I hope he is cut off; he hath nothing to do with Church privileges.  
2 Upon this ground I would give him the Lords Supper still, for he is not cut off from Christ, though excommunicated.  
3 Visibly he appears, and is reckoned as no member of Christ. Statu quo[ Cut off for a time] he saith; but who knows how long?  
Secondly, The personal sin of the Parent may not keep the blessing from the child, &c. Ergo.  
Ans. This I have answered before; I say now, though personal sin may not deprive it, yet the personal state of the Parent may deprive the child; for the child is reputed as the parent in respect of Church membership, the child is wholly dependant on the parent in this point.  
Thirdly, We must alway put a difference between them which do not make separation from the Church, and yet are grievous offenders; and open apostates, that join themselves with the enemies of the Church, &c.  
Ans. 1. His first part doth not amount to the question in hand, for one may be a grievous offender, and not separate from the Church, and yet not excommunicated.  
2. Though he hath not separated from the Church, yet the Church hath separated him, and Christ hath ratified the sentence.  
3. He should have proved, we must put such a difference, as to baptize the child of the one, and not the other. We cannot say, 
De cause. Dei, l. 1. p. 29.  as( excellently) Bradwardin; Nonne cuilibet Christiano, imo& prophano pro Demonstratione sufficere debet, Deus dicit; so it is sufficient demonstration, Perkinsius dicit; yet I think I honour him as much as any man living.  
4 Suppose, that Apostata be not excommunicated by the Church, and should now require baptism for his child, what will you do?  
Fourthly, He saith; We must put a difference between such excommunicated Persons, and Infidels.  
Ans. He is to be reputed as a Heathen in Church account, Mat. 18.17. The question still is, whether such a difference, as I said in answer to the former objection.  
Fifthly, he saith; The mercy of God enlargeth itself to thousands, &c.  
Ans. It is true in some sense, but to bring that place to prove the question in hand, is Petitio principii.  
9 I pray prove it to me, that the children of such Jews who were wicked[ which is the strongest Argument I meet with] had their children circumcised, only with reference to the predecessors, and not the immediate parent, who was of Abrahams seed according to the flesh, not excommunicated, and doubtless so long the immediate parent was not cast off from giving a right to his child.  
If then that promise will prove this opinion of the predecessors giving right to the child without the immediate parent, yet it must be supposed that the immediate parent is not apostatised from the Faith, nor excommunicate; for I observe some made doubt of it then, who are for this opinion; and what is this but to say, a man must be a visible believer, and a member of the Church, and then why not by virtue of the immediate parent?  
Only this gives occasion to move another question, which helps to clear our way.  
Quest. Whether is this bare profession of faith in Christ,[ though Parents be grossly ignorant, scandalous, and refuse to subject to Church Discipline] sufficient to make a man, and continue him a member of the visible Church?  
Ans. Those Divines who baptize all children I suppose do it upon this ground, England hath received the Faith, and so all our English people are believers; they look on them all as Church members, and therefore baptize all.  
This I confess is some disadvantage to me, for if a man be looked upon as a visible Saint, and reputed a member of a true Church, if that member be very scandalous, and the Church let him alone, and not deal with him, that person may challenge any Ordinance in the Church, both Baptism, and Lords Supper. But I conceive such a person is not sufficiently qualified to make a member of a Church, nor ought to be continued a member of the Church; but the Church ought to seek to reform him, or if not, to cast him out; so that if the Church will let such a person alone, and give him these Ordinances, there will be guilt charged upon that Church.  
That such a one is not fit to be a Member, I prove.  
1 Members of Churches according to the gospel, are Saints visible;  
But such a person as the question mentions, is not a visible Saint: Ergo.  
The mayor is plain enough; The Saints at Philippi, Saints at Rome, Saints at Corinth, Saints in Caesars household, &c. this is common.  
The minor; such as will say that such a person as the question mentions is a visible Saint, I think his eyes are not good. He that tells me, the Saints which Paul mentions in those places, were no other then such a person as is in the question, he must pardon me though I believe him not.  
2 If a bare profession of faith in Christ, be sufficient to make a member of a Church, then no person can justly be excommunicated out of a Church for the vilest sins, or heresies, provided he doth but hold this profession of his faith.  
The consequence is clear; the person is the same now which he was when you took him into the Church; why then should you cast him out? The incestuous person did profess his faith in Christ, when admitted, that was sufficient, no more was required of him, why is he now cast out? The ston is now, as it was when you laid it on to the building.  
This were a wild course, a man professes he believes in Christ, and that is all; grossly ignorant, he lives in scandalous sins, you know it, yet because he saith he believes in Christ you admit him, and within a fortnight it may be you must go about to cast him out again.  
3 He that manifestly opposeth Christ in his visible kingdom, is not fit to be a member of a Church; but such a perion as the question mentions, doth manifestly oppose Christ in his visible kingdom: Ergo.  
The mayor is plain, for to be a member of a visible Church is to be a subject of Christs visible kingdom; that visible politic Body, over whom he is as Head, and King, by political government, 1 Cor. 12.  
But a manifest Opposer, a rebel, is no Subject; those who oppose him in his laws, and Discipline, surely oppose him in his visible kingdom; such as profess they will not submit their necks to his yoke.  
Obj. But all are not convinced that Church Discipline is an Ordinance of God?  
Ans. But I speak of such as have been convinced, and acknowledged it from that text, in Matth. 18.15. &c. but yet would not submit to it.  
I wonder not though the Erastians have laboured to dash that Ordinance out of the Church; for we find, to walk close according to Christs rule herein, as Mat: 18.15 &c. guides us, it will cost some crossing of the flesh; it is an excellent means to keep love among Christians, kerb sin, beantifie a Church,; we could easily yield it up to the Erastians, but because we find it cross to our flesh, we know there is something of God in it.  
Though Erastus was a good physician, yet he wanted a little hellebore himself; Mr. Gillespie hath prepared it for his followers.  
Many more Arguments might be given, but I spare them. Let us hear what others say.  
Just Martyr seems to intimate that more is required, 
Apol 2. p. 63.  then a bare profession of faith. For relating to the Emperour the manner how they did dedicate themselves to God; it was in this manner, {αβγδ} &c. I observe three things in it: First, Such as were persuaded and did believe the things to be true which were taught. Where we find no civill power, no Court Religion to have had any place; it was the right way, Go teach all Nations.[ The things which they taught them] it should seem then, it was more then barely to say, I believe in Christ, and many of our ignorant people know little else, neither do they understand that, so much as these did, {αβγδ}. The second thing was a promise to live according to thore tules which had been taught. Where( by the way) we may observe, a kind of Covenant made in them times in admissions, the verb. {αβγδ}, from {αβγδ} policeor, promitto, imply as much, they promised so to live, the verb {αβγδ} carries a little more in it, but take it in the easiest sense, {αβγδ}, & c. {αβγδ}. The third was, they taught them, by prayer and fasting to seek the pardon of their former sins, they joining also with them in the duty, then they baptized them. This is more then a bare profession of faith.  
Apollonius [ de qualificatione membrorum ecclesiae] opposing first that ridged examination[ in that I consent with him] sets down the qualifications of persons whom Ministers may admit into a visible Church, and thus he describes them. Qui veram Christi religionem& fidem profitentur absquè scandalo vitam traducunt, aut in scandala prolapsi rescipiscentia illa abluunt in fore ecclesiae Disciplinae seize subjiciunt, omnia divini cultus exercitia publice frequentant,& ecclesiasticam communionem nobiscum expetunt. Five things he requires; these are more then a bare slight professing that I believe in Christ.  
Amesius, 
●●ul. Thl. 1.32 Th. 8.  Having given the definition of a Church, takes the essential Causes, matter, and form asunder, and speaks to them severally, for the matter he said it was, societas fid●lium, But then adds, Quia autem vera fides conjunctam habet sanctitatem, quam efficacitèr operatur, Act. 15.9. atque adeó professio verae fidei non potest dis-jungi à professione sanctitatis, idcirco promiscuè,& eodem sensu dicitur ecclesia societas fidelium,& societas sanctorum, Eph. 1.1. 1 Cor. 1. 2 col. cum. 2 Cor. 1.1. &c.  
So that a profession of holinesse must be, as well as a profession of faith.  
The London Ministers in their preface, 
Jus. Div.  where they make the parallel between the independent and Presbyterian, say, the matter of a Church visible are, Persons professing true faith in Christ, and obedience to him, according to the rules of the gospel. But shall then those who are grossly ignorant about Christ, and the Articles of Faith, and in their lives actually profess manifest disobedience against Christ, and refuse to subject to his Discipline, be esteemed fit matter of a Church?  
Afterwards when they give the notation of the Word, {αβγδ}, 
p. 37.  three things they say are implyed, 1. The term from which they are called. 2 The term to which they are called. 3 the Medium by which they are brought from one term to another, viz. by Calling. If the Integrum be thus, then all the Members that are essential to that Integrum, must by calling be brought from one term to another. Therefore, after they add, Avisible Church is, a company of those that are called to the visible Profession of the Faith in Christ, 
Ibid.  and Obedience unto Christ, according to the gospel. But are men called, when they do not visibly answer the Call, but are quiter opposite? They describe the matter of the Church visible, but[ with honour to so Learned Men] here is something omitted which was expressed in the Notation, Viz: The term from which they are Called. Indeed, wee may gather by the term to which they are Called[ which is expressed] what they mean, but I conceive it would have been more clear, especially because some think onely a Calling from Idols to be the terminus à quo; the question in the old form of baptizing seems to express this term from which: dost thou forsake the devil and all his works, the vain Pomp,& c?  
That which is not sufficient to entitle a man to baptism, is not sufficient to make a man a member of a Church.  
But the profession of faith of such a person as the question mentions is not sufficient to make him a Church Member: Ergo.  
The mayor is granted of all, and must be especially of those who say, baptism makes us members of a Church.  
The minor I shall prove afterwards.  
Obj. This is true, if the Churches of England were now in their first constitution, but here have been a succession of Churches for many yeares.  
Ans. That which doth constitute a Church in its being, doth continue a Church in its being; if therefore a bare slight profession be not enough at first to make a man a member of a Church, it is not enough to continue a man a member of a Church.  
Let Churches then be constituted according to the rule, and let them be continued according to their first constitution, or else exercise Discipline, and reduce them to their first constitution. But this is the sad condition which want of faithful Ministers, Catechizing, and Discipline hath brought our Churches to.  
Succession then answers nothing to continue such members of a Church, unless they be such as should be in the first constitution. We may as well answer this, as our Divines answer Bellermin his fifth note of a Church, Successio Apostolica, but I will not trouble the Reader.  
Our Churches then show what need we have of Discipline, if Excommunication be too hard, being they are numerous, who are no other then the question mentions;[ not that I mean we should presently fall upon excommunication before we have tried other means, and patiently waited, this were a wild course] then let us see if some other way may be found out to bring our Churches to some better reformation. I shall humbly present my thoughts at the end of the book.  
Having thus made way, I shall propound one Argument or two for the Negative, viz. That Ministers by the gospel are not bound to baptize the children of such parents.  
My first Argument I take from the practise of my reverend Fathers, and Brethren.  
1 Such persons as ( De jure) ought, and ( De facto) are excluded by godly Ministers from the Lords Supper, ought also to be excluded from their childrens baptism.  
But such persons as the question mentions ( Dè jure) ought, and ( De facto) are excluded from the Lords Supper:  
Ergo.  
The minor I need not prove; our Ministers print their Books to defend the jus of it, they have gotten the Act of Parliament to back them in it, and defacto we see they do it.  
The mayor must be proved.  
If baptism doth seal to the same Covenant which the Lords Supper doth, and doth signify and seal as great blessings and privileges as the Lords Supper doth, then those who are excluded from the Lords Supper, ought also to be excluded from their childrens baptism: But the Antecedent is true, ergo the Consequent is true.  
For the Antecedent; The Lords Supper is a seal belonging to the Covenant of Grace, so is baptism as well as that. 
See the Assemblies large Catechism upon the question.   
baptism is a sign and seal of our engrafting into Christ, of remission of sins by his blood, of regeneration by his Spirit, of Adoption, &c. What higher privileges have you in the Lords Supper? the engrafting or being, is more then growth.  
The Consequence I prove thus:  
If the ground of exclusion from the Lords Supper be, because these persons do not appear to the regular judgement of charity, to be such to whom those privileges do belong that there are held out; then the same ground excludes them from their childrens baptism; where are as high privileges as in the Supper:  
But that is the ground of exclusion; ergo.  
My Argument runs upon my first supposition, that the child brings nothing with it; considered as abstracted from the parent, but it is the parent gives the right.  
I have observed, if the Lords Supper be administered at noon, it may be half the Parish is excluded; but let any of them, if fix or more of them should come in the afternoon to have their children baptized, they are admitted without any scruple.  
I pray, those whom you did exclude at noon, were they such as did visibly appear to be under the Covenant of grace or not? if they did, why are they excluded? if not, why then do you give that Ordinance to the child which must suppose the parent to be within the Covenant, and so the child taken in with him? here is a believer and no believer in three houres distance, it may be, and yet the man the same.  
Obj. A man may have a fundamental right to the Lords Supper, but through some sin into which he is fallen and obstinate, he may be suspended from it, and yet have his right to baptism?  
Ans. 1. I am not against suspension in some sense, 
Ames. Med. Theo. l. 1. c. 37. Th. 20.  though I know many are; gradual and tender proceedings in weighty matters I approve of, unless the case be very notorious; the incestuous person cast out without any suspension.  
2 But then I would make this Quaere; Whether the parent being under sin, and obstinate, and thereupon suspended from the Supper, may not his child also be suspended for the present, till he declares his repentance, for the child dependeth on the parent, and is esteemed as he is in this case of baptism?  
3 But for the suspension as it is in England, I know not what to think of it.  
1 Did the Church proceed regularly, bring in their Witnesses, and labour to convince him, bring him to a sight of his sin, and humiliation for it, before they did suspend him? alas, it is no such matter; nay, the people are so accustomend to this, that they never trouble their Ministers to desire the Supper of them.  
2 When you have suspended, what do you with them? what, follow them stil to bring them to confession of, and humiliation for their sin? No such matter, I never knew it to be so, if any do so, I would not wrong them.  
3 Suspend them, but for how long? what, a year, nay three, six, ten years, as many are, and more, and let them alone and proceed no further? This is strange suspension, how will you warrant this? 
Medul. Theo. l. 1. c. 37. th. 22.  Well, saith learned Ames, who doth approve of suspension; but saith he, In istoc tamen gradu non est subsistendum, said resipiscentia hoc pacto& spacio urgenda,& illa desperata, progrediendum tandem ad segregationem completam a communione fidelium.  
Mr. 
Aar. rod, p. 482  Gillespie in an answer to an Argument of Mr. Prynns thus saith; Those who have been admitted to baptism, ought to be admitted to the Lords Supper, Caeteris paribus; if the proportion hold in particulars, if they be as free from scandalous sins now when they desire to receive the Lords Supper, as they were when they desired to receive baptism: so I say, Caeteris paribus, if a man be as he was when his child was baptized by virtue of him, if I can give the child one seal of the Covenant by virtue of him, I will give him the other seal surely; and it was never any scruple to me to give that man the Lords Supper, by virtue of whom I could baptize his child.  
The next Argument proceeds thus:  
Such Parents, as if they themselves were now to be baptized, ought not to be baptized, cannot justly challenge baptism for their children, neither are we bound to administer it.  
But such Parents as the Question mentions, if they now were to be baptized, ought not to be baptized: Ergo.  
The reason of the mayor lies in this, because baptism doth primarily belong to the parent, and but secondarily to the child by virtue of the parent; now if he who should convey this right to the child, have no right to it himself, then he cannot give the right to the child. The Lawyer saith, Anon habente potestatem, Acts are frustrate; I justify the parents right to baptism, in baptizing of his children.  
For the minor, that such parents have no right, and ought not to be baptized; the grounds which I brought before, to prove that such a one was not fit matter for a Church, prove this also: But I shall add more.  
Obj. The Apostles required no more to baptism but a profession of their belief, as Acts 10.47.& 8.37.& 16.31.34. but these do profess so much: Ergo the Parents have right to baptism, and consequently the child.  
Ans. 1. Peter did require more, Act. 2.38. John did require more constantly.  
2. To the places alleged I answer; There was not so much need of requiring more, for they in Acts 10. you may see what manner of persons they were, by their conversation. The Eunuch, Acts 8. we may see what manner of person he was, coming to worship, and how he spent his time going home; the Jaylor now under the legal work in a lost condition for him to believe, it was his next work; what is this to our slight profession of Faith, but ignorant, or scandalous, &c. they were not.  
3 Augustine directly answers to this Objection; Some it seems in his time upon a bare profession of faith would baptize persons, though otherwise scandalous, and objected this text of the Eunuch, in his book, De fide,& op. cap. 9. in the beginning of the Chapter you may see what points of catechism they were instructed in before baptism, besides the believing Jesus Christ to be the Son of God, but how grossly ignorant are our people in them points, which I do not transcribe. Then to the objection he answers, In eo quod ait, Baptizavit eum Philippus, intelligi volvit impleta omnia, quae licet taceantur in scriptures gratia brevitatis, tamen serie traditionis scimus implenda. Those who red the whole Chapter will find him strong enough against this objection.  
As for that book, De fide& operibus, in his Retractions, l. 2. c. 39. He gives the reason why he wrote the book, and what his scope was in it: In quo disputavi non solum quemadmodum vivere debeant gratia Dei regenerati, verum etiam quails ad lavacrum regenerationis admitti. Those who will bestow the reading of Chap. 6.& 8.& 12.& 17.& 18. especially, of that Book, shall find I have a Champion on my side, proving that a bare profession of faith is not sufficient to entitle a man to baptism.  
The Catechumeni in the Primitive times were such, as Imake no doubt for knowledge& conversation out-went thous●●●s of our English Protestants, they soon got more knowledge,& did quickly in two dayes, nay the first day, when they gave themselves up to become Christians, attain as much as many of our ignorant sort have, they owned Christ the first day, and many of ours do no more. What these Catechumeni were instructed in, Augustin gives a short compendium, de fide& op. c. 6. towards the end. But these Catechumeni were not at the very first baptized, but after they came to be competentes, &c.  
If we ask the Schoolmen, they will tells us, there is more required to baptism, then a bare slight profession of faith.  
Alex. 
p. 4 q. 8. ar. 2.  Hales saith, in adulto accident ad Baptismum requiritur contritio, licet originale peccatum non impediat gratiam baptismalem quando habeat effectum in baptizato, tamen actuale impedit in adulto non contrito.  
Aquinas saith, 
p. 3 q 68. a. 4.  Peccatoribus, voluntatem peccandi,& in peccato perseverendi propositum habentibus, baptismus minime conferendus est, &c.  
And in his Answer to the second Argument he speaks plainly. Spiritualis medecus scil: Christus, operatur dupliciter, uno modo interius per seipsum,& sic praeparat voluntatem hoins, ut bonum velit,& malum odiat: alio modo operatur per ministros exterius adhibendo Sacramenta,& sic operatur perficiendo exterius id quod est interius inchoatum. Et ideo, Sacramentum Baptismi non est exhibendum, nisi ei, in quo interioris conversionis aliquod signum apparet: sicut nec medicina corporalis ad hibetur infirmo, nisi in eo aliquis motus vitalis naturae appareat.  
Who desires more then Aquinas hath affirmed.  
Greg: de Valen. He also is strong against this, and bestows pains about the question, 
To. 4. disp. 4. q. 3 p. 3.  he saith, ut adulti recte accipiant baptismum, atque etiam ut eis rectè i.e. sine mortali peccato Administretur, necessarium est ut eos praeteritorum peccatorum mortalium poeniteat& est certissima ecclesiae doctrina contra nonnullos veteres haereticos, qui solam fidem, ut baptismus prodesset, requirendam putabant. In his esteem then they are but heretics that say onely Faith is enough to entitle to Baptism, and quotes that book of Augustin of which I made mention before: this he doth not barely assert, but proves, by Act: 2. where Peter bids them repent, &c. he quotes other Texts to good purpose, Heb: 6. and Rom: 6. and 1 Pet. 6.3. and Matth: 7. give not that which is holy unto dogs, and Matth: 28. Docete omnes gentes, baptizantos, &c. i.e. persuadete simul, ut velint esse& fieri Christi discipuli, abjecta veteri consuetudine peccaterum per paenitentiam. So Matth. 3. John required repentance.  
After this he moves a question, what manner of repentance is required? and answers, Sufficere qualemcunque paenitentiam imperfactam, quae tamen absolutè removeat Affectum ad peccatum, i.e. faciat ut non amplius vigeat. Whether this repentance be caused from sin, as it is an offence to God, or as it hath the guilt of eternal death accompanying it, or what ever cause( though some, he saith after, as Navarrus, &c. contend that it must be for sin, as it is an offence to God) yet he saith, from what principles soever this repentance for sin flows, it must have this effect, to take away the affection to sin, so as it may not grow nor flourish more.  
So also Durandes, who denies indeed, 
l. 4. disp. 4. q. 2.  that Contritio must be necessary required before baptism, yet there is, quaedam displicentia peccati Commissi licet informis& imperfecta, quae dicitur attritio, quae licet non sit sufficiens ad dolendum peccatum, est tamen dispositio sufficiens ad suscipiendum baptismum, eo quod tollit Fictionem. And this saith he is meant in Act. 2.  
Repentance then must be joined with faith in those who are admitted to baptism( if adulti) in the Schoolmens opinion. This is more then a slight profession, to say, I believe in Christ: yea, ora slight confession of sin; which M. Prynn speaks of.  
Learned Gillespie I find very strong for me in this point. 
Aar. rod 482.   
Whereas Mr. Prynn had affirmed that in the Apostles times, a mere external slight confession of sin[ which is more] and profession of Faith, was sufficient to enable sinners to be baptized. He Answers, I utterly deny it as most false, and as a reproach cast upon the Apostles, and so answers to that of Phillips baptizing Simon magus, he should have proved( saith he) that Simon Magus was known to be in the gull of bitterness, when Phillip baptized him.  
After this he saith, 
P 514.  we red of no persons of age baptized by the Apostles, except such as did profess faith in Christ, gladly received the Word, and in whom some begun work of the spirit of grace did appear[ though it may be not real.] Aquinas said as much before. 
p. 515.   
I believe( saith he) no conscientious Minister would adventure to baptize one who hath manifest and infallible signs of unregeneration, wee cannot be answerable to God if wee should, &c.  
If it were a profanation of baptism, to baptize a Catechumeni, a Jew, or a Pagan professing a resolution to turn Christian, he being manifestly under the power of abominable reigning sins, 
p. 544.  and still a wicked liver, although he were able to give a sound and Orthodox Confession of Faith, then the Lords Supper, &c.  
His mind then is, a bare profession of Faith is not sufficient.  
Thousands of ours can give no Orthodox confession, they are so ignorant, and thousands as scandalous.  
The Minor is proved.  
Obj. But the Parent is baptized, and that gives right. Ergo. This supposition is nothing.  
Answ: Does the Church perform their duty, in suffering such a person to continue in the Church, who show not so much as giveth a right to baptism? Exercise Discipline then.  
But this intimates clearly, that it is the Parents being baptized which gives the Title, yea, and this alone, for though the person cannot be judged fit to give the right upon other grounds, as being a visible Saint, and Church member, yet his baptism will do it.  
1 Hence I argue, If the Parents baptism gives the right to the Infants baptism, then an excommunicate person may justly challenge baptism for his child. The Consequence is clear.  
The Excommunicate person doth not loose his baptism.  
But the excommunicate person cannot justly challenge: As before proved?  
Ergo:  
2 I would put this case, suppose a man to be newly converted to the faith, and so as he appears a real Convert, he also is admitted into the Church this day, but possibly, not baptized that day, but it is deferred to the next; but on the sudden he is taken sick, and by reason of this, baptism cannot be administered unto him, and possibly he dieth of his disease:[ the story of Valentinianus sending to Ambrose for his baptism, is well known, who dyed before he was baptized] suppose in this time while he lies in his sickness, he should have a child born unto him, now what would our Divines do with this child, baptize it or not? the Father is not baptized as yet, nor can receive it, but he is a member of the Church, and for ought we can see a godly man, I presume charity would strain hard before we would deny the child baptism; then it is not the baptism of the parent that conveys the right, for here is one baptized[ the excommunicate person] and yet his child ought not to be baptized, and here is one not baptized, and yet his child may be baptized  
So that I conceive it is the Parents being visibly in Covenant, and joined to the Church, which as it is the ground of his own baptism, so it is that which doth primarily, and radically convey the right to the child.  
For those who conceive that it is baptism which makes us members of a Church, my former supposition will be slighted by them; but I am sure all Divines are not of that mind, nor will reason force it. What were all the children of the Jews before they were eight dayes old? or in case they were sick, and so their Circumcision was deferred, were they not looked upon as members of the Jewish Church, together with their parents? if so, then Circumcision did not make them members.  
baptism is a privilege belonging only to a Church, therefore it supposes a Church, and that organical, for none but Officers can dispense it, what was it then first made this Church?  
If baptism make a man a member of a Church, what do you when you dismember a man by excommunication, do you null his baptism.  
Amesius answering to Bellarm. who had said, 
Bull. ener. to. 2. l. 2. c. 1.  Non baptizati haeretici excommunicati, &c. non sieve de ecclesia, saith thus: De infantibus fidelium,& fidelibus nondum baptizatis, adeò manifestè falsum est quod affirmatur, ut nisi habendi tales essent pro membris ecclesiae, non deberent baptizari Baptismus enim sua natura est sigillum insitionis jam factae in Christum atque adeo in ecclesiam, Act. 10.47, 48.  
3 My third argument is this:  
If Ministers in baptizing are bound to hold to their Commission, then the children of such parents as the question mentions are not to be baptized.  
But the Antecedent is true, none will deny that; ergo the Consequence is true.  
The Consequence: Ministers by their Commission[ Matth. 28.19. {αβγδ}] are bound to baptize Disciples.  
But these are no Disciples: Ergo.  
My Argument tends to this; If the parent be not a Disciple, the child is none; but such a parent is none, ergo his child is none.  
The Anabaptists here triumph. This is the text they think overthrows all who baptize infants; but I easily can distinguish between a Church as it is constituenda,& constituta; as now in New England, they preach to the Indians, and labour to make them Disciples, having so done, no doubt when the parents are baptized, the insants shall also be baptized. Our Divines have cleared that text I think sufficiently, that it is no hindrance, but rather proves the baptizing of infants. I shall desire to add one answer more then yet I find.  
1 Suppose Christ had not at all changed the seal of the Covenant of Grace, but let Circumcision have been the initiating seal to the Gentiles as well as to the Jews, yet no doubt when Christ sent forth his Disciples with his Commission, he would have said, {αβγδ} go teach all Nations, circunctsing them; for I hope he would not have them circumcised before they had been taught; but if it had been so, who would ever have doubted but if the Father had been circumcised, the child had been also, when they saw it was so practised among the Jews, and Proselytes also for so many hundred yeares, I am confident none would ever have questioned the thing; the converted Jews, Acts 21.21. did not think their children excluded, but they would circumcise their children, though now Circumcision was abolished; but Circumcision was a seal of the Covenant of Grace as well as baptism; why therefore should this text make more against Baptizing then Circumcision? This for the text.  
2 Further, the Anabaptists make the silence of the New Testament concerning infant baptism to be a great argument against it, to me it is a great argument for it, which I make thus to appear.  
We know the nulling of Circumcision, what a dust it made in the Churches in the Apostles time, how they were troubled with it, as witness Pauls Epistle to the Galatians, so to the Philippians, and that, Act. 15. a long journey it cost him, the Synod is called, the business is about Circumcision, the clearest ground we have for a Synod was occasioned upon this question; now Circumcision was but an external seal of the Covenant of Grace, and that a painful Ordinance; when it was removed they had another come in the room, as significant as that, and more easy, it is but the change of the seal; now if the change only of a seal made such a stir in the Churches, as I have shown, then surely the casting out of all their Posterity, and not giving them any initiating seal in the room of Circumcision would have made a greater dust; For circumcision it is a fair answer; O Jews, we have done you no harm, though you have this removed, here is another come in the room of it more easy, significant, &c. But suppose the Jews and Gentiles converted had said; But what do you with our Posterity, must not they have this Ordinance as well as we? what, do you cast them out of the Church? where shall we find an answer to this in all the New Testament, for the children being excluded, there is not one text or fillable {αβγδ} quidem, in all the New Testament, as I said, Act. 21.21. they did think their Children should be taken in with them; had Paul taught them, you must not Circumcise your Children, nor Baptize them, this had been something, but the stir, as you may see by Act. 15. was not in regard of the subject, the child, but the Circumcision.  
I am confident it would have been as great a block to hinder the Jews from receiving of Christ, as could be. What, this is a strange Doctrine, that whereas our children have before been owned with us under the Covenant; here is a Doctrine casts them out, and leaves them as the Heathen.  
The Anabaptists then must bring me as express texts, to prove that the Infants of believers must now be left out, and not owned in the Covenant with their parents, as I can bring them express texts, that Circumcision is abolished, or else I will never believe their Doctrine.  
3 Another Argument fell in my course, preaching through the second of the Ephesians, in vers. 11. the Apostle to make the Ephesians highly to prise the estate they were brought into by the Free Grace of God, and Christ, he puts them in mind of their miserable and forlorn condition they were in before; this is reckoned up as one thing to set it out, they were Gentiles in the flesh, called uncircumcision by that which is called Circumcision; this was the initiating seal then: Now, who are called thus unci rcumcision? The gentle parent and his child; Who called him so? The Jew Circumcised and his child, if then the gentle believer is baptized himself, but the children are not, then this which is reckoned as a note of the miserable and forlorn condition of the gentle before his conversion, is still upon him after his conversion, in the greatest part; the Ephesians might well have answered; nay Paul, you shall not need to reckon up that as one thing to set out our misery by, for that still is upon us in greatest part, for though we ourselves are taken into Covenant, and have the initiating seal, yet our children have it not, but are left as Heathens still, but so were not they who call us the uncircumcision. Let therefore the parent and the children also be taken in, then it is removed, as no doubt the 19. ver. proves. fellow Citizens.  
4 Another argument I would use is this; we find many promises made to the posterity of godly parents, Gen. 17.7. Exod. 20.6. Psal. 112.2. Prov. 20.7. Isc. 44.3, 4.& 54.13. now if the children of such parents shall grow up, and though they are but young, yet reading, they find such promises, or hear of them; it seems these poor children must not now go and lay hold of the Promise, claim it by virtue of their parents; if they should go and spread these promises before the Lord, and pled; Lord, hast not thou made these promises to the children of godly parents, I am sure my Father, or my Mother was such a one, now Lord make good these promises to me, who am the child of such; this were nothing, 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 pled these promises which come by the parent; but what use such promises are of to the children of such parents ( I thank God) I know by experience, who[ though I have a most wretched heart] would not part with these promises out of Gods book for the best estate of any Anabaptist in England, the Lord( I praise him) hath taught me from a youth to pled the promises, yea, and when I could find no other bottom to pitch on in times of temptations and searchings, I have run to these promises and pleaded, Lord I own my Fathers Covenant, I stand to that; and have resolved to go to hel with these Promises if I do go, and here I have sound some stay. Now the word having experience joined to it, is to me more then all the talk of Anabaptists.  
To put an end to this, and so return to our Argument. The more I study this doctrine of the Anaptists, I thank God the more I see into the falsehood and vileness of it, 
Survey of Dis. p. 38.  and do think that holy and learned Mr. Hooker hath not passed too sharp a censure upon it, when he calls it, The wretched doctrine of the Anabaptists.  
Now to return to the Commission, Persons made Disciples, by teaching or calling[ as say the London Ministers before] these are such as must be baptized. Some of our Divines observing what use the Anabaptists make of {αβγδ} make ye Disciples they answer it is a Criticism, and so wave it; but I think we sha, not need to be so shy of it, let them take their notion, it shall not trouble me; for I make no question when I baptize th● Infant of a parent that is a Disciple, I baptize also an In-e fant Disciple. But if the parent be not a Disciple, then I cannot look at the child as such, which is the thing my Argument looks at.  
But for this word, {αβγδ}, to be thus rendered, certainly that John 4.1. doth make it clear, when the Pharisee heard, {αβγδ}, &c. Whence Mr. Cartwright, quod autem dicitur fecisse& baptizasse discipulos, sicut Mat. 28.19. {αβγδ}. Docetur prius esse Discipulos Christi, quam baptismi Sacramento obsignantur: adversus illos qui baptismo Christianos fieri putant, &c. He then renders the word so, and so do others who are no Anabaptists: As Zanchy. Constituite mihi discipulos, 
In secon. par. p. 440.  hoc enim est propriè {αβγδ}, facere, {αβγδ}. So Gerhard in loc. So Pareus in loc.  
Nay, reason will force it, for what if you teach the Nations, suppose they will not receive your doctrine, will you baptize them? no sure, but as Mr. Gillespy cited before, None were baptized except such as did profess their faith in Christ, gladly received the word, and some work of the spirit of grace begun( at least apparenter.) Now these are Disciples, and preaching is to bring people to this. He speaks de adultis, You must teach the Covenant, and they must understand it, and submit to it( appearingly at least) before we can give the seal of the Covenant.  
Now shall we call them persons in the question, Disciples, when as they are sottishly ignorant in the very fundamentals of Religion, or scandalous, or scoffers, or being convinced of discipline, yet will not stoop to it? will we admit of such scholars into a School, that will come and learn as they please, and do what they please, but tel their Master he shal use no discipline? no sure.  
For making them Disciples by calling. I am very much inclined to think, that much of our Religion is grounded upon the State,& taking up by tradition; it appears so, by many in their woeful ignorance, and so Ministers speak in their Sermons. But for calling by the word, either by Catechism when they were young, or by the word preached. I believe the word never had any offect upon them, hence we find them have a notion, God is merciful, and we must repent, and this is all. For the State, though I conceive the State is bound to compel the Subjects to attend upon converting Ordinances, yet they have not power to compel the ministry to give the Sacraments, but where the word doth seem( at least apparentèr) to have had some effect. To call very ignorant persons, scandalous, scorners of the Members of Christ, that can jeer at them, and hate them, and who refuse to stoop to his discipline, Christs discipels, I think no serious Minister will do it. If then the parent be no Disciple, the child is none, therefore I go beyond my commission when I baptize such a one.  
4 I shall but touch two Arguments more.  
To administer the seal of the Covenant of grace to a child, by virtue of him who is visibly in Covenant with Satan, must needs be a profaning of the Ordinance.  
But to administer baptism to a child by virtue of such a one as the question mentions, is to administer the seal of the Covenant of grace to a child by virtue of one who is visibly in Covenant with Satan. Ergo.  
For the mayor, you say it is a profaning of the Lords Supper to admit such an one to it, ergo, you exclude him, and may not the Sacrament of baptism be profaned as well, having as great privileges signified by it?  
For the Minor. A person grossly ignorant in the fundamentals of Religion, his course of life, his trade, is to live in sin, scandalous, &c. what shall wee say of such an one: though he doth not formally make a Covenant with the devil, yet we know in what sense we take such expressions of our Ministers.  
I wonder how Ministers pray when they baptize the child of such an one, they cannot but have some eye to Gods Covenant, and do we not mention so much to the Lord, that he having taken the parent into Covenant with himself, he doth also the seed of the Parent; and so we pled the Covenant, and a blessing, &c. but when a godly Minister shall carry the parent in his heart thus, doth not his heart check him, trouble him in the thought of the Parent?  
If you say the parent is in Covenant, for he is baptized, I should give my former answer. And further I say, if he be in Covenant, why do you constantly exclude him from the Lords Supper, and not proceed, as I said in my first Argument?  
If you say it is not by virtue of him but his Predecessors, I shall desire to see more light first, and what I have said to that question clearly removed.  
5 I shall not draw these into form, but I desire they may be seriously considered.  
1 How exceedingly this Ordinance is slighted, abused, through this heedles administering of the Ordinance, for we see persons never mind the Ordinance before hand, nor after; but come let us have our children baptized, and that is all, if they can make a Feast and drink after it, that is well. Why do we tell people of preparing themselves to the Lords Supper, and not as well to this, I know of no Ordinance so abused as this is, and this hardens men, and settleth them on their sees, for if they come to Church, and have their children baptized what care they for more.  
2 Besides, it is strange to see how we jumble the most holy and profane men in the Nation together; if Master Greenham, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rogers, Mr. Dod, or whom you will, should come and bring their children to be baptized, let the most ignorant sot, Drunkard, Swearer, unclean person, scorner of godliness, &c. come, he shall have his child baptized as well as they; Have they their children taken into Covenant? so have I, says the Drunkard, Swearer, &c. Shall we own all these men alike under the Covenant, so as to give the seal of the Covenant alike to all?  
Would not a serious Minister having two children brought together to baptize, the parents of these children stand by, the father of the one a holy man, the father of the other a very wretch, a mock-God,( the mothers of the children also disser as much) for the Minister now to join both these together in his prayer, and administer the seal of the Covenant to both alike by virtue of these parents, would it not trouble him in his Act?  
Obj. But to come to the great objection; The Jews though very wicked, had their children circumcised; ergo.  
Ans. I confess this is a hard knot to untie, I desire some who have better fingers then I, would lend their help here, I shall propound my thoughts by way of answer.  
There was excommunication among the Jews, 
Aar. rod. c. 4.  those who deny it let them grapple with stout Gillespie, who proves it, and shows the causes of their excommunication, some whereof Christians may be guilty of; if persons were excommunicated, some say their children were not circumcised, as I quoted Mr. Gillespie before; but I do not much press this.  
2 I conceive for ignorance they were not so guilty as are many of ours, though the knowledge of Christ was very little, 
Synag. Jud. c. 3.  yet in Moses Law they trained up their children, better then thousands of ours; what care they have Buxtorfe reports, though it is very much to observe, they should be so unacquainted with the Prophets, where Christ is most made known under the Old Testament, as he relates.  
But to come more close to the answer.  
1 I desire my reverend Fathers and Brethren would give me clear proof, that the Priests did debar thousands of the people from the Passeover for moral uncleannesses[ for as for ceremonial uncleannesses they do not trouble us, we can admit such to the Lords Supper] and thus they did debar them six, ten, twenty yeares together[ as our Divines do thousands in this kingdom, though they have the Lord; Supper oftener then they had the Passeover] and yet though they were thus debarred, they did circumcise their children,[ as our Divines do baptize, notwithstanding their suspension, and that without any pains to bring them to humiliation, &c.] this now will speak something if it can be proved, but I must have good grounds to believe it.  
2 I conceive there was something peculiar to them in the constitution of their Jewish national Church, from ours under the gospel; there God takes Abraham, enters into Covenant with him, lays the foundation of the Church in his Family, and commands him to circumcise his seed; the constitution of our Churches do not begin with any particular person, but, make Disciples, and baptize. Now though I conceive the descending from Abraham according to the flesh was not the sole ground of administering Circumcision, yet I am apt to think there was something peculiar to them, in being Israel after the flesh; and these grounds led me to think so.  
1 When these Jews came to Johns baptism, they were not admitted without any more ado, but he required confession of sins first, repentance; it was not sufficient to pled we are Abrahams Seed, therefore baptize us, as well as we are circumcised by being his Seed; but as I said, 
Aar. rod, p. 553  he requireth repentance, yea and so as Mr. Gillespie conceives, that John did not baptize those Pharisees, 
p. 555.  and concludes with the Centurists, John did not cast pearls before Swine; he did not admit rashly any that would, to baptism, but such as confessed their sins; that is, only such as were tried, and did repent, but the contumacious, and the defenders of their impieties he did reject.  
2 We observe when they fell into that foul apostasy, yet their children were Circumcised, whether regularly or no I leave that; but I would desire whether if any of our Church-Members should apostatise to so foul Idolatries, as the Calves at Dan and Bethel, Baal, the offering of their children to Moloch, that unclean god Priapus[ which learned Divines conceive to be the meaning of that place, 
burrow on the text.  Hos. 4.14. Themselves are separated with whores, &c. Would you baptize their children? I doubt holy men would not do it, you would suspend their baptism a while till they had repented, and declared their hatred against such Idols.  
3 I observe, when they admitted any Heathens into the Church of Israel, they were very exact, as Mr. Ainsworth notes out of Maimonid. on Gen. 17.12. they make diligent inquiry, lest they come to get themselves under the Law for riches, dignity, or fear, or love to some Jewish woman, or man; if no such like occasion be found in them, then they make known to them the weightiness of the yoke of the Law, and the toil that is in doing thereof, to see if they will leave off; if they see they with-draw not, and see them that they come of love, then they receive them, as Ruth. 1.18. now this is more then for one to come and profess he did believe in the God of Israel, therefore Circumcise me, &c. as some conceive a bare profession that they believe in Christ gives right to baptism; the Jews being trained up in their Fathers religion, and the religion of the Nation, may seem all of them to have this which they required of the Proselytes, but I should prefer these things in a Proselyte, before the same things in a mere carnal Jew.  
3 It is true, the wicked Jews being members of that national Church so long as their Membership held, they might challenge Circumcision; so for wicked persons so long as they continue members, and the Church lets them alone, they may challenge baptism; but our question is, whether such persons should be let alone, is not that Church to blame? though they are de facto, members through want of the exercise of Discipline, yet the question is de jure, ought such to be members?  
4 I conceive whatever the Church of the Jews was, the Churches under the Gospel must look to some with more strictness, though I allow not that strictness and ridgednesse which some would have,( for an error on the right hand is an error as well as an error on the left) yet I believe some more strictness; there is ground why it should be so.  
1. We have more light then ever the Jews had, in the knowledge of Christ especially; they had the shadow, we the body; hence the Apostle, Gal. 4.1. &c. compares the time of the Jewish Church, to the time of child-hood.  
2 The Spirit of God is more given out under the Gospel then before, if we consider the bulk of Christians, Gods people have more of the Spirit now then his own had under the Law, and so I believe the same Spirit doth restrain more under the Gospel, such as come not to reality of grace; I will not enlarge upon this head.  
1 Hence we find in Scripture, Ezek. 44.7.9.( which respects the Churches under the Gospel) God reproveth not only the bringing of Strangers into his Sanctuary who were uncircumcised in the flesh, but the bringing of those who were uncircumcised in heart; that is, known to be such, for De secret is non judicat ecclesia; such ought not to have fellowship in holy things.  
2 Hence again we find the condition of the Churches under the New Testament set down, Isa. 52.1. 
Aar. rod. p. 107.  which Master Gillespie proves to be understood of a Church visible, and ministerial.  
3 Hence we find the Churches of Asia commended, or reproved, as they kept their Churches from pollution, or suffered wicked persons to live in them, Revel. 2.  
4 Hence we find Church Discipline more clearly laid open in the New Testament then in the Old, Mat. 18.15, &c.  
5 Hence, 2 Thes. 3.12.14. we find Paul writing to the Churches, to note such persons who did not obey the Word, though but an idle person.  
6 Hence we find a command to exercise Discipline against several persons, 1 Cor. 5.11.  
Of this last text a few words; No not to eat. Some, and most Divines that I see say, it doth prove suspension from the Lords Table, and Excommunication; some Divines I have heard,[ but red very few] say it is meant only of civill familiarity; so I heard Mr. Edwards once in the Pulpit, so another, whom I must reverence. Mr. Prynne he is so peremptory in it, that he scorns all the Divines who have affirmed the contrary.  
For the godly Ministers who are of Mr. Prynns judgement, I shall but only propound one question to them; If that be your opinion of the place, then what is the reason your Parishes have been so long destitute of the Lords Supper? Why are you so troubled to think of one? Is it not because there are companies of rusty, rugged, rich fellowes in our Parishes, bad enough, who will crowd in if we go about it? but what I pray would you have these do, keep off? sure if so, you will confirm the interpretation to be meant of suspension at least, that is, Excommunicatio minor, and what is the cause of that, if obstinacy continues, will deserve the higher excommunication; I would never scruple the giving of the Lords Supper to all my Parish[ if they have but knowledge] if that text respects only civill familiarity.  
Put I shall proceed, and set down some Divines of no small note, who are for the first interpretation, and that it is meant of Excommunication, I do not set down their words, because of trouble, but if you please to red these places I refer to, you shall find what I affirm.  
August. Homil. 50. Calvin in Loc.& institu. l. 4. c. 12. Sect. 4, 5 Beza his Annota. on the ninth v. of the Chap. Zanch. in 4th. Precep. p. 742, 743. Chemniti. in Joh. 9.22. & Mat. 18.17. Hemming. in Loc. Pareus in loc. Piscator in his fourth and fifth observations upon the chap. The Heyden Profess. Synop. Theol. disp. 48. Thes. 25. Ames. de consc. l. 4. c. 29. Th. 30. Dicson in loc. Diodati his Annot. upon the text, our English Annot. upon the 9.& 11 ver. of the cha. Mr. Hooker. Surv of Chur. Discip. par. 3. p. 39. the Synod of New England, their confession of Church Discipline, Mr. Gillespie, who answers Mr. Prynne, and quotes P. Martyr, gualther, Tossanus, the Centurists[ which I have not] all which expound it of Excommunication.  
Now though I do not pin my faith upon any mans sleeve, yet I would see very good reasons why I should differ so much in the interpretation of a text, from so many men, so holy and learned as many of these were, and are, whom I have quoted; neither had Mr. Prynne been esteemed the less godly and learned, if he had shown more respect to such as have interpnted for suspension, or excommunication.  
For Mr. 
Vindica. p. 2.  Prynne I leave him to Mr. Gillespie, only one thing I take notice of, he is content to yield that some persons may be excommunicated, and all the warrant he gives us for excommunication is from 1 Cor. 5.13. It is readily yielded, that gross noterious, scandalous, obstinate sinners, who presumptuously persevere in their iniquities, after private and public admonitions, without remorse of Conscience, or amendment, may be justly excommunicated from the Church, the society of the faithful, and all public Ordinances, after due proof, and legal conviction of their scandalous lives; and that, 1 Cor. 5.13. warrants thus much, notwithstanding the various readings of thetext. Thus M. Pryn  
I perceive according to Master Prynne, excommunication reacheth but a few, and Ministers will have much trouble when they go about it; for the persons must be gross notorious sinners, obstinate, such as do presumptuously persevere? What need these words? Paul saith, 2 Thess. 3.14. If any man obey not our word, &c. note that man; though but an idle person who will not labour, ver. 12. Now is this such a gross notorious sin with Mr. Pryn? the incestuous person, we do not find he did presumptuously persevere after private and public admonition, for the Church was negligent, yet Paul bids them put him away. Why will not obstinacy in a lesser sin, though not so grossly notorious, deserve excommunication? for the exclusion of excommunicate persons from all Ordinances[ the word preaching, which is the means to convince and humble, and to which the Heathens are admitted] it is more then ever I saw practised among the Churches of New England, neither can I see any reason for it, but I aim at something else; that text, he saith, warrants excommunication, but none else in all the Bible; for he disputes against all the rest, that our Divines bring for excommunication, at least the most eminent texts, as Matthew 18.17. which is not meant he saith of excommunication; the warrant then Master Prynne gives us is from these words, Therefore put away from yourselves that wicked person. I suppose when Mr. Prynne tells us what persons he would have excommunicated, he means all such persons so qualified as he there sets down. Though he hath not put the note of universality to his long Proposition, yet he means, it is a universal Proposition. Then let us see how that Text proves his proposition.  
The Apostle in those words doth but apply his former discourse unto that particular incestuous person, then Mr. Prynns argument must run thus.  
The Incestuous person was to be excommunicated.  
Ergo, All gross notorious sinners, that presumptuously persevere after admonitions[ which it seems this person had not] are to be excommunicated.  
What logic have we here? a universal Conclusion in a Contract syllogism? draw it into form and see how it runs.  
The Incestuous person was a notorious sinner, &c. as Mr. Prynne describes.  
The Incestuous person was excommunicated.  
Ergo, All notorio us sinners, &c. are to bee Excommunicated.  
This is no good logic, since Mr. Prynn denies all other Texts to prove excommunication but this, I cannot tell how he will prove that any but such Incestuous persons as this person was, of whom the Text speaks, should be excommunicated.  
Pauls logic is very good.  
All scandalous impenitent sinners within the Church, are to be excommunicated, v. 11.  
The Incestuous person, is a scandalous impenitent sinner within the Church.  
Ergo, The Incestuous person is to bee excommunicated.  
If any Object. Neither can we prove the excommunication of all notorious, obstinate sinners from that, v. 11. Ergo, Neither is your logic good,  
I Answer, There was no need why the Apostle should reckon up all scandalous sinners that must be excommunicated in one verse. But.  
1 We having a general rule, Mat. 18.15, 16, &c.[ it is a very absurd conceit of them, who expound the offence there mentioned, to be only some private injury which my brother may offer me; it is spoken to often enough, therefore I leave it.]  
2 We having other texts that guide us, as 2 Thess 3.14. which is also a general rule, and Tit. 3.10.& 1 Tim. 1.20. for heresy.  
3 The Apostle in this eleventh verse, enumerating divers Sins, Fornication, drunkenness, Idolatry, Extortion, covetousness, railing,[ not speaking of one particular person, as that clause in the 13. v. expresseth] he Apostle need not reckon up all sins: These by a rule of proportion, with other texts being laid together, will help us to draw out a universal proposition concerning persons that should be excommunicated, better then that one particular example, which only he will allow us to be a warrant for excommunication of all notorious sinners; I could draw out the proposition from these three heads, but it is so obvious to any intelligent Readers eye, that I spare the pains, I leave Mr. Prynne, and go to the text. It is worth the observation what Mr. Gillespie saith: 
Aar. rod. 4●7.  Had the Apostle said simply, not to eat, the argument for civill familiarity had been more colourable; but after he had twice said, not to keep company, to add, no not to eat, doth plainly intimate the Apostle argueth from the less to the greater, and that there is some other fellowship with such a one, &c.  
For my part, it seems strange to me, that a man should be reputed a Brother, a member of a Church, admitted to all the Ordinances, under no Censure, and yet I must not show him so much familiarity as I may a Heathen, to whom I may go if he invites me: 1 Gor. 10.27. but not to my brother, after excommunication, indeed the verse takes place; as, orare, vale, convivia, mensa negatur: but before excommunication I never heard that it did, I have eat with Indians divers times, and that was no trouble to me; but one time being at a godly friends house, where one of the Family( a son) was excommunicated, 
Vindic p. 28.  it did a little at first trouble me,[ not out of any self conceited holinesse, which Mr. Prynne thinks is the ground why Ministers do thus labour to keep Churches clear; such as upon any such grounds do refuse to go to a Sacrament, let them bear the blame] but I at last recalled myself; for political and Oeconomicall communion which hath its obligation from the Law of Nature, and Excommunication doth not solve from that; yet I did desire to deal faithfully with the party afterward.  
Further, the Argument the Apostle uses in the sixth and seventh verses, 
Vid. Pasca. Pare. in loc.  to move the Church to cast out the incestuous person, that is, from the dangerous effect which may follow, set out under that similitude taken from leaven, it is of force against these sins mentioned in ver. 11. for surely Fornicators, Drunkards, &c. are as apt to leaven others as the incestuous person was; Impunitas vitiorum alios ad peccandum invitat, as Pareus notes; and here Mr. Prynn may see the reason why we would be careful to exclude such, not because we conceive ourselves to be too holy for such to communicate with; but because our hearts are doughty fit to be infected with such leaven; That the Church may be a pure and clean body, something like other blessed head, as the seventh verse implies. That we may be faithful Stewards in dispensing the holy things of God, 
Doida. in loc.  1 Cor. 4.2. That we may use all means to save the soul, verse 5.  
Something I observe out of ver. 12. which seems to me to prove this no not to eat, must be meant of excommunication, or suspension at least, the verse doth depend upon the 10.& 11. vers. that is clear enough; therein he gives a reason of the precedent limitation to the members of the Church; for what have I to do to judge, &c. do not ye judge them that are within? so that by this verse hanging on the former, it should seem Paul did there judge such persons; now what judgement hath the Church but Suspension and Excommunication? doctrinal judging is not only meant, the next verse still makes it clear; but them that are without God judgeth, therefore put away from yourselves that wicked person: Here Paul judges, and the Church doth judge; judging then here is excommunication, I see I am not alone in my notion, but upon search I found some others who back me in my interpretation. Piscator is plain, his second aphorism( as he calls it) is this; Excommunicatio est judicium seu decretum, seu denique sententiae dictio, colligitur ex verbis Apostoli, ver. 3. Ego judicavi jam ut praesens. Item. ver. 12. Nonne de eis qui intus sunt, vos judicatis? So also Pareus upon the word judicatis; Docet igitur censuras Ecclesiasticas non stringendas in extraneos, said circa eos, qui cum intra Ecclesiae pomeria versentur, tamen ut extraneos se gerunt, exercendas esse. This judging then he understands to be Church Censures, but this judging is to be referred to ver. 11.  
Further, I desire any Christian to consider, whether they think the Apostle would have Christians to have intimate familiarity with a Heathen that was a Fornicator, Drunkard,& c? Is there not danger of a Christian who shall familiarly converse with a Heathen, whose mouth is full of unclean filthy speeches, and base gestures? so to be in a Drunkards company, to sit quaffing with such a one, is there not danger though he be a Heathen? if you say, yes sure, we ought to take heed of all occasions of sin, our hearts are as tinder to the sparks; therefore intimate familiarity is to be avoided with such: Then I say, if no not to eat, be meant only of intimate civill familiarity, then Paul did judge those who were without, as well, and as much, as those who were within, and he makes no difference between the judging of the one and the other, but this twelfth verse saith, He had nothing to do with those who were without.  
Further, this judging doth imply some power and authority put forth upon the persons judged, in ver. 11. here is the act of Rulers, the Officers of the Church, together with the fraternity consenting with the Officers; in excommunication this is seen indeed, but not in the denying of civill intimate familiarity with one, which I can also deny to one, over whom I have no power nor authority.  
This discourse I have run into by occasion of my last answer to the Objection, so that for the present I am not much moved with the Argument: though I know it is that which is most used; I hope some others will give better answers, presuming that since they practise as they do, and have been longer at their studies then I have been, they are better furnished then I am with arguments to defend their practise.  
There is but one more Objection, and that is commonly used; if you practise thus, you will make abundance in England, and in your Parish, to be no better then Heathens.  
I answer; Thousands of our people are suspended from the Lords Supper many yeares together, and your suspension is excommunicatio minor; follow home your Discipline, and I doubt you must come to excommunicate thousands, and if so, you will make them as Heathens; you do a great deal towards it.  
2 I do not look upon all those whose children I admit not to baptism as Heathens, but as Church-members in a large sense, through want of Catechizing and Discipline, over-grown with ignorance and profaneness, I conceive they have a fundamental or remote right( as I may say) to the baptism of their children, yea and to the Lords Supper, you must not deny it, if you own them to be Church-members, however custom hath prevailed to the exclusion of them from it, without regular proceeding, and labouring to bring them to repentance; and that I do not look at them as Heathen, &c. this is one demonstration, for such as I do now refuse to baptize, it may be the next child God giveth the Party I do baptize it, the Parent gives now some better hopes then before, his conversation is more reformed, &c. but this parent I do not baptize, which I should do if I looked on him as a Heathen, and no member of a Church, being he was not excommunicated. Heathens, and non-members of Churches( who were never excommunicated) when they are taken into a Church, they are baptized; and thus it is in New England, those whom they take into their Churches; they do not baptize again[ the parents I mean.] The Anabaptists who deny the Churches of England, do so indeed.  
3 Since then our Churches through want of Catechizing, and Discipline, are grown thus ignorant and corrupt, and to exercise Discipline it is very hard, the persons are numerous, who are as the Question mentions: 
A question propounded.  I propound this Question; Whether it were not better for the Ministers of England, as they do suspend persons from the Lords Supper, so also for a time to suspend them from baptizing of their Children, and in the mean time, Ministers to follow Catechizing close, and labour to reform them from a scandalous conversation, by all the gentle persuasions, and meekness of wisdom, which God shall give us, that so when by our Catechizing they have gotten knowledge, and we find the Word have so much power as to rectify their conversations, we may then with more comfort give this Ordinance?  
My shallow head cannot think of any way to reform our Congregations but this, and surely if all Ministers did thus, it would make people more to look about them; this may we do, and the Civill Power will back Ministers in so doing, and not suffer their maintenance to be kept from them by such as you shall for a time thus suspend( as I have experience) and this must be acknowledged to be a great mercy we enjoy, though we have many discouragements from the errors and schisms of the times.  
I tell my people, I do not absolutely deny to baptize their Children, but desire them to forbear a while, and if they will answer me in the Assembly as others do, or come to my house and be catechised there, so that they may get knowledge, and if they will reform their conversations from scandalous walking, set up religious duties as well as they can in their Families, and subject themselves to Discipline, then I will do it.  
If any say I have overthrown myself in affirming all to be Church-members; they may answer themselves by what I have said before, we receive them indeed from our Predecessors, who owned them for such and baptized all, and it is but faintly that I aclowledge it, and I say de facto they are so esteemed, but de jure they ought not to be so; only they are so numerous that now we come to Reformation, we know not what to do, therefore I go this way, as the mildest course I can take.  
Obj. If you say this doth but draw men into a formality of religion.  
I answer, if a man shall profess this unto me, that God hath made him see himself utterly undone without Christ, and so doth trust and rest upon Christ for salvation, and to this profession the things I mentioned are adjoined, viz. Competent knowledge, conversation not scandalous, sets up religious duties in the family, and subjects to Discipline; I look upon such a one as a visible Saint, and I am confident such a person should have been received in the Apostles times.  
Those who contemn this, and must have stricter rules to go by, Let them set pen to paper, if their arguments be cogent I will yield, if not, somebody will be ready to answer them. I had rather grapple with those who think I am too large[ as there are some about me, but I cannot get them to disputation] then with those who judge me to be too streight.  
Concerning this suspension from both the Sacraments for a time, though I confess the Leyden professors are against me, 
Synops. par. Theol.  disp. 44. th. 50. unto which I conceive some answer hath been given in my former discourse: Yet Disp. 48. they seem to allow this, at the 27 Thesis, there is a question moved, whether if there be a great multitude in the Church, who offend in doctrine or life, may we now use excommunication, or exclusion from the Sacraments? the reason of the question they give, in the 28 Thes: they seem to be for non-communion, a secession from them if overgrown with heresy; but as to the life in Thes: 31. they give their answer. I shall rehearse it, beginning about the midst of the Thesis. Sedsi ecclesiae Rectores pleriquè in bonum conspirent, existimo, ejusmodi hominibus apertè& contumaciter corruptis quantalibet sit multitudo, ab iisdem Pastoribus divinae gratiae Sacramenta communicari nec posse nec debere, said unanimi consensu iis esse neganda,& Deo eventum commendandum; quia pii Pastores signa gratiae iis Communicare non possunt, quibus Christus ea apertè negat,& ne communicentur prohibet;& quia exempla in ecclesiis nostri temporis reperiri possunt, ubi ejusmodi negatio publica, in publica morum corruptela, medium fuit& instrumentum, quo ecclesia ad meliorem statum sit reducta,& morum mayor integritas revocata.  
Whereas they say Sacramenta, and Signa gratiae, they must needs include baptism, for they owned but two Sacraments, and thus it seems they have done, and found good success. I am mistaken if they speak not the very thing, I have been pleading for.  
Thus I have troubled the Reader, in giving account of my actions, I trust I shall not be offensive to any of my reverend Fathers or Brethren, if I hold on my practise till I see these grounds removed. I hope I have not so handled the question, as to deserve a sharp Answer, I have endeavoured to give all due respect to those Ministers who I see practise otherwise then I do, esteeming their holinesse, gifts, and learning far beyond mine. Willing I am to receive light from others, and shal readily lay down my opinion and practise when I see strength of Argument compels me; it is no temptation to me, to fall on the charitable side, but I shall leave the controversy to more able heads and better hearts.  
The merciful Lord once again return to his Ordinances, that we may see his goings in his Sanctuary, as we have seen heretofore, and grant that pure Ordinances and pure hearts may meet together.  
FINIS.   

REader, though care was taken in the Printing, as I am certified[ for I was absent all the time] yet some faults are escaped in the points[ which I must leave to your judgement to correct] and words, which I pray correct thus.  
In the Epistle.  
page. 7. line 5. for ridiculous red ridiculous. p. 8. l. 9. blot out besides all p. 9. l. 24. ridged r. rigid. p. 10. l. 10. Church r. Churches. l. 29. blot cut the figure 1. p. 13. l. 3. ridgednesse r. rigidness.  
In the Treatise.  
page. 9. l. 21. in the Marg. ad Loc. come To. 4. p. 584 l. 26. facere r. secêre p. 11. blot out the 21 and 22 lines. p. 4. l. 2. his r. their. l. 27. as r. a. p. 15. l. 8. hellebore r. Hellebore l. 15. r. {αβγδ}. l 26. policeor r. polliccor. l. 34. ridged r. rigid. p. 17. l 8. for make him a Church-member r. imitle a man to baptism. p. 26. l. 5. consequence r. consequent. l. 37. Baptizing r. baptism. p. 29. marg in secon. par. r. in second. praec. p. 30. l. 18. taking r. taken p. 32. l. 11. Minister ad be troubled. p. 33. l. 1. Morr. ll r. moral. p. 34. l. 33. blot out with. l. 34. ridgednesse r. rigidness. p. 36. Heyden r Leiden. p. 37. l. 32. qualified r. qualified.  
In pag. 7. l. 17. by temporal, I mean {αβγδ}, things that pertain onely to this Life, else in some sense baptism is reckoned among the temporal things.  
In pag. 40. I do not mean that Paul did actually judge, or excommunicate all such persons in the Church of Corinth, but that he gives a rule to Churches, where such persons are clearly proved to bee such, and are impenitent, what the Churches should do with them.