A SOBER REPLY TO THE SOBER ANSWER OF REVEREND Mr. CAWDREY, To a serious Question propounded, viz.  
Whether the Ministers of England are bound by the Word of God to baptise the Children of all such Parents, which say they believe in Jesus Christ, but are grossly Ignorant, Scandalous in their Gonversations, Scoffers at Godliness, and refuse to submit to Church-Discipline?  
The Affirmative is not sufficiently cleared.  
ALSO, The Question of Reverend Mr. Hooker concerning the Baptism of Infants, of Parents non-Confederate is cleared, and it may serve for an Answer to Mr. Cawdrey's Diatribe, with him upon the question.  
With A Postscript to Reverend Mr. Blake.  
By GI': FIRMIN Minister to the Church in Shalford.  JOB 6.24. 
Teach me and I will hold my Tongue, and cause me to understand wherein I have erred.  
Imprimatur JOS: caryl.  
LONDON, Printed by J. G. and are to be sold by Robert Littlebury at theVnicorn in Little-Brittaine, 1653.   

TO THE COURTEOUS READER.  
THe Searcher of hearts knoweth with how little pleasure I appear in this Controversy, and what little content I have in refusing to baptise the children of such as the question mentions: it would have become a man of a more holy spirit (as well as stronger parts) because it pleads for purity of an Ordinance: but for an impure heart to plead for a pure Ordinance is a most loathsome thing. Had not such persons as the question mentions, pleaded the examples of other Ministers as their strongest ground, (telling me that other Ministers laughed at me for my practice) and also publicly opposed me when I had dealt with them lovingly in private before, I had never appeared in print, which I did with an eager desire of satisfaction, supposing that Ministers would not laugh at others, unless they had strong grounds for their own practice, which now I hoped to see: the practice being not mine alone (for then I had justly deserved blame) but of many others before me who baptise not all.  
As for Mr. Cawdrey who hath pleased to undertake the answer [for which I really thank him] I saw not his piece against Mr. Hooker till I had printed; but now I have read over that Diatribe and his answer to me, I confess I am still unsatisfied: yet small matters would carry me to that which my own will chooseth most readily (God is my mitnesse I have no sinister respect in my practice) and which would be to my advantage in several respects if I might baptise all.  
I was somewhat ashamed to see so holy and able a man's as Mr. Hooker, to be joined with me by Mr. Cawdrey: if the neereness of a holy man will shame one, what will the nearness of a holy God do? But since Providence hath done it, I did a little more seriously consider of Mr. hooker's question, though different from mine, and I hope 〈◊〉 have so cleared Mr. Hooker out of himself, that it will give content to the Reader. If I writ against the Truth, Christ will, and I desire he would blast it.  
The Reader may perceive by the mentioning of that eminent man of God Mr. Daniel Roger●, of Wetherfield, that this Treatise was finished before his Death, and I sent this Reply to him to view over; he sent me them back with this Letter.  
Dear Cousin Firmin, I have sent you both your Books again, I have read them over and see nothing wherein you fail in answer to Mr. Cawdrey: But I confess my thoughts are not so throughly heat, as yours are, to weigh all circumstances, and passages of difference between you and him: it's only the concernment of such as are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But as for further following Mr. Cawdrey, you do well to tell him you will henceforth manum de tabula, and I pray hold your mind: if of reading Books, then surely of writing such as these, there will be no end. I suppose your haste of printing hath made you think long; I doubt not but you have sufficiently proved, that your Arguments are not so weak, as your adversary in his disdainful conceit hath imputed to you.  
Yours, DANIEL ROGERS.   

A SOBER REPLY TO A SOBER ANSWER, etc.  
IF Baptism were a means of Regeneration, as is the Preaching of the Word, than I should not dare to refuse the Baptising of any person, what ever: or if Baptism were so necessary to Salvation, that all those Children which are Baptised, and die in their Infancy shall be saved, and those which are not Baptised, and die in their Infancy shall perish [as Augustine affirms (I think) ten times in one Epistle] then Mr. Cawdrey did justly tax me with rigidness [as be doth P. 28. and if he had said worse I should have submitted] for non-admitting of some Children to Baptism. But neither the first 
(a) Walae. To. 1. p. 85. & 491. Syney. pu. th' dis●. 44. th'. 27.28.  nor the second 
(b) Chamier. To. 4 l. 5. c. 8. Bell. Ezerv. To 3 d. 2. c. 1.  do our Orthodox Divines affirm. Baptism then being not appointed to bring persons into union with Christ, but suppose union, or to bring persons into the Covenant, but suppose a person already within the Covenant, being a Scale of it, and of all those glorious privileges contained in the Covenant, certainly this is not an Ordinance that is lightly to be regarded, [nor shall be I am confident when Christ comes to reform his Church indeed] but those who do Administer this (being stewards of it) had need look to whom they give out this sacred privilege. Had God tied up Ministers so, that we should administer it only to real Believers, than we had a hard task. he hath left us a greater latitude, but whether such a latitude as now the question mentions, is that we are searching out. Reverend Mr. Cawdrey hath yielded P. 16. That such a person as the question mentions is not sufficiently qualified to be a Church member. Also P. 17. he saith thus, when we say a Profession of the Faith is sufficient to qualify a Man to be made or continued a Member: we do not mean a bare profession with his mouth, that be believes in Jesus Christ, though visibly he lives like an infidel: but thus at least, when nothing in his life appears to the contrary, though there be yet no great positive signs of his holiness. Let there be little positive signs added to a competent measure of Knowledge, and Conversation as you say, and we shall agree in that point. Also in his Review of Mr. Hooker, P. 89. he affirmeth; That, wicked Men are no fit materials of a visible Church. And p. 94. 95. he moves a question because it is hard to judge of the minimum quod sic of Knowledge or Holiness to make a man a fit matter of a Church, whether it were not safer for the Church to proceed by ●egations at her then Affirmation: That is, in admitting or allowing of members, there is nothing appears to the contrary, but that the p●●ty they have so much of saving Knowledge, and so fair a conversation in holiness, as may consist with true grace? This is very fair, and certainly there will be some little positive signs in such a person, and you may admit him by affirmation. Mr. Cawdrey hath fully confirmed me in that which is the ground of my scruple, for when I observed divers persons came to demand Baptism of me, for their children, and I found them grossly ignorant in the necessary points of Salvation, and fare from understanding the nature of the Sacrament, and also when their conversation was proved by witness to 〈◊〉 scandalous, and far from what Mr. Cawdry hath set down, I questioned whether I was bound to give away such a seal as this, and did therefore lovingly request them to forbear a little, and lay in for more knowledge (offering to help them) and so to labour to reform their scandalous conversations, than I would do it.  
M. Cawdry condemns my practice, 
P. 15.  and tells the World I have confuted my Opinion and my Practice, and while I go about to prove the Nega●●●e, I have concluded the Affimative: and that is by one sentence which I have affirmed, viz. So long as wicked persons are telerated they may challenge, etc. [what my sentence is I shall presently give it you plainly.] This sentence (saith he) confutes (as it contradicts) both his Question and his Practice, and it unto gives us an answer to all his Arguments. You have said enough; He saith in the same Page that I have three times at least affirmed that Proposition: what I have affirmed I will own, there is a fourth place where I have said the same words in P. 41. 4. 2. (it should be, the numbers are false printed) That such persons as are ignorant and scandalous, if they be owned for Church members, they have a remote right to Baptism, 〈◊〉 and to the Lords Supper, you must not deny it, by these words, you must not deny it; I suppose you do not understand me, you must not deny such the Lords Supper, that is far from my thoughts, for than I should condemn our old holy Divines and others now, who alone will keep back, it may be half their Parish from the Lords Supper, I condemn them not at all, but think they have done well, 
As you say Review Mr. Hooker p. 94.  though you scarce think so by your passage. P. 21. that then is the meaning of it, You must not deny it, but they have a Remote Right to the one as well as to the other. But I suppose you well understood my mind, that I 〈◊〉 no more there there th●●●in the s●●●●● pla●●●, which now I shall consider in may Book, 〈◊〉 there you say I have it t●●ies, once from the 〈◊〉 giving of title to Circumcision so long as Church members. For the jews I shall say this once for all: if you can prove unto me that the grounds of the jews administering Circumcision were only the same and no other of our administering Baptism, than I shall be very much swayed with Arguments you draw from them: but if there were something peculiar to them as being such a Seed, and such a Church, (which I do verily believe, and shall speak to afterwards) than what Arguments you draw from them (excepting this, that as God made a Covenant with believing Abrabam, and gave him the Scale, and likewise his Children, (being reputed believers with their believing Father) so the believing Gentiles, who are Abraham's seed have right to the Scale of Baptism for themselves and their children, which I see confirmed in the Gospe I do very little regard.  
You mention the same Page again e it is true sir, there I have s●● down my mind plainly, and that I will stand to. There was a question moved, whether such a b●●● profession (as the cas● which I sta●ed mentions) with gross ignorence, etc. were sufficient to make and continue a Man a Church-member!  
I said suppose that our Divines, who Baptise all go upon this Notion, all persons in England do profess they believe in Christ, hence all are Church members, Ergo all are Baptised.  
My answer to this was thus: This I confess as some disadvantage to me, [Mr. Cawdry might have shown me so much favour as to let his Reader know, that what strength he hath against me, I gave it him knowingly, but he never mentions that I saw the difficulty, though I have expressed it, but triumphs over me, as if what I had said was unawares, but I look for no favour as his hand.] For if a Man be looked upon as a visible Saint, and reputed a Member of is true Church, if that Member be very scandalous, and the Church let him alone, and not d●●le with him, that person may challenge any Ordinance in the Church, both Baptism and the Lords Supper: This I have said and will not recall, make of it what you can't and here you have my mind fully, with the next words adjoined, which I will rehearse presently.  
From this you have drawn up a syllogism to show the World, 
Page 15.  how I have Confuted and Comtradicted myself, and thus you have cast it.  
The Child of a sandalous Member tolerated, may be Baptised. But the Child of a scandalous Member not Excommunicated, is the Child of a scandalous Member tolerated.  
Ergo, it may be Baptised, and is Minister may lawfully Baptise i●.  
Thus you have killed me with my own Weapon, but sir when I look on your Syllogism, it comes at first view as if you must out off one of the see●e of it, for I 〈◊〉 it 〈◊〉 on four: I pray wheat was this ●●●me, and a Minister may lawfully [that is, the word binds him to it, which is the pinch of the Question] Baptise is, disposed in the premises? if you say, it was included in the Major, when I said it may be Baptised. Sir I cannot tell that, if a Minister will admit a Man into the Church as a Member, though the Man be not qualified as you have told us Members must be, but very scandalous in conversation, and grossly ignorant, yet the Minister thinks he have enough to admit him a Member, and consequently he Baptizeth him; Such a Minister may Baptise him if he will, he may say, (A Member admitted may be Baptised, but this is a Member admitted) But the word doth not bind him, no, he profanes the Ordinace, though he will admit him a Member.  
However Sir you should have expressed this in the Major, as you have done in the Conclusion, than your Major I would have denied; you will say to me, the Major is my one proposition, and upon that I argue, and show you and the World how you have confu●ed yourself. No Sir I do utterly deny it; show me such a passage where I have said that Scandalous Members [such us our English persons are, named in the Question] tolerated, may have their Children Baptised, and the word binds Ministers to do it. Show your Reader that, and then you say something: but how fare I was from thinking or speaking so, the very next words unto that which you say is my sentence, and out of which I have confuted myself, do declare: my words are these.  
But I conceive such a person is not sufficiently qualified to make a Member of a Church, nor aught 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.  
This sentence I conceive (if the Reader be but indifferent, and not prejudiced against me) will save me from selfe-confutation: if the sentence be not true, but Mr. Cawdry had proved that the Minister is not too blame though he lets him alone, and yet may lawfully Baptise. Then had he spoken to my scruple indeed, and I would have thanked him hearty, but then I had not confuted myself.  
But still Mr. Caw. will urge from my own words, thus I have said, Scandalom Members, if tolerated, let alone by the Church, they have a remote right to Baptism and the Supper; Ergo, they may lawfully have their Children Baptised, and the word binds Ministers to do it.  
To this I shall answer, first to the Antecedent, then to the Consequence.  
To the Antecedent I answer, first [according to our congregational Principles] that which gives a Man the first right to a Sacrament, viz. his interest in the Covenans of the Gospel [which you use very much against Mr. Hooker taking the words from himself] this Man hath not: for he● doth visibly declare to the Churches that he hath no interest in that Covenant, and yourself deny it not, by what you have affirmed concerning the qualifications of Church-members. So then he hath no right, in that respect, all the right he hath is by the toleration of the Church, which the Church had best look to, now I do confess that first right is the main in my esteem, though not all that is required: as in a Minister, the great matter is the qualification of the person, which is his inward call, yet it is not all, but his Ordination is also requisite: but if Bishops, or Presbyters should ordain a scandalous and ignorant sot, not able to teach himself, nor the Church, I should extremely doubt of such a Minister: so here I conceive this first right is the chief, but yet as Mr. Hoolter saith Baptism he must come by in a right Order, i.e. he must be a Member of some congregation; and not an individuum vagum, belonging to no particular Congregation, nor any body to have inspection over him. But if Ministers will admit persons that have not this first right, and continue such amongst them, here indeed is a kind of right, but this let the Ministers look to.  
2. I answer according to your Principles: you make a Man's Christianity alone, without his joining of himself to any congregation, to be that which gives him right, and you oppose Mr. Hooker, and the congregational Divines for requiring that joining to any particular Church before they will Baptise: thus you say; All Children of Christians, as Christians have such right to Baptism, and in the same Page, 
Diatri. p. 186.  All Children of Christians, as such, have right to Baptism. Thus in your answer to me P. 12. you say, a person Excommunicated gives right to his child's Baptism, because for state be is a Christian, and retains his Baptism. Now Sir I hope you mean it must be such Christianity as yourself have said is fit to make a Church-member [I hope you do not mean such Christianity as our question speaks of] by virtue of that say you he is a Member of the Catholike-church. Now Sir if that only gives a Man right and his Children, and yet a Man have not that, I can see no right he hath at all, it seems strange to me that Men should be Members of a particular Church and not of the Catholike-Church, of the latter these are not Members, for they have not so much as should give them a right to that Membership, if you will hold to what you have said about the qualifications of the matter of a Church: for only such Christianity makes Men Members of the Catholike-church, which these fall very short of. We use to unwind a bottom the same way we wound it, if you will wind the bottom thus, a Professor, or Believer (such a one as you say is fitly qualified) as such, have by vertus of his profession only, a right to his own and Child's Baptism, than I unwind it the same way, he that is no● a Professor as you mention, hath no right at all. Such are those our Case speaks of.  
Now Sir here lay my trouble, that since these persons in the first and main respect have no right, but what they have is only by my toleration, this question arose; whether in the beginnings of Reformation [wherein as Innius saith, something will be extraordinary] the persons being numerous, and not so fit it may be to Excommunicate in regard of number 〈◊〉 though in respect of their wilful igno 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and co●●● nuing scandalous after admonitions, they des●●● 〈…〉 not the Church suspend such from the Seal of the Cover●●● a for thus I conceive while I first admonish people ●on their ignorance, and scandalous living, 
Suspension is Excommunicatio Minor.  and they refusing to hear me, I do with ●●e consent of the Church suspend I do not rol●●ort● but you speak as if there were nothing opposites to Toleration, but Excommunication.  
Or thus, according to our congregational Principles; which maintain●● a Non-communion in case Excommunication cannot be exercised against a multitude; so I do here exclude them from such Ordinances as do hold forth Communion, and so it is Non commanion in effects. Non-communion or Separation in some cases when there is a 〈◊〉 ●●●●de, the L●yden Prosessort 
† Synop. pur. Theol. dicp. 48. Thes. 28.29.  maintain.  
To the Consequence I answer, by denying it, viz Ministers are not bound by the word to Baptise all the Children of persons grossly ignorant, and scandalous, though tolerated.  
I still carry it in reference to England, where you say all are Christians, and Church members: here now I shall speaks more than I would have done, feeling the temptation of my Brethren in my own hear●; but your triumphing over me, and celling the World, how I have at once confuted myself, makes me by way of discourse to clear myself, though I think it is done already. Thus than I argue.  
1. If such Members as the question speaks of be continued such, 
1. Argumant.  through the Minister's negligence and contifulnce, than the word doth not bind Ministers to give the Seal of the Covenant to their Children, but the Antecedent is true, Ergo, the consequent is true.  
The Antecedent I had rather have applied only to myself, than any other Ministers being far more holy than myself, I should think ●ay self to have been guilty of connivance, but my question, and Mr. Caw. (as I said before) puts me upon this.  
If the Antecedent be denied, I prove it.  
When Ministers have power put into their hands, whereby they may reform if they will, and will not, than their Toleration comes from connivance; and so is sinful.  
But Ministers have now power put into their hands, whereby they may reform if they will, etc. Ergo:  
The Minor is clear: for what power opposes? Church power there is none above the Ministers; for the civil power that doth not oppose, but that power actually defends such Ministers, and Churches as do reform, and do deny Baptism to such scandalous ones; This favour once would have been esteemed very great: what ever we conceive of Toleration, as now it stands, yet this benefit we have by Toleration, that Ministers need not Tolerate such persons if they will. It is an ill wind, blows no body good.  
But I perceive your Answer in P. 30: you tell us, of a Pope-like power 〈◊〉 such a Minister doth usurp, who alone shall reform though by su●●ention: you suppose others will charge us with it, but whether Mr. Cawdrey will not say so also. I somewhat doubt, by observing this place and Page 20.21. I will not conclude so of him; but that he is against any Minister that shall do so, that is clear. By a Minister alone, if you mean thus, that a Minister alone without his people, or against the Christians consent shall suspend, whom he please, indeed I doubt of such a practice: but if the Members (visible Believers) shall come and bring in witness against persons, and desire to have them debarred, till they will amend, and thus they consent to their Officer in suspending. I know of no Pope-like power here usuped.  
To this therefore I will answer further.  
1. If you and ten Ministers more, or as many as you please, will combine together, and set up a Classical form of Government [and then you conceive you have power] you may if you will, who hinders you? I know of no power that oppose you. Therefore this is not a sufficient P●●●.  
2. But is 〈◊〉 your meaning (in good earnest) to deny to a particular Church, a power to reform its own Members (as you seem to express) in that manner I have set down? I hope we shall find divers Classical Divines of another Opinion: I pray what is your meaning, when you say; As for Reverend and Learned Whitaker, whose Testimony he makes use of P. 52. ●as he grants but what w●●●●, 
Review Mr. Hooker p. 111.  that every particular Church hath a power owen 〈◊〉 own Members, what power you mean is plain by the Discourse of Mr. hooker's and learned Whitaker M. Cawdrey writes himself, Pastor of the Church at Billing; Now I pray give me a reason why so godly and able a Pastor with his Church should not have power over his own Members, unless he will contradict himself (as he saith, I do) but I hope you do not mean, there is no particular Church, but a Classical Church, for that apposeth what before you have said of yourself: our 〈◊〉 runs 14 miles in length, and 20 several Parishes in it, to make all 〈◊〉 o●● particular Church, is very hard, but if the Church at Billing have power over its own members, why may not the Church at Shalford have the same power?  
3. Would you have Ruling Elders to join with me? I observe divers of the Classical Divines question, whether there be any such Officer distinct from the Preaching Elder. But though I have not Elders actually ordained [I perceive also here you do not ordain your Elders, which is strange, if Deacons were] yet I have those whom I look upon to be Elders, and without whom I do nothing that concerns Discipline. That which hath hindered us, is 〈◊〉 uncertainty of my maintenance, being cut off from a ●o●● put which I 〈◊〉, from a Sequestration, when I was first called; The maintenance their if from the place being not sufficient to maintain my charge, I am uncertain of my abode here.  
4. When I was ordained by the Presbytery, I thought I had the power of a Pastor conveyed to me: now one part is to Rule, I think, but to say I cannot put forth that power alone, but I must have more Elders to join with before I can do any thing; I desire to see a Scripture for that, because Discipline was carried on by more than one in the Examples we have in the Scripture, there being more than one Officer in those Churches, must this needs conclude; Therefore the power of a Pastor must lie dormant, if he have no other Elders to join with him, though his people do as I said before, I should deny this consequence.  
5. Suppose I stay till the Classis be form and Act, shall we have power then to reform? But suppose my people ask other Ministers of the Classis besides myself, what power they have to reform them, who made them Rulers over the people against their wills and consent, having called none but myself for their Pastor? you must have a call you say to put forth your power actu secundo, in another Church.  
6. Suppose there were a Church on an Island, where there was only a Pastor, should he and his people be denied to reform, since there is no other Church near him? if you will give him power, I pray give me, for it is all one to be on an Island, where there are no more Churches that can combine, and so help one another, as to be in another place where are thousands, but none will: it is cannot there, it is will not hear. Yet Sir, there is a congregational Church in the next Town, and when need is I seek counsel of that reverend Officer Mr. Dan Rogers.  
I could say more, but I forbear. What you say concerning Mr. Icanes, I have not seen that worthy Man's labours, for I live in an obscure Village remote from London, and seldom hear of Books, neither will my means allow me to buy all Books that come out. But Sir, I take your Opinion, for you say in your Epistle, it is hard to judge, whether his way or mine be the best, or worst way of Cure. Now if it be hard to say, than I perceive you are not clear yourself, for what he hath writ.  
So much for the Antecedent; now I come to the Consequence. viz. If it be connivance and negligence that is the cause of this Toleration [which I doubt is true in many] then the word doth no● bind me, or I may not lawfully Baptise.  
If sinful admissions will not justify a Minister in administering the Ordinance of Baptism, than neither will sinful Tolerations justify a Minister in administering Baptism.  
But the Antecedens is true, Ergo, the consequent is true.  
Sinful admissions will not: 
A●ro. rod. p. 515.  learned Gillespy saith: no Conscientious Minister would adventure to Baptise one, who hath manifest and infallible signs of unregeneration, we cannot be answerable to God if we should.  
Also he saith, 
Page 544.  it were a profanation of Baptismel, to Baptise a Catechumene, being manifestly under the power of abominable fins, although he could give a sound, and Orthodox confession of Faith. This is more than thousands of the Church members of England can do, and yet live under the power of sins bad enough. His grounds I have quoted before with Augustine, and the Schoolmen, Aquinas, Durandus, 
Serious Quest. p. 21, 22, 23.  Greg. de Val.  
For the consequence, if it be said, there is more required in one who is a Member, he must first be cast out: this takes not off the force of the Argument, the person is sinfully tolerated, as well at first sinfully admitted; as he might have been and should have been denied admission, and so the Ordinance had been saved, so this person may and aught to be dealt with (there being now power in the hands of Ministers) so the Ordinance is saved, sinful admission caused the Ordinance at first to be profaned, sinful toleration cause it now to be profaned.  
If you would turn me off here (as you do afterward) by telling me the Argument should proceed of the same person, which it doth not, the Child and the Parent are different persons. Sir, this will not serve the turn, my Argument proceeds upon one and the same Title, the Parent's Title is the Child's Title, the Child hath no other Title, nor pleads any other but the Parent's Title, the Parent expresses his Title for himself, and his Child being a branch of that stock; if the child pleaded a Title distinct from the Parents, as a Title of its own, than my Argument were fallacious [as I shall charge you anon] but if the child could speak, it could plead only this, my Parent is within the Covenant, the Covenant is made with the Believing Parent, and his or her seed; Therefore ogive me the Scale: by virtue of him, or her it is made with me.  
You tell me afterward. P. 25. I may Baptise the Child of the profanest Man in England, as of the godli●st [my Argument tends to that] Man; only you would have me grieve that I cannot reform this abuse.  
Whence I observe. First, this ordinance may be abused. Secondly, de Facto it is abused in this administration to such vile persons; only say you his saves all, you have no power to reform this Abuse, and for that I much grieve; but this I deny, I have power, and so have you and many more, but by you I cannot conceive the Ordinance is abused, for if the word binds me to give such a person the Ordinance; I know not how I abuse it in following of the command of the word, so that I have no such cause to grieve in respect of the administering of the Ordinance, for that is well enough, while such a one is tolerated; I am bound to do it [that is our Question] say you, the grief must be in regard of the Man's toleration in the Church. But Sir, remember one thing more, you tell us though such a person be Excommunicated, yet because be is a Christian, and retains his Baptism; 
Page 12.  Therefore the Minister must Baptise his Child: what cause of grieving is there now, for what power is there beyond Excommunication? so that you do but deceive us in talking of Reformation.  
If Toleration, though sinful, will save us from profaning of Ordinances, than Ministers may take their ease as to that point, and let all corrupt, and vile Members alone, let them partake of both Seals, for so long as tolerated, the word binds you ●o give them Baptism, and the Supper, and the word doth not bind me to profane an Ordinance.  
So much for my first Argument. 
2. Argument.  I come to a second Argument, viz. to prove, though scandalous Members in England are tolerated, and by virtue of that Toleration they will challenge any Ordinance, yet the word binds not me to give.  
If so, than the Ministers of England are bound to administer the Lords Supper to the grossest ignorant persons, horribly scandalous, Ranters, etc. in England.  
But the Consequent is false; Ergo, the Antecedent is false.  
The Consequence is clear, they are Church-members tolerated, saith Mr. Caw. we have no power to help; Therefore they may by virtue of that Principle, by which he hath me on the hip, as he thinks.  
I think Sir you speak the same words, 
P. 94.  in Review of Mr. Hooker, notoriously scandalous Men, tolerated in a Church, whilst tolerated they are Members to all Ordinances for themselves, and their posterity. Then all the Ranters, etc. are members to the Lords Supper, and you have no power, you say to help it. Yet I presume you would finde power before you would admit all such to the Supper.  
This I would sane have cleared to me, that the Officers are bound to look to the Members more in admitting them to the Supper then to Baptism: and the Supper, respect both the same Covenant, there is but one condition [whether there be Conditio propri●dicta 
* Twiss. Vind. grapraefa. Sect. 8.  in the Covenant of grace is another question] of the council of grace, viz. That man then, who can rightly take a Seal, or Convey a Seal of this Covenant to his, must visibly appear to have the condition of the Covenant, [which is the first and main right, 
Ames Medal. Th. c. 24. Th. 19 Rhaetors. Exar. Apol. p. 313. ] if he do so appear, and therefore can convey the Seal to his Child, why he may not have the other Seal for himself, appearing to be a Believer, and also being in right Order for my part, I see no reason.  
I must not here condemn the holy Divines, who have before kept this Ordinance; neither dare I say the Assembly of Divines did very weakly, to trouble the Parliament in requesting the Houses to make an Act against such persons, that they might be debarred from the Lords Supper, which I must do, if they were bound to give it while such were tolerated Members, they would find hard work to have Excommunicated all these. If any say I condemn the former Divines for Baptising all: I pray let them say no more than they hear me say, I do not do so, only I would gladly see the reason of the practice, and for those, who lived before these times, I can answer myself another way.  
I pray remember my Question, how it can be proved that the Officers must look more to this Seal then the other. 1 Cor. 11. It is said, Let a man examine himself, etc. True, so he hath need before he comes to Baptism: but what is this to the Officers of Corinth, the Lords Supper was administered every Lord's Day in those times, what must the Officers examine them every week? here is work enough, they looked to them [or should have done] when they first took them in to be Members, and so if they did not walk as such aught to do, they were to looks after them, reform, or cast out, but in so doing they saved other Ordinances as well as this. But we have a notion taken up, as if Discipline were appointed only to save the Lords Supper from being profaned, and no other Ordinance.  
Will the 44 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 9 prove it? I pray prove that Sanctuary (there mentioned) means only the Lords Supper, that Sanctuary and Lords Supper are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, those who interpret, they ought to prove their interpretation, which you must clear to make your answer good, in P. 26.  
Will 1 Cor. 4.2. prove it? Steward's must be faithful, this must be only in the Lord's Supper.  
Will Mat. 7.6. prove it? Holy things must not be given to Dogs. 
De Bapt.  Tertullian applies this Text to the Administration of Baptism, as well as to the Supper. And if it must be at the first, then why not as well when it comes to be administered by virtue of one, who is a Dog. [The word I love not to use in respect of others, knowing my wicked heart] there may be many who are Church-members by reason of Toleration only (and that Toleration its doubted if it be not sinful who yet are such Dogs as that Text mentions, and upon this Notion Ministers have before excluded them from the Supper. Yourself speak to this purpose Diatar. Page 184.  
3. One Argument more to prove, though such may challenge by reason of my Toleration, yet I am not bound to give, 
3. Argument.  and here I will give examples of of what I have found, and know concerning ignorance, then draw up my Argument.  
In my own Parish, I was questioning with one about his estate, he had lived long in Essex that which the Man builded upon was this, said he, I have been no Drunkard, and I Repent. What it was to Repene? he could not tell: but then I enquired what knowledge he had of Christ; The Man I perceived knew nothing of him, but when I told him how Christ was God-man sent to fulfil the Law, to die, to make satisfaction to Divine Justice, and such ordinary plain things. The Man wondered to hear such things, in so much indeed that I could not but wonder myself that a man should live above 50 years in such a place as Essex is, and not know these plain things.  
Another was asked, what Christ was? the man could give him no answer: to help him, he was asked again, whether he were a God, or a Man? he answered plainly he could not tell, but said, he thought he was a Spirit.  
This is an Observation that I have made, [because Mr. Gaw. says we are all Christians, P. 4.] when I have been discoursing with people about their conditions, they will tell me stories of what they have not been, and some other silly matters, but for Christ, not one word of him, unless when I have put it upon them; what is Christ nothing? then they will tell me, yes, they must believe in Christ, God forbidden the contrary, but to know Christ, and what it is to believe in him, alas they are far short of this. And this is not only my observation, but a godly Minister in Northamptonshire told me the very same thing he observed in his Parish, not one word of Christ, till he put it into their minds, then having taken up Christ by Tradition, they must say something.  
But for the Covenant of Grace (which Baptism respects also) that is the strangest thing to people, they know not what it means.  
For Sin, people have a Tradition that there is that which people call Sin, but for themselves to be guilty of any particular sin, I have been forced to run over the Commandments, open them, and tell them how myself have been guilty, and yet could I scarce convince some, they were guilty, only all are sins, and so are they.  
A godly friend of mine told me he asked a Woman that was talking with him, what she had for Heaven? she answered him roundly, she had never effended God in all her Life: yet she was above 50 years of Age.  
Another told him, she had kept all the Commandments: she was not so old indeed, but he had much a do to convince her, she had broke one, yet these persons lived where there had been excellent Preaching.  
Another coming to a near friend of mine to have his Child Baptised, he asked him why he would have it Baptised? he answered, because others had the asked him what good it would do his Child? he answered, As much as heretofore.  
Another came to him, he asked him, how many Gods there were? he answered, Ten; supposing he mistook himself, for the Commandments he asked him, how many Commandments there were? he answered Two, he asked him which was the first? he answered Salvation; the second I know not what it was: the Man professed he did answer as well as he could.  
I think you are not much better in Northhamptonshire, for a godly Minister told me of one in his Parish, that had a Prayer, but I think there was never such a one heard before, this sentence was often repeated, And Jesus was Her Name.  
These instances have been since our Reformation began, and if Ministers should search all, certaintly we should be amazed to hear the Answers.  
Now Sir, I apply this: you say all these are Church-Members tolerated, they can therefore challenge Baptism, and because their Toleration give them a Right, Therefore the word binds me to Baptise their Childen. But Sir, may I not better put these off for a time until by Catechising of them, they come to understand Sin, Christ, and the Covenant of Grace? the word saith, Teach and Baptise, yea say you, at the first constitution; but if we find such persons as you call Members, continued in constituted Churches that are ignorant in the knowledge of Sin, Covenant of Grace, yea and of Christ [save only they have taken up such a Name that there is one Christ, and the Nation receives him] as are the very Heathen, (nay for sin, the Heathen know more) is there not as much and more reason to Teach these before I will Baptise by virtue of them, let the Reader judge.  
Am I bound to Baptise a Child presently so soon as it is brought? They make nothing to keep Children a fortnight, a month, yea more (according as their occasions are) before they will offer them to Baptism, may not I th●n, finding the Parents unfit, delay if it be two months, till they are taught before I will Baptise? What is the danger, where is the Rule broken, where am I tied to Baptise one so soon as offered, though never so unfit? the eight day that was set for Circumcision, concerns not us, we can Baptise before if we will.  
So for Scandal, if unclean persons shall bring their Bastards, the Ranters, or who you will, must I presently Baptise, because you say a Church member tolerated will challenge a right to the Ordinance? shall I not first require Repentance?  
John required Repentance: yea say you at first constitution, he and Apostles did. But Sir, 
You know Tertullia's mind, concerning Adulterers, 2.1. De pudicitid. And Cyprian tes us it was the practice of some not to receive such again. Ep. 52. Synop pur. Disp. 48. Tb. 31.  shall persons now be as vile and worse [for the continuance in the Church, aggravates their ignorance and scandal,] then at the first constitution, and shall I not now require Repentance of such before I Baptise by virtue of them? yea, and that the Repentance may in judgement of Charity give hopes of a true Repentance: and if any will grant it for this one scandal; I know not but the same Rule will reach for other Scandals.  
If you will Baptise all these ignorant ones, and the Scandalous ones without any more a do, but to press the Covenant [which they know not] on them, as you say, do if you please.  
To conclude this Head of Self confutation: I am not yet beaten off, but that passage of the Leyden Professors, do a little favour me, the question was, whether if there be a great number in the Church, who offend in Doctrine of Life, may we now use Excommunication? The answer is, If men be openly and contumaciously corrupt, Let the multitude be great, yet to such, godly Pastors ought not, nor may give the Sacraments of Divine Grace, but with one consent they must be denied, and commit the event to God: because godly Pastors may not communicate the Signs of Grace to them, to whom Christ doth openly deny them, and forbids the Communicating of them.  
Here I observe, they do not stand for the Excommunication of a multitude, for these words Sacraments, and Signs of Grace, if there be Enallage numeri, that they should mean only the Lords Supper. I should marvel at it, that there should be so much pains taken in solving of the question, and then to come and tell us only of Suspension fromthe Supper, which is so common a thing.  
But for their reason I would make use of that, and when they have brought me the scriptural ground, where Christ forbids the Ministers to give the Parent one Sign of Grace, I will see if the same ground will not ●eny us to give the Child the other sign of Grace, by virtue of this Parent.  
For your Pro-parent, and Adoption, that comes in to be considered in another place, I must now answer to selfe-confucation.  
Dr. Ames speaks something for me. 
Conse. l. 4. c. 27. Sect. 6.  Qui aliquo modo in professione sua ad Ecclesiam pertinent, sed foedus tamen Des aperte violant, corum Infantes cum aliquo discrimine debent Baptizari: it a scilicèt ut quod foedus requirit, & in ipfis deest, per aliquos quantum fieri potest suppleatur. 1. Nam distinctio aliqua inter puros & impuros debet in sacris omnibus observari, ad bonorum consolationem; correctionem malorum, & omnium adificationem. 2. Instituta Dei non possunt aliter ab omni pollutione couservari. The Doctor I suppose would have Sureties joined, but if these Sureties cannot be proved to be an appointment of God, than he is yet stronger for me.  
By this time I hope I have cleared myself in the Judgement of an indifferent Reader from Selfe-confutation; I knew this Church-membership was the strongest Argument that could be brought, and therefore mentioned it; that Church-members might challenge any Ordinance, while let alone, I could not think otherwise, but that therefore I was bound to administer the Seals, as if their challenging, which comes only by reason of their Toleration in the Church, would make my Administration warrantable, though they are never so wicked, and tolerated sinfully, this I could not believe. So that my Self confutation ariseth from something, you put upon me, which I own not; the great strength then of your Book against me, I hope is weakened, and all those answers from hence, which you make great use of, are no answers.  
Before I pass to a further examination of your Answer, let me propound one thing more, wherein I hearty desire satisfaction from you, being not clear in the thing myself, viz. Whether all the People in England (under which we comprehend Wales) be Members of true Churches? for if it can be proved that all the Congregations in England, are not true Churches, than I should have an Argument strong enough against you: but sir, I am not so satisfied to say they are not, nor yet so clear to say they are; Therefore I desire to learn.  
In my Book P. 43. I said I did but faintly acknowledge such a thing that all are Church members: but afterward when I came to write in defence of the godly Presbyterial Ministers [whom I honour and reverence] against the Separatists, I said I dare not undertake to prove all the Congregations in England to be true Churches: so that I do not fly back, because of your Book, 
Page 4.  it was done long before, seriously debating with myself, what the Separatists would urge against me, thus I fancied they would argue.  
A Church is a company of those who are called [and this call must be answered, or else it is nothin To the visible profession of Faith in Christ, and obedience unto Christ, 
Ius Divin. p. 37  according to the Gospel. This is the Preybyterians definition, say they.  
But divers of the Congregations in the North of England, and Wales, and other places, are not such Companies, etc. Ergo, they are no Churches.  
Definitio constat ex essentialibus: and definitions if true are eternally true. Now how can there be the effect where there is not the essential cause, according to their own grant?  
I would have answered, if you speak of a pure visible Church, you say right: but there may be a true Church visible, though divers corrupt Members, as in Corinth, Sardis, etc. To this I conceived they would reply thus, as for Corinth, Sardis, etc. We do not deny it, for there were real Christians, and visible Christians also, (though there were corrupt ones,) and these held up the essential cause of the Church: but in divers of these Parishes we shall not finde four it may be so much as visible Saints, if we take in knowledge, and what that definition, and Mr Cawdrys qualifications require for a visible Saint.  
Besides what Corinth and Sardis had, 
Ibidem.  was only by way of Calling as say the London Ministers: but what ours are, was and is by the Sword of the Magistrate, King Henry the height he left us Popish. King Edward the sixth, he takes away the Mass-book, and sends the book o● Common-prayer, though the people love the other way, yet if the King will have it so, it must be so. Queen Mary comes and she turns about again, the people follow her. Queen Elizabeth she takes away Mass again, if it were ten times in a year saith Mr. Rogers, 
Fox Mart. vol. 3.  the people will turn with the state. This is the Call, and what have we now? but divers ignorant so●s sent into these places to read a book of Common prayer, and this is their profession: this is strange making of Churches, this was not so in the times when Churches were first constituted.  
Such Churches they were at their first constitution, according to Mr. Cawdric Papge 7. who doth not regard what they were before this time, so from first to last it is hard to say of divers Parishes that there have been so many visible Saints as might make a Church.  
In the same Page you tell us. That some people received the Gospel after the Example of Kings, and were Baptised for company (as Simon Magus it seems) but stay sir, the Text saith, he believed (I know not in truth) and continued with Philip● his conversation was such as for aught I can see till Peter came down, they had good opinion of him. 
8 Act. 13.  Reverend Calvin upon the Text doth not judge so slightly as you here express, and yourself, Pape 17. speak more clearly of Simon Magus, than you do here, and nearer the truth.  
Now sir you say though the People thus follow only for company [though the case was otherwise here, for the People would not have changed had they been left to their own Liberty, but the sear of a King or a Queen compelled them] Yet if they take upon them an outward profession, that was sufficient to give a right to themselves, and their children for Baptism: and consequently they were a true Church, though not a perfect and pure Church.  
But sir, you are speaking of the first Title to Baptism, what a strange Profession do you make here to give Title, how much different from what you have said before, is required to make a Church-member?  
You say, 
Page 7.  it is a true Church, how will you predicate Truth of an effect, when it wants the essential cause? to predicate verum or vere of ●us is good, but how is here the entity of a Church, when the material cause is wanting? and if the material be wanting, the formal is also, The formal cause, suppose the material which it doth inform, and distinguish, etc.  
I should further have objected against the Separatists; what will you make of those Parishes, are they Infidels? They would answer, let them be what they will, they are not, nor ever were (that we know, or others) fit matter for Churches; if the Presbyterians will stand to their own Definition, but they would say again, they are State-christians made such by the power of the Civil Sword, not Church-christians made by the spiritual Sword. And this shows it that in their Religion, they will not go one step beyond, what the State commands: and had the State let them alone, they would still have held to their Popery. And talk to them of any other Church, but the place they met in, they understand you not.  
Had I said, But they are Baptised, they would answer, if men will abuse Baptism, as if a Minister should go and Baptise Indians, must we needs say therefore they are a Church? Baptism doth not make a Church, for it presupposeth a Church.  
The sum is, I saw so much difficulty that I did rather avoid that, so undertook to prove that many Congregations were true Churches, besides those which you call Independent Churches.  
In this therefore I desire satisfaction, and hope I shall see something by this occasion, but I am sure it would trouble holy Ministers to go into such places, and Administer Baptism to the people abiding, as now they are.  
And now sir, I come to examine your answer, and the many faults you find with me, I shall take the Book as it lies, and go over every page, as briesly as I can.  
First, 
Page 1.  your question, whether I mean that all these meet in one person, Ignorant, Scandalous, etc. or singly of any of them. Sir, I was thinking of it myself, but I did suppose the Reader would understand me to mean singly, if men were grossly ignorant, and would continue so wilfully, though they are entreated, and assistance offered to help, but will not (as is the case with us) such deserve Excommunication, and you affirm as much P. 17: 19  
For Scandalous conversations, Scoffing at godliness, I supposed no question would be made of it.  
For Submitting to Church-Discipline, 
Page 2.  though I know some few Erastins did deny it, yet the bulk of Christians would never question it, being so plain; but however you find afterward that I speak of such as are convinced of it (which was my case) but because I did not put it into the question (though I express it afterwards) you take advantage against me p. 18, 19, 20.25. no less than sour times to make it serve for an answer torn. Well Sir, I perceive your mind is not to make any favourable construction, though you have my mind cleared in another place, only you lie on the catch.  
Come on then Sir, since this is your spirit, let us see whether this will give you such an advantage: the question is, whether Ministers are bound to baptise Children of Parents groslyignorant, etc. Yes, saith Mr. C. the Parents are Church-members, and though notoriously scandalous they are Members to all Ordinances, while they are tolerated: tolerated say I, what mean you by that? you answer, the Church hath not proceeded to Censure and Excommunicate, for till excommunicated they are Church-members [yea and then also by your Doctrine] but then say I, for excommunication, I know no such thing, nor any Church-discipline: you say there are godly ones not covinced of this Ordinance, and if godly ones, than not wicked ones, sure enough they may as well renounce it: thus Discipline is rejected by all: so than non-excommunication, non-censuring doth not help one whit, but their gross ignorance, etc. is sufficient for me, for Excommunication there is no such thing, so my arguments stand the stronger, unless there be a way to help by the pro-parent and Adoption, which are your notions.  
I see Sir you will plead any thing to make an answer, and seem to shake hands with the Erastians', but if you and other Ministers (as I perceive some such) be so favourable to the opinion, than never open your mouths more for Church government: O say you and others, there are godly people of the opinion, well Sir, what then? put case Master Caw. is not of the opinion, but his Members are; suppose there were some scandalous Member to be excommuicated, you would do it, and you exhort the body to consent to you in it [to do it, renitente plebe is a poor thin they rise up, no sir, we will not consent to you in it, for we know no such Ordinance, we will hold Communion with him, these are godly persons, now what will you do? what brave work we make in pleading for opinions.  
For the explicit Church-Covenant you speak of in this page, I will let it alone till p. 5. where you revive it again.  
Then your chearse Mr. hooker's sentence and there finde that I do not accord with him: If not, than I pray lee this convince you, that you have not spoken right, when you said, I borrow my grounds from Mr. Hooker, 
In your Epist. to the Reader.  how do I borrow my grounds from him to whom I go Cross, as you say I do? if I had done so, Mr. Hooker is a man of whom one may borrow, but I do not remember what ground I borrowed, but I was glad when I saw so learned and holy a man to defend some things which before I conceived were right but, as to this difference here, I am sure Mr. Hooker were now alive in England he would not baptise all the children of any of the Congregalons d●● England without any more ado, I can gather so much out of his Book, and therefore we do not differ in this.  
Then you come to my first premise, which is, [The Infant abstracted from the Parens, 
Page 3.  gives no reason why it should be baptised] this say you is otherwise propounded by Mr. Hooker [then it's unlikely to be borrowed of him] then you tell me it is not rightly proposed: yes Sir; very right: it is ordinary with Divines to lay a proposition first further off, 
Page 4.  then to come nearer; neither do I see that you have one whit consured it but yielded it: do you baptise any Child in your parish without considering it in relation to a Parent? do you consider it in it self abstracted from any other, and yet baptise it? I pray make an argument out of that Text in your Title-page, Mar, 10.14. (which I preslime you bring for Infant's baptism) and consider the Infant alone as abstracted from the Parent: you say presently here, the Children of England are Christians borne, how? by reason of the house, soil, or the Parent? then it's a Christian child, and in relation to such a one it is baptised. Thus you find fault with Mr. Hooker, but if you will cross him, 
Diatr. 185.  or myself [who am not worthy to be named in the day with him] lay down this proposition, viz. The Infants of England quâ sic, considered as abstracted from any where, aught to be baptised; if you will maintain this, than I confess you may find faule.  
For your second Answer, when any body practise as you say there, then let such a one consider it: you might have spared those lines, for I know none such: I do it before the child is brought.  
Then you come to the second premise; [The child is baptised as considered in relation to a parent one or: both; that is the sum] You say M. Hooker and I mean the taxed parent; and this you have consured largely (that is your meaning) in Diatr. p. 187. of that hereafter. Only now you adds,  
First, your say, thin ineffect is the same with the former: one the Negative, the other the Affirmative: true Sir, I know it before, only for clearness suke, as we use to openitings first by showing what they are not [as saith, love, union with Christ's etc.] then what they are, so I did here, and I hope no fault in so doing.  
Secondly, you tell me of two other ways for children to come to Baptism besides the next parent: 
Page 5.  of which hereafter.  
Next, you say I take occasion to desine a Church. A society of visible Sains joined togethers by way of covenant, etc. Here you observe two things 1. That I own no Cathelique Church but a particular Congregation, nor any Members of a Church, but of such a Church; than you climb of a man being a Member only of the Catholic Church, and by virtue of that requires Baptism for his child:  
〈◊〉 For a Catholic Church, yes I own it, neither do I know any understanding man deny it, but I doubt you forget one word, you mean Catholic visible Church: but if you had said so, yes in I own that also, but whether it be one Organitall body, I saw some difficulties in that, and left in for further time to discover: the congregational men for aught I can discern own it so as nothing, but Nor. and Ex part you and them in the conclusion in point of Discipline. I know for adminlstring the Seals in another Congregation, which that notion brings in, there some congregational men differ, and so for one Minister to excommunicate in another Congregation, that they will not own (nor do you but upon a call) they will go along with other Officers and assist them in clearing out things, and helping them what may be, only they will not put forth such power against such to whom they are no Officers. I trouble not these holy men, in that those who will differ with such men upon these points I think do not well. The other part doth not concern my question, neither am I so clear in it as I wish I were, I shall humbly propound my thoughts.  
1. If a man must first be a Member of a particular-visible-Church before he can be of the Catholike-visible-Church, than your notion will not hold, but the Antecedent is true Ergo, the Consequent is true.  
Antec. I prove:  
If a man must first be cast our of a particular-Church before he can out of the Catholic, than a man must first be a Member of a Particular before he can be of the Catholic Church: but the Antecedent is trues 〈◊〉 Ergo.  
Consequence is clear to me on this ground.  
Else I cannot see how he who is cast out of a particular Church, can be cast out of the Catholic Church: 
Though excommunicated unjustly, yet till case be heard, Communion denied. Concil. Sa●●ll. Can. 17.  if a man be first a Member of a particular Church, and by virtue of this comes to have communion with all other Churches, this latter depending on the former, than the reason is clear; cast him out of a particular Church you cut him off from all Communion with others.  
But if a man be first a Member of the Catholic Church, and his being a Member of this particular Church, depends upon that, than I see no reasons for though you have cast him out of your particular Church which is second, yet his membership to the Catholic Church, which is first and independent upon this, still remains; and you do in excommunication but cast him into, that state he was in before he joined to you; so that still he is a Member of the Catholic Church, and may demand ordinances elsewhere. Other Churches deny not communion before the particular doth of which he is a Member, than they follow: hence their Act depefids on this: if depend, than not first.  
2. This seems a little odd to me, a man is a Member of the Catholic Church only: thence he will require Baptism of this Church, of another Church he will require the Lords Supper, in another there he will bear, to he may go to all Churches, in the world (if he could) and demand any Ordinances, yet Member of no particular Church; so let this man walk as disorderly as he will (as the latitude sometimes you give of a Church-Member will allow a man to be bad enough) in this Town or another Town, he have owned no particular Church, only the Catholic, what hath this particular Church to do to meddle with him more than any other? we must have Catholic Church-Officers to cast him out, who are such, not only actu primo but actu secundo, which you say no Minister is to another that is not of his particular Congregation unless he be Called to it, but to be sure this man will never call you to it, who then can give you a Call, so that this man cannot come to be reform, and yet he may go up and down to any Church? I am a Christian, therefore give me the Ordinances, excommunicated I am not, for none can excommunicate him unless all the Officers of the Churches in the world should meet to cast him out.  
If you say, 
Which you affirm, Diatr. 194.  Where he first came to be baptised, of that particular Church he is a Member, and that Officer hath power, etc.  
No Sir, I cannot believe this doctrine, that my baptising of another makes him member to our particular Church. I have had three of my children baptised by Ministers who never looked on me as member to their Church, though I dwelled in the Town, I have done the same for others (being called to it) yet none of my members. Yourself acknowledge, Baptism doth not make a member of a visible Church, Revie. Mr. Hooker c. ●. than not of this particular visible Church.  
If you say, 
So you express your mind. pag. 194. Diat.  But a Christian must not do thus, he must join to a particular Church: the question is not what he must do, but what he will do: will not you baptise his child or him unless he will join? If not, you have said enough.  
3. To be a Church-member seems to be more than a Christian, i. e. a Christian member of such a Society and w●●king under such a policy; and that policy suppose Officers. You say there is no essential Homogeneal Church existing without Officers, mentioned in the Scripture, it is a fancy you say and repeat it again, 
Review Master Hooker, pag. 75 77.  opposing Mr. Hooker, a Church-member than must be under Officers, under such a policy, as in the Catholic Church, but how that can be unless he be a member of some particular Church (which is a member of the Catholic, as you say) I know not: the Catholic Church hath no policy, extra ecclesias particulares.  
The hardest matter is the Apostles baptising which is often abledged, this makes me doubtful on the other side, only these thoughts I have bad.  
1. They had such power as we have none, they could exercise their power any where without any call. Paul was an Actual Officer to the Jailor, and so other Apostles where they came, hence they could reach them in case of irregular walking without a second Call, but so much cannot we.  
2. I do not remember they baptised any single persons but such as were members of the Jewish Church, which was a Gospel-Church under ceremonies. For others they baptised so many at once for aught I can see that might lay the foundation of a particular Church; the Jailor Act. 16. 32. how many were in his house I know not, He and all his house believed in God. So Cornelius, there was company enough to begin a particular Church, for aught I can see, though how many its uncertain: Paul and Puer Officers to these. In beginnings some things may be extraordinary, as were they Officers extraordinary.  
I easily see difficulties, 
In N. E.  if one or two Indians should seem to be converted, but because their language cannot join to an English Church, should now the Minister delay to baptise him? but then there is this also, if these two or one should prove vile and scandalous, what shall that Minister do with him? other scruples about this I could cast in; but it concerns not my question.  
The next fault you find is, That requiring an explicit covenant to such a Church, I seem not only to contradict myself, but also to unchurch most of our English Churches.  
Here I must stay a while, having occasion given to look back into your Epistle. What do I hear of contradictions again? you have a strange Art in finding out contradictions: but how come this about? it seems I require an explicit Covenant: But Sir, are you sure the word explicit is in the definition? nay, you are sure 'tis not: Can there be no Covenant in a Church but explicit? I suppose yes, and I suppose you think so also, so do Appollonius, we will hear him speak presently; is this fai●e dealing to force a word upon me when I have clearly before expressed my self another way? I am fare enough then from contradictions, or from unchurching the faithful Congregations of England though they have not an expl●●● Covenant: yourself p. 25. mention the external Covenant of the Church, but what you mean by it I know not.  
You are a passage in my Boistle which is this [Some Ministers scorn the notion that an explic●ie Covenant is the form of a Church visible, and some professors are so rigid for it that without it, they deny all Churches] of the latter sort is Mr. Hooker, say you; Sir, you wrong him exceedingly, and I wonder a man of your grace should do thus when he hath so expressly declared his mind to the concrary; to your knowledge the next words you mention show as much, and in his Epistle p. 11. he speaks as plainesy. But of him anon.  
That passage shall clear me from making no Churches but where there is an explicit Covenant; I saw in some Congregations where there were both visible and real Saints (as we may judge) when the Lords Supper was to be administered, some professors would not join in the Ordinance for want of that (so fare as I could learn) supposing they were not in a right Churchway. Now this I could not approve of since there were so many Christians to departed from the Ordinance upon such a ground.  
In my own Congregation I thus practise; Some of other Parishes have desired to join with us at the Lords Supper, if we have not known them well, I have desired them to bring a Testimony from their Minister, and they have done so: Others whom we knew well I have not desired it, but admitted these to the Lords Supper, yet they were under no explicit Covenant, but an implicit Covenant (I knew they closed with their Pastors) in their Churches. If need had been I would have baptised their children, had they brought them to me. I hope now you are convinced.  
Afterward you say again I recall it, because I said, [that this expliciteness is almost essential to the government of the Church.]  
Why do you not take notice of the word Almost, which implies there may be some government without it? but it will not go on so strongly nor comfortably, but cast what you have said into a Syllogism, and see how I recall it.  
If expliciteness of covenant be requisite to the esse of Church-government, ●hen an explicit covenant is requisite to the esse formale of a Church.  
But the Antecedent is true: Ergo, I see no reason for the Consequence.  
But for Church-government, try you what you can do only by virtue of their Christianity, and implicit Covenant, I have tried it and found it not sufficient, but the other I have had good experience of. But for Church-convenant a few words.  
First set us hear Apollonius speak who is a Presbyterian. 
Page 17.   
Concedimus foedus aliquod tacitum seu virtuale esse inter membra unius &, ●jusdem particularis Ecclesiae externae: quo obligantur ad mutua illa officia praestanda, quae à membris Ecclesiae visibilis ad particularem suam Ecclesiasticam Communicnem exiguntur: quod nempe suis pastoribus corum Curae & disciplinae subess●●●undum publicum divinum Cultum frequentare, cadem lege & jurisdictione Ecc●●●●sticae gubernare velint: ex quo foedere etiam jus sibi acquirunt, ad illa qua buic particulari Ecclesiae eju●qu: membris sint propria, & altis Eccles●is particularibus nou Comp●tunt. This man speaks rationally, and those words are worth the observation, ex quo foedere jus sibi acquirunt, etc. so that all the right and power that Officers or particular Churches have over their members arise from this Covenant: and this is certain, for suppose one be a Christian, and suppose he own Church-Discipline, yet how do I in particular come to be bound to dispense Baptism or Lords Supper to him more than any other Minister? or how do I and this Church in particular more than another come to have power over another in respect of Discipline, but by his covenanting, consenting (call it what you will) with me and this Church, and not with another? for else he will say, though I do own Church. Discipline, yet who gave you power over me more than another Officer or Church?  
For me to say you dwell in my Barish, is a silly answer, unless it can be proved that Parishes were by divine institution to such an end: there are those in my parish that come not to hear me, nor ever chose me to be their Officer, nor will own the Church in this time of reforming, but I should think it absurd to tell them you dwell in this Parish, therefore you are bound to hear me, etc.  
One word more about Parishes: I would put this question, it is a practice in England for a Patron to present, of late I know where a godly Minister was chosen by the people, yet it being a Sequestration, the Incumbent dying, the gift fell into the hand of the Patron; he being an idle companion turned out the godly Minister, and put in another that is, etc. the people with one consent did declare against him, and opposed him at his coming, yet it seems because the Law of the Land will have it so, this man is he that hath the place; but is he therefore their Pastor because he pre●chech in their Parish? I think it were strange for any man to affirm it, and this practice is very common: I hope the mere parish doth not make him their Pastor, nor the people his Members. This is a woeful plague to godly people, and teach the way to Separation, though it will not justify others where the case is not the same.  
Doctor Ames tells us of a vinculum speciale which he calls Foedus, 
Medul. Thiol. cap. 32.  and so as no man is rightly admitted into the Church, but by confession of Faith, and promise of Obedience. And this Apollonius owns, pag. 13, 14.  
The Belgic Churches saw something in it, 
Apol. c. 1. p. 9  that it was concluded upon in six Synods, that those who came to the Lords Supper, should promise expressly to be subject to Discipline: and had the Church's of England, the godly Officers (especially) made all those who came into their Parishes, and would have either Baptism or Supper, to declare their choice of them for their Officers, and subjection to all Christ's Ordinances, they might have had more strength against the Separation: indeed they have strength enough against most of them who have owned the Ministers, and constantly attended, and received the Ordinances from them, of which I have spoken elsewhere.  
Further, I should much desire that those who oppose the Church-Covenant, would lay down a Church-member in his estentiall causes, than they teach clearest: as for profession, Christianity [or what you will call this is but the causa materialis of a Church member, for it is not Man quâ sio (for then all) but Man quâ professing, as Saint visible, that is the materialis causa, this then is not the formalis causa, for to have the same thing to be Causa materialis & formalis respectu ejusdem effecti is strange: therefore till I see a better I must say, that this Christians consenting or covenanting with this particular Church, and these Officers in it, to walk according to the Gospel, etc. is the formal cause of this Church-member.  
In some sense we may say, the matter doth distinguish things, a lump of Gold, from a lump of Clay differs materially: but one Golden vessel differs not from another, but per formam: Christians as visible Saints or Churches constituted of such, differ materially from all other Societies of Men, but how one Church, a Golden Candlestick differ from one another, but per formam, I know not, which is this that our congregational men speak of.  
Act. 5.13. Of the rest durst none join (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) what was that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that glued them to the Church? they were not scared from owning of Christ, or loving of the Disciples, they might hear the Apostles preach, etc. there was something expressed sure, much more now when so many Churches: the same word is used of the prodigal, Luke 15.15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Covenant between. Master and Servant, is the glue that joins each to other; so for aught I know it must be here.  
You tell me, 
Epistle.  that the relation of Christians one to another, is not free but after a sort natural, as that of Father and Child.  
I was there speaking of Church-government, how we came to have power, etc. now it seems by you it is as natural for any Christian to be under my power in particular, and this Church in particular, as for a child to be under his Father's government, and I may naturally claim this official power over him, whether he will choose me or not, nay though he declare he will not own me for an officer, this is strange Doctrine. Is his relation to me Natural (as I am an officer) or free?  
As for the explicitenesse of the Covenant, I have seen so much order and comeliness in Churches by reason of it, that if I can ever attain it I will, and so would M Gawdry, had he seen what I have seen in N. England, yet I will not null all Churches for want of an explicit Covenant. I can distinguish between esse and melius esse.  
M. Hudson shall wind up all: 
Vi●dici. Cath. pag. 19  I deny not (saith he) but mutual consent of persons within such a Vicinity, to join together constantly in the Ordinances of God, under the Inspection of such and such officers, is requisite to a particular Congregation.  
Now give me leave to examine a little what you have writ against reverend M. Hooker, since the providence of God hath joined me with so holy and learned a man (O that I had his Mantle) much of his discourse falls in with mine, and so your answers to him serve against me, but that part I shall let alone.  
His Question is this,  
Whether persons none confederate, 
Survey part 3. pag. 11, 12.  and so (in our sense not Members of the Church) do entitle their children to the seat of Baptism, being one of the privileges of the Church, their Parents (though godly) being yet unwilling to come into Church-fellowship?  
You make very great use of these words, that persons non. Confederate are in his sense no Members of a Church: now Sir, let me move one question, Whether only persons that are in explicit Confederacy, are to be esteemed in M hooker's sense Members of a Church? if M. Hooker have expressed the contrary, as he hath most fully, pag. 47, 48. of his first part, and in Preface, pag. 11. where he saith expressly, The Faithful Congregations in England are true Churches, then that cannot be M. Hokers' sense. In pag. 47, 48. he shows how the Covenant is acted after a double manner, Explicitly, and Implicitly, and there shows how it is acted in the Churches of England. Then adds,  
This Mr. R. cannot be ignorant of as our opinion and professed apprehension: and I would entreat the Reader to observe once for all: that if he meet (with such accusations [such an accuser is Mr. Cawdrey] that we nullify all Churches besides our own; that upon our grounds received there must be no Churches in the world, but in New-England, or some few (observe this) set up lately in Old: that we are rigid Separatists, etc. such bitter clamours, a wise meek spirit passeth by them, as an unworthy and ungrounded aspersion, etc. then shows that Implicit and Explicite are but Adjuncts of the Covenant: and in some cases an Implicit Covenant may be sully sufficient: could any man living speak more clearly than Mr. Hooker? and could any man living speak more perversely than Mr. Caw. 
Epistle to Sob. Answ.  that Mr Hooker deny all Churches where there is not an explicit Cowenant?  
To return to his question: Two things I desire the Reader to observe in it:  
1. By persons non-Confederate, he doth not mean godly Parents that are not confederate explicitly, but if they be members of true Churches, walking in Church fellowship though there be not an explicit Covenant, but implicit, Mr. Hooker doth not look on these as falling under his question, so have nothing to do with such now. This is most clear by what I have alleged out of him.  
Hence there is not one syllable of the word explicit put into the question: and afterwards [the same page] when Mr. Hooker shows why he inclines to the negative, being moved thereto from the nature of the Church-Govenant: he doth not say explicit Church-covenant. Yet see how Mr. Cawdrey interprets these words, that is, 
Diatr. 185.  indeed the necessity of an explicit Covenant, and in page 184. he hath stated the question thus: [Whether the Infants of Believers not in Covenant explicit with a particular visible Church, may be baptised?] This is none of Master Hooker's question.  
Hence first, those arguments which Mr. Cawdrey hath drawn up in his Diatr. with Mr. Hooker from the Infants of the godly Members of our Churches here in England, they all labour with the disease called, Ignoratio Elenthi, for he hath changed the question, and doth not speak ad idem.  
2. Hence secondly, all that pains Mr. Cawdrey spends to prove that Children may be baptised by virtue of Grandfather, or Adoption, [if he can make it out that they may be so] yet if such a Grandfather or person who Adopts, be confederate, and walk in Church-fellowship (though not explicitly Confederated) this doth not trouble Mr. hooker's question: if that Grandfather, or person who Adopts, be not Confederate, than the question falls upon them indeed, not else.  
Mr. hooker's question then concerns only such godly Parents as are Members of no particular visible Church, and being no Members but coming to join with a Church; now the question will be, what explicitenesse may be required.  
2. The second thing I observe in his question is, That the godly Parents are unwilling to come into Church-followship: and here lies the pinch of the question. But this plainly implies That Church fellowship is to be had, and this person is required by him to whom be offers his Child to be baptised, to join in Church fellowship: 
Acts 5.13. There was a Church, and joining to it I doubt not before the Apostles would baptise.  if Church fellowship be not to be had, then how shall his willingness or unwil inguesse be known? let there be an object bonum or malum which the will should choose or reject. Hence than if there could be no answer else given to what Mr. Ca. urgeth from the Jailor, who was baptised though not confederate; this troubles not the question, if there were no Church which did require him to join in fellowship; had there b●en a Church in Philippi, and Paul had required him to join in fellowship with the Church, and the Jailor would not, then indeed Mr. Ca had brought something against Mr. Hooker, if Paul would have baptised him.  
But yet Mr. Ca will force it upon Mr. Hooker that he must mean it of an explicit Confederacy whether he will or no, 
Diatr. p. 200. Mr. Stone knew his mind, vid. ch. 5.  yea though he hath expressly spoken to the contrary: but what is his ground? This.  
In N. England (saith he) They refuse to admit either our Members (though godly) to the Lords Supper, or their Children to Baptism, unless they enter their express Covenant: This is the ground.  
One passage I observe, you call the godly Ones our Members, but do you look on them as your Members, who are gone 3000. miles from you, never to see you more, where you can never have any inspection over them, let them walk as they will? I am sure they do not think you are their Officers, nor do call you so, how then they should be still your Members I cannot tell: let therefore Mr. Hooker speak for himself, and out of him I will give you an answer, and show you the reason is not as you say: Mr. Hooker thus, The faithful Congregations of England are true Churches; Members that come commended from such Churches to ours here, so that it doth appear to the judgement of the Church, 
Preface, p. 11.  whence they come, that they are by t●em approved and not scandalous, they ought to be received to Church. Communion with us, as Members of other Churches with us in New England, in like case so commended and approved. Hence then Sir, is the plain reason, the people that go from hence, do quite departed from these Churches, so that they never come more under the Inspection of the Officers and Church●s here: they n●ver b●ing Letters testimonial from you, to show they are Members still with you, and approved by you, and so commended, as saith Mr. Hooker to those Churches there, but thither they come free from all Churches (even in their own account) and there let them walk as they will, there are no Churches have power to reach them, unless they will join themselves to one there, as they have disjoined themselves from your Churches here. But now make this trial, let there go out of the faithful Congregations of England, persons, whose intent is not to disjoin themselves from you, only they go as Merchants on some other errand, let the godly Officers of such Congregations, give a certificate under their hands, such persons that now àre coming to you in New England, are godly persons, Members of our Churches, and walk in Church-fellowship with us, and th●t orderly, though we have no explicit Covenant; we desire such may for the time of their abode with you, be admitted to the Lords Supper, if a Child he borne to them, let it be baptised: and those persons when they come there walk accordingly, I say try the Ministers there, and I dare warrant you such persons shall not be denied Communion though you have not an explicit Covenant.  
And here Sir they require no more of you, than they will give; for if any who are Members of their Churches should come over from them hither, and bring no Letters of recommendation to the Churches here, showing that they are Members with them there, and walk approvedly among them; if such should require the Lords Supper or Baptism here, if you will refuse them [unless they will show or make it out, that they are Members there, and walk orderly, (only their occasions call them hither now for a time) or will join with you if they have left those Churches] the Churches there will not be displeased with you: therefore the Members that come from thence bring Letters of recommendation with them, showing what I have said before, and desiring of Churches here their care over them while here they abide. And now you have the plain reason.  
But one word more: pag. 29. you speak against those who meddle with other Ministers charges: those who go to New England you call your Members, should then the Ministers of New England baptise, and excommunicate (out of what Church I know not but yours, for of theirs they are no Members) your Members, they should meddle with your charge, and do a strange act to excommunicate your Members when yourself do not, this is more than Classical or Episcopal power.  
But here you will charge Master Hooker with a Contradiction: because he seems to be against this practice, that Members of one Congregation should partake of the Sacraments in another Congregation.  
Had Mr. Hooker lived to have filled over his work again, I do believe he would have considered this place again; but the other places are most plain. Yet something may be said for him.  
That Master Hooker should be against the giving of the Sacrament to a Member of another Congregation, who hath occasion to be absent from his ow●e, and is commended and approved by his own Church, this I cannot believe.  
I will give you my reason. A near friend of mine in New England living divers miles from Mr. Hooker, had occasion to be in his Town on the Sabbath: my friend being a Minister [I cannot tell whether at that time in Office or no to the Church, in the Town where he lived] Mr. Hooker got him to preach in the forenoon in his Church; at that time there was a Sacrament in the Church; my friend when he had done preaching (b●ing sad and oppressed in his spirits) went down out of the Desk, and would not have stayed the Sacrament, but Mr. Hoo: steps after him, and claps hold on his shoulder, and pulled him back again, and made him stay the Sacrament: my friend told me it was the best Sacrament that ever he enjoyed.  
This practice of his clears him from Contradiction, and therefore that cannot be his meaning.  
This than I presume is his true meaning: it was the practice of divers of us in N. E. at the first planting we did join ourselves to this or that Church; afterwards when other Plantations were erected, for conveniency of dwelling, (the former Plantations being too full) we would remove and dwell there, retaining still our membership in those churches to which we first joined, and by virtue of it having letters of recommendation, did partake of the Sacraments in those churches where we lived, and hence divers members lived many miles, twenty or sixty from their own churches, and from the inspection of those officers who had power to call them to account, and observe their Conversations, and yet would partake of the Sacraments six or eight years together in another Congregation: this indeed he opposed, in so much that when I came away the Elders would not suffer it any longer: this is but rational, and this I conceive is his true meaning.  
Here then as I said is all the question; whether or not if a godly man be member of no particular Church, and comes to demand baptism; may not I require him first, if you will have baptism, (being it is a church privilege, and christians ought to walk orderly,) then join to some particular church.  
If you require it of me, 
Or so if there be more Officers than one.  then may not the officer demand, do than you choose me as your officer, to whom you will submit under Christ? do you look on this particular church as a true church of Christ, and will you walk with the members of 〈◊〉 according to Christ's rule? will you subject to all Christ's ordinances? I pray why may I not demand these? Consider what Apollonius, Ames, Mr Hudson have said, the light of nature will carry as much; for if this man will not own me for his officer, if he will not join with the Church, if not submit to Ordinances, what reason have I in particular to baptise his Child, or I and the church in particular to take more care of him then any other Church? if you say by his requiting baptism of me he profess all this; no Sir, by no means, I have answered this already: and he may do as some have done with me, that have required baptism of me, and have confessed to me that Discipline was an Ordinance of God, but to promise subjection to it, and to me with the Church that we in particular should have power over them, they would not do it, and could tell me that I had no power over them without that their consent; and they speak truly, for they had not chosen me for their officer, though they are in the parish, and by their Christianity I could claim no power over them more than another Minister.  
So that if you will yield me this we shall at last prove that explicit consent will be necessary at the first admission.  
Thus Sir I think you have a full answer to your Diatribe, with Mr. Hooker, as to the point of Confederacy, with what I have said I think to wipe off all your Arguments, as to that point, I do not tun over all, because my book will swell into too big a volume; for the other things in the Diatrebe, they concern me with him. Now than I, proceed.  
In p. 5. you tell me our Arguments for Infants-Baptisme stand upon the notion of an Explicite Covenant. How true this is, 
Page 5.  let the Reader judge.  
Then you tell me I have mistaken Amesius his argument for Infant's Baptism, 
Page 6.  [because Children are capable of the grace of Baptism, for all are Patients, etc.] this is brought you say to answer the objection of the Anabaptists; what you tell me of those is no news: but I pray see if Doctor Ames be answering an objection; he makes is his fifth argument: see also Mr Marshal his Sermon upon Infant's Baptism. p. 41.43. I know it serves against an objection, and yet consider the child with the parent, it may serve for a ground also for Baptising.  
Then you tell me I speak not properly, because I put a Morality in that Command to Abraham etc.] Sir you may well know by the next words I did but borrow the word from the morality of the second commandment which I had used for illustration: and is there only Analogy in it, when we see the Command is not repealed, but rather confirmed in the New Testament? 
Acts 2.38, 39  but I perceive your scope is to spy out what faults you can, though they do not concern the question, and sometimes when you can find none, yet you will make some.  
Then you bring me to the question about predecessors, 
Page 7.  which you have largely discussed in the Diatrebe, you say, for that promise in the second Commandment you say you would not plead it.  
Sir than you do not help my adversaries at home, who have pleaded only that promise, and therefore I only mentioned that, not having seen your book.  
Before I come to see what you have said, let me speak one word, as to the question, whether if a godly grandfather being of the Church, and being Orthodox [you put it in thus twice in one page, godly, living, Orthodox] should bring a grandchild to me, to baptise it by virtue of him taking it to himself, 
Diatr. 187. and so in this p. 7. godly.  as his own, and cugaging for the Education of it, whether now I should refuse it? truly I cannot tell; it is a hard question, and because I see so many holy learned men, and some also congregational men are of that Opinion, I am the more shaken, thinking God will reveal more to them then to such a wretch as I am, but I am not resolved what I should do, if I were put upon the practice.  
But suppose I yield this, yet you trouble me not at all but save my question, for if I baptise it not as it is the immediate Seed of these Scandalous parents, but the mediate seed of a godly grand father or grandmother, who take it as theirs and engage for Education, than I do not Baptise the children of such as the question mentions by virtue of them. This will serve to take off many of your Answers.  
But then I come again, What shall I do with the Infants of such whose parents are such as the Q. men●ions, and so are, and were their pro-parents? I have divers such, of whom I have enquired.  
Thus than I could easily departed from this, but for discourse sake, to beat it out more clearly, I will try what you have said.  
The text you give me is Gen. 17.7. and in this p. and p. 11. you require of me an expesse Scripture that shows, the promise reach but to the next generation. What mean you by this? do you look on me as an Anabaptist? when I dispute against them I take their own principles, but do you therefore require it of me? I doubt you have not given express Scriptures for all you have said in your books. Nay Sir, (which is strange) if you will prove the Grandfather might circumcise the Grandchild, if the immediate parent had lost his right [which come nearest to our Q.] you must draw it out by consequence: I pray call for no more than you give.  
Because you speak so of your full and large discussing of this question in your Diatr. I made account you had bestowed much pains upon the text to prove it out, and clear the text, but I see you only propound the text, and no more. It is worth the pains sometimes to clear out a text, which you have not done; that which looks most likely is, that you say, Jacob had power to dispose of joseph's Children; 
Diatr. 188. The issue which thou begettest after them shall be thine.  you might have set down a Text: if you mean 48. Gen. 5. the 6. v. will help to an answer, * and as for the 5. v. if you please to peruse famous Rivet on the Text, who clearly opens it; I cannot see how any thing can be drawn from thence to your purpose, to prove it by any thing else you have said, I can see nothing.  
But to the Text: I will establish my Covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting? Covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.  

1. It's true, God made his Covenant not only with Abraham, but his seed after him. His Seed, either 1. Such as were Carnally and Spiritually. So Jacob, David, etc. who were really within the Covenant of grace.  
2. Or his Seed only Carnally. So those ten Tribes when revolted, and the Jews when went whoring after Gods, not cleaving to the God of Abraham:  
3. Who only Spiritually not Garnally: So the believing Proselytes then, and believing Gentiles: which I conceive may be subdivided, into his Seed really so, or visibly so, that in judgement of charity appear so, but not truly so. So some of the Jews also, as well as Gentiles.   
2. He saith He will be a God to them, those who were really and spiritually Abraham's Seed, had him for their God indeed: for others he was a God so to them as he owned them only of all nations to be his Church, giving to them his Statutes and Ordinances; they also His holy People, i. e. separated from other people.  
3. It is true, God did hold this Governant with them, he did not cast off his Seed in the 6. or 10. generation, and take in another Seed to make his Church of, so long as that Policy was to endure.  
4. However the Covenant for the substance was given to Adam, yet I conceive (under favour) it was not drawn formally into a Covenant before now: (Noah's Covenant was a Covenant with the Creature as well as with Man.) Hence God appoints a Sign and Seal of this Covenant.  
Covenants use to be sealed, not bare promises. This Seal is to be administered to Abraham's seed who were taken into Covenant.  
The Question is, whether this Seal of the Cou●●●● was to be administered to the seed of Abraham as such, i. e. only Carnally so, though they had changed their God, who was Abraham's God, and worshipped such Gods as Abraham abhorred: though they had plainly rejected the Covenant, 2 Kings 17. from 8. to 18. v. though they were worse than the Heathen; 2 Kings 21.9.11. so that nothing of the Covenant appeared in them, or was to be administered to such (as visible at least) did walk as Abraham their Father did? If that be true which Maimony quoted by Ainsw. say it should seem so. It is a general rule, that he only is Abraham's Seed, that retaineth his Law, and his Right way: and these are they that ought to be Circumcised: if none else, than they did ill in Circumcising abundance; but for aught I can learn out of the chapter, Abraham's Seed, as such, though only his seed according to the flesh were to be circumcised.  
5. Out of this I cannot see, but that any Child whose● Father was of Abraham's seed, might as well be circumcised, by virtue of a Predecessor who was Abraham's seed, though he were dead six hundred years before, yea by virtue of Abraham himself (and that is most likely) as well as by virtue of a Grandfather.  
6. It seems a vain thing to talk of a Grandfather giving right to Circumcision, 
Sir I pray prove this that ever any did so. It was my 9th Argument, p. 12.  in case the immediate parent had forfeited his right (as our question would intimate) for if we consider who were to administer this Circumcision, and the immediate parent being of Abraham's seed, it should seem there is no room for such a thought.  
Those who did administer it were their Parents, Magistrates, or Masters, (if Servants) yea themselves say Maimony, when waxed great, 
Ainsw. Gen. 17.12. Buxto. Synag. Jud. c. 2.  if the thing were hid from the Judges, yea learned Rivet agrees with Abulen. who said women as well as men; so say others whom I could quote, there was none designed of God to the work; and still among the Jews, he that can do it most neatly he administers it, whom they call Mohel; and he practices first upon the children of poorer sort of Jews, than others.  
This speaks plainly to me that it is vain to talk who gave right there, it appears plain enough.  
But come to us: Believers only are Abraham's seeds the flesh hath nothing to do here, there must be flesh as a sustra●um that's true, or else there can be no Believer, but not such flesh that comes from Abraham. Believing Gentiles, such as visible, walk as Abraham did; these are esteemed his seed, and with these God makes his Covenant, these have the Seal administered, and their Children, God is a God to them also, takes them into his visible Church, and appoints the Seal for them: but if these Children grow up and make it plainly appear (that they reject the Covenant of their Fathers, and they prove contumacious, these cease to be Abraham's seed, the flesh here will not help them: whilst Infants they were esteemed his, but now they declare the contrary; if then they declare openly they are not his seed, how can they give title to the Seal of the Covenant which they have rejected?  
Had this Covenant (the Seal I mean) been to be administered to Abraham's spiritual seed only, so that if any of his carnal seed had manifested a rejection of the Covenant made with Abraham, than they had forfeited their right; had it been committed to the Priests or Levites to administer with a care that it were not abused; and could it be made clear that the immediate parent might forfeit his right, and then the Grandfather gave the Title; then there were good arguing from hence; but those things are yet to prove. Doth God say to any believing Gentile, I will be the God of thee and thy seed, to many Generations, though thy seed cast me off? But I will come to argument.  
1. If the Grandfather by virtue of this promise can give the Title to Baptism, than the Children of Carpocrates, Martion, Valentinus [let us suppose these men's parents to be godly and Church Members, and these Heretics to have Children] aught to be baptised.  
But the Consequent is false. Ergo, the Antecedent is false:  
If you say, that if their Grandfathers were living, and would take those Children and educate them, its true they might.  
I pray Sir why do you tie up the Text to living Grandfathers, there is nothing like it in the Text, let the Grandfathers be living or dead, that's nothing in the Text: if they were ungodly or Heretical, there is nothing, they were Abraham's seed according to the flesh.  
There is nothing neither of a Grandfather taking the Grandchild to himself, still they were Abraham's seed; neither can I discern how you can draw it out by necessary consequence.  
If you say they are Apostates and so have no right: Sir the Text speaks not of Abraham's seed, if they do not Apostatise, you know they did so, and yet were circumcised; and that by virtue of a grandfather is not proved. Such a Christ as these Heretics fancied they did own: so for Arrians, Photinians, they will own a Christ.  
For the Baptising of Heretics children, 
To. 494. loc. come. To. 4.648.  you have Walaeus against you, and Gerhard, the clause they put in, if the Heretics say they will bring up their children in their Heresy is but needless, as if Heretics would not do so; what they say for this I can turn as well against scandalous living; but I shall not trouble myself.  
2. You say this promise [I will be the God of thee and thy Seed] reached not only to the next Children, but their posterity in a second or third generation: than you make an etc. that is true as I have said before, and it troubles not me: but now under the Gospel to how many generations will this extend, that the Grandfather shall give title to Baptism? you name the third and then add, etc. How many do you include in & coetera: thus you have spoken in another place, and there another etc. 
Diatr. p. 188.212.  It is indeed usual to put an etc. when men's minds are clearly known, and there is no matter of consequence attended upon it, so spare our writing, and the Printer; but if any matter of consequence depends, than it is very poor to put in & coetera, you know etc. in the Bishop's Oath was an untoward thing, and here it is a troublesome thing; if to the third, why not to the 103 generation? & coetera will go further. But say you p. 11. this is their common Objection, [his head is very shallow that should not reach but you have fully answered it elsewhere: Come on then Sir, since you say you have fully answered it, I will turn to your Diatribae, and there look for it, supposing that a man of your parts who doth slight so extremely other men's arguments, calling them very weak, etc. when you say you answer fully, you have done so indeed; in p. 212. I see you have it there to answer. I perceive you finde it a troublesome objection, and there recite the opinions of some men, whom I honour as much as yourself, if there were nothing but an opinion of a man to be desired: you sum up their opinions, and it amounts to this; It scomes that the Children of Christians known or presumed to be such, whether living or dead, may be baptised. than you give us an allusion from those who could not prove their Genealogy. Ezra 2.62: Whether you will stand to this as your answer I know not: but than you add, But all the Children of known Believers, Christians, Orthodox and yet living, whether next or remoter may seem to challenge a right to Baptism: this is the full answer; but twice you use the word seem, which shows you rather propound your opinion modestly, but I pray Sir do not say this is so fully answered, it is no answer at all, (it is your opinion indeed) for by all the discourse I have met with as yet in that book, you have not proved that living Grandfathers may give a title, only you propound a text, which will prove the dead as well as the living may give a title if a Grandfather at all may: if you mean no more than the living Grandfather, your & caetera will soon be run out.  
In p. 8. you meet with an argument of mine which is this, 
Page 8.  [If the wickedness of the immediate parent cut him off; from the Lords Supper; though his parent be godly, why doth not the same wickedness cut him off from giving right to his child's Baptism? if the parent cannot claim one Seal of the Covenant for himself, appearing plainly not to have the condition of it, must not the child suffer who depends upon him for its title? The parent suffers, therefore the child must needs.  
You say no, not for Temporal punishment [Gehezi, Achan, Corah, etc. their children did] nor spiritual. To this I answered [they cannot be abstracted from their parents in this, and therefore may: as the child comes to have its right by a parent, so the child may lose by a parent: it doth not lose salvation nor regeneration by it.  
You answer 4. ways: 1. From the Jews; which doth not avail with me, there was something peculiar to them in administration of Circumcision, as is clear before, and shall be made clear hereafter.  
2. Your second is the distinguishing between a persons general state and personal wickedness; his state is a christian, etc.  
I answer; if you mean by personal wickedness, some particular falls (as you bring in Noah and David strangely afterward) I think so indeed; but if you mean a continued settled course in wickedness, wilful ignorance than I say; such a person hath lost his first right to his own or his child's baptism [you may call him a Christian, but let his Christianity be such as you have said may qualify him for a Church-Member, or else it is not worth a rush.] Such a one I look at as one that ought to be excommunicated, for he deserves it, (we must prove that persons ought to be excommunicated before they are.) Now since he ought, the question is, why he is not? [if he be, the child suffers for his state being a non-Member] in foro Dei he is, and aught to be in foro Ecclesiastico: if the case stand so as through the multitude of such, it cannot conveniently be so, Then yet let the Ministers go as fare as they can. I pray Sir let this satisfy to your answers which you give about Excommunication; for you would gather from me, that till Excommunication, Ministers ought to baptise.  
Thus far I yield it, till Excommunication, or that which doth deserve Excommunication, so that the persons ought to be excommunicated, though from some other external impediments (as multitude, etc.) they cannot be excommunicated; yet than a separation from such, or non-communion may help.  
3. You say, you have largely confuted this notion of the immediate parent: I think not so.  
4. You say, I have destroyed it myself: the right he hath is only by the Church's toleration, let the Officers look to that: the first and main right he hath none, and none at all according to your doctrine.  
For p. 9 the distinction of the Physical and Moral right in Diatr. 188. if you had strongly proved the Moral right of the Grandfather would clearly have taken off that wrong meant. Sir I will receive an answer when I see I am answered. But that there should be as little right of the Mother over the Child when compared with her Husband, as is of the Grandfather compared with the Father (which you would seem to intimate) is strange, I am sure the Mother communicates as much and more to the being of the Child, than the Father doth.  
For Aquina●, he may enjoy his opinion, yet I think Ch●mier (of whom anon) is not full for him. For my needless exception, you mention, it is well if nothing needless have come from you.  
Then you tell me I renew my plea, 
Page 10.  which is this [who shall educate this child? the Ignorant person cannot, the Scandalous teach it how to break the Covenant, Predecessors are dead, etc.] Here first you tell me of a Law of the Land, which bath taken care for the education of Papists Children, and Orphans, providing Schools and Hospitals. Hence first I gather, you do not care whether the Grandfather be living or dead, which in another place you express otherwise; here the immediate grossly ignorant and scandalous persons give title: but for what you say, I pray pardon my ignorance of the Laws that have been so many years out of England; I did not know the State had made such a Law, That if an Ignorant or Scandalous Parent have a child baptised, than those who are knowing and godly men (at least sober men, conversation comely) should take the child, and bring it up, and instruct it in the Covenant of grace, which must be the answer or nothing; this were woeful trouble, if good People or visible Saints should be thus charged with all the children of persons who are as the question mentions: As for the other part, you say, The Church should take care, as in case both the Parents die whilst they are little Children: and then you give a nip to the congregational Churches: you say right for the Church's care, but how shall we do whilst these parents live and keep them at home, and teach them to break Covenant, and though they are entreated to send their children to catechising, yet will not, as I have too bad experience? For the children of Church members, the parents dying whilst they are young, I wish I could see as good examples of your parochial Cnogregations taking care for the Christian education of such, as I could give you in the congregational Churches in New England, but then the title was not questioned, there was that ease, and we did not know but those godly parents might live to educate them.  
Then p. 11. you turn an argument upon me from myself, 
Page 11.  [because I could plead a promise by virtue of may Father, so may the Grandchild by virtue of a godly Grandfather, and so bid me change Parent into Progenitors.] Sir I am glad I could give you so good an argument, and I could beteame to let it alone, for it will not hurt my question, as I said before. Only a word, you bid me change Parent into Progenitors; so I will, let it be the great Grandfather of the child's great Grandfather, and one that is forty generations before him, for your & coetera will give me leave, (I know not how to set bounds to & coetera) yet I may go so fare for a title, and the text you bring doth not limit me.  
You grant an Apostate loseth his own baptism, p. 12. 
Yet you cannot see how a parents Apostasy can justly cut off his child. Diatr. p. 190.  so his right is cut off; suppose the pro-parents be dead here is intercisio Christianismi as you quoted Calvin before, than I know not how this Apostates child can be Baptised, by any parental right: yet if this child should come to understanding, and there should be movings on the heart of it, and it should plead the Covenant of a Grandfather [I should not question to baptise it without respect to parents if it came to that.] Yet Sir, this will show there is a great difference between the pro-parents right [if it can clearly be proved at all,] giving a title to baptism, and the immediate parents, for that may be cut off by the immediate parent justly, but the immediate parent's title cannot be cut off.  
Now we are come to the last Argument. 
Page 12, 13.   
If by virtue of the Grandfather, than the child of one Apostatised or excommunicated person may be baptised: but not Ergo.  
For an Apostate you tell me of the kindred taking care of it, or susceptores: this notion will come in afterwards.  
For excommunicated persons there you bestow pains, and I perceive you care not so much for a pro-parent here, but by virtue of the immediate parent himself though excommunicated.  
For my own part I should not here yield to a pro-parent, neither do I see our New England Divines (that could beteame a Grandchild under the Grandfather's tuition to be baptised by virtue of him) will allow, it if the immediate parents be excommunicated, for this hinders the working of the Ordinance; it is of greater force to work when a man shall see not only himself cut off, but even his very children also, this hath been a means to awaken some in N. England, who were not excommunicated, but only not admitted, to see their posterity also suffer for their sakes, it hath so wrought as to make some truly godly (so fare as we may judge) and others it hath brought into external order in conversation.  
But since you have here maintained it by virtue of the immediate parent excommunicated, I shall desire to consider it.  
It is granted there is a difference between an excommunicated person and a Heathen. As  
1. He may still hold his profession: 
Revie. M. Hoo. 119.  [but as you say, it is violated by his scandal, and it must be renewed before he can be received again.] Though he holds his profession still, yet that now violated is not sufficient to give himself a title to Baptism if he were not now baptised, much less the child who depends wholly on his title.  
If his profession be sufficient to give his child by virtue of him a title to one Seal of the Covenant, why the same profession should not be sufficient to give himself a title to the other Seal of the Covenant, [one faith being the condition of it, and you say he hath that,] I can see no reason.  
That profession which is not sufficient to make a man a Church member, is not sufficient to give title to a Church-priviledge, consequently not to baptism.  
But the profession of a person excommunicated is not sufficient, etc. Ergo the Minor is clear: his profession is vioalated, and must be renewed before he can be received, say you. Then 'tis not sufficient.  
This is further clear, for if it be sufficient to make him a Church-member when cast out, why was it not sufficient to keep him within whilst be was within? so he should not have needed to be cast out.  
This then is clear, that there is great difference between the profession of a person who was never admitted, and another who is cast out: the first may have less knowledge by fare, weaker gifts and possibly more infirmities which may yet be such, as a Church may admit, when the other who hath violated his profession, may not.  
2. He is under cure, but his cure is non-membership, a member cut off from the body: a Heathen is not under cure.  
3. When he hath renewed his profession by repentance, and so the Church received him again, he is not re-baptised: but this doth not prove that therefore whilst he is extra Ecclesiam, that he can give title to a privilege of the Church: it is not his being baptised that is the ground of his child's baptism whilst he is in the Church, therefore that cannot give the title when he is out of the Church.  
But Heathens must be baptised when they are admitted: the other is received again, not therefore baptised. That his baptism is not the ground of his child's baptism, I shall prove afterward.  
But I will come to Argument.  
1. If a child may be baptise by virtue of an excommunicated parent, than that parent is not excommunicated; and this is to make a contradiction.  
But the parent is excommunicated. Ergo.  
To baptise is to give Communion, baptised into one body, 
1 Cor. 12.13.  than there is Communion given with the body, by an excommunicated person: is not this a contradiction? Communion is most properly seen in Baptism and Lords Supper.  
What is excommunication, saith M. Rutherf. but to deny all Communion with those who were once in the Church? 
Peac: plea 222  but all Communion is not here denied.  
You will object, as you answer, pag. 13. All Communion with himself, but not with the child, for that is borne a Christian, and so bathe right.  
Ans. Hath the child right to Communion any other way with the Church then by the parent? is it not he that brings him in as a branch of himself? is it not a Christian borne by virtue of the parents Christianity? but his parent's Christianity can give himself no title to Church-priviledges, as I said before of profession, which is all one. Doth the child plead a title distinct from the parent? if so, than your answer you give were something, but I know of no title it hath but the parents, who expresses his own title for himself and his seed. Now it is ve●y rational, that if the child have Communion given only by virtue of the parents Communion, [for before the parent was admitted a Church-member the child could have none] then the parent having forfeited Communion for himself, must needs forfeit it for his depending child also.  
What Tertullian saith of Excommunication, Apol c. 39 and l. 2. ad uxorem you know.  
If Classian●s his wise were a Church-member though her husband were cast out, 
Aug ●p. 75.  we do not approve his practice who would not baptise his child by virtue of her; but it seems they apprehended that there was some equity if both were cast out. No wonder though Augustine were against it upon his principle.  
2. If excommunication be the casting out of a member of a Church, 1 Cor. 5. ult. and consequently rendering him a non-member, than an excommunicated person cannot give title to his child's Baptism.  
But excommunication is casting a man out etc.  
The consequence is clear, how can one who is a non-member of a Church give title to a Church-priviledge?  
Excommunication renders him a non-member, cutting him off from Communion, and admitting him to no other Ordinances than a non-member is.  
The phrase, cast out, shows he is no Member.  
So the phrase of cutting off, 
Aar. rod. l. 1. c. 5.  which learned Gillespy hath excellently opened to be meant of Excommunication, and there brings in Buxtorf. and Godwin, who report out of the Rabbius, that their children were not circumcised. This you say, pag. 14. is not Orthodox, and it was a corrupt Invention of the latter Jews having no ground for it in the Scripture: you say elsewhere, I think in the Diatr. that the Scripture doth not speak for nor against it, so far as) ou can se●; but then Sir what ever I make of it, it concerns you to prove it to be a corrupt invention, though I could yield it from what I observed before of their Circumcision, and yet not hurt myself.  
But you answer to this Argument, p. 13. That he is a member still, though much diseased; he was much diseased before, whilst under Church admonitions, suspensions, and because those Medicines would not cure him he was cut off; a member under cure, say you, his cure is non membership.  
But this is pretty, a man shall be cut off the body, and yet be a member of the body; a man shall be cast out of the Church, and yet shall'be within the Church; a man shall be no member of a Church, as say you p. 24. and p. 14. and yet be a member of a Church; how you who are so Eagle eyed to spy out contradictions in other men will now clear yourself, I cannot tell. Member, no Member, are contradicentia I think, and to find a medium in contradicentibus is new Logic to me, I though ens & non ens had admitted none.  
3. Excommunication is the putting of a man out of the visible Kingdom of Christ, into the Kingdom of Satan. So the best Expositors I meet with, 
1 Cor. 5.  Master Cartwright, etc. expounds that delivering up to Satan.  
Hence I ague, To administer the Seal of the Covenant to a child by virtue of one who is even Ecclesiasticè in the Church repute under the Kingdom of Satan, is very unwarrantable.  
To make Christ a Political head to one under Satan's Kingdom, seems very strange.  
4. Excommunication is the rendering of a man as a Heathen to the Church, Mat. 18. we do not differ here, but agree that Excommunication is meant here what ever the Erastians' 
* Here let me have leave to put in a word. The Erastians' expound this of civil injuries, or personal civil trespasses only, and will prove it by comparing of Luke 17.3, 4. with this; his Argument being, Because it is such a trespass as a brother may forgive: Mr. Gillespy bestows pains here, and to good purpose; but let it be supposed the Texts run parallel, which M Gillespy thinks not. 1. That Luke 17. saith, that a brother may forgive such a trespass, as it were better a millstone were ●angedi about his neck who offers it. But 2, we find in 2 Cor. 27.10. that Paul forgave, and the Church of Corinth forgave, what, a trespass done against them? No sure, the incestuous persons act was no evil trespass against Paul nor the Church, yet they forgive. If then they can forgive, why may not a private brother also forgive? Thus it is supposed, that the scandal which is here given, & for which the private brother dealeth with the offendor privately, is but a private scandal, (for if it be public, this way of dealing ceaseth) if then this private brother dealing with the offendor finds the man to acknowledge his sin, and repent, why may not he be said to forgive him also? [as in case it had been a public fact and cast out, upon his repentance the Church forgive] so that now he embraceth him in his heart again, proceeds not to call any other to deal with him, nor to tell it to the Church, but the scandal is buried, forgiven, forgotten, Ecclesiasticè: I know no absurdity in this, and so the forgiveness doth not prove it to be a civil trespass only.  say.  
Had Christ said, let him be a Heathen (with reverence be it spoken) it should seem not to have been so proper a speech, for he may not be a Heathen, for he may hold his profession though cast out, and so is not properly a Heathen, but as a Heathen he is to the Church; now what that is Mr. Gillespy tells us (and not he alone, but others) plainly: 
Aaro. rod 382.  he is to be used no better than an Heathen or profane Publican, and is not to be admitted to any Ordinance, except such as Heathens and profane Publicans were admitted to. But were they admitted to the Circumcision of their children? 
Page 392.  again he opens it, let him be esteemed as one that hath no part in the Communion of Saints, in Church-membership (observe that, no Member then) in the holy things, in the Covenants, of promise, more than a heathen man. How then such a one should give title to the scale of the Covenant I cannot tell.  
For the text you bring in Diatr. 2 Thes. 3.14, 15. 
Page 218. Rhem. Test.  If you please to view Mr. Cartwright on the text, you will find he gives reasons why that text most properly is meant of Suspension not Excommunication; so in his Harmony upon Mat. 18.17. he expounds this of Suspension: the text saith you are to account him a Brother, but the excommunicated person (till repentance) is no otherways to be esteemed then as a Heathen; saith he, true, that which is cause of Suspension is cause of Excommunication, if not repent of. But I believe this text is the clearest you can have for Suspension.  
That learned Mr. Cartwright is against the baptising of the Infants of excommunicated parents, M. Rucherf: acknowledgeth. 
Pe●c. plea. Page 176.   
If then I fall in this point, I shall fall with excellent men, M. Cartwright, Hooker, Cotton and others of our N. E. Divines, and others (it is likely) whom I know not.  
General rules stand, when we have such a particular case (as you mention, p. 13.) falls our, we shall consider it, I give you no cases but such as have really been.  
Before I proceed further, I must have recourse to your Diatr. with Mr. Hocker for another way of admitting children to Baptism, viz. by Adoption or Suretyship: for this is one of my errors that I suppose the next parent only can give the title to Baptism: and this was Mr. hooker's error as well as mine; you tell us two other ways: 1. The remoter parents [which I have dispatched, if it can be proved by better grounds than yet you have brought, yet it hurts not me nor Mr. Hooker, the questions stand firm still as we handle them:] The 2. is Adoption or Suretyship, so that you give three or rather four ways how children may come to Baptism; for Adoption and Suretyship, I conceive differ very much. Yet these shall not hinder me neither, no more than Mr. Hocker, though you can prove them, if you will let them be persons rightly qualified for Church members, who do Adops. etc. and by virtue of whom the child is baptised, so that I could ease myself that way: I like not this so well as the former. I will turn to Gen. 17.  
Where we will observe who were to be circumcised, 1. Abraham, 2. his natural seed, 3. his servants then in his family, whom he had taught the way of Jehovah, 
Ai●sw. 17. Gen. 27.  Gen. 18.19. and who should seem by faith to obey so hard a precept, their children also if they had any borne in the house. So afterwards those who were bought with money, which I conceive were only servants, these we find in this chap. here then (under favour) I find no Adoption, which I conce●ive is, the taking of a stranger, or one who is not of our natural seed, into the state of filiation. But that Abraham, or the Jews afterwards, took the children of Heathens into a state of filiation, I find no such thing: I question much whether the Jews could do as we do in Adopting make such our Heirs; they could not I doubt give any of the Land of Canaan away to a Heathen, though they were Adopted, of which I find no footsteps. To say th●y Adopted other Jews children, and so circumcised them, this is vain. Hence than I conceive if we cleave to the chapter, baptising by Adoption cannot be proved, because there was no circumcising by Adoption.  
If it be objected; If those who were bought, if servants might be circumcised, than those who are Adopted may be Baptised.  
I pray let us make no Syllogisms for first institutions; had Adoption there been mentioned, and by virtue of that Circumcision administered, than the argument had been fairer to prove baptining by Adoption; but there appears no such thing in the first Institution.  
If you will take liberty to make Institutions by syllogisms, we shall open a gap quickly.  
2. This way of Adoption will seldom trouble us, for it is so rare a thing that I never as yet knew one that was thus Adopted, I have heard of one, who also had his name changed, and inherited Lands, but I knew him not; I know such as have no children, and they have been offered children, but they would never accept any.  
3. Which is yet rarer, I never heard of any that did adopt children whilst they were Infants, but when grown up, so as they took liking of their manners and carriage; and sure it they came once to that, they should be instructed before baptised.  
But how 〈◊〉 this troubles me not if you can prove it, if all those who are children of such parents, as the question mentions, must come to be baptised by Adoption, some p●rsons shall have children enough.  
But for servants there the text is clear, only whether it will hold under the Gospel? that is a question.  
Give me leave humbly to propound my thoughts, I conceive that might be peculiar to that Church of the Jews, who were the only Church God had upon the earth, all the world besides them being shut out as so many Dogs, not allowed any means to enlighten them in the knowledge of God, but only the Book of the Creature, Christ not allowing his Disciples so much as to go into their way to preach unto them, 
Pareus tells us of a Jew that called him Ballad Gentile as he he was passing by him. Rom. 11.29.  till the wall was broken down; yet in that time the poor Gentiles had this privilege, if they would become servants to the Jews, they might be admitted to the Seal of the Covenant.  
But when as the partition wall was broken down, and Ministers sent out to preach to the whole world; now the Covenant was as free for the Gentiles as the Jews, teach and baptise, you may go into Turkey, India, where you will, there is no wall to hinder you: so now that which was the ground of that administration being taken away, that to me seems to cease. This also moves me to think so, because in the New Testament, after the wall was broken down, we find no mention of any such thing whence we should ground this practice; for children of Believers we find ground enough: if I did not see more for that in the New Testament then for servants, I should be very much shaken for Infant baptism.  
You ground is this: It was so then for Circumcision Ergo, now for Baptism. Your Consequence you prove, because privileges are not straitened under the Gospel.  
I answer, 1. had God after Christ taken one Nation (suppose England, as then Canaan) and tied up his Church to such a nation, so that no other people could partake in the O dinances but by joining to England, than the argument had been good, for still here had been a wall which shut out the other nations, which was the ground of that Administration; but now the Church may be any where.  
2. God hath recompensed that privilege with a wit●esse I think when he sends his Gospel to all the world, which before was tied up to little Canaan.  
2. If this still hold, then let the vilest monster in England [I have seen such stand for sureties in former times when that custom was used, that the Indians are honest men in comparison of them] bring a servant which he hath bought, and become surety for (so ignorant the man is that he had need be carechised himself) let him bring such a one to godly M. Cawdrey (if such a villain lived in his parish) and bid Mr. ●at baptise him, as he is his servant, would you do it? you must do it according to that text, for when they were Apostatised they did, no question, circumcise them if they took them: 〈◊〉 such a villain be excommunicated, 〈◊〉 gives title also for aught I can discern by you, for though 〈◊〉 ●●●es were excommunicated, yet I see by your doctrine they might circumcise such.  
To say no, I would have such as are understanding and godly men only, (or not scandalous) who do undertake for them, able to instruct them, etc. Sir, you have nothing in the text for any such thing; besides if you can prove it, you hurt not my question.  
3. I observe a vast difference between their servants and ours, they had strong power over their servants, Exod. 21.20, 21. I observed in New England, the Indians whom we had taken in war, or others who lived with us sometimes half or a whole year, yet if they could handsomely get away from us they would, and did; we should have done finely to have baptised them; we buy no servants who are English men, or Christians, as you call them, to be under our power as they were. Hence learned Rives saith, there bad nedde be a great caution lest the Ordinance be profaned, for our servants are not as theirs. 
In Gen. 17. p. 443. last Ed. To. 4. l. 5. c. 11. s. 2.  And learned Chamier speaks very warily upon the question: Servi si fim verè servi quales olim, non diffitear●nam Abrahamo legimus imperatum ut circumcideret suos omnes servos, sed quales hodià not serves babem●● ut plurimum quia verè liberi suns, non putem sic tractandus, non cor quidem qui jure belli fiunt subditi principibus, nam hoc genus subditorum tamen liberum manet: De natu ergo ex parentibus insidelibus liberis, si consentiant parents, distinguendum putem: Consentiunt enim vel ip●i facti fideles, ac tune nulla difficultas, etc. vel perseverates in infidelitate, ac tum non putem baptizandor, etc. For those who are ●●rè servi which it seems we have none, but if we had such, should we baptise them being adulti before they be taught the Covenant, and see if they will own it? Teach and Baptise; for Infants, I think we never buy such servants.  
4. For suretyship that comes not in this way by being bought as they were, I have nothing to say to it, if you can prove it to be a divine Institutioon I will attend to it, but I think it will prove but an humane Invention; for sureties being joined with parents, 
Caranz p. 17. Pet. Mart. lo●. come. 822.  we know who was the parent of that invention.  
Higin●● was no Apostle: if you have a better parent for your suretyship I pray bring him forth.  
〈◊〉 if any man hath a mind to be a surety for other folk's children let him, per me lices. I think those who have children of their own, and know what is to educate them, will not be forward to be sureties for others: I doubt many men if they examine how they have discharged their suretyship heretoforem, have cause to be humbled, for I think most never regarded it; and how to discharge●t when they have them not under their charge, and remove so commonly as we do, I know not.  
But you with tell me of the stream of Divines are for it; there is a little Rivules that is not acknowledged by Gerhard, loc. co. To. 4. p. 583. he quotes Galvin, Beza, Bucanus; and for Beza, Walaeus doth acknowledge, tutius judicat ut priuserudiantur. Hunnius also, Rivet, S●ith is against it. 
To. 1. p. 492. on Gen. 17. p. 343. the bapt..   
Let me add one more of no small note, Tertullian in those words, veniant dum adolescunt, veniant dum discunt, which words you must either understand as some do against Infant-baptisme altogether, as divers do, saith Lauren. upon Te●tul. and conclude from hence, and a place of Nazian. Orat. in San●. Lavac. that these two Fathers were against Infant-baptism [though I think Nazianzen speaks enough in that Ocation to clear his mind] or if you will not rake it so, you must take it that Tertullian there speaks against baptising by sureties, and he that reads two lines before shall easily perceive that is his meaning; and so Mr. Martial interpre●s him, and that clearly: 
Against Tombs p. 36.  so than you have not all on your side. So much for your way of Adoption.  
Now I return to your answer; 
Page 15.  p. 15. you tell me there I have started a new question: Sir, you know I said at the first, I must move two questions, and for this had I not moved it, I had said nothing, for what if I had proved that it is only the n●xt parent gives right to Baptism? yet if such parents as these in the Q. were judged fit Church members, and so fit to give title, I had said nothing, that therefore was my scope to prove these were not fit, and consequently aught to be reform, or shut out of the Church; of which before.  
You say not much to my first Argument to prove they are not, 
Page 16.  viz. because they are not visible Saints; you acknowledge they are not, nor aught to be admitted, if now they were to be admitted: then reform such, or cast them out: for that you say of Corinth, I say it is no wonder though Paul call the whole Church Saints, making denomination from the melior, and it is likely the Major part, as visible Saints: but had they been all such as you say, grossly ignorant, or scandalous, whether the Apostle would then have called them Saints or no I cannot tell.  
What you say about profession of faith that is requisite to give a man admission, I have elted it before p. 1. you say presently: 
Page 17.  This is sufficient for admission, but as there must he more to, continue such in the Church, etc. you say p. 19 more is required to first admission, then to continuance in the Church. I know not how to reconcile these.  
For positive matter for Excommuncation, you say right, there must be so indeed, and I think we are not to seek for that: but for Excommunication I gave you my thoughts before.  
For my second Argument that falls you say also: I do not know that my first is fallen yet, for you have yielded the Argument. I pray what is the question? I must set it down because of these two answers you give to my two next Arguments, which you mightily contemn.  

They do but say they believe in him, when whole conversation manifests the contrary.  The Q. is, Whether is this bare profession of saith in Christ [for thousands in England do but barely say it, that they believe in him, they know nothing of Faith, nor of Christ, only the Name, such a one their Father; or some body told them of, I gave you some instances before] though parents be grossly ignorant, scandulous, and refuse to subject to Church Discipline, sufficient to make a man, and continue him a Member of the visible Church? The first Argument stands as yet.  
My second Argument was this, If this bare profession be sufficient, then nonen can be cast out for the vilest sins, Heresy, etc. because he is the same now as when he was admitted.  
You answer, The consequence is unsound, and the proof like it [you are very nimble methinks, but why so unsound?] for when he was first admitted upon his profession, no such scandal appeared, but now it doth, there he is not the same that he was, when admitted.  
To this I say, by profession you either mean such a profession, as you have mentioned above in this page, as I think you do, and so you speak not ad idem; or if you mean such a profession as the question stared mentions, than Sir it is not so, for either gross ignorance, or scandal did appear, unless you mean that just at that time when he came to you and told you he did believe in Christ, be did not manifest any scanned ●ll to you; was not drunk, or did not swear, or show uncleanness, etc. just a● that time: for so those who come to require Baptism for their children, do not come drunk, or swear. etc. in that very instant time, but before they cameth I would, and when the child is baptised, can swear, etc. and it's well if divers be not drunk, if they have boon companions to join with; some have been little better. So that for all your haste, the Argument is sound enough, but so is no● your Answer.  
The third Argument you say is like the former, very weak: I pray leave out ve●y, and let weak be enough, it is possible it will not prove weak. What is the Argument?  
A Rebel opposing Christ in his visible Kingdom is not fit to be a Member of it, because no subject.  
You answer, be is not fit to be admitted if no Member before: Sir, what is the Q. whether is such a bare profession, etc. fit to make, etc. to make a Member? then this is not sit your pen hath affirmed: but then the Argument is not very weak, but very strong to prove one part of the question, yourself acknowledge it in your first words, and so you have done before, p. 16. [but say you, he is fit to be continued till trial of Reformation be passed:] Sir you said above in this page, that a bare profession with the mouth that he believes in Jesus Christ, though visibly he lives like an Infidel, is not sufficient to qualify a man to be made or continued a Member. The question speaks of such a bare profession; if you will say a moral conversation, though grossly ignorant, will serve the turn, there hath been as good, and now are among Infidels, and those who do profess Christ, for drunkenness, swearing, etc. uncleanness, lying, stealing, disobedience to parents, when grown up, etc. are as bad and worse than Infidels, Indians will shame them, so that the sufficiency of his professton is not that which doth continue him a Church menber, but the Church's continuance, or impotency if the Church went about to reform and could not, as in the time of the Hierarchy; if it be the sufficiency of his profession keeps him in, for aught I know you may let him alone when power is in your hand to cast him out.  
Most of this page is spoken to before, 
Page 18.  only to two propositions (as you call them) of mine.  
You answer: That which constitutes a Church, continues a Church; if then a bare profession be not sufficient to make a Member, nor is it enough to continue a man a Member of a Church.  
You answer, both Propositions are faulty: the Minor, for we have proved that a profession of faith, nothing appearing to the contrary, will constitute a Member, and so a Church of many Members though all Hypocrites.  
But Sir, the profession of faith you speak of here, is not the profession of faith the question speaks of, for the question speaks of such a profession as hath gross ignorance, or open scandal appearing, therefore you speak not ad idem.  
For all Hypocriter: there is (as M. Car●wright saith) difference between Tares and Acorns, Goats and Swine.  
The Major is faulty, say you, because more is required to a first Admission, 
Page 19  then to a Continuance in the Church, as is evident in men of years converted from Infidels; a personal profession of faith is necessary to such, but their children are admitted and continued without it.  
Sir, you should have proved that more is required to the Admission than the Continuance of the same person: speak ad idem, there should seem rather that more is required to Continuance then Admission, for being longer under means he should have attained more in that time, than he had when first admitted. You say children are admitted and continued without personal profession: I grant it, but admitted it seems they are, and surely that is, because they are reputed in the parents for visible Saints, 
1 Cor. 7. but now, Holy.  sit matter for a Church, let them continue such as they were reputed to be at their admission and it is well enough, no more shall be required. Or it there be any difference it is this, more is required to their continuance: for they to their admission, were required to be but visible Saints by virtue of their parents, reputed such for their sakes, but for their continuance they must when grown up manifest actually they are such, or else be cast out: so more is required for Continuance then Admission, and so your proposition is false.  
For your last clause in that Paragraph, [there is another way to reform a constituted Church but corrupted, than first to constitute a Church, viz. Discipline] I know not what sense to make of it, I supposed there was some ●●our in the Printer, but I find no Errata printed, and so cannot tell what to say to it: I said let Discipline be exercised, and so the Churches reduced to their first constitution, viz. to be such as Churches ought to be. I●perceive your next heads are to oppose this, you have no Government settled; you may have it if you will, as I said before, parties refuse to submit to it, say you, than I am the stronger; for if there be no Excommunication, I am not tied to baptise till they be excommunicated, which you urge so much.  
You ask me agains, would I have such suddenly ejected? why Sir is there no Church-Discipline but Excommunication? we use unless offences he very notorious (and we have enough such) first to admonish persons seriously to bring persons to repentance; if that will not do, we suspend; if that will not do, 
So some conceive non-Communion to be an Act of Church-Discipline.  then excommunicate. I said before, the times we now are cast in are to be considered, as the ●eyden Profossours speak in the same case, but because you cannot excommunicate you will do nothing: and when you have excommunicated it is all one with you, so that you do but delude us. I do not absolutely deny any Baptism, but conditionally if they will not come to be instructed, and give us some better testimony of their conversation: but before they will be catchised by me, and give any better testimony they will fling away.  
Now say you all his argumet 〈◊〉 will be easily dissolved, 
Page 20.  it's well. What you have spoken to in this page 20. I have answered before; only whereas you say, I have often confessed that persons tolerated ought not to bro excluded the Lords Supper. Sir, I will keep to the title of my Book, it shall be A Sober Reply, and I say, I have not once said any such thing.  
But than you call to Ministers to examine whether they have done well in excluding half (it may be) of their Parish from the Supper by their owns power alone. And page 26.28. you seem to condemn this practice; o brave Reformation! in the Bishop's time a Minister alone made no question to do this; and now every Minister is a Bishop, as I am sure you will grant, that a Bishop and Presbyter is all one; yet now Ministers must not do it, but let all come to the Supper, till a Glassis be set up.  
Here you tell us we cry out again, and call people to separate from you because you want an Ordinance, 
Page 21.  then add, The Lord judge between us in this matter: this sentence you use also in your other book, but I pray apply it to those who so call for separation from you, my conscience clears me from any such thing: therefore Sir do you not use such a sentence vainly.  
Then you come to answer the weak Argument:  
Such as the question mentions, dejure aught, and de facto pre excluded from the Lords supper, Ergo, ought also to be excluded from their Infant's Baptism.  
This you say you deny with all the proofs of is, the Proof is as weak as the consequence, viz. Because Baptism seals to the same Covenant, as the Lords Supper doth. Ergo, if excluded from one Seal, then from the other.  
The proof again is like to the former, viz. Because such persons appear pear not to be those to whom the Seal of the Lords Supper doth belong, having no right in those privileges; therefore Baptism signifying and feeling as great privileges as the Lords Supper, they cannot convey a title unto that Seal for their children, but aught to be excluded.  
All is weak that Mr. Cawdrey opposes; there are in Logic those ways of answering, which Logicians call Solutiones apparcutes, one of them is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, this you are well acquainted with, to slight the Arguments brought against you, tell your Reader they are weak; and that's half and answer at least.  
All are not of your mind concerning this Argument: 
His Vindication of free Admiss. to L. Sup. p. 24.  Mr. Humphries saith, those who have gone about to answer this, bade better happily said nothing, for our free course of baptism, and a deny all of this is such a Seam-rent as will never be handsomely drawns up, though stitches together. For his judgement in Admission of all to Lord's Supper I leave it.  
But let us see how weak you show it: your answer is this,  
The Argument ought to proceed of the same persons, viz. such as ought to be excluded from the Lords Supper, ought (if now they were to be baptised) also to be excluded from Baptism for themselves: but this doth not reach the children, for they being borne Christians, of Christians have right to Baptism.  
What Sir, have you catched me in that fallacy, I have taken you so often in? I hope not: I have spoken before to this, the title of the parents and the children is but one and the same.  
1. I doubt not but Master Cawdrey conceives there are thousands in England that dejure aught to be excluded the Lords Supper, else be must condemn the Assembly for injudicious men that should trouble the Parliament for an Act, etc.  
2. These Mr. Caws yields, were they now to be baptised ought not to be baptised, the argument proceeds clear against them.  
3. Yet the children of such parents being bo●ne Christians, of such Christians as ought not to be baptised themselves (if they were not baptised) these may: which is strange to me, that children which have their title because borne of such parents they may be baptised, but the parents themselves who give the title, must not:  
Therefore I reply, if the argument proceeds so strongly against the parents themselves, then much more against the children, for If may self who must have title first for myself, and then for my child, aught to be denied it, then much more my child, whose title is mine, and depends wholly upon me for it: for this I conceive to be a sound truth, if a person have ten or twenty children, and these be baptised because Christians, born of such a parent, than I do twenty times justify that the parent from whom these children proceed, have right and title to Baptism. So that which you say is not a sound assertion, p. 24. (which how it came under the third argument I know not, for it belongs to the first,) viz. If I can give the child one Seal of the Covenant by virtue of the parent, I will give the parent the other, I think is a very sound assertion, it never troubled me as yet. But what makes it so? say you, I may see reason to deny the parent the Lords Supper, and yet baptise his child, because more is required of the one than the other.  
For the child I require nothing of it, but look to the parent from whom it derives its tith, if you require any thing of me, saith the child, go to my parent from whom I descended: why then do you say, you require more of the one, than the other? neither 2. do I see what more you are to require of a person to admit him to the Lords Supper, than his child to baptism: If a person do visibly appear to have the condition of the Covenant, he being a Church-member, how you can deny him the Lords Supper I know not: so for baptism. If there were two conditions of the Covenant of grace, and that Baptism respected one, and the Lords Supper the other, then there might be some aeson, why the Church should look to one more than another, but I know but of one condition.  

Page 21.  You say moreover: The young children of members are unfit to be admitted to the Lords Supper, yet not to be excluded from Baptism, The reason is because more is required to the Lords Supper, then to their Baptism.  
To which I say: 1. If children did as much depend on their parents for the Lords Supper, as they do for Baptism, then for aught I know, they may have (as was the old custom) the Lord's Supper, as Baptism.  
2. You should have proved that less is to be required of those who do give them title to their Baptism, then for themselves to the Lords Suppe●.  

Page 22.  So that whereas you say, all my false consequences are grounded upon my first (false) premised supposition, viz. [That the child hath no right but in relation to the next parent] (the word next (by your favour) was not there put in, 
I may consider the Parent and Child, as, argumentum primum & ortum in Logic: primum babet arguendi vim in se, & à se: ortum in se sed non à se. It's but derived. ,) so I say your answer to this argument, runs upon a false supposition, viz. that children are baptised by virtue of a title distinct from their parents, If you can prove that, viz. that the parent requires baptism for himself by one title, and the child by another title distinct from his, than your answer will be strong; else it is as weak and weaker than the argument, which you so much slight: for the rest of your answer, I have spoken to it before, and therefore repeace nothing for the examples of Scripture or History: will you do nothing but what you have example for? is not argument drawn from Scripture-grounds sufficient for me, though there be not examples set down? For the personal default I have spoken to it before.  
For my Dilemma which you would turn upon me, I see you take that for granted which I have not yielded, therefore my Dilemma stands as it did before against you.  

Page 23.  For my Querie (Whether the child may not be suspended in case the parent he suspended continuing obstinate) you would answer me out of principles which are not mine: I pray prove, that juspension is an Ordinance instituted only with respect to the Lords Supper. Secondly, 
Being it is called by Divines Excommunicatio Minor.  prove that the case now standing with us as now it doth, in beginning of Reformation, we may not deny the signa gratiae as the Layden professors say, though by reason of the multitude we cannot proceed to Excommunication. 3. Why may we not proceed to non-communion?  
My second Argument was this.  
Such Parents if now they were to be Baptised, ought not to be Baptised, Ergo, they cannot challenge it for their Children: Baptism belongs primatily to the Parent.  
You again deny the consequence and the prose of it.  
First you say: It is a received maxim amongst the Lawyers, quod fieri non debuit, factum valet: Suppose an unfit person Baptised, his Baptism is not null, be is a Member till legally exeluded, and so hath right for himself and his to be consequent Privileges.  
Hence first those Indians whom the Friar's Baptised in the West Indies without instruction, 
Heylen. Geog. P. 773.  have right and title for themselves and theirs to all Church privileges. The persons were unfit who were Baptised I an●●●● yet saith Mr. Ca unfitness doth not debar, till excluded. No nor then neither. Let others do as those Friars did, yet this Argument holds.  
Secondly, this answer earrieth it, That Baptism makes a Member of a visible Church: observe his words, suppose an unfit person Baptised, 
If unfit to be Baptised, then unfit to be a Member.  his Baptism is not null, be is a Member: which way came this man to be a Member? not by his Christianity, (which you use to say) for he is a person unfit you say: but his Baptism made him thus, which is  
First, cross to your own proposition: Review of Mr. Hoo. P. 94. Baptism doth not make a man a Member of a Church  
Secondly, if Baptism doth make a Member, and consequently gives the title to his Child's Baptism, Then Constantine, Valentinianes, etc. those who deferred their Baptism, were so long no Members of the Church, nor could give title to their children's Baptism.  
Thirdly, Primum in unoquoque genere est meusura aliorion: so take the first in genere Baptizatorum, what was the cause of their Baptising; because cause they hearing of the word Taught, Believed, and joined to the Church; it was not because any other was Baptised, so the same holds now, a person being reputed a Believer and a Church-member [whether in the Parents or otherwise] this is the ground of its Baptism; than it is not another's being Baptised that is the ground of my Baptism.  
Fourthly, the ground of the sealing of the Covenant, is because the person appears to be in Covenant, not because it was first sealed to another. The Child is looked upon within the Covenant by reason of the Parent, as was I shmael before Abraham was circumcised, if in the Covenant, than (say you) the child is a Church-member: than it is not the Parents being Baptised that gives the title. Hence your Notion in the same Page 23. [If the Parent's sin did annul his own Baptism, it were a question whether it did not hinder his child's Baptism] which also implies it is the Parents Baptism that is the cause of his child's Baptism] comes to nothing.  
Your second answer, is from none of my Principles.  
Your third I have spoken to also. I did not express excommunication as a qualification in the questions it is true, I have spoken to this also before.  
What you have said to the third Argument, I have also spoken to before, my fourth Argument ran thus: [To give the seal of the Covenant of grace to a child by virtue of one who appears to be in covenant with the Devil, is a profaning of the Ordinance.]  
To this you answer four ways, the last I have spoken to, but not the other three, which I will consider.  

Page 25.  First, you deny that such persons as the Q. memions are visibly in Covenant with Satan, especially if tolerated, for so long they are visibly in the external covenant of the Church.  
What you mean by this Externall Covenant of the Church I cannot imagine: not Baptism I hope; nor the Externall Church covenant we speak of, and you so much oppose; for the Covenant of grace, they are not visibly under that: there needs no Covenant formally between the Devil and us, naturally he hath us strong enough though we make no formal Covenants with him. But when are men said to be under the Covenant of Grace? is it not when they, 

1. Seek to understand it,  
2. Choose it as their greatest joy and portion,  
3. Rejoice in nothing so as when under the power of it,  
4. When will not endure to be drawn from under the Dominion of it, but their hearts sink with sorrow when the old man rebels against it,  
5. When externally their Conversation answers it,  
6. When delight in those who are in Covenant with themselves also, etc.   Turn it now, when persons care not for understanding of that Covenant, but they are wise in ways of sin, choose those ways, their joy is when they are in the enjoyment of such ways, cannot endure to be pulled off from them, but troubled when stopped in their course, visibly thus they walk in their course, and choose such for their companions, what shall we judge of these? What ever Covenant you mean, I am sure they are not under that Covenant visibly, of which Baptism is a Seal.  
Secondly, you say, suppose a Person be Excommunicate, and so delivered unto Satan (as the incefluous Person was) yet it were hard to say he were visibly in Covenant with Satan, though at the present under his Power.  
To be under a Church-censure, which is appointed for cure of a Person, is far different from the ease now we speak of.  
That power of Satan the excommunicate person is under, is an afflicting power, therefore not chosen by the person, as is the other.  
Those who are not Excommunicated may be visibly in Covenant with Satan in that sense the Argument speaks of, when one who is Excommucated may not be so, as the incestuous person repenting, and sunk with sorrow.  
Thirdly, you say, every gross sin (as in Noah and David, etc.) does not conclude a man visibly in Covenant (with Satan you mean) much less ignorance, as in children and youths Baptised.  
To this I say 1. If I had not reverenced your grace and Parts, I would have given you another answer, sir it is strange that when I in the proof of the Minor said, [A person whose course and Trade of Life is to live in sin] that yet you should answer from Noah and David, their particular acts, repent of, etc. You would make me a silly fellow that could not distinguish between the course of a man's life (when I expressed it) and a particular act.  
2. In Baptising of Infants, I do not consider them as ignorant persons, but visible Saints with their Parents, and those must have knowledge.  
3. How are we gone from the ignorance of the Parent, to the ignorance of the Infant?  
Then you come in with your Epiphonema, [see whither this new way leads its followers.] Yes, I pray see by what you have answered, whither it leads: I think you might have spared your triumphing here, unless your answer had been stronger.  
For my fifth Argument, the jumbling of the most profane and godly in the same Ordinance and under the same Prayers: you tell me I may do it, so I do but grieve, etc. of this before: but fir when conscience flies in a man's face for giving away the seal of the Covenant to such a one, this will not quiet conscience to tell it, Mr. Gawdrey saith you may do it. You know what Dr. Ames said before.  

Page 26.  Then you come to the great Objection. The Jew's circumcising of all. My first answer to this Objection was, I would see a proof that the Priests did debar many from the Passeover, for moral uncleanness, many years, (as ours do from the Supper) and yet had their children circumcised.  
To this you answer: The Priests are blamed for admitting the Morally unclean to some Ordinances, but it concerns him to prove where ever they were blamed for circumcising the Children of such. 44. Ezek. 9  
To which I say, 1. That Text speaks of the times under the Gospel, and it cannot be accomplished under the Old Testament, as our Annotations make it clear, it speaks of a time when circumcision is out of date.  
2. Circumcision was never committed to the Priests as now Baptism to the Ministers, therefore there was no blame to them due for that point.  
3. Since it respects the Gospel, it concerns those who practise so as if by Sanctuary were meant only the Lords Supper, to prove that there, where the Priests are blamed for bringing into the Sanctuary such persons, he means only admission to the Lords Supper, those who interpret must prove. It should seem very fair, that Sauctuary is more than Lords Supper, I suppose those who were brought into the Sanctuary might come to the Passeover in old time.  
Your second answer is, you Question the Practice of our Ministers, whether it can be justified. I see you are pinched, but no doubt their keeping of that holy Ordinance is justifiable enough.  
My second answer was, [I conceived some thing was peculiar to that Church in that Ordinance, and so conceive still. I shall add something more.]  
1. In that there was no Minister separated by God to the dispensing of it, as is now of Baptism: but Parents, Masters, Judges, Men or Women, yea themselves; might administer it.  
2. It did not run to his seed only as Spiritual, [as doth Baptism now, for only Believers are Abraham's Seed] but to his Seed as such. The ground indeed of Gods giving of the Seal of the Covenant at first was, because of that Covenant God was in with Abraham, but this Covenant they (many of them) did never regard but reject, taking Circumcision only to be the Covenant, so being his Seed in whom they did so glory, 
Mat. 3.9. Joh. 8.39.44.  they would circumcise their Children, though the Devil was their Father.  
3. From the nature of the Seal and Sign being an abiding Mark in the flesh (which Baptism is not.) And by that they were distinguished from the Heathens by an apparent mark, it made me think there was something God further aimed at in it, in reference to them: which I perceive Justin Martyr will second me in: when Trypho had been urging the necessity of Circumcision, 
Dialog. cum Tryph. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  he answers him; God foreseeing you should be scattered, and beaten out of Jerusalem, and not return thither again, left Circumcision a Mark in your flesh, now by no other note can you be known but by your Circumcision. This is part of his answer. And surely there seems to be something in it, for had it not been for Circumcision, in these many years they have been scattered, they might easily have lost their Distinction from the Gentiles, at least abundance of them, but by this they are known to this day.  
4. This much prevails with me to think something was peculiar, because 17. Gen. 14. Those who were not Circumcised were to be Cut off Whether by the Magistrate, or by Excommunication, as saith learned Gillespy, take it how you will, will you say the same of Infants not baptised? must the Magistrate cut such off? or shall the Church excommunicate all such? I trow Mr. Martial will take up the Cudgels against you, 
In his Sermon before the L. Major on Easter Monday. 1652. p. 28. 2. Ed.  for he is so fare from thinking that Churches should excommunicate Anabaptists, if godly, that he chargeth that Church with Schism, which shall deny them Communion because such. Expound it how you will, (so it be true) that will show some difference, and argue something was peculiar.  
5. I said [when the Jews came to requite Baptism, it was not enough we are Abraham's seed, Ergo, baptise us, [this was enough to Circumcision] but John requires Repentance.  
To this you answer, it was a new Ordinance, in which Repentance was required in the first parents. 

1. But what then? though new, it was but a Seal to the same Covenant they were in before, and they being visibly under the same Covenant, why should more be required of them, if there were not some difference between the administrations of these Ordinances?  
2. But was not Repentance required in Circumcision? did not Circumcision note the cutting off the Old Man? 
2 Col. ix.  and is that done without Repentance? if repentance were not required there as well as in Baptism, you will confirm me the more, and weaken the arguing from Circumcision to Baptism, very much in my apprehension.    
6. This made me to think so, because when they fell to their foul Apostles, yet they Circumcised: I pray Sir speak our plainly, if one of your Members should sacrifice his children to Mole●b, worship those vile and unclean Gods, which they did, would you baptise his child without any more ado?  
If none but such as Maymony (before quoted) saith, aught to be circumcised, than their Circumcision was irregular, for they threw oft Abraham's way, and his God: but if all Abraham's seed, as such, merely according to the flesh, had a title to Circumcision, than it was peculiar to them, and they were regularly enough circumcised. But this helps not us.  
7. That place Ezra 10.3. the children borne of the strange wives were to be put away, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ut proficiamus: vulg e●ici●mus; Vata.  as well as the strange wives; it's very likely they would circumcise them, but yet put away: if they ought not to be circumcised or were not, yet it will imply some difference.  
For all the rest to p. 29. I have spoken to before: there after you had condemned my rigidness for non-admission of the children of some parents, than you show your Judgement, that all aught to be Baptised.  
1. You say if one Minister will not baptise, another will, [let others do as they please, I must give account of my Stewardship● not his] it will increase divisions betwixt Ministers, by others intermeddling with their charges. [I was never yet offended with any man who did Baptism the children of such as dwell in our parish: I thought intermeddling with other folk's charges had been no offence to the Classical Government, which will excommunicate a person in another man's charge.]  
1. It will make the next generation, no better than Infidels being unbaptised.  
This may prevent abundance of sin and ignorance, making parents look about them, working (as experience hath proved in N. England, to real conversion (as in charity we may judge) at least to knowledge and outward conformity in divers here also in England, in your own shire: the proof is made, a godly minister that lives there told me, he will not baptise without a good account given him, and to this day (he told me at the Commencement) two in his parish were unbaptised; the people observing this, he told me they bestir themselves to get knowledge, and give better account.  
This is the fruit already tried, but what then if all Ministers did so?  
Because unbaptised, Ergo Infidels, Constantine, Valentinianus and others, were unbaptised a long time, therefore they were Infidels, and Valentinianus died an Infidel, because he died unbaptised.  
This will exasperate parents you say.  
We must look for rubs at first, our life is not such as to have the good word and will of every body; but this daintiness must come down.  

1. Whilst we have the civil power to stand by, it may be done the more easily.  
2. If one of the parents give any comfortable account, it is sufficient.  
3. Wome, their sex commands them more modesty, and their education helps, if there be knowledge, they have advantage also of affections, and so easier moved upon by preaching the Word.  
4. For number, we shall find the most opposition will be in the poorer sort, where horrible ignorance besides profaneness abounds.  
5. It is but visible Saintship that is required; you have said enough, in my opinion, as for maintenance (which you mention) thousands of Ministers in England have the advantage of me, N. England voyage having broken and spoilt our Estates, but ordinarily Ministers have Lands of their own, and some good Glebe-Lands, wherein they are before me.   
I observe but two things,  
1. For what you say; you would have the Magistrate settle aright Government which all Congregatious should be bound to submit to.  
Sir, you speak of a hard thing, the Magistrate must needs be troubled to know which is that right Government, when there is so much difference among the Ministers who call for it; one says it is Classical Government, another it is congregational, and both sides very godly men: The Ark must needs shake when the Oxen stumble.  
2. Yet such is the nearness of the agreement between the congregational, and Classical Government, that though one be not bound to submit to the other, yet Church-government might go on well enough, (were it not for this Separation, which will undermine both) if there were brotherly yielding on both sides but a little; if the peace of the Churches were as much valued as it hath been by other holy men before times, we would not, we dare not do as we do.  
The Magistrate doth give leave for these two, which in respect of Government are so near, that they need not be called two; but this fearful blasting of the Ordinances by the sore hand of God, and this horrible disunion between the congregational and Classical men, and others who are godly, say in my heart, there hangs a scourge over both congregational and Classical men, and other professors.  
For the rest, p. 30. there is little to answer:  
2. For your bringing in the Authority of the civil Magistrate, to reform our people as Church-members; this will be poor Reformation: I thought Church-members had been form and reform, by the sword of the Spirit, not of the Magistrate, they can scarce make better Laws than they have made, for reforming of Moral vices, I think the fault lies not in them, they cannot be Judges and Witnesses too.  
For your last, p 31. that you would have us press the conditions of the Covenant on those that we baptise, and that is sufficient now.  
If I were only a Teacher this might suffice, but I think I am (or should be) a Ruler, as well as a Teacher.  
If this be enough, then admit all England to the Lords Supper without scruple.  
Thus Sir I have replied to your Book, with as much brevity as I could; I know such a man as you are will not be quiet thus, but will write again; (I foresee some things (and possibly you may make use of my Book against the Separation against me) which I could have prevented, but upon some reasons moving me I let them alone:) and it will be hard (though I am but weak) if I should not spy out some things in your writing which I might oppose again, but I see there will be no end of writing, wherefore I am resolved to make an end; only if I find you bring out more strength than yet I have seen, and that which giveth me satisfaction, I will return you very hearty thanks, and publish it to the world that you have satisfied me; if not, I will be silent.   

A POSTSCRIPT To Reverend Mr. Blake.  
MY reply to Mr. Cawdrey was ready for the press within seven weeks after his answer came out, but by the ill dealing of that Bookeseller who had my Copy first in his hand, it comes to be thus long before it came forth: I heard not of Mr. Blake a long time after he came forth, and have possessed his book no longer then to have but one whole day to review him, and draw up my reply, which I would have done 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but that my Bookseller is unwilling to venture the charges for the printing in these dai●s. I have not read ever any more (as yet) than what concerns myself, and for his courteous handling of me without scorn, I kindly thank him. I have liberty to mention but two or three things, which I shall do with as much brevity as I can.  

1. He observes, 
Page 431.  I am diffident rather then confident of my opinion. Sir, I did write as a man who was troubled about it, my Arguments at present casting the scale on the negative side, though I had not such down weight as I desired: but truly Sir I see nothing as yet to ma●e me recall my opinion, for all that is said (excepting Mr. Cawdrey's notion of Adoption in which yourself are not clear) I knew before.  
2. I observe sometimes you dress my Argument with such a fashion that I cannot know it to be mine, but disclaim it, than you finde fault: p. 439. where have I mentioned the power of godliness as a requisite in him who claims Baptism? but to bring up a child in it is a harder matter: I have not liberty to enlarge.  
3. Sometimes your answer is a bare laying down your own Judgement, with a Similitude added for illustration. P. 441. We now c●ll for Scripture and reason from thence; Similia at pompam non ad puguam.  
4. For my fi●st Argument for the negative, p. 449.450. which you say was Mr. Blackwoods. I never saw any thing of his, but I took it from our brethren's practice, and it was that (with one thing more) which led me into my practice: for when I saw the Presbyterial Brethren keep back half or three quarters of their Churches from the Lords Supper, and that for divers years together, yet did so constantly baptise their children, I thought with myself, where have these men a ground for this practice? in all the New Testament I could not finde one, nor reason for it, but rather against it for the Old Testament, though I knew some were kept back for Ceremonial uncleanness from the , yet for Moral uncleanness to be kept back many years, and still to have their children circumcised, I found no text for that.   
For Mr. Gille●py, I have not liberty to set down my thoughts.  
You frame your answer by turning my argument another way, then requiring me to give answer to your Syllogism: which Sir, is no clever way of disputation; And for answer I need give you none, 
Against the Anabap. Argu 5.  Mr. johnson before you, and you in his words (though it may be you saw him not) have given a full answer, yet my Argument is not hurt at all, though the parent may be suspended for a time, what is this to the suspension of three parts of a Church, six or ten years together, and never proceed furtherr? 
* Am Med. Th●el c. 37. th'. 22.  I would have enlarged if I might.  
I observed many other things, to which I would have replied, b●t I shall single out only one thing which I will examine. 
Goular. in 38. Ep. Cypr.   
Page 4.26. Infant of Parents that are nomine tenus, Christians have right to Baptism. If they profess the worship of the true God, though nothing more of a Christion be in them. Page 424.  
If by a Christian nomine tenus your m●aning were, one who 〈◊〉 but a nominal Christian, as all are who are not real, I make no question but many such as these nominal ones a Minister may B prise, and their children, though they have not truth of grace in them: but I perceive you: scope is to spread the word very large: and that directly opposite to my question; If they will say they are Christians, been the Name of Ch●ist, own his worship (though it be but from the custom of the Nation, others do so, and so do they) though their course and frame of conversation be like the infidels, or worse yet they are Christians nomine ●enus, hence we must Baptise, if they have but Fides, no ma●ter for Observan●●a.  
But sir, I pray what if they be heretical about the na●ures of Ch●ist a● some of old deny the Humanity, some the Deity of Christ? what if they think Christ was a Woman (as I have given instance) what if they know not whether he was God or Man (as before) what if ten Gods (as before) and abundance of such stuff (all which yet will call themselves Christians) must these be Baptised? These are errors in their belief.  
But let us suppose they understand God and Christ, for their Faith they are right, but abominable in their conversation, are we now bound to Baptise because of their Faith?  
1. Sir I thought Christianity had taken in the heart, and outward conversation as well as the bead, a ●eall Christian is one united to Christ, sound in the Doctrine concerning Christ, and wal●ing as Christ did [we suppose an old Adam]. Let him who is a nominal Christian appear live one, though he be not real, Mr. Ca will not allow him sit, if visibly he lives like an infidel, though he profess his says in Christ.  
2. Let us view the Scriptu●c in the administration of Baptism.  
The● Mark 4. Baptism of Repentance; this is more than Faith: they confessed their sins. v. 5. the J●●●s had not idols now to confess that sin, 
Aug. defied & ● 2 Acts op. c. 8,  Doth not the ordinance note repentance also?  
2 Acts 37.38. 

First, 
Madge leb. cen● 1. li. 1. cap. 10.  Jews, so had knowledge, 〈◊〉 so ignorant as ou● 〈◊〉 believe.  
Secondly, having a legal work by the power of the Word.  
Thirdly, Receiving the Word.  
Fourthly, Repenting, they are Baptised, this is more still.    
3. Acts, Though there is not mention made of the Samaritans repentance, who were Apostatised from the Jews, but laid claim to the Pania●ks, Jo. 4.20. expected Christ, v. 25. worshipped God, Ezva. 4.2. Yet that Philip should know them to be so abominable in conversation, and yet Baptise them, that is to be proved, since that others required repentance. I believe there was a more than ordinary presence at that time, to enlighten, so to awe their hearts, the same answer we may give for these, that Augustin doth for the Eunuch, Bapt●zavit cum Philippus, intelligi voluis impleta omnia, quae licet tacean●●r in Scriptures gratia brevitat●●●amen scrie traditionis sci●us implenda. Irenaeus and Tertullian have said enough for the Eunuch, besides Augustin, 
Ubi prius c. 9  and the Text is plain.  
If this be not a giving Holy things to Dogs (which Tertullian and Augustine give warning of even in Baptising) I know not what is: Let a man be a notorious Ranter, Sodomite, Scoffer at Godliness, Drunkard, no matter what this is known and proved, yet a Christian nomine tenus, Therefore you must Baptise him.  
That Repentance as well as Faith was looked to in Baptising, it appears by the ages following the Apostles, for those who would live in their lusts, they deferred their baptism, knowing what that required. So 
a De toenit.  Tertullian, and 
b Ora. 40.  Nazianzen intimate, who exhort them to confession of their sin from the example of John. Just. Mart. Apol. 2. is clear for more than you mention.  
For the Cate humeni they were strict we see, Concil. Neocas. Can. 5. Concil. Ni●. Can. 13. Council Elib. Can. 42. a good conversation they required, thou● for their long deferring I approve not that.  
Believer and Saint you say are S●nonoma's. Dr. Ames gives the reason, which will not help you sir, Medul. Theo. c. 32. 〈◊〉.  
For the ill Members in Gorinth and Sardi●. 1. Sir you must prove the Apostles knew them to be such when they admitted them, and Baptised them, that they wallowed in their filth. 2. That the Churches were not too blame in letting them alone, 3. To have a Name to live, is more than you speak of.  
For ignorance, you quote the Hebrews which I think hurts not me, that of 1 Cor. 15.34. Is the most likely, but sir do you think it was such gross ignorance as I have given instance? was not Paul as true to his work as Abraham or the Jews were to be in admitting to circumcision, which you mention Page 445. I have found so much ignorance that the persons deserved shame, but yet dared not keep from the Lords Supper, because I found such a work on the heart, which showed they had the thing, though could not express the thing in a definition.  
For the 
* Lord. min J●● Diu. [Page 115. 〈◊〉 and others. giles. Aar. rod. Page 482, 154, 515, 544, 555. To. 4. disp. 4. q 3 p. 3.  Presbyterians they have delivered their mind otherwise: the Fathers, Counsels, and Schoolmen are of another Opinion, as appears by Grug. de val. but I quote no more than I have read, I hope than you will pardon me though I differ. For your Answers to my Arguments.  
Your distinction of the word Sains I accept, and doubt not but your eyes are so good, that you can see a difference between a man who is but nomine ten●● a Christian and wallows in his filth, and another, who walks outwardly like a Saint, though he have not the real qualifications of a Saint.  
The second Argument must cost you two lines more before it be answered.  
If a man be but Nomine tenus a Christian, though never so abominable in his conversation, yet must be admitted a Member, than he cannot be cast out of the Church for any vile sin, so long as he is nomine tenus a Christian, he is now as he was when you admitted him.  
You say the Consequence is erroneous, because be did not make profession of his sin, but of his Faith, As Simon Magus.  
Then it seems the man must profess his sin with his own mouth, as his Faith, though Mr. Blake knows he is a Ranter, etc. The Members of the Church witness it, yet because the man's own mouth doth not profess it, you admit him. Then sir, though you know the same abominations afterward, and your Members testify it, witnesses come in, you must not cast him out unless he will profess it. If Knowledge and Witnesses will cast him out (whether his mouth will profess it or no) why will not the same keep him out at first? We shall never find such 〈◊〉 think as you speak of, they will give you good words when they come to require Baptism, though they will swear and be drunk before and after in the same day.  
For Simon Magus, I have spoken to him before, 
Aar. rod. 482.  and Mr. Gillespic answers for me.  
What is that Censure you would have passed upon a manifest opposer of Christ in his visible Kingdom? he was no subject I said, Therefore not sit for a Church-member.  
But sir I have not liberty to go further: only this I must add, I follow this dispute with much sadness in respect of mine own heart: for your else and Mr. Ca I honour you both, your graces, your abilities I ac●knowledge are before mine, but in this point I must see more light before 〈◊〉 yield: as for the bond of Unity I hope (by my piece against the Separation) you will conceive me to be one who will hold it firm with you, in this Point, I leave you to your own light, and shall conclude with the words of Cyprian [though some may say I am in an error as he was] Manente concordiae vin●ulo, & perseverante Catholicae Ecclesiae individu● Sacramento, 
Ep. 52.  actum suum disponit & dirigit unusquisque Episcopus, ra●i●nem prep●fiti sui Domino redditurus.  
FINIS.   

To the Reader.  
I Had but three hours' liberty, and that in the night, to run over my book, and correct it, I did not observe many faults which would trouble the sense, those I leave to the Courteous Reader to correct, these (among others) I observed: Pag. 10. l. 21. r. propriè. l. 22. r. Covenant for Council. p. 22. ●undem. p. 43. for Smith r. saith.