A Preface to the Reader

A PREFACE TO THE READER.

Christian Reader,

Might I have had mine own choice, and desires granted, some other should have performed the task of a Preface to the following Treatise of my precious and much honored Father; but being put upon it, by [illegible] worthy friends, whom I knew not how to deny, I shall therefore humbly promise a word or two, in tenderness to the Truth, and out of un[illegible] love to these especially of Christ's poor sheep (how ever feeble, or diseased) that either have been, or may be in danger of going astray from so great a Truth, as is the subject of the ensuing discourse: being sincerely desirous, that they may be restored, and from there returned to the Shepherd, and Bishop of our souls, and may in nothing be made a prey to him, who is our great adversary, the Devil, who walks about, seeking whom he may devour. For we should not be ignorant of his devices.

The enmity put by the Lord between the seed of the Woman and the seed of the Serpent (Genesis 3:15) soon began to work, even in the infancy of the Church, in the family of our first Parents, as we see (Genesis 4:[illegible]) by the martyrdom of righteous Abel. No small portion of that fixed hatred, and hostility of the old Serpent, has ever since been discovered against the young ones of Christ's little flock. The multiplication of the Children of Israel, is the occasion why Pharaoh deals so wisely as we read; endeavouring first by the Midwives, secretly to destroy the male Children: and after that, more openly by an [illegible] to drown them in his Egyptian waters; for which whatever his pretence might be, alleadged (Exodus 1:10) yet no doubt (as Calvin's [illegible] place somewhat that way hints) Satan had a design therein, to cut off the name and posterity of Abraham (who is the Father of them that believe, even of us all the Father of many nations (Romans 4:[illegible], 16, 17)) and so to evacuate, and annihilate the promise of God, even that great promise of his everlasting Covenant, to be a God to him, and to his seed for ever, in their generations. Hence also afterward we find this spite of the great [illegible] of the brethren, vented against these poor little ones, in the forbidding them communion with the Church of God in that worship which God had instituted, and which he had commanded his people by the hand of Moses and [illegible], to observe (Exodus 10:3) [illegible] that they may serve me, says the Lord; but hardhearted Pharaoh seems to scruple whether the young Children are a part of the Lord's people, as appears by his question [illegible] 8. But [illegible] Moses pleads for the young, as well as the old; for the sons, and the daughters, verse 9; but Pharaoh is of another apprehension, and resolution, verse 10, 11; he will let the men go and serve the Lord, but not the little ones. Again Haman the Agagite we find is not satisfied with the destruction of the old generation of the Jews, but the little children of the Church also are expressly mentioned, and designed to the same condemnation, and massacre with their Fathers (Esther 3:13).

And much more of the like nature might be alledged out of many records both ecclesiastical, and other, were it needful: the satanical delusions of those [illegible] Cainaphryians and [illegible] who were wont to mingle the Eucharist with the blood of an infant of a year old, (of whom Austin speaks, Tom. 6. [illegible]) are not unknown. Not here to insist on that [illegible] of Herod's infanticide (Matthew 2:16, 17). We need not so much wonder at Hazaech's cruelty against the Children of Israel in slaying their young men with the sword, and dashing their children, [illegible] ripping up their women with child (2 Kings 8:12) seeing Satan has many times prevailed with those who were Church-members, and of long standing in the house of God — even the parents themselves, to [illegible] their infants and little ones, which were the Lord's children and born to the Lord (Ezekiel 16:20, 21, etc.). Such an [illegible] that great adversary of our comfort, and salvation (seeing [illegible] himself shut out of the Kingdom of Heaven) bears against these [illegible] whom Christ has taken in to himself, and concerning whom our Savior professes, that of such is the Kingdom of God (Luke 18:16). So does he envy to see them in the arms of Christ and blessed by him, and to have any room in his house, or so much as an external visible interest in the Covenant, with the initiatory seal and livery thereof. Baptism being the seal to all Christianity, it is Satan's policy therefore to strike at that, that in cashiering it, he may have at all; hereunto tends his dealing with witches many times, (of which divers have spoken) in [illegible] them when they become first [illegible] solemnly to renounce the Trinity (into the name of [illegible] they have been baptized) especially their salvation by Christ, and says [illegible] discovered Chapter 6, section 1, page 9[illegible], in token thereof to disclaim their baptism.

An ill office and work then surely are they employed in, whose way and endeavors shall center in the accomplishing of that which Satan has been so busily, and with such malignity, for so many ages undertaking, and no great thanks will such receive for that labor from the Lord Jesus another day. If Christ was so much displeased, that his disciples rebuked these, who brought their children to him (Mark 10:14), and if the Apostle Peter received so severe a check, as we read (Matthew 16:22, 23), for speaking that which had a tendency to take the Lord Jesus off from laying down the price of [illegible]: how much more then will he be now displeased if any such rebuke and warning given shall attempt to keep from him, and deprive him of, his Redeemed, whom he has purchased by so dear a price — so many, I mean, of his purchased ones, as the number of the infants and children of Believers (dead, and alive, and to be born,) amounts to? Why may we not believe, that an exceeding great multitude of the sheep that shall be standing at the right hand of Jesus Christ in the day of Judgment, shall be a company of these Lambs? As to withhold from Christ so great a part of his purchase (the labor of [illegible]) must needs be no other than highly Antichristian; so to make good and recover the interest of Christ in such, and the glory which he obtains by them, according to the enlarged grant of the charter of his new Testament (the scope, and work of these few sheets) is a service pleasing to Christ, who out of the mouths of these babes and sucklings even perfects praise (Matthew 21:15, 16), and so I trust will be acceptable to his people, who when as they must go down to the dust and cannot keep alive their own souls, yet may behold their seed succeeding them in the service and worship of God, being accounted to the Lord for a generation (Psalm 22:28, 29, 30, 31). Schismatically to refuse to hold ecclesiastical communion with so great a part of the Church of Christ as the children of believers are (in many places, the major part thereof) is a rigid and sinful separation, and gratifying the design of the Papists (the greatest Separatists in the world) as by and by may be further seen.

And indeed the Lord (avenging the quarrel of his Covenant, wherein he has always been exceeding jealous) has manifested not a little of his anger, and displeasure against those who have troubled these baptismal waters of the Sanctuary. The awful and tremendous passages of Providence recorded in several histories, concerning the original and progress of Anabaptism: and relating to God's strange, judicial hand against so many of them that have been through-paced therein, in delivering them up to spiritual judgments, to believe lies; and to fall, step by step, into almost all sorts of heresies, and to the commission of the most abhorred impieties, and loathsome wickednesses, and outrages, against the commands both of the first and second Table, (as Luther, Bullinger, Calvin, Beza, and others generally and abundantly testify) they are very observable, and not to be passed over slightly; and may make every honest and serious heart to tremble when ever he finds himself inclining to that path. To this purpose, and concerning Anabaptism in this our age (beside many other authors I might cite) read only Baxter's Plain Scripture Proof of Infants Church-membership, pag. 138, 139, 140–152. And as in the dawning of the Reformation, begun by those worthies of Christ in the last century, Anabaptism seems to be the [illegible] horse whereby so great confusion did befall that Israel, and was such a remora to that glorious work then begun in Germany, and other neighbouring countries; so now in the further progress of that Reformation here in this our Israel, should Anabaptism likewise (especially accompanied with Donatism its wonted concubine) brood and become the instrument or medium of our miseries and confusions, possibly then experience (a slow, but many times a sure and severe instructer) may help some at length to see farther into the mystery of this iniquity, than now they do. For in truth it is not improbable, that the Man of [illegible] seeing he could not openly and at once ruin the reformed churches in the days of those famous servants of Christ before expressed, did attempt secretly, and gradually to do it this way; namely, by first sending forth his emissaries among the churches, who might fill them with the smoke of Anabaptism, that so he might the more securely pass to and fro, being undiscerned in such a fog. From where what mischief was wrought, and what a hindrance those turbulent Anabaptists were to the Kingdom of Jesus Christ in that age (for that was the first time of their swarming, as the most judicious have observed) by vilifying, reproaching, and decrying the ministry; crying up themselves as the most godly, spiritual, and perfect; judging the Old Testament to be but as an almanac out of date; denying scripture-consequences; giving false interpretations of Scripture, especially by allegories wresting the same to their own destruction; making schisms and factions in the churches; denying the magistrate's [illegible] power in matters of religion; making their own fanatic spirit the supreme judge to all kind of disorder, etc.: the writings of the godly learned in those times do abundantly even to amazement inform us. And indeed the great consent and harmony between the main tenets of the Anabaptists, and Papists in this point, gives not a little ground for holy jealousy, too sadly to suspect at what backdoor it was that the Anabaptist first crept forth. And hence it is that in the controversies between the Protestants and the Papists, we shall generally, and abundantly find, the Papists denying the holiness of the infants of believers before baptism; and how near of kin this is to Anabaptism the reader may easily guess: and in like manner denying that great truth (as is afterward showed in this Treatise), namely, that the Covenant of God with Abraham under the Old Testament, was the same for substance with what is now confirmed with us under the New Testament, etc., which (it is known) the Anabaptists also generally assert. Let me therefore propound a few instances this way, whereby we may see what patrons of Anabaptism the Papists are, in regard of those principles (I mean) and radical errors wherein the Papists and Anabaptists (although by divers of them, upon the account of a diverse interest) symbolize and unite against the orthodox, and speak herein, in a manner, the same thing (distinguishing always between the opinion, and the person; and between some that are deceived, in other points orthodox and precious Christians; and others that are deceivers). The main pillars of Anabaptism being no better than some of the old rotten studs and principles of Popery, fetched at first from there in all likelihood, and so inclining thitherward again. The dialect of the Anabaptist is generally (and too much by some) understood, and therefore I forbear quotations out of their own writings. Possibly some may not have so much taken notice of the like, from the Papist, and therefore I shall briefly manifest the same, by showing where we shall find some of the chief of those worthies that fought the Lord's battles against Antichrist, opposing, and confuting them both, therein. I will cite a few particulars this way among many the like which might be produced from several other eminent authors, holy, burning, and shining lights in the churches of Christ, who have been the Lord's witnesses against the [illegible] spiritual Egypt; and whose testimony in this matter concludes as strongly against the Anabaptists, having espoused those Antichristian notions so nearly to themselves.

1. In those words of the Covenant (I will be a God to you and your seed after you) neither life eternal is promised nor remission of sins, but only a certain peculiar temporal protection, says Bellarmine, (agreeing therein with the Anabaptist) against whom herein we find Chamier pleading for us, Panstrat. tom. 4, lib. 3, cap. 3, parag. 9, 10, etc., and Rivet on (Genesis 17:11). Again, we read (says Bellarmine, the great Goliath of the Papists) that God promised to Abraham when he enjoined him circumcision, earthly matters only, according to the letter: that is, the propagation of a posterity, and the Land of Palestine. Read Ames opposing him: Bellarm. Enerv. tom. 3, lib. 1, chap. 4, thes. 9.

2. Touching the perverse and Catabaptistical intent and meaning of that expression of the Papists, namely, that spiritual promises descend to us not by carnal generation (as they call it, the very phrase of many Anabaptists, used in a way of derision of the grace of God) but by spiritual regeneration, etc. (they are the words of Bellarmine and other Papists, cited and confuted by Ames and others) read Ames his answer thereto, Bel. Enerv. tom. 3, lib. 2, cap. 1, thes. 5, (consonant to the judgment of the orthodox), namely, we acknowledge indeed spiritual regeneration to be necessary to the solid participation of the promises; but that that regeneration is part of the promises, and belongs in a singular manner to the children of believers, the very form of the Covenant manifestly declares. See likewise Chamier largely replying for us against Bellarmine, Stapleton, and others of the Papists, Panstrat. tom. 4, lib. 5, cap. 10, parag. 24, 25, 26, 27, etc.

The Sacraments of the old Law or Testament, says Bellarmine, had no absolute promise of grace annexed, and the promises annexed to those old Sacraments were fulfilled, although men did not believe. Read Ames against him ibid. 1. cap. 4. the. 5, 7. Again, the Papists, says Chemnit, hold that God, by the Sacraments of the old Testament, which had ever the word of promise annexed, did exhibit and confer no grace to believers, which, says he, is manifestly false; circumcision alone, which, as he shows from Scripture, is called the Seal of the righteousness of faith, demonstrates as much. And thereupon he shows the reason why the Papists so much urge that difference between the Sacraments of the old and new Testament, namely, because they endeavor by any manner of means to defend and establish the opinion they have of their opus operatum (Chemnitz Exam. par. 2. de Sacram. sub canon. 2). What a forcible engine of the man of [illegible] this is, and of what vast concernment as to his interest, I need not here express, and what arrows of Anabaptism, drawn out of this very quiver, have been shot against the orthodox in this point, is known to not a few.

Moreover, as to the comparison in Scripture made between the Sacraments of the old and new Testament, that in (1 Corinthians 10:1–4), among several other Scriptures, is cited by Ames against Bellarmine, where the Apostle speaks of our Fathers being baptized in the Sea, etc., thereby intimating our Sacraments to be the same for substance with theirs: or sacramental signs and seals of one and the same spiritual grace, so that the covenant-mercies, or promises of spiritual good are the same to us as to them. Bellarmine opposes this, as does the Anabaptist. The Fathers, says he, are said to eat the same meat not because ours and theirs was the same, but because they themselves, all of them, did eat the same: but that meat and drink were not sacraments; they had no promise annexed, etc. (Bell. enerv. tom. 3. l.1. c. 4. th.10. and Cham. panstrat tom.4. l. 3. c. 2).

The Scripture nowhere calls circumcision a seal, says Bellarmine to (Romans 4), unless it be in this place, where Abraham is spoken of, which is a manifest argument that circumcision was a seal to Abraham alone (Ames. ibid. c. 1. th. 12). By this weapon also fetched out of the armory of Antichrist, has the Anabaptist not a little gratified the common adversary.

The Papists generally assert that the baptism of John was not the same for substance with the baptism of Christ, nor had the same efficacy as the baptism of Christ has. Which tenet see confuted by Cartwright on the New Testament (Matthew 3:11), and by Ames (Bell. enerv. t. 3. l.2. c.5. th.1, 2. etc.), and Rivet (Cathol. orthod. tractat. 3. qu. 2), and Chemnitz (exam. part 2. de baptismo sub. on 1), and Chamier (panstrat. t.4. l. 5. c. 12). Still we see the harmony between the Papist and the Anabaptist. And hence we find likewise the Papist pleading for the rebaptizing of those who had received the baptism of John (Chamier ibid. cap. 13. paragr. 35. etc.).

The Papists assert that laics, as they call them, that is, those that are not in office in the Church, may in case administer baptism; yes, that not only men but women may do it. Read Ames his confutation thereof (Bell. enerv. tom. 3. l. 2. cap.2.) and Rivet against Bally the Jesuit (Cathol. orthod. tractat. 3. qu. 7); add thereto Chamier's Panstr. tom. 4. 45. cap. 14. de legitimo Baptismi ministro, where, among other passages, citing the thesis of Suarez the Jesuit, namely, that any body whoever, that can speak and wash, may be a sufficient minister of baptism, whether he be man or woman, believer or unbeliever, baptized or not baptized, if so be he know how to wash and utter the Word, with a due intention — this assertion, says the Jesuit, is omnino certa. But says Chamier in the name of the orthodox, we teach the contrary, namely, that the right of conferring baptism belongs to those only who are public officers in the Church, etc., which accordingly he there makes good against the Papists.

Bally the Jesuit, whom Rivet encounters, to the question between the orthodox and the Papists, namely, whether the infants of believers are holy before baptism, answers roundly for them: No (Rivet, Cathol. Orthod. Tract. 3. qu. 3).

And touching that famous place controverted between ourselves and the [⟨◊⟩], in regard of their wresting, and perverting the sense of that Scripture (1 Corinthians 7:14), [[⟨◊⟩] were your children unclean, but now they are holy] we may observe how they [⟨◊⟩] in e[•]e steps of the Papists that have gone before them therein, [•]as they likewise do in that noted Scripture (Colossians 2:11, 12) not allowing Baptism to answer Circumcision according to the mind and meaning of the Holy Ghost: wherein see Ames against them, Bel[•][⟨◊⟩] Tom. 3. [••]. Ca[•]. 4. Thes. 13., and Rivet in Genesis 12 Exerc[•]: 88. Pag. 340. &c. Take a taste of that 1 Corinthians 7. as followeth; Barly ([⟨◊⟩] Jesuit) before cited, ibid: q[•]est. 3. laboureth thus to avoid the dint of that text, The Apostle (says he) either speaks of a civil sanctification before men, that the infants should not be ILLEGITIMATE or BASTARDS: or else of an instrumental sanctification, because that one shall procure the salvation of the other, &c. The like we find of Bellarmine's apprehension and judgment of the sense of that Scripture; Such children (says he) are said to be not (unclean) that is, infamous and BASTARDS, but (holy) that is, LEGITIMATE, and free from civil ignomi[•]e: Ames. Ibid. I[•]b. 2. C. 1 Thes. 6. The Rhemists also very perniciously abuse this Scripture (and are not therein, without their Antipaedobaptistical followers) Blessed Cartwright excellently upon the place in his confutation of their annotations on the New Testament defends this cause of Christ against their Popish glosses: It is (says he) one thing (oftentimes in the Scripture) to be sanctified, and another to be holy: as for you, you [⟨◊⟩] in both: for when it is said, the unbelieving party is sanctified by the believing, it is not only meant, as you say, that the marriage is an occasion of the sanctification to the infidel party, but that the use of the infidel party, in marriage company, is sanctified, or made holy and lawful to the believing party; as meat and drink is said to be sanctified to us by the word and prayer (1 Timothy 4:5). And as your interpretation here is short, so in the exposition of the holiness of the children, which are begotten in this matrimony, it is utterly [•]alse. And first it is to be observed, that the Apostle speaking of the children, does not (as you do) apply one word of them to both saying that they are sanctified, but says that they are holy; which is more than he had spoken before of the infidel party, for although our meat and drink be sanctified to us, and that the use of them is holy to those which are holy, yet the meats and drinks themselves are not holy. If therefore you were short in the interpretation of sanctified, you fail much more, in giving the same exposition [⟨◊⟩] [•]he holiness of the children; for if the holiness here spoken of, be not in the children when they are begotten, and born of the parents, but come to them afterward by Baptism and faith; there grows no sufficient comfort to the faithful party to continue in marriage with the infidel, considering that occasion of holiness might come otherwise than by marriage. For that which is able to uphold the faithful in comfort, and strength to abide in marriage with the infidel, is the knowledge that the children begotten in that marriage are in covenant, and are children of God's favor, and grace, washed in Christ's blood, and sanctified by [⟨◊⟩] Spirit. And if you well know what this holiness of children new-born is; the Apostle tells you (Galatians 2:15), that it is [through the covenant] to be a Jew by nature, or birth, and if you will yet further understand what this holiness of children is, the Apostle, in the same place tells you; that it is, not to be sinners by nature as those which are born of the heathen, for as much as their sins who are in covenant, are by Christ not reckoned to them. And this doctrine of the holiness of the children which are born of the faithful, if you could not attain to, [⟨◊⟩] is so sensibly set forth to you, that unless together with the knowledge of the truth, you are also bereaved of your common sense, you cannot be ignorant of [•]t. For how can you but understand, that if the root be holy, the branch is holy (Romans 11:16), and if the first fruits be holy, the whole crop is holy, all which privileges of children new-born, sometime being proper to the Jews, are now our privileges, as well as theirs; since hence we are grown into one body with them (Ephesians 2:15), and being burgesses of the same heavenly city that they are, must needs have the same enfranchisement, and prerogatives that they have: not that every one which is born under the covenant is holy, but that they are so to be taken of the Church, until the contrary do manifestly appear, &c.

By the premises we may see therefore from where [even from that MOTHER of harlots] probably this illegitimate birth, this antichristian sl[•]ud of Anabaptism has issued forth; yes, and I also fear is like to be nursed, and maintained in its course, until God has [⟨◊⟩] up those breasts, and rivers of spiritual Babylon, in the mean while, Calvin's admonition touching Anabaptism, may not be unseasonable, mer[•]ise debet nobis esse suspectum, quicquid a tale [⟨◊⟩] produr[•]t. Op[•]scu[••] in Psychopannychia. Pag. 411. S. M.

There are some who though they grant the Baptism of some children, yet utterly deny the continuance of that covenant-mercy of God to their succeeding generations, though the Church-society whereof they were members be not dissolved, nor the surviving posterity so much as deserve to be, by the discipline of Christ in his Church, excommunicated. This seems in truth to arise from their not acknowledging sufficiently, or not abiding by the true genuine grounds of the Baptism of those whose right to Baptism is acknowledged by them.

For the information (therefore) of the minds of the weak and stablishing their hearts in this Truth of God, according to the Scriptures, even in the doctrine of Paedobaptisme (a doctrine of so great concernment, and of so much comfort and incouragement, both to believing parents & their children, not in life only but in death; from where it is that they only can be preserved against sorrowing when they fall asleep, as others do, which have no hope) This ensuing Treatise is at the earnest request of many worthy freinds in the Author of it (of blessed memory) now published, wherein we may see both; 1. The membership of the children of church-members proved to be of Divine institution, and likewise 2. among other things] The continuance of the membership of those children, in particular churches, when they are grown up, even until they are excomunicated, unless there be [illegible] dissolution of the person by death, or of the church-society: So that this latter is not a principle of innovation, and apostacy; but as it was the judgment of the Author of this following Letter (as is therein to be seen and to manifest which was one speciall end of the printing thereof) so was it the light which others have held forth, who in their time were stars not of the smallest magnitude, whom we have here seen sometimes shining with him in Christ's right hand, but are now set, and shining with that Sun of righteousness in another world.

That there is no cessation of the membership of a person in this or that particular church (the church whereof he is a member continuing in being, together with the person himself) unles it be by meanes of a church-act intervening, is a truth of no small importance. And therefore as for that notion which does obtain with some; That in particular churches of Christ, walking in the order of the Gospel, there are such [illegible] become Ecclesiastically Felones de se, that is such church-members wholly their scandalous sin, do become their own executioners Ecclesiastically, cutting themselves off from the church, so as that they thereby become actually non-members, and that the church has no more power over them, either Ecclesiastically to admonish them, or excommunicate them; this seems to me to be but an humane [illegible], and not of Divine institution, yes in truth [illegible] to the [illegible] of the Gospel. And therefore to apply it, (as to members in full communion, so) to these children of the church whom we now speak of, is not of God; as may appear by these reasons following.

1. Because it is unscriptural. In matters of God's worship, a negative argument is conclusive; if that which is asserted be not contained in the Scripture, expresly, or by due consequence therefrom, it is to be rejected. To the Law and to the Testimony.

[illegible] The Scriptures alledged by some, and thought to favor this notion of Felones de se, are only such as do but lay down before us the sinns of some church-members, and do not speak of the [illegible] (punishment or censure) as 'tis called (2 Corinthians 2:6), which in such case is to be inflicted, and therefore are not [illegible]. Only that which seems to have most weight in it, and to which therefore I shall breifly reply, is that in Acts 8:21 [illegible] part nor lot in this matter. Answer. I would not say that this text, propounded with reference to the children of the church that are not in full communion, is not apposite, because the text speaks of a member in full communion: though to say so much is accounted by some a sufficient answer to such Scripture arguments, as conclude against felones de se, from church-members that are in full communion ([illegible] church-members) to such church members as are not in full communion. But yet having gained this fort; that what is in Scripture spoken of a member in full communion, is applicable (as far as meer membership reacheth) to a member that is not in full communion, we may now the more easily proceed in the after discourse. To this Scripture then, alledged for [illegible] children of the church not in full communion, by their sin, when adult, to become felones de se as above said, I answer;

1. That the objection from hence tends as much to frustrate the church act, or censure of, excommunication upon members in full communion: and makes that ordinance of Christ vain, & needless to the parents in full communion, as to these children. 2. These words of the Apostle Peter, were indeed a dreadfull admonition, and the Apostle being a church officer, did judg this sinner to deserve it for his simonie; so that he was not (granting the cessation of his membership) felo de se. 3. By [this matter] spoken of in the text, seems most properly to be meant (not church-membership, but) the power of giving the Holy Ghost spoken of in the context, which power Simon Magus would have bought with money, and for which the Apostle rebukes him: and therefore his not having part or lot in that matter, is to be understood directly with relation to that extraordinary power; the Apostle would have him know, that he should not share in such a power or priviledge as that was. 4. I would ask whether, if a member of a church be discovered not to have his heart right in the sight of God, but to be in the gall of bitterness and bond of iniquity, stand convict of simonie, and the wickedness be so grosly aggravated as this scandal of Symon Magus was; I say whether the church is not bound to bear witnes against such an offender by inflicting some church-censure (properly so taken) upon him? If it be said no; then may it not be questioned, whether such a church would not as well tolerate any other pollutions and defilements in it whatever? The wofull fruit whereof who is there that does [illegible] easily perceive. On the other side if it be said yes, that the church is to censure and authoritatively to put away from among themselves such a wicked person by excommunication, I then demand (if this notion of felo de se be [illegible] and sound) how they can excommunicate one who is a non-member before the church can pass the sentence of excommunication against him? Whether does this Scripture (Acts 8:21) give the church power over him by its discipline to censure him, who already as the objection speaks] has cut himself off from being a church-member? Or whether the church has any part in him who has no part or lot in them, or in these matters?

2. Scripture example leads us, to what is contrary to this felony spoken of: witness, under the old Testament, Ishmael's being cast out, by Abraham who was the chief officer in that family church. So the incestuous person under the New Testament is not felo de se though guilty of such a sin as was not so much as named among the [illegible] (1 Corinthians 5:1), but there is a church-act intervening his sin and the cessation of his memberly-communion with that church, namely, a delivering him [such a one] to [illegible]. Hence as the church of Ephesus is commended for not bearing with them which are evil (Revelation 2:2), so the church of Thyatira is rebuked for suffering that woman Jezebel (verse 20).

3. Because this notion of felo de se takes away the use of a ministerial judge in the church, in case of the offences and scandals of this or that particular member of the church, to determine of the same. Supposing a person could ecclesiastically cut himself off from the church by his very act of sin, there would then be no room left for a competent judge to enquire into the crime whereof he is accused, and to make particular application of the rule to the case of the sinning brother, and pass sentence according to the true desert and nature of the offence. That God has ordained a ministerial judge is plain (Matthew 18:17): [if he neglect to hear the church] the church is to be heard; the phrase of our Savior Christ implies judicial superiority on the church's part, and the inferiority and subjection of a part or member to that whole &c., but now this felony denies this order which Christ has established. Though a person deserve excommunication perhaps, yet it must appear that he does deserve it; neither does his wickedness for which he deserves excommunication render him a non-member till he be excommunicated; and hence in this case is very considerable what is asserted by that deservedly famous divine, Mr. Cotton, in his book entitled [the keyes of the kingdom of heaven], namely, Though the jury have given up their judgment and verdict, yet the malefactor is not thereupon legally condemned, much less executed, but upon the sentence of the judge — in like sort here [says he] though the brethren of the church do with one accord give up their vote and judgment for the censure of an offender, yet he is not thereby censured, till upon the sentence of the Presbyterie.

4. Because the binding and loosing, mentioned (Mark 16), the opening and shutting of the doors of the church by the [illegible] the kingdom of heaven, belong to the same power [illegible] subject: hence therefore as none may intrude himself, or can regularly be admitted or let into this or that particular church without church-act intervening, so none can be shut out, and deprived of that membership therein (as abovesaid,) without an act of the same power intervening. Ejusdem potestas est ligare, & solvere; claudere & [illegible]: Mr. Cotton's keyes cap. 7. pag. 45.

5. Taken from Matthew 18:15, 16, 17, 18. Which command and institution leaves churches under a solemn obligation of duty, that when this offending brother or church-member deserves excommunication that censure be duly inflicted on him; so as that thereby (namely, the sentence or censure passed against him, in case he will not hear the church) he must be to the church as a heathen man and a publican. So that it is not a matter of indifferency, [to be observed or not to be observed] but after the steps taken [mentioned in verses 15, 16] and the brother remain obstinate, 'tis Christ's charge that then that public process [verse 17] be attended, whereby the offender becomes ecclesiastically bound according to verse 18. Christ therefore requires a church-act to intervene, as abovesaid, and so the offender is not felo de se.

6. Because a scandalous member of a church, by [illegible] of Christ's institution (Matthew 18:17), is to be accounted not as a heathen and publican but still a church-brother if he will hear the church, this is clearly intimated in those words [illegible] neglect to hear the church, running conditionally, which suppose that if he will hear, he is not to be as an [illegible]; membership shall not cease notwithstanding the scandalous sin committed. Therefore by his wickedness and offence he is not [illegible] de se.

7. Because this felony objected tends to render that ordinance of church-censure and admonition laid down (Matthew 18:15 &c.) vain and useless, for the [illegible], by his sin becoming a non-member and so no church-brother, hence let a private member of the church go to tell him his fault, in the sense of the text, which is in order to more solemn church-proceeding and [illegible], in case he will not hear; or let the church require him in the name of Christ to hear, in such a church-way as is there spoken of; he may tell them that he is no brother of the church, for he has by his offence cut off himself, and therefore they have nothing to do with him: that that rule of Christ concerns only the brother or the church-member, not one that is out of the church, as he is, being felo de se, and therefore may say (according to 1 Corinthians 5:12), what have you to do to judge me that am without? If his sin be not yet great enough to render him felo de se, and he suspect that therefore the church may have power over him and is going about to bind him on earth, so that (being thereupon also bound in heaven) he shall become bound from an orderly entrance in at the doors of other sister-churches, without repentance first held forth to the acceptance of the church which he offended; 'tis then but to commit another fault whereby he may be sure he shall be felo de se, and so he is beyond the church's reach, and this frustrates church-discipline, and renders vain that ordinance of Christ above mentioned.

8. To deny the intervening of this church-act of excommunication is to deny to, and withhold from a person deserving to be cast out of the church, an ordinance and means which may be for the saving of his soul (1 Corinthians 5:4, 5). It is not enough to say that the felo de se makes himself no member, and so the church is freed from his communion which would pollute it, as fully as if he were excommunicated; for God's means are not empty or vain means, and to think to reach the full end, but not in God's way, and by observing his means ordained, is neither Christian wisdom, nor gospel policy. Yes, to deny the application of this ordinance of excommunication to the offending brother is to deny a means for the salvation of his soul, and to deny a remedy for his repentance, and the healing and gaining of our brother again.

Because the Holy Ghost commands the Church to judge them that are within (1 Corinthians 5:12), "Do you not judge them that are within?" All that are within, are subject to ecclesiastical judicature, and therefore cannot by Scripture-warrant be felones de se.

Because this notion of felones de se evacuates that power given of rebuking before all (1 Timothy 5:20), which is to be done without partiality, (whether they be young, or old, rich or poor, etc.) ver. 21 and so likewise takes away that authority given of reproving with all long-suffering (2 Timothy 4:2), leaves no room for obedience to that command (2 Thessalonians 3:15) of admonishing the offender as a brother, etc. Add thereto that this notion of the felo de se supposes some disobedience in a church-member of an open scandalous nature against which God has not provided the remedy of spiritual revenge in an ecclesiastical way, contrary to that (2 Corinthians 10:6) where the Apostle says, we have in readiness to revenge all disobedience, etc. That this is spoken of church discipline is well cleared by that expression of worthy Mr. Cotton, namely, the Apostles' revenge of disobedience by way of reproof in preaching does not follow the people's obedience, but proceeds whether the people obey it or no; it was therefore their revenge of disobedience by way of censure in discipline, etc.

The notion of felo de se asserts the lawfulness of exclusion or shutting a church-member out of the kingdom of Heaven by none of the keys of the kingdom of Heaven, namely, by the sin of this felon, or gives the managing of these keys, in a case which concerns the whole to act in — for such is the non-communion of a member with the church — into the hands solely of a private person: both which right reason does plainly condemn.

Because were the sin of a church-member of as high and heinous a nature as [illegible], no (which is more) though the brother of a church should turn heretic yet he is not immediately thereby a non-member, or felo de se: he is not presently to be rejected: but a first and second admonition must be applied, and in case of incorrigibleness then follows the ecclesiastical rejection spoken of (Titus 3:10), he must be rejected, but according to God's order, even the order of the Gospel: for all things are to be done in order (1 Corinthians 14:40). So when the Apostle required the Corinthians to put away from among themselves that wicked person, it is to be understood of putting such away, and avoiding such, and withdrawing themselves from such, and having no company with such, etc., all in due season, and all according to the order of Christ, even according to that rule of delivering such an one to Satan as is expressed (1 Corinthians 5) and suiting with that other command of Christ (Matthew 18), according as the nature of the offence is more or less heinous. Proportionably is the [illegible] either in case the offence be at first [illegible] in case the offence be at first rise of [illegible]; still we have no allowance from Scripture to entertain or admit of the opinion of this ecclesiastical [illegible].

Having thus punished [illegible] discourse I shall now very briefly acquaint the reader, in a word or two further, [illegible], the following cause, namely, that it was written by the author's [illegible] three months before the time of his dissolution. [illegible] sent to me who before the receipt thereof, was not so clear in the point of infant baptism but was hereby recovered, and established in the truth, and died in the same faith as the letter did persuade him, (to use Mr. Fox his phrase, in his Book of Martyrs, touching that excellent letter which Philpot, that glorious Martyr, a little before his death also, wrote to a friend of his, that was then a prisoner, upon this very subject of infant baptism who was thereby converted from the error of his way, as is there to be seen — a letter exceeding well worth the reading and serious perusal of any, such especially as hesitate in this matter). The reader may please further to mind, that this was not intended by the reverend author for the public view; but was only a private answer sent to a special friend, for his particular satisfaction, relating to some doubts mentioned in a letter of his to my father concerning this subject. Had he purposed to have written, and printed off his thoughts to the world touching this article of baptism I question not but he would have been more polite and curious; and the expectations of those who knew him thoroughly satisfied therein.

I would not detain the reader by any further preface of mine: and therefore to conclude; may this from one who is now in Heaven, to such as may have too far engaged against God's covenant-mercies toward his, and our poor children, sent indeed in a special manner to such, have a rich and effectual blessing from the Father of lights [illegible] mercies; a better effect upon their hearts, than that famous letter had of Elijah the Prophet, upon Jehoram to whom it was sent (2 Chronicles 21:12), (written, 'tis thought by divers, before his translation to Heaven, but concealed until there was so fit a season for the presenting of it). May this writing (I say) and in such a season also, have a better effect and fruit, even to bring them from the error of their way, into the paths of truth, and peace, and settle them, and others, more and more therein; that is the sincere desire of the [illegible] thereof, who [illegible].

Your to serve you in our Lord Jesus. Thomas Shepard.