of Christ and members in particular is meant ye are of the body of Christ or part of the body of Christ not the whole for Christ hath but one body in the same respect and ye are particular members thereof They bring diverse arguments against an universall visible Church Argu. 1. Their first argument is because every part is incompleat not having the power of a whole in it but every particular Church rightly constituted hath in it the power of a whole Church therefore it is not a part Ans It is true every part hath not the extensive power of the whole it hath the compleatness of a part and no more Every civil Corporation is called a body politick and it is compleat according to the constitution of it but this hinders it not from being a member of a greater body politick viz. the Kingdom or Common-wealth whereto it belongeth So every particular Congregation hath the compleatness of a particular Church in it but still as it is a part of the whole Church which is the political Kingdom of Jesus Christ on earth It is an integral or whole in reference to its particular members but in reference to the rest of the Church it is but a member Argu. 2. Again they say that every whole is really distinct from every part and from all the parts collectively considered They are constituting that is constituted Ans So I may say of all the visible believers in the world they may in consideration be distinguished from the whole and all the members of the body from the whole becaus they constitute it but they being all the constituent members joined in an unity make up the whole constituted Church or body and therefore that argument was no better then a fallacy For I can say the same of all the members of a Congregation both publick and private they are distinct from the whole for they are constituent and that is constituted but as they are united they are one constituted Congregation so are all the visible private Christians and Ministers united one universal visible Church In consideration indeed they may be distinct yet by political conjunction in the political Kingdom of Christ they are one whole Again they say there is no universal meeting to worship God Argu. 3. therefore there is no universal Church So neither is there ever a meeting of all the subjects of a Kingdom or Common-wealth to do homage or service to their Sovereign but they all obey him divisim in their places Answer or some smaller conventions and yet they are a whole Kingdom or Common-wealth nevertheless Object But the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is never used either in a civil or sacred sense but propter conventum and coetus est à coëundo Answ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly signifieth a calling out and not a calling together And in a sacred sense it signifieth a people called either out of the world as the invisible Church is or from Idols as the visible Church is The members thereof are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 persons called out and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are conjugata and they relate to and argue one another The particular Congregation is rather 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the strictest sense in reference to their meeting together then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whence the Scotish word Kirk and our English word Church comes properly signifieth the Lord's people And this notion betideth people not primarily because they are of this or that Congregation but because they are of the Kingdom of Christ and have given their hand to the Lord. And the word coetus and congregatio more properly respects them that as they meet together in an Assembly Heathens may coïre come together even into a sacred Assembly but because they are not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 called from their Idols to Christ they are not part of the Church though they be parts of the Assembly Argu. 4. Again they say there are no distinct officeâ—s appointed for such a distinct Church therefore there is no such Church Answ Though there are no distinct officers of the universal Church besides the officers of particular Churches or ordinary Ministers of the Word yet every Minister hath an indefinite office which stands in relation to his imployment which he may put forth any where in the whole Church as occasion serveth and he hath a call thereto which is equivalent to a generall office Every Minister of the Word hath power in actu primo to dispense the Word and Sacraments to pray and bless the people in any sacred convention though the members of that Assembly be not members of any one particular Congregation and though the Minister himself be not fixed to or set actually over any particular Congregation And that meeting shal be a sacred convention not only in respect of the Ordinances or Minister but in respect of the members of it because they are all the Lord's people 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the proper primary sense and he the Lord's Ambassador designed to that imployment The body of the whole Church being so great and consisting of persons of several Countries and languages and under several civil governours haply at variance between themselves it was not convenient nor scarce possible to have any constant ordinary actual officers of the whole but that is salved by their habitual power of office which may be drawn forth any where into act as occasion serveth Argu. 5. Again they say there is no Church greater then that which hath the power to hear and determine upon offences committed in the Church but that is particular Mat. 18.17 which place say they if it meaneth the Congregation it excludeth all other if it meaneth any other it excludes the Congregation Answ I shall let M. Parker answer this argument who saith in Pol. Eccl. lib. 3. p. 355. though he held particular Congregations the prime Churches in reference to Synods yet grounds the more general or greater Assemblies for discipline upon this text per gradationem per sequeiam ratiocinandi per consequentiam as I noted in my vind 163. And this appears by the gradation in the text from one to two or three and from two or three to the Church and if the Church cannot end it as sometimes they cannot then by the like manner of reasoning it is to be referred to a greater number of Elders convened For doubtless Christ did not mean by Church the body of the Church but the Elders for the body of the people never had any right of judicature among the Jews nor in the Christian Churches though I suppose some of our brethren would infer so from this text And it is very probable that our Lord Christ speaking to the people of the Jews spake to them in their own dialect of Courts then set up where there
give essence to the particulars or this body in genere give essence to the individuals Surely not by generation except by generation in genere also but because the entire nature existing in an individual vine Church body giveth essence to it so that it will follow that the entire Integral existing nature comprehended under these kindes gives essence to the individuals and not those natures in general consideration or in genere And therefore either Ramus hath not given us a right definition of genus as some better Logicians then I conceive or else he giveth a definition only of an existing integral nature of a genus which is onely an Integral of or under such a genus and so hath passed by the topick of a thing in genere or general consideration in abstracto But then I argue that if that which is genus comprehends the species and individuals which contain members may in that respect be said to comprehend members and Officers then the genus and integrum are all one for the genus hath members yea principal members even Officers as well as integrum saith he But here M. Stone helpeth himself with a distinction and saith this is not as considered under the nature of a genus but because the species specialissima contains members as it is an integrum And I desire to make use of the same distinction also and say that the Officers are not Officers of it as it is a genus or as it is considered in genere but as it is an integrum under such a genus And so let me strengthen all my former Arguments against which he hath so much excepted by his own distinction and say that the existence of the whole Church the having membra extra membra the having existing accidents the being majus minus the being mutable fluxile the being measured by time and place the admission nutrition edification and ejection of members and the doing actions and operations betide to the whole Church not as considered under the notion of a genus or Church in genere but because it is an individuum and so an integrum under such a genus The same existing thing being considered in several respects may be a cause an effect a subject an adjunct a consent any a dissentany an integrum and a genus in M. Stone 's sense in actu exercito but it cannot be that thing in genere The whole universal Church in reference to society or polity in general is a species or individual but in reference to its members both private and publick it is an integrum But before he leaves this Argument he adds a suppliment to make his answer full pag. 36. viz. That there are no habituall Officers in the Church all Officers in the Church are actual habitual Officers are non ens possibile quod non est sed potest esse I answer that they are all actual Officers and might if they were able and had a call officiate in any part of the Church and do actually serve the whole Church by admitting members into it and watching over a company of the members of it in their own places and administring Word and Seals in many Congregations yea Counties and somtimes many Nations but exert not the exercise of their power to the extent of the whole Church actually in every part of their office So Justices of the Peace for the County do not ordinarily execute their Office in every Town of the County and yet have power by their Commission if they could do it and had a call thereto But as watch-men in particular wards do safe-guard the whole City as well as their particular wards though they stand not in every part of the City and are called the City watch-men so do Christs Ministers serve the whole Church in their particular places though they cannot reside or act in every place of the whole Church but could do it in regard of the extent of their office and commission if they had ability of body and minde a cal or opportunity I mean not by habitual power that which is never drawn into act but the power in one officer is not drawn into act in every part of the Church nor in every part of the exercise of his office And the lett is not any want of power by their office but want of ability in themselvs and of call and opportunity in the severall places And so they divide that full execution of their office among the officers and spiritual watch-men of this City of God and some take care of some places and members of the whole Church and others of other actually for order and covenience sake and their better edification And whereas I had said in my seventh argument vind p. 84. l. 8. That the whole Church is an integrall because it hath actions and operations of its own for a thing considered in genere is not capable thereof To this M. Stone answers that a genus is capable of actions and operations of its own because operatio sequitur esse omne ens agit A genus hath properties and qualities and therefore can act where there is no 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there can be no 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but that is the end of all being p. 21. 22. It is true saith he the Church-Catholick hath actions and operations of its own and that it exists and acts its individualls yet his properties are his own and so likewise are his operations p. 36. I answer that these actions and operations are properly the operations of the integrall under that genus Now because all the integralls of that kind have those operations therefore they are attributed in notion to that genus and said to belong thereto but that thing in genere opperates not but in the individualls or integrals under it But the whole Church may as I there proved act in one and the same individuall act as a City or Kingdome may do therefore it is one integrall A genus or generall may act as it may be said to have members which are the instruments of actions but as himself confesseth that though the members be in the genus or comprehended under the genus yet they respect it not as a genus but as an integrall so I say the operations are the operations of such an integral of such a kind and not of the genus as a general The generall in abstracto worketh not any 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 except notionall but the integralls work them And whereas I proved in my eight argument vind 86. l. 8. that the whole Church is one integrall by the severall appellations given to it in Scripture as Body 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Kingdom tabernacle house building temple army sheep-fold wheat-field c. M. Stone p. 33. saith that these and such appellations are indeed firstly and properly appellations of an integrum having analogy to totum integrale but saith he this
they were chief men if not rulers which were of Abrahams posterity by Keturah and of Esau's stock heathens uncircumcised The very name of Elihu sheweth the contrary which signifieth my God is Jehovah So that it is more then probable that there were religious persons and Countries after Abrahams time beside the Jews if not before them as M. Baxter hath well observed in his treatise upon Infants Baptism and these no doubdt were circumcised It 's true Religion did not very long continue among them as among the Jews but God would not have cast off them if they had not forsaken him I grant that the seal of admission is to be given to none but such as are in covenant with God But what covenant The generall divine covenant or the particular humane covenant Surely into the generall covenant with God The many thousands bapttzed by John and Christs disciples and the three thousand in Acts â— were indeed in covenant with the national Church of the Jews before baptism because the Church was then Nationall but by this new signs they were admitted into the Evangelicall Church by a new and Catholick seal to which their former standing gave them no right And though as M. Stone saith Obsignation with the initial seal of Baptism implyeth confederation and admission into the Church yet it implyeth not confederation with this or that or any particular Church or admission into it Though Saul was baptized by Ananias at Damascus yet was it not as confederate either with the Church at Jerusalem or Damascus whereof he had been a bitter persecutor but as a Convert to Jesus Christ And though haply Cornelius Acts 10. might be confederate with the Jewish Church being a Proselite yet we know of no such confederation of his kinsmen and near friends mentioned vers 24 who were Gentiles and yet were all baptized Neither do I think there was any implicite covenant to bind the Jewish Church together or the Proselites to the Jewish Church besides the divine general covenant with God and yet for ought I know it had been as requisite for the members of every Synagogue as for particular Congregations now seeing they were lyable to censures there With what particular Church were the Samaritans and Simon Magus confederate Act. 8.12 who were a little before bewitched by Simons sorceries yet upon Philips preaching unto them and their conversion unto Christ they were baptized both men and women the witch and the bewitched Surely Samaria was not confederate with Jerusalem they did not love one another so well neither was there any instituted Church as the new phrase is as yet in Samaria neither was it a Congregationall Church but the whole City with one accord neither were there any particular officers set over them then neither could they enter into a particular Church covenant as it is called untill they were baptized the generall covenant must precede the particular and therefore were in no capacity to choose any officers over them and yet they were baptized and therefore baptism is no priviledge of a particular politicall Church-member but of the general And with what Church was the Jaylour as Philippi and his rude family in covenant Act. 16.33 who was a ruffianly heathen Yet being converted at midnight was baptized the same hour of the night without asking leave of the Church there if there were any And for this particular covenant though M. Stone saith p. 37. that it is a covenant not only between man man but also between God man But quojure where is the institution of it or any hint of it in Scripture It may be a promise before God but not between God them but between the people among themselvs between the people their Minister The first and general covenant is between God and man and is of divine institution but the second and particular is but humane and prudentiall and therefore cannot divolve any such priviledg upon people unless the Lord had instituted it to that end The universal Church is the whole politicall visible kingdom of Christ on earth and the visible beleevers are the matter thereof and these believers are converted or at least initiated into it by Christs officers not under the notion of particular officers but as Christs Ministers and Ambassadours to whom is committed the word of reconciliation and are bound by their generall covenant to believe what God hath revealed and obey what God hath commanded As a Denison of England is bound to obey the Lawes of England by being a subject thereof and then these subjects are placed in several towns under particular civill officers but no particular covenant is required of them to make them severall villages which for ought I know is as requisite as a particular Church covenant And those towns consist of English subjects but they are not bound to the laws because members of those towns but because subjects to the soveraign power of the whole nation So Christians are bound to perform obedience to Christ in all their relations and places as subjects to Christ and not by a particular covenant except Christ had instituted any such as between man and wife and there they are bound by both M. Stone bringeth two Aenigmaticall places to prove this covenant to be between God and man Zech. 11.7.10.14 Of beauty bands And Isa 62.5 As a bride-groom rejoyceth over his bride so shall thy God rejoice over thee and as a young man marrieth a virgin so shall thy sons marry thee But I can find no evidence or hint in either of these places for a Congregationall Covenant No nor in all the instances that are usually given viz Gods Covenant with Abraham but we know that was the generall covenant between God and man and not Congregationall And the covenants made in the days of Asa Jehoshaphat Hezekiah Josiah Nehemiah are nothing to the purpose for they were not Congregationall but renewalls of their National Covenant with God and they were the Church of God before they renewed this covenant and not constituted by the renewall of it Neither doth Act. 9.26 which is alledged some prove it It is said indeed that when Saul was come to Jerusalem he assayed to joyn himself to the disciples but they were all afraid of him and believed not that he was a disciple But this joyning him to the disciples was to have comunion and society with them and not to be a particular Church member there It is not said he assayed to join himself to the Church as a member but to the disciples much lesse is any particular covenant mentioned there But as if one that was known to be an Apparitour or Pursevant or Persecutour in the Bishops days should assay to join himself with private Christians in converse or some private meeting they would be afraid of him so was that case But before that journey to Jerusalem ver 15. it was shewed them and by Christ to Ananias that he was a chosen
were appeals from the three Judges to 23 and from the 23 to the Sanedrin or seventy one Elders For Christ had not then instituted any Christian Congregations or jurisdictions and if Christ had spoken of what was not in being as the people he spake to could have no relief thereby so they could not understand him Now if primarily he meant the three Judges or Rulers of the Synagogue yet that did not exclude the 23 and if he meant primarily the 23 that did not exclude the Sanedrin so in Christian jurisdictions which for the general nature were to be like the Jewish though not in every particular circumstance the bringing a cause to a Congregationall Eldership excludes not the Classis nor the Classis a Provincial Synod Though the Jewish politie was not long after to be pulled down and the Christian to succeed yet it was not then pulled down but stood jure divino though many of the persons in those offices were corrupt and the people as yet were bound by Gods law to make use of them and be determined by them Our Lord Christ sends the cleansed Lepers to the Priests to offer for them though they were generally wicked And in his sermon Mat. 5.22 he clearly alludes to their present judicatures Afterward the same Authours except against the definition of the office of the Ministry set down by the Province of London in their Jus Divinum c. Because they make it a relation to the whole imployment of the Ministry But whether you call it right or power or authority given them by commission or what general nature or notion can be put upon it it is certain it was in relation to the whole imployment of the Ministry as they well clear it up That was the subject wherein they had power by their office or sunction to deal and be exercised in To them was committed the word of reconciliation And therefore the Ministeriall office is set out in Scripture thereby Luk. 1.2 Act. 6.4 2 Cor. 3.6 1 Thes 3.2 as I noted more at large in vind 233. And though there must needs be an object viz. persons to whom they are to administer the Word yet that object in their commission is not set down in Scripture to be particular Congregations only but go teach all Nations and baptize them c. and lo I am with you always to the end of the World Mat 28.19 20. And go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature Mar. 16.15 And so likewise administer the other Otdinances to them when you have made them capable of them And the Argument which those Brethren insist upon from relaeta is of no force for though as they are particular Ministers of such a flock indeed that particular relation ceaseth if the flock ceaseth c. but the generall relation to the whole remaineth so that there is a correlate object still as long as there are any believers that stand in need of edifying by their office or any meer visible believers or their children or servants that stand in need of instruction exhortation reproofe or internall conversion c. And if all those should cease yet they shall find objects for their Ministry as long as there be any reasonable creatures under heaven as M. Norton in his answer to Apollon pag. 81. wel observeth where he saith that when they preach to heathens it is a ministerial act in regard of the dispenser and administrer Habent Ministri potestatem Ministerialem non Ecclesiasticam erga universum mundum erga omnem creaturam And therefore he pleadeth that the Ministers have Ministerial power in modo debito erga omnem Ecclesiam Or else saith he the heathens should be in better case then the neighbour Churches if it were Ministerial preaching to them and not to neighbour Churches He saith no duty of Ministerial acts of office in other Churches is to be denied p. 82. so it be regulated When Paul and Barnabas were called forth by the holy Ghost Act. 13. and sent out with fasting and praier and imposition of hands to go to the heathen was it a Ministerial work which they performed or a Chariâ—ative If a Ministerial work of their office then not onely the particular Congregation or the universal Church but the very heathens are the object of the Ministerial office as it is an office The Scripture speaking so indefinitely of the office of the Ministers under the name of Ministry makes it appear that their office related to the imployment or subject thereof not only to a few persons in Congregational Covenant or particular mutual union with them See Act. 20.24 and 21.19 Rom. 12.7 2 Cor. 5.18 Eph. 4.12 1 Tim. 1.12 And hath not the Minister the same subject and object that the Ministry hath seeing the Ministry is committed to him If a Minister of the Church in England should baptize a converted Jew Turk or heathen he doth not do it as a Minister of a particular Congregation or of the Church in England but as an indefinite Officer of Christ to whom he hath committed that employment and so the office reacheth that forreigner not as a member of the Church in England for so he never was and haply never will be but as a new subject added to Christ's visible Kingdom Secondly I shal shew that the universal Church is an integral and not Church in genere But before I enter upon this Chapter which hath been opposed in print by M. Stone a reverend Minister in New-England it will be requisite for me to premise somthing in general and then answer his particular Objections against the several arguments as they lie in order It was mine unhappiness to fall into the hands of two reverend Divines whose principles of Logick and especially concerning Genus were different from each other and so while I proved the universal Church to be no genus according to the principles and express grants of the former in his Vindiciae Catholicae which I cited who was an Aristotelian the other understanding genus in another sense being a Ramist opposeth my arguments denying the Aristotelian principles which the former went upon and granted whereas it was sufficient for one to prove the universal Church not to be a genus by his own principles whom I answered So it fareth with me as I have seen it with a Country man in a crowd who being stricken a box on one ear and turning himself to see who struck him and to defend himself on that hand was stricken by another on the other ear and so was fain to turn again to defend himself on that side also M. Ellis took genus to be a logical or metaphysical abstract non-existing notion as he acknowledges in print and upon his own grant I dealt with him M. Stone taketh genus to be an existing being appearing and shewing his face in every individual whether wee see it or no and thereupon disputes against my arguments otherwise then
once bound themselvs by marriage promise or indenture they may compel them to hold so and to obey and reform themselvs So is the case between Christ and his visible Church Secondly it is objected that we are not fit matter for a Church and therefore not fit to be made Churches or to be joined withall Answer was there not as unfit matter in the Jewish Church before Christs coming and yet the Church for the essence of it was the same then and now yea was there not as unfit matter in the Churches in the Apostles time at Corinth and Phillippi c see the texts before named and tell me if we have worse matter then there was and yet what the Gospell there saith it saith to them that are under the Gospell Give an instance of any man or woman that ever professed beleef in and subjection to Christ in all the New Testament that ever was denyed admission into the visible Church or that was cast out meerly for want of the power of godliness The Apostles instructed informed reproved and sought to amend them and if they were hereticall or notorious and obstinate excommunicated them and that we allow and could heartily wish were still done and hope may in due time Doth a shepherd turn the diseased sheep out of his flock quite and feed only the sound ones no he is to strengthen the diseased and heal the sick and bind up the broken and bring again that which was driven away and seek up that which is lost Ezek. 34.4 Indeed it is requisite he should separate the scabbed and diseased from the rest for a time lest they infect the rest and then having cured them to put them together into the same fold Ministers are sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel as Christ commandeth Mat. 10.6 and not to feed the sound ones only that went not astray and what manner of people Christ meant by those lost sheep I need not tell you such I believe as many in our age would have passed by as the Priest and Levite did the wounded man in the parable or counted goats rather then sheep Yea but the members of the Churches in the New Testament that grew so corrupt did not appear so at their admission into the Church Ans We know they were new Converts to the faith of Christ and immediately admitted by baptism even by thousands of a day and that when they were men grown without any strict enquiry of the truth of grace in them and without any waiting for experience of their godly conversation Philip baptized Simon the Sorcerer after his profession of his belief in Christ who yet was in the gall of bitterness and bond of iniquity and of all men one would have thought he should have been well tryed first but was not And the Apostle saith of some members in the Church of Corinth that they had not the knowledg of God he spake it to their shame Surely if they had had it at their first admission into Church they would not have lost it afterward under the Ministry of their teachers Indeed they might corrupt in manners or in judgment but not lose their knowledg and grow sotts But there is a great deal of difference between a Church at the first constitution of it when possibly they may pick choice members as they did at first in N. E. when they went over thither men converted by the Ministry in Old England before they went thither and a successive Church in after ages which consist of a new generation and seed of the former aetas parentum pejor avis tulit nos nequiores mox daturos progeniem vitiosiorem The Churches succeeding the Apostles age were not so pure as in the Apostles times and yet then they were bad enough and I fear the succeeding Churches in N. E. will not prove altogether so pure and eminent for sincerity of grace and holy conversation as their first were and yet our brethren do not hold that corrupt members in such a successive Church doth unchurch them and alas that is our condition in this nation the Lord in mercy reform and amend us Thirdly it is objected against us that we are not rightly constituted because we want an explicite Congregational covenant and so the true form Answer Thus you see I am inforced to return to speak of the Covenant again But I answer that all our Brethren for the Congregationall way do not unchurch us for want of that and I think I may clear our Brethren in N. E. from that aspersion and some of our Brethren at home who have lately written require but a mutuall agreement for joint worship of God and I am sure that may be found in our Congregations and both have been and might be more but for these new scruples put into their minds For my part I am not against an explicite Covenant in our Congregations but wish they were as willing to it as they are in many places willing to come to an agreement with their Ministers for their tithes if they can get advantage thereby as most what they do abundantly For by such a covenant I conceive they should be more bound to their Ministers as well as their Ministers to them and it might haply be a means to cause them to submit the better to our instructions reproofs admonitions inspection and discipline but I dare not stamp jus divinum upon it neither do I find any hint of it in Scripture or primitive times and therefore cannot believe there was any but that they stood bound by their general Covenant to submit to the Ministers that were set over them in the Lord in their several places Neither dare I think it is that which gives people right to Gods Ordinances nor that it can divolve such a priviledge upon the members that enter into it to invest them with the power of the keys to admit members make officers to invest and divest them and have all Church power radically in themselvs I know M. Stone doth not make it the form of a particular Congregation but the Cement rather but truly as it is used or abused rather by many about us I fear it wil prove but untempered morter For first people are so eager of it that some people will join with Antipaedobaptists Millenaries and fift monarchy-men or any sect so they may but be in a covenant Secondly it is raised up as a partition wall between them and all the rest of the Churches of Christ though they be in implicite covenant and agreement together and with their Pastors so that they will not communicate with them though never so religious reformed and eminent Congregations nor suffer any of them though never so godly and so acknowledged by them to communicate with themselves They will not baptize any of our children nor suffer us to baptize any of theirs nay they will not so much as stay to see any of our children baptized if they be occasionally