A Trial of Church-Forsakers, Section 9
SECT. 9. A queſtion by the way, about baptizing Baſtards of impenitent Chriſtians.
I Confeſſe, I never yet talked with any Brownist about this particular; yet becauſe I finde too many conſcious people, hanging after forraigne novelties, and gazing upon (with admiration) the membring, and diſmembring in viſible churches: who when they heare of Chriſtians lawfully begotten children denied baptiſme, beginne to wonder that chriſtians baſtards ſhould be admitted. Therefore to cleare both (as God ſhall in able) I ſhall labour to ſatisfie others (as I have done ſome) in this queſtion. whether baſtards are baptizable while their mothers are in their ſinnes of adultery, or fornication, and whether men ought not to stay their baptiſme, untill they be reconciled to God, in open church, which is publickely ſcandalized by her fact, and from which ſhe hath diſmembred her ſelfe by her misdeed?
In this I finde two queſtions inwrapt in one: whether baſtards are baptizable? and whether men ought not to ſtay ſuch baptiſme, till the harlot bee reconciled to God, and this be done in the open church ſcandalized, from which by her fact ſhe hath cut herſelfe off by her ſinne? I ſhall firſt labour to ſtate theſe queſtions, and then the caſes will more eaſily appeare.
The eſtate of the firſt may be thus ſet. By baſtards, ſuch children are meant, as come not into the world by lawfull acts of marriage: and by baptizable is meant, ſuch as have a right to the ſacrament of baptiſme in the church. And the queſtion is not, whether bastards in generall are baptizable? for ſo it is certaine that all are not, as the baſtards of Iewes, Turkes, and Pagans, who have no right to baptiſme but by perſonall confeſſion. But the queſtion is, whether the baſtards of the profeſſours at large, in a chriſtian church, which is in covenant with God (for the outward priviledge of the church at leaſt) have right to baptiſme? of theſe the inquiry is, becauſe in the ſecond part of this queſtion, is ſpoken of the mothers reconciling to God, in the open church offended.
The ſtate of the ſecond queſtion muſt be laid by conſidering two things:
1 The perſons enquired of·
2 The duty of theſe perſons.
The perſons enquired of, are Men: and it is too generall a terme. For it cannot meane, any men of that aſſembly, where ſuch a baſtard is preſented: for they have no authority (knowne to mee from ſcriptures) to meddle in any cenſure eccleſiaſticall. Theſe onelyonly are to meddle heere,Ioh. 20, 21 22, 23▪ who are ſent, and inſpired with delegated ſervice and mininiſtery from Chriſt, either immediately, or mediately. Neither can it meane the Paſtors, and deputed teachers of that aſſembly: for they have but a dependent authority according to the lawes of Eutaxy, 1 Cor. 14.and good order in the church. Presbiters under Biſhops, Biſhops under Synods, Synods under Councels, and Councels under the word of Chriſt in plaine ſcriptures. Our higheſt appeale is to our head Chriſt Ieſus.
For if ordinary Paſtours had ſuch independent power in ſuch caſes, thinke whether it would not ſet up a Pope in every pariſh, eſpecially conſidering that wee have neither precept, nor preſident, in all the new teſtament, of ſuch power given to any aſſembly, or Presbiter, that ever I could yet finde. By men ther…fore, wee muſt underſtand the publick governours of that church, that is,Enſem ſtringēdo, decreta publicādo the King, Prince, state, Biſhop, and convocation, by their lawes eccleſiaſticall for the good of the church. The queſtion enquires of thoſe, in reſpect of order, decree, and command: and of theſe in reſpect of Canons, and executions accordingly. Thus I take up the minde of the queſtion, or elſe I know not what it would have.
Next, conſider in the queſtion, the duty of theſe perſons, whether they ought to ſtay baſtards from baptiſme? By this, two things may bee meant: denying baptiſme; but no man would utterly exclude ſuch: and ſuſpending baptiſme; and of this is the queſtion: for it makes a double limitation; firſt, till the harlot be reconciled to God. In this, the queſtion meddles not with the judgement of God, who by his ſure omniſcience, knowes who are reconciled to him, and who not: nor with the judgement of the conſcitnce of any reconciled perſons, who by the aſſurance of faith or hope, may believe, or hope, that they are reconciled; for this is Gods tribunall: but with the judgement of the church, which under the ſacrament of charity (as it was termed of old) by the harlots words, and actions may judge the beſt: and ſo this parr of the queſtion is utterly void. For I never yet knew harlot but would confeſſe, and lament her ſinne, and promiſe amendement before her baſtard was baptized, and ſo give a ground for charitable hope.
The ſecond limitation is, till ſhee bee publickely reconciled to the church ſcandalized, from which by her fact ſhee hath cu… her ſelfe off. In which foure things are to bee pondered. Firſt, the manner of her reconciling, which is required by the queſtion; in the open church. But what if ſhe be ready to be ſwallowed up of ſorrow?2 Cor. 2:7. Shall wee not have the church to apply her power of mitigating indulgence? ſhall we have nothing but extreamitie? Did God allow in the time of the law,Exod. 21.28, 29, 30. that if an oxe did kill a man by the maſters negligence, there might bee a commutation of puniſhment, from death to a ranſome of mony, and will wee in no caſe have a mitigation of rigour from the open church, when yet Juſtice may bee done, and that, with more good ſometimes, both upon the partie, and others by charitable and indulgent acts?
Secondly, the perſons offended, are the Church ſcandalized: by which the queſtion meanes not the Catholik, or nationall Church; for with both theſe the harlot may be friends ſtill; becauſe they cannot take notice of every ſuch fact, to bee offended by it: But the particular Church and aſſembly united by God, and the lawes for the profeſſing of ſaving truth. Thirdly, conſider then the danger of the harlot offending; ſhee hath cut her ſelfe off, as the queſtion implyes: but conſider how ſhe hath cut her ſelfe off? and how farre? ſhee hath not cut her ſelfe off by excommunication eccleſiaſticall: for that is not in her power, and the Church hath not yet proceeded againſt her: but by excommunication morall, by the wickedneſſe of her fact, which makes her cenſurable both heere and hereafter, in an high degree, if ſhe repent not heartily. But how farre hath ſhe cut her ſelfe off? Not from the viſible Church; for ſhe ſtill profeſſeth ſaving faith; and would not but have the benefit of it for much: yea, ſhee ſtill hath the character of Baptiſme, which is the outward marke of a Chriſtian: for otherwiſe upon her reconciliation ſhe ſhould be baptized againe, which ſurely the queſtion intends not: but from two things in the viſible Church: firſt, from the inward comforts of chriſtianity, till ſhee repent unto life: For (I thinke) it will not bee denyed, but that ſhee may doe this, before eccleſiaſticall indulgence bee applyed unto her upon outward ſubmiſſion. And ſecondly, from publike communion with the viſible Church in ſome holy things, when ſhe is proceeded againſt, till ſhee hath outwardly, in the congregation confeſſed her fault (if neede require) and promiſed amendment. In ſome holy things (I ſay) for I anſwer, none will deny her a right to reade the word of God, or to heare it read, to heare good exhortations and inſtructions, or to pray in private, which yet are the acts of a true Chriſtian.
Fourthly, conſider the remedy of this danger, (her reconciling to the Church:) by which we muſt not vnderſtand, her returning into favour, by communion with the Church in repentance unto life, and the faith of the elect; for no man, or men, can judge certainely of theſe: but onelyonly returning into favour by communion with the Church in profeſſion to have them.
The queſtion being thus ſtated, wee may the more eaſily conceive and give ſatisfying anſwers. To the firſt, whether Baſtards are baptizable?1 Why the baſtards of chriſtians are baptizable? I anſwer, the baſtards (as other children) of Iewes, Turkes, and Infidels are not: but the baſtards of profeſſors of Chriſtianity are, for theſe two reaſons.
Firſt, becauſe that which gives right unto the parents, gives right unto the children in the parents right (for when the parents profeſſed the faith of Chriſt,1 Cor. 1.16. the Apoſtles did baptize them and their children, if any ſuch were in the houſhold:Act. 12. Act. 8. Mat. 28.) But profeſsion of Chriſtianity gives right to the Parents: for if men doe but profeſſe their faith in the Trinity, they are baptizeable: and therefore the baſtards of Chriſtans are baptizeable.
Secondly, becauſe the children of Chriſtians are baptizeable: but baſtards of Chriſtians, are the children of Chriſtians; for otherwiſe ſuch parents ſhould be rebaptized: therefore they are baptizeable.
To the ſecond queſtion, whether men ought to ſtay their baptiſme, till the harlot be reconciled unto God in the open church▪ which is juſtly ſcandalized by her fact, and from which ſhee hath diſmembred herſelfe by her miſdeed? I anſwere, firſt to the grounds of the queſtion in limitations: and next to the queſtion it ſelfe.
To the grounds of the queſtion,2 An harlots fact doth not make her no Chriſtian. I anſwer two things. Firſt, that her fact hath not ſo diſmembred her as to make her no chriſtian. For let me aske, doth a vaſte ſinne ſo cut off from Chriſt, that it doth unchriſtian a man or woman? I doe not aske this to move any man or woman to flatter themſelves in ſuch a caſe. For ſuch have juſt cauſe to doubt whether they are univocall members of ſaving Chriſt: neither can they know by aſſurance of faith, whether ever they ſhall riſe againe: becauſe God ſaies to no man, ſinne, and my grace ſhall helpe thee up. But I aske it, to ſhew the hope and charity of the church, about ſuch wicked profeſſours of chriſtianity. Beſides, if her fact had made her no chriſtian, ſhee ſhould be rebaptized: but ſhee hath ſtill the character of baptiſme, and hath right to the inward comforts of it, if ſhe repent: and ſo, in her ſtate, and right, her baſtard hath a right alſo.
Secondly, I anſwer, that her ſcandalizing of the church, where ſhee lives,3 An harlots fact doth not deprive her or her child of the right of chriſtianity. doth not deprive her ſelfe, or her childe, of the right of chriſtianity. As for her childe, the ſcandall was given by the mother, not that, who is a ſufferer in the ſhame of the ſinne, not a doer in the worke of it. As for her ſelfe, though her ſcandall deprive her of the beſt comforts of chriſtianity, till ſhe repent: yet not of a right to ſome of the outward priviledges of Chriſtianity, whereof the baptiſme of her childe is one.
And this the rather, becauſe an harlot amongſt chriſtians, having a baſtard and not profeſſing her ſelfe ſorrowfull, and that ſhee doth believe in Chriſt, is not (for ought I know, or have heard) to bee found what ever her heart be.
4 No man ought lawfully to ſtay baſtards frō Baptiſme.Now, ſecondly, to the queſtion it ſelfe, I anſwer, that no man either in that church, or over that church, ought lawfully to ſtay baſtards from baptiſme. Becauſe they that are in the covenant of Chriſtianity (as thoſe that are to be regenerated, though not yet actually regenerate) are not to be ſtayed from baptiſme:Vt regenerandi etſi nondum regenerati but the baſtards of chriſtian harlots are in ſuch a covenant of chriſtianity: therefore they ought not to bee ſtaied from it. That it is thus with chriſtian harlots appeares thus: becauſe if a chriſtian church be in the covenant of chriſtianity, then all the members,1 Cor. 12, 27. and matter of it are: therefore the church of Corinth is called the body of Chriſt, in reſpect of the covenant of chriſtianity, though fearfull wickedneſſe was acted in that church about word, ſacraments, and converſation. But ſuch baſtards are ſome of the members of a chriſtian church, therefore they ought not to bee ſtaied from baptiſme. That they are mēbers of a a chriſtian church, appeareth thus, Becauſe all that are within the Jurisdiction and judgement of a chriſtian church, are the members and matter of it, for (ſaith Paul) What have I to do to judge them that are without?1 Cor. ….12 but baſtards of Chriſtians are within the judgement and juriſdiction of the Church: for elſe, why were they circumciſed of old, and ſome way cenſured to certaine generations?Deut. 23.2 and why in the Chriſtian Church have ſuſceptors (or God-fathers) beene appointed for them, to undertake for their education? Therefore are they members of a Chriſtian Church.
Secondly, the proceeding of Abrah…m (the father of the faithfull) in his houſe when he was called into the covenant of circumciſion, ought to bee a preſident to chriſtian Churches in the covenant of Baptiſme. But Iſhmael was circumciſed as wel as Iſaack, though Agar bro…ght h…m forth unto bondage, If then no men ought lawfully ſo to doe,Gal. 4. Gen. 21. ſurely ſuch Baſtards are not to be denyed baptiſme finally, or to be ſuſpended from it in due time, underſtanding it as is before ſaid. Thus have I anſwered theſe queſtions.
But I know, others have anſwered otherwiſe: let it therefore bee heard and examined. Some have anſwered negatively, that Baſtards ought not to be baptized untill their mothers be reconciled to God openly in the Church, in the which her child is to be baptized; let us therefore.
1 Heare their reaſons for their opinions.
2 How they maintaine it again… ob…ections made.
Object.Their reaſons are two. Firſt, becauſe all they, and onelyonly they may be baptized, which either doe actually beleeve, or are of beleeving parents: but baſtards in infancy, doe not beleeve actually, nor are of beleeving parents:Sol. therefore they are not baptizable. But I anſwer to the argument, and application of it. The argument is imperfect:Expoſititij. for what if baſtards bee ſuch as whoſe parents are unknowne? in ſuch a caſe the learned ſay well, if they ſhall be borne among chriſtians,Si inter Chriſtianos nati fuerint, ex Charitate habendi profilijs Chriſtianorum ſi non ſit juſta cauſa contrariū praeſumendi. the law of charity is to repute thē for the children of chriſtians, if there be not a juſt cauſe to preſume otherwiſe. Therefore the argument ſhould runne thus. All they, and onelyonly they ſhould bee baptized, which either doe actually beleeve, or which are of beleeving parents, or in charity may bee preſumed ſo to bee. To the application of it to baſtards, I ſay; none will reſolutely affirme, that Chriſtian baſtards while they are infants, are neither actuall beleevers, nor of beleeving parents, nor may bee preſumed ſo to bee: will they hold, that in the act of adultery there is an utter falling from the covenant of chriſtianity?1 Cor. 6. In ſenſu compoſito. Have they not read of taking the members of Chriſt, and making them the members of an harlot? or will they hold that the act of whoredome doth utterly extinguiſh baptiſmall grace in the parents? I thinke they will not; I know they cannot. No corporation doth caſt off their members from their enfranchiſements before triall, convictions, and judgement: much leſſe will Chriſt. Yet they ſay two things in their owne defence. Firſt, that baſtards beleeve not actually. Indeede it were too lofty to ſay that they beleeve as men of yeares who are wrought upon by the word, and prayer. But were it not very harſh to ſay they are infidels? Are they not members of a Church in the outward covenant of chriſtianity as well as others? Have they not read of the ſeedes of faith, in ſuch? or that Chriſt ſpeaking of little ones, ſaith, they beleeve in his name? Mat. 18.6.It may be, he ſpeakes of ſuch as were admitted already into the covenant of circumciſion: but may not they judge charitably of Baſtards, in ſuch a caſe, ſeeing ye ſee, or may ſee (in the iſſue) baſtards to live graciouſly in the boſome of the Church? If they know none ſuch, yet I doe; bleſſed be God.
Secondly, they ſay that the fathers and mothers of baſtards are unbeleevers: becauſe they are unjuſt, they worke from the fleſh, 1 Cor. 6:9.10 Gal. 5.9.22. 1 Cor. 6. 1 Tim. 5.8they are ſhut out of the Kingdome of heaven, and they provide not for their owne: and thus they reaſon. They that are unjuſt, bring forth the fruits of the fleſh, ſhut themſelves out of the kingdome of heaven, and provide not for their owne as they ought, are unbeleevers. But fathers and mothers of baſtard are ſuch: therefore they are unbeleevers. To this I anſwer two waies.
Firſt in generall, by uſing their own reaſon layed otherwiſe thus. They that are unjuſt, live in the fleſh, ſhut themſelves out of heaven & proprovide not for their own are unbeleevers. But many chriſtian parents of children lawfully begotten are ſuch: therefore they are unbeleevers I confeſſe there is ſome difference to be put here betwixt parents of lawfully begotten children, & parents of baſtards, becauſe thoſe doe it in an act of juſtice and goodneſſe, and that by Gods ordinance if they doe it as they ought; and theſe doe it in an act of impudence and injuſtice. But if an act of injuſtice and uncharitableneſſe doth of it ſelfe, make them unbeleevers, as they are ſuch, then it reacheth to the one as well as to the other. But there is no good religion bids us to thinke that an act of injuſtice in the parents ſhould put a child both into the ſtate of ſinne (in the neglect of a ſacrament, Eze. 18.) and into the ſtate of puniſhment (in being deprived of it) when yet the child hath not followed, nor countenanced the parents wickedneſſe.
Secondly, I anſwer in particular to the argument, and firſt to the ground of it, that ſuch wicked chriſtians are not ſo unbelievers as to bee quite unchriſtianed, and ſo to be deprived, in themſelves, and their baſtards of the ſign and ſeale of the covenant. There are two ſorts of unbelievers; unbelievers in part,Two ſorts of unbel…evers. … In part. rnd unbelievers in whole: unbelievers in part, and in ſome particulars, when the word of God is not ſo received of them, as the rule of faith and obedience in ſome particular parts of it as it ought.
Of theſe there are to many amongſt us, and all chriſtian churches. From hence proceedes that, they not believing the word of chaſtity, are unchaſte, the word of juſtice, are unjuſt, and the word of care for children, are careleſſe, and the like,2 In whole. Vnbelievers in whole, when chriſtianity is dead in them at the roote; as when the whole ſaving word is rejected. This is that unbeliefe which doth unchriſtian a man and woman, and if it be finall, is a ſtate of Paganiſme. Though (it may be) there be ſuch parents in the eyes of God; (yet I thinke) few or none are ſuch among Chriſtians in the eies of the church. They will all profeſſe to believe in Chriſt, and when they are convincingly moved, will lament their ſins, and promiſe to doe ſo no more. To the application of the argument to fathers and mothers of baſtards in a chriſtian church, that they are ſuch, is an unſufficient plea. And whether they bee ſo, to the cutting of them off from Chriſtianity in generall, and making their baſtards unbaptizable, judge by what is ſaid, and what followeth.
Secondly, they give another reaſon thus.Object. They that have no grace already conferred, are not to bee made partakers of the ſigne and ſeale of grace. Rom. 4.11.But baſtards have not grace conferred, they neither actually believing, nor being borne of chriſtian parents: and therefore they are not to bee baptized, I anſwer,Sol. they meane not (I thinke) the inward grace of actuall faith, ſuch as Abraham had; for then, why was Iſhmael circumciſed?
But they meane the outward grace of having right to the ſigne and ſeale of the covenant; and thus their application to baſtards is falſe: underſtand their argument thus. They that have not the outward grace of right to the ſigne and ſeale of the covenant, are not baptizable. What though Abraham had true actuall faith when hee ſubmitted to circumciſion, doth it follow that all that ſucceed him in circumciſion ſhould have ſo alſo? Prove that and turne Anabaptiſts: take away circumciſion and baptiſme from all infants. Therefore I deny the application, that baſtards of wicked chriſtians have not the grace of right to baptiſme. They have a right to receive that right whereto their parents have a right to convey: and certainely theſe have a right to convey the right of baptiſme to their children; both as they are believers of the word of ſalvation by Chriſt, and as they profeſſe to ſtand in ſuch a way, though they are wicked and ungodly in particular acts.
They have a right alſo to the offers of grace in a chriſtian church, and ſo have a right to baptiſme: for heerein God offereth grace by way of ſigne, and ſeale of Gods covenant. To underſtand this, conceive theſe two points.
Firſt, the difference of the offer of grace to them within, and to them without the church. They without have a right to it in the word: for I may preach the word to a Iew, Turke, Heathen, if hee come within my limit,Mat. 28.19. and will heare. But they within have a right unto it in the word, and ſacraments, according to Chriſts commiſſion.
Secondly, the priviledge they have by it, is, not to bee graffed into the body of Chriſt, according to the election of grace, but according to the profeſſion of the Goſpel, and the ſtate of the church viſible heere.
Thus their reaſons are voide from proving that baſtards are not baptizable. Now marke what reaſons they make, and finde againſt them, and what they anſwer.
Firſt, ſome of the baſtards predeceſſours Objection. 1 have beene believers, and this is ſufficient to admit them to baptiſme, according to the promiſe made to believers, and to their poſterity. This is a poore objection,Cenſure. thus propounded. For what Iew, Turke, or Pagan is there, who may not pretend that ſome of their predeceſſours have beene believers,Rom. 11. Col. 1. if the Goſpell have beene preached thorough the world. They muſt be predeceſſours in a chriſtian church, in outward covenant with God. But let us ſee their anſwer.Sol. They give a text to prove the contrary, and require a text to oppoſe them.
Their text is Saint Paules, who ſpeaking of immediate parents, ſaith, except one of them are believers, their children are uncleane, 1 Cor. 7.14but now (by the faith of one) they are holy. Cenſure.They will not prove (I hope) that believers children are holy by an infuſed, or derived holineſſe from them: for from them they are the children of wrath, but onelyonly that they have a foederall holineſſe, Eph. 2,by which they have a right to bapti…me.Sanctitatem foederalem, ut qui ſunt regenerandi non regenerati Neither will they prove that it is neceſſary to a childs baptiſme, to have immediate predeceſſours ſuch believers, as doe in all things contrary to ſuch ſinnes as doe wound or waſte a good conſcience. It is enough i… one be a believet, that is, a doctrinall chriſtian, though like the worſt in the church of Corinth. If hee bee a Iew, the Apoſtle calls him circumciſion, Rom. 2.and if hee profeſſe faith in Chriſt, hee is a chriſtian for his owne, and his childes baptiſme. What though the Apoſtle ſpeakes of immediate parents there, where hee ſpeakes of a church newly converted to the faith from heatheniſme, and ſo to be a church that wanted predeceſſours before times? may wee not therefore make uſe of other texts more comfortable for us▪ who have had the Goſpel a long time, and that, ſealed with ſuch chriſtian bloud?
If now they require a text to oppoſe them; let them take that, The promiſe is to you, and to your children. Act. 2.39.But they anſwer, that the unbeliever, and his children, are not the poſterity of the believer;Object. I ſay, yes, if they be members of a viſible church. Thoſe wicked kings of Iudah, Sol.that were idolaters, were the poſterity of Abraham, and David, and had right to the promi…es made to them, yea, and to the ever bleſſed Meſsias, who deſcended from them. If they repented not, they had no inward comfort from him, yet had they outward right unto him, by vertue of the promiſes made to Abraham and David.
But they ſay,Obiect. Sol. can uncleane baſtards be the ſeed of the believing? I anſwer, that I approve that in theſe termes they expreſſe hatred to the ſinne: but in that they forget a foederall cleanneſſe in uncleane chriſtians children, by vertue of Gods promiſe to believers foregoing them, they goe the right way, not onelyonly to fill he I with baſtards, but with true begotten children, whoſe immediate parents are (too often) guilty of greater ſinnes then whoredome, though that bee damnable enough.
Secondly, they finde another objection; Objection. 2 God hath promiſed to ſhew mercy unto a thouſand generations, Exod. 20.to them that love him and keepe his commandements. Therefore baſtards of wicked Chriſtians are baptizable.
The reaſon ſhould have been put thus:Cenſure. God hath promiſed to ſhew mercy to a thouſand generations of Iſraelites in outward communion with him: for otherwiſe it followes not, that the baſtards of chriſtians are baptizable. But what anſwer they? They ſay Solution. 1 three things; firſt they ſay, it followes not: becauſe baſtards are not the generation of them that love God, and keepe his commandements. Take heed:Cenſure. was not Davids child got of the wife of Vrijah the generation of them that loved God at all, though in that act David loved him not? nor was Iſhmael the generation of Abraham that loved God, though in that act (out of ignorāce not wholy excuſing) Abraham loved him not? yes, as Ioſiah was the generation of them that loved God, though Manaſſeh his father had long and fearefull fits of cruell Idolatry: ſo in this caſe, baſtards may bee the generation of them that love God, though their immediate Solution. 2 parents in thoſe accurſed acts, loved him not. Secondly, they ſay, that it is one thing to ſay, that God will ſhew grace and favour to one, and another thing to ſay, that he is already in grace,Cenſure. as hee muſt bee that is baptized. I have anſwered before, that the baſtards of Chriſtians have the grace of right to Baptiſme, and that is ſufficient in this caſe: for otherwiſe, Iſhmaels right to Solution. 3 circumciſion cannot bee found. Thirdly, they ſay, that that promiſe of God in the ſecond commandement may have a double ſence, firſt, that God will extend his mercy to many ages on them that love him, when they are come to age, and capeable of his love by practiſe.Cenſure. But thus they make them that love God to bee the poſterity, when it is plaine, the promiſe was made to them that received the law then, and were to continue in the profeſſion of ſaving truth, and ſo to all others in ſuch a caſe. Secondly, that God will ſhew little children favour for their fathers and mothers ſake to a thouſand generations. But this they thinke, cannot bee meant, neither in deede is, as I conceive Yet then adde a third ſence, which they forget, that God will ſhew the poſterity, that continues in the profeſſion of his name, favour; not for their parents ſake, but for his owne ſake, for his promiſe ſake,Gen. …7. which he makes to them that love him, and that, for many generations; and then I reaſon thus. That which keepes the generations to come, who live as profeſſors in the viſible Church in covenant with God, that gives infants of ſuch parents right to the ſeale of the covenant, of which they are capable. But Gods promiſe to faithfull parents in the viſible Church, keepes ſuch generations to come in covenant with God: and therefore have they right to the ſcale of the covenant, whereof they are capable. Now whereas they aske, whether all children, or ſome have right? I anſwer, all, to the grace of right to Baptiſme.
Thirdly, they bring forth another objection, Objection. 3 that if baſtards bee withheld from Baptiſme, there will be no difference put betwixt Baſtards and their parents. They anſwer here what if there be no difference put?Sol. And whatſoever the objection bee, (for I know not who ownes it) they runne here a ſtrange courſe. Out of a deſire to honour the ſeventh commandement, they diſhonour the firſt, and third.Heb. 13. Let adultery bee abominable (becauſe whoremongers and adulterers God will Iudge) yet let God have his honour in hating infidelity above whoredome. Let not the Scripture bee wronged; but thoroughly weigh their words. They ſay firſt,Cenſure. that Baſtards and their parents are all infidels: what? though their parents bee Chriſtians?1 Tim. 5.8. yes ſurely, ſay they; becauſe Saint Paul ſaith they are worſe then infidels. Let them conſider, becauſe they are worſe then carefull infidels, in not caring for their children (which is againſt the fift and eight commandements) are they worſe then infidels in infidelity? They are chriſtians, yet worſe, and better, worſe in diſgracing their poſterity:2 Pet. 2.19, 20. yet better in beleeving ſtill the doctrine of chriſtianity, and ſo giving a right to baptiſme. But they ſay further, that parents of baſtards are worſe in ſtate then Turkes, and they would prove it from a Text of finall Apoſtacy: but what proofe this can be againſt an act of whoredome (in the paſſion of luſt, clowding reaſon in an heate) I cannot tell? Let a Turk be a Turk, but no worſe; and let a damnable Harlot be an harlot, but no worſe. Her ſtate is bad enough to bring her to hell without Objection. 4 repentance, but not to exclude her child from baptiſme, if ſhe be a Chriſtian at large.
Fourthly, they meete with another objection,Cenſure. that Baſtards are borne, & the Church is their Mother; therefore baptiſme ought not to be denyed them. It ſhould have beene put thus; they are borne of Chriſtian parents, who by profeſſion are members of the Church, and ſo the Church is their Mother,Sol. and the mother of their ſeede; and therefore to bee baptized. But in their anſwer, they fall into two errors. Firſt, that the Church is a company of true beleevers whō God bath choſen to eternall life; which Church I pray? Not that whereof new borne baſtards of Chriſtian parents are by profeſſion members. The holy Catholike Church, and proper body of Chriſt, may be defined by beleevers in that ſence of it: but that the viſible Church, in the outward face of it, is thus defined, wants warrant in the word of Chriſt. Thus the Church is a number of perſons united according to the word.Act. 2. 42. 1 Cor. 1, 2. in the profeſsion of ſaving truth, whether they are elect, or no. Their ſecond error is, that Baſtards are infidels; for this can not bee conceived of baſtards of Chriſtian parents, as is before proved. Objection. 5
Fiftly, they yet finde more arguments to oppoſe them:Cenſure. Baſtards may belong to Gods election, and therefore are not to be denyed Baptiſme: It ſhould have beene thus ſet: They may belong to Gods election as members of the viſible Church: for otherwiſe election may belong to Jewes and Turkes, who yet are not Baptizable without perſonable profeſſion. But they anſwer thus,Sol. it muſt not be ſaid, they may belong,Cenſure. but they doe belong to Gods election: for otherwiſe the ſigne is not to bee adminiſtred unto them. Doe they conſider how thus they take away Baptiſme from all men, women,2 Tim. 2.19 and children? The Lord knowes who are his and the Church reaches but to the judgement of charity. A judgement of certainety, to warrant us in theſe acts is no where granted, though baptiſme bee deferred to the laſt gaſpe for any thing knowne to me of faith.
Objection. 6 Sixtly, they further finde another argument againſt them▪ that if baſtards were denied baptiſme, this were to make the children to beare the iniquity of their Parents.Eze. 18. But may they not rather thus diſpute?Cenſure. The children whoſe parents have a right to baptiſme, have alſo a right to baptiſme themſelves, notwithſtanding their parents perſonal faults; for otherwiſe they ſhall be puniſhed for parents faults: But the chriſtian parents of baſtar…s have a right to baptiſme themſelves: and therefore ſo have their children. They have a right of poſſeſſion to the baptiſme they have: and a right of expectation to the comfort of it, upon their faith and repentance. But take their anſwer,Sol. and they ſay foure things. Firſt, that they do not meane to deny baptiſme, but to defer it. Indeed heere is ſome charity, but not enough, upon former grounds, Againe they ſay, to defer baptiſme is not to puniſh them for their parents ſinnes; yes that it is, if it bee meerely inflicted for parents ſinnes. Though the baptiſme of children of believers is not to remunerate them for their parents righreouſneſſe, but a bleſſing upon them for Gods promiſe ſake to believers; yet to deprive infants of it meerely for parents ſake, is a puniſhment for parents ſinnes. Thirdly they ſay, that the Prophet Ezekiel ſpeaks of actuall ſinnes of great ones, and not of little childrens ſinnes: and when they have ſayd thus, they confeſſe it is not to the purpoſe heere. Yet conſider this point: Can any man be guilty of the perſonal ſinne of another, with whom onelyonly there is communion of ſuffering, and not of ſinning? God forbid, and yet ſuch is the caſe of infants from us. Laſtly they aske, what danger is it if baſtards ſhould bee unbaptized till they are of yeares? I anſwer, there are dangers more then one. The danger of injuſtice at large, in withholding a right from them: yea, may I not call it ſacriledge?Act. 8. & 9 The danger of the neglect of this ordinance, which is the ordinary way of God for entrance into the viſible church.Mat. 28. And the danger of elevating baptiſme above the mind of Chriſt, who will have grace offered to all entring chriſtians in it, yea, and given by way of promiſe and covenant which ſhall not faile to the receivers.
Laſtly, they yet finde another reaſon againſt Objection. 7 them: that though the parents of baſtards have greatly ſinned, yet we ought to judge charitably of them, and of their children. I lay it downe otherwiſe, thus: They who (at leaſt) in the judgement of charity are chriſtians,Cenſure. ought not to have their children kept from baptiſme: but the parents of baſtards in a chriſtian church, are (at leaſt) in the judgement of charity chriſtians, (for otherwiſe they were rebaptizable) therefore their children ought not to be kept from baptiſme.Sol. Now take their anſwer. They ſay, the judgement of charity ought alwaies to be according to truth. This is true, of truth probably preſumed. But what doe they aſſume? that whoremongers and harlots cannot bee judged ſuch while they are in their ſinnes, which make them unbelievers. But ſay, I pray: Is their ſin properly againſt faith or manners? Is the bad working, or idleneſſe of faith, in this ſinne againſt manners, of ſuch power, as utterly to roote out their doctrinall faith, which yet is ſufficient to intitle their children to baptiſme? If they anſwer but theſe demands well, they ſhall ſee their owne errours.
Thus have I taken in by the way, a view of th…s queſtion, which …s not an every day doubt, and is uſefull …or the quieting of many godly perſons in this particular▪ and my concluſion is this. That in the reforming of our viſible church, which conſiſted of viſible chriſtians before (though much out of order) wee, their ſeed, in their right, and ſo in a right of our owne were more purely baptized, and ſo made true members of our true viſible church, whatſoever Browniſts plead to the contrary. For as baſtards of chriſtian parents have a right to bee baptized into their parents chriſtianity: ſo much more had wee into ours. Our predeceſſours had a ſtate whereof they repented; and ſo have theſe of which they ſhould. If neither of them repented as they ſhould, yet were both of them true chriſtians: and ſo both their poſterities were rightly baptized, and made true members of a true viſible church: i… not for ſuch governement as Browniſts dreame of, yet to be governed as members of Gods houſe, for conviction, or converſion to life.