A Second True Defense of the Nonconformists, Treatise · Chapter 12
CHAP. XII. Of the Engliſh ſort of Sponſors, and the excluſion of Parents duty.
§. 1. PAge 380. He ſaith I [ſeveral times mention this as one of the grounds of the unlawfulneſs of the peoples joyning in Communion with us: yea as the greateſt objection.]
Anſw. Four places of my writings are cited, and all will teſtifie to him that will read them, the untruth of the Doctors words. This is an unhappy courſe of accuſations: I can find no word of [The unlawfulneſs of the peoples joyning in Communion with you on this ground.] On the contrary, I have taught men how to make this very action in them lawful, viz. By getting if poſſible credible Sponſors of the old ſort, and agreeing with them to be the Parents Repreſenter, and promiſe as in his name, or at leaſt but as his ſecond, undertaking the Education of the Child if he die or apoſtatize (which was the old ſort:) and himſelf to be preſent and ſignifie his conſent by geſture, though he may not ſpeak.
But I have ſhewed, 1. That this muſt be done beſides the Churches order, that hath no ſuch thing. 2. That ſubſcribing to the Churches order herein is unlawful: 3. That the Church which refuſeth the Child lawfully offered, ought not to blame that perſon that cannot or will not make ſuch ſhifts, but getteth another Paſtor to Baptize him whom they ſinfully refuſe.
But this is not to prove it unlawful to have Communion with you. But it's lawful to uſe better alſo when they can, being thus repulſed by you.
§. 2. He ſaith [The Parents are to provide ſuch as are fit to under take that office.]
Anſw. 1. No one is fit for it as uſed by the Liturgy, but an Adopter that taketh the Child for his own; For he undertaketh the Parents work. And it's lis ſub judice, whether any others undertaking beſides a Parent or Owner can prove the Child to be in the Covenant as offered, and have right to the ſeal and benefits: Atheiſts and Inſidels Children are unholy, 1 Cor. 7. 14.
2. If any were ſit, few Parents can get ſuch, as will underſtandingly and deliberately and credibly promiſe them to do all that Godfathers muſt by the Liturgy undertake. I never knew one in my life that ſeemed to the Parent to mean any ſuch thing, much leſs to do it.
I have in my younger time been Godfather to three or four: But we before agreed with the Parents to intend no more than to be Witneſſes, and the Father to be the Entitler and the undertaker.
I did in 1640. Baptize two by the Liturgy, (without Croſſing) and never more in 6. or 7. years after, becauſe of the impoſed corruptions. Mr. Kettilby the Bookſeller (unleſs his Father had another Child of the ſame name baptized the ſame year) was one: But his Father gave him his name, and promiſed all his own duty, and his Uncle and Aunt ſtanding as Sponſors, we before agreed that they ſhould ſignifie but Witneſſes and friendly helpers in caſe of need.
2. But what if the Parents are bid provide ſuch? that is no diſcharge of their own part, nor are they bound to caſt their duty on others.
§. 3. He ſaith (as to the Childs Right to Baptiſm) that the Godfathers ſtand in a threefold capacity, 1. Repreſenting the Parent in offering, 2. Repreſenting the Child in promiſing, 3. In their own as undertakers of his education, &c.
Anſw. 1. I will not till he confute them repeat my proofs that in the Church of England's ſence the Godfathers are not the Parents repreſentatives at all, nor ſpeak in their name.
2. If they were, then when the Parents both are Atheiſts, Infidels, Hobbiſts, ſcorners at Godlineſs, Hereticks, the Godfathers can repreſent them but as they are, and their own faith entitleth not the Child, becauſe they ſtand in the perſons of Atheiſts, Infidels, &c. your Church doth not like this doctrine.
3. And as to their repreſenting the Child, quo jure is the doubt. It cannot be done without ſome repreſenting power given them. And who gave it them?
4. And as to the third Perſon (in this multiform thing) the doubt is, whether their undertaking to educate another mans Child be lawful, while he is bound to do it himſelf? 2. And whether men uſe to be ſerious in ſuch undertakings, which I never knew one perform, nor ſeem to mean it, ſave ſuch as take poor mens, kinſmens or dead mens children to keep as their own. 3. And if it be done without ſerious intention, Is it not to make perjury or perfidiouſneſs, and prophane taking God's name in vain, to be the way of Chriſtening and Covenanting with Chriſt in order to ſalvation?
§. 4. This is a great point, and he doth well to handle it diligently: His explication of it is this, p. 382. [1. The Church hath the power of the Keys, (True; but not as he and the Browniſts ſay, The whole Church, but only the Paſtors.)
[2. They may baptize capable ſubjects.] No doubt of it.
[3. Infants are capable ſubjects.]
Anſw. But what Infants? All, or ſome? Is this our ſatisfaction? If it be All Infants, then how come the Heathens Infants to be baptizable and have right, when the Parents have none? Then how great a deed of charity is it to bring an Army among them to baptize their Children by force? When even Aquinas and other Papiſts ſay, that Children may not be baptized againſt the Parents wills.
I have elſewhere at large proved, 1. That Baptiſm is but the ſealing of the Covenant, and the delivering of poſſeſſion by Miniſterial Inveſtiture, and not the firſt gift or condition of our right to Chriſt and his benefits.
2. That in the Adult faith and Repentance and heart-conſent are the Conditions, which Baptiſm after ſolemnly expreſſeth.
3. That if a true penitent believing conſenter die without Baptiſm, he is ſaved; and if t…ptized adult die without faith, repentance and heart-conſent, he is damned.
4. That therefore all the adult muſt have an entitling condition, to give them right, firſt initially, coram Deo, to pardon of ſin, and then to be baptized (which ſolemnly delivereth their full right) before they can be lawfully baptized.
5. That God dealeth not ſo differently with Infants and Adult, as to require conditions of right in the later, and none in the former, as if they were all born with right.
6. That the Covenant is made to the faithful and their ſeed, and that Infants condition of right is that they be children of believers: And that if both Parents be Infidels, the Children are unclean, but elſe they are holy. And God that confoundeth not the Church and the World, confoundeth not their Childrens caſe.
This I have fully proved in my Diſp. of Original ſin, and Treat of right to Sacraments.
7. That Baptiſm ſealeth and delivereth to the qualified ſubject, the preſent pardon of ſin, and right to Chriſt and life as to adopted Children of God. And therefore there muſt be ſome reaſon and proof of a right to it, more than all Infants in the world have.
8. That it is not a mans bringing them to baptiſm and ſpeaking feignedly in their name, that giveth them right to a ſealed pardon and ſalvation: It muſt be one that can prove himſelf entitled to repreſent the Child, which none can that cannot ſay He is my own.
9. If it were otherwiſe, Atheiſts, Infidels, wicked men, though Baptized, could give no right to the ſealed pardon, or to the Inveſtiture in a ſtate of life, to which they have no right themſelves. And if they repreſent no better Parents, as ſuch they can give them no right, ſave coram Eccleſia when they are not infideles judicati.
10. Nor doth it ſuffice to an Infants right, that the Miniſter, or Church, be Chriſtians.
Therefore to tell us that Infants are right ſubjects, ſignifieth nothing, till either, 1. He tell us what Infants, 2. Or prove that all Infants have right; which he can never do: And if he could, I would eaſily prove that all dying Infants are ſaved, whether Baptized or not; As I can prove that true Chriſtian Infants are.
§. 5. While he gives us not the leaſt ſatisfaction of Infants Right, he tells us of difficulties on the other ſide; if we lay it on Parents (or Owners) right. And 1. He tells us of divers mens Opinions; which the Reader will be loth I ſhould digreſs to try, having done it ſo largly in my Chriſt. Direct. and Treat. of Right to Sacraments.
2. He nameth the qualification which I …rt, [A profeſſion of the Chriſtian faith not invalidated] and ſaith nothing to diſable it, but that Others will reject it. Others wild Opinions named, goes for my Confutation.
And now I deſire the Reader to ſee the Catalogue of the things we account ſinful in Conformity in my firſt Plea for Peace, and try how many of them the Doctor hath ſo much as meddled with: And whether he think by theſe few touches he hath proved either our Conformity lawful, or our Preaching unlawful, or our Communion with thoſe Chriſtians who are not of his mind herein unlawful.
If he ſay again, that he meddleth not with Miniſters Conformity but the Peoples, 1. Note, how he hath paſſed by even the greateſt things alſo in their caſe. 2. Whether he meddle not with the Miniſters caſe who ſeeketh to prove their preaching unlawful, and ſo perſwades them to be ſilent▪ 3. Whether their caſe ſhould not be ſo far meddled with, as to prove the things which they think ſinful to be lawful, or their preaching unneceſſary; before the endeavours uſed againſt them (well known) be juſtified as needful to the Churches Peace.