The Covenant of God Entered with Mankind, Chapter 59

The Covenant of God Entered with Mankind · Chapter 59

p. 468CHAP. LIX.

A Defence of the former Doctrine reſpective to the latitude of Infant-Baptiſme.

A Reverend Authour putting it to the Queſtion, Whether the Ministers of England are bound by the Word of God to baptize the children which ſay they beleeve in Jeſus Chriſt, but are groſſely ignorant, ſcandalous in their converſations, ſcoffers at godlineſſe, and refuſe to ſubmit at Church-diſcipline? determining it in the negative, a work moſt candidly carried on, muſt be ingeniouſly acknowledged, yet a work in which the Authour appears rather diffident, than confident, more in ſuſpition, than aſſured of the verity of his own tenent, or warranty of his preſent practice. Sometimes he conſeſſes himſelf at a diſadvantage, and comes very weakly off it, page 13. Sometimes he calls for better fingers to untie the knot that he meets with, page 32. Sometimes he even yeelds all, as the ſtate did ſtand not onelyonly with the Jewes, but alſo as it doth ſtand with us, though it ought de jure to be otherwiſe, page 34. Sometimes he profeſſes not to deny any infants, but to delay them, page 42. Sometimes he ſayes he had rather grapple with thoſe, who think he is too large, than with thoſe who judge him to be too ſtreight, page. 43. Suſpecting his errour (as indeed it doth) if Scripture may determine) to lie on that hand. I ſhall as briefly as may be take a view of it. He premiſes two things, page 1, 2. for the clearing of the queſtion.

Firſt, Premiſes two grounds, on which he builds his diſcourſe; 2. Puts the Queſtion as above; 3. Brings arguments ſor the negative, which I ſhall here take into conſideration.

Firſt, The infant that is to be baptized, if we conſider it in it ſelf as abſtracted from the parent, gives no reaſon for it ſelfe why it ſhould be baptized. This we willingly yield, the infant hath no independent title, the right claimed is in relation to the parents, and thence I inferre the infants right is ſomewhat, that parents can tranſmit to their children that gives the title, otherwiſe they might have regeneration from parents, as well as Baptiſme. It is not then inherent graces that we muſt look after, reſpective to p. 469the childes intereſt, but covenant-priviledge, covenant-holineſſe.

A ſecond ground is inferred from the former. All children then (ſaith he) are baptized by vertue of the parent, one or both, ever conſidering the childe in relation to the parent, being the branch of ſuch a root, and ſo I take in the childe together with the parent. Hence we ſay commonly, they must be children borne in the Church, that is, of ſuch parents as are members of the Church, being a ſociety of viſible Saints joyned together, by way of covenant, to exerciſe an holy communion with God in Chriſt, and ſo one with another, according to the order of the Goſpel: for I preſume none are ſo ſottiſh to underſtand a Church to be that place which by a Metonymy of the ſubject we call a Church, nor the Pariſhes that men live in which never were of Ecoleſiaſtical conſtitution. I am utterly to ſeek what is meant by that place, which by a Metonymy of the ſubject we call a Church: our meeting places ſeeme to be intended, but few children are borne there; and the Authonr ſpeaks of a Church where children are borne.Covenant of Church-members either explicite or implicite. For the covenant of which he ſpeaks one with another, according to the order of the Goſpel, which he ſeemes to underſtand of a Congregational Church, conſtituting covenant, and puts into the definition of a Church; this ſhould not have been premiſed, but proved. His adverſaries in this thing, know no ſuch explicite covenant. If an implicite one will ſerve, then the Pariſh inhabitants (which he ſayes were never of Eccleſiaſtical conſtitution) are all in covenant; Men that profeſſe God in Chriſt, and by vertue of conveniency of habitation, joyne in one, in the worſhip of God, in the uſe of Ordinances, tacitely and implicitely are in covenant together, and we take it to be no ſottiſh thing to eſteeme theſe as Churches. If this be his meaning, to aſſert onelyonly an implicite covenant, where he ſayes page 3. (This rule warrants any Miniſter comfortably to adminiſter that Ordinance, Here is a parent, one or both viſibly in covenant with God, and a viſible member of Chriſts Church; I do therefore adminiſter the ſeal of the covenant unto this infant by vertue of this parent, according to that Command given to Abraham, the father of believers, with whom when the Lord entered into covenant, and laid the foundation of the Church viſible in his family, he took his ſeed into covenant with him, and commanded that they with him ſhould keep that p. 470Seale of his covenant,) we freely conſent, and then the queſtion is determined in the affirmative; I am ſure the Church of the Jewes took in ſuch by circumciſion, that ſome would exclude from Baptiſme. In caſe he meanes an explicite Church-covenant, over and above the covenant of grace, as the Jewes had no ſuch way, ſo neither had the Apoſtles or primitive Chriſtians. Thoſe converts, Acts 2. did not that firſt day of their converſion before their Baptiſme ſet up Congregational Churches with officers,The Apoſtles and primitive Chriſtians knew no explicite Church-Covenant. they dwelt in many remote places at great diſtance (whither they were to returne to their reſpective families,) and therefore could not in this way embody themſelves, in one diſtinct ſociety for exerciſe of diſcipline. Aſſoon as the Eunuch by Philips preaching of a Jewiſh proſelyte, is made a Chriſtian Diſciple, he ſaith to Philip, See, here is water, what doth hinder me to be baptized? Acts 8. 36. Had Philip underſtood a neceſſity of confederation into a Church-way, over and above the covenant of grace before Baptiſme, he had doubtleſſe informed him; and as Chriſt ſent the Leper that he had cleanſed, to ſhew himſelfe to the Prieſt, and offer the gift that Moſes had Commanded, Matth. 8. 4. ſo Philip would have obſerved the Goſpel-order appointed, and have ſent him to ſome particular conſtituted viſible Church, upon his covenant to have been received, and not hand over head, upon his bare profeſſion that he beleeved that Jeſus Christ is the Sonne of God, baptized him. When the Gentiles had received the Holy Ghoſt, Peter ſaid, Acts 10. 47. Can any man forbid water, that theſe ſhould not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghoſt as well as we? had there been any ſuch rule of a Church-covenant, orderly to have preceded, he might eaſily have ſeen that any man, upon that account might have forbidden it. Paul had made much more haſte (as I may ſay) than good ſpeed, Acts 16. In baptizing the Jaylour and his houſhold, in caſe Jeſus had ſet down an order of a preconfederation into a particular Church-ſociety. Maſter Bartlet in his model of the Congregational way, ſaith, that thoſe particular inſtances which are produced by divers reverend Divines, of the Eunuch, Centurions, Jaylours Baptiſme, though not belonging to any particular Church againſt what we have laid down, are of little force and validity, in regard that which was done to thoſe perſons was by the hands of extraordinary officers, that were not tied to particular p. 471Churches, as ordinary Paſtours and Teachers were then, and ſtill are. But theſe perſons whom they thus baptized, were not perſons in any ſuch extraordinary capacity, and they muſt come in, in a Goſpel-way. This might have priviledged the Leper cleanſed by Chriſt, from offering his gift appointed by Moſes, as well as it could priviledge theſe new Converts from any covenant-way appointed by Chriſt; and the Eunuch ſaith, What doth hinder me to be baptized? without mention of any ſpecial priviledge of an officer extraordinary, in a way otherwiſe irregular. And the like we may obſerve in the ſpeech of Peter. (2.) They ſhould ſhew us where, when, and by what authority, any ordinary Paſtours and Teachers tied themſelves to ſuch an order, to bring men into a Congregational Church-way, and to baptize into ſuch particular Church Congregational, and not into the univerſal Church viſible. (3.) Thoſe of his judgement, may do well to give us their thoughts of their own Baptiſme. They had no independant right all their right was in relation to their parents. Their parents were not (as we conceive) thus in any particular Church federation, perhaps they were no fit perſons in their judgement for admiſſion, neither were they baptized by the hands of extraordinary Officers. If their Baptiſme was null, then they are yet to be baptized; if valid, they had then title to Baptiſme, and others in their condition are entitled. (4.) Then it is in the power of man, at pleaſure to keep parent and childe from the priviledge of Ordinances, to have them paſſe as Heathens and Infidels, yea believing godly men and their children at their courteſie, muſt be reputed either of the number of dogges or of children, this cannot be denied. The majority of theſe have power at pleaſure of admiſſion of members. And to be no Church-member (with them) is the ſame as to be a Turke, or Indian, page 9. And how different their judgements are, who are fit to be received, and who are to be denied, is evident. Some of no obſcure note have affirmed, though minded, be contrary minded, that to render a man capable of admiſſion into Church-memberſhip, grace is not ſufficient, but he muſt have expreſſions, and ſo a fathers ſlow tongue, ſhall exclude his childe from admittance into the fellowſhip of the Saints; when upon the other hand upon the bare account of his fathers glib tongue, (though there be ſcarce another commendable quality) another may be received, p. 472when theſe are not judged worthy of fellowſhip, who are not of abilities to ſit in judgemeut with the Congregation, to admit members, to paſſe ſentence upon delinquents, to judge of Doctrines, not only to elect, but to ordain Paſtours and Church-Officers, we may eaſily gueſſe how many they exclude as without, whom Chriſt receives. Such a way had it been taken, had deprived the Church of an Hezekiah, Joſiah, and many others in their age renowned; How great a provocation is this to ſuch children when once of growth to joyne with them with whom the Church rancks them? and to oppoſe with the uttermoſt of fury, ſuch that (after the revolution of ſo many generations inheriting that priviledge) now do debarre them? And how great an encouragement to joyne with ſuch in all holineſſe, with whom they are honoured with theſe priviledges?

As to the ſecond, whether the Miniſters of England are bound by the Word of God to baptize their children which ſay they beleeve in Jeſus Chriſt, but are groſſely ignorant, ſcandalous in their converſations, ſcoffers at godlineſſe, and refuſe to ſubmit to Church-Diſcipline. Our Authour puts a Queſtion, What parent do you mean; the immediate parent onelyonly, or the predeceſſors? For ſuppoſe the immediate parent be as your queſtion mentions; yet it may be the Grand-father, or ſome of the predeceſſors have been godly. And farther ſayes, I perceive diverſe of our Divines help themſelves here, and ſome in diſcourſe are content to loſe that ground of the immediate parent, and flie to this. Though I ſee no reaſon that any ſhould fly hither, in hope of help, yet it is ſtrange to me that he ſhould ſtand for the immediate parent, excluding all mediate predeceſſours, who hath ſaid enough for their power in giving of this intereſt to the children. He ſayes, I do adminiſter the Seale of the covenant unto this childe by vertue of this parent, according to that Command given to Abraham, the father of Beleevers, with whom when the Lord entered into covenant, and laid the foundation of the Church viſible in his family, he took his ſeed into covenant with him, and commanded that with him they ſhould keepe that Seale of his covenant, When God tooke Abraham into covenant and his ſeed with him, it was not onelyonly his immediate ſeed, but the iſſue of his fleſh at the greateſt diſtance, Gods covenant with Abraham, Iſaac and Jacob, is mentioned in p. 473Gods apparition to Moſes, Exod. 3. 6. and was pleaded by Moſes in his interceſſion with God for Iſrael, Exod. 32. 13. Moſes then, and all Iſrael were in this confederation of Abraham, yea all Iſrael in ſucceeding ages, Levit. 26. 42. When the worſt of Jewes make that plea, that they are Abrahams ſeed, the Lord Chriſt yields it, John 8. 37. and the Apoſtle concludes a holineſſe in the whole body upon that account, that the root at ſuch a diſtance, Abraham, Iſaac and Jacob, were holy, Rom. 11. 16. I know not how we can bottome any thing upon the grand Charter of God, made to Abraham, and exclude the mediate parent from all power to conferre this intereſt upon poſterity. When Jacob calls Ephraim and Manaſſeh by the name of ſonnes. Gen. 48. 9. as a father gives his bleſſing to them, putting his name, and the names of his fathers, Abraham and Iſaac upon them, ver. 16. and 20. were they not to be reckoned for the ſonnes and ſeed of Jacob? doth not their mediate Parent, as well as Joſeph their immediate Father, conferre an intereſt on them? Mr. Hooker was before our Authour in this tenent, and his grounds are fully anſwered by Mr. Caudrey, Mr. Firmins reaſons and his replies to them.in his Diatribe, concerning infant-baptiſme. I ſhall onelyonly take into conſideration our Authors Reaſons.

Firſt, 1.he yields that England had Christians in Primitivetimes. Thouſands of Martyrs under Diocleſian, but after the waters grew brackiſh at Rome, and brings it to us in England; we held (ſaith he) the name Chriſtianity under the Romiſh yoke, till of late the State threw it off, and then the people following the State concluding, I doubt not but God had his number in thoſe dark times; but what were thoſe few in compariſon of the body of the people, or predeceſſours, ſince the time of the Goſpel reſtored to its purity; God hath wonderfully appeared in England; but thoſe who uſe the argument of predeceſſours runne very high.

Anſw. 1. If the waters grew brackiſh at Rome, ſo that they gave their ſent hither; ſo did the waters of Judea and Jeruſalem grow as brackiſh, yea, and of a worſe ſavour in the dayes of Ahaz; and at thoſe times when they brought forth children to God and gave them to Moloch, Ezek. 16. 20.

2. Neither do we look ſo farre back (when we look back as farre as Diocleſian) as the Jewes in Chriſt time; as Paul that p. 464looked as farre as Abraham in his time: yea, himſelf ſtayes not till he come up to him, we are not neceſſitated to look ſo high. A pedigree in a ſhorter line as to this purpoſe will ſerve our turne; we are not tied to make it out that our Progenitors were really godly, to conferre ſuch covenant-intereſt upon us. Primitive-Chriſtians were admitted upon the account of Profeſſion, by our Authours confeſſion, and not upon the account of reality of godlineſſe, and they gave their poſterity intereſt. We ſee how much reverend Maſter Hooker. ſpeaking the opinion of his party, gives to the Churches connivance, negligence, or indulgence in this thing: If the Church (ſaith he) either through connivance, negligence, or indulgence ſhall tolerate ſuch evils, and evil perſons in that ſtate of Church-memberſhip, they cannot then deny them the priviledge of Members. And I dare attribute as much to Gods connivance, his indulgence, and long ſuffering; Till he ſue out a bill of divorce, and openly caſts a people off, (that they be none of his Kingdome, or called by his name,) they are in covenant, and their children with them. It ſeems Maſter Hooker judges that the Church may thus connive without ſinne; ſeeing he diſtinguiſheth between connivance, indulgence, and negligence. I am ſure God may, out of juſt prerogative; And to have the line broken off, aſſoon as the power of godlineſſe, in a race declines, is to be infinitely above God, rigorous, and ſevere, and the ready way to bring in a ſtrange and monſtrous confuſion. He goes on, and ſayes he will a little conſider the Text in reference to them; and then inſtances in that in the ſecond Commandment, ſhewing mercy unto thouſands, of them that love me, and keep my Commandments, as though that were the alone Text we had, to reſt upon. Though much might be ſpoke by way of Animadverſion of his Anſwer, yet I forbeare. Uſe may be made of that Text, to evidence that it is no unreaſonable thing to carry on a priviledge ſo farre, from generation to generation, and an eaſie reply made to moſt that he hath ſpoken; Yet I build not a formal Argument upon it, therefore I ſhall not ſpend time in it. His ſecond, third and fourth Argument come in to fill up his Comment on that Text,2, 3, 4. and therefore might have been anſwers, not Arguments.

Fifthly,5. he ſayes, that Text, 1 Cor. 7. 14. ſeemes to tie the p. 465federal holineſſe of the childe to the immediate parent; doth not ſay, the child is holy, &c. by vertue of a great grandfather: And ſo it ſeemes to me alſo. Thoſe Corinthians being new Converts, their iſſue had none but immediate Parents, from whom they might claime their intereſt; and by whom they might be entitled. As the Parents themſelves did claime it from no Parents or Progenitours at all, their Anceſtours having no power to communicate it; Iſaac and Iſhmael had right of circumciſion onelyonly from their immediate Parent; Abraham had right immediately from God, Jacob and his poſterity had right from Parents, both mediate and immediate, and theſe Corinthians from their immediate Parents onelyonly, and their children from Parents mediate and immediate.

Sixthly, 6.He ſayes. If that promiſe doth give this power to predeceſſours, &c. then though there are none to educate this childe, (For the ignorant profane parents will not but teach them how to break the covenant; The predeceſſours cannot, they are dead, and are not;) yet we muſt ſeale to this childe, &c. Where do you ſee Churches take care of ſuch children? they muſt be of ſome bigneſſe, and underſtanding before the Church meddle with them; the immediate profane perſon brings him up in ignorance and profaneneſſe, neither will take care to have his childe inſtructed by the Church, as experience witneſſeth too much? Anſw. I underſtand here the covenant-promiſe, as Acts 2. 39. by vertue of which theſe Jewes were children of the covenant Acts 2. 35. and not with limit to the ſecond Commandment; and then ſpeak to it.

1. Here is enough ſpoke to conclude the childes intereſt, in caſe he ſhall be taught to break covenant, then he is in covenant. An Indians childe breaks no covenant with God; And being in covenant, he is intereſſed in the priviledge of the covenant.

2. Let him make it up into formal Argument, and then it runnes thus. That childe whoſe immediate Parents will not bring it up in the power of godlineſſe, hath no right to Baptiſm. This, though it carry ſome fair ſhew, with thoſe that are not able to judge; yet it is evidently falſe, Thoſe that were witneſſe to themſelves, that they were the children of thoſe that killed the Prophets, were of the circumciſion, Matth. 23. 31. yea, thoſe that had crucified p. 466Chriſt, were in covenant with God, and their children in confederation, Acts 2. 39. That counſel of the Prophet, Zach. 1. 4. Be ye not as your fathers, unto whom the former Prophets have cryed, ſaying, Thus ſaith the Lord of Hoſts, Turne ye now from your evil wayes, and your evil doings, &c. might have been ſpared, in caſe none had been received as Members in covenant; but thoſe whoſe fathers took all care for their education in the power of godlineſſe, and Stephen might have ſpared his reproof, Acts 7. 51, 52, 53. or rather had runne upon a contradiction when he ſaid, Ye ſtiffe-necked, and uncircumciſed in hearts and eares, ye do alwayes reſiſt the Holy Ghoſt as your fathers did, ſo do ye. Which of the Prophets have not your fathers perſecuted? and they have ſlaine them which ſhewed before of the coming of the juſt One, of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers; who have received the Law by the diſpoſition of Angels, and have not kept it. They ſtood veſted with their children in that great prerogative, Rom. 3. 1. The caſe of ſuch children is ſad, but not deſperate: Though the Church cannot do the whole duty incumbent on a godly Parent, yet it takes care for the diſpenſation of thoſe Ordinances that are ſaving, and Scripture calls by the name of Salvation. I know ſome ſeeing the truth of title in ſuch children to the covenant, and conſequently to Baptiſme, and therefore dare not deny them; yet are ſo farre ſcandalized with this looſe education of children, that they will admit it onelyonly with this caution, that ſome undertake for their education; and ſo thoſe of looſe life, may have their children baptized; becauſe (ſay they) ſome difference ought to be put in all divine Ordinances, between the pure and impure for the comfort of the godly, the cenſure of the wicked, and the edification of all. But I wonder how this difference of pure and impure is ſeen between childe and childe, that is tendered to Baptiſm. As to covenant-holineſſe they are both equal, otherwiſe theſe mens undertaking would very hardly give them admiſſion; and as to real-holineſſe, neither have it, by communication from their Parents; otherwiſe (ſay they) the Ordinances of God cannot be kept without blot and pollution. I wonder what pollution theſe mean; I know none in children but Original ſin, and the childe of the beſt Parents is tainted with it; and let us take heed of buſying our ſelves with more care for preſervation of Ordinances, than ever God himſelf took about them. If theſe, thus borne, p. 467have no right at all, (I ſuppoſe) they ſhould not be admitted with any caution whatſoever. Maſter Cawdry obſerves (and ſeemes to be of that judgement,) that ſome think this proviſo to be too hard: I confeſſe, I am of that minde; If (notwithſtanding ſo ſad diſcomforts in ſuch Parents) infants ſtand veſted in any ſuch Birth-right-priviledge; why ſhould it be ſuſpended on the courteſie of ſuch undertakers? being by birth-intereſt Chriſtians, they muſt not on this account paſſe for Heathens. And how hard is it to impoſe ſuch a burden upon any that is not ready to adopt the iſſue as his owne? and in ſuch caſe, his undertaking upon that ground brings the charge of a father upon him. This will ſoone grow into the bare formality of former Suſceptors, God-fathers, and God-mothers, without any real advantage to the childe. If by education be meant, ſuch as a godly Parent ought to give, none will be found to do it. If onelyonly education in the way of a Chriſtian, as in oppoſition to Judaiſme, Heatheniſme, it needs not to be doubted, and that implies a covenant. What farther is deſired, muſt be leſt to the bleſſing of God, by providence on Ordinances. The want of piety in the Parent is ſupplied by the piety of the Church, into which the infant is received.

Seventhly, 7.ſaith he. If the Predeceſſour may by this promiſe give right to Baptiſme, without the immediate Parent; then I pray you tell us how farre we may go for this Predeceſſour? how many generations? Where hath Gods Word limited Miniſters, you may go to this Predeceſſour, and no farther? 1. I know few that ſay the Predeceſſour gives right, without the immediate Parent, but all concurre in a joynt way to communicate a covenant-intereſt; but his queſtion may have an eaſie anſwer.

2. I demand in titles of Honour, and inheritance of Lands, which men claime by deſcent from their Anceſtors, where it is that they ſtay? It will be ſoon anſwered that they ſtay, when they can riſe no higher, to finde any other Predeceſſours veſted in ſuch honours, or ſuch inheritance. Some can make no claim at all from Parents, they are the firſt of their houſe, of honour or inheritance. This was the caſe of Abraham, he had no intereſt from Terah; ſuch was the caſe of the Primitive Converts, and ſuch is the caſe of the Indians, that now by a gracious providence are converted by the Engliſh. Some can go no farther p. 468then their immediate Parents; they were the firſt in honour, or that gained an inheritance to their houſe. This was the caſe of Iſaac, and of thoſe children called by the Apoſtle, holy, 1 Cor. 7. 14. and will be the caſe of the children of the Indian Converts, Others can riſe to the third or fourth generation; others can go as high as the Conqueſt; ſome can claime beyond the Conqueſt, by deeds beyond date: ſo it is with ſome Chriſtians, all may go as high as Anceſtours have been in Chriſtianity.

Eightly, 8.If by vertue of that promiſe Predeceſſours may without the immediate parent give right to Baptiſme, then the children of an immediate parent apoſtatized from the Faith, and excommunicated from the Church, may be baptized.

I have ſpoke already to the children of Apoſtates,The intereſt of infants of excommunicate perſons in Baptiſme. and as to the children of excommunicate perſons, I readily yield his concluſion, that I may baptize them, againſt which, he thus farther reaſons.

If I may baptize the children of an excommunicate parent, then I may baptize the children of one who is no Member of a Church, (for ſo is the excommunicate perſon); ſo conſequently the children of a Turk or Indian, for they are no members of a Church, and the excommunicated perſon is no other, in reſpect of his communion in Church-priviledges.

I anſwer, if excommunication be onelyonly out of a particular viſible congregation (as ſome ſay,) then the reply is eaſie, being thus excommunicate his right, in the Church univerſal viſible, ſtill remaines, and into this, it is that we admit Members by Baptiſme, 1 Cor. 12. 13. otherwiſe a Chriſtian were a Chriſtian reſpective onelyonly to one congregation, and that congregation falling, his Chriſtianity muſt fall with it; and being taken into a new one, he muſt be alſo admitted-anew by Baptiſme.

But I farther anſwer. A Church-Member may be conſidered, either quoad jus ad rem, or quoad jus in re; either reſpective to a fundamental proper right, or a preſent perſonal actual fruition of his intereſt. An excommunicate man in the former ſenſe is a Church-Member, not in the later; This excommunication is a ſequeſtration, not a confiſcation. He himſelf is ſuſpended from p. 469preſent benefit, not cut off from all title, as ſeveral wayes may be made to appear.

1. The Text ſaith, Let him be as an Heathen or a Publican (in reſpect of ſociety with him or familiarity, ſaith Maſter Cawdrey, Diatribe pag. 218.) not an Heathen and Publicane. That Text, 2 Theſ. 3. 14. is ordinarily underſtood of Excommunication; yet there the caution is added, Count him not as an enemy, but admoniſh him as a brother, verſ. 15. A brother is a Church-member, an excommunicate perſon is a brother. That which is for cure, not only of the body, but of the member in particular, is not a total diſmembring: But this ſentence is for cure of the particular member, For the deſtruction of the fleſh, that the ſpirit may be ſaved in the day of the Lord, 1 Cor. 5. 5.aaHaec enim excommunicatio nou eſt iuſtar veneni, quod hoſti datur ad exitium, ſed medicina, quae fratri datur ad ſalutem. Excommunication is not like poyſon that is given to an enemy for death, but a medicine that is given to a brother for life, ſaith Gomarus in 2 Theſ. 3. 15. Certainly Gods caſting out of his Kingdome, Matth. 8. 12. taking away his Kingdome, Mat. 21. 3. removal of his Candleſtick, Rev. 2. 5. the breaking off from the Olive, Rom. 11. 17. is a ſentence farre above Excommunication. To let paſſe Authours of this minde, Zanchy, and Perkins, quoted by Maſter Firmin. The National Synod of France, 1583. The Divines of Geneva, Calvine, Dr. Ameſ. Danaeus, Brochman, quoted by Maſter Cawdrey, Diatribe, page 216. and examine it by reaſon. Either the excommunicate perſons ſin diveſts the childe, or elſe the Churches cenſure; But neither the ſin, nor the cenſure: Ergo. 1. Not the ſin as may appear, 1. By an Argument, ad hominem. Our Diſſenting Brethren (as we heard) allow the Baptiſme, notwithſtanding ſin before the ſentence of Excommunication; It is not then the ſin in their judgement that doth diveſt them. 2. By an Argument ad rem. No ſin but that of nature deſcends to poſterity; man tranſmits not his perſonal vices, neither fault nor guilt, no more than his graces. And for the ſentence that cannot reach the childe, I never read that Church-cenſures were like that plague laid upon Gehazi, to cleave to him and to his ſeed. In any legal proceeding, the childe is not to be puniſhed for the fathers fault; there was a Law againſt it, Deut. 24. 16. The fathers ſhall not be put to death for the children, neither ſhall the children be put to death for the fathers; every man ſhall be put to death for his own ſin; and Amaziah King of Judah is commended for obſervation of it, p. 470and (in his acts of juſtice) proceeding according to it, 2 Chron. 25. 34. and we read not that any Eccleſiaſtical cenſure ſhould tranſcend it. The child of a thief is not committed with him to priſon, & I ſee no reaſon that he ſhould be committed with him to Satan: I ſay then there is right to Baptiſm in the child of an excommunicate perſon▪ I wiſh our Brethren would ſtick here, & not refuſe thoſe children, whoſe parents are under no Excommunication.

As to the third, our Authour; 1. Premiſes a queſtion, Whether is this bare profeſſion of Faith in Chriſt, (though Parents be groſſely ignorant, ſcandalous, and refuſe to ſubject to Church-diſcipline) ſufficient to make a man, and continue him a Member of the Church viſible. And then proceeds to arguments, as to his queſtion; I wonder how he can imagine that it makes any thing to his queſtion; and in caſe it were wholly yielded him, whether thence he could draw his concluſion, that Miniſters in England ſhould not baptize the infants of all that profeſſe the Faith in Chriſt Jeſus. He confeſſeth in this queſtion he hath diſadvantage. For if a man be looked upon (ſaith he) as a viſible Saint, and reputed a Member of a true Church; if that Member be very ſcandalous, and the Church let him alone and not deale with him, that perſon may challenge any Ordinance in the Church, both Baptiſme and Lords Supper. But I conceive ſuch a perſon is not ſufficiently qualified to make a Member of a Church, nor ought to be continued a Member of the Church; but the Church ought to ſeek to reforme him, or if not to caſt him out: ſo that if the Church will let ſuch a perſon alone, and give him theſe Ordinances, there will be guilt charged upon that Church.

Here, is his acknowledgement that they are continued Church-Members, though they ſhould not be continued, and ſee what he hath further; It is true, the wicked Jewes being members of that National Church, ſo long as their Memberſhip held; they might challenge circumciſion, ſo for wicked perſons ſo long as they continue members, and the Church lets them alone, they may challenge Baptiſm, and ſo upon his own grounds, they may of right challenge it, and Miniſters then muſt needes do wrong in caſe they deny it, and ſo in all mens judgements, the queſtion is concluded in the Affirmative; yea, ſhould the Church paſſe to the higheſt of her cenſures, through all that is allowed to the higheſt top, yet ſtill the perſon under cenſure continues in a fundamental p. 471right of Memberſhip, though debarred of preſent fruition, and ſo their infants entituled, as we have ſeen, to Baptiſme. His Arguments are worthy of examination, in which he concludes ſuch a one is not fit to be a Member.

Firſt, Arguments to carry the queſtion in the negative anſwer.Members of Churches according to the Goſpel are Saints viſible: But ſuch a perſon as the queſtion mentions, is not a viſible Saint: Ergo. The Minor he proves, Such as will ſay that ſuch a perſon as the Queſtion mentions is a viſible Saint, I thinke his eyes are not good. He that tells me, the Saints which Paul mentions in thoſe places were no other than ſuch a perſon as is in the Queſtion, he muſt pardon me, though I beleeve him not.

Anſw. Viſible Saint, is taken, either in regard of Separation for, and dedication to God, or for real qualifications according to the power of godlineſſe, in the firſt ſenſe, ſuch are real Saints, that he mentions and rejects, in which ſenſe we have ſhewn [Saint] to be frequently taken, and ſuch were moſt of the Members of the Church of Sardis, there being few that had not defiled their garments, and many ſuch in the Church of Corinth: In the ſecond ſenſe (and I know not a third) his eyes are better than mine, that can determine concerning them. Inward graces onelyonly make a real Saint, and theſe to me are inviſible: if he meanes ſo far as mens judgements can upon any fair ground conclude that they are ſuch, then the Apoſtles will be involved in our guilt, who hand over head admitted members the ſame day they were converted, being in foul ſins, and never ſtaying time to make judgement of the hopeful truth of their graces. Paul calls all thoſe that he perſecuted, Saints, Acts 26. 10. So doth Ananias, Acts 9. 13. all thoſe for whom after converſion he ordered and made Collections 1 Cor. 16. 1. And theſe were ſome of them as bad as any that in his Epiſtles he reproves.

Secondly, If a bare profeſſion in Christ be ſufficient to make a member of a Church, then no perſon can juſtly be excommunicated out of a Church for the vileſt ſins or hereſies, provided he doth but hold this profeſſion of his faith, the conſequence is cleare, the perſon is the ſame which he was when you took him into the Church. The conſequence is clearely erroneous: for he made a profeſſion of his faith, and not of ſin, as we ſee in Simon Magus.

Thirdly, He that manifestly oppoſeth Chriſt in his viſible Kingdome, p. 472is not fit to be a member of a Church. But ſuch a perſon as the queſtion mentions doth manifestly oppoſe Chriſt in his viſible kingdome. Ergo, Not fit to paſſe without cenſure, ſhould have been added: but whiles he acts rebellion, he profeſſeth ſubjection and in the Apoſtles language is a profeſſor, Tit. 1. 2. Having thus made way he propounds ſeveral Arguments, that Miniſters by the Goſpel are not to baptize the children of ſuch Parents.

We come now to our Authours arguments; Firſt, Such perſons as de jure ought, and de facto are excluded by godly Miniſters from the Lords Supper, ought alſo to be excluded from their childrens Baptiſme; But ſuch perſons as the Queſtion mentions de jure ought, and de facto are excluded from the Lords Supper: Ergo. The Major is proved, If Baptiſme doth ſeale to the ſame covenant which the Lords Supper doth, and doth ſignifie and ſeale as great bleſſings and priviledges as the Lords Supper doth, then thoſe who are excluded from the Lords Supper, ought alſo to be excluded from the…r childrens Baptiſme: But the Antecedent is true: Ergo. The Conſequent. This is Maſter Blackwoods argument to keep infants from Baptiſme, becauſe they are kept from the Supper: And if it be of any validity to ſerve our Authors turn, it is of as great force for Maſter Blackwood; Give me leave in Maſter Blackwoods behalfe to urge it in this manner, with the leaſt change of words that is poſſible: If Baptiſme doth ſeal to the ſame covenant which the Lords Supper doth, and doth ſignifie and ſeale as great bleſſings and priviledges as the Lords Supper doth: then thoſe that are excluded from the Lords Supper ought alſo to be excluded from Baptiſme; But all infants are excluded from the Lords Supper eo nomine, becauſe they are infants; and therefore they are to be excluded from Baptiſme. When Maſter Firmin hath given a faire and full anſwer to this Syllogiſme, he may eaſily fit it to his own, to give like ſatisfaction. An infant in covenant may be admitted by that ſigne and ſcale, in the uſe of which he is meerely paſſive, and yet be kept back on the account of his infancy, from that ſign and ſeale, which the Participants muſt actually improve for their ſpiritual benefit, and conſequently a Parent may put a preſent bar to his actual admiſſion (by reaſon of preſent guilt) to the one, when his innocent infant can put no barre to his admiſſion to the other. The Parent ſtands de jure p. 473entituled, when for the preſent he may be for his ſpiritual benefit de facto ſuſpended. Another reverend Authour hath made uſe of this argument from the uniformity of the ſervice of God in general, and in particular from the uniformity in the Sacraments to another purpoſe; not to exclude any infants at all who deſcend from Chriſtian Parents, from Baptiſme, but for admiſſion of all viſible Church-Members, not under the ſentence of Excommunication, to the Lords Supper. As one from the ſuſpenſion of Parents from the Lords Supper would conclude the ſuſpenſion of infants from Baptiſm; So, the other from the admiſſion of all infants without difference to Baptiſm, would infer, not onelyonly a juſt warranty, but alſo a neceſſity of anſwerable admittance of their Parents to the Lords Supper: Let our Independents (ſaith he) anſwer, Why do you allow a Syntax in the ſervice of God beſides, and bring in a Quae genus of Anomales and Heteroclites onelyonly at this Ordinance? let ſome of our Presbyterians anſwer how can we admit of children as members of the viſible Church being borne of Chriſtian parents unto Baptiſme, and yet turne away the parents of thoſe children from the Sacrament? Thoſe that have gone about to anſwer this, had better haply have ſaid nothing: for our free courſe of Baptiſme, and a denial of this is ſuch a ſeam-rent, as will never be handſomely drawn up, though ſtitcht together; nevertheleſſe in yielding the one, they have granted the other; As to this paſſage, I firſt marvel how this is laid to the charge of Independents, that they allow a Syntax in the whole ſervice of God beſides, and bring in Anomalaes and Heteroclites, onelyonly at this Ordinance; namely, the Lords Supper; when it is plain that they have as many Heteroclites in Baptiſme as the Lords Supper. And in both the Sacraments (as to thoſe that they judge admittible) they keep the form as whole as himſelf contends it ought to be kept, how many rents ſoever they may make beſides. The ſame latitude that they hold in admiſſion of parents to the Supper, they hold in admiſſion of children to Baptiſme. And for Presbyterians, their admiſſion of infants to the one, will by no meanes conclude them under any neceſſity of admiſſion of the parents to the other Sacrament; Nor on the contrary will their ſuſpenſion of parents, conclude any neceſſity of like ſuſpenſion of infants; Every tub muſt ſtand on its own bottome, every one p. 474muſt beare his own burden; when parents divolve a covenant-title, they do not divolve a covenant-breach upon their children. And I deſire to know how he will keep up any ſuch uniformity that he contends for, according to that which I conceive to be his own opinion. Perſons under Excommunication are confeſſed to be uncapable of the Lords Supper; I deſire to learne whether that ſentence, cut off from the Church root and branch? Whether it be a ſentence perſonal or hereditary? I much miſtake my Authour, in caſe he will maintaine the latter, that that ſword is held out with ſo keen an edge, to lop off both parent and child; If he admit the former, than the ſame rent is made, of which he ſo much complaines. Presbyterians that keep thoſe perſons from the Sacrament as a degree of puniſhment in order to that ſentence of Excommunication (as they uſe to ſpeake) whom they judge to be in a way deſerving it, and admit their infants to Baptiſme, make no other manner of rent in the worſhip of God, than thoſe that keep back perſons under actual excommunication, and give the like admiſſion to infants. The ſtate of Parent and childe reſpective to the covenant is homogeneal. If the root be holy, the branch is holy, and ſo è contra, yet the parent by his miſdemeanour may incur that cenſure of which his infant is not deſerving. His argument ſhould run thus, If the guilty parent be debarred of a priviledge, then the innocent childe ought to be debarred likewiſe: me thinks a difference might be put between a ſcandalous parent that is active, and an innocent childe that is paſſive; a parent that cannot, will not improve it to his comfort, but to his judgement, and a child that cannot miſ-improve it; My Argument (ſaith he) runs upon the firſt ſuppoſition, that the childe brings nothing with it, conſidered as abſtracted from the parent, but it is the parent gives the right. And the parent conferres right in covenant, Though he breakes covenant, yet conferres not the tranſgreſſion of it; the Argument were as good that the childe muſt neceſſarily be admitted to the Lords Table, becauſe the father did worthily receive it. If it be ſaid, the father is worthy, ſo is not the childe; ſo we ſay, the father is unworthy of the one, i.e. tenders himſelf unworthy, and ſo doth not the child of the other.

p. 475The ſecond Argument. Such parents as if they themſelves were now to be baptized, ought not to be baptized, cannot juſtly challenge Baptiſme for their children, neither are we bound to adminiſter it. But ſuch parents as the Queſtion mentions, if they now were to be baptized, ought not to be baptized. Ergo. This argument is of the ſame ſtamp with the former, and needs no other anſwer, The parent hath contracted a great load of guilt, of which the infant is innocent; This argument well followed home might unbaptize a great part of thoſe that are of this judgement, and render all their priviledges in Church-Ordinances fruitleſſe, for want of a previous Baptiſme.

The third argument. If Miniſters in baptizing are bound to hold to their Commiſſion, then the children of ſuch parents as the queſtion mentions, are not to be baptized. But the Antecedent is true, none will deny that; Ergo. The conſequence is true. Miniſters by their Commiſſion, Matth. 28. 19 (foreign) are bound to baptize Diſciples, but theſe are no Diſciples, Ergo. My argument tends to this, If the parent be not a Diſciple, the childe is none: But ſuch a parent is none, Ergo. his childe is none. Here he ſayes, the Anabaptiſts triumph, and well they may, if there be any ſtrength in this argument. But (ſaith he) we can eaſily diſtinguiſh; and I ſay we can diſtinguiſh as eaſily. Diſtinctions ſufficient may be ſeen, chap. 38. where it is ſufficiently made good that theſe in queſtion are Diſciples, Diſciples as to the participation of Ordinances; Even a truantly untoward boy is of the number of Scholars, and, as he well deſerves the laſh, ſo he hath the priviledges of the School.

The fourth argument. To adminiſter the Seale of the covenant of grace to a child by vertue of him who is viſibly in covenant with Satan, muſt needes be a prophaning of the Ordinance. But to adminiſter Baptiſme to a childe by vertue of ſuch a one as the queſtion mentions, is to adminiſter the Seal of the covenant of grace to a child by vertue of one who is viſibly in covenant with Satan. Ergo. The minor is thus by him proved. A perſon groſſely ignorant in the fundamentals of Religion, his courſe of life, his trade is to live in ſinne, ſcandalous, &c. What ſhall we ſay of ſuch a one, though he doth not formally make a covenant with the Devil, &c.

p. 476To be viſibly in covenant, and formally enter no covenant, is little leſſe than a contradiction: put the argument into form. To adminiſter the Seale of the covenant of Grace to a childe, by vertue of him that is formally in covenant with God, and really does ſervice to Satan, muſt needs be a prophaning of the Ordinance; and then the weakneſſe of his argument will appeare viſible, and no viſibility of a covenant with Satan found. I do not know a man or woman in the world, whoſe childe I could refuſe on this account. Thoſe to whom our Saviour ſpeaks in the ſharpeſt language, Joh. 8. 44. You are of your father the Devil, and the luſts of your father ye will do, were men in covenant with God, and had their children initiated with the ſigne and ſeal of the covenant, he farther ſaith, I wonder how Miniſters pray, when they baptize the childe of ſuch a one, they cannot but have ſome eye to Gods covenant, and do we not mention ſo much to the Lord, that he having taken the parent into covenant with himſelfe, he doth alſo the ſeed of the parent, and ſo we plead the covenant, and a bleſſing, &c. but when a godly Miniſter ſhall carry the parent in his heart thus, doth not his heart check him, trouble him, in the thought of the parent? They may well pray that God will make his Ordinances (through his Spirit) of power, that the infant of a covenant-breaking father, may be a covenant-keeping childe, that ſuch an Abaz in covenant, and breaking covenant, may have an Hezekiah keeping covenant; ſuch an Ammon, a Joſiah, and this without the leaſt check of conſcience. This is frequently heard of God, and prayers for the children of godly parents frequently denied: David hath an Ammon and Abſalom, Jehoſhaphat a Jehoram and Joſiah a Jehoaz; Their conſcience would infinitely more check them, (if the word regulate their conſciences) when providence conferres priviledges of Ordinances on ſuch an infant to be received where ſalvation is, upon ſo weak, and as to Scripture unheard of plea, as his fathers tranſgreſſion to keep it out.

For a fifth Argument. He hints two things which he would have ſeriouſly taken into examination, though he ſayes he will not put them into form. 1. How exceedingly this Ordinance is ſleighted, abuſed through this heedleſſe adminiſtring of the Ordinance; for we ſee perſons never minde the Ordinance p. 477beforehand, nor after: But come let us have our children baptized, and that is all; if they can make a feaſt, and drink after it, that is well. This is the argument of Anabaptiſts againſt infant-Baptiſme; Becauſe ſome Reverend Divines complaine that few improve their Baptiſme received in infancy, to any ſpiritual advantage to their ſouls, therefore it is in vaine to Baptize infants. One is like the other, in Ordinances of God, to reaſon from the abuſe, to the caſting of them aſide. Nonſingers of Pſalmes (which himſelfe profeſſes to oppoſe) may reaſon in this ſort, and upon like ground ſome have warned men out of Chriſt not to pray, they ought to forbeare till they are in Chriſt. And when a natural man bleſſes God for a good crop, that it were as good that he curſed him. If men were diſpoſed to wrangle, here doubtleſſe were more colour againſt ſuch mens performances of duties, in which onelyonly themſelves are intereſſed, than againſt parents tender of their infants to an Ordinance, in which of right they are entitled, though they lay not to heart a right and pious way of performance of it. Beſides, (ſaith he) it is ſtrange to ſee how we jumble the moſt holy and prophane men together; If Maſter Greenham, Maſter Perkins, Maſter Rogers, Maſter Dod, or whom you will, ſhould come and bring their children to be baptized, let the moſt ignorant ſot, drunkard, ſwearer, uncleane perſon, ſcorner of godlineſſe, &c. come, he ſhall have his childe baptized as well as they. Have they their children taken into covenant? ſo have I ſayes the drunkard, ſwearer, &c. ſhall we owne all theſe men alike under the covenant ſo as to give the ſeale of the covenant a like to all? This many a time hath been in my thoughts, and in nothing did I ever receive more full ſatisfaction, Not one of theſe holy men, would have made any ſuch complaint, and in caſe the children of ſuch ſhould meet in this Ordinance, I could as eaſily difference them by their viſage and features, as I could reſpective to their ſeveral intereſts or priviledges. Parents are in covenant with God, as long as they keep up the name and profeſſion of Chriſtians; the one with all care walks up to the termes of the covenant, and the other are as looſe and careleſſe in it: Maſter Greenham, Maſter Perkins could not tranſmit to their children their graces; Neither do theſe tranſmit their perſonal wickedneſſe: Look into the Common-wealth of Rome, and call p. 478out the moſt deſerving Patriots, ſet againſt them Verres, Catiline, or who you will, freedome of birth, intereſt in native priviledges is like to the iſſue of either, and ſo it is in the Church of God, the Common-weale of Iſrael: and it can be no otherwiſe; if there be any priviledge divolved from parent to childe; And when this falls, infant-Baptiſme falls together with it; nothing in the childe (as our Authour well obſerves) without relation to the parent can give any intereſt.