The Unreasonableness of Separation, Part 3 · Section 36
This I mention,§. 36. because this Gentleman seems to look on it, as a more dreadful thing than the sign of the Cross. p. 6.For, having spoken of that, he addes, Nor is it in it self of less weight (perhaps 'tis of much greater) that in Baptism the Parents are not suffered to be Sponsors for their Children, but others must appear and undertake for them: p. 8.which he repeats soon after. And yet T. C. who saw as much into these matters, as any that have come after him, in the Admonitions declared, that this was a thing arbitrary, and left to the discretion of the Church. T. C.'s first Answer to W…itg. p. 13….And in his first Answer he saith, For the thing it self, considering that it is so generally received of all the Churches, they do not mislike of it. So that, on the same ground it seems, all o…er Protestant Churches may be scrupled at, as well as ours; and yet not only this Gentleman, but Mr. B. several times mentions this,Answ. p. 49. Plea for Peace, p. 143. 10…. as one of the grounds of the unlawfulness of the Peoples joyning in Communion with us: nay, he calls this, his greatest objection; and yet he confesseth,Defence of his Plea. p. 26. Plea for Peace, p. 149. that if the Sponsors do but represent the Parents, our Baptism is valid and lawful. Now where is it, that our Church excludes such a representation? Indeed by Canon 29, the Parents are not to be compelled to be present, nor suffered to answer, as Susceptors for their Children; but the Parents are to provide such as are fit to undertake that Office. Ratio Discip. Fratr. c. 3. Sect. 2.In the Bohemian Churches, there seems to be an express compact between the Parents and the Sponsors; but there is no declaration of our Church against such an implicit one, as may be reasonably inferred from the consent of the parties. For the Parents desire of the Sponsors undertaking such an Office for his Child is in effect transferring his own Right to them; and so they may be said to represent the Parents. If our Church had appointed the Sponsors without … against the consent of the Parents; then none cou… in reason suppose, that there was any implicit compact between them. But since they are of the Parents choosing, what they do in that office, is supposed to be with their full consent. If Baptism were solemnly celebrated as of old, at some certain seasons only, and indispensable occasions required the Parents absence, might not they appoint others to be Sponsors for their Children upon mutual consent and agreement among themselves? Our Churches not permitting the Parents themselves to be Sponsors is but like such an occasion of absence; and the intentention of our Church is not to supersede the obligation of Parents, but to superinduce a farther obligation upon other Persons for greater security of performance. If men be negligent in doing their duty, must the Church bear the blame, and this be pleaded for a ground of Separation from her Communion?
But there is something beyond this, which lies at the bottom of this scruple; viz. that the Childs Right to Baptism depends on the Right of the Parents, and therefore if the Parents be excluded, and only Sponsors admitted, the Children so baptized have no right to Baptism. For Mr. B.'s first Question is, Def. of the Plea. p. 25.which way the Child cometh to have right to Baptism, any more than all the Infidels Children in the world? And his next is, whether the Church of England require any ground of title in the Infant, besides the Sponsion of the fore-described God-fathers, and Gods general promise?
I answer, (1.) The Church by requiring Sponsors doth not exclude any Title to Baptism, which the Child hath by the Right of the Parents. For the Sponsors may be supposed to appear in a threefold Capacity. 1. As representing the Parents in offering up the Child to Baptism; and so whatever right the Parents have, that is challenged, when the Child is brought to be baptized. 2. As representing the Child in the Answers that are made in Baptism; which is a very ancient and universal practice of the Christian Church; for it was not only observed in the Latin Churches in S. Augustins time;Aug. ep. 23. and in the Greek Churches in S. Chrysostom's; Chrysost. in Psal. 14.and hath so continued ever since; but the Aethiopick and Armenian Churches do still observe it. 3. In their own capacity; when they promise to take care of the good education of the Child in the principles of the Christian faith; in the charge given to them, after Baptism. So that since one of these capacities doth not destroy another, they all succeeding each other, there is no reason to say that the Church doth exclude the right which comes by the Parents.
(2) If the Parents be supposed to have no right, yet upon the Sponsion of God-fathers, the Church may have right to administer Baptism to Children. Not, as though their Sponsion gave the right, but was only intended to make them parties to the Covenant in the Childs name and Sureties for performance. To make this clear, we must consider, that administration of Baptism, is one considerable part of the Power of the Keys, which Christ first gave to the Apostles, and is ever since continued in the Officers of the Church. By vertue of this Power, they have Authority to give admission into the Church to capable Subjects. The Church of Christ, as far as we can trace any records of Antiquity, hath alwayes allowed Children to be capable Subjects of Admission into the Christian Church; but lest the Church should fail of its end, and these Children not be afterwards well instructed in their Duty, it required Sponsors for them, Tert…l. de Baptismo. c. 18.who were not only to take care of them for the future but to stand as their sureties to ratifie their part of the Covenant which Baptism implyes. And the ancient Church went no farther as to the right of Baptism than this, for since the Power of the Keys was in the Church to give admission to capable Subjects; since the Catholick Church did alwayes judge Infants capable, there seemed to be no more necessary for their admission than the undertaking of Sponsors in their name. All this appears from S. Augustines Epistle, ad Bonifacium; where he saith (1.) That the Childs benefit by Baptism doth not depend upon the intention of those that offer him. For Boniface put the question to S. Augustin about some who offered Children to Baptism, not for any spiritual benefit, but for corporal health; notwithstanding this, saith S. Augustine, if the due form of Baptism be observed, the spiritual effect of it is obtained. (2.) That the Churches right is chiefly concerned in the baptism of Infants. For, saith he, the Children are offered to Baptism and the Spiritual Grace to be received thereby, not so much by those in whose arms they are carried (for so the Sponsors used to carry them in their right arms) as by the whole Society of the Faithful. Tota ergo mater Ecclesia quae in sanctis est facit, quia tota omnes, tota singulos parit: so that it is by the Churches right, that he supposeth them to receive baptism and the benefits by it. (3.) That there is no necessity, that the Parents themselves offer their Children. For he calls it a mistake to think that Children receive the benefit in Baptism, as to the remission of Original Guilt, or the account of their Parents offering them. For many are offered to Baptism by strangers, and slaves sometimes by their Masters. And when Parents are dead, Children are offered by such as take pity upon them; and sometimes Children exposed by Parents, and sometimes as they are taken up by holy Virgins, which neither have Children, nor intend to have any. (4.) That the Answers made by the Sponsors in Baptism in the name of the Child are a part of the solemnity of Baptism. Not as though the Child did really believe, yet it is said to believe on the account of the Sacrament which supposeth faith. For the Sacraments because of the resemblance between them and the things represented by them, do carry the name of the things represented; as, saith he, the Sacrament of Christs body after a certain manner is called his Body; and the Sacrament of his blood is called his blood, so the Sacrament of faith is called faith, i. e. the Baptismal Covenant supposing believing on one part, the Church supplies that part by the Sponsors, which cannot be performed by the Children. Thence he saith, ipsa responsio ad celebrationem pertinet Sacramenti, so that then the Church looked upon the Sponsors Answering, as a necessary part of the solemnity of Baptism. Thence S. Augustin elsewhere saith, Serm. 116. de Tempore.that the fide-jussores or Sureties did in the name of the Children renounce the Devil and all his Pomp and Works; and in another place he declares, that he would not baptize a Child without the Sponsors answering for the Child that he would renounce the Devil,De peccat. meritis & remiss. l. 1. c. 34. and turn to God, and that they believed he was baptized for the remission of sins.
(3.) Those who think themselves bound to baptize Children only by vertue of the Parents right, must run into many perplexing Scruples about baptizing Children, and be forced to exclude the far greater number of those that are offered. For, (1.) They are not well agreed, what it is which gives Parents a right to have their Children baptized; whether a dogmatical Faith be sufficient, or a justifying faith be necessary? If saving faith be necessary, whether the outward profession of it be sufficient? Whether that ought to be taken for a true profession which is only pretended to be a true sign of the mind, or that only which is really so? Whether profession be required for it self, or as a discovery of something further? Whether seeming seriousness in profession be sufficient, or real serio…sness be required? What we must judge real seriousness in profession, as distinct from inward sincerity? What contradiction may be allowed to make a profession not serious? Whether besides a serious profession it be not necessary to be a practical profession? and what is necessary for the judging a profession to be practical? Whether besides meer practical profession the positive signs of inward Grace be not necessary? And whether besides all these, actual confederation and joyning in Church Covenant be not necessary? And if it be, whether the Children of confederated Parents not being confederated themselves, can convey a right to their Children? About these, and other such like Questions, those who go upon the Parents Right are in perpetual disputes, and can neither give others, nor hardly themselves satisfaction about them. (2.) The consequence of this is, that they must baptize many with a doubting mind; and must exclude many more, than they can baptize. For Mr. B. saith,Preface to Right to Sacraments. if he took a dogmatical faith it self, or any short of justifying for the Title and necessary qualifications of them I must admit, I would baptize none, because I cannot know who hath that dogmatical faith, and who not. The like others are as ready to say, of his serious, voluntary, not prevalently contradicted, practical profession; or at least, that no man can baptize with a good Conscience, till he hath upon good evidence throughly weighed the lives of the Parents, and is able to pronounce that the actions of their lives do not prevalently contradict their profession. Others must reject all those in whose Parents they do not see positive signs of Grace; or are not actually confederated with them. And upon all these several bars to the Parents Right, how few Children will be left, that a man can baptize with a safe Conscience? Is not this now a more likely way to reduce the far greatest part of Christianity to Paganism than denying the lawfulness of Separation? Thus I have considered this main Scruple against the Vse of entitling and Covenanting Godfathers, as Mr. B. calls them; and have shewed how little reason there is to make use of this as so great an objection against our Churches, Communion.
As to kneeling at the Communion, I find nothing particularly objected against that deserving consideration,Conferen… first Part. which I have not answered in another place.