A Sober Answer to a Serious Question, Title page – Publishers advertisement
A Sober ANSWER, TO A Serious Queſtion. PROPOUNDED By Mr. G. Firmin Miniſter of the Church in Shalford in Eſſex. viz. Whether the Miniſters of England are bound, by the Word of God, to Baptiſe the children of all ſuch Parents, which ſay, they believe in Jeſus Chriſt; but are groſly Ignorant, Scandalous in their Converſation, Scoffers at Godlineſs, and refuſe to ſubmit to Church-diſcipline, The Negative is not ſufficiently defended. Which may ſerve alſo as an Appendix to the Diatribe with Mr. Hooker, lately publiſhed, concerning the Baptiſme of Infants, of Parents not confoederate.
By DANIEL CAVVDREY Paſtour of the Church at Great Billing in Northampton-ſhire.
Mark 10.14.
Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of ſuch is the Kingdom of God.
Licenſed, Printed, and entred, according to order.
LONDON. Printed for Chriſtopher Meredith at the ſign of the Crane in Pauls Church-yard. 1652.
TO THE JƲDICIOƲS, BUT Indifferent Reader.
IT is (as the Reverend Authour of the Queſtion now before us, ſayes, in the very entrance of his Epiſtle to the Reader) a very ſad and uncomfortable ſtate of a diſeaſed Church, when the Phyſitians are at difference concerning the way of curing the Patient. This (as in other things, by others) is really exemplified in himſelf, and one Mr. Jeanes, in a Learned Tract of his, intitled, [The want of Church Government, no warrant for a total omiſſion of the Lords Supper] who both intending the Cure of their diſeaſed flocks, go clean contrary waies to effect it. He is ſo far from denying Children of the moſt Scandalous, the priviledge of Baptiſme, that he admits ſuch Parents to the Lords Supper, pleading the neceſsity of that Ordinance, and his own want of power to amend, or keep them away. Our Authour, on the other ſide, not onelyonly keeps ſuch Parents from the Lords Supper, but alſo denyes Baptiſme, the other Sacrament, to their children. The one way ſeems to ſome, to tend to the Prophanation of that Ordinance: The other to the diviſion, if not the deſtruction of the Church, by making all, at leaſt the greateſt part of the children of Congregations, little better then Infidels. And which of of theſe two wayes of Cure, is beſt, or worst, is hard to ſay. I ſhall ſay nothing at preſent of the former, but (with leave) ſomething of the latter, with as much mildneſſe and meekneſſe as I can; for he ſayes truly [He hath not ſo handled the queſtion, as to deſerve a ſharp anſwer, pag. laſt.] Had he ſeen (which I conceive, he hath not) a Tract lately come forth, called [The inconſiſtency of the Independent way with Scripture, and with it ſelf] he had found a Diatribe there with Reverend Mr. Hooker, about almoſt his very queſtion; which either might have prevented his publication, or have given him occaſion, to alter, or enlarge his thoughts, in ſome particulars; his grounds being moſt of them taken from Mr. Hooker, and the anſwers and arguments against him, falling full upon his own. The difference between them is not great, if any at all. The one, Mr. (Hooker) requires an Explicite Covenant; to make Church members, and allows no children of the moſt knowing and godly Parents, not confederate, the priviledge of baptiſme. The other ſeems to deny Baptiſme, onelyonly to the children of thoſe who are groſly ignorant, ſcandalous, &c. I ſay, he ſeems onelyonly to do this: For both he ſpeaks ſuſpiciouſly ſometimes, towards an Explicite Covenant, and his queſtion, as it ſtands in terminis, (not being at all explicated) if not rightly taken, may ſeem alſo to exclude the children of ſuch, as ſubmit not to Church-diſcipline, though knowing and godly. And pag. 9. of his Epiſtle, he requires expreſly (as a qualification of a member) [That he profeſſe his ſubjection to Diſcipline] which is Tantamount if not the ſame, with the Independents Explicite Covenant; yet herein he is to be commended, that he is not ſo rigide as they are, in his qualification, or admiſsions of members.
And ſeeing we are accidentally fallen upon the Explicite Covenant, I ſhall conſider what he ſayes of it, in his Epiſtle; though I might refer him to the Tract aforeſaid, where it is fully handled. In pag. 16. of his Epiſtle, thus he ſpeaks [Some Miniſters ſcorn the notion, that an explicite Covenant, is the form of a Church viſible; and ſome profeſſours are ſo rigid for it, that without it, they deny all Churches] of the later ſort, is Mr. Hooker himſelf, (though ſometime he grant an implicite Covenant ſufficient) for part 3. of his Survey pag. 11. he ſayes expreſly, [Non confoederate perſons, in their ſenſe are Non members of the Church, &c. and conſequently their children have no title to Baptiſme, (which is one of our Authours arguments in pag. 10. of his book, borrowed from Mr. Hooker part. …. p. 24.) whereby he unmembers, and unchurches all not ſo conſtituted. For my part, I ſcorn not ſuch a notion, but with Apollonius, and others, think it lawful, though not neceſſary, as the form to the being of the Church; the Impſicite being of it ſelf, confeſſed to be fully ſufficient. But I require a proof of the neceſſity of it. All that can reaſonably be ſaid, is but this, That it is very requiſite and expedient, in corrupted Churches, in a time of Reformation, to renew the Covenant with God; and that includes the Covenant of Paſtours and Members, and of Members one with onother, [To walk with God and one another in all relations] Our Authour himſelf ſeems to grant, the Implicite Covenant may ſerve to the eſſe. Formale; but then, in a manner recalls his grant again, when he ſayes there, [Though expliciteneſſe be not eſſential to the eſſe Formale of a Church, yet you will find it almoſt eſſential to the eſſe of a Government, &c. elſe when you come to exerciſe diſcipline, you will find ſome members explicitely ſtubborn, to ſpurn the Implicite Covenant, at their heels.] Truly they that are ſuch, can as well ſpurn the Explicite alſo. And in this Looſeneſſe, or rather want of Church-government, can remove from his Church, to another, and eaſe themſelves of his moſt Explicite Covenant. They (of whom he ſpeaks there) that [acknowledged diſcipline as an Ordinance, and ſaid to him, that if they had not promiſed him to ſubmit to diſcipline, he had no power over them] ſpake not aright. For by the Explicite Covenant of Chriſtianity, they were bound Implicitely to all Gods Ordinances, (of which this is one) and he had thereby power over them. And by the [Implicite conſent to Church-government, in that Implicite Covenant, which is in every Parochial Congregation, pag. 17.] they were bou…d to him, and he had power over them, though they did not explicitely promiſe him, to ſubmit to him: yea, that Covenant, both general of Chriſtianity, and ſpecial, in joyning with a Parochial Congregation, if he would improve it, and preſſe the obligation of it, upon his people, were ſufficient to perſwade them to ſubmit, and authorize him to exerciſe diſcipline upon them. See Review of Survey part. 2. p. 104 & 109. &c.But if people will be perverſe and obſtinate (at their perill be it) they can as eaſily caſt off the cords of his Explicite Covenant, as Sampſon did his wythes; yet pag. 17. he ſayes [How can this diſcipline be exerciſed, without a free conſent unto it, being this Church-relation, is not natural as (father and child) but free] when to my apprehenſion, he requires an Explicite Covenant, to make or admit a member, as Independents do. The truth is, as I conceive, that relation of Chriſtians one to another, is not free, but after a ſort, natural; and flowes as natural from the Covenant of Chriſtianity, or Regeneration, as that of father and child, brother and brother, from generation; as is more fully diſcourſed and cleared in the Tract aforeſaid. Ibid pag. 125. 126. &c.I ſhall not trouble his Epiſtle any further, but make bold, to make ſome Animadverſions upon his book, which may ſerve as an Appendix to the Diatribe there expreſſed.
There are lately Printed for Christopher Meredith at the Crane in Pauls Church-yard; Theſe Books.
MAſter Elton on the ten Commandments and Lords Prayer; formerly burnt by the Biſhops.
Doctor Dons (late Dean of Pauls) Sermon at the Lady Danvers funeral, with verſes of Mr. George Herbert, &c. 12.
Viccarſii Manuductio ad artem Rhetoricam. 12.
A Letter of Mr. Thomas Sheppards, late of New-England, ſent to R. Harlakenden of Eſſex Eſquire, removing four hindrances in Gods Worſhip.
Firſt, how one may be rid of an earthly carnal heart, ſold to the contentment of the Creature.
Secondly, of a proud heart which is unwilling to ſeek after, to wait upon or to ſtoop unto the Commands of God.
Thirdly, of a ſelf-ſeeking heart that eyes it ſelf, eſpecially in the beſt duties.
Fourthly, of a ſlighty heart of Gods hands in mercies and Judgements.
The ſtate of the Saints departed; Gods Cordial to Comfort the Saints remaining alive, a Sermon Preached at the Funeral of Miſtreſs Smithee Harlakenden, wife of William Harlakenden Eſquire, by R. Joſſelin.
The Chriſtian Centurions Obſervations, advices, and Reſolutions concerning matters, Divine and Moral, by Philip Skippon, Serjeant Major General, &c. Alſo two other books formerly publiſhed by the ſame Author. viz.
Firſt, A Collection of Promiſes.
Secondly, A true Treaſure, or thirty holy vowes, &c.
A learned and full anſwer to a Treatiſe entituled the Vanity of childiſh Baptiſme, &c. by William Cook Miniſter of Moxall in Warwickſhire.
Vindiciae Redemptionis in the Fannings and Siftings of Samuel Oates, his expoſition upon Matth. 13.44. by John Stalham, Paſtour of the Church at Terling in Eſſex. The Sum of a conference at Terling in Eſſex concernning Infants Baptiſme.
John Geeres Reply to Doctor Boughen, touching the Coronation oath; two books of his in defence of Infants Baptiſme, in anſwer to Mr. Tombs Objections.