A Sober Answer to a Serious Question, Discourse

A Sober Answer to a Serious Question · Discourse

p. 1A Sober ANSVVER, TO A Serious Queſtion, Propounded and Publiſhed by G. F. Whether the Miniſters of England are bound by the Word of God to Baptize the children of all ſuch Parents which ſay, they believe in Jeſus Chriſt, but are groſly Ignorant, Scandalous in their converſations, Scoffers at Godlineſs, and refuſe to ſubmit to Church-Diſcipline?

The Negative is not ſufficiently defended.

BEfore I fall upon the Diſcourſe it ſelf, I ſhall take leave, a little to conſider the ſtate of the queſtion. And I deſire to be ſatisfied by the Reverend Authour, whether he intend, that all theſe qualifications in his queſtion, muſt meet joyntly in one man, or he meaneth it ſeparately, and ſingly of any one of them, as ſufficient to debarr his children Baptiſme. If joyntly, that all theſe muſt concur, he will hardly, or very rarely find all theſe together in one man. For a man may be groſly ignorant, and yet not of a ſcandalous converſation: Or very Scandalous, and yet very knowing, or both thoſe, and yet no p. 2profeſſed ſ…orner of Godlineſs. Or none of all thoſe, yet (not being convinced of the neceſſity of it) refuſe to ſubmit to Church diſcipline. If any one of theſe ſingly, will ſtrip him of that priviledge, then the laſt alone will do it, viz. [Refuſal to ſubmit to Church-diſcipline] be a man never ſo knowing, and godly in converſation. And then, I pray, what differs he from the Independents in their Explicite Church-covenant? This is the Reſolution of M. Hooker, whom our Author follows in moſt of his diſcourſe) Survey part 3, p. 11.[The pinch of the queſtion lyes here, whether perſons Non-confoederate (and ſo in our ſence not members of the Church) do entitle their children to the ſeal of Baptiſme, their parents (though godly) being yet unwilling to come into Church-fellowſhip] And he reſolves it Negatively, (as our Authour does, upon his grounds partly, and chiefly.) Inconſiſt. of Independ. way &c. part 3.But in that ſpecial ſence, the Diatribe is ready to give him ſatisfaction: as for the preſent queſtion before us, Mr. Hooker rejects it, as out of queſtion; for thus he writes; ibid. [Its not then the queſtion, whether wicked members, while they are tolerated ſinfully in the Church, they and their children may partake of the priviledges? for this is beyond queſtion, nor do I know, nor never heard it denyed by any of o…rs.] Had he lived till this time, he might have known, and heard of ſome of ours, (if not ſtill theirs) this queſtion negatively reſolved, and earneſtly (though modeſtly) defended. And to ſay the truth, this queſtion ſprings from his, and ſeems a reaſonable conſequence thereof; for if one refuſing onelyonly to ſubmit to Church-diſcipline, loſes this priviledge of Ordinances for himſelf and his, be he never ſo knowing and godly, it ſeems very reaſonable, that ſuch p. 3as were groſly ignorant, and ſcandalous in their converſation, &c. ſhould much more juſtly be debarred the ſame. If it is ſaid, theſe are Church-members, though ſinfully tolerated, but ſo are not thoſe that Refuſe to come into Church-fellowſhip: I anſwer,

1. Theſe are Church members alſo, at leaſt of the Catholike Church, as more then profeſſours onelyonly, true believers and godly, and therefore are (we think) unjuſtly debarred the priviledg of Ordinances, for themſelves and theirs not being convinced of the neceſsity of their Church-government; as is largely diſcourſed in the place aforeſaid.

2. We may ſuppoſe eaſily that ſome, that were from their Infancy Church-members, yet growing up are ſcrupled in the point of Church-diſcipline, and ſo not willing to ſubmit to it. Theſe alſo, are yet tolerated (I ſay not ſinfully) in the Church, and ſo ought not to be debarred the former Priviledges by his own principles.

3. Our Author, that hath ſtarted a new queſtion, (out of queſtion with M^r. Hooker:) oftentimes profeſſes, (as we ſhall hear anon) that the worſt of theſe tolerated (ſinfully) while tolerated, have right to Ordinances, for themſelves and theirs. And ſo the controverſie were at an end; This principle anſwers and overthrows all his Arguments. But becauſe, the former Diatribe with M^r. Hooker, may receive light, and ſtrength from this Conteſt; I ſhall take into conſideration, thoſe things, to which little is ſaid, in that Diſcourſe, as being then out of queſtion.

2His firſt premiſe is this; [The Infant abſtracted from the Parent, gives no reaſon why it ſhould be Baptized] To which (otherwiſe propounded by M^r. Hooker) we have p. 4anſwered already; Diatrib. 6. p. 18….and now explain our ſelves further, thus.

1. This is not rightly propoſed (of all children, or any whatſoever:) as appears, becauſe he ſpeaks indifferently of the child of a Turk, Indian, or Chriſtian, living together in a Pariſh, or place. A Miniſter, in ſuch a caſe, had reaſon to ask, whoſe child it is; becauſe two ſorts of the three, have no right to Baptiſme, for themſelves or theirs. But the queſtion intends to ſpeak onelyonly of Chriſtians children; for ſo it was propounded; not, whether a Miniſter at large in any place, but of England, where all are Chriſtians, and profeſſe to believe in Jeſus Chriſt: then, it is ſuppoſed he would not ask, whoſe it is in that reſpect, for it is not onelyonly Home, but a Chriſtian born.

2. If he would (as he may) ask the queſtion, when a Chriſtians child is brought to be Baptized, it is not to know whether he be ignorant, ſcandalous, not ſubmitting to Church-diſcipline, &c. or godly (ſuch queſtions were never asked till theſe laſt over-curious dayes) but that the Parent may be preſent, to undertake for the education of the child, in the true Religion.

3The ſecond premiſe, is this; [All children are Baptized by virtue of the Parent, one or both, conſidered in relation to them] This is Mr. Hookers ſecond premiſed concluſion; onelyonly reſtrained to the next Parents; which is intended by our Authour alſo: Ibid. p. 187.To which much hath been ſaid; and now we add.

1. This in effect, is the ſame with the former; That the Negative; the child brings nothing of it ſelf to Baptiſme; This the Affirmative; the Parent onelyonly gives it right thereto.

p. 52. It takes for granted (what is denyed) theſe two things. Firſt, that there is no way to admit a childe to Baptiſme, but Parental, by virtue of, and relation to the Parent. Secondly, and that not the pro-parent, or predeceſſours, but the next Immediate Parent, which are two queſtions, the firſt whereof, he medles not with at al.

3. In ſtating of this ſecond premiſe, he takes occaſion to define a Church; [A Society of viſible Saints joyned together, by way of Covenant, &c.] where two things are to me obſervable. 1. That he ſeems to own no Catholike Church, but a Particular Congregation; nor any members of a Church, but of ſuch a Church; For elſe a new queſtion may ariſe; whether a man converted to the Faith, but as yet confoederate with no particular Church, but (if of any) onelyonly of the Catholick Church, be to be reputed a Church member, and have any right to require Baptiſme for his child. 2. He requiring an explicite Covenant to ſuch a Church, ſeems not onelyonly to contradict himſelf, in his Epiſtle, where he grants an Implicite Covenant to be ſufficient, but alſo to un-Church moſt of our Engliſh Churches, for want of this Explicite Covenant, and conſequently to agree with the Independents, as in that point, ſo in this, in denying Baptiſme to any children, but of members explicitely in Covenant.

4Having premiſed thus, he infers this concluſion [upon this ground, all our Arguments againſt the Anabaptiſts ſtand; and if this be taken away, Infant Baptiſme muſt fall] To which I ſay; Our arguments againſt the Anabaptiſts ſtand not upon this ground only; But their Arguments againſt Infant Baptiſme, ſtand upon the notion of an Explicite Covenant, to be made by every one that is Baptized. p. 6And if we had no better ground, than an Explicite Covenant, our cauſe muſt fall. Diatrib. 6. p. 186.The difference is not great: The Anabaptiſts exclude children, becauſe they are not able to Covenant in perſon, in the Covenant of grace: The Independents exclude children of Parents not joyned to gether in a Church-Covenant, and ſo in their ſence no Members of a Church, as was ſaid elſewhere.

5As for that argument pag. 2. charged upon Ameſius and others; it is, (I ſuppoſe) miſtaken. For it is not brought immediately to prove childrens Baptiſme, [Becauſe they are capable of the grace of Baptiſme; men alſo being but meer Patients, in the firſt receiving of it] but by way of anſwer to an objection made againſt it by the Anabaptists. They plead that children have not, nor are capable of the grace of Faith and Repentance, ergo not to be baptized: Our Divines deny the conſequence upon this ground. They are capable of grace, as well as men of years, both being alike but Patients in the firſt receiving of Grace; therefore that can be no barr to their Baptiſme. But enough of that.

6It is not properly ſpoken, pag. 3. to ſay, [The Morality of that command (to Abraham to circumciſe his ſeed, with himſelf) ſtands thus, that the children of Believers muſt have the Imitating ſeal.] The Analogy indeed ſtands fair, under ſeveral diſpenſations of the ſame Covenant; that, as circumciſion then, ſo Baptiſme how, belongs to believers and their children, unleſs God reveal himſelf to the contrary, which concerns Anabaptiſts to prove, by expreſſe Scripture, (as he ſayes) which they can never do. Nay the contrary is evidently continued, Act. 2.38. &c. 1 Cor. 7.14. &c. The ſeed is holy by the Parents. If he ſhould plead a Morality in that command, p. 7the Anabaptiſts would eaſily deny it, and put the difference; there was expreſſe Command for childrens Circumciſion, not ſo for their Baptiſme; It is enough it can be proved by conſequence from Scripture.

7Concerning the queſtion about predeceſſours giving right to childrens Baptiſme, much need not to be ſaid here, It is largely diſcuſſed in the foreſaid Diatribe with Mr. Hooker, pag. 188. and afterwards. All that I ſhal ſay now, is this. 1. What England was when Auſtin came into England, we need not much enquire. For we look at England, as many years ſince reformed, we need not go to many generations paſt, there are ſome alive, that had, or have predeceſſours known to be godly, let the queſtion be of them; and two of them undertaking for the Chriſtian education of the childe. And though it be true, that ſome people received the Goſpel after the example of their Kings, and were Baptized for company (as Simon Magus it ſeems was) and ſuppoſing it was but in outward profeſſion onelyonly, yet that was ſufficient to give them right to Baptiſme, for themſelves and theirs, and conſequently they were a true Church, though not a perfect and pure Church. For my part, I ſhould not plead that promiſe in the ſecond Commandment, ſhewing mercy to thouſands, &c. but rather that to Abraham, [I am thy God, and the God of thy ſeed] which, whoever will reſtrain to the next generation onelyonly, it concerns him to prove, by expreſſe Scripture, (as he required above in a like caſe, of Anabaptiſts) that God is not the God of the ſeed of a godly Chriſtian, in a ſecond or third generation, but onelyonly of the firſt; which I believe he cannot do.

8It may truely be ſaid; Though the immediate Parent p. 8godly, do give right to his child for Baptiſme, yet if that child growing up, prove Scandalous, his Parents godlineſſe doth not give him now right to the Lords Supper, becauſe he himſelf puts in a bar, to keep him from the Supper; the reaſon is, becauſe more is required of him for the Supper, than for Baptiſme. But then ſayes he; [If ſo, why doth not the Scandalous life of the Immediate Parent put a bar between the child to be Baptized, and his predeceſſours?] The anſwer is, the child muſt not ſuffer for the Parents perſonal ſin. True (ſayes he) for Eternal puniſhment. But we ſay, not for Temporal or Spiritual puniſhments. He replyes; [Not indeed when it is conſidered without relation to the Parent; which it cannot in this caſe, and ſo may ſuffer by him] To which we anſwer.

1. The Jews children could no more be conſidered without relation to their Parents, than ours, yet the wickedneſſe of a Jew hindred not their Circumciſion.

2. We muſt diſtinguiſh between the general ſtate or a Parent, and his Perſonal wickedneſſe: If his ſtate be that of an Infidel, the child ſuffers with him; but if he be for ſtate a Chriſtian, the child is born a Chriſtian, and the Parents Perſonal ſin, is not imputed to the child, to hinder his Baptiſme. It hath, beſides its relation to its Parent, a Birth-priviledge as born of Chriſtian predeceſſours, and thereby may challenge the ſeal of Baptiſme.

3. All this proceeds upon his former ſuppoſition, that there is no way to admit children to Baptiſme, but the Parent, and that the next and Immediate Parent, which is largely confuted, in the Diatribe, chap. 2.

Laſtly, all this diſcourſe is deſtroyed, by what he p. 9often yields, [That a wicked Parent tolerated, may give right to a childs Baptiſme.]

9His caſe, of one in Corinth converted old, having children Infidels, which have alſo children; [whether would a minister Baptize the Infants, by virtue of the Grandfather] Is not our eaſe, where both father and grandfather are Chriſtians? Yet what Miniſter that underſtands himſelf, would ſcruple to Baptize the child of an Infidel Parent, ſuppoſing him either dead, or reſigning his child up to the Grandfather, to be Chriſtianlike educated? All that he ſayes againſt it, is but ſome accidental inconveniences that may follow. As firſt, [The Grandfather is old, may dye quickly, before the child grow up, &c.] So may the Father, though a Chriſtian and never ſo godly, yea both the Parents; who then ſhall take care for it? Again [The Infidel will not let his father Baptize the child; who have moſt right over the child, the father or Grandfather?] But ſuppoſe the Infidel willing to give up his child to the Grandfather: what ſayes he then? That many things may fall out to hinder the Act of Baptiſme of ſuch an Infant, is nothing to the queſtion: the queſtion is, whether it can hinder its right? If the Grandfather alſo will undertake for it, or ſome other friend, what ſayes he then? If the mother be a Chriſtian, though the father an Infidel, yet ſhe can give a right to the childes Baptiſme: this he confeſſes pag. 10. But the father an Infidel, will not ſuffer it to be Baptized, or if Baptized, will breed it up in his Idolatry; I ask, as he, [who hath moſt right over the child, the father or the mother?] yet the child undenyably, hath right to Baptiſme by the mother. So then, there may be a right to Baptiſme, where no power to p. 10act it; See Diatrib. p. 188.ſo it may be in the Grandfather, for ought is yet ſaid.

Its true, that Aquinas ſaith, in his 8. pag. [children of Infidels are not to be Baptized, white they are under their care and power, against their wills] But this ſeems to grant, that if they were willingly reſigned to the care and power of a Chriſtian undertaker, they might be Baptized, and then the Church does not act againſt the Law of Nature; which is his fear and needleſſe exception.

10But he renewes his plea; [Then though there are none to educate this child, for the ignorant profane Parents will not but teach them how to break the Covenant; predeceſſours cannot, they are dead, yet we muſt ſeal to this child] Let the Church take it, and take care of it ſay we; But ſayes he, [Where do you ſee Churches take care of ſuch children, &c.] we anſwer, He need not go far to ſee this; he may perhaps ſee it in his own Pariſh. Our Church or State have ordered very commendably, and charitably, that the children of very Papiſts, are taken from them, and bred up Proteſtants. Yea every Pariſh is ordered to take care of their own poor Orphants. If they cannot, the State, with the charity of good men, hath provided Hoſpitals and Schooles for ſuch childrens education: we will put him a caſe. Suppoſe both the next Parents, being Church-members, dye, and leave Infants, having no known kindred in, or neer that place: who ſhall take care of them? we ſay the Church whereof the Parents were members: for the children baptized, are members of that Church, and the Church ought to take care of them. If the Congregational Church, neglect this, they come ſhort of our Parochial p. 11Churches, though they pretend not onelyonly more piety, but more charity alſo to their own members. In a Christian Church or State, there ought to be a care of children, of Parents deceaſed, both in temporal and ſpiritual reſpects.

11And now we are come to the common objection. See ubi Suprae p. 212.[where ſhall we ſtay? how far may we go, for this predeceſſor? how many generations? &c. This is fully anſwered elſewhere: we onelyonly once again deſire him to prove by expreſſe Scripture, that the promiſe [I will be thy God, and the God of thy ſeed,] extends not onelyonly to the next generation; or to how many generations it is limited. Something he ſpeaks to this purpoſe, pag. 28. [We find many promiſes made to the poſterity of godly Parents, Gen. 17.7. &c. now if the children of ſuch Parents grow up, and though but young, yet reading they find ſuch promiſes, or hear of them; it ſeems theſe poor children muſt not lay hold of the promiſe, and claime it by virtue of their parents, and plead it with God, &c. for ſure if God will not ſo much as give them an outward ſeal of the Covenant, by virtue of the parent, the poor child cannot plead theſe promiſes, which come by the parent] Thus he, and well, argued againſt the Anabaptiſts. Do but but change the word parent into progenitors, grandfather, or grandmother, and the plea is ſtrong againſt himſelf: Lord, I am ſure my grandfather, &c. was a godly man, my grandmother, a godly woman; thou haſt made many promiſes to the poſterity of ſuch, not onelyonly to the next, but as I think, remote generations, though my next parents, were both wicked and profane; yet my pre-parents were godly. It ſeems, by this new Doctrine, to uſe his own words [This poor p. 12child muſt not now go and lay hold of this promiſe, and ſpread it before God, &c. for ſurely if God will not ſo much as give to this grandchild the outward ſeal of the Covenant by virtue of the pro-parent, or grandfather, it cannot plead the promiſes, which come by him] Let his own experience, in making uſe of theſe promiſes, teach him more mercy and charity to grandchildren.

12But he argues againſt us, thus: [If predeceſſours give right, then the children of an Immediate Parent Apoſtatiz'd from the faith, and excommunicated from the Church may be Baptized, &c. and then the children of our Engliſh Apoſtates in Turky may be baptized, &c.] We fear not to affirm, they may, if either they will reſign them up to thoſe that are Christians, their kindred or others, or any will undertake for their education. But in particular; Firſt, for the caſe of an Apoſtate, it is anſwered elſewhere, in the Diatrib. p. 188. And we add now, that an Apoſtate renouncing his Chriſtanity, renounce alſo with it his Baptiſme, and ſo turns Heathen; and that alters the caſe, except, as afore, he be willing to give it up, to ſuch as will undertake for it. But then ſecondly, for the Excommunicate Parents (for if but one be a member, the child hath right to Baptiſme) for ſuch Parents we ſay their caſe is not the ſame, with an Apostate, or Heathen: For though in ſome reſpects, an Excommunicate perſon is worſe than an Infidel, (as the Apoſtle ſpeaks of a man that provides not for his family, though not excommunicated) becauſe he ſhould be better, &c. yet in regard of State and Church-priviledges, he is better.

For firſt, he is for ſtate ſtill a Chriſtian, and retains his Baptiſme, which an Infidel hath not.

p. 132. He is a members ſtill, though diſeaſed much, and a member under cure, (as the leper of old, ſhut out of the camp was) which an Infidel is not. He is I ſay, a member in a large ſenſe, as he ſpeaks of a ſcandalous perſon tolerated, p. 41.

3. [Heathen and non-members of Churches, when they are taken into a Church, they are Baptized] they are his own words, pag. 42. But ſo is not an Excommunicate perſon, therefore his State is better than theirs; He is neither Heathen nor non-member: ergo a member at large.

Fourthly, if in regard of Church-priviledges, he be no better than an Heathen, yet that is ſtill in reſpect to himſelf, not to his child, who being born a Chriſtian of a Chriſtian, hath right to Baptiſme, as ſhall appear in ſome caſes at leaſt. The child that is debarred Baptiſme, for the Parents Excommunication; falls into this puniſhment, either when it is born before his Excommunication or after he is Excommunicated; If before his Excommunication it be born, but not Baptized before he is Excommunicated, then his Excommunication cannot hinder its Baptiſme, for it is born a member of the Church, being born of one that was yet a member, when it was born: and the perſonal ſin of the Parent, cannot prejudice its right: (Baptiſme makes not a member, it was one before; as he ſpeaks pag. 25. of a Jewes child, a member before circumciſion) whence thus I argue upon his own principles; [A member of the Church, may be Baptized. But a child of a wicked, not yet excommunicated, is born a member; ergo it may be Baptized] though it ſhould happen (as it may) that it be not Baptized before the Excommunication. It remains then to ſay, p. 14either it loſes this right to Baptiſme, if it be born after the parents Excommunication, or not at all. And now we are fallen upon his argument, p. 9. [If I may Baptize the child of an excommunicate perſon, then I may Baptize a child of a non-member of a Church, and ſo of an Indian or Turk, for they are non members, &c. and he is no other, in reſpect of communion, in Church-priviledges] we anſwer, by diſtinction of the Aſſumption; I may Baptize the child of a Non-member, that is, of one that at preſent is accounted no member; as is plain in the caſe of a child born, but not baptized before the Parents Excommunicated. And therefore this conſequence of his is unſound; [If the parent be a non-member, the child is a non-member alſo] for that child is a member born, though the Parents at preſent ſtand Excommucated. It is true onelyonly of an Infidel, or Apoſtate; who are no members: but an Excommunicate perſon, is in ſome ſence a member ſtill, as was ſaid above; and then to Baptize ſuch an one, is not to Baptize a Non-member.

13That Obſervation of Reverend Gilleſpy, from Buxtorf, &c. is not very Orthodox, though true perhaps in the practice of the latter Jews: [That a child of an excommunicate, ought not to be circumciſed] It was, if done, a corrupt Invention, and Tradition of their own, of which there is no ground in Scripture. And therefore, pag. 32. he does well to wave it.

14We ſhall not ſtand to vindicate thoſe holy and learned men, Zanchy, and Perkins, who plead for the Baptiſme of children of Parents Excommunicated, p. 11. That which hath been ſaid, may help towards it, we come to a new queſtion ſtarted, p. 13 [whether profeſsion of faith in Chriſt, though parents be groſly ignorant, ſcandalous, p. 15&c, be ſufficient to make a man, and continue him a member of the viſible Church:] To which, we ſay in general, That our main queſtion is not about making or continuing a man a member of a Church, but whether a man qualified as in the queſtion, continued and tolerated a member of the Church, can give right to to his childrens Baptiſme. And this he doth expreſly reſolve in the affirmative at leaſt three times. Once thus of a Jewiſh Parent wicked not excommunicated, [Doubtleſſe ſo long the immediate Parent was not caſt off from giving a right to his child, p. 13.] Again, in the ſame pag [If a member be very ſcandalous, and the Church let him alone, that perſon may challenge any Ordinance in the Church, both Baptiſme and Lords Supper:] Again pag. 34 [wicked perſons ſo long as they continue members, and the Church lets them alone, they may challenge Baptiſme] whence I would conclude the contradictory to his concluſion, in this manner. [The child of a ſcandalous member tolerated, may be Baptized. But the child of a ſcandalous member not excommunicated, is the child of a ſcandalous member tolerated, ergo, it may be Baptized, and a miniſter may lawfully Baptize it.] All he ſayes to this, is this, pag. 13. and 34, [Our queſtion is, whether ſuch perſons ſhould be let alone, is not that Church too blame?] But by his favour, the queſtion is not, whether ſuch perſons ſhould be ſuffered, or the Church be too blame to ſuffer them: but whether ſuch being ſuffered in the Church, their children ought to be Baptized; and though he undertake the Negative, yet he determins the queſtion here Affirmatively: [So long as wicked perſons continue members, and the Church lets them alone, they may challenge Baptiſme.] which p. 16one ſentence confutes, (as it contradicts) both his queſtion and practice, in his refuſal to Baptize the children of ſuch; and at once gives us an anſwer to all his arguments following: But we ſhall further conſider what he ſayes, to ſhew his miſtakes, and give him fuller ſatisfaction.

15The next undertaking is to prove, that ſuch (as in the queſtion) are not fit to be members; firſt thus: [Members are viſible Saints; but ſuch are not viſible Saints, ergo.] 1. We muſt diſtinguiſh between a first admiſsion into a Church, and continuance in a Church, by ſuch as are born of members of a Church: Such, if now to be admitted, in their own perſons, are not fit to be members, nor ought to be admitted. But if children of members, prove ignorant or ſcandalous, they are to be continued, and accounted members, till they be legally convicted, and caſt out: we grant ſuch a one, [is not qualified ſufficiently, to make a member, nor ought to be continued, continuing ſuch; but the Church ought to reform him, or eject him] which are partly his own words. But then, while the Church is in reforming him, he is a member, and conſequently hath right to give his child Baptiſme. He ſhould have proved, (with reſpect to the firſt and main queſtion) that ſuch are not members, during the Churches toleration of them, and then infer, their children have no right, becauſe children of Non-members. 2. Church-members and viſible Saints, are taken in Scripture, ſometimes improperly; even ſuch as in the queſtion, ignorant, ſcandalous, &c. are ſaluted, with the whole Church as Saints, 1 Cor. 1. &c. and called brethren, 1 Cor. 5.11. 2 Theſſ. 3.14,15. Now brethren and members are aequivalent terms; if p. 17they be accounted brethren, they may be accounted members, in a large ſenſe, as he confeſſeth pag. 41. 3. when we ſay a profeſſion of the faith is ſufficient to qualifie a man to be made or continued a member; we do not mean a bare profeſsion with his mouth, that he believes in Jeſus Chriſt, though viſibly he live like an Infidel; but thus at leaſt, when nothing in his life appears to the contrary**Converſatinot ſcandalous, he ſeems to require no more, pag. 43.; though there be yet no great poſitive ſignes of his holineſſe. Thus we think the Eunuch, at leaſt, Simon Magus was admitted. This indeed is ſufficient for Admiſsion; but as there muſt be more to continue ſuch in the Church, ſo there muſt be ſomething poſitive, of obſtinacy, in ignorance or groſſe wickedneſſe in life, to caſt out again. The Church cannot upon the Negative (if once admitted) caſt them out; nay, nor upon poſitive appearances, but after legal proceedings with them; therefore ſo long, they are to be accounted members, &c.

16Upon this ground, his ſecond argument pag. 14. falls alſo; [If (ſayes he) a bare profeſsion be ſufficient, then none can be caſt out for the vileſt ſins, Hereſie, &c. becauſe he is the ſame now, as when he was admitted.] The conſequence is unſound, and proof like it. For when he was firſt admitted, upon his profeſsion, no ſuch ſcandal appeared; but now it doth; therefore he is not the ſame, that he was, when admitted.

17The third Argument, is like the former, very weak, [A Rebel oppoſing Chriſt in his viſible Kingdom, is not fit to be a member of it, becauſe no ſubject;] I anſwer, he is not fit to be admitted, if no member before; but fit to be continued till tryal of Reformation be paſt, and this himſelf confeſſeth after, pag. 17. of which hereafter. p. 18A Rebel is a Subject, (though not an honeſt Subject) till reformed, or outlawed, or cut off. And we deſire to ſee the place in Scripture, where thoſe, who are within the outward Covenant, are preſently diſ-covenanted, if they walk contrary to the conditions of the Covenant.

18Object. All are not convinced that Church-diſcipline is an Ordinance of God?

Anſw. [I ſpeak (ſaies he) of ſuch as have been convinced, and acknowledged it, from Matth. 18.15. but yet would not ſubmit to it] Reply. Then ſay we, a man not convinced of it, may be a member, though he refuſe to ſubmit to diſcipline, if out of ignorance onelyonly of this particular. But this qualification, is not in his queſtion; but generally, [If he refuſe to ſubject to Church-diſcipline.

19To all his Authorities, Ancient and modern, pag. 15. &c. That more then a bare profeſsion is required to make a member, we aſſent; but ſtill with our diſtinction, that more is required to the firſt admiſsion, than to the continuance of one born a member in the Church. And this leads us to that conſideration, of a Church to be now conſtituted, & one already constituted, p. 17. The Churches of England are not now in conſtituting, but a ſucceſſion for many years. To this he ſayes: [That which conſtitutes a Church, continues it a Church: if then, a bare profeſsion be not ſufficient to make a member, nor is it enough to continue a man a member of a Church.] We anſwer, both propoſitions are faulty. The Minor, for we have proved, that a profeſſion of faith, nothing appearing to the contrary, will conſtitute a member, and ſo a Church of many members, though all hypocrites. The Major, becauſe p. 19more is required to a firſt admiſsion; than to continuance in the Church. As is evident, in men of years converted from Infidels: a perſonal profeſſion of faith is neceſſary to ſuch: but their children are admitted, and continued without it, by their Birth priviledg, &c. till they give evidences of their ignorance or ſcandal, and be orderly proceeded with, for their reformation. And this is his own reſolution and remedy to reform them without a new conſtitution, for ſo he ſayes: [Let Churches be conſtitute according to the rule, and ſo continued; or (mark it) exerciſe diſcipline, and reduce them to their firſt conſtitution] This makes it clear, that there is another way to reform a conſtituted, but corrupted Church, than firſt to conſtitute a Church; viz. diſcipline. But then I would object.

1. How can we exerciſe diſcipline, (I ſay not where no Government is ſettled, but) when the parties refuſe to ſubmit to diſcipline, as not convinced of the Divine Authority of it?

2. Would he have men, ignorant or ſcandalous, or refuſers of diſcipline, ſuddenly ejected? Not ſo, he ſayes, [Not that I mean we fall preſently upon excommunication, before we have tryed other means, and patiently waited.] Well, then the perſon is yet a member, and the Church, a Church in being, or conſtituted (elſe no diſcipline could be exerciſed by it) though corrupted: then have thoſe members under cure, right to all Ordinances for themſelves, and theirs: and ſo the Church needs no new conſtitution▪ But if his arguing be good, our Churches are no true Churches, our members, no true members, for the greateſt part, having no right to Ordinances for themſelves, or theirs (why elſe p. 20are they debarred from both Sacraments) and ſo we are at once un-churched, and diſmembred, and a new frame to be moulded, which is flat Independentiſme, Browniſme, (if not Anabaptiſme) which this our Authour ſeems to have renounced.

20And now his arguments will be eaſily diſſolved. The firſt is this: [Such perſons (as the queſtion mentions) de jure ought, and de facto are excluded from the Lords Supper, therfore they ought to be excluded from their childrens Baptiſme.] Firſt, I deny the Antecedent, in the firſt part of it. Some of the perſons mentioned in the queſtion, ought not de jure to be excluded from the Lords Supper; as namely, ſuch as refuſe to ſubmit to diſcipline, if godly, but not convinced yet of the divine Authority of diſcipline. This is nothing but the rigid way of the Independents, who exclude from the Lords Supper, and Church-communion, thoſe that cannot ſubſcribe to their Church Covenant Explicite, be they never ſo godly and knowing, as was ſaid above. Secondly, all thoſe that the queſtion mentions, ought not to be excluded from the Lords Supper, while they are tolerated in the Church. This is his own confeſsion often: and conſequently ought not to be excluded from their childrens Baptiſme. Then for the latter part, that they are de facto excluded, admits a queſtion, whether they are not unjuſtly excluded. And it is reſolved to be ſo, not only by Mr. Jeans his arguments; but as a conſequence of the former: If de jure, they ought not to be excluded, then de facto, they are unjustly excluded: which is worthy all Miniſters conſideration, who for many years have had no Sacraments for fear of admitting ſuch, as the queſtion mentions: whereby, pretending p. 21they want power of an Elderſhip, no Government being ſettled, they uſurp (inconſiderately perhaps) a power above the Elderſhips to exclude, not onelyonly ſuch, but their whole Pariſh, by their own ſingle power: But ſee into what ſtreights the New way hath brought us? They cryed out of our Churches, and ſeparated from them, becauſe of our mixt communions; And now Miniſters abſtaining from the adminiſtration of the Supper, for fear of a mixture; they cry out again, and call people to ſeparate from us, becauſe we want an Ordinance. The Lord judge between us in this matter. But now for the conſequence, [that therefore they ought to be excluded from their childrens Baptiſme;] it is alſo denyed, and all the proofs thereof. For it ſhould proceed of the ſame, not of ſeveral perſons, thus; Thoſe that de jure ought, and de facto are excluded from the Lords Supper, ought (if now they were to be Baptized) alſo to be excluded from Baptiſme for themſelves. As backward, if excluded juſtly from Baptiſme, much more from the Lords Supper. But it holds not with reſpect to their children; (as we have heard by his own confeſſion.) The young children of members, are unfit to be admitted to the Lords Supper, yet not to be excluded from Baptiſme. The reaſon is, becauſe more is required to the Lords Supper, then to their Baptiſme. The proof is as weak, as the conſequence; [Baptiſme ſeals to the ſame Covenant, as the Lords Supper doth ergo, if excluded from one they ought to be exclud…d from the other.] It holds good againſt themſelves, not their children. The proofe of this is like the former; [The ground of excluſion from both, is the ſame, viz: becauſe thoſe perſons appear not ſuch, as to whom thoſe priviledges do belong:] this is falſe in reſpect to their p. 22children: And all theſe conſequences are grounded upon his firſt (falſe) premiſed ſuppoſition, at the begining; viz. [that the child hath no right, but in relation to the next Parent] which is confuted above. And now we add briefly. 1. Its Birth-priviledge, that being born a Chriſtian of a Chriſtian gives it right, as of old to circumciſion. 2. It may have right from a grandfather, or by adoption, &c. 3. Neither the Scripture nor any Hiſtory (that we remember) gives an inſtance, that the perſonal default of a Chriſtian Parent Baptized, ever hindred the child from Baptiſme. 4. Himſelf confutes his own argument, by often granting, that ſuch (as in the queſtion) tolerated by the Church, have right for themſelves and theirs: Let him conſider it.

Whereupon, his obſervation pag. 19. of admitting the children to Baptiſme, in the afternoone, whoſe Parents in the morning were excluded from the Supper, need not ſeem ſo ſtrange, and his Dilemma may be retorted upon himſelf, thus: He grants, a wicked perſon tolerated, may be admitted to the Lords Supper, and his child to Baptiſme; onelyonly he ſayes, de jure he ought to be excluded. Now I would ask, (as he) does ſuch a man appear to be under the Covenant of Grace or no? If ſo, why ſhould he de jure be excluded? If not, why ſhould he, de facto, be admitted? or why does he give Baptiſme to the childe, which (ſayes he) muſt ſuppoſe the Parent to be within the Covenant? So here is a believer, and no believer, in a ſhort time, and yet the ſame man. Let him anſwer one, and both.

21He grants Suſpenſion from the Lords Supper, in ſome ſence; pag. 19. of one fallen into ſome groſſe ſin: and I think, he does not deny Baptiſme to the children of ſuch, which if he yield, he deſtroyes his own argument p. 23and queſtion. As for his Quaere, [whether if the parent be ſuſpended from the Supper, his child may not alſo be ſuſpended for the preſent, till he repent, being the child depends on the Parent, &c.] may be thus anſwered, by his own principles: The Parent, though ſuſpended from the Supper, is yet a Church-member, till he be Excommunicated, then hath he right to give his child Baptiſme. If the Parents ſin, did annul his own Baptiſme or render him an Heathen again, it were a queſtion whether it did not hinder his childes Baptiſme. But ſuſpenſion does not that, nor excommunication but utter Apoſtacy onelyonly: Beſides, it would be proved, that that which ſuſpends from one priviledge ſuſpends from all: and that for his child, as well as for himſelf. The child (we ſay) having a native right, it ſeems unreaſonable and injurious, that the Parents perſonal fault, ſhould ſuſpend it. Elſe in this caſe there is no difference, between the child of a Chriſtian and of an Infidel.

22The next argument proceeds thus. [Such Parents, if they were now to be Baptized, ought not to be Baptized; ergo, cannot challenge it for their children. The reaſon is, becauſe Baptiſme belongs primarily to the Parent, if ergo, he have no right, he can give none] The conſequence is again denyed, and the proof of it;

For firſt, it a received Maxime amongſt the Lawyers; Quod fieri non debuit, factum valet. Suppoſe an unfit perſon Baptized, his Baptiſme is not null, he is a member till legally excluded, and ſo hath right for himſelf and his, to the conſequent priviledges.

2. He confutes this argument alſo, by granting, a wicked member tolerated, to have right to all Ordinances; yet if he were now to be Baptized, he ought not ſo to be accounted.

p. 243. His reaſon is of no force: for it ſhould thus proceed, becauſe Beptiſme belongs, both primarily, and onelyonly to the next parent, which we have above denyed, and diſproved. In a word; this argument holds onelyonly in reſpect to the perſon himſelf, not to his child. For certainly the child that is Baptized when an Infant, being the child of a member, had right to Baptiſme then, though if when it growes up, it proves ignorant or ſcandalous, we may truly ſay, if he were now to be Baptized, he ought not to be Baptized. Hence it may appear, that the queſtion will fall onelyonly upon ſuch perſons when Excommunicate, which yet is no qualification, expreſſed in his queſtion: For till they are ejected, they have right (by his own confeſsion) for himſelf and theirs. But of Excommunicate Perſons, we have ſpoken above.

The third argument is like the former: [Such a Parent, is no diſciple, ergo, the child is none: and then Miniſters are not bound to baptize it, by their Commiſsion] we anſwer, 1. That Commiſsion was for the firſt gathering of Churches; not of Churches conſtituted; 2. We have proved above, the child may be a member, when the Parent at preſent is none, being Excommunicated. Now a diſciple and a member, is all one. 3. Such Parents tolerated are members, and ſo diſciples; ergo, the child is a diſciple. That then is not a ſound aſſertion, pag. 20. [If I can give the child one ſeal of the Covenant, by virtue of the Parent, I will give the Parent the other] for I may ſee reaſon to deny the Parent the Lords Supper, and yet Baptize his child: becauſe more is required of the one, than of the other.

24His fourth Argument runs thus: [To give the ſeal to the child of one viſibly in Covenant with the Devil, is a p. 25profaning of the Ordinance, &c.] But we deny that every ignorant, ſcandalous perſon, and the reſt in the queſtion, is viſibly in Covenant with the devil; eſpecially if tolerated by the Church, for ſo long he is viſibly in the external Covenant of the Church. 2. Suppoſe the perſon be Excommunicate, and ſo delivered unto Satan, (as the incestuous perſon was) yet it were hard to ſay, he were viſibly in Covenant with Satan, though at preſent under his power. 3. Every groſſe ſin (as in Noah, David, &c.) does not conclude a man viſibly in Covenant; Diatrib. p. 190much leſſe ignorance, as in children and youths Baptized. 2. Laſt of all, one not convinced, and therefore not ſubmitting unto diſcipline. See whether this new way leads its followers.

25His fifth argument is taken from miſchiefs attending the common Baptizing of the children of ſuch; [1. The ſlighting of this Ordinance; without any preparation to it.] But all this may be amended by preſſing the due reverence to this, as to the other Sacrament; better then by debarring the child its right, for the Parents fault. 2. [Its a jumbling of the children of the moſt holy with the profaneſt, &c.] This falls upon himſelf; For if the wicked Parents be tolerated, he will not, he may not deny to Baptize their children; no more, than of the holieſt Parent. He may grieve that he cannot reform this abuſe, but need not ſcruple to Baptize their children; nor to pray for them, as for the other.

26And now he comes to the great objection; [The Jews, though very wicked, had their children circumciſed, ergo.] He anſwers many wayes.

1. He mentions again that obſervation of Gilleſpy, that ſome ſaid, [that the children of Excommunicated p. 26Jews were not circumciſed] But he does well to wave it; as for what we ſaid to it above; ſo becauſe it is nothing to the queſtion, which is not of excommunicated parents, but wicked Parents tolerated.

2. [He ſuppoſes they were not ſo guilty of ignorance, as many of ours.] But thats nothing to the queſtion; their children were as ignorant as ours, and the Parents never Excommunicated for ignorance, nor their children denyed circumciſion for that reaſon. But cloſer to the point he ſayes.

3. He would ſee a proof, [that the Prieſts did debar many from the Paſſeover, for moral uncleanneſs, many years, as ours do from the Supper, and yet had their children circumciſed] We anſwer. 1. The Prieſts are blamed for admitting the morally unclean, to ſome Ordinances, but it concerns him to prove, where ever they were blamed, for circumciſing the children of ſuch. See Ezech. 44.7.9. cited by himſelf, pag. 35. to the ſame end. 2. It is doubtful at leaſt, whether the practiſe of thoſe miniſters can be juſtified, who ſuſpend any ſo long from the Supper, and yet Baptize their children: therefore that can be no ſafe ground to debar children of ſuch from Baptiſme: Of which ſee Mr. Jeanes.

4. He conceives [Something peculiar to them, in that National conſtitution, from ours: Gods enters Covenant with Abraham, and his family; commands him to circumciſe his ſeed: the conſtitution of our Churches, does not begin with any particular perſon; but makes diſciples, and Baptize them] But this makes no great difference: For a Church Chriſtian may begin with a perſon and his familie; Suppoſe one of a numerous family, when he is diſcipled, his houſe is diſcipled with him; and there may be a Church in his houſe; yea every houſholder p. 27converted to the faith, was a child of Abraham, in one ſenſe; and a root to his poſterity in another, and ſo the promiſe is made to him and his ſeed, not onelyonly of the next, but of remoter generations, till they Apoſtate, as Iſhmael and Eſau did: He yields pag. 33. that deſcent by the fleſh, was one, though not the ſole ground of circumciſion. And ſo it is now, 1 Cor. 7.14. Let us ſee what was peculiar to them.

1. [When they came to Johns Baptiſme, it was not ſufficient to plead, we are Abrahams ſeed, ergo, Baptize us.] True, becauſe this was a new diſpenſation, a new Ordinance, to which repentance was required in the firſt Parents, but not of their Infants. And juſt ſo it was in Circumciſion of Proſelytes, to the Jewiſh Religion.

2. [When they fell to foul Apoſtacy, their children were ſtill Circumciſed, whether regularly, he leaves it.] Yes regularly, for ought appears to the contrary: The Rule was, [Abraham and his ſeed muſt be circumciſed.] And ſo the proportion holds for Baptiſm. If the parents fall into Apoſtacy, the children may regularly be baptized, for ought appears in the Goſpel to the contrary, if they will give them up to their pro-parents or friends, and they will undertake for them. And in ſuch a caſe a Miniſter would Baptize them.

3. [They were very exact in admiſsion of Heathens: more required, than to profeſſe they did believe in God, &c.] So would we be, in admiſſion of Infidels: but thats nothing to admiſſion of their children.

4. 28[It is true, that wicked Jews being members of that Church National, might challenge circumciſion, ſo for wicked perſons, ſo long as they continue members, and the Church lets them alone, they may challenge Baptiſme.] Now this expreſly yields both the preſent argument, p. 28from the Jews, to be good: and alſo the main queſtion, that ſuch perſons, if tolerated, may give right to their childrens Baptiſme, and Miniſters not onelyonly may, but are bound to Baptize them, againſt which he hath all this while diſputed. OnelyOnly he ſayes; [Our queſtion is, whether ſuch perſons ſhould be let alone? is not that Church too blame? ought ſuch de jure to be members?] No, the queſtion was, whether ſuch perſons, while ſuffered in the Church, have right to give their children Baptiſme? And that is fully granted.

5. 29For more exactneſſe in the Churches of the Goſpel, in divers reſpects, we diſſent not, ſo it be not beyond the Rule. But as he diſlikes the rigidneſſe, which ſome (he means the Independents) would have, in admiſsion of members, to Church-communion, ſo we diſlike his rigidneſſe, in admiſsion of children to Baptiſme.

30All that diſcourſe concerning the ſenſe of 1 Cor. 5.11. for many pages together, I purpoſely paſſe by, as leading into another controverſie. I ſhall onelyonly conſider, that Queſtion propounded, pag. 42. as his Advice for the Reformation of our Congregations, which is this; [Whether it were not better for the Miniſters of England, as they do ſuſpend perſons from the Lords Supper, ſo alſo for a time to ſuſpend them from Baptizing their children, and in the mean time, Ministers to follow Catechizing cloſe, &c?] To which I have theſe things to ſay.

1. It proceeds upon an erroneous, at leaſt a doubtful practice, that Miniſters have done well, in ſuſpending ſo long, ſuch men, their whole Pariſhes, from the Lords Supper; of which ſomething hath been ſaid above. This way as it hath given occaſion to ſome to ſeparate, and joyn themſelves to Independent Churches, as wanting with us an Ordinance; ſo it hath made others p. 29more profane than before, who were ſomething awed, by their approaches to that Sacrament.

2. For the Inference from that practice; I ſay, If they did, and do well, in ſuſpending ſuch from the Supper, yet it is not ſafe or expedient (in my judgment) to ſuſpend them from the other, for their children, as things now ſtand in England: for beſides what hath been ſaid, in behalf of poor children above, I obſerve.

1. If one Baptize them not, another of another Judgment ſhall, and will, and who can hinder it? This increaſeth the D…viſions betwixt miniſters, by others intermedling within their charges, and Congregations.

2. This will be one way, to make the next generation, no better than Infidels, for the moſt part, being all unbaptized; or elſe profane and ignorant, as being without the care of the Churches.

3. This will exaſperate the Parents, being profane and deſperate enough already, againſt their Miniſters, and ſo not onelyonly prejudice them in their maintenance (however he findes it otherwiſe by the power of ſome friends) but alſo alienate their minds more from the deſired Reformation.

4. This is contrary to the expreſſe Rule, to puniſh the poor children for the Parents perſonal faults; at leaſt in ſome caſes, as is manifeſted above.

5. This is contrary to his own principles, who hath often granted, that while ſuch Parents (as in the queſtion) are ſuffered in the Church, they have right for themſelves and theirs, [and you muſt not deny it, if you own them for Church-members, however custome hath p. 30prevailed to the excluſion of them from it, without regular proceeding, &c.] pag. 42. If the Church ſhall tolerate ſuch evils, &c. they cannot deny them the priviledg of members, Survey, part 3. p. 11. and he inſtances in the Church of Sardis, &c.Now both Mr. Hooker, Survey, part 3. pag. 11. and himſelf hath often yielded them to be members to all priviledges of the Church, while (ſinfully) tolerated. And as for that regular proceeding to reform them by ſuſpenſion, or eject them by Excommunication, it is not in the power of any Miniſter alone, and therefore not onelyonly unjust if they ſhould uſurp it, but alſo impoſsible, as our Churches yet ſtand, for the moſt part, unpreſbytered, and without a ſettled Government. Whence a new ground of obloquie and reproach, would be offered to Anabaptists and Independents, yea and to profane people too, to charge our Churches, at leaſt our Miniſters as Antichriſtian, for uſurping not onelyonly a Biſhop-like, but a Pope-like power in every Pariſh; the thing ſo much feared in the Preſbytery.

31What remains then, but that it were a better way to reform our Congregations; if the Magiſtrates could be prevailed with, to ſettle a right Government in the Church, which all Congregations ſhould be bound to ſubmit to, or elſe to execute Juſtice upon notorious Offendors, and ſcandalous perſons; the Miniſters in the mean time, [following Catechizing cloſe, to breed knowledg in their people, and labouring to reform them from a ſcandalous converſation, by all the gentle perſwaſions, and meekneſſe of wiſdom, which God ſhall give them:] that ſo, when the Authority of the Magiſtrate hath civillized at leaſt their converſation, and by Catechizing, they have gotten knowledg, we may then with more comfort give them the priviledge of both the Ordinances. In the mean time, (ſuch are the ſtraits ſome men have brought us into) no better way (in my ſhallow head) than to preſſe hard upon ſuch Parents, the conditions of the Covenant of grace, at the times of Baptiſme, or other times, the duties of Parents with reſpect to their own Baptiſme, and their childrens; as by this ſeal, engaged both of them to be Gods people, that is, [to know him, to fear him, to love him, to truſt in him, to delight in him, and to obey him in all his holy commands delivered in the Word;] and all this, as they expect the performance of the Covenant on Gods part, to be their God. By all which faithfully and earneſtly preſſed upon them, they may, (by the bleſsing of God, upon our labours) be qualified according to his own Rules, delivered in his Epiſtle, by which he practices; viz. [1. See and profeſs the ſenſe of their own undone condition by ſin, and utter inability to help themſelves; but by relying upon Chriſt. 2. Have competent knowledg. 3. Have their converſation ſuch, as doth not croſs their profeſsion, by living in any known ſin, or omitting any known duty, as praying and Catechiſing in their families, &c. And laſtly, profeſs (if it be neceſſary) their ſubjection to diſcipline;] to tye them faſter by a new obligation, to a duty, to which they were bound before, by their Covenant of Chriſtianity.

FINIS.

End of the text · Daniel Cawdry, A Sober Answer to a Serious Question (1652)