Selected quad for the lemma: christian_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
christian_n	baptize_v	child_n	infant_n	1,168	5	9.1746	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A41334	A sober reply to the sober answer of Reverend Mr. Cawdrey, to A serious question propounded 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 conversations, scoffers at godliness, and refuse to submit to church dicipline ... : also, the question of Reverend Mr. Hooker concerning the baptisme of infants : with a post-script to Reverend Mr. Blake / by G.I. Firmin ...	Firmin, Giles, 1614-1697.; Hooker, Thomas, 1586-1647. Covenant of grace opened.	1653 (1653)	Wing F966; ESTC R16401	67,656	64

5. where you revive it againe Then your chearse Mr. Hookers sentence and there sinde that I doe not accord with him If not then I pray lee this convince you that you have not spoken right when you said I borrow my grounds from Mr. Hooker In your Epist to the Reader how doe I borrow my grounds from him to whom I goe Crosse as you say I doe if I had done so Mr. Hooker is a man of whom one may borrow but I doe not remember what ground I borrowed but I was glad when I saw so learned and holy a man to defend some things which before I conceived were right but as to this difference here I am sure Mr. Hooker were now alive in England he would not baptize all the children of any of the Congregalons d●● England without any more adoe I can gather so much out of his Booke and therefore we doe not differ in this Then you come to my first premise which is The Infant abstracted from the Parens Page 3. gives no reason why it should be baptized this say you is otherwise propounded by Mr. Hooker then it s unlikely to be borrowed of him then you tell me it is not rightly proposed yes Sir very right it is ordinary with Divines to lay a proposition first further off Page 4. then to come nearer neither doe I see that you have one whit consured it but yeelded it doe you baptize any Child in your parish without considering it in relation to a Parent do you consider it in it selse abstracted from any other and yet baptize it I pray make an argument out of that Tex● in your Title-page Mar 10.14 which I preslime you bring for Infants baptisme and consider the Infant alone as abstracted from the Parent you say presently here the Children of England are Christians borne how by reason of the house soile or the Parent then it s a Christian child and in relation to such a one it is baptised Thus you finde fault with Mr. Hooker but if you will crosse him Diatr 185. or my selft who am not worthy to be named in the day with him lay downe this proposition viz. The Infants of England quâ sic considered as abstracted from any where ought to be baptised if you will maintaine this then I confesse you may finde faule For your second Answer when any body practise as you say there then let such a one consider it you might have spared those lines for I know none such I doe it before the child is brought Then you come to the second premise The child is baptised as considered in relation to a parent one or both that is the summe You say M. Hooker and I meane the taxt parent and this you have consured largely that is your meaning in Diatr p. 187. of that hereafter Only now you adds First your say thin ineffect is the same with the former one the Negative the other the Affirmative true Sir I know it before onely for clearenesse suke as we use to openitings first by shewing what they are not as saith love union with Christs c. then what they are so I did here and I hope no fault in so doing Secondly you tell me of two other wayes for children to come to Baptisme besides the next parent Page 5. of which hereafter Next you say I take occasion to desine a Church A society of visible Sains joyned togethers by way of covenant c. Here you observe two things 1. That I owne no Cathelique Church but a particular Congregation nor any Members of a Church but of such a Church then you clime of a man being a Member onely of the Catholike Church and by vertue of that requires Baptisme for his child 〈◊〉 For a Catholike Church yes I owne it neither doe I know any understanding man deny it but I doubt you forget one word you meane Catholike visible Church but if you had said so yes in I owne that also but whether it be one Organitall body I saw some difficulties in that and left in for further time to discover the Congregationall men for ought I can discerne owne it so as nothing but Nor. and Ex part you and them in the conclusion in point of Discipline I know for adminlstring the Seals in another Congregation which that notion brings in there some Congregationall men differ and so for one Minister to excommunicate in another Congregation that they will not owne nor doe you but upon a call they will goe along with other Officers and assist them in clearing out things and helping them what may be onely they will not put forth such power against such to whom they are no Officers I trouble not these holy men in that those who will differ with such men upon these points I thinke doe not well The other part doth not concerne my question neither am I so cleare in it as I wish I were I shall humbly propound my thoughts 1. If a man must first be a Member of a particular-visible-Church before he can be of the Catholike-visible-Church then your notion will not hold but the Antecedent is true Ergo the Consequent is true Antec I prove If a man must first be cast our of a particular-Church before hee can out of the Catholike then a man must first be a Member of a Particular before he can be of the Catholike Church but the Antecedent is trues 〈◊〉 Ergo. Consequence is cleare to me on this ground Else I cannot see how he who is cast out of a particular Church can be cast out of the Catholique Church Though excommunicated unjustly yet till case be heard Communion denyed Concil Sa●●ll Can. 17. if a man be first a Member of a particular Church and by vertue of this comes to have communion with all other Churches this latter depending on the former then the reason is cleare cast him out of a particular Church you cut him off from all Communion with others But if a man be first a Member of the Catholique Church and his being a Member of this particular Church depends upon that then I see no reasons for though you have cast him out of your particular Church which is second yet his membership to the Catholique Church which is first and independent upon this still remaines and you doe in excommunication but cast him into that state he was in before he joyned to you so that still he is a Member of the Catholique Church and may demand ordinances elsewhere Other Churches deny not communion before the particular doth of which he is a Member then they follow hence their Act depefids on this if depend then not first 2. This seemes a little odde to me a man is a Member of the Catholike Church onely thence he will require Baptisme of this Church of another Church he will require the Lords Supper in another there he will beare to he may go to all Churches in

place and there another c. Diatr p. 188.212 It is indeed usuall to put an c. when mens mindes are clearly knowne and there is no matter of consequence attended upon it so spare our writing and the Printer but if any matter of consequence depends then it is very poore to put in coetera you know c. in the Bishops Oath was an untoward thing and here it is a troublesome thing if to the third why not to the 103 generation coetera will go further But say you p. 11. this is their common Objection his head is very shallow that should not reach but you have fully answered it elsewhere Come on then Sir since you say you have fully answered it I will turne to your Diatribae and there looke for it supposing that a man of your parts who doth slight so extreamly other mens arguments calling them very weake c. when you say you answer fully you have done so indeed in p. 212. I see you have it there to answer I perceive you sinde it a troublesome objection and there recite the opinions of some men whom I honour as much as your selfe if there were nothing but an opinion of a man to be desi●ed you summe up their opinions and it amounts to this It scomes that the Children of Christians knowne or presumed to be such whe●her living or dead may be baptised then you give us an allusion from those who could not prove their Genealogy Ezra 2.62 Whether you will stand to this as your answer I know not but then you adde But all the Children of knowne Believers Christians Orthodox and yet living whether next or remoter may seeme to challenge a right to Baptisme this is the full answer but twice you use the word seeme which shewes you rather propound your opinion modestly but I pray Sir doe not say this is so fully answered it is no answer at all it is your opinion indeed for by all the discou●se I have met with as yet in that book you have not proved that living Grandfathers may give a title onely you propound a text which will prove the dead as well as the living may give a title if a Grandfather at all may if you meane no more then the living Grandfather your caetera will soone be run out In p. 8. you meet with an argument of mine which is this Page 8. If the wickednesse of the immediate parent cut him off from the Lords Supper though his parent be godly why doth not the same wickednesse cut him off from giving right to his childs Baptisme if the parent cannot claime one Seale of the Covenant for himselfe appearing plainely not to have the condition of it must not the child suffer who depends upon him for its title The parent suffers therefore the child must needes You say no not for Temporall punishment Gehezi Achan Corah c. their children did nor spirituall To this I answered they cannot be abstracted from their parents in this and therefore may as the child comes to have its right by a parent so the child may lose by a parent it doth not lose salvation nor regeneration by it You answer 4. waies 1. From the Jewes which doth not availe with me there was something peculiar to them in administration of Circumcision as is cleare before and shall be made cleare hereafter 2. Your second is the distinguishing betweene a persons generall state and personall wickednesse his state is a christian c. I answer if you meane by personall wickednesse some particular falls as you bring in Noah and David strangely afterward I think so indeed but if you meane a continued setled course in wickednesse wilfull ignorance then I say such a person hath lost his first right to his owne or his childs baptisme you may call him a Christian but let his Christianity be such as you have said may qualifie him for a Church-Member or else it is not worth a rush Such a one I looke at as one that ought to be excommunicated for he deserves it we must prove that persons ought to be excommunicated before they are Now since he ought the question is why he is not if he be the child suffers for his state being a non-Member in foro Dei he is and ought to be in foro Ecclesiastico if the case stand so as through the multitude of such it cannot conveniently be so Then yet let the Ministers go as farre as they can I pray Sir let this satisfie to your answers which you give about Excommunication for you would gather from me that till Excommunication Ministers ought to baptise Thus far I yeild it till Excommunication or that which doth deserve Excommunication so that the persons ought to be excommunicated though from some other externall impediments as multitude c. they cannot be excommunicated yet then a separation from such or non-communion may help 3. You say you have largely confuted this notion of the immediate parent I think not so 4. You say I have destroyed it my selfe the right he hath is onely by the Churches toleration let the Officers looke to that the first and maine right hee hath none and none at all according to your doctrine For p. 9. the distinction of the Physical and Moral right in Diatr 188. if you had strongly proved the Moral right of the Grandfather would clearely have taken off that wrong meant Sir I will receive an answer when I see I am answered But that there should be as lit●le right of the Mother over the Childe when compared with her Husband as is of the Grandfather compared with the Father which you would seeme to intimate is strange I am sure the Mother communicates as much and more to the being of the Childe then the Father doth For Aquina● he may enjoy his opinion yet I think Ch●mier of whom anon is not full for him For my needlesse exception you mention it is well if nothing needlesse have come from you Then you tell me I renew my plea Page 10. which is this who shall educate this child the Ignorant person cannot the Scandalous teach it how to breake the Covenant Predecessors are dead c. Here first you tell me of a Law of the Land which bath taken care for the education of Papists Children and Orphans providing Schooles and Hospitalls Hence first I gather you doe not care whether the Grandfather be living or dead which in another place you expresse otherwise here the immediate grosly ignorant and scandalous persons give title but for what you say I pray pardon my ignorance of the Lawes that have been so many yeares out of England I did not know the State had made such a Law That if an Ignorant or Scandalous Parent have a child baptised then those who are knowing and godly men at least sober men conversation comely should take the child and bring it up and instruct it in the Covenant of grace which

I am the stronger for if there be no Excommunication I am not tyed to baptise till they be excommunicated which you urge so much You aske me agains would I have such suddainly ejected why Sir is there no Church-Discipline but Excommunication we use unlesse offences he very notorius and we have enough such first to admonish persons seriously to bring persons to repentance if that will not doe we suspend if that will not doe So some conceive non-Communion to be an Act of Church-Discipline then excommunicate I said before the times we now are cast in are to be considered as the ●eyden Profossours speake in the same case but because you cannot excommunicate you will doe nothing and when you have excommunicated it is all one with you so that you doe but delude us I doe not absolutely deny any Baptisme but conditionally if they will not come to be instructed and give us some better testimony of their conversation but before they will be catchised by me and give any better testimony they will fling away Now say you all his argumet 〈◊〉 will be casily dissolved Page 20. it s well What you have spoken to in this page 20. I have answered before onely whereas you say I have often confessed that persons tolerated ought not to bro excluded the Lords Supper Sir I will keepe to the title of my Booke it shall be A Sober Reply and I say I have not once said any such thing But then you call to Ministers to examine whether they have done well in excluding halfe it may bee of their Parish from the Supper by their owns power alone And page 26.28 you seeme to condemne this practise ô brave Reformation in the Bishops time a Minister alone made no question to doe this and now every Minister is a Bishop as I am sure you will grant that a Bishop and Presbyter is all one yet now Ministers must not doe it but let all come to the Supper till a Glassis be set up Here you tell us we cry out againe and call people to separate from you because you want an Ordinance Page 21. then adde The Lord judge betweene us in this matter this sentence you use also in your other book but I pray apply it to those who so call for separation from you my conscience cleares me from any such thing therefore Sir doe you not use such a sentence vainely Then you come to answer the weak Argument Such as the question mentions dejure ought and de facto pre excluded from the Lords supper Ergo ought also to be excluded from their Infants Baptisme This you say you deny with all the proofes of is the Proofe is as weake as the consequence viz. Because Baptisme seales to the same Govenan● as the Lords Supper doth Ergo if excluded from one Seale then from the other The proof againe is like to the formar viz. Because such persons appeare peare not to be those to whom the Seal of the Lords Supper doth belong having no right in those priviledges therefore Baptisme signifying and fealing as great priviledges as the Lords Supper they cannot convey a title unto that Seale for their children but ought to be excluded All is weake that Mr. Cawdrey opposes there are in Logick those wayes of answering which Logicians call Solutiones apparcutes one of them is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this you are well acquainted with to slight the Arguments brought against you tell your Reader they are weak and that 's halfe and answer at least All are not of your minde concerning this Argument His Vindication of free Admiss to L. Sup. p. 24. Mr. Humphries saith those who have gone about to answer this bad better happily said nothing for our free course of baptisme and a deny all of this is such a Seam-rent as will never be hansomly drawns up though stitchs together For his judgment in Admission of all to Lords Supper I leave it But let us see how weak you shew it your answer is this The Argument ought to procced of the same persons viz. such as ought to be excluded from the Lords Supper ought if now they were to be baptised also to be excluded from Baptisme for themselves but this doth not reach the children for they being borne Christians of Christians have right to Baptisme What Sir have you catched me in that fallacy I have taken you so often in I hope not I have spoken before to this the title of the parents and the children is but one and the same 1. I doubt not but Master Cawdrey conceives there are thousands in England that dejure ought to be excluded the Lords Supper else be must condemne the Assembly for injudicious men that should trouble the Parliament for an Act c. 2. These Mr. Caws yeilds were they now to be baptised ought not to be baptised the argument proceeds cleare against them 3. Yet the children of such parents being bo●ne Christians of such Christians as ought not to be baptised themselves if they were not baptised these may which is strange to me that children which have their title because borne of such parents they may be baptised but the parents themselves who give the title must not Therefore I reply if the argument proceeds so strongly against the parents themselves then much more against the children for If may selfe who must have title first for my selfe and then for my child ought to be denyed it then much more my child whose title is mine and depends wholly upon me for it for this I conceive to be a sound truth if a person have ten or twenty children and these be baptised because Christians born of such a parent then I doe twenty times justifie that the parent from whom these children proceed have right and title to Baptisme So that which you say is not a sound assertion p. 24. which how it came under the third argument I know not for it belongs to the first viz. If I can give the child one Seale of the Covenant by vertue of the parent I will give the parent the other I think is a very sound assertion it never troubled me as yet But what makes it so say you I may see reason to deny the parent the Lords Supper and yet baptise his child because more is required of the one then the other For the child I require nothing of it but looke to the parent from whom it derives its tith if you require any thing of me saith the child goe to my parent from whom I descended why then doe you say you require more of the one then the other neither 2. doe I see what more you are to require of a person to admit him to the Lords Supper then his child to baptisme If a person doe visibly appeare to have the condition of the Covenant he being a Church-member how you can deny him the Lords Supper I know not so for baptisme If there were two

recompenced that priviledge with a wit●esse I think when he sends his Gospel to all the world which before was tyed up to little Canaan 2. If this still hold then let the vilest monster in England I have seene such stand for sureties in former times when that custome was used that the Indians are honest men in comparison of them bring a servant which he hath bought and become surety for so ignorant the man is that hee had neede be carechised himselfe let him bring such a one to godly M. Cawdrey if such a villaine lived in his parish and bid Mr. ●at baptise him as he is his servant would you doe it you must doe it according to that text for when they were Apostatiz'd they did no question circumcise them if they tooke them 〈◊〉 such a villaine be excommunicated 〈◊〉 gives title also for ought I can discerne by you for though 〈◊〉 ●●●es were excommunicated yet I see by your doctrine they might circumcise such To say no I would have such as are understanding and godly men only or not scandalous who do undertake for them able to instruct them c. Sir you have nothing in the text for any such thing besides if you can prove it you hurt not my question 3. I observe a vast difference betweene their servants and ours they had strong power over their servants Exod. 21.20 21. I observed in New England the Indians whom we had taken in warre or others who lived with us sometimes halfe or a whole yeare yet if they could handsomly get away from us they would and did we should have done finely to have baptised them we buy no servants who are English men or Christians as you call them to be under our power as they were Hence learned Rives saith there bad ne●de be a great caution lest the Ordinance be prophaned for our servants are not as theirs In Gen. 17. p. 443. last Ed. To. 4. l. 5. c. 11. s 2. And lea●ned Chamier speakes very warily upon the question Servi si fim verè servi quales olim non diffitear●nam Abrahamo legimus imperatum ut circumcideret suos omnes servos sed quales hodià not serves babem●● ut plurimum quia verè liberi suns non putem sic tractandus non cor quidem qui jure belli fiunt subditi principibus nam hoc genus subditorum tamen liberum manet De natu ergo ex parentibus insidelibus liberis si consentiant parentes distinguendum putem Consentiunt enim vel ip●i facti fideles ac tune nulla difficultas c. vel perseverates in infidelitate ac tum non putem baptizandor c. For those who are ●●rè servi which it seemes we have none but if we had such should we baptise them being adulti before they be taught the Covenant and see if they will owne it Teach and Baptize for Infants I thinke we never buy such servants 4. For suretiship that comes not in this way by being bought as they were I have nothing to say to it if you can prove it to be a divine Institutioon I will attend to it but I think it will prove but an humane Invention for sureties being joyned with parents Caranz p. 17. Pet. Mart. lo● com 822. we know who was the parent of that invention Higin●● was no Apostle if you have a better parent for your suretiship I pray bring him forth 〈◊〉 if any man hath a minde to be a surety for other folkes children let him per me lices I thinke those who have children of their owne and know what is to educate them will not be forward to be sureties for others I doubt many men if they examine how they have discharged their suretiship heretoforē have cause to be humbled for I thinke most never regarded it and how to discharge●t when they have them not under their charge and remove so commonly as we do I know not But you with tell me of the stream of Divines are for it there is a little Rivules that is not acknowledged by Gerhard loc co To. 4. p. 583. he quotes Galvin Beza Bucanus and for Beza Walaeus doth acknowledge tutius judicat ut priuserudiantur Hunnius also Rivet S●ith is against it To. 1. p. 492. on Gen. 17. p. 343. de bapt Let me adde one more of no small note Tertullian in those words veniant dum adolescunt veniant dum discunt which words you must either understand as some doe against Infant-baptisme altogether as divers doe saith Lauren. upon Te●tul and conclude from hence and a place of Nazian Orat. in San● Lavac that these two Fathers were against Infant-baptism though I think Nazianzen speaks enough in that Ocation to cleare his minde or if you will not rake it so you must take it that Tertullian there speaks against baptising by sureties and he that reads two lines before shall easily perceive that is his meaning and so Mr. Marshall interpre●s him and that clearely Against Tombs p. 36. so then you have not all on your side So much for your way of Adoption Now I returne to your answer Page 15. p. 15. you tell me there I have started a new question Sir you know I said at the first I must move two questions and for this had I not moved it I had said nothing for what if I had proved that it is onely the n●xt parent gives right to Baptisme yet if such parents as these in the Q. were judged fit Church members and so fit to give title I had said nothing that therefore was my scope to prove these were not fit and consequently ought to be reformed or shut out of the Church of which before You say not much to my first Argument to prove they are not Page 16. viz. because they are not visible Saints you acknowledge they are not nor ought to be admitted if now they were to be admitted then reforme such or cast them out for that you say of Corinth I say it is no wonder though Paul call the whole Church Saints making denomination from the melior and it is likely the Major part as visible Saints but had they beene all such as you say grosly ignorant or scandalous whether the Apostle would then have called them Saints or no I cannot tell What you say about profession of faith that is requisite to give a man admission I have elted it before p. 1. you say presently Page 17. This is sufficient for admission but as there must he more to continue such in the Church c. you say p. 19. more is required to first admission then to continuance in the Church I know not how to reconcile these For positive matter for Excommuncation you say right there must be so indeed and I think we are not to seek for that but for Excommunication I gave you my thoughts before For my second Argument that falls you say also I doe not know that my