was come home to God command Iudah to serve the God of Israel Did not Iosiah cause and make his people to stand to his covenant to serve even to serve the Lord our God Is it not lawfull for good Princes in reforming to follow these examples may not they binde their people some way by oath bond subscription or taking and giving hands for better performance of duties of religion why may not our good Princes follow those old patternes in reforming They say because it is not found in the new testament Bee it so yet it is found in the old testament and not condemned in the new nor any other order prescribed in such a case Surely seeing in this new devised way they will bee tried by none but the new testament they shall be cast at this bar in their own courses Let them give but one text to prove any man called or ordained to a Pastours office in the church by a company of private men alone and I shall give them another text to prove any thing they please I can yet reade of none but Apostles Evangelists and the eldership that made ministers there If they can shew no text I am sure they have no such Pastours as they ought but I am sure we have true kings who have power in reforming to compell wicked people to be better then they are because they beare not the sword for nought Yea but say they lastly put case they entred upon necessarie knowledge that they made a covenant in receiving the word and sacraments that they were voluntarily or forced yet lawfull professours when they stated a visible church yet they were many of them baptized when they were the seed of them that were not members of the visible church Conceive it thus If a man be a member of the visible church then his children have a right to baptisme before they actually professe the faith by vertue of that promise I will be thy God and the God of thy seede But if hee bee not a member of a visible church as a Iew Turke or Pagan then have they no right to it before they actually confesse as the Eunuch did Now the Brownists keeping a great coile about the jointing of members into a church as if it were all one to be jointed into the body of Christ coapted and fitted to our head Christ for life and salvation and to bee a member of the visible church in outward communion and fellowship of Christ for the outward priviledges of the church they have I say espied among many others this one crime in the Dutch and French churches that they baptize the seede of them that are no members of the visible church much more when they looke upon us whom they account not members of a true visible church must they quarrell if all bee of his mind if our first reformers be not members of a true visible church and yet their children are baptized before they are of yeares to professe their owne faith SECT 9. A question by the way about baptizing Bastards of impenitent Christians I Confesse I never yet talked with any Brownist about this particular yet because I finde too many conscious people hanging after forraigne novelties and gazing upon with admiration the membring and dismembring in visible churches who when they heare of Christians lawfully begotten children denied baptisme beginne to wonder that christians bastards should be admitted Therefore to cleare both as God shall in able I shall labour to satisfie others as I have done some in this question whether bastards are baptizable while their mothers are in their sinnes of adultery or fornication and whether men ought not to stay their baptisme untill they be reconciled to God in open church which is publickely scandalized by her fact and from which she hath dismembred her selfe by her misdeed In this I finde two questions inwrapt in one whether bastards are baptizable and whether men ought not to stay such baptisme till the harlot bee reconciled to God and this be done in the open church scandalized from which by her fact she hath cut herselfe off by her sinne I shall first labour to state these questions and then the cases will more easily appeare The estate of the first may be thus set By bastards such children are meant as come not into the world by lawfull acts of marriage and by baptizable is meant such as have a right to the sacrament of baptisme in the church And the question is not whether bastards in generall are baptizable for so it is certaine that all are not as the bastards of Iewes Turkes and Pagans who have no right to baptisme but by personall confession But the question is whether the bastards of the professours at large in a christian church which is in covenant with God for the outward priviledge of the church at least have right to baptisme of these the inquiry is because in the second part of this question is spoken of the mothers reconciling to God in the open church offended The state of the second question must be laid by considering two things 1 The persons enquired of· 2 The duty of these persons The persons enquired of are Men and it is too generall a terme For it cannot meane any men of that assembly where such a bastard is presented for they have no authority knowne to mee from scriptures to meddle in any censure ecclesiasticall These onely are to meddle heere who are sent and inspired with delegated service and mininistery from Christ either immediately or mediately Neither can it meane the Pastors and deputed teachers of that assembly for they have but a dependent authority according to the lawes of Eutaxy and good order in the church Presbiters under Bishops Bishops under Synods Synods under Councels and Councels under the word of Christ in plaine scriptures Our highest appeale is to our head Christ Iesus For if ordinary Pastours had such independent power in such cases thinke whether it would not set up a Pope in every parish especially considering that wee have neither precept nor president in all the new testament of such power given to any assembly or Presbiter that ever I could yet finde By men therâ—fore wee must understand the publick governours of that church that is the King Prince state Bishop and convocation by their lawes ecclesiasticall for the good of the church The question enquires of those in respect of order decree and command and of these in respect of Canons and executions accordingly Thus I take up the minde of the question or else I know not what it would have Next consider in the question the duty of these persons whether they ought to stay bastards from baptisme By this two things may bee meant denying baptisme but no man would utterly exclude such and suspending baptisme and of this is the question for it makes a double limitation first till the harlot be reconciled to God In this
inflicted for parents sinnes Though the baptisme of children of believers is not to remunerate them for their parents righreousnesse but a blessing upon them for Gods promise sake to believers yet to deprive infants of it meerely for parents sake is a punishment for parents sinnes Thirdly they say that the Prophet Ezekiel speaks of actuall sinnes of great ones and not of little childrens sinnes and when they have sayd thus they confesse it is not to the purpose heere Yet consider this point Can any man be guilty of the personal sinne of another with whom onely there is communion of suffering and not of sinning God forbid and yet such is the case of infants from us Lastly they aske what danger is it if bastards should bee unbaptized till they are of yeares I answer there are dangers more then one The danger of injustice at large in withholding a right from them yea may I not call it sacriledge The danger of the neglect of this ordinance which is the ordinary way of God for entrance into the visible church And the danger of elevating baptisme above the mind of Christ who will have grace offered to all entring christians in it yea and given by way of promise and covenant which shall not faile to the receivers Lastly they yet finde another reason against Objection 7 them that though the parents of bastards have greatly sinned yet we ought to judge charitably of them and of their children I lay it downe otherwise thus They who at least in the judgement of charity are christians ought not to have their children kept from baptisme but the parents of bastards in a christian church are at least in the judgement of charity christians for otherwise they were rebaptizable therefore their children ought not to be kept from baptisme Now take their answer They say the judgement of charity ought alwaies to be according to truth This is true of truth probably presumed But what doe they assume that whoremongers and harlots cannot bee judged such while they are in their sinnes which make them unbelievers But say I pray Is their sin properly against faith or manners Is the bad working or idlenesse of faith in this sinne against manners of such power as utterly to roote out their doctrinall faith which yet is sufficient to intitle their children to baptisme If they answer but these demands well they shall see their owne errours Thus have I taken in by the way a view of thâ—s question which â—s not an every day doubt and is usefull â—or the quieting of many godly persons in this particular and my conclusion is this That in the reforming of our visible church which consisted of visible christians before though much out of order wee their seed in their right and so in a right of our owne were more purely baptized and so made true members of our true visible church whatsoever Brownists plead to the contrary For as bastards of christian parents have a right to bee baptized into their parents christianity so much more had wee into ours Our predecessours had a state whereof they repented and so have these of which they should If neither of them repented as they should yet were both of them true christians and so both their posterities were rightly baptized and made true members of a true visible church iâ— not for such governement as Brownists dreame of yet to be governed as members of Gods house for conviction or conversion to life SECT 10. Brownists third exception against us about the head of our Church WEe having now done what the Brownists do mean by a true church and the falsitie of it and with the entrance into it wee are now come unto their third exception taken from the head of a true visible church They finde from time to time our kings to interpose their authority over every particular assembly in our church for the keeping of them in pious and peaceable wayes according to the lawes of God and our church and common-wealth and because they fansie no visible churches but particular congregations which must bee fully furnished from Christ with power of governing themselves and they doe perceive withall that the supreame authority of a king over churches doth according to kingly duty hinder their erecting of new waies and tie them up to observe the laudable customes of the church therefore as if they willingly subscribed to the speech of Gallio that wicked deputy of Achaia If it were a matter of wrong or wicked lewdnesse O yee Iewes reason would that I should beare with you but if it be a question of words and names and of your law looke yee to it for I will be no judge of such matters they cry out wee have no head but Christ he shall rule over us we will wait upon him onely but you have another head and that is the king whose lawes you follow for government of the church and upon whom ye do depend for building or pulling downe whatsoever Christs law saith Now to pricke and open this blister consider 1 That Christ is the head of the catholicke Church 2 That Christ is the head of particular Churches 3 That Christ is the head of our church 4 That the headship of the king doth not hinder but helpe this and that according to Christs word That Christ is the head of the catholicke church no christian will deny or if hee doe he will bee convinced by scriptures which teach him to bee the head of the body even his church He hath in him most perfectly whatsoever may be for the life and salvation of his church He hath all things subjected to him for the behoofe of his church He takes up all debates suites quarrels and controversies betwixt God and his church as a counsellour advocate yea husband for his wife Hee is the Prince of our salvation the proper fountaine of all spiriruall life and governement No head is such an head as hee is Politicall heads give the influence of civill favour Oeconomicall heads of houshold and wedlocke favours but this all-sufficient spirituall head of saying favours spiritual blessings in heavenly things This therefore is certaine that thousands in this catholicke church doe runne into folly rebellion and blasphemy Into folly because they doe things without the generall or particular direction of Christ Christ is not in all their counsels Into rebellion because they doe things against the direction of Christ let Christ say what he will they will do what they list Into blasphemy because they think not Christs counsel worth the while sâ— long as they can shift without it it is good when they are sicke but if well it is but as Elias to Ahab a troubler of Israel These may be in the catholicke church they are not of it because Christ is not their head by infusion of grace Secondly it is true also that he is the head of particular churches and visible assemblies Therefore
the question meddles not with the judgement of God who by his sure omniscience knowes who are reconciled to him and who not nor with the judgement of the conscitnce of any reconciled persons who by the assurance of faith or hope may believe or hope that they are reconciled for this is Gods tribunall but with the judgement of the church which under the sacrament of charity as it was termed of old by the harlots words and actions may judge the best and so this parr of the question is utterly void For I never yet knew harlot but would confesse and lament her sinne and promise amendement before her bastard was baptized and so give a ground for charitable hope The second limitation is till shee bee publickely reconciled to the church scandalized from which by her fact shee hath cuâ— her selfe off In which foure things are to bee pondered First the manner of her reconciling which is required by the question in the open church But what if she be ready to be swallowed up of sorrow Shall wee not have the church to apply her power of mitigating indulgence shall we have nothing but extreamitie Did God allow in the time of the law that if an oxe did kill a man by the masters negligence there might bee a commutation of punishment from death to a ransome of mony and will wee in no case have a mitigation of rigour from the open church when yet Justice may bee done and that with more good sometimes both upon the partie and others by charitable and indulgent acts Secondly the persons offended are the Church scandalized by which the question meanes not the Catholik or nationall Church for with both these the harlot may be friends still because they cannot take notice of every such fact to bee offended by it But the particular Church and assembly united by God and the lawes for the professing of saving truth Thirdly consider then the danger of the harlot offending shee hath cut her selfe off as the question implyes but consider how she hath cut her selfe off and how farre shee hath not cut her selfe off by excommunication ecclesiasticall for that is not in her power and the Church hath not yet proceeded against her but by excommunication morall by the wickednesse of her fact which makes her censurable both heere and hereafter in an high degree if she repent not heartily But how farre hath she cut her selfe off Not from the visible Church for she still professeth saving faith and would not but have the benefit of it for much yea shee still hath the character of Baptisme which is the outward marke of a Christian for otherwise upon her reconciliation she should be baptized againe which surely the question intends not but from two things in the visible Church first from the inward comforts of christianity till shee repent unto life For I thinke it will not bee denyed but that shee may doe this before ecclesiasticall indulgence bee applyed unto her upon outward submission And secondly from publike communion with the visible Church in some holy things when she is proceeded against till shee hath outwardly in the congregation confessed her fault if neede require and promised amendment In some holy things I say for I answer none will deny her a right to reade the word of God or to heare it read to heare good exhortations and instructions or to pray in private which yet are the acts of a true Christian Fourthly consider the remedy of this danger her reconciling to the Church by which we must not vnderstand her returning into favour by communion with the Church in repentance unto life and the faith of the elect for no man or men can judge certainely of these but onely returning into favour by communion with the Church in profession to have them The question being thus stated wee may the more easily conceive and give satisfying answers To the first whether Bastards are baptizable I answer the bastards as other children of Iewes Turkes and Infidels are not but the bastards of professors of Christianity are for these two reasons First because that which gives right unto the parents gives right unto the children in the parents right for when the parents professed the faith of Christ the Apostles did baptize them and their children if any such were in the houshold But profession of Christianity gives right to the Parents for if men doe but professe their faith in the Trinity they are baptizeable and therefore the bastards of Christans are baptizeable Secondly because the children of Christians are baptizeable but bastards of Christians are the children of Christians for otherwise such parents should be rebaptized therefore they are baptizeable To the second question whether men ought to stay their baptisme till the harlot be reconciled unto God in the open church which is justly scandalized by her fact and from which shee hath dismembred herselfe by her misdeed I answere first to the grounds of the question in limitations and next to the question it selfe To the grounds of the question I answer two things First that her fact hath not so dismembred her as to make her no christian For let me aske doth a vaste sinne so cut off from Christ that it doth unchristian a man or woman I doe not aske this to move any man or woman to flatter themselves in such a case For such have just cause to doubt whether they are univocall members of saving Christ neither can they know by assurance of faith whether ever they shall rise againe because God saies to no man sinne and my grace shall helpe thee up But I aske it to shew the hope and charity of the church about such wicked professours of christianity Besides if her fact had made her no christian shee should be rebaptized but shee hath still the character of baptisme and hath right to the inward comforts of it if she repent and so in her state and right her bastard hath a right also Secondly I answer that her scandalizing of the church where shee lives doth not deprive her selfe or her childe of the right of christianity As for her childe the scandall was given by the mother not that who is a sufferer in the shame of the sinne not a doer in the worke of it As for her selfe though her scandall deprive her of the best comforts of christianity till she repent yet not of a right to some of the outward priviledges of Christianity whereof the baptisme of her childe is one And this the rather because an harlot amongst christians having a bastard and not professing her selfe sorrowfull and that shee doth believe in Christ is not for ought I know or have heard to bee found what ever her heart be Now secondly to the question it selfe I answer that no man either in that church or over that church ought lawfully to stay bastards from baptisme Because they that are in the covenant of Christianity
that act out of ignoraÌ„ce not wholy excusing Abraham loved him not yes as Iosiah was the generation of them that loved God though Manasseh his father had long and fearefull fits of cruell Idolatry so in this case bastards may bee the generation of them that love God though their immediate Solution 2 parents in those accursed acts loved him not Secondly they say that it is one thing to say that God will shew grace and favour to one and another thing to say that he is already in grace as hee must bee that is baptized I have answered before that the bastards of Christians have the grace of right to Baptisme and that is sufficient in this case for otherwise Ishmaels right to Solution 3 circumcision cannot bee found Thirdly they say that that promise of God in the second commandement may have a double sence first that God will extend his mercy to many ages on them that love him when they are come to age and capeable of his love by practise But thus they make them that love God to bee the posterity when it is plaine the promise was made to them that received the law then and were to continue in the profession of saving truth and so to all others in such a case Secondly that God will shew little children favour for their fathers and mothers sake to a thousand generations But this they thinke cannot bee meant neither in deede is as I conceive Yet then adde a third sence which they forget that God will shew the posterity that continues in the profession of his name favour not for their parents sake but for his owne sake for his promise sake which he makes to them that love him and that for many generations and then I reason thus That which keepes the generations to come who live as professors in the visible Church in covenant with God that gives infants of such parents right to the seale of the covenant of which they are capable But Gods promise to faithfull parents in the visible Church keepes such generations to come in covenant with God and therefore have they right to the scale of the covenant whereof they are capable Now whereas they aske whether all children or some have right I answer all to the grace of right to Baptisme Thirdly they bring forth another objection Objection 3 that if bastards bee withheld from Baptisme there will be no difference put betwixt Bastards and their parents They answer here what if there be no difference put And whatsoever the objection bee for I know not who ownes it they runne here a strange course Out of a desire to honour the seventh commandement they dishonour the first and third Let adultery bee abominable because whoremongers and adulterers God will Iudge yet let God have his honour in hating infidelity above whoredome Let not the Scripture bee wronged but thoroughly weigh their words They say first that Bastards and their parents are all infidels what though their parents bee Christians yes surely say they because Saint Paul saith they are worse then infidels Let them consider because they are worse then carefull infidels in not caring for their children which is against the fift and eight commandements are they worse then infidels in infidelity They are christians yet worse and better worse in disgracing their posterity yet better in beleeving still the doctrine of christianity and so giving a right to baptisme But they say further that parents of bastards are worse in state then Turkes and they would prove it from a Text of finall Apostacy but what proofe this can be against an act of whoredome in the passion of lust clowding reason in an heate I cannot tell Let a Turk be a Turk but no worse and let a damnable Harlot be an harlot but no worse Her state is bad enough to bring her to hell without Objection 4 repentance but not to exclude her child from baptisme if she be a Christian at large Fourthly they meete with another objection that Bastards are borne the Church is their Mother therefore baptisme ought not to be denyed them It should have beene put thus they are borne of Christian parents who by profession are members of the Church and so the Church is their Mother and the mother of their seede and therefore to bee baptized But in their answer they fall into two errors First that the Church is a company of true beleevers whoÌ„ God bath chosen to eternall life which Church I pray Not that whereof new borne bastards of Christian parents are by profession members The holy Catholike Church and proper body of Christ may be defined by beleevers in that sence of it but that the visible Church in the outward face of it is thus defined wants warrant in the word of Christ Thus the Church is a number of persons united according to the word in the profession of saving truth whether they are elect or no. Their second error is that Bastards are infidels for this can not bee conceived of bastards of Christian parents as is before proved Objection 5 Fiftly they yet finde more arguments to oppose them Bastards may belong to Gods election and therefore are not to be denyed Baptisme It should have beene thus set They may belong to Gods election as members of the visible Church for otherwise election may belong to Jewes and Turkes who yet are not Baptizable without personable profession But they answer thus it must not be said they may belong but they doe belong to Gods election for otherwise the signe is not to bee administred unto them Doe they consider how thus they take away Baptisme from all men women and children The Lord knowes who are his and the Church reaches but to the judgement of charity A judgement of certainety to warrant us in these acts is no where granted though baptisme bee deferred to the last gaspe for any thing knowne to me of faith Objection 6 Sixtly they further finde another argument against them that if bastards were denied baptisme this were to make the children to beare the iniquity of their Parents But may they not rather thus dispute The children whose parents have a right to baptisme have also a right to baptisme themselves notwithstanding their parents personal faults for otherwise they shall be punished for parents faults But the christian parents of bastarâ—s have a right to baptisme themselves and therefore so have their children They have a right of possession to the baptisme they have and a right of expectation to the comfort of it upon their faith and repentance But take their answer and they say foure things First that they do not meane to deny baptisme but to defer it Indeed heere is some charity but not enough upon former grounds Againe they say to defer baptisme is not to punish them for their parents sinnes yes that it is if it bee meerely
the worthy receiver It doth the first as a signe the bread and wine of the Lord these proclaime to all comers that Christ is to bee had in the use of them if they bee so disposed as they should to take him It doth the second as a seale the bread and wine which is the communion of the Lord. These proclaime to the faithfull that they shall not onely have bread and wine but Christ the Lord as that Mannah that came downe from heaven to feede them to eternall life The wicked Christian hath a right unto it as it offers grace which he hath truely offered to him on Gods part in his invitation if hee will take it on Gods condition The same right that Simon Magus had to baptisme have wicked Christians to the supper of the Lord. He professed himselfe to believe in Christ upon Philips preaching and he had a right to baptisme and was baptized It is true that baptisme is a sacrament of our ingraffing into Christ and the Lords supper of our growing into Christ But he that is a baptized Christian and hath understanding to examine and judge himselfe cannot be denyed his right to this sacrament as wel as to that Both are but the seales of one covenant and whosoever receiveth the word of Christ and professeth to accept it by faith hath a right to the offers of the grace of Christ in both the sacraments but not to the exhibiting of it if the barre of impure unbeliefe lyes betwixt God and his soule If secondly you aske what benefit this wicked man can have by this sacrament I answer hee hath the benefit of profession he doth receive Christs liverie of servants and doth submit himselfe to his ordinance and acknowledge his publick authority for the benefit of his church And this is a glorious benefit in it selfe for a christian to weare Christs badge But hee doth not receive the benefit of the body and bloud of Christ with the benefits of them to life For if he did thus eate his flesh and drinke his bloud hee had eternall life He brings his soule to the sacrament without the conditions of the covenant written upon it and so though he accept of the offer of grace in the signe yet hee carries not away the seale of it no more then Iudas did from the passeover His right and benefit therefore will bring little comfort to him at the last when his reckoning comes Thirdly this wicked man having a right to it and a benefit too such as it is to him you aske what separation Gods word will warrant from such communicants I answer that I cannot finde in the word of God that any separation was made in the sacrament by the godly from the wicked not cast out for their unworthinesse All the â—ewes that were circumcised and not cast out of their synagogues were to eate the passeover or dye the children that could eat as a sacrifice of thanksgiving and growne persons as a sacrament seale of Gods covenant So all christians that are not infants mad-men fooles and excommunicates who cannot examine and judge themselves or are after conviction notorious offenders and so cast out are not repellable if they come from the sacrament of the Lords supper It is true wee reade much in the writings of men of suspensions from this sacrament even of those that were neither children fooles mad-men demoniacks nor excommunicate persons by private ministers but I would see this for the right of it soundly proved by the undoubted rule of Christ I have read also that the blessed Fathers in the wary discipline fit for their times did not onely proclaime before the sacrament by their Deacons depart ye that are novices possessed and under your penance for your crimes but would not also admit any but the believers and the baptized so much as to see the sacrament I have reade also of the cautelousnesse of those holy men in admitting penitents to the Lords table As they first admitted them into the limits of the church next to lye down as humble suiters to forget scandall at the church porch next to heare but not stay prayers next to heare and stay prayers too next to see the sacrament of the Lords supper but not to receive it and lastly when they were sufficiently humbled and edged to those high mysteries they were admitted to the Lords table These courses had high and excellent use in those times when they were to lift up the honour of the sacrament in the sight of infidels and hold close such christians as played fast and loose with Christ as peace or persecution came And though they had not particular warrant from God yet it being done decently in order and for edification of the body had warrant sufficient from that generall rule As I have reade these things of times past and admire them so I know for the present that it were a glorious and comfortable thing if none but holy persons would draw neere unto this holy table as wee deale withall our communicants by way of exhortation and perswasion from the danger of Iudas This certainely is fullest of joy when Christ meetes with none but his faithfull servants and not one unworthy to trouble the day But if wicked Christians that are not lawfully convicted and are not notorious in law though they bee notorious in fact whether these when they will offer themselves to the sacrament as Christs servants professing his name to their owne hurt be to bee separated from by the word of Christ this is the question I know we may by way of admonition before hand tell them of the danger and by way of perswasion presse them better to prepare themselves but wee may not for their sakes discommon our selves from the table of the Lord. If it were the table of devils away we must goe but being the table of Christ if others abuse themselves at it without our fault wee must accept of Christs love and leave it to Christ to punish him or them that doe dishonour them You know many theeves in this christian common-wealth will you therefore separate your selves from the common-wealth because these theeves are in common body with you No you will leave them to the lawes of it to bee punished and as it lies in your lot doe your best to further it but you will not forsake the common-wealth So must you doe to the table of Jesus Christ The blessed Apostle saith we have received power to edifie not to destroy And if wee should fall out with Christs supper for wicked mens sake and separate from Christs ordinance because wicked men will not use it as they should and breake off from many godly persons because more wicked persons are not excommunicate for any thing I know we may more destroy then edifie But say the Brownists holy things must not bee cast to dogs and swine the childrens bread must not be