Selected quad for the lemma: reason_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
reason_n	baptism_n	baptize_v	infant_n	2,779	5	9.3007	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

conditions of the Covenant of grace and that Baptisme respected one and the Lords Supper the other then there might be some eason why the Church should looke to one more then another but I know but of one condition Page 21. You say moreover 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 To which I say 1. If children did as much depend on their parents for the Lords Supper as they doe for Baptisme then for ought I know they may have as was the old custome the Lords Supper as Baptisme 2. You should have proved that lesse is to be required of those who doe give them title to their Baptisme then for themselves to the Lords Suppe● Page 22. So that whereas you say all my false consequences are grounded upon my first false premised supposition viz. That the child hath no right but in relation to the next parent the word next by your favour was not there put in I may consider the Parent and Child as argumentum primum ortum in Logick primum babet arguendi vim in se à se ortum in se sed non à se It s but derived so I say your answer to this argument runs upon a false supposition viz. that children are baptized by vertue of a title distinct from their parents If you can prove that viz. that the parent requires baptisme for himselfe by one title and the child by another title distinct from his then your answer will be strong else it is as weake and weaker then the argument which you so much slight for the rest of your answer I have spoken to it before and therefore repeace nothing for the examples of Scripture or History will you doe nothing but what you have example for is not argument drawne from Scripture-grounds sufficient for me though there be not examples set downe For the personall default I have spoken to it before For my Dilemma which you would turne upon me I see you take that for granted which I have not yeilded therefore my Dilemma stands as it did before against you Page 23. For my Querie Whether the child may not be suspended in case the parent he suspended continuing obstinate you would answer me out of principles which are not mine I pray prove that juspension is an Ordinance instituted onely with respect to the Lords Supper Secondly Being it is called by Divines Excommunicatio Minor prove that the case now standing with us as now it doth in beginning of Reformation wee may not deny the signa gratiae as the Layden professors say though by reason of the multitude we cannot proceed to Excommunication 3. Why may we not proceed to non-communion My second Argument was this Such Parents if now they were to be Baptized ought not to be Baptized Ergo they cannot challenge it for their Children Baptisme belongs primatily to the Parent You againe deny the consequence and the proose of it First you say It is a received maxime amongst the Lawyers quod fieri non debuit factum valet Suppose an unfit person Baptized his Baptisme is not null be is a Member till legally exeluded and so hath right for himselfe and his to be consequent Priviledges Hence first those Indians whom the Fryars Baptized in the West Indies without instruction Heylen Geog. P. 773. have right and title for themselves and theirs to all Church priviledges The persons were unfit who were Baptized I an●●●● yet saith Mr. Ca. unfitnesse doth not debarre till excluded No nor then neither Let others doe as those Fryars did yet this Argument holdes Secondly this answer earrieth it That Baptisme makes a Member of a visible Church observe his words suppose an unfit person Baptized If unfit to be Baptized then unfit to be a Member his Baptisme is not null be is a Member which way came this man to be a Member not by his Christianity which you use to say for he is a person unfit you say but his Baptisme made him thus which is First crosse to your own proposition Review of Mr. Hoo. P. 94. Baptisme doth not make a man a Member of a Church Secondly if Baptisme doth make a Member and consequently gives the title to his Childs Baptisme Then Constantine Valentinianes c. those who deferred their Baptisme were so long no Members of the Church nor could give title to their Childrens Baptisme Thirdly Primum in unoquoque genere est meusura aliorion so take the first in genere Baptizatorum what was the cause of their Baptizing because cause they hearing of the word Taught Believed and joyned to the Church it was not because any other was Baptized so the same holds now a person being reputed a Believer and a Church-member whether in the Parents or otherwise this is the ground of its Baptisme then it is not anothers being Baptized that is the ground of my Baptisme Fourthly the ground of the sealing of the Covenant is because the person appeares to be in Covenant not because it was first sealed to another The Child is looked upon within the Covenant by reason of the Parent as was I shmael before Abraham was circumcised if in the Covenant then say you the child is a Church-member then it is not the Parents being Baptized that gives the title Hence your Notion in the same Page 23. If the Parents sin did annull his own Baptisme it were a question whether it did not hinder his childes Baptisme which also implies it is the Parents Baptisme that is the cause of his childes Baptisme comes to nothing Your second answer is from none of my Principles Your third I have spoken to also I did not expresse excommunication as a qualification in the questions it is true I have spoken to this also before What you have said to the third Argument I have also spoken to before my fourth Argument ran thus To give the seale of the Covenant of grace to a child by vertue of one who appeares to be in covenant with the Devill is a prophaning of the Ordinance To this you answer foure wayes the last I have spoken to but not the other three which I will consider Page 25. First you deny that such persons as the Q. memions are visibly in Covenant with Satan especially if tolerated for so long they are visibly in the externall covenant of the Church What you meane by this Externall Covenant of the Church I cannot imagine not Baptisme I hope nor the Externall Church covenant wee speake of and you so much oppose for the Covenant of grace they are not visibly under that there needs no Covenant formally betweene the Devill and us naturally hee hath us strong enough though wee make no formall Covenants with him But when are men said to be under the Covenant of Grace is it not when

be enough then admit all England to the Lords Supper without scruple Thus Sir I have replyed to your Booke with as much brevity as I could I know such a man as you are will not be quiet thus but will write againe I foresee some things and possibly you may make use of my Booke against the Separation against me which I could have prevented but upon some reasons moving me I let them alone and it will be hard though I am but weak if I should not spy out some things in your writing which I might oppose againe but I see there will be no end of writing wherefore I am resolved to make an end onely if I finde you bring out more strength then yet I have seene and that which giveth me satisfaction I will returne you very hearty thanks and publish it to the world that you have satisfied me if not I will be silent A POST-SCRIPT To Reverend Mr. Blake MY reply to Mr. Cawdrey was ready for the presse within seven weeks after his answer came out but by the ill dealing of that Bookeseller who had my Copy first in his hand it comes to be thus long before it came forth I heard not of Mr. Blake a long time after he came forth and have poss●ss●d his booke no longer then to have but one whole day to review him and draw up my reply which I would have done 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but that my Bookseller is unwilling to venture the charges for the printing in these dai●s I have not read ever any more as yet then what concerns my selfe and for his courteous handling of me without scorne I kindely thanke him I have liberty to mention but two or three things which I shall doe with as much brevitie as I can 1. He observes Page 431. I am diffident rather then consident of my opinion Sir I did write as a man who was troubled about it my Arguments at present casting the scale on the negative side though I had not such downe weight as I desired but truly Sir I see nothing as yet to ma●e me recall my opinion for all that is said excepting Mr. Cawdrey's notion of Adoption in which your selfe are not cleare I knew before 2. I observe sometimes you dresse my Argument with such a fashion that I cannot know it to be mine but disclaime it then you sinde fault p. 439. where have I mentioned the power of godlinesse as a requisite in him who claims Baptism but to bring up a child in it is a harder matter I have not liberty to enlarge 3. Sometimes your answer is a bare laying downe your owne Judgement with a Similitude added for illustration P. 441. We now c●ll for Scripture and reason from thence Similia at pompam non ad puguam 4. For my fi●st Argument for the negative p. 449.450 which you say was Mr. Blackwoods I never saw any thing of his but I tooke it from our Brethrens practise and it was that with one thing more which led mee into my practise for when I saw the Presbyteriall Brethren keep back half or three quarters of their Churches from the Lords Supper and that for divers years together yet did so constantly baptise their children I thought with my selfe where have these men a ground for this practise in all the New Testament I could not sinde one nor reason for it but rather against it for the Old Testament though I knew some were kept back for Ceremoniall uncleannesse from the passeover yet for Moral uncleannesse to be kept back many yeers and still to have their children circumcised I found no text for that For Mr. Gille●py I have not liberty to set downe my thoughts You frame your answer by turning my argument another way then requiring me to give answer to your Syllogisme which Sir is no clever way of disputation And for answer I need give you none Against the Anabap. Argu 5. Mr. Iohnson before you and you in his words though it may be you saw him not have given a full answer yet my Argument is not hurt at all though the parent may be suspended for a time what is this to the suspension of three parts of a Church six or ten years together and never proceed furtherr * Ame Med. Th●el c. 37. th 22. I would have enlarged if I might I observed many other things to which I would have replyed b●t I shall single out onely one thi●g which I will examin Goular in 38. Ep. Cypr. Page 4.26 Infant of Parents that are nomine tenus Christians have right to Baptisme If they professe the worship of the true God though nothing more of a Christion be in them Page 424. If by a Christian nomine tenus your m●aning were one who 〈◊〉 but a nominall Christian as all are who are not reall I make no question but many such as these nominall ones a Minister may B prise and their children though they have not truth of grace in them but I perceive you scope is to sp●ead the word very large and that directly opposite to my qu●stion If they will say they are Christians bene the Name of Ch●ist own his worship though it be but from the custome of the Nation others do so and so do they though their course and frame of conversation be like the infidells or worse yet they are Christians nomine ●enus hence we must Baptize if they have but Fides no ma●ter for Observan●●a But sir I pray what if they be hereticall about the na●ures of Ch●ist a● some of old deny the Humanity some the Deity of Christ what if they thinke Christ was a Woman as I have given instance what if they know not whether he was God or Man as before what if ten Gods as before and abundance of such stuffe all which yet will call themselves Christians must these be Baptized These are errors in their beliefe But let us suppose they understand God and Christ for their Faith they are right but abominable in their conversation are we now bound to Baptize because of their Faith 1. Sir I thought Christianity had taken in the heart and outward convers●tion as well as the bead a ●eall Christian is one united to Christ sound in the Doct●ine concerning Christ and wal●ing as Christ did we suppose an old Adam Let him who is a nominall Christian appeare live one though he be not real Mr. Ca will not allow him sit if visib●y he lives like an infidel though he professe his sai●h in Christ 2. Let us view the Scriptu●c in the administration of Baptisme The● Mark 4. Bap●●sme of Repentance this is more then Faith they confessed their sins v. 5. the J●●●s had not idolls now to confesse that sin Aug. defid● ● 2 Acts op c. 8 Doth not the ordinance note repentance also 2 Acts 37.38 First Mag leb cen● 1. li. 1. cap. 10. Jews so had knowledge 〈◊〉 so ignorant as ou● 〈◊〉 believe Secondly