Selected quad for the lemma: saint_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
saint_n	admit_v	church_n	visible_a	1,210	5	9.2185	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A78433	A sober ansvver, to a serious question. Propounded by Mr. G. Firmin minister of the church in Shalford in Essex. viz. Whether the ministers of England are bound, by the Word of God, to baptise the children of all such parents, which say, they believe in Jesus Christ: but are grosly ignorant, scandalous in their conversation, scoffers at godliness, and refuse to submit to church-discipline, the negative is not sufficiently defended. Which may serve also as an appendix to the diatribe with Mr. Hooker, lately published, concerning the baptisme of infants, of parents not confœderate. By Daniel Cavvdrey pastour of the church at Great Billing in Northampton-shire. Licensed, printed, and entred, according to order.	Cawdrey, Daniel, 1588-1664.	1652 (1652)	Wing C1636; Thomason E683_23; ESTC R206820	21,614	39

So long as wicked persons continue members and the Church lets them alone they may challenge Baptisme which one 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 The 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 they 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. Upon 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 The 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 A 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 Object 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 onely of this particular But this qualification is not in his question but generally If he refuse to subject to Church-discipline To 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 more 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 are they debarred from both Sacraments and

consideration those things to which little is said in that Discourse as being then out of question His first premise is this The Infant abstracted from the Parent gives no reason why it should be Baptized To which otherwise propounded by Mr. Hooker we have answered 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 onely 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 onely 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 The 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 onely 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 onely gives it right thereto 2. 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 onely 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 onely 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 Having 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 And 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 As 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 It 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 the 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 Concerning 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 onely 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 onely 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