A Sober ANSWER, 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 Baptism the children of all such Parents, which say, they believe in Jesus Christ; but are grossly 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 Baptism of Infants, of Parents not confoederate.  
By DANIEL CAWDREY Pastor of the Church at Great Billing in Northamptonshire.  Mark 10.14. 
Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbidden them not, for of such is the Kingdom of God.  
Licenced, Printed, and entered, according to order.  
LONDON. Printed for Christopher Meredith at the sign of the Crane in Paul's Churchyard 1652.   

TO THE JUDICIOUS, BUT Indifferent Reader.  
IT is (as the Reverend Author of the Question now before us, says, in the very entrance of his Epistle to the Reader) a very sad and uncomfortable state of a diseased Church, when the Physicians are at difference concerning the way of curing the Patient. This (as in other things, by others) is really exemplified in himself, and one Mr. Jeanes, in a Learned Tract of his, entitled, [The want of Church Government, no warrant for a total omission of the Lords Supper] who both intending the Cure of their diseased flocks, go clean contrary ways to effect it. He is so far from denying Children of the most Scandalous, the privilege of Baptism, that he admits such Parents to the Lords Supper, pleading the necessity of that Ordinance, and his own want of power to amend, or keep them away. Our Author, on the other side, not only keeps such Parents from the Lords Supper, but also denies Baptism, the other Sacrament, to their children. The one way seems to some, to tend to the Profanation of that Ordinance: The other to the division, if not the destruction of the Church, by making all, at least the greatest part of the children of Congregations, little better than Infidels. And which of of these two ways of Cure, is best, or worst, is hard to say. I shall say nothing at present of the former, but (with leave) something of the latter, with as much mildness and meekness as I can; for he says truly [He hath not so handled the question, as to deserve a sharp answer, pag. last.] Had he seen (which I conceive, he hath not) a Tract lately come forth, called [The inconsistency of the Independent way with Scripture, and with itself] he had found a Diatribe there with Reverend Mr. Hooker, about almost his very question; which either might have prevented his publication, or have given him occasion, to alter, or enlarge his thoughts, in some particulars; his grounds being most of them taken from Mr. Hooker, and the answers and arguments against him, falling full upon his own. The difference between them is not great, if any at all. The one, Mr. (Hooker) requires an Explicite Covenant; to make Church members, and allows no children of the most knowing and godly Parents, not confederate, the privilege of baptism. The other seems to deny Baptism, only to the children of those who are grossly ignorant, scandalous, etc. I say, he seems only to do this: For both he speaks suspiciously sometimes, towards an Explicite Covenant, and his question, as it stands in terminis, (not being at all explicated) if not rightly taken, may seem also to exclude the children of such, as submit not to Church-discipline, though knowing and godly. And pag. 9 of his Epistle, he requires expressly (as a qualification of a member) [That he profess his subjection to Discipline] which is Tantamount if not the same, with the Independents Explicite Covenant; yet herein he is to be commended, that he is not so rigid as they are, in his qualification, or admissions of members.  
And seeing we are accidentally fallen upon the Explicite Covenant, I shall consider what he says of it, in his Epistle; though I might refer him to the Tract aforesaid, where it is fully handled. In pag. 16. of his Epistle, thus he speaks [Some Ministers scorn the notion, that an explicit Covenant, is the form of a Church visible; and some professors are so rigid for it, that without it, they deny all Churches] of the later sort, is Mr. Hooker himself, (though sometime he grant an implicit Covenant sufficient) for part 3. of his Survey pag. 11. he says expressly, [Non confoederate persons, in their sense are Non members of the Church, etc. and consequently their children have no title to Baptism, (which is one of our Authors arguments in pag. 10. of his book, borrowed from Mr. Hooker part. ●. p. 24.) whereby he unmembers, and unchurches all not so constituted. For my part, I scorn not such a notion, but with Apollonius, and others, think it lawful, though not necessary, as the form to the being of the Church; the Impsicite being of itself, confessed to be fully sufficient. But I require a proof of the necessity of it. All that can reasonably be said, is but this, That it is very requisite and expedient, in corrupted Churches, in a time of Reformation, to renew the Covenant with God; and that includes the Covenant of Pastors and Members, and of Members one with another, [To walk with God and one another in all relations] Our Author himself seems to grant, the Implicit Covenant may serve to the esse. Formale; but then, in a manner recalls his grant again, when he says there, [Though explicitenesse be not essential to the esse Formale of a Church, yet you will find it almost essential to the esse of a Government, etc. else when you come to exercise discipline, you will find some members explicitly stubborn, to spurn the Implicit Covenant, at their heels.] Truly they that are such, can as well spurn the Explicite also. And in this Looseness, or rather want of Church-government, can remove from his Church, to another, and ease themselves of his most Explicite Covenant. They (of whom he speaks there) that [acknowledged discipline as an Ordinance, and said to him, that if they had not promised him to submit to discipline, he had no power over them] spoke not aright. For by the Explicite Covenant of Christianity, they were bound Implicitly to all God's Ordinances, (of which this is one) and he had thereby power over them. And by the [Implicit consent to Church-government, in that Implicit Covenant, which is in every Parochial Congregation, pag. 17.] they were bou●d to him, and he had power over them, though they did not explicitly promise him, to submit to him: yea, that Covenant, both general of Christianity, and special, in joining with a Parochial Congregation, if he would improve it, and press the obligation of it, upon his people, were sufficient to persuade them to submit, and authorise him to exercise discipline upon them. 
See Review of Survey part. 2. p. 104 & 109. etc.  But if people will be perverse and obstinate (at their peril be it) they can as easily cast off the cords of his Explicite Covenant, as Samson did his wythes; yet pag. 17. he says [How can this discipline be exercised, without a free consent unto it, being this Church-relation, is not natural as (father and child) but free] when to my apprehension, he requires an Explicite Covenant, to make or admit a member, as Independents do. The truth is, as I conceive, that relation of Christians one to another, is not free, but after a sort, natural; and flows as natural from the Covenant of Christianity, or Regeneration, as that of father and child, brother and brother, from generation; as is more fully discoursed and cleared in the Tract aforesaid. 
Ibid pag. 125. 126. etc.  I shall not trouble his Epistle any further, but make bold, to make some Animadversions upon his book, which may serve as an Appendix to the Diatribe there expressed.   

There are lately Printed for Christopher Meredith at the Crane in Paul's Churchyard; These Books.  

MAster Elton on the ten Commandments and Lords Prayer; formerly burnt by the Bishops.  
Doctor Dons (late Dean of Paul's) Sermon at the Lady Danvers funeral, with verses of Mr. George Herbert, etc. 12.  
Viccarsii Manuductio ad artem Rhetoricam. 12.  
A Letter of Mr. Thomas Shepherd's, late of New- England, sent to R. Harlakenden of Essex Esquire, removing four hindrances in God's Worship. 

First, how one may be rid of an earthly carnal heart, sold to the contentment of the Creature.  
Secondly, of a proud heart which is unwilling to seek after, to wait upon or to stoop unto the Commands of God.  
Thirdly, of a selfseeking heart that eyes itself, especially in the best duties.  
Fourthly, of a slighty heart of God's hands in mercies and Judgements.    
The state of the Saints departed; Gods Cordial to Comfort the Saints remaining alive, a Sermon Preached at the Funeral of Mistress Smithee Harlakenden, wife of William Harlakenden Esquire, by R. Josselin.  
The Christian Centurions Observations, advices, and Resolutions concerning matters, Divine and Moral, by Philip Skippon, Serjeant Major General, etc. Also two other books formerly published by the same Author. viz. 

First, A Collection of Promises.  
Secondly, A true Treasure, or thirty holy vows, etc.    
A learned and full answer to a Treatise entitled the Vanity of childish Baptism, etc. by William Cook Minister of Moxall in Warwickshire.  
Vindiciae Redemptionis in the Fannings and Sift of Samuel Oats, his exposition upon Matth. 13.44. by John Stalham, Pastor of the Church at Terling in Essex. The Sum of a conference at Terling in Essex concernning Infant's Baptism.  
John Gears Reply to Doctor Boughen, touching the Coronation oath; two books of his in defence of Infant's Baptism, in answer to Mr. Tombs Objections.    

A Sober ANSWER, TO A Serious Question, Propounded and Published by G. F. 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 grossly Ignorant, Scandalous in their conversations, Scoffers at Godliness, and refuse to submit to Church-Discipline?  
The Negative is not sufficiently defended.  
BEfore I fall upon the Discourse itself, I shall take leave, a little to consider the state of the question. And I desire to be satisfied by the Reverend Author, whether he intent, that all these qualifications in his question, must meet jointly in one man, or he meaneth it separately, and singly of any one of them, as sufficient to debarr his children Baptism. If jointly, that all these must concur, he will hardly, or very rarely find all these together in one man. For a man may be grossly ignorant, and yet not of a scandalous conversation: Or very Scandalous, and yet very knowing, or both those, and yet not professed scorner of Godliness. Or none of all those, yet (not being convinced of the necessity of it) refuse to submit to Church discipline. If any one of these singly, will strip him of that privilege, than the last alone will do it, viz. [Refusal to submit to Church-discipline] be a man never so knowing, and godly in conversation. And then, I pray, what differs he from the Independents in their Explicite Church-covenant? This is the Resolution of M. Hooker, whom our Author follows in most of his discourse) 
Survey part 3, p. 11.  [The pinch of the question lies here, whether persons Non-confoederate (and so in our sense not members of the Church) do entitle their children to the seal of Baptism, their parents (though godly) being yet unwilling to come into Church-fellowship] And he resolves it Negatively, (as our Author does, upon his grounds partly, and chief.) 
Inconsist. of Independ. way etc. part 3.  But in that special sense, the Diatribe is ready to give him satisfaction: as for the present question before us, Mr. Hooker rejects it, as out of question; for thus he writes; ibid. [It's not then the question, whether wicked members, while they are tolerated sinfully in the Church, they and their children may partake of the privileges? for this is beyond question, nor do I know, nor never heard it denied by any of o●rs.] Had he lived till this time, he might have known, and heard of some of ours, (if not still theirs) this question negatively resolved, and earnestly (though modestly) defended. And to say the truth, this question springs from his, and seems a reasonable consequence thereof; for if one refusing only to submit to Church-discipline, loses this privilege of Ordinances for himself and his, be he never so knowing and godly, it seems very reasonable, that such as were grossly ignorant, and scandalous in their conversation, etc. should much more justly be debarred the same. If it is said, these are Church-members, though sinfully tolerated, but so are not those that Refuse to come into Church-fellowship: I answer,  
1. These are Church members also, at least of the Catholic Church, as more than professors only, true believers and godly, and therefore are (we think) unjustly debarred the privilege of Ordinances, for themselves and theirs not being convinced of the necessity of their Church-government; as is largely discoursed in the place aforesaid.  
2. We may suppose easily that some, that were from their Infancy Church-members, yet growing up are scrupled in the point of Church-discipline, and so not willing to submit to it. These also, are yet tolerated (I say not sinfully) in the Church, and so ought not to be debarred the former Privileges by his own principles.  
3. Our Author, that hath started a new question, (out of question with Mr. Hooker:) oftentimes professes, (as we shall hear anon) that the worst of these tolerated (sinfully) while tolerated, have right to Ordinances, for themselves and theirs. And so the controversy were at an end; This principle answers and overthrows all his Arguments. But because, the former Diatribe with Mr. Hooker, may receive light, and strength from this Contest; I shall take into consideration, those things, to which little is said, in that Discourse, as being then out of question.  
His first premise is this; [The Infant abstracted from the Parent, gives no reason why it should be Baptised] To which (otherwise propounded by Mr. Hooker) we have answered already; 
Diatrib. 6. p. 18●.  and now explain ourselves 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 Baptism, for themselves or theirs. But the question intends to speak only 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 profess to believe in Jesus Christ: then, it is supposed he would not ask, whose it is in that respect, for it is not only Home, but a Christian born.  
2. If he would (as he may) ask the question, when a Christians child is brought to be Baptised, it is not to know whether he be ignorant, scandalous, not submitting to Church-discipline, etc. or godly (such questions were never asked till these last overcurious days) 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 Baptised by virtue of the Parent, one or both, considered in relation to them] This is Mr. hooker's second premised conclusion; only restrained to the next Parents; which is intended by our Author 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 itself to Baptism; This the Affirmative; the Parent only gives it right thereto.  
2. It takes for granted (what is denied) these two things. First, that there is no way to admit a child to Baptism, but Parental, by virtue of, and relation to the Parent. Secondly, and that not the proparent, or predecessors, 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 joined together, by way of Covenant, etc.] where two things are to me observable. 1. That he seems to own no Catholic 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) only of the Catholic Church, be to be reputed a Church member, and have any right to require Baptism for his child. 2. He requiring an explicit Covenant to such a Church, seems not only to contradict himself, in his Epistle, where he grants an Implicit 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 Baptism to any children, but of members explicitly 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 Baptism must fall] To which I say; Our arguments against the Anabaptists stand not upon this ground only; But their Arguments against Infant Baptism, stand upon the notion of an Explicite Covenant, to be made by every one that is Baptised. 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 joined to gether in a Church-Covenant, and so in their sense 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 children's Baptism, [Because they are capable of the grace of Baptism; men also being but mere 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 baptised: 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 bar to their Baptism. 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 Baptism how, belongs to believers and their children, unless God reveal himself to the contrary, which concerns Anabaptists to prove, by express Scripture, (as he says) which they can never do. Nay the contrary is evidently continued, Act. 2.38. etc. 1 Cor. 7.14. etc. 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 express Command for children's Circumcision, not so for their Baptism; It is enough it can be proved by consequence from Scripture.  
Concerning the question about predecessors giving right to children's Baptism, 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 shall say now, is this. 1. What England was when Austin came into England, we need not much inquire. For we look at England, as many years since reform, we need not go to many generations past, there are some alive, that had, or have predecessors known to be godly, let the question be of them; and two of them undertaking for the Christian education of the child. And though it be true, that some people received the Gospel after the example of their Kings, and were Baptised for company (as Simon Magus it seems was) and supposing it was but in outward profession only, yet that was sufficient to give them right to Baptism, 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, showing mercy to thousands, etc. but rather that to Abraham, [I am thy God, and the God of thy seed] which, whoever will restrain to the next generation only, it concerns him to prove, by express Scripture, (as he required above in a like case, of Anabaptists) that God is not the God of the seed of a godly Christian, in a second or third generation, but only of the first; which I believe he cannot do.  
It may truly be said; Though the immediate Parent godly, do give right to his child for Baptism, yet if that child growing up, prove Scandalous, his Parent's godliness doth not give him now right to the Lords Supper, because he himself puts in a bar, to keep him from the Supper; the reason is, because more is required of him for the Supper, than for Baptism. But than says he; [If so, why doth not the Scandalous life of the Immediate Parent put a bar between the child to be Baptised, and his predecessors?] The answer is, the child must not suffer for the Parents personal sin. True (says he) for Eternal punishment. But we say, not for Temporal or Spiritual punishments. He replies; [Not indeed when it is considered without relation to the Parent; which it cannot in this case, and so may suffer by him] To which we answer.  
1. The Jews children could no more be considered without relation to their Parents, than ours, yet the wickedness of a Jew hindered not their Circumcision.  
2. We must distinguish between the general state or a Parent, and his Personal wickedness: If his state be that of an Infidel, the child suffers with him; but if he be for state a Christian, the child is born a Christian, and the Parents Personal sin, is not imputed to the child, to hinder his Baptism. It hath, besides its relation to its Parent, a Birth-priviledge as born of Christian predecessors, and thereby may challenge the seal of Baptism.  
3. All this proceeds upon his former supposition, that there is no way to admit children to Baptism, but the Parent, and that the next and Immediate Parent, which is largely confuted, in the Diatribe, chap. 2.  
Lastly, all this discourse is destroyed, by what he often yields, [That a wicked Parent tolerated, may give right to a child's Baptism.]  
His case, of one in Corinth converted old, having children Infidels, which have also children; [whether would a minister Baptise the Infants, by virtue of the Grandfather] Is not our ease, where both father and grandfather are Christians? Yet what Minister that understands himself, would scruple to Baptise the child of an Infidel Parent, supposing him either dead, or resigning his child up to the Grandfather, to be Christianlike educated? All that he says against it, is but some accidental inconveniences that may follow. As first, [The Grandfather is old, may die quickly, before the child grow up, etc.] So may the Father, though a Christian and never so godly, yea both the Parents; who then shall take care for it? Again [The Infidel will not let his father Baptise the child; who have most right over the child, the father or Grandfather?] But suppose the Infidel willing to give up his child to the Grandfather: what says he then? That many things may fall out to hinder the Act of Baptism of such an Infant, is nothing to the question: the question is, whether it can hinder its right? If the Grandfather also will undertake for it, or some other friend, what says he then? If the mother be a Christian, though the father an Infidel, yet she can give a right to the child's Baptism: this he confesses pag. 10. But the father an Infidel, will not suffer it to be Baptised, or if Baptised, will breed it up in his Idolatry; I ask, as he, [who hath most right over the child, the father or the mother?] yet the child undeniably, hath right to Baptism by the mother. So then, there may be a right to Baptism, where no power to act it; 
See Diatrib. p. 188.  so it may be in the Grandfather, for aught is yet said.  
It's true, that Aquinas saith, in his 8. pag. [children of Infidels are not to be Baptised, white they are under their care and power, against their wills] But this seems to grant, that if they were willingly resigned to the care and power of a Christian undertaker, they might be Baptised, and then the Church does not act against the Law of Nature; which is his fear and needless exception.  
But he renews his plea; [Then though there are none to educate this child, for the ignorant profane Parents will not but teach them how to break the Covenant; predecessors cannot, they are dead, yet we must seal to this child] Let the Church take it, and take care of it say we; But says he, [Where do you see Churches take care of such children, etc.] we answer, He need not go far to see this; he may perhaps see it in his own Parish. Our Church or State have ordered very commendably, and charitably, that the children of very Papists, are taken from them, and bred up Protestants. Yea every Parish is ordered to take care of their own poor Orphans. If they cannot, the State, with the charity of good men, hath provided Hospitals and Schools for such children's education: we will put him a case. Suppose both the next Parents, being Church-members, die, and leave Infants, having no known kindred in, or near that place: who shall take care of them? we say the Church whereof the Parents were members: for the children baptised, are members of that Church, and the Church ought to take care of them. If the Congregational Church, neglect this, they come short of our Parochial Churches, though they pretend not only more piety, but more charity also to their own members. In a Christian Church or State, there ought to be a care of children, of Parents deceased, both in temporal and spiritual respects.  
And now we are come to the common objection. 
See ubi Suprae p. 212.  [where shall we stay? how far may we go, for this predecessor? how many generations? etc. This is fully answered elsewhere: we only once again desire him to prove by express Scripture, that the promise [I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed,] extends not only to the next generation; or to how many generations it is limited. Something he speaks to this purpose, pag. 28. [We find many promises made to the posterity of godly Parents, Gen. 17.7. etc. now if the children of such Parents grow up, and though but young, yet reading they find such promises, or hear of them; it seems these poor children must not lay hold of the promise, and claim it by virtue of their parents, and plead it with God, etc. for sure if God will not so much as give them an outward seal of the Covenant, by virtue of the parent, the poor child cannot plead these promises, which come by the parent] Thus he, and well, argued against the Anabaptists. Do but but change the word parent into progenitors, grandfather, or grandmother, and the plea is strong against himself: Lord, I am sure my grandfather, etc. was a godly man, my grandmother, a godly woman; thou hast made many promises to the posterity of such, not only to the next, but as I think, remote generations, though my next parents, were both wicked and profane; yet my pre-parents were godly. It seems, by this new Doctrine, to use his own words [This poor child must not now go and lay hold of this promise, and spread it before God, etc. for surely if God will not so much as give to this grandchild the outward seal of the Covenant by virtue of the proparent, or grandfather, it cannot plead the promises, which come by him] Let his own experience, in making use of these promises, teach him more mercy and charity to grandchilds.  
But he argues against us, thus: [If predecessors give right, than the children of an Immediate Parent Apostatised from the faith, and excommunicated from the Church may be Baptised, etc. and then the children of our English Apostates in Turkey may be baptised, etc.] We fear not to affirm, they may, if either they will resign them up to those that are Christians, their kindred or others, or any will undertake for their education. But in particular; First, for the case of an Apostate, it is answered elsewhere, in the Diatrib. p. 188. And we add now, that an Apostate renouncing his Christanity, renounce also with it his Baptism, and so turns Heathen; and that altars the case, except, as afore, he be willing to give it up, to such as will undertake for it. But than secondly, for the Excommunicate Parents (for if but one be a member, the child hath right to Baptism) for such Parents we say their case is not the same, with an Apostate, or Heathen: For though in some respects, an Excommunicate person is worse than an Infidel, (as the Apostle speaks of a man that provides not for his family, though not excommunicated) because he should be better, etc. yet in regard of State and Church-priviledges, he is better.  
For first, he is for state still a Christian, and retains his Baptism, which an Infidel hath not.  
2. He is a members still, though diseased much, and a member under cure, (as the leper of old, shut out of the camp was) which an Infidel is not. He is I say, a member in a large sense, as he speaks of a scandalous person tolerated, p. 41.  
3. [Heathen and non-members of Churches, when they are taken into a Church, they are Baptised] they are his own words, pag. 42. But so is not an Excommunicate person, therefore his State is better than theirs; He is neither Heathen nor non-member: ergo a member at large.  
Fourthly, if in regard of Church-priviledges, he be no better than an Heathen, yet that is still in respect to himself, not to his child, who being born a Christian of a Christian, hath right to Baptism, as shall appear in some cases at least. The child that is debarred Baptism, for the Parent's Excommunication; falls into this punishment, either when it is born before his Excommunication or after he is Excommunicated; If before his Excommunication it be born, but not Baptised before he is Excommunicated, than his Excommunication cannot hinder its Baptism, for it is born a member of the Church, being born of one that was yet a member, when it was born: and the personal sin of the Parent, cannot prejudice its right: (Baptism makes not a member, it was one before; as he speaks pag. 25. of a Jews child, a member before circumcision) whence thus I argue upon his own principles; [A member of the Church, may be Baptised. But a child of a wicked, not yet excommunicated, is born a member; ergo it may be Baptised] though it should happen (as it may) that it be not Baptised before the Excommunication. It remains then to say, either it loses this right to Baptism, if it be born after the parent's Excommunication, or not at all. And now we are fallen upon his argument, p. 9 [If I may Baptise the child of an excommunicate person, than I may Baptise a child of a non-member of a Church, and so of an Indian or Turk, for they are non members, etc. and he is no other, in respect of communion, in Church-priviledges] we answer, by distinction of the Assumption; I may Baptise the child of a Non-member, that is, of one that at present is accounted no member; as is plain in the case of a child born, but not baptised before the Parents Excommunicated. And therefore this consequence of his is unsound; [If the parent be a non-member, the child is a non-member also] for that child is a member born, though the Parents at present stand Excommucated. It is true only of an Infidel, or Apostate; who are no members: but an Excommunicate person, is in some sense a member still, as was said above; and then to Baptise such an one, is not to Baptise a Non-member.  
That Observation of Reverend Gillespy, from Buxtorf, etc. is not very Orthodox, though true perhaps in the practice of the latter Jews: [That a child of an excommunicate, ought not to be circumcised] It was, if done, a corrupt Invention, and Tradition of their own, of which there is no ground in Scripture. And therefore, pag. 32. he does well to wave it.  
We shall not stand to vindicate those holy and learned men, Zanchy, and Perkins, who plead for the Baptism of children of Parents Excommunicated, p. 11. That which hath been said, may help towards it, we come to a new question started, p. 13 [whether profession of faith in Christ, though parents be grossly ignorant, scandalous, &c, be sufficient to make a man, and continue him a member of the visible Church:] To which, we say in general, That our main question is not about making or continuing a man a member of a Church, but whether a man qualified as in the question, continued and tolerated a member of the Church, can give right to to his children's Baptism. And this he doth expressly resolve in the affirmative at least three times. Once thus of a Jewish Parent wicked not excommunicated, [Doubtless so long the immediate Parent was not cast off from giving a right to his child, p. 13.] Again, in the same pag [If a member be very scandalous, and the Church let him alone, that person may challenge any Ordinance in the Church, both Baptism and Lords Supper:] Again pag. 34 [wicked persons so long as they continue members, and the Church lets them alone, they may challenge Baptism] whence I would conclude the contradictory to his conclusion, in this manner. [The child of a scandalous member tolerated, may be Baptised. But the child of a scandalous member not excommunicated, is the child of a scandalous member tolerated, ergo, it may be Baptised, and a minister may lawfully Baptise it.] All he says to this, is this, pag. 13. and 34, [Our question is, whether such persons should be let alone, is not that Church too blame?] But by his favour, the question is not, whether such persons should be suffered, or the Church be too blame to suffer them: but whether such being suffered in the Church, their children ought to be Baptised; and though he undertake the Negative, yet he determins the question here Affirmatively: [So long as wicked persons continue members, and the Church lets them alone, they may challenge Baptism.] which one sentence confutes, (as it contradicts) both his question and practice, in his refusal to Baptise the children of such; and at once gives us an answer to all his arguments following: But we shall further consider what he says, to show 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 aught 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 aught 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 Baptism. He should have proved, (with respect to the first and main question) that such are not members, during the Church's 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, etc. are saluted, with the whole Church as Saints, 1 Cor. 1. etc. and called brethren, 1 Cor. 5.11. 2 Thess. 3.14,15. Now brethren and members are equivalent 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 qualify 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 signs of his holiness. 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 gross wickedness 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 proceed with them; therefore so long, they are to be accounted members, etc.  
Upon this ground, his second argument pag. 14. falls also; [If (says he) a bare profession be sufficient, than none can be cast out for the vilest sins, Heresy, etc. 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 trial 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 reform, or outlawed, or cut off. And we desire to see the place in Scripture, where those, who are within the outward Covenant, are presently discovenanted, 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 (says 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 only 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. etc. That more than 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 says: [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 privilege, etc. 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 says: [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 says, [Not that I mean we fall presently upon excommunication, before we have tried other means, and patiently waited.] Well, than 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 so we are at once un-churched, and dismembered, and a new frame to be moulded, which is flat Independentisme, Brownism, (if not Anabaptism) which this our Author seems to have renounced.  
And now his arguments will be easily dissolved. The first is this: [Such persons (as the question mentions) de jure ought, and de facto are excluded from the Lords Supper, therefore they ought to be excluded from their children's Baptism.] First, I deny the Antecedent, in the first part of it. Some of the persons mentioned in the question, ought not the jure to be excluded from the Lords Supper; as namely, such as refuse to submit to discipline, if godly, but not convinced yet of the divine Authority of discipline. This is nothing but the rigid way of the Independents, who exclude from the Lords Supper, and Church-communion, those that cannot subscribe to their Church Covenant Explicite, be they never so godly and knowing, as was said above. Secondly, all those that the question mentions, ought not to be excluded from the Lords Supper, while they are tolerated in the Church. This is his own confession often: and consequently ought not to be excluded from their children's Baptism. Then for the latter part, that they are de facto excluded, admits a question, whether they are not unjustly excluded. And it is resolved to be so, not only by Mr. jean's his arguments; but as a consequence of the former: If de jure, they ought not to be excluded, then de facto, they are unjustly excluded: which is worthy all Minister's consideration, who for many years have had no Sacraments for fear of admitting such, as the question mentions: whereby, pretending they want power of an Eldership, no Government being settled, they usurp (inconsiderately perhaps) a power above the Elderships to exclude, not only such, but their whole Parish, by their own single power: But see into what straits the New way hath brought us? They cried out of our Churches, and separated from them, because of our mixed communions; And now Ministers abstaining from the administration of the Supper, for fear of a mixture; they cry out again, and call people to separate from us, because we want an Ordinance. The Lord judge between us in this matter. But now for the consequence, [that therefore they ought to be excluded from their children's Baptism;] it is also denied, and all the proofs thereof. For it should proceed of the same, not of several persons, thus; Those that de jure aught, and de facto are excluded from the Lords Supper, ought (if now they were to be Baptised) also to be excluded from Baptism for themselves. As backward, if excluded justly from Baptism, much more from the Lords Supper. But it holds not with respect to their children; (as we have heard by his own confession.) The young children of members, are unfit to be admitted to the Lords Supper, yet not to be excluded from Baptism. The reason is, because more is required to the Lords Supper, then to their Baptism. The proof is as weak, as the consequence; [Baptism seals to the same Covenant, as the Lords Supper doth ergo, if excluded from one they ought to be excluded from the other.] It holds good against themselves, not their children. The proof of this is like the former; [The ground of exclusion from both, is the same, viz: because those persons appear not such, as to whom those privileges do belong:] this is false in respect to their children: And all these consequences are grounded upon his first (false) premised supposition, at the beginning; viz. [that the child hath no right, but in relation to the next Parent] which is confuted above. And now we add briefly. 1. It's Birth-priviledge, that being born a Christian of a Christian gives it right, as of old to circumcision. 2. It may have right from a grandfather, or by adoption, etc. 3. Neither the Scripture nor any History (that we remember) gives an instance, that the personal default of a Christian Parent Baptised, ever hindered the child from Baptism. 4. Himself confutes his own argument, by often granting, that such (as in the question) tolerated by the Church, have right for themselves and theirs: Let him consider it.  
Whereupon, his observation pag. 19 of admitting the children to Baptism, in the afternoon, whose Parents in the morning were excluded from the Supper, need not seem so strange, and his Dilemma may be retorted upon himself, thus: He grants, a wicked person tolerated, may be admitted to the Lords Supper, and his child to Baptism; only he says, de jure he ought to be excluded. Now I would ask, (as he) does such a man appear to be under the Covenant of Grace or no? If so, why should he de jure be excluded? If not, why should he, de facto, be admitted? or why does he give Baptism to the child, which (says he) must suppose the Parent to be within the Covenant? So here is a believer, and no believer, in a short time, and yet the same man. Let him answer one, and both.  
He grants Suspension from the Lords Supper, in some sense; pag. 19 of one fallen into some gross sin: and I think, he does not deny Baptism to the children of such, which if he yield, he destroys his own argument and question. As for his Quaere, [whether if the parent be suspended from the Supper, his child may not also be suspended for the present, till he repent, being the child depends on the Parent, etc.] may be thus answered, by his own principles: The Parent, though suspended from the Supper, is yet a Church-member, till he be Excommunicated, then hath he right to give his child Baptism. If the Parent's sin, did annul his own Baptism or render him an Heathen again, it were a question whether it did not hinder his child's Baptism. But suspension does not that, nor excommunication but utter Apostasy only: Besides, it would be proved, that that which suspends from one privilege suspends from all: and that for his child, as well as for himself. The child (we say) having a native right, it seems unreasonable and injurious, that the Parents personal fault, should suspend it. Else in this case there is no difference, between the child of a Christian and of an Infidel.  
The next argument proceeds thus. [Such Parents, if they were now to be Baptised, ought not to be Baptised; ergo, cannot challenge it for their children. The reason is, because Baptism belongs primarily to the Parent, if ergo, he have no right, he can give none] The consequence is again denied, and the proof of it;  
For first, it a received Maxim amongst the Lawyers; Quod fieri non debuit, factum valet. Suppose an unfit person Baptised, his Baptism is not null, he is a member till legally excluded, and so hath right for himself and his, to the consequent privileges.  
2. He confutes this argument also, by granting, a wicked member tolerated, to have right to all Ordinances; yet if he were now to be Baptised, he ought not so to be accounted.  
3. His reason is of no force: for it should thus proceed, because Beptisme belongs, both primarily, and only to the next parent, which we have above denied, and disproved. In a word; this argument holds only in respect to the person himself, not to his child. For certainly the child that is Baptised when an Infant, being the child of a member, had right to Baptism then, though if when it grows up, it proves ignorant or scandalous, we may truly say, if he were now to be Baptised, he ought not to be Baptised. Hence it may appear, that the question will fall only upon such persons when Excommunicate, which yet is no qualification, expressed in his question: For till they are ejected, they have right (by his own confession) for himself and theirs. But of Excommunicate Persons, we have spoken above.  
The third argument is like the former: [Such a Parent, is no disciple, ergo, the child is none: and then Ministers are not bound to baptise it, by their Commission] we answer, 1. That Commission was for the first gathering of Churches; not of Churches constituted; 2. We have proved above, the child may be a member, when the Parent at present is none, being Excommunicated. Now a disciple and a member, is all one. 3. Such Parents tolerated are members, and so disciples; ergo, the child is a disciple. That then is not a sound assertion, pag. 20. [If I can give the child one seal of the Covenant, by virtue of the Parent, I will give the Parent the other] for I may see reason to deny the Parent the Lord's Supper, and yet Baptise his child: because more is required of the one, than of the other.  
His fourth Argument runs thus: [To give the seal to the child of one visibly in Covenant with the Devil, is a profaning of the Ordinance, etc.] But we deny that every ignorant, scandalous person, and the rest in the question, is visibly in Covenant with the devil; especially if tolerated by the Church, for so long he is visibly in the external Covenant of the Church. 2. Suppose the person be Excommunicate, and so delivered unto Satan, (as the incestuous person was) yet it were hard to say, he were visibly in Covenant with Satan, though at present under his power. 3. Every gross sin (as in Noah, David, etc.) does not conclude a man visibly in Covenant; 
Diatrib. p. 190  much less ignorance, as in children and youths Baptised. 2. Last of all, one not convinced, and therefore not submitting unto discipline. See whether this new way leads its followers.  
His fifth argument is taken from mischiefs attending the common Baptising of the children of such; [1. The slighting of this Ordinance; without any preparation to it.] But all this may be amended by pressing the due reverence to this, as to the other Sacrament; better then by debarring the child its right, for the Parent's fault. 2. [It's a jumbling of the children of the most holy with the profanest, etc.] This falls upon himself; For if the wicked Parents be tolerated, he will not, he may not deny to Baptise their children; no more, than of the holiest Parent. He may grieve that he cannot reform this abuse, but need not scruple to Baptise their children; nor to pray for them, as for the other.  
And now he comes to the great objection; [The Jews, though very wicked, had their children circumcised, ergo.] He answers many ways.  
1. He mentions again that observation of Gillespy, that some said, [that the children of Excommunicated Jews were not circumcised] But he does well to wave it; as for what we said to it above; so because it is nothing to the question, which is not of excommunicated parents, but wicked Parents tolerated.  
2. [He supposes they were not so guilty of ignorance, as many of ours.] But that's nothing to the question; their children were as ignorant as ours, and the Parents never Excommunicated for ignorance, nor their children denied circumcision for that reason. But closer to the point he says.  
3. He would see a proof, [that the Priests did debar many from the Passeover, for moral uncleanness, many years, as ours do from the Supper, and yet had their children circumcised] We answer. 1. The Priests are blamed for admitting the morally unclean, to some Ordinances, but it concerns him to prove, where ever they were blamed, for circumcising the children of such. See Ezech. 44.7.9. cited by himself, pag. 35. to the same end. 2. It is doubtful at least, whether the practice of those ministers can be justified, who suspend any so long from the Supper, and yet Baptise their children: therefore that can be no safe ground to debar children of such from Baptism: Of which see Mr. Jeanes.  
4. He conceives [Something peculiar to them, in that National constitution, from ours: Gods enters Covenant with Abraham, and his family; commands him to circumcise his seed: the constitution of our Churches, does not begin with any particular person; but makes disciples, and Baptise them] But this makes no great difference: For a Church Christian may begin with a person and his family; Suppose one of a numerous family, when he is discipled, his house is discipled with him; and there may be a Church in his house; yea every householder converted to the faith, was a child of Abraham, in one sense; and a root to his posterity in another, and so the promise is made to him and his seed, not only of the next, but of remoter generations, till they Apostate, as Ishmael and Esau did: He yields pag. 33. that descent by the flesh, was one, though not the sole ground of circumcision. And so it is now, 1 Cor. 7.14. Let us see what was peculiar to them.  
1. [When they came to John's Baptism, it was not sufficient to plead, we are Abraham's seed, ergo, Baptise us.] True, because this was a new dispensation, a new Ordinance, to which repentance was required in the first Parents, but not of their Infants. And just so it was in Circumcision of Proselytes, to the Jewish Religion.  
2. [When they fell to foul Apostasy, their children were still Circumcised, whether regularly, he leaves it.] Yes regularly, for aught appears to the contrary: The Rule was, [Abraham and his seed must be circumcised.] And so the proportion holds for Baptism. If the parents fall into Apostasy, the children may regularly be baptised, for aught appears in the Gospel to the contrary, if they will give them up to their pro-parents or friends, and they will undertake for them. And in such a case a Minister would Baptise them.  
3. [They were very exact in admission of Heathens: more required, than to profess they did believe in God, etc.] So would we be, in admission of Infidels: but that's nothing to admission of their children.  
4. [It is true, that wicked Jews being members of that Church National, might challenge circumcision, so for wicked persons, so long as they continue members, and the Church lets them alone, they may challenge Baptism.] Now this expressly yields both the present argument, from the Jews, to be good: and also the main question, that such persons, if tolerated, may give right to their children's Baptism, and Ministers not only may, but are bound to Baptise them, against which he hath all this while disputed. Only he says; [Our question is, whether such persons should be let alone? is not that Church too blame? aught such de jure to be members?] No, the question was, whether such persons, while suffered in the Church, have right to give their children Baptism? And that is fully granted.  
5. For more exactness in the Churches of the Gospel, in divers respects, we descent not, so it be not beyond the Rule. But as he dislikes the rigidness, which some (he means the Independents) would have, in admission of members, to Church-communion, so we dislike his rigidness, in admission of children to Baptism.  
All that discourse concerning the sense of 1 Cor. 5.11. for many pages together, I purposely pass by, as leading into another controversy. I shall only consider, that Question propounded, pag. 42. as his Advice for the Reformation of our Congregations, which is this; [Whether it were not better for the Ministers of England, as they do suspend persons from the Lords Supper, so also for a time to suspend them from Baptising their children, and in the mean time, Ministers to follow Catechising close, & c?] To which I have these things to say.  
1. It proceeds upon an erroneous, at least a doubtful practice, that Ministers have done well, in suspending so long, such men, their whole Parishes, from the Lords Supper; of which something hath been said above. This way as it hath given occasion to some to separate, and join themselves to Independent Churches, as wanting with us an Ordinance; so it hath made others more profane than before, who were something awed, by their approaches to that Sacrament.  
2. For the Inference from that practice; I say, If they did, and do well, in suspending such from the Supper, yet it is not safe or expedient (in my judgement) to suspend them from the other, for their children, as things now stand in England: for besides what hath been said, in behalf of poor children above, I observe.  
1. If one Baptise them not, another of another Judgement shall, and will, and who can hinder it? This increaseth the Divisions betwixt ministers, by others intermeddling within their charges, and Congregations.  
2. This will be one way, to make the next generation, no better than Infidels, for the most part, being all unbaptized; or else profane and ignorant, as being without the care of the Churches.  
3. This will exasperate the Parents, being profane and desperate enough already, against their Ministers, and so not only prejudice them in their maintenance (however he finds it otherwise by the power of some friends) but also alienate their minds more from the desired Reformation.  
4. This is contrary to the express Rule, to punish the poor children for the Parents personal faults; at least in some cases, as is manifested above.  
5. This is contrary to his own principles, who hath often granted, that while such Parents (as in the question) are suffered in the Church, they have right for themselves and theirs, [and you must not deny it, if you own them for Church-members, however custom hath prevailed to the exclusion of them from it, without regular proceeding, etc.] pag. 42. 
If the Church shall tolerate such evils, etc. they cannot deny them the privilege of members, Survey, part 3. p. 11. and he instances in the Church of Sardis, etc.  Now both Mr. Hooker, Survey, part 3. pag. 11. and himself hath often yielded them to be members to all privileges of the Church, while (sinfully) tolerated. And as for that regular proceeding to reform them by suspension, or eject them by Excommunication, it is not in the power of any Minister alone, and therefore not only unjust if they should usurp it, but also impossible, as our Churches yet stand, for the most part, unpresbytered, and without a settled Government. Whence a new ground of obloquy and reproach, would be offered to Anabaptists and Independents, yea and to profane people too, to charge our Churches, at least our Ministers as Antichristian, for usurping not only a Bishop-like, but a Pope-like power in every Parish; the thing so much feared in the Presbytery.  
What remains then, but that it were a better way to reform our Congregations; if the Magistrates could be prevailed with, to settle a right Government in the Church, which all Congregations should be bound to submit to, or else to execute Justice upon notorious Offenders, and scandalous persons; the Ministers in the mean time, [following Catechising close, to breed knowledge in their people, and labouring to reform them from a scandalous conversation, by all the gentle persuasions, and meekness of wisdom, which God shall give them:] that so, when the Authority of the Magistrate hath civilised at least their conversation, and by Catechising, they have gotten knowledge, we may then with more comfort give them the privilege of both the Ordinances. In the mean time, (such are the straits some men have brought us into) no better way (in my shallow head) than to press hard upon such Parents, the conditions of the Covenant of grace, at the times of Baptism, or other times, the duties of Parents with respect to their own Baptism, and their children's; as by this seal, engaged both of them to be God's people, that is, [to know him, to fear him, to love him, to trust in him, to delight in him, and to obey him in all his holy commands delivered in the Word;] and all this, as they expect the performance of the Covenant on God's part, to be their God. By all which faithfully and earnestly pressed upon them, they may, (by the blessing of God, upon our labours) be qualified according to his own Rules, delivered in his Epistle, by which he practices; viz. [1. See and profess the sense of their own undone condition by sin, and utter inability to help themselves; but by relying upon Christ. 2. Have competent knowledge. 3. Have their conversation such, as doth not cross their profession, by living in any known sin, or omitting any known duty, as praying and Catechising in their families, etc. And lastly, profess (if it be necessary) their subjection to discipline;] to tie them faster by a new obligation, to a duty, to which they were bound before, by their Covenant of Christianity.  
FINIS.