Is !f3aptifm according to tiJe Liturgie laJvful ~ ro Natural P.uents, and prob.Jble proof of his ConcdTion of it to Domcflick._Own~r1 ; but no further -char I know of. for, r.Ir is an Act ofGods Love ro the child tOr the Parents fcke; and therefore Deut. :::9 10, to fLich children as we arc fuppoRd to have a fpccial Ne.:.rmfr to, and Love tOr. 2· And it is a 11 ) n., I3. Confent and Covenantin~ whicb hC calls for, which obligct~l che promifcr to, confequent pious edu~ cation, which is a domcflick act. 3· They are camprized in the N1me of P4rWtJ, which rhofe that adopt them and"educate them may be called. 4· And the Infants are their Chrldrm, not their Slavu. But now if che Empcrour ofMofoovy, Indo(ta,t, e!rc. had the propriety in all his.pcopl~ as flJvcs, this would not intimate paternaL interejt and Love, but tyra~Hry, nor could he be thcu dumejlicat educaltro Therefore I mufi limit it to apro-parem, or dJmejiical educating proprietor• . ' ~e£1:. 41. Are t!Jey really baptized who are baptized according to the Engltjh Liwrgie and [anons, 1vhere the Parent feemeth excluded, and tiJuje to Co1ifent . for the InfmJt who ha-ve no power to do it ~ All/w. I Find fome puzl<d with this doubt,_Whtther all our Infants hlptifin be not a meer Nullity: For, fay they, the outward wafhmg wuhout Covenanung wtth God, is no more bap· tifm than the body or Corpfe is a man. The Covenant is the chirfdfential part of baptifm. And he that was never entered into Covenant with God was never baptized. But Infants according to the Liturgic, arc not entered into Covenant with God : which they would prove thus ; They tbat neither tver covenantedby tbemfilvu, or by any authorized per [oH for them, were never entred into Cove~ Hant n'ith God ( for thats no act of theirs which is done by a {\ranger that hath no power to do it) But, &c That they did it not themfelves is undenyable : That they did it not by any 1trfon tmpowred by God to do it for them they prove, r. BeCiufe God-fathers are the pcrfons [by whom J the Infant is laid to promife: But God-fathers have no power from God, •· Not by NI– rurt, 2. Not by Scripture. 2. Becaufe the Parents are not only not included as Covm::mtcrJ, but po– Jitively excluded, 1. In that the whole Office: of Covenanring for the child from firfi to latl is laid on others; 2. ln that the twenty ninth Canon faith, [No Parent foall bt urged ts be Prt{cnt; nor ad– milted toAnfn:tr as God-father for hH own child : J by which the Parent that huh . the power is ex– cluded; Therefore our children are all unbaptized. To all this I anfwer, r. That the P"ents Confent is [uppofed, though he be abfent : 2. That the Par~nt is not required to be ab.fint, but only not to bt urged to be prefent; but he may if he will ; 3• That the reafon of that Canon fecms to be their jea.loufie, left any would exclude God-fathers. 4- \Vhile the Church hath no where declared what perfon the Sponfors bear , nor any funher what they are todo, than to !peak the Covenanting words, and promife ro fee to the pious education of the child, the Parents may agree that the God-f.lthcrs Otall do all this as t:Hir deputiu,primarily, and in their jlead1, andftcond.Jrily as. friend, :bat promife thei.T affijtance. 5· While Parems really con· fent, it is nor their jilmct that nullifieth the Covenant. 6. All Parents are fuppofed and required to be themfelves the choofers of the SpoM[orJ or Sureties, and alfo to give notice to the Mtnifler before hand; By which. it appcarcrh that thrir Con[ent is prefuppn[ed. And thQugh my own judgement be, chat they fhould be the principal Covm.znt~rs for the chUJ cxprejly, yet the want of that cxprc[meji will not make us tmbaptized perfoos. · , ~1efl:. 41. !f3t!t the great 0f.eftion is , HolV tbe Holy Ghoft is given to In. [ants in !f3aptifm ~ And JVbether all the (!Jildren of true [hrift_ians haw i1~> ward f anilifying GrJce ~ Or whether they can be J aid to b.e jujlified, and to be in a ftate of falvation, t!Jat are not iniJeYelltly fanflijied f And JVhether any fall from this Infant ftate of fal'Vation ~ · A•if'"" OF all thefe great difficulties I have faid what I know, in my Appendix to Infant B•pti[.n . toMr.Bedfordand Dr. Ward, and of Bifhop Davmanlr judgement. Andlconfefstb~t my )OOgement agret:·th more in this with DavenantJ than any others , Caving that he doth not fo much •ppropriare the benefits of baptifm to the children of fincere believers as I do. And though by a lt~t~r 1n pleadmg !Javenan_ts c~ufe, I ~as. the occafion ofgood Mr. G.ttal<frs printing of his ao· iwer to h1m, yet I am fhll mo!lmdmed to hrs judgement ; Not that aU the bapti~Ged, but that all the · ~,p,;,wJ
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=