stand at the last day upon the earth c. The 40. Section examined IN this Section the Complainants shew themselves aggreived for his pulpiting against me in a reproachfull uprayding manner about the point in question Which they aggravate 1. By his not satisfying their expectation 2. By my professed disagreement with the Anabaptists and Brownists in this point with whom he neverthelesse injuriously joyned me 3. By his sinister intent in thus falsely traducing me viz to justifye his keeping me out of the Church 4. By the injury done to the Church hereby in that they are deprived of me whom they much desired and bewayle their want of me Lastly they shew the aequity of their complaining against the Answerer for this by his labouring to worke the Ministers of the Classis to further his purpose telling them that to tolerate me in a different practise would be a condemning of their owne practise and that therefore if they would give way to me they must make an order to condemne their owne practise or to that effect This is their complaint Let us now consider his answer Hereunto he pretendeth ten answers but they are such as to say no worse I marvayle he would print them His first answer is that it is no reproach to call my assertion an errour Reply But. 1. To call that an errour which he hath not proved nor can prove to be an errour is a reproach Himselfe sayth it is no reproachfull uprayding of me unlesse they could convince him of errour for so speaking Enough hath bene said in the twelfth Section and more may be added hereafter to convince him unlesse he be of his mind who said non persuadebis etiamsi persuaseris though you doe convince yet I will not be convinced 2. To ranck the party whom he supposed to erre with Anabaptists and Brownists when he professeth and is ready to declare that he differeth from them is a reproachfull uprayding and injurious 3. To doe this in the pulpit where the people expect nothing but words of truth and passages tending to peace and aedification and from whence a publick brand of reproach and disgrace may be left upon a brother was a more rude expression then the Complainants used concerning their thought that no godly man will be absolutely bound to subscribe to that wrighting 4. It is a poore evasion when he insinuateth that I said in effect Mr. Hook was in errour when I said that I was not of his opinion in some points For to say so much onely declareth that myne opinion differed from his but not that he was in errour seing that difference might arise from my not understanding him aright not from his dissenting from the truth And it savoured of modesty in me that I would not charge him with errour from whom I differed in opinion which is farr from justifying and serveth justly to reprove the reproachfull speeches of the Answerer as a ruder language His second answer is that he performed his promise and said enough in that sermon to satisfye their expectation by his Arguments against myne opinion as he calleth it and for proofe hereof referreth his Reader to his noates which he wrote downe of purpose and it is like keepeth by him of purpose also The issue of all is the assertion of those men is false and erronious that complaine he avoyded the question betweene us The sermon here spoken of it seemeth was preached when I was absent and out of towne therefore I can say nothing upon myne owne knowledge in this matter but that the constant report wherein all whom I heard speake of it concurred was that what he said was so farr from satisfying them that they did not conceive that he spake to the point in question but evaded it rather And those noates of his sermon which some of them tooke from his mouth and shewed me did apparently make good in my apprehension what they said But if the Reader shall be pleased to examine his stating of the question in this very Section and to compare it with the true state set downe by me in the 12. Section it will easily appeare that he did not deale against my opinion as he calleth it in every Argument nor in any Argument as he should For the difference betweene him and me was about my refusing to conforme to the custom of the Dutch Church in that place in baptising all that are presented by whomsoever though the parents were neither of them members of any Church nor at all knowne unto us Now he brought not one Argument to prove the lawfullnes of this custom or to convince me of sinne for not binding my selfe by subscription or promise to conforme to it His third answer is that upon his motion I made an offer of shewing how farr I differed from the Brownists which I performed not which he sayth if I had done myne opinion must have fallen together with it But it is neither so nor so For neither did I offer it upon his motion but upon myne owne motion to vindicate my assertion from his calumnies nor is there such affinity betwixt their opinions and myne in this matter that like twinnes they must live and dye together For what I affirme will stand upon other grounds and principles then those whereby their separation is upheld To wipe off this aspersion I will shew that it is an injury as to me so to the truth also in this particular when it is affirmed that the errour of the Brownists could not be refuted by me but that myne owne opinion must fall together and that like twinnes they must live and dye together For I suppose the errour of the Brownists which he meaneth is that seperation from the Church assemblies of England in such sort as to have no spirituall Communion with them is necessary If so I demand how doeth this assertion of the lawfullnes of admitting onely their infants to baptisme who are members of a true Church necessarily argue such seperation from true Churches for defects and corruptions which are found in them to be a bounden duety If yea let him demonstrate 1. How it strengtheneth them in they re refusing private Religious Communion with good Christians because they stand members of some parish-parish-Church in England which is one errour held by some of them as he knoweth 2 How it confirmeth them in refusing to heare the word preached by any ministers of any of those Churches which is another errour maintained by many of them also 3. How it establisheth any man in refusing any publick Religious communion with any true Church If nay let him acknowledge his slander But that the vanity and untrueth of this suggestion may be more evident I will declare the truth in this matter by manifesting both myne owne judgment about the truenes of Churches and the practise of the Seperatists themselves 1. Myne owne judgment and persuasion I will expresse in Dr. Ames his words thus Second Manuduct p. 33. 34.
he deny Not the first unlesse he will affirme that the Classes have a greater power over particular Churches then the Apostles had Which J thinck he will not say much lesse goe about to prove Will he deny the assumption Those 4 texts of Scripture were alleadged by me for the proofe of it To prevent all mistakes I pray the Reader to be informed that my intent in alleadging these Scriptures was onely to advertise the Ministers of the Classis that they have no authority to exact this of me as a cōdition of my admittāce to that pastorall charge as my very words in that wrighting declare not to shew the unlawfullnes of my baptising any that are not members of that particular Church for I professe in expresse words after that in regard of the communion of particular Churches among themselves I neither did nor doe refuse to baptise their infants who are not members of that Church so that I may be satisfyed that they are indeed Christians So that the question is onely whether the Classis hath power to exact such a thing of any minister to be admitted to a particular Church amongst them as a condition of his admittance Jn this case I might have put them upon shewing their warrant and commission for their so doing as I now doe require of the Answerer when he shall defend his pretended answer in his next booke but to make short worke I then produced the Apostles practise whose commission was larger then any Classis hath received and shewed that they never assumed so much which they would not have fayled to doe in one place or other the necessity of the Church in those times so requiring nor to have recorded it for the instruction of posterity if they might have done it To this end I noated three places of Scripture Let us now consider them and his answer 1. Text. Acts. 20.28 Wherein Paul charged the Elders of Ephesus to take heed unto themselves and to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost had made them Overseers Where he did not extend the excercising of their office farther then the Holy Ghost extēded their relation Let us examine his eight answers which he giveth rather by number then by weight His first answer is ad hominem to the man more then to the matter For he sayth By what right Mr. D. himselfe being no member of this Church did communicate with us in the Lords supper by the some right may a Pastor excercise his Ministry in some acts of it to those who are no mrmbers of his Church Reply This answer is nothing to the matter in question For 1. the question is not what I may lawfully doe but what the Classis may warrantably exact in manner aforesaid For some lawfull things are arbitrary and in our liberty and to be done sometimes and sometimes omitted as circumstances and respects vary the case and those no man may impose as necessary It had bene more to the purpose if he could have said By what right the Classis did compell him to administer the Lords supper to unknowne persons that are no members of his Church c. by the same right they may compell me to baptise the infants of those that are no members 2. The cases are not alike betweene myne admittance to communicate at the Lords table the admittance of those to baptisme concerning whom the question is For J conceive that besides my relation else where and the right which these Churches give to knowne passants of being admitted to the communion for a short time both himselfe and the wholl Church acknowledged me for a member with them for the time of my abode in that service which they testifyed by desiring the helpe of my publick labours and their chearfull admittance of me to that ordinance during that time without the least scruple Now let the Reader judge whether it be alike to receive a man so knowne and acknowledged among themselves as a member for a time to communion in the Lords supper and the baptising of those infants whose parents are members neither of that Church nor of any other for aught any man knoweth being not at all knowne unto the Church His second answer is that the Apostle might have layed upon them a further duety in some other place though no more was required in that place Reply 1. If he would have answered to the purpose he should have produced some other place wherein the Apostle did so but that he did not because he could not 2. That Paul did not impose any such injunction upon the Pastors of Ephesus at this time being to leave them nor afterwards in the Epistle which he wrote to them from Rome nor at any other time which the Scripture mentioneth and it would have bene recorded if it had bene done being a matter of such moment no where else in Scripture propounded wherefore was it but because he received no such command from the Lord Which if he had done it stood not with his faithfullnes Act 20.20 v. 27. who professeth to keepe back nothing that was proffitable and to declare all the Counsell of God to conceale 3. That neither Paul nor any of the Apostles could impose any such injunctions upon Pastors The 5. booke of the Church Chap. 27. p. 497. Cartw. 1. Repl. p. 43. I prove thus Because it had bene to confound the Apostolicall and Pastorall office to bind men to breake the limits of their office which had bene a violation of Gods order as D. Feild and Mr. Cartwright shew whom it concerneth the Answerer to answer in this point His third answer he sayth is more particular but I say it is no more to the purpose then the former He sayth The preaching of the word is a Ministeriall act which Ministers are bound to performe to some without when they invite Heathens Turkes or Iewes to heare them Pro 9.3.4.5 Mat. 28.19.20 Reply But 1 what is all this to prove that the Classis hath the authority whereof the question is Bring it into a Syllogisme and see 2. For the Assertion it selfe though I grant that the preaching of the Gospell by a Minister is an act of his ministry yet Prov 9.2.3.4 Mat. 11.19 Dan 12.3 it is not so in every man For one that is not one of wisdoms maydens by vertue of office yet may be one of wisdoms children whom God may blesse in the excercise of the gifts and graces of his spirit to be an instrument of turning many to righteousnes And for that other place in Mat. 28.19.20 I know not to what purpose it is alleadged unlesse to shew that the Classis may give ordinary Pastors such a commission as Christ gave the Apostles to goe and preach the Gospell to all Nations 3. To what end doeth he speake of preaching the Gospell to Heathens Iewes and Turkes in this question Is it to intimate that Baptisme may be as lawfully administred to the infants
appoyntment of the rest one of them translated it into latine which was sent to me and now is by him out of latine translated into English Now that the Reader may see how much he is abused by this false translation of that wrighting I will publish 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the very wrighting it selfe verbatim without alteration of a syllable as I received it from them and then compare this translation with it The Latine copy word for word Nos infra-scripti Pastores Ecclesiae Belgicae in civitate Amsteldamensi a viro Reverendo D. Pageto fideli pastore in Ecclesiâ Anglicanâ ejusdem civitatis nec non a venerandis fratribus Senioribus ac Diaconis ejusdem Ecclesiae Anglicanae specialiter requisiti ac fraternè rogati ut privatum nostrum judicium in causa vocationis quae ab universâ Ecclesiâ praedictâ videtur expeti Reverendi Clarissimi Doctissimique viri D. DAVENPORTII sincerè declarare atque exponere non recusemus idque in casu illo unico particulari spectante Baptismum eorum infantium qui in Ecclesiâ Anglicanâ baptizandi offeruntur Re totâ utrinque benè intellectâ ritè perpensâ et ad normam Verbi Dei ordinemque receptum in Ecclesijs Reformatis harum Provinciarum in quibus praedicta Ecclesia Anglicana sese membrum profiretur sub Classe Amsteldamensi probè examinatâ sincerè ac coram Deo in bonâ conscientiâ responsum damus atque declaramus Nihil magis nobis in votis esse quam ut praedictus D. Davenportius cujus insignis eruditio et singularis pietas ab omnibus fratribus Anglicanis apprime probatur laudaturque quemque hoc ipso nomine nec non ob alias virtutes ejus laudabiles etiam ipsi D. Pageto charissimum esse intelligimus ad ministerium Ecclesiae Anglicanae praedictae legitime promoveatur Bonum insuper ipsius Zelum ac studium de parentum ac susccptorum istorum liberorum praeuiô aliquô examine privatô in religione Christianâ instituendô quam maximè quidem nobis probari de re ipsâ tamen ita nos statuere ut praedictum illud examen quantum Ecclesiae Anglicanae feret aedificatio instituatur sed si fortè vel parentes susceptoresve istud accedere ac subire renuant vel ob temporis brevitatem aut alijs justis de causis fieri illud non queat vel etiam qui accesserint fratris vel fratrum examinantium judicio non videbuntur pro isto tempore satisfacere ipse infans cujus parentes susceptoresve constat esse Christianos quique Christianam religionem ad lectionem liturgiae Sacramenti Baptismi publicè coram Ecclesia profitentur a Baptismo propterea minime arceatur aut baptizarì recusetur sed ut ejusmodi ignorantes parentes susceptoresve post infantem baptizatum ulterÄus postea quoad fieri potest edoceantur quoniam scilicet infantes Christianorum suorum parentum susceptorumve vel inscitiam vel etiam ejusmodi inobedientiam ferre ac luere non debent Si quis tamen casus ullus alius obveniat quo minus infans oblatus baptizandus videatur ut tum totius presbyterij Anglicani vel etiam si necesse fuerit aut commodè fieri possit Classis Amsteldamensis judicium interveniat audiatur atque in eo acquiescatur Sic actum et transactum in aedibus D. Pageti Die 20. Ianuarij 1634. Ioannes le Mairius Iacobus Triglandius Henricus Geldorpius Rudolphus Petri. Iacobus Laurentius 2. The translation word for word We the underwritten Ministers of the Dutch Church in the citty of Amsterdam being specially and lovingly requested and desired of the Reverend Mr. PAGET a faithfull Pastour iâ— the English Church of the same city as also the the Reverend brethren the Elders and Deacons of the same English Church that we would not refuse sincerely to declare shew our private judgment about the calling of the Reverend most famous learned Mr. DAVENPORT which seemes to be desired of the whole Church aforesaid and that in this particular case alone concerning the Baptisme of those infants which are offered to be baptised in the English Church having well understood and duely weighed the whole matter on both sides and having throughly examined it according to the rule of Gods word and the order received in the Reformed Churches of these Provinces in which the aforesaid English Church doth professe it selfe a member under the Classis of Amsterdam we doe sincerely and in the presence of God with good conscience answer and declare that we desire nothing more then that the foresaid Mr. DAVENPORT whose notable learning and singular piety is much approoved and commended of all the English our brethren whom also in this regard and for his other commendable gifts we understand to be most deare unto Mr. PAGET may be lawfully promoted unto the Ministry of the English Church aforesaid we doe also greatly approove of his good Zeale and care of having some precedent private examination of the parents and sureties of these children in the Christian Religion yet touching the matter it selfe we doe so judge that this aforesaid examination be ordained so farr as may stand with the edification of the English Church but if haply the parents or sureties shall refuse to come and undergoe this examination or if for the shortnes of time or for other just causes it can not be done or if those that doe come shall not seeme for that time to satisfye the judgment of the Brethren one or more that doe examine them that yet the infant whose pareÌ„ts sureties are manifest to be ChristiaÌ„s which publickly before the Church doe professe Christian Religion at the reading of the leiturgie of the Sacrament of Baptisme shall not therefore be excluded or deprived thereof but that such ignorant pareÌ„ts sureties be further instructed after the infaÌ„t be baptised to wit because the infaÌ„ts of ChristiaÌ„s ought not to beare suffer the punishmeÌ„t of the ignorance or yet of such disobedience of their pareÌ„ts or sureties If yet any other case fall-out whereby it may seeme that the infant presented should not be baptised that then the judgment of the whole English Presbytery or also if need be and if conveniently it may be done that the judgment of the Classis of Amsterdam be obtayned and rested in So was it done and transacted in the house of Mr. PAGET the 28. day of Ianuary 1634. Here it must be noated that the Answerer pretendeth to publish this wrighting 1. So as it was done and transacted in his house the 28. day of Ianuary 1634. 2. So as it was written downe and read before him when they enquired of him whether he for his part did rest therein and he signifyed his consent with them These things being premised J demand by what pretence will the Answerer defend or excuse this his translation Let me without offence desire to know why he hath translated quorum parentes susceptoresve constat esse Christianos whose parents and suretyes are
Fris adscript thes 155. ad thes 168. See Robb Apol. Chap. 2. Idem ibid praeface p. 9. Fifthly Ignorant and superstitious persons are strengthened in a slight esteeme of Baptisme and an Idolizing of the Lords supper when they see that any without difference are admitted to that but care is taken that only those that are approved are admitted to this as if a fitnes were not as well required in him that would partake of the blood of Christ and of remission of sinnes by it in baptisme as in the Lords supper For the same remission of sinnes is alike propounded in them boath Sixthly To those of the Separation it giveth no small offence who for this cause complaine of the Dutch reformed Churches as neither so true to their owne grounds as they aught their practise being compared with their profession nor so well providing for the dignity of the thing whilest they administer the Sacrament of Baptisme to the infants of such as are not within the Covenant nor have either parent a member of any Church Though the more moderate of them doe professe that notwithstanding this they doe account them the true Churches of Christ and both professe and practise communion with them in the holy things of God what in them lyeth their sermons such of them frequent as understand the Dutch tongue and the Sacraments they doe administer to their knowne members if by occasion any of them be present with them c. Seventhly To diverse others who feare God heartily desire to see the ordinances of Christ established in their purity and beauty are unfeignedly greived that any blemish should be found in the reformed Churches and truely wish for the prosperity perfection of them have witnessed against this disorder in this place as Dr. A. Mr. F. Mr. H. Mr. B. Mr. R. amongst whom I being called thereunto doe not only reckon my unworthy selfe but also can number others not only English and French but even of the Dutch also who have ingenuously professed their dislike of it upon occasion of conference which I have had with some of them To winde up all in one bottome That which giveth offence to Iewes Papists Anabaptists Familists Libertines obstinate sinners ignorant and superstitious persons Seperatists and to diverse others that feare God is a sinne But to administer baptisme so promiscuously as that wrighting requireth giveth offence to all these Therefore to administer baptisme so promiscuously c. is a sinne Reason 3 The third Reason to prove it to be a sinne is because it is a building againe of that which these Churches according to the Scripture have destroyed This is an Argument ad hominem which I restraine to these Churches to shew the evill of this practise from their owne principles which it doth by consequence supplant and subvert at least in the judgment of many whether necessarily or probably and in what degree I will leave to their wisdom to consider contenting my selfe with a short proposall of some particulars which are considerable especially that ground being layed which the Apostle maketh use of in a like case Gal. 2.18 If I build againe the things that I have destroyed I make my selfe a transgressour First That baptisme is only a naked signe Soc in disp de Bapt Cap 5. fol. 75. or noate of Segregation from other sects and profession of true doctrine is an errour which these reformed Churches have destroyed by professing in theyr Confession Sim. Episc dis 29. Thes 8 Confess art 33 34 Catech quest 73. 74. and Catechisme that it is not only so but also a testimony to us and a symbol to assure us of remission of sinnes c. according to the Scripture (a) Mark 1.4 Acts 2.38 Cap. 16.30 31 32.33 Coll. 3.12 Ezek. 16.51.52 But this practise buildeth it againe whilest a naked profession of assent to the doctrine and discipline of this Church is held sufficient to warrant they re baptisme though it be made many times by such as are not knowne to have any right in the Covenant whereof baptisme is a seale or at all to pertaine to Christ but may be any of those who were spoken of in the first Argument for aught any man knoweth Hence some will collect that they doe not account Baptisme any more then a naked signe of profession And not only so but it justifyeth that errour as Israel justifyed Samaria by establishing a worse For this practise seemeth to make baptisme not so much as a profession of true doctrine or a noate of segregation from other sects whilest it is appoynted to be administred thus promiscuously in Amsterdam where people of so many sects inhabite to all infants that are presented though they make no other shew of profession then by saying yae or nodding the head when they understand not what is sayd to them being of a different language and are allogether unknowne to the minister and to the Church 2. Confess art 16.17 21 Catech. quest 20. 50 51 52 53 54 55 Synod Dort Art 2 Sect. 7 8. Secondly That the grace of Christ is universall wherein all have interest is an errour which these reformed Churches have destroyed restrayning it only to the Elect to beleivers to the Church of God according to the Scriptures (b) Psal 147 20. Mat. 11 25. 13 11 Act. 14.16 Rom 8.30 Mat. 1 21. Ioh 10 11 16. Cap 17 9 11 12 19 20. Act. 20 28. But this practise buildeth it up For if the seale appertaine to all why not the Covenant also Why not the grace And who will not suspect that the seale doth appertaine to all in theyr judgement whose practise is to administer it to those infants neither of whose parents are in the covenant so much as externally and it may be were never baptised or having bene baptised have by their infidelity and other sinnes obstinately persisted in being convicted thereof and cast out of the Church or by their willfull Apostasy and forsaking the Religion which they professed with themselves broken off their seed externally and actually from the communion of the Church and holy things thereof Jf they say their grandfather was a Christian or great grandfather I answer Where must we stopp at last If not in the next parents why in the grandfather or great grandfather till we come up as high as Noah himselfe And so neither the children of Jewes nor Turkes nor heathen or infidels should be denied baptisme Thirdly The absolute necessity of baptisme to salvation so that 3. Concil Trid Sess 7. cap. 2. Confess belg art 34. Gen. 17. not only those of yeares that refuse or contemne it are damned but even infants also perish aeternally through the want of it is an errour which these Churches have destroyed when they professe it to be of the same use to Christians whereof circumcision was to the Iewes who being borne in the covenant by their relation to their beleiving parents by
Chrisme and exorcisme although ancient are well abolished we would desire also that not only superfluous but also unfit questions were omitted also although Augustine in a certaine epistle would excuse it with a certaine interpretation but he calleth it infirmum commentum and that fitly And therefore the practise of those Churches in putting the question to the father of the child is more suitable to the rule because in the Covenant which God maketh with the parents the right of the infant to baptisme is founded and the power and care of educating the child in that fayth lyeth upon them To let passe this digression The custom of those times concerning men of yeares though it doe not every way touch the case of infants yet it sheweth the piety of those times and the judgment of the Ancients concerning the point in question de suscipientibus baptismum And howsoever in those times some superstitious rites were used in baptisme and some errours in Doctrine are to be found concerning the absolute necessity of baptisme to salvation yet not one of them so farr as my small reading hath inabled me to discover defended such a promiscuous administration of it as that wrighting of the five Ministers required as necessary or lawfull But if any man will wrest that conclusion of those Ancients in Cyprian to patronize this course whereof Cyprian speaketh thus Cyprian lib. 3. epist 10. haec fuit in concilio nostra sententia A baptismo atque a gratiâ Dei qui omnibus misericors benignus pius est neminem per nos debere prohiberi Let him know that those words if they be taken apart from the rest may seeme to favour the errour of universall grace as well as promiscuous baptising And indeed they countenance boath alike that is neither of them at all being considered in Cyprians intendment in that epistle which was to answer Fidus who held that infants of two or three dayes old ought not to be baptised arguing from Circumcision which was not administred till the eight day and from the bodily uncleanenes of infants at that age Cyprian in answer to his first Argument sheweth him that Circumcision was a shadow which is now vanished and in answer to the second used those words Acts 10.15 and concludeth thus Si etiam gravissimis delictoribus c. If remission of sinnes be given to the most greivous sinners when they afterwards beleive and repent and baptisme is not denyed to them how much more ought it not to be denyed such infants They that know how streight Cyprian was in nullifying the baptisme of those who had bene baptised by haereticks and such as were out of the Church cannot imagine that any helpe may be expected from him for warranting the administring of baptisme to their infants who are out of the Covenant Now if any thinck that there is some colour for the justifying of this course to be found in the capitulation of Charles King of Sycily with the Sarazens Speed Chron lib. 9. cap. 10. in the life of Edw. 1. at the seidge of Tunis in Africa the third Article whereof was that such as were willing might freely receive the Sacrament of Baptisme Let him understand that that agreement was only to establish the free excercise of Christian Religion not to warrant promiscuous baptising which was not at all in question at that time Thus the records of ancient times are against this disorderly custom and concerning the judgment of later times since the reformation if enough have not bene said already more shall be added in answeare to the seventh pretence Only that I may omitt nothing that I meet with in my reading which may seeme to carry any colour of favouring that custom though but in the letter I have produced those two instances of former times and will now add to them two or three of latter times In whom I purpose not to examine or censure their expressions but onely to shew that this evill custom is not maintained nor to be defended by what they have written First I will beginne with that question which excercised the Ministers that met in the Classis at Neocomum Beza epist 9. Whether the infants of excommunicates are to be baptised and in whose fayth seing their parents are not members of the Church The occasion whereof was this A certayne man of a very wicked life having 4 bastards and thrise deceived the Church with hypocriticall confession and promises was excommunicated together with his harlot The question was whether the fourth bastard begotten after their excommunication should be baptised The Ministers of that Classis declared their judgment which they sent in a letter to Beza thus we are of opinion that the infant being borne of such desperate parents is not included in the promise of blessing and therefore should not be baptised till it come to that age wherein it may make profession of its owne fayth unlesse the parents returning againe to God by true repentance be againe received into the bosome of the Church or it be presented by certaine godly persons who will bind themselves by promise to performe the duety of parents to the child Vnlesse perhaps because it is borne within the Church it should be baptised for the fayth of the Church Thus they Epist 10. Beza wrighting to them his judgment in this matter distributeth those who are not to be accounted members of the Church into fowre sorts farr different one from another To omit the former three as being not in question the fourth sort is of those who being elect of God and ingrafted into Christ yet falling through infirmity and giving offence unto others are delivered unto Sathan that godly sorrow may worke in them repentance Of this last sort sayth he is the question Concerning whom he first supposeth diverse things 1. That they are such of whom we may judge in charity that their estate is not desperate 2. That though they are great sinners yet they are not Apostates which forsake the Church nor joyne themselves with adversaryes in persecuting the truth 3. That some difference is to be made betweene Turkes and excommunicate Christians or Papists 4. It is hard to judge whether infants belong to the Covenant in respect of their first parents profession or not Secondly Vpon these suppositions he concludeth that the infants of excummunicates that remaine in the Church may not lawfully be denied baptisme But this he delivereth with two provisoes or caveats 1. That a fit surety bind himselfe to the Church for the holy education of the child 2. That upon this occasion the Minister doe at that time seriously exhort the father being present to repentance in the presence of the Church before he baptise the child Which he sayth was frequently done in their Churches viz in Geneva Thus he Concerning whose answer I will propound two or three considerations First Though Beza was a very Reverend judicious Divine yet in matters of faith
it is not safe vllius jurare in verba magistri to rest upon the authority of any man without a warrant from the Scripture Secondly Compare what was alleadged out of Beza himselfe in my 1. Reason in this Section with this passage and what Mr Cartwright answereth to some part of this in the same Section the Reader will see that it may easily be declared that this sentence will not helpe the Advocates for promiscuous baptizing Thirdly Consider the state of the question as Beza maketh it and it will appeare that the infants for whose Baptisme he pleadeth are of such as we may rationally judge to be ingrafted into Christ and elect of God only being fallen by infirmity are delivered unto Sathan that godly sorrow may worke in them repentance But what is this for the justifying of a promiscuous administration of Baptisme to all that are offered in such a place as Amsterdam concerning many of whom we can not rationally have any such persuasion Fourthly The foure things supposed by Beza as cases wherein he dare not give liberty of baptising serve to discover the evill of this custom whereunto that wrighting would have bound me For if all that are presented though they refuse to make knowne before who or what they are must be received may not the infāts of many whose case is desperate in the judgment of the Church who are not only Apostates from it but persecutors yea even the children of Iewes Mores and others such like without the parents consent be offered to baptisme and so be baptised which were to profane the Sacrament 2. Observe how timerously Beza expresseth himselfe about the parents on whom the right of the infant to baptisme dependeth in this case whereby it may seeme that he was not fully cleare in it himselfe Fifthly The cautions and provisoes which Beza giveth to be observed in the baptising of such children of excommunicates as he there speaketh of doe strongly condemne the disorder of that place where the father is so farr from being admonished publickly of his sinne that he is not so much as knowne or inquired after and where they are so farr from taking care for the holy education of the child that they regard not by whom it is presented nor what becommeth of it afterwards 2. De consc lib. 4. cap. 27. Secondly Dr. Ames commeth next to be considered and a passage in his booke of cases to be examined least some ignorantly others willfully wrest it to the countenancing of this disorder which to be farr from his meaning himselfe doeth abundantly declare in the same place For he so expresseth his opinion concerning the baptisme of diverse sorts of infants there mentioned as it may appeare that his judgment was against promiscuous baptising all that are brought according to the controverted custom which I demonstrate thus Resp 2 First he requireth 2. things in such infants as necessary to their admittance 1. That they be in the covenant of Grace in respect of outward profession and aestimation at least in one of the parents 2. That there is hope that they shall hereafter be educated und instructed in the same covenant Both which he affirmeth upon the same ground which we layd in the first Reason viz Because Baptisme is a signe and seale of the covenant But how can they be esteemed Christian parents or what hope can there be of the education of such infants in the covenant when both the parents sureties are altogether unknowne to the Church and that in such a place as Amsterdam where is such a confluence of people of all nations and Sects Resp 3 Secondly He affirmeth that Baptisme doeth most properly belong to those infants whose parents at least one of them is in the Church not out of it And this he affirmeth upon the former ground viz Because Baptisme is the seale of the covenant But who knoweth not that many people are in Amsterdam who are not in the Church but out of it in many respects yet none must be refused that are presented to Baptisme Thirdly He supposeth that those whose parents are unknowne are in charity to be accounted Christians when there is not just cause of presuming the contrary But howsoever this might carry some shew of reason with it in such places where all the inhabitants professe religion and are joyned to some Church yet in such a place as Amsterdam how can a man presume otherwise then the contrary of many that may be offered to Baptisme Fourthly He professeth that a difference must be put betweene the infants of those who in some sort by profession belong to the Church yet doe openly breake the covenant of God and the children of others in the manner of their admittance to Baptisme viz that for the former sort what is required by the Covenant and wanting in them must be supplyed by others And for this he giveth two Reasons 1. Because a distinction must be observed in all holy things betweene the cleane and uncleane 2. Because else the ordinances of God cannot be preserved from all pollution For these reasons he doeth not allow the Baptisme of excommunicates unlesse they have fit suretyes to undertake for their education nor of bastards unlesse their parents have professed their repentance or other godly persons will take upon them the care of their education nor of papists unlesse they be presented by fit suretyes who have power over thē for theire education But is any such care taken any such course observed about the admission of such to Baptisme in Amsterdam Thirdly Mr. Attersoll shall shut up this discourse of times Of the Sacram of Bapt. 2. booke ch 6 whom the Reader may suspect to favour this custom if something be not noated by us to prevent mistakes Now howsoever he may seeme to be some what large in his judgement this way and to yeeld more then either Mr. Beza or Dr. Ames have done in this point it may be more then himselfe would have done if he had fully understood the disorder against which we testifye yet the limitations and cautions which he propoundeth doe discover the evill of that practise concerning which the present question is P. 218 For 1. he denyeth that the infants of Turkes or Iewes may be baptised against the liking and good will of their parents But it is very possible and probable that some such may be offered to Baptisme by any that have stollē them or for some other reason for ought the minister knoweth or demandeth in that place P. 219. 2. In the case of the children of impaenitent persons he supposeth two things without which his plea for their Baptisme falleth 1. That they are so borne in the Church and of it that the Church may be said to be as it were their Mother 2. That they are in the Covenant in regard of their Elders of whom they discend as the Iewes were in Abraham though their next parents were wicked P.
220. 221. 3. That they have such suretyes as will undertake their education in the true knowledge of God and faith in Iesus Christ But Js it the manner of that place to be satisfyed about these things before they receive them to Baptisme Doe they enquire whether the infant was borne in the Church of what parents or forefathers or how the suretyes will undertake to educate the child in that faith To conclude that all misunderstanding of Mr. Attersoll may be prevented let the Reader consider one or two conclusions by the same Authour in the same chapter P. 211. 1. Conclus That besides the joyning of the word to the outward signe there is necessarily required a fit person to be partaker of the Sacrament 2. Conclus Baptisme is a coÌ„mon seale But as all have not interest to the pasture herbage and priviledges of a coÌ„mons but only such as are Tenants according to the custom of the Manner so all have not title to Baptisme being a SacrameÌ„t of the Church but only such as are the Lords people according to the tenour of the Covenant Apply these conclusions to this custom against which we plead it will be granted that what ever may seeme to an unwary Reader in the slight and superficiall reading of that passage in his booke yet indeed it doeth not serve to justifye the practise about which the question is From the premises I argue thus If such a promiscuous administration of baptisme as the wrighting of those five ministers requireth be contrary to the good customs of the best Churches it is unlawfull But such a promiscuous baptising c. is contrary to the good customs of the best Churches Therefore it is unlawfull So much shall suffice for declaring the grounds whereupon I refused this custom Now let us consider their pretences for it 1. Pretences for it so farr as we can collect out of that wrighting of the five Ministers or otherwise Pretence 1 First pretence None will present their children to be baptised but Christians Ans 1. It is a conclusion amongst the schoolemen that Aq secund secundae art 12. conclu Non sunt infidelium pueri invitis parentibus baptisandi Children of infidells are not to be baptised without theyr parents consent Wherein they suppose that such a case is possible If so why may not the child of a Iew or Moore or Indian be brought by some one or other to baptisme without the parents consent or knowledge And the manner of Amsterdam is to refuse none that are presented by whomsoever whereby it is very possible that some infants may be baptised whose parents are no Christians though the parents would not have them presented 2. Even parents who themselves doe not receive christian Religion may be content to have theyr children baptised either for the gifts sake which are customarily bestowed by those whom they call Godfathers and Godmothers upon the children or for some other advantages respects which in those countryes where Religion hath the countenance of the higher powers may be expected thereby Gen. 34.3 21.22.2 Speed Chron. lib 7. Cap. 36. Have we not read of the Shichemites which were circumcised yet received not the Religion of the Jewes The Chronicles of our land can tell us how the Danes being vanquished propounded to Elfred the 24. Saxon Monarch in England for obtayning of their peace that their king should receive baptisme by which policy he got the country of the East Angles by the gift of K. Elfred his Godfather In those times it was usuall to make baptisme a condition and to compell men to baptisme as king Edmond did the Danes to make them become his subjects which being done they did soone cast off both fayth and fealty at once And are not many of the mind of that Roman pretext of whom Ierom speaketh who said scoffingly to Damasus Facite me Romanae â—rbis espiscopum ero protinus Christanus I will conclude this passage with the censure of learned Dr. Whittaker Whittak praelect de Sacram. p. 291. 292. Absurdè faciunt ij qui infidelium liberos baptizant si parentes volunt baptizari quasi ecclesia suo arbitrio quibus vellet baptismum dare posset They doe absurdly who baptise the children of infidells if the parents be willing to have them baptised as if the Church at their owne pleasure can baptise whom they will Pretence 2 Second pretence If the parents be no Christians yet the suretyes are Ans 1. The customary use of suretyes in baptising infants though it seeme ancient by the mention that is made of them in the Synod of Ments Synod Mâ—gunt Can. 47. Aug. Serm 116. 163. Epist 23. ad Bonif Tertull de Bapt. cap. 18. under the name of Compatres spirituales spirituall fathers and mothers and before that in Augustine under the name of Sponsores and fidejussores suretyes and before him in Tertullian under the name of offerentes presenters yet it is not from the Ancient of dayes it was not from the beginning neither in the first institution of baptisme nor the practise of the primitive Churches in the first Century The first originall of this custom seemeth to be this that they that tooke the child from the minister when it was baptised should be called spirituall fathers and mothers that the difference betweene the first and second birth of the child might be signifyed it being absurd as they thought that the same man should be the father of the child both in respect of generation and of regeneration Hence the Papists drew a spirituall kindred and multiplyed absurd inventions about it Which very originall and abuse it being not of Apostolicall institution should make the Reformed Churches suspect it especially seing it is not of necessary use the charge of educating the child lying upon the parents and the wholl Church being witnesses 2. Admit that in some cases there may be a lawfull use of speciall witnesses or suretyes yet can these give the infant a right to baptisme which had none in the parents That the Covenant is made with parents for themselves and their children Gen 17. 1 Cor 7. and that thereby the children are holy in the parents we read but where doe we read so much of suretyes 3. Admit that in some suretyes the children have a right unto baptisme viz such as were of Abrahams family Gen. 17.3 borne in his house or bought with his money and so such as are members of Christian familyes in a like state yet will it thence follow that such suretyes as many times present children to baptisme in that place partake of the same priviledge of whose familyes the infants are not members nor are their familyes ordered like Abrahams themselves also are some of them notoriously wicked others of them unknowne to the Church and many of them such as have no power to see the child educated and it may be shall never see it after that day Such an one
So many parish assemblies of England as have any competent number of good Christians in them united together for to worship God ordinarily in one society so many have essentiall and integrall forme of a visible Church and all they have intire right to Christ and to all the meanes of injoying him however they are defective in the purity of their combination and in the compleate free excercising of their power To prevent all mistake he declareth what he meaneth by essentiall and integrall forme thus The essentiall forme of a visible Church is the covenant of God or true fayth made visible by profession the noates and markes whereof are the word and Sacraments rightly administred and received with fruits of obedience The integrall constituting forme is that state relation or reference which a Congregation of such professours have one to another by vertue of their setled combination the noate or marke whereof is their usuall assembling together into one place and watching one over another So that however the defects and corruptions in those Churches are to be witnessed against and howsoever it is the duety of Christians to indeavour as much as in them is to procure the reformation of those defects and not to partake in the sinnes of any Church Eph. 5.11 and amongst true Churches to make choyse of those whereunto to joyne themselves which are most pure Lib. 4. Cas Cons cap. 24. quest 2. so farr as they are able as the same learned wrighter sayth elsewhere yet to dischurch them wholly to seperate from them as no Churches of Christ or to deny baptisme to the infants of their knowne members is not warranted by any rule in the Scripture that I know nor justifyed by my assertion or practise 2. The practise of the Seperatists themselves sheweth that this assertion doeth not strengthen or countenance the errour of the Brownists in matter of Seperation For they professe to hold spirituall communion with other Churches who doe extend the use of baptisme to as great largenes as England doeth and greater also as I am able with Gods assistance to prove though they freely witnesse against it as a disorder in those Churches which also many Godly learned ministers of these Countryes are so farr from justifying that they confesse it to be unwarrantable and wish it may be reformed By all which it is manifest that there is no such affinity betweene these opinions that the errour of the Brownists could not be refuted by me but that mine owne opinion must fall together As he untruely pretendeth 3. Hereunto I will add that in thus reasoning the Answerer imprudeÌ„tly armeth his opposites against himselfe with his owne weapon Polit. Eccles lib. 1. Cap. 14. eâ— 13. Fresh Suite p. 207. Treat of the necess of seperation For this plea is taken up 1. by the those that plead for the Prelats both of former times whom Mr. Parker hath fitly answered by clearing the seekers of Reformation from this imputation and retorting it upon themselves and of latter times whom Dr. Ames in like manner hath breifly and fitly answered 2. by those of the Seperation for Mr. Canne the Answerer knoweth pretendeth in his booke to prove a necessity of seperation from the Church of England by the Non-conformists principles and professeth to oppose it especially to Dr. Ames onely in the point of seperation Whereby it appeareth that he accounteth him and such like opposites in that point notwithstanding their agreement in some truths Concerning which booke I have many things to say in Dr. Ames his defence which if I should here insert this tractate which already much exceedeth the proportion at first purposed by me would swell to too great a volume But I may well be silent at this time seing others as I heare have undertaken it and a more fit occasion may be given hereafter if it be thaught requisite but especially seing he hath not answered Dr. Ames his second manuduction at all wherein he hath said enough for the clearing of his judgment in this matter nor indeed hath he taken away the force of that litle which the Doctor said in answer to the Rejoynder though he expressed himselfe but in few lines and as answering on another occasion and not dealing professedly against the Separation All which might easily be demonstrated but at this time I purpose to abstaine from by-controversyes As for his objection that I performed not that promise though I had time enough my answer is that he neither required it of me nor incouraged me so to doe by assuring me that the performance thereof would end the difference Nor did it fall fitly in my way to speake of this point in any Argument which I handled in publick afterwards His fourth answer tendeth to a sâ—ighting of my labour of love in 6 moneths assistance of him in a time of their extremity It becommeth unthanckfull men thus to elevate that kindnes which they have not hearts to value nor purpose to requite For this purpose he setteth 6 moneths wherein that wrighting as he sayth was given out by me and 6 yeares resistance which he sayth is procured by my opposition to the practise of the Dutch Church and as much recompence he sayth received by me for that as some godly ministers have in twise 6 moneths Reply Concerning the wrighting I have spoken sufficiently in the 2 and 22. Sections and in other places wherein I shewed how he compelled me to it for declaration of the truth against his unjust reports and how himselfe before he heard of any such wrighting from me had traduced me in the darke in a larger wrighting secretly sent to his freind in N. Concerning the ground of 6 yeares resistance Seing he compelled me thereunto in defence of the truth I cannot helpe it nor am to be blamed for it unlesse it be a fault to beare witnes to the truth when I am called thereunto Concerning the collection which he in too mercenary a phrase calleth a recompence for my labour I answer 1. I received none of it from him though some other English preachers are put to that charge so that to him it was a kindnes 2. I contracted not with him for any recompence to be made me from the Church by his meanes so that in me it was a kindnes 3. I received no gratification from the Churchstock as other Ministers have done by his procurement So that the poore had no damage or hindrance thereby as in some other cases they have had through his holding up these contentions 4. The most of that which was given was from their purses whom he contentiously calleth my freinds 5. What ever I received from them they know I was no gayner by it when the necessary charges of my diet are deducted and the hire of an house which at their request I tooke but never lived in thorough his opposition against me and for which I was constrayned to pay the wholl yeares rent 6. As he made no
place wherein Christians had their name given them at the first wherein I find no such thing The proofe lyeth upon him who affirmeth it to be sufficient not upon me who deny it 2. The force of Negative Arguments from Scripture would be none at all if such answers were any thing worth For when in arguing against popish devises we bring them to the rule where no such thing is appoynted or approved by this evasion they might easily seeme to answer any such Argument For instance when to shew the unlawfullnes of chreame oyle spittle exorcisme c. in baptisme we bring them to the institution and to primitive patternes where such things were not appoynted nor approved how easily might they answer as he doeth how can it be proved from hence that such as used those things sinned in so doing 3. Suppose an Anabaptist should put him to prove from that text that infants were baptised or a Libertine should put him to prove from thence that those that were to be baptised were presented in the Congregation would not he thinck himselfe unreasonably dealt withall To conclude that place of Scripture sufficiently proveth that for which it was alleadged namely that beleiving and turning to the Lord are the characters of Christians and that joyning with a true particular visible Church where it can be done is an evidence of beleiving and turning to the Lord. For so I find them joyned in that Text. Act. 11.26 Let him prove all those whose infants are admitted to baptisme in that place to be such as in respect of externall profession may in the judgment of reasonable charity be judged such and their saying yea or nodding of the head or bowing the body shall make no difference betweene us 2. For the second text Gen 17.10 It can not be shewed sayth he that more questions were propounded in old times to circumcised parents that brought their children to be circumcised then are now propounded to those that bring their children to be baptised or that circumcision was denyed those who shewed their consent and willingnes to embrace the Covenant in such breife answers and gestures as we speake of Reply 1. The end for which that text was brought was to shew that none were circumcised but the infants of those that were in the Covenant How they declared their embracing of the Covenant if he demand the Scripture elsewhere sheweth viz by their joyning with the Church of God in walking according to the lawes delivered unto their fathers by the ministry of Moses And this they declared more by their workes in they re ordinary conversation then by words at Circumcision In which case we will not much stand upon words if the parties are joyned to any true Church now under the Gospell as they were then to the Church of the Iewes under the Law 2. This answer is as a sword wherewith he woundeth his owne cause For he sayth they were circumcised persons wbo brought their children to be circumcised and we know that such were of the Church of Jsraell But many for whose admittance he pleadeth are children of such parents as are of no Church and some of them may be such for aught he knoweth as never were baptised 3. Text. Rom 4.11 This Text was alleadged to shew that they must be beleivers at least one of them in externall profession whose infants may be admitted to baptisme which is as Circumcision was the seale of righteousnes that is by fayth Against this he answereth nothing and hereby doeth tacitly and implicitly confesse that the seale properly by due right may be administred to none but to beleivers to whom the righteousnes which is by fayth appertaineth so farr as men may by the judgment of charity conceive and apprehend from which how farr they are against whom we except is obvious to him that will judge by a rule Let us now consider what he sayth He sayth Abraham is there called the Father of them that beleive whether they were members of a visible Church or not And for aught we know that were not of his family nor under the government or guidance of any particular Church If a sonne or bondman of Ephron or of any Amorite or Canaanite were then brought unto the knowledge of the true God why might not the infant of such an one have bene circumcised though not living in a visible Church Reply 1. All these words are besides the matter For if all he sayth were granted yet it proveth not that all those may be called beleivers and so Christians whom they admitt to Baptisme which he should have done if he would have justified their custom of baptising their infants under the name of Christians children who can not be accounted beleivers according to the sense of this text 2. His wholl answer is made of mere conjectures which cannot establish the conscience of any man in a well grounded persuasion of the warrantablenes of that action concerning the lawfullnes whereof it doubteth that it may be done in faith Which to me is a cleare evidence of his want of a rule to beare him out therein which if he could have found his expressions would not have bene so conjecturall and uncertaine 3. To the particular conjectures First Whereas he sayth that Abraham is the Father of the faithfull whether they were members of a visible Church or not That the vanity of his conjecture in reference to the matter in question may appeare we must cōsider the drift of the place which is to confirme what he had formerly said concerning the speciall universality or community of the subject of justification whereof he began to speake in Chap. 3. v 22. and afterwards prosecuted v 29. shewing that one the same God is the God both of the Iewes and of the Gentiles and therefore doeth justifye them boath one and the same way to wit by fayth though the one be circumcised the other not which he proveth by the example of Abraham to whom faith was imputed for righteousnes being uncircumcised and when he was circumcised it was not that he might be justified by circumcision but that the righteousnes which he had by fayth being uncircumcised might be sealed to him by that signe Now in that Abraham was justifyed by fayth before he was circumcised hence he became the father of all those that beleive among the Gentiles who are uncircumcised and in that he was circumcised afterwards that the righteousnes of fayth might be sealed to him hence he became the father of those who beleived among the Iewes and were circumcised Thence the conclusion followeth Therefore according to Abrahams example righteousnes is imputed to those that beleive among the uncircumcised Gentiles as well as among the circumcised Iewes But in what order cometh Abraham to be a father to the beleiving Iew In what sense is Abraham called their father As he is an example of fayth v 12. and of righteousnes imputed by fayth in this 11. v. And they