be governed The truth is In all this passage appeareth much sarcasticall bitternes unworthy of the learning gravity and holy function of the Answerer Yet I suppose the Complainants would be ready if they were called to answer soberly that they desire no other Church government unto which they would willingly be subject then that which Christ hath appoynted the Church to be under What that is if they know not he aught to teach them If they know it and desire it he aught to lead them out and to goe before them as a faythfull shepheard that the sheep may follow him as he followeth Christ not to praejudice them against any good way by a scoffing proposall of mens differences in judgment about some particular tract or turning in the way to the great scandall and offence of many and the dishonour of the Gospel and the hindrance of Reformation by his joyning with the enimyes thereof in an old cavill which hath turned many out of the way and caused some to returne back to a mere neutrality in religion till the professours of it agree among themselves about the path wherein they will walke Whereas he taketh occasion againe without provocation to mention Mr. Iacob as an enimy to Classes and Synods that I might speake a word in the cause of the dumbe and of the dead I have examined what he hath written concerning this point more upon this occasion then formerly I had done and it may be Treat of Ch. Government Chap. 1. pag. 13. Chap. 7. 88. 89. 90 Confess Art 5. more then else I should have done and doe find that he professeth his agrement that I may use his owne words even to an hayre with Calvin and Beza touching the substance of this matter and that he acknowledgeth with them both the parishionall and Diocesan presbyteryes yea the provinciall and larger too if occasion serve How he explaineth himselfe herein the diligent Reader will easily observe in other passages of the same booke And else where he acknowledgeth that there may be and on occasion there ought to be on earth a consociation of Congregations and Churches and namely by way of Synods but not a subordination or surely not a subjection of the Congregations under any higher spirituall authority absolute save only Christs and the holy Scriptures Whereby it appeareth that the single uncompounded policy which Mr I required is not contrary to the government of these reformed Churches by Classes and Synods rightly ordered Ch. Government Chap. 7. p. 89. nay rather he so farr approveth of it that he sayth it is Apostolicall for many ordinary Congregations consociating together in their spirituall government to have a Diocesan or larger Synod or presbytery over them for their better direction and he addeth such the reformed Churches at this day doe injoy But if he thinck by mentioning the name of Mr. Iacob to leave the Complainants under the suspicion of adhaering to some sect or of depending upon the authority of man not upon the word of Christ for their rule about Church matters he will be found to be injurious not to them alone but to Christ also Mat. 18.17 1. Cor 5. Coll. 2.5 and 4.17 Acts 20.17.28 Rev. 2 3 1. Tim. 3.15 Cha. 5.21 Chap. 6.13 to 17. and to the truth First To Christ seing they acknowledge all that power to be due and thereunto they are willing to submit which by the word is warranted to be that whereby Churches should be governed according to the mind of Christ which agreeth with the patterne which Christ left to his disciples and which the Apostles exactly followed in planting those primitive Churches of Corinth Colosse Ephesus the 7 golden Candlesticks in Asia among whom Christ walked c. and which Paul so streightly charged Timothy to observe in all Church affayres which is no other then the power committed by Christ to particuler Churches as his delegates for the right ordering of themselves in their Church government and in all holy administrations and ordinances according to his command and direction in the Scripture without dependance upon any Classes or Synods or whatsoever humane spirituall power for license or authority to be received from them for their so doing And as they thus acknowledge all that power under which the Church is subjected by warrant of the word to be due so they professe all that power under which the Church is subjected to be undue which the word doeth not warrant and which taketh away from particular Churches that power which by Christ his ordinance is due to them which what is it but to remove the ancient bounds Prov. 22.28 Gal. 5.1.3 Ioh. 9. to thrust the Churches from the libertyes wherein they are commanded to stand fast and to affect an undue praeheminence in the Church Secondly To the truth whilest it is presented to the view of all men under the shew of some singular opinion or errour rather of a particular man or as a forelorne thing deserted of all her witnesses excepting Mr. Iacob whereas so much as the Complainants seeme to require as appeareth in their referring themselves to the warrant of the word hath bene acknowledged by the faythfull witnesses in all ages Heb. 12.1 with which cloud of witnesses we are compassed about as the Israelites were with that pillar of a cloud wherein the Lord went before them by day Exod. 13.21 to lead them in the way Such were the Apostles in their time and those worthyes as Cyprian and those of whom Eusebius taketh notice Cypr. lib. 3 Epist 14. Euseb li. 3 et 4. et 5. in many places and in some succeeding instances before the mistery wraught to its full hight The same thing may appeare to those who are conversant in the wrightings of the Centuriators To these I may add those who have handled the controversyes concerning the necessity and authority of Councills amongst whom I will instance in Dr. Whittaker who Whitt de Concil quest 5. Arg. speaking of the fullnes of that delegated power which Christ hath given to the Church not to the Pope which he applyeth to the Keyes in binding and loosing shutting and opening retayning and remitting sinnes sayth that this power belongeth primarily principally and essentially to the Church but to the severall Bishops onely accidentally secundarily and lâ—sse principally and explaineth himselfe by a rule in philosophy which is that when any power is in two in one necessarily essentially in another contingently and accidentally it is more principally in him in whom it is necessarily and essentially then in him whose it is onely contingently and accidentally As the heate is more principally in the fire then in the water because it is in the water by reason of the fire So sayth he seing this jurisdiction and fullnes of power is given to the Church necessarily and primarily but to the Pope onely secundarily and by the Church it is manifest that it is more
of my wrighting in cases paralell and coincident but so implicateth and involveth the one in the other that he compelleth me to reply upon almost his whole booke His answer to these I expect in his reply The Praeface examined IN examining the Praeface I may not omit to acquaint the Reader with two subtile insinuations whereby if he be not forewarned of them he may easily and at unawares be causelesly praejudiced Two subtil devises The first is an old trick of Sophistry called a fallacy of the composition For pretending to answer two wrightings the one made by me the other made and subscribed by diverse well affected members of his Church he so confoundeth them with a booke published by W. B. which in my printed protestation I called an injurious pamphlet as if those wrightings and this printed booke were one and the same For having spoken of that pamphlet in respect of the title publishers and post script he telleth the Reader that the first part of that pamphlet was made by Mr. D. and the 2. part subscribed by others Who reading these passages would not conclude us to be authours of the pamphlet For which cause let the judicious Reader be intreated to understand that a difference must be made betwixt that pamphlet and those wrightings For the printed booke wherein also those wrightings are contayned I called a pamphlet not in respect of those 2. wrightings considered as written for private use but in â—espect of the joynt printing and publishing of them in forme of a booke with such a title and postscript and in this respect onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quia implet omnia loca it is properly called a pamphlet because by this meane that which was before private and intended so to be at least comparatively became now as it were to fill all places and to be made common Whence it is evident that the same thing may be called a pamphlet when it is printed which yet is no pamphlet being only written So then if he undertake to answer the pamphlet let him deale with the authors of it my selfe have protested against it in print and all the Subscribers except W. B. disclaime it But if he will answer the wrightings let him deale fairely with us and not joyne us with the authours of the pamphlet nor abuse the Reader by telling him of a first and second part of the pamphlet but professe to deale with the wrighting which he shall find me ready to defend so farr as concerneth my part The second is a common practise of subtile Oratours whose custome is to raise some sinister suspicion of ill purposes or intendments in the opposite party that so whatsoever they shall say may be either slighted or suspected For this purpose he laboureth to perswade the Reader that partly affection to the Brownists partly disaffection to Classes and Synods and the government of these Churches and partly private discontents have bene the strong motives whereupon these wrightings were made whether by them or me The untruth of which suggestions will the more appeare if we single out some persons whom by name he thus reproacheth And first not to speake of the printed pamphlet nor of any that had a hand in it which both they and I disclaime I will cleare my owne purpose in that threefold wrighting whereof he speaketh As for my renoune and fame for learning and guifts in preaching which he intimateth These titles as I assume not Quomodo luctantes Antagonistas altius attollunt quo vehementius illidant Cypr. epist 2. lib. 2. so I suspect he ascribeth them with no other mind then wrestlers have towards their Antagonists whom they lift as high as they can that they may give them the greater fall afterwards First whereas he saith that threefold wrighting was partly against the classis partly against him the reader may see another politick devise of his to joyne the Classis with him selfe for his owne advantage as if my wrighting were intended against them where as I have all wayes professed my reverent esteeme of theÌ„ as also I did in those three wrightings mentioned by him which were not at all intended nor framed against theÌ„ as he misinformeth the Reader only I doe justly bewayle two things 1. their credulity that they have suffered them selves to be abused so much by misinformations and that from thence they have bene plunged more then where to be wished into the guilt of partiality by to much adhaering to one party with to apparent neglect of the other though in this case the more considerable 2. They re injurious depriving the Church of they re right in the free choyse injoyment of men whom they unanimously desired for they re Pastors without giving them due satisfaction the aequity of they re so doing Which a man may say having respect to some particular persons with out condemning all and in reference to a particular miscariage without condemning all use of Classes and Synods Secondy Whereas he sayth that Fallacia non causae ut causae being discontented that my calling amongst them did not succeed I had an hand in wrighting against them for not desiring me he useth another fallacy which is when that is put for a cause which is no cause For though I had cause to be discontented that my calling did not succeed and that by his fault yet that disconteÌ„t did not cause me to wright as appeareth in that I did forbeare wrighting 6 moneths after he had hindred my setling there but the clearing of mine innoceÌ„cy was the cause of my wrighting whereunto I was compelled by his repoaches Sect. 5. Ans 3. 21. Sect. 40. Ans 3. Thirdly Whereas he sayth that comming nearer to the Brownists in this question about Baptisme then to us it is therefore the lesse marvayle c. I answer 1. Himselfe in diverse places of his booke freeth me from any such affection to the Brownists as might cause me to wright against him in favour of them Therefore herein he contradicteth himselfe 2. Nearenes to or distance from the Brownists is but a false rule whereby to trye trueth or errour If the Brownists be nearer to the trueth in this matter then this Answerer why should not I come nearer to them then to him Is it not safe to come nearer to the Brownists in holding a truth then to the Libertines in a danberous errour Will he say the Brownists hold no trueth or that we may not lawfully hold the trueth with them that it may appeare we differ from them or that no man can wright in defense of any trueth which they hold without siding against him 3. It would be knowne whom he meaneth by us when he sayth nearer to the Brownists then to us 1. If he meane the Elders of his Church his owne words will contradict himselfe For of them he sayth these three have diverse times professed themselves to be
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-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.
Cyprianus vigilantissimus Episcopus gloriosissimus Martyr Blessed Cyprian a most vigilant Bishop a most glorious Martyr And comparing Cyprian Stephanus Idem lib. de unico Bap. contr Petil. cap. 14. Donatus together in their different carriage about that question he did not reproach Cyprian as schysmatically affected but shevved that both Cyprian and Stephanus and those that adhaered to them preserved unity each vvith other Idem contr Donat. lib. 5. Cap. 11. and did not as Donatus seperate from the Church for that cause and for himselfe he professed hovvsoever he held as he did touching the Baptisme of Iohn se non acturum pugnaciter c. that he vvould not quarrrell those that held othervvise In latter times Beza shevved the same spirit tovvards Bullinger and Gualter Praef. in lib. de presbyt et excom contr Erast for though they seemed to incline more to Erastus his opinion then he could vvish yet he speaketh honourably of them calling them after their deaths non tantum Tigurinae sed Christianae totius Ecclesiae lumina lights not onely of the Tigurine but also of the wholl Christian Church and elsevvhere they are stiled by him optimi illi beatissimae memoriae fratres summâ tum pietate tum eruditione praediti his excelent brethren of very blessed memory men of singular piety and learning and he taketh occasion to excuse their difference from him in that point not to brand them with any black noate for it Thus in those men the spirit of love vvraught as it had done before them in the Apostles of Christ For howsoever Paul justly reproved Peter as the case required Gal. 2. yet Peter did not lye at the catch as vve say to recriminate him but tooke occasion from some passage in Pauls epistles to make an honourable mention of him saying 2. Pet. 3.15 Account that the long suffering of the Lord is salvation as our beloved brother Paul according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you c. such a carriage of differences amongst Christians specially Ministers of the Gospell vvould much conduce to the advancement of the truth and stopping of the mouthes of adversaries vvhich are apt to be opened upon tvvo advantages 1. The differences in judgment amongst professours 2. The bitternes of spirit vvhich they discover in those differences To prevent as much as in me lyeth any hurt that may come from these tvvo praejudices I thinck it requisite that I add a word or two upon occasion of this advantage which some bitter passages in the Answer doe seeme to give all sorts of adversaryes to blaspheme the trueth 1. All sorts of people are apt to object against the truth that the professours of it doe not agree amongst themselves This the ancient Philosophers objected against the Christians in the first 300 yeares after Christ whose mouthes the worthy lights in those times stopped with the different sects among the Philosophers thēselves In like manner I may tell the Papalls of the 26 Schysmes in the Romish Church others of the troubles in Franckford raysed in Queene Maryes daies about bringing in the English liturgy into that place for the effecting whereof they spared not to endanger the life of that famous Godly man Mr. Knocks who opposed it others of Troubles about excommunications in Amsterdam extant to the view of all men and all men of differences about their severall wayes and projects 2. Bellarmine to prove that our Religion doeth not produce holynes in mens lives instanceth in the violence of Luthers spirit which appeared in much bitternes even against those vvho agreed vvith him in opposition to popery because they differed from him in some particular tenets That this is but a fallible signe may appeare not onely in this that shevves of holynes may be vvhere holynes in trueth is not as in that gravity constancy and humility vvhich vvas observeable in that enimy of Gods grace Pelagius Aug. Epist 120. Mat. 7.15 according to our Saviours praediction concerning Wolves in sheepes cloathing but also in this that distempered passions have bene found in eminent servants of God as in the difference betvveene Paul Barnabas the onely vvise God for his ovvne glory many vvayes by some infirmityes stayning the glory of all flesh Hovv hot vvas the contention betvveene Cyprian and Stephanus vvhat violent and troublesome dissention vvas there betvveene Theophilus and Chrisostom also betvveene Cyrill of Alexandria and Theodoret boath Bishops Catholicks boath learned boath godly boath excelent pillars of the Church and yet he that readeth both their vvrightings vvould thinck that boath vvere dangerous enimyes of the Church The invectives of Ierom and Ruffinus one against another are extant and Augustines Epistles vvherein he bevvayled the same Hovv many unkindnesses passed betvveene Chrisostom and Epiphanius Did not the one refuse to pray vvith the other Did not the one chalēge the other for manyfold breaches of Canons Did not the one professe that he hoped he should never dye a Bishop and the other that he should never come alive into his country boath vvhich things fell out according to their uncharitable vvishes Epiphanius dying by the vvay as he vvas returning home and Chrisostom being cast out of his Bishoprick and dying in banishment And these things came to passe 1. partly by the instigatiō of others Thus Epiphanius vvas stirred up against Chrisostom by Theophilus So that their contentions arose from a versatilous wit accompanied vvith a malicious and vindictive spirit in Theophilus imprudence accōpanied vvith too much credulity in Epiphanius 2. partly by some stiffnes inflexibility of spirit in some of them accōpanied vvith much hardnes to be reconciled vvhen once offēded to those vvith vvhom they vvere displeased from vvhich blemish Chrisostom vvas not altogether free and that caused him somevvhat the more trouble 3. partly by mistakes as in the differēce betvveene Theodoret and Cyrill and in the division betvveene the Christians of the East and those of the West the one suspecting the other of haeresy upon a mistake For the Romans beleived three persons in the Trinity but vvould not beleive three hypostases thence the Orientall Christians thought them Sabellians vvho held that there is but one person in the Godhead called by three names The Easterne Christians beleived three hypostases in the Godhead but vvould not admit three persons vvhence they of Rome thought them to be Arrians vvho beleived that there are three distinct substances in the Godhead Athanasius perceiving that they differed not in judgment brought them to accord by shevving them that they meant one thing though their expressions vvere different so that there vvas a difference arising from ill suspition which was grounded upon misunderstanding one another Lastly from an ill guided Zeale whereby beside the former Luther and those that adhaered to him were carryed too far in opposition against Zwinglius about the Sacrament which afterwards Luther saw and confessed to Melancthon a litle
before his death that his wrightings in that controversy had bene too bitter professed his inclination to publish some thing for the qualifying of them but that be feared the scandall that might grow upon such his retractation as is to be seene in the Admonition of the Divines of the County Palatine concerning the booke called liber concordiae Thus a groundlesse jealousy sharpened Luthers spirit in that controversy and a groundlesse jealousy hindred him from retracting what he had written Had the same jealousy hindred Augustine the wholl Christian world had bene loosers thereby wanting that helpe by his booke of Retractations which now they have Which unproffitable jealousy whereby men will make good what they have said or done least they should seeme to have erred Ambrose piously cast off and confessed that his wrightings had need of a second review et qnantumlibet quisque profecerit Ambr offic lib. 1. Cap. 1. nemo est qui doceri non indigeat dum vivit How much soever any man hath profited every man hath need to be taught whilest he liveth These things being premised for prevention of scandall which may be taken at the Answer whereunto the ensuing Reply is made I will breifely conclude after I have added one or two words for prevention of unaequall censures upon the Reply it selfe with respect to the matter and to the manner of my proceeding in it 1. For the matter I must intreat the wise hearted Reader to vouchsafe a benigne favourable construction of things that may seeme lyable to some misconstruction and to consider that in all the passages of this discourse I have a particular respect to the question betweene us avoyding by-matters As for instance when I speake of the summity of the power of particular Churches in re propriâ in such things as are properly their owne doe instance in the choyse of their ministers it may be some captious polititian will thinck that I abridge the povver of the civill Magistrate which is farr from my purpose though I speake as I doe limiting my selfe to the question betweene the Church and the Classis onely which was the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For I acknowledge not onely that submission obedience is due by the fifth commandment both to the highest Governours in every common wealth according to the severall lawes and customs thereof as to Emperours Kings Consuls Princes Dukes States and to other officers and ministers under them as Senators Counsailours Iustices Majors Sheriffs Balives Constables c. these and the like being in respect of their severall kinds 1. Pet. 2.13 Rom. 13.1 that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 every ordinance of man yet in respect of their common nature and power 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are ordered or ordained of God and that for conscience sake in all their civill lawes and constitutions but also in matters ecclesiasticall spirituall it belongeth to the cheife governour or governours to be nursing fathers of the Church as well as of the Commonwealth Isa 49.23 to be Custodes et vindices utriusque tabulae and that they may and aught to establish by their authority the true Religion pure worship of God and to forbid and punish not onely civill persons for civill crimes but even Churchmen also and boath sorts for crimes against Religion as Blasphemy Haeresy Idolatry Sacriledge Schysme c. and to take order as occasion may require that the Churches make choyse of fit officers and that Church officers doe their duety in every kind according to all Gods ordinances and institutions and that the wholl worship of God and all the parts of it be administred in the congregations decently 1. Cor. 14.40 without uncomelines and orderly without confusion of which care they have excelent praecedents set before them for patternes in the Scripture such as David Salomon Hezekiah Iosiah Nor are the matters of the Lord 2. Chron. 19.11 and the Kings matters of so different a nature that the care of the things of God doeth not appertayne to the King but onely to the high Preist but they are distinguished in the manner of their performing them the Magistrates discharging their part civilly politically the Church officers executing theires ecclesiastically and spiritually that so piety and policy the Church and Common wealth religion and righteousnes may dwell together may kisse each other and may flourish together in the due subjection of all sorts of subjects to Princes and Magistrates and of both princes and people to the scepter and government of Iesus Christ Iames 4.12 that one lawgiver who is able to save and to destroy 2. For the manner 1. I have endeavoured to carry my selfe inoffensively in this wholl treatise without wronging or provoking any and for that purpose have concealed the name of the Answerer wishing that it may not be remembred upon this occasion to blemish any of his well deservings in any other service to God or to his Church 2. I have laboured so to temper my stile that the truth may be manifested by his owne actions sincerely related rather then by my verball censures 1. His owne words I have truely repeated and answered and when I have bene compelled to contradict those things whereunto I could not consent I have laboured to shew reason more then passion therein If any thinck it might have bene done more smoothly and plausibly let him know there is a difference to be made betweene personall vindications and doctrinall ventilations there being not the same degrees of provocation to passion in the latter as in the former and that some of the personall aspersions whereunto I am enforced to make reply are such as whereunto a simple cold negation without some vehemency would seeme incongruous as Ierom speakes of the suspicion of haeresy or schysme wherein he sayth it becometh no man to be patient To conclude let the Christian reader if he meete with any such passages suspend his censure till he have bene put upon the clearing of his innocency to the world in answer to a printed booke made in so provoking a manner by such a man upon such an occasion himselfe being excercised with the same tryalls difficulties wherewith I am excercised in these tossings to and fro yet with much quiet in my spirit thorough inward supportments wherein I may say to the prayse of Gods grace in my measure As the sufferings of Christ abound in us 2. Cor. 1.5 so our consolation also aboundeth by Christ Lastly If any man shall thinck that my Reply is too large let him consider 1. that the particular matters of fact wherein myne innocency was necessarily to be defended are many 2. that I could not declare and maintaine the truth which I hold in points of doctrine and which is in word or actions opposed by the Answerer in a breifer discourse 3. that a necessity was layed upon me to wright somewhat on the behalfe of other Reverend ministers some whereof
are at rest as Mr. Parker Dr. Ames Mr. Forbes some are absent as Mr. Hooker Mr. Weld Mr. Peter 4. that he so interweaveth his discontents against the Elders the complaints of the members with the passages which concerne me that in many things I could not cleare my selfe without saying some thing also in their just defence which I have done sparingly and but when it was made necessary by his joyning us together 5. that he hath so frequently mentioned my name almost in every passage that I could not make a satisfying Reply on myne owne behalfe without examining almost the wholl booke which I was constrayned to doe also more particularly and according to the order of his Sections then else I would least it should be thought that I had bene unable to answer what I had praetermitted Wherein what I have written the Reader seeth but he knoweth not what I could have added and therefore is to be intreated to suspend his censure concerning what I have said till he may understand the reasons whereby I am able to justifye such particulars 6. that for the helpe of the Reader in comparing the Reply with the Answer I have inserted his owne words every where 7. that I thought it unaequall to cause the Reader to lay out his mony and spend his precious houres upon a fruitlesse discourse of our personall concernments onely and therefore have added many things upon this occasion for his intellectuall advantage whereby the Reply is made much larger then else it should have bene The benefit whereof will I hope with Gods blessing recompence his expence of mony or time upon it Which I beseech the Father of lights and of spirits to grant for the advancement of his truth in the hearts of many Amen The faults escaped correct thus 1. Words or points to be altered p stands for page l for line r. for read P 6. l 7. r. all together p 25. l 25. r operantis p. 32. l 6. r. Emden for Ments p 46. l 2. r. answereth p 48. l 27. r holesom l 37. r up p 54. l. 14. r injury p 55. l. 27. r consequence p 56. l 3. r open p 58. l. 27. r specially p 61. l. 2. r of for to p. 62. l. 1. and. p. 70. l 7. r 20. for 21. p. 79. l 23. r that the Doct p 81. l 26. r held p. 88. l 11. r in ter Veer where he p. 89. l 4. r with arrogating p. 118. l 29. r to the. p 148. l 5. r yet p 174. l 2. r counsail p 177. l 27. r was for w as p 191. l 33. r against it for against it p 223. l 12. r impute p 242. l. 2. r the for th p 245. l 7. r was for wae p 265 l 23. r. injustice p 266. l 20. r devised p. 268. l 7 8. r further p 288. l 31. r these p 295. l 4. r either for neither 2. Words or points to be added a stands for add p 9. l 20. a about after satisfactioÌ„ p. 59. l. 8. a. secondly before Is. p. 61. l. 16. a. not after p. 82. l. 1 a. he after fit p. 106. l. 19. a the before Iesuits p. 113. l. 15. r. moneths absence p. 163. l. 36. a. of marriages after condition p. 165. l. 14. a. after day p. 183 l. 17. r. ministers p. 202. l. 1. a. that after not p. 213. l. 14. r. constitution p. 229. l. 3. a. is after it 3. Words to be blotted out d stands for dele p. 9. l. 15. d. h in where p. 56 l. 13. d. First p. 66. in the margin d. s. in epist p. 82. l. 31. d. s in places p. 86. l. 31. d. s. in Maties p. 106. l. 19. d. the before Machiavells p. 138. l. 10. d. be Other faults which doe not so much hinder the Readers understanding I leave to his owne observation As when t is put for c s for c ei for i for e u for n p for b. s for f. m for n. n for m. y for i. c. A Table added by a Friend wherein the Reader for his better understanding is to take notice that the first figure sheweth the page the latter sheweth the line in the page Action CHristian actions of a twofold nature 277. 26 Ames Dr. Ames defended 77. 12 Commended 79. 12 What workes hee was author of 80. 1 His fitnesse for Pastorall office 81. 12 His remoove from Franeker to Rotterdam justified 83. 1 Dr. Ames not for promiscuous baptising 160. 14 Dr. Ames opinion of Synods 224. 36 Dr. Ames judgement about the power by which the Church ought to be governed 242. 20 Answer Three things required to a right answer of complaints 1 Two things required to a true answer 1 Answerer Answerer defective in his answer in the requisites thereto 2. 31 Answerers subtill devises to prejudice the Reader 7. 20 Answerers fallacie in putting that for a cause which is no cause 9. 25 Answerers judgement and practise agree not 12. 20 Answerer found faulty from his relation of a father 20. 6 from the place 20. 35 from the time 22. 10 Answerer found guilty of depriving the Church of those whom they desired notwithstanding all his answeres for the clearing of himselfe 55. 1 Answerer diverteth the Reader 51. 5. and 64. 19. and 68. 18. and 209. 30. Answerer prooved guilty of sinne in opposing the persons whom the Church desired 65. 8 It hath bene the Answerers course to injury the Church 77. 7 Answerer not willing to accommodate the Replyer about promiscuous baptising 126. 1. and 130 22. Answerer obtruded a false translation of the five Dutch Ministers writing upon the Reader 129. 12. Answerer contradicteth himselfe and the Classis about the insufficiency of the Elders about baptising 169. 12 Answerer hindreth the agreemeÌ„t of the Elders concerning the Replyers preaching notwithstanding all his pretended answeres 218. 12 Answerers needlesse jealousies kept Mr. Weld out from preaching when the Elders desired him 221. 27 Answerer notwithstanding his answeres found guilty of subjecting the Church under an undue power of the Classis 232. 22. Answerer joyneth with the enemies in an old cavill what the due power is by which the Church should be governed 253. 15. Answerer injurious to Christ and to the truth while hee thinkes to leave the complaynants under suspicion of adhearing to some sect 236. 22 Answerer found guilty of giving unto the Classis power to keepe out such men as the Church desired 243. 31 Answerer found guilty of giving unto the Classis power of making lawes 257. 7. Answerer found guilty of bringing matters violently unto the Classis 264. 9 Answerer found guilty of subjecting the Church under the Classis without consent â—68 1 Answerers answers about his pulpiting against the Replyer examined 278. 19 Answerer armes his opposites against himself and all Non-Conformists 282. 23 Answerer describeth not the persons right whose infants are brought to baptisme 314. 2 Attersol Mr.
things which make for peace and things where with we may edify one another But may not I justly say with the Psalmist Psal 120.7 I am for peace but when I speake they are for warr For besides the wresting of one passage in my sermon which I had expressed though he had had no kinsman how he answered me in the afternoone I am ashamed to wright but too many who then heard him know When thus I was unkindly used in publick and saw that my private dwelling there was a matter of offense to him for peace sake I removed my dwelling to another part of the country Thus Basill Greg. Naz. Monod in laud Basilij in a like case when Eusebius Bishop of Caesaria a man otherwise of noat for his pietey and constant confession of the fayth against the Arrians under the Emperour Valens yet not being able to beare the esteeme which Basill had with the people was drawne by a spirit of Envy into an opposition against that holy man and laboured by word and deed to hinder his setling there and the Nazareans and Aschetae taking it very ill that Basill should be thus slighted purposed in discontent to break off from the Church What did Basill in this case For peace sake he went aside with Greg Nazianzen into Pontus thincking it better to provide for his owne peace in a solitary condition then to contend with Eusebius de ambitione Yet afterwards the same Eusebius gave way to the setling of Basill in that place having use of his helpe in some disputes and they conversed together lovingly And the reason is rendred by Nazianzen who wrighteth of Eusebius an ancient man of somewhat an ill nature that As iron is softened by the fire so was Eusebius by age 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I wish the same testimony may be given of the Answerer for the time to come for his owne good and the Churches In the meane space I proceed to examine what reason or pretence the Answerer doth bring for this accusation Whilest those rootes of bitternes Ans p. 7. and evill weeds of unjust complaints are watered by him whiles he himselfe by his wrighting which was first secretly spread abroad among our people doth make the like yea and many the very same complaints that these men have Reply To prove me guilty of nourishing contention in the Church he aleadgeth a wrighting left by me at my departure and afterwards spread as he saith amongst the people to prove that thereby I nourished contention he saith that the rootes of bitternes and evill weeds of their unjust complaints are watered thereby And to prove this he affirmeth that many and the very same complaints are in my wrighting which these men have In answer to this challenge I am to declare two things 1. that they re complaints are no evill weedes 2. that the wrighting which was secretly spread abroad as he sayth is not blame worthy First There is no hearbe in the garden but there is some weed in the field like it the similitude is such betweene them 1. 1. That they re coÌ„plaints are on evill weeds Iude 3. both in shape and colour sometimes as men may easily mistake the one for the other through inadvertency or neglect of examining their different properties So it falleth out in this case There is a good contention an herbe whose rootes should be watered It is a contending for the faith a striving against sinne There is a bad contention a weed which must be pulled up by the rootes Heb. 12.4 A two fold contention It floweth from pride and rayseth factions in the Church and seditions in the Common wealth of such are the instances produced by the Answerer against the complainants upon supposall that their complaints are unjust which if we shall deny and evince the contrary his calling them rootes of bitternes and evill weeds and his comparing them to the Rebellious Israelites rising up against Moses and Aron The 1. Section examined to those sonnes by the Moâ—hers side that were angry with the Church and to those of Ierusalem that stoned the Prophets and to those contentious Corinthians that were factiously addicted to Paul Apollos and Cephas and went to law amongst heathen and to those Iudaizing Galathians who troubled the Church as he contumeliously rhethoricateth in the first Section will prove a notorious slander and the more greivous if it shall be found to be a calling of good evill and because it extendeth to the injury of so many I appeale to the Answerer Doe these complainants murmur against God (a) Exod. 16.8 through discontentment with Gods allowance (b) Exod. 17.6.7 or with Gods appoyntments (c) Exod. 17.2 or with Gods judgements upon others (d) Numb 14.41 or through distrust in difficult cases (e) Numb 14.1.10 or doe they not complaine of man who doth deprive them of that spirituall food which God alloweth them and setteth up humaine customes and selfe-will against Gods appoyntments in his Church whereby they want the help of those whom they desired to goe before them and lead them through the wildernes not backward into Aegipt but forward towards the heavenly Canaan Is there no difference betweene an humble presenting of complaints by these members of the Church to the Eldership that matters may be privately examined before 2 or 3 when secret speach with the party alone hath proved fruitles and a proud casting off the ordinance of God through discontent as those rebells in Israell did betweene hereticks Idolatours and such kind of Seducers that under the name of the Church whose sonnes they professe themselves to be fight against the Church and these who being a part of Christs flock desire faithfull shepeards that they may be kept from stragling betweene those who killed the Prophets and stoned those that were sent unto them and these who account their feet beautifull who bring the glad tidings of peace and strive as for life to injoy the Prophets whom they conceive God hath sent unto them And howsoever contention which is a fruit of the flesh will be found in any persons and Churches under heaven whilest that corrupt principle of flesh which is in some degree in the best men remaineth unpurged out which not only fighteth against the spirit in our selves but also inclineth us to fight against others though spirituall and that upon carnall and worldly respects yet I demand doe these complainants so contend for the injoyment of those men whom they mention as those Corinthians did about Paul Apollos Cephas Doe they looke upon these men so as to have the truth of God in respect of theire persons and to receive the word for theire authority sake as they did Did these terminate theire desire in any one of these men excluding all others as they did in some one of those All that these men desire is to have a faythfull Pastor knowne to themselves and approved of and
more easily received and firmely beleived because he is acquainted fully with all their wayes being one of them and ordinarily in counsail with them 3. But if it be true that the Classis hath such a practise Cyp. Epist l. 1. Epi. 8. Adulterum est impium est sacrilegum est quicquid humano furore instituitur ut dispositio divina violetur Ans 2. Reply and that the government hath established such an order which he will never be able to prove yet that will not free him from guilt seeing by his owne confession such a Custom or Canon is contrary to Christ his ordinance which I will expresse in Cyprians words It is adulterous it is wicked it is Sacrilegious what soever by humaine fury is instituted to the violation of a Divine ordinance His second answer or evasion rather followeth Secondly By involving the Elders with him in the same guilt and blame and retorting an accusation of partiality in that they lay the fault upon him only But who seeth not the insufficiency of this defense that either considereth the reply to the former answer or knoweth his power in the Consistory But what before was sayd by me in defense of the Classis may be a sufficient Apology also for the Elders and Deacons Thirdly By questioning the reason of their not complaining after this manner hitherto But who seeth not Ans 3. Reply that this is a mere evasion For what though they exhibited not a bill of greivances til now It may be they wayted in hope of reformation or it may be these last passages haue ripened the sore and filled up the measure and caused it to run over What consequent is there in these Arguments They complained not thus before therefore they were not injured The sore did not runne before therefore it was not an ulcer This measure did not runne over before therefore it was empty Nor is there more weight in his conclusion of that 3 answer when he appealeth to their consciences whether now also they would not haue kept silence if they could haue brought in Mr. D. even according to this corrupt order used by us as they complaine of it 1. Let the Reader judge whether any others are mentioned in the complaint either Elders Reply Classis or government but only the Answerer Why then doeth he speake in the plurall number saying this corrupt order used by us 2. Is there not a manifest contradiction in this part of the answer For if they could have brought in Mr. D. by their free choyse which himselfe acknowledgeth to be the ordinance of Christ how could they then have brought him in according to this corrupt order whereof they complaine so that why should they not keep silence if the cause of complaint had bene removed as in this case it had bene Answ 4 Let his fourth answer be considered wherein he granteth that the free consent of the people is required unto the lawfull calling of a Minister and that by vertue of those texts Act. 6.3 and 14.23 Reply 1 First If upon that ground this power of the people be established then 1 It is their duety to plead for and to stand fast in their liberty in this particular and that not as a matter arbitrary but necessary seing it is Christ his ordinance 2 That person sinneth against God and the Church who any way depriveth them of it and is bound to give satisfaction if but any one member much more if 22 considerable members complaine of it And this injury is the greater because it reflecteth 1 not upon a singular person but upon a Society 2 not in civill but spirituall immunityes and priviledges 3 Such as are not devolved upon them by the favour of earthly princes but purchased for them by the blood of Christ The aequity of this complaint may be proved out of the Answerers concession thus They who without just and sufficient warrant hinder that the Church cannot injoy these Ministers whom they with one consent desire doe deprive the Church of that liberty and power which Christ hath given it in the free choyse of their Pastor But the person complained of by these 22 subscribers doeth without just and sufficient cause hinder the Church from injoying those whom they with one consent desired Therefore the person complained of doth deprive the Church of that liberty and power which Christ hath given it in the free choyse of their Pastor The Proposition himselfe granteth to be true as hath bene noated The assumption they prove in the following Section by instances as we shall see in due time The Answerer hath sayd nothing hitherto that may serve to weaken the trueth of it In the words following also he rather evadeth it then maketh a direct answer And his evasions are by way of diversion For. 1. He diverteth his Reader from the particular subject of the complaint Pag. 19. Ans 4. Reply telling him of the order of these Churches about this matter whereas for ought I have heard from themselves at any time or now have read in their wrightings that good correspondency with the Christian Magistrate and foreknowledge or advise of the Classis which the Synods of these Churches describe as the order to be observed in the calling of Ministers are not contrary to that liberty and power in the free choyse of their Pastor which they clayme and the Answerer acknowledgeth to be due to the Church by vertue of Christs ordinance But I suppose it will be granted on all sides that the Synods doe not acknowledge any power to be due to the Magistrates or Classis to deprive the Church of any power which Christ hath givē it which is the greivance they now complained of and wherein the Answerer is accused not for observing the order of the Synods but for doing contrary to the intent of the Synods in their orders 2. He diverteth his reader from the question in hand Pag. 20. Ans 5. Reply by propounding another question to be examined which he pretendeth that some object out of Acts 6.3 viz. whether the people ought not to goe before in seeking out officers for themselves That this is a mere diversion will appeare to the indifferent Reader if he examine their wrighting in which he shall not find any word tending that way but rather they complaine that the Elders are too much neglected by the Answerer as will appeare in its place So that the 20. p. is a laborious proving of that which is not in question 3. The pretended absurdityes in his sixth answer Pag. 21. Ans 6. Reply Pag. 21. Ans 7. Reply are to the same purpose with his fifth Answer and serve only to countenance a girde at some neighbour Minister Cui-bono he best knoweth His seventh answer is no more to the purpose then the fifth and sixth For what if these Complainants should not agree one with another touching the due order of Elections and touching the ground thereof from those
November 1633. New stile We now proceed to the third worthy Mr. Forbes and to examine what he sayth concerning him Two reasons are pretended by the Answerer against Mr Forbes Ans 5 A defence of Mr. Forbes for the justifying of his refusing him to be his Colleague 1. His differing from him in judgment about the Declinatour or appeale c. 2. His refusall of referring that difference to an hearing of Ministers And thence he proceedeth in the third place to shew the issue of this difference and Mr. F. refusall to referr it which was that not only he but all the Elders with one consent refused to proceed in the calling of him Reply These we will examine severally and breifely To the first Herein may be noated 1. The Answerers unaequall dealing in publishing to the world these particulars against Mr. F. which by his owne confession were at least 24 yeares past Pag. 13. whereas he blameth the Complainants for unseasonable admonition in that they complaine now of matters done above 20 yeares agone about Mr. Parker and Mr. Forbes Was it unseasonable in them and is it not so in him Nor will it helpe that he say they compell him to it seing in the very next instance viz speaking of Mr. Peters he sayth I thinck it needles to give a reason here why I gave not my voyce for him Why might not this answer as well have served in the former instances 2. His policy is to be noated in this passage in his urging that appeale as a meane to keepe out Mr. Forbes well knowing that Mr. Forbes would not now passe from that for procuring a Ministry in Amsterdam for the which he had formerly taken his life in his hand and at that instant indured banishment 3. His disparadging of Mr. Forbes his judgment when he sayth he saught to maintayne his appeale insinuating thereby an indeavour without ability To the second 1. Any man of understanding and charity will conclude that Mr. Forbes his refufall of entring into that dispute with the Answerer is not to be imputed to his feare of the Answerers weapons or strength especially the case being such wherein Mr. F. had bene as well sifted before as the Answerer could sift him but to his great wisdome modesty who hath alwayes manifested that duetifull respect to his Soveraigne never to stand to the defence of any thing displeasing to his Maties but when and where conscience did urge him Neither could he have entred into that debate without some overture of too much forwardnes for and desire of that station from which his spirit was very averse 2. it seemeth not to be without too much selfe-confidence that he undertooke to shew Mr. F. the unlawfullnes of that appeale The wholl councell of Scotland consisting of wise and honourable persons with others as well versed in the lawes and constitutions both Ecclesiasticall and civill of Scotland as the Answerer did they re indeavour to make Mr. F. and his associats to understand the unlawfullnes of it and yet they could not see it but the Answerer will presently shew it them To the third That both he and the Elders with one consent refused to proceed in the calling of Mr. F. upon his refusall to give them satisfaction A refusall supposeth a petition the Answerer should have shewen who was the petitioner 1 was it Mr. Forbes This seemeth to be intimated But they that knew M. Forbes knew him to be a man of no such meane spirit as to petition or seeke to be the Answerers Colleague 2. were the members of the Church the petitioners or motioners for his call and was theyr request frustrated upon this ground Then they re complaint seemeth to be just in that they were deprived of him for such a cause For what is a difference about things done in Scotland and which are proper and peculiar to the cognition of that State to the Church in Amsterdam what Canon of any Nationall Synod what order of any Classis what Custom of any Church in Holland is violated by Mr. Forbes his opinion concerning the Declinatour Which injury both to them and him is the greater seing notwithstanding that he was intertayned setled in an English Church and which is more to this purpose with the English Merchants amongst whom he lived paynfully discharging the office of a Pastor above 20 yeares to the singular content of the Company not without his Maties of Great Brittaine c. King Iames of famous memory his approbation as to the prayse of his Royall clemency appeared in a message sent by him to the Company For him God provided mercyfully But the Church in Amsterdam was by this meane deprived of a man of eminent worth in the injoyment of the fruits of whose learning judgement wisdom amiable spirit and other exellent properties and indowments all places where he hath lived thought themselves happy accounting him a mā richly furnished with all indowments which are requisite not onely for a minister to any Church but also for a publike instrument upon great occasions in the cōmon affaires of many Churches to stand before princes What esteeme he had in Scotland appeared by theyr imploying of him in publick services those of great importance How he was accepted in Swedē whither he travayled after his banishment was manifest besides other instances in the great favour shewed him and honourable proffer made to him by that Mirrour of Princes the last King of Sweden a litle before his death How the Company of Merchants who injoyed him so many yeares affected him is evident in the annuall exhibition which they have conferred upon his widow as a testimony of theyr high esteeme of him theyr deceased Pastor whom it pleased God to call hence where in ter Veer he finished his course was freed from all the troubles of his pilgrimage to injoy that crowne of righteousnes which is layd up for those that have faught a good fight he died on the 5 day of August old stile and was buryed on the 9 day Anno 1634. In the sixt place he dealeth with Mr. Peters or rather declineth the answer of theyr complaint in that particular Had he done so in all the rest he had eased me of all this labour and trouble might have seemed to others more free from blame then he is or now can rationally be judged to be The answer to the sixth Section examined This Section might haue passed without being examined by me P. 33. had not the Answerer in the close of it brought me in as one fighting against him in like manner as the Complainants which is according to an English proverbe to slander him with a matter of trueth But because he sayth the answer before given to the Complainants may also serve for answer to me I am compelled to examine the wholl Section to find out the answer given to me in theyres His wholl answer tendeth to charge them with slander in
authority of Câ—â—sses whereunto what I answered he knoweth 2. Concerning promiscuous administration of Baptisme according to the custom of the Dutch Church in Amsterstam wherein what I held and doe hold shall appeare For the second By comparing this report with my noates of our conferences which I wrote upon my returne to my lodging whilest matters were fresh in memory I finde it to be partiall and defective First partiall in declaring the state of the question which was not as he intimateth but thus After an hystoricall narration made by him of a difference betweene the Classis and Mr. Hook about a custom which the Ministers of the Dutch Church in Amsterdam have of baptizing all that are brought by whomsoever he asked me what I thought of it I desired for my satisfaction to know whâ—t their custom was being then in part ignorant thereof He told me that they baptized all refusing none I replyed that I would baptize all their infants who were members of his Church refusing none He sayd that is not sufficient I desiring to carry matters with all possible peaceablenes told him that I would not refuse to baptize others also which were no members of his Church if I were satisfyed coÌ„cerning the Parents and instanced in such as might occasionally be there from England were sufficiently knowne to me But yet the case might be such in some others as I should not adventure to doe it He answered But here they except none but baptize all that are brought though the parents be not knowne or the infant be presented in the fâ—thers absence by persons unknowne I told him that I hoped such cases were seldom especially in the English Church He said it must be expected to fall out often I told him I should desire to be satisfyed concerning the parents before the child were presented He sayd They would often bring them in sermon time without giving any notice before and in such a case to refuse any would give offence if the child should be unbaptized I replyed that offence may be prevented seing those whom I dare not admit may repayre to the Dutch Church where none are refused He added that it would give offence to the Classis if our Church â—hould not doe as they did in this I answered the difference betweene the small English Church the vast Dutch Church in the same towne being considered that might easily be answered By all which it appeareth that the thing which I refused and whereupon our difference arose was the promiscuous administration of baptisme to all that are presented by whomsoever and not that J made the parents submission to my private examination a necessary condition of baptisme but only I propounded it as a prudent meane for avoyding that promiscuous baptizing which he required Thus the Reader may see the report to be partiall Secondly it is defective not mentioning diverse passages of discourse betweene us which I will but point at As about an order in the Classis which he sayd was for this concerning which what I demanded and what he answered I will for this time conceale as also what he spake about this custom being alwaies observed in that Church as also about passages that he sayd had bene betweene the Classis and Mr. Forbes about Mr. Hooker in reference to this question He omitteth also our discourse about the case of an unbaptized Turke presenting his child to baptisme with no other profession then that which is required in they re Church And how he thought it to be more for a mans satisfaction to baptize all upon the injunction of the Classis then to refuse any upon his owne judgement Other passages also I could name but these may suffice to shew that his memory hath not retayned particulars so well as my noates at least that this report is defective But let us consider his Arguments The arguments for promiscuous baptizing 1 From Reasons He mentioneth 2 sorts of arguments which he used in that conference to convince me The first consisted of reasons the second of Scriptures alleadged against my opinion First the reasons were two 1. the scandall of the Brownists 2. the offence of the Church In both which he should have set downe my answers also which seing he neglected I will now set downe truely according the to substance of my answer and yet breifely 1. The scandall of the Brownists To the first I answer 4 things Ans 1 1. What the Brownists hold so farr as it accordeth with the rule is to be received for the rules sake which is truth and not to be rejected because they hold it Ans 2 2. Theyr unjust and unwarrantable excommunicating of Mr. S. for such an opinion is not justifyed by my supposed agreement with them in this tenet For a man that holdeth this may condemne that Ans 3 3. the difference betweene them and me in this point is such as the Answerer knoweth that there is no feare of theyr insulting or being hardened thereby 4. the French Churches and some other Dutch Churches viz in Zealand and England c. are not so large in this practise as they in Amsterdam To the second I answer 1. That the wayes propounded by me for accommodation 2. The offence of the Church Ans Meanes propounded for accommodation A Copy of a wrighting shewing were sufficient as I conceive to prevent any offence of the Church These wayes I will now relate in the words wherein I wrote them to a freind to inable him to acquaint the Dutch preachers with the truth in this matter This wrighting was dated delivered by me for the use aforesaid the 10 of Ian newstile 1634. Wherein I spake of my selfe in the third person for good reason at that time Sir because you are willing to take paines for the accommodation of this difference you shall in few wordes understand 1. the true state of the question 2. the reasons of his answer 3. the way of accommodation which will best satisfye him which I leave with you in wrighting for the helpe of your memory First the question is 1. The state of the question whether he will baptize all children who are presented to the Church though the parents be no members His answer was and is that this cannot be answered otherwise then according to cases He may not say that he will baptize none and he dare not say that he will baptize all but this he sayth There are cases where in he will baptize such as are not members of this Church and yet the cases may be such as in them he shall refuse to administer it to others Secondly the reasons of his answer 2. Reasons of my answer besides others which to him seeme weighty in reference to this particular place are two 1. the promiscuous mixture of all languages and sects amongst which also are many Libertines which are of no Church and for aught is knowne many parents who themselues never
ill craved my assistance with much importunity My wife accompanied me thither and the Mrs. of the house where we lodged was pleased to accompany my wife being a stranger in these countryes which I had no cause to refuse but to take thanckfully and besides her not one member of the Church went along with us unles the mayd which attended her sucking child be a member which I thinck she is not Now what was to be blamed in this This the Reader shall ordinarily find that the Answerers complaints both against me and others have no other roote but the evill surmises of his owne jealous fancy pluck up that roote and the most of his complaints will dye of themselves His Answer to the 22. Section examined containing a wrighting first left with a freind or two and afterwards without my consent or knowledge printed MY defence of Answering his untrue reports in my wrighting and of having it in the hands of one or two freinds that might speake in the cause of the dumbe maintaine myne innocency in my absence the Reader shall find in my reply to the second Section Now the cavills which are to be found in this Section against that wrighting are to be examined First It is an injury to call that wrighting injurious which was a necessary declaration of the truth against slanders which were first secretly spread abroad by him in private speech afterwards by a large letter which he sent to his frend at N. in England now are by him scandalously published not only against me ego enim non sum tanti but against men of eminent worth and noate both living and dead Secondly How justly that wrighting is called a true report of passages the Reader will see by comparing what is sayd on both sides and how unjustly he excepteth against that title Thirdly When I assured the Reader that this English copy is a true translation out of the latine by this English copy I meant not which is printed For there are diverse faults in that it appeareth to have bene printed out of a very imperfect copy but that which I wrote As for his exception against it that having twise used that odious phrase pro imperio imperiously in the second place it is left out in my translation Repl The phrase is but a true expression of the thing let the odious thing be mended and the odious phrase shall not be used In the meane space the expression must be suitable to the action For is it not actus imperij an imperious act to deny a man convenient time for satisfaction about a matter of such consequence and to bind a man to observe customs and orders without shewing the aequity thereof Some would have called such an act tyranny and so shall I upon further provocation 2. As the use of the phrase is condemned so the omitting of it once in the translation is reproved Forgive me that wrong I thought he would see how unwilling I was to fasten their imperious dealing with me upon the Readers apprehension by repeating the word imperiously againe But let it stand in this second place also seing the Answerer will have it so and he shall find me with Gods assistance prove it to be a fit expression 3. Is my translation untrue because this word is once omitted Let the learned Reader judge whether it be necessary to the truth of a translation that every latine word be rendred into English especially when the sense giveth it sufficiently in the sentence If this be not to seeke a knott in a bulrush I know not what is Fourthly In my first wrighting how unable the Answerer is to discover any untruth in my report of the private conference betweene us the Reader will see by my examination of his Sect 11. in my Reply and will be further cleared hereafter Fifthly In my second wrighting he seemeth to find a foule untruth or falsification after his usuall manner of expressing himselfe both in the superscription and subscription thereof But what is it I sayd that those instructions were delivered by the Elders of the English Church deputed But 1 that translation sayth not by the Elders but to the Elders and that both in the superscription and in the subscription Is it not strange that he should then falsifye the translation when he complaineth of falsification in the translatour 2. suppose it had bene to the Elders deputed and that by Elders I meant any lawfully deputed by the Eldership yet I spake and wrote truely For I left the wrighting with Mr. W. who was deputed before by the Eldership having also told Mr. Wh of it praying him to communicate it with the rest that one or two Elders that should be deputed by the rest might present it to the Classis and having respect unto that agreement with them I used that expression before the meeting in confidence that it would have bene so ordered by them Now if no such deputation was made afterwards what is that to me who stiled the Elder by that title which best expressed my purpose and expectation neither was I in towne to alter it afterwards nor did I ever heare that no deputation was made in the Consistory till now The issue of all this deepe accusation what is it now but as when a great expectation was of the mountaines birth which was fained to be with child after which nothing appeared but a litle mouse running thence How just the complaint is also of his want of brotherly moderation I have noated in my reply to his Sect. 12. Sixtly In that which he speaketh concerning my third wrighting he multiplyeth injuries 1. In misreporting my intent in the three wrightings which was not to make him odious to the Classis nor to teach the Elders how to fill their mouthes with reproach of him nor to stirr up and incense the Congregation against him but ingenuously and candidly to report the truth whereunto I was called and compelled for the necessary clearing of my selfe for the remove all in some and prevention in others of causeles praejudices and jealousyes which already did or by my silence might arise in their minds against me by his suggestions Would the wrighting of those things accuse undermine and defame him It is a signe that his cause is not very good And if my wrighting those particulars be a fault who is to blamed for it but he who constrained me thereunto 2. In charging me with unjust uprayding of him for myne assistance of him and with a vaine boasting of my selfe To convince him of ill requiting me yea of rewarding evill for good I remembred what labour and patience I had excercised for his and the Churches peace This was no uprayding much lesse unjust nor vaine boasting but a just declaration of the truth the case requiring it and a sad complaint of his unthanckfullnes How he hath answered it will appeare in the examination of Sect. 2. 8. and 40. Whereunto as he
sufficient evidence whereupon to ground so deepe an accusation as that of Schysme is If so let him shew it by Scriptures or good reason but with all to guide his judgment let him know that the mere preaching as assistant in a Church at the intreaty of the Church is not numbred among those common causes which by the order of these reformed Churches are appropriated to the cognition or consent of the Classes it is in it selfe to be accounted among the things which are proper to particular Churches And is it a Schysmaticall tenet to hold that things proper to particular Churches are under the power of particular Churches which are cheife in matters that are properly their owne what then will he say to that Canon of the Synod at Midleborough Those things shall not be handled in the greater assemblyes which may be ended in the lesser Can. 25. to the Canons of the Synod of 3 Nations Cap. 17. 18. to the Sinod at Emden Cap. 2. to that Canon in the Harmony of the Belgick Sinods that those matters only shall be brought into the Classes which cannot be ended in the Consistory cap. 7. art 6. See Zepperus lib. 3. cap. 5. Were these Synods schysmaticall Conventicles or were their Canons schysmaticall conclusions How then is this which I affirme schysmaticall To brand me with an imputation of schysme he spareth not these Synods which deliver the same thing in effect that I say and all those worthyes who have written concerning Ecclesiasticall discipline or the authority of Councills of whom we spake in the former Section or which have handled the power of particular Churches in chusing their owne Pastors of whom we spake in the foregoing Section Yea I wish he may not be found to beare false witnes against the truth it selfe in the Scriptures which we have declared in both those Sections to warrant so much as I have said in this matter 4. His fourth answer supposeth that eminent men may cause eminent danger by their private opinions The men in whom he instanceth I confesse were not inferiour to either of us in learning But that which he intimateth concerning opinions held by them which tended to the ruine and desolation of Churches if he apply it to this question about the power of particular Churches to admit of Ministers to preach as assistants I cannot acknowledge to be true upon the former grounds but if he meane any other opinions or practises it is nothing to the matter in question 5. In his fifth answer upon his observation that the Complainants in their particular greivances mention me he inferreth that their inordinate desire of me hath made this trouble to the Church But. 1. neither the ground nor the inference is right 1. Not the ground For they mention not me alone but others also 2 Nor the inference For will their complaining of injuryes done to them in a particular reference to me prove their desire of me to be inordinate By what medium Let him frame his Argument into a Syllogisme and it will appeare to be Sophisticall and ridiculous But I spare him 2. How easily may they or I upon the same ground warrant prove that his inordinate desire of having his owne will that I say no more hath made this trouble in the Church by drawing all the lines of the severall Sections in the circle and circumference of their complaint to that as the onely centre But I doe not affect in Circuitu ambulare 6. In his sixt answer which is to their parenthesis wherein they noate that he would have had others that to this day hold the same opinion Such is the invincible power of truth that his owne words concerning those two instances are sufficient to prove the thing which he would deny if what I have written in the 11. Section concerning his private conference with me be compared with what himselfe confesseth Mr. B wrote to him and with his owne acknowledgment of Mr. R. agreement with me in his third and last answer to that instance Nor is his desire of having them complained of for in the injoyment of either of them they had bene happy but his partiall sticking at that in me which he would have passed by in them The 29. Section examined Concerning the undue power of the Classis in making lawes IN this Section they produce the second proofe of the justnes their complaint of his subjecting the Church under an undue power of the Classis viz his giving them power to make lawes and orders whereunto whosoever will be ministers of that Church must submit For proofe hereof they give two instances 1. that they bind Ministers to observe the orders and customs of the Dutch Church 2. their second instance is concerning this order of promiscuous baptising which they made a coÌ„dition of my admittance to that Ministry The justnes of their laying the blame of boath these upon the Answerer they prove 1. Because some of the Dutch preachers themselves have declared their willingnes to cast off some of those customs if the vastnes of their Church would permâ—â— it 2. Because one of them said to the Answerer in the Classis upon occasion of his complaining of my not conforming to their orders you your selfe doe not conforme to all our orders 3. Because they have professed that they should have bene glad that the differences had bene ended among our selves 4. Because he hath of late required of the Elders that an order might be made in the Consistory that whatsoever minister shall hereafter be called to that Church should conforme to that wrighting of the five Ministers Now let us see what answers he pretendeth to make 1. to their complaint against the proceeding of the Classis in this particular 2. to their complaint of his giving this undue power to the Classis First To their complaint of the undue proceeding of the Classis Herein he answereth nothing to the purpose For he neither denyeth the fact nor giveth any satisfaction about the aequity of it In a word he so answereth as if he saught nothing else but how to evade answering and to get some hole to hide his head in Wherefore that the truth in this matter may appeare we will consider two things 1. de facto whether they have made such lawes and orders or not 2. de jure whether they have done it by a due or by an undue power 1. That they have made such lawes and orders can not be denyed For if the praescription of necessary observances be a law if the imposition of any thing with a binding power be a law if the decrees to the obedience whereof men are any way compelled are lawes the things instanced in to witt conformity to their ecclesiasticall customs and promiscuous administration of Baptisme according to the wrighting of the five Ministers were imposed as lawes upon me For did they not bind me to rest in that wrighting and to conforme to those customs
that wrighting would have bound me The second way of defining he denyeth to belong to any Councill and affirmeth that it appertayneth onely to God and to Christ and to the Holy Ghost Here I might be large in alleadging wrighters of the most eminent noate affirming the like and the same for substance with me in this matter and many of them expressing their judgments in the same words But these shall suffice till a further provocation Afterwards the Answerer demandeth whether no truth be uttered or described by men in our times whereunto the consent of men may be required But what is this to the matter in question Had they declared it to be a truth I was ready to have testifyed my consent with them in it But that they did not nor hath he done it in all this taedious discourse So that this is to argue ex non concessis from that which is not granted Or will he say that because every truth uttered by men must be consented to therefore we are bound to consent to every thing which men shall utter And to as litle purpose is that which he alleadgeth concerning the subscription which the Reformed Churches require to their confessions of fayth Whereas the matter in question is not comprehended in any Article of those Confessions and out of those very Confessions we doe dispute against it But was not the Answerer driven farr and put hard to his shifts when to make some shew of answer he demanded how I could subscribe my name to my owne wrighting sent to the Classis to shew my consent to it and whether I did thereby make my selfe an Apostle or my wrighting aequall to the word of God To let passe his improper calling it my consent to my owne wrighting my subscription to it was not in reference to my selfe but to the word of God whereunto it is consonant and it testyfyed unto them my persuasion that it agreed therewith but what is this to the subscription which they required to injunctions and praescriptions which were not declared to agree with the Scripture either in that wrighting which they sent or in any conference they had with me though I told them that unicum Argumentum c. Any one Argument from the word should prevayle with me and that besides other times once in the hearing of some of the Elders and others But will it follow that because a man upon persuasion of the truth may subscribe to other mens wrightings or to his owne that therefore he may subscribe to those wrightings concerning the truth whereof he is not persuaded Whilest he was wrighting these things a secret Monitour from within suggested to him that all humane judicatoryes are subject to errour and that when that errour is shewed by the word of God it aught to be corrected But if the question be who may judge of this errour and shew it them Here his answer is defective He sayth one Synod often reformeth that which hath bene decreed by another This sheweth indeed that Synods are subject to errour And doe they not therefore erre because they fetched not their definitions and praescriptions from the Scriptures And is it not the best way for rectifying them to reduce them to that rule And how shall this be done but by the course which those Noble Beraeans tooke by comparing them with Act. 17.11 and examining them by the Scriptures And to whom doeth this belong Indeed the publick Ministeriall power of judging in such cases belongeth to Synods or Councills themselves But the private judgment which Divines call the judgment of practicall discretion belongeth to every Christian So that no man is bound absolutely to submit to or to rest in the judgment of any man or Councill but to trye them by the Scripture and to consent with them no further then they appeare to consent with that rule This the Scriptures abundantly declare Mat. 24.4 1. Thess 5.21 1. Ioh. 4.1 Gal. 1.8 Mat. 23.8 when they command all Christians to beware of Seducers to trye all things to trye the spirits Also when they are called upon to receive the word of Christ onely as their onely Master And to deny men the use of their private judgment in things taught them by their Pastors or injoyned and praescribed by Classes or Synods what is it else but to deprive man of his reason mans understanding of its end which is to search find out the truth yea to deprive Christians of the fruite of their fayth and supernaturall illumination and of the spirit of Revelation 1 Cor 14.20 Eph 4.14 Euseb li. 5. C 12. Or at least to make those of riper yeares to be alwayes as Children in understanding This were to revive the haeresy of Apelles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that people aught not accurately to weigh and examine what is propounded to them Hieron in proem ad Gal from which Ierom was so farr that he much commended Marcella a good woman in Rome for this that she wherever she met him would be putting good questions to him and received his answers not as Pythagoras his schollers did his sayings or as the Answerer would have had me to rest in the judgment of the five Ministers but she examined and weighed all things so that he thought himselfe to have non tam discipulam quam judicem not so much a scholler as a judge and as he allowed a good woman this liberty in trying the wordes of a learned and godly Teather so Hylary giveth the same liberty to all private Christians in examining the decrees of Councells Hylar de Synod adv Arrian Si contraria invicem senserint Concilia debemus quasi judices probare meliora If Councills or Synods differ in their determinations we aught as judges of our owne actions to approve of that which is better Whereas he addeth Yet doeth not this take away their authority for the judging and deciding of controversies For by such reasoning they might take away all government and bring in confusion I grant that it taketh away no due subordinate Ministeriall authority frō them but a supreme Praetorian or Magisteriall authority as that is when they bind men to rest in their determinations without convincing them that they are according to the mind of God in the Scriptures or so much as declaring to them sufficient ground out of the word for their so doing And so to doe is not to take away all or any government but tyranny nor to bring in confusion but to prevent it and to establish order Whereas he addeth that by these and such like injurious speeches they doe exceedingly gratifye many sorts of Libertines Arrians Socinians and other haereticks c. What injury is it to witnesse against undue power which is a testifying against injury And how can the Libertines Arrians c. be gratifyed by pleading against that undue power which is excercised in upholding that disorder of promiscuous baptising which serveth to strengthen
Mat. 5.37 yea is a rule for prevention of unlawfull oathes in ordinary discourse not for a tryall of mens being in Covenant 2. when Christ asked the blind men that came unto him for cure Mat. 9.28 Beleive yee that I am able to doe this In them yea was a sufficient answer in that case 1. Because it was joyned with suitable actions as their following him crying to him and saying Vers 27. Thou sonne of David have mercy upon us vers 27. Wherein they continued following him into the house 2. Which Christ accounted sufficient who knew what was in man and witnessed that they did inwardly beleive according to that profession in curing them after he had said according to your faith be it unto you vers 29.30 V. 29.30 To apply this I grant that the word yea is sufficient to testifye their being in Covenant at the time of administring the Sacrament who are sufficiently knowne by other tryalls to have true faith but what is this to those who are altogether unknowne For the 3. Where our Saviour Christ after he had opened diverse parables asked the Disciples Have yee vnderstood all these things They said vnto him Mat. 13.51 yea Lord. Here is no speech about their being in the Covenant What is this to the matter in question For it is not denyed that by saying yea men have testifyed their fayth sufficiently if their faith hath made it selfe otherwise knowne as it did in the Disciples but it is denyed to be a sufficient testification of faith in persons who are otherwise altogether unknowne The same answer may be given to that place in the fourth text where to Christ demanding Peter lovest thou me Ioh. 21.15 Peter answered yea Lord thou knowest that I love thee And Christ did know it by his weeping bitterly for his denyall of him and by the inward impression which he left upon Peters heart by his divine power when he looked upon him in the high Preists hall and before And so to Christ it was sufficient to say yea Lord and to referr himselfe to his knowledge of him But will it thence follow that it is sufficient for us if any one shall say so These are the places which he noateth for the use of the word yea and the Reader may see how litle to the purpose The same answers may serve to his other texts concerning Amen which are needlesly produced and serve not at all to prove the thing in question As for his other proofes taken from short expressions as in making of Covenants All that the Lord hath spoken we will doe or the like I marvayled much that the Answerer alleadged those which make wholly against him For 1. there is a great deale of binding force in this expression which is in no sort answered by the word yea 2. it was made by a people whom God had chosen out from all the world to be his peculiar ones upon experience of the admirable passages of his fatherly providence and upon their acquaintance with his wayes unto whom the people against whom I have excepted are in no sense to be compared 3. If the proofe which himselfe alleadgeth out of Iosh 24.15.16 c. be well examined Iosh 24.15.16.17 18.19.20 21.22.23 24.25 it will be found that they not onely understood the Covenant whereunto they bound themselves in those short answers but also the Covenant was propounded their assent to it required in another manner with more vehemency then a mere once declaring of it on Gods part or one short answer on their part seemeth to carry with it Secondly To prove that nodding with the head or some gesture of the body is a sufficient testification of a mans being in the Covenant so farr as to procure the admission of his child to baptisme he searched out the use of the latine and greeke words which serve to expresse that gesture and are used to shew the consent or dissent of the will in any matter But to what purpose I know not For it is not doubted that such words and gestures doe signifye the consent of the will nor that they are used in the worshipping of God nor that solemne covenants and professions of speciall persons in the Church are so expressed as the stipulation of ministers Elders and Deacons received into office and the profession of publick repentance before the Congregation are accomplished with saying yea and some gesture of body But will all this prove the point in question Surely no. For 1. the persons in the forenamed cases are members of the Church or sufficiently knowne to the Church but these are neither of that Church nor of any other or not knowne to be such otherwise those expressions would not be judged sufficient in a doubtfull case 2. they know and understand what is propounded to them and whereunto they give such a testification of assent which many of those of whom the question is doe not 3. the profession in those cases is made by the partyes themselves but in this by any nurse or other person in the parents absence yet those also are as unknowne as the parents yea such parents and sureties are so farr from being knowne to be beleivers that they are many of them notoriously knowne to live as without God in the world in all loosenes and profanenes In his third Answer he sayeth he cometh more particularly unto the places of Scripture alleadged by me I wish he may be found to doe so in the issue that we may find some ground for fayth to rest upon 1. For the first text Acts. 11.21.26 It is not professed by what words or signes they professed their faith conversion to God How can it be proved from hence that such as said yea and bowed their heads bodies in testimony of their approbation and liking thereof might not thereupon be admitted to baptisme and their infants Reply 1. It is enough that they satisfyed the Apostles that they beleived and turned to the Lord and that they did so in truth appeareth by the testimony which the Holy Ghost giveth them in that place It matters not by what words or signes more or lesse it was done but had there bene no more done then saying yea or nodding the head by persons otherwise altogether unknowne it would not have satisfyed 1. Because fayth and conversion to God doe appeare where they are in more and better fruits and evidences then those as himselfe I beleive would manifest if he were to handle that text 2. Because more reverent and religious respect was had in those times to the seales of the Covenant then to pollute them by such a promiscuous dispensing them as is used in Amsterdam 2. But what an unreasonable demand is that How can it be proved hence c For 1. I deny that such a saying of yea can be proved in the Apostles times to be a sufficient evidence of ones being a Christian and alleadge this