Reply to a Book, Reply · Part 12

Reply to a Book · Reply · Part 12

p. 125His Anſwer to the 12. Sect. examined, contayning the counſail of the five Dutch miniſters for my accōmodation.

IN this Section the Anſwerer doth, in his policy, ſo expreſſe the wayes of accommodation propounded by others, as may beſt conduce to the juſtifying of his way, and to the reflecting of ſome ſuſpicion of obſtinacy upon me, for not yeelding thereunto, but how truely let the Reader judge, upon the examination of particulars.

Anſ. Firſt, He intimateth that M^r. Pots had long joyned with him, in that order of adminiſtration of Baptiſme, which he required me to obſerve.] Reply. Anſ: Mr. Pot was a man unknowne to me, in his life time. Since his death, ſome things which are reported of him, and, of his ſufferings in that place (both by Dutch and Engliſh, by whom he was generally beloved and pittyed) doe give me much aſſurance of his faythfullnes. How this good man approved of their manner of baptiſing (in the caſe now queſtioned) appeareth by his owne expreſſions to ſome members of that Church, who are yet alive, to whom he declared that he accounted it a greivance, and that he had a purpoſe to ſeeke redreſſe of it, at the Synod. Whether he did ſo, or not, the Anſwerer knoweth beſt, and with what ſucceſſe. But this ſheweth, with what affection this good man joyned with him therein, and how farr he was from approving this cuſtom.

Secondly. He intimateth that this adviſe of the five Dutch Preachers for accomodation proceeded from his willingnes to accommodate p. 126me.] If this were really ſo; why did the Anſwerer refuſe all the meanes of accommodation, which I propounded, and knowing that no way would accommodate me, but that which would ſecure me from future trouble about this matter, when he had rejected that which would have ended the difference, ſeemeth willing to yeeld to any other way. What is this, but, as when a man that hath promiſed to doe any kindnes that another ſhall requeſt at his hands, being intreated to helpe him, in ſuch a ſtreight, with mony or countenance (or the like, his caſe neceſſarily requiring it, and the other being very well able to doe it) he ſhould anſwer, I will doe any thing but this. Will any man value the freindſhip, or faire pretences of ſuch an one.

Thirdly. He produceth a Copy of the adviſe of the Dutch preachers ſet downe in wrighting by themſelves in his houſe, in Dutch, thence, by the appoyntment of the reſt, one of them tranſlated it into latine (which was ſent to me) and now is by him out of latine tranſlated into Engliſh. Now that the Reader may ſee how much he is abuſed, by this falſe tranſlation of that wrighting, I will publiſh foreign, the very wrighting it ſelfe verbatim, without alteration of a ſyllable as I received it from them, and then compare this tranſlation with it.

The Latine copy, word for word.

Nos infra-ſcripti Paſtores Eccleſiae Belgicae in civitate Amſteldamenſi, a viro Reverendo D. Pageto, fideli paſtore in Eccleſiâ Anglicanâ ejuſdem civitatis, nec non a venerandis fratribus Senioribus ac Diaconis ejuſdem Eccleſiae Anglicanae, ſpecialiter requiſiti ac fraternè rogati, ut privatum noſtrum judicium in cauſa vocationis (quae ab univerſâ Eccleſiâ praedictâ videtur expeti) Reverendi, Clariſſimi, Doctiſſimique viri D. DAVENPORTII ſincerè declarare, atque exponere non recuſemus, idque in caſu illo unico particulari, ſpectante Baptiſmum eorum. infantium, qui in Eccleſiâ Anglicanâ baptizandi offeruntur; Re totâ utrinque benè intellectâ, ritè perpenſâ, et ad normam Ʋerbi Dei, ordinemque receptum in Eccleſijs Reformatis harum Provinciarum, in quibus praedicta Eccleſia Anglicana ſeſe membrum profiretur ſub Claſſe Amſteldamenſi, probè examinatâ, p. 127ſincerè, ac coram Deo, in bonâ conſcientiâ reſponſum damus, atque declaramus; Nihil magis nobis in votis eſſe, quam ut praedictus D. Davenportius cujus inſignis eruditio, et ſingularis pietas ab omnibus fratribus Anglicanis apprime probatur; laudaturque quemque hoc ipſo nomine, nec non ob alias virtutes ejus laudabiles, etiam ipſi D. Pageto chariſſimum eſſe intelligimus, ad miniſterium Eccleſiae Anglicanae praedictae legitime promoveatur. Bonum inſuper ipſius Zelum ac ſtudium de parentum ac ſuſccptorum iſtorum liberorum praeuiô aliquô examine privatô in religione Chriſtianâ inſtituendô, quam maximè quidem nobis probari, de re ipſâ tamen ita nos ſtatuere, ut praedictum illud examen, quantum Eccleſiae Anglicanae feret aedificatio, inſtituatur, ſed ſi fortè vel parentes, ſuſceptoreſve iſtud accedere ac ſubire renuant, vel ob temporis brevitatem, aut alijs juſtis de cauſis fieri illud non queat, vel etiam qui acceſſerint, fratris vel fratrum examinantium judicio non videbuntur, pro iſto tempore, ſatiſfacere, ipſe infans cujus parentes, ſuſceptoreſve conſtat eſſe Chriſtianos, quique Chriſtianam religionem, ad lectionem liturgiae Sacramenti Baptiſmi publicè coram Eccleſia profitentur, a Baptiſmo propterea minime arceatur, aut baptizarì recuſetur, ſed ut ejuſmodi ignorantes parentes, ſuſceptoreſve, poſt infantem baptizatum ulterĭus poſtea, quoad fieri poteſt, edoceantur; quoniam, ſcilicet, infantes Chriſtianorum ſuorum parentum, ſuſceptorumve, vel inſcitiam, vel etiam ejuſmodi inobedientiam ferre ac luere non debent. Si quis tamen caſus ullus alius obveniat, quo minus infans oblatus baptizandus videatur, ut tum totius preſbyterij Anglicani, vel etiam, ſi neceſſe fuerit, aut commodè fieri poſſit, Claſſis Amſteldamenſis judicium interveniat, audiatur, atque in eo acquieſcatur. Sic actum, et tranſactum in aedibus D. Pageti. Die 20. Ianuarij 1634.

Ioannes le Mairius.

Iacobus Triglandius.

Henricus Geldorpius.

Rudolphus Petri.

Iacobus Laurentius.

2. The tranſlation word for word.

We the underwritten Miniſters of the Dutch Church in the citty of Amſterdam, being ſpecially and lovingly requeſted and p. 128deſired of the Reverend M^r. PAGET, a faithfull Paſtour i… the Engliſh Church of the ſame city, as alſo the the Reverend brethren the Elders and Deacons of the ſame Engliſh Church, that we would not refuſe ſincerely to declare & ſhew our private judgment about the calling of the Reverend, moſt famous, & learned Mr. DAVENPORT, which ſeemes to be deſired of the whole Church aforeſaid; and that in this particular caſe alone, concerning the Baptiſme of thoſe infants, which are offered to be baptiſed in the Engliſh Church: having well underſtood and duely weighed the whole matter, on both ſides, and having throughly examined it, according to the rule of Gods word, and the order received in the Reformed Churches of theſe Provinces, in which the aforeſaid Engliſh Church doth profeſſe it ſelfe a member, under the Claſſis of Amſterdam, we doe ſincerely, and in the preſence of God, with good conſcience anſwer, and declare, that we deſire nothing more, then that the foreſaid M^r. DAVENPORT, whoſe notable learning and ſingular piety is much approoved and commended of all the Engliſh our brethren; whom alſo, in this regard, and for his other commendable gifts, we underſtand to be moſt deare unto M^r. PAGET, may be lawfully promoted unto the Miniſtry of the Engliſh Church aforeſaid: we doe alſo greatly approove of his good Zeale and care of having ſome precedent private examination of the parents, and ſureties of theſe children in the Chriſtian Religion; yet, touching the matter it ſelfe, we doe ſo judge, that this aforeſaid examination be ordained, ſo farr as may ſtand with the edification of the Engliſh Church; but if haply the parents or ſureties ſhall refuſe to come, and undergoe this examination, or if, for the ſhortnes of time, or, for other juſt cauſes, it can not be done, or, if thoſe that doe come, ſhall not ſeeme, for that time, to ſatiſfye the judgment of the Brethren, one or more that doe examine them, that yet the infant, whoſe parēts & ſureties are manifeſt to be Chriſtiās, & which publickly before the Church doe profeſſe Chriſtian Religion at the reading of the leiturgie of the Sacrament of Baptiſme, ſhall not therefore be excluded or deprived thereof▪ but that ſuch ignorant p. 129parēts & ſureties be further inſtructed, after the infāt be baptiſed, to wit, becauſe the infāts of Chriſtiās ought not to beare & ſuffer the puniſhmēt of the ignorance, or yet of ſuch diſobedience of their parēts, or ſureties. If yet any other caſe fall-out, whereby it may ſeeme that the infant preſented ſhould not be baptiſed, that then the judgment of the whole Engliſh Preſbytery, or alſo, if need be, and if conveniently it may be done, that the judgment of the Claſſis of Amſterdam be obtayned and reſted in.

So was it done and tranſacted in the houſe of M^r. PAGET the 28. day of Ianuary 1634.

Here it muſt be noated that the Anſwerer pretendeth to publiſh this wrighting. 1. So as it was done▪ and tranſacted in his houſe the 28. day of Ianuary 1634. 2. So as it was written downe and read before him, when they enquired of him, whether he, for his part, did reſt therein, and he ſignifyed his conſent with them. Theſe things being premiſed, J demand, by what pretence, will the Anſwerer defend or excuſe this his tranſlation. Let me, without offence, deſire to know, why he hath tranſlated quorum parentes, ſuſceptoreſve conſtat eſſe Chriſtianos, whoſe parents and ſuretyes are manifeſt to be Chriſtians? when, according to their wrighting, it ſhould be tranſlated whoſe parents or ſuretyes are manifeſt to be Chriſtians? Here is [or] a diſjunctive particle changed into [and] a particle copulative, to the manifeſt alteration of the ſenſe of their words. That this is not the errour of the printer, but done purpoſely, by the authour, appeareth from his conſtant private report, that I refuſed to baptiſe the childrē of ſuch, whoſe parents were manifeſt Chriſtians. To make this good, the Reader hath a falſe tranſlation obtruded upon him. I demand therefore, if that diſjunctive expreſſion of the five Duth Miniſters in their wrighting [viz, parents, or ſuretyes] were juſtifyable, why doth he alter it into a copulative expreſſion. [viz parents, and ſuretyes?] If it were not juſtifyable, why did he ſignify his conſent with them, and that he, for his part, reſted therein? 2. Why am J blamed, yea, rejected, for not reſting in it? what will he, what can he ſay, in excuſe thereof? That the Dutch preachers were willing afterwards, upon my ſhewing my diſlike, to change p. 130[ve into que] or, into, and, and therefore he altered it. I anſwer 1. ſuch a thing was in ſpeech, but never done: for when we began to take pen and paper and to wright downe agreements on both ſides, after ſome litle diſcourſe, they altered their minds, ſaying that they had no commiſſion to make any agreements, till they had acquainted the Claſſis therewith, which they would doe. And after that time, they never ſpake more of altering any thing. So it ſtood, and ſtandeth to this day unaltered. 2. Suppoſe it had bene altered by them (as it was not) yet the Anſwerer wil have no advantage thereby: for he profeſſeth to tranſlate it according to that copy, wherein he ſignifyed his conſent with them, and required that I ſhould reſt, which is apparently falſifyed.

Fourthly, He blameth me for complaining that he dealt extreamely with me, and rejected all my labour for a peaceable compoſing, prudent accommodating, and brotherly ending of matters betweene him and me privately, or by the counſail of the Elders of his owne Church, nor would hearken to my adviſe without conſent of the Claſſis. All theſe reports, he ſayth, are untruths. And this wrighting, he ſayth, witneſſeth for him, &c. Three things I affirme in thoſe wrightings, and they are all true.

Firſt, that he rejected my labour for accommodation. The truth of that appeareth in that himſelfe ſaid, in the beginning of this Section, that he offered, that if any other convenient way of accommodation could be found out, he would willingly hearken to it: Let it be noated that he ſayth, any other, and thereby plainly refuſed that which was propounded by me? elſe why is any other way ſaught.

Secondly, that he would not yeeld any brotherly moderation unto me, and refuſed all meanes of accommodation. The truth hereof appeareth in the meanes which he embraced, or, rather put thoſe Miniſters upon to propound to me (having praepoſſeſſed them with cauſeles jealouſyes) when it is required, that I ſhould reſt in a wrighting (which himſelfe is loath to tranſlate aright, that the Reader may know the wholl truth) wherein I am adviſed to …aptize all children, whoſe parents, or ſuretyes are Chriſtians, by which accomodation, I ſhall be brought to doe the thing which p. 131I judge unlawfull. For, if a Chriſtian ſurety may give right to an infant for baptiſme, whoſe parents are neither of them Chriſtians, and ſuch midwives, or nurſes, or others as take no future care of the child may paſſe for ſuretyes, and muſt be accounted manifeſt Chriſtians, if they nodd the head, or ſay yae, at the reading or pronouncing of the formalier by the miniſter, though no man knoweth what they are, nor themſelves, it may be, underſtand a word that is ſayd to them; who ſeeth not that the ſacred ordinance of Baptiſme is hereby made common, and ſo to be promiſcuouſly adminiſtred, according to this wrighting?

Thirdly, that he would not hearken to my advice without conſent of the Claſſis. 1. That this is true, he muſt confeſſe, unles he will deny his owne words: for himſelfe ſayd ſo to me, & he knoweth it, 2. The event ſheweth it. For though he would have me to reſt in this wrighting (without conſent of the Claſſis) yet he well knew this to be no way of accommodation, hut a mere ſnare to me.

And now, becauſe the Anſwerer, not only ſeemeth to charge me with obſtinacy for not reſting in that determination of the five miniſters, but alſo to inſult as if J wanted warrant from the Scripture for myne opinion, becauſe I did not ſet it downe in wrighting, that the queſtion might be in wrighting diſcuſſed betweene us, Sect. 11.which he offered (as he ſayth) to ſome of the Complainants ſundry times, (though the vanity of this pretence is in the former Section, declared, yet,) being thus againe chalenged in print, I may not, without injury to the truth, any longer forbeare to give a publick account of my judgement in this matter. But firſt my humble and hearty requeſt to the Reverend miniſters of theſe countryes (eſpecially to thoſe in that part) is, that they will not impute it to any contentious diſpoſition, or to louelove of diſputes, much leſſe to a malicious deſire of diſcovering theyr imperfections to the world, leaſt of all to an arrogant polupragmony in me, as if I, being a ſtranger, aſſumed to my ſelfe to be a reformer of theſe Churches, that I freely declare the grounds, whereupon I refuſed to bind my ſelfe to obſerve that cuſtom. Thus caſting my ſelfe upon theyr favourable conſtruction, and praying them aequally and judiciouſly to conſider what J ſay, I will, with Gods p. 132aſſiſtāce, (which I humbly begg) proceed to declare my grounds after I have ſtated the queſtion, by ſhewing the iſſue and ſumme of that wrighting of the five miniſters, wherein the Anſwerer would bind me to reſt.

The ſtate of the queſtion.Breifly, it was, that I ſhould adminiſter the ſacrament of Baptiſme to all infants that are preſented thereunto, if thoſe that preſent them (whether they be parents, or ſuretyes) ſhall declare themſelves to be Chriſtians, by profeſſing Chriſtian Religion, at the reading of the leitourgy of Baptiſme, though the preſenters are altogether unknowne to us, yea, though they will not, or cannot ſatiſfye the miniſter before, that they are ſuch, as in whom the infant hath a right to baptiſme. This to be ſo, will eaſily appeare to the intelligent Reader, if he examine the wrighting which they ſent to me. The Anſwerer and the five miniſters required it, as a condition of my admittance to the paſtorall office, in that Church, that I ſhould reſt in this wrighting. By resting in it they meant (as both, he and they whom the Claſſis deputed to ſpeake with me, expreſſed themſelves) that I ſhould promiſe to conforme thereunto: which is, in few words, to adminiſter baptiſme promiſcuouſly to all that are preſented, by whomſoever, according to the cuſtom of that place.

This being the true ſtate of the queſtion, that the validity of my grounds againſt this cuſtom may appeare, I muſt crave leave to premiſe ſome things, 1. Concerning the confuſed mixture of all ſorts of people in Amſterdam. 2. Concerning theyr manner of admitting thoſe that are brought to baptiſme. 3. Concerning the manner of profeſſing Chriſtian Religion at the reading of the leitourgy of Baptiſme.

1For the Firſt. Beſides thoſe of diverſe nations, who joyne themſelves to ſome appoved Church, there are many of all ſorts of Libertines, in judgement, and practiſe, and profeſſion, who refuſe to joyne themſelves to any Church: Alſo perſons of diverſe ſects and haereſyes, as Arrians, Antitrinitarians &c. beſides Iewes, Mores &c. Alſo Apoſtates, excommunicates &c. Alſo vagrants,Iob. 30.5.Job 30:5 under the name of ſouldiers, and others, who are driven forth from among men (as Iob ſpeaketh) They crye after them as after a theife, V. 8.children of fooles, yea children of baſe men, viler then p. 133the earth, and ſwarmes of vagabonds, whom they call potters, which how-ſoever they range moſt in troupes, with their Harlots, in the Dorpes, yet they have their lurking places in tapp-houſes in the cittyes, called ſmuckle houſes. It were almoſt an infinite and impoſſible taſke to reckon up others which can give no account of their life, religion, or baptiſme, it may be. Alſo many, who are unknowne, and therefore may be ſuſpected. And theſe are of diverſe nations, Engliſh, French, Dutch, High Germanes, Walloones. &c.

2For the ſecond. Their manner is, that, if, either the father, or any one that ſtandeth for him as a ſurety (though it be but a nurſe or other body, who is unknowne to the Church) who hath no charge or care for the childes education, if they come time enough, they certifye the Coſter, or Sexton, of the name of the parents, and their deſire before: if not (as ſometimes they bring them not till they are baptiſing others, after the ſermon is ended) then, without any further enquiry after the parents, or after their conſent to the baptiſing of it, the child is admitted.

3For the third. If they ſay, yae, to ſuch demāds as are made by the miniſter, in reading the leitourgy of baptiſme, though (as ſome times it appeareth, and may be often ſuſpected) the preſenter underſtand not what the miniſter demandeth, or ſayth, for want of knowledge of the Dutch language, or be altogether unkowne to the Church, yet the child is baptiſed.

Theſe things being premiſed, I proceed to ſet downe my grounds from the Scripture, whereupon I refuſed thus promiſcuouſly to adminiſter the Sacrament, which are fowre, and every one of them concludeth it to be a ſinne, ſo to doe.

Reaſ. 1 Becauſe it is a prophaning of the Sacrament thus promiſcuouſly to adminiſter it, as that wrighting requireth.

That it is a prophaning of the Sacrament who can deny, that acknowledgeth the Sacrament then to be prophaned, when it is communicated to thoſe to whom (by Gods appointment) it appertaineth not? And that, if the Sacrament be adminiſtred to all comers, as that wrighting requireth, it will be adminiſtred to many ſuch he that denieth may as well deny that it is day with us when the Sunſhineth in this hemiſpaere. But that I may p. 134not be thought to broach ſome new and ſingular opinion, let us conſidered what learned and eminent lights in the Churches, in ſeverall ages and countryes, have declared concerning this matter, whoſe judgements I purpoſe to cull and ſingle out, in ſuch ſort as becommeth one who would teſtifye & declare the truth rather by the weight of the matter, then by the number of men.

Whittak: prelect. de Sacram: queſt: 2, de neceſſit: Bapt: Cap 3.Dr. Whittaker uſed this Argument againſt Bellarmine contending for the ſimple & abſolute neceſſity of Baptiſme to Salvation. For to prove that infants dying without Baptiſme might be ſaved, he ſhewed that the righteouſnes of fayth belongeth to them before they are baptiſed, out of Rom: 4.11.Rom: 4.11 P. 237. 238. where Circumciſion & ſo Baptiſme) is called a ſeale of the righteouſnes which is by fayth: and thence he inferreth, that they muſt have a right to Chriſt before Baptiſme, elſe baptiſme it ſelfe, being adminiſtred to them, will be profaned; as the kings ſeale is profaned, if it be put to a falſe charter or grant. This he amplifyeth by ſhewing that baptiſme is a ſymbol and ſeale of Adoption in Chriſt, and therefore aught not to be given to thoſe that have no part in Chriſt, becauſe the ſeale followeth the gift, and therefore to give the ſeale to him that hath not the gift, & to whom the promiſe is not made, is to abuſe the ſeale, and to profane it. Thus he.

Beza cont: Eraſt: Arg: 6. P. 60. Mat: 7.6. 1 Cor. 4.1 P: 61. 1 Pet. 3.1 Cor 4:11 Pet 3Beza, wrighting againſt Eraſtus, ſpeaketh to the ſame purpoſe, The Lord forbiddeth to give holy things to Doggs, Mat: 7.6. By holy things, ſayth he, are meant thoſe holy myſteries whereof the miniſters of Chriſt are diſpenſers, 1. Cor: 4.1. and the ſwine and doggs are thoſe obſtinate ſinners, who are convicted and judged by the Church to be ſuch. Afterwards, he putteth a caſe of one of yeares that deſireth baptiſme, & is ready to make profeſſion of his fayth, but leadeth a wicked life, and being called upon (according to the other demand in baptiſme) to profeſſe his repentance and amendment of life, by forſaking ſuch and ſuch evills, as are there mentioned, he refuſeth to doe it. Thereupon he aſketh Eraſtus, whether he thinck that the Sacrament of regeneration ſhould be given to ſuch a man, impudently deſiring it? or whether he ſhould not rather be repelled thence with ſhame? Againe (which cometh nearer to the caſe of infants) p. 135ſhewing how litle the profeſſion of fayth will advantage ſuch, who, by reaſon of their obſtinacy in ſinne, are convicted, and judged by the Church to be ſwine and doggs, and that their eſtate is the worſe for their profeſſion that they know God, Titus 1.16.Titus 1:16when in their workes they deny him, he inſtanceth in Iſmaell, and Eſau, who were boath circumciſed and outwardly acknowledged the true God with Abraham and Iſaack, yet boath were diſinherited and made lively patternes, both to that, and ſucceeding ages, of Eccleſiaſticall excommunication &c. Thus farr he. From whence, how eaſily may it be collected that infants are deprived of right to thoſe holy myſteryes in ſuch parents, as the Iſmaelites, and Edomites were deprived of right to Circumciſion, in Iſmael and Eſau, though their parents had bene circumciſed?

Before boath theſe, Mr. Cartwright declared the ſame thing more fully and particularly to the caſe in queſtion,Mr. Cart: Reply to Dr. W: in defence of the Adm: p: 137. upon the ſame ground. For Dr. W. (upon occaſion of the ſound fayth & good behaviour of the parents required in the Admonition) aſking the authours of that booke, What if the infant be the child of a Drunkard? what if it be of a harlott? ſhall not (ſayth he) the infant be baptiſed? Mr. Cartwright anſwereth thus. Becauſe I ſee that Mr. Doctor doth make of the holy Sacrament of baptiſme (which is an entry into the houſe of God, and whereby the family of God muſt enter) a common paſſage, whereby he will have cleane and uncleane, holy and profane, as well thoſe that are without the covenant, as thoſe that be with in it, to paſſe by, and ſo maketh the Church no houſhold, but an Jnne to receive whatſoever cometh; I will anſwer. If one of the parents be, neither drunkard, nor adulterer, the child is holy, by vertue of the covenant, for one of the parents ſake: if they be boath, & yet not obſtinate in their ſinne, whereby the Church hath proceeded to excommunication (themſelves being yet of the Church) their child cannot, nor aught not to be refuſed. To the ſecond queſtion, wherein he aſketh, what if the child be of papiſts or hereticks? If boath be papiſts or condemned hereticks (if ſo be J may diſtinguiſh papiſts from hereticks) & cut off from the Church, their children can not be received; becauſe they are not in the covenant. If either of them be p. 136faythfull; I have anſwered before, that the infant aught to be received. To other queſtions, wherein he aſketh, what, if they erre in ſome points of matters of fayth? If it be an errour, and be not in thoſe points that raſe the foundations of fayth, becauſe they ſtill, notwithſtanding that errour, are to be accounted amongſt the faythfull, their children pertaine to the promiſe, and therefore to the Sacrament of the promiſe.

Dr. W. p. 111.Elſe where he demandeth, whether a wicked father may have a good child, a papiſt or heretick father a beleiving child? Yes verily may they (ſayth he) So may have, and have the Turckes, and Jewes, and yet their children are not to be received, unles their fayth doth firſt appeare by confeſſion. But, you ſay, the papiſts and hereticks be baptiſed, and ſo are not the Iewes and Turcks? Their baptiſme, being cut off from the Church, maketh them as much ſtrangers unto it, as was Iſmael, & Eſau, which albeit they were circumciſed, yet, being caſt out of the Church, they were no more to be accounted to be of the body of Gods people, then thoſe which never, were in the Church. The ſame authour, in his next Reply to the ſame Doctor reaſoning out of Beza in his epiſtles, that the papiſts are to be compared with the Iſraelites with fell away from true Religion,…dem. 2 Reply concerning Church diſcipl: Tract: 11 and not with the Idumaeans, anſwereth. This cannot help him, unles he firſt ſhew that the infants of thoſe Apoſtates were lawfully circumciſed. For, if they were not circumciſed, by Gods order and conſtitution, but rather at the luſt and pleaſure of thoſe, which, being fallen away from the covenant, ceaſed not to put to the ſeale, as if they had bene ſtill within the covenant, it followeth, that, in this reſpect, there is no more ſuccour for the papiſts, in ſuch reſemblance with ſuch Iſraelits, then when they are matched with the Iſmaelites or Idumaeans.

Mr, Cartwright his judgment is the more to be regarded in in this matter, becauſe what he wrote in thoſe Replyes, he wrote as a publick agent, in the name, and with the concurrent judgement of many worthy miniſters, who pleaded for the purity of Chriſts ordinances, at that time. So that it is not to be accounted p. 137his ſingular opinion, but the judgement of many m…n of eminent noate.

Maiſter I: del'Eſpine miniſter of the word in the Church of Angers, upon a moſt dreadfull Apoſtaſy,Mr. I: del'Eſpine Treat: of Apoſtaſy. & revolt of many from the profeſſion of the truth, in the Churches of Anjou, on St. Bartholomeus day memorable for ever & infamous for that bloody maſſacre, wrote a learned and excellent treatiſe againſt thoſe that perſiſted in their Apoſtaſy, wherein he proveth them to be deprived of God, of Chriſt, of the Spirit, and of thoſe meanes whereby they may come unto God, that they have no fayth, and are without the Church, and that they are deprived of the Sacraments, as well as of the word, of baptiſme as well as the ſupper of the Lord. For their baptiſme no more ſerveth them for a token to teſtifye and declare them to be members of the Church, from which they are ſeperated, or that they pertayne any longer to the Father, to the Sonne, or to the Holy Ghoaſt whoſe houſe and dwelling place they have forſaken. As if a Knight having received that order of the King, and taken the accuſtomed oathes, if afterwards he ſhould depart from the troth which he had given, in token whereof he ſhould ſend him back his order to ſignifye to him that he would afterward be freed and releaſed from his oath: So the Apoſtates, having given over the covenant of God, have alſo, by the ſame meanes, forſaken the tokens and markes thereof, &c.

Before all theſe, Iohannes a Laſco,Anno 1550. a learned noble man of Poland obtayned of Edw: 6. K. of England, of famous memory, that the Churches of ſtrangers in London, principally of Germans, might have the liberty of their Religion, under the broad ſeale of England, which was by that moſt pious Prince graciouſly granted, not without the approbation of renowned Cranmer Archbiſhop of Canterbury, and other eminently learned and godly men, at that time. What their care was to prevent the prophanation of this Sacrament by ſuch a promiſcuous admiſſion of all, as is practiſed in this place, will appeare in his owne report, which I doe tranſlate from the latin copy, thus.

Baptiſme in our Church is adminiſtred in the publick aſſembly of the Church, after the publick ſermon. For,Iohn: A. Laſco. lib Forma ac Ritus tota eccleſ: miniſt: p. 117 ſeing Baptiſme p. 138doth ſo belong to the wholl Church, that none aught to be driven thence which is a member of the Church, nor to be admitted to it, which is not a member of it; truely it is aequall that that ſhould be performed publickly in the aſſembly of the wholl Church which belōgeth to the wholl Church in common.Forma ac Ritus adminiſt. Bapt. And Paul teſtifyeth that, by Chriſts ordinance, the Church it ſelfe, without excepting any member of it, is to be accounted cleane (or holy) by the Miniſtry of Baptiſme. Whence we may eaſily ſee, that Baptiſme doth, neither belong to thoſe who are altogether without the Church, nor may be be denyed to any members of the Church. Now ſeing our Churches are, through Gods bleſſing, ſo inſtituted by the Kings Ma^tie, that they may be, as it were, one pariſh of all ſtrangers diſperſed thorough the wholl city, or one body corporated (as it is called in the Kings grant) and yet, in the meane ſpace, all ſtrangers doe not joyne themſelves to our Churches (yea, there are many, who, whileſt they turne from, and flye all Churches, will pretend to the Engliſh Churches that they are joyned with us, and to us that they are joyned with the Engliſh Churches, and ſo doe abuſe both them and us) we, leaſt the Engliſh Churches, and the Miniſters thereof ſhould be deceived by the impoſtures of ſuch men (and that under colour of our Churches) doe baptiſe their infants alone, who have adjoyned themſelves to our Churches, by publick confeſſion of fayth, and obſeruation of Eccleſiaſticall diſcipline. And that our Churches may be certaine that the infants, which are to be baptiſed, are their ſeed, who have joyned themſelves to our Churches, in manner aforeſaid; the father of the infant to be baptiſed, if he can poſſibly doe it, or other men or woemen of notable eſteeme (or credit) in the Church doe offer the infāt to Baptiſme, & doe publickly profeſſe that it is the ſeed of the Church. Yet we ſuffer no ſtrāger to offer their infāts to baptiſme in our Churches, who hath not made publick profeſſion of his fayth, and willingly ſubmitted himſelfe to the diſcipline of our Church: leaſt, otherwiſe, they, who ſhould preſent their children to baptiſme, might, in time, plead that they belong to our Churches, and ſo ſhould p. 139deceive the Engliſh Churches and their Miniſters. Yet nevertheles, that we may openly teſtifye that the Engliſh Churches and ours are one and the ſame Church, although we differ ſomewhat from them, both in language and ceremonyes, we doe not refuſe that the Engliſh may, as publick witneſſes of the Church, offer the infants of our members to baptiſme in our Churches, if they have, both the uſe of our languages and a certaine teſtimony of their piety: as, in like manner, our members are accuſtomed to offer the infants of the Engliſh to baptiſme in the Engliſh Churches.

By this declaration, it appeareth what care they tooke, to prevent the prophanation of this ordinance, and how well this care of theirs was approved of, in thoſe dayes, by the publick liberty they had ſo to doe, under the broad ſeale. The ſame thing will further appeare, in the queſtions which they propounded to thoſe godly perſons, by whom the infant was preſented, which that they might underſtand, and ſo anſwer, upon knowledge, one thing required in them was that they ſhould have the uſe of their language. To theſe men they put three queſtions.

Queſt. 1 Are thoſe infants, which you offer, the ſeed of this our Church, that they may lawfully be here baptiſed by our Miniſtry? Anſwer. Yea.

Queſt. 2 Doe you acknowledge our Doctrine, which you have heard concerning Baptiſme, and the Myſteries thereof to be true? &c. Anſwer. Yea.

Queſt. 3 Doe you acknowledge, that it is yours and the wholl Churches duety & office to ſee that the infant offered to baptiſme, be inſtructed and trained up in in the true knowledge of God, and in Religion? Anſwer. Yea. Thus much ſhall ſuffice to be noated thence.

Before theſe, Chryſoſtom did beare witnes againſt this evill,Chryſ. de compunct. cordis lib. 1. and, upon the ſame ground, viz, becauſe the Sacraments are profaned when they are adminiſtred to unworthy perſons, which he ſpeaketh of boath the Sacraments, uſing the word, foreign, in the plurall number. His words may be thus tranſlated. Let us ſee alſo what other praecepts of the Lord contayne. Give not holy things (ſayth he) to doggs, nor caſt your pearles before p. 140ſwine. But we corrupted with the love of prayſe, doe things contrary to this praecept alſo, and doe diſpenſe the holy Myſteries to men that have not a pure underſtanding, nor ſound fayth, and moreover are blemiſhed with great ſinnes, not making any difference. And afterwards he complaineth that they were admitted to the holy things of Chriſtians which underſtood not Chriſtian Religion.

Tertul. de Bapt. adverſ. Quintil. cap. 18Tertullian (Chryſoſtoms Senior, who ſpeaketh more punctually to the caſe in queſtion concerning infants offered to baptiſme) ſhall conclude this catalogue of witneſſes. He ſpeaketh thus. Baptiſmum non temere credendum **Credendum i. e. committendum & adminiſtrandum petenti. De foro phraſis. Iunius Annot.eſſe ſciunt quorum officium eſt. They know, whoſe office it is, that baptiſme is not to be adminiſtred raſhly to every one that requireth it. Give to him thas aſketh. Luke. 6. is alleadged for almes. In this caſe, give not holy things to doggs, nor caſt your pearles before ſwine Mat. 7. is rather to be obſerved. And whereas ſome might object Mat. 19. ſuffer litle children to come unto me &c. (ſpeaking of infants of ſtrangers from the covenant, as Iunius interpreted him) he ſayth. Let them come when they are growne to yeares: Let them come when they have learned and are taught wherefore they come: Let them know how to deſire Chriſt, that it may appeare thou giveſt to him that aſketh.

The validity of this Argument will be more manifeſt, if the ends and uſes whereunto baptiſme ſerveth, by divine inſtitution, be conſidered, which judicious Calvin breifely declareth,Calv. inſtit. cap. 15. Sect. 1. Eph. 5.26 Coll. 2.12. Tit. 35. 1. Pet. 3.21. Rom. 6.3.Eph 5:261 Pet 3:21Rom 6:3 ſaying, that Baptiſme is a ſigne or Sacrament of initiation, whereby we are taken into the fellowſhip of the Church, and, being ingrafted into Chriſt, are reckoned amongſt the children of God. Whence we gather, that, in Calvins judgment, two things are ſealed and ſignifyed in baptiſme.

Firſt our communion with Chriſt, in his merits and efficacy, for juſtification and ſanctification: which are implyed in our Adoption, whereby we are the children God. But, becauſe all communion is founded in Vnion, it is praeſuppoſed, that there is ſome union betweene Chriſt and him, who partaketh of this ſeale of the Covenant aright.Gall. 3.27 Mark. 16.16. Mat. 3. Act. 2.Mark 16:16Matt 3Acts 2 Now that union is by fayth, and therefore beleiving is joyned with being baptiſed, as a neceſſary requiſite in him that aright partaketh of it, according to that, he that beleiveth, and is baptiſed ſhall be ſaved. And, becauſe fayth p. 141is not without repentance, repentance alſo is required to remiſſion of ſinnes, which baptiſme, in the right uſe of it, ſealeth. Yet I confeſſe, againſt the Anabaptiſts, that infants of beleiving parents, though they have not actuall fayth,1. Cor. 7.14. Gen. 17. Synopſ. pur. Theol. diſp. 44. de bapt. Theſ. 1501 Cor 7:14Gen 17 are accounted beleivers, as well as holy, in theyr parents by vertue of the covenant. And I willingly aſſent to the Reverend Divines, the Profeſſours of Leyden, that it is a ſufficient warrant for the baptiſing of infants, if in either of the parents ſuch fayth & repentance are found, as, in the judgment of Charity, may teſtifye to men theyr union with Chriſt, though but externally. Yea, & I grant further, that evills in life, or errours in fayth (whereby the efficacy of the covenant is made voyd, and fruſtrate to the parents) may not juſtly deprive the infants of ſuch Chriſtians parents of baptiſme, except in the caſes propounded by thoſe grave and learned Divines before mentioned, (viz, whittaker Beza, Cartwright &c.) or in caſes paralell.

The ſecond end and uſe whereunto baptiſme ſerveth (in Mr. Calvins judgment) is to ſignifye and ſeale our fellowſhip with the Church, and people of God, in reſpect whereof he calleth it the Sacrament of initiation. How this is to be underſtood Alſtedius telleth us, ſaying,Al …ed Supplem. ad Dan. Cham. Panſt. Tom. 5. Cap. 7. that Baptiſme and Circumciſion are called Sacraments of initiation; not, becauſe they make the beginning of Chriſtianity, hut, becauſe they ſignifye and ſeale it, and ſo are oppoſed to the Sacraments of nutrition and growth, the paſſover, and the Lords ſupper. Which he amplyfyeth by ſhewing, that children borne of Chriſtian parents, are, in one ſenſe, in the Church, in another ſenſe, not in it. They are in it; as they are in covenant in their parents; they are not in it; as they are not yet added to the outward fellowſhip thereof; into which they are received by baptiſme, as they are received into the covenant by the promiſe of God, I will be thy God, and the God of thy ſeed.

From this end of uniting men in a viſible profeſſion of conſent with the people of God Chamierus collecteth another end of Baptiſme ſubordinate thereunto,Dan. Cham: de Sacram. Manuſcr. viz, the diſtinguiſhing beleivers from all the world beſides; which is a neceſſary uſe of the Sacraments, ſince the fall of man, & hath bene almoſt from the beginning. For, in the beginning, in the dayes of Seth,Gen. 4. & 6.Gen 4 p. 142there began a different naming of men, ſome being called the ſonnes of God, ſome the daughters of men, who were alſo differenced from each other by ſacrifices, which to them were of the ſame uſe that the Sacraments were ſince.Gen. 17.Gen 17 Afterwatds, in Abraham, the Lord inſtituted circumciſion, whereby the Church & people in covenant with him, were diſtinguiſhed from the reſt of the world,Eph. 2.12Eph 2:12 who were ſtrangers from the covenant, and therefore the one were called circumciſed, the other uncircumciſed. The Baptiſme of Iohn was of God, Mat. 3.Matt 3not of man, which alſo Chriſt our Lord inſtituted and ordayned to continue in the Church, as a noate of difference betweene his diſciples,Mat. 28.19.Matt 28:19 and all others (though not only or principally for that end) which uſe of it the Apoſtles retayned, after the aſcention of our Lord, and perpetuated for ſucceeding ages to the ſecond appearing of Chriſt. Hereunto Paul had reſpect whē he demanded of the Corinthiās, were ye baptiſed into the name of Paul? 1. Cor. 1.13.1 Cor 1:13Intimating that in baptiſme, they profeſſed openly theyr dependance upon Chriſt only, and theyre cleaving to him as theyr only King, Preiſt and Prophet. And this uſe was, in after times, retayned in the Church, as Auguſtine witneſſeth ſaying.Aug. contra Fauſt. Man. lib. 9. cap. 11. D. Ames de Conſc. l. 4. cap. 24. queſt. 1. Reſp. 5. Men can not be joyned together into any name of Religion, whether true or falſe, except they be gathered by ſome fellowſhip of viſible ſignes and Sacraments. And Dr. Ames ſayth expreſly, that it can not be but the ſignes whereby beleivers may be diſcerned from infidels muſt be confounded, if they partake of them, who will joyne themſelves to no certaine particular Church, alleadging for that purpoſe. 1. Cor. 5.12. The iſſue and ſumme of all is.

To adminiſter baptiſme to the infants of thoſe who belong not to Chriſt, who are convicted & judged by the Church to be ſwine and doggs, who obſtinately perſiſt in their Apoſtaſy, who ſlight and refuſe all communion with all viſible Churches of Chriſt, who are ſtrangers, and without, In a word, who have no communion with Chriſt, nor fellowſhip with the Church and people of God, is to profane it, according to the judgement of Whittaker, Beza, Cartwright, I: del'Eſpine, I. A Laſco, Chryſoſtom, Tertullian, Calvin, Alſtedius, Chamier, Dr. Ames, &c.

But to adminiſter baptiſme in Amſterdam thus promiſcuouſly, p. 143as that wrighting requireth, is to adminiſter it to many ſuch.

Therefore to adminiſter it, as that wrighting requireth, is to profane the Sacrament.

Reaſon. 2: The ſecond Reaſon to prove it to be a ſinne, is, becauſe it is an offence given to many thus promiſcuouſly to baptiſe all that are brought, as that wrighting requireth.

To cleare this, I am to declare two things, 1. that it is a ſinne to give offence. 2, that this practiſe doth give offence (or ſcandall) to many.

Firſt. That it is a ſinne to give offence,Cor. 10.2. Rom. 14.13.21.16 15. Ezek: 13.22. Rom: 14.3 10. Mat: 18.10. Rom: 14.15.20. 1 Cor. 8.12.Rom 14:13Rom 14:21Rom 14:161 Cor 8:12 will appeare by Scripture light, which forbideth it, & deſcribeth it to be a putting an occaſion to fall, or laying a stumbling block before a brother, a making him weake, a giving him cauſe to ſpeake evill, or to thinck hardly of us, a pleaſing our ſelves, with neglect of our brother, and it propceedeth from a diſpiſing and light regard of others in our hearts, and it tendeth to the deſtroying of him. And, to conclude, it is to ſinne againſt our brother, and to ſinne againſt Chriſt.

Secondly. That this practiſe doth give ſcandall to many. This we will declare by induction, and inſtances.

Firſt. To the Iewes it is an offence that we affirme our baptiſme to be in ſtead of their circumciſion, and of the ſame uſe and worth, and yet we communicate it to thoſe who are not in the Covenant, ſo much as viſibly and outwardly: which they know to be contrary to the law given to their fathers concerning circumſion.

Secondly. To the Papiſts it is an offence that we,Tho: Aq: pars 3. queſt: 68. Idem. ſecund. ſecundae queſt: 10. art: 12. & alibi. Whitt: prelect. de Sacram: P. 291. 292. profeſſing reformation, doe admit thoſe to baptiſme whom they would refuſe (though they erre groſly in many points about baptiſme, & de ſuſcipientibus baptiſmum alſo) for they hold it unlawfull to baptiſe the infants or infidells that are brought, without theyre parents conſent: but ſuch caſes may often fall out, in that place, by this courſe, and the miniſter and Church be ignorant of it. Dr. Whittaker addeth, that they doe abſurdly, who baptiſe the children of unbeleivers, though the parents ſhould deſire it, as if (ſayth he) the Church might give baptiſme to whom they pleaſe. For then they might be baptiſed, even without the parents conſent.

p. 144Thirdly. To the Anabaptiſts it is an offence, who, becauſe the Scripture requireth fayth to baptiſme (not only unjuſtly, againſt the Scripture, diſlike the baptiſing of the infants of beleivers, but alſo) complaine, and that juſtly, of the promiſcuous adminiſtring of baptiſme, even to thoſe whoſe parents cannot be numbred amongſt beleivers. As appeareth in their private diſcourſes, publick diſputes and printed bookes.

Fourthly. To Libertines and Familiſts it giveth offence and hardneth them in their diſorderly courſe, ſeing they can partake of the outward priviledges of the Church as well as the members of it, without ſubmiſſion to the order & government thereof, whereunto the members are ſubject. The ſame may be affirmed of all diſorderly perſons that are obſtinate in evill courſes.

Anonym: in theſ: de rit: gub: Chriſti eccles: Anno 1595. impreſ: & ad Illuſtr: Ampl. ord. in Geld: Holland: Zeland: Friſ: adſcript. theſ. 155. ad theſ. 168. See Robb: Apol. Chap. 2. Idem ibid praeface. p. 9.Fifthly. Ignorant and ſuperſtitious perſons are ſtrengthened in a ſlight eſteeme of Baptiſme, and an Idolizing of the Lords ſupper, when they ſee that any, without difference, are admitted to that, but care is taken that only thoſe that are approved are admitted to this; as if a fitnes were not as well required, in him that would partake of the blood of Chriſt, and of remiſſion of ſinnes by it, in baptiſme, as in the Lords ſupper. For the ſame remiſſion of ſinnes is alike propounded in them boath.

Sixthly. To thoſe of the Separation it giveth no ſmall offence, who, for this cauſe, complaine of the Dutch reformed Churches, as neither ſo true to their owne grounds as they aught (their practiſe being compared with their profeſſion) nor ſo well providing for the dignity of the thing, whileſt they adminiſter the Sacrament of Baptiſme to the infants of ſuch as are not within the Covenant, nor have either parent a member of any Church. Though the more moderate of them doe profeſſe, that, notwithſtanding this, they doe account them the true Churches of Chriſt, and both profeſſe, and practiſe communion with them in the holy things of God, what in them lyeth; their ſermons, ſuch of them frequent, as underſtand the Dutch tongue, and the Sacraments they doe adminiſter to their knowne members, if, by occaſion, any of them be preſent with, them, &c.

p. 145Seventhly, To diverſe others who feare God, & heartily deſire to ſee the ordinances of Chriſt eſtabliſhed in their purity and beauty & are unfeignedly greived that any blemiſh ſhould be found in the reformed Churches, and truely wiſh for the proſperity & perfection of them, & have witneſſed againſt this diſorder in this place, as Dr. A. Mr. F. Mr. H. Mr. B. Mr. R. amongſt whom I, being called thereunto, doe not only reckon my unworthy ſelfe, but alſo can number others, not only Engliſh and French, but even of the Dutch alſo, who have ingenuouſly profeſſed their diſlike of it, upon occaſion of conference, which I have had with ſome of them. To winde up all in one bottome.

That which giveth offence to Iewes, Papiſts, Anabaptiſts, Familiſts; Libertines, obſtinate ſinners, ignorant and ſuperſtitious perſons Seperatiſts, and to diverſe others that feare God, is a ſinne.

But to adminiſter baptiſme ſo promiſcuouſly, as that wrighting requireth, giveth offence to all theſe.

Therefore to adminiſter baptiſme ſo promiſcuouſly &c. is a ſinne.

Reaſon. 3 The third Reaſon to prove it to be a ſinne, is, becauſe it is a building againe of that which theſe Churches, according to the Scripture, have deſtroyed.

This is an Argument, ad hominem, which I reſtraine to theſe Churches, to ſhew the evill of this practiſe from their owne principles, which it doth, by conſequence, ſupplant, and ſubvert, at leaſt, in the judgment of many, whether neceſſarily or probably, and in what degree, I will leave to their wiſdom to conſider, contenting my ſelfe with a ſhort propoſall of ſome particulars which are conſiderable, eſpecially that ground being layed which the Apoſtle maketh uſe of, in a like caſe,Gal. 2.18Gal 2:18 If I build againe the things that I have deſtroyed I make my ſelfe a tranſgreſſour.

Firſt. That baptiſme is only a naked ſigne, Soc in. diſp. de Bapt: Cap 5. fol. 75.or noate of Segregation from other ſects, and profeſſion of true doctrine, is an errour which theſe reformed Churches have deſtroyed, by profeſſing in theyr p. 146Confeſſion,Sim. Epiſc. diſ. 29. Theſ: 8 Confeſſ. art: 33, 34 Catech: quest. 73. 74. and Catechiſme that it is not only ſo, but alſo a teſtimony to us, and a ſymbol to aſſure us of remiſſion of ſinnes &c. according to the Scripture(a)(a)Mark. 1.4 Acts 2.38 Cap. 16.30, 31 32.33 Coll. 3.12 Ezek. 16.51.52Mark 1:4Acts 2:38Ezek 16:51Ezek 16:52: But this practiſe buildeth it againe, whileſt a naked profeſſion of aſſent to the doctrine and diſcipline of this Church is held ſufficient to warrant theyre baptiſme, though it be made, many times, by ſuch as are not knowne to have any right in the Covenant, whereof baptiſme is a ſeale, or at all to pertaine to Chriſt, but may be any of thoſe, who were ſpoken of in the firſt Argument, for aught any man knoweth: Hence ſome will collect that they doe not account Baptiſme any more then a naked ſigne of profeſſion. And not only ſo, but it juſtifyeth that errour, as Iſrael juſtifyed Samaria, by eſtabliſhing a worſe. For this practiſe ſeemeth to make baptiſme not ſo much as a profeſſion of true doctrine, or a noate of ſegregation from other ſects, whileſt it is appoynted to be adminiſtred thus promiſcuouſly in Amſterdam (where people of ſo many ſects inhabite) to all infants that are preſented, though they make no other ſhew of profeſſion, then by ſaying, yae, or nodding the head, when they underſtand not what is ſayd to them, being of a different language, and are allogether unknowne to the miniſter and to the Church.

2. Confeſſ: art. 16.17 21 Catech. queſt: 20. 50, 51, 52 53, 54, 55 Synod Dort. Art. 2 Sect. 7, 8.Secondly. That the grace of Chriſt is univerſall, wherein all have intereſt is an errour which theſe reformed Churches have deſtroyed, reſtrayning it only to the Elect, to beleivers, to the Church of God, according to the Scriptures(b)(b)Pſal: 147, 20. Mat. 11 25. & 13 11 Act. 14.16. Rom: 8.30. Mat. 1, 21. Ioh: 10, 11, 16. Cap: 17, 9, 11, 12, 19, 20. Act. 20, 28.Matt 11:25Matt 13:11Acts 14:16Matt 1:21Acts 20:28: But this practiſe buildeth it up. For, if the ſeale appertaine to all, why not the Covenant alſo? Why not the grace? And who will not ſuſpect that the ſeale doth appertaine to all, in theyr judgement, whoſe practiſe is to adminiſter it to thoſe infants, neither of whoſe parents are in the covenant, ſo much as externally, and, it may be, were never baptiſed, or, having bene baptiſed, have, by their infidelity and other ſinnes obſtinately perſiſted in, (being, convicted thereof and caſt out of the Church) or by their willfull Apoſtaſy and forſaking the Religion which they profeſſed, with themſelves, broken off their ſeed, externally and actually from the communion of the Church, and holy things thereof. Jf they ſay; p. 147their grandfather was a Chriſtian, or great grandfather. I anſwer. Where muſt we ſtopp at laſt? If not in the next parents, why in the grandfather, or great grandfather, till we come up as high as Noah himſelfe? And ſo neither the children of Jewes, nor Turkes, nor heathen or infidels ſhould be denied baptiſme.

Thirdly. The abſolute neceſſity of baptiſme to ſalvation; ſo that, 3. Concil: Trid: Seſſ. 7. cap. 2. Confeſſ. belg. art. 34. Gen. 17.Gen 17not only thoſe of yeares, that refuſe or contemne it, are damned, but even infants alſo periſh aeternally, through the want of it, is an errour which theſe Churches have deſtroyed, when they profeſſe it to be of the ſame uſe to Chriſtians, whereof circumciſion was to the Iewes, who being borne in the covenant, by their relation to their beleiving parents, by vertue of the promiſe, I will be thy God, and the God of thy ſeed, were accounted in the number of Abrahams children, before circumciſion, without which, circumciſion did not appertaine to them. According to the Scriptures, which declare Davids confidence about the ſalvation of his infant that died before the eighth day,2. Sam. 12 23.2 Sam 12:23 in which it ſhould have bene circumciſed, and annexeth damnation to not beleiving, not, to not being baptiſed, as Luther accutely noated out of thoſe words. He that beleiveth and is baptiſed, ſhall be ſaved, Mark. 16 16.Mark 16:16but he that beleiveth not, ſhall be damned. But this practiſe ſeemeth to build this up againe, For, if the neceſſity of it be ſuch, as Gods order muſt be violated rather then the infant not baptiſed, who will not ſuſpect that they account it ſimply neceſſary to ſalvation? And, if the plea, which is ordinarily uſed by them,Cal. inſtit. lib. 4. cap. 15. Sect. 20. 21. 22 that Baptiſme is not of ſuch neceſſity, as that Gods order ſhould be broken for, it, be good againſt baptiſme by private perſons, and by midwives and nurſes &c. Why may it not ſerve in this caſe alſo?

Fourthly. The efficacy of Baptiſme,4. Council: Trid: Can: 8. Confeſſ. art. 34. Catech. q. 72. 73. when it is made a naturall cauſe or inſtrument ſanctifying thoſe that partake of it, by the worke done, is an errour, which theſe Churches hauehave deſtroyed, when they aſcribe the working of grace to God, as the ſole efficient cauſe, and authour of it, and account the Sacraments, ſignes and ſeales, and morall inſtruments ſignifying and ſealing and ſo exhibiting it inſtrumentally, in the right uſe of them, which I will explaine in the words of that learned Dr, p. 148Whittaker,Dr. Whitt. prelect. de ſacra: in gene: Ca. 1. pa. 62. 63. becauſe his expoſition ſeemeth to be more cleare then many, in reference to the true ſtate of the queſtion betweene the Pontificians and the Orthodox. We ſay, they are inſtruments (taking the name largely) becauſe God uſeth them in beſtowing grace upon us: ye we doe not meane that they are inſtrumēts, as our Adverſaries doe, as if God were ſo tyed to thē as not to conferr grace without them, as an artificer cannot make a bed, or bench, without a ſaw, or hatchet, nor that they are able to worke any thing of themſelves by any hiddē vertue proper to them and inhaerent in them, as is in a medicine for procuring bodily health, but becauſe, in the right uſe of them, God worketh a nouriſhing and increaſing of grace. Therefore the Sacraments worke nothing by the thing done, no not in infants. For infants are not therefore partakers of grace only becauſe they are baptiſed yet neither are they baptiſed in vaine, becauſe they are baptiſed, unto future fayth & repentance, & becauſe they are members of the Church, and holy by the Covenant, and therefore the ſigne of the Covenant is not to be denyed them. Thus he witneſſeth againſt that efficacy that papalls aſcribe to the Sacrament, & joyneth with theſe Churches in deſtroying it, according to the(a)(a)Heb. 2.4. Rom. 3.28 Cap. 4.3 4.6.10. Bell. de Sacr. bapt. lib. C p. 5. Whittak: de bapt. cap. 2. de neceſſ: bapt pag. 237. 238.Heb 2:4Rom 3:28 Scripture. But this practiſe ſeemeth to build it up againe. For, whereas our Divines ſay that baptiſme is profaned, whē it is adminiſtred to the uncleane the popiſh wrighters tell us, that baptiſme is not thereby profaned, but that it doeth ſanctifye them. And, upon this ground, Bellarmine ſayth, that baptiſme may be given to thoſe that pertaine not to Chriſt. To whom Dr. Whittaker anſwereth. This were true, if Baptiſme were a phyſicall cauſe of grace: For grace is not profaned when it is given to the uncleane, but it ſanctifyeth them, to whom it is given: elſe (he demandeth of Bellermine) why may not infidells of yeares be baptiſed, if they will ſuffer themſelves to be baptiſed; yea though they ſhould profeſſe that they doe not beleive in Chriſt, if baptiſme will ſanctifye them? But all men deny that. And why ſo? Becauſe they belong not to Chriſt: Therefore (ſayth he) Baptiſme aught not to be given to any that are not in Chriſt. I will not enlarge this point, by ſpeaking of the ignorant conceit of ſome, that p. 149baptiſme is their Chriſtendom, and that they are made Chriſtians by baptiſme, whereas we have ſhewen that they muſt be Chriſtians before baptiſme, elſe they may not be baptiſed.

Fifthly. The looſe poſitions, whereby Libertines are hardned,5. Confeſſ. Belg. Art. 28. 29. in refuſing to joyne themſelves in doctrine and diſcipline with any viſible Church, are errours which theſe Churches in their doctrine have deſtroyed, by profeſſing, that every man that would be ſaved (of what ranck or condition ſoever) is bound to joyne himſelfe with the Church of God, and to ſubject himſelfe to the doctrine and diſcipline thereof, though with hazzard of his life &c. according to the Scriptures.(b)(b)Pſ. 65.4. & 133.3. Mat. 18.17. Mat. 18.17. Rev. 1.13. 1. Cor. 5.12. Heb. 10.24.25. 1. Cor. 12 25.27.Ps 65:4Ps 133:3Matt 18:17Rev 1:131 Cor 5:12Heb 10:24Heb 10:251 Cor 12:251 Cor 12:27 But this practiſe buildeth it up againe. As appeareth in the exāple of that Libertine who tooke encouragment to perſiſt in his courſe, by a ſermon, wherein the Anſwerer affirmeth that the infants of ſuch may lawfully be baptiſed, though the parents refuſed to joyne with any Church: whereupon he came home reſolving, as himſelfe told diverſe, never to joyne with any Church, whileſt he lived, though he had bene, as he ſaid, 20 yeares before, in doubts about his condition.

Sixthly.6. Catech. queſt: 85. The opinion of Eraſtus againſt Eccleſiaſticall excommunicatiō, is an errour which the doctrine of theſe Churches hath deſtroyed, by affirming that the power of excommunication belongeth to the Church, according(c)(c)Numb. 19.13.20 Mat. 18.15. Mat. 7.6. 1. Cor. 5.5.6.11. 2. Theſ. 3.6. &. 11.Num 19:13Num 19:20Matt 18:15Matt 7:61 Cor 5:51 Cor 5:61 Cor 5:112 Thess 3:62 Thess 3:11 to the Scriptures.

But this practiſe doth build it up againe, when they, not only adminiſter this Sacrament promiſcuouſly to all that are brought, but alſo plead for it by ſome of the Arguments which Eraſtus produced againſt that.

For, Firſt Eraſtus alleadgeth Iohns admitting the very worſt men to his baptiſme, viz, the Phariſes and Sadduces: whereunto both Beza and Mr. Cartwright anſwer, to the ſame purpoſe, as I did ſome with whom I argued againſt this cuſtom, that Iohn admitted none to his baptiſme, but thoſe that profeſſed repentance and amendment of life. Therefore they are ſaid to be baptiſed of Iohn in Iordan, confeſſing their ſinnes, which,Mat. 3.6. Mark. 1.4 5.Matt 3:6Mark 1:4 after the manner of the Hebrewes, ſignifyeth more then a bare acknowledgment that they were ſinners, even a profeſſion of their imbracing the doctrine of remiſſion of ſinnes by Chriſt, p. 150and a promiſe of amendment.Pſal. 51. Dan. 9.4 Luke 15 Luke 18Ps 51Dan 9:4Luke 15Luke 18 Such confeſſions were Davids, Daniels, the Publicans, Prodigalls. As for the Phariſes and Sadduces (ſayth Mr, Cartwright) which came in Hypocriſy to be baptiſed, deriding the grace of God, I utterly deny that Iohn baptiſed them: yea, that he rejected them, it is evident by his ſharpe reprehenſion and terrible threatning of them with death and cutting off. Thoſe that pretended repentance in words he admoniſhed, that, if they would be baptiſed, they muſt bring forth fruits worthy of repentance, elſe they ſhould be cut off.

2Secondly. He alleadgeth that all the Iſraelites (as well rebellions as others) did eate the ſame ſprirituall meate, and drinck the ſame ſpirituall drinck. 1. Cor. 10.4.1. Cor. 10.4. Beza de preſb. & excom: ad arg. 13. p. 28. 29 Morton on 1. Cor. 10.1 Cor 10:41 Cor 10 And, in effect, the ſame thing is objected by ſome, for the defence of this cuſtom, when they plead, that they were all baptiſed unto Moſes in the cloud, and in the ſea. Therefore all infants that are preſented, muſt be baptiſed. Bezaes anſwer to him, in that caſe, may ſerve theſe in this caſe, out of whom (and a learned Commentatour upon that place joyned together with him) 2 things may be anſwered.

1. That the things, there ſpoken of, were not to be numbred amongſt thoſe things which are onelyonly Sacraments: however they were Sacraments, in a ſenſe, yet they were not Sacraments in that ſignification of the the word [Sacraments] which is uſually amongſt Divines, when they call circumciſion, and the paſſover, Baptiſme, and the Lords ſupper, Sacraments: for they were not by any ſolemne promulgation, expreſſed in the word, inſtituted & ſanctified by God to be ſeales of the covenant to beleivers (as circumciſion &c.) which is neceſſary to the conſtitution of a Sacrament. But as they were miraculous and admirable types of Chriſt, ſo they were common, and temporall benefites ſerving for the bodily refreſhing and ſafety of the people of Iſrael in generall, and therefore that all, even the moſt unworthy of them, partaked of thoſe, it was for a peculiar reaſon, which hath not place in the Sacraments. For the ſhadow of the cloud covering the wholl army, as a ſheild, or buckler, received, and kept from them the beames of the ſun, which elſe in, that dry and hot region, might have conſumed them p. 151with burning heate, eſpecially they being wearyed, and faint with journying, therefore it was neceſſary, that it ſhould be common to them all. The ſame reaſon might be given for their paſſing through the ſea, to eſcape the rage of the tyrant that purſued them. But what is this to Baptiſme?

2. That the perſons there ſpoken of were the Church of Iſrael, whom he calleth our fathers, becauſe from them the Jewes ſprang which were the viſible Church of God, whoſe children alſo the Corinthians and all the viſible Churches of beleivers are amongſt the Gentiles, who have received from them the priviledges of the word, Sacraments, Covenant, and other ſpirituall good things, as their inheritance. But what are theſe to thoſe Libertines and others, who caſt off all communion whith the Churches of Chriſt? To conclude this Argument in one Syllogiſme,

To build againe thoſe errours which the doctrine and profeſſion of theſe Churches, according to the Scripture, have deſtroyed, is a ſinne.

But this practiſe of promiſcuous baptiſing all that are brought, with out difference, buildeth againe thoſe errours, which the Doctrine and profeſſion of theſe Churches, according to the Scriptures, have deſtroyed, as appeareth in thoſe ſix particulars.

Therefore to baptiſe all that are brought promiſcuouſly, as that wrighting requireth, is a ſinne.

Reaſon. 4 The fourth Reaſon, to prove it to be a ſinne, is becauſe it is contrary to the good cuſtom and practiſe of many Churches of Chriſt. Here J am to ſhew two things.

Firſt. That good cuſtoms, taken up by Churches upon good grounds ſhould not lightly be broken & layd downe. Wherein I doe fully agree whith the authour of that elaborate cōmentary upon the fourth chapter of Iohn, my reverend Countryman,M. A. H. lect. on Ioh. 4. chap. p. 138. 139. 1. Cor. 11.16. 1. Cor. 15 1. Phil. 4.9.John 41 Cor 11:161 Cor 15:1Phil 4:9 who now reſteth from his labours, who, to prove this, produceth Paul alleadging the cuſtom of the Churches, to ſtopp the mouthes of contentious men, & commending ſundry truthes to the people of God, by this Argument, they had received them, and making that a further bond unto their conſcience, for which end alſo he propoundeth that general rule given unto us, walke in the p. 152wayes of good men, Pro. 2.20.Prov 2:20and keepe the wayes of the righteous, and a promiſe which God hath made to them that will learne the wayes of his people, Ier. 12.16Jer 12:16and conforme themſelves unto them, then ſhal they be built in the middeſt of my people. To make this point more cleare, I will add thereunto, from a manuſcript,Mr. I. C. in a manuſcr. the judgment of the worthy authour of the praeface to that commentary concerning the bindng force of good examples, who thus expreſſeth himſelfe.

Some good actions of holy men in Scripture are examples of Chriſtian liberty, others are patternes of Chriſtian duety: examples of this latter ſort be, 1. ſuch as are backed with ſome Divine praecept. So Sarahs obedience to Abraham is ſet forth as a patterne unto her daughters,1. Pet. 3.61 Pet 3:6 2. ſuch as are held forth in the firſt inſtitution of an ordinance. Thus our Saviour argueth the ſinfullnes of Polygamy, as an abberration from the example or patterne of the firſt inſtitution,Mat. 14.9Matt 14:9 from the beginning it was not ſo. Hitherto belong ſundry precedents ſet before us, in the Acts of the Apoſtles, for guiding Church matters &c. Yet here alſo this caution would be obſerved, that, in the firſt inſtitution or celebration of an ordinance, ſome actions were accidentall, and taken up upon ſpeciall occaſions, & ſuch actions are not precedents, vnleſſe it be upon the like occaſion: other actions are part of the inſtitution (whether eſſentiall or circumſtantiall parts) and belong, either to the compleatnes, or to the comlines of it, and theſe may not be neglected without ſinne, 3. of the lawfull actions of holy men, in Scripture, ſome were civill, and of thoſe there is more latitude (as not needing an exact rule from Scripture, but admitting the light of civill prudence for a guide) others are ſacred as belonging to ſpirituall things, and ſerving to ſpirituall ends. And of theſe, ſome of them are varying, not alwayes obſerved in one conſtant tenour, in Scripture (as the geſtures in prayer, preaching, and the places thereof, any of which are alike imitable) others of them are conſtant, alwayes the ſame, and therefore ſtand as a cloud of witneſſes requiring our imitation. The iſſue of all which is, that thoſe examples which are backed with ſome divine precept, or which are held p. 153forth in the firſt inſtitution of an ordinance, being part of the inſtitution, or which were the conſtant lawfull actions of holy men in Scriptures, not, civill but ſacred, ſo bind us to imitation, as that, not to conforme thereunto is a ſinne.

Theſe things being premiſed, it is evident that promiſcuous baptiſing in that manner as that wrighting requireth, if it ſwerve from ſuch good cuſtoms of the Church, and examples of holy men in Scripture, will be found to be a ſinne.

Secondly, that this practiſe agreeth not with the good cuſtomes and practiſes of the Churches of Chriſt will appeare, if we examine the ſtory of times from the firſt inſtitution of this ordinance.

Firſt in the Iewiſh Church, circumciſion (whereunto Baptiſme anſwereth, being a Sacrament of the ſame uſe that it was of) was, by Gods appointment,Gen. 17.7.8.9.10 11.12.13 Acts. 7.8. Rom. 9.11Gen 17:7Gen 17:8Gen 17:9Gen 17:10Acts 7:8Rom 9:11 a token of the covenant made with Abraham and with his ſeed after him, to be a God unto him, and to his ſeed after him (which the Apoſtle calleth a ſeale of the righteouſnes which is by fayth) and therefore, by Gods ordinance, it was limited to the men children of eight dayes old of his ſeed or that were borne in his houſe, or bought with his money of any ſtranger, which was not of his ſeed. So that, to circumciſe any others, who were not of that ſeed to whom this covenant belonged, was a ſinne. And therefore the holy fathers were carefull to follow this rule in keeping this ſigne joyned with the covenant in thoſe whom they circumciſed.Mat. 3.6.7. &c. Mark. 1.4.5. &c. Luke 3.3.16.Matt 3:6Matt 3:7Mark 1:4Mark 1:5Luke 3:3Luke 3:16

Afterwards Iohn Baptiſt walked in the ſame ſtepps, and by the ſame rule, mutatis mutandis, adminiſtred Baptiſme in that Church whereof he was a member, requiring of all that came to his baptiſme a profeſſion of repentance and amendment of life for remiſſion of ſinnes, whereof Baptiſme was the ſeale, & preached Chriſt unto them.

This ordinance our Lord Chriſt, after his reſurrection, eſtabliſhed to continue in the Chriſtian Churches, giving a commiſſion to his diſciples to preach the Goſpell to the Gentiles,Mat. 28.19. Mark. 16 15.16.Matt 28:19Mark 16:15Mark 16:16 & to gather Churches amongſt them, and to baptiſe all ſuch as ſhould beleive, throughout the world, as a teſtimony to them that the righteouſnes of fayth did belong to them alſo, and not p. 154to the Church of the Iewes only.Acts. 2.37.38.39.40.41 42.44.46 47.Acts 2:37Acts 2:38Acts 2:39Acts 2:40Acts 2:41 Accordingly the Apoſtles & ſervants of Chriſt were carefull to obſerve this rule in their adminiſtring baptiſme. Thus Peter when he ſaw thoſe 3000 ſoules pricked in their hearts, preached unto them concerning repentance, remiſſion of ſinnes, Chriſt, the promiſe, baptiſme, fayth, and amendment of life, baptiſed thoſe that gladly received his word, and teſtifyed the ſame by joyning together in the profeſſion thereof.

Act. 8.12.13.14.Acts 8:12Acts 8:13Acts 8:14The ſame courſe Phillip tooke with the Church that was gathered in Samaria where many were baptiſed, but none till they profeſſed their beleife of the Goſpell,Act. 9.11 13.14.15 16.17.Acts 9:11 and their receiving the word of God, and therefore it is ſaid expreſly, when they beleived Phillip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Ieſus Chriſt, they were baptiſed, both men, and woemen. when Ananias was comanded to goe and baptiſe Paul, he objected againſt it at firſt, till the Lord aſſured him that he was one to whom that ſeale of the covenant belonged,Act. 10 43.44.47 48.Acts 10:43Acts 10:44Acts 10:47 and then he went, and did it. When Peter, and thoſe that came with him, ſawe that the Holy Ghoaſt fell on Cornelius, and thoſe that were aſſembled at that time in his houſe, whileſt he ſpake theſe words, To him give all the Prophets witneſſe, Act. 8.36 37.38 Act. 16 31.32.33Acts 8:36Acts 16:31Acts 16:32Acts 16:33that thorough the name of Ieſus, whoſoever beleiveth in him ſhall receive remiſſion of ſinnes, Peter demanded, Can any man forbid water that theſe ſhould not be baptiſed, which have received the Holy Ghoaſt as well as we? And then they were baptiſed. To conclude this catalogue, Phillip did not baptiſe the Eunuch, though he deſired it, till he had given him ſatisfaction by profeſſing his fayth in expreſſe words, nor Paul the Iaylour and his houſe-hold, till it appeared unto him that they beleived on the Lord Ieſus. Nor is there any example in the Scripture varying from this courſe, to warrant ſuch a promiſcuous adminiſtration of baptiſme in a place where ſuch heterogeneall mixtures are of people of all ſorts & ſects, as Amſterdam is,

In the times after the firſt Century what care was taken concerning the perſons whom they admitted to baptiſme! The ſtoryes are cleare concerning thoſe that were adulti, though we find litle or nothing concerning infants, only that they were p. 155baptiſed, by vertue of that right they had to it, in their beleiving parents. But that which we find concerning the courſe which they tooke with thoſe of yeares, may ſerve to ſhew their high eſteeme of this ordinance, and how farr they were from this promiſcuous manner of adminiſtring it, though we purpoſe not to examine, whether the firſt ſimplicity uſed by the Apoſtles was in all things obſerved by them, nor how exactly they followed the rule in every particular. They divided thoſe that were turned from Gentiliſme to imbrace the Chriſtian Religiō into three ſorts, whom they diſtinguiſhed by ſeverall names. 1. Whileſt they were to be catechiſed and inſtructed in the grounds of Chriſtan Religion, they were called foreign, and Audientes. Catechumeniſts & hearers. 2. Afterwards, having bene compeleatly inſtructed, and earneſtly now deſiring to be admitted to the Sacrament, they were called Competentes, petitioners. 3. Being found meet, they were baptiſed, and then, and not before, they were called fideles, and perfecti, perfect, and beleivers, viz, in reſpect of the outward ſtate and order of the Church, with reference to thoſe degrees whereby they muſt come to be baptiſed. And when they did baptiſe them, a publick tryall was made of their fitnes (which aftertimes called Scrutinium, the Scrutiny) and hereof there were two parts, 1. an abrenunciation, 2. a profeſſion of fayth. 1. The abrenunciation was expreſſed by the party deſiring Baptiſme ſolemnly, in expreſſe words, in the Greeke Churches. foreign. And this part they accounted of ſo much importance, as that, without it, either in word or deed expreſſed, they accounted none fit to be baptiſed. 2. The profeſſion of the fayth was openly made, and in the hearing of the people, by him that deſired baptiſme, ſome times in a continued ſpeech, but more frequently by way of Dialogue, and by certaine articles.Ambroſ: de Sacram lib. 2. C. Credis in Deum patrem omnipotentem? Credo. Credis in Dominum Ieſum Chriſtum? Credo. Credis in Spiritum Sanctum? Credo. This cuſtom at firſt inſtituted for, and uſed only by thoſe of yeares, who being converted from Gentiliſme to Chriſtianity deſired baptiſme, was, in aftertimes applyed to the baptiſme of infants, whoſe ſuretyes anſwered for p. 156them.Beza. epiſt 8. This came in by abuſe (ſayth Beza) and giveth too much advantage to the Anabaptiſts. For, if baptiſme may not be adminiſtred, without a profeſſion of fayth preſent, in the infant (which if they meane not, why is the infant aſked concerning its fayth, in the ſuretyes, at that time, ſayth he) why ſtay we not with the Anabaptiſts (which God forbid!) till the child can profeſſe its owne fayth. And therefore elſewhere ſayth Beza,Beza epiſt. 12. As Chriſme and exorciſme, although ancient, are well aboliſhed, we would deſire alſo, that not only ſuperfluous, but alſo unfit queſtions were omitted alſo, although Auguſtine, in a certaine epiſtle, would excuſe it, with a certaine interpretation, but he calleth it infirmum commentum, and that fitly. And therefore the practiſe of thoſe Churches, in putting the queſtion to the father of the child is more ſuitable to the rule; becauſe, in the Covenant which God maketh with the parents the right of the infant to baptiſme is founded, and the power and care of educating the child in that fayth lyeth upon them. To let paſſe this digreſſion. The cuſtom of thoſe times concerning men of yeares, though it doe not, every way, touch the caſe of infants, yet it ſheweth the piety of thoſe times, and the judgment of the Ancients concerning the point in queſtion, de ſuſcipientibus baptiſmum.

And howſoever, in thoſe times, ſome ſuperſtitious rites were uſed in baptiſme, and ſome errours in Doctrine are to be found concerning the abſolute neceſſity of baptiſme to ſalvation, yet not one of them, ſo farr as my ſmall reading hath inabled me to diſcover, defended ſuch a promiſcuous adminiſtration of it (as that wrighting of the five Miniſters required) as neceſſary or lawfull. But if any man will wreſt that concluſion of thoſe Ancients in Cyprian, to patronize this courſe, (whereof Cyprian ſpeaketh thus,Cyprian. lib. 3. epiſt. 10. haec fuit in concilio noſtra ſententia. A baptiſmo atque a gratiâ Dei, qui omnibus miſericors, & benignus, & pius eſt, neminem per nos debere prohiberi.) Let him know, that thoſe words, if they be taken apart from the reſt, may ſeeme to favour the errour of univerſall grace, as well as promiſcuous baptiſing.

And indeed they countenance boath alike, that is, neither of p. 157them at all, being conſidered in Cyprians intendment, in that epiſtle, which was, to anſwer Fidus who held that infants of two or three dayes old ought not to be baptiſed, arguing from Circumciſion, which was not adminiſtred till the eight day, and from the bodily uncleanenes of infants at that age. Cyprian, in anſwer to his firſt Argument, ſheweth him that Circumciſion was a ſhadow, which is now vaniſhed, and, in anſwer to the ſecond, uſed thoſe words, Acts 10.15. and concludeth thus. Si etiam graviſſimis delictoribus &c. If remiſſion of ſinnes be given to the moſt greivous ſinners, when they afterwards beleive, and, repent, and baptiſme is not denyed to them, how much more ought it not to be denyed ſuch infants. They that know how ſtreight Cyprian was in nullifying the baptiſme of thoſe who had bene baptiſed by haereticks, and ſuch as were out of the Church, cannot imagine that any helpe may be expected from him, for warranting the adminiſtring of baptiſme to their infants, who are out of the Covenant.

Now if any thinck that there is ſome colour for the juſtifying of this courſe to be found in the capitulation of Charles King of Sycily, with the Sarazens,Speed. Chron: lib. 9. cap. 10. in the life of Edw. 1. at the ſeidge of Tunis in Africa, the third Article whereof was that ſuch as were willing might freely receive the Sacrament of Baptiſme. Let him underſtand that that agreement was only to eſtabliſh the free excerciſe of Chriſtian Religion, not to warrant promiſcuous baptiſing, which was not, at all, in queſtion at that time. Thus the records of ancient times are againſt this diſorderly cuſtom, and concerning the judgment of later times, ſince the reformation, if enough have not bene ſaid already, more ſhall be added, in anſweare to the ſeventh pretence.

Only that I may omitt nothing, that I meet with in my reading, which may ſeeme to carry any colour of favouring that cuſtom, though but in the letter, I have produced thoſe two inſtances of former times, and will now add to them two or three of latter times. In whom I purpoſe not to examine or cenſure their expreſſions, but onelyonly to ſhew that this evill cuſtom is not maintained, nor to be defended by what they have written.

Firſt. I will beginne with that queſtion which excerciſed the p. 158Miniſters that met in the Claſſis at Neocomum.Beza epiſt. 9. Whether the infants of excommunicates, are to be baptiſed, and in whoſe fayth, ſeing their parents are not members of the Church? The occaſion whereof was this. A certayne man, of a very wicked life, having 4 baſtards, and thriſe deceived the Church with hypocriticall confeſſion, and promiſes, was excommunicated together with his harlot. The queſtion was, whether the fourth baſtard, begotten after their excommunication, ſhould be baptiſed?

The Miniſters of that Claſſis declared their judgment, which they ſent in a letter to Beza, thus, we are of opinion that the infant being borne of ſuch deſperate parents, is not included in the promiſe of bleſſing, and therefore ſhould not be baptiſed till it come to that age, wherein it may make profeſſion of its owne fayth, unleſſe the parents, returning againe to God by true repentance, be againe received into the boſome of the Church, or it be preſented by certaine godly perſons, who will bind themſelves by promiſe to performe the duety of parents to the child. Vnleſſe perhaps, becauſe it is borne within the Church, it ſhould be baptiſed for the fayth of the Church. Thus they.

Epiſt: 10.Beza, wrighting to them his judgment in this matter, diſtributeth thoſe who are not to be accounted members of the Church into fowre ſorts farr different one from another. To omit the former three, as being not in queſtion, the fourth ſort is of thoſe, who being elect of God, and ingrafted into Chriſt, yet falling through infirmity, and giving offence unto others, are delivered unto Sathan, that godly ſorrow may worke in them repentance. Of this laſt ſort, ſayth he, is the queſtion: Concerning whom he firſt ſuppoſeth diverſe things.

1. That they are ſuch of whom we may judge in charity, that their eſtate is not deſperate.

2. That though they are great ſinners, yet they are not Apoſtates which forſake the Church, nor joyne themſelves with adverſaryes in perſecuting the truth.

3. That ſome difference is to be made betweene Turkes and excommunicate Chriſtians, or Papiſts.

4. It is hard to judge, whether infants belong to the Covenant, in reſpect of their firſt parents profeſſion, or not.

Secondly. VponUpon theſe ſuppoſitions he concludeth that the p. 159infants of excummunicates that remaine in the Church may not lawfully be denied baptiſme. But this he delivereth with two proviſoes, or caveats. 1. That, a fit ſurety bind himſelfe to the Church for the holy education of the child. 2. That, upon this occaſion, the Miniſter doe, at that time, ſeriouſly exhort the father, being preſent, to repentance, in the preſence of the Church, before he baptiſe the child, Which he ſayth was frequently done in their Churches, viz, in Geneva. Thus he. Concerning whoſe anſwer I will propound two or three conſiderations.

Firſt. Though Beza was a very Reverend & judicious Divine, yet, in matters of faith, it is not ſafe, vllius jurare in verba magiſtri, to reſt upon the authority of any man, without a warrant from the Scripture.

Secondly. Compare what was alleadged out of Beza himſelfe in my 1. Reaſon, in this Section, with this paſſage, and what Mr Cartwright anſwereth to ſome part of this, in the ſame Section, & the Reader will ſee that it may eaſily be declared that this ſentence will not helpe the Advocates for promiſcuous baptizing.

Thirdly. Conſider the ſtate of the queſtion, as Beza maketh it, and it will appeare that the infants, for whoſe Baptiſme he pleadeth, are of ſuch as we may rationally judge to be ingrafted into Chriſt, and elect of God, only being fallen by infirmity, are delivered unto Sathan, that godly ſorrow may worke in them repentance.

But what is this for the juſtifying of a promiſcuous adminiſtration of Baptiſme to all that are offered, in ſuch a place as Amſterdam, concerning many of whom we can not rationally have any ſuch perſuaſion?

Fourthly. The foure things ſuppoſed by Beza, as caſes, wherein he dare not give liberty of baptiſing, ſerve to diſcover the evill of this cuſtom, whereunto that wrighting would have bound me. For, if all that are preſented, though they refuſe to make knowne before, who, or what they are, muſt be received, may not the infāts of many, whoſe caſe is deſperate in the judgment of the Church, who are, not only Apoſtates from it, but perſecutors: yea even the children of Iewes, Mores, and others, ſuch like, without the parents conſent be offered to baptiſme, p. 160and ſo be baptiſed, which were to profane the Sacrament, 2. Obſerve how timerouſly Beza expreſſeth himſelfe about the parents, on whom the right of the infant to baptiſme dependeth, in this caſe, whereby it may ſeeme that he was not fully cleare in it himſelfe.

Fifthly. The cautions and proviſoes, which Beza giveth to be obſerved, in the baptiſing of ſuch children of excommunicates, as he there ſpeaketh of, doe ſtrongly condemne the diſorder of that place, where the father is ſo farr from being admoniſhed publickly of his ſinne, that he is not ſo much as knowne, or inquired after, and where they are ſo farr from taking care for the holy education of the child, that they regard not by whom it is preſented, nor what becommeth of it afterwards.

2. De conſc. lib. 4. cap. 27.Secondly. D^r. Ames commeth next to be conſidered, and a paſſage in his booke of caſes to be examined, leaſt ſome ignorantly, others willfully wreſt it to the countenancing of this diſorder, which to be farr from his meaning, himſelfe doeth abundantly declare, in the ſame place. For he ſo expreſſeth his opinion concerning the baptiſme of diverſe ſorts of infants there mentioned, as it may appeare that his judgment was againſt promiſcuous baptiſing all that are brought, according to the controverted cuſtom: which I demonſtrate thus.

Reſp. 2 Firſt he requireth. 2. things in ſuch infants as neceſſary to their admittance. 1. That they be in the covenant of Grace, in reſpect of outward profeſſion, and aeſtimation, at leaſt, in one of the parents. 2. That there is hope that they ſhall hereafter be educated und inſtructed in the ſame covenant. Both which he affirmeth upon the ſame ground which we layd in the firſt Reaſon, viz, Becauſe Baptiſme is a ſigne and ſeale of the covenant. But how can they be eſteemed Chriſtian parents, or what hope can there be of the education of ſuch infants in the covenant, when both the parents & ſureties are altogether unknowne to the Church, and that in ſuch a place as Amſterdam, where is ſuch a confluence of people of all nations and Sects?

Reſp. 3 Secondly. He affirmeth that Baptiſme doeth moſt properly belong to thoſe infants, whoſe parents, at leaſt, one of them, is in the Church, not out of it. And this he affirmeth, upon the former ground, viz, p. 161Becauſe, Baptiſme is the ſeale of the covenant. But who knoweth not, that many people are in Amſterdam, who are not in the Church, but out of it, in many reſpects? yet none muſt be refuſed that are preſented to Baptiſme.

Thirdly. He ſuppoſeth that thoſe, whoſe parents are unknowne, are in charity to be accounted Chriſtians, when there is not juſt cauſe of preſuming the contrary. But, howſoever this might carry ſome ſhew of reaſon with it, in ſuch places where all the inhabitants profeſſe religion, and are joyned to ſome Church, yet in ſuch a place as Amſterdam, how can a man preſume otherwiſe then the contrary of many that may be offered to Baptiſme?

Fourthly. He profeſſeth that a difference muſt be put betweene the infants of thoſe, who, in ſome ſort, by profeſſion, belong to the Church, yet doe openly breake the covenant of God, and the children of others, in the manner of their admittance to Baptiſme. viz, that, for the former ſort, what is required by the Covenant, and wanting in them muſt be ſupplyed by others. And for this he giveth two Reaſons. 1. Becauſe a diſtinction muſt be obſerved in all holy things betweene the cleane and uncleane. 2. Becauſe elſe the ordinances of God cannot be preſerved from all pollution. For theſe reaſons he doeth not allow the Baptiſme of excommunicates, unleſſe they have fit ſuretyes to undertake for their education, nor of baſtards, unleſſe their parents have profeſſed their repentance, or other godly perſons will take upon them the care of their education; nor of papiſts, unleſſe they be preſented by fit ſuretyes, who have power over thē for theire education. But is any ſuch care taken, any ſuch courſe obſerved, about the admiſſion of ſuch to Baptiſme, in Amſterdam?

Thirdly. Mr. Atterſoll, ſhall ſhut up this diſcourſe of times,Of the Sacram: of Bapt. 2. booke. ch. 6 whom the Reader may ſuſpect to favour this cuſtom, if ſomething be not noated by us to prevent miſtakes. Now, howſoever he may ſeeme to be ſome what large in his judgement this way, and to yeeld more then, either Mr. Beza, or Dr. Ames have done in this point, &, it may be, more then himſelfe would have done, if he had fully underſtood the diſorder againſt which we teſtifye; yet the limitations and cautions which he propoundeth doe diſcover the evill of that practiſe, concerning which the preſent queſtion is.

p. 162P. 218For 1. he denyeth that the infants of Turkes or Iewes may be baptiſed againſt the liking and good will of their parents. But it is very poſſible, and probable that ſome ſuch may be offered to Baptiſme by any that have ſtollē them, or for ſome other reaſon, for ought the miniſter knoweth, or demandeth, in that place.

P. 219.2. In the caſe of the children of impaenitent perſons he ſuppoſeth, two things without which his plea for their Baptiſme falleth. 1. That they are ſo borne in the Church, and of it, that the Church may be ſaid to be, as it were, their Mother. 2. That they are in the Covenant, in regard of their Elders, of whom they diſcend, as the Iewes were in Abraham, though their next parents were wicked.

P. 220. 221.3. That they have ſuch ſuretyes as will undertake their education in the true knowledge of God, and faith in Ieſus Chriſt. But, Js it the manner of that place to be ſatiſfyed about theſe things before they receive them to Baptiſme? Doe they enquire whether the infant was borne in the Church, of what parents, or forefathers, or how the ſuretyes will undertake to educate the child in that faith? To conclude, that all miſunderſtanding of Mr. Atterſoll may be prevented, let the Reader conſider one or two concluſions by the ſame Authour in the ſame chapter.

P. 211.1. Concluſ. That, beſides the joyning of the word to the outward ſigne, there is neceſſarily required a fit perſon to be partaker of the Sacrament,

2. Concluſ. Baptiſme is a cōmon ſeale. But, as all have not intereſt to the paſture, herbage, and priviledges of a cōmons, but only ſuch as are Tenants, according to the cuſtom of the Manner: ſo all have not title to Baptiſme, being a Sacramēt of the Church, but only ſuch as are the Lords people, according to the tenour of the Covenant. Apply theſe concluſions to this cuſtom, againſt which we plead, & it will be granted, that what ever may ſeeme to an unwary Reader, in the ſlight and ſuperficiall reading of that paſſage in his booke, yet indeed it doeth not ſerve to juſtifye the practiſe, about which the queſtion is. From the premiſes I argue thus.

If ſuch a promiſcuous adminiſtration of baptiſme as the wrighting p. 163of thoſe five miniſters requireth, be contrary to the good cuſtoms of the beſt Churches, it is unlawfull.

But ſuch a promiſcuous baptiſing &c. is contrary to the good cuſtoms of the beſt Churches.

Therefore it is unlawfull.

So much ſhall ſuffice for declaring the grounds, whereupon I refuſed this cuſtom.

Now let us conſider their pretences for it,1. Pretences for it. ſo farr as we can collect out of that wrighting of the five Miniſters, or otherwiſe.

Pretence. 1 Firſt, pretence.] None will preſent their children to be baptiſed but Chriſtians?

Anſ. 1. It is a concluſion amongſt the ſchoolemen that,Aq: ſecund ſecundae. art. 12. conclu. Non ſunt infidelium pueri, invitis parentibus, baptiſandi. Children of infidells are not to be baptiſed without theyr parents conſent. Wherein they ſuppoſe that ſuch a caſe is poſſible. If ſo, why may not the child of a Iew, or Moore, or Indian be brought by ſome one or other to baptiſme, without the parents conſent or knowledge? And the manner of Amſterdam is to refuſe none that are preſented, by whomſoever, whereby it is very poſſible, that ſome infants may be baptiſed, whoſe parents are no Chriſtians, though the parents would not have them preſented.

2. Even parents, who themſelves doe not receive chriſtian Religion, may be content to have theyr children baptiſed either for the gifts ſake, which are cuſtomarily beſtowed (by thoſe whom they call Godfathers and Godmothers) upon the children, or for ſome other advantages & reſpects, which, in thoſe countryes where Religion hath the countenance of the higher powers, may be expected thereby.Gen. 34.3 21.22.2: Speed. Chron. lib 7. Cap. 36.Gen 34:3 Have we not read of the Shichemites which were circumciſed, yet received not the Religion of the Jewes? The Chronicles of our land can tell us how the Danes, being vanquiſhed, propounded to Elfred the 24. Saxon Monarch, in England, for obtayning of their peace, that their king ſhould receive baptiſme: by which policy he got the country of the Eaſt Angles, by the gift of K. Elfred his Godfather. In thoſe times it was uſuall to make baptiſme a condition, and to compell men to baptiſme, as king Edmond did the Danes p. 164to make them become his ſubjects, which being done, they did ſoone caſt off, both fayth and fealty at once. And are not many of the mind of that Roman pretext, of whom Ierom ſpeaketh, who ſaid ſcoffingly to Damaſus. Facite me Romanae …rbis eſpiſcopum, & ero protinus Chriſtanus. I will conclude this paſſage with the cenſure of learned Dr. Whittaker.Whittak: praelect. de Sacram. p. 291. 292. Abſurdè faciunt ij, qui infidelium liberos baptizant, ſi parentes volunt baptizari, quaſi eccleſia, ſuo arbitrio, quibus vellet, baptiſmum dare poſſet. They doe abſurdly who baptiſe the children of infidells, if the parents be willing to have them baptiſed, as if the Church, at their owne pleaſure can baptiſe whom they will.

Pretence. 2 Second pretence.] If the parents be no Chriſtians, yet the ſuretyes are?

Anſ. 1. The cuſtomary uſe of ſuretyes in baptiſing infants, though it ſeeme ancient by the mention that is made of them, in the Synod of Ments,Synod: M…gunt. Can. 47. Aug. Serm 116. 163. Epiſt. 23. ad Bonif: Tertull de Bapt. cap. 18. under the name of Compatres ſpirituales, ſpirituall fathers and mothers, and, before that, in Auguſtine, under the name of Sponſores, and fidejuſſores, ſuretyes, and before him, in Tertullian, under the name of offerentes, preſenters: yet it is not from the Ancient of dayes, it was not from the beginning, neither in the firſt inſtitution of baptiſme, nor the practiſe of the primitive Churches, in the firſt Century. The firſt originall of this cuſtom ſeemeth to be this, that they that tooke the child from the miniſter when it was baptiſed ſhould be called ſpirituall fathers and mothers, that the difference betweene the firſt and ſecond birth of the child might be ſignifyed, it being abſurd (as they thought) that the ſame man ſhould be the father of the child, both in reſpect of generation and of regeneration. Hence the Papiſts drew a ſpirituall kindred, and multiplyed abſurd inventions about it. Which very originall and abuſe, it being not of Apoſtolicall inſtitution, ſhould make the Reformed Churches ſuſpect it, eſpecially ſeing it is not of neceſſary uſe, the charge of educating the child lying upon the parents, and the wholl Church being witneſſes.

2. Admit that, in ſome caſes, there may be a lawfull uſe of ſpeciall witneſſes, or ſuretyes: yet, can theſe give the infant a right to baptiſme, which had none in the parents? That the p. 165Covenant is made with parents for themſelves and their children,Gen: 17. 1 Cor: 7. and that thereby the children are holy in the parents we read, but where doe we read ſo much of ſuretyes?

3. Admit, that, in ſome ſuretyes the children have a right unto baptiſme (viz, ſuch as were of Abrahams family,Gen. 17.3.Gen 17:3 borne in his houſe, or bought with his money, and ſo ſuch as are members of Chriſtian familyes, in a like ſtate) yet, will it thence follow, that ſuch ſuretyes as many times preſent children to baptiſme, in that place, partake of the ſame priviledge, of whoſe familyes the infants are not members, nor are their familyes ordered like Abrahams, themſelves alſo are, ſome of them, notoriouſly wicked, others of them unknowne to the Church, and many of them, ſuch as have no power to ſee the child educated, and, it may be, ſhall never ſee it after that day. Such an one was that unknowne woaman, who ſeing a harlot delivered of a baſtard, inſtantly tooke the infant, and brought it to the Engliſh Church, in Amſterdam, where (as it fell out) ſhe found the Congregation diſmiſſed before ſhe came, who being aſked by ſome of the members, why ſhe came no ſooner, anſwered, how could I come before the child was borne? or to that purpoſe, and ſo ſhe haſtned to the Dutch Church, where ſhe found them baptiſing many, & without delay preſented the child, which was received, without any difficulty or queſtion. Iudicious Calvin calleth the promiſe made by thoſe who have no power to educate the child an open mocking of God.Calv. Epist: 149.

Pretence. 3 Third pretence] They are manifeſt Chriſtians which profeſſe Christian Religion, at the reading of the Liturgy of Baptiſme?

Anſ: 1. The name of Chriſtians is a name full of Honour, and wherein Nazianzene, profeſſeth that himſelfe and Baſill did glory more,Orat: 30. in laud: Baſil. then Gyges in his ring, or Midas in his gold. Shall this honourable badge, and, as it were, livery of Chriſt his faythfull ſervants, be put upon a company of varlets, whoſe fathers Job would have diſdayned to ſet with the doggs of his flock; as if the practiſe of a Chriſtian life were not requiſite to manifeſt Chriſtians?

2. If perſons, otherwiſe unknowne, are ſufficiently manifeſted to be Chriſtians by ſuch a profeſſion of fayth as is uſually p. 166made there at the reading of the Leiturgy of Baptiſme (which is done by ſaying yae, or ſome geſture of the body only) to what uſe was ſuch a declaration of their fayth required in the Apoſtles times, and many ages after?

3. Beza puts a caſe of a man convicted lawfully, in the preſbytery, of obſtinacy in maintayning ſome dangerous errours againſt the immortality of the ſoule and the reſurrection of the body, and then aſketh Eraſtus, ſhall we account this man a Chriſtian?De preſb. & excom: Arg. 4. Reaſ: And anſwereth minimè opinor. I ſuppoſe not. In like manner, I will put a caſe or two. Terentius of Harlem is infamous to this day for like errours, and for the dangerous fruits thereof in diverſe, who yet live in ſeverall places, and ſome in Amſterdam, who, to this day, have not revoked their wicked errours. Alſo the ſtory of Robbert Roberts is notoriouſly knowne, who ſayd he would have one child baptiſed in the true Church, and having collected a catalogue of ſeverall Churches, which he called the ſeven ſiſters, to the Arminians he preſented one of his children to be baptiſed, but, becauſe he was a Libertine, & a ſcoffer they refuſed to baptiſe it, except ſome other preſēted it: another being about 14 yeares old he preſented to the Anabaptiſts, but they refuſed it, accounting him too yong to make confeſſion of his faith, one of them was baptiſed (as I am told) by the Papiſts, another by the Lutherans, the other in the ordinary Congregation, where he liveth, as it is ſayd. This is publiſhed in a pamphlet printed to the view of all men. Againe, the Dutch preachers refuſe to baptiſe the infants of Gypſes, whom they call Heydenen, becauſe of their diſorderly courſe, yet many of theſe will offer to make the ſame profeſſion, which is required at the reading of the Leiturgy, and ſome of them will tell you, that they have bene baptiſed. Are theſe to be accounted as heathen notwithſtanding that? why not others alſo, that are as bad they?

Laſtly the Anſwerer himſelfe refuſed to baptiſe the child of G. P. being excommunicated, and of a profane life, as its ſayd, and I. S. who held with the Anabaptiſts and Arrians, beſides ſome others, yet, I ſuppoſe, neither of thoſe refuſed to make ſuch a profeſſion as is required at the reading of the Leiturgy. Now, if theyre denying to baptiſe infants in thoſe caſes be warrantable; p. 167how can it be juſtifyed that they would compell me to baptiſe all that are brought, by whomſoever, in that place?

Pretence. 4 Fourth pretence] The infants ſhould not beare the puniſhment of their fathers ſinne?

Anſ: 1. If they ground this Aſſertion upon Ezek: 18.14;Ezek. 18.14.17.Ezek 18:14Ezek 18:17 it is impertinent, it being there ſpoken of a ſonne forſaking his fathers ſinnes, and doing the contrary, with whom the Lord dealeth not in the courſe of his juſtice, but of mercy. Such were Abijah & Ioſiah: otherwiſe, it will not hold in all caſes. For, were not infants drowned in the old world, burnt in Sodom, ſwallowed up of the earth with Corah, plagued in Aegipt (eſpecially in the death of the firſt borne) ſtoned with Achan, deſtroyed with the Cananites and Amalekites, rooted out by judgements upon the familyes of Eli, Ieroboam, Baaſhan &c. with their parents?

2. To come punctually to the queſtion. With Cain,Gen. 4.16 Cap. 6.2. Vide Bez. de excom. p. 35.Gen 4:16 his poſterity were driven from the face of God, except ſo many of them as joyned with the family of Seth, the Church of God, and thence aroſe the different names of the ſonnes of God and the daughters of men. So were the Iſmaelites and Edomites, with Iſmael, and Eſau, their Fathers. At this day, the children of the Iewes are broken off, with their fathers, for unbeleife, and are become ſtrangers from the Covenant of promiſe, and ſo have no right to the Sacraments, the outward ſeales of the covenant.

3. What difference ſoever we make betweene infants,Deut. 29.2 9.Deut 29:2 in this reſpect, yet 1. It doeth not enter into Gods decree cōcerning Election. For ſecret things we leave to God. 2. Nor doeth it concerne the aeternall ſalvation of the infant, which is not at all praejudiced by the want of baptiſme, it being not by its owne contempt, or neglect of it, (elſe we muſt conclude all thoſe infants to be damned, which died in the wildernes, being uncircū ciſed, which God forbid!) but it only concerneth their admiſſion, or not admiſſion into a viſible Church. And ſo a difference may, and muſt be made. For, though all infants are by nature alike children of wrath. Yet, in reſpect of the Adoption outwardly manifeſted, they are not alike, eſpecially to us, and in reference to Church priviledges. For, I demand, was Jſaack, and the p. 168children of the heathen alike, in this reſpect. And, if no child ſhould be denyed the Sacrament for the parents ſinne, why are not the infants of Iewes, Turkes, Indians, Moores, Gypſes admitted, without any difference, to baptiſme?

Pretence. 5 Fifth pretence.] The five Miniſters yeelded, that, if any other caſe fell out, whereby it may ſeeme that the infant preſented ſhould not be baptiſed, that then the judgment of the wholl Engliſh preſbytery, or alſo, if need be, and if conveniently it may be done, that the judgment of the Claſſis of Amſterdam be obtayned, heard, and reſted in.

Anſ:] This conceſſion of the five Miniſters, which is uſed for a pretence againſt me, is really and indeed much againſt themſelves. For.

1. Their judgment is, that I ſhould be left free, in any other caſe, to order my practiſe in admitting infants to baptiſme, by the advice of the Engliſh preſbytery, without requiring the counſail of the Claſſis, or obſerving, the cuſtom of that place therein. If ſo, why not in this caſe alſo? The caſe whereat I ſtuck, was to be free not to baptiſe thoſe infants, whoſe parents, being no members of that Church, are altogether unknowne. For which purpoſe I inſiſted upon this demand (which I ſtill thinck to be aequall, and, in that place, neceſſary) that none ſuch ſhould preſent their children in publick to be baptiſed by me, till I had before received ſatiſfaction concerning them, by private conference with them, or otherwiſe. Yet, to prevent all offence, I freely offered, in any difficult caſe that might fall out, to acquaint the Engliſh preſbytery with it, and to ſeeke their adviſe.

Now, if my demand, about being ſatiſfyed concerning the parents and preſenters, be judged by thoſe five learned and prudent men fit to be granted, in any other caſe, why not in this caſe? Let the difference be ſhewen betweene other caſes and this, in reference to my demand. Will they ſay, this caſe is already determined? Let them ſhew where. If they ſay in the Scripture; Let them alleadge one text from the firſt of Geneſis to the laſt of the Revelations for it. If they ſay, in ſome Nationall Synod of theſe Countryes; Let them name the Synod, and produce the Canon, in any one Synod that hath bene from the p. 169beginning of Reformation to this day. Jf they cannot, as it is certaine they cannot, where then? If they ſay in the Claſſis; It will concerne the Claſſis to ſhew, 1, by what right they take upon them to limit the Churches in ſuch caſes, wherein the Scriptures and the Synods have left them at liberty, 2. How this commeth to be ſo particularly and ſeverely preſſed upon the Miniſters of the Engliſh Church, ſeing no more is required of the Miniſters of any other Church, by the Claſſicall orders, then to ſubſcribe to the Catechiſme, and to the Belgick Confeſſion, and to the laſt Synod of Dort, but no ſuch practiſe is taught or defended in any one of theſe.

2. This further may be collected out of the conceſſion of theſe five Miniſters, that the judgment of the Engliſh preſbytery is ſufficient, in ſome caſes which may fall out and cauſe doubts in the Miniſter about baptizing ſome that are brought, and that in thoſe caſes it is to be heard and reſted in, if it can be obtayned, without the judgment of the Claſſis, which the Miniſter is not bound to ſeeke, but when it is needfull, through his not obtayning the other. Herein they contradict the Anſwerer, who concludeth the Elders to be inſufficient for this, and that,Sect. 23. Anſ. 6. not by a common inſufficiency that is in all men for holy adminiſtrations 1. Cor. 2.16. but by a ſpeciall inſufficiency in caſes of this nature. Which is the rather to be obſerved, becauſe there he ſayth that the Claſſis hath already judged and determined it, and therefore they are inſufficient: but here he ſayth, the five Miniſters have referred me to the judgment of the Engliſh preſbytery, & elſewhere he ſayth,Sect. 19. that this wrighting of the five Miniſters was by all the miniſters of the Claſſis, with one conſent, approved and confirmed. If this be ſo; then the Claſſis have not judged the Elders to be inſufficient in caſes of this nature. Thus he may be found not only contradicted by the Claſſis, but alſo contradictory to himſelfe.

3. This alſo is implyed in this expreſſion of the five Miniſters, that, if the judgment of the preſbytery cannot be obtayned, and ſo it be needfull to ſeeke the judgment of the Claſſis, that then it ſhould be heard and reſted in, ſo farr as the judgment of the preſbytery ſhould have bene reſted in, if it could p. 170have bene obtained. So farr, I ſay. For, the Anſwerer ſayth, there are caſes, Sect. 24.wherin their judgment muſt not be reſted in, but the matter muſt be brought to the Claſſis. Whereunto I add, that there are caſes, wherein we muſt not reſt in the determination of Claſſes, or Synods, but appeale to the Scriptures, as to the higheſt judicatory, and therefore are alike bound to reſt in the determination of the preſbytery, and of the Claſſis, that is, in neither of them, further then they agree with the Scripture.

4. When they add, that the judgment of the Claſſis is to be ſaught, in caſe of neceſſity, ſo farr as it may be done conveniently, they ſuppoſe truely, that the caſe may be ſuch, as it cannot be done conveniently, or at all done, when a Miniſter is put upon it ſuddenly. For even whileſt he is in the pulpit, the child is brought, many times: where ſhall he find the Claſſis, at ſuch a time, when he can not have time ſo much as to adviſe with the Elders that ſit before him, without making ſome publick diſturbance? which very conſideration ſerveth to declare the reaſonablenes of my demand for private ſatiſfaction to be given me before hand, to prevent all publick diſturbance.

5. This ſeeming conceſſion is merely ſeeming, and it is contradictory to it ſelfe. For 1, if there are caſes, wherein the judgment of the Elders will be requiſite and neceſſary; why doe they hinder me from the uſe of meanes to find out thoſe cauſes, when they bind me to baptiſe thoſe that are brought, though I have no knowledge of them, by private conference, or otherwiſe? 2. If that way of having ſome precedent private examination of the parents & ſuretyes in Chriſtian Religion be ſo greatly approved by them, that they doe judge that this fore ſaid examination be ordayned, ſo farr as may ſtand with the aedification of the Engliſh Church: why doe they afterwards add, that if the parēts or ſuretyes ſhall refuſe to come, & undergoe this examination, or thoſe that doe come, ſhall not ſeeme, for that time, to ſatiſfye the brethren &c. yet the infant &c. ſhall not therefore be excluded from baptiſme, or deprived thereof. This is that which the Satyre could not underſtand, that a man ſhould warme his hands and coole his pottage with the ſame blaſt of breath, nor can I ſee how, by the ſame men, in the ſame wrighting, p. 171the ſame courſe ſhould be ſo greatly approved and applauded, that they judge that it muſt be ordained, and yet afterward ſo much ſlighted, that men that will not ſubmit to it, are left free, and that by their ordinance, to doe what they liſt. The end of that ordināce was the aedification of the Engliſh Church, by a reverend and right uſe of the Seales: If, for this end, that courſe is to be ordained: why is it not to be maintained for the ſame end? Either it is too frivolou… …o be ordained to ſuch an end, or it is too weighty to be ſlighted, in ſuch a manner,

6. What helpe can be expected from the Engliſh preſbytery, in this caſe, whe… the Anſwerer will alwayes interpoſe, either to have matters concluded according to this cuſtom, and his former practiſe, or elſe he will proteſt againſt their judgement in this matter, and carry it to the Claſſis, under a pretence that they were inſufficient, or partiall, or there was ſome difference. How can it be expected to be otherwiſe, if he reſolve to carry matters in his way, or elſe to make a difference, that there may be ſome ground for appeale to the Claſsis, as to an higher judicatory?

Pretence. 6 Sixth pretence] This manner of admitting thoſe that are brought thus promiſcuouſly is approved by the judgment of the five godly and learned miniſters, who proteſt, in the preſence of God, that, in this adviſe they deale ſincerely, and with a good conſcience, deſiring nothing more then to further my calling.

Anſ:] This pretence hath ſo much ſhew in it, that the Anſwerer himſelfe was deceived by it, and incouraged to place too much confidence in it, as appeareth in the various uſes he hath made of it, upon ſeverall occaſions. Jn which reſpect, it will be convenient, that we examine it very particularly, which that I may doe, we will draw the ſtrength of it into fowre heads, which we will expreſſe in ſo many objections, and ſubnect their ſeverall anſwers.

Ob. 1 This cuſtom is approved of by the judgment of the five learned and prudent men?

Anſ. 1 It is not ſufficient that learned and prudent men approve of a thing, unles the grounds, whereupon they doe it, be delared, and approved to be ſufficient. Tertullian was a learned man. p. 172Yet Ierom taxeth him for an errour about monogamy, Hieron in Tit. Cap. 1 Aug: de Civit. dei. lib. 21. Cap. 17. Hieron in Zep: 3. Aug: Epiſt 28. Chriſoſt: Hom: 3. de Lazaro.or the unlawfullnes of ſecond marriages. Origen was a learned man: Yet Auguſtine accuſeth him of an errour about the ſalvation of the Devills, at laſt. Hierom was a learned man: yet he erred in holding the merit of the miniſter to be neceſſary to the making of the Sacrament. Auguſtine was a learned man: yet he erred about the abſolute neceſſity of baptiſme to ſalvation. And Chryſoſtom was a learned m…: Yet he erred when he hold, that where ſpirituall bookes are, the Devills have no power. Theſe 5 Ancients, all men will confeſſe, are not inferiour in learning or prudence to the five Dutch miniſters who ſubſcribed that wrighting, yet they erred.

2. The Anſwerer himſelfe pretendeth the ſame cauſe for his not reſting in the judgment of more then five as learned and prudent men as theſe,Sect: 9. Anſ. 3. in a queſtion that concerned me. Will ſuch a plea hold in that caſe? Then much more in this.

Ob. 2 Though learned and prudent men may erre apart: yet when ſo many conſult together, and conclude upon a point; their judgment joyntly declared, ſhould be reſted in?

The judgment of learned and prudent men is to be received with all due reverence; though they ſeverally & apart expreſſe it, much more, when they, joyning together in conſultation, doe conſent and agree in one concluſion: provided that the truth doe not ſuffer praejudice by mens authority. In which reſpect it was learnedly and prudently ſayd by Auguſtine.Aug: Epiſt: 48. Heare that which the Lord ſayth, not that which Donatus ſayth, Rogatus ſayth, Ʋincentius ſayth, Hilarius ſayth, Ambroſe ſaith, Augustine ſayth. (yet theſe were ſix learned and prudent men) but heare what the Lord ſayth. 1 Cor: 1.12.For to doe otherwiſe, what is it but to ſay, I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas; which the Scripture condemneth.

2. Why may not five together erre as well as five aſunder? 1. Suppoſe Tertullian, and Lactantius, and Victorinus, and Ireneus,Hieron: in Ezek. lib. 11. Cap. 36. and Apollinarius, five learned and prudent men, who held the errour of the Millenaryes (as Ierom reporteth) had ſubſcribed a wrighting to aſſure Ierom of the truth of that opinion: would he have thought himſelfe bound to reſt in that their opinion, upon p. 173their naked affirmation, which he judged to be their errour? 2. Suppoſe that thoſe five learned and prudent men, Dr. Ames, Mr. Forbes, Mr. Hooker, Mr. Balmford, Mr. Roe had ſent ſuch a wrighting of their private judgment againſt this diſorder of promiſcuous baptiſing to this Anſwerer? would he thinck himſelfe bound to reſt therein? If not: why doeth he require this of me?

But they proteſt in the preſence of God, that they dealt ſincerly, 3. Ob.and with a good conſcience?

Anſ:2. Sam. 7.25.2 Sam 7:25 Nathan dealt ſincerely & with a good conſcience (as he thought, and would have proteſted, if it had bene required) when he adviſed David about building a Temple to the Lord, & incouraged him thereunto: Yet he erred. Peter thought he dealt ſincerely and with a good conſcience (and, before Paul had convinced him of his evill, it may be, would have proteſted it alſo) in his temporizing firſt with the Gentiles,Gal. 2.11.12.Gal 2:11Gal 2:12 and then with thoſe of the Circumciſion: yet he erred. Thoſe famous lights, ſpoken of before, thought they dealt ſincerely, and with a good conſcience, in thoſe opinions which they defended: yet they erred.

They deſired nothing more then to further the promotion of Mr. D. 4. Ob.to the miniſtry of the Engliſh Church?

Anſ: 1. I doe eaſily beleive that the Dutch Miniſters did really deſire my ſetling there, and that, when they went to the Anſwerer, their purpoſe was to further it. And I am perſwaded of them, that when they wrote to me, they did it, upon ſome incouraging intimations ſuggeſted by the Anſwerer, that a letter from them ſignifying the concurrence and conſent of theire judgment with him in this point would prevaile to draw me to yeeld to it. I am alſo confident, they were the more apt to approve ſuch courſes of accommodation, as, they ſaw, would beſt pleaſe him, vponupon a conceit that the Anſwerer himſelfe did much deſire me, which alſo themſelves did intimate in the wrighting ſubſcribed by them. So that their miſcarrage in this buiſenes was not from any diſaffection to me, or deſire of hindring my ſettling there, but from too much credulity and tractablenes to complye with the Anſwerer, in his way, the iſſue of whoſe purpoſe, p. 174they foreſaw not. Theſe things being premiſed, I proceed to ſhew the reaſon, why I could not reſt in their conuſaile, in this particular.

2. Two things, eſpecially, hindred me from reſting therein. 1. Becauſe the ſame thing which they propounded, only as their private judgment, the Anſwered preſſed as a law to me, wherein I muſt reſt, that is, conforme thereunto, and this my reſting therein muſt be the condition, whereupon he would conſent to my ſetling there, elſe not. So that his finger was heavyer upon me, in this, then their loynes, & he aſſumed a power to himſelfe of preſcribing rules to me, which the government of theſe churces hath not given him, yea, more then is given to the Claſſes themſelves by any Synod, or to any Synod by the word of God, to injoyne this thing to a Miniſter as a condition of his call to a paſtorall charge. 2. Becauſe the five Miniſters propounded their private judgment nakedly without ſhewing their grounds from the Scripture, ſo that they ſeemed to me to deale by their authority, not by argument. Now the mere authority, that is, the bare affirmation of godly and learned men, is leſſe to be regarded then their reaſons, and yet their reaſons, without the word, are of no value, in Divine matters. For all men are lyars, apt to be deceived, and ſo to deceive, impoſſibility of erring being proper to the Scriptures, which therefore are only fit to be the Canon or rule for the ordering of Miniſters concerning their wholl behaviour in the houſe of God. 1. Tim. 3.14.15. Mat. 21.13. Mat. 12.31 Tim 3:141 Tim 3:15Matt 21:13Matt 12:3Hence Chriſt and his Apoſtles, 1. reproved diſorders by Scripture (ſo Chriſt did the profaning of the Temple) 2, juſtified things well done by Scripture (ſo Chriſt did the pulling of the eares of corne) 3. reſolved & anſwered queſtions by Scripture (ſo Chriſt did,Mat. 19.4 Mat. 15.4 Mat. 22.29.32. Acts. 2.1.34. Act. 15.Matt 19:4Matt 15:4Matt 22:29Matt 22:32Acts 2:1Acts 2:34Acts 15 in the caſe of Divorce) 4. confuted errours by Scriptures (ſo Chriſt did the Phariſees and Sadduces) 5. confirmed and proved Doctrines by Scriptures (ſo Peter proved the reſurrection and aſcention of Chriſt &c.) 6. gave advice, and made orders, not by their owne authority, but by the direction of the Holy Ghoaſt, which immediate aſſiſtance ſeing we want, light muſt be fetched from Scripture, if we will guide others ſafely by our counſayle, without which learned men may erre, have erred, and doe erre, & p. 175therefore their judgments muſt be tryed, and judged by it, and no further be reſted in, then they agree with it. According to that of Ierom Quod ex Scripturâ non habet authoritatem câadem facilitate contemnitur, quâ acceptatur. Hieron. in Math. 23.Matt 23That which hath not authority from the Scripture is as eaſily deſpiſed as received.

Seaventh pretence. It is the custom of theſe Churches, which all, 7. Pretence.that are admitted by the Claſſis, doe promiſe to obſerve.

This pretence the Anſwerer inſinuateth in that which he ſayd about the forme of Mr. B. calling, Anſ. which was to miniſter the word, and the dependances thereof, according to the order of theſe Reformed Churches, and eſpecially with theſe which are combined with the Claſſis of Amſterdam, Concerning that expreſſion ſome thing more may be noated, in the examination of the ſeventeenth Section, and when we come to the eight and twentith Section.

For the preſent, Reply. we will oppoſe (beſides all conſiderations which have bene formerly alleadged, or may be heareafter) two things to this cuſtom, to prove that this cannot be the order of theſe Reformed Churches, but muſt be only a diſorder crept in, and prevayling by mens oſſitancie, and ſleepines, which is Sathans beſt opportunity for the ſowing of tares, which I ſhall demonſtrate thus.

Firſt, oppoſe the Confeſſions of the Reformed Churches to this cuſtom,Ham. Confeſſ- Sect. 13. and it will be found that they cannot ſtand together, for, when they deſcribed, qui ſunt baptiſandi, who are to be baptiſed, ſpeaking of infants; they ſay, they muſt be the children of perſons that are in the Covenant (a)(a)Helvet: poſter. cap. 13.of the people of God (b)(b)Helvet. prior art. 21. et Bohem. c. 21.of holy parents (c)(c)Gallic. Art. 35., of thoſe to whom the promiſes belong (d)(d)Belgic. Art. 34., who are inſerted into the Church, and only them (e)(e)Saxon confeſſ. Art. 13., the true children of Abraham (f)(f)Suevit. cap. 17.ſuch as are in alike condition as they were who had right to Circumciſion amongſt the Iewes. Now compare, with this doctrine of the Reformed Churches, the practiſe of that place, as it hath bene declared, and it will appeare that their owne Confeſſions plead againſt this cuſtom. And, how can that be called the order of theſe Reformed Churches, which agreeth not with the doctrine of theſe reformed Churches?

Secondly, oppoſe the Canons of the Synods of theſe countryes to this cuſtom, and the thing will be manifeſted. In a p. 176Synod held at Dort in the yeare 1578. Art. 59. It was referred to the judgment of the Miniſters and Elders, whether there be any lawfull cauſe brought by any, why the child to be baptiſed ſhould be deferred from Baptiſme: and in Art. 61. It was ordered, that the fathers, before they bring their children to baptiſme, ſhall goe to the Miniſter, or an Elder, that the Church may have notice of the partyes that are to be baptiſed. And in Art. 62. They are appoynted to acquaint the Miniſter what name they will give the child, and to ſhew him how they will educate the child in that Religion.

In a Synod held at Middleborough in the yeare 1581. the 22. queſtion. It is demanded, whether the parents of children doe goe firſt to the Miniſter, or Elders, and certify them, that they deſire to have their children baptiſed before, to ſee whether they judge it meet to receive ſuch witneſſes or not? In Art. 75. It is queſtioned, whether the Miniſter ſhould be rebuked, when he baptiſeth children, whoſe parents appoynt witneſſes, which ſtand not for religion? Anſ. The parents ſhall be wonted, as much as is poſſible, that they firſt ſpeake with the Miniſters before they preſent their children to baptiſme, &c.

In a Synod held at Vtricht, in the yeare 1590. Art 1. It is decreed, that Baptiſme is to be adminiſtred, according to the ordinance of Chriſt, without Godfathers to bind themſelves, only the father and mother to promiſe to trayne it up in the Religion.

Now, compare the Canons of theſe Synods with the cuſtom of that place, and they will be found ſo farr to varye from it, that it will appeare not to be the order of theſe reformed Churches, but a diſorder crept in, as we have ſaid before.

I will conclude this examination of pretences uſed in defence of this unwarrantable cuſtom with the judicious cenſure of Dr. Ames, who knew well the miſcarriage of this diſorder, in theſe countryes.De conſcientia. Cap. 27.4 Incuria illa idcirco neutiquam poteſt excuſari, quâ promiſcuè, & ſine diſermine, admittuntur quicunque, et a quibuſcunque offeruntur. Therefore that careleſnes can by no means be excuſed, whereby all, promiſcuouſly, and without difference, are admitted to baptiſme, by whomſoever they are preſented. And ſo much ſhall ſuffice for the examination of the twelfth Section, and for declaration of the grounds, whereupon I durſt not bind my ſelfe, by promiſe, or otherwiſe, to reſt in the judgment of thoſe p. 177five Miniſters, that is, to conforme to the cuſtom of this place in adminiſtring Baptiſme promiſcuouſly to all that are preſenſed, and by whomſoever.