Reply to a Book, Reply · Part 31

Reply to a Book · Reply · Part 31

p. 278The 40. Section examined,

IN this Section the Complainants ſhew themſelves aggreived for his pulpiting againſt me, in a reproachfull, uprayding manner, about the point in queſtion. Which they aggravate. 1. By his not ſatiſfying their expectation. 2. By my profeſſed diſagreement with the Anabaptiſts, and Browniſts in this point, with whom, he nevertheleſſe injuriouſly joyned me. 3. By his ſiniſter intent in thus falſely traducing me, viz, to juſtifye his keeping me out of the Church. 4. By the injury done to the Church hereby, in that they are deprived of me, whom they much deſired, and bewayle their want of me. Laſtly they ſhew the aequity of their complaining againſt the Anſwerer for this, by his labouring to worke the Miniſters of the Claſſis to further his purpoſe, telling them, that to tolerate me, in a different practiſe, would be a condemning of their owne practiſe, and that therefore, if they would give way to me, they muſt make an order to condemne their owne practiſe, or to that effect, This is their complaint. Let us now conſider his anſwer.

Hereunto he pretendeth ten anſwers; but they are ſuch as (to ſay no worſe) I marvayle he would print them.

p. 279His firſt anſwer is, that it is no reproach to call my aſſertion an errour, Reply.] But. 1. To call that an errour which he hath not proved, nor can prove to be an errour, is a reproach. Himſelfe ſayth it is no reproachfull uprayding of me, unleſſe they could convince him of errour for ſo ſpeaking, Enough hath bene ſaid in the twelfth Section, and more may be added hereafter to convince him, unleſſe he be of his mind who ſaid non perſuadebis etiamſi perſuaſeris, though you doe convince, yet I will not be convinced. 2. To ranck the party, whom he ſuppoſed to erre, with Anabaptiſts and Browniſts, when he profeſſeth, and is ready to declare that he differeth from them, is a reproachfull uprayding and injurious 3. To doe this in the pulpit, where the people expect nothing but words of truth, and paſſages tending to peace and aedification, and from whence a publick brand of reproach and diſgrace may be left upon a brother, was a more rude expreſſion, then the Complainants uſed concerning their thought that no godly man will be abſolutely bound to ſubſcribe to that wrighting. 4. It is a poore evaſion when he inſinuateth that I ſaid in effect Mr. Hook: was in errour, when I ſaid that I was not of his opinion in ſome points. For, to ſay ſo much onelyonly declareth that myne opinion differed from his, but not that he was in errour, ſeing that difference might ariſe from my not underſtanding him aright, not from his diſſenting from the truth. And it ſavoured of modeſty in me, that I would not charge him with errour, from whom I differed in opinion, which is farr from juſtifying, and ſerveth juſtly to reprove the reproachfull ſpeeches of the Anſwerer, as a ruder language.

His ſecond anſwer is, that he performed his promiſe, and ſaid enough, in that ſermon, to ſatiſfye their expectation by his Arguments, againſt myne opinion (as he calleth it) and, for proofe hereof, referreth his Reader to his noates which he wrote downe of purpoſe, and it is like, keepeth by him of purpoſe alſo. The iſſue of all is, the aſſertion of thoſe men is falſe and erronious, that complaine he avoyded the queſtion betweene us. The ſermon here ſpoken of, it ſeemeth, was preached when I was abſent, and, out p. 280of towne: therefore I can ſay nothing, upon myne owne knowledge, in this matter, but that the conſtant report, wherein all, whom I heard ſpeake of it, concurred, was, that what he ſaid was ſo farr from ſatiſfying them, that they did not conceive that he ſpake to the point in queſtion, but evaded it rather. And thoſe noates of his ſermon, which ſome of them tooke from his mouth, and ſhewed me, did apparently make good, in my apprehenſion, what they ſaid. But, if the Reader ſhall be pleaſed to examine his ſtating of the queſtion, in this very Section, and to compare it with the true ſtate ſet downe by me in the 12. Section, it will eaſily appeare that he did not deale againſt my opinion (as he calleth it) in every Argument, nor in any Argument as he ſhould. For the difference betweene him and me was about my refuſing to conforme to the cuſtom of the Dutch Church, in that place, in baptiſing all that are preſented, by whomſoever, though the parents were neither of them members of any Church, nor at all knowne unto us. Now he brought not one Argument to prove the lawfullnes of this cuſtom, or to convince me of ſinne for not binding my ſelfe, by ſubſcription, or promiſe to conforme to it.

His third anſwer is, that, upon his motion, I made an offer of ſhewing how farr I differed from the Browniſts, which I performed not, which he ſayth, if I had done, myne opinion muſt have fallen together with it.] But it is neither ſo, nor ſo. For, neither did I offer it, upon his motion, but upon myne owne motion, to vindicate my aſſertion from his calumnies, nor is there ſuch affinity betwixt their opinions and myne, in this matter, that, like twinnes, they muſt live and dye together. For, what I affirme will ſtand, upon other grounds and principles, then thoſe whereby their ſeparation is upheld. To wipe off this aſperſion I will ſhew that it is an injury, as to me, ſo to the truth alſo, in this particular, when it is affirmed that the errour of the Browniſts could not be refuted by me but that myne owne opinion muſt fall together, and that, like twinnes, they muſt live and dye together. For, I ſuppoſe, the errour of the Browniſts, which he meaneth, is, that ſeperation from the Church aſſemblies of England, in ſuch ſort as to have no ſpirituall Communion with them, is neceſſary. If ſo; I demand, p. 281how doeth this aſſertion of the lawfullnes of admitting onelyonly their infants to baptiſme, who are members of a true Church, neceſſarily argue ſuch ſeperation from true Churches (for defects and corruptions which are found in them) to be a bounden duety? If yea; let him demonſtrate. 1. How it ſtrengtheneth them in theyre refuſing private Religious Communion with good Chriſtians, becauſe they ſtand members of ſome pariſh-Church in England, which is one errour held by ſome of them, as he knoweth. 2, How it confirmeth them in refuſing to heare the word preached by any miniſters of any of thoſe Churches, which is another errour maintained by many of them alſo? 3. How it eſtabliſheth any man in refuſing any publick Religious communion with any true Church? If nay; let him acknowledge his ſlander. But, that the vanity and untrueth of this ſuggeſtion may be more evident, I will declare the truth, in this matter, by manifeſting, both myne owne judgment about the truenes of Churches, and the practiſe of the Seperatiſts themſelves.

1. Myne owne judgment and perſuaſion I will expreſſe in Dr. Ames his words thus.Second Manuduct p. 33. 34. So many pariſh aſſemblies of England as have any competent number of good Chriſtians in them united together for to worſhip God ordinarily in one ſociety, ſo many have eſſentiall and integrall forme of a viſible Church, and all they have intire right to Chriſt, and to all the meanes of injoying him: however they are defective in the purity of their combination, and in the compleate free excerciſing of their power. To prevent all miſtake, he declareth what he meaneth by eſſentiall and integrall forme thus. The eſſentiall forme of a viſible Church is the covenant of God, or true fayth made viſible by profeſſion; the noates and markes whereof are the word and Sacraments rightly adminiſtred, and received with fruits of obedience. The integrall conſtituting forme is that ſtate, relation, or reference which a Congregation of ſuch profeſſours have one to another by vertue of their ſetled combination, the noate or marke whereof is their uſuall aſſembling together into one place, and watching one over another. So that, however the defects and corruptions, in thoſe Churches, are to be witneſſed againſt, and howſoever it is the duety of Chriſtians to indeavour (as much as in them is) p. 282to procure the reformation of thoſe defects, and not to partake in the ſinnes of any Church. Eph. 5.11. and amongſt true Churches to make choyſe of thoſe, whereunto to joyne themſelves, which are moſt pure,Lib. 4. Caſ. Conſ. cap. 24. queſt. 2. ſo farr as they are able (as the ſame learned wrighter ſayth, elſewhere) yet to diſchurch them wholly, & to ſeperate from them, as no Churches of Chriſt, or to deny baptiſme to the infants of their knowne members is not warranted by any rule in the Scripture, that I know, nor juſtifyed by my aſſertion or practiſe.

2. The practiſe of the Seperatiſts themſelves ſheweth that this aſſertion doeth not ſtrengthen or countenance the errour of the Browniſts in matter of Seperation. For, they profeſſe to hold ſpirituall communion with other Churches, who doe extend the uſe of baptiſme to as great largenes as England doeth, and greater alſo (as I am able, with Gods aſſiſtance, to prove) though they freely witneſſe againſt it, as a diſorder in thoſe Churches, which alſo many Godly learned miniſters of theſe Countryes are ſo farr from juſtifying, that they confeſſe it to be unwarrantable, and wiſh it may be reformed. By all which it is manifeſt that there is no ſuch affinity betweene theſe opinions, that the errour of the Browniſts could not be refuted by me, but that mine owne opinion muſt fall together. As he untruely pretendeth.

3. Hereunto I will add, that in thus reaſoning the Anſwerer imprudētly armeth his oppoſites againſt himſelfe with his owne weapon.Polit. Eccleſ. lib. 1. Cap. 14. e… 13. Freſh Suite p. 207. Treat: of the neceſſ. of ſeperation. For this plea is taken up, 1. by the thoſe that plead for the Prelats, both of former times, whom Mr. Parker hath fitly anſwered, by clearing the ſeekers of Reformation from this imputation, and retorting it upon themſelves, and of latter times, whom Dr. Ames, in like manner, hath breifly and fitly anſwered. 2. by thoſe of the Seperation, for Mr. Canne, the Anſwerer knoweth, pretendeth, in his booke, to prove a neceſſity of ſeperation from the Church of England by the Non-conformiſts principles, and profeſſeth to oppoſe it eſpecially to Dr. Ames, onelyonly in the point of ſeperation. Whereby it appeareth that he accounteth him, and ſuch like, oppoſites, in that point, notwithſtanding their agreement in ſome truths. Concerning which booke I have many things to ſay, in Dr. Ames his defence, which if I p. 283ſhould here inſert, this tractate, which already much exceedeth the proportion, at firſt purpoſed by me, would ſwell to too great a volume. But I may well be ſilent at this time, ſeing others (as I heare) have undertaken it, and a more fit occaſion may be given hereafter, if it be thaught requiſite, but eſpecially ſeing he hath not anſwered Dr. Ames his ſecond manuduction at all, wherein he hath ſaid enough for the clearing of his judgment in this matter, nor indeed hath he taken away the force of that litle, which the Doctor ſaid in anſwer to the Rejoynder, though he expreſſed himſelfe, but in few lines, and as anſwering, on another occaſion, and not dealing profeſſedly againſt the Separation. All which might eaſily be demonſtrated, but, at this time, I purpoſe to abſtaine from by-controverſyes.

As for his objection, that I performed not that promiſe, though I had time enough, my anſwer is, that he, neither required it of me, nor incouraged me ſo to doe, by aſſuring me that the performance thereof would end the difference, Nor did it fall fitly in my way to ſpeake of this point, in any Argument which I handled in publick afterwards.

His fourth anſwer tendeth to a ſ…ighting of my labour of love in 6 moneths aſſiſtance of him, in a time of their extremity. It becommeth unthanckfull men thus to elevate that kindnes which they have not hearts to value, nor purpoſe to requite. For this purpoſe, he ſetteth 6 moneths, wherein that wrighting, as he ſayth, was given out by me, and 6 yeares reſiſtance, which, he ſayth, is procured by my oppoſition to the practiſe of the Dutch Church, and as much recompence, he ſayth, received by me for that, as ſome godly miniſters have in twiſe 6 moneths.

Reply. Concerning the wrighting I have ſpoken ſufficiently in the 2 and 22. Sections, and in other places, wherein I ſhewed how he compelled me to it, for declaration of the truth againſt his unjuſt reports, and how himſelfe, before he heard of any ſuch wrighting from me, had traduced me, in the darke, in a larger wrighting ſecretly ſent to his freind in N.

Concerning the ground of 6 yeares reſiſtance. Seing he compelled me thereunto, in defence of the truth, I cannot helpe it, nor am to be blamed for it, unleſſe it be a fault to beare witnes p. 284to the truth, when I am called thereunto.

Concerning the collection, which he, in too mercenary a phraſe, calleth a recompence for my labour, I anſwer. 1. I received none of it from him; though ſome other Engliſh preachers are put to that charge: ſo that, to him it was a kindnes. 2. I contracted not with him for any recompence to be made me from the Church, by his meanes; ſo that, in me it was a kindnes. 3. I received no gratification from the Churchſtock, as other Miniſters have done, by his procurement. So that the poore had no damage or hindrance thereby, as in ſome other caſes they have had, through his holding up theſe contentions. 4. The moſt of that which was given was from their purſes, whom he contentiouſly calleth my freinds. 5. What ever I received from them they know, I was no gayner by it, when the neceſſary charges of my diet are deducted, and the hire of an houſe, which, at their requeſt, I tooke, but never lived in, thorough his oppoſition againſt me, and for which I was conſtrayned to pay the wholl yeares rent. 6. As he made no allowance towards this recompence, ſo he propounded it not to others, by them to be conſidered, and when, by others, it was propounded to him, though he hindred it not (for that was not in his power) yet, when he ſaw that they purpoſed to expreſſe their love ſome what liberally, he tooke occaſion to caſt in diſcouraging ſpeeches againſt it, in a ſermon preached by him at that time, when I was abſent, as they, that heard him, told me. 7. Whereas I received that fruit of the love of ſome among them for my 6 moneths labours, in that place, the oppoſition, which the Anſwerer hath rayſed againſt me, hath put me to the charges of thriſe 6 moneths in theſe parts, by compelling me, for peace ſake to remove to ſome other place, where I might live quietly, though upon mine owne charges, whereas, in that place, it was offered me, by ſome of them, that the ordinary allowance, which the Dutch Miniſters receive, ſhould be given me, if I would live amongſt them though privatily. But I preferred peace before outward advantages, and departed thence, to my outward diſſadvantage, and loſſe, through his unquietnes.

His other anſwers which he pretendeth to make to the Complainants, p. 285but thorough them ſmiteth me, are already examined.

In his fifth anſwer he blameth them for falſe imaginations touching his thoughts & intents.] How juſt this reproofe is, his owne conſciēce knoweth: but he is very unfit to be a reprover of evill ſurmiſes, who is ſo abundantly culpable of the ſame evill in ſo many paſſages of this booke: yea, in the next immediatly precedent paſſage he expreſſed a falſe imaginatiō concerning my intentiō in preaching againſt Schyſming to thoſe that frequented the private excerciſe: wherin he dealt injuriouſly with thē, & me.

In his ſixth anſwer he would perſuade the Reader that the Church did not deſire me, after this difference, which is contrary to the profeſſions of perſons of all ſorts, except Th. All.

What he ſayth in the 7, 8, 9, & 10 anſwers hath bene examined before.

The laſt paſſage, in this Sect: concerneth the preaching and propheſying of Ia: Cr: and Tho. Flet. which is elſewhere alſo repeated. Whereunto I am contēt, at the importunity of one of them,P. 102. P. 106. See p. 30. 71. 82. 106. Aug. contr. Iul. Pelag. lib. 1. (viz Ia: Cr.) to ſay ſome thing. Wherefore, paſſing by his ſcornfull manner of naming them, which is very uſuall with him (though it better became Iuliā the Pelagian then the Anſwerer) I will onelyonly relate the anſwer which I received from him in wrighting, contracting it thus. 1. That he never read and applyed Scripture, at any meeting, out of his owne houſe. 2. That in his owne family, he remembreth not that ever there were, in any private Religious excerciſe, above 5 or 6 perſons, of other families, at one time. 3. That he hath not had ſuch meetings above 5 or 6 times, in 8 or 9 yeares. 4. That he remembreth not that any one hath bene at any ſuch duety in his family, theſe 4 or 5 yeares paſt, at leaſt, except ſome allowed miniſter were there preſent. 5. That when they did meet, he did not preach, but read the Anſwerers, or ſome others men labours. 6. That the Anſwerer never admoniſhed him of any fault herein privately, nor did he ever heare that it was diſliked, till the Anſwerer girded at ſuch meeting, in a ſermon, 3 or 4 yeares ſince. 7. That when he ſaw that the Anſwerer had wronged him in print, by an untrue report of theſe matters, he went to his houſe to convince him privatly thereof, but departed thence without ſatiſfaction. 8. That a few dayes after, as he heard, the Anſwerer ſaught for witneſſes, and found 2. (as it was ſayd) Ia. Cr. ſpake p. 286with them boath, and found the one very defective, and more againſt the Anſwerer then for him. The other ſaid that, about ſome 5 yeares ſince, he heard Ia. C. read in the bible, and ſome wrighting concerning it, but whether the Anſwerers ſermons or any other, he dare not ſay. But Ia. Cr. conſtantly affirmeth, that this witnes was never at his houſe at ſuch an excerciſe. If this be ſo, let the Reader judge whether this action deſerveth to be ſo cenſured, or publiſhed.

In the 41 Section I find my name but thriſe mentioned. That which he ſayth of me, in his fifth anſwer, is a direct contradiction to that which he ſaid of me in the 14 & 15 anſwers of the ſecond Sect. The other paſſages in this Sect. which concerne me are anſwered.

In the 42 Sect. he falleth againe into his old guilt of falſe imagination by miſjudging our intentions in a private faſt. Concerning which ill uſage of his J may take up the Pſalmiſts complaint.Pſal. 96.10.Ps 96:10 When I wept and chaſtned my ſoule with faſting, that was to my reproach.

His anſwers to Allegations of Scripture brought by me examined.

BEfore I ſearch into the particulars of his anſwer I have juſt cauſe to complaine that my Tenet, in this queſtion, is not propoſed but mangled, and counterfait, & that, though ſome prints & lineaments of it are repreſented, yet, not in their true decency and proportion: like certaine looking glaſſes, which repreſenting the viſage miſhapen, yet, after a ſort, praeſerve ſomething of the hue & complexion. Which will appeare by cōparing what is here ſaid by him with that which I then wrote to the Claſſis, which, becauſe it was large and in lattin, & a private wrighting, I forbeare now to publiſh, till further provocation. Whereby the learned may ſee, 1. What miſtakes were in the Tranſlation, as it was publiſhed, in that printed pamphlet, againſt which I proteſted in print. 2. That my intent in wrighting to the Claſſis, was, not to diſpute the point, but to declare paſſages betweene the Anſwerer and me, for the removeall of calumnies which had bene caſt abroad among thē. 3. That the 4. firſt Scriptures were alleadged, not to prove that no infants ſhould be baptiſed, whoſe parents are not members p. 287of that Church, but to ſhew, that they had no power to require any more of me then to performe the duetyes of the paſtorall office, to the members of that Church (whereunto I ſhould have relation) which I was ready to performe. So that my wrighting ſerved onelyonly to prevent that trouble, which I foreſaw would follow, if the Claſſis, to gratifye the Anſwerer, ſhould aſſume to themſelves an undue power of binding me to reſt in,Sect. 12. 13. 14. & conforme to that wrighting ſpoken of before. And that ſuch power is unjuſtly aſſumed by the Claſſis I prove thus.

That power which exceeds the bounds of Apoſtolicall authority is unduely aſſumed by any Claſſis.

But the power of binding a Paſtor to performe a duety of his paſtorall office unto thoſe who are not members of his Church exceedeth the bounds of Apoſtolicall authority.

Therefore the power of binding me to baptiſe thoſe that are no members of that Church, whereunto J ſhould be Paſtor, is unjuſtly aſſumed by the Claſſis.

Which propoſition will he deny? Not the firſt, unleſſe he will affirme that the Claſſes have a greater power over particular Churches then the Apoſtles had. Which, J thinck, he will not ſay, much leſſe goe about to prove. Will he deny the aſſumption? Thoſe 4 texts of Scripture were alleadged by me for the proofe of it.

To prevent all miſtakes, I pray the Reader to be informed that my intent, in alleadging theſe Scriptures, was onelyonly to advertiſe the Miniſters of the Claſſis that they have no authority to exact this of me, as a cōdition of my admittāce to that paſtorall charge (as my very words in that wrighting declare) not to ſhew the unlawfullnes of my baptiſing any that are not members of that particular Church: for I profeſſe, in expreſſe words after, that, in regard of the communion of particular Churches among themſelves, I neither did, nor doe refuſe to baptiſe their infants, who are not members of that Church: ſo that I may be ſatiſfyed that they are indeed Chriſtians. So that the queſtion is onelyonly, whether the Claſſis hath power to exact ſuch a thing of any miniſter to be admitted to a particular Church amongſt them, as a condition of his admittance? Jn this caſe, I might have put them upon ſhewing their warrant and commiſſion for their ſo doing (as I now doe require of the Anſwerer, when he ſhall defend his pretended anſwer, p. 288in his next booke) but, to make ſhort worke, I then produced the Apoſtles practiſe, whoſe commiſſion was larger then any Claſſis hath received, and ſhewed that they never aſſumed ſo much, which they would not have fayled to doe, in one place or other, the neceſſity of the Church, in thoſe times, ſo requiring, nor to have recorded it, for the inſtruction of poſterity, if they might have done it. To this end I noated three places of Scripture. Let us now conſider them, and his anſwer.

1. Text. Acts. 20.28. Wherein Paul charged the Elders of Epheſus to take heed unto themſelves, and to all the flock, over which the Holy Ghoſt had made them Overſeers. Where, he did not extend the excerciſing of their office farther then the Holy Ghoſt extē ded their relation. Let us examine his eight anſwers, which he giveth, rather by number then by weight.

His firſt anſwer is, ad hominem, to the man more then to the matter. For he ſayth. By what right Mr. D. himſelfe, being no member of this Church, did communicate with us in the Lords ſupper, by the ſome right may a Paſtor excerciſe his Miniſtry, in ſome acts of it, to thoſe who are no mrmbers of his Church.

Reply. This anſwer is nothing to the matter in queſtion, For, 1. the queſtion is not, what I may lawfully doe, but what the Claſsis may warrantably exact, in manner aforeſaid. For, ſome lawfull things are arbitrary, and in our liberty, and to be done ſometimes, and ſometimes omitted, as circumſtances and reſpects vary the caſe, and thoſe no man may impoſe as neceſſary. It had bene more to the purpoſe if he could have ſaid. By what right the Claſsis did compell him to adminiſter the Lords ſupper to unknowne perſons, that are no members of his Church, &c. by the ſame right they may compell me to baptiſe the infants of thoſe that are no members. 2. The caſes are not alike, betweene myne admittance to communicate at the Lords table, & the admittance of thoſe to baptiſme, concerning whom the queſtion is. For J conceive, that (beſides my relation elſe where, and the right which theſe Churches give to knowne paſſants, of being admitted to the communion, for a ſhort time) both himſelfe, and the wholl Church, acknowledged me for a member with them, for the time of my abode in that ſervice, which they teſtifyed by deſiring the helpe of my publick labours, and their chearfull admittance of me to that ordinance, during that time, without the leaſt ſcruple. Now, let the Reader p. 289judge, whether it be alike to receive a man ſo knowne, and acknowledged among themſelves as a member (for a time) to communion in the Lords ſupper, and the baptiſing of thoſe infants, whoſe parents are members, neither of that Church, nor of any other, for aught any man knoweth, being not at all knowne unto the Church.

His ſecond anſwer is, that the Apoſtle might have layed upon them a further duety, in ſome other place, though no more was required, in that place.

Reply 1. If he would have anſwered to the purpoſe, he ſhould have produced ſome other place, wherein the Apoſtle did ſo: but that he did not, becauſe he could not. 2. That Paul did not impoſe any ſuch injunction upon the Paſtors of Epheſus, at this time, being to leave them, nor afterwards in the Epiſtle which he wrote to them from Rome, nor at any other time (which the Scripture mentioneth, and it would have bene recorded, if it had bene done, being a matter of ſuch moment, & no where elſe in Scripture propounded) wherefore was it, but becauſe he received no ſuch command from the Lord? Which if he had done, it ſtood not with his faithfullnes,Act: 20.20. v. 27. who profeſſeth to keepe back nothing that was proffitable, and to declare all the Counſell of God, to conceale. 3. That, neither Paul, nor any of the Apoſtles could impoſe any ſuch injunctions upon Paſtors,The 5. booke of the Church. Chap. 27. p. 497. Cartw. 1. Repl. p. 43. I prove thus. Becauſe it had bene to confound the Apoſtolicall and Paſtorall office, & to bind men to breake the limits of their office, which had bene a violation of Gods order, as D. Feild and Mr. Cartwright ſhew, whom it concerneth the Anſwerer to anſwer in this point.

His third anſwer, he ſayth, is more particular, but, I ſay, it is no more to the purpoſe, then the former. He ſayth. The preaching of the word is a Miniſteriall act, which Miniſters are bound to performe to ſome without, when they invite Heathens, Turkes, or Iewes to heare them. Pro: 9.3.4.5. Mat. 28.19.20.

Reply. But, 1, what is all this to prove that the Claſſis hath the authority whereof the queſtion is? Bring it into a Syllogiſme, and ſee. 2. For the Aſſertion it ſelfe, though I grant that the preaching of the Goſpell by a Miniſter is an act of his miniſtry, p. 290yet,Prov: 9.2.3.4. Mat. 11.19. Dan: 12.3Matt 11:19 it is not ſo in every man. For one that is not one of wiſdoms maydens, by vertue of office, yet may be one of wiſdoms children, whom God may bleſſe in the excerciſe of the gifts and graces of his ſpirit to be an inſtrument of turning many to righteouſnes. And, for that other place in Mat. 28.19.20. I know not to what purpoſe it is alleadged, unleſſe to ſhew that the Claſſis may give ordinary Paſtors ſuch a commiſſion as Chriſt gave the Apoſtles, to goe and preach the Goſpell to all Nations. 3. To what end doeth he ſpeake of preaching the Goſpell to Heathens, Iewes, and Turkes, in this queſtion? Is it to intimate that Baptiſme may be as lawfully adminiſtred to the infants of ſuch, as the word is preached to their parents? Or, what other uſe ſerveth it to?

His fourth anſwer is, that the adminiſtration of the Sacraments, is alſo a duety of the miniſtry to be performed by a Paſtor to more then the members of his particular Congregation, &c.

Reply 1. Here againe I muſt continue and renew my complaint that the Anſwerer proveth not the power of the Claſſis in the particular in queſtion. 2. To admit thoſe that are knowne members of another Church to communion in the Sacraments, upon fitting occaſions, I hold lawfull, and doe profeſſe my readines to practiſe accordingly, but, is this any thing to thoſe who refuſe to joyne with any Church (concerning whom, and ſuch like the queſtion is) Is the adminiſtration of the Sacrament a duety of the miniſtry to be performed by any Paſtor to ſuch? If he ſay, yea; let him prove it. If nay; why then am I blamed for refuſing it?

His fifth anſwer is ill bottomed, upon a falſe ſuppoſition, that the practiſe of the Church at Antioch, in ſending to the Church of Ieruſalem, warranteth Claſſes to excerciſe ſuch authority over particular Churches as is now queſtioned.

Reply. 1. I ſay, it is ill bottomed. For, it will be hard for him to prove, 1, that meeting to be Claſſicall, which was but of 2 Churches conſulting upon an extraordinary occaſion in a difficult caſe. 2. That this meeting conſiſted of Miniſters onelyonly, ſeing the text ſayth that, at Antioch, they gathered the Church Act: 14.27. What was that? the multitude. Act: 15.30. and, at p. 291Ieruſalem, the Church, Apoſtles, and Elders are joyned together in receiving thoſe meſſengers. Where the Church againe ſignifyed the Multitude. v. 12. who are alſo called the wholl Church and brethren. v. 22. 23. 3. That thoſe that dwelt at Ieruſalem dealt in the caſe of thoſe at Antioch by way of Claſſicall juriſdiction and authority, ſeing Paul and Barnabas were ſent, who were not inferiour to the reſt of the Apoſtles, either in authority or in the infallible direction of the Holy Ghoſt, and they were ſent principally for the ſtopping of the mouths of thoſe Seducers, which pretended that they were ſent by the Apoſtles, as the Apoſtles intimate in their epiſtle to the Church at Antioch. Act. 15.24. 4. That the Claſſes have power to impoſe their decrees upon other Churches, that have no delegates with them, as the Apoſtles did at that time, upon all the Churches of the Gentiles. v. 23.28. Cap. 18.4. 2. As his anſwer is ill bottomed, ſo it is ill built, unleſſe he can prove that it is a part of every miniſters office to be excerciſed in governing the members of many other Congregations (as well as his one) combined in Claſſes, which he doeth not goe about to doe, nor will be able out of Scripture, where no ſuch property of a miniſter is expreſſed, either in the Acts, or Epiſtles of the Apoſtles. 3. As his anſwer is ill bottomed, and ill built, ſo is it ill added to prove the power of the Claſſes in the matter, concerning which the queſtion is, which it doeth not prove at all.

His ſixth anſwer, wherein he pretendeth to come nearer to the place Act. 20.28. (and ſo he had need to doe: for hitherto he hath gone farr enough from it) is, that the flock is attended by the labour of the Paſtor, that it may be increaſed, which is done by the labour of faithfull miniſters ſeeking to bring thoſe into the fold, which, at firſt, are no members of the Church.

Reply. 1. If all this were granted, yet it will not conclude the point in queſtion, as will appeare to him that ſhall frame it into a Syllogiſme. 2. It may be queſtioned whether this drawing into the fold be the paſtorall attendance there meant, though I doubt not that it is lawfull, and a duety, but it ſeemeth not to be intended in that charge left with the Paſtors of Epheſus. 1. Becauſe the worke of the Paſtor, qua talis, is to feed a p. 292flock already gathered,1 Cor. 14.2. Ioh. 4.39. Act. 8.4. with Ch: 11.19.20 21. Mat: 18.19. Iames. 5.19.20.1 Cor 14Acts 8:4Jas 5:19Jas 5:20 not to gather a flock, unleſſe by accident, God caſting in ſome to heare by a providence, as that unlearned man that came in amongſt them whileſt they were propheſying, or in ſome ſuch like way; though, I doubt not, it is a pious worke & a bounden duety for a Paſtor to labour the gayning of others. 2. Becauſe the labour of bringing in others into the fold hath bene undertaken by thoſe that were not Paſtors, with bleſſed ſucceſſe, the Lord giving this glory to his owne word made effectuall by his ſpirit, and not limiting it as a priviledge peculiar to any office in the Church. And therefore even thoſe out of office alſo are bound to labour in it.

His ſeaventh anſwer is that to aſſiſt a Church, that is deſtitute of their Paſtor, in convincing erronious perſon… judicially in the Church is a duety, and yet may be required of a neighbour miniſter. Therefore men may excerciſe ſome acts of their miniſtry towards ſuch as are no members of their Congregation.

Reply 1. Here againe ſomewhat is ſaid, but nothing to the point. For, will it follow that, becauſe a Miniſter may helpe a neighbour Church, in convincing thoſe that erre, that therefore the Claſſes have a right to exact of me, as a condition of my admittance to the paſtorall office, to baptiſe thoſe infants whoſe parents are not under my paſtorall charge? 2. Though it be true that it is required of a Paſtor to be able to convince erronious perſons, and that, when he doeth it, according to Chriſts order, it is a part of his paſtorall worke, yet, will it follow, that whereſoever he excerciſeth that ability, he doeth execute a part of his paſtorall office? If not, to what uſe ſerveth this diſcourſe?

His eighth anſwer is, that my profeſſion of my readines to baptiſe their infants, who are not members of this Church, if I may be ſatiſfyed that they have a right to it, by their memberſhip elſewhere, in regard of the communion among particular Churches, doeth plainly refute my ſelfe,

Reply. 1. The thing that I queſtion is the power of the Claſſis to bind me to ſuch a condition. 2. Suppoſe I had expreſly denyed them to have this power, as indeed, I doe, by conſequence, in the places of Scripture alleadged by me againſt it, p. 293how doeth this profeſsion plainely, or darkely, or at all refute that? He ſayth, diverſe wayes. 1. Then it is an errour to thinck that a Paſtor may not excerciſe his miniſtry, in ſome acts of it, toward thoſe who are no members of his Church. But I have already ſhewen that the queſtion betweene us is not whether I may lawfully baptiſe ſuch, but by what right the Claſsis can exact it of me, in the manner aforeſaid. How will he make good this inference? Becauſe it is not lawfull for the Claſsis to exact, it in that manner, therefore is it not lawfull to be done? Or, becauſe he erreth that holds it not lawfull to be done, therefore he erreth who holdeth that the Claſsis may not exact it, after that manner? 2. he ſayth, It is vayne to call in queſtion, whether they be Chriſtians who are members of a true Church. But, is not this a vayne anſwer? For, how ſhall I know them to be members of a true Church, who are otherwiſe altogether unknowne, without queſtioning with them about it? And as vayne is his third anſwer. For, therefore doe I require a precedent examination of the members of another Church, and not of the members of his Church; Becauſe my relation to that place would have made the members of that Church knowne to me, without ſuch examination, but not ſtrangers, who are altogether unknowne. 4. He ſayth, particular perſons, members of the Catholick or Ʋniverſall Church may alſo have their infants baptiſed, though not joyned to a particular viſible Church. Reply. 1. How doeth this ſerve to prove that J plainely refute my ſelfe? For, how can a man be ſaid to refute what he ſaid concerning the members of a particular Church, by ſaying nothing about the members of the Catholick Church? Doe men uſe to refute by ſilence, or by ſaying nothing? I wiſh he had ſo refuted the printed pamphlet for his owne credit, and peace, that men might have thought he could have ſaid ſomething, in his owne defence, more then, it now appeares, he can. 2. For the matter of his anſwer. When he ſhall anſwer me what he meaneth by the Catholick Church, whether it be a viſible or an inviſible Church, of which he ſpeaketh, & ſhall give a character or deſcription whereby a man that refuſeth to joyne with any particular viſible Church may be knowne to be a member of that viſible, or inviſible Catholick p. 294Church, then I ſhall have a fit occaſion to tell the reaſon of my mentioning onelyonly the Communion of particular Churches in this queſtion. 5. He ſayth, that I, having reſigned up my Paſtorall charge in London, and not now eſtabliſhed miniſter of any particular Congregation, doe yet, upon occaſion, preach for Mr Balmford, and Mr. Peters &c. he would know upon what ground I adminiſter the word to them.] Reply. 1. What ever the ground be, it will helpe him nothing at all to prove that I have refuted my ſelfe in what I ſaid concerning the power of the Claſsis, in this caſe. 2. Seeing I muſt give my account, take it in few words. I have preached for theſe men, upon the ſame ground, whereupon I preached for him, almoſt ſix moneths together, not by appoyntment of the Claſsis, nor by vertue of office among them, but, with the conſent and intreaty of ſuch as have authority to diſpoſe and governe ſuch actions, I have bene willing and ready to imploy my talents, and excerciſe my gifts for the good of many, according to the rule. 1. Pet. 4.10.11. Now I demand. wherein I have refuted my ſelfe?

To wind up all theſe extravagancies, like ſo many odd; and broken ends together, into one bottom. My demand to the Claſsis, in reference to their practiſe, was, by what right the Paſtor of a particular Church muſt be bound to performe a worke of his miniſtry to thoſe that are not members of his Church, ſeing the Apoſtles never exacted, required, or perſuaded it? To this queſtion the Anſwerer pretendeth to make eight anſweres, which muſt be thus expreſſed, or elſe they are not to the queſtion. 1. The Claſsis may exact this of any Miniſter, by the ſame right that Mr. D. had to come to the Sacrament in that Church whereof he was not a member. 2. By the ſame right, whereby the Apoſtles required as much, for aught we know, for we cannot find it written. 3. By the ſame right whereby Miniſters are bound to labour the converſion of thoſe without. 4. By the ſame right whereby Paſtors may adminiſter the Lords ſupper to the members of other Churches. 5. By the ſame right whereby the Church of Ieruſalem afforded helpe, in a difficult caſe, to the Church at Antioch being deſired ſo to doe. 6. By the ſame right whereby Paſtors muſt labour to increaſe p. 295their flock. 7. By the ſame right whereby miniſters may helpe a neighbour Church to convince erronious perſons. 8. Becauſe Mr. D. is willing to baptiſe thoſe infants, being brought to him, whoſe parents are, neither of them, members of any true Church. Is not this queſtion ſoundly anſwered?

Or, take my interrogation for a ſtrong deniall of their power to bind me to this condition of baptiſing thoſe who are not members of the Church committed to me, as indeed it was, in my intent. This deniall of their power he accounteth myne errour, and he goeth about to confute it by eight Arguments, which muſt be thus framed, to conclude the queſtion.

1. Arg. Mr. D. did communicate with us in the Lords ſupper, being no member of our Church. Therefore the Claſſis may bind a Paſtor to baptiſe thoſe that are not members of his Church. Reply. I deny the Argument.

2. Arg. Though the Apoſtle required no more of the Paſtors of Epheſus, but to feede their owne flock, yet he might lay ſome further duety upon them elſewhere. Therefore the Claſſis may bind a Paſtor to baptiſe thoſe that are not members of his Church. Reply. I deny the Argument.

3. Arg. Miniſters are bound to preach the word for the converſion of thoſe that are without. Therefore the Claſſis may bind a Paſtor to execute his miniſtry to thoſe that are not of his Church. Reply. I deny the Argument.

4. Arg. Paſtors muſt adminiſter the Sacraments of Baptiſme and the Lords ſupper in neighbour Churches that are deſtitute, being required thereunto. Therefore the Claſſis may bind a Paſtor to execute his miniſtry to thoſe that are not of his Church. Reply. I deny the Argument.

5. Arg. The Church at Ieruſalem helped the Church at Antioch, in a difficult queſtion. Therefore the Claſſis may bind a Paſtor to execute his miniſtry to thoſe that are not of his Church. Reply. I deny the Argument.

6. Arg: Paſtors attend their flock, by labouring to increaſe it, and to bring others into the fold. Therefore the Claſſis may bind a Paſtor to execute his miniſtry to thoſe that are not of his Church. Reply. I deny the Argument.

p. 2967. Arg. Miniſters being deſired, may lawfully aſsiſt neighbour Churches in convincing erronious perſons. Therefore the Claſſis may bind a Paſtor to execute his miniſtry to thoſe that are not of his Church. Reply. I deny the Argument.

8. Arg: Mr. Davenport is willing to baptiſe the infants that are brought, whoſe parents are members of any true Church. Therefore the Claſſis may bind a Paſtor to performe ſome worke of his miniſtry to thoſe that are not of his Church. Reply. I deny the Argument.

Againe, if I would multiply queſtions, which I am unwilling to doe, J could ſhew, in the ſame manner, how litle or nothing he hath ſaid to prove the very thing which he pretendeth to prove, to witt, that it is the duety of a Paſtor to diſcharge ſome worke of his miniſtry towards thoſe that are not of his flock & charge, by denying the Argument in every one of his proofes. But enough hath bene ſaid already, and my deſire is onelyonly to ſatiſfye all men concerning what I wrote to the Claſsis, being called and compelled thereunto.

2. The ſecond text is in Coll. 4.17. Say to Archippus, Take heed to the miniſtry which thou haſt received in the Lord, that thou fullfill it.

Anſ: The Anſwerer ſayth, the anſwer made to the former allegation may ſerve for anſwer of this.

Reply. It may ſo, even as fitly as for that, that is, not at all, as hath bene ſhewed in the examination of thoſe Anſwers, onelyonly one thing more we will add, from hence, to what hath bene ſaid. That as the Apoſtles tooke no ſuch power to themſelves, to bind miniſters to doe the worke of their miniſtry to thoſe who are not of their Church; So the Church alſo hath not power to require any more of them, and therefore the Claſsis cannot, who have no more power then is given them by the Churches in that combination.

Anſ. 1. Yet from hence alſo diverſe things are to be obſerved. 1. that, if the miniſtry aught to be fullfilled, then not to be lightly forſaken &c.

Reply. True: but if the Church give an orderly dimiſsion upon juſt cauſe (as it was in my caſe) the miniſtry is not lightly forſaken, but fullfilled, ſo farr as the Church did, or could reaſonably require it, and therein that text is ſatiſfyed.

p. 297Anſ: 2. If the miniſtry aught to be fullfilled, then are the miniſters to declare the wholl will and counſaile of God, ſo farr as it is revealed to them, for the good of Gods people. Act. 20.20.27.

Reply. True: Neither have I bene altogether wanting to the diſcharge of this duety in my meaſure, and in that manner as might be for the good of Gods people.

His third anſwer hath bene replyed unto in Sect. 20. and therefore to add more in this place, were but actum agere, loſt labour.

As the Anſwerer would have every godly Miniſter conſider whether it be not meete that each of theſe things ſhould be duely regarded of them: So I could add other conſiderations and obſervations which might be not unproffitable; yet, leaſt I ſhould ſeeme to render reproach for reproach, I will forbeare them, and ſpare him.

3. The third Text is in 1. Pet. 5.2. Feed the flock, foreign which is among you.

Anſ: The ſtrength of that objection, which is implyed in theſe words, hath bene already taken away in anſwer to the former allegations. Act. 20.28.

Reply. As in the former places, ſo in this, no more is required of Paſtors, by vertue of their office, then to feed that flock, to the tending whereof themſelves were deſigned by a ſingular appointment.

Anſ. 1. The ſimilitude taken from ſhepheards doeth not reſtrayne miniſters from excerciſing ſome acts of their miniſtry towards thoſe who are no members of their Church, ſeing ſhepheards, for the defence and benefit of their flocks, combine themſelves &c.

Reply. The combination of ſhepheards is a good embleme of a well ordered combination of diverſe miniſters. For, 1. it is in common caſes of danger to the flock, or for mutuall aſſiſtance in difficult caſes, as appeareth in thoſe inſtances alleadged by him. Gen. 29.7.8.9. Eſay. 31.4. Luke. 2.8. 2. it is for the good, and helpe, not for the hurt, & hindrance of the flock. 3. no one ſhepheard is ſtreightned in the diſcharge of any paſtorall duety to his flock, or bound to performe the office of a ſhepheard to any other flock, or ſheepe, then thoſe whereunto p. 298he is appoynted by the Lord and owner of the flock, from whom he receiveth his commiſſion. And, in ſuch a way of combination among miniſters, much good may redound to particular Churches, and to the Paſtors thereof.

Anſ. 2. The word tranſlated feeding doth alſo ſignifye to rule and governe: if this kind of feeding be reſtrained to one Congregation, then is the authority of Claſſes overthrowne, then is it unlawfull for aſſemblies of miniſters to give their voyces for the deciſion of controverſies in any Congregation but their owne, contrary to Ezek. 34.12.

Reply. To feed, in this place, is to governe, as becometh ſhepheards that are ſervants, Luke 22.27.Luke 22:27not as lords of the flock, which is there forbidden. verſ: 3. from the appearance whereof they are not free,Dr. Ames in 1. Pet. 5.3.1 Pet 5:3 1. that will have the Church, in any ſort, to depend upon their authority. 2. which preſcribe any thing as neceſſary to be done by Paſtor or people which is not drawne out of the Scripture. 3. who declare the will of God it ſelfe too imperiouſly, having no reſpect to their infirmity, with whom they have to doe. Now, ſuch a government doeth not overthrow any lawfull authority of Claſſes, much leſſe doeth it argue it to be unlawfull for aſſemblies of miniſters to give their voyces for the deciſion of controverſies, whereby the right ordering of particular Churches is not hindred, but furthered. Neither doeth that Scripture, alleadged by him, contradict any thing here ſpoken, nor indeed doeth he ſhew how it ſerveth for the purpoſe for which he produceth it.

Anſ. 3. If we conſider the perſons, to whom Peter wrote this Epiſtle, the elect ſtrangers diſperſed. 1. Pet. 1.1.2. and their manifold neceſſities, in thoſe times of perſecution; what an unreaſonable thing is it to imagine that the miniſters of thoſe Countryes might not excerciſe ſome act of their miniſtry for baptiſing of thoſe diſperſed ſtrangers? &c.

Reply. Seing the queſtion is onelyonly of the power of the Claſſis in binding a miniſter, according to the tenour of that wrighting of the five miniſters, and ſeing I acknowledge it to be lawfull, and profeſſe my readines, to baptiſe thoſe that are not members of this Church, if they are members of any true Church, I ſee not how this exception is of any validity againſt any thing ſaid by me, in that wrighting, unleſſe he will accuſe p. 299the Apoſtles of unreaſonablenes in not making ſome order for that Claſſicall authority which he fancyeth.

4. His fourth anſwer is of no uſe, in this queſtion, the premiſes being conſidered.

Another place of Scripture, Rom: 14.5.23. was alleadged by me to ſhew, that they might not warrantably bind me to the thing in queſtion, ſeing I could not doe it with perſuaſion of the lawfullnes of it, and feared that, in doing it, I ſhould ſinne againſt Chriſt.

Anſ: 1. The Apoſtle here ſpeakes of doubting about things indifferent, &c.

Reply. 1. If this thing be neceſſary to the calling and office of a miniſter, which is in queſtion, it had concerned them, or him to ſhew in what reſpect it is neceſſary, whether by any command of Chriſt, which could not be obeyed in the diſcharge of of the paſtorall office, without doing this, or as a meane neceſſarily conducing to the ends whereunto the paſtorall office ſerveth. 2. If the Apoſtle will not have men bound to the doing of things indifferent, concerning the lawfullnes whereof they are unperſuaded, much leſſe would he have them bound to that which they judge to be a ſinne, and they, who bind them thereunto, cannot declare to be lawfull, the one thincking it neceſſary to be avoyded, and the other (what ever they pretend to thinck) not being able to prove it neceſſary to be done.

Anſ: 2. The Apoſtle here ſpeakes of receiving men as brethren, not of receiving men into office. Rom. 14.3.

Reply. What will he inferr from thence? That men may be refuſed from an office, for refuſing to doe thoſe things which Chriſt hath not commanded, and concerning the lawfullnes whereof they doubt, as in the caſe queſtioned, or the like? It ſeemes he intendeth that: But then it lyeth upon him to prove it; elſe his aſſertion is delivered, too Dictatorlike, in a more maſterly then rationall way, without proofe.

Anſ: 3. The doubting and wavering in matters of Religion is very dangerous, and a great evill to be taken heed of.

Reply. Though I ſpake of doubting yet I tooke not the word in that ſtrict ſenſe, wherein it is uſed to expreſſe an haeſitancy p. 300betweene aſſent and diſſent, the mind inclining no more to one part then to the other, but, I modeſtly called it a doubt, that I might provoke them to ſatiſfye me with convincing Arguments: yet the Arguments, which perſuaded me of the unlawfullnes of it ſeemed to me not onelyonly praeponderant, but convincing, which the Reader may find in the 12 Section.

4. His fourth anſwer hath bene already examined, and found too light.

Other texts of Scripture I alleadged, to expreſſe whom I account to be Chriſtians, to witt, ſuch as anſwer that reaſon for which the name was at firſt given to thoſe that profeſſed to beleive in Antioch. Act. 11.21.26. and whom I account the children of Chriſtians, namely, thoſe, whoſe parents, at leaſt one of them, in externall profeſſion, are within the Covenant. Gen. 17.10. Faythfull. Rom. 4.11. Called. Act. 2.39. Herein the Anſwerer ſeemeth to agree with me, yet afterwards really differeth about the meanes, whereby that externall profeſſion is made, whence they may be denominated Chriſtians. I deny that the ſaying yae at the reading of the Liturgy of Baptiſme publickly, or the nodding of the head, or ſome other geſture uſed by perſons altogether unknowne, and that in ſuch a place as Amſterdam, to make ſhew of conſenting to that which is read (and it may be, they underſtand not) is ſufficient proofe of their being Chriſtians. He affirmeth it is. Let us ſee how he proveth it.

1. The baptiſing of Turkes, or Iewes, Mahometiſts, or Heathens, or Infidells, of what Nation or Sect ſoever, is not practiſed, nor allowed in the Dutch Church, and if any ſuch caſe, or apparent cauſe of ſcruple had fallen out, then, by the wrighting of the five miniſters, it was permitted to Mr. D. to have referred the baptiſme of ſuch infants to further deliberation, and judgment of the Elderſhip, or Claſſis. And therefore Mr. D. doeth unjuſtly call it promiſcuous baptiſing of all infants, without difference.

Reply. 1. I grant that the children of knowne Turkes, Iewes, &c. are not admitted to Baptiſme, upon the parents ſaying yea, or nodding the head &c. nor doe any people ſo groſly, throughout the Chriſtian world; yet nevertheleſſe I doe juſtly call their p. 301manner of adminiſtring this Sacrament, in that place, promiſcuous baptiſing, for theſe Reaſons. 1. Becauſe, they profeſſe to admit all that are brought: and who knoweth not that there are of all nations and Sects among them? 2. They take no courſe whereby it may appeare that they make a difference of perſons, either before the diſpenſing of the Sacrament, to know the parents, or in the time of adminiſtring, no other queſtions being put to unknowne ſtrangers, then are put to the knowne members of other Churches, or their owne. 3. That, which with them paſſeth for a profeſſion of Chriſtianity, may be done by any Turke, Iew, or Infidell among them: for even they may nodd their heads, or ſay yae, to they know not what, as well as others, if they have a mind ſo to doe. 4. Though the infants of knowne Iewes, or Infidells are not received, ſeing no care is taken to know who they are, that are preſented, before they be brought in publick, it may eaſily come to paſſe that a nurſe, or ſome other body (without the parents conſent, or knowledge) may bring ſuch infants (and their manner is to admit them, by whomſoever they are brought) and ſay yae, or nodd the head, in teſtimony of her conſent, out of a ſuperſtitious, and ignorant conceit, that, in ſo doing, ſhe hath made a Chriſtian 5. The Infants of many other perſons are admitted to baptiſme, who have no right to that ordinance, who are no Iewes, nor Turkes, of whom we have ſpoken in the 12 Section, in reſpect of whom alſo it may fitly be called promiſcuous baptiſing. 6. Whereas he ſayth, that, in a cauſe of apparent ſcruple I had liberty to take the adviſe of the Elderſhip, or Claſſis, about baptiſing, or refuſing thoſe that were brought. This doeth not at all ſalve the ſore. For. 1. it is too late to take adviſe, when I am put upon the action in publick, I being in the pulpit, as the manner is. 2. what cauſe of ſcruple can be apprehended to be in one ſtranger more then in an other, all being alike unknowne, and one and the ſame forme uſed to all, and all ſpeaking the ſame word yae, or uſing the ſame geſture, as nodding the head?

2. To prove that ſuch a teſtification of fayth and repentance, as that is, in queſtion, by ſaying yae, or ſome geſture of the body, is ſufficient for perſons, otherwiſe altogether unkowne, to procure p. 302the admiſſion of their infants to have the ſeale of baptiſme, he pretendeth to ſay ſomewhat which now we are to examine.

Firſt. To prove that the word Yea is ſufficient, he alleadgeth firſt, Mat: 5.37. Let your communication be yea, yea, and Mat: 9.28. where, when our Saviour Chriſt aſked the blind men, that came unto him for cure, Beleive yee that I am able to doe this? They ſaid unto him: Yea Lord. and Mat: 13.51. where our Saviour Chriſt, having opened diverſe parables unto them, aſked his Diſciples, Have yee vnderſtood all theſe things? They ſayd unto him: Yea Lord▪ and Ioh: 21.15. where Chriſt aſked Peter, loveſt thou me more then theſe? He ſayd unto him: Yea Lord, thou knowest that I love thee.

Reply. 1. I grant that the word, yea, in ordinary ſpeech, ſerveth to expreſſe conſent, 2. that it doth ſo many times alſo in matters of Religion. But what is this to the queſtion? The queſtion is not, whether men doe by ſuch an expreſſion teſtifye faith or repentance, but, whether ſuch a teſtification be ſufficient to cauſe men otherwiſe altogether unknowne, to be reputed in the covenant, ſo farr as to procure the admiſſion of their children to Baptiſme? The places alleadged by him ſerve not for proofe of it. For, 1. Let your communication be yea, Mat. 5.37.Matt 5:37yea, is a rule for prevention of unlawfull oathes, in ordinary diſcourſe, not for a tryall of mens being in Covenant. 2. when Chriſt aſked the blind men, that came unto him for cure.Mat. 9.28.Matt 9:28 Beleive yee that I am able to doe this? In them, yea, was a ſufficient anſwer in that caſe. 1. Becauſe it was joyned with ſuitable actions, as their following him, crying to him, and ſaying.Verſ. 27. Thou ſonne of David have mercy upon us. verſ. 27. Wherein they continued, following him into the houſe. 2. Which Chriſt accounted ſufficient, who knew what was in man, and witneſſed, that they did inwardly beleive, according to that profeſſion, in curing them, after he had ſaid, according to your faith be it unto you. verſ. 29.30.V. 29.30. To apply this. I grant that the word, yea, is ſufficient to teſtifye their being in Covenant, at the time of adminiſtring the Sacrament, who are ſufficiently knowne, by other tryalls, to have true faith; but, what is this to thoſe who are altogether unknowne? For the 3. Where our Saviour Chriſt, after he had opened diverſe parables, aſked the Diſciples. p. 303Have yee vnderſtood all theſe things? They ſaid vntounto him, Mat. 13.51.Matt 13:51yea Lord. Here is no ſpeech about their being in the Covenant. What is this to the matter in queſtion? For, it is not denyed, that by ſaying yea, men have teſtifyed their fayth, & ſufficiently, if their faith hath made it ſelfe otherwiſe knowne, as it did in the Diſciples, but it is denyed to be a ſufficient teſtification of faith in perſons who are otherwiſe altogether unknowne. The ſame anſwer may be given to that place in the fourth text, where, to Chriſt demanding, Peter loveſt thou me? Ioh. 21.15John 21:15Peter anſwered, yea, Lord, thou knoweſt that I love thee. And Chriſt did know it, by his weeping bitterly for his denyall of him, and by the inward impreſſion which he left upon Peters heart, by his divine power, when he looked upon him in the high Preiſts hall, and before. And ſo, to Chriſt it was ſufficient to ſay, yea Lord, and to referr himſelfe to his knowledge of him. But, will it thence follow, that it is ſufficient for us, if any one ſhall ſay ſo? Theſe are the places which he noateth, for the uſe of the word, yea, and the Reader may ſee, how litle to the purpoſe. The ſame anſwers may ſerve to his other texts concerning Amen, which are needleſly produced, and ſerve not at all to prove the thing in queſtion. As for his other proofes taken from ſhort expreſſions, as in making of Covenants, All that the Lord hath ſpoken, we will doe, or the like, I marvayled much that the Anſwerer alleadged thoſe which make wholly againſt him. For, 1. there is a great deale of binding force in this expreſſion, which is, in no ſort, anſwered by the word, yea. 2. it was made by a people whom God had choſen out, from all the world, to be his peculiar ones, upon experience of the admirable paſſages of his fatherly providence, and upon their acquaintance with his wayes, unto whom, the people, againſt whom I have excepted, are, in no ſenſe, to be compared. 3. If the proofe which himſelfe alleadgeth out of Ioſh. 24.15.16. &c. be well examined,Ioſh. 24.15.16.17 18.19.20 21.22.23 24.25.Josh 24:15Josh 24:16Josh 24:17 it will be found, that they not onelyonly underſtood the Covenant, whereunto they bound themſelves, in thoſe ſhort anſwers, but alſo, the Covenant was propounded, & their aſſent to it required, in another manner, & with more vehemency, then a mere once declaring of it, on Gods part, or one ſhort anſwer, on their part, ſeemeth to carry with it.

p. 304Secondly. To prove that nodding with the head, or ſome geſture of the body is a ſufficient teſtification of a mans being in the Covenant, ſo farr as to procure the admiſſion of his child to baptiſme, he ſearched out the uſe of the latine and greeke words, which ſerve to expreſſe that geſture, and are uſed to ſhew the conſent, or diſſent of the will in any matter. But, to what purpoſe I know not. For, it is not doubted that ſuch words and geſtures doe ſignifye the conſent of the will, nor that they are uſed in the worſhipping of God, nor that ſolemne covenants and profeſſions of ſpeciall perſons in the Church, are ſo expreſſed, as the ſtipulation of miniſters, Elders, and Deacons received into office, and the profeſſion of publick repentance before the Congregation, are accompliſhed with ſaying, yea, and ſome geſture of body. But, will all this prove the point in queſtion? Surely no. For, 1. the perſons, in the forenamed caſes, are members of the Church, or ſufficiently knowne to the Church, but theſe are, neither of that Church, nor of any other, or not knowne to be ſuch; otherwiſe thoſe expreſſions would not be judged ſufficient, in a doubtfull caſe. 2. they know and underſtand what is propounded to them, and whereunto they give ſuch a teſtification of aſſent, which many of thoſe, of whom the queſtion is, doe not. 3. the profeſſion, in thoſe caſes, is made by the partyes themſelves, but in this, by any nurſe, or other perſon, in the parents abſence, & yet thoſe alſo are as unknowne as the parents▪ yea, ſuch parents and ſureties are ſo farr from being knowne to be beleivers, that they are (many of them) notoriouſly knowne to live, as without God in the world, in all looſenes and profanenes.

In his third Anſwer he ſayeth, he cometh more particularly unto the places of Scripture alleadged by me. I wiſh he may be found to doe ſo, in the iſſue, that we may find ſome ground for fayth to reſt upon.

1. For the firſt text Acts. 11.21.26. It is not profeſſed by what words or ſignes they profeſſed their faith & converſion to God. How can it be proved from hence, that ſuch as ſaid, yea, and bowed their heads & bodies, in teſtimony of their approbation, and liking thereof, might not thereupon be admitted to baptiſme, and their infants?

Reply. 1. It is enough that they ſatiſfyed the Apoſtles, that p. 305they beleived and turned to the Lord, and that they did ſo in truth appeareth by the teſtimony which the Holy Ghoſt giveth them in that place. It matters not by what words, or ſignes, more or leſſe, it was done: but, had there bene no more done then ſaying yea, or nodding the head, by perſons otherwiſe altogether unknowne, it would not have ſatiſfyed. 1. Becauſe fayth and converſion to God doe appeare, where they are, in more, and better fruits, and evidences then thoſe, as himſelfe, I beleive, would manifeſt, if he were to handle that text. 2. Becauſe, more reverent and religious reſpect was had in thoſe times to the ſeales of the Covenant, then to pollute them by ſuch a promiſcuous diſpenſing them, as is uſed in Amſterdam.

2. But, what an unreaſonable demand is that? How can it be proved hence &c? For, 1. I deny that ſuch a ſaying of yea, can be proved, in the Apoſtles times, to be a ſufficient evidence of ones being a Chriſtian, and alleadge this place wherein Chriſtians had their name given them at the firſt, wherein I find no ſuch thing. The proofe lyeth upon him, who affirmeth it to be ſufficient, not upon me, who deny it. 2. The force of Negative Arguments from Scripture would be none at all, if ſuch anſwers were any thing worth. For, when, in arguing againſt popiſh deviſes, we bring them to the rule, where no ſuch thing is appoynted, or approved, by this evaſion they might eaſily ſeeme to anſwer any ſuch Argument. For inſtance, when, to ſhew the unlawfullnes of chreame, oyle, ſpittle, exorciſme, &c. in baptiſme, we bring them to the inſtitution, and to primitive patternes, where ſuch things were not appoynted, nor approved, how eaſily might they anſwer (as he doeth) how can it be proved from hence, that ſuch as uſed thoſe things, ſinned in ſo doing? 3. Suppoſe an Anabaptiſt ſhould put him to prove, from that text, that infants were baptiſed, or a Libertine ſhould put him to prove, from thence, that thoſe that were to be baptiſed were preſented in the Congregation, would not he thinck himſelfe unreaſonably dealt withall? To conclude, that place of Scripture ſufficiently proveth that for which it was alleadged, namely that beleiving and turning to the Lord, are the characters of Chriſtians, and that joyning with a true particular viſible p. 306Church, where it can be done, is an evidence of beleiving and turning to the Lord. For ſo I find them joyned in that Text. Act. 11.26. Let him prove all thoſe, whoſe infants are admitted to baptiſme, in that place, to be ſuch, as, in reſpect of externall profeſſion, may, in the judgment of reaſonable charity, be judged ſuch, and their ſaying yea, or nodding of the head, or bowing the body, ſhall make no difference betweene us.

2. For the ſecond text, Gen: 17.10. It can not be ſhewed, ſayth he, that more queſtions were propounded, in old times, to circumciſed parents, that brought their children to be circumciſed, then are now propounded to thoſe that bring their children to be baptiſed, or that circumciſion was denyed thoſe who ſhewed their conſent and willingnes to embrace the Covenant, in ſuch breife anſwers and geſtures, as we ſpeake of.

Reply. 1. The end for which that text was brought was to ſhew that none were circumciſed but the infants of thoſe that were in the Covenant. How they declared their embracing of the Covenant, if he demand, the Scripture elſewhere ſheweth, viz, by their joyning with the Church of God, in walking according to the lawes delivered unto their fathers by the miniſtry of Moſes. And this they declared more by their workes, in theyre ordinary converſation, then by words at Circumciſion. In which caſe, we will not much ſtand upon words, if the parties are joyned to any true Church, now under the Goſpell, as they were then to the Church of the Iewes, under the Law. 2. This anſwer is as a ſword, wherewith he woundeth his owne cauſe. For, he ſayth, they were circumciſed perſons, wbo brought their children to be circumciſed; and we know, that ſuch were of the Church of Jſraell. But many, for whoſe admittance he pleadeth, are children of ſuch parents as are of no Church, and ſome of them may be ſuch, for aught he knoweth, as never were baptiſed.

3. Text. Rom: 4.11. This Text was alleadged to ſhew that they muſt be beleivers, at leaſt one of them, in externall profeſſion, whoſe infants may be admitted to baptiſme, which is (as Circumciſion was) the ſeale of righteouſnes that is by fayth.

Againſt this he anſwereth nothing, and hereby doeth tacitly and implicitly confeſſe, that the ſeale properly, & by due right, p. 307may be adminiſtred to none but to beleivers, to whom the righteouſnes which is by fayth appertaineth, ſo farr as men may, by the judgment of charity, conceive and apprehend, from which, how farr they are, againſt whom we except, is obvious to him that will judge by a rule. Let us now conſider what he ſayth.

He ſayth, Abraham is there called the Father of them that beleive, whether they were members of a viſible Church or not. And, for aught we know, that were not of his family, nor under the government or guidance of any particular Church. If a ſonne, or bondman of Ephron, or of any Amorite, or Canaanite were then brought unto the knowledge of the true God, why might not the infant of ſuch an one have bene circumciſed, though not living in a viſible Church?

Reply. 1. All theſe words are beſides the matter: For, if all he ſayth were granted, yet it proveth not that all thoſe may be called beleivers (and ſo Chriſtians) whom they admitt to Baptiſme, which he ſhould have done, if he would have juſtified their cuſtom of baptiſing their infants (under the name of Chriſtians children) who can not be accounted beleivers, according to the ſenſe of this text. 2. His wholl anſwer is made of mere conjectures, which cannot eſtabliſh the conſcience of any man in a well grounded perſuaſion of the warrantablenes of that action, concerning the lawfullnes whereof it doubteth, that it may be done in faith. Which to me is a cleare evidence of his want of a rule to beare him out therein, which if he could have found, his expreſſions would not have bene ſo conjecturall, and uncertaine. 3. To the particular conjectures.

Firſt. Whereas he ſayth, that Abraham is the Father of the faithfull whether they were members of a viſible Church or not. That the vanity of his conjecture, in reference to the matter in queſtion, may appeare, we muſt cōſider the drift of the place, which is to confirme, what he had formerly ſaid concerning the ſpeciall univerſality, or community of the ſubject of juſtification, whereof he began to ſpeake in Chap. 3. v: 22. and afterwards proſecuted v: 29. ſhewing that one & the ſame God, is the God, both of the Iewes and of the Gentiles, and therefore doeth juſtifye them boath, one and the ſame way, to wit, by fayth, though the one be circumciſed, the other not: which he proveth by the example p. 308of Abraham, to whom faith was imputed for righteouſnes being uncircumciſed, and, when he was circumciſed, it was not that he might be juſtified by circumciſion, but that the righteouſnes, which he had by fayth being uncircumciſed, might be ſealed to him, by that ſigne. Now, in that Abraham was juſtifyed by fayth before he was circumciſed, hence he became the father of all thoſe that beleive, among the Gentiles, who are uncircumciſed: and, in that he was circumciſed afterwards, that the righteouſnes of fayth might be ſealed to him: hence he became the father of thoſe who beleived among the Iewes, and were circumciſed. Thence the concluſion followeth. Therefore, according to Abrahams example, righteouſnes is imputed to thoſe that beleive among the uncircumciſed Gentiles, as well as among the circumciſed Iewes. But, in what order cometh Abraham to be a father to the beleiving Iew? In what ſenſe is Abraham called their father? As he is an example of fayth. v: 12. and of righteouſnes imputed by fayth, in this 11. v. And they are called his children who are juſtifyed, according to his example, by beleiving. And theſe his children are of two ſorts. 1. Inviſible to men, but knowne to God onelyonly. Of theſe the queſtion is not. 2. Viſible to mē, in reſpect of outward profeſſion manifeſting their fayth. And, concerning theſe, if the queſtion be. In what order is he the father of a beleiving Iew, and he his child? It will be anſwered, he muſt profeſſe the fayth of Abraham, and teſtifye it, by being circumciſed. Now, none were circumciſed but thoſe who were joyned to the viſible Church of the Iewes. In like manner, if it be demanded. In what order is he viſibly the father of a beleiving Gentile, and he his child? The anſwer will be. He muſt receive baptiſme, a ſigne and ſeale of righteouſnes by fayth, which is come into the place of circumciſion: and this belongeth onelyonly to thoſe infants, whoſe parents teſtifye their fayth, by being joyned to ſome viſible Church among the Gentiles, as circumciſion belonged to thoſe onelyonly, whoſe parents were joyned to that viſible Church of the Iewes. So that, though Abraham may be a father (in ſome ſenſe) of many that beleive, who neither are joyned to any Church, or baptiſed; yet viſibly, and, (ſo farr as appeareth to men) he is not a father to ſuch, much p. 309leſſe to ſuch as regard not baptiſme, or refuſe, willfully, or careleſly neglect to be joyned to a particular viſible Church. For, of thoſe the queſtion is. So much of his firſt conjecture.

His ſecond conjecture he thus expreſſeth. For aught we can find, there might be ſome beleivers in Abrahams time, not of his family, nor under the government or guidance of any particular Church. Reply. To what uſe this conjecture ſerveth, I know not. It may be, there were, and, it may be, not. In ſuch caſes, a man may ſafely be ignorant of that, concerning which the Scripture is ſilent. But, ſuppoſe there were; what will he inferr thence? That they were circumciſed, though not of the Iewiſh Church. How will that follow? There may be many beleivers now, in ſome parts of the world, that are not yet baptiſed, and ſo there might be beleivers then, that were not circumciſed. If we ſpeake de poſſe, it will not be denyed. What then? Will he gather thence that they aught to be circumciſed, though they were not of Abrahams family, nor joyned with that Church? I deny it, for this reaſon. Circumciſion was a ſeale of the Covenant which God made with Abraham concerning Chriſt that ſhould come, as concerning the fleſh, of Iſaack, and ſo of Iacob, of whom were the 12 tribes, who were the Iſraelites, Rom: 9.4.5.to whom pertayned the Adoption, and the glory, and the Covenants, and the giving of the law, and the ſervice of God, and the promiſes: whoſe are the Fathers, and of whom, as concerning the fleſh, Chriſt came, as Paul ſheweth. So that, as in Abrahams time none were bound to be circumciſed, but thoſe that were of his family, as being borne there,Gen: 17.12.13. or bought, and ſo brought thither, which were not of his ſeed. So afterwards, none were bound to be circumciſed, which were not borne in the family of Iacob, and the Patriarchs, or joyned to them: and after their coming out of Aegipt, none were bound to be circumciſed, but the children of the Iewes, then the onelyonly Church of God, and thoſe that deſired to joyne unto them.

His third conjecture is to as litle purpoſe. If a ſonne of Ephron the Hittite, or of a Canaanite were brought to the knowledge of the true God, why might not the infant of ſuch an one be circumciſed, though not living in a viſible Church.

p. 310Reply. It concerneth him to ſhew & prove that he might. For I deny that Circumciſion, by Gods ordinance, belonged to any in Abrahams time, but to thoſe that joyned with his family, or after his time, to any but to thoſe that joyned with the onelyonly viſible Church, that then was in his poſterity, deſcending from Iſaack and Jacob, lineally; and this aſſertion I ground upon the inſtitution of Circumciſion expreſſed in Gen. 17. But, as any one then ſo joyning to that Church might be circumciſed, ſo now, they that profeſſe a right fayth, & teſtifye it by joyning with any Church ſo profeſſing may be baptiſed.

The 4. Text is Act. 2.39. which was alleadged to ſhew that they muſt be called; at leaſt one of them, whoſe infants may be admitted to Baptiſme, becauſe the promiſe belongeth onelyonly to ſuch, whereof baptiſme is the ſeale. And the context ſheweth that thoſe 3000 ſoules declared that they were called. 1. By theire being pricking in their hearts for crucifying Chriſt v. 37. 2. By their joyfull receiving the word that Peter ſpake to them, concerning repentance, baptiſme, the promiſe, and thoſe other words, wherein he exhorted them to ſave themſelves from that froward generation. verſ. 38.39.40. Which joyfull receiving of this word was declared by their joyning together into a Church communion, wherein they continued ſteadfaſtly, in the Apoſtles doctrine, and fellowſhip, and in breaking of bread, and prayers. verſ. 42. And to this Church the Lord added dayly ſuch as ſhould be ſaved. verſ. 47.

Now let us ſee what he ſayth to this Text. He granteth that the promiſe is made unto ſuch as are called. But concerning the characters of thoſe that are called, he ſeemeth too large in his judgment, for thus he ſayth. Who can ſhew that ſuch are not to be accounted outwardly called, and in ſome meaſure within the priviledge of the Covenant, who being themſelves already baptiſed, and withdrawing themſelves from other ſects and Churches, doe bring their infants unto the true Church to be baptiſed, being there alſo ready to make a publick profeſſion of their fayth before the wholl Congregation. Reply. That I may ſay no worſe, the anſwer is too ſlight, whether the ſubject of the queſtion be reſpected, or the words of the Text. For. 1, he ſuppoſeth that they are perſons already p. 311Baptiſed. But, ſay I, how ſhall that appeare in perſons unknowne, if there be not liberty of a praecedent examination? 2. He ſuppoſeth that they withdrew themſelves from other Sects. But, what advantageth it that a man withdraw him ſelfe from all Sects, when he joyneth himſelfe with no true Church? Is not he as farr from being juſtly accounted one that is called, who is of no Religion, as he that is of a falſe Religion? Who knoweth not, that in calling there are two termes, not onelyonly that from which men are called, namely the kingdom and power of darknes, Rom. 1.6 1. Cor. 1.2Rom 1:61 Cor 1:2but alſo that whereunto a man is called, namely the kingdom of Chriſt, which is viſibly ſet up in Church aſſemblies, whereunto when men have bene orderly joyned, they are ſaid to be called, Gal. 1.6. Coll. 3.15.Gal 1:6and to be called in one body: And ſo, how can a company of Atheiſts and Libertines, who reject all Church communion, be accounted perſons called, in this ſenſe? 3. He ſuppoſeth that thoſe perſons thus withdrawing themſelves from all ſects, bring their infants to the true Church to be baptiſed, whereas, 1. it is not required in their manner of adminiſtring baptiſme, that the parent preſent the infant, neyther, is the parent at all inquired after: it ſufficeth if any one preſent it, though parents and preſenters are alike unknowne. 2. They that bring the infant, doe it not with reſpect to the truenes of the Church, which they ſeldome underſtand, or regard, but becauſe baptiſme is there adminiſtred, and it is nearer the place where the child was borne, or for ſuch like reſpects. His 4 ſuppoſition is, that the perſons, who preſent their infants, are there alſo ready to make a publick profeſſion of their fayth before the wholl Congregation. Reply. 1. How can they be called their infants, who, neither are their parents, nor have the education of them, and who, it may be, ſhall ſcarſe ever ſee them againe after that time? 2. what profeſſion of faith is it to ſay yea, or to nodd the head at a few words, in the Liturgy, which they underſtand not many times, or regard not when they are uttered, it being done by perſons otherwiſe unknowne? It is a bad cauſe which muſt be pleaded for after this manner, when the Advocate flyeth from it, and in part hideth it, as a thing whereof he is aſhamed.

The 5. Text is, 1. Cor. 5.12. which was alleadged to ſhew that p. 312Church ordinances, (i. e. ordinances which are given to the Church) belong onelyonly to the members of ſome particular Church, which we apply to Baptiſme a pari, from the parity betweene it and another Church ordinance, namely the Church cenſures, whereof the Apoſtle ſpeaketh in that place, and limiteth onelyonly to thoſe that are within the Church, as belonging onelyonly to them, and not to thoſe without. Upon the ſame ground may I limit Baptiſme (which is another Church ordinance) to thoſe that are of a true Church and ſo within, excluding all others from it, as men, in that reſpect, without. And herein what can be denyed? will they deny that Baptiſme is an ordinance belonging to the Church? The Scripture is cleare for it. Rom. ….…. Pſal. 146.20.

Will they deny that Church ordinances are limited to thoſe that are in communion with the Church? Reaſon is againſt it, taken from the title that is given to the members of particular Churches, who are called Citizens with the Saints and, of Gods houſhold. Eph. 2.19.Eph 2:19Now the liberties of a city, or of a houſe, every man knoweth, are peculiar to thoſe who are incorporated into that city and family. What then? Will they deny that there is the ſame reaſon of the Sacraments and of the Cenſures? Let them ſhew the difference in reference to thoſe that are wholly without all Church relation. And, in the meane ſpace, let them conſider the ground whereupon the Apoſtle refuſeth to judge thoſe infidells of whom he ſpeaketh. He ſayth, it is becauſe they are without, thereby implying, that the reaſon why Church cenſures did not belong to them, was, becauſe they were not within the Church of Corinth, nor any other, by a viſible communion therewith. Now, if that reaſon be good againſt the unbeleiving Corinthians, why will it not ſerve againſt any others, that may be truely ſaid to be without, in the ſame reſpect, though not in the ſame degree. And, if the reaſon be ſufficient, in reſpect of that ordinance, why not of this alſo? ſeing this is as proper and peculiar to the Church as that, and in boath, the rule holds,Chriſoſt: lib. 3. de ſacerd. parium par eſt ratio. There is a like reaſon of things alike. And therefore Chriſoſtom, upon this ground, that Baptiſme is given to the Church, as the power of the keyes is, inferres that p. 313Baptiſme is to be adminiſtred onelyonly by the miniſters as the keyes of the Church are to be excerciſed & diſpenſed by them, and not by every one of the people. This I noate, onelyonly to ſhew how I draw my Argument from this place, for the Anſwerers ſatiſfaction, which he might eaſily have perceived, if he had had a mind to ſee it. For Mr. Cartwright ſaw it clearely,1 Reply. p. 34. to the 4. differ: Demonſt: of Diſc: p. 31. ob. 5. Caſ: Conſ: lib. 4. C. 24 qu: 1. R: 5. Dr. Feild of the Church. 1. booke 12. chap: Naz: panegyr: Bannes ſecund: ſecundae queſt: 1. art: 10. Gall: Confeſſ: Harm: Sect: 13. Art: 35. and uſed it to the ſame purpoſe. So did the Authour of the Demonſtration of Diſcipline, So did Dr. Ames ſhewing the neceſſity, for all Chriſtians, of joyning to a particular Church. And, that Baptiſme belongeth to thoſe onelyonly who are in externall communion with a true Church, is not ſo ſtrange a doctrine in the Churches, whether of former or of latter times: For, former times did not onelyonly deny baptiſme to thoſe that were infidells, but alſo to others that were not ſo farr without, even to beleivers, whileſt they were Catechumens; for theſe were not thought to be farr enough within, though they were in veſtibulo pietatis, and though they were meritô in Eccleſiâ, as the Schoolemen ſpeake, yet, becauſe they were not in it, numerô, that is, though they deſerved to be admitted, yet, becauſe they were not yet actually vnited with the Church, and numbred amongſt the members of it, they were not baptiſed. For latter times, that which we have ſhewen in the grant of Edw: 6. to Iohannes a Laſco, for the Churches of ſtrangers, in the 12 Section, is ſufficient. Whereunto may be added the Confeſſion of the French Church, in the Harmony of Confeſſions. But I haſten to examine his pretended anſwer to that which, he ſayth, is obſcurely objected from this place.

Three ſorts of perſons, he ſayth, may be ſaid to be without. 1. Thoſe that being members of a viſible Church, are without fayth. 2. Open infidells and heathen. 3. Thoſe who, not living under the diſcipline and government of ſome particular Church, doe yet make ſome profeſſion of the ſame Religion with the true viſible Churches, and bring their children unto them to be baptiſed, making ſolemne promiſe to bring vp their children in the fayth that is profeſſed in thoſe Churches. Theſe, he ſayth, in ſpeciall, are the perſons that in our queſtion, are without.]

Reply. 1. Seing himſelfe excludeth the two firſt from being comprehended in this queſtion, and limits it onelyonly to the laſt, p. 314I am content to let paſſe whatſoever I might have collected out of thoſe particulars. 2. For the third ſort I except againſt his implicite report of their practiſe, as imperfect and defective. For, 1. he intimateth that all, whoſe infants are baptiſed, make profeſſion of the ſame Religion with the true viſible Churches, 2. That they bring their children to be baptiſed. 3. That they ſolemnely promiſe to bring up their children in the fayth that is profeſſed in thoſe Churches, whereas, 1. many of them doe not know, what that Religion is, nor at all live according to the rules of it, nor are joyned to any of the Reformed Churches. And how can ſuch be ſaid to profeſſe the ſame Religion? 2. Many parents doe not bring their children to baptiſme, but ſome other body, as much unknowne to the Church as they are, bring the children, it may be with, it may be without the parents knowledge or conſent, for aught the Miniſter knoweth. 3. What promiſe doe they make that are abſent, or that underſtand not the language, or that are altogether ignorant of the fayth that is profeſſed in thoſe Churches?

2. I demand of him, in what ſenſe ſuch perſons may be ſaid to be of ſuch Churches, who, neyther live under the government of thoſe Churches, nor ſo much as heare the word at all amongſt them, for aught any man knoweth, nor are in any reſpect accounted amongſt the members of thoſe Churches, nor ſhould be received into viſible communion with them, if they ſhould offer themſelves thereunto, being neither able to give any account of their fayth, nor teſtimony of their good converſation.

3. Againe I demand, why he pretendeth that they baptiſe onelyonly ſuch as are there deſcribed, when he knoweth, that many are admitted by them which are not capable of that deſcription? Is it not becauſe he cannot plead for the admittance of ſuch, with any ſhew of Reaſon? If not; Let him produce his Arguments in defence of ſuch promiſcuous baptiſing, which yet he hath not done, or confeſſe that he hath done the Church, & me wrong in the oppoſition and ſtrife which he hath injuriouſly rayſed, to deprive me of that relation, whereunto I was called, for refuſing to doe that which he cannot prove to be lawfull. p. 315As for thoſe, who, he ſayth, though they are without (in reſpect of joyning with any Church) yet have more knowledge of the truth, and are more frequent in attending upon the publick…worſhip of God, and are otherwiſe more unblameable in their converſation, then ſome of thoſe that are members of the Church; his labour had bene to better purpoſe, if he had indeavored to convince them of the evill of this their neglect of joyning to ſome particular Church, that they might not reſt contented in their preſent condition, to the apparent hazard of their ſoules, that ſo they might, with good warrant from Gods order, have partaked of the ordinances, which are given to the Church, by vertue of their relation to, and communion with the Church, rather then thus to intereſt them in thoſe priviledges wherein they have no right to communicate, in that ſtate wherein they ſtand, without violation of Gods order, as hath bene formerly ſhewen, and may be hereafter more plentifully, upon further provocation. Though I had rather reſerve the full handling of that to a poſitive diſcourſe which may, in due time, be publiſhed.

For the preſent, I pray the Reader to underſtand that, in all the examination of theſe allegations of Scripture, the Anſwerer hath drawne us from the true queſtion betweene him and me, which was not about limiting of baptiſme to the members of a true Church, concerning which (whatſoever I intimated, in a word or two, in my wrighting to the Claſſis) neither the miniſters which were ſent by the Claſſis to ſpeake with me, nor the Anſwerer at any time, firſt or laſt, had any, the leaſt word of difference with me, but both they and he required my conformity to their cuſtom of baptiſing all that are brought, in manner aforeſaid. So that this was not, but the other alone was the queſtion betweene us. So that it lyeth wholly upon him to prove the lawfullnes of that promiſcuous adminiſtration of baptiſme, which is in uſe among them, and to convince me of ſinne for refuſing to conforme thereunto, which I expect that he performe, in his next booke, if he be able. But, if it be confeſſed to be evill, and the queſtion be…, how ſhall it be removed or cured, in ſuch a place as Amſterdam? I p. 316anſwer, diſorders are beſt cured by introducing and ſetling that order, in place of them, which appeareth to be moſt agreeable to Gods revealed will, and that is, that baptiſme be adminiſtred onelyonly to ſuch infants, whoſe parents, one of them, at leaſt, is a member of ſome particular viſible Church, and that Church priviledges be denyed to thoſe that refuſe Church-communion.

For that which againe he repeateth concerning me; it is but a colewort twiſe ſodd, and hath bene already anſwered, in examination of his deſcant upon the firſt proofe alleadged by me, Act. 20.28.