Reply to a Book, Reply · Part 11
The Anſwer to the eleventh Section examined. Of the private conference had with me after my comming over.
IN this Section three things are to be conſidered. 1. his gird at Mr. Hook: 2. His partiall and defective report of a conference betweene us. 3. his pretended anſwer to ſome paſſages in my third wrighting. Theſe we will examine ſeverally and breifely.
For the firſt. 1. the great diſturbance, which here he ſeemeth to impute to Mr. Hook: is to be charged upon himſelfe, and his owne violent and unjuſt oppoſition againſt Mr. Hook: and the Church, and not at all to Mr. Hook: unles by accident, as Paul might be ſaid to be an occaſion of the diſturbance at Epheſus,Ast. 19.22. the cauſe whereof was Demetrius & his companions. 2. It would be knowne how I ſeemed to accord with him, and to diſlike Mr. Hook: opinions, in generall? If he meane, by my my ſilence, I confeſſe, I heard him ſpeake ſome things, at which I was ſilent, being not called to ſpeake. For himſelfe ſaid, that, in ſome of their differences, he would not inquire after my opinion, being perſwaded that I was therein cleare, And, in concluſion, pitched upon two queſtions. 1. Concerning the power and authority of C…ſſes, whereunto what I anſwered he knoweth. 2. Concerning promiſcuous adminiſtration of Baptiſme, according to the cuſtom of the Dutch Church in Amſterſtam, wherein what I held and doe hold ſhall appeare.
For the ſecond. By comparing this report with my noates of our conferences (which I wrote upon my returne to my lodging whileſt matters were freſh in memory) I finde it to be partiall and defective.
Firſt, partiall, in declaring the ſtate of the queſtion, which was not as he intimateth, but thus. After an hyſtoricall narration made by him of a difference betweene the Claſſis and Mr. Hook; about a cuſtom, which the Miniſters of the Dutch Church in Amſterdam have, of baptizing all that are brought by whomſoever, he aſked me what I thought of it. I deſired (for my ſatiſfaction) to know wh…t their cuſtom was, being then, in part, ignorant thereof. He told me, that they baptized all, refuſing none. I replyed, that I would baptize all their infants, who were members of his Church, refuſing none. He ſayd, that is not ſufficient. I, deſiring to carry matters with all poſſible peaceablenes, told him that I would not refuſe to baptize others alſo, which were no members of his Church, if I were ſatiſfyed cōcerning the Parents, and inſtanced in ſuch as might occaſionally be there from England, & were ſufficiently knowne to me. But yet the caſe might be ſuch, in ſome others, as I ſhould not adventure to doe it. He anſwered. But here they except none, but baptize all that are brought, though the parents be not knowne, or the infant be preſented, in the f…thers abſence, by perſons unknowne. I told him, that, I hoped, ſuch caſes were ſeldom, eſpecially in the Engliſh Church. He ſaid, it muſt be expected to fall out often. I told him, I ſhould deſire to be ſatiſfyed concerning the parents, before the child were preſented. He ſayd. They would often bring them, in ſermon time, without giving any notice before, and, in ſuch a caſe, to refuſe any, would give offence, if the child ſhould be unbaptized. I replyed, that offence may be prevented, ſeing thoſe, whom I dare not admit, may repayre to the Dutch Church, where none are refuſed. He added, that it would give offence to the Claſſis, if our Church …hould not doe as they did, in this. I anſwered, the difference betweene the ſmall Engliſh Church, & the vaſt Dutch Church in the ſame towne being conſidered, that might eaſily be anſwered.
By all which it appeareth that the thing which I refuſed (and whereupon our difference aroſe) was the promiſcuous adminiſtration of baptiſme to all that are preſented, by whomſoever; and not that J made the parents ſubmiſſion to my private examination a neceſſary condition of baptiſme, but only I propounded it as a prudent meane for avoyding that promiſcuous baptizing which he required. Thus the Reader may ſee the report to be partiall.
Secondly, it is defective, not mentioning diverſe paſſages of diſcourſe betweene us, which I will but point at. As about an order in the Claſſis, which he ſayd was for this, concerning which, what I demanded and, what he anſwered, I will, for this time, conceale, as alſo what he ſpake about this cuſtom being alwaies obſerved in that Church, as alſo about paſſages that, he ſayd, had bene betweene the Claſſis, and Mr. Forbes about Mr. Hooker, in reference to this queſtion. He omitteth alſo our diſcourſe about the caſe of an unbaptized Turke preſenting his child to baptiſme, with no other profeſſion then that which is required in theyre Church. And how he thought it to be more for a mans ſatiſfaction, to baptize all, upon the injunction of the Claſſis, then to refuſe any, upon his owne judgement. Other paſſages alſo I could name, but theſe may ſuffice, to ſhew that his memory hath not retayned particulars ſo well as my noates, at leaſt, that this report is defective. But let us conſider his Arguments.
The arguments for promiſcuous baptizing. 1 From Reaſons.He mentioneth 2 ſorts of arguments, which he uſed in that conference to convince me. The firſt conſiſted of reaſons, the ſecond of Scriptures alleadged againſt my opinion.
Firſt, the reaſons were two. 1. the ſcandall of the Browniſts. 2. the offence of the Church. In both which he ſhould have ſet downe my anſwers alſo, which ſeing he neglected, I will now ſet downe truely, according the to ſubſtance of my anſwer, and yet breifely.
1. The ſcandall of the BrowniſtsTo the firſt. I anſwer. 4 things. Anſ. 1 1. What the Browniſts hold, ſo farr as it accordeth with the rule, is to be received for the rules ſake, which is truth, and not to be rejected becauſe they hold it. Anſ. 2 2. Theyr unjuſt and unwarrantable excommunicating of Mr. S. for ſuch an opinion is not juſtifyed by my ſuppoſed agreement with them in this tenet. For a man that holdeth this, may condemne that. Anſ. 3 3. the difference betweene them and me in this point is ſuch (as the Anſwerer knoweth) that there is no feare of theyr inſulting, or being hardened thereby. 4. the French Churches and ſome other Dutch Churches, viz, in Zealand. and England &c. are not ſo large in this practiſe as they in Amſterdam.
To the ſecond. I anſwer. 1. That the wayes propounded by me for accommodation,2. The offence of the Church Anſ. Meanes: propounded for accommodation. A Copy of a wrighting ſhewing. were ſufficient (as I conceive) to prevent any offence of the Church. Theſe wayes I will now relate in the words wherein I wrote them to a freind to inable him to acquaint the Dutch preachers with the truth in this matter. This wrighting was dated & delivered by me, for the uſe aforeſaid, the 10 of Ian: newſtile, 1634. Wherein I ſpake of my ſelfe in the third perſon, for good reaſon, at that time.
Sir, becauſe you are willing to take paines for the accommodation of this difference, you ſhall, in few wordes, underſtand. 1. the true ſtate of the queſtion. 2. the reaſons of his anſwer. 3. the way of accommodation, which will beſt ſatiſfye him, which I leave with you in wrighting, for the helpe of your memory.
Firſt, the queſtion is,1. The ſtate of the queſtion. whether he will baptize all children who are preſented to the Church, though the parents be no members? His anſwer was, and is, that this cannot be anſwered otherwiſe then according to caſes. He may not ſay, that he will baptize none: and he dare not ſay, that he will baptize all, but this he ſayth. There are caſes where in he will baptize ſuch as are not members of this Church, and yet the caſes may be ſuch, as, in them, he ſhall refuſe to adminiſter it to others.
Secondly the reaſons of his anſwer,2. Reaſons of my anſwer. beſides others (which to him ſeeme weighty) in reference to this particular place, are two. 1. the promiſcuous mixture of all languages, and ſects, amongſt which alſo are many Libertines, which are of no Church, and, for aught is knowne, many parents, who themſelues never were baptized, will, in policy, preſent their children thereunto, 2. the cuſtom of this place, which hath bene to refuſe none, though preſented in the ſermon time (without notice given before) by a nurſe, or any one, neither of the parents appearing in it, or being knowne, or enquired after, nor any ſufficient aſſurance given for the education of the children, in that fayth, which is there profeſſed, and that confeſſion of fayth being expreſſed & demanded by the miniſter, in a language, which they that preſēt the child, ſome times vnderſtand not, & in this act boath the miniſters muſt joyne,
3. Three meanes of accommod…tion.Thirdly, for accommodation; He deſireth that, at leaſt, theſe three things may be agreed upon.
Firſt, That this Sacrament be adminiſtred by the miniſters ſeverally not joyntly (as the Lords ſupper is) either only by him that preacheth, or only by him that preacheth not, at that time, in theyr ſeverall courſes, reſpectively: whereby, the diſcovery of any differēce, in particular caſes, betweene them may be prevented, & mutuall concord betweene themſelves may be preſerved, boath being left free to walke according to their light, in ſuch particulars, wherein their opinions may differ.
Ob. Anſ."But this is not according to the order of the Dutch Church?
Nor will they expect, that we ſhould have no particular order different from them; ſeing they are conſtrained to take up ſome cuſtoms, by occaſion of theyre multitudes, which are not ſo neceſſary, or requiſite to be uſed in leſſer Congregations, ſuch as this is.
Secondly, That the party, who ſhall preſent the child, reſort to the Miniſter (into whoſe courſe it falleth to baptize▪) a day or two before, to the end that he may informe himſelfe concerning the parents &c. By which courſe, all publick diſturbance in the face of the Congregation, will be prevented.
Ob. It will be very difficult to make this courſe knowne to all, and to bring them to it?
Anſ. When ſuch an order is ſet, and made knowne, whether by publication in the Church, or by private ſuggeſtion, it will be ſoone underſtood of all, whom it concerneth, and yeelded unto. I require no more.
Thirdly, That they, who …e allowed by the Miniſter to preſent the child, ſhall be able to ſpeake, or, at leaſt, to underſtand the Engliſh tongue, that the Congregation be not deluded by a ſeeming profeſſion of fayth uttered by the Miniſter, and anſwered by the party, in ſuch forme of words as is dictated to him by ſome that ſtand by▪ but himſelfe underſtandeth not.
By this relation the Reader may ſee how eaſily the imagined inconveniences might have bene prevented, if the Anſwerer had bene willing thereunto.
Secondly, It is not true, that all the Church generally would tak… offenc… (as he ſayth) to ſee a double practiſe. For, at that time, all the Church generally deſired that ſome courſe might be agreed upon, for accommodation in this matter, and, to this day, they diſlike the Anſwerers ſtiffnes and averſnes thereunto. And what double practiſe could they ſee, in the way which I propou…ded for accommodation? Whereby how eaſily might all offence have bene prevented! But he would not. No, though ſome of the Dutch preachers wiſhed it might have bene ſo, and all, I am perſwaded, would have bene contented therewith.
Anſ. But another inconvenience he feared, which, in this place he concealeth, but then expreſſed to me, which was, that he ſhould be ſuſpected and cenſured as a man of evill conſcience, if he ſhould practiſe that which I refuſe, as unlawfull.
Whereunto I anſwer. That will not follow. Reply. For 1. two men may differ in practiſe, and yet be boath upright, whileſt they walke according to their light, not refuſing any meanes of information and conviction, if they erre, & maintaining brotherly love amongſt themſelves. 2. It might have bene ſo ordered, at firſt, if he would, that the difference betweene us might not be knowne to others. But this we ſhall ever find, that cauſeles jealouſyes, and ſelfe-aymes and reſpects are, and will be the hindrance and baine of any publick good. So much for the pretended reaſons.
Secondly. The Scriptures alleadged▪ he ſayth, were two, from whence he ſhewed, that when ſo great multitudes were at once baptized by Iohn Baptiſt. Mat. 3. Mark. 1. and by the Apoſtles Acts. 2. there could not be a ſtrict private examination of every particular perſon &c.
Anſ. To theſe Scripture inſtances I will anſwer ſeverally, as I then did.
Firſt …o the inſtance of Iohns Baptiſing. 1. The text ſayeth. They were baptiſed of Iohn in Iordan confeſſing theyr ſinnes. Whence it is manifeſt that Iohn was ſatiſfyed concerning theyre fitnes to be baptiſed, before he admitted them. And that is all that I require. 2. How will it appeare that ſo many were baptiſed of him at once? I rather am of opinion, that thoſe places doe contayne the ſtory of the wholl time of Iohns Miniſtry, ſo farr as concerneth his baptiſme, in which time multitudes might be baptiſed by him, and yet he ſufficiently informed concerning their fitnes to partake of it.
2. To Act. 2.Secondly, To the inſtance of 3000 ſoules baptiſed by Peter in on… …ay, I anſwered, that I deſire no better ſatiſfaction concerning men, in this caſe, then Peter had concerning thoſe 3000. ſoules. For. 1. Their very joyning to the Church, by publick profeſſion, in thoſe times of perſecution, was a better ſigne of fayth and repentance, then ſome publick confeſſion in words is now, in time of peace. For, then it was a reproach, now it is an honour to profeſſe Chriſtianity. 2. The text ſayeth. They were pricked in theyr hearts, Act. 2.37.and faid vntounto Peter, and to the reſt of the Apoſtles, Men and Brethren what ſhall we doe? Thereupon Peter preached unto them the doctrine of fayth, and repentance, and new obedience, and after this, obſerved what fruit the word brought forth, and accordingly diſpenſed the Sacrament. For the text fayth.Verſ. 41. Then they that gladly received his word were baptiſed. Where the particle [foreign, they] is diacriticall, and reſtrictive, and ſerveth, both to diſtinguiſh betweene them, and others, that did not ſo receive the word, and to limit the diſpenſation of baptiſme by the Apoſtles, at that time, to thoſe only.
Whereas he ſayth. By conference of other Scriptures, theyre confeſſion of their ſinnes, and profeſſion of fayth were rather to be conceived ſome ſolemne and publick teſtification of t…eyre conſent unto the doctrine that was preached unto them &c.
I anſwer. 1. he ſhould have ſet downe thoſe other Scriptures, which, being conferred with theſe, decl…re ſo much, that we might have underſtood his meaning. 2. I demand, whether that ſolemne and publick teſtification of their conſent unto the doctrine preached, did not give ſufficient ground to Iohn Baptiſt & Peter of perſwaſion that they had repented and did beleive. If ſo; I deſire no more. If not; how are the one ſort ſaid to confeſſe their ſinnes ſo, as to declare their repentance? For, ſo it muſt be underſtood, as appeareth. 1. In that Iohns baptiſme is called the baptiſme of repentance, for remiſſion of ſinnes. 2. In his diſcourſe with the publicans and ſouldiers that came to him to be baptiſed. 3. In that the Phariſes, and Lawyers are ſayd to reject the counſail of God, against themſelves, being not baptiſed of him. Againe. Elſe why are thoſe of the other ſort, whom Peter baptiſed ſaid to receive the word gladly, and to believe &c. Was there, in all this, no more then ſuch a teſtification of conſent unto the doctrine preached, as is made in the Dutch Church, in ſaying Yae, or nodding the head, when, it may be, they underſtand not one word that is ſpoken? Or had Peter and Iohn no other knowledge of the perſons, whom they baptiſed, then they have, who adminiſter it promiſcuouſly to all that are brought, by whomſoever, refuſing none?
Now, ſeing the Anſwerer uſed no other Arguments, in conference, then theſe, the wiſe hearted Reader, I thinck, will not wonder that by ſuch private conferences he prevayled nothing with me, in this point.
As for the third particular obſerveable in this Section, viz, his pretended anſwers to ſome paſſages in my third wrighting.
Firſt, About the report of my refuſing to diſpute or conferr about this point, when he deſired it, ſeing he denyeth that he ſo reported, and confeſſeth the contrary, I am ſatiſfyed.
Secondly, About his deſire of having the queſtion in wrighting diſcuſſed betweene us, ſeing J have ſayd ſome thing in anſwer to the third Section I wil ſay no more, but this, the motion was not aequall, nor did any propound it to me.
Thirdly, where as he ſayth, that he remembreth not that ever I propounded any Argument, in maintenance of myne opinion, the Reader may ſee how litle his memory is to be truſted in theſe reports, unles the profaning of Gods ordinance, and the incouragement of Libertines, be not unlawfull, which I ſhewed to be inſeperably joyned with this promiſcuous baptiſing.
Fourthly, Whereas he loadeth me with reproaches, for wrighting downe, when I came home to my lodging, the ſpeaches betweene us, without his knowledge, I am ſo farr from conceiving my ſelfe to be guilty of any fault therein, that I wiſh heartily he had taken the ſame courſe, and then, I hope, the Reader ſhould not have bene abuſed with ſo many miſreports, as now he is, by the fault of his memory. As for me; foreſeing to what iſſue things might come, and diſtruſting my memory, that I might be able to report the truth, I wrote downe paſſages, as I could remember, whileſt things were yet freſh in memory, and kept the wrighting, to this day, ſecret, having never ſhewen it to any man, nor have, at this time, related ſome things which, I thinck, the Anſwerer would be loath to heare of in print, and thoſe which he compelleth me to utter, I report ſparingly. Let the Godly Reader judge what offence I have committed herein, or what injury he hath done in ſuch expreſſions, as he uſeth upon this occaſion, yea, whether it be not plaine rayling.
Fifthly, He pretendeth that, in my firſt wrighting to the Claſſis, J offend, both in exceſſe, and in defect. This is a mere cavill: which will appeare, if all that he ſayth be granted, againſt which nevertheles▪ I have juſt exception. But be it, that his queſtion was, as he ſayth: What meaſure of knowledge I would, in my examination, require of parents for the baptiſing of their children. Yet 1. Was this the only queſtion? was not that queſtion, which is mentioned in my letter to the Claſſis, put by him? yea, was not that the principall queſtion? Elſe, it was not to the purpoſe. Was nothing elſe propounded by me to be conſidered, in this caſe, but ſuch a degree of knowledge? If ſo; why did I except againſt profeſſed Libertines, who may have more knowledge then ſome members of the Church?
As for my anſwer to it, that the meaſure of knowledg could not be declared, till the time of examining the perſons; Let the Reader judge, whether a more ſatiſfactory anſwer could be given to that queſtion, and whether it be from the point, about which his queſtion was.
Sixtly, His anſwer to what J wrote of my not ceaſing, till he gave over, of leaving it to the Dutch preachers, and of his ſaying, that he would ſpeake no more with me alone, is a plaine conceſſion that …ll I ſay concerning that is true. Only, he ſayth, he did not ſay it then, whereas the time, when he ſaid it, is not mentioned in my wrighting, wherein I ſay only that I ceaſed not, till he ſaid ſo, and againſt that he ſayth nothing.