Mr. Doctor doth make of the holy Sacrament of baptisme which is an entry into the house of God and whereby the family of God must enter a common passage whereby he will have cleane and uncleane holy and profane as well those that are without the covenant as those that be with in it to passe by and so maketh the Church no houshold but an Jnne to receive whatsoever cometh I will answer If one of the parents be neither drunkard nor adulterer the child is holy by vertue of the covenant for one of the parents sake if they be boath yet not obstinate in their sinne whereby the Church hath proceeded to excommunication themselves being yet of the Church their child cannot nor aught not to be refused To the second question wherein he asketh what if the child be of papists or hereticks If boath be papists or condemned hereticks if so be J may distinguish papists from hereticks cut off from the Church their children can not be received because they are not in the covenant If either of them be faythfull I have answered before that the infant aught to be received To other questions wherein he asketh what if they erre in some points of matters of fayth If it be an errour and be not in those points that rase the foundations of fayth because they still notwithstanding that errour are to be accounted amongst the faythfull their children pertaine to the promise and therefore to the Sacrament of the promise Dr. W. p. 111. Else where he demandeth whether a wicked father may have a good child a papist or heretick father a beleiving child Yes verily may they sayth he So may have and have the Turckes and Jewes and yet their children are not to be received unles their fayth doth first appeare by confession But you say the papists and hereticks be baptised and so are not the Iewes and Turcks Their baptisme being cut off from the Church maketh them as much strangers unto it as was Ismael Esau which albeit they were circumcised yet being cast out of the Church they were no more to be accounted to be of the body of Gods people then those which never were in the Church The same authour in his next Reply to the same Doctor reasoning out of Beza in his epistles that the papists are to be compared with the Israelites with fell away from true Religion â—dem 2 Reply concerning Church discipl Tract 11 and not with the Idumaeans answereth This cannot help him unles he first shew that the infants of those Apostates were lawfully circumcised For if they were not circumcised by Gods order and constitution but rather at the lust and pleasure of those which being fallen away from the covenant ceased not to put to the seale as if they had bene still within the covenant it followeth that in this respect there is no more succour for the papists in such resemblance with such Israelits then when they are matched with the Ismaelites or Idumaeans Mr Cartwright his judgment is the more to be regarded in in this matter because what he wrote in those Replyes he wrote as a publick agent in the name and with the concurrent judgement of many worthy ministers who pleaded for the purity of Christs ordinances at that time So that it is not to be accounted his singular opinion but the judgement of many mâ—n of eminent noate Maister I del'Espine minister of the word in the Church of Anger 's upon a most dreadfull Apostasy Mr. I del'Espine Treat of Apostasy revolt of many from the profession of the truth in the Churches of Anjou on St. Bartholomeus day memorable for ever infamous for that bloody massacre wrote a learned and excellent treatise against those that persisted in their Apostasy wherein he proveth them to be deprived of God of Christ of the Spirit and of those meanes whereby they may come unto God that they have no fayth and are without the Church and that they are deprived of the Sacraments as well as of the word of baptisme as well as the supper of the Lord. For their baptisme no more serveth them for a token to testifye and declare them to be members of the Church from which they are seperated or that they pertayne any longer to the Father to the Sonne or to the Holy Ghoast whose house and dwelling place they have forsaken As if a Knight having received that order of the King and taken the accustomed oathes if afterwards he should depart from the troth which he had given in token whereof he should send him back his order to signifye to him that he would afterward be freed and released from his oath So the Apostates having given over the covenant of God have also by the same meanes forsaken the tokens and markes thereof c. Before all these Iohannes a Lasco Anno 1550. a learned noble man of Poland obtayned of Edw 6. K. of England of famous memory that the Churches of strangers in London principally of Germans might have the liberty of their Religion under the broad seale of England which was by that most pious Prince graciously granted not without the approbation of renowned Cranmer Archbishop of Canterbury and other eminently learned and godly men at that time What their care was to prevent the prophanation of this Sacrament by such a promiscuous admission of all as is practised in this place will appeare in his owne report which I doe translate from the latin copy thus Baptisme in our Church is administred in the publick assembly of the Church after the publick sermon For Iohn A. Lasco lib Forma ac Ritus tota eccles minist p. 117 seing Baptisme doth so belong to the wholl Church that none aught to be driven thence which is a member of the Church nor to be admitted to it which is not a member of it truely it is aequall that that should be performed publickly in the assembly of the wholl Church which beloÌ„geth to the wholl Church in common Forma ac Ritus administ Bapt. And Paul testifyeth that by Christs ordinance the Church it selfe without excepting any member of it is to be accounted cleane or holy by the Ministry of Baptisme Whence we may easily see that Baptisme doth neither belong to those who are altogether without the Church nor may be be denyed to any members of the Church Now seing our Churches are through Gods blessing so instituted by the Kings Matie that they may be as it were one parish of all strangers dispersed thorough the wholl city or one body corporated as it is called in the Kings grant and yet in the meane space all strangers doe not joyne themselves to our Churches yea there are many who whilest they turne from and flye all Churches will pretend to the English Churches that they are joyned with us and to us that they are joyned with the English Churches and so doe abuse both them and us we least
stand at the last day upon the earth c. The 40. Section examined IN this Section the Complainants shew themselves aggreived for his pulpiting against me in a reproachfull uprayding manner about the point in question Which they aggravate 1. By his not satisfying their expectation 2. By my professed disagreement with the Anabaptists and Brownists in this point with whom he neverthelesse injuriously joyned me 3. By his sinister intent in thus falsely traducing me viz to justifye his keeping me out of the Church 4. By the injury done to the Church hereby in that they are deprived of me whom they much desired and bewayle their want of me Lastly they shew the aequity of their complaining against the Answerer for this by his labouring to worke the Ministers of the Classis to further his purpose telling them that to tolerate me in a different practise would be a condemning of their owne practise and that therefore if they would give way to me they must make an order to condemne their owne practise or to that effect This is their complaint Let us now consider his answer Hereunto he pretendeth ten answers but they are such as to say no worse I marvayle he would print them His first answer is that it is no reproach to call my assertion an errour Reply But. 1. To call that an errour which he hath not proved nor can prove to be an errour is a reproach Himselfe sayth it is no reproachfull uprayding of me unlesse they could convince him of errour for so speaking Enough hath bene said in the twelfth Section and more may be added hereafter to convince him unlesse he be of his mind who said non persuadebis etiamsi persuaseris though you doe convince yet I will not be convinced 2. To ranck the party whom he supposed to erre with Anabaptists and Brownists when he professeth and is ready to declare that he differeth from them is a reproachfull uprayding and injurious 3. To doe this in the pulpit where the people expect nothing but words of truth and passages tending to peace and aedification and from whence a publick brand of reproach and disgrace may be left upon a brother was a more rude expression then the Complainants used concerning their thought that no godly man will be absolutely bound to subscribe to that wrighting 4. It is a poore evasion when he insinuateth that I said in effect Mr. Hook was in errour when I said that I was not of his opinion in some points For to say so much onely declareth that myne opinion differed from his but not that he was in errour seing that difference might arise from my not understanding him aright not from his dissenting from the truth And it savoured of modesty in me that I would not charge him with errour from whom I differed in opinion which is farr from justifying and serveth justly to reprove the reproachfull speeches of the Answerer as a ruder language His second answer is that he performed his promise and said enough in that sermon to satisfye their expectation by his Arguments against myne opinion as he calleth it and for proofe hereof referreth his Reader to his noates which he wrote downe of purpose and it is like keepeth by him of purpose also The issue of all is the assertion of those men is false and erronious that complaine he avoyded the question betweene us The sermon here spoken of it seemeth was preached when I was absent and out of towne therefore I can say nothing upon myne owne knowledge in this matter but that the constant report wherein all whom I heard speake of it concurred was that what he said was so farr from satisfying them that they did not conceive that he spake to the point in question but evaded it rather And those noates of his sermon which some of them tooke from his mouth and shewed me did apparently make good in my apprehension what they said But if the Reader shall be pleased to examine his stating of the question in this very Section and to compare it with the true state set downe by me in the 12. Section it will easily appeare that he did not deale against my opinion as he calleth it in every Argument nor in any Argument as he should For the difference betweene him and me was about my refusing to conforme to the custom of the Dutch Church in that place in baptising all that are presented by whomsoever though the parents were neither of them members of any Church nor at all knowne unto us Now he brought not one Argument to prove the lawfullnes of this custom or to convince me of sinne for not binding my selfe by subscription or promise to conforme to it His third answer is that upon his motion I made an offer of shewing how farr I differed from the Brownists which I performed not which he sayth if I had done myne opinion must have fallen together with it But it is neither so nor so For neither did I offer it upon his motion but upon myne owne motion to vindicate my assertion from his calumnies nor is there such affinity betwixt their opinions and myne in this matter that like twinnes they must live and dye together For what I affirme will stand upon other grounds and principles then those whereby their separation is upheld To wipe off this aspersion I will shew that it is an injury as to me so to the truth also in this particular when it is affirmed that the errour of the Brownists could not be refuted by me but that myne owne opinion must fall together and that like twinnes they must live and dye together For I suppose the errour of the Brownists which he meaneth is that seperation from the Church assemblies of England in such sort as to have no spirituall Communion with them is necessary If so I demand how doeth this assertion of the lawfullnes of admitting onely their infants to baptisme who are members of a true Church necessarily argue such seperation from true Churches for defects and corruptions which are found in them to be a bounden duety If yea let him demonstrate 1. How it strengtheneth them in they re refusing private Religious Communion with good Christians because they stand members of some parish-Church in England which is one errour held by some of them as he knoweth 2 How it confirmeth them in refusing to heare the word preached by any ministers of any of those Churches which is another errour maintained by many of them also 3. How it establisheth any man in refusing any publick Religious communion with any true Church If nay let him acknowledge his slander But that the vanity and untrueth of this suggestion may be more evident I will declare the truth in this matter by manifesting both myne owne judgment about the truenes of Churches and the practise of the Seperatists themselves 1. Myne owne judgment and persuasion I will expresse in Dr. Ames his words thus Second Manuduct p. 33. 34.
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 onely seing the text sayth that at Antioch they gathered the Church Act 14.27 What was that the multitude Act 15.30 and at Ierusalem 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 flock 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 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 personâ— 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 how 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
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 Church ordinances i. e. ordinances which are given to the Church belong onely 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 onely to those that are within the Church as belonging onely 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 Now 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 Baptisme is to be administred onely 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 onely 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 onely 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 onely 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 onely to the last I 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
a rich Diamond suspected of bastardy should be brought to the touchstone and admitted to a tryall so let trueth being suspected be examined and not condemned upon mere surmises Ans To the fifth that his refusing to give his voyce for the calling of some of these persons is not a depriving the Church of her power c. Reply First This answer is but a mere diversion of the Reader from the true question betweene the Answerer and the Complainants They complaine of him for rejecting and opposing those men whom with one consent the Church desired not of not giving his voyce for their calling nor of his declaring what he judgeth best for the Church nor of his bringing the matter to the Classis being simply considered but of his rejecting these men and opposing them so farr as to deprive the Church of them To this the Answerer answereth just nothing in his owne defense and to convince the Complainants of untrueth Secondly that which he acknowledgeth himselfe to haue done leaveth him under the guilt of that sinne which they charge upon him For 1 his opposing and rejecting of these men whom the Church desired was unjust seing they held no opinions which by warrant of the Scripture make them uncapable of being called to his Church 2. His manner of proceeding was disorderly in carrying the matter to the Classis before he had declared to the Church the aequity of his refusing these men by the Scriptures 3. Is a mere pretence that things were unjustly carryed and swayed against him in the Church or Consistory a sufficient ground of an appeale to the Classis as to an higher lawfull judicatory that so he may sway them according to his owne will without a rule or to other mens customs without a word If this be not to deprive the Church of their liberty and power in the free choyse of their Pastor let the Reader judge The wholl shall be resolved into a Syllogisme He that without just and sufficient cause opposed and hindered the calling of these persons instanced whom the Church desired sinned in so doing But the Answerer without just and sufficient cause opposed and hindered the calling of those persons whom the Church desired Therefore in so opposing he sinned Which proposition will he deny The first He cannot P. 22 Ans 8. Himselfe hath acknowledged it to be a sinne yea an heynous crime no lesse then Sacriledge Will he deny the second proposition or the Assumption He cannot For did not the Church desire these men It hath bene proved in Reply to his second answer in this Section If he say not all of them let him name which of them they did not desire which I belieue he cannot doe But if he could it will not helpe him For if it be true of 2 or of any one he is guilty of sinne by refusing them in the case propounded Will he deny that he opposed and hindred the calling of them Himselfe acknowledgeth it in the 3 and 4 answer of this Section and more at large expressely in the 6 answer in the reply whereunto the Reader shall find also that it was done without just and sufficient cause But that he may be more fully convinced of sinne herein thus I argue He that doth an injury sinneth But the Answerer in thus opposing these men doeth an injury Therefore the Answerer in so doing sinneth The Major or first proposition is cleare of it selfe Injuria est violatio juris 1. Ioh. 3.4 for every injury is a transgession of the Law The Assumption or second proposition is that the Answerer in thus opposing these men doeth an injury This I will prove by shewing that so to doe is against both the Law of nature and the positiue Law First It is against the law of Nature which consisteth of practicall principles which men know they ought to doe or to avoyd by the light of nature Amongst which this is one Whatsoever you would Mat. 7.12 Luke 6.31 that men should doe unto you doe ye even so to them Now I demand would the Answerer be upbrayded with errours and traduced as erronious before strangers before a publick Congregation before a Classis of Reverend Ministers yea before the wholl world in print and that by a brother famous for learning and ministeriall abilityes and that without proofe Would he thinck himselfe aequally dealt withall if another should oppose and reject him as unfit for a place whereunto he is called by the Church without sufficient cause If not let him reflect upon his owne actions and consider whether he be not guilty of an injury Lact in Epist C. 3. which an heathen man such as Alexander Severus would not willingly be guylty of Secondly the positiue Law or the law of God revealed in Scriptures is violated by it many wayes For it is a threefold injury viz against the men against the Church and against the Classis 1. It is an injury to the men whom he rejected whom he traduced to the Church and to the Classis and now in print as unfit for that place whereby he is guilty of detraction and slander which injury will appeare to be the greater if we consider 1 the qualityes and condition of the men whose names are mentioned 2. his manner of doing it viz not rashly but upon deliberation not sparingly but with odious intimations of eminent offences and errours not secretly but in publick and in print not truely but untruely and slanderously 3. the dangerous consequences and events of it For 1. the men thus reproached are exposed to the censure of all men 2. their enimyes have some pretence whereupon to justify their unjust opposing them and so are hardened in sinne 3. a blow and wound is given to the authority of their Ministry in the hearts of so many as ascribe any thing to his testimony against such men which may endanger the soules of many 2. It is an injury to the Church yea a threefold â—njury For 1 It is a deluding of them by pretending that he had just cause of opposing and rejecting those men when he had not 2. It is a defrauding of them of that power and liberty which Christ hath given them as himselfe confesseth in the free choyse of their Pastor under pretence of seeking the advise of the Classis himselfe calleth this sinne Sacriledge 3. It is a slander of them to say that matters are unjustly swayed against him in the Church or Consistory when they desire only such men as these are against whom himselfe hath alleadged no objection of weight sufficient to keepe them out Thirdly It is an injury to the Classis yea a threefold injury also 1. It is a disturbing them and distracting them from better imployments to attend needles quarells 2. It is a misinforming them both concerning these Ministers and his Church and Consistory whereby through too much credulity they are unjustly praejudiced against the innocent 3. It is a misingaging
the validity of my grounds against this custom may appeare I must crave leave to premise some things 1. Concerning the confused mixture of all sorts of people in Amsterdam 2. Concerning theyr manner of admitting those that are brought to baptisme 3. Concerning the manner of professing Christian Religion at the reading of the leitourgy of Baptisme For the First Besides those of diverse nations who joyne themselves to some appoved Church there are many of all sorts of Libertines in judgement and practise and profession who refuse to joyne themselves to any Church Also persons of diverse sects and haeresyes as Arrians Antitrinitarians c. besides Iewes Mores c. Also Apostates excommunicates c. Also vagrants Iob. 30.5 under the name of souldiers and others who are driven forth from among men as Iob speaketh They crye after them as after a theife V. 8. children of fooles yea children of base men viler then the earth and swarmes of vagabonds whom they call potters which how-soever they range most in troupes with their Harlots in the Dorpes yet they have their lurking places in tapp-houses in the cittyes called smuckle houses It were almost an infinite and impossible taske to reckon up others which can give no account of their life religion or baptisme it may be Also many who are unknowne and therefore may be suspected And these are of diverse nations English French Dutch High Germanes Walloones c. For the second Their manner is that if either the father or any one that standeth for him as a surety though it be but a nurse or other body who is unknowne to the Church who hath no charge or care for the childes education if they come time enough they certifye the Coster or Sexton of the name of the parents and their desire before if not as sometimes they bring them not till they are baptising others after the sermon is ended then without any further enquiry after the parents or after their consent to the baptising of it the child is admitted For the third If they say yae to such demāds as are made by the minister in reading the leitourgy of baptisme though as some times it appeareth and may be often suspected the presenter understand not what the minister demandeth or sayth for want of knowledge of the Dutch language or be altogether unkowne to the Church yet the child is baptised These things being premised I proceed to set downe my grounds from the Scripture whereupon I refused thus promiscuously to administer the Sacrament which are fowre and every one of them concludeth it to be a sinne so to doe Reas 1 Because it is a prophaning of the Sacrament thus promiscuously to administer it as that wrighting requireth That it is a prophaning of the Sacrament who can deny that acknowledgeth the Sacrament then to be prophaned when it is communicated to those to whom by Gods appointment it appertaineth not And that if the Sacrament be administred to all comers as that wrighting requireth it will be administred to many such he that denieth may as well deny that it is day with us when the Sunshineth in this hemispaere But that I may not be thought to broach some new and singular opinion let us considered what learned and eminent lights in the Churches in severall ages and countryes have declared concerning this matter whose judgements I purpose to cull and single out in such sort as becommeth one who would testifye declare the truth rather by the weight of the matter then by the number of men Whittak prelect de Sacram quest 2 de necessit Bapt Cap 3. Dr. Whittaker used this Argument against Bellarmine contending for the simple absolute necessity of Baptisme to Salvation For to prove that infants dying without Baptisme might be saved he shewed that the righteousnes of fayth belongeth to them before they are baptised out of Rom 4.11 Rom 4.11 P. 237. 238. where Circumcision so Baptisme is called a seale of the righteousnes which is by fayth and thence he inferreth that they must have a right to Christ before Baptisme else baptisme it selfe being administred to them will be profaned as the kings seale is profaned if it be put to a false charter or grant This he amplifyeth by shewing that baptisme is a symbol and seale of Adoption in Christ and therefore aught not to be given to those that have no part in Christ because the seale followeth the gift and therefore to give the seale to him that hath not the gift to whom the promise is not made is to abuse the seale and to profane it Thus he Beza cont Erast Arg 6. P. 60. Mat 7.6 1 Cor. 4.1 P 61. 1 Pet. 3. Beza wrighting against Erastus speaketh to the same purpose The Lord forbiddeth to give holy things to Doggs Mat 7.6 By holy things sayth he are meant those holy mysteries whereof the ministers of Christ are dispensers 1. Cor 4.1 and the swine and doggs are those obstinate sinners who are convicted and judged by the Church to be such Afterwards he putteth a case of one of yeares that desireth baptisme is ready to make profession of his fayth but leadeth a wicked life and being called upon according to the other demand in baptisme to professe his repentance and amendment of life by forsaking such and such evills as are there mentioned he refuseth to doe it Thereupon he asketh Erastus whether he thinck that the Sacrament of regeneration should be given to such a man impudently desiring it or whether he should not rather be repelled thence with shame Againe which cometh nearer to the case of infants shewing how litle the profession of fayth will advantage such who by reason of their obstinacy in sinne are convicted and judged by the Church to be swine and doggs and that their estate is the worse for their profession that they know God Titus 1.16 when in their workes they deny him he instanceth in Ismaell and Esau who were boath circumcised and outwardly acknowledged the true God with Abraham and Isaack yet boath were disinherited and made lively patternes both to that and succeeding ages of Ecclesiasticall excommunication c. Thus farr he From whence how easily may it be collected that infants are deprived of right to those holy mysteryes in such parents as the Ismaelites and Edomites were deprived of right to Circumcision in Ismael and Esau though their parents had bene circumcised Before boath these Mr. Cartwright declared the same thing more fully and particularly to the case in question Mr. Cart Reply to Dr. W in defence of the Adm p 137. upon the same ground For Dr. W. upon occasion of the sound fayth good behaviour of the parents required in the Admonition asking the authours of that booke What if the infant be the child of a Drunkard what if it be of a harlott shall not sayth he the infant be baptised Mr. Cartwright answereth thus Because I see that
Fris adscript thes 155. ad thes 168. See Robb Apol. Chap. 2. Idem ibid praeface p. 9. Fifthly Ignorant and superstitious persons are strengthened in a slight esteeme of Baptisme and an Idolizing of the Lords supper when they see that any without difference are admitted to that but care is taken that only those that are approved are admitted to this as if a fitnes were not as well required in him that would partake of the blood of Christ and of remission of sinnes by it in baptisme as in the Lords supper For the same remission of sinnes is alike propounded in them boath Sixthly To those of the Separation it giveth no small offence who for this cause complaine of the Dutch reformed Churches as neither so true to their owne grounds as they aught their practise being compared with their profession nor so well providing for the dignity of the thing whilest they administer the Sacrament of Baptisme to the infants of such as are not within the Covenant nor have either parent a member of any Church Though the more moderate of them doe professe that notwithstanding this they doe account them the true Churches of Christ and both professe and practise communion with them in the holy things of God what in them lyeth their sermons such of them frequent as understand the Dutch tongue and the Sacraments they doe administer to their knowne members if by occasion any of them be present with them c. Seventhly To diverse others who feare God heartily desire to see the ordinances of Christ established in their purity and beauty are unfeignedly greived that any blemish should be found in the reformed Churches and truely wish for the prosperity perfection of them have witnessed against this disorder in this place as Dr. A. Mr. F. Mr. H. Mr. B. Mr. R. amongst whom I being called thereunto doe not only reckon my unworthy selfe but also can number others not only English and French but even of the Dutch also who have ingenuously professed their dislike of it upon occasion of conference which I have had with some of them To winde up all in one bottome That which giveth offence to Iewes Papists Anabaptists Familists Libertines obstinate sinners ignorant and superstitious persons Seperatists and to diverse others that feare God is a sinne But to administer baptisme so promiscuously as that wrighting requireth giveth offence to all these Therefore to administer baptisme so promiscuously c. is a sinne Reason 3 The third Reason to prove it to be a sinne is because it is a building againe of that which these Churches according to the Scripture have destroyed This is an Argument ad hominem which I restraine to these Churches to shew the evill of this practise from their owne principles which it doth by consequence supplant and subvert at least in the judgment of many whether necessarily or probably and in what degree I will leave to their wisdom to consider contenting my selfe with a short proposall of some particulars which are considerable especially that ground being layed which the Apostle maketh use of in a like case Gal. 2.18 If I build againe the things that I have destroyed I make my selfe a transgressour First That baptisme is only a naked signe Soc in disp de Bapt Cap 5. fol. 75. or noate of Segregation from other sects and profession of true doctrine is an errour which these reformed Churches have destroyed by professing in theyr Confession Sim. Episc dis 29. Thes 8 Confess art 33 34 Catech quest 73. 74. and Catechisme that it is not only so but also a testimony to us and a symbol to assure us of remission of sinnes c. according to the Scripture (a) Mark 1.4 Acts 2.38 Cap. 16.30 31 32.33 Coll. 3.12 Ezek. 16.51.52 But this practise buildeth it againe whilest a naked profession of assent to the doctrine and discipline of this Church is held sufficient to warrant they re baptisme though it be made many times by such as are not knowne to have any right in the Covenant whereof baptisme is a seale or at all to pertaine to Christ but may be any of those who were spoken of in the first Argument for aught any man knoweth Hence some will collect that they doe not account Baptisme any more then a naked signe of profession And not only so but it justifyeth that errour as Israel justifyed Samaria by establishing a worse For this practise seemeth to make baptisme not so much as a profession of true doctrine or a noate of segregation from other sects whilest it is appoynted to be administred thus promiscuously in Amsterdam where people of so many sects inhabite to all infants that are presented though they make no other shew of profession then by saying yae or nodding the head when they understand not what is sayd to them being of a different language and are allogether unknowne to the minister and to the Church 2. Confess art 16.17 21 Catech. quest 20. 50 51 52 53 54 55 Synod Dort Art 2 Sect. 7 8. Secondly That the grace of Christ is universall wherein all have interest is an errour which these reformed Churches have destroyed restrayning it only to the Elect to beleivers to the Church of God according to the Scriptures (b) Psal 147 20. Mat. 11 25. 13 11 Act. 14.16 Rom 8.30 Mat. 1 21. Ioh 10 11 16. Cap 17 9 11 12 19 20. Act. 20 28. But this practise buildeth it up For if the seale appertaine to all why not the Covenant also Why not the grace And who will not suspect that the seale doth appertaine to all in theyr judgement whose practise is to administer it to those infants neither of whose parents are in the covenant so much as externally and it may be were never baptised or having bene baptised have by their infidelity and other sinnes obstinately persisted in being convicted thereof and cast out of the Church or by their willfull Apostasy and forsaking the Religion which they professed with themselves broken off their seed externally and actually from the communion of the Church and holy things thereof Jf they say their grandfather was a Christian or great grandfather I answer Where must we stopp at last If not in the next parents why in the grandfather or great grandfather till we come up as high as Noah himselfe And so neither the children of Jewes nor Turkes nor heathen or infidels should be denied baptisme Thirdly The absolute necessity of baptisme to salvation so that 3. Concil Trid Sess 7. cap. 2. Confess belg art 34. Gen. 17. not only those of yeares that refuse or contemne it are damned but even infants also perish aeternally through the want of it is an errour which these Churches have destroyed when they professe it to be of the same use to Christians whereof circumcision was to the Iewes who being borne in the covenant by their relation to their beleiving parents by
his call to a pastorall charge 2. Because the five Ministers propounded their private judgment nakedly without shewing their grounds from the Scripture so that they seemed to me to deale by their authority not by argument Now the mere authority that is the bare affirmation of godly and learned men is lesse to be regarded then their reasons and yet their reasons without the word are of no value in Divine matters For all men are lyars apt to be deceived and so to deceive impossibility of erring being proper to the Scriptures which therefore are only fit to be the Canon or rule for the ordering of Ministers concerning their wholl behaviour in the house of God 1. Tim. 3.14.15 Mat. 21.13 Mat. 12.3 Hence Christ and his Apostles 1. reproved disorders by Scripture so Christ did the profaning of the Temple 2 justified things well done by Scripture so Christ did the pulling of the eares of corne 3. resolved answered questions by Scripture so Christ did Mat. 19.4 Mat. 15.4 Mat. 22.29.32 Acts. 2.1.34 Act. 15. in the case of Divorce 4. confuted errours by Scriptures so Christ did the Pharisees and Sadduces 5. confirmed and proved Doctrines by Scriptures so Peter proved the resurrection and ascention of Christ c. 6. gave advice and made orders not by their owne authority but by the direction of the Holy Ghoast which immediate assistance seing we want light must be fetched from Scripture if we will guide others safely by our counsayle without which learned men may erre have erred and doe erre therefore their judgments must be tryed and judged by it and no further be rested in then they agree with it According to that of Ierom Quod ex Scripturâ non habet authoritatem câadem facilitate contemnitur quâ acceptatur Hieron in Math. 23. That which hath not authority from the Scripture is as easily despised as received Seaventh pretence It is the custom of these Churches which all 7. Pretence that are admitted by the Classis doe promise to observe This pretence the Answerer insinuateth in that which he sayd about the forme of Mr. B. calling Ans which was to minister the word and the dependances thereof according to the order of these Reformed Churches and especially with these which are combined with the Classis of Amsterdam Concerning that expression some thing more may be noated in the examination of the seventeenth Section and when we come to the eight and twentith Section For the present Reply we will oppose besides all considerations which have bene formerly alleadged or may be heareafter two things to this custom to prove that this cannot be the order of these Reformed Churches but must be only a disorder crept in and prevayling by mens ossitancie and sleepines which is Sathans best opportunity for the sowing of tares which I shall demonstrate thus First oppose the Confessions of the Reformed Churches to this custom Ham. Confess Sect. 13. and it will be found that they cannot stand together for when they described qui sunt baptisandi who are to be baptised speaking of infants they say they must be the children of persons that are in the Covenant (a) Helvet poster cap. 13. of the people of God (b) Helvet prior art 21. et Bohem c. 21. of holy parents (c) Gallic Art 35. of those to whom the promises belong (d) Belgic Art 34. who are inserted into the Church and only them (e) Saxon confess Art 13. the true children of Abraham (f) Suevit cap. 17. such as are in alike condition as they were who had right to Circumcision amongst the Iewes Now compare with this doctrine of the Reformed Churches the practise of that place as it hath bene declared and it will appeare that their owne Confessions plead against this custom And how can that be called the order of these Reformed Churches which agreeth not with the doctrine of these reformed Churches Secondly oppose the Canons of the Synods of these countryes to this custom and the thing will be manifested In a Synod held at Dort in the yeare 1578. Art 59. It was referred to the judgment of the Ministers and Elders whether there be any lawfull cause brought by any why the child to be baptised should be deferred from Baptisme and in Art 61. It was ordered that the fathers before they bring their children to baptisme shall goe to the Minister or an Elder that the Church may have notice of the partyes that are to be baptised And in Art 62. They are appoynted to acquaint the Minister what name they will give the child and to shew him how they will educate the child in that Religion In a Synod held at Middleborough in the yeare 1581. the 22. question It is demanded whether the parents of children doe goe first to the Minister or Elders and certify them that they desire to have their children baptised before to see whether they judge it meet to receive such witnesses or not In Art 75. It is questioned whether the Minister should be rebuked when he baptiseth children whose parents appoynt witnesses which stand not for religion Ans The parents shall be wonted as much as is possible that they first speake with the Ministers before they present their children to baptisme c. In a Synod held at Vtricht in the yeare 1590. Art 1. It is decreed that Baptisme is to be administred according to the ordinance of Christ without Godfathers to bind themselves only the father and mother to promise to trayne it up in the Religion Now compare the Canons of these Synods with the custom of that place and they will be found so farr to varye from it that it will appeare not to be the order of these reformed Churches but a disorder crept in as we have said before I will conclude this examination of pretences used in defence of this unwarrantable custom with the judicious censure of Dr. Ames who knew well the miscarriage of this disorder in these countryes De conscientia Cap. 27.4 Incuria illa idcirco neutiquam potest excusari quâ promiscuè sine disermine admittuntur quicunque et a quibuscunque offeruntur Therefore that carelesnes can by no means be excused whereby all promiscuously and without difference are admitted to baptisme by whomsoever they are presented And so much shall suffice for the examination of the twelfth Section and for declaration of the grounds whereupon I durst not bind my selfe by promise or otherwise to rest in the judgment of those five Ministers that is to conforme to the custom of this place in administring Baptisme promiscuously to all that are presensed and by whomsoever The Answer to the 13. Section examined Of the order agreed upon in the Consistory THat which here he calleth an order will upon examination be found very farr from accommodating me I will wright it downe as I received it from the Elders out of the noate which I have in
the setling of any Minister in any Church before they had examined his cause or heard what he could say in his owne defence as they did in Mr. H. case or to deprive the Church of a man whom they desired only because he refused to baptise all that are presented by whomsoever though they were neither members of that Church nor otherwise knowne and that in Amsterdam as they did in my case Or to proceed against men so farr that abhorr all haeresy and schysme From the Scriptures they have no such power nor from the Churches nor from the Synods nor from the fundamentall lawes of their owne constitution Whence then The answerer opposeth men upon needlesse jealousyes and then craveth the helpe of the Classis to keepe them out they conceiving it to be their part to defend the ministers interpose strenuously ab that I could say justly and orderly and judge that such men are not fit to be setled in that Church Hereupon the members complaine that he giveth and they receive an undue power in this particular Where is now the double slander will he deny the fact It is too evident Will he deny it to be unduely done The very forme of subscription required by the Classis it selfe will witnes against him which excludeth not any man from the Ministry in these Churches for that cause And can they duely and justly require that of the preacher of the English Church which is not required of any Dutch Minister by the orders of the Classis it selfe But the Answerer gave them not this power The power which the Ministers of the Classis have is not of my gift sayth he they had that power which they excercise before I wae The question is not of the power which they have in generall but of a power which they excercise in some particular viz in that whereof they complaine And herein they doe not complaine of his approving their due power but of his giving them an undue power depriving them of men whom they desired without sufficient cause This power they tooke not to themselves till they were called upon to interpose for the prevention of some imagined danger in the English Church Who suggested those jealousyes Did not the Answerer Who importuned them to wright what they did in the cases here mentioned Did not the Answerer Who bound the Church to rest in the wrightings of those Ministers in these cases Who but the Answerer Let the Scripture be searched and the text shewen wherein the word hath given them this power to hinder the Church from chusing a Minister otherwise free from all exception onely for such causes Let the Synods be examined Js there one Canon in them all to warrant their excercising such a power Will the English Church acknowledge that they have given the Classis this power If the Scriptures the Synods the Church gave it not them if themselves saught it not tooke it not till it was given them it must needs be that the Answerer gave it them By what right either he gave it or they received it I inquire not let them agree about that betweene themselves or rather let them in simplicity and truth satisfye first their owne consciences then the Complainants In his third answer he chargeth Mr. Hook and me with schysme It was requisite he should doe so else he knew that the Classis and he must beare the blame of usurping and excercising an undue power to the wronging of the Church Let us see how he proveth it First In Mr. Hooker whom he chargeth with fowre opinions which tended to schysme as he sayth 1. The two first concerne the Brownists as 1. his opinion that they might lawfully be received for members of that Church 2. that in some cases the members of this Church might heare at their assemblyes To helpe the Reader to a right understanding of this cause till Mr. H. shall thinck it fit to speake for himselfe I will shew 3. things 1. That Mr. H. did not approve of the Brownists judgment in the point of Seperation for in expresse words he answereth to the first question To seperate from the faithfull assemblies and Churches in England as no Churches is an errour in judgment and sinne in practise held and maintayned by the Brownists And therefore to communicate with them either in this their opinion or practise is sinfull and utterly unlawfull 2. That he delivered his judgement herein with considerable cautions as 1. that men should renounce their opinion and practise 2. that care be taken to prevent offence either by incouraging them in their way or by drawing ours to a further approbation of that way then is meet 3. that whatsoever moderation he allowed in this case was to be understood 1. according to the former caution and interpretation and 2. upon supposition 1. that they erred in this point not obstinately but for want of light and conviction as appeareth in his answer to the second question 2. that the person thus opinionated is in his judgment and life otherwise altogether unblameable such an one as in the judgment of reasonable charity may be counted a member of Christ so a Saint 1 Cor. 1.2 3. That the judging a man unfit to be received a mēber for an erronious opinion in such a kind is to confirme the Brownists in that unsupportable and absurd censure which now they maintayne touching those that hold the Churches in England true Churches professe they will occasionally communicate therein as appeareth in his answer to the third question These things being duely weighed I leave it to the judgment of the indifferent Reader whether a man allowing such men to be received members with that Church or others differing frō them in judgement and practise about Seperation to heare with them occasionally and extra casum scandali without offence and expressing himselfe in these points with such interpretations cautions and suppositions may justly be charged with schysme 3. The third opinion which he held and the Answerer sayth tended to schysme was that private men might preach and expound the Scripture c. In the 17. question propounded to him by the Answerer he expresseth his judgment by a distinction of a double ground from which this may be done viz either ex officio or ex dono i. e. by vertue of an office and this no man may doe without a calling thereunto from the Church or from the gift that Christ doeth dispense to severall members according to their measure the place they hold in the body and that thus any Christian may privately doe as opportunity expediency serve he holdeth and therein professeth his agreement with Dr. Ames in the 14. Booke of cases of consc cap. 25. who proveth it both by Scripture and reason And will any man say that this is an opinion or practise of Schysme 4. The fourth opinion which he held and for which the Answerer accuseth him of schysme is that Churches
power in her owne matters which the law of God and the Synodall canons of these lands acknowledge to be due to her in things of this nature as it hath bene formerly declared And therefore he need not scoffingly aske of these Complainants for their warrant or evidence that he destroyeth the power of the Church Those spoken of in Sect. 27. have given it Ioh. 12.7 if he will give the dayes leave to speake and the multitude of yeares to teach wisdom 2. His second answer accuseth them of folly and that order in the Church which they plead for according to the ordinance of Christ as a bondage servitude burthen oppression c. Reply They complaine that when he can not have his will unjustly satisfyed in the Consistory he violently without their consent bringeth matters thence into the Classis Jf this complaint be just it is not slight His carriage in late differences maketh it suspicious that the roote of the matter is in him For let the ground of these troubles be considered and it will be found that the thing for which he contendeth is not necessary either as a meane for Gods glory and the Churches aedification or as commanded of God nor is it injoyned in any Canon of these Belgick Nationall Synods nor is it expresly and particularly required by any Classis of any Dutch Ministers in their admission So that it is not difficult to determine from what distempered principle these disordered motions have arisen and who is to be accounted burthened in this respect As for the folly which he chargeth upon the Complainants that pretending to stand for the liberty of the Church they seeke to bring themselves into bondage the question is whether is the way of liberty or bondage to the Church That which Christ hath appointed or that which men without Christs warrant have devised If the way of Christ is the way of liberty the question will be which is the way of Christ whether that particular Churches have power within themselves to chuse a fit Pastor and to crave the helpe of one well knowne unto them in time of the Churches necessity to see that Baptisme be decently orderly administred or that they so depend upon Classes for their leave permission herein as to be hindred by them from doing any of these at their pleasure If the first is the way of Christ let the Answerer beware that he be not found a false witnesse against Christ and his wayes in making them wayes of folly and servitude c. If the latter be the way of Christ let him shew it and not say it onely I say shew and prove it by Scripture for the satisfaction of the people that depend upon his ministry And till he can doe that let him forbeare such expressions 3. His third answer is by asking what men should doe when they thinck the Elders to be in an errour Reply If a man thinck them to be in an errour what should he doe else but shew them their errour by the word and if the case prove difficult crave with common consent the helpe of other mens or Churches light as occasion shall require to make the matter cleare But the rule warranteth not any man upon his mere thought that they erre to carry the matters quite out of their hands power without their consent or declaring the aequity of his so doing to the satisfaction of the Church For upon such a pretence if the Classis be partially addicted to the Minister all Church proceedings will be hindred And hence it was indeed as Dr. Bilson observed that the frequency of Synods did diminish the authority necessity of the Consistorian meeting of Elders For after that the meeting of Synods twise a yeare was ordayned in the Councill of Nice and Calcedon the Elders began to be in lesse use and account the Synods as higher judges taking upon them the examination and decision of those things which were wont to be agitated in the presbyteryes What he sayth of the Hierarchicall Synods in that place will be found true also of the Classis by this course and much more seing they meete sixe times a yeare 4. His fourth answer needeth no other reply then what is made already to the like if not the same pretence in his fifth answer examined in the 23. Section whereunto J referr the Reader 5. His fifth answer is already replyed upon in examination of the 27. Section 6. His sixth answer also is replyed upon before in severall passages and the vanity of it discovered Sect 31. examined concerning his subjecting the Church under the Classis without their consent THe authority and power which they complaine that theyr Church is subjected under is still by the Complainants declared to be undue by another instance in that it is such as is not competent to any men that are not subject to errour and hereunto they add another aggravation viz that it is done without the Churches consent Lib. 3. Cap. 26. p. 370. M. Parker in his learned discourse of Ecclesiasticall policy sheweth at large that Churches are no furher under the authority of Synods then they have subjected themselves by their owne consent And as for binding men to rest in their determinations as if they were infallible both Dr. Whittaker and Iunius in shewing that Councills are subject to errour have given sufficient light for discovery of the evill of that practise But let us see what he answereth to this complaint in seaven particulars 1. His first is after his usuall manner It is untrue but when the Church is hindred from making an order for the decent orderly administration of holy things by their owne power under pretence of his taking advise of the Classis as it was in the question about Baptisme when J was required that for a coÌ„dition whereupon I was to be admitted or refused to rest in a wrightâ—ng of five Ministers no rule being shewne me by them from the Scripture to warrant their so doing these things shewed it to be true 2. His second answer is that the same thing may be alleadged against any Pastor in the reformed Churches But this is an injury to all reformed Churches and Pastors unlesse he can prove that in the fame particulars they subject their Churches to the same undue power of Classes and in the same manner as he hath done Which he never will be able to doe It is true that Classicall assemblies or such like are a speciall bond of union and sinew of government in them all but to argue from the lawfull use to justify the unlawfull abuse of them is unsound reasoning 3. His third answer is to their charging him with doing this under a pretence of asking and taking advise of the Classis Which he denyeth and sayth that he professeth openly the authority and power of Synods and Classis to be lawfull and necessary as well as their counsail and advise Neither doe they
deny the authority and due power of Synods and Classes to be lawfull and necessary but they complaine of an undue power and authority ascribed to Classes by the Answerer and they declare by instances what that power is which they account undue Now unlesse he can prove that power to be due which they have affirmed to be undue he hath not answered their complaint which is that under pretence of asking and taking their advise he subjecteth the Church under that power which they affirme to be undue That he doeth so subject them hath bene shewed and that he pretendeth onely to aske and take their advise his owne expressions both by speeches at other times and in diverse passages of this booke declare sufficiently 4. His fourth answer is to their saying that the Church never acknowledged any such power to be due whereunto he answereth 1. by shewing the agreement betweene the ancient English inhabitants there the Magistrates and the Dutch Ministers which was to have such an English Church as should accord with the Dutch in the same order of Discipline and Government 2. By declaring that since his first comming but he sayth not how long after his first comming he was admitted to be a member of the Classis 3. By shewing the manner of their receiving members viz by profession of the same fayth with them and by solemne promise covenanting to submit unto the discipline of this Church according to the rule of Christ But what is in all these passages to prove their submission to any undue power and authority of the Classis Nay when they professe to submit unto the discipline of this Church according to the rule of Christ doe they not therein implicitly professe against submission to any undue power of the Classis And as litle doeth the practise of any members since in resorting to the Classis upon occasion of asking their judgment in matters controverted among them establish any undue power of theirs And to what end should those that joyne with his Church leaving their separation come with a protest against the undue power of the Classis when they knew not of their subjection thereunto no more being required of them in their Covenant at their first admission then submission to the discipline of this Church according to the role of Christ As for that which he addeth of their chusing rather to continue as they were then to be of the English Synod this doeth not testifye their acknowledgment of their subjectiō to any undue power of the Classis But how were they under the Classis when not long before that the Answerer himselfe as Mr. Forbes assured me laboured to set up an English Classis or Synod which not succeeding in his indeavour at that time he never after attempted to procure nor would joyne with being after set up at the procurements of others As for St Offw report of Geneva we have already shewne some difference betweene the association of Churches in Geneva and the Classes in these Countryes But be that as it may it makes nothing for the warranting of any undue power of the Classis 5. His fifth answer is to that passage in the complaint when they say that the power which they complaine of is such as the Scriptures doe not in any place give to such a company of Ministers The fault that he findeth herewith is that they doe not alleadge any one place of Scripture to condemne the same As though Negative Arguments from Scripture were not sufficient proofes of the unlawfullnes of a thing in matter of Religion By the helpe of St. Offw booke he accommodateth the 15. of the Acts. concerning the Church at Antioch seeking helpe of the Church at Ierusalem in a difficult question to the present question But what is that to the undue power of the Classis whereof they complaine In his next answer it may be he will give me occasion of shewing that that very place of Scripture maketh strongly against that undue power which he ascribeth to the Classis in the particulars complained of and such like 6. His sixth answer is to that part of the Complaint when they say that the undue authority whereof they complaine is such as doeth not become any except the Apostles that could not erre to have This he sayth is false and absurd and upon this occasion he reproveth me for a like speech in my letter to the Classis touching my consent required to the wrighting of the five Ministers namely that such a subjection is greater then may be yeelded unto any Councill whether of Classes or Synods c. that thereby the wrightings and decrees of men are made infallible and aequall with the word of God which is intolerable Reply Jt is true that I so wrote and that which I wrote herein is true Let us now see what he answereth He sayth what wise man is there that sees not the strange folly and vanity of such assertions as these Iunius was a wise man and yet he saw no folly nor vanity nor strangenes in a like assertion and so was Bogerman who relates it roundly and without haesitancy from him in these words Bogerm Annot in Hug Grot ex Iuni p. 225. Servus mandatum Domini sui referens ad conservum suum obligat illius conscientiam instrumentali ministerio suo at cognitioni suae aut foro suo minimè obligat Hoc nunquam Dominus quisquam daturus nunquam fervus fidelis assumpturus i. e. A servant relating the command of his Lord to his fellow servant bindeth his conscience by his instrumentall ministry that is as I conceive it so farr as he reporteth the Lords mind and command but doeth not bind him to his owne outward jurisdiction This no Lord will ever give nor any faithfull servant assume But did not they assume this and more when they would bind me to rest in that wrighting and to be accountable to them for my conformity to it not having convinced or instructed me that it was the will of our Lord that I should doe so Also Dr. Whittaker was a wise man Whitt de Concil Quest 3. Chap. 2. yet he saw no folly nor vanity nor strangenes in a like assertion For speaking of the definitions of Councills concerning matters to be beleived or to be done he sheweth that to define a thing signifieth either 1. to declare what we are to beleive doe upō the authority of the Scripture because the Scripture teacheth that it aught to be so beleived and done and that therefore they that beleive or doe otherwise are in an errour 2. or else it signifyeth to appoynt and prescribe by their owne authority what we are to beleive or doe so as men must rest in it whatsoever reason they have against it and may not beleive or doe otherwise The first he alloweth and so did I and desired nothing else but to understand some rule from the word warranting me to doe that whereunto they in
he deny Not the first unlesse he will affirme that the Classes have a greater power over particular Churches then the Apostles had Which J thinck he will not say much lesse goe about to prove Will he deny the assumption Those 4 texts of Scripture were alleadged by me for the proofe of it To prevent all mistakes I pray the Reader to be informed that my intent in alleadging these Scriptures was onely to advertise the Ministers of the Classis that they have no authority to exact this of me as a cōdition of my admittāce to that pastorall charge as my very words in that wrighting declare not to shew the unlawfullnes of my baptising any that are not members of that particular Church for I professe in expresse words after that in regard of the communion of particular Churches among themselves I neither did nor doe refuse to baptise their infants who are not members of that Church so that I may be satisfyed that they are indeed Christians So that the question is onely whether the Classis hath power to exact such a thing of any minister to be admitted to a particular Church amongst them as a condition of his admittance Jn this case I might have put them upon shewing their warrant and commission for their so doing as I now doe require of the Answerer when he shall defend his pretended answer in his next booke but to make short worke I then produced the Apostles practise whose commission was larger then any Classis hath received and shewed that they never assumed so much which they would not have fayled to doe in one place or other the necessity of the Church in those times so requiring nor to have recorded it for the instruction of posterity if they might have done it To this end I noated three places of Scripture Let us now consider them and his answer 1. Text. Acts. 20.28 Wherein Paul charged the Elders of Ephesus to take heed unto themselves and to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost had made them Overseers Where he did not extend the excercising of their office farther then the Holy Ghost extēded their relation Let us examine his eight answers which he giveth rather by number then by weight His first answer is ad hominem to the man more then to the matter For he sayth By what right Mr. D. himselfe being no member of this Church did communicate with us in the Lords supper by the some right may a Pastor excercise his Ministry in some acts of it to those who are no mrmbers of his Church Reply This answer is nothing to the matter in question For 1. the question is not what I may lawfully doe but what the Classis may warrantably exact in manner aforesaid For some lawfull things are arbitrary and in our liberty and to be done sometimes and sometimes omitted as circumstances and respects vary the case and those no man may impose as necessary It had bene more to the purpose if he could have said By what right the Classis did compell him to administer the Lords supper to unknowne persons that are no members of his Church c. by the same right they may compell me to baptise the infants of those that are no members 2. The cases are not alike betweene myne admittance to communicate at the Lords table the admittance of those to baptisme concerning whom the question is For J conceive that besides my relation else where and the right which these Churches give to knowne passants of being admitted to the communion for a short time both himselfe and the wholl Church acknowledged me for a member with them for the time of my abode in that service which they testifyed by desiring the helpe of my publick labours and their chearfull admittance of me to that ordinance during that time without the least scruple Now let the Reader judge whether it be alike to receive a man so knowne and acknowledged among themselves as a member for a time to communion in the Lords supper and the baptising of those infants whose parents are members neither of that Church nor of any other for aught any man knoweth being not at all knowne unto the Church His second answer is that the Apostle might have layed upon them a further duety in some other place though no more was required in that place Reply 1. If he would have answered to the purpose he should have produced some other place wherein the Apostle did so but that he did not because he could not 2. That Paul did not impose any such injunction upon the Pastors of Ephesus at this time being to leave them nor afterwards in the Epistle which he wrote to them from Rome nor at any other time which the Scripture mentioneth and it would have bene recorded if it had bene done being a matter of such moment no where else in Scripture propounded wherefore was it but because he received no such command from the Lord Which if he had done it stood not with his faithfullnes Act 20.20 v. 27. who professeth to keepe back nothing that was proffitable and to declare all the Counsell of God to conceale 3. That neither Paul nor any of the Apostles could impose any such injunctions upon Pastors The 5. booke of the Church Chap. 27. p. 497. Cartw. 1. Repl. p. 43. I prove thus Because it had bene to confound the Apostolicall and Pastorall office to bind men to breake the limits of their office which had bene a violation of Gods order as D. Feild and Mr. Cartwright shew whom it concerneth the Answerer to answer in this point His third answer he sayth is more particular but I say it is no more to the purpose then the former He sayth The preaching of the word is a Ministeriall act which Ministers are bound to performe to some without when they invite Heathens Turkes or Iewes to heare them Pro 9.3.4.5 Mat. 28.19.20 Reply But 1 what is all this to prove that the Classis hath the authority whereof the question is Bring it into a Syllogisme and see 2. For the Assertion it selfe though I grant that the preaching of the Gospell by a Minister is an act of his ministry yet Prov 9.2.3.4 Mat. 11.19 Dan 12.3 it is not so in every man For one that is not one of wisdoms maydens by vertue of office yet may be one of wisdoms children whom God may blesse in the excercise of the gifts and graces of his spirit to be an instrument of turning many to righteousnes And for that other place in Mat. 28.19.20 I know not to what purpose it is alleadged unlesse to shew that the Classis may give ordinary Pastors such a commission as Christ gave the Apostles to goe and preach the Gospell to all Nations 3. To what end doeth he speake of preaching the Gospell to Heathens Iewes and Turkes in this question Is it to intimate that Baptisme may be as lawfully administred to the infants
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 Vniversall 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 Church then I shall have a fit occasion to tell the reason of my mentioning onely 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 their 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 7. 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 onely 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 onely 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 Ans 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 he 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 not 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. 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 onely 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 the 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
before his death that his wrightings in that controversy had bene too bitter professed his inclination to publish some thing for the qualifying of them but that be feared the scandall that might grow upon such his retractation as is to be seene in the Admonition of the Divines of the County Palatine concerning the booke called liber concordiae Thus a groundlesse jealousy sharpened Luthers spirit in that controversy and a groundlesse jealousy hindred him from retracting what he had written Had the same jealousy hindred Augustine the wholl Christian world had bene loosers thereby wanting that helpe by his booke of Retractations which now they have Which unproffitable jealousy whereby men will make good what they have said or done least they should seeme to have erred Ambrose piously cast off and confessed that his wrightings had need of a second review et qnantumlibet quisque profecerit Ambr offic lib. 1. Cap. 1. nemo est qui doceri non indigeat dum vivit How much soever any man hath profited every man hath need to be taught whilest he liveth These things being premised for prevention of scandall which may be taken at the Answer whereunto the ensuing Reply is made I will breifely conclude after I have added one or two words for prevention of unaequall censures upon the Reply it selfe with respect to the matter and to the manner of my proceeding in it 1. For the matter I must intreat the wise hearted Reader to vouchsafe a benigne favourable construction of things that may seeme lyable to some misconstruction and to consider that in all the passages of this discourse I have a particular respect to the question betweene us avoyding by-matters As for instance when I speake of the summity of the power of particular Churches in re propriâ in such things as are properly their owne doe instance in the choyse of their ministers it may be some captious polititian will thinck that I abridge the povver of the civill Magistrate which is farr from my purpose though I speake as I doe limiting my selfe to the question betweene the Church and the Classis onely which was the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For I acknowledge not onely that submission obedience is due by the fifth commandment both to the highest Governours in every common wealth according to the severall lawes and customs thereof as to Emperours Kings Consuls Princes Dukes States and to other officers and ministers under them as Senators Counsailours Iustices Majors Sheriffs Balives Constables c. these and the like being in respect of their severall kinds 1. Pet. 2.13 Rom. 13.1 that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 every ordinance of man yet in respect of their common nature and power 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are ordered or ordained of God and that for conscience sake in all their civill lawes and constitutions but also in matters ecclesiasticall spirituall it belongeth to the cheife governour or governours to be nursing fathers of the Church as well as of the Commonwealth Isa 49.23 to be Custodes et vindices utriusque tabulae and that they may and aught to establish by their authority the true Religion pure worship of God and to forbid and punish not onely civill persons for civill crimes but even Churchmen also and boath sorts for crimes against Religion as Blasphemy Haeresy Idolatry Sacriledge Schysme c. and to take order as occasion may require that the Churches make choyse of fit officers and that Church officers doe their duety in every kind according to all Gods ordinances and institutions and that the wholl worship of God and all the parts of it be administred in the congregations decently 1. Cor. 14.40 without uncomelines and orderly without confusion of which care they have excelent praecedents set before them for patternes in the Scripture such as David Salomon Hezekiah Iosiah Nor are the matters of the Lord 2. Chron. 19.11 and the Kings matters of so different a nature that the care of the things of God doeth not appertayne to the King but onely to the high Preist but they are distinguished in the manner of their performing them the Magistrates discharging their part civilly politically the Church officers executing theires ecclesiastically and spiritually that so piety and policy the Church and Common wealth religion and righteousnes may dwell together may kisse each other and may flourish together in the due subjection of all sorts of subjects to Princes and Magistrates and of both princes and people to the scepter and government of Iesus Christ Iames 4.12 that one lawgiver who is able to save and to destroy 2. For the manner 1. I have endeavoured to carry my selfe inoffensively in this wholl treatise without wronging or provoking any and for that purpose have concealed the name of the Answerer wishing that it may not be remembred upon this occasion to blemish any of his well deservings in any other service to God or to his Church 2. I have laboured so to temper my stile that the truth may be manifested by his owne actions sincerely related rather then by my verball censures 1. His owne words I have truely repeated and answered and when I have bene compelled to contradict those things whereunto I could not consent I have laboured to shew reason more then passion therein If any thinck it might have bene done more smoothly and plausibly let him know there is a difference to be made betweene personall vindications and doctrinall ventilations there being not the same degrees of provocation to passion in the latter as in the former and that some of the personall aspersions whereunto I am enforced to make reply are such as whereunto a simple cold negation without some vehemency would seeme incongruous as Ierom speakes of the suspicion of haeresy or schysme wherein he sayth it becometh no man to be patient To conclude let the Christian reader if he meete with any such passages suspend his censure till he have bene put upon the clearing of his innocency to the world in answer to a printed booke made in so provoking a manner by such a man upon such an occasion himselfe being excercised with the same tryalls difficulties wherewith I am excercised in these tossings to and fro yet with much quiet in my spirit thorough inward supportments wherein I may say to the prayse of Gods grace in my measure As the sufferings of Christ abound in us 2. Cor. 1.5 so our consolation also aboundeth by Christ Lastly If any man shall thinck that my Reply is too large let him consider 1. that the particular matters of fact wherein myne innocency was necessarily to be defended are many 2. that I could not declare and maintaine the truth which I hold in points of doctrine and which is in word or actions opposed by the Answerer in a breifer discourse 3. that a necessity was layed upon me to wright somewhat on the behalfe of other Reverend ministers some whereof
are at rest as Mr. Parker Dr. Ames Mr. Forbes some are absent as Mr. Hooker Mr. Weld Mr. Peter 4. that he so interweaveth his discontents against the Elders the complaints of the members with the passages which concerne me that in many things I could not cleare my selfe without saying some thing also in their just defence which I have done sparingly and but when it was made necessary by his joyning us together 5. that he hath so frequently mentioned my name almost in every passage that I could not make a satisfying Reply on myne owne behalfe without examining almost the wholl booke which I was constrayned to doe also more particularly and according to the order of his Sections then else I would least it should be thought that I had bene unable to answer what I had praetermitted Wherein what I have written the Reader seeth but he knoweth not what I could have added and therefore is to be intreated to suspend his censure concerning what I have said till he may understand the reasons whereby I am able to justifye such particulars 6. that for the helpe of the Reader in comparing the Reply with the Answer I have inserted his owne words every where 7. that I thought it unaequall to cause the Reader to lay out his mony and spend his precious houres upon a fruitlesse discourse of our personall concernments onely and therefore have added many things upon this occasion for his intellectuall advantage whereby the Reply is made much larger then else it should have bene The benefit whereof will I hope with Gods blessing recompence his expence of mony or time upon it Which I beseech the Father of lights and of spirits to grant for the advancement of his truth in the hearts of many Amen The faults escaped correct thus 1. Words or points to be altered p stands for page l for line r. for read P 6. l 7. r. all together p 25. l 25. r operantis p. 32. l 6. r. Emden for Ments p 46. l 2. r. answereth p 48. l 27. r holesom l 37. r up p 54. l. 14. r injury p 55. l. 27. r consequence p 56. l 3. r open p 58. l. 27. r specially p 61. l. 2. r of for to p. 62. l. 1. and. p. 70. l 7. r 20. for 21. p. 79. l 23. r that the Doct p 81. l 26. r held p. 88. l 11. r in ter Veer where he p. 89. l 4. r with arrogating p. 118. l 29. r to the. p 148. l 5. r yet p 174. l 2. r counsail p 177. l 27. r was for w as p 191. l 33. r against it for against it p 223. l 12. r impute p 242. l. 2. r the for th p 245. l 7. r was for wae p 265 l 23. r. injustice p 266. l 20. r devised p. 268. l 7 8. r further p 288. l 31. r these p 295. l 4. r either for neither 2. Words or points to be added a stands for add p 9. l 20. a about after satisfactioÌ„ p. 59. l. 8. a. secondly before Is. p. 61. l. 16. a. not after p. 82. l. 1 a. he after fit p. 106. l. 19. a the before Iesuits p. 113. l. 15. r. moneths absence p. 163. l. 36. a. of marriages after condition p. 165. l. 14. a. after day p. 183 l. 17. r. ministers p. 202. l. 1. a. that after not p. 213. l. 14. r. constitution p. 229. l. 3. a. is after it 3. Words to be blotted out d stands for dele p. 9. l. 15. d. h in where p. 56 l. 13. d. First p. 66. in the margin d. s. in epist p. 82. l. 31. d. s in places p. 86. l. 31. d. s. in Maties p. 106. l. 19. d. the before Machiavells p. 138. l. 10. d. be Other faults which doe not so much hinder the Readers understanding I leave to his owne observation As when t is put for c s for c ei for i for e u for n p for b. s for f. m for n. n for m. y for i. c. A Table added by a Friend wherein the Reader for his better understanding is to take notice that the first figure sheweth the page the latter sheweth the line in the page Action CHristian actions of a twofold nature 277. 26 Ames Dr. Ames defended 77. 12 Commended 79. 12 What workes hee was author of 80. 1 His fitnesse for Pastorall office 81. 12 His remoove from Franeker to Rotterdam justified 83. 1 Dr. Ames not for promiscuous baptising 160. 14 Dr. Ames opinion of Synods 224. 36 Dr. Ames judgement about the power by which the Church ought to be governed 242. 20 Answer Three things required to a right answer of complaints 1 Two things required to a true answer 1 Answerer Answerer defective in his answer in the requisites thereto 2. 31 Answerers subtill devises to prejudice the Reader 7. 20 Answerers fallacie in putting that for a cause which is no cause 9. 25 Answerers judgement and practise agree not 12. 20 Answerer found faulty from his relation of a father 20. 6 from the place 20. 35 from the time 22. 10 Answerer found guilty of depriving the Church of those whom they desired notwithstanding all his answeres for the clearing of himselfe 55. 1 Answerer diverteth the Reader 51. 5. and 64. 19. and 68. 18. and 209. 30. Answerer prooved guilty of sinne in opposing the persons whom the Church desired 65. 8 It hath bene the Answerers course to injury the Church 77. 7 Answerer not willing to accommodate the Replyer about promiscuous baptising 126. 1. and 130 22. Answerer obtruded a false translation of the five Dutch Ministers writing upon the Reader 129. 12. Answerer contradicteth himselfe and the Classis about the insufficiency of the Elders about baptising 169. 12 Answerer hindreth the agreemeÌ„t of the Elders concerning the Replyers preaching notwithstanding all his pretended answeres 218. 12 Answerers needlesse jealousies kept Mr. Weld out from preaching when the Elders desired him 221. 27 Answerer notwithstanding his answeres found guilty of subjecting the Church under an undue power of the Classis 232. 22. Answerer joyneth with the enemies in an old cavill what the due power is by which the Church should be governed 253. 15. Answerer injurious to Christ and to the truth while hee thinkes to leave the complaynants under suspicion of adhearing to some sect 236. 22 Answerer found guilty of giving unto the Classis power to keepe out such men as the Church desired 243. 31 Answerer found guilty of giving unto the Classis power of making lawes 257. 7. Answerer found guilty of bringing matters violently unto the Classis 264. 9 Answerer found guilty of subjecting the Church under the Classis without consent â—68 1 Answerers answers about his pulpiting against the Replyer examined 278. 19 Answerer armes his opposites against himself and all Non-Conformists 282. 23 Answerer describeth not the persons right whose infants are brought to baptisme 314. 2 Attersol Mr.
Thess 5.21 not framing to him selfe a way of Religion according to the fancyes of men how grave and learned soever they seeme to be but expecting a rule for the ordering of our whole behaviour in the house of God from the Scripture 1. Tim. 3 15. which is given by inspiration of God and is proffitable for doctrine for reproofe for correction 2. Tim. 3.16.17 for instruction in righteousnes that the man of God may be perfect being throughly furnished unto all good workes From which rule who soeuer stragle Ier. 18. â—â— they are truely and fitly sayd to stumble in their way from the ancient wayes and what soeuer Ecclesiasticall Constitutions or customes received in the Church haue not warrant from the Ancient of dayes in this word Dan. 7.9 1. Iohn 2 7. which is the old Commandement which we had from the beginning they are but new formes though they haue a shew of antiquity by their long continued vse in which sense Iosu 24.2 the Idolatry of the Pagans is said to have bene of old time On the other side what soeuer forme of Churches and Church government is warranted by this rule though it may seeme new to men because they never knew it before yet it is not new in it selfe as it was no new-fanglednes in Nehemiah to celebrate the Feast of Tabernacles Nehem. 8.17 though it had bene out of use from the dayes of Ioshua unto that time These things we may safely publish in life and death But if any man shall advise men otherwise though upon his death bed let it be rejected as unsafe counsail I will conclude the examination of the praeface with the prayer of the blessed Apostle of the Gentiles Rom. 15.5 6. Now the God of patience and consolation grant us to be like minded one towards another according to Iesus Christ that we may with one mind and one mouth glorifye God even the Father of our Lord Iesus Christ Amen The ansvver to the first and second Section examined HAving examined the title and the praeface we now come to examine the particulars of the complaint so farr as it hath pleased this Answerer to interest me therein by making use of my name which he doth not covertly but wrighting it at large nor sparingly but almost in every page and that not only when the complainants naming me in their wrighting constrained him so to doe but also needlesly and without provocation as if his desire were deeply to imprint an evill praejudice in the mind of the Reader against me And particularly in the second section pag. 6. Answ he beginneth with me thus Reply But had these complainants well considered their owne wayes and the way of truth they would then have left the complaint upon themselves and upon the proceedings of Mr. I. D. 1. Principijs o men inesse solet Principio quae sunt inchota malo vix est ut bono peragantur exitu Leo apud Graticaus 1. q. 1. Ans Reply Contentiousnes charged upon me unjustly Beginnings are ominous Things ill begun seldom end wel It is much to be suspected that he inteÌ„deth to quarail who so needlesly falleth upon me in the first onset being not any way occasioned to mention me by any thing which the complainants have expressed or intimated in this section and yet he taketh occasion in this one section to make mention of me seven times and to wright my name at its full length every time His owne heart knoweth what his purpose was in so doing But let us consider what he chargeth upon me that if it be just I may confesse and giue glory to God If it be unjust I may declare my innocency As for Mr. D. he is guilty of nourishing contention in our Church Nourishing contention in the Church is the thing layd to my charge An haynous offence if the accusation be true but in him a greivous slander thus to reproach me in print if it be false I cannot but admire how he fell upon this accusation to charge me with an evill so contrary to my disposition and the practise of my whole life especially since my publick employment in the Ministry I was about seventeene years a preacher in London and lived there almost ten yeares in a pastorall charge There I had much converse with Ministers of differing judgments and with people almost of all conditions and degrees of different affections and wayes being imployed both in publick occasions and private cases Let this Answerer speak plainly I challenge him before all men whether he hath ever heard by any credible report that I haue bene I say not detected but so much as rationally suspected of contentiousnes in myne owne country And is it probable that change of ayre should worke such a change in my disposition Coelum non animum mutat qui trans mare currit in so short a space that he who was wont to be peaceable with all and a peacemaker amongst many should in Holland where he is but a stranger and passant become a nourisher of contention But what have I done in Holland that hath given occasion of this imputation At my first comming this Answerer with the Elders intreated me to help them in their extremity I did it willingly preaching twise every Lords-day till he was able and after that continued to assist him once a day whilst he desired it Jn that time which was above 5 mouths I applyed my selfe to him with all love and respect frequently visiting him without once receiving the same courtesy from him and fashioning my outward comportment and behaviour so that no difference might appeare betweene us even when I had just cause of complaining I began no question with him that might occasion dispute though I had as good reason to examine his judgement as he mine when he pressed to know my judgment in any thing I dealt ingenously with him and if we differed I examined his grounds impartially as one that sought the truth not contention Yea sometimes I expressed my judgement obscurely if I suspected a difference to avoyd offending him He first brought the matter to the Elders not I and then to some of the Dutch preachers without me and then to the Classis against my mind Had he told me plainly that the meanes of accomodation propounded by me would not succed and that nothing would satisfy but comformity to that unwarrantable custome I had desisted sooner as I did when it appeared so to be After I desisted from pulick worke I was silent till he began to contend against me in publick after he had procured the cessation of my publick labour and I had sat still in private above fowre moneths doing what good I might without offense and ceased from that also so soone as his discontent publickly appeared against it When I ceased from the publick worke I preached a sermon for peace Rom. 14.9 out of those words Let us follow after the
vayne Credulity 4. Diminishing of the grace and power of God And for what Because I sayd If I had not exercised much patience and industry the Church would certainely have fallen from him I will speake something to every one of these severally To the first It is no vaine selfe-praysing to say so The first charge replyed upoÌ„ 1. For it attaineth its end finem operis oporantis For it sheweth both how free I was from nourishing contention in that Church for the preservation of whose peace I both did and suffered so much which was the end of the speach and it tended to Gods glory and to the honour of the Gospell that I should declare my actions to be comely to be according to that vertue Phil. 4.8 prayse and good report which we are commanded to thinck of which was the end of the speaker 2. Nor is all selfe-praysing unlawfull if it arise not from selfe-seeking As when the report is true and uttered in way of testimony to the trueth the case requiring it All which requisits doe concurr in this speach 2. The secoÌ„d charge replyed upoÌ„ To the second It is no wrong to the Answerer nor to the Church that I say so First Not to the Answerer For the report is neither untrue nor needlesly made but upon constraint to declare so much for the clearing of myne owne innocency Nor doth he nor can he disprove any thing spoken by me in that particular Secondly not to the Church For neither doe I speake of the body of it indefinitly without exception but of the better and most considerable part of it nor doth my speach argue them of whom it is spoken to be of a Schysmaticall disposition For the clearing whereof because the word Schysme is so frequently used Schysme dâ—â—b e and misapplyed by the Answerer we will breifly consider the ordinary uses of the word Schysme in the Church which signifyeth 1. sometimes such a voluntary and unjust secession from the Church 1. Io. 2.19 whereby the Vnity of it is broken 2. sometimes such a dissention in the Church whereby not the Vnity 1. Cor. 11.18 but the peace is broken Jn which of these senses doth the Answerer use the word in this place If in the latter they are Schysmatickes according to the judgment of the Apostle who cause division and offences 1. Cor. 11.14 6. Things about schysme 1. Every sesession is not unjust 2. Nor a breach of Vnity Chameron de Eccles de Schysm pag. 395. 3. Nor concluded to be a schysme Cartwr Reply And so he will find it layed at his owne dore If in the former it is a wrong done to me if he intimate as he seemeth to doe that I accuse them of a Schysmaticall disposition in that sense when I say that they would have fallen from him For 1. every secession from a Church is not unjust as the Reformed Churches plead for the justification of their forsaking the Romish Antichristian Synagogue which they truely affirme to be no Schysme nor themselves Schysmatickes for so doing though the vnity be broken Secondly Every secession from a true Church is not a breach of vnity for there is a negative secession as well as a positive one And the former may be lawfull in some cases wherein the latter is not warrantable Thirdly the case may be such in a positive secession as it may be disputable whether it be to be called a Schysme or not Mr. Cartwright declareth out of Theodoret how the Catholicks which maintayned the fayth of the Nicene Councill through affection to their teachers of whom they were unjustly deprived severed themselves into severall companies and there upon demands will the Answerer say that these meetings were Schysmaticall And then answereth If he doe he speaketh otherwise then Theodoret. 4. Nor argueth men to be of a Schysmaticall disposition Socrat. lib. 6. Cap 16. Soz lib 8. Ca 22.23 24.25.26 27. Fourthly Every positive secession or Schysme is not to be imputed to the Schysmaticall disposition of those who withdraw themselves but sometimes to the injurious dealing of others For instance Vnder Arcadius the Emperour a great Schysme was raysed in Constantinople whereof Socrates speaketh somewhat but Sozomen much more Who was the author of that Schysme Were those Orthodox Christians Bishops Presbyters and people who being incensed by the indignity of the thing not being able to beare the ill usage of so learned pious a man as Chrisostom then unjustly banished assembled a part forsooke the rest of the Church were I say these blamed as men of a Schysmaticall disposition No. the blame of it was layed upon Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria who out of Envy practised against Chrisostom prevayled so far that that holy man was cast out of his Bishoprick Theod lib 3. cap 5. dyed in banishment And in the case mentioned out of Mr. Cartwr if he meane that which Theodoret noateth Lib. 3. Cap. 5 both Theodoret and Eusebius blame not the Catholicks but Liberius for that who though he desired to make up the breach yet thorough his imprudence made it worse by too partially favouring the party of Eustathius with neglect of Meletius These things I noate not to incourage such dissentions the sad eveÌ„t both of the former which lasted 35 yeares of the latter which continued 85 yeares will I hope sufficiently forwarne the godly wise thereof but to warne others viz Pastors Classes to take heed least they the one by needles opposition against those whom the people reverence desire for their ministers the other by partial adhaering to the one party more then is meet and aequall make themselves the authours of disturbance dissention in the Church whereof they seeme to complaine alwayes remeÌ„bring that of Salomon Surely oppression maketh a wise man mad Eccle. 7 7. Fifthly Suppose the members whom J meane had only 5. It s lawfull to seeke the ordinances in a fayre way sought their dimission seeing no hope of the redresse of their greivances so joyned themselves without casting off coÌ„munion with that as no true Church to some other Church where they might be satisfyed in their lawfull desires would such a joyning with some other true Church in that City or a peaceable removing of themselves their families to some other place where they might be with more satisfaction content still professing and holding communion with that as a true Church would such an action have bene judged Schysmaticall This was that which I meant some spake And is this to accuse the Church of a Schysmaticall disposition Let the Reader judge 3. The third charge replyed upon To the Third It is not folly nor vaine credulity much lesse against modesty or conscience that I sayd certainely they would have fallen from him For it is but an humane certainty that I meant which may stand with the contingency of future events Had
all provinces Azorius affirmeth the same thing and sheweth that it was observed in Affrica Graecia Spaine France ubique sayth he and every where 3 Evidence of Reason and so continued to the time of Charles the great and afterward Thirdly The evidence of Reason Reas 1 The Keyes of the Kingdom of heaven are in some sort given to the wholl Church Therefore the power of chusing those whose office it shall be to use them for the Church is in the wholl Church The Antecedent is cleare out of Matth. 16 19. where the Church spoken of is the company of beleivers Mat. 16.19 whose person Peter sustained at that time as appeareth by his answer which was concerning the fayth common to the wholl Church not concerning any buisenes proper to Ministers And under the Keyes all the meanes of aedification are granted unto the Church to be dispensed by such as being chosen by the Church Eccles pol lib 3. cap. 2.3 should receive power from the Church thereunto as Mr. Parker hath abundantly proved and by many witnesses The Argument is undeniable For it is in them to chuse the person whom they will intrust with such weighty matters to whom the things themselves doe primarily belong Nor is it a sufficient foundation of that phrase that they are given to the Church for her proffit and benefit unlesse the Church be able to provide that they be handled by those by whose ministry she may be most proffited and benefited Reas 2 The people of God are commanded to heare the true teachers and avoyd the false ones Therefore they have power to chuse good ones and reject bad ones The Antecedent is cleare in Iohn 10. The Argument is without just exception If not let somewhat materiall be objected against it Will they say The people is rude and cannot judge Thus the Pharises sayd of old Ioh 7.49 but did our Saviour Christ judge of them so Iohn 7.17 I trow not And if it were so it is not necessary to the electiō of the Pastor that all amongst the people should be able to judge without the helps of those that are more skillfull much lesse that they should doe it perfectly but they must have so much knowledge as to shun false teachers Will they say the people are forbidden to heare false teachers but not allowed to depose thē substitute others Let such know Bellar. enerv tom 2. cap. 2. that when they are forbiddē to heare them they are commanded not to be subject to their Ministry and so in effect warranted to depose them as Dr. Ames answereth Bellarmine Reas 3 Pastors are not lords but servants of the wholl Church Therefore the wholl Church have power to chuse theyr Pastors 1. Cor. 3.9 Ch. 4 1. 1. Pet. 5.3 The Antecedēt is cleare For all the workes of Pastors are Ministeriall viz whether they declare Christs will to the Church they command the Church in his name and words not in theyr owne or whether they execute the will of the Church upon particular members they doe it not in theyr owne but in Christs and the Churches name The Argument is good for such a Ministry agreeth very well with this power of the people in chusing theyr Pastor Reas 4 The Church hath full right to preserve the truth as its rightfull possession Therefore the wholl Church have right to chuse theyr Pastor The Antecedent is undeniable For therefore it is called the pillar 1. Tim. 3.5 and ground of truth for else it were but the harbour not the mansion of truth The Argument is as cleare For they who have power to preserve truth have power also to preserve in their owne right those functions which are necessary for the preserving of it which they cannot doe unlesse they have power of chusing their owne Ministers Reas 5 The pastorall relation concernes the wholl Church therefore the choyse of the Pastor is in the wholl Church The Antecedent is cleare in these texts and such like Acts. 2.28 1. Pet. 5.1.2 The Argument is founded upon an axiom of the law proceeding from good reason Quod omnium interest ab omnibus approbari debet That which concerneth all ought to be approved of all Which course we see observed in civill matters as in the choyse of worthy men to stand for severall Countyes in Parliament Also th◠choyse of officers in Corporations is done by common vote the major part of voyces carrying the election Bishop Bilson well weighing the importance of these reasons Perp. govern cap. 15. p. 339. yeelded to the aequity of them saying Well may the peoples interest stand upon the grounds of reason and nature and be derived from the rules of aequity and christian society that each Church and people stand free by Gods law to admit maintaine or obey no mā as their Pastor without their liking-vnlesse P. 360 by law custom or consent they have restrained themselves And a litle after he sayth that the people had as much right to chuse their Pastor as the Cleargy that had more skill to judge and he telleth papalls P. 359. having related the cursing and fighting of the Bishop of Rome till excluding boath prince and people he had reduced the election wholly to the Cleargy that by their leave Assert p. 212. it was not so from the beginning whence the Assertour for true and christian policy argueth thus Whatsoever is derived from christian aequity and society what soever was from the beginning and was left by the Apostles to the Church the same aught still to remaine and must be kept inviolable in the Church But the peoples interest to chuse their Pastor is right is lawfull is free by the law of God standeth upon the grounds of reason and nature is derived from Christian aequity and society was from the beginning c. To his exception unlesse by some law custom or consent the people have restrayned themselves c. or by theyr default or abuse the Canons Councills superiour powers or publick lawes have abridged altered or abrogated the same he answereth that our Saviour reproved the abuse of the law in the Scribes and Pharises but tooke not away the least title of it We grant in like manner that Custom consent Councills superiours lawes may reprove restraine and reforme the disordered unrulines and contentions of the people in and about theyr election and that they may alter abridge or enlarge the manner of elections but that any superiour powers may take this right into their owne hands as he saith from the people or that the people by any law custom or consent c. may transfer their right freedom and interest given deduced unto them by these rules and grounds I doe not yet perceive any good ground or reason for the same For hath the wisdom of God and his providence made us free men and can we without contempt of his grace become bondmen And albeit in some cases
that may be well sayd quod volenti non fit injuria and that quilibet potest recedere a suo jure yet the cases must be such as wherein a man is not tyed to mainetaine his liberty with so strong a bond as the bond of reason nature of the rules of Christian aequity and of the freedom of the law of God It is free for a man not to eate or drinck this or that but not to eate or drinck at all and so to starve himselfe it is not free and in this case volenti fit injuria Husbands parents and masters have by the very instinct of nature and aequity of Christs law freedom to provide for those that depend upon them and so must carefully use this theire freedom may not wholly put from themselves the care of their provision education c. nor give theire consent to the making of any law or to the bringing in of any custom whereby theyr freedom should be restrained or annihilated in this point Thus farr he Now to prevent all mistakes it will be convenient to answer a question or two that may be propounded upon this occasion Quest 1 What if a Minister be put in by a patron without the choyse of the people going before may such a minister be thought to have a lawfull calling Ans Though that act of the patron be not sufficient to make him a lawfull Pastor to that people yet the after consent of the people Dr. Ames â—n 2. Manduct by acceptance and submission may make it good As in wedlock the after consent of parents or partyes doth often make that a lawfull state of marriage which before without that was none and in government acceptance and submission doth make him a King which before was an Usurper though in their order these actions be rather consequents then causes of that calling So it is betweene minister and people Quest 2 What if the Church neglect to call a Minister or desire and consent upon one that is unmeet either for doctrine or manners In such cases Ans Mr. Cartwr 1. Reply p. 35. the ministers and Elders of other Churches round about should advertise first and afterwards as occasion should serve sharpely and severely charge them that they neglect not this care of electing a fitt one and that they forbeare such election of one unfitt or if it be made that they confirme it not by suffering him to excercise any ministry And if either the Churches round about doe fayle of this duety or the Church which is admonished rest not in their admonition then to bring it to the next Synod and if it rest not therein then the Prince or Magistrate which must see that notbing in the Churches be disorderly and wickedly done aught to drive that Church from that election to another which is convenient Thus Mr. Cartwright So that in his judgement other Churches have no power of hindring a faulty election but by admonition which power every Christian hath in another for his good Nor can the Magistrate forbid the choyse which the Church hath made or would make unlesse the man upon whom they pitch be so unfitt either for doctrine or manners that the making of such a choyse will be wickedly and disorderly done Having thus declared what we hold de jure populi concerning the Churches right in the choyse of their Ministers Now we come to enquire de facto whether their complaint be just concerning the injury wherewith they charge the Answerer in this particular taking the rise of ensuing passages from those words wherein he mentioneth my name after a provoking manner in this Section I leave it to their consciences to consider Ans pag. 19.3 whether now also they would not have kept silence if they could have brought in Mr. D. even according to this corrupt order used by us as they complaine of it To prove that the Answerer doth not behave himselfe as becommeth a Pastor in governement their first evidence is Reply that he depriveth the Church of that liberty and power which Christ hath given it in the free choyse of their Pastor Now a Church is as well deprived of their liberty in chusing when the men â—â—ply whom they desire are without sufficient cause shewen to the Church kept out as when men are without their approbation obtruded upon them They complaine of both these injuries of the first in this and the following Section of the second in the sixth Section That in this Section they complaine of the first of these injuries appeareth by the instances which they produce for proofe of it in the fifth Section So then their complaint in this and the next Section is that they are deprived of the liberty and power of the free choyse of their Pastor which Christ hath given them in that they are deprived of worthy men whom they have generally desired but have bene hindered that either they could not chuse them or having chosen could not injoy them and this hath bene done against them without sufficient cause alleadged against the men whom they have desired And the person whom they particularly charge with this unjury is the Answerer Let us now consider how he doth defend himselfe And this he endeavoureth to doe diverse wayes Pag. 18. Ans 1. First by putting the blame from himselfe upon the Classis and not upon their persons so much as upon the very government established in these Churches 1. Reply 1. Here it must be remembred that the Complainants produce the holy records of the ancient charter of priviledges which of old was granted unto particular Churches in this case Pag. 19. Ans 4 which also the Answerer himselfe coÌ„fesseth so clearely to warrant their claime and to justifye this plea that he hath as he sayth both publickly taught in the exposition of those 2 places Acts. 6.3 and 14.23 and doth still acknowledge that the free consent of the people is required to the lawfull calling of a Minister and afterwards he sayth Pag. 22. Ans 8. that to deprive the Church of that liberty power c. must be an heynous crime and no lesse then Sacriledge This crime how great soever it is the Reader will find that he chargeth upon the Classis how justly let him see nor will he be able to cleare himselfe of slandring the very government and order of discipline established in these Churches unlesse he can shew out of the Nationall Synods that it was established for an order in these Countryes that the Classes should have power to deprive the Churches of the Ministers whom they desire or have chosen without shewing sufficient cause for the Churches satisfaction which is the greivance complained of by these subâ—â—ibers 2. If it be not true of them the more heynous the accusation is the more greivous the slander is and so much the more greivous in him who is many wayes obliged to them and whose testimony against them will be
more easily received and firmely beleived because he is acquainted fully with all their wayes being one of them and ordinarily in counsail with them 3. But if it be true that the Classis hath such a practise Cyp. Epist l. 1. Epi. 8. Adulterum est impium est sacrilegum est quicquid humano furore instituitur ut dispositio divina violetur Ans 2. Reply and that the government hath established such an order which he will never be able to prove yet that will not free him from guilt seeing by his owne confession such a Custom or Canon is contrary to Christ his ordinance which I will expresse in Cyprians words It is adulterous it is wicked it is Sacrilegious what soever by humaine fury is instituted to the violation of a Divine ordinance His second answer or evasion rather followeth Secondly By involving the Elders with him in the same guilt and blame and retorting an accusation of partiality in that they lay the fault upon him only But who seeth not the insufficiency of this defense that either considereth the reply to the former answer or knoweth his power in the Consistory But what before was sayd by me in defense of the Classis may be a sufficient Apology also for the Elders and Deacons Thirdly By questioning the reason of their not complaining after this manner hitherto But who seeth not Ans 3. Reply that this is a mere evasion For what though they exhibited not a bill of greivances til now It may be they wayted in hope of reformation or it may be these last passages haue ripened the sore and filled up the measure and caused it to run over What consequent is there in these Arguments They complained not thus before therefore they were not injured The sore did not runne before therefore it was not an ulcer This measure did not runne over before therefore it was empty Nor is there more weight in his conclusion of that 3 answer when he appealeth to their consciences whether now also they would not haue kept silence if they could haue brought in Mr. D. even according to this corrupt order used by us as they complaine of it 1. Let the Reader judge whether any others are mentioned in the complaint either Elders Reply Classis or government but only the Answerer Why then doeth he speake in the plurall number saying this corrupt order used by us 2. Is there not a manifest contradiction in this part of the answer For if they could have brought in Mr. D. by their free choyse which himselfe acknowledgeth to be the ordinance of Christ how could they then have brought him in according to this corrupt order whereof they complaine so that why should they not keep silence if the cause of complaint had bene removed as in this case it had bene Answ 4 Let his fourth answer be considered wherein he granteth that the free consent of the people is required unto the lawfull calling of a Minister and that by vertue of those texts Act. 6.3 and 14.23 Reply 1 First If upon that ground this power of the people be established then 1 It is their duety to plead for and to stand fast in their liberty in this particular and that not as a matter arbitrary but necessary seing it is Christ his ordinance 2 That person sinneth against God and the Church who any way depriveth them of it and is bound to give satisfaction if but any one member much more if 22 considerable members complaine of it And this injury is the greater because it reflecteth 1 not upon a singular person but upon a Society 2 not in civill but spirituall immunityes and priviledges 3 Such as are not devolved upon them by the favour of earthly princes but purchased for them by the blood of Christ The aequity of this complaint may be proved out of the Answerers concession thus They who without just and sufficient warrant hinder that the Church cannot injoy these Ministers whom they with one consent desire doe deprive the Church of that liberty and power which Christ hath given it in the free choyse of their Pastor But the person complained of by these 22 subscribers doeth without just and sufficient cause hinder the Church from injoying those whom they with one consent desired Therefore the person complained of doth deprive the Church of that liberty and power which Christ hath given it in the free choyse of their Pastor The Proposition himselfe granteth to be true as hath bene noated The assumption they prove in the following Section by instances as we shall see in due time The Answerer hath sayd nothing hitherto that may serve to weaken the trueth of it In the words following also he rather evadeth it then maketh a direct answer And his evasions are by way of diversion For. 1. He diverteth his Reader from the particular subject of the complaint Pag. 19. Ans 4. Reply telling him of the order of these Churches about this matter whereas for ought I have heard from themselves at any time or now have read in their wrightings that good correspondency with the Christian Magistrate and foreknowledge or advise of the Classis which the Synods of these Churches describe as the order to be observed in the calling of Ministers are not contrary to that liberty and power in the free choyse of their Pastor which they clayme and the Answerer acknowledgeth to be due to the Church by vertue of Christs ordinance But I suppose it will be granted on all sides that the Synods doe not acknowledge any power to be due to the Magistrates or Classis to deprive the Church of any power which Christ hath givē it which is the greivance they now complained of and wherein the Answerer is accused not for observing the order of the Synods but for doing contrary to the intent of the Synods in their orders 2. He diverteth his reader from the question in hand Pag. 20. Ans 5. Reply by propounding another question to be examined which he pretendeth that some object out of Acts 6.3 viz. whether the people ought not to goe before in seeking out officers for themselves That this is a mere diversion will appeare to the indifferent Reader if he examine their wrighting in which he shall not find any word tending that way but rather they complaine that the Elders are too much neglected by the Answerer as will appeare in its place So that the 20. p. is a laborious proving of that which is not in question 3. The pretended absurdityes in his sixth answer Pag. 21. Ans 6. Reply Pag. 21. Ans 7. Reply are to the same purpose with his fifth Answer and serve only to countenance a girde at some neighbour Minister Cui-bono he best knoweth His seventh answer is no more to the purpose then the fifth and sixth For what if these Complainants should not agree one with another touching the due order of Elections and touching the ground thereof from those
answer 7 things 1. That all left not their Country for the same cause 2. That the Church did not desire every one of those 3. That he may lawfully oppose some of these when each of themselves were opposite one to another 4. That in the same eminent persons there may be diverse eminent offences and errours which may be just cause of opposing them and refusing them as unfitt Ministers for some particular Congregations 5. That his opposing of the Election of some of these persons is not a depriving the Church of her power 6. That diverse of these Complainants haue opposed the calling of sundry worthy servants of God 7. That those which were refused were not put back by his authority but either by the Magistrates Classis or Consistory or by their owne voluntary desistance In like manner my reply Reply to these passages shall be 1 more generall to the whole discourse of this Section 2 more especiall to the severall parts First In generall 1. Generally It is to be noated that all his answers tend to the disparagment of the persons whom the Complainants doe so highly reverence To let passe the inhumanity of reproaching the absent and the dead and the impiety of his encouraging the enimyes of God to blaspheme who may easily thinck that they haue just cause to revile and speake evill of these men when they shall see that this Answerer spareth them not and that in print And that I may retort his owne words but more fitly What wonder if they follow when they are so lead forth and by such a grave leader May it please the reader to consider the imprudence of this course Socra 7.2 Socrates reporteth of Atticus Bishop of Constantinople that he was a pious and prudent man and how wonderfully sayth he did he promove the good of the Church by his prudent administration would you know wherein He reconciled those that were at variance about the injury done to Chrysostom to the rest of the Church How was that effected By a course quite contrary to that which this Answerer taketh Not by disparadging Chrysostom as unfitt for the Congregation but by causing the name of Chrysostom to be mentioned in publick with other Bishops Idem cap. 25. I suppose in thancksgiving which plot Proclus one of his successours followed and perfected to the full taking away of that Schysme Idem ibid Cap. 44. For he perswaded the Emperour to translate the body of Chrysostom that had bene buryed else where to Constantinople and to be buryed with much honour and pompe which being done gaue such content to his freinds that their discontent being healed thereby they returned to the Communion of the Church So true is that proverbe Pro. 24.3 Through wisdom is an house and a Church also buylded and by understanding it is established But of contrary causes what can be expected but contrary effects 2. Particularly Secondly more particularly and to the severall particulars I reply thus 1. To the first That we all came out of England for one cause the Answerer acknowledgeth when the sayth wee all agree in the dislike of some coruptions against which we haue testifyed For 1. For that cause we could not injoy our publick Ministry in England 2. Being denyed that we thought it our duety to be of what publick use we might for the service of the Church in any other Country where God should oppn a dore unto us and rather to our Countrimen then others What other particular reason any might haue besids it might concurr as a concausa with others but that still remaineth the cause which was one and the same to us all 2. To the second It is very true and may easily be proved 1. that when an overture hath bene made for any of these men whilest there was hope none opposed their Election but so many as were put upon it expressed their desire of them 2. After the difference betweene this Answerer and any of those men in in some opinion was knowne I appeale to the Church whether they desired not rather that the Answerer would compose such differences betweene him and them by freindly accommodation or passe it by altogether that they might injoy these men then presse things so extreamely to the depriving the Church of them I am confident that the greatest and best part of the Church would answer Yea And I thinck the greatest and best part may well be called the Church and such a declaration of their affection may be judged a sufficient proofe of their desire 3. To the third It is to be observed that he doeth not deny that he opposed some of these men only he knoweth no reason why it should be wondred at First For my part I thinck no man will wonder at it if by reading his answer as he calleth it he have but some such insight into his disposition as Pythagoras is sayd to haue into the stature and strength of Hercules his body by the measure of his foote Secondly Suppose those men are in some few opinions opposite each to other Will that justify his opposing and rejecting them Let him draw his argument into forme of a Syllogisme and it will prove a mere Sophisme and to labour of an aequivocation in the word opposite oppose which in the Antecedent noateth difference in judgement only which may stand with personall concord in the consequent it signifyeth personall opposition and so there be 4 termes in it Thirdly His wholl argument is grounded upon a false supposition For he supposeth that opposition against the person must necessarily or may warrantably follow all difference in judgement The contrary whereof is most true Synodal Dordrecht Rem Sent suae declarat P. 5. When the Arminians odiously exaggerated and objected against the Contra-Remonstrants their different opinions about the object of Praedestination Dr. Twisse learnedly and judiciously wipeth of this aspersion and therein answereth the ground of this Argument by shewing the personall agreement and love betweene those men that so differed and instanceth in Calvin Beza Iunius and Piscator Vindiciae gratiae Digr 1. Sect. 4. each of which had his severall tenet differing from the other and Piscator seemed to differ from them all and yet his high esteeme of them all is manifest 1 of Iunius in his Scholia upon the old testament 2 of Beza in his Scholia upon the New testament 3 of Calvin in his aphorismes gathered out of Calvins institutions 2. in the sweet harmony consent of the Cōtra-Remonstrants in opposing the errours of the Remonstrants and Pelagians which appeared in the determination of the Synod at Dort The same thing is verifyed in those men mentioned in this Section Fourthly The premises being considered it is to be wondred at that he opposeth these men rejecteth them upon this pretence Seing 1. these men in unfeigned brotherly love tender the esteeme one of another and would account it their happines that
them by sollicitations and pretences to be parties with him in an injury But the wrong to himselfe is the greatest of all which I pray God by his spirit to convince him of without which he will goe on still to boast of a false peace To the sixth 6. Ans That diverse of these Complainants haue shewed them selves opposite and averse to the calling of sundry worthy servants of God c. The Answerer should haue shewed Reply 1. Whether these worthy servants of God were desired by the Church 2. Whether their shewing themselves opposite and averse to they re calling did deprive the Church of them being generally desired 3. Whether they disorderly saught to worke theyr wills by raysing unjust surmises and jealousies to gaine a party in the Classis to hinder the Church from the excercise of its power and liberty in the free choyse of those men and that without declaring to the Church the aequity of their so doing by the Scriptures and 4. whether upon this disorderly proceeding of theirs the Church was actually hindred by the interposition of the Classis from freely chusing those men whom they generally desired If yea the case is alike and they deprived the Church of her power as well as he yet that will not excuse much lesse justify him If nay as he knoweth they did not so then he depriveth the Church of her power and not they 7. Ans P. 25. Reply To tâ—e seventh that those which were refused were not put back by his authority c. The question is not whether they were put back by his authority or not for no such authority is due to him and if he doe it it is not by any lawfull authority but by usurpation and tyranny but whether he haue not so farr prevayled though by other mens authority whom he hath irritated by false accusations intimations or intreatyes as that these men haue bene thus put back If not he should have denyed it that the accusation might haue appeard to be false If yea the complaint is just and he is the cause of they re being deprived of theyr liberty and power in the free choyse of their Pastor by whose authoty soever it was done As Iezabell was guilty of depriving Naboth of his life though it was done by the authority of Achab. So that this answer is like the former a mere diversion of the Reader from the true question And thus we have finished our reply to his pretended answer to that which is objected concerning these instances joyntly considered and in generall we proceed to the next 2. His pretended answers to the particular instances severally considered and a part P. 25. A defence of M. Hooker First he beginneth with Mr. H. concerning whom he noateth 3 things 1. The making knowne of his opinions to the Classis by his owne hand wrighting 2. The judgement of the Classis both concerning Mr. H. and concerning this Answerers dealing in the buisenes 3. The reason of his wrighting these things We will examine what he sayth in every one of these To the first concerning the making knowne of Mr. H. opinions to the Classis from his owne hand wrighting Here I must take leave to enquire 2 or 3 things of the Answerer after I haue declared the course that is taken in the Classis with those that are to be admitted into any Church that standeth under them which is this What the Classis requireth of ministers to be admitted by them For trying the fitnes of Ministers for any pastorall charge in any Church combined with others under a Classis the Classis under which it is requireth of them that are to be admitted Subscription to the Catechisme and to the Belgicke confession of fayth and to the determination of the Synod of Dort and to every point of doctrine in them with a promise to teach and defend that doctrine and that they will neither publickly nor privately directly nor indirectly either speake or wright any thing against the same and that they will reject oppugne resist and drive from the Church as much as in them lyeth all errours that fight against the same by name those that are condemned in the same Synod And if it happen that they fall into any doubt or opinion contrary to the former doctrine they promise that they will not propose defend preach or wright the same privately nor secretly before they haue declared the same to the Consistory Classis or Synod and subjected it to examination being ready willingly to submit them selves to theyr judgement under the paenalty of being suspended from they re ministry if they doe otherwise And if the Consistory or Synod upon great cause of suspition for conservation of the purity of doctrine and concord shall exact of them a declaration of theyr opinion concerning any point of the Confession Catechisme or Synodicall explication they doe promise under the same paenalty to be ready thereunto reserving to themselves the right of appealing if they thinck themselves injuryed And they promise by all meanes to defend the Canons of the Nationall Synod at Dort Anno 1619. and never to speake consult or communicate with any person whether ecclesiasticall or civill privately without the knowledge and permission of the Classis concerning any project of moderation or accommodation with the Remonstrants in fraudem praedictorum Synodalium canonum decretorum under the paenalty which the Classis shall inflict upon them according to the exigency of the thing if they doe otherwise even to suspension and abdication To which censure the subscribers doe willingly submit them selves This being the manner of proceeding in the Classis with a Minister that is to be admitted it would be enquired of the Answerer 1. Quaere Why dealt he with Mr. H. and with me and some others by way of private questioning seing the Classis will make sufficient tryall of they re judgment before they re admittance 2. Quaere Why he put those 21 questions to Mr. H. and some of them to me seing the Synods have not determined that those questions should be put to them nor are they proposed by any Classis to any Ministers for tryall of them 3. Quaere Why did the Answerer make knowne Mr H. judgment to the Classis seing in the conclusion of that wrighting he expresseth himselfe thus Because J doe apprehend your opinion and affection to be so farr setled that you conceive there cannot be a peaceable concurreÌ„ce in such distaÌ„ce of judment I am resolved contendly to sit downe and suddenly as I see my opportunity to depart c. Was not here a voluntary desistance To what end was this wrighting carryed to the Classis after he voluntarily desisted Was it not to shelter and hide himselfe under the Classis that it might be thought they deprived the Church of Mr. H. not he was it not to expose Mr. H. to the more reproach and censure when the Classis and Synod had judged
against him 2. To the second The judgment of the Classis 1. concerning Mr. Hook 2. concerning the answerer Here againe concerning this judgment of the Classis it would be enquired 1. Quaere Whether all the Ministers of the Classis consented hereunto or not 2. Quaere Whether they that so judged declared their sentence to be according to the Scriptures If yea what Scriptures they produced to warrant they re censure If not By what rule they will justify such proceeding 3. Quaere Whether the Church referred this matter to the Classis and craved they re judgment therein 4. Quaere Whether the Classis did heare Mr. H. declaring the reasons of his judgment and seeke to rectifye his judgment if they thought he had erred by Scripture before they proceeded to sentence against him If upon inquiry it shall appeare that the matter was not referred to their judgment by the Church and that only some few of the Ministers or all or most of them without shewing the aequity of their sentence by the Scriptures thus judged without hearing what Mr. H. could say in defence of his assertions and then gave it under their hands to subject the Church to they re determination and the Answerer procured this to be done and afterwards pressed it upon the Church to keepe out Mr. H. let the Reader judge whether this be not a manifest depriving of the Church of that liberty and power which Christ hath given it as himselfe acknowledgeth in the free choyse of they re Pastor Nor can I thinck that the Classis or deputyes of the Synod would justify the Answerers dealing in this buisenes and condemne Mr. H. so farr if they had bene rightly informed of the naked trueth without such intimations suggested by the Answerer against him as might serve to stirr up unjust jealousyes and surmises against that worthy man For may not any thing he held stand with the doctrine contained in the Catechisme Confession and Synodicall explication thereof And doeth the Synod require any more of him that is to be admitted to any Church in these countryes I am confident that this case would beare a review that a Nationall Synod would not justify the deputyes for that provinciall Synod nor the deputyes justify that Classis nor the Classis approve of the Answerers dealing in this buisenes if it were more thoroughly examined Ans 3. To the third His apology for wrighting this being compelled by the Complainants in his owne defence which else he sayth he would not have done Be it Reply that the complainants wrighting to the Consistory had compelled him to answer there yet that might have bene done by word or in wrighting and kept within themselves Who compelled him to print If he say the printed pamphlet 1. what is that to the Complainants who disliked it 2. my printed protestation was sufficient against that and did satify 3. I had procured that all the pamphlets were bought up save a few that were dispersed before the receit of my letter and so the publishing of them was stopped And therefore I may fitly reply in his owne words a litle qualifyed had the Answerer bene so considerate and wise in this as he hath bene in some other things he would rather have rested in the judgment of the Classis against the printing of his booke and burnt it or utterly suppressed it then to compell me in myne owne and other mens defence to wright these things concerning him or them which otherwise I would never have done though the injuryes we have suffered are great the wrōg done to the Church is farr greater if they had no more to complaine of then that they were deprived of that faythfull servant of God Mr. H. whom he not only then deprived them of but also pursueth him with reproaches in print unto the ends of the earth So much for Mr. H. at least till another occasion be given Ans 2. A breife defence of my selfe which is more fully done in ans to the 7. Sect. and those that follow 2. In the next place he dealeth with me and thincketh to free himselfe from any blame concerning me out of myne owne words in the postscript after my letter to the Classis concerning which he noateth three things 1. Some faults in that wrighting 2. that my desisting is by me imputed to the Classis as the cause thereof 3. that the Complainants are to be blamed for laying this complaint upon him To all which I will reply breifely referring the larger discourse of my matters to the seaventh Section and those which follow Reply 1. To the first concerning faulty and injurious relation of matters to be further examined hereafter Let the Reader but cast his eyes hereafter upon Sect. 19 where this matter should be examined and he shall find nothing sayd by the Answerer to evince that in that postscript are any faults or injurious relations of matters though J can easily shew sundry faults and injurious relations of matters made by him to be further examined both in that and other Sections 2. To the second that my desisting is to be imputed to the Classis P. 147. 3. as the cause thereof Here I may justly retort the Answerers observation concerning my publick censure of the pamphlet upon himselfe in reference to the Classis with some additions more justly and say almost in his owne words Observe the just reward of the inordinate affection which the ministers of the Classis have shewed in contending against the Church and against those Ministers whom the Church hath desired to gratifye the Answerer By the Answerer himselfe complaints are called for to be directed against them that himselfe may escape Nor is it once as it was in my case concerning W. B. that he hath done thus but often in this booke Nor is it done against men unknowne as in my case but he nameth them urgeth it and that in print as well as I did and though by the Answerer himselfe sentence is not pronounced against them yet the evidence which he bringeth is so cleare and so insisted upon and urged by him rhat some will thinck right is not done to the Answerer if sentence passe not against the Classis 3. To the third that they unjustly lay this complaint upon him Why so Because they say Mr. P. is the only cause If that be the fault let the expression be altered and in stead of the only cause what if they say the principall cause will that please him No Mr. D. contradicteth them in confessing the Classis to be so strong a cause thereof But this is no contradiction to that saying that he is the principall cause For the concurring of diverse causes to the producing of one effect doth not destroy but suppose a due subordination of causes so that the effect may be ascribed to either properly yet to the principall efficient primarily and secondarily to the Instrument As if one man cut another with a
that respect whom they could not wel understand through some defect of the English tongue or they re manner of pronouncing it partly in respect of yeares or experience for such a worke whereof some other instances are alleadged by them But of boath these insufficiencyes they acquit Mr. Balmford and blame the Answerer that he hath so needlesly brought him by name upon the stage whilest he coneealeth the names of the other two and wholly hideth others whom they can name Also they say some were desired by him whom they could not thinck fit for them in respect of they re relations and ingagements to other Churches which would suffer much by the losse of them though in other respects they accounted them fit 3. To that which he addeth concerning the fighting of some of these Complainants against his calling they answer and professe that the fighting which he meaneth was not out of disesteeme of or disaffection to Mr. Balmford but for the defence and maintenance of they re right in which case they would have opposed any other For seing how unjustly they were deprived of Mr. Hooker whom they generally desired and having heard that some of the Dutch Ministers had sayd that if they had knowne so much before concerning him as they had then heard matters should not have bene carryed against him as they were whereupon they conceyved hopes that they might yet injoy Mr. Hooker Hence came they re opposition to Mr. B. calling whom they thought the Answerer more forward to bring in that he might deprive them of the other But since that time finding they re expectation and hope frustrate they have wished that Mr. B. had bene setled amongst them Concerning the other two seing the Answerer concealeth they re names I will be silent and am sorry that he concludeth that passage with persisting in his former fault of missappiying so abusing the Scripture which he alleadgeth for his owne purpose Thus long I have bene excercised in a most unpleasing worke of raking in a kennel of reproaches to find out my answer which he directed me to seeke in theyres And in searching I find no such answer to them as I looked for viz a disproofe of this second proofe of the justnes of they re complaint concerning his depriving the Church of the free choyse of they re Pastor For what free choyse have they when they may not have one of they re owne Nation immediately from England but one that can speake Dutch and that one must be so and so principled and framed to the bent of the Answerers spirit as hath bene declared in the former Section why is this required more of the English then of other Nations Why doeth the Answerer presse this as a thing necessary when the Magistrates only propound it as a thing convenient Who seeth not that till he shewed his dislike both the Magistrates and Classis have approved of these very men whom afterwards upon his suggestions against them they have refused How then can it be accounted a slander that they complaine of him for this cause If he have no better answer for me J shall remaine unanswered as they are notwithstanding any thing pretended by him to the contrary Pag. 32. Ans He chargeth me with overlashing more then they and myne assertion with more untrueth then theyres because J used the word Allwayes Reply 1. For them they re assertion hath bene examined and found true and I doubt not upon examination myne will be found true also and that in both he will be found guilty of slander For. 1. in my wrighting these words following will be found added to the former and hath hitherto opposed diverse worthy men that have come immediately from England which addition serveth to restraine the word allwayes to those that came immediately from England as if I should say Allwayes when men have come immediately from England which was the case of Mr. H. Mr. P. and my selfe he hath opposed them and shewed himselfe desirous of one that had lived some time in this country rather So that I make the opposition of those that have come immediately from England a reall proofe of his desire of having one that lived in these countryes which desire when it worketh so strongly as that those that come immediately from England are more narrowly sifted and more violently opposed then others who having lived in these parts consent with them in judgment this I call urging So that suppose this have not bene publickly urged by him allwayes from the first day of his being called to that Church yet if allwayes whensoever men have come immediately from England and have bene much desired by the Church for such I meane he hath found one pretence or other to oppose they re calling when he hath not bene so strict with others my assertion appeareth to be true Secondly I am so farr from overlashing more then they that I râ—straine my selfe much more in limiting my speech to those that have come immediately from England whereas they complaine of his opposing not only those but even such also as had abode sometimes in these Countryes as Mr. Parker Dr. Ames Mr. Forbes who could speake Dutch and yet were opposed refused by him Now where is my overlashing where is the untrueth of my assertion It becommeth him to be very carefull that he shew foorth trueth in his accusation who will charge another with untrueth and to be found wary and moderate in his expressions who will accuse another of overlashing I doubt not the Reader seeth how easily I may retort this chalenge upon him and more justly But I spare him and hasten to examine the following Sections The seaventh Section examined whereunto this title is praefixed The story of some proceedings about the calling of Mr. D. THe Answerer purposing to expose me to all the reproach he can in the 16 following Sections to draw the eyes of passengers as it were to fixe the mind of the Reader upon the ensuing discourse he praefixeth a title written in a larger character then the rest and my name in capitall letters To what speciall purpose his owne heart knoweth and God who is greater then his heart knoweth much betrer As for me The good will of the Lord be done If he deliver me up to be buffeted by the frowardnes of a Masterly fpirit and that when I doe well his grace I hope will inable me to submit to my Fathers good pleasure in the smitings of my fellow servant because Christ my Lord hath also suffered for me leaving me an example And it may be in thc answer of these particulars whereby he thought to blemish me my innocency and his injury shall more fully appeare to all men by the overruling hand of the only wise God then any other way it could have done This the Lord hath done in Iosephs case and others but specially in the crucifying of our Lord whose superscription in great letters upon the
Mat 10.28 v. 23. with 28. Nor is this that unlawfull feare of them that can kill the body as appeareth in this that in the same chapter where the Apostles are forbidden to feare they are allowed to fly And if these might stand together in the Apostles why not in others Nor is this the unlawfull faynting in affliction 2 Cor 4.16 with 2 Cor 11.30 spoken of by Paul For even the same Apostle in the same Epistle where he speaketh of his not faynting speaketh of his flying to shew that these are not contrary Nor is this like the flying of Ionah or that whereunto Ieremy was tempted For they that doe thus doe not doe it that they may not preach but that they may preach the Gospell of which liberty they foresee that they should utterly be deprived if they should fall in to they re hands who would not afford them the favour which Paul had at Rome to dwell in his owne hired house Act 28.16.30.31 and to receive all that came in unto him preaching the Kingdom of God c. no man forbidding him Neither is it done by them as by those who are acted by the spirit of that base feare which is opposed to the spirit of power and of a sound mind 2 Tim 1.7 For even the spirit of power or courage or fortitude worketh diversly in the servants of God upon severall occasions When God calleth men to confesse the truth by doing it it incourageth them thereunto whatsoever difficulties or impediments lye in the way when he calleth them to witnes to it by suffering it strengthneth them thereunto But how to suffer that tryall not wherewith men would insnare them but wherewith it pleaseth the Divine providence to excercise them Men would imprison them but God strongly inclineth theyr spirits rather to chuse a voluntary banishment for a short space of time which is a sorer tryall then some imprisonment And in such a case flight it selfe is a reall confession and profession that the truths of the Gospel are of no small value to them who thus flye For who had not rather tarry in his owne country then leave his country acquaintance all the commodities which with them he might have injoyed and travayle amongst strangers whose language dispositions and customs he knoweth not where he is exposed to many inconveniences by the change of ayre and dyet and to be reviled in his owne land and suspected amongst strangers and to be ill intreated oppressed rejected and in print traduced by those who should have comforted and countenanced him and to be brow-beaten by his inferiours fhily looked upon by some aequalls treacherously circumvented by others obnoxious to the injuryes of all In a word to be a footestoole for others to tread upon that they may rayse themselves by doing some service though it be by rayling against or slandering those whom they frowne upon Psal 129.3 Secedamus inquit am◠cis nubecula est quae citò evanescit Socrat hyst 3.12.18 from whom they expect preferment As Erasmus said of Luther poore Luther made many rich men because they got preferment in those dayes by wrighting against him Is this to forsake the Lords plough or is it not for the testimony of Christ to be content that the ploughers plough long furrowes upon our backs Did Athanasius forsake the Lords plough when to decline Iulians plot against him he fled from Alexandria This was not to forsake the calling of God but to follow it The like I may say of Peter Martyrs relinquishing his station in Luca when he saw he could not with safety hold it it was not a deserting of his flock but a preserving himselfe for his flock whom if he had not left for a time they and the whole Church had lost for ever I wil not now speake of Policarpus and Cyprian others in former times nor of those who fled in Q Maryes dayes and were preserved in Franckfurt and other places for after times In Hypothesi For the justifying of myne owne act in this particular being injuriously compelled hereunto in so publick a way by the inconsiderate importunity of an angry brother who seemeth very regardlesse how farr he exposeth me to censure or danger I will breifely relate both the causes of it and the manner of my carriage in it That the true cause may be knowne false causes pretended by others must be removed For this way I have bene much wronged whilest many out of ignorance or malice or both either willingly not knowing or maliciously concealing the truth have taken an unwarrantable liberty to spread abroad slanders with as much confidence as if they had bene trayned up in the Machiavells and Iesuits principles Calumniare audacter aliquid haerebit from theyr childhood And some were so bold herein that they feared not to cast the poyson of theyr reproaches and to shoote the arrowes of theyr slanders at me thorough the eares of theyr superiours persons of noble quality whose place and authority should have awed them and made them affrayd to be found lyars unto them though they had no regard of God nor of theyr conscience nor of theyr account in the day of Christ The time may come when I shall 3. Ioh. 10 in print remember they re deeds which they doe and they re prating against vs with malicious words if they take not up in time but proceed and persist in these injurious dealings In the meane space and allwayes my soule stay thy selfe upon the righteous God Psal 37.6 the God of truth And he shall bring forth thy righteousnes as the light and thy judgements as the noone day Say unto the Lord my God Thou hast knowne my reproach Psal 69.19 6.7 and my shame and my dishonour my adversaries are all before thee Let not them that wayte on thee o Lord God of hoasts be ashamed for my sake Let not those that seeke thee be confounded for my sake o God of Israel Because for thy sake I have borne reproach c. yet that I may not be altogether wanting to my selfe nor injurious to the Reader in suffering him to be guilty of the sinne of evill surmises or of slander in heart for want of information I doe seriously and sincerely protest that so farr as I know myne owne heart I did not with draw my selfe 1. out of any disloyall affection or unduetifull thought towards his Matie of great Brittayne my dread Soveraigne for whom my hearty prayer shall be day night that his soule may be bound in the bundle of life with the Lord his God that the soules of his enimyes may be slung out as out of the middle of a sling And that the Lord will cloath his enimies with shame but upon himselfe let his crowne flowrish 2. nor out of any Schysmaticall propension to forsake the Church assembles of England Heb. 10.29 as if I thought there were no true Churches of
authority of Câ—â—sses whereunto what I answered he knoweth 2. Concerning promiscuous administration of Baptisme according to the custom of the Dutch Church in Amsterstam wherein what I held and doe hold shall appeare For the second By comparing this report with my noates of our conferences which I wrote upon my returne to my lodging whilest matters were fresh in memory I finde it to be partiall and defective First partiall in declaring the state of the question which was not as he intimateth but thus After an hystoricall narration made by him of a difference betweene the Classis and Mr. Hook about a custom which the Ministers of the Dutch Church in Amsterdam have of baptizing all that are brought by whomsoever he asked me what I thought of it I desired for my satisfaction to know whâ—t their custom was being then in part ignorant thereof He told me that they baptized all refusing none I replyed that I would baptize all their infants who were members of his Church refusing none He sayd that is not sufficient I desiring to carry matters with all possible peaceablenes told him that I would not refuse to baptize others also which were no members of his Church if I were satisfyed coÌ„cerning the Parents and instanced in such as might occasionally be there from England were sufficiently knowne to me But yet the case might be such in some others as I should not adventure to doe it He answered But here they except none but baptize all that are brought though the parents be not knowne or the infant be presented in the fâ—thers absence by persons unknowne I told him that I hoped such cases were seldom especially in the English Church He said it must be expected to fall out often I told him I should desire to be satisfyed concerning the parents before the child were presented He sayd They would often bring them in sermon time without giving any notice before and in such a case to refuse any would give offence if the child should be unbaptized I replyed that offence may be prevented seing those whom I dare not admit may repayre to the Dutch Church where none are refused He added that it would give offence to the Classis if our Church â—hould not doe as they did in this I answered the difference betweene the small English Church the vast Dutch Church in the same towne being considered that might easily be answered By all which it appeareth that the thing which I refused and whereupon our difference arose was the promiscuous administration of baptisme to all that are presented by whomsoever and not that J made the parents submission to my private examination a necessary condition of baptisme but only I propounded it as a prudent meane for avoyding that promiscuous baptizing which he required Thus the Reader may see the report to be partiall Secondly it is defective not mentioning diverse passages of discourse betweene us which I will but point at As about an order in the Classis which he sayd was for this concerning which what I demanded and what he answered I will for this time conceale as also what he spake about this custom being alwaies observed in that Church as also about passages that he sayd had bene betweene the Classis and Mr. Forbes about Mr. Hooker in reference to this question He omitteth also our discourse about the case of an unbaptized Turke presenting his child to baptisme with no other profession then that which is required in they re Church And how he thought it to be more for a mans satisfaction to baptize all upon the injunction of the Classis then to refuse any upon his owne judgement Other passages also I could name but these may suffice to shew that his memory hath not retayned particulars so well as my noates at least that this report is defective But let us consider his Arguments The arguments for promiscuous baptizing 1 From Reasons He mentioneth 2 sorts of arguments which he used in that conference to convince me The first consisted of reasons the second of Scriptures alleadged against my opinion First the reasons were two 1. the scandall of the Brownists 2. the offence of the Church In both which he should have set downe my answers also which seing he neglected I will now set downe truely according the to substance of my answer and yet breifely 1. The scandall of the Brownists To the first I answer 4 things Ans 1 1. What the Brownists hold so farr as it accordeth with the rule is to be received for the rules sake which is truth and not to be rejected because they hold it Ans 2 2. Theyr unjust and unwarrantable excommunicating of Mr. S. for such an opinion is not justifyed by my supposed agreement with them in this tenet For a man that holdeth this may condemne that Ans 3 3. the difference betweene them and me in this point is such as the Answerer knoweth that there is no feare of theyr insulting or being hardened thereby 4. the French Churches and some other Dutch Churches viz in Zealand and England c. are not so large in this practise as they in Amsterdam To the second I answer 1. That the wayes propounded by me for accommodation 2. The offence of the Church Ans Meanes propounded for accommodation A Copy of a wrighting shewing were sufficient as I conceive to prevent any offence of the Church These wayes I will now relate in the words wherein I wrote them to a freind to inable him to acquaint the Dutch preachers with the truth in this matter This wrighting was dated delivered by me for the use aforesaid the 10 of Ian newstile 1634. Wherein I spake of my selfe in the third person for good reason at that time Sir because you are willing to take paines for the accommodation of this difference you shall in few wordes understand 1. the true state of the question 2. the reasons of his answer 3. the way of accommodation which will best satisfye him which I leave with you in wrighting for the helpe of your memory First the question is 1. The state of the question whether he will baptize all children who are presented to the Church though the parents be no members His answer was and is that this cannot be answered otherwise then according to cases He may not say that he will baptize none and he dare not say that he will baptize all but this he sayth There are cases where in he will baptize such as are not members of this Church and yet the cases may be such as in them he shall refuse to administer it to others Secondly the reasons of his answer 2. Reasons of my answer besides others which to him seeme weighty in reference to this particular place are two 1. the promiscuous mixture of all languages and sects amongst which also are many Libertines which are of no Church and for aught is knowne many parents who themselues never
manifest to be Christians when according to their wrighting it should be translated whose parents or suretyes are manifest to be Christians Here is or a disjunctive particle changed into and a particle copulative to the manifest alteration of the sense of their words That this is not the errour of the printer but done purposely by the authour appeareth from his constant private report that I refused to baptise the childreÌ„ of such whose parents were manifest Christians To make this good the Reader hath a false translation obtruded upon him I demand therefore if that disjunctive expression of the five Duth Ministers in their wrighting viz parents or suretyes were justifyable why doth he alter it into a copulative expression viz parents and suretyes If it were not justifyable why did he signify his consent with them and that he for his part rested therein 2. Why am J blamed yea rejected for not resting in it what will he what can he say in excuse thereof That the Dutch preachers were willing afterwards upon my shewing my dislike to change ve into que or into and and therefore he altered it I answer 1. such a thing was in speech but never done for when we began to take pen and paper and to wright downe agreements on both sides after some litle discourse they altered their minds saying that they had no commission to make any agreements till they had acquainted the Classis therewith which they would doe And after that time they never spake more of altering any thing So it stood and standeth to this day unaltered 2. Suppose it had bene altered by them as it was not yet the Answerer wil have no advantage thereby for he professeth to translate it according to that copy wherein he signifyed his consent with them and required that I should rest which is apparently falsifyed Fourthly He blameth me for complaining that he dealt extreamely with me and rejected all my labour for a peaceable composing prudent accommodating and brotherly ending of matters betweene him and me privately or by the counsail of the Elders of his owne Church nor would hearken to my advise without consent of the Classis All these reports he sayth are untruths And this wrighting he sayth witnesseth for him c. Three things I affirme in those wrightings and they are all true First that he rejected my labour for accommodation The truth of that appeareth in that himselfe said in the beginning of this Section that he offered that if any other convenient way of accommodation could be found out he would willingly hearken to it Let it be noated that he sayth any other and thereby plainly refused that which was propounded by me else why is any other way saught Secondly that he would not yeeld any brotherly moderation unto me and refused all meanes of accommodation The truth hereof appeareth in the meanes which he embraced or rather put those Ministers upon to propound to me having praepossessed them with causeles jealousyes when it is required that I should rest in a wrighting which himselfe is loath to translate aright that the Reader may know the wholl truth wherein I am advised to â—aptize all children whose parents or suretyes are Christians by which accomodation I shall be brought to doe the thing which I judge unlawfull For if a Christian surety may give right to an infant for baptisme whose parents are neither of them Christians and such midwives or nurses or others as take no future care of the child may passe for suretyes and must be accounted manifest Christians if they nodd the head or say yae at the reading or pronouncing of the formalier by the minister though no man knoweth what they are nor themselves it may be understand a word that is sayd to them who seeth not that the sacred ordinance of Baptisme is hereby made common and so to be promiscuously administred according to this wrighting Thirdly that he would not hearken to my advice without consent of the Classis 1. That this is true he must confesse unles he will deny his owne words for himselfe sayd so to me he knoweth it 2. The event sheweth it For though he would have me to rest in this wrighting without consent of the Classis yet he well knew this to be no way of accommodation hut a mere snare to me And now because the Answerer not only seemeth to charge me with obstinacy for not resting in that determination of the five ministers but also to insult as if J wanted warrant from the Scripture for myne opinion because I did not set it downe in wrighting that the question might be in wrighting discussed betweene us Sect. 11. which he offered as he sayth to some of the Complainants sundry times though the vanity of this pretence is in the former Section declared yet being thus againe chalenged in print I may not without injury to the truth any longer forbeare to give a publick account of my judgement in this matter But first my humble and hearty request to the Reverend ministers of these countryes especially to those in that part is that they will not impute it to any contentious disposition or to loue of disputes much lesse to a malicious desire of discovering theyr imperfections to the world least of all to an arrogant polupragmony in me as if I being a stranger assumed to my selfe to be a reformer of these Churches that I freely declare the grounds whereupon I refused to bind my selfe to observe that custom Thus casting my selfe upon theyr favourable construction and praying them aequally and judiciously to consider what J say I will with Gods assistaÌ„ce which I humbly begg proceed to declare my grounds after I have stated the question by shewing the issue and summe of that wrighting of the five ministers wherein the Answerer would bind me to rest The state of the question Breifly it was that I should administer the sacrament of Baptisme to all infants that are presented thereunto if those that present them whether they be parents or suretyes shall declare themselves to be Christians by professing Christian Religion at the reading of the leitourgy of Baptisme though the presenters are altogether unknowne to us yea though they will not or cannot satisfye the minister before that they are such as in whom the infant hath a right to baptisme This to be so will easily appeare to the intelligent Reader if he examine the wrighting which they sent to me The Answerer and the five ministers required it as a condition of my admittance to the pastorall office in that Church that I should rest in this wrighting By resting in it they meant as both he and they whom the Classis deputed to speake with me expressed themselves that I should promise to conforme thereunto which is in few words to administer baptisme promiscuously to all that are presented by whomsoever according to the custom of that place This being the true state of the question that
the English Churches and the Ministers thereof should be deceived by the impostures of such men and that under colour of our Churches doe baptise their infants alone who have adjoyned themselves to our Churches by publick confession of fayth and obseruation of Ecclesiasticall discipline And that our Churches may be certaine that the infants which are to be baptised are their seed who have joyned themselves to our Churches in manner aforesaid the father of the infant to be baptised if he can possibly doe it or other men or woemen of notable esteeme or credit in the Church doe offer the infāt to Baptisme doe publickly professe that it is the seed of the Church Yet we suffer no strāger to offer their infāts to baptisme in our Churches who hath not made publick profession of his fayth and willingly submitted himselfe to the discipline of our Church least otherwise they who should present their children to baptisme might in time plead that they belong to our Churches and so should deceive the English Churches and their Ministers Yet nevertheles that we may openly testifye that the English Churches and ours are one and the same Church although we differ somewhat from them both in language and ceremonyes we doe not refuse that the English may as publick witnesses of the Church offer the infants of our members to baptisme in our Churches if they have both the use of our languages and a certaine testimony of their piety as in like manner our members are accustomed to offer the infants of the English to baptisme in the English Churches By this declaration it appeareth what care they tooke to prevent the prophanation of this ordinance and how well this care of theirs was approved of in those dayes by the publick liberty they had so to doe under the broad seale The same thing will further appeare in the questions which they propounded to those godly persons by whom the infant was presented which that they might understand and so answer upon knowledge one thing required in them was that they should have the use of their language To these men they put three questions Quest 1 Are those infants which you offer the seed of this our Church that they may lawfully be here baptised by our Ministry Answer Yea. Quest 2 Doe you acknowledge our Doctrine which you have heard concerning Baptisme and the Mysteries thereof to be true c. Answer Yea. Quest 3 Doe you acknowledge that it is yours and the wholl Churches duety office to see that the infant offered to baptisme be instructed and trained up in in the true knowledge of God and in Religion Answer Yea. Thus much shall suffice to be noated thence Before these Chrysostom did beare witnes against this evill Chrys de compunct cordis lib. 1. and upon the same ground viz because the Sacraments are profaned when they are administred to unworthy persons which he speaketh of boath the Sacraments using the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the plurall number His words may be thus translated Let us see also what other praecepts of the Lord contayne Give not holy things sayth he to doggs nor cast your pearles before swine But we corrupted with the love of prayse doe things contrary to this praecept also and doe dispense the holy Mysteries to men that have not a pure understanding nor sound fayth and moreover are blemished with great sinnes not making any difference And afterwards he complaineth that they were admitted to the holy things of Christians which understood not Christian Religion Tertul. de Bapt. advers Quintil cap. 18 Tertullian Chrysostoms Senior who speaketh more punctually to the case in question concerning infants offered to baptisme shall conclude this catalogue of witnesses He speaketh thus Baptismum non temere credendum * Credendum i. e. committendum administrandum petenti De foro phrasis Iunius Annot. esse sciunt quorum officium est They know whose office it is that baptisme is not to be administred rashly to every one that requireth it Give to him thas asketh Luke 6. is alleadged for almes In this case give not holy things to doggs nor cast your pearles before swine Mat. 7. is rather to be observed And whereas some might object Mat. 19. suffer litle children to come unto me c. speaking of infants of strangers from the covenant as Iunius interpreted him he sayth Let them come when they are growne to yeares Let them come when they have learned and are taught wherefore they come Let them know how to desire Christ that it may appeare thou givest to him that asketh The validity of this Argument will be more manifest if the ends and uses whereunto baptisme serveth by divine institution be considered which judicious Calvin breifely declareth Calv. instit cap. 15. Sect. 1. Eph. 5.26 Coll. 2.12 Tit. 35. 1. Pet. 3.21 Rom. 6.3 saying that Baptisme is a signe or Sacrament of initiation whereby we are taken into the fellowship of the Church and being ingrafted into Christ are reckoned amongst the children of God Whence we gather that in Calvins judgment two things are sealed and signifyed in baptisme First our communion with Christ in his merits and efficacy for justification and sanctification which are implyed in our Adoption whereby we are the children God But because all communion is founded in Vnion it is praesupposed that there is some union betweene Christ and him who partaketh of this seale of the Covenant aright Gall. 3.27 Mark 16.16 Mat. 3. Act. 2. Now that union is by fayth and therefore beleiving is joyned with being baptised as a necessary requisite in him that aright partaketh of it according to that he that beleiveth and is baptised shall be saved And because fayth is not without repentance repentance also is required to remission of sinnes which baptisme in the right use of it sealeth Yet I confesse against the Anabaptists that infants of beleiving parents though they have not actuall fayth 1. Cor. 7.14 Gen. 17. Synops pur Theol. disp 44. de bapt Thes 150 are accounted beleivers as well as holy in theyr parents by vertue of the covenant And I willingly assent to the Reverend Divines the Professours of Leyden that it is a sufficient warrant for the baptising of infants if in either of the parents such fayth repentance are found as in the judgment of Charity may testifye to men theyr union with Christ though but externally Yea I grant further that evills in life or errours in fayth whereby the efficacy of the covenant is made voyd and frustrate to the parents may not justly deprive the infants of such Christians parents of baptisme except in the cases propounded by those grave and learned Divines before mentioned viz whittaker Beza Cartwright c. or in cases paralell The second end and use whereunto baptisme serveth in Mr. Calvins judgment is to signifye and seale our fellowship with the Church and people of God in respect whereof he
men in Scripture will be found to be a sinne Secondly that this practise agreeth not with the good customes and practises of the Churches of Christ will appeare if we examine the story of times from the first institution of this ordinance First in the Iewish Church circumcision whereunto Baptisme answereth being a Sacrament of the same use that it was of was by Gods appointment Gen. 17.7.8.9.10 11.12.13 Acts. 7.8 Rom. 9.11 a token of the covenant made with Abraham and with his seed after him to be a God unto him and to his seed after him which the Apostle calleth a seale of the righteousnes which is by fayth and therefore by Gods ordinance it was limited to the men children of eight dayes old of his seed or that were borne in his house or bought with his money of any stranger which was not of his seed So that to circumcise any others who were not of that seed to whom this covenant belonged was a sinne And therefore the holy fathers were carefull to follow this rule in keeping this signe joyned with the covenant in those whom they circumcised Mat. 3.6.7 c. Mark 1.4.5 c. Luke 3.3.16 Afterwards Iohn Baptist walked in the same stepps and by the same rule mutatis mutandis administred Baptisme in that Church whereof he was a member requiring of all that came to his baptisme a profession of repentance and amendment of life for remission of sinnes whereof Baptisme was the seale preached Christ unto them This ordinance our Lord Christ after his resurrection established to continue in the Christian Churches giving a commission to his disciples to preach the Gospell to the Gentiles Mat. 28.19 Mark 16 15.16 to gather Churches amongst them and to baptise all such as should beleive throughout the world as a testimony to them that the righteousnes of fayth did belong to them also and not to the Church of the Iewes only Acts. 2.37.38.39.40.41 42.44.46 47. Accordingly the Apostles servants of Christ were carefull to observe this rule in their administring baptisme Thus Peter when he saw those 3000 soules pricked in their hearts preached unto them concerning repentance remission of sinnes Christ the promise baptisme fayth and amendment of life baptised those that gladly received his word and testifyed the same by joyning together in the profession thereof Act. 8.12.13.14 The same course Phillip tooke with the Church that was gathered in Samaria where many were baptised but none till they professed their beleife of the Gospell Act. 9.11 13.14.15 16.17 and their receiving the word of God and therefore it is said expresly when they beleived Phillip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Iesus Christ they were baptised both men and woemen when Ananias was comanded to goe and baptise Paul he objected against it at first till the Lord assured him that he was one to whom that seale of the covenant belonged Act. 10 43.44.47 48. and then he went and did it When Peter and those that came with him sawe that the Holy Ghoast fell on Cornelius and those that were assembled at that time in his house whilest he spake these words To him give all the Prophets witnesse Act. 8.36 37.38 Act. 16 31.32.33 that thorough the name of Iesus whosoever beleiveth in him shall receive remission of sinnes Peter demanded Can any man forbid water that these should not be baptised which have received the Holy Ghoast as well as we And then they were baptised To conclude this catalogue Phillip did not baptise the Eunuch though he desired it till he had given him satisfaction by professing his fayth in expresse words nor Paul the Iaylour and his house-hold till it appeared unto him that they beleived on the Lord Iesus Nor is there any example in the Scripture varying from this course to warrant such a promiscuous administration of baptisme in a place where such heterogeneall mixtures are of people of all sorts sects as Amsterdam is In the times after the first Century what care was taken concerning the persons whom they admitted to baptisme The storyes are cleare concerning those that were adulti though we find litle or nothing concerning infants only that they were baptised by vertue of that right they had to it in their beleiving parents But that which we find concerning the course which they tooke with those of yeares may serve to shew their high esteeme of this ordinance and how farr they were from this promiscuous manner of administring it though we purpose not to examine whether the first simplicity used by the Apostles was in all things observed by them nor how exactly they followed the rule in every particular They divided those that were turned from Gentilisme to imbrace the Christian Religiō into three sorts whom they distinguished by severall names 1. Whilest they were to be catechised and instructed in the grounds of Christan Religion they were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Audientes Catechumenists hearers 2. Afterwards having bene compeleatly instructed and earnestly now desiring to be admitted to the Sacrament they were called Competentes petitioners 3. Being found meet they were baptised and then and not before they were called fideles and perfecti perfect and beleivers viz in respect of the outward state and order of the Church with reference to those degrees whereby they must come to be baptised And when they did baptise them a publick tryall was made of their fitnes which aftertimes called Scrutinium the Scrutiny and hereof there were two parts 1. an abrenunciation 2. a profession of fayth 1. The abrenunciation was expressed by the party desiring Baptisme solemnly in expresse words in the Greeke Churches 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And this part they accounted of so much importance as that without it either in word or deed expressed they accounted none fit to be baptised 2. The profession of the fayth was openly made and in the hearing of the people by him that desired baptisme some times in a continued speech but more frequently by way of Dialogue and by certaine articles Ambros de Sacram lib. 2. C. Credis in Deum patrem omnipotentem Credo Credis in Dominum Iesum Christum Credo Credis in Spiritum Sanctum Credo This custom at first instituted for and used only by those of yeares who being converted from Gentilisme to Christianity desired baptisme was in aftertimes applyed to the baptisme of infants whose suretyes answered for them Beza epist 8. This came in by abuse sayth Beza and giveth too much advantage to the Anabaptists For if baptisme may not be administred without a profession of fayth present in the infant which if they meane not why is the infant asked concerning its fayth in the suretyes at that time sayth he why stay we not with the Anabaptists which God forbid till the child can professe its owne fayth And therefore elsewhere sayth Beza Beza epist 12. As
keeping Ian. 19. 1634. The Consistory being gathered Elders and Deacons together it was demanded whether that all persons being no members should be sent unto Mr. D. to desire the baptisme of their children and to make confession to him for his satisfaction in his administration of that Sacrament The answer was by all voyces yea if Mr. D. can be persuaded thereunto And for the better and more convenient bringing of the parents or presenters of the children to the Minister it is agreed by most voyces in Consistory that Th A. the Coster shall bring or direct the partyes to the Ministers house Afterward this question was propounded by the Answerer written downe in these words Whether if persons ignorant being willing to receive instruction allthough not presently able to render a reason shall be sent away by him or admitted to witt they approving of the doctrine of baptisme taught in these Churches and as by us usually is propounded A Copy of this pretended order with the questionw as brought to me by some of the Elders to see what answer J would make to them boath Which when I had considered I found the order too short and the question captious First for the order J let these five things be duely weighed 1. The Answerer dateth this order Ian. 15. which the Elders date Ian 19. as he dated the ministers wrighting to me Ian 28. which themselves in their latine copy to me dated Ian 20. which difference is not of much consequence only it sheweth that it is not safe for the Reader to be too confident of the Answerers memory 2. Where as I propounded three wayes of accommodation as the eleventh Section sheweth here is but one of them propounded in the Consistory 3. That one is otherwise propounded then I expressed it For I did not desire that all whose children should be presented to baptisme should be sent to me but only that it should be so when it fell into my course to administer that Sacrament my motion being that we might not performe it joyntly but severally and alternis vicibus neither did I require that they should make confession to me but that I might speake with them before they presented them in publick that I might have some knowledge of them by private conference with them to prevent publick disturbance 4. The course whereupon they agreed for accommodation was not sufficient For 1. many present their children to Baptisme that acquaint not Th. A. with it before hand The Answerer told me that they come many times in the sermon time no man having knowledge thereof before How shall Tho A. send such to me 2. They that doe acquaint him with their purpose of presenting their children what if they will not come to me upon his persuasion Who seeth not that I am in such cases and the like as farr to seeke for accommodation as if no order had bene made I told the Elders that this would not be sufficient unlesse it were added that no infants should be presented in publick to baptisme whose parents are not members of the Church before the minister had received satisfaction concerning the parents in private To this purpose I required that a firme order should be made in the Consistory to secure me from further trouble about this point which the Elders promised and indeavoured to effect as I was told but the Answerer resisted it refusing his consent thereunto without the consent of the Classis 5. The offer which he pretended that he voluntarily made for the inlarging of this order and my further accommodation to wit that he would send to me those parents that should come to him c. and so departing from his right he was content to referr the wholl worke of examination to my discretion is a vaine boast of false liberality For. 1. few if any come to him to advertise him thereof 2. If he should speake to them they would chuse and it may be refuse and make contention if a firme order were not made to prevent it 3. His referring of the wholl worke of examination to me was cast in for a pretence to evade the first meane of accommodation propounded by me and by the second course Sect. 11. which J propounded for accommodation also it may appeare that this offer was not for the accommodation which I desired but to hinder it rather Secondly for the question Any one may see it was captious For. 1. Why doeth he speake only of knowledge when I would as he knoweth be satisfyed concerning other things as well as their knowledge 2. Why doeth he speake of the measure and degree of knowledge so obscurely and suspiciously 3. Why was this question added to the order Was it not to shew that the order should no further stand then he received satisfaction in my answer to his question And hereby two things are manifested 1. that the order was not absolute but conitionall if I could be persuaded thereunto 2. that I did not approve of this order as sufficient as may further appeare in my dislike of his question whereunto if my answer had bene to his content to what end did he procure the five Ministers to signe that wrighting which was sent to me afterwards as him selfe confesseth in the beginning of this Section It had bene superfluous and to no purpose if the matter had bene before concluded amongst our selves For a Conclusion of this Section to satisfye the Reader that this was to be called rather a proposition or motion about an order to be deliberated upon then an order perfected by mature deliberation these Considerations may be added to what hath bene said 1. That with this pretended order a question was joyned and my answer to boath was required This sheweth that the order was not absolute but to be assented to by the Answerer if my answer to his question should please him 2. That in that order it is expresly sayd yea if Mr. D. can be intreated c. which againe sheweth that it was no absolute order but to stand if I could be intreated c. So that this could not be called an order till the Answerer had bene satisfyed about myne answer to his question and till I had yeelded to what by this order should be propounded to me 3. That when the order was brought to me though the word satisfaction and content was spoken of by me as a word fit to be in the order yet I demanded how this could be done by that order upon the reasons before mentioned in my fifth proofe of the defectivenes of that order 4. That upon my mislike of it the order was left with me to peruse and to add what I thought requisite as it was fit it should seing the end of it was my satisfaction 5. That before J had polished and perfected that order to my content the letter of the five Ministers was brought to me which then put me out of hope till the Elders againe promised me
the wholl drift of it which is to deny me that liberty in Holland which the Dutch Churches have in England by a grant of Edw 6 to Iohannes a Lasco under the broad seale of England which is continued to this day 2. I told them the danger of that expression quorum parentes susceptor esve whereby I am required to baptize all infants that are brought if either their parents or suretyes are Christians For by this rule the children of Iewes Turkes and Pagans of all sorts may be baptised if a Christian present them Then they seemed willing to alter that and began to wright but fell off againe from their purpose saying that they would acquaint the Classis with what I sayd And so the wrighting remaineth unaltered in my hand to this day To the fourth If these two words intreatyes and persuasions signifye one and the same thing without any difference in the sense I grant all to be true which he sayth so that to their desire of my accepting the call it be added upon the condition premised But if by intreaty he meane mere desires without arguments to worke upon my affections and by persuasions he meane intreatyes backed with arguments to worke upon my judgment affections then I grant intreatyes were used but not persuasions For I doe not remember one argument used by them to induce me but rather a professed declining thereof saying that they came not to dispute Concerning the second Classicall meeting It is true that then I sent them a wrighting by advise of one of the three ministers whom they deputed to speake with me the end thereof was to relate the truth concerning passages betweene the Answerer and me to prevent and remove misreports 2. to persuade them by reasons not to require it of me as a condition of my calling to rest in that wrighting 3. to acquaint them with my desire of more time propounded by me to the Elders and accepted by them wherein had the Classis condiscended to so aequall a motion it might have bene much for the peace of the Church I am certaine I intended nothing else in it But they were herein overswayed by sinister suggestions arising from a jealousy that if I had bene in for a time the desire of the congregation would be more strong towards me where as my true purpose was in that time if J could not conforme to their orders to order matters so that they who much desired my setling there might be willing to thinck upon some other and my purpose was to have given the best helpe I could for the setling of some other whom they should desire in a way of peace and concord To conclude All that I aymed at in that motion was either to accept their call with satisfaction to my conscience or to desist with the content of the members that so no disturbance might arise for my sake As for the deputation here spoken of the ministers deputed only againe prayed me to yeeld to that wrighting as before There were two of the Elders present at this time with some others witnesses hereof From us they went to the Classis and the same afternoone returned to me with this answer or to this effect That the Classis did judge that I had time enough already to understand the orders and customs of the Dutch Church and to satisfye my selfe concerning the conformity required in that wrighting yet they were content that I should proceed in assisting Mr. P. the moneth following till the next Classis but required of me that if in the meane space I could not yeeld that I should then desist voluntarily else they must be constrayned to complaine to the Magistrate Which message I received in the presence of diverse witnesses and promised to doe accordingly This J promised and performed I confesse only for the Churches peace and myne owne yet disliking their injurious manner of proceeding which I am content to passe by with such a touch till further provocation Concerning the third Classicall meeting It is true that having occasion of absence May. 1. at that time I left my mind in wrighting with one of the Elders both in Latine and English to the end that he or they whom the Consistory should depute to be at the next Classis might either report by word or shew in wrighting myne answer as should be thought most expedient It is also true that in that wrighting I signifyed that my mind was wholly turned away from accepting that call viz upon those termes and that I did voluntarily desist viz as the Marriner doeth voluntarily cast some goods into the sea in a storme to prevent a greater hurt and that I complained at the same time of the Answerers unbrotherly usage of me in such particulars as are there mentioned Neither were those complaints unjust as the Reader may partly perceive by what hath bene sayd may more fully when the Answerer shall attempt to cleare himselfe of the particulars there charged upon him which here he doeth not neither indeed can he Concerning the Magistrates requiring of them to desist It would be knowne by whose procurement this was done And for him that stirred them up thereunto my hearty prayer is that he may escape the judgment of God by judging himselfe for that unrighteous act Else I feare he will find that injuryes done against a Church in such important cases are no small sinnes Concerning an answer made to my wrighting by some whom the Classis deputed thereunto That answer was never communicated to me though I have heard a report thereof Had J perused it I should have either yeelded or replyed as the case had required Had this Answerer bene of the same mind with them to suppresse this treatise as they did their wrighting which I beleive was more in offencively penned the adversaryes might have wanted that cause of insulting and reproaching us for these contentions and jarrs which now they seeme to have The answer to Sect 20. examined concerning my pretended preaching in a private house THat the truth of this passage may appeare the Reader may be pleased to understand 1 that after my desistance from the publick worke I would have returned to my owne Country but that it was now more unsafe and hazardous for me so to doe then formerly by a malicious and false report suggested against me in England by one in Amsterdam whose name I will conceale for some reasons at this time this audacious Sycophant was not ashamed to informe that I had in the pulpitt rayled against the government of England against which the Answerer and the wholl Church are able and I hope ready to testifye for my innocency in that particular yea any that have heard or knowne me I thinck will undertake for me that I am farr from rayling at any time much more in the pulpitt and myne owne conscience abundantly cleareth me thereof in the sight of God Yet this report was too easily received and
the second Section he sayd it is against modesty and conscience to pronounce so certainly touching the issue of things to come and yet himselfe useth the same confident asseveration in a case more improbable as will appeare to any man or to himselfe if he reduce his reasoning and discourse to prove such disputes as I have used about myne owne desireablenes to be a want of modesty or prudence into a Syllogisme The 23. Section examined of the Ansvverers rejecting the counsail of the Elders when matters have bene referred to them if he thought they would conclude against his purpose THe usefullnes of the Eldership in the Church being considered with the Honour which the Holy Ghoast putteth upon those who are called thereunto should warne all men to take heed of contemning them or occasioning others to dispise them First Act 14. p. 155. Their usefullnes appeareth in that the Holy Ghoast directed Paul and Barnabas to ordaine Elders by voyces in every Church Which text Mr. Nowell in this Catechisme alleadgeth to shew that there were in the well ordered Churches certaine Seniors chosen and joyned with the Pastor and thereby he would shew that the Pastor should not excommunicate alone without the judgement of the Church This place being so understood we may from hence noate two things to declare the usefullnes of such officers 1 Thess 5.12.13 1 Tim. 4.14 Act 15.6.23.16.4 Ambros in 1 Tim 5. 1. that they were appoynted to every Church 2. That they were solemnly ordayned being commended to the Lord with prayer and fasting which is not used in slight matters It appeareth also in that they are joyned by the wisdom of God with other officers of as necessary use in the Church as the members are in the body 1 Cor. 12.28 Secondly The Honour which the Holy Ghoast putteth upon them is very great as appeareth first in their imployments which are honourable services as to assist the Pastor 1. In admonishing offenders 2. In imposition of hands at the ordaining of officers 3. in consulting and counsailing about Church affaires the Apostles refused not their helpe herein and this use of them continued as Ambrose sayth till it was altered by the sloath or rather pride of Teachers who would seeme to be some body by doing all things alone 2. In the titles wherewith he honoureth them being thus imployed calling them (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heb 13.7 17.24 Leaders (b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Thess 5.12 Rom 12.8 Presidents (c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act 20.28 1 Cor. 12.28 Overseers (d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Chron. 19.8 1 Tim. 3.2 1 Tim. 5.17 1 Thess 5.12.13 1 Tim. 5.17 Heb. 13.17 Governments 3. In the qualifications required to be in them viz. to be such as doe the duety of their place in the feare of the Lord faythfully and with a perfect heart wise vigilant sober of good behaviour blamelesse In a word they must not be destitute of any good property whereby they may be fitted to rule well 4. In the carriage which the Holy Ghoast injoyneth the people to use towards them in they re well discharging their duety As to acknowledge them and to esteeme them very highly in love to account them worthy of double honour And to obey them Now then if any man shall despise this office as of no necessary use in the Church of God or if any shall goe about by disparadging speeches to disable them from doing the worke of their place or to discourage and dishearten them in it by a needles though true publishing their imperfections much more if the reports be untrue and mere ungrounded reproaches the injury is not only personall to the men but publick and common to the wholl Church which is much blemished either for want of it officers or for want of care to make a good choyse and to see that they discharge their duety as they aught and much disordered whilest those who should be admonished by them are now armed against them as men branded with a marke of partiality and insufficiency and disorderly walking and that by their Pastor and in print In which respect for the prevention of such dangerous consequences or effects it will be worth the while that we examine this second complaint concerning his slighting the Elders which I will breifely dispatch insisting principally upon those things which he calleth me to examine by mentioning my name which he wrighteth at length as his manner is least else it may be the Reader should forget that I am the marke he shooteth at thorough all these The Answerer sayth this complaint is a very unjust slander Ans Reply 1. If it be a slander it must needs be unjust for no slander can be just Yea if it be a slander it is a very great one for it is not against a private but a publick person a preacher of the Gospell and their Pastor and that not whispered in the eares of one but published to the view of many But if it be true the Answerers sinne is double 1 that he gave just cause of this complaint in a case not of private but of publick injury by depriving of his flock not of civill but of spirituall liberties to the violation of that order which Christ hath setled in the Church 2. That he unjustly chargeth them with a slander and so maketh himselfe guilty of calling good evill yea of the same sinne whereof he accuseth them viz slander For the more cleare and full understanding and judging of what is sayd on both sides it must be observed that the first three pretended answers are mere evasions and diversions of the Reader from the matter of the Complaint For First They doe not complaine of those decissions and determinations which have bene made by most voyces in the Eldership but of those which have bene hindred and rejected by him nor of his giving sentence by his authority alone but of his rejecting the authority of the Eldership and interposing the authority of the Classis to hinder their proceeding in things which might have bene ended amongst themselves nor that those resolutions which have bene concluded in Consistory have bene transacted without consent of most but that some considerable conclusions which most have agreed upon have bene by him rejected without sufficient cause So that unlesse he can acquitt himselfe of rejecting those determinations which have bene made by most voices in the Elderships and of hindring their proceeding in things which might have bene ended amongst themselves and that without sufficient cause the complaint appeareth to be just in this particular and no slander Secondly They doe not complaine of his opposing contradicting or rejecting their opinions and counsailes when they were against right and truth or hurtfull to the Church or to any member thereof but when matters have bene agreeable to truth and right and for the good of the Church upon unjust pretences of the Elders insufficiency and
partiality as in the cases instanced by them Thirdly They doe not complaine of his rejecting the counsaile of the Elders only by shewing his particular judgment as one Deacon may oppose the opinion of another in their owne session or as in a Senat Civill or Ecclesiasticall there may be difference and so opposition of opinions amongst men without rejecting such conclusions as are made by most voyces in things lawfull and aequall but of this they complaine that he so opposeth and rejecteth their power in some cases that he unjustly depriveth them of their power upon untrue pretences of their partiality and insufficiency to judge Fourthly In his fourth answer his accusing the Elders of partiality insufficiency is propounded by him but the grounds thereof or the proofes of it are not declared and so upon the matter just nothing is sayd Fifthly In his fifth answer he pretendeth just cause of his excepting against three of the Elders as partiall in this controversy about me And to make this cable strong he twisteth three causes as cords together that they professe themselves to be of the same opinion with me touching baptisme Ans 2. that they have by their example allowed and countenanced the meeting of diverse at a private excercise upon the Lords day after the Sermons were ended 3. that they made an act for my preaching amongst themselues as an assistant for a certaine time c. These are new crimes which former ages have not heard of Reply and after times will wonder at if all things be considered For the first Is it the sinne of partiality in the Elders to hold with any man in disliking and witnessing against evill customs as this promiscuous administration of baptisme is declared to be or to joyne without scandall or Schysme in a private excercise after the publick are ended or to make an act for a mans preaching amongst them as an assistant the publick necessity requiring it and the Church generally desiring it for a convenient time that he might understand those orders and customs of the Dutch Church whereunto his conformity is expected before he bind himselfe thereunto If so then to hold the truth to joyne in a peaceable and inoffencive use of private helpes for aedifycation and to provide for the publick good peace is an argument of partiality in an Elder The vanity of this pretence is manifest Let us see his second proofe Secondly Ans To prove them partiall he produceth another consideration viz that the Elders have made like complaints as these Complainants heretofore of his bringing matters to the Classis violently without their consent The Classis hath judged them parties Be it so 1. Is not this alleadged against himselfe For Reply now it appeareth not to be the complaint of some members only who might unjustly complaine thorough ignorance or misinformation but even the Elders who are eye witnesses of all that passeth in Consistory have made the same complaint Will not any man conclude that matters are injuriously carried indeed when not only some of the members but the Elders themselves also complaine thereof As for the Classis judging of them parties how easily may the Elders demand their grounds and proofe thereof and in case of want of sufficient evidence appeale from their sentence to the Scripture And is it not possible may we thinck to find partiality as well in the Classis as in the Consistory I wish they had expressed more aequanimity in the carriage of this buisenes for their owne and the Churches sake Ans Thirdly If that proofe fayle he hath one more which will hold as he imagineth Euen the Elders themselves have acknowledged that when some such complaints as these have bene brought unto them they had no power to judge thereof Reply The Answer of the Elders which is here reported is not necessarily to be understood as an acknowledgment of their want of power de jure by right to judge thereof but may be understood as a declaration or rather a complaint of their want of power defacto by other mens taking it out of their hands without right Now if that power which belongeth to them be taken from them without their consent and so before it be given and without warrant of the word and so before it be due it is no partiality to assume that by a due clayme which was unduely withheld from them and it is no presumption in them if knowing their right they give a new judgment of that thing which they had formerly waved not knowing that they had power to judge thereof So much for his pretences against them for partiality In his sixth answer he undertaketh to shew their insufficiency wherein Ans that he be not mistaken he professeth not to speake of that common insufficiency that is in all men c. but he excepteth against their insufficiency in some speciall cases and namely in such particulars whatsoever have bene already judged and determined in the Classis Reply So then Whatsoever the Classis shall take upon them to judge though it were unduely and disorderly brought to them shall bind the Church so as it must rest therein that they shall not meddle in it though they are not satisfyed about the aequity of their proceeding in it and though they doe not shew sufficient warrant from the word for their judgment and determination And this must hold in all cases whatsoever Me thincks the Answerer should upon a review voluntarily revoke this expression or that the Classis should professe against it in publick as some of the ministers have affirmed to me in private that they doe not assume any such power to themselves or if they be silent the provinciall Synod should provide that convenient meanes may be used to stop the spreadings of such an errour for many dangerous consequences which their wisdoms I doubt not will foresee following thereupon To me it is manifest that no Nationall Synod in these Countryes ever gave power to the Classes thus farr to deprive particular Churches of the right of judging things proper to themselves within themselves Neither is there one word in these complaints which being fairely construed for augâ—t I can discerne according to the intent and expression of the Complainants themselves requireth any thing but what the Nationall Synods have ordered and appoynted to be done for and to all the Churches and which the Classes if they be true to their owne rules in their first constition must see performed So farr are they from attempting the innovation and alteration of discipline and government so long practised in these reformed Churches Sect 24 25. 26. examined THeir second proofe of his depriving the Elders of their power in government for the good of the Church is Compl. that he hath protested against their judgment in matters which might have bene ended in the Consistory and in that respect aught not to have bene brought to the Classis yet he hath carryed them
office of the Elders whom he fitly calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he sayth it belongs to them to see that all things in the Church of God be honestly godlily and orderly done And therefore they are to signifye to the ministers if any from other parts come to dwell amongst them concerning whose Religion they are not satisfyed that they may be dealt with before they come to the Lords table Also IF ANY INFANTS ARE TO BE BAPTISED and if there be any thing of that kind which appertaineth to the knowledge of the Overseers for the proffitable and decent administration of the Church Neither is the Answerer only against Mr. Traverse in this but reason it selfe is against him taken from the very foundation of that office in the Church as appeareth in what is already sayd concerning them in the 23. Section compared with what hath bene by me declared against the disorder of promiscuous baptising in the 12. Section 4. He sayth If he had protested against such an order c. Such a protest might have served for a direction to the right use of their power but did not tend to the destruction thereof If it had bene a mere declaration of his judgment and resolution though delivered in forme of a protest and had bene strengthned with good reasons and had bene left to them to consider of it might have served for a correction and direction to the right use of their power without destroying it But when a peremptory and inflexible resolution of opposing what they shall doe against his mind in this matter is held foorth without arguments from the Scripture or good reason to convince them of the aequity of that stiffnes in opposing and when it is not left within themselves but carryed from them to the Classis that by the interposition of their power and authority the Consistory may be hindred from executing or making such an order who seeth not that as by the former they have no direction from him about the right use of their power so by the latter their power is destroyed in this particular which may be proved thus That Act whereby the Elders are hindred that they can not provide for the godly comely and orderly administration of the Church doeth deprive the Elders of their power in government for the good of the Church But this Act of the Answerer in hindring the ending of this difference about baptisme c. by interposing the authority of the Classis for that end was an hindring of them from providing for the godly comely and orderly administration of the Church Ergo. Which proposition will he deny The first But that is taken from the nature of the Elders office as hath bene shewne out of Scripture and reason before And he knoweth it to be true Will he deny the Assumption That is proved by what I have shewen in the 12. Section against promiscuous administration of baptisme as it is in that place whence it will appeare to be not godly nor comely nor orderly and therefore the Elders have power and are bound to provide that it be not done in that Church Sect. 26. In the 26 Section Their second instance whereby they would prove that he depriveth the Elders of their power in government for the good of the Church by carrying matters out of their hands which might and should have bene ended in the Consistory Compl. is that agreement which was amongst them that I should have a yeares time to goe on in assisting the Answerer c. Now let us see how this is answered Ans 1. First He sayth it is untrue that the Elders agreed I should have a yeares time Reply How unjust this chalenge is may appeare 1. By the report of the Elders themselves who say that it was referred to voyces and by voyces agreed that I should have a convenient time and it was particularly expressed by one of the Elders and not gainsayed by the rest that a yeares time would be convenient for that purpose 2. Not onely they but the Answerer himselfe sayth as much in effect For in the 18. Section he reporteth that I made this offer unto them that if the Consistory desired it I would continue as an assistant in preaching for a convenient time that I might therein acquaint my selfe with the Dutch ministers the orders of the Classis and Synod and state of this Congregation c. But though our Elders liked of this offer sayth he and thought good to desire him to remaine with us as an assistant as is before sayd yet I thought it not safe sayth he speaking of himselfe without first taking advise of the Classis Whereby it is manifest that the Elders liked of the offer as it was made by me But they knew that I was of opinion that lesse then a yeares time could not be convenient for those purposes and that I meant that time when I spake of a convenient time yet if they had agreed that six moneths or three monthes should be judged a convenient time I should have rested therein which seing they did not but liked of the offer as it was made by me it seemeth their purpose was to conclude for a yeares time Secondly In stead of answering Ans 2 he recriminateth those that divulge the secret affayres of the Eldership and that untruely Reply The former reply sheweth that the report is not untrue And that the Elders have unlawfully divulged this they put him to prove for they deny that it is unlawfull to acquaint the members with passages of this nature which are not to be kept secret in the Consistory when they tend to the injury of the wholl Church Thirdly His third answer is a mere evasion Ans 3 by putting off the fault from himselfe upon the Classis Reply the vanity of which pretence hath bene so often shewen already that I may well praetermit it here Fourthly Ans 4 In his fourth answer he pretendeth to give reasons for his carrying this matter into the Classis which are not reasons but mere pretences First That whilest matters were thus kept in suspence the cord of contention should have bene drawne out and lengthned But who seeth not that this would have cut the cord of contention asunder when a convenient time had bene given for the composing of things to a peaceable conclusion and when the people should see his regard of their desire and content so far expressed Secondly That in the Consistory where he hath most trouble he should have least assistance But by this course he would have lesse trouble in the Consistory the spirits of men being somewhat quieted and contented Besides I see not but he might have escaped many troubles there if he had not made troubles when he found them not Thirdly That in the administration of Baptisme in stead of an Assistant he should have a Resistant But how could he be a Resistant in Baptisme whose worke was only to assist in
W he perceived in him a peaceable disposition and conceived that he would not give offence by his preaching amongst them It is well that his apprehension is rectifyed at last to perceive that which he did not before That conference did not alter Mr. W disposition but his owne persuasion of him so that the change was in the Answerer not in M. W. As a man in a ship thincks that the shore moves from him whereas the ship wherein he is is carryed from the shore so a man whose passions are disturbed suspecteth every man to oppose him When all was now quiet what course tooke the Answerer He telleth us that he made the same knowne to the Classis whereupon he was admitted to preach And why must this be made knowne to the Classis Is it against the government of these Churches that a stranger to whom the Answerer can impute no errour and in whom he preceived a peaceable disposition and conceived that he would not giue offence by his preaching amongst them being desired by the Church should be permitted to preach a sermon â— 2 or 3 in the English Church without leave of the Classis Can not the Elders doe so much without them Then the complaint is just that the Elders are deprived of their power in government for the good of the Church And seing whilest the Answerer seemed unsatisfyed the Dutch Consistory seemeth to apprehend it to be a case of some difficulty to permit Mâ— W. to preach but when the Answerer is satisfyed the Classis consenteth it appeareth that the complaint concerning the injury is justly against the Answerer at whose instigation and intreaty the Classis doeth interpose so farr in their matters though in this they can not be excused much lesse justifyed in that they assume a power to themselves of restrayning Churches from having the benefit of the assistance of a stranger and pass â—t in such a case without their leave which is more power then the government of these Churches giveth them or any prelates ever chalenged to themselves for aught I know Section 27. examined concerning the undue power of the Classis IN this and the fowre following Sections they make their third complaint of his government viz that he subjecteth that Church under an undue power of the Classis which they aggravate two wayes 1. by his indirect aymes in it for they conceive that he doeth it merely for his owne ends 2. by his irregular pitching upoÌ„ such meanes for the attayning of his ends For they say he doeth it without any warrant from the word of God For our more orderly and cleare proceeding in examining these five Sections I will premise some thing in thesi concerning the power of Classes and then descend to the hypothesis and try how just their complaint is Whereunto the Answerer compelleth me not onely by his frequent mentioning my name which he wrighteâ—â— at its full length every where in the next Section 30 times in lesse then three leaves of paper but also by his acensing me as an opposite to the government of these Churches by Synods and Classes This to be a mere slander the indifferent Reader will judge by what I have already said in examination of former Sections All lawfull Authority I am alwayes and shall be ready to acknowledge with due submission thereunto even when I freely testifye against all usurpation and tyranny and plead for the observation of those ancient limits and bounds which God hath set But I proceed to the matter concerning Classes Jt is not my purpose to speake of the originall of them nor of their antiquity nor to contend about the name given them much lesse to coÌ„demne all use of them Medull Theol lib. 1. Cap. 39 Sect 27. from which I am so farr that I freely confesse with Dr. Ames though the Answerer traduceth both him and me as otherwise minded that particular Churches as their Communion requireth and the light of nature the aequity of rules and the examples of Scripture teach may and in many cases ought to enter into a mutuall consociation and confaederation amongst themselves in Classes and Synods that they may use their common consent and mutuall helpe so farr at it may commodiously be done especially in those things which are of greater moment Provided alwaies that speciall care be taken that under pretence of helping the Churches they doe not hinder them by taking away and diminishing that liberty and power which Christ hath given them It was some such abuse that made Greg Nazianzen so bitter against Councells Epist 42. ad Procop. that he resolved to shun all such assemblyes Which Dr. Whittaker imputed to the evill event Contra. Camp p. 83. edit 1601. whereunto the ambition polypragmony of some men had brought matters who in stead of composing former differences ending those controversyes made new ones which agreeth with Nazianzens owne expression of the reason why evills were rather increased then diminished by them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. For Contentiousnes and ambition prevayled more then reason And it may be some such provocation caused that learned politick man Hugo Grotius so to slight the authority of Classes and Synods Pietas Ordinum Holl. ac West-Fris as he did in that treatise which he published against Sibr. Lubbertus upon which Bogermannus published his Annotations learnedly and succinctly penned in defence of D. Sibrandus wherein for answer of that part which concerned the necessity and authority of Synods he referred Grotius to what Iunius had written against Bellarmine de necessitateeâ—p otestate Conciliorum wherein I fully agree with Iunius But we are now to speake of a more imperfect combination of Churches then that which is in provinciall Synods viz a Diocesan union of them in Classes Betwixt which and the imperfect combination of Churches in and about Geneva there is some difference For that is a voluntary conjunction of the smaller Churches with the greater in one Consistory for their helpe in their particular Church buisenesses the smaller Churches wanting men fit for the manadging of their Church affayres and making one presbytery Zanch. in 4. praecept with the next greater Church which being better fitted meete weekely in their owne Consistory and these with them But this is a combination which is betweene diverse Churches which having their severall presbyteryes or Consistoryes apart send their deputyes viz one Minister and one Elder to meete with the like deputyes from all other Churches Synops pur Theol. disp 49. Thes 5. in such a Diocesse or division at a time and place appoynted to handle such things as concerne many Churches in common and as could not be ended in the Consistoryes of the particular Churches Concerning these the question is in this and the following Sections for the discussion whereof I will propound two things to be considered in thesi or in generall 1. What kind of combination that is which is lawfull amongst Churches 2.
sufficient evidence whereupon to ground so deepe an accusation as that of Schysme is If so let him shew it by Scriptures or good reason but with all to guide his judgment let him know that the mere preaching as assistant in a Church at the intreaty of the Church is not numbred among those common causes which by the order of these reformed Churches are appropriated to the cognition or consent of the Classes it is in it selfe to be accounted among the things which are proper to particular Churches And is it a Schysmaticall tenet to hold that things proper to particular Churches are under the power of particular Churches which are cheife in matters that are properly their owne what then will he say to that Canon of the Synod at Midleborough Those things shall not be handled in the greater assemblyes which may be ended in the lesser Can. 25. to the Canons of the Synod of 3 Nations Cap. 17. 18. to the Sinod at Emden Cap. 2. to that Canon in the Harmony of the Belgick Sinods that those matters only shall be brought into the Classes which cannot be ended in the Consistory cap. 7. art 6. See Zepperus lib. 3. cap. 5. Were these Synods schysmaticall Conventicles or were their Canons schysmaticall conclusions How then is this which I affirme schysmaticall To brand me with an imputation of schysme he spareth not these Synods which deliver the same thing in effect that I say and all those worthyes who have written concerning Ecclesiasticall discipline or the authority of Councills of whom we spake in the former Section or which have handled the power of particular Churches in chusing their owne Pastors of whom we spake in the foregoing Section Yea I wish he may not be found to beare false witnes against the truth it selfe in the Scriptures which we have declared in both those Sections to warrant so much as I have said in this matter 4. His fourth answer supposeth that eminent men may cause eminent danger by their private opinions The men in whom he instanceth I confesse were not inferiour to either of us in learning But that which he intimateth concerning opinions held by them which tended to the ruine and desolation of Churches if he apply it to this question about the power of particular Churches to admit of Ministers to preach as assistants I cannot acknowledge to be true upon the former grounds but if he meane any other opinions or practises it is nothing to the matter in question 5. In his fifth answer upon his observation that the Complainants in their particular greivances mention me he inferreth that their inordinate desire of me hath made this trouble to the Church But. 1. neither the ground nor the inference is right 1. Not the ground For they mention not me alone but others also 2 Nor the inference For will their complaining of injuryes done to them in a particular reference to me prove their desire of me to be inordinate By what medium Let him frame his Argument into a Syllogisme and it will appeare to be Sophisticall and ridiculous But I spare him 2. How easily may they or I upon the same ground warrant prove that his inordinate desire of having his owne will that I say no more hath made this trouble in the Church by drawing all the lines of the severall Sections in the circle and circumference of their complaint to that as the onely centre But I doe not affect in Circuitu ambulare 6. In his sixt answer which is to their parenthesis wherein they noate that he would have had others that to this day hold the same opinion Such is the invincible power of truth that his owne words concerning those two instances are sufficient to prove the thing which he would deny if what I have written in the 11. Section concerning his private conference with me be compared with what himselfe confesseth Mr. B wrote to him and with his owne acknowledgment of Mr. R. agreement with me in his third and last answer to that instance Nor is his desire of having them complained of for in the injoyment of either of them they had bene happy but his partiall sticking at that in me which he would have passed by in them The 29. Section examined Concerning the undue power of the Classis in making lawes IN this Section they produce the second proofe of the justnes their complaint of his subjecting the Church under an undue power of the Classis viz his giving them power to make lawes and orders whereunto whosoever will be ministers of that Church must submit For proofe hereof they give two instances 1. that they bind Ministers to observe the orders and customs of the Dutch Church 2. their second instance is concerning this order of promiscuous baptising which they made a coÌ„dition of my admittance to that Ministry The justnes of their laying the blame of boath these upon the Answerer they prove 1. Because some of the Dutch preachers themselves have declared their willingnes to cast off some of those customs if the vastnes of their Church would permâ—â— it 2. Because one of them said to the Answerer in the Classis upon occasion of his complaining of my not conforming to their orders you your selfe doe not conforme to all our orders 3. Because they have professed that they should have bene glad that the differences had bene ended among our selves 4. Because he hath of late required of the Elders that an order might be made in the Consistory that whatsoever minister shall hereafter be called to that Church should conforme to that wrighting of the five Ministers Now let us see what answers he pretendeth to make 1. to their complaint against the proceeding of the Classis in this particular 2. to their complaint of his giving this undue power to the Classis First To their complaint of the undue proceeding of the Classis Herein he answereth nothing to the purpose For he neither denyeth the fact nor giveth any satisfaction about the aequity of it In a word he so answereth as if he saught nothing else but how to evade answering and to get some hole to hide his head in Wherefore that the truth in this matter may appeare we will consider two things 1. de facto whether they have made such lawes and orders or not 2. de jure whether they have done it by a due or by an undue power 1. That they have made such lawes and orders can not be denyed For if the praescription of necessary observances be a law if the imposition of any thing with a binding power be a law if the decrees to the obedience whereof men are any way compelled are lawes the things instanced in to witt conformity to their ecclesiasticall customs and promiscuous administration of Baptisme according to the wrighting of the five Ministers were imposed as lawes upon me For did they not bind me to rest in that wrighting and to conforme to those customs
and binding lawes for any thing expedient to the Common wealth Whereunto subjects are bound readily to submit 1. Pet. 2.13 Things properly called indifferent I doe not find in Scripture that ever Churchgovernours did advise perswade them much lesse charge cōmand them least of all make standing binding lawes to determine them nor doth that place in 1. Cor. 14.40 give them any such power nor have the Apostles themselves received any such authority from Christ as appeareth in the commission given them which was onely to teach men to observe and doe what Christ shall command them Mat. 28.20 Their office being onely ministeriall oeconomicall Christ reserving to himselfe the soveraigne lawgiving power as his praerogative For application of the premises to the case in question I demand whether this custom be thus imposed as a thing properly indifferēt or as expedient or as necessary in some considerable respect or as absolutely necessary If it be properly indifferent why doe they by command make the practise of it necessary If it be expedient let them shew the expediency of it leave men free If it be necessary in those considerable respects let it appeare that the contrary practise will be so offensive or disorderly that for the avoyding of that offence or disorder a minister is bound to doe it If it be absolutely necessary to godlines let the Scripture be shewē that cōmandeth that practise or forbiddeth the cōtrary His fourth answer is not worth a Reply His fifth answer maketh against himselfe For if they leave men at liberty about things indifferent c. wherein they are to be approved as walking according to the rule why doe they bind men by unaequall conditions to this custom which they neither doe nor can sufficiently declare to be commanded by Christ or to be warranted by the rule Let us now see what he sayth to the proofes of the justnes of their laying the blame of this miscarriage upō him rather then upō the Classis First They say that some of the Dutch Ministers themselves are willing to cast off some of their customs if the vastnes of theire Church did not force them thereunto Hereunto he giveth two answers 1. that things simply unlawfull are as well to be cast off in a great Church as in a small Reply True it is a duety as necessary to be done in the one as in the other yet it may more easily be done in the smaller Churches and therefore the sinne of the smaller Churches is the greater if they doe not cast off such an unwarrantable custom The vastnes of their Churches doth only excuse them a tanto not a toto 2. that in the smaller Churches in the villages the same order is observed But. 1. it hath not bene expresly required of any of the Ministers of those Churches as a condition of their admittāce as it was of me that they should rest in such a wrighting which bindeth them to baptize all that are brought 2. It may be questioned whether all the Ministers in those smaller villages doe so promiscuously administer Baptisme as they doe in Amsterdam seing such different sorts of people are not in those villages as in that Citty Secondly They say that one of the Ministers said to the Answerer in the Classis upon occasion of his complaining of my not conforming to all their orders why you your selfe doe not conforme to all our orders Hereunto he pretendeth to give five answers I say pretendeth For the first answer is no answer but onely a question who told this His second answer is that the mind of the Classis is not to be collected by the speech of one Neither doe they say that all of thē are of that mind but that one of them said so whereof it seemeth the rest shewed no dislike and so seemed to consent to it and more then one of them have bene heard to say as much as the Complainants affirme His third answer is that the speech of the Minister is not in right manner repeated by them But if the matter be right it is true in the substance of their report which is sufficient in this case what ever fayling may seeme to be in a circumstance His fourth answer is that this one Minister undertooke in wrighting to satisfye my objections and having replyed to myne answer received no answer to his second wrighting It is true I did not answer his second wrighting 1. Because that wrighting did not sufficiently answer my first 2. Because at that time I wrote to the wholl Classis in which respect there was no use of wrighting to one member of the Classis alone His fifth answer is The nationall Synod at Dort in things indifferent Kercken ordeningh Art 85. doeth allow Churches of other Nations in these Countreys to vary from their customs It is well they doe so and it is fit they should so doe But if it be so 1. why was it required of me that I should conforme to all the orders and customs of the Dutch Church 2. Why was I not allowed to vary from their customs in the practise of promiscuous baptizing seing I professed that I could not doe it with a good conscience and they gave me no grounds from the Scriptures to satisfye my conscience that I might doe it lawfully Thirdly They say that the Dutch Ministers have professed that they should have bene glad that this difference might have bene ended among our selves What sayth the Answerer hereunto Iust nothing And it was his wisdom to be silent here For what could he say He could not deny it and the confession of it to be true would discover him to have bene a greater impediment of the Churches desire and my accommodation then he was willing should appeare And I wish from my heart he had bene as silent in all the rest that I might have passed by all these injuryes in silence warrantably Fourthly They say that he hath required of the Elders that an order might be made in the Consistory that whatsoever Minister shall hereafter be called to that Church should conforme to that wrighting of the five Ministers Hereunto he pretendeth to give five answers but one good one were worth them all His first answer is onely a question as before who told this His second answer is in part negative but upon an ill ground viz because the Classis had already approved and confirmed it Concerning the vanity of that pretence enough hath bene spoken already yet in part he affirmeth it in saying that he shewed it to be unreasonable if that order should not be required of any other minister as well as of me But seing there was no good reason why it should be required of me what reason is there that it should be required of others Is it a good course to hide an injury done to one by professing to doe the same injury to many His third answer is that by the motion of a Dutch Minister and a
speciall freind of myne c. the Dutch Ministers came to his house and made that wrighting That Reverend Dutch ministers love and paines I acknowledge with all thanckfullnes and am sorry that a learned and godly Brother of another Nation should shew himselfe more desirous of myne accommodation then myne owne countryman from whom in many respects I had cause to expect more favour and love then from forraigners especially seing their labour proved no more succesfull thorough the violence of a contrary streame of which enough hath bene said in former Sections His fourth answer chargeth me with untruth in my wrighting to the Classis that at his request alone they did in wrighting declare their private judgment But why did he not at least more roundly deny it if it be untrue For it may be true notwithstanding any thing sayd by him to the contrary For why might not that Minister propound it to the rest being thereunto prepared by the Answerers private intimations or intreaty But suppose the Minister propounded it of his owne accord yet what I wrote is true in the sense wherein I meant it For I spake of the Answerer alone not in reference to the Ministers of the Classis but in reference to the Elders of his owne Church and in this sense it is true that the Answerer considered with the Elders and the Church did alone propound it the motion came not from the Elders but from him onely in that sense But what is this to the order which he required the Elders to make in the Consistory which is the matter in question Is this a fit place to speake of passages betweene the five Ministers him when the Complainants charge him with seeking to make an injurious order in the Consistory Had not the twelfth Section bene a fitter place for this matter where it is purposely spoken of But I forbeare to gesse at the reason hereof Whereas he addeth if he had bene the onely secker thereof there is no cause for them that meane to deale uprightly to complaine of such a lawfull safe course I need not to add any thing in way of Reply thereunto having already said enough in the foregoing Sections to prove that that course was neither safe nor lawfull His fifth answer is a mere catching at an advantage which one expression in their wrighting seemeth to give him I say seemeth for it doeth it not really They say that they thinck no godly man will absolutely be bound to conforme to that wrighting To let passe his unworthy scoffes he accuseth them of a rash and praesumptious judgment for saying so whereas 1. they professe onely that they thinck so Now every thought though it may be rash is not to be accounted a praesumptious judgement 2. they doe not speake of suffering themselves to be bound to such a wrighting but of being absolutely bound to conforme to it And there is a great difference betweene those two expressions 3. My name is altogether needlesly brought in here as the Reader may well perceive But I passe it by But is his seeking to have that order made in the Consistory to bind all Ministers that shall be called in that Church proved to be lawfull and for the good of the Church by this or by any thing else he hath sayd in the 5 pretended answers If not It appeareth that no satisfaction is given to the Complainants by his answers And so their second proofe of his subjecting the Church under an undue power of the Classis which they produce for an evidence of his not behaving himselfe as he aught in his pastorall government remayneth unanswered Sect. 30. examined concerning the Answerers violent bringing matters into the Classis when he cannot have his will unjustly satisfyed in the Consistory IN this Section they produce the third proofe of the justnes of their complaint of his subjecting the Church under an undue power of the Classis to wit his violent bringing of matters to the Classis when he cannot have his will unjustly satisfyed Which complaint they agravate by the dangerous consequent or rather effect of it for they say he destroyes the power of the Church utterly often affirming they can doe nothing in these cases without the Classis And to prevent an objection against themselves about what they had said concerning the undue power of the Classis they professe their reverent esteeme of them for counsail advise in all difficult matters that cannot be ended in theire owne Consistory That what is said on boath sides concerning this matter may the more easily and clearely be understood these things must be premised 1. that they doe not complaine of his taking advise and counsail of the Classis in difficult matters For therein they say they esteeme reverently of them 2. Nor that they bring such matters to the Classis as cannot be ended in their owne Consistory But the thing they complaine of is 1. that he bringeth such things to the Classis as may be ended in the Consistory 2. that he doeth it violently that is without consent of the rest 3. that his principall motive or inducement thereunto is the satisfaction of his owne will 4. That he doeth it under a pretence that the Church can doe nothing in such matters to wit as those in question the making of an order for a decent and orderly performance of a Religious duety in a right administration of baptisme and the chusing of their owne Pastors when they pitch upon men abhorring all haeresy and schysme c. and craving the helpe of an assistant for a time in the Churches necessity which they truely say is a destroying of the power of the Church Now let us see his answers hereunto which are fixe 1. His first answer is It is no act of violence but a refuge against violence to refer those things to the Classis which men conceive to be unjustly done or delayed in the Consistory Reply Violence is either opposed to that which is just or to that which is voluntary In their complaint the sense seemeth carry it to boath and so that is violently done which is done both unjustly and without consent That he did it without consent the Answerer acknowledgeth but denyeth that he did it unjustly and retorteth the imputation of violence and injustice upon them either for doing or delaying some thing in the Consistory unjustly He is now become an accuser of them and plaintiffe and therefore according to his owne rule is to bring proofe If he say they did unjustly in making orders about such matters without the consent of the Classis let him shew what rule is transgressed thereby This he should have done before he had taken the matter out of their hands and carryed it into the Classis that they might have bene convinced of the aequity of his so doing If he can not Let him beare the just blame of slandering the Cōsistory in print and of depriving the Church of her due
them in their damnable errours as hath bene shewen in the examination of the 12 Section Nay doeth not this undue power which he ascribeth to Classes both strengthen them in their opposition to that way of Government and gratifye the Papists also in their dangerous errours about the infallibility of Councills and the Pope and about implicite fayth and blind obedience For it is not subscription to any truth which is excepted against but subscription to mens customs and appointments not agreeing with the truth imposed merely by their authority Sect. 32. to 40. examined IN the eight following Sections I find nothing which I am by name called to examine excepting that here and there my name is mentioned in his repeating things already sufficiently cleared onely in the 39 Section whereas they complained of manifest injury done by the Answerer to me whom he reproached in publick about the meeting of diverse to heare me upon the grounds of Religion in Catechising the family where I lived though enough hath bene said in the 20 Section for the satisfaction of the indifferent Reader about my carriage in that buisenes it will be requisite upon a new provocation to add 2 or 3 words in this place also for the removeall of some intimations injuriously cast in by the Answerer to fasten a suspicion of disorder upon that private excercise For 1. in his second answer he supposeth that I there preached without a calling whereas I neither preached in the sense wherein he taketh the word viz by vertue of a publick office in that place nor performed that private excercise without a sufficient calling thereunto both from the duety of my private domesticall relation to my owne family and from the desire of the Master of that family where I then lived to those of his houshold and whereas others desired to partake of the benefit of it their desire was calling sufficient for their admittance to that private excercise by vertue of the spirituall relation which all Christians have mutually among themselves and the right which thereby they have to communicate in the gifts and labours of one another for their aedification So that even for this cause there was good reason for them and me to be offended at so publick a slander of that action and of our intentions therein As for the place of Scripture misapplyed by him out of Mat. 28.19 to reprove this duety it doeth not forbid private men any duety the performance whereof is required in other texts as 1. Masters to their owne familyes in instructing them Deut. 6.7.9 Deut. 11.19.20 Gen. 18 19. Eph. 6.4 Phil. 2. 2. every Christian according to his gift for the helpe of others 1. Pet. 4.10 Heb. 10.24.25 Mat. 3.16 3. If yet the Answerer is not satisfyed let him know that more may be pleaded for the warrant of that action in reference to me even from that place of Scripture then I will insist upon if I would plead all that I might or indeed need to make use of seing it was a mere private excercise performed according to my measure of gifts with good warrant of the fore named texts and not falling within the meaning of that text which he misapplyeth in reproach against me So that the word of the Lord is not made a reproach to him but I may say that for the discharge of a Christian duety I have borne reproach Neither was that the onely sermon wherein I was reproached by the Answerer in publick as many can testifye which I strove to beare with patience and should still have borne in silence if he would have suffered me to be quiet at last In his third answer he girdeth at another whose name he mentioneth not but the accusation is answered in the examination of the 24. 25. 26. Sections In his fourth answer to make good his publick reproaching me he quarrelleth the name given to that excercise when it is called catechising a family which he calleth a mockery but produceth nothing to prove that name to be unfit for that action nor that action so done to be unlawfull but venteth his passion because he wanteth Arguments against it In his fifth answer he sayth that not he but the Classis deprived them of those meetings whereas I acknowledge no such power to be due to the Classis nor ever did they speake with me about it nor did I cease for any message left by them with Mr. Wh. nor would I have given place by subjection to them to have desisted from that worke in acknowledgment of their jurisdiction in such cases but when I heard that the Answerer tooke offence at it and traduced it by private whisperings as tending to schysme and when I saw that my staying in that place was a burthen to him that I might not seeme to give offence to him onely for peace sake I removed my dwelling to another part of the country where I might be quiet and so not the Classis but he onely was the cause of the cessation of that meeting In his sixth answer he chargeth some that resorted to that meeting with offensive ungodly schysming from the Dutch Church how truely let him see to it For my part I never heard that any of them were guilty of that crime nor doe beleive it to be true In his seaventh answer he supposeth that our owne consciences told us that it was not right which we did seing at the word of man we left it Thus am I as one that holdeth the wolfe by the eare when I have to doe with such a spirit which whether a man hold or let goe will not spare But I will answer him in two words by remembring him that Christian actions are of two sorts 1. Actions of Christian duety These must be done who ever shall dislike them 2. Actions of Christian liberty These may be done or omitted according to considerable circumstances To apply this For one to instruct his family by catechising or otherwise or for Christians to communicate their gifts for mutuall aedification these are necessary duetyes which no man may forbid and if they shall yet they must not be omitted But to receive such and such a number of persons is so in our liberty as in case of offence we may omitt it And upon this warrant I desisted not from the duety which I have occasionally performed since when J have bene in that house but from performing it in the presence of so many But let them who by taking offence unjustly hindred the good of many provide themselves for their account to our Lord Christ in that day when hidden things shall be declared when they and I and the poore soules that are greived for their hindrance shall appeare together before his righteous tribunall In hope and expectation whereof is my comfort in the middest of these troubles as it was Iobs Iob 19.3 v 25. whom his freinds had reproached ten times For I know that my Redeemer liveth and that he shall
So many parish assemblies of England as have any competent number of good Christians in them united together for to worship God ordinarily in one society so many have essentiall and integrall forme of a visible Church and all they have intire right to Christ and to all the meanes of injoying him however they are defective in the purity of their combination and in the compleate free excercising of their power To prevent all mistake he declareth what he meaneth by essentiall and integrall forme thus The essentiall forme of a visible Church is the covenant of God or true fayth made visible by profession the noates and markes whereof are the word and Sacraments rightly administred and received with fruits of obedience The integrall constituting forme is that state relation or reference which a Congregation of such professours have one to another by vertue of their setled combination the noate or marke whereof is their usuall assembling together into one place and watching one over another So that however the defects and corruptions in those Churches are to be witnessed against and howsoever it is the duety of Christians to indeavour as much as in them is to procure the reformation of those defects and not to partake in the sinnes of any Church Eph. 5.11 and amongst true Churches to make choyse of those whereunto to joyne themselves which are most pure Lib. 4. Cas Cons cap. 24. quest 2. so farr as they are able as the same learned wrighter sayth elsewhere yet to dischurch them wholly to seperate from them as no Churches of Christ or to deny baptisme to the infants of their knowne members is not warranted by any rule in the Scripture that I know nor justifyed by my assertion or practise 2. The practise of the Seperatists themselves sheweth that this assertion doeth not strengthen or countenance the errour of the Brownists in matter of Seperation For they professe to hold spirituall communion with other Churches who doe extend the use of baptisme to as great largenes as England doeth and greater also as I am able with Gods assistance to prove though they freely witnesse against it as a disorder in those Churches which also many Godly learned ministers of these Countryes are so farr from justifying that they confesse it to be unwarrantable and wish it may be reformed By all which it is manifest that there is no such affinity betweene these opinions that the errour of the Brownists could not be refuted by me but that mine owne opinion must fall together As he untruely pretendeth 3. Hereunto I will add that in thus reasoning the Answerer imprudeÌ„tly armeth his opposites against himselfe with his owne weapon Polit. Eccles lib. 1. Cap. 14. eâ— 13. Fresh Suite p. 207. Treat of the necess of seperation For this plea is taken up 1. by the those that plead for the Prelats both of former times whom Mr. Parker hath fitly answered by clearing the seekers of Reformation from this imputation and retorting it upon themselves and of latter times whom Dr. Ames in like manner hath breifly and fitly answered 2. by those of the Seperation for Mr. Canne the Answerer knoweth pretendeth in his booke to prove a necessity of seperation from the Church of England by the Non-conformists principles and professeth to oppose it especially to Dr. Ames onely in the point of seperation Whereby it appeareth that he accounteth him and such like opposites in that point notwithstanding their agreement in some truths Concerning which booke I have many things to say in Dr. Ames his defence which if I should here insert this tractate which already much exceedeth the proportion at first purposed by me would swell to too great a volume But I may well be silent at this time seing others as I heare have undertaken it and a more fit occasion may be given hereafter if it be thaught requisite but especially seing he hath not answered Dr. Ames his second manuduction at all wherein he hath said enough for the clearing of his judgment in this matter nor indeed hath he taken away the force of that litle which the Doctor said in answer to the Rejoynder though he expressed himselfe but in few lines and as answering on another occasion and not dealing professedly against the Separation All which might easily be demonstrated but at this time I purpose to abstaine from by-controversyes As for his objection that I performed not that promise though I had time enough my answer is that he neither required it of me nor incouraged me so to doe by assuring me that the performance thereof would end the difference Nor did it fall fitly in my way to speake of this point in any Argument which I handled in publick afterwards His fourth answer tendeth to a sâ—ighting of my labour of love in 6 moneths assistance of him in a time of their extremity It becommeth unthanckfull men thus to elevate that kindnes which they have not hearts to value nor purpose to requite For this purpose he setteth 6 moneths wherein that wrighting as he sayth was given out by me and 6 yeares resistance which he sayth is procured by my opposition to the practise of the Dutch Church and as much recompence he sayth received by me for that as some godly ministers have in twise 6 moneths Reply Concerning the wrighting I have spoken sufficiently in the 2 and 22. Sections and in other places wherein I shewed how he compelled me to it for declaration of the truth against his unjust reports and how himselfe before he heard of any such wrighting from me had traduced me in the darke in a larger wrighting secretly sent to his freind in N. Concerning the ground of 6 yeares resistance Seing he compelled me thereunto in defence of the truth I cannot helpe it nor am to be blamed for it unlesse it be a fault to beare witnes to the truth when I am called thereunto Concerning the collection which he in too mercenary a phrase calleth a recompence for my labour I answer 1. I received none of it from him though some other English preachers are put to that charge so that to him it was a kindnes 2. I contracted not with him for any recompence to be made me from the Church by his meanes so that in me it was a kindnes 3. I received no gratification from the Churchstock as other Ministers have done by his procurement So that the poore had no damage or hindrance thereby as in some other cases they have had through his holding up these contentions 4. The most of that which was given was from their purses whom he contentiously calleth my freinds 5. What ever I received from them they know I was no gayner by it when the necessary charges of my diet are deducted and the hire of an house which at their request I tooke but never lived in thorough his opposition against me and for which I was constrayned to pay the wholl yeares rent 6. As he made no
place wherein Christians had their name given them at the first wherein I find no such thing The proofe lyeth upon him who affirmeth it to be sufficient not upon me who deny it 2. The force of Negative Arguments from Scripture would be none at all if such answers were any thing worth For when in arguing against popish devises we bring them to the rule where no such thing is appoynted or approved by this evasion they might easily seeme to answer any such Argument For instance when to shew the unlawfullnes of chreame oyle spittle exorcisme c. in baptisme we bring them to the institution and to primitive patternes where such things were not appoynted nor approved how easily might they answer as he doeth how can it be proved from hence that such as used those things sinned in so doing 3. Suppose an Anabaptist should put him to prove from that text that infants were baptised or a Libertine should put him to prove from thence that those that were to be baptised were presented in the Congregation would not he thinck himselfe unreasonably dealt withall To conclude that place of Scripture sufficiently proveth that for which it was alleadged namely that beleiving and turning to the Lord are the characters of Christians and that joyning with a true particular visible Church where it can be done is an evidence of beleiving and turning to the Lord. For so I find them joyned in that Text. Act. 11.26 Let him prove all those whose infants are admitted to baptisme in that place to be such as in respect of externall profession may in the judgment of reasonable charity be judged such and their saying yea or nodding of the head or bowing the body shall make no difference betweene us 2. For the second text Gen 17.10 It can not be shewed sayth he that more questions were propounded in old times to circumcised parents that brought their children to be circumcised then are now propounded to those that bring their children to be baptised or that circumcision was denyed those who shewed their consent and willingnes to embrace the Covenant in such breife answers and gestures as we speake of Reply 1. The end for which that text was brought was to shew that none were circumcised but the infants of those that were in the Covenant How they declared their embracing of the Covenant if he demand the Scripture elsewhere sheweth viz by their joyning with the Church of God in walking according to the lawes delivered unto their fathers by the ministry of Moses And this they declared more by their workes in they re ordinary conversation then by words at Circumcision In which case we will not much stand upon words if the parties are joyned to any true Church now under the Gospell as they were then to the Church of the Iewes under the Law 2. This answer is as a sword wherewith he woundeth his owne cause For he sayth they were circumcised persons wbo brought their children to be circumcised and we know that such were of the Church of Jsraell But many for whose admittance he pleadeth are children of such parents as are of no Church and some of them may be such for aught he knoweth as never were baptised 3. Text. Rom 4.11 This Text was alleadged to shew that they must be beleivers at least one of them in externall profession whose infants may be admitted to baptisme which is as Circumcision was the seale of righteousnes that is by fayth Against this he answereth nothing and hereby doeth tacitly and implicitly confesse that the seale properly by due right may be administred to none but to beleivers to whom the righteousnes which is by fayth appertaineth so farr as men may by the judgment of charity conceive and apprehend from which how farr they are against whom we except is obvious to him that will judge by a rule Let us now consider what he sayth He sayth Abraham is there called the Father of them that beleive whether they were members of a visible Church or not And for aught we know that were not of his family nor under the government or guidance of any particular Church If a sonne or bondman of Ephron or of any Amorite or Canaanite were then brought unto the knowledge of the true God why might not the infant of such an one have bene circumcised though not living in a visible Church Reply 1. All these words are besides the matter For if all he sayth were granted yet it proveth not that all those may be called beleivers and so Christians whom they admitt to Baptisme which he should have done if he would have justified their custom of baptising their infants under the name of Christians children who can not be accounted beleivers according to the sense of this text 2. His wholl answer is made of mere conjectures which cannot establish the conscience of any man in a well grounded persuasion of the warrantablenes of that action concerning the lawfullnes whereof it doubteth that it may be done in faith Which to me is a cleare evidence of his want of a rule to beare him out therein which if he could have found his expressions would not have bene so conjecturall and uncertaine 3. To the particular conjectures First Whereas he sayth that Abraham is the Father of the faithfull whether they were members of a visible Church or not That the vanity of his conjecture in reference to the matter in question may appeare we must cōsider the drift of the place which is to confirme what he had formerly said concerning the speciall universality or community of the subject of justification whereof he began to speake in Chap. 3. v 22. and afterwards prosecuted v 29. shewing that one the same God is the God both of the Iewes and of the Gentiles and therefore doeth justifye them boath one and the same way to wit by fayth though the one be circumcised the other not which he proveth by the example of Abraham to whom faith was imputed for righteousnes being uncircumcised and when he was circumcised it was not that he might be justified by circumcision but that the righteousnes which he had by fayth being uncircumcised might be sealed to him by that signe Now in that Abraham was justifyed by fayth before he was circumcised hence he became the father of all those that beleive among the Gentiles who are uncircumcised and in that he was circumcised afterwards that the righteousnes of fayth might be sealed to him hence he became the father of those who beleived among the Iewes and were circumcised Thence the conclusion followeth Therefore according to Abrahams example righteousnes is imputed to those that beleive among the uncircumcised Gentiles as well as among the circumcised Iewes But in what order cometh Abraham to be a father to the beleiving Iew In what sense is Abraham called their father As he is an example of fayth v 12. and of righteousnes imputed by fayth in this 11. v. And they
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 onely 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 onely to those infants whose parents testifye their fayth by being joyned to some visible Church among the Gentiles as circumcision belonged to those onely 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 lesse 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 onely 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 Reply 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 onely 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 onely 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 Baptised 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 onely that from which men are called namely the kingdom and power of darknes Rom. 1.6 1. Cor. 1.2 but 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 and 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