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
What power that is which is due to them over particular Churches by vertue of that combination For the first The combination of particular Churches in Classes and Synods is either such a consociation of them as is betweene aequalls or such a subordinatioÌ„ of them as is betweene unaequalls The first is by way of counsaile or brotherly direction The second is by way of command or masterly subjection This we condemne as being the first step whereby the Pope ascended into the chayre of pestilence and a mere inlet for tyranny to invade and usurpe the Churches right The other is approved by the practise of the most ancient Churches and by good reason First The practise of the Churches of the first age is cleare for a free seeking and communicating of mutuall helpe by letters and messengers as occasion required and that not onely in Scripture (a) Act. 15 1. Cor. 16. ult Revel 1. et 2. but also in Ecclesiasticall hystoryes (b) Euseb lib. 3. Cap. 32. Cyprian lib. 3. Cap. 13. Catal. test ver lib. 9. p. 109. 110. And Cyprian expresly declareth that the Churches in his time did give mutuall helpe to one another ex charitate non ex subjectione in way of charity not of subjection And the Epitomatour of the Centurists fitly expresseth that combination which was in those primitive times among the Churches by the communion of the members in the body and concludeth that those actions and offices of their mutuall care one for another did not ex imperio aut subjectione quâdam proficisci sed ex charitate aedificandi studio i. e. did not arise from any authority which one did excercise over another subjecting it to the rest but out of love and indeavour of mutuall aedifying Secondly The reasons whereby it may be proved are weighty M. Parker hath saved me the labour of this taske by laying downe six Arguments for the proofe of this in those his learned and elaborate treatises concerning Ecclesiasticall policy as 1 From the ground of this combination of Churches Dc eccles pol. lib. 3. Cap. 22. p. 329. which is love not obedience 2. From the forme of it which is communion and consociation c. 3. From the matter of it which are Churches who are aequall among themselves as members in the body which have a vicissitude of offices mutually to be performed among themselves 4. From the object of it which is res communis that which concerneth all the Churches in common 5. From the outward manner of proceeding which is eollatione conciliorum by conference and communication of counsells 6. From the end of this combination which is not to receive the mandates of other Churches but their consent counsail and approbation The second thing to be considered in thesi is what power or authority that is which is due to Classes over particular Churches by vertue of their combination First More generally This will best appeare by a right understanding of the nature of that kind of assocication or combination as it hath bene in the words immediately preceding expressed For answerable to those two kinds of combination there is a twofold power in the persons so combined whereby they may justly doe such things which others cannot who are not by such a relation thereunto qualifyed Thus to the unaequall fellowship which is betweene superious and inferiours as parents and children Masters and servants Princes and people appertayneth jus Rectorium the power of government Hugo Grot de jure pacis et belli p. 4. but to that other society which is betweene aequalls as brethren Citizens freinds confaederates belongeth jus aequatorium such a power of communicating mutuall helpe as may stand with the preservation of their severall libertyes and mutuall aequality safe and untouched And no other power is due to them quâ tales If they assume any other it is a mere usurpation and transgression of the bounds and limits of their combination Secondly More particularly to apply this to Classes which are sociall combinations of many Churches for mutuall helpe it must be considered 1. What is the object of this combination 2. What power it hath in reference to that object First The object of classicall combinations of Churches is res communis i. e. that which concerneth all the Churches or many of them in that division either of it selfe or by accident Beza declareth Synods to be necessary for 3 causes De triplic Epist pag. 91. 9. 3. 1. to preserve consent 2. to provide common remedyes against common evills by common counsail 3. to helpe those who thinck themselves injuryed by the judgment of particular presbyteryes The Synod of 3 nations in Can. 35 reduceth all to 1. matters of doctrine 2. matters of order and ecclesiasticall policy 3. particular facts To be breife these things are matters either of fayth or of fact whether brought to them or observed by them 1. In matters of fayth their resolution is required not their jurisdiction their counsayl not their command it being the end of the Churches combination in such matters onely to communicate their gifts in fellowship together to find out the sense of the Scripture more clearely and certainely for the satisfaction of all then it could have bene done by any apart from the râ—st 2. Matters of fact are either common or personall Personall matters doe primarily belong to the particular Churches and onely to them so farr as they are proper but if by accident they become common they fall under the deliberation of many Churches thus combined as in causâ lapsorum in the cause of those who fell off in those times of persecution not onely in some one but in many Churches for the discussion whereof Cyprian and the Affrican Doctors also concluded Cypr. lib. 1 Epist 8. et lib. 4. Epist 2. that a common meeting of many Churches was necessary in a buisenes so common and of so great consequence that the plaster might be as broad as the sore and the remedy hold some proportion with the malady Secondly For the power it hath That it may be distinctly understood what kind of power it is which in reference to the present question is due or undue to Classes I will premise two or three distincttons 1. Dist Jt is not potestas originalis but derivata i. e. it not a power which the Classis hath originally in and from it selfe but which is borrowed and derived from others viz from particular Churches So that as the conduit pipes can give no other water then what themselves received from the springs nor the starres any greater light then is communicated to them from the Sun so the Classes can excercise no other power over any particular Church then that which it selfe hath freely given them Hence it will follow that the Classes have not an absolute but a limited power not a Magisteriall but a Ministeriall power not the power of lords but of stewards not of princes but of embassadours
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
can such be said to professe the same Religion 2. Many parents doe not bring their children to baptisme but some other body as much unknowne to the Church as they are bring the children it may be with it may be without the parents knowledge or consent for aught the Minister knoweth 3. What promise doe they make that are absent or that understand not the language or that are altogether ignorant of the fayth that is professed in those Churches 2. I demand of him in what sense such persons may be said to be of such Churches who neyther live under the government of those Churches nor so much as heare the word at all amongst them for aught any man knoweth nor are in any respect accounted amongst the members of those Churches nor should be received into visible communion with them if they should offer themselves thereunto being neither able to give any account of their fayth nor testimony of their good conversation 3. Againe I demand why he pretendeth that they baptise onely such as are there described when he knoweth that many are admitted by them which are not capable of that description Is it not because he cannot plead for the admittance of such with any shew of Reason If not Let him produce his Arguments in defence of such promiscuous baptising which yet he hath not done or confesse that he hath done the Church me wrong in the opposition and strife which he hath injuriously raysed to deprive me of that relation whereunto I was called for refusing to doe that which he cannot prove to be lawfull As for those who he sayth though they are without in respect of joyning with any Church yet have more knowledge of the truth and are more frequent in attending upon the publickâ—worship of God and are otherwise more unblameable in their conversation then some of those that are members of the Church his labour had bene to better purpose if he had indeavored to convince them of the evill of this their neglect of joyning to some particular Church that they might not rest contented in their present condition to the apparent hazard of their soules that so they might with good warrant from Gods order have partaked of the ordinances which are given to the Church by vertue of their relation to and communion with the Church rather then thus to interest them in those priviledges wherein they have no right to communicate in that state wherein they stand without violation of Gods order as hath bene formerly shewen and may be hereafter more plentifully upon further provocation Though I had rather reserve the full handling of that to a positive discourse which may in due time be published For the present I pray the Reader to understand that in all the examination of these allegations of Scripture the Answerer hath drawne us from the true question betweene him and me which was not about limiting of baptisme to the members of a true Church concerning which whatsoever I intimated in a word or two in my wrighting to the Classis neither the ministers which were sent by the Classis to speake with me nor the Answerer at any time first or last had any the least word of difference with me but both they and he required my conformity to their custom of baptising all that are brought in manner aforesaid So that this was not but the other alone was the question betweene us So that it lyeth wholly upon him to prove the lawfullnes of that promiscuous administration of baptisme which is in use among them and to convince me of sinne for refusing to conforme thereunto which I expect that he performe in his next booke if he be able But if it be confessed to be evill and the question beâ— how shall it be removed or cured in such a place as Amsterdam I answer disorders are best cured by introducing and setling that order in place of them which appeareth to be most agreeable to Gods revealed will and that is that baptisme be administred onely to such infants whose parents one of them at least is a member of some particular visible Church and that Church priviledges be denyed to those that refuse Church-communion For that which againe he repeateth concerning me it is but a colewort twise sodd and hath bene already answered in examination of his descant upon the first proofe alleadged by me Act. 20.28 His observations upon the protestation reveivved WHat care I had of his credit and peace himselfe declareth in the first lines of his observations when he sayth upon the coming forth of the booke of complaints against him Mr. D. immediately sends out a protestation against it and signifyes he could have no rest in his spirit untill he had resolved upon this protestation I did so indeed and in so doing I shewed my selfe more tender of him then he was of himselfe or of me and thereby deserved better usage at his hands then I have found in many bitter passages of his booke The speciall matters contayned therein he sayth are a three fold Protestation and a threefold Confession a threefold Quaere a threefold Request It seemeth in deed so it fell out occasionally without affectatioÌ„ on my part either of observing odd numbers as of 3 or of making them aequall by being cast into 4 rancks or orders or of putting my discourse into such a mold or frame 1. For the threefold protestation The summe of it was that I neither consented to nor knew of nor approved of the publishing of that pamphlet There is nothing in his five observations worth minding and that hath not bene already answered by me Onely the third is an observeable character of the Answerers spirit who fiercely stricketh at me for striving to save him from the stroke of his Antagonist For he propoundeth it for an observation of a just reward of the inordinate affection which the publisher shewed in contending for me in that by me sentence is pronounced against him unknowne for his injury done in printing Any ingenious man would rather have observed my sincerity and aequanimity who without respect of persons witnessed against evills in whomsoever my love of truth which I praeferred above particular respects to freinds when I was called to declare my selfe and my tender respect of him in that passing by all personall injuries received from him I made hast as the occasion required to interpose in favour of him against those who he sayth contended for me And that their contending for me in that case was no evidence of their inordinate affection towards me hath bene already shewed And by this passage the Reader may see how necessary it was that I should speake so farr as I might justly in defence of the subscribers and others in this cause least in his next booke he should stile it a just reward of they re in ordinate affection to me in that I had now deserted them and minded onely mine owne defence as he traduceth me