A19884:559
A19884:559
An apologetical reply to a book called an answer to the unjust complaint of VV.B. Also an answer to Mr. I.D. touching his report of some passages. His allegation of Scriptures against the baptising of some kind of infants. His protestation about the publishing of his writings. By John Davenport BD.An apologeticall reply to a booke called an ansvver to the unjust complaint of VV.B. Also an answer to Mr. I.D. touching his report of some passages. His allegation of Scriptures against the baptising of some kind of infants. His protestation about the publishing of his wrightings. By Iohn Davenporte BD.
Rotterdam: printed by Isaac van Waesberghe, 1636Rotterdam: printed by Isaack van Waesberghe, 1636
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
Secondly. To the Papists it is an offence that we,1 professing reformation, do admit those to baptism whom they would refuse (though they err grossly in many points about baptisme, & de suscipientibus baptismum also) for they hold it unlawful to baptise the infants or infidels that are brought, without their parents consent: but such cases may often fall out, in that place, by this course, and the minister and Church be ignorant of it. Dr. Whittaker addeth, that they do absurdly, who baptise the children of unbelievers, though the parents should desire it, as if (saith he) the Church might give baptism to whom they please. For then they might be baptised, even without the parents consent.
Secondly. To the Papists it is an offence that we,1 professing reformation, doe admit those to baptisme whom they would refuse (though they erre grosly in many points about baptisme, & de suscipientibus baptismum also) for they hold it unlawfull to baptise the infants or infidells that are brought, without theyre parents consent: but such cases may often fall out, in that place, by this course, and the minister and Church be ignorant of it. Dr. Whittaker addeth, that they doe absurdly, who baptise the children of unbeleivers, though the parents should desire it, as if (sayth he) the Church might give baptisme to whom they please. For then they might be baptised, even without the parents consent.
Thirdly. To the Anabaptists it is an offence, who, because the Scripture requireth faith to baptism (not only unjustly, against the Scripture, dislike the baptising of the infants of believers, but also) complain, and that justly, of the promiscuous administering of baptism, even to those whose parents cannot be numbered amongst believers. As appeareth in their private discourses, public disputes and printed books.
Thirdly. To the Anabaptists it is an offence, who, because the Scripture requireth fayth to baptisme (not only unjustly, against the Scripture, dislike the baptising of the infants of beleivers, but also) complaine, and that justly, of the promiscuous administring of baptisme, even to those whose parents cannot be numbred amongst beleivers. As appeareth in their private discourses, publick disputes and printed bookes.
Fourthly. To Libertines and Familists it giveth offence and hardeneth them in their disorderly course, seeing they can partake of the outward privileges of the Church as well as the members of it, without submission to the order & government thereof, whereunto the members are subject. The same may be affirmed of all disorderly persons that are obstinate in evil courses.
Fourthly. To Libertines and Familists it giveth offence and hardneth them in their disorderly course, seing they can partake of the outward priviledges of the Church as well as the members of it, without submission to the order & government thereof, whereunto the members are subject. The same may be affirmed of all disorderly persons that are obstinate in evill courses.
1Fifthly. Ignorant and superstitious persons are strengthened in a slight esteem of Baptism, 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 fitness were not as well required, in him that would partake of the blood of Christ, and of remission of sins by it, in baptism, as in the Lords supper. For the same remission of sins is alike propounded in them both.
1Fifthly. 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, complain of the Dutch reformed Churches, as neither so true to their own grounds as they aught (their practise being compared with their profession) nor so well providing for the dignity of the thing, whilst they administer the Sacrament of Baptism 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 do profess, that, notwithstanding this, they do account them the true Churches of Christ, and both profess, and practise communion with them in the holy things of God, what in them lieth; their sermons, such of them frequent, as understand the Dutch tongue, and the Sacraments they do administer to their known members, if, by occasion, any of them be present with, them, &c.
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 fear God, & heartily desire to see the ordinances of Christ established in their purity and beauty & are unfeignedly grieved that any blemish should be found in the reformed Churches, and truly 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, do not only reckon my unworthy self, 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 wind up all in one bottom.
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 Jews, Papists, Anabaptists, Familists; Libertines, obstinate sinners, ignorant and superstitious persons Separatists, and to diverse others that fear God, is a sin.
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 baptism so promiscuously, as that writing requireth, giveth offence to all these.
But to administer baptisme so promiscuously, as that wrighting requireth, giveth offence to all these.
Therefore to administer baptism so promiscuously &c. is a sin.
Therefore to administer baptisme so promiscuously &c. is a sinne.
Reason. 3 The third Reason to prove it to be a sin, is, because it is a building again of that which these Churches, according to the Scripture, have destroyed.
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 restrain to these Churches, to show the evil of this practise from their own 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 self with a short proposal of some particulars which are considerable, especially that ground being laid which the Apostle maketh use of, in a like case,1 If I build again the things that I have destroyed I make my self a transgressor.
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,1 If I build againe the things that I have destroyed I make my selfe a transgressour.
First. That baptism is only a naked sign, 1or note of Segregation from other sects, and profession of true doctrine, is an error which these reformed Churches have destroyed, by professing in their ⟨p. 146⟩Confession,2 and Catechism that it is not only so, but also a testimony to us, and a symbol to assure us of remission of sins &c. according to the Scripture(a): But this practise buildeth it again, whilst a naked profession of assent to the doctrine and discipline of this Church is held sufficient to warrant their baptism, though it be made, many times, by such as are not known to have any right in the Covenant, whereof baptism is a seal, or at all to pertain 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 do not account Baptism any more then a naked sign of profession. And not only so, but it justifieth that error, as Israel justified Samaria, by establishing a worse. For this practise seemeth to make baptism not so much as a profession of true doctrine, or a note of segregation from other sects, whilst it is appointed to be administered thus promiscuously in Amsterdam (where people of so many sects inhabit) to all infants that are presented, though they make no other show of profession, then by saying, yea, or nodding the head, when they understand not what is said to them, being of a different language, and are altogether unknown to the minister and to the Church.
First. That baptisme is only a naked signe, 1or noate of Segregation from other sects, and profession of true doctrine, is an errour which these reformed Churches have destroyed, by professing in theyr ⟨p. 146⟩Confession,2 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
1Secondly. That the grace of Christ is universal, wherein all have interest is an error which these reformed Churches have destroyed, restraining it only to the Elect, to believers, to the Church of God, according to the Scriptures(b): But this practise buildeth it up. For, if the seal appertain to all, why not the Covenant also? Why not the grace? And who will not suspect that the seal doth appertain to all, in their 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 been baptised, have, by their infidelity and other sins obstinately persisted in, (being, convicted thereof and cast out of the Church) or by their wilful 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. If they say; ⟨p. 147⟩their grandfather was a Christian, or great grandfather. I answer. Where must we stop at last? If not in the next parents, why in the grandfather, or great grandfather, till we come up as high as Noah himself? And so neither the children of Jews, nor Turks, nor heathen or infidels should be denied baptism.
1Secondly. 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): 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;
Thirdly. The absolute necessity of baptism to salvation; so that, 1not only those of years, that refuse or contemn it, are damned, but even infants also perish eternally, through the want of it, is an error which these Churches have destroyed, when they profess it to be of the same use to Christians, whereof circumcision was to the Jews, who being borne in the covenant, by their relation to their believing parents, by virtue of the promise, I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed, were accounted in the number of Abraham's children, before circumcision, without which, circumcision did not appertain to them. According to the Scriptures, which declare Davids confidence about the salvation of his infant that died before the eighth day,2 in which it should have been circumcised, and annexeth damnation to not believing, not, to not being baptised, as Luther acutely noted out of those words. He that believeth and is baptised, shall be saved, 3but he that believeth not, shall be damned. But this practise seemeth to build this up again, For, if the necessity of it be such, as Gods order must be violated rather then the infant not baptised, who will not suspect that they account it simply necessary to salvation? And, if the plea, which is ordinarily used by them,4 that Baptism is not of such necessity, as that Gods order should be broken for, it, be good against baptism by private persons, and by midwives and nurses &c. Why may it not serve in this case also?
Thirdly. The absolute necessity of baptisme to salvation; so that, 1not only those of yeares, that refuse or contemne it, are damned, but even infants also perish aeternally, through the want of it, is an errour which these Churches have destroyed, when they professe it to be of the same use to Christians, whereof circumcision was to the Iewes, who being borne in the covenant, by their relation to their beleiving parents, by vertue of the promise, I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed, were accounted in the number of Abrahams children, before circumcision, without which, circumcision did not appertaine to them. According to the Scriptures, which declare Davids confidence about the salvation of his infant that died before the eighth day,
Fourthly. The efficacy of Baptism,1 when it is made a natural cause or instrument sanctifying those that partake of it, by the work done, is an error, which these Churches have destroyed, when they ascribe the working of grace to God, as the sole efficient cause, and author of it, and account the Sacraments, signs and seals, and moral instruments signifying and sealing and so exhibiting it instrumentally, in the right use of them, which I will explain in the words of that learned Dr, ⟨p. 148⟩Whittaker,2 because his exposition seemeth to be more clear then many, in reference to the true state of the question between the Pontificians and the Orthodox. We say, they are instruments (taking the name largely) because God useth them in bestowing grace upon us: ye we do not mean that they are instruments, as our Adversaries do, as if God were so tied to them as not to confer grace without them, as an artificer cannot make a bed, or bench, without a saw, or hatchet, nor that they are able to work any thing of themselves by any hidden virtue proper to them and inherent in them, as is in a medicine for procuring bodily health, but because, in the right use of them, God worketh a nourishing and increasing of grace. Therefore the Sacraments work nothing by the thing done, no not in infants. For infants are not therefore partakers of grace only because they are baptised yet neither are they baptised in vain, because they are baptised, unto future faith & repentance, & because they are members of the Church, and holy by the Covenant, and therefore the sign of the Covenant is not to be denied them. Thus he witnesseth against that efficacy that papalls ascribe to the Sacrament, & joineth with these Churches in destroying it, according to the(a) Scripture. But this practise seemeth to build it up again. For, whereas our Divines say that baptism is profaned, when it is administered to the unclean the popish writers tell us, that baptism is not thereby profaned, but that it doeth sanctify them. And, upon this ground, Bellarmine saith, that baptism may be given to those that pertain not to Christ. To whom Dr. Whittaker answereth. This were true, if Baptism were a physical cause of grace: For grace is not profaned when it is given to the unclean, but it sanctifieth them, to whom it is given:
else (he demandeth of Bellarmine) why may not infidels of years be baptised, if they will suffer themselves to be baptised; yea though they should profess that they do not believe in Christ, if baptism will sanctify them? But all men deny that. And why so? Because they belong not to Christ: Therefore (saith he) Baptism aught not to be given to any that are not in Christ. I will not enlarge this point, by speaking of the ignorant conceit of some, that ⟨p. 149⟩baptism is their Christendom, and that they are made Christians by baptism, whereas we have shown that they must be Christians before baptism, else they may not be baptised.
else (he demandeth of Bellermine) why may not infidells of yeares be baptised, if they will suffer themselves to be baptised; yea though they should professe that they doe not beleive in Christ, if baptisme will sanctifye them? But all men deny that. And why so? Because they belong not to Christ: Therefore (sayth he) Baptisme aught not to be given to any that are not in Christ. I will not enlarge this point, by speaking of the ignorant conceit of some, that ⟨p. 149⟩baptisme is their Christendom, and that they are made Christians by baptisme, whereas we have shewen that they must be Christians before baptisme, else they may not be baptised.
Fourthly. The efficacy of Baptisme,1 when it is made a naturall cause or instrument sanctifying those that partake of it, by the worke done, is an errour, which these Churches haue destroyed, when they ascribe the working of grace to God, as the sole efficient cause, and authour of it, and account the Sacraments, signes and seales, and morall instruments signifying and sealing and so exhibiting it instrumentally, in the right use of them, which I will explaine in the words of that learned Dr, ⟨p. 148⟩Whittaker,2 because his exposition seemeth to be more cleare then many, in reference to the true state of the question betweene the Pontificians and the Orthodox. We say, they are instruments (taking the name largely) because God useth them in bestowing grace upon us: ye we doe not meane that they are instrumēts, as our Adversaries doe, as if God were so tyed to thē as not to conferr grace without them, as an artificer cannot make a bed, or bench, without a saw, or hatchet, nor that they are able to worke any thing of themselves by any hiddē vertue proper to them and inhaerent in them, as is in a medicine for procuring bodily health, but because, in the right use of them, God worketh a nourishing and increasing of grace. Therefore the Sacraments worke nothing by the thing done, no not in infants. For infants are not therefore partakers of grace only because they are baptised yet neither are they baptised in vaine, because they are baptised, unto future fayth & repentance, & because they are members of the Church, and holy by the Covenant, and therefore the signe of the Covenant is not to be denyed them. Thus he witnesseth against that efficacy that papalls ascribe to the Sacrament, & joyneth with these Churches in destroying it, according to the(a) Scripture. But this practise seemeth to build it up againe. For, whereas our Divines say that baptisme is profaned, whē it is administred to the uncleane the popish wrighters tell us, that baptisme is not thereby profaned, but that it doeth sanctifye them. And, upon this ground, Bellarmine sayth, that baptisme may be given to those that pertaine not to Christ. To whom Dr. Whittaker answereth. This were true, if Baptisme were a physicall cause of grace: For grace is not profaned when it is given to the uncleane, but it sanctifyeth them, to whom it is given: