An apologetical reply to a book called an answer to the unjust complaint of…An apologeticall reply to a booke called an ansvver to the unjust complaint of…

But such a promiscuous baptising &c. is contrary to the good customs of the best Churches.

Therefore it is unlawful.

Therefore it is unlawfull.

So much shall suffice for declaring the grounds, whereupon I refused this custom.

1. 11. Pretences for it.

Pretence. 1 First, pretence.] None will present their children to be baptised but Christians?

Ans. 1. It is a conclusion amongst the schoolemen that,¹ Non sunt infidelium pueri, invitis parentibus, baptisandi. Children of infidels are not to be baptised without their parents consent. Wherein they suppose that such a case is possible. If so, why may not the child of a Jew, or Moore, or Indian be brought by some one or other to baptism, without the parents consent or knowledge? And the manner of Amsterdam is to refuse none that are presented, by whomsoever, whereby it is very possible, that some infants may be baptised, whose parents are no Christians, though the parents would not have them presented.

Ans. 1. It is a conclusion amongst the schoolemen that,¹ Non sunt infidelium pueri, invitis parentibus, baptisandi. Children of infidells are not to be baptised without theyr parents consent. Wherein they suppose that such a case is possible. If so, why may not the child of a Iew, or Moore, or Indian be brought by some one or other to baptisme, without the parents consent or knowledge? And the manner of Amsterdam is to refuse none that are presented, by whomsoever, whereby it is very possible, that some infants may be baptised, whose parents are no Christians, though the parents would not have them presented.

1. 1Aq: second secundae. art. 12. conclu.Aq: secund secundae. art. 12. conclu.

2. Even parents, who themselves do not receive christian Religion, may be content to have their children baptised either for the gifts sake, which are customarily bestowed (by those whom they call Godfathers and Godmothers) upon the children, or for some other advantages & respects, which, in those countries where Religion hath the countenance of the higher powers, may be expected thereby.¹ Have we not read of the Shichemites which were circumcised, yet received not the Religion of the Jews? The Chronicles of our land can tell us how the Danes, being vanquished, propounded to Elfred the 24. Saxon Monarch, in England, for obtaining of their peace, that their king should receive baptism: by which policy he got the country of the East Angles, by the gift of K. Elfred his Godfather. In those times it was usual to make baptism a condition, and to compel men to baptism, as king Edmond did the Danes ⟨p. 164⟩to make them become his subjects, which being done, they did soon cast off, both faith and fealty at once. And are not many of the mind of that Roman pretext, of whom Jerome speaketh, who said scoffingly to Damasus. Facite me Romanae •rbis espiscopum, & ero protinus Christanus. I will conclude this passage with the censure of learned Dr. Whittaker.² Absurdè faciunt ij, qui infidelium liberos baptizant, si parents volunt baptizari, quasi ecclesia, suo arbitrio, quibus vellet, baptismum dare posset. They do absurdly who baptise the children of infidels, if the parents be willing to have them baptised, as if the Church, at their own pleasure can baptise whom they will.

2. Even parents, who themselves doe not receive christian Religion, may be content to have theyr children baptised either for the gifts sake, which are customarily bestowed (by those whom they call Godfathers and Godmothers) upon the children, or for some other advantages & respects, which, in those countryes where Religion hath the countenance of the higher powers, may be expected thereby.¹ Have we not read of the Shichemites which were circumcised, yet received not the Religion of the Jewes? The Chronicles of our land can tell us how the Danes, being vanquished, propounded to Elfred the 24. Saxon Monarch, in England, for obtayning of their peace, that their king should receive baptisme: by which policy he got the country of the East Angles, by the gift of K. Elfred his Godfather. In those times it was usuall to make baptisme a condition, and to compell men to baptisme, as king Edmond did the Danes

Pretence. 2 Second pretence.] If the parents be no Christians, yet the sureties are?

Pretence. 2 Second pretence.] If the parents be no Christians, yet the suretyes are?

Ans. 1. The customary use of sureties in baptising infants, though it seem ancient by the mention that is made of them, in the Synod of Ments,¹ under the name of Compatres spirituals, spiritual fathers and mothers, and, before that, in Augustine, under the name of Sponsors, and fidejussores, sureties, and before him, in Tertullian, under the name of offerentes, presenters: yet it is not from the Ancient of days, it was not from the beginning, neither in the first institution of baptism, nor the practise of the primitive Churches, in the first Century. The first original of this custom seemeth to be this, that they that took the child from the minister when it was baptised should be called spiritual fathers and mothers, that the difference between the first and second birth of the child might be signified, it being absurd (as they thought) that the same man should be the father of the child, both in respect of generation and of regeneration. Hence the Papists drew a spiritual kindred, and multiplied absurd inventions about it. Which very original and abuse, it being not of Apostolical institution, should make the Reformed Churches suspect it, especially seeing it is not of necessary use, the charge of educating the child lying upon the parents, and the whole Church being witnesses.

Ans. 1. The customary use of suretyes in baptising infants, though it seeme ancient by the mention that is made of them, in the Synod of Ments,¹ under the name of Compatres spirituales, spirituall fathers and mothers, and, before that, in Augustine, under the name of Sponsores, and fidejussores, suretyes, and before him, in Tertullian, under the name of offerentes, presenters: yet it is not from the Ancient of dayes, it was not from the beginning, neither in the first institution of baptisme, nor the practise of the primitive Churches, in the first Century. The first originall of this custom seemeth to be this, that they that tooke the child from the minister when it was baptised should be called spirituall fathers and mothers, that the difference betweene the first and second birth of the child might be signifyed, it being absurd (as they thought) that the same man should be the father of the child, both in respect of generation and of regeneration. Hence the Papists drew a spirituall kindred, and multiplyed absurd inventions about it. Which very originall and abuse, it being not of Apostolicall institution, should make the Reformed Churches suspect it, especially seing it is not of necessary use, the charge of educating the child lying upon the parents, and the wholl Church being witnesses.

2. Admit that, in some cases, there may be a lawful use of special witnesses, or sureties: yet, can these give the infant a right to baptism, which had none in the parents? That the ⟨p. 165⟩Covenant is made with parents for themselves and their children,¹ and that thereby the children are holy in the parents we read, but where do we read so much of sureties?

2. Admit that, in some cases, there may be a lawfull use of speciall witnesses, or suretyes: yet, can these give the infant a right to baptisme, which had none in the parents? That the ⟨p. 165⟩Covenant is made with parents for themselves and their children,¹ and that thereby the children are holy in the parents we read, but where doe we read so much of suretyes?

1. 1Gen: 17. 1 Cor: 7.

3. Admit, that, in some sureties the children have a right unto baptism (viz, such as were of Abraham's family,¹ borne in his house, or bought with his money, and so such as are members of Christian families, in a like state) yet, will it thence follow, that such sureties as many times present children to baptism, in that place, partake of the same privilege, of whose families the infants are not members, nor are their families ordered like Abraham's, themselves also are, some of them, notoriously wicked, others of them unknown to the Church, and many of them, such as have no power to see the child educated, and, it may be, shall never see it after that day. Such an one was that unknown woman, who seeing a harlot delivered of a bastard, instantly took the infant, and brought it to the English Church, in Amsterdam, where (as it fell out) she found the Congregation dismissed before she came, who being asked by some of the members, why she came no sooner, answered, how could I come before the child was borne? or to that purpose, and so she hastened to the Dutch Church, where she found them baptising many, & without delay presented the child, which was received, without any difficulty or question. Judicious Calvin calleth the promise made by those who have no power to educate the child an open mocking of God.²

3. Admit, that, in some suretyes the children have a right unto baptisme (viz, such as were of Abrahams family,¹ borne in his house, or bought with his money, and so such as are members of Christian familyes, in a like state) yet, will it thence follow, that such suretyes as many times present children to baptisme, in that place, partake of the same priviledge, of whose familyes the infants are not members, nor are their familyes ordered like Abrahams, themselves also are, some of them, notoriously wicked, others of them unknowne to the Church, and many of them, such as have no power to see the child educated, and, it may be, shall never see it after that day. Such an one was that unknowne woaman, who seing a harlot delivered of a bastard, instantly tooke the infant, and brought it to the English Church, in Amsterdam, where (as it fell out) she found the Congregation dismissed before she came, who being asked by some of the members, why she came no sooner, answered, how could I come before the child was borne? or to that purpose, and so she hastned to the Dutch Church, where she found them baptising many, & without delay presented the child, which was received, without any difficulty or question. Iudicious Calvin calleth the promise made by those who have no power to educate the child an open mocking of God.

Pretence. 3 Third pretence] They are manifest Christians which profess Christian Religion, at the reading of the Liturgy of Baptism?

Pretence. 3 Third pretence] They are manifest Christians which professe Christian Religion, at the reading of the Liturgy of Baptisme?

Ans: 1. The name of Christians is a name full of Honour, and wherein Nazianzene, professeth that himself and Basil did glory more,¹ then Gyges in his ring, or Midas in his gold. Shall this honourable badge, and, as it were, livery of Christ his faithful servants, be put upon a company of varlets, whose fathers Job would have disdained to set with the dogs of his flock; as if the practise of a Christian life were not requisite to manifest Christians?

Ans: 1. The name of Christians is a name full of Honour, and wherein Nazianzene, professeth that himselfe and Basill did glory more,¹ then Gyges in his ring, or Midas in his gold. Shall this honourable badge, and, as it were, livery of Christ his faythfull servants, be put upon a company of varlets, whose fathers Job would have disdayned to set with the doggs of his flock; as if the practise of a Christian life were not requisite to manifest Christians?

1. 1Orat: 30. in laud: Basil.

2. If persons, otherwise unknown, are sufficiently manifested to be Christians by such a profession of faith as is usually ⟨p. 166⟩made there at the reading of the Liturgy of Baptism (which is done by saying yea, or some gesture of the body only) to what use was such a declaration of their faith required in the Apostles times, and many ages after?

2. If persons, otherwise unknowne, are sufficiently manifested to be Christians by such a profession of fayth as is usually ⟨p. 166⟩made there at the reading of the Leiturgy of Baptisme (which is done by saying yae, or some gesture of the body only) to what use was such a declaration of their fayth required in the Apostles times, and many ages after?

3. Beza puts a case of a man convicted lawfully, in the presbytery, of obstinacy in maintaining some dangerous errors against the immortality of the soul and the resurrection of the body, and then asketh Erastus, shall we account this man a Christian?¹ And answereth minimè opinor. I suppose not. In like manner, I will put a case or two. Terentius of Harlem is infamous to this day for like errors, and for the dangerous fruits thereof in diverse, who yet live in several places, and some in Amsterdam, who, to this day, have not revoked their wicked errors. Also the story of Robert Roberts is notoriously known, who said he would have one child baptised in the true Church, and having collected a catalogue of several Churches, which he called the seven sisters, to the Arminians he presented one of his children to be baptised, but, because he was a Libertine, & a scoffer they refused to baptise it, except some other presented it: another being about 14 years old he presented to the Anabaptists, but they refused it, accounting him too young to make confession of his faith, one of them was baptised (as I am told) by the Papists, another by the Lutherans, the other in the ordinary Congregation, where he liveth, as it is said. This is published in a pamphlet printed to the view of all men. Again, the Dutch preachers refuse to baptise the infants of Gypsies, whom they call Heydenen, because of their disorderly course, yet many of these will offer to make the same profession, which is required at the reading of the Liturgy, and some of them will tell you, that they have been baptised. Are these to be accounted as heathen notwithstanding that? why not others also, that are as bad they?

3. Beza puts a case of a man convicted lawfully, in the presbytery, of obstinacy in maintayning some dangerous errours against the immortality of the soule and the resurrection of the body, and then asketh Erastus, shall we account this man a Christian?¹ And answereth minimè opinor. I suppose not. In like manner, I will put a case or two. Terentius of Harlem is infamous to this day for like errours, and for the dangerous fruits thereof in diverse, who yet live in severall places, and some in Amsterdam, who, to this day, have not revoked their wicked errours. Also the story of Robbert Roberts is notoriously knowne, who sayd he would have one child baptised in the true Church, and having collected a catalogue of severall Churches, which he called the seven sisters, to the Arminians he presented one of his children to be baptised, but, because he was a Libertine, & a scoffer they refused to baptise it, except some other presēted it: another being about 14 yeares old he presented to the Anabaptists, but they refused it, accounting him too yong to make confession of his faith, one of them was baptised (as I am told) by the Papists, another by the Lutherans, the other in the ordinary Congregation, where he liveth, as it is sayd. This is published in a pamphlet printed to the view of all men. Againe, the Dutch preachers refuse to baptise the infants of Gypses, whom they call Heydenen, because of their disorderly course, yet many of these will offer to make the same profession, which is required at the reading of the Leiturgy, and some of them will tell you, that they have bene baptised. Are these to be accounted as heathen notwithstanding that? why not others also, that are as bad they?

Lastly the Answerer himself refused to baptise the child of G. P. being excommunicated, and of a profane life, as its said, and I. S. who held with the Anabaptists and Arians, besides some others, yet, I suppose, neither of those refused to make such a profession as is required at the reading of the Liturgy. Now, if their denying to baptise infants in those cases be warrantable; ⟨p. 167⟩how can it be justified that they would compel me to baptise all that are brought, by whomsoever, in that place?

Lastly the Answerer himselfe refused to baptise the child of G. P. being excommunicated, and of a profane life, as its sayd, and I. S. who held with the Anabaptists and Arrians, besides some others, yet, I suppose, neither of those refused to make such a profession as is required at the reading of the Leiturgy. Now, if theyre denying to baptise infants in those cases be warrantable; ⟨p. 167⟩how can it be justifyed that they would compell me to baptise all that are brought, by whomsoever, in that place?