which I moved to be considered whether it were not near Mr. Bs. doctrine Aphorisme 73. of Justific and in my Antidote sect 8. page 24. said it is near to it Hereupon Mr. B. adjudgeth this dealing so grosse as he never found in any Jesuite a shamlesse charge and page 190. the vile ebullition of rancor and malice in a most evident falshood that hath left no roome for blushing And then cleares himself from the sense in which the Antinomists held it and then addes Now what doth Mr. T. but bring this as the same tenet with mine when it is even directly contrary To which I answer Mr. B. page 189. in these words Your language about the absolutenesse of the Covenant is too like many of the tenets of the Antinomists in N. E. useth the same dealing with me which he chargeth me with towards himself For he doth or might know when I say with many Divines the Covenant is absolute I meane it as they do in respect of the first promise Heb. 8. 10. I will write my lawes in their hearts which Doctor Twisse and many other prove must be absolute or else the grace of God must be given according to mans desert as the Pelagians held which thing I expresse plainly in my Examen page 164. whereas the Antinomians make it absolute in respect of justification in which I am assured that Mr. B. knew by conferences with me that I was against them and yet he chargeth me with symbolizing with them But recrimination is no purgation 2. It is not true that I bring it as the same tenet with Mr. Bs. but neare it which is so true that however their in tent and his were contrary yet their words are the same For Mr. B. Aph. 76. and in the first edition of the Saints everlasting rest page 11. saith Doubtlesse the Gospel takes faith for obedience to all Gospel-precepts of which the workes James 2. 16. of giving food or clothing to a brother are a part which if true he that is justified by faith is justified by works and so Mr. Bs. proposition is the same with the Antinominians however he used it to a contrary end it 's the same medium though Mr. B. prove one conclusion by it and the Antinomians another and I think is condemned by the censure of them of N. E. in Mr. Bs. sense as well as the Antinomians But Mr. B. goes about to clear himself from error in it and singularly and then saith How can Mr. T. have ground to think that no Minister in England is of my judgement and then challengeth me to confute the doctrine of his book or leaves to judge whether I be not a meere empty calumniator And addes that these words of mine I am sure in his letter to me he saith he was hissed at from all parts of the Kingdome are a relation like the rest from a bitter roote so most falsely when I had his letters which might have directed me to speak truth that the words from all parts of the Kingdome are my addition which is become ordinary with me Then mentions the occasion of the passage in his letters my offer of help to him for dividing ends but he thought he had no need of my help and was resolved not to engage with a renter of the Church To which I answer 1. My exceptions against his doctrine in his Aphorismes have been sent to him afore his death though not to answer his challenge yet at the motion of his Postscript I conceive he erres 1. in making justification by faith to be onely in law title 2. In making a first and after continued justification 3. In making it a continued not instantaneous act 4. In making obedience to all Gospel-precepts an essentiall part of justifying faith and not a fruite onely 2. I did no where say that I thought no Minister in England is of his judgement though I said I thought he had not made one Minister of his judgement 3. to the crimination of my speaking falsely I will set down his own-words in his letter to me That pamphlet of justification I well knew was likely to blast my reputation with most Divines and the issue hath answered my expectation I am now so hissed at by them that I feele temptation enough to schisme in my discontents I had hot his letter by me when I spake those words not out of a bitter roote but to answer the prejudice against me as conceived singular But there was no falshood in my speech by most Divines and from all parts of the Kingdome being equipollent And if this be to adde falsely our Lord Christ will be found to adde falsely Mat. 15. 8 9. c. my offer of helpe to him in what we agreed was not for dividing ends but because of his complaint of weaknesse of body and want of time for study It seemes he accounted me a renter of the Church afore my preaching at Bewdley the many Sermons on Mat. 28. 19. against Infant-baptisme for discovering of the error of it in my bookes without other practises It appeares thereby that even then when he seemed to be most friendly he had hard thoughts of me and however he protest of his love yet his misinterpreting so many of the things I have done or said to him and at last casting up his accusations in his book in charging me with frequent untruths schisme pride worse then the Devil in accusing my own children with bitter scoffes and insulting tauntes with other aggravations and expressions beyond brotherly and neighbourly respects yea I may I think say a sober minde are undeniable evidences of want of love to me and candour towards me if we may judge what is in a man by his deedes rather then by his words As for his pretence of zeale for God the peace of the Church and the duty of brotherly reproof were he never so much in the right and I never so much in the wrong for my judgement yet these could not justifie his carriage to me And if other Ministers deale with me as Mr. B. Mr. M. Mr. Baillee Mr. Geree have done without doing me right after their false criminations of me I shall have temptation to think that they have learned a principle like the Jesuites to think it no sin to say as bad as may be against a supposed Anabaptist for the Paedobaptists cause SECT X. That Mr. Bs. charge of accusing and disputing my children out of the Covenant of Christ is vaine and some inquiry is made how they are in the Covenant I Have now gone through Mr. Bs. Epistles and History vindicated my self and the truth from many objections There are many other things which are scattered in his answer to my Valedictory Oration and Corrective of my Antidote which are somewhat besides the dispute it self which I shall rather point at then insist on because many are scarce worth the taking notice of but for the esteem Mr. B. and his book have gotten
drink of that cup and this example 1 Cor. 10. 16 17. The cup of blessing which we blesse is it not the Communion of the blood of Christ the bread which we break is it not the Communion of the body of Christ For we being many are one body and one bread for we are all partakers of that one bread But for command or example that an ordained Presbyter onely should administer the Lords Supper by breaking bread c. let them that say there is shew it Mr. B. goes on But by this time you may see whither Mr. T. would reduce the Ministerial office 1. Others may baptize 2. And administer the Lords Supper 3. And then preaching is all or almost all that is left for he gives them far lesse in government than I do And how well he defended the Ministerial privilege of publique preaching in his disputes with Captain Bray is too well known And what need the people allow so much of their meanes then to maintain Ministers is not this next to the utter extirpation of them acoording to the doctrine of their learned Martin-Marpriest Answ. Pastors and Teachers or Presbyters to teach and govern the Church of God I am assured are a Divine institution and a very merciful gift of Christ Ephe. 4. 11 12 13. 1 Cor. 12. 28. Acts 14. 23. 1 Tim. 3. 1. Tit. 2. 5. to whom people should yield obedience Heb. 13. 17. and yield maintenance liberally 1 Cor. 9. 14. Gal. 6. 6. 1 Tim. 5. 17 18. If any go about to extirpate them let him be accursed as an enemy to Christ and his Church The railing bookes of Martin-Marpriest and such like on the one side and the slanderous books of Mr. Edwards Mr. Baillee c. on the other side I abhorre Yet I fear more danger to the Ministry by the pragmaticalnesse of the Ministers especially their meddling with State matters then either by Martin-Marpriests libels or my assertions Would Ministers keep to their studies and the work of Christ in preaching in season and out of season it would better establish their maintenance and Ministry then the asserting such a juridical government and power of dispensing the seales as they are called as they do I ascribe as much to the Ministry as the Scripture gives them Though the office of preaching whether publique or private be proper to the Minister so as to be his constant imployment and he ought not to be hindred in it sith he is to be accountable to God for it yet publique or private preaching I do not annex to ordained Presbyters as a peculiar priviledge to them so as none else may be said to be sent or called of God to preach in Scripture sense but they Notwithstanding what Mr. Thomas Hall in his Pulpit guarded or my quodam scholar and worthy friend Mr. Giles Workman in his better temper'd book intitled Private men no pulpit men have said I still conceive that not onely for trial of expectants but also upon other occasions persons not ordained may be permitted yea desired to preach in the pulpits I find these words in Bilsons Difference between Christian subjection and Antichristian rebellion part 4. Strangers also if they were in place were suffered both to teach and blesse in the Church as well as others that were tied to their cures by reason that many were sent by the Apostles and by the Holy Ghost to visite the Churches and comfort the Christians as they travailed and such were according to their knowledge and gift not onely permitted but also desired to exhort the people and to give thanks to God in other mens charges Grot. annot in Mat. 4. 23. Mansit is mos aliquandiu in Ecclesia Christiana ut concessu Episcoporum Scriptur as interpretarentur non presbyteri tantum aut diaconi sed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vide Eusebium qui Origenis aliorumque exemplo probat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 spectant quae leguntur 1 Cor. 24. 19. Neverthelesse I am against the courses of many Souldiers and others who against the denial of able teachers to whom the teaching of the people is committed love to get into the pulpits of the ablest men to vent their peculiar conceits and oft-times their pernicious errors not reguarding to preach to the ignorant the clear truths of faith and a holy life in places where they have no Preacher but to new converts to pervert them and withdraw them from their able Teachers and to disquiet them and their congregations by frivolous exceptions And for this reason I was unwilling Captain Bray should preach at Bewdley when I was there and when he would preach and bent himself to assert a liberty to all that had Gods sanctifying spirit and could expresse their minds to take upon them to teach publiquely what 's the meaning of the Scripture and what doctrines are true and what false without any skill in arts yea though he taught error I did oppose him Which if it were not so skilfully and happily done as Mr. B. better acquainted with such mens way might have done yet me thinks my good will might have been accepted But I see very little I do is well taken and therefore see it necessary to wait patiently on God till my words and actions though intended for the furthering of reformation and good of the Ministry in my Examen part 2. sect 7 in my Apology and elsewhere be better resented and considered The fourth and fifth error Mr. B. chargeth me with as dangerous and the root of my error about baptism will more fitly come into the body of the dispute in which I doubt not but I shall shew that both himself and Mr. Blake however he esteem his writings do recede from the Scripture and other approved authors in their making the New Covenant common to elect and reprobates in making reprobates interest in the Covenant a fruit of Christs death denying the absolute promise to be most fitly called the Covenant of Grace hold that a person may not be baptized that is not known to belong to the Covenant of Grace that God actually seals the Covenant of Grace to reprobates with sundry other mistakes about Sacraments in general as if their essence were in being seals of the Covenant of Grace and deriving thence a right to baptism for believers Infants though the Covenant be conditional and common to all The fith error of mine he confutes is about the Magistrates not being an officer of Christ as Mediator And he excepts against me for saying in pulpit at Bewdley it was of dangerous consequence which he held though he named not me at any time and he wrote to me and I would not dispute it with him To which I answer It is true preaching on Mat. 28. 18. the argument leading me to it I did oppose that doctrine that the Magistrate is an officer of Christ the Mediator and because Mr. Bs. book was in some of my Auditors hands did reade the passage in his Aphorismes
primi seculi sub Apostolic post Apostolos super is additos ut Baronius fateatur vix quicquam certi posse statui Chamier panstr Cath. tom 3. lib. 24. c. 16. sect 50. quasi vero inquam non Cyprianus quum rebaptizari vellet tincto apud Haereticos non plenis buccis occlamaret it à semper observ itum fuisse in Ecclesia The latter is the common mistake about cicumcision which hath been often answered in my Exercit. Exam. Apology page 85. As for the place of August tom 7. de peccat mer. remis l. 3. c. 5. that all Antiquity held that believers infants do receive remission of original sin by Christian baptisme Mr. B. doth not rightly translate the words For the words are not as Mr. B. translates believers little ones fidelium parvulos but fideles parvulos believing little ones And what he meanes by little ones believing he shewes lib. 1. de peccat mer. remiss cap. 27. quis autem nesciat credere esse infantibus haptizari non credere autem non baptizari who knowes not that to infants to believe is to be baptized not to believe is not to be baptized So that with Austin all baptized infants are believers unbaptized unbelievers and yet lib. 4. de bapt contra Donat. cap. 23. he saith that Certe nondum possunt parvuli infantes corde credere ad justitiam ore confiteri ad salutem Certainly they cannot yet believe with the heart unto righteousnesse as the pious thief on the crosse but do withstand by crying their baptism But how vain Austins judgement was about infant-baptism is shewed in my Examen part 1. Sect. 8. and may be seen by considering how he maintained a like antiquity and necessity of giving infants the Lords Supper both in the passage cited by me in my Apology out of the first book de pecc merit remiss cap. 24. pag. 82. and lib. 3. de pecc mer. remiss c. 4. next to that which Mr. B. cites which Mr. B. doth not rightly cut off page 162. of his book whence I gather that Mr. B. is not to be too easily trusted in his citations of Authors The words he cites out of Justin Martyr his Epistle ad Zenam prove nothing that is denyed The testimony of Cyprian Epist. 59. is answered in my Examen pa. 1. Se. 7. To Mr. B. his question whether a whole Councel and all the Church be ignorant whether infants were wont to be baptized 100. years before when some of themselves or their Fathers were those infants I answer they might be ignorant it being either not at all or very rarely in that time nor is it known of what age the 66. Bishops of that Councel were when that Epist. was written nor whose children they were whether believers or infidels nor in the whole Epistle is any thing historical set down about the ancient use of infant-baptism but their determination of the lawfulnesse of it afore the eighth day which Epistle because Hierom Augustin and others do so much alleadge as their prime testimony for baptizing infants for remission of original sin and I am taxed for calling it in my Ex. p. 1. s. 7. an absurd Epist. Mr. F. Rous in his late Abridgem of the 1. Fathers hath left out that which was chiefly to have been inserted as the reason of the Councels determination which Austin lib. 3. d'peccat merit remiss c. 5. and elsewhere recites I have therefore translated the whole Epistle into English and printed it in the end of this writing not to shew the nakednesse of that Father as I am accused but to clear the truth about the antiquity of Infant-baptism But there is one testimony higher then Cyprian which Mr. B. urgeth with much earnestnesse as if he did triumph in it and it is that of Pope Hyginus who lived about the year 150. or 140. and ordained something about Gossips at infant-baptism which must needs shew the Apostles baptized infants To which I answer 1. The decree in the Epistle as Osiander Epit. Hist. Eccl. cent 2. lib. 2. c. 5. cites it out of Gratian to a word mentions not infant-baptism though it speak of Gossips which were at other times then infant-baptism 2. Mr. B. might have taken notice that Scultetus med Patru part 1. lib. 11. cap. 10. saith Of all the Epistles of the first Popes No man that reads them attentively but acknowledgeth them to be forged The Contrary writers cent 2. c. 7. judge the same Osiander Epitome Eccl. Hist. Cent. 2. lib. 2. cap. 5. calls the Author personatum Hyginum and as I remember Rivet Cook James passe the like censure Perkins preparative to the demonstration of the problems These Epistles decretal which passe under the names of Clement Evarist Telesphorus Hyginus e. are all forged and that for six reasons yea Doctor Prideaux whom Mr. B. alleadgeth for him in his nineth Oration de Pseudoepigraphis Sect. 3. censures the decretal epistles of the Ancient Popes as counterfeit Lastly Doctor Rainolds in his Conference with Hart chap. 8. divis 3. hath so fully proved in a large discourse the bastardise of them that I could hardly have imagined any learned Protestant would ever have thus alleadged so notoriously forged a writing So that I need not answer Mr. Bs. allegation of this testimony as by currant consent of Historians assuring us and his questions thereor but by telling him he hath reason to be ashamed of abusing men with this forgery after so much eviction of it by learned men being more like to a brazen fac'd allegation then that he so censures me for without cause He next addes a speech of Tertullian de pudic cap. 9. and translates it into English Transgression in interpretation is not lesse then in conversation which I know not why he adds but to shew the evil of my sin in interpretation as I imagine of Scripture which had he demonstrated he had done more then yet hath been done by him Mr. M. or any other That interpretation I give of 1 Cor 7. 14. had sundry godly and learned Protestants Melanchthor Musculus Camerarius c. for it whose words are printed in my Exercit. before me nor do Mr. B. his arguments or others take me off from it but are answered in their place Of my interpretation of Mat. 28. 19. Mr. B. pag. 14. saith he will stand to most that I said of it What I said of Rom. 11. 17. Deut. 29. 10 11 12. I intend to vindicate in its place My way and course of interpreting Scripture hath been known where I have preached at Oxford Worcester Lemster Bristol the Temple in London Bewdley If I make conscience of any thing it is how I interpret Scripture Mr. B. his interpretations of texts in this book are too grosse as of Mat. 28. 19. Acts 15. 10. Revel 11. 15. Mat. 23. 37. c. So farre as I am able to discern by his writings Sermons and conference his skill is
better in reasoning and amplifying then interpreting Scripture which I think he had need study better then I can yet perceive he hath done He takes notice page 191. of an interpretation as he is told of mine of Mat. 11. 28. which he censures for a foule interpretation He saith Sure it is the guilt of sin and accusation and condemnation of the law with which persons are said to be weary and heavy laden But I look for better assurance then Mr. Bs. word I confesse I finde nothing in the text for that sense but the coherence with ver 25 26 27. shewes ver 28. to be an invitation to come to Christ as a Teacher and ver 29. is an expression of the end of coming to him to take his yoke on them that is his doctrine and commands which is expounded by learning of him which is confirmed by the motive ver 30. which is that his yoke is easie and burden light which can be understood of no other then his doctrine and commands parallel to 1 John 5. 3. as our translators Beza new Annot. Pareus Piscator Grotius c. conceive And he useth sundry arguments to draw them 1. From the burdens on them which I conceive to be rather meant the whole context leading thereto of such Burdens as are mentioned Mat. 23. 3. then of sins which are not named 2 From his mecknesse and low linesse such as should be in a Teacher 2 Tim. 2. 24. opposed to harshnesse superciliousnesse disdaine c. which is propounded rather as an encouragement to them to learne his doctrine then as Mr. B. and others learn to be meek by my example 3. From the rest they should find to their soules contrary to distraction and disquietnesse by Pharisaical doctrine 4. From the ease of his commands contrary to the rigorous impositions of those Doctors And this interpretation seemes to me to be no foule interpretation but so faire as that I can discerne no other in the words SECT IV. Mr. Bs. citations from my writings advantage him not AFter the speech of Tertullian he filles a whole page and more with passages out of sundry of my writings and in the beginning gives this terrible title to them Mr. Tombes self condemnation and ad hominem as if he had an argument from my self against me The first passage is out of my treatise of scandals pag. 323. where I reckon Anabaptists among Hereticks and grievous wolves To which I answer 1. Mr. B. knowes I deny my self to be an Anabaptist though not my own baptisme after believing or baptizing of believers which Christ injoyned me Mat. 28. 19. Mark 16. 16. with preaching the Gospel Nor doth Mr. B. or ever will prove that for this I am to be termed an Anabaptist or that the pretended baptism of Infants is a discharge of that duty Christ requires of being baptized into his name common to all Christians Ephes. 4. 5. 2. Mr. B. himself pag. 10. yields me an absolution in these words on the one side some think it no lesse then heresie to deny infant-baptism and to require rebaptizing not that the generality of Sober Divines among which I hope Mr. B. reckons me do so but for the rest of the errors which almost ever do accompany it which Mr. B. might have imagined to have been my mind in the passage he cites having been my answer in a Sermon at Bewdley to this very objection of the Parson there in the pulpit of which I can hardly think Mr. B. to have been ignorant Other considerations of the time of printing that book might have occasioned M. B. to have put that construction on my words were he or any of my Antagonists willing to give my words or actions their due interpretation The other passages condemne me not till I be proved an agent for separation seedesman of tares which Mr. B. cannot prove though he tells me pag. 188. he hath as good evidence that I am a Sect-Master as that I am a Christian because I preach dispute talke and endeavor as zealously to promote my opinion as I do for the Christian Faith To which I answer my opinion is no other then the command of Christ and if we speak according to scripture to preach for baptisme of believers is to preach for Christian faith 2. Yet I deny that I preach with a like zeal for that particular point as for greater points of repentance from dead works faith towards God in Christ incarnate dead risen ascended to come again c. my Bewdley auditors besides others will I doubt not witnesse against this calumny 3. But were it true that I did preach so zealously for my opinion yet sith my actions tend not to make a party to follow me but only endeavour to reform a corruption like those our Saviour opposeth Mat. 23. Mark 7. there is no shew of making a sect in my actions though I were mistaken in them The passage from the same treatise pa. 103. concerning an Hypocrites falling foully doth not justify his exposition of Mat. 7. 16. It proves we oft know an hypocrite by his actions it is nothing at all to prove a false prophet by his evil manners The other two passages yield him no advantage for his proving infants disciples from Acts 15. 10. but are against him For his prooflies on this That the yokew as put on Infants and nothing was put on them but circumcision but those passages speak of the ordinances of the Jewes and with circumcision all the legal ceremonies If Mr. B. mean more by the yoke Acts 15. 10. as the doctrines and commands sure the Teachers did not put that on them till they taught them which was not in infancy And therefore my words will not help him as will appear in the examining his first argument All hitherto produced by him though by his placing it in the forefront he seems to have made account of it is but paper-shot brutum fulmen a crack without force I go on to the Epistles SECT V. Mr. B. unduely suggests many things in his Epistles AS for the Epistle to the people of Kederminster I rejoice with him in their unity excepting wherein they agree against the truth I think if they will use their understandings as they should they will find more reason to be unsettled in the point of infant-baptism by Mr. Bs. book then to be settled by it and that they had little cause of a solemne thanksgiving for Mr. Bs. mannaging the dispute My exceptions against his Aphorismes of Justification are communicated to him I wish his life may continue to Gods glory and the good of his people and particularly that he may undeceive whom he hath deceived by his dispute and this book In his Epistle to the people of Bewdley he mentions a flame of error and discord at Bewdley blown by my breath and that he came to quench it by the importunity of their Magistrate Minister and many of their people And his words are often
favour to be visible Churchmembers should by sweet experience be convinced of their errour and be taught better how to understand that all our children are holy Page 518. He calls the disputes about baptism perverse and fierce which did so directly touch the controversy as might irritate me to fall on it at Bewdley and make those that told me think he did gird at me which he denies pag. 166. He mentions a speech of mine to Mr. D. whom he terms a godly man that truth is not to be suspended for peace and saith When the times changed which his words page 220. interpret to be meant When the ordinance against heresies and errors ceased to be in force I spake against Infant-sprinkling prest them to be baptized again mentioned in Sermons Mr. M. Mr. Blake and himself when my doctrine prevailed not though since I have gotten above 20. rebaptized disciples whom I often visit and confirm that I charged them with hypocrisy with their blood on their heads that M. Ms. plea from circumcision for infant-baptism is heresie that by my definition of heresy Independants must be judged Hereticks that I sought his arguments in writing to put them in my Review of the dispute with Mr. M. and to ing age him in the Controversy whence he gathered I was unpeaceable set to carry on my opinion and to make my self a party To all this I reply 'T is true some conceiving Mr. B. in his speeches had a fling at me and it seeming likely to me I did speak to the purpose Mr. B. saies I did not imagining that a speech upon a conference in a shop without its limitations and cautions should have been as it is by Mr. B. published and refuted as my error but indeed willing only that Mr. B. should know that in my case I was not to suspend my asserting of truth for fear of losing of peace as I alleadge in my Apology sect 3. And I professe I wonder that such as Mr. M. Mr. B. and others that were so earnest against Bishops and ceremonies though warres did follow and had a great hand in putting them on should now the warres being so well abated be so impatient that Infant-sprinkling is questioned It is untruely surmifed that the change of times was the cause of my opening my self fully in the congregation at Bewdley My first meddling with it was when Mr. Bayly had so unjustly charged me in his Anabaptisme chap. 4. page 92. with spoiling infants of all interest in the Covenant of grace making circumcision a seale to the Jewes only of earthly priviledges denying to the Jewish infants all right to the Covenant till in their riper years they become actual believers Which with other fals accusations about twenty in that one page I intreated by letter my dear Father-in-Law Mr. Henry Scudder to advertise him of after that I might stand right in the thoughts of that worthy man Mr. William Hopkins of Bewdley now with God I shewed him how he wronged me and then cleared my self in my cursory exposition on Ger. 17. brought his book with me into the pulpit and read a passage of Mr. Ms. Defence part 3. page 98. for my vindication which was presently sent up to London But Mr. Bayly doing nothing to right me I wrote to Mr. Bayly and because Mr. Rutherford had my letter to send to him I wrote since to him to know what became of my letter but have had no answer After this I was moved to preach what I did which was but little till December 1649. when I found my tenet on the day of fast to be humbled for blasphemies and heresies which was as I remember March 10. 1649. reckoned as by others so by Mr. Obadiah Sedgewick in his Sermon before the Lords among heresies with which I found afterwards the censure of 52. Ministers about London to concurre stigmatizing me by name as holding four pernicious errors in my Examen and when the ordinance against blasphemy and heresie was published which Mr. Boraston though not required yet published at Ribsford to which Bewdley Chappel relates that he might proclaime me an Heretick Which necessitated me to speak what I did not the change of times it 's known I spake as much in the hardest times to my opinion as since nor unpeaceablenesse in me as Mr. B. surmised What I preached was in no clamourous manner as Mr. B. would intimate calling it exclaiming but in a way of proof and answer as sober Divines do in the like case My na ming any was when I recited their words for which though I was reviled once in London when refuting Doctor Crisp I named him and Mr. B. in a letter to me and since in print reckons as no small fault yet I ever did and do still think it to be necessary when the books are in mens hands and the Auditors are not likely otherwise to know we recite their opinion truly nor whose error we refute I do not believe I used those words Mr. B. sets down as mine Let them budge at it c. though it 's likely I might say it 's one of the chiefest signes of sincerity to embrace every truth and hypocrisy not to receive it for carnal respects not out of anger that men were not of my mind but to justify my self after I had fully handled the point about baptism which I think was either after or immediately before the dispute I used the Apostles words Act. 20. 26 27. nor do I deny that sith our Lord Christ doth Mark 16. 16. make baptisme some condition of Salvation I think those that are taught that Infant-sprinkling is not the duty Christ requires of being baptized and that water baptisme of men at years upon profession of faith is a necessary duty which I had sufficiently proved at Bewdley and yet neglect it do hazzard their salvation living in disobedience to a manifest duty yea the prime duety whereby they ought solemnly to engage themselves to be Christs Disciples I have gotten no Disciples to me and though more then 20 in Bewdley have bin baptized after profession of faith since my removal from them whom with the whole Town I think my self bound by many ties as often as I may to visit and confirm yet not rebaptized It is true to shew how unreasonable the accusation of my tenet as heresy is I have sundry times said that Mr. Ms. position in his Sermon page 35. That all Gods commands and institutions about the Sacraments of the Jewes bind us as much as they did them in all things which belong to the substance of the Covenant and were not accidentall unto them is one of the most manifest heresies being condemned Acts 15. For it expressely asserts that the Gentile Christians are still bound to some rule of circumcision contrary to the Apostles determination Nor did I frame a definition of heresie to make good what I said of Mr. Ms. tene though I deny not the definition I gave with some
was because I knew it would be likely to stirre up passion and settle prejudice in the people in which I find by that he hath printed chap. 1. 2. especially in the very beginning I was not mistaken and I hoped to bring the dispute to writing which is the best way to clear truth and I suspected as I had cause Mr. Borastons and the then Magistrates and those reputed godly persons devices and motions which were then by many conceived to be contrived for the Parsons endes the continuing his power and profits by keeping up that rite which ingratiates the profane and formal persons to him Whereunto that Mr. B. hath been subservient is the grief of many and might well befit Mr. B. to repent of When I saw I could not get Mr. Bs. arguments in writing I got what notes I could of the dispute from others writing or my own memory and knowing that vauntes were given out of Mr. Bs. victory I did as well as I could summe up his arguments and answer them Jan. 20. and after went to him upon his motion Jan. 25. to confer with him which was friendly on both sides yet that which I hoped and I conceived he promised that though he would not send me his arguments in writing which I again moved yet he would transcribe them for such as should come to him to be resolved in that point after sundry puttings off was not obtained But instead thereof in March the weeke afore I removed from Bewdley I met with the passage in his Epistle Dedicatory to the people of Kederminster to which I after opposed my Valedictory Oration in Bewdley chappel March 17. 1649. and printed the same in effect in my Antidote in May following Now Mr. B. alleadgeth he had reason for his not sending his arguments to me to keep me from erring they being not desired for my self but my people I remained very confident of my self that when I sent to him I heap'd so many untruths about matters of fact I knew that he durst not answer me lest the very naming my untruths might cause me to say he reproached or railed that his conference was with me in private because he thought my pride of spirit would not permit me to confesse truth openly that he wrote the passage in his Epistle to Kederminster out of zeale for God compassion to mens souls my opinion and preaching being like to do more hurt against the Church of God then drunkards and whoremongers and therefore he had cause to be bitter in his writing To all which speeches I reply He had reason to conceive I desired satisfaction for my self by my desiring his Animadversions and by my letter to him Sept. 10. If not yet to have given them in writing which he had as he saies before at Coventrey preached and were ready by him had been a neighbourly part to men that were his frequent hearers But his prejudice against my opinion and uncharitable conceit of my pride as heretofore Mr. M. and Mr. Ley interpreted my most equal motion in humility of spirit in the end of my Examen to be the challenge of a braving Goliath so now any opposing what 's determined by Synods and leading writers must be condemned as comming from pride are a sufficient reason not to gratify me but to do what he can against me and this must be counted zeale for God and his insolent bitternesse justifiable as being in pretence against a pernicious sin not yet proved but indeed against a truth discovering an error whereby the prime ordinance of Christianity is miserably corrupted He speaks of a fearful passion a feaver of passion I was in when I first read the passage in his Epistle against Anabaptists such as he would not be infor all my revenues if I had not a free vent for my spleen in pulpit and presse he doubts it might have spoiled me 'T is true when I first read it unexpectedly in Mr. Ds. house I was stirred in my spirit out of the sense of the wrong done to me and the truth by it and not meeting with the book before I wrote out the passage but that by word or carriage I shewed such passion as he speaks of I am certain is his tale-tellers addition whose conscience may perhaps one day tell him of his ill Offices in opposing truth and nourishing differences between me and Mr. B. Mr. B. hath a jerke at my Revenues by which he would have the world believe it is very great and such as were desirable for himself whereas his outward estate considering his being an unplundered or not much plundered single young man heir of a good estate in Land besides his sequestration is more likely to suffice his uses then my estate my uses though I blesse God it is better with me through the favour of some eminent persons sensible of my hard usuage then it would have been if the party opposite to me had prevailed and I could reasonably hope when for no other cause but the publishing of my Examen my remove from the Temple in Londen with my wife and children above a hundred miles in the middest of winter was necessitated Not content with this jerke about my revenewes page 202. He tells me in print of being Parson of Rosse Vicar of Lemster Preacher of Bewdley Master of the Hospital of Ledbury besides meanes of my own and yet complaining of want I and my family might be put to in my bookes and he addes You made so light of having no lesse then four market-townes to lie on your shoulders as if it were nothing and then sath Pious sober men think it his duty to say what he did To which I reply Mr. M. is taken for a pious sober man yet in his Defence of his sermon page 3. he accused me most deeply of a Socianian plot of questioning all conclusions inferr'd by consequence from scripture the injury of which I shewed in my Apology sect 11. yea his own words in his Defence pag. 205. You neither there nor here deny this argument from a consequence to be sufficient for practice of some things in the worship of God which are not expressely laid down in the N. T. refute this calumny yet to this day I never found that he did any thing to right me The like may I say of Mr. Robert Baillee of Glasgow in Scotland notwithstanding his false criminations before mentioned and my writing to him about them How Mr. Geree used me is shewed in my Apology sect 6. yet his Vindiciae vindiciarum was presently after published without any shew of remorse of conscience for what he did And now Mr. B. tells me pious and sober men advise him to say that which as he puts it down is false and exceeding injurious to me to wit that I had foure market-townes on my shoulders which every one will interpret to be 4. beneficial places under my charge together besides meanes of my own and yet complain in my bookes of
want I and my family may be put to Whereas the truth is there are no words that have a shew of complaint which yet indeed are not querulous but onely narrative but those in the close of my Examen and Apology and neither of them when I enjoyed any thing at Lemster Bewdley Rosse or Ledbury but the former was anno 1644. when all my estate was in the enemies power and my small stipend at Eanchurch withdrawn by reason of my not practising Infant-baptisme the other when I was to leave the Temple for publishing my Examen anno 1646. when the Counties to which I had relation were but newly reduced to the obedience of the Parliament And then I assayed to returne to Lemster where I had been almost totally plundred anno 1642. and yet so great was the Antipathy of some men against me that I could neither get reparation for my losses nor allowance for building the Ministers house nor any augmentation but onely kept the bare title till the end of the year 1649. 'T is true some pittying my condition gave me the rent of the rectory of Rosse anno 1646. which having a Vicar endowed and the Rectory leased out with the Rectors house they gave it me with expectation of preaching only some sermons there as I could but being invited to Bewdley I accepted of the invitation and though the maintenance were but finall and the years dear and my charges great in refurnishing my house and study yet I rested contented therewith till the Deane and Chapter of Worcesters landes being to be sold out of which the best part of my maintenance did arise the providence of God cast on me the Mastership of the Hospital of Ledbury which doth not tie me to the charge of soules much lesse puts the market-towne on my shoulders and then presently I yielded up my interest in Rosse though some of the godly there were very unwilling I should And when my pay ended at Bewdley the Lord opened a way for my returne to Lemster and provision was made for me there By which it may appear that it is most injuriously suggested as if I had 4. beneficial places together yea 4. market-townes on my shoulders and those that know not the truth imagine me very covetous and my revenues very great not knowing my condition what it is and what my losses have been Me thinks when the people of Bewdley Rosse Lemster were all satisfied so farre as I could discerne with the equity of my actions Mr. B. and those other he meanes might have been so likewise and possibly had been an Assembly-man it would have beene no disparagement to me to have been a Master of a House in the University to have had a Lecture at London a sequestration or presentation in the Countrey besides pay for sitting in the Assembly at the same time but might have in Mr. Bs. bookes bin stiled neverthelesse a learned holy experimental iudicious humble heart-piercing Preacher I cannot but be sensible of the great wrong I receive in my name and perhaps in my estate by Mr. Bs. calumnies and therefore am necessitated to write this which I conceive had been fitter for private audience I do not take on me to know Mr. Bs. heart but I wish Mr. B. would consider of what spirit he was when he vented his jerk at my revenues and whether the phrases of offering a sacrifice to Mars and keeping holy-daies for killing the Saints in his Epistle to the people of Kederminster likely is a most profane and bitter passage His quip pag. 67. members of this Kingdome or to please you Common-wealth pag. 136. of baptizing naked maides in Bewdley pag. 245. your feete will take cold or your heart heat c. savour not more of an heathen Satyrists vain wit then a Christian Preachers zealours spirit He saith that he perceives by one passage in my Antidote pag. 21. I am offended at him for diminishing my esteeme for I complain c. But the words there are no complaint and if I imagined amisse I am sorry that I did so surmise SECT IX In my alleading Peter de Bruis and others as Antipaedobaptists 500. years ago is no untruth BUt there is a foule sin Mr. B. chargeth me with when he saith in his History my reports are untruths and page 176. he chargeth me with very many palpable grosse untruths which I either knew or might to be so Two he hath selected as most remarkable The first is That the lying Papists do accuse the Albigenses and Waldenses our first reformers to be witches Buggerers Sorcerers and to deny infant-baptisme c. now what doth Mr. T. but perswade the world that the Papists accusations of these were true in this c. Is it railing to say that this dealing is starke brazen-faced and unconscionable and after he stiles it horrible foulnesse of dealing with other words He that dare do thus what dare he not c. And page 201. A most unconscionable Jesuitical trick to seduce poor ignorant soules To which I answer My words Examen part 2. sect 2. tend to prove that there were some that opposed Infant-baptisme 500. years ago who were both godly men and had godly societies joined with them nor do I see cause to recede from the same opinion notwithstanding what either Doctor Usher Mr. M. or Mr. B. have said to the contrary I do no where charge the Waldenses but onely cite in my Examen part 2. sect 2. Cassanders and Osianders words in my Exercit of the Albigenses But let us consider what is brought to the contrary 1. for Berengarius Deodrinus Leodiensiis took it up as a common fame 2. It is not found charged in Synods against him 3. That it appears to Doctor Usher they who were charged in those dayes to hold that baptisme did not profit to salvation held nothing but this That baptisme doth not conferre grace by the work wrought Yet Durandus Leodicensis in the 3d. tome of the Bibliothica patrum the last book in his Epistle to Henry King of France makes it such a fame as filled all their eares praiseth the King of France for calling a Councel against him and Bruno by reason of it Nor are Doctor Ushers words as Mr. M. recites them that it appeared to him but nec aliud videntur negavisse c. Which is lesse then to say it appeared to him And for his conjecture it may be answered by another conjecture that it seems rather Berengarius did at first discerne the vanity of infants baptisme as arising from Austins errour about the necessity of it and not much used till after his daies yet finding the opposition of the corporal presence in the Eucharist too hard a businesse being forced to recant by Pope Nicholas it 's likely he concealed his opinion of infant-baptisme to which conjecture Cassanders conceit in his preface to the Duke of Gulick and Cleve before his Testimonies for infant-baptisme is somewhat like That though he
the truth And then discourseth that the monsters in New England were the extraordinary directing finger of God and addes Would Mr. T. have us so carelessely regard Gods judgement c. yea and rather judge the contrary It seemes if he had seene the wonders of Egypt he would not onely have been hardned as Pharaoh but judged God laid them as stumbling blocks Who would not tremble to hear the holy God to be accused by man as if he led his people into evil by his wonders and then sets down two propositions 1. That true miracles are never to be distrusted but believed what ever they teach that they are Gods testimony John 15. 24. 2. That some wonders that are not proper miracles in their nature may yet have a plain discovery of the finger of God in the ordering of them and so when they are not against Scripture but according to it should exceedingly confirm us and such he conceives those monstrous births were and that the forgetting them among us is no small aggravation of our sin To which passage I am nccessitated to answer being so deeply charged upon such mistaken grounds 1. That I hope the Lord hath ordered this Shimei-like loosenesse of his pen to discover two things for his own good and the good of them that doate on him and his book 1. His extreame bitternesse or uncharitablenesse towards me and those he termes Sectaries 2. His hasty inconsiderate rash and immoderate censures misconstructions and determinations For wherein do I fight against heaven and dispute againstmiracles rather then let go my error In which words did I either weaken the credit of the testimony of God or sacrifice freely Gods glory to my fancies or regard so carelessely Gods judgement or rather judge the contrary to Gods judgement Whence may it seeme I would have been hardened as Pharaoh and judged God laid his wonders as stumbling blocks Or accused God as if he led his people into evil by his wonders Let Mr. B. prove any of these without his childish exclamations and vaine Rhetorick and I will confesse my self worthy to be held an Anathema if not let him be dealt with lege Remniâ or rather lege Divinâ Deut. 19. 18 19. Were I minded to retort I might take up some of Mr. Bs. Rhetorick and apply it to the Author of the passage in the Epistle to the Church at Kederminster in which in all likelihood the thanksgiving daies for victories against the Scots are termed offering a sacrifice to Mars and keeping holy-daies for killing the Saints In this manner will not this man fight against heaven weaken the testimony of God sacrifice freely Gods glory to his own fancies regard carelessely Gods judgement judge the contrary to Gods judgement c. Who dare ascribe those glorious workes of providence in giving victories to a weake and farre smaller Army brought into a great streight over an Army double the number when solemne appeales to God were made on both sides to shew whose cause he owned to chance of warre and call the thansgiving for that victory offering a sacrifice to Mars using though a Preacher of the Gospel such a Heathenish profane censure and language concerning the actions of praise to God enjoined by a Christian State and performed by holy Christians who had by prayer obtained such a signal mercy But I forbeare any more of this and proceed to examine what Mr. B. saies 1. That I call them onely strange things Answ. If they be referred to miracles wrought by God which is in the next period and in Grammer construction should be the accident then it is false that I call them onely strange accidents and not miracles if to the monstrous births in New England I do call them onely strange accidents in that place being willing to use a general terme abstracting from miracles and wonders which are differenced by Mr. B. himself in his Saints everlasting rest pa. 2. c. 4. s. 1. yet using a terme that signified they were from remarkable providence Even Mr. B. himself I do not find to terme those accidents in New England miracles but the extraordinary directing finger of God the evident hand of God wonders of providence which I also freely acknowledge 2. He saith I compare it to the falling of the house which might easily come from a naturall cause Answ. 1. He changeth them into it and so leaves it doubful what he meanes that I compare with the falling of the house But I imagine he meanes the monstrous births because he addes that the falling of the house might easily come from a natural cause But the truth is I did not make any comparison between the one and the other accident as if the one were no more observable then the other but onely gave an instance to prove that it is not safe to determine of a doctrine whether pleasing God by an accident sith that accident in appearance to them was as evident a providence of God as could be that while they were debating the matter it should then fall on one side where married Priests were and not on the other side where were Monkes And in respect of the time it was in shew a more likely evidence of Gods disproving marriage of Ministers then the monsters in New England of disproving Mr. Wheelwrights doctrine they not happening at the time of his preaching or the Assemblies sitting at Cambridge in New England August 30. 1637. or the Courts proceeding against them Oct. 2. 1637. but at another time and place though near them and not in so open a manner to publique view as that was though after evidenced sufficiently at the taking up of Mrs. Dyers child And though the fall of a roome might come from a natural cause yet it falling at such a time on one part and not on another I believe if Mr. B. had been then present he would have been apt to take it as an extraordinary providence of God against married Priests as Doctor Gouge in his priented Sermon and many others did the fall of the house at Blackfriers on Drury Redyate Popish Priests c. Oct. 26. 1623. against the Papists 3. That I disswade from judging of doctrine by such accidents To which I answer My words are plain I conceive no safety of judging what doctrine is true or fals but by going to the law and testimony and trying thereby and therefore bid men take heed how they follow Mr. B. in his direction and of so adhering to the voice of God in monsters or other providences as barely upon them to judge a doctrine to be false And this I still think good advice 1. Because the Scripture is the sufficient and onely rule which now we have to judge doctrines by whether they be true or false 2 Tim. 3. 16 17. 2. It is the command of God Deut. 13. 1 2 3 4 5. notwithstanding the doing of a signe or wonder yet to look to the doctrine of a prophet The like is Isai.
Cor. 7. 14. of infants Covenant-holinesse in his sense before Luther and Zuinglius and then askes is this irue I answer I think it is and if he can produce any one me thinks he should have done it in his book If he do he will do more then Mr. Ms. friend better versed as I conceive in Antiquity then Mr. B. hath done though attempting it page 21. of Mr. Ms. Defence of his Sermon Two places he cites one in Tertullian which I have answered in my Apology page 85. The other in Athanasius qu. 114. ad Antiochum as teaching infant-baptisme by vertue of federal holinesse from 1 Cor. 7. 14. But 1. The Author is confessedly spurious by Rivet Critic sac l. 3. c. 6. Scultetus part 2. Medul Patr. l. 1. c. 42. Perkins Preparat to the Demonstr of the probleme The works falsely imposed on Athanasius are these The book of divers questions of the Holy Scripture unto King Antiochus for therein great Athanasius is cited Yet Mr. M. or his friend hath these words ubi supra These wordes then which are safe and sound grounded upon tho same Scripture which I have much insisted on are read in the works of Athanasius where the question is about infants dying requiring a resolution that might clearely set whether they go to be punished or to the Kingdome The answer is seeing the Lord said Suffer little children to come unto-me for of such is the Kingdome of heaven And the Apostle sayes Now your children are holy observe the Gospel-ground the same that I build upon it is manifest that the infants of believers which are baptized do as unspotted and faithfull enter into the Kingdome This assertion is owned by all the reformed Churches But had Mr. M. or his friend recited the words fully then it would have appeared how impertinently the words are alleadged to prove the baptizing of infants by vertue of federal holines from 1 Cor. 7. 14. that none of the Reformed Churches would own the doctrine of that Author being built on no Gospel-ground but Popish opinion of Limbus infantum For the entire words are these Qu. 114. ad Antiochum Whither go dying infants to punishment or the Kingdome and where are the infants of believers dying unbaptized disposed with the believers or unbelievers Answ. The Lord saying Suffer little children to come for of such is the Kindome of heaven and again the Apostle saying But now are your children holy it is manifest that the infants of believers baptized go into the Kingdome as unspotted and believing but the unbaptized and Heathenish neither go into the Kingdome nor into punishment for they have done no sin Which answer plainly determines that infants of believers if baptized enter into the Kingdome but neither the unbaptized infants of believers or Heathens enter into the Kingdome or punishment for they have done no sin Not a word of federal holinesse but the plain Popish doctrine that infants dying unbaptized go to limbus infantum but the baptized into the Kingdome of heaven which is the same with the doctrine father'd on fustin Martyr qu. 56. ad orthod Now this is contrary to what the reformed Churches assert even from 1 Cor. 7. 14. that the children of believers are federally holy afore baptisme and go into the Kingdome though they die unbaptized Nor doth the alleadging 1 Cor. 7. 14. prove that the Author observed the Gospel-ground more truly Antievangelical or Jewish which Mr. M. buildeth on For the holinesse in that Author is meant either of holinesse in possibility in being likely to be baptized because believing parents would likely breed them up in Christianity and they be baptized in which sense Tertull. de anima c. 39. expoundes the Apostle as calling them holy not in act barely by descent from a believer but because designati sanctitatis or as Hierome Epist. 153. ad Paulinum alledging Tertullian de monogamia quod candidati sint fideiet nullis idololatriae sordibus polluantur which Erasmus in his glosse on Hierom renders thus quodvelut ambiunt et exspectant baptismum or else of actual holinesse in being baptized believers being wont to baptize their infants when neare danger of death not by reason of Covenant-holinesse but the giving of grace by baptisme and the necessity of it to save an infant from perishing I am still confident that neither Father nor Interpreter preceding the sixteenth century did interpret 1 Cor. 7. 14. of holinesse of separation to God as visible Church-members by Gods Covenant to them Nor doth Chamier panstras Cathol tom 4. l. 5. cap. 10. bring any though he purposedly sets down the various opinions about the holinesse there meant and sayes omnes complecti conabor examinare sententias Sure I am Augustin tom 7. l. 2. de pecc mer. remis c. 26. saith Ac per hoc illa sanctificatio cujuscunque modi sit quam in filiis fedelium esse dixit Apostolus ad istam de baptismo de peccati origine vel remissione omnino non pertinet nam conjuges infideles in conjugibus fidelibus sanctificari dicit eo ipso loâ—o c. Unto which I think good to adde that whereas Mr. M. in his Defence page 10. 58. brings in the Pelagians acknowledging that infants were baptized secundum sententiam Evangelii which he imagines to be the Gospel-ground as he calls it of federal holinesse from the Covenant to the believer and his seed in Aug. tom 7. l. 2. contra Pelag. Coelest c. 5. That he hadadded the next words quia Dominus statuit regnum Coelorum non nisi baptizatis posse conferri it would have appeared that the Gospel he meant was John 3. 5. which with Rom. 5. 12. was elleadged in those dayes as a reason of the Churches tradition of infant-baptisme and no other reason can I finde for infant-baptisme nor in any the exposition of 1 Cor. 7. 14. in Mr. Ms. or Mr. Bs. sense till Zwinglius his dayes The eighteenth absurdity is that I said the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken many hundred times for authority and askes is that true To which I answer This was spoken in the dispute when I had not time or means to collect the number of times wherein 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used for authority in Scripture and therefore spake at adventure and if I did Hyperbolize it might be neitheir absurdity nor untruth so to speak as is frequent in speakers writers without imputation of falshood Nevertheless I find it used above an hundred times in the New Testament in Matthew 10. and 6. of them it is traslated authority and in most places where it is translated power it might be translated authority and if it be used for liberty in any of these places yet it is no where used for a veile but one 1. Cor. 11. 10. and I doubt not but it is used for authority or power or liberty many hundreds of times in the Lxx Greek of the old
explaining himself and yielding to other things which might sift the truth then I found him 2. It is not true I forced Mr. B. to the dispute The words of my letter dated December 27. 1649. foure dayes before the dispute were these Sir my message was this sith I intend on the next Lords day to prosecute what I have begun in examining the Hypotheses upon which the argument from circumcision for infant-baptisme which is the Paedobaptists Achilles is built I was willing to invite you to be a hearer and if you judged it meet to oppose what you should think good in a Logick way without Rhetorick Yet if you choose to come over either Munday or Tuesday I shall be ready to justifie my doctrine openly or privately by word or writing as it shall be judged convenient Mr. B. choosing Tuesday Jan. 1. a seat was provided for him with some kind of State Ministers and Schollers such as they were sent for over the Countrey placed on each side Mr. B. which with Mr. Bs. carriage in the beginning to propound that question which I had not then meddled with in my Sermons or printed books about the manner of baptizing and in that manner as served for no other purpose but to create prejudice besides his fallacious disputing in the beginning did cause apprehensions in me of the designe of bearing down me and the truth by indirect wayes which before I dreamed not of which if Mr. B. were not privy to yet was he instrumental to promote which I confesse did not a little perplex me and streightned my thoughts and expressions 3. That Mr. B. did conceale his arguments me thinks he should not deny who denies not that he would not give me animadversions on my written notes nor let me have his arguments in writing To the rest of his questions answer enough is already given 4. It is no untruth that I had scarce time afforded me to repeale his arguments yea at first it was expressely denied me till Mr. Good informed Mr. B. that it was the rule of Schools the Respondent should repeat the arguments And it was once confessed ingenuously that Mr. Bs. syllogismes were so long as that they could not be easily repeated which was very true of some of them contrary to the use of Schools being hypothetical syllogismes to prove an hypothetical proposition It is true that Mr. B. would open his termes viz. the chief terme visible Church-member when I asked him by what note he meant Infants were discernable as visible Church-members he did not tell me his note to my best remembrance and when I did distinguish of visible by profession or some other way because I did not express the other member of the distinction though I could not do it till he explained what other way he conceived as being a visible Church-member besides profession he derided me 6. It is true also that he checked me with Satyrical quips as that he could not help my memory when I did not repeate rightly his long syllogisme hat he came not to be catechized when I asked him of his meaning about the terme visible His speech of my defying the armies of Israel and calling give me a man to dispute c. for my uncircumcised opinion is conservant with Mr. M. and Mr. Ley their unjust and false charges of me to which I answered in my Apology sect 7. and Mr. Bs insulting speech thereupon is not without shew of vain glory Page 211. He blames me for desiring his arguments in writing though not denying the validity of any one of his reasons against writing many mens writings being yet unaswered by me my answer to Mr. Ms. Defence being weak that I have done him great injury in forcing him to write Answ. The desire I and others had to see his arguments in writing was because we could not otherwise well judge of them which he might easily have done being those as he saith he preached at Coventrey and had written in his book at the dispute and therefore might have been easily communicated to us His reasons against writing I took to be excuses of his unwillingnesse to gratifie us in our request and that they were meer excuses his printing proveth to which he was never ferced by me as he falsely pretends in his title page and if he be injured it is by himself whose own minde or some others designe using him as their instrument carried him to it and though I am glad to see his arguments in writing yet I take it for the greatest injury that ever I received from man that he hath so unworthily abused me and the truth which I pray God forgive him expecting also if he live both righting me and the truth Of answering Mr. Cobbet I have said enough already Mr. Church and Mr. Rutherfords are in effect the same with Mr. Ms. and others by overthrowing in my Sermons the Hypotheses of the Covenant seal Baptismes succession to Circumcision they were answered Mr. Drew's main argument page 23. though his book by the Author of the lawfulnesse of obeying the present govenrment be judged to be written with sharp reasons and mild language yet either there are foure termes in it or else it concludes we are to circumcise The dispute of Mr. Baily had been shewed to be very fallacious if my letter to the press had found one willing to print it I desired to have Mr. Bs. arguments in writing besides these because he was better known to those of Bewdley I compare not my self with men excellent in writing nor do I think I used the terme silly people though Mr. Bs. notary so wrote it page 212. How unseemly Mr. Bs. language was I have said afore I conceived it necessary Mr. B. should explain his termes to satisfie the people who could not judge of his proof without knowing his meaning which might have been done and yet strict disputing observed which Mr. B. denied though this were or should have been the end of the dispute and the occasion of it led him to it If for peace and for fear of scandal be equipollent as I take them to be in these speeches then Truth must not be lost for fear of scandal and no truth is to be concealed so as to be lost for peace differ not as much as truth from a most destructive falsehood as Mr. B. saith page 215. Austin I think hath the words I cited in that Sermon my book of scandals page 273. and in my Apology page 5. though perhaps I am mistaken and the speech be Gregories whose words in his seventh homily on Ezech. are thus cited by Aqu. 2. 2. q. 43. art 7. Si de veritate scandalum sumitur ut tilius nasci permittur scandalnm quam veritas relinquatur My traducing Mr. B. in my pulpit mentioned page 217. was nothing but citing his words which was not frequent nor is it if rightly done any injury when the book is published What is of me and not of God
I pray with him may perish of schism or zeal for it I am not conscious that truth I avouch will stand when Mr. Bs. rotten pillars fall to the ground To many questions and charges in sundry pages 213. c. an answer may be gathered from what is said before SECT XIX The six imagined errors charged on me by Mr. B. are cleered from his censure MR. B. addes a confutation of six of my pretended errors The first was onely a speech of mine in conference on occasion of Mr. Bs. words in a Sermon which were taken to be a fling at me and my meaning was this that the truth I maintained and such like being about a thing of frequent practise so that by reason of ignorance sin will be committed were not to be concealed when if it be it is like to be lost for the peace of the Church that is to prevent differences in opinion and the breaches in communion that by reason thereof do by accident from the corruption of men fall out Mr. B. opposeth it as if I meant a man must not suspend any truth of the Scripture no not though a total breach bringing bloodshed ruine c. follow yea by his last argument he would insinuate as if it would follow on my tenet that every one that doth but think it is a truth that Christ is not God that there is no God c. that he will think himself bound to reveale it to the world though it turne all to confusion and after his satyrical veine saith He that had rather see the Church in this case then his doctrine of Anabaptistry should be concealed is good for nothing but to make an Anabaptist of that I know To which I answer my meaning in that speech of mine was this that no truth of God that a person is certain is such and can demonstrate so to be which concernes the faith or practise of Christians through concealing of which they shall erre and sin is to be concealed when a person may perceive by circumstances that if he conceale it at such a time the contrary will be established and so truth be lost in the eye of reason though much trouble follow thereon And this I resolved heretofore in my book of scandals chap. 4. sect 20. not that I know of excepted against by any ground on Pauls words Gal. 2. 5. avouched by many Divines and without which the Waldenses Hussites Protestants will be condemned for opposing the Monkish profession halfe communion c. though warres followed thereon And our present and former non-conformists will be deeply guilty of sin in opposing the Prelacy ceremonies canons c which hath been one cause of the great troubles of the land which have proved greater then any raised by the Anabaptists And so far as many prudent men can discerne many of the Presbyterian Ministers of the land do as little regard the peace of this land at this time through discontent that they want the establishment of discipline after their mind as any Anabaptist heretofore did And I presume they that sit at the sterne do find the so called Anabaptists as faithful to the publique cause as their opposites As for the two next errors about others then Ministers baptizing and administring the Lords Supper Mr. B. delivers as much himself as the errors pretended affirm in these words page 221. In a case of necessity as if people were in the Indies where no Ministers can be had if any fay that it is better a private man baptize and adminster the Lords Supper then wholly omit them I will not deny it and he gives two reasons But faith he Mr. T. speaks it in reference to our ordinary case in England Concerning which I answer that for baptizing it is true I speak in reference to the case in England all or most of the Ministers ordained being against baptizing of persons of years sprinkled in infancy and there lying upon them that see infant-baptisme a corruption a necessity to be baptized upon profession of faith there is a necessity that they be baptized by persons not ordained by laying on of hands of the Presbytery though I do conceive laying on of hands an ordinance in force from 1 Tim. 5. 23. and 4. 14. Act. 13. 3. Heb. 6. 2. Nor do I like the argument from Numb 8. 10. to prove that non-preaching elders may lay on hands conceiving no Mosaical ordinance concerning any positive ceremonial rite belonging to the Jewish service is a rule to us now and therefore do wish there were either by authority or consent of Churches some way of restoring it till which I see a necessity that persons not ordained yet preachers of the Gospel do baptize But for administring the Lords Supper though I acknowledge it most fit in many respects it should be received some Minister ordering it not so much for the consecrating of the Elements as they call it by vertue of office as for the comely and edifying dispensing of it by prayer and exhortation the ordinance being holy and to be performed with much reverence to which none are so fit as a Minister that is set apart for the word and prayer yet whereas it is claimed as a part of the Ministers office to be Minister of the Sacraments or as they call them seales and it is aggravated as if it were the sin of Uzzah or Uzziah for any else to do it and too much I think is ascribed not onely by Papists but also by others to the power of order and many require it as a Ministers duty to give them the Sacrament and if Mr. Bs. doctrine be good in his treatise of the Saints rest page 651. Their being baptized persons or members of the universal Church is sufficient evidence of their interest to the Supper till they by heresie or scandal blot that evidence Ministers cannot deny it them without instustice and hereupon many perplexities are in Ministers about giving the Lords Supper and perplexities in receivers from whom they receive it it being taught that they do justifie their Ministery and own them as their Ministers who receive the Lords Supper from them and it is taught that Ministers have a power to deny some the seals and this is made a chief part of their government I have I confesse said and I think it still true that a company of believers though they have no Minister ordained in case of want of an ordained Minister may some one or more in holy and seemely manner by giving thanks praying and declaring the end and use of that rite and guiding the action remember the Lords death in breaking bread and this may be truly a Sacrament as it is called and acceptable to God if performed with a holy heart And my chief ground is because whereas it is made one of the chief disorders in eating the Lords Supper at Corinth 1 Cor. 11. 20 21. that in eating every one took his own Supper before other
of more credit concerning the Antiquity of Infant-baptism then Augustines who as I shew Apology sect 6. and elsewhere did often inconsiderately call that an Apostolical tradition which was commonly observed in his dayes within the compass of his acquaintance Cyprians speech if it be rightly brought by Mr. B. will prove all still-born Infants to be lost being not of the visible Church Catholick That which Mr. B. page 266. saith fully satisfies him part of it is false the rest so frivolous that I can impute his satisfaction to no other cause then his inconsiderateness The very same or like plea will serve for communion of young children in which yet Mr. B. is not satisfied But to me it is very good satisfaction that baptizing of Infants is but an innovation neither agreeing with the institution of Christ nor the Apostles practise nor known till it began to be conceived necessary to give grace and to save from perishing yet then disswaded and not practised but in case of iminent danger of death nor maintained on any other ground till Zuinglius his dayes What the Churches of Anabaptists so called have done in London that Mr. B. should so much lament till I know what it is I take to be a Calumny That Anabaptists have been in danger by the instigations of Preachers and writers it is a marvel to me that Mr. B. should not understand who can hardly be ignorant whence the ordinance against blasphemies and heresies came That any of my Antagonists are turned out of house and home is unknown to me surely not for non-conformity to rebaptizing most certain that if any such thing hath been done it was never by my procurement nor I think any of the Churches of Anabaptists That which Mr. B. page 267. saies that the same men that subscribe the Anabapiists confession have many of them written other kind of doctrine elsewhere I doubt whether it be true I find him onely naming Paul Hobson page 147. and citing some passages of his of which that which is most liable to exception Mr. B. himself gives us this excuse in his Saints evelasting rest part 2. chap. 1. sect 2. page 169. not understanding that they affirm and deny the same thing in several expressions so that however his expressions be dangerous yet it is probable he held not the Socinian opinion which he contradicted in the subscription to the confession but onely discovered his weakness And yet Mr. B. I think is not ignorant that so holy learned a man as M. Pemble near the beginning of his Vindicae gratiae hath a like conceit of Gods never hating the elect but being reconciled from eternity taking reconciliation for an immanent act in God which as I imagine Mr. B. would excuse in Mr. Pemble so might he with a like charity excuse the other in Paul Hobson What he cites out of Cyprian I wish Mr. B. had Englished it and that both Anabaptists and their opposites would learn it Page 268. he saith if my book of scandals were read men may perhaps receive a preservative from my own hand from the danger of my opinion to which I say I wish my book of Scandals were more read nor do I fear that my doctrine will be the lesse embraced for reading it if my interpretation of my own words justified even by Mr. B. be received as I shew before Page 269. he tells us the Levellers were Anabaptists but I cannot yet learn of any of them he names except Den that was so though I deny not but there might be sundry of them such likely of the Free-willers disclaimed by the seven Churches in London and that they were but few in comparrison of the rest by the Newes-books I gather the Levelling businesse was carried on by such as were in no gathered Church but lived above ordinances As for Mr. Bs. dark criminations I can give no answer to them unlesse I could plow with his heifer and find out his riddle But my hope is those great instruments of God to break the enemies of those that are termed Sectaries though Mr. Bs. words seem to forebode and misdeem evil of them will and do prove better then he discribes them though I imagine they be not Anabaptists Nor do I like Mr. Bs. obscure satyrical criminations they having some shew of a malevolent mind Whatever Mr. B. may conceive of the danger of the Anabaptists way in other things I am sure if they would keep themselves onely to this to be baptized upon profession of faith they should be in a safe way even in the way of Christ. SECT XXII The speech that no one Countrey is gathered into Christs visible Church contains no malignancy to Christ but is a manifest truth MOst of that which is in Mr. Bs. answer to the last section of my Antidote hath either been replied to before or in some other part of my writings or will fall into the main of the dispute wherein I doubt not but I shall fully vindicate my argument against the visible Church-membership of Infants from the different cause of the Jewish and Christian Church though the thing be so manifest to wit that the Christian Church was otherwise gathered then the Jewish that I see nothing but meer wrangling in the questions Mr. B. propounds And to his words page 279 280. Sir if you were my Father I would tell you that when you say Christ makes no one City Countrey Tribe his Disciples you speak most malignantly and wickedly against the Kingdome and dignity of my Lord Jesus I answer I meet so often with Mr. Bs. high charges upon palpable mistakes and weak proofs that I fear his misguided zeal or natural distemper hath brought him to an habit of ill-speaking My words were not as Mr. B. sets them down but thus no one Countrey or City or Tribe together were gathered by the Apostles or other Preachers into the Christian visible Church but so many of all as the Lord vouchsafed to call by his word and spirit which hath neither wickedness nor malignancy against the Kingdome and dignity of the Lord Jesus but a manifest truth expressely taught in the Holy Scripture as congruous to the glory of God and the Lord Jesus 1 Cor. 1. 26 27. 28 29. Not many wise men c. Ergo not the whole Nation Revel 5. 9. out of every Nation Ergo not the whole Nation as he did the Jewes in the Wilderness The relations in the Gospel and Acts of the Apostles plainly prove it true that by John Baptist Christ the 12. and 70. Disciples was no entire Nation City Countrey or Tribe gathered into the visible Church-christian but parts of them and those fewer then the adversaries who in every place were so numerous when the Christians are counted at some few thousands as that even at Jerusalem and elsewhere they prevailed to disperse Christians by persecution Nor do Mr. Bs. questions prove that into the Christian visible Church any one whole Countrey City or
with men Page 165. what he speaks of my exceeding high and passionate disposition was but his misdeeming likely upon misinformation neither my words nor carriage shewed it Page 166. what the supposed girds were is set down before out of his now printed book whereby it seems my few disciples as he miscalls them are at least excused and no notorious falshood chargeable on them That which he saith I forced him to the disputation I conceive is not right how it came to passe is shewed above that there were thousands of people there I think is overlasting the tale of the dispute is made to prepossesse men with prejudice I told him before that such a dispute was not fit to satisfy and I gave him my reasons and I propounded the way used at the Conference at the Hague judged best by Dr. Raynolds but the way Mr. B. took he liked best and his carriage of it looks like an artifice cunningly contrived to please the common sort of Schollers and others of which few can discerne between sleight and solid proofs But I doubt not my answer will prove Mr. Bs. arguments to be meer trifles The untruths charged on me page 167. are upon his mistake of the words written before him I said not to be used by Mr. B. but by others mentioned next before That his passage was like to be the beginning of a schism among those of Bewdley was no jest but a conjecture which the event hath proved true how he misrepresents my words of charging their blood on them and hypocrisy to them is before shewed it 's not true I had been long time working a fearful schisme unlesse by accident it being true which Mr. Allen and Mr. Shepherd say Advertisement to the Reader pag. 27. scarce truth or error can now adaies be received but in a way of schisme His lines were likely to be the beginning of a schisme in that it was taken as if Anabaptists and with them my self were adjudged hereticks by him which if it were an untruth yet it is so like a truth that I think he that shall read in one period what Mr. B. sayes of Hereticks that they end in wicked lives and in the next find the instance in Anabaptists and after me named as one of them will conceive he called them and me hereticks And however he protest he doth not yet his asserting me a Sect-Master page 188. and his inclining to Vossius c. their definition of an Heretick page 171. and his words page 259. make me think he comes not much short of counting me an heretick To his allegations of my speeches concerning Mr. M. and Independents I have answered before I may say the doctrine was one of the first heresies yet not censure the men that hold it as heretical it 's one thing to be formally an heretick and another thing materially to hold that which denominated a party heretical In my Examen I tell Mr. M. and now Mr. B. that I think none of those glorious lights mentioned held Mr. Ms. position I do not judge all hereticks that be against my opinion but that they may be more justly stiled heretiques then my self Mr. Bs. quicknesse in replying afore he weighed my speeches or perhaps my scantnesse in expressions out of warinesse what I said to him whom I found very captious hath I perceive created me these hard censures That which Mr. B. saies page 172. he dare say of me I dare say is false The inference which he calls strange is none of mine the passage and time of writing it do still prevaile with me to conceive that he wanted a spirit of love through ill surmises of me Page 174. Infant-sprinking or pouring water on them will not be proved baptisme I shall not ease sinners that own their infant-sprinkling as baptism by my assertion that I tell them they never sinned against their baptisme and engagement is a fiction of Mr. B. in which he hath a pretty art I said not Mr. B. gave us a title to make us odious but that might make us odious which imports the term might make us odious not that Mr. B. had that purpose in using it Page 175. He hath a discourse from the end of the accuser and the opposition of justification to accusation and condemnation to prove That it is proper language to say he accuseth another who denies a supposed priviledge to be due to him By the same reason the accusers accusation may be said to be condemnation and execution too for that is the end of the accuser I had thought accusation noted the accusers act not his end that justification is opposed to accusation and condemnation shewes they are distinguished the one being the charging with a fault the other passing sentence I must confesse I yet understand not his language of accusing without charging with a fault nor do I think any law-dictionary doth so define accusation I do not think the non-visible churchmembership of infants is poenal or deprivation of a mercy now it being only by the alteration of the Church-frame Whether the not acknowledging infants visible churchmembership be a denying a mercy reall or imaginary whether there be injustice scorne or any error in my tenet about it is to be examined in answering his book What I do hold I do it not without natural affection to my children out of conscience of maintaining truth The very same he chargeth upon me for denying infant-baptisme might mutatis mutandis by the same reason be charged on him for denying infant-communion I do judge this Rhetorical or Satyrical passage of Mr. B. to be a meer trifling in a serious matter That which is said page 176. of my disputing my children out of the Church by denying them to be visible Church-members is Mr. Bs mistake in defining visible Church-membership as I shall shew in examining the 27. chap. of the first part of his book It 's not true I deny all infants to be in Covenant with the Lord their God or that title to salvation which upon promise they have in point of law Mr. Bs. conditional Covenant gives no title till the condition be put which he will not say is true of any infants but the elect who alone are children of the promise in the Apostles language Rom. 9. 8. pag. 177. he saith I do all I can to keep infants out of the visible Church but I deny that to hinder their baptisme is to keep them out of the visible Church or that to baptize them is to bring them in If it be why have they not the communion according to that which we reade 1 Cor. 12. 13 Are Janizaries who were baptized children of Greek Christians therefore visible members of the Christian Church Mr. B. though he had the Copy of my Sermon yet misrepresents my words I said not that it is the Devils part to say that the infants of believers are members of the visible Church but my words were it being an error