Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	write_v	writing_n	wrong_n	16	3	8.3970	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A62870	Præcursor, or, A forerunner to a large review of the dispute concerning infant-baptism wherein many things both doctrinall and personal are cleared, about which Mr. Richard Baxter, in a book mock-titled Plain Scripture-proof of infants church-membership and baptism hath darkned the truth / by John Tomes.	Tombes, John, 1603?-1676.	1652 (1652)	Wing T1812; ESTC R27540	101,567	110

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

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