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
enforced with such aggravating expressions as make people specially afarre off imagine that at Bewdley there is a great schisme and discord made by my preaching whereas there was no such discord as I know of yea I think afore the dispute the godly did walk together in publique hearing publique and private prayer and conference while I was with them and since as lovingly as in any other places And though all do not joine in breaking of bread some going to the Parson others declining him as a stranger to the private meetings of the godly and an adversary to such godly preachers as from time to time they had gotten for the Chappel and a temporizer with the kings party while the Town was under their power went to Mr. B. to Kederminster others being baptized have joined with me yet all of them meet together for repetition and conference and when I am with them I think in greater number then in my absence and do embrace my doctrine with lesse breaking out into Antinomian Familistical Ranting errors or practises then at Kederminster The discord of most note hath been between two men and their wives who were by consent or connivence of their husbands baptized and brake bread with us till Mr. Bs. book came forth which charging us with schism for reforming our selves and affrighting people with the danger of our way as leading to error they are kept from our society which is a manifest separation to avoid an imaginary of which Mr. B. is the chief author and I may truly say if there be any such flame of discord at Bewdley as Mr. B. meanes it is blown by Mr. Bs. breath not mine who am conscious to my self of being as studious of unity as I can with preservation of truth As for my kindling errour I fear I have done lesse then I should have done not meddling with the point of Antipaedobaptisme but as it fell in my way in my cursory exposition on Gen. 17. wherein I only vindicated my self from Mr. Robert Bayly his false Criminations of me about the Covenant there and overthrew the suppositions of Paedobaptists from thence about the Covenant and initial seale and once or twice more on the by till by occasion of the motioned dispute between me and Mr. B. I saw it was fit I should in some sermons open the controversy which was not till Decemb. 1649. presently after which my return to Lemster was concluded The Magistrate a stranger to the meetings of the Godly in their houses the Minister such as he is for his credit and others of somewhat a like stamp it is likely did invite Mr. B. to oppose me as they had done their Schoole master to make use of their abilities to uphold their Dagon of Infant-sprinking but Mr. Bs. abuse of Scriptures so palpably impertinent his mannaging the dispute with reasonings of wit and other camal waies do assure me he had no call from God His alleadging Gal. 2. 11 14. to justifie his sharpnesse in dealing with me is invalid to that end there being no such dissimulation used by me nor error maintained by me Mr. Bs. opinion comes neerer Peters Judaizing then mine SECT VI. The chief points of Mr. Bs. Book are very briefly touched THe chief points in Mr. Bs. book he would have observed in their places shall be God willing fully examined For the present only thus much My Confession that all should be admitted Church-members by baptisme was meant of such as by their profession are visible not of such as are visible in Mr. Bs. way without profession The repeal of the Law or ordinance for infants visible Church-membership will be easily proved when the law or ordinance is shewed As yet I can find no such law or ordinance save what is injoyned concerning circumcision which if it stand in force we must keep the whole law Gal. 5. 3 His first challenge is answered by another challenge to shew what one church had infants visible Church-members besides the Jewes His second is answered by shewing till Abrahams time there is nothing said about any church-frame from Abrahams time till Christs the Jewish church-frame stood In Christs time and the Apostles no other are reckoned to belong to the visible Church then professors of faith And so it continued till infants were admitted to baptism to save them which out of the case of danger of present dying was disswaded by Tertullian and Gregory Nazianzen Afterwards their baptisme was more frequent through Austins urging it so much against the Pelegians as Strabo rightly observed long since together with it infant-communion was common yet not without the continuance of the old form of putting the question to infants after which at first profession was declared catechizing mostly afore they were baptized at certain seasons of the year till ignorance and confusion overspread the Churches But when God began to stirre up any to reform other corruptions there were that sought to reform this 500. years ago according to truth notwithstanding Mr. Bs. Mr. Ms. or Doctor Ushers allegations of whom I perswade my self many may be met with in heaven notwithstanding M. Bs. confident expressions to the contrary Yet were all Mr. B. sayes true if I put Mr. B. to the like as to shew me since the Apostles one that questioned keeping of an Easter Lent fast Infant-communion Monkish profession c. till the last age he will be hard put to it His considerations depend upon the points in dispute in examining of which it may appear how frivolous his questions are Infants Church-membership I find no where but in the peculiar national policy of the Jewes no universal law or ordinance for it the Jewish policy is taken away both de facto by the providence of God and de jure of right by the declaration of Christ and his Apostles in the N. T. and by altering the way of Church-gathering and constitution The Jewes were hainously offended at the taking away of circumcision not because he took away Churchmembership of infants but because of the taking away of the law of Moses the Temple Priesthood c in which they gloried Acts 21. 20 21. Acts 6. 13 14. If it be true that it was a known trueth that infants were visihle Church-members and to be admitted Disciples and the Apostles did not admit them Mat. 19. 13 which Mr. B. supposeth then the challenge is answered Name me away from the creation till 200. years age who did once question infants Church-membership For after Mr. Bs. dictates the Apostles did so Let men turne over their Bibles they will finde enough in them against infants visible Church-membership in the N. T. He askes Why the speech Marke 16. 16. which excludes infants from baptisme should not also exclude them from salvation for want of believing To which I answer It is not doubted but that infants belong to the invisible Kingdome of the Elect Rom. 9. 11. Mat. 19. 14. but how they attain salvation is not
I confesse the conference at Col. Taylors house 1646. and the reading of his arguments as was said 1647. but the conference being not written nor the notes then in my hand there were left onely some imperfect and obscure apprehensions of them in me which in respect of giving a distinct answer were all one as if I knew them not at all by reason of which I was very desirous to get his arguments in writing that I might be the better able to answer them and satisfie others which Mr. B. not yielding to I could not give answer but on the sudden without premeditation the arguments being gone from me like Nehuchad-nezzars dream and I did imagine and accordingly used these words in a letter It was said you would hide your weapon till you were to use it In which opinion his taking hold of so many indirect ways for advantages to possesse mens minds with his opinion and to hinder a free examination of what is said on both sides do confirme me And that things may be apprehended nakedly as they were I do acknowledge that it is my disposition be it dulnesse or wearinesse to pause on a new argument whether in reading or conference so that I cannot oft-times give a clear answer to an argument I have not bin used to on a sudden no nor many times to an argument I have been versed in when it is not under my eye when other matters possesse my memory when fear of speaking ineptly doth benumme me and hinder my elocution when I have some obscure notion of a fallacy which at present I cannot readily discover Which knowledge of my self made me unwilling to come to a publick dispute or extemporal conference with Mr. B. whom I had found in conferences I had with him to be quick in apprehension and expression various and copious in multiplying arguments and expressions captious of advantages ready to expose even to contempt with shew of disdain those that speak not according to his mind which made me conceive I should neither well remember nor weigh his arguments afore I must answer nor clear truth nor satisfie my self or others but occasion glorying in Mr. B. and settling people in his error Neverthelesse presaging by his declining to argue by writing and his words in his letter Sept. 6. if I should refuse a conference called before an open verbal dispute on such advantages I should think it were almost to yield my cause naught that it would be taken as if I did confesse I could not answer him after much endeavour in vain to get his arguments in writing that I might consider of them before the dispute I yielded to be ready to justifie my doctrine openly or privately by word or writing as should be judged convenient Whereupon Mr. B. having drawn me to agree upon Jan. 1. 1649 without any agreement about stating the question order or rules of the dispute notaries on both sides to set down what was said people being gathered together from other places by his party and a place in state prepared for him with his abettors schollers and others on both sides him I my self alone without any notary or assistant was forced to answer him prepared in this unexpected manner lest I should have endammaged the cause by seeming tergiversation yet presuming that I should have found such dealing after by communicating to me in writing his arguments afore printing or at lest forbearing to print my answers till I had viewed and rectified them that might have repaired what seeming disadvantage the truth had by my present answers in which I found my selfe extreamly deceived my motion of having his arguments in writing after the dispute being answered by quarrelling with me about things on the by and in a subdolous and indirect way filling the land with conceits as if his tenet and arguments were unanswerable and I a person pertinarious without reason By this true relation the truth of my intimation of the suddenness of the assault my ignorance of his arguments my speeches concerning his concealing his arguments provoking me to dispute are verified the reasons of my desiring his arguments in writing the cause of varying my answers at the dispute and why to so weake arguments no fuller answers were then given and why I said at Bewdley which I still think I preached nothing but truth to them are assigned about all which Mr. B. hath endeavoured to misrepresent me and my proceedings in his History of the conception of his Treatise As for Mr. Bs. inclination now to think me a very proud man however he thought heretofore and that I have higher thoughts of my self then was meete because of my dissent from so many Churches and God'y Divines and because of my answer in private to him about the reason I gave why the error of infant-baptisme being easie to be discerned was not discerned through wilfulnesse or negligence I say 1. My dissent is not singular nor my reasons and writings such but that such a one as my self might be allowed to hold my tenet without imputations of selfe-conceitednesse arrogance c. Mr. B. varies from Churches and learned men about justification and faith in his Aphorismes what he can say for himself why he should not be censured as he censures me may perhaps be my plea. I cannot alter my own judgement or others but by arguments nor dare I say I do see what I do not 2. As for my speech in private which me thinks it was somewhat against the lawes of friendship for him thus to publish I know not what better answer yet to give but to ascribe it to prejudice or faction or some such like cause that men are so wilful or negligent as not to examine and discerne the errour of infant-baptism so manifestly discernable by applying to it their own rules and positions in reformation of Popish and Prelatical corruptions And I do conceive the same or like answer would be given about the Lutherans holding consubstantiation images to be retained in Temples ubiquity of Christs body conditional predestination and sundry the like tenets which may be a just censure without pride That which Mr. B. saies And lest my touching that controversy though at a distance might irritate him to fall upon it I never spake one word to my best remembrance in my congregation of it to this day for fear of giving any occasion of difference page 209. I never preached one sentence before the dispute nor since to his hearers or mine that I can remember on the question Page 281. I never spake one word against his opinion in my pulpit to this day shewes his memory retaines not all he printed in his Saints everlisting rest preached on the Lecture-dayes at Kederminster As page 534. We should see the promises made good to our seed and the unthankful Anabaptists that will not confesse That the children of the Saints are any nearer to God or more beholding to him then Pagans so much as for the
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