the Church and yet be holy men Mr. B. saith in his Epist. Dedic to the Saints everlasting rest direct 5. That independency which gives the people to governe by vote is the same thing with separation which comes from pride and ignorance and directly leades to the dissolution of all Churches Then they that hold it hold their fancy and rend the Church by it and so by Mr. Bs. rule none of them were of holy lives If Mr. B. censure so Mr. Atnsworth Mr. Robinson stiled by Rivet Explic. Dec. Exod. 20. praec 4. vir pius a godly man c. he will vent a more arrogant speech then any he chargeth me with Mr. Bs. opinions about faith and justification are by some counted fancies if he should by them make a breach in the Church yet I durst not deny his life to be holy He calls it my reproach that I think it may be safely said that there are proportionably as many unholy Paedobaptists as of the opposites to refute which he referres us to that said before where I shall in its place examine it and shew that he hath done much wrong to Antipoedo baptists in two things 1. In charging them with the evils of sundry who were never of their society 2. In charging the evils of some few Apostates upon all the Churches though they expressely rejected the persons and declared even publiquely in print against their wicked principles and practises yea have been the first and almost the onely men who have so declared though many more then ever were of their Churches have fallen into the wicked Ranting wayes besides Copp and some others termed Anabaptists He tells me Lay aside the common people and compare each party that are carried to it in judgement and in conscience and experience will confute me and then bids me shew who came to the height of Cop or those in Germany To which I say Who are carried to one side or other in judgement and conscience it 's impossible to determine and therefore such an estimation as Mr. B. propoundes is not feasible it 's known many have been wicked on both sides Copps and his followers madnesse is disclaimed by the Churches in London under baptisme in their Heart-bleedings for professors abominations and therefore by Austins rule should not be charged on the Churches Whether Hacket or any other were as wicked who knowes but God The evil carriages of the men have risen from their opinion of high enjoyments of God in the spirit when they left ordinances as was observed in the Levellers not while they kept to baptisme and Church-communion Mr. Weld observed in his Story of the Antinomians page 40. that conceit of special revelations was the original of Mrs. Hutchinsons miscarriage and the like is conceived of the Anabaptists in Germany and the like tragedy was neare acting in New England as there Mr. B. I still judge does ill to aggravate so farre the actions of those in Germany and some in England as if no miscarriages of others were comparable I am sure it is no rule to judge a doctrine false by this that the professors miscarry but only to make men wary and fearful If it be he must judge the same doctrine false by reason of some mens miscarriages and true because of others godly living Page 200. he excepts against my Logick for saying it is not idem per idem to know a false Prophet by his false doctrine For what is a false Prophet but one that preacheth false doctrine I answer A false Prophet is one that is not sent by God as a false Apostle 2 Cor. 11. 13. is one that is not an Apostle of Christ and it is no trifling repetition of the same but the sure note that Christ gives to say a false Prophet is known by his false doctrine Ball Trial of grounds for separation chap. 13. page 312. If we look into the Scriptures of the old and New Testament we shall never find the Prophets called true or false in respect of their outward calling but in respect of their doctrine When Mr. B. interprets likely by ordinarily or for the most part or usually as our ordinary sense of that phrase I think he mistakes in the meaning and use of the word and that probably doth better answer to it then usually However sith he dare not say that constantly all false doctrines end in wicked lives Christs direction as he makes it to know false Prophets by their wicked lives which ordinarily though not constantly they end in however they begin otherwise is a very blind one for his people of Kederminster to make use of sith they cannot by it discerne an Antinomian or Anabaptist to be a false Prophet to beware of them till they have observed the end of a whole party proving wicked which perhaps will not be till they are dead that are tempted by them SECT XII Mr. Bs. insinuations of the wickednesse of Anabaptists is Calumniatory and vainly alleadged to condemne their doctrine of Antipaedobaptisme Anabaptists and with them myself are vindicated from charges of schisme neglect of the Lords day c. PAge 201. To deterre his hearers from Anabaptistry Mr. B. had said Where hath there been known a society of Anabaptists since the world first knew that proved not wicked A direct answer to this question thus propounded can hardly be made nor is it necessary It can hardly be made it being a question that depends partly upon much reading of histories in former times both about the doctrine and manners of men comparatively obscure and contemned Whereas Historians speak little but of eminent societies and occurrences that make a remarkable change in the affaires of their time and of things done in those ages in which Historians are but few and not of the best note when greatest darknesse was on the Church and hardest censures of the best partly upon an exact intelligence of the affaires of the present Churches of so called Anabaptists in many Countreys who have been so depressed by the opposite party as that it is somewhat hard to learne where they be All the intelligence I can get of them is by bookes for the most part of them that are their adversaries Besides it is very difficult to passe a censure upon a society which is not a consistent but a flowing body some members coming in some cast out some dying same sound some rotten some removing dwellings subject to change of Ministers opinions c. whether in the end they have proved wicked or not it being usual that some in such societies do prove wicked and others prove well And what man is there that wants not either age to see the beginninig and end of such a society or opportunity to know the state of all or most of such a society or judiciousnesse to conclude whe her they proved wicked or not it being certain that men may fall foully and yet die in Christ and there being no fixed rule for us
separating all infants of believers barely for their parents faith to be visible members of the Christian Church is Mr. Bs. dream as I shall shew with Gods assistance in examing his second argument SECT XI About Mr. Bs. 4. texts urged impertinently to prove infants visible Church-membership PAge 183. he saies it is a palpable untruth which I say he four texts in his Epistle Levit. 25. 41 42. Deut. 29. 11 12. Act. 15. 10. 1 Cor. 7. 14. with Rom. 11. 19. were all he concluded any thing from meaning in the dispute at Bewdley and saies the hearers know it and is to be seen before But to my best remembrance with search into the notes I took after and the notes which were communicated to me it is no untruth Mat. 28. 19. I think he alluded to but I remember not it was urged or any other text besides the forenamed as a medium from which to conclude any proposition to be proved Then he saies I have been fully answered before but yet addes concerning Levit. 25. 41 42. 1. The Jewes infants were infants and the dispute between us was of the species Answ. 1. Though Mr. B. and before him Mr. Cobbet usually call the sort or ranke of men that are infants the species yet other Logicians usually call man the lowest species or kind and say age and sex make not another kinde 2. But allowing Mr. B. and Mr. Cobbet their language I say the dispute is not about the species or kind to wit infants as infants but infants of believers who are particular persons and the question as it was rightly stated between me and Mr. M. was Whether the infants of believers were to be baptized with Christs baptisme by a lawfull Minister according to ordinary rule without extraordinary revelation or direction And if Paedobaptists will maintain their practise they should make good this proposition That all the infant-children of professed or inchurched believers are to be baptized with Christs baptisme by the law full Minister according to ordinary rule Though Mr. Baillee and Mr. B. for some advantage set down this as their proposition to be proved That some infants are to be baptized M. B. saies he had proved our priviledges greater then the Jewes and that I deny it not and that this to wit to be Gods servants was not peculiar to them Whereas I had proved the contrary from ver 55. and the whole chapter is about lawes peculiar to the Jews and ver 38 39 40. going before shew plainly that this law was peculiar to the Jewes that they and their children should return from servitude under which they were for poverty at the year of Jubilee and ver 45 46. plainly restraines it to the children of Israel allowing them to take the children of strangers so journing among them and therefore proselytes as an inheritance And therefore in whatever sense it is meant that they are Gods servants it is meant onely of Hebrews as Exod. 21. 2. is expressed I do not conceive nor any interpreters that I meete with do expound this of a proselyte but onely of an Hebrew borne If Cornelius had children they had not been Gods servants in the sense there meant which is clearly this that they were his servants in this respect only in that place in that they were to be disposed of not as men would but as he onely would who had right to them by his purchase in bringing them out of Egypt and therefore none can get soveraigne Dominion over them no not by their voluntary selling themselves to prejudice his as Deodat annot in Levit. 25. 42. Whence I infer that it is a most grosse abuse of this Scripture in Mr. B. to urge it to prove that the infants of Gentile believers now are servants to God related to him as a peculiar people separated to himself from the world which is spoken meerly in respect of the Hebrew children and their corporal servitude which was to be at Gods disposing by reason of his redemption of them out of Egypt When he tells me of my accustomednesse to mistakes it is more true of himself as I have often shewed yea though the words were written before him And in this very thing he calls my mistake that he argued thus Whosoever is called Gods servant may be baptized whereas he might have seene if he had taken any care to set down my words rightly that my words were as his own notary took them and he hath printed them If this be a good argument Infants are called servants of God therefore they are disciples and must be baptized which was his argument either in words or substance As for the conclusion and argument as he sets it down page 182. I think it was not urged in the dispute and I have proved that Levit. 25. 42. is meant onely of Hebrew children not of Gentiles nor in the sense Mr. B. would prove that they are relatively separate to God from the world in the sense as God 's servants is equipollent to a disciple of Christ. Page 184 he calls my answers to his allegation of Deut. 19. 11 12 vain senselesse reavils and then breaks out into words of pitty to people that take their opinions on my word To which is I say that my answers are not vaine senselesse cavil will appear in my reply to Mr. B. about that text And as he pitties them that take their opinion on my word so I pitty them that take their opinion on his word or any meer mans word contrary to Christs priviledge Mat. 23. 1. Page 184. in my words adoption is printed for doctrine Page 185. he repeates his frivolous charge of our accusing our children as no disciples of Christ and therefore no Christians and therefore no ground to believe or hope they are saved thus calumniating me when I have often said they may be both Disciples and Christians invisibly and so have salvation and we have great reason to hope they are in Gods election by reason of the general indefinite promises of the Scripture and Gods usual dealing with his people though there is no certainty either from Mr. Bs. grounds or mine sith Mr. B. will not say that every visible Church-member is saved All the difference between us is about their visible Church-membership whether the denying that takes away ground of hope of their salvatien Mr. B. saith it doth because there 's no hope of that persons salvation that doth not seeme to be of the invisible Church but he that is not of the visible Church doth not seeme to be of the invisible Ergo But the Minor is not true as he takes the word seem and by Gods assistance I doubt not to shew when I examine ch 27. of part 1. his mistake concerning the terme visible as if it were as much as to appear such in the judgement of probability though not descernad by sense by which defini-nition the opposite termes visible and invisible may be confounded and the terme visible
is holy and that this intitles to baptisme The Jewes hereafter to be called are holy Rom. 11. 16. by election Mr. Cobbet Just vindic chap. 3 sect 1. page 37. The Jewes yet to come were in Pauls time holy federally Rom. 11. 15 16. not actually but intentionally yet not then baptizable the Medeâ— sai 13. 3. are called Gods sanctified ones yet not to be admitted visible Church-members I further add that in his general sense Legitimate might also signifie a state separate to God as being that onely posterity he allowes of according to his institution of marriage Mal. 2. 15. which is very frequently called holy by Divines And therefore letting passe his jocular tale my exception or answer to his reasoning from 1 Cor. 7. 14. deserves a better refutation then he hath yet given Then he makes me say that no Scripture speakes of holinesse in his sense whereas my words as above were more wary Mr. B. I think cannot shew c. And then tells me that the Jewes infants are called the Holy seed and that by covenant or law which is his sense and then chargeth me with laying by conscience and common modesty having little tendernesse of conscience in accusing his will in charging him with a grosse falshood that he was willing to carry things in generals and not to tell distinctly how infants are holy and in a state separated to God whereas he told me he meant holy by law or Covenant Notwithstanding which I may yet conceive him willing to carry things in generals sith this very explication is in generals the law or Covenant as he calls it being not distinctly named and shewed where it is and upon what conditions that state of separation to God which infants have is ascertained whether upon their own act or parents and if upon parents whether immediate or mediate whether to the truth and reality or profession nor wherein that state of separation to God consists or what is the benefit of it all or of some which perhaps I apprehend Mr. B. rightly in now yet not till I had read over his book again and again and pickt out his meaning by comparing many passages together which because he did not then nor since in his printed writings put together as others do in their theses they maintaine I guessed he was willing to carry things in the general and if I did say so which Mr. B. and I must take on his Scribes word in my Sermon without any caution Mr. B. might have imagined that I meant it with this caution which is ordinarily allowed in constructions of such speeches where thematter leades us to conceive them intended that I conceived him unwilling which might be the more allowed to me in that speech which I had not a word written when I spake it which of all other Mr. B. is least fit to except against me for having in print offended in this way in worse manner page 185. But to the matter now we conceive his meaning I still say the same that I think he cannot shew one place where holy is taken for separated to God in his sense He alleadgeth that the Jewes infants are called the holy seed though he name not the text which had been fit yet I guesse by his words page 83. he meanes Ezra 9. 2. in which place onely and Isaiah 6. 13. I find this terme in Scripture But Ezra 9. 2. doth not speak of infants but such a holy seed as mingled themselves with the people of the land which was in marriage which will not be said of infants nor is holy seed there meant of a state separated to God in Mr. Bs. sense by Covenant promising it to believers that their infants should be visible Church-members For this holinesse was a state of difference or separation onely by legal descent from Israel not by the faith of next parents and it did intitle them to a peculiar priviledge of being reckoned in the genealogy of Israel or in full communion with the Common-wealth of Israel in respect of inheritance marriage c. though they fell to Idolatry as Jeroboam Ahaz Manasseh c. did But proselytes though believers were not the holy seed there meant they were not forbidden to marry the daughters of the people of the land Yea the children of the holy seed begotten upon prohibited women as the daughters of the Nations there mentioned were with their mothers to be put away as unholy according to the law Ezra 10. 3. contrary to the resolution af the Apostle 1 Cor. 7. 12 13 14. which evidently shewes that the Jewes are called the holy seed by their descent according to the law of Moses and that the term holy seed Ezra 10. 2. is all one with Legitimate and if the Apostle did allude to that place in Ezra it serves more for my sense then Mr. Bs. and the sense may be conceived this If the unbelieving husband were not as sanctified to his wife so as that they might lawfully live together then the children should be unclean that is illegitimate as those in Ezra but now that is it being determined that the law of Moses concerning prohibiting marriage with some people is voided and unequal marriage is not dissolved your children are holy that is legitimate His evasion page 188. about a judgement of charity will be found insufficient to avoid my exception against his exposition which is mistaken by him nor will it at all smite me my exception being not as he imagines that upon a judgement of charity concerning the sincerity of a persons profession he is not to be taken for a real believer But that Mr. B. determining that the unbeliever is sanctified onely to the believer who is not onely such according to the judgement of charity but also really such before God and the Apostles consequence including this Proposition according to his exposition that the children of such onely are holy that is after Mr. B. visible Church-members and baptizable of necessity all other by his exposition are prohibited to be baptized and therefore of necessity he that will follow the rule according to Mr. Bs exposition must know the reality of the parents faith which being impossible to be known without special revelation he may baptize none without it Now Mr. B. answers not at all to the main thing how by his exposition a man can go upon certainty that he doth his duty but how without respect to his exposition a man may take a person for a sincere believer and so baptize him But this serves not his turne in this case For it is the duty of the baptizer to baptize onely visible Church-members this Mr. B. will not deny now of infants who can make no profession their visible Church-membership is known onely by their parents believing but according to Mr. Bs. exposition of the Apostle those infants onely are visible Church-members whose parents are real believers before God no hypocrite if Mr. B. rightly expound the Apostle
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
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
doth not shew my words are there all assertory of what I conceive infants cannot do in their own persons not a word of perswasion or disswasion to the parents or any other And for that which is added then it seemes you know not how a Father should engage his child by covenanting in his name and after you would have no parents to engage their children solemnly to God in Christ by Covenanting in their names there is not a word of it in that place 'T is true in my Sermon intituled Fermentum Pharisaeorum I gave a little touch against the use of sureties at baptisme according to the Doctrine of the catechisme in the common prayer-book that they did promise that they should believe c. which I conceived onely belongs to Christ as surety of the better Covenant Heb. 7. 22. But I never denied that the Elders of a Nation may engage solemnly the posterity even the unborne to take the Lord for their God but this I rather take to be an adjuration under a curse if they do not then a promise for them that they shall nor that a parent may engage his child by a promise of his own endeavour that he shall and that the child is engaged thereby but not by vertue of the Fathers promise but by vertue of the obligation of the thing promised the Fathers promise is an incitement to do it the rather but makes not the child bound to do it of it self but onely because the thing is a duty which he were bound to did the Father promise for him or not But I deny that this makes a visible Church-member or that in nature or law as his childs act according to the Gospel for his being admitted a visible Church-member Now Mr. B. hastily answering me jumbles things together and as one impatient of considering what I say chargeth me with what I avow not and then concludes scoffically And I pray you how well do you free your self from this charge Should I imitate him I should cry shamelesse foul dealing c. But I am resolved to examine his writing not to follow his fashion Pag. 179. He saies I did not distinguish of disciples or yield infants disciples in any sense If I acknowledge them disciples in any sense I should speak out To which I say I put in those words in my Sermon in that sense Christ appointed disciples to be baptized to intimate that I did not deny but infants might be disciples by the immediate secret work of Gods spirit though not in the ordinary mediate way of preaching the Gospel about which the rule Mat. 28. 19. is set As for Mr. Bs. sense of a disciple of Christ without learning Christs doctrine of a servant of God without service actively or passively a disciple remotely by the Fathers being a disciple it is nothing like the use of the word disciple in the New Testament or the terme servant of God as equipollent to a disciple and no marvel I should mistake Mr. B. who used termes in a sense I never met with in the New Testament and I still conceive to be a piece of new gibberish And when he saith he took servant and disciple according to their relative formal nature and not either with the accidental consideration of active or passive it is no marvel I should be at a stand what to answer him using termes in such an uncouth non-sense acception as I never met with before For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound who shall prepare himself to battel And it seemes to me a grosser absurdity which Mr. B. hath in those words then any of those he chargeth me with to take disciple and servant in their relative formal nature without learning or service active or passive whereas Mr. B. himselfe page 92. where he saies the relation of a servant disciple souldier husbandman trades-man remaines when the act ceaseth for a time yet expressely saith the relation and so the denomination is from the act of service learning c. and yet he would have infants to be denominated disciples and servants of God without their act of learning or service or capacity of actual learning or service in an ordinary way and he is not ashamed to call learning or service actively or passively accidental to the title or denomination of a disciple or servant Which is a monstrous absurdity to make a denomination without the forme denominating yea to count it accidental to conceive a relation without the foundation which is all one as to call one a Father without begetting a Lord without dominion a signe without signification not unlike the riddle vir non vir percussit non percussit avem non avem lapide non lapide super arbore non arbore or rather absurdorum absurdissimū oppositum in apposito And yet this notion of a disciple never proved is the ground work of Mr. Bs. first argument and therefore if I may use Mr. Bs. words they are very tractable soules that are led by his notions page 180. He thinks strange that a man of my parts should know of no separation to God but by election or calling he questions whether election be proper separation he saies that the Jewes first-borne were seperated by a law and men now by dedication separate goods to God that he meanes separation neither by election nor extraordinary or ordinary call but by the law or Covenant of God To which I reply Mr. B. still abuseth me by leaving out my words as the case now stands which were put in as remarkable to exclude that way of separation to God whereby the first born Priests goods c. were holy as separated to God Election is alwayes with seperation that is differencing one from another and as election is said to be according to purpose Rom. 9. 11. so likewise separation Paul was separated from his mothers wombe Gal. 1. 15. according to Gods pleasure and purpose that is by his election And with this separation infants may be said to be sanctified as Jeremiah ch 1. 5. And so the terme holy is applied Rom. 11. 16. to the Jewes then unborne who were after to be called ver 24 25 26 27. And called Saints is used 1 Cor. 1. 2. As for infants of believers whether elect or reprobate outward federal holinesse I know no such there 's no law or Covenant separates every child of a believer to God According to Mr. B. the Covenant sealed by baptisme is conditional and that belongs to all the sons of Adam till persons are severed by believing and unbeliefe this Covenant therefore of it self without putting the condition doth not separate any to God and so not infants till they be believers the absolute is onely to the elect and according to it and so onely the elect are separated which are not all perhaps but a few of the children of believers but an Isaac of all Abrahams children Rom. 9. 6 7 8. A law or Covenant of God
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
Testament though I have not a Greek Concordance of the old Testament to number them by and therefore there is neither absurdity nor untruth in any speech any more then in that John 21. 15. though I conceive there is scarce need of an hyperbole to verifie it but am sure Mr. B. trifles in putting this into the score of my absurdities to which I was driven To the nineteenth I do not remember I said the Corinthians doubted whether their living together were fornication My resolution and exposition of the Apostles words will be made good against this exception in answering Mr. Bs. fifth argument c. 29. of the first part which I intend to fit for the presse with as much speed as I can To the twentieth I have in my Examen of Mr. Ms. Sermon Exercit. Antidote and Review shewed a ground of necessity to take the Apostles words 1 Cor. 7. 14. in my sense not in Mr. Bs. the reply to which made by Mr. B. will appear to be insufficient upon the examination of chap. 29. of the first part of his book The one twentieth absurdity which Mr. B. would fasten on my arguing as most absurd and like a right Anabaptist in his scoffing language is meerly from his mistake of my expression as if by present prayer I meant prayer coexistent and continued during the use of the thing sanctified whereas my meaning was to exclude an habit of prayer without the act and actual prayer interrupted in its course through lapse into such sin as Davids adultery in which time things are not sanctified to real believers till repentance restore their sanctifying exercise And so the two and twentieth and four and twentieth absurdities which Mr. B. makes so horrid are also answered nor was the three and twentieth an absurdity Mr. B. himself page 98. limits the speech all things are pure to the pure that is all things good and lawfull and is not this all one as to say some things are pure nor is it unusual to limit such universal termes as the matter requires as 1 Cor. 13. 7. 10. 23. c. The twentiefith and twentiesixth were no absurdities but fit answers to so trifling arguments For the terme disciple importing one that hath learned it is but trifling to argue infants of believers are disciples without proving they have learned and the reason why they have not learned is because they are untaught and if Mr. B. had further asked why they are not taugh I would have answered because ordinarily uncapable and God both not extraordinarily shewn them this mercy But because I perceived he was about to leave the plain way of proving them disciples by shewing that the notation and use of the word disciple which himself page 92. confesseth to come from the act of learning did agree to them never imagining that ridiculous sense in which he takes the word disciple page 14. as a relation without a foundation without actual learning for the present or so much as an assay intention or capacity to learn and making actual learning the end of an Infants being a disciple who hath no thoughts of it and that he sought to winde about an intangling discourse about Gods mercy to Infants which though it were but frivolous in respect of the thing to be proved to wit the appliablenesse of the word disciple to Infants yet being popular and pausible would be taking with the Auditors which I quickly perceived he affected I conceived on the sudden the answers I gave fittest and so still do think The last in number is no absurdity but if Mr. B. put in actual used by him in the dispute and understand it of circumcision as acted barely not as taught and put in the terme yoke it is Mr. Bs. absurdity to maintain the contrary as is proved above And for the latter part it is no absurdity nor seemed to Grot. annot in Mat. 11. 29. Jugum mandata singnificat It à vox ista sumitur Act. 15. 10. Johannes hunc locum explicans pro jugo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dixit 1. Epist. 5. 3. To like purpose Pareus in Mat. 11. 30. where he useth the terme jugum doctrinae the yoke of doctrine applied to the Gospel in opposition to the yoke of the law Acts 15. 10. So the N. Annot. on Mat. 11. 29. Acts 15. 10. 1 John 5. 3. Pisc. sch on Act. 15. 10. the yoke to wit the law of Moses by comparing it with verse 5. Deod on Mat. 11. 30. calls it the rigorous yoke of the law unsufferable without Christ and therefore unsufferable not so much for the labour in observing it as the imperfection to quiet the conscience and the condemnation it bound to for not keeping it on Acts 15. 10. My arguing to prove the repeale of infants Church-membership was onely lamentable in that it met with such a contemptuous respondent who judgeth that idem per idem which was rationally thus The repeale of Church-membership was proved from the altering the Church-state from Jewish national to Christian personal this proved from the different call this proved from the different way God took to gather his Church in the New Testament from the Old by preaching not authority of superiors as when he brought the family of Abraham and the Jewish Nation into Covenant What the Ministers so called which sate next Mr. B. judged I passe not They were much deceived in their judgement about my arguing and my being mated and puzzled then What ever puzzling I had was in the beginning when I was almost at a stand what to answer and therefore varied my answers by reason of my not understanding where that ordinance of infants visible Church-membership unrepealed Mr. B. speakes of is and in what sense Mr. B. called them visible Church-members and disciples under the Goipel which then I understood not nor did he explaine so as that I could clearly understand him nor so fully since by his book but that by much diligence I am fain to pick it out by comparing one passage and expression with another It is untrue that not knowing what to say I was resolved to say something lest if I were silent the people should think I were worsted or that I requested him to name my absurdities or that by private confessions or by my own confession I was conscious of absurdities I was driven to SECT XVIII The grosse untruths Mr. B. chargeth me with are not such PAge 209. Mr. B. chargeth me with six grosse untruths though my words were not assertions but intimations neverthelesse I conceive not any untruth in them For 1. However the motion was not sudden nor the yielding to it sudden yet the assault was sudden without any rules for orderly mannaging the dispute or notaries on both sides to take it c. which I imprudently ommitted not expecting such a solemne meeting as I found and because of the opinion I had of Mr. B. as more candid in taking my answers and
this could not have happened if they had been wont to receive it from a Minister that distributed to all and when the Apostle to rectifie the abuse sets down what he received of the Lord ver 23. he speaks not a word of a Ministers duty to regulate them or of Christs appointing it as a part of his office to distribute it nor gives any direction to that end but only ver 33. that they tarry one for another and not eat till they came together whereas if it did then belong to the Minister to distribute the direction should have been given to him not to distribute till they came together If it be said as Saravia against Beza that there were then Presbyters at Corinth though I conceive it not likely but the contrary rather manifest from 1 Cor. 1. 7. 6. 4. 12. 28. 14. 29. Yet it serves the more to confirme my opinion that then it was not counted the Ministers office to deliver the Lords Supper and that it might be without a Minister ordained sith they did receive it then 1 Cor. 10. 16. yet I acknowledge that it is very antient that the Minister called the President did order the Lords Supper as I gather from Justin Martyrs Apolog. 2. ad Antoninum where he sets down the order of the Christian service in his time And I am against the altering it because of the antiquity of the use and the confusion likely to follow on the alteration But being urged by Mr. B. and others in the manner abovesaid it is necessary that the point be examined Mr. B. argues thus 1. He that administreth the Lords Supper in breaking the bread delivering it to all bidding them take eate c. must represent the Lord Jesus who did all this at the institution But onely Ministers and no private men are persons who should represent the Lord Jesus in Church-administrations Therefore onely Ministers and no private men may administer the Lords Supper To which I answer 1. in Church-administrations in the Minor is added which was not in the Major and so there are four termes and the argument faulty 2. But waving that exception because it may be quickly rectified I deny the Minor understanding as Mr. B. doth by a Minister a Presbytery ordained by laying on of hands For to speak of the Ruling elders Church-administrations or the preaching of persons not in office of which anon It is certain that Deacons have Church-administration who are not Presbyters yea it is manifest out of antiquity that the Deacons did deliver the Elements in the Lords Supper and Rogers on Article 23. of the Church of England prop. 3. saith at Geneva the elder a lay-man ministreth the cup ordinarily at the Communion and therefore Ministers did and might represent Christ at least in that part of Church-administration But Mr. B. goes about to prove the Minor thus Ministers onely are called his Embassadors Stewards of his mysteries and beseech in his stead c. Answer 1. I think that those mentioned Act. 8. 4 5. of whom Philip was then onely a Deacon as many of the Antients hold not onely Apollos but also Aquila and Priscilla Acts 18. 26. Frumentius that converted the Indians and the captive maid that brought the Iberians to the faith were Embassadours of Christ and Stewards of his mysteries and might beseech in his stead 2. But were it granted that Ministers only are called Christs Embassadours c. how is it proved that they onely should represent Christs person in breaking the bread delivering it to all bidding them take eate c. Doth the Embassage of Christ dispensing of his mysteries beseeching in his stead c. consist in breaking bread delivering it bidding take eate c If it do then a non-preaching Minister who doth these things may yet be an Embassadour of Christ and Steward of his mysteries then the breaking bread c. is a converting ordinance as Mr. Pryn held which Mr. Gillespy and Mr. Rutherford deny For my part I think to be an Embassadour of Christ and to beseech in his stead 2 Cor. 5. 20. to be a Steward of the mysteries of God 1 Cor. 4. 1. are all one as to preach the Gospel and that the Assembly did misallege the text 1 Cor. 4. 1. as they have done the other to prove that neither Sacrament may be dispensed by any but a Minister of the word lawfully ordained Confession of faith chap. 27. sect 4. For mysteries of God never signifie Sacraments in Scripture but the Gospel Ephes. 6. 19. Rom. 16. 25. Chamier panstrat Cath. tom 4. l. 1. c. 4. sect 9. in Scripturis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 usurpari pro ipso rei sacrae signo profectò imposturaest But Mr. B. tells me It is a silly answer of Mr. T. that Sacraments are not called mysteries of God For the word preached neither is not the mystery it self but a revealing and exhibiting that mystery and so are the Sacraments The one revealeth them to the eare and the other to the eye Answ. Sure if the answer be silly the refutation is no better For if the word preached be not the mystery it self then neither is the Sacrament much lesse the breaking the bread and delivering it and so to be Steward of the mysteries of God is not to be breaker and deliverer of the bread and wine in the Lords Supper But however Mr. B. grants that though the word preached be not the mystery it self yet it is the revealing and exhibiting of the mystery and that the sense undoubted of 1 Cor. 4. 1. Stewards of the mysteries of God is revealers of the mystery of God by preaching the word But then saith Mr. B. the Sacrament revealeth the mystery of God to the eye I reply Mr. B. saith so but not one text of Scripture saith so nor is it true The mystery containes not onely the thing done by Christ but the end use reason of it but this is perceivable onely by the understanding and the Sacrament abstractively from the word declares it not no not so much as a picture and therefore the Sacramental actions of themselves are not revelations of the mystery of Christ nor ever so called in Scripture and therefore I conclude that the text 1 Cor. 4. 1. doth not prove that it is the peculiar office of an ordained Presbyter to Minister the Lords Supper by breaking bread delivering it to all bidding take eat c. And though the title of Minister of the Gospel be used in the New Testament yet the title of Minister of the Sacraments is a made title 2. Saith Mr. B. If there be no command or example in Scripture of any but Ministers administring the Lords Supper then no other may do it But there is no command or example in Scripture of any other doing it they that say there is let them shew it Answ. I find this command 1 Cor. 11. 28. Let a man examine himself and so let him eat of that bread and
immodesty and murder I wonder that either Mr. B. or any other considerate man that knows how persons go into bathes frequently should imagine so evil of a persons going into the water but once in course habit in a penitent form not without grave company not staying a minute in the water that it could not be performed without such danger as Mr. B. would possesse people with in the second part of his book chap. 12. 13. His satyrical I had almost said scurrilous quips I let passe I did not charge Mr. B. with endeavours to drive me or others out of the land or destroy us but I think the instigators to the ordinance against Heresies have had such minds And whereas he saith page 247. I tell him of his danger and elsewhere that I threaten him is a suggestion that I cannot yet ghesse whence it should arise The citation out of his book sect 3. of my Antidote was to shew M. B. paraphrased Mat. 28. 19 to like purpose as I do That the untruths he chargeth me with page 248. 252. were not such is shewed before The matter of the fourth fift sixt and seventh sections being argumentative is to be referred to the first part of his book Page 257. Mr. B. applies that to one term of calling some Sects which I said of the rest of his discourse especially the accusation of societies proving wicked that it hath a manifest tincture of reviling He chargeth my conscience as having a flaw for insinuating that he called all Independents a Sect and that for denying the power of a Synod to excommunicate whereas he plainly limited his speech to that Independency which gives the people to govern by vote which is the same with separatism To which I reply I took it and do still that in the books of Independents it is their received tenet that excommunicating however it be not without officers yet is in the people from Mat. 18. 17. but that whence they are named Independents by Mr. Her'le and others is from denying superiority of Synods in governing and appeales to them and if a Sect then from thence as their distinguishing tenet However for the tenet of the peoples governing by vote I know no reason why they should be called a Sect rather then their opposites The excommunication which the Scripture speaks of so farre as I discern is no where made a part of government or of the Elders office any more then the Peoples In antiquity it 's apparant out of Cyprian c. that the people had a great hand in Elections Excommunications Absolutions Nor is a person a Separatist for that tenet but for dividing practises other things in that section are answered before To that page 259. of my logick I say he is mistaken in it I know this water to be cold because I feel its coldnesse this person to be a false teacher because I hear from him false doctrine The subject is not the suppositum as a substance but as a substance with its adjunct I prove not a wall to be a wall by its whitenesse seen but a white wall and this is not idem per idem The Apostle shews the evil lives of Hereticks for better prevention of their practises not to prove them Hereticks A ravening wolfe signifies neither error of doctrine nor visiousnesse of life but the effect or end of the persons described to wit destroying souls often also lives and estates That the false Prophets have sheepes clothing that is fair shews though inwardly are ravening wolves overthrows Mr. Bs. interpretation he pleades so much for except he think they can have sheeps clothing that is fair shewes of a good life who are openly wicked so as by the fruits of their wickedness they may be known which me thinks comes near a contradiction Mr. B. often sayes he takes me not to be an Heretick nor a meer Anabaptist except they divide the Church But he taking me for a divider of the Church for my error must of necessity take me for an Heretick if he stand to the descriptions he there saith he likes so that I cannot nor any Anabaptist or Independent long look to be out of his black roll of Hereticks Page 260. Mr. B. saith I make his question an affirmation and so doth he himself that tells us it speaks what a rarity it is according to his reading that any society of Anabaptists hath not proved wicked But I make it a peremptory determination where as it is neither omnino dubitantis nor yet determinantis but provo cantis Nor did I say it was a most peremptory determination but no man will I think take his interrogation for any other then a most peremptory determination which I think is true the words carrying a plain shew of a peremptory determination and being written to the people of Kederminster were not likely to be a provocation of Anabaptists to look over their own intelligence but a resolute assurance that there hath not been known a society of Anabaptists since the world first knew them that proved not wicked And therefore I put no false sense on his words as he falsely chargeth me nor do I as he saith call him dog I onely say like a right-English mastive he flies in the face c. not comparing him to a dog but his bold act to the manner of English mastives boldness whereby he is no more called dog then Christ is thief when he saies I come as a thief Revel 3. 3. To that which he saith page 261. of my cheat I have answered To his question Did no body contradict Infant-baptism for so many hundred years and yet is it an innovation I answer yes and I think Mr. B. will say of keeping an Easter Lent-fast Infant-communion Monkish profession Episcopacy at least some of these are innovations not contradicted for so many hundred years For his testimonies page 262 263 264. for the antiquity of Infant-baptism to the chiefest of them answer hath been made that the eldest of them is not till the third age that they onely urge it and practise it in case of evident danger of present death to save from perishing that the conceit of peculiar privilege to Infants of believers is a late innovation some of them are meerly impertinent without Mr. Bs. vain infernece some Heathenish rites of expiating Infants are unseeming Mr. B. to allege they being from Satan My testimonies page 264. of Bernard Petrus Cluniacensis Eckbertus are vindicated before Strabo doth not say that afore Austins time Infant-baptism was not but onely in the first times nor is it likely that he did mistake Austins age 10 years That the Copies put 25. for 35. Nor do I think he was mistaken in the reason of Austins deferring his Baptism but that the reason he gives was one though not the sole reason of it and the testimony of Walafridus Strabo though later then Augustine yet he giving himself to search out and to write of antient rites is
Tribe young or old men and women are gathered by the Apostles and other Preachers as Moses did gather together the Jewish Nation Exod. 19. Deut. 29. But saith Mr. B. 1. Hath he noi commanded to Disciple Nations I answer yes to make Disciples of all Nations by Preaching the Gospel to every Creature as it is Marke 16. 15. but no where by civil authority to gather a whole City Countrey or Tribe and to draw them into a National or City Covenant together old and young but to offer Christ and to baptize so many as are willing to embrace him 2. Saith Mr. B. Hath not the Father promised to give the Heathen or Nations for his inheritance and the uttermost parts of the earth for his possession Psal. 2. and that Nations shall serve him Answ. He hath and it is fulfilled but not in Mr. Bs. sense as if one whole Nation City Countrey or Tribe were gathered together in the manner Moses brought into Covenant all the Jewish Nation but as the Apostle speaks by ministring the Gospel Rom. 15. 16. the Gentiles that is believers among them are an offering to God glorifie God ver 9. praise him trust in him ver 11 12. so as it was foretold in Abraham all Nations should be blessed which is expounded Gal. 3. 7 8 9. Rom. 4. 17 18. believers of all other Nations as well as Jews 3. And that the Kingdoms of the world shall become the Kingdomes of the Lord and his Christ Ans. I reade those words Rev. 11. 15. but I find the time of fulfilling to be when the seventh Angel hath founded which some say is not till the world to come So Mr. Seager of the world to come part 1. sect 8. And this is not improbable from ver 18. and Revel 10. 6 7. The New Annot faith thus Antichrist is weakened and Christ hath begun to take the Kingdome out of his hand and shall have a visible Church like an Empire in all the known world and that to the end but that it is not yet 4. And do you not see it fulfilled before your eyes Are not Bewdley Kederminster c. and England till of late as fully Christs Disciple and so Church-members as the Jews were in Covenant with God and so Church-members Answ. If by it be meant the prophecies Psal. 2. 8. and 72. 11. I see them fulfilled though not in Mr. Bs. sense but the prophecie Revel 11. 15. I see not yet fulfilled I see at Bewdley Kederminster in England people who generally are called Christians but I do not see that all old and young are Disciples or Church-members or ought to be so accounted or that they were ever brought into such a Covenant as the Jews or-ought to be accounted Church-members by vertue of such a Covenant There is not a word in my writings to that effect Mr. B. chargeth me that I would not have Princes and Masters do what Abraham and Moses did in bringing the people of Israel into ' Covenant with God but I say that should they do so yet the Infants are not thereby to be accounted visible Church-members in a Christian Church The commission to gather the Christian Church was not given to the Emperour but Apostles The Apostles it is true were sent to proselyte them that were no Chuch-members and yet they were sent to proselyte or in the phrase of Scripture to Disciple the visible Church-members of the Jewish Church as well as the Gentiles What I said I still say that the different Church-call of the Jewish and Christian Churches is enough to shew a different Church-state and consequently the argument is not good from the Jewish Infants visible Church-membership to ours If Mr. Bs. judgement be not so commandable as to assent to what I say it is so much the lesse commendable The speech of Mr. Herle and the jest out of Matthiolus are misapplied When he saith why may we not write plainly against one anothers judgement by a loving consent He may know that it was my desire it should have been so that it was not so was from himself He that believes he hath shewed love in this his writing is very credulous For the rest if Mr. B. will have the patience and indifferency of judgement which is meet he may see an answer to his allegations about Gods mercy to Infants and the repeal of their visible Church-memship If he remain in his opinion which I much fear knowing him sowell as I do and I in mine we must leave our writings to others to judge especially to that day which shall declare every mans work being revealed in fire In the mean time sleighting his vain curse which is page 217. my prayer for him as my self is that we may do nothing against the truth but for the truth FINIS Cyprian and the other Collegues which in the Council were present to the number of 66. to brother Fidus greeting MOst dear brother we have read thy letters in which thou hast signified concerning one Victor a Presbyter that Therapius our Collegue in a time not ripe and with overmuch haste hath granted him peace before he had done full penance and satisfied the Lord God against whom he had offended Which thing hath enough moved us that he hath departed from the authority of our Decree that before the allowed and full time of fatisfaction and without the asking and privity of the common sort no infirmity urging nor necessity compelling peace should be granted to him But upon counsel weighed long with us it was enough to chide Therapius our Collegue in that he rashly did this and to have instructed him that for hereafter he do no such thing Yet we have not thought that the peace however once granted by a Priest of God should be taken away and for this cause we have permitted Victor to use the Communication granted to him But for what belongeth to the cause of Infants whom thou hast said should not be baptized within the second or third day in which they were born and that the law of antient Circumcision is to be considered so as that thou shouldest not think him that is born should be baptized and hallowed within the 8. day it seemed farre otherwise to all in our Council For unto this which thou thoughtest should be done none of us have agreed but all have rather judged that the mercy and grace of God is to be denied to none that are born of mankind For when the Lord in his Gospel saith The son of man came not to destroy mens souls but to save them as much as in us lies if it may be no soul is to be lost For what is wanting to him who is once formed in the wombe by the hand of God For to us and in our eyes they which are born do seem to receive growth according to the course of secular dayes but what ever things are made by God are perfected by the Majesty and work of God the Maker Lastly