Review of the State of Christians Infants, Treatise
Mr. Danvers his Third Reply Conſidered, at Mr. Hutchinſon's Invitation.
BEfore the Receipt of Mr. Hutchinſons Letter, I knew nothing of Mr. Danvers his Third Reply, which I have now peruſed: Though by his Concluſion one would think that he took open Rebuke for a tolerable, yea acceptable, friendly office; yet finding how impatiently he receiveth it, and that the detection of his Voluminous Untruths doth but occaſion him to defend them, and to ſtir up all his Forces to render the Reprover odious, and ſo doth but exaſperate his Diſeaſe, I thought my ſelf diſobliged from any farther attempts to bring him to Repentance; And thoſe that yet need more to ſave them from the belief of his Hiſtoricall Miſreports, are perſons that I have not leiſure enough to ſatisfie.
I again profeſs, that the experience of theſe laſt fifteen years, of the ſtrange incredibility of ſome men on both extreams, [the Violent and the Dividing] about notorious matters of Fact, hath done more to bring me to great unbelief of all mankind, ſo far as I find them pre-engaged by Contention, and by a Carnal, or a ſideing factious Intereſt, than all that ever I before had read, or heard, or ſeen: I ſhould once have thought that I had been injurious to humanity it ſelf, if I had thought ſuch men as incredible as ſome have now declared themſelves in Print to be: I ſcarcely now believe any meer humane Hiſtory any farther than the agreement of men of contrary minds and intereſts, in matters of common and eaſie notice, giveth a kind of natural evidence to it, beyond what it borroweth from the honeſty of the Writer; or at leaſt farther than the footſteps of very great Candor, Conſcience and unbyaſſed impartiality ſhall ſpeak more for my belief, than the Authors moſt confident words or Oaths. And herein modeſt men, and diſintereſted Peacemakers are now believed by me, before all the greateſt, the learned'ſt, and the moſt zealous Contenders in the world. Davids ſaying, that All men are Lyars, and Pauls [Let God be true, and every man a Lyar,] were too much overlooked by me, till men themſelves had told me what they are; and warned me to ceaſe from man, as vanity.
Mr. Danvers his accuſations were partly of ſuch publick parties (the ancient Churches, the Novatians, the Donatiſts, the old Brittains, the Waldenſes, the Wickliffians, &c.) and partly of ſuch publick Writings (as Auguſtines and many others) as one would think any Scholar that will read the cited Books might ſoon ſee whether he or I be the falſifyer, eſpecially about a practical matter, in which their Judgments could not eaſily be hid from all the Adverſaries about them, no more than from thoſe of their own mind and way.
His accuſation of the Novatians he neither defendeth (that I ſee) nor confeſſeth to be a ſlander; but ſilently paſſeth all the matter by.
His Accuſation (for ſuch it is) of the reſt (for the moſt part at leaſt) he ſtill defendeth. He cannot Repent of it; and I can no more believe him when I have read the Books that are our Records, than I can if he would as fiercely contend, that the Biſhops, or Church of England are Anabaptiſts, becauſe of his accuſation of the now Biſhop of Lincoln. But ſhould I be ſo injurious to the Reader and my ſelf as to caſt away precious time in again and again anſwering his untrue Citations and expoſitions of words which are before our eyes? and which neither his word or mine can ſatisfie any Reader of, who muſt know the truth by the Books themſelves! when he tells men of my writing for Popery, Conformity, &c. can his yea or my nay go for proof with any that is in doubt which of us ſaith true? Muſt not the peruſal of the full words decide the Caſe? And ſo it muſt as to his Accuſations of the ſeveral Churches and Parties in queſtions: And if his Believers would be perſwaded that the Welſh Tongue is the common Language of England, if he do but vehemently affirm it, and revile ſuch as contradict him, I could not help it, nor muſt I write books about it, as long as he hath leiſure, Ink and Paper to hold on. His Exclamations of the unſatisfactories of theſe general anſwers, (or refuſals) ſhall not tempt me to caſt away the little relicts of my time, in numbring and diſproving all the Vntruths that he hath written, and will write. By what Law am I condemned to ſuch a Drudgery? The very firſt Paragraph of this his third Reply hath more than one or two.
But the chief ſubſtance of his Book is his reiterated accuſation of my words in my firſt Book, that [many then Baptized naked] for which, as a heynous Calumny, I muſt Repent. Readers, my Conſcience telleth me that Repentance is ſuch an excellent healing Duty, that I ſhall loath my ſelf ſo far as I find my ſelf unwilling of it? But is it poſſible for a man to Repent of all that the ſeveral contradicting Sects (Papiſts, Quakers, Anabaptiſts, &c.) call him to Repent of, when that is beſt with one ſide which is the worſt to divers others? We are openly agreed, 1. That the Baptizing naked is not the uſual way of the Anabaptiſts in England. 2. That it was not the way of the moſt of them when I wrote that book. 3. That we heard of none with us in England that for any conſiderable time continued it. The Queſtions remaining are 1. Whether when I wrote thoſe words, the common Fame or Report of the Countrey where I lived took it not for as certain that divers then in ſome places did it, as the moſt Scriptural way, as that the Quakers Quaked, and that the Ranters Swore? 2. Whether ever any Anabaptiſt that then was acquainted with me, yea or any one perſon denyed it to my hearing or knowledge? 3. Whether Mr. Tombes denyed it when I wrote it? All theſe I will no farther trouble the Reader about, than to tell him that he neither doth, or can diſprove me, and ſhould I recant what I ſaid of theſe three queſtions, I muſt tell three downright Lyes? And is that a ſafe way of Repenting? 4. But let the queſtion be whether I did well to believe it? I anſwer, I believed it not as a Divine Revelation, but as a Humane Report; which conſtrained a proportionable belief, which it was not in my power to deny? 5. But ſhould I not yet disbelieve it? Anſwer, I am more willing to do it than not, but I am not able: I do believe (according to the meaſure of the aforeſaid evidence) that it is a Truth? I cannot believe the contrary: I hear not a word to warrant me to disbelieve it: it is not in my power, and I muſt not lie, to ſay that I believe it not. 6. But the next Queſtion is, Did I not ſay more, or mean more at leaſt, than that it was but [at that time] [the practiſe of many but not of moſt, or their ordinary way] and that I knew it no otherwiſe than by uncontradicted Fame?] Anſwer, Either I did ſay or mean more, or I aid not. If I did, I hereby renounce it, and declare that I wronged them. If I did not, (as I know I did not) to ſay I did were to lie; and is it worthy his writing a Book to tempt a man to lie?
If he will prove that I ſaid more, the words muſt decide it if; that I meant more, he is not to be believed of my heart, as if he knew it better than I.
But he proveth it (that I intended them all) contrary to my moſt expreſs words. 1. He ſaith, it is my ſcope and deſign? 2. From my Arguments, which take in the whole Party? 3. From the Inſtance, &c. Reader, If I were to teach a man to underſtand my book, before he wrote againſt it, I ſhould have ſome little hope of true dealing in his Report, how weak ſoever his Arguing were: But when I muſt deal with a man that underſtandeth not plain Engliſh, becauſe partiality will not ſuffer him, and will not learn to underſtand what he doth not, and yet cannot forbear a publick contradicting it, till he underſtand it, would it not be a ſlavery to be tyed to write againſt ſuch a man as long as he would write, ſhould I live ſo long? I joyned together, as the mode of their Re-baptizing, their doing it in cold water or Rivers, ſome naked, and the reſt (the uſual way) next naked, that is, in a linnen Shift, or Veſt, only to cover them. I took that which in the hotter Countreys was ſafe, to be in our frigid Countreys a breach of the ſixth Commandment; and can prove, that he that ſaid, [Go learn what that meaneth, I will have Mercy and not Sacrifice] would not have plunging over head in Cold Water, to be the ordinary way with us. I ſuppoſed that as among the naked Indians, uſe maketh nakedneſs a leſs provocation to Luſt, than it would be here; ſo alſo in the hotter Regions, of the world, their appearing publickly next to naked, in one linnen Veſt or Shift, was leſs unſeemly than it would be here: David might dance ſo before Ark, though Michel thought it impudent; and they might uſually were ſuch Garments as would not have kept their Nakedneſs from being ſeen, if they had gone by ſteps upon the Altar; and ſuch as if it were but turned aſide would leave their nakedneſs as Noah's was to ſpectators: Cuſtome is of great ſignification in ſuch things. But I appeal to common Modeſty with us in England, whether it would not be a breach of the ſeventh Commandment to come to Church, or walk the Streets, or appear in Aſſemblies in our Shirts and Smocks? Now this man firſt feigneth me to ſay that it is Adultery, becauſe I ſay it is a breach of the ſeventh Commaadment, as if nothing but Adultery were there forbidden?
Next to prove that I mean it of them all, that [They Baptize naked] he alledgeth that I ſaid, that all or moſt did it, [naked or next naked] and, are theſe all one? pray doth he not diſprove himſelf? Is it not ſure that he that ſaith, [ſome Baptize naked, and others next naked] doth not ſay of all [that they Baptize naked] What ſhould one ſay to ſuch a man as this?
But he ſaith, that [ſome naked and next naked are much at one.] Anſwer, That's but another of his Untruths, from whom they flow ſo eaſily that I may not number them. A groſſer and leſſer breach of the ſeventh Commandment are not much at one with me. I never ſaid or thought that they were. If I had, is that any thing to the queſtion in hand? Can he prove that I ſaid [All Baptized naked?] if I had ſaid, that I took [next naked] to be as bad.
2. But de facto, doth he deny the latter? it ſeems here that he doth. I profeſs alſo that I go in this but by Common Fame. If they Baptize not next naked in one linnen Shift, I never heard it denyed till now? I renounce the mention of it if it be untrue; but it is not in my power to disbelieve it. But becauſe I never ſaw it, if he will ſay that they Baptize them all in hats, bands and cuffs, I will not peremptorily deny it.
But he will prove that I meant not [Common Fame] becauſe I add [Experience, &c.] But ſure I never alledged my own Experience.] I never ſaw any of them Baptize: I never heard a Ranter Blaſpheme, (though I have read Letters full of it;) nor I never ſaw a Quaker quake. If you ſay that they never did ſo, I will not prove it. But how ſhall other mens Experiences be known to me, but by Report or Fame? And I think that the more common and uncontradicted the Report is, it is the more probable.
I have not leiſure to go on at this rate with ſuch a Writer; I again profeſs that I had rather Retract what I ſaid than not, if I could do it without lying, but I cannot. But, Reader, what's all this to the Queſtion, Whether our Infants are in Covenant with Chriſt, or Viſible Members of his Church? Is it not a meer Diverſion?
But the laſt Queſtion is, Have I not wronged their Cauſe by wronging the Perſons, in believing Fame, that ever any of them Baptized naked? Anſwer, 1. I have not the books now to peruſe, (men of his Spirit, though of another Opinion, have diſabled me at this time from confuting him by books.) But I am paſt doubt, that I have read of their Baptizing naked in forreign Writers.
2. But, Reader, Could one that had read this Book of his againſt me, for this paſſage as injurious, believe if he had not ſeen his other Books, that it is this ſame man himſelf, who in his two former Books maintaineth it againſt us, that for many hundred years, Baptizing naked was the Churches Practiſe? Was this no injury? Or ſhall the ſame man take me as injurious for believing the ſame of ſome of them for a very little time? I hope I have almoſt done with ſuch Diſputers.
As to what he ſaith of Mr. Lambes and Mr. Allens. (who have left them,) exceedingly as he hears, blaming me for broaching, much more for defending this ſlander.] I anſwer, 1. His Hereſay's have quite loſt their credit with me: I believe it never the more for his hearing it: They never blamed me to my face: and I think that they are men likely to do it in that friendly way, if any way; and therefore at leaſt I may hear from them hereafter; and if ſo, their reproof ſhall be willingly conſidered. If it be true, I ſuppoſe it is, becauſe they have miſtaken me as he doth, as if I had ſpoken that of their ordinary practice, which I mentioned only as the practice of ſome only at that time; which was as ſhort and confined as the Quakers quaking. 2. Is it a ſlander of Mr. Tombes his citing Voſſius, or of Voſſius cited by him, to ſay that ſome Baptized naked in former times? 3. Is it then no ſlander of Mr. Danvers to ſay, and ſtiffly defend it, that the ancient Churches ordinarily did ſo? Doth he who ſo pleadeth for Immerſion, becauſe it was the firſt way, now take it for well done in the ancient Churches, and an intollerable ſlander that it ſhould be ſaid to have been done of any of late?
He next cometh to defend his falſe Report of a Paper which I read to ſome people that I preached to: The firſt hour that ever I ſpake to them, I openly profeſſed that we met not there as ſeparating from the publick Aſſemblies, but for the neceſſary inſtructing of the people, who elſe had none, nor any publick Worſhip of God: The Pariſh of Giles where I lived, and the Pariſh of Martins where I preached are ſuppoſed to have 1000000. ſouls or neer: of theſe it is ſuppoſed that not above 6000. can hear in the Pariſh Churches at the moſt (and the incumbent of one had not officiated at all for many years:) it grieved me to think that while the King aintainerh a Corporation and Revenew for propagating the Goſpel in America, and the Jeſuites are juſtly praiſed for doing ſo much to propagate it in the Eaſt Indies, we ſhould ſluggiſhly ſuffer America and the Indies to come ſo neer Whitehall, and ſo famous and Religious a City as this, to be (to ſo great a number) without any publick worſhip of God, while Mahometans are not quite without. Therefore to my great coſt I preached neer a year over the Market-houſe at St. James's. And when the Informers began with me, and accuſed me to the Juſtices of meeting contrary to the Act againſt Conventicles, I gave my Reaſons to ſome Juſtices, and others, in word and writing, to prove that neither I, nor ſuch others, might be judged breakers of that Act, becauſe we did not meet to worſhip God with any other manner of Worſhip than what is according to the Liturgy and Practice of the Church of England▪ For though we did not ſo much as they, we did nothing but what they do: For we did but Read the Scriptures, Pray freely in the Pulpit, and Preach the Chriſtian Doctrine; and all this the Church of England doth: And though I did not read my ſelf, but another did it, it was becauſe I was not able, which if I were, I would do it. And expecting quickly to have the Cauſe come to a Tryal, I wrote the ſum of this in a Paper, and read it openly, and then gave it the Clerk, that none might miſreport me: And though ſome able and pious Lawyers that peruſed my large Reaſons, thought that they were very uſeful for others as well as me, yet the noiſe and murmuring of ſome Women firſt, and ſuch as Mr. Danvers after, ſent abroad my Reproaches for it through City and Countrey, with ſo many falſe additions, and ſo much diſpleaſure, as added ſomewhat to my former knowledge of the difference between Sectarian and Chriſtian Zeal. Surely theſe men do think themſelves very grear haters of ſin, who would render that man odious as a heynous ſinner, who doth but ſpeak thoſe words to vindicate himſelf and others from the accuſation of Informers, which he verily believeth to be true and uſeful: when a man hath for about fourteen years, not only preached without pay, but at many ſcore pounds a year charges; when he hath never taken away one of their Communicants from any Parochial, or Non-conformiſts Church, nor meddled with either Sacrament, nor ever ſet up his own preaching againſt theirs, but deſired to preach to a few of thoſe many thouſands that have none at all, nor have any publick worſhip of God, no not ſo much as the reading of the Liturgy; and when for endeavouring this in languiſhing and pains, by great charge and labour, his utter ruine, if not death, ſhall be unreconcileably endeavoured by one party, and for not hateing that which is good in the Liturgy as much as they, or upon every ſurmiſe of a diſeaſed brain, ſhall become the common obloquy of another, (the Sectarians, and the Women that are infected by their diſeaſe:) Reader, judge whether the true belief of Gods acceptance, and better than the Hypocrites reward, be not neceſſary to keep ſuch a one from imitating Jonas, and quietly leaving men to their beloved ignorance and ſin? and whether, if we had not many ſoberer men between them, that are for neither of the extreams, it would not be harder preaching in England than in America? Yet with moſt hearty thanks to God, I muſt ſay, that notwithſtanding the oppoſition of both theſe extreams, God hath abundantly ſweetned his ſervice to me; by the ready reception and profit of ſuch people, as men ſo much labour to keep in darkneſs.
I ſpeak all this with reference to Mr. Danvers his following words alſo of my preaching in the Pariſh Churches.
The foreſaid paper of mine he publiſhed in his laſt Book, as matter of Accuſation; and did it, according to his cuſtome, falſely: I briefly mentioned his falſification: He now Printeth that Copy as received from his Bookſeller, in one Column, and on the other, another, called [The Copy obtained from the Original.] to ſhew that there is but two words difference that is, His Copy ſpake of my Reading the Liturgy, and mine ſpake of my own Reading what my Aſſiſtant read (the Scripture.) But 1. If this be all one with him, are we not ſo to judge of his other Expoſitions? I know one whoſe overſight in writing uſually lyeth in leaving out [not] and [un.] and what is one Syllable? The Kings Printer, who as Dr. Heylin ſaith, was Fined in the Star-chamber for Printing [Thou ſhalt commit Adultery.] left out but one poor ſyllable. But he did not juſtifie it as Mr. Danvers doth. 2. If it be his excuſe to lay the Copy on his Bookſeller, may we not take it alſo for his anſwer, that all the untruths that he hath ſaid of the Novations, Donatiſts, Brittains, Auguſtine, &c. he had them from—ſome body of as great authority as his Bookſeller; and then all's well. 3. But, Reader, doſt thou not expect that at leaſt he ſhould now ſay true after ſo much warning, and that this ſhould be a true Copy which he ſaith, without exception, is [obtained from the Original.] I aſſure thee on the word of a Chriſtian, it is yet ſo far from being true, that divers lines, even a conſiderable part of the writing is left out. Take heed therefore to thy belief hereafter. Believe not every Spirit, nor every man that raileth at others as leſs wiſe or ſpiritual than he; what wonder if he untruly tell us of the opinion of whole parties, Novatians, Donatiſts, &c. and tell us of whole Books that have not one word of what he affirmeth, but ſomewhat for the contrary, when he will not only falſifie my own writing, even a few lines, but defend his ſo doing againſt my ſelf that have the Copy by me, and that by a greater falſhood than the firſt. Are this mans Citations to be credited?
Yet he goeth on and averteth that [there is not another Syllable different] And he will prove moreover, that▪ If I meet not on pretenſe of any Religious exerciſe in other manner, &c. I muſt accordingly read the Common-prayer my ſelf. Anſwer, So ſaid the Informers, but were I at the Seſſions upon my Appeal, I would be bold to deny it, and to ſay that he that ſaith but the Lords Prayer, doth not uſe another manner of Worſhip than the Church? and that to do leſs, is not to do that which is of another manner. But if I miſtake in ſo thinking, it followeth not that I prevaricate, or mean diſhoneſtly, as he inſinuateth.
But if he want more matter of Reproach, or any ſuch as he, I will voluntarily give him more, ſo careleſs am I of ſuch Cenſures: I do therefore tell him that I am no greater an Adverſary to the Liturgy than were the old Non-conformiſts, Mr. Hilderſham, who perſwadeth men to come to the beginning of it; Mr. Knewſtubs that conſtantly read much of it; Mr. Ball, that wrote the Tryal of Separation; Mr. Bradſhaw, Mr. Paget, Mr. Gifford, and ſuch others that did the like: And that, as before the Wars, when I was accounted a Non-conformiſt, I did (at Bridgnorth) uſually read moſt of the Lords dayes part of the Liturgy, (and as in 1660. the Miniſters of London conſented ſo to do) to would I do again, on the ſame terms: And that if my Nonconformity did conſiſt only in the contrary, I ſhould have little reaſon to blame the Conformiſts for the ſharp Cenſures which they write againſt me.
He keepeth conſtantly in his way, and addeth[—It is confidently affirmed by ſome, that Mr B. hath lately in Hartfordſhire or Buckinghamſhire, in order to obtain the Pulpit (where he ſeveral times Preached in publick) read the Common prayer, or at leaſt ſome part of it, out of the Service book.]
Anſw. 1. Who is it that this man converſeth with whoſe confident reports he publiſhed? Are his Reporters infected with his Diſeaſe? 2. Why doth he Print this confident Report if not to be believed? And if ſo, alas, will he put no bounds to this ſin, while he thinks that he cryeth down our ſin? I thank God for my time, ſtrength and liberty, I did preach fourteen times in ſeveral Pariſh Churches of thoſe Counties, after thirteen years excluſion from the Pulpits of ſuch Churches; and it is not in the power of this mans pen to make me repent of it. But in all thoſe times, I never read either one word of Common-prayer, nor one Chapter or Pſalm, ſave once, when I Preached where there was no one to Read, I read the Scripture as I would have done at home. Will not the preſence of thouſands of witneſſes ſecure a man from the forgery of any unnamed Slanderer? No, it will not: As after our Savoy Conference untruths were Printed againſt me, contrary to the moſt notorious evidence of Writings and Witneſſes; ſo ſometimes where I Preach in London, it is not the multitude of Witneſſes that ſecureth me from the groſs falſe reports of this kind of Auditors, (who have not ſo much kindneſs for their own ſouls as either to ſtay away, or forbear their untruths.) No wonder then if witneſſes at 26 years, or 26 miles diſtance, or neer, be no ſecurity againſt ſuch a one as Mr. Danvers, or his confident Reporters.
He adds, [Though it is alſo ſaid that he hath obtained that publick liberty by vertue of a Licenſe he hath from the Arch Biſhop of Canterbury: But whether it be one formerly granted by him, when the Biſhop of London before the Act of Conformity, (when by the Biſhop of Worceſter he was Silenced in thoſe parts) or ſince is worthy inquiry?
Anſw. It's like you have enquired, and found that it was the former; if not, I tell you now: But to ſome it is almoſt as hard to believe a Truth that is againſt their Spleen, as to ſpeak it.
He next ſaith, as the Expoſition of my Sufferings, [viz. To fly from his place and Charge, if not to avoid the Croſs of Christ, and to ſhun a ſuffering Witneſs when ſo loudly call'd thereto]
Anſw. 1. Did you hear his caſe, or do you judge before you hear it? 2. Theſe Paſſages are too conformable to the reſt. How prove you that it was a flight? How prove you that it was from my Charge? (Reader, it is fifteen years ſince I had any Charge, of any one Congregation, more than over the reſt of the Land, unleſs my dwelling made my Neighbours become my Charge? I had no Charge of any but my Family there, unleſs my great Charge in Preaching to them for nothing, and paying aſſiſtant, &c. and building a place in hope of more ſuch Labour, made them my Charge? And if I give an hundred pounds to one man, when I owed him no more than others, doth that make him for the future become my Charge?) And how proveth he that I was lowdly called to ſuffer? Or that it was the Croſs of Chriſt that I avoided? This man is againſt dictating! I would he were more againſt untruths! My Sufferings have been enough to ſhew what men are that procured them, but to me ſo ſmall, that except my reſtraint from Preaching, I account them not worthy of the name of the Croſs. But yet I will hope that he will ſo far ſuſpend his Cuſtome, as not to ſay, that any Sectarian Preacher in England, Anabaptiſt or Separatiſt, (to go no farther) that loſt not his Life, hath lost more of the World, by his meer Non-conformity, than I have done?
He ſends my Conſcience here to divers Scriptures, 2 Cor. 6. 4, 5, 6. Acts 20. 11, 12, 13. Mat. 10. 38, 39. John 10. 12, 13. Mat. 23. 2, 3, 4. I am willinger to hear theſe Texts than him. I ſuppoſe he meaneth not thoſe that I before minded Mr. Hutchinſon of, of Chriſts early flight into Aegypt, or his oft avoiding the Jews, in Nazareth, and other parts of Galile, the Wilderneſs, &c. nor his, bidding us when Perſecuted in one City flee to another; nor Pauls being let down the Wall by a Basket; nor the ſcattering of the Diſciples, by the Perſecution at Jeruſalem, nor Pauls Circumciſing Timothy, non his ſhaving his Head for his Vow, nor his Appeal from the Jews to Caeſar, nor his crying out that he was a Phariſee, nor his denying that he had done any thing againſt the Temple or the Law, nor any ſuch like. And if he condemn Chriſt and Paul it will be no ſuffering to them.
The firſt Text tells us that Paul in much Patience bare Afflictions, Neceſſities, Diſtreſſes, Stripes, Impriſonments, &c. Anſw. What thence? Is it Ergo R. B. did ill to come out of the Goal when he was put in? Or that he did ill not to put himſelf in again? Did Paul ſin for not ſcourging and impriſoning himſelf?
The next Text ſpeaketh of Pauls Preaching till midnight? Ergo R. B. ſhould not Preach in the Summer in the Country? I deny the Conſequence. It may be he meant Acts 21. 13. Paul was ready to be bound or die at Jeruſalem! What thence? Ergo he ſinned in avoiding ſuffering oft before? Or, Ergo R. B. ſhould not have gone into the Countrey either for Health or Preaching; yea if it had been in caſe of danger to have Preached to many inſtead of fewer that had often heard him? I deny the Conſequence.
The next Text tells us that we muſt take up our Croſs and follow Chriſt, &c. And what thence? Ergo we muſt make our own Croſs, and take up that inſtead of Chriſts? Or, Ergo, Chriſt ſinned in avoiding the Croſs ſo oft before? Or, Ergo, R. B. muſt go into a Priſon that he may give over Preaching the Goſpel? I deny all theſe. What kin are they to the Text? Have all the Anabaptiſts and Separatiſts lived all this while in ſin, that lived out of Priſon? or that have had maintenance and quietneſs, while R. B. hath been laid in the common Goal, and hunted by one ſort, and reviled by the other? Why will not the perſecution of your Pen or Tongue prove a comfortable ſuffering for the Truth, as well as if I pleaſed your Spleen in preferring a choſen Priſon before a Pulpit?
The next Text tells us, that the Hireling deſerts the Sheep by fleeing. Thus the Quakers alſo talk to me when they call me Hireling. But, Sir, I am not ſo much as a Hireling? much leſs the owner of the Sheep? I would I knew which of theſe two you judge your ſelves to be? for my part I am neither. Chriſt is the Owner? I am not ſo much as the Paſtor of any Flock: And (that I may not diſcourage your contempt, I add) nor ever, that I remember, called to be ſuch theſe 13 or 14 years: Nor have I ſo long taken any Hire. And did Paul flee like a Hireling when he went from places of leſs liberty to other more commodious places to Preach? Did not Pain, Weakneſs, and want of Money for ſo chargeable a work diſable me, my Conſcience would command me (by the motive of Experience) to go about Preaching from place to place, though every d…g in the ſtreets where I paſs, ſhould bark nothing but [Hireling, Hireling.]
The laſt Text is againſt Separation; The Scribes and Phariſees ſit in Moſes his ſeat; all therefore whatſoever they bid you obſerve, that obſerve and do, but do not ye after their works, for they ſay and de not, for they bind heavy burdens, and grievous to be borne, &c. And what from hence? Ergo I ſhould not Preach in the Pariſh Churches? Or is it, Ergo I ſhould have bound heavy burdens for my ſelf? Or is it, that I ſhould not …ave made ſuch for others? This is the likeſt ſenſe; f…r the beſt way of expounding Authors is by ſimilar paſſages. And were not this an untruth it would be non-conformable to the reſt aforeſaid.
But (ſaith he) is not this a ſtrange Paradoxe that he ſhould ſuffer at the rate for a Non-conformiſt at London, and yet act the part of a Conformiſt to ſo high a degree in the Countrey?
Anſw. This is very conformable to the reſt. To Preach in the Pariſh Churches (for his ſtory of Reading the Common Prayer is like his Books) is the high degree of Conformity. This is expoſitory. I now perceive what it is in me to be [for Conformity and againſt it, for Popery and againſt it, for Arminianiſm and againſt it,] as he ſaith. The equivocation maketh all true. I am for the Conformity, and the Popery, and the Arminianiſm of Preaching Chriſts Goſpel in Pariſh Churches (which the Papiſts ſay they ſometime ſaid Maſs in) and for the Conformity and Popery of Infants part in the Covenant of God, for their Baptiſm, and for the reading of Gods Word, for the Creed, the Lords Prayer, and the ten Commandments; and for the Love of Brethren, and the Unity, Peace and Concord of Chriſts Church; however I be againſt that which the world commonly knoweth by the name of Conformity and Popery. O what a high degree of Conformity did the old Non-conformiſts exerciſe in this mans ſenſe! I have lived long to little purpoſe it ſuch a man by the bare names of Conformity, Popery, or Arminianiſm can frighten me out of my Chriſtianity, my Honeſty, my Charity, my Min…ſtry, and my Wits.
Next relating my ſtory with more caution than uſual [with an [If I be not miſinformed:] (O that this ſentence had been twice or thrice in every page of his Books) with ſome truth, ſome miſtake, and more omiſſion, he ſubjoyneth, that [by Proxie (that's his fiction) I ſuffer Impriſonment for a Non-conformiſt in London, and in perſon out doe all the Non-conformiſts by his publick Preaching in the Countrey as a Conformiſt.]
Anſw. 1. Reader, by this you may ſee at what rates we Miniſters muſt do our Maſters work. Woe to us if we Preach not: And if we do, one ſort Impriſon us, and ſeek our Ruine; and the other Revile us, as if our greateſt Duty were our greateſt ſin.
2. You ſee what abundance of Enemies the Preaching of the Goſpel hath, when Satan can ſtir up ſuch men of Zeal to take it for a Crime. Paul might Preach even in the Jews Synagogue: I muſt not in a Pariſh Church.
3. You ſee how certain it is that the two Extreams are much of the ſame Spirit, and that they that moſt cry out againſt Perſecution are oft of a perſecuting mind, when ſuch men as this would ſilence us, or have us give over Preaching to the multitude that moſt need it, as well as others. And ſo would the Quakers.
4. You ſee what they mean that cry down a Comprehenſion: They would not have us Preach in the Pariſh Churches to the needy multitude, unleſs they may have all firſt altered according to their deſire. Thus W Pen called me cruel for deſirng a Comprehenſion as leaving the Quakers to the Dogs: ſo that they would have us all ſilenced, even by thoſe Impoſitions which they themſelves account ſinful, till they and all ſuch have their will.
5 You ſee here what a Reproach theſe men would bring on Non-conformity, and what ſtrong Invitations they give men to Conform, by making Conformity to be Preaching in Pariſh Churches.
6. Or you ſee what need you have inſtead of diſputing longer with ſuch men, to pray God to give them tenderer Cnnſciences, that may fear to multiply Untruths, which thouſands of Witneſſes, (of whom ſome were Anabaptiſts and of other Sects) are ready to confute. Eſpecially to Pray that the Churches, and the peoples ſouls may be delivered from ſuch as would not only Unchurch all mankind till they come to age, but make it a ſinful Conformity than to Preach the Goſpel in the Pariſh Churches.
FINIS.
End of the text · Richard Baxter, Review of the State of Christians Infants (1676)