Second Reply to Baxter, Part 2 · Chapter 2

Second Reply to Baxter · Part 2 · Chapter 2

p. 175CHAP. II. Wherein you have M. Baxters manifold contradictions confirmed.

IN reference to which, M. B. Mr B. justifies himself.expresseth much keenness, telling me, I speak evil of things I understand not, that I am therein guilty of hard-fac't falshoods, confidently obtruded on the ignorant about publick and visible matter of fact; And, though, he hopes, one fearing God, yet erring therein through ignorance, passion and temerity, though it may be he shall be told ere-long, that the most brazen fac't Lyars may be Saints, p. 292.

Then comes to the particulars: And first,Non-conformists not offended with him as he saith. that I speak falsly in saying, Nonconformists are so much offended with those passages in his Christian Directory collected by me, so many having approved thereof both before and since it was printed.

But what cause of offence was thereby given to all Nonconformists and Protestants also, will better appear when we come to the examination of those particulars, and to which we must refer you for an answer to him or any that may flatter him therein.

The next thing he rages at, is,Mr B. fi…st against since for Episcopacy. Mr B. denie; the same. for my confirming that he has been sometimes, as you may find, a great opposer; then, a great defender of Episcopacy; witnessing his contradictious way of writing: Pref. Ed. 1. Concerning which he saith, p. 298. that, This falsho…d did unhappily overslip him; my writing being so full a confutation p. 176of it, that he can have nothing of sense to say to cloak it. As my dispute about Church-Government, published 1658. demonstrates; Either this man knew me, and my writings herein, or not; If not, what a man is this, that dares talk thus confidently and falsly of what he knows not: If he did, then how much more flagitious is his practice, thus to tell the world an untruth, so notorious to himself. He sayth [as you may finde] but never tells you where and when I ever defended the Episcopacy which I had opposed.

The charge made good.In answer whereto, that I may make good my charge and free my self from the hainous crime charged, of being such a flagitious person; you must know in the first place, that by the Episcopacy that I affirm he has so contradictiously been for, and against, I mean that Episcopal Order, Government, Religion and Worship, that, by the Lyturgy, and Canons, has been managed by acts of Parliament in the Church of England by the Prelacy; in distinction from Presbytery, that, by the directory, managed their Government by Ordinance and Act of Parliament.

Then in the next place, I shall shew you; first, what I finde in his writings against the English Prelacy their government and service, (both in their Dioceses and Parishes,) and how as he saith inconsistent, to discipline and Piety, (the ends of government,) and for separation from them.

2dly; How he hath owned and pleaded for, that Prelatical way and Religion he has so opposed and contemned.

p. 177To the first;1. That M. B. opposed the Episcopal Government. a to the opposition he has given to our English Prelacy, that is notoriously to be seen in his Five Disputes (a book yet justisyed and not recanted) out of which I must produce some particular Instances to make good that my first head. Wherein he gives divers Arguments, why the then extruded Episcopacy should not be restored; some of the heads whereof I shall give you, viz. First,M. B's several Arguments against Episcopacy. because it destroyeth, (he tells us,) government it self and the ends thereof: As being impossible to be managed either in the Diocesses in general, or Parishes in particular, where the Minister hath neither power of Excommunication or absolution, all lying in the Bishop: which he makes good by diverse Arguments, p. 32. &c. Secondly, it was a government that gratifyed the Devil and wicked men, p. 36. Thirdly, that it did unavoidably cause divisions. p. 37. Fourthly, The product of Pride, p. 45. Fifthly, Gratifyed lazy Ministers, p. 46. Sixthly, Not of God's institution. p. 48. Seventhly, Contrary to Gods word. p. 51. &c.

And further in his preface, he thus expresseth himself, p. 16. &c. I have here given you some Arguments, to prove your Prelacy, which was cast off, to be against the will of Christ, and the welfare of the Churches: And I shall not believe, that it's Schism, to be against sin and the Churches ruine, No more schism to be against Prelacy then Pope….and therefore just before suggests that we are no more Schismaticks, in being against Prelacy than against Papacy, which by others is thought the best form; And I cannot but admire, to reade in your writings, that Discipline and Piety are p. 178pretended by you, as the thing which you promote, & we (viz. we Presbyters or Puritans, conforming to the Directory);Prelacy destroys piety and discipline. when I am most certain, that the destruction of Piety and Discipline are the very things by which you have so much offended your brethren; and we would heartily come as near you as we can, so that piety and discipline may not be destroyed. We talk not now to you of matters that are known by hear-say: we see, which way promoteth piety, and which destroyeth it: we see, that most of the ungodly in the Land are the forwardest for your waies. You may have almost all the Drunkards, Blasphemers, and ignorant haters of Godliness in the Country to vote for you; and, if they durst, again to fight for you at any time. I know, the common sense of most that are serious in practical Christianity, is against your formal waies of worship in the course you have taken.

Mr B. oppose h the Common-prayer.And in the Savoy-Dispute, p. 9. speaking of the common-Prayer. Cold prayers are like to have a cold return, and therefore even for peace-sake, let us pray more heartily and copiously, than the Common-prayer-book will help us to do. And, whether this be the cause, or whether it be the Common-prayer-book hath never a prayer for it self, we finde that its prayers prevail not to reconcile many sober ferious persons to it, that live in faithful prayer.

5. Disp. 373. To prescribe a form of prayer and to lay a necessity in it as to the thing it self or the Churches peace, and to punish, silence, suspend, excommunicate or reproach as schismaticks the able godly peaceable Ministers and people who dare not use it, is such a sin that ought not to be. And this use p. 179was the great sin of the late Magistrates and Prelates in England, and it is the main difference between their party and others at this day. And p. 376. What intolerable pride is this, for a few Bishops to think so highly of themselves, and so basely of their more judicious Brethren, as if no man must speak to God but in their words. What abundance of ignorant drunken Readers, and other Ministers, were sufferd in England; while the learned, Godly, painful Ministers were cast out, and silenced, and persecuted, because they would not conform to all the forms and ceremonies imposed by the Bishops? And so how many thousand souls may we think are gone to hell through the ignorance or ungodliness of their guides; as if their damnation were more desirable, than their salvation, by the teaching of Ministers that dare not use the Common-paryer-book, and ceremonies? Had not the Church a sure rule and happy order, and unity and peace before your common-prayer-book, and ceremonies were born? why must the Church have no peace but upon such terms? who made this necessity, that all men must be taken for intollerable Schismaticks, that dare not stint themselves in the publick worship by your impositions. Will you not be confounded before God, when these Questions must be answer'd? The Church might have kept both peace, and her Pastors, if you had left all alone as the Apostles left it; and had not turn'd the form of your devotions to be a snare for others; p. 378. If none of these reasons will allay the imperious distemper of the proud, but she must needs, by an usurped legislation, domineer over mens Consciences p. 180and the Church of God; we must leave them to him, who being the Lord and law-giver of his Church is jealous of his prorogative, and abhorreth Idols and will not give his glory to another, and delighteth to put down the proud.

Then, he goes on in the preface, p. 17. The spirit of Prophaness complieth with you, dotes on you, in all places that ever I was acquainted with: bear with plain truth, it is in a cause of everlasting consequence: and p. 18. [owning the worser sort of people may be for Common-prayer, Cure. p. 200.] If a man had but mildly askt a swearer, or a Drunkard why he would be drunk? or had once named scripture or the life to come, unless prophanely: the first word he should hear was [O you are one of the holy Brethren, you would not drink or swear, but you will do worse in secret; It was never a good world since there was so much talk of Scripture and Religion, but the King and the Bishops will take an order with you, and all the Puritans and Precisians in the Land]: I profess upon my common experience, this was the common Language, and these were the men they call'd Puritans, and on such accounts. And what could the Prelats and Preachers of the Land have done more to mens Damnation, than to preach them into a hatred of Puritanism? when it was known by all that lived amongst them that piety was Puritanism in their account, and no man was so free from it, as he that would scorn at holiness, drink and swear, as if he had defyed God. This is true, and England knows it.

And p. 256. It was safer in any place that ever he knew, for men to live in constant swearing, cursing p. 181and drunkenness, than to have instructed a man's family on the Lord's day.

And in Grot. Religion. p. 113.Episcopacy a shadow and shelter to the prophane The cause of their love to Episcopacy is because it was a shaddow, if not a shelter, to the prophane, and did not trouble them with Discipline, and because they troubled and kept under the Puritans, whom they hated; and by not exercising discipline amongst them, your Churches would become the sink of all other Churches about you, to receive the filth they all cast out, and so became so great a reproach to Episcopacy, that would make it vile in the eyes of all sober men; so that a Prelatical Church would in the common account be near-a-kin to an Ale-house or Tavern, to say no more. So that, for my part, were I your enemy, I would wish you a Toleration; but being truly a friend to the Church and you, I shall make a better motion, &c.

Which is railing (saith Dr. PierceD. Pierce complaint of M. B's railing against them and their way. ibid. p. 242.) both without and against reason, as well as beside and against your own knowledge; as if it were your design to be noted for an ill man, and never more to be heeded in what you say. And further p. 220. Complaining against M. B. for reviling of them, saith thus. The ternary of Epethites which you disgorge against the Prelatists, viz. Ignorant, Drunken, Worldly, I shall only leave you to lick up again at leasure, and entreat you, for the future, to leave your railing: The Quaker may thank you for joyning with him in bringing the Priesthood into disgrace.

And further to testifie what a good opinion he had of the Episcoparians, the Dr. further tells p. 182him, p. 59. You had said enough, had you said no more than that you would rather choose to die in the state of David, whilst yet impenitently lying in Adultery and Murther and other deliberate impieties, than in the state of an Episcopal Divine; naming me, whom you acknowledg to be free from any such sin.

And Mr. Bagshaw accusing him of loading the persecuted with reproaches whilst he never mentions their persecutors, viz. the Bishops, but with honour.

Mr. Baxter replyes. If it was possible for y…u to believe your own words, that I never mention them but with honor; I shall think, that there are few things that y u may not possibly believe. Reader, if you peruse the book and yet believe this Author, I am not capable of satisfying thee in this, nor will I undertake it in any thing else. Are these terms of honour: Pref. p. 18. (How long Lord must thy Church and cause be in the hands of unexperienced furious fools who know not what holiness or healing is, but think that victory over mens bodies must be the cure of their souls, and that hurting them is the way to win their love. If Mr B. did not mean the Bishops herein, he is desired to explain himself, which seems so to be understood.

And these are some few instances; which may, I think, prove that Mr B. hath writ against the Episcopal way to the purpose; which he affirms doth destroy government and the ends thereof; gratifyes the Devil and wicked men; destroys piety and discipline; a shelter and harbour to p. 183all manner of vice and impiety; upholds formal waies of worship; cold unprevailant prayers in their common-prayer; a filthy sink, near a kin to an Ale-house or Tavern if not a— That neither the Diocesan or Parish Church can possibly maintain order or Discipline. No more Schism to oppose it, than the pacacy.

And truly I think, if these things be so which Mr B. hath affirmed, the Bishops themselves may be made Judges whether they ought to be reputed finful dividers, that separate from them and their Churches.

Having thus proved the first part,2ly That M. B. hath spoken for the Episcopal way he wrote against. the opposition he has made against Episcopacy; let us see, in the next place, what is to be gathered from his own writings, and the writings of others, to prove that he hath spoken for the Episcopacy he hath so contemned and vilifyed. Not to insi…t upon the Owning given to the present Bishops, and Archbishops in the Savoy-conference, viz. in calling them The special Guides, and Right-Revcrend fathers of the Church.

We shall begin with an in…tance he himself gives us, out of the Church told, 1 M. B. himself Proves It.p. 14. speaking of his book of the 5. Disput. o… …overnment, saith, Is it not a strange fate that th…t po…r Book incurreth, that the men of both sides …ead it as for them, and commend it, whilst they condemn the Author, as if he were himself against it. The reverend Bishop wh…m Mr. Bagshaw wrote against (viz. the Bishop of Worcester), alledged it in the greatest audience, before his Majesty, Dukes, Lords and Bishops, with no less commendation than p. 184these words [that no man hath spoken better of this than Mr. Baxter] And now Mr. Bagshaw citeth it with applause, the Bish…p is for my Book Mr. Bagshaw is for it, &c. Mr. Bashaw concluding it seems, as I do, that Mr. B. had writ much against Episcopacy, and the Bishop concluding that in the same book he had said much for it, and which I think is a knot easily untyed, both being very true; M.B. in the same Book speaking so much for that which also he wrote so much against, the contradiction not lying in the Reader but the Writer: the verity whereof Dr. Pierce 2 D. Pierce makes it good against him in several particularsdoth further confirm to us, pag. 173. ibid. You have written for and against the Directory as well as for and against the Common-prayer, and against the very covenant which you pretend to be for, and Episcopany it self which you cavenanted against, which may lay a suspicion that you have gotten a dispensation to use your tongue and pen as you see occasion; you having been for and against the Papists, as well as for and against the Presbyterians, or, &c. And, p. 126. Nay what Christian in the world, do not you justify and condemn…, as present interest and passion do chance to s… …ou.

But further, To make good, how farr he justifyed the Church of England he had deserted, he tells you, p. 212. Out of his 5. Dispute, how farr Mr B. who had so much reproach't the Church, declared to own and comply with her: Particalarly, that he professes, not only to be for Prelacy, but that he acknowledged a stinted Liturgy to be lawful and ordinarily necessary, p. 258. That p. 185he was for wearing the Surplice, if the Magistrate commanded it, 409. 410. For kneeling at the Sacrament p. 411. For the Ring in Marriage. 411. For Organs and Instruments of Musick in God's worship. p. 412. For holy-daies as the Magistrate appoints. 412. Yea, for the observation of the great holy-daies of the Church, viz. such as celebrat the memorial of Christs nativity, Circumcision, Fasting, Transfiguration, Ascention, and the like. 417. For the name and form of an Altar, name of Priest, & Sacrifice, and, as he thinks, lawfully. p. 417. that he will not condemn nor say that the Cross in Baptism is unlawful nor make any disturbance about it, &c Then thus applies to him, After all these acknowledgments a… …ore in other places, I wonder how you can excuse your departure from us? Will not you live in communion with us, because we observe the rites and orders of the Church which you eonfess to be very innoeent? or do you abandon what … innocent because we use it?

Now when you have seemed to have profited in coming up so farr, as hath been shewed, to the most disputable things of the Church of England: what can you stand of at so great a distance for? I pray you, saith the Doctor, return to us in time, rather than wish you had done it when 'tis too late.

And, again p. 223. If the Bishops you were against, did differ so little as you pretend from those Bisbops which you are for; why was the publick peace broke for private Interest and ends?

Mr Bazter was for Archbishops as well as they; only would have the power of the Diocesan put into the Parish, and so have a Bishop p. 186in every Parish instead of every Diocese. And though he own'd himself at a great distance from those he calls the new Episcopal Clergy because they so much fell in with the Grotian designe to introduce Popery and Libertinism, yet he had a reverend regard to the old Episcopal Divines. Though to that, Bish. Bramhal tells us, in his book, call'd, The vindication of himself and Episcopal Clergy from the Presbyterian charge of popery, as managed by M. B. in his Grotian-Religion p. 40.

3. Dr Bromhall proves it.He (viz. Mr B.) would perswade us that there are two sorts of Episcopal Divines in England, the old and the new; and that there is much more difference between the old a… …he new, than betwen the old and the Presbyterians. ver. 67. Oh confidence, whither wilt thou? what is the power of prejudice and pride? the contrary is as clear as the light. We maintain their old Liturgy, their old Ordinal, their old Articles, their old Canons, their old Laws, practices, and prescriptions; their old Doctrine and Discipline against them. Then tell us no more, of old Episcopal Divines and new Episcopal Divines; we are all old Divines, one and all; out of his own words, I condemn him. The old sort of Episcopal Divines that receiv'd the publick Doctrine of the Nation in the 39. Articles, Homilies &c. I wh… ly acquitted from my Jealousies, &c.

And as a further confirmation of this his contradiction by owning and pleading for that Episcopal way, worship and service, which before he had so slighted, vilifyed and condemned for their corruption, and that it was no more schism p. 187to oppose them than the Papacy,4. Mr. B. further confirms it. take the following instances.

First, In his zealous espousing and pleading for the Prelatical parish-Ministry,1. owning the Parish Ministry. as great upholders of the Christian Religion and Protestant cause, as well as Bulwarks against Atheism, as his book call'd the Cure of Church divisions, and the three other written in the defence of it, amply testifie. Though he knows they are not otherwise confirmed in their Parish relation, than as they own, and partake of Episcopal Ordination; swea… Canonical obedience in subjection to their Ordinary, the Bishop of the Diocess, and as renouncing the Covenant that so engaged against the Hierarchy; And, whom he had so much disowned for abetters of Popery and Prophaness, and as being so little capable (if they had wills to it) to manage any order, Discipline or Government.

Secondly,2. Communion with the Parish Churches. his voluntary and actual conjunction and confederacy with the Parish-Churches, in their worship and service, though part of the Diocesan Church, and managed in chief by the Bishop thereof, who keeps the keys having the sole power of Excommunication and absolution in his own hand, according to the Canons, as Mr. B. himself informs; and therefore no possibility to attain any Gospel order, Rule or Government therein, and which therefore becomes such a sink of Impiety.

And, that he hath actual fellowship and communion with the Parish Church, as well as prelatical Ministry, may appear.

p. 188First, by his personal communicating with them in their Parish-worship, as agreeable to the Liturgy and practice of the Church of England, as,

First, in maintaining fellowship in the common-prayer, that he might thereby remove scandal and offence, and not harden the separatists in their way of separation, and error, and to displease them and cross their opinion, in his Cure of Chur. Divis. p. 135. though, as he own'd, so many sober serious persons could not for its coldness and formality be reconcil'd to it, which the worst of the people fell in with, and for which so many able godly peaceable Ministers, and people have been silenced, Excommunicated, and reproacht, so intolerably proud were the Bishops to think none must speak to God, but in their words. 5. Disput. p. 373. 376.

Secondly, by his declared Repentance for speaking so sarcastically and deridingly as he hath done of the Common-prayer, Defen. p. 70.

Thirdly, and especially, by that solemn declaration under his hand, to own the worship enjoyned in the Lyturgy, upon the late appearing against Conventicles, which Mr B. left with his Clark at his meeting-house in Pell-mellfields, and which you have word for word as followeth, viz.

M. B's declaration for the Liurgy.Though when I began to preach in this place, I publickly professed that the notorious necessity of the People, who are more then the parish-Church can hold, moved me thereto; and that we met not in opposition to, or separation from, the publique profession: p. 189And that we met not under colour or pretence of any Religious exercise in other manner than according to the Liturgie and practice of the Church of England, and that were I able, I would accordingly read the sume.

Jan. 30. 1674. R. B.

This left by Mr B. with his Clark for all persons to read publickly.

And this is that Richard Baxter, that not only has said so much against the use of Lyturgyes in general, but especially so much against our English Liturgie, in particular, of which I shall give you some account, as I finde them in the proceedings of the Commissioners appointed by the King, for the Review of the book of Common-prayer, printed Anno. 1661. viz.

In P. 11. of the Exceptions, It is said, We have in obedience to his Majesties Commission made enquiry but cannot finde any Records of known credit, concerning any intire forms of Liturgies within the first 300. years, No Liturgy the first 303. years.which are confest to be as the most primitive, so the purest ages of the Church; nor any imposition of Liturgies upon any National Church, for some hundred years after. We find some Liturgy call forms fathered upon S. Basil, S. Chrysostome, and S. Ambrose: but we have not seen any Copyes of them, but such as give us sufficient evidence, to conclude them either wholy spurious, or so interpolated that we cannot make a Judgment what in them hath any Primitive Authority.

And in p. 4. of the second part, Rejoyning to the Bishops Answers, does further say, If a p. 190Liturgie had been Indited by the Apostles for the Churches, being by Ʋniversal officers inspired by the holy Ghost, and of so Ʋniversal use, it would have been used and preserved by the Church, as the holy Scriptures were: No Liturgy in the Apostles times.But so it was not, Ergo no such Liturgy was indited by them for the Churches; the Holy Scripture is silent in these matters; It is apparent, therefore, that the Churches then had no Lyturgie, but took liberty of Extemporate expressions, and spoke in the things of God, as men do in other matters, with a natural plainness and seriousnesse, suiting their expressions to the subjects and occasions.

And though Divisions began to disturb their peace and holy orders; the Apostle, instead of prescribing them a form of Divine Service, for their unity and concord; does exhort them, to use their gifts and liberties aright, and speak the same thing for matter, avoiding disagreements, though they used not the same words.

None in the 2d & 3d ages.Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and others, sufficiently intimate to us, that the Churches quickly after the Apostles did use the personal Abilities of their Pastors in prayer, and give us no hint of any such Liturgie of Apostolical fabrication and imposition, and therefore doubtless there was nothing for it could have been so soon lost or neglected, &c.

60 Exceptions against the Liturgy.And as to the Liturgy of the Church of England, they give in to the Bishops 60. Exceptions, comprehending the mischiefs, absurdities, corruptions, disorders, defects, superfluities, falshoods, and superstitions, that called for Reformation therein; Complaining what a sad cause p. 191of Division it had been, and what calamity it had brought upon thousands who had departed the land, [to avoid its corruptions;] and to the many thousands also, that suffered at home, [rather than be defiled therewith] pag. 7. which varies so little from the Romish forms before in use, and which was so done by designe to win upon the Papists themselves, in the first forming of it, pag. 3. part. 1. Protesting before God and man against the dose of Opium which they therein prescribe, Liturgies unite to a dead Religion.which they tell them plainly tended to cure the disease by extinguishing of life, and to unite us all in a dead Religion. p. 23.

And in pag. 55. tells them, that they may as well make a Coat for the Moon, as to make a Liturgy that shall be sufficiently suited to the variety of places, times, subjects, aecidents, with…ut the Liberty of intermixing such prayers or exhortations, as alterations and diversities require.

And that Mr B. had his hand in chief in the drawing up, and managing this affair, he spares not to tell us again and again; particularly in his last book. Cath. Theol. 13. Conf. p. 285.

That he had been put on to plead the Nonconformists cause in the costliest circumstances, and to bear the greatest odium, viz. In this conference.

Yet this is he, Notwithstanding all these exceptions yet unanswered, who has gone into this Liturgical service, declaring under his hand, That he will not meet under colour or pretence of any Religious exercise in other manner, than according to the Liturgy and practise of the Church of England.

p. 1922. Conforming to the Episcopal Ceremonies.Secondly, By owning and conforming, as Dr Pierce observes, to so many of the most controversal Rites and ceremonies of the Church, and to which you have a greater addition in the Christian Directory, so that by subscribing to the Liturgy and practise of the Church of England, doth not he subscribe to all?

3. By communicating with the Episeopal Parish-Churches, and why.Thirdly, by communicating with the parish-Churches in the Sacrament of the Lord's-supper, receiving upon his knees, as the Church appoints (a Gesture he so much opposeth as anti-scriptural, p. 21. par. 1. of the Savoy Proceedings, p. 75. 2. part. And yet again for kneeling if the Church enjoyn it, Christian Direct. p. 859.) with his declared Reason thereof; And why done in the most publick manner he could in the Citty, at Easter, viz. 1st. because he might not be a scandal to our Governours, nor to any sober conformable men. 2dly, To acquit himself from being a Peevish Divider in following parties, and passion, rather than Conscience: And 3dly, To acquit the Nonconformists of such misjudgings, some being tempted by his omission to think so of them. 2. Admon. p. 77.4. By his severe censuring the the Non-conformists to Episcopacy.

Fourthly, by his zealous endeavours to provoke all the dissenters, and Non-conformists to follow him in this his conformity; as by the manifold Arguments in those said books appears, which he presseth with great earnestnesse; whereof I shall give you a few of them viz.

1. Because they that incline to separation from the parish worship, are peevish, ignorant, self conceited Christians, Cure. p. 140. 212. Though he p. 193tells us before that the most able, conscientious, serious and sober Christians suffered for the same, Grotian Relig. The most learned, Godly, powerful, painful, peaceable men, durst not use their ceremonies. 196. Bishop Bramhal.

2dly, Because it is too much in affinity with the spirit of the Quakers, to declaim against the sinfulness of Parish-assemblies and communion, and of forms of prayer, and such like, till they have frighted the ignorant into their mistaken zeal, Cure p. 152. Yet tells us how many thousand Conscientious Christians left the land to avoid the corruptions of that Worship, and how many thousands suffered also at home, whom he so scornfully reviles.

3dly, From Gods dreadfull judgments that have befallen some high professing Separatists, who have dyed Apostate Infidells, Cure, p. 268.

And did not dreadfull judgments befall Corah Dathan, &c. in the old? Judas, Ananias &c. in the New Testament, who were high professing separatists?

And if this be good arguing, what shall we say to the many dreadfull judgments, that the Books of prodigies tell us, have befaln some high professing separatists, who have dyed Apostate Conformists?

4ly, Because the spirit of separation, is the same with the spirit of persecution, because they are persecuted who are causelesly separated from Cure, p. 259. 260. &c. And therefore, Babylon being Judge, (that they who by the Lords Command have separated from her, have done it causelesly) p. 194they ought to be justified in all their violence and cruelty, that they have exercised to their Non-conformists, the sin of separation being of so deep-a-dye.

5ly, Because separation is an infectious thing, and draws many after them, like sheep that break over the fold. Cure, p. 219. The quite contrary being true, there being no other way to be preserved from infection but separation from the ways of sin and Antichristian pollutions; Rev. 18.4. 2 Cor. 6. 1 Cor. 5.

6ly, Because separation, and Church-divisions &c. is the crying sin; all the Judgments in the nation being to be charged upon it. p. 3. Ch. told. And thus being intoxicated with the Whor…'s cup, doth he talk like a drunken man, bereaved of his senses, calling good evil and evil good; duty sin, and sin duty

Though, by the way, it must not be forgotten, that, notwithstanding he exacts our Parish Communion with such severity; yet is he pleased, out of his great Clemency, though in contradiction hereto, to vouchsafe some indulgence in the point, thanks to Mr. Bagshaw for his help therein (who notwithstanding Mr. Baxter so much scorned and condemned, yet did he force him to repentance 5 or 6 times in that his contest with him, and compelled him thus at last to give him the whole controversy): who in Church Told. p. 7. is pleased to allow these peevish ignorant self conceited separatists these following favours.M.B. contradicts himse…f again. 1st. To relax to them the use of Ceremonies. 2dly, That they shall choose whether p. 195they will communicate with any persecutor. 3ly To have their liberty whether they will own Diocesans. 4ly. Or to communicate with or own a Diocesan Church, or to Communicate with any ignorant Scandalous, or heretical Parish Minister: 6 Not to do any sinful action by word or deed to procure it. 7. Nor to communicate with a worse Church or Minister, when they may have a better, &c.

Now who would not think, that man is distracted who talks at such a rate; let him make his words good; and the controversy is at an end; there is no more askt nor practised that I know of. And it is upon no other ground, that conscientious men separate from the Parishes, but upon them here mentioned, viz. That they may do no sinful action in word or deed, and not Communicate with a worse Church, and Minister, when they may have a better: therefore what has the man meant to rage, and fret, and fume at men, for doing the thing he so allows and tolerates?

But, in the next place, lest he be judged himself for the latitude he takes, and that he might be an example, and give relief to streightned consciences, and teach men to keep themselves out of harms way, and to be no more nice than wise;La…itudinarian art. he is pleased by the art of Sophism to tell us, That if we have Communion with wicked men and Ministers in the Lords supper, and in their Parish-worship, we are not defiled thereby, And that we are not guilty of the fault of other mens worship with whom we joyn; no, not of Ministers or Congregations, more then God himself, that p. 196knows all the sins of the godly, and yet is present at their Prayers, and holds Communion with them, and rejects them not for such failings, Cure, p. 195. 200.

But Christ having taught us other doctrine, it is better to hear him then Mr B. For he tells us; that a little leaven doth leaven the whole lump, 1 Cor. 5.6. Therefore v. 11. If any that is called a Brother, be a fornicator, or covetous, or an Idoter, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner, with such an one, no not to eat. And 2 Cor. 6. Christ commands us, not to be unequally yoked together with unbelievers, for what fellowship hath righteousnesse with unrighteousnesse, and what communion hath light with darknesse, &c. therefore, to come out from among them and to be separate, and not to touch the unclean thing, &c. And Eph. 5.11. To have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darknesse, but to reprove them rather. Rev. 18.4. come out of her my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, & that ye receive not of her plagues.

And for the Blasphemy of that later assertion, Mr Bagshaw did well correct him for it, and to which he gave him little or no return. Secondly, our learned Casuist, by the vertue of quiddity, gives us a notable lift at another pinch, to help us to save our bacon; telling us, That we may own our Parishioners as Christians, that of Diocesan and Parish-relation, being accidental, the other the essentials of Communion, they being of the Ʋniversal Church. 2 Admon. p. 91. But doth the Kings Law or Bishops tell us so? and doth the Scripture give us any such allowance?

p. 197And with this Jesuitical distinction, mental reservation, & equivocation, What Popish Church especially in France may we not hold Communion with? He being pleased, in his Grotian Relig. p. 10. as Bishop Bramhal, p. 35. in his answer observes, to tell us, That Cassander Thaulerus, & Ferus, are blessed souls with Christ, & that he esteems the French Nation to be not only not an erroneous, but an honourable part of the Church of Christ; and therefore saith the Bishop, I know no man who honours the Church of Rome more than himself.

Lastly, you have Mr B. making us a kind of repentance, which seems to make the Bishops and Church of England amends for all his harsh dealing with them; and which you have in his 2 Admonition. p. 51. 52. printed 1671. viz.

I do hereby freely professe that I repent of all that ever I thought, said, wrote, M.B's hypocritical mock-repentance.or did since I was born, against the peace of the Church or State; Against the King, his person or Authority, as supreme in himself or as derivative in any of his officers (viz. Bishops and Archbishops deriving from him) Magistrates or any commissioned by him. And that I repent that I no more discouraged the spirit of peevish quarrelling with superiours and Church-orders, [Arch-Bishops, Bishops, Deans, Arch-Deacons, Parsons, Vicars, Curates, &c.] And …hough I ever dislik't and opposed it [viz. such …eevish quarrelling] yet that I sometimes did too much encourage such as were of this temper, by speaking too sharply against those things which I thought …o be Church-corruptions: [it seems, it is now but p. 198thought so to be, not that it was such a tavern and ale-house, such an Augaean stable, that he made it to be]: and was too loath to displease the contentious, for fear of being uncapable of doing them good; (knowing the prophane to be much worse than they) and meeting with too few religious persons that were not too much pleased with such invectives. So that his speaking so much evil of Episcopacy, Church-orders, and Liturgy, was done by designe to gratify the contentious spirit of the Religious party; that were so well pleased with such Invectives; not, that there was any cause or ground for the same. And therefore tells us 2 part. Defen. p. 19. Tell me, Reader, whether this be not true? That if I had called the Bishops sacrilegious silencers of a faithful Ministry, Murderers of many hundred thousand souls, perjurious, proud, tyrannical, covetous, formal Hypocrites, malignant, haters of good men, &c. I might not very easily come off with many of these angry brethren, without any blame for want of meekness. As though he had not done all that, and much more, out of pretended knowledg, Conscience, and Judgment, in his 5. Disputations of Church-Government, which Dr Pierce observes to him, again and again, as before.

Why his repentance feigned.And concerning which that the Reader may Understand, that this Repentance which seems to curry favour with the Bishops, published in 1671. is but feigned and a Mock-repentance, and but a playing fast and loose with God and men; let him but reade the book which he printed in the year 1672. which he called the Church-told, p. 199and he will finde a justification of that book, where all these bitter Invectives, are without the least retractation of the same, as you have it in p. 13. in these words.

He (viz. Mr Bagshaw] reciteth many words of my Disputations of Church-Government, and laboureth (whether by grosse ignorance or malice I know not, to perswade the Reader, that I retract or contradict them, and saith, We stand amazed you should so soon, and so much forget all that you have said.

This is not a single falshood but maketh up no small part of his book Reader, do but hear and Judge whether any thing except his amaraduci can excuse such horrid deliberate untruths? 1st I never retracted any of that book, setting aside the dedication [which was this, viz. To his Highnesse Richard Lord Protector of the Common-Wealth of England Ireland and Scotland.] So that, except the dedication, all is Justifyed, not any thing in it retracted. 2ly That I do still professe, that I am of the same Judgment which that book expresseth. 3ly I have in the greatest audience told the Bishops that I stand to it; and provoked them to answer it [which I presume was in the Savoy-Conference.] 4ly There is not a word of Contradiction to that book in my cure of Church-divisions, which he writes against. And am I not as like to understand my own writings, as this man is? In which book, viz. The Cure, writ 1670. (to give him his due) though he reviles the Separatist… to the purpose, yet doth he not spare the Bishops whom he calls the Church-Tyrants, and those p. 200that divide by violence, giving them many severe lashes throughout the book especially in the conclusion; and in the Epistle hath this pathetical expression. How long, Lord, must thy Church and cause be in the hands of unexperienced furious fools [O meeknesse it self! was this writ to humour the invective itch of the separatists also?] who knows not what holinesse or healing is, but think that victory over mens bodies must be the cure of their souls, and that hurting them is the way to win their love! or that a Church is constituted of bodies alone, while souls are absent, or no parts! who will make themselves the rulers of thy flock, in despite of thee, and of thy cause, and servants, without thy call and approbation; esteeming and using their brethren as their foes; who scatter thy flocks on all the mountains, when Christ hath prayed, that they may be all one, &c. And who, in his late writings, are we to understand by the Church-tyrants & Dogmatists but the Bishops? But further to confirm to you the insignificancy of that his repentance, take what Mr Bagshaw sayth of his repentance of this sort, which is most remarkable in his Review, p. 3. I am not ignorant that you now tell me you repent (and you ought to thank me that I have been a means to bring you to it) but as if you had long ago foreseen whither your temptations were like to hurry you, you have very seasonably forestalled and antidated, whatever ill use may be made of your present profession of repentance: Your words because they are very memorable I have taken pains verbatim to transcribe, p. 201as I finde them in your holy Common-Wealth, p. 486, 487. I cannot see, say you, that I was mistaken in the main cause, nor dare I repent of it, nor forbear the same, if it were to do again in the same state of things; I should do all I could to prevent such a war: but if it could not be prevented, I must take the same side as then I did, and my judgment telleth me that if I should do otherwise, I should be guilty of treason and disloyaltie against the sovereign power of the Land, and of perfidiousness to the Common-wealth, &c. And you conclude yet more remarkably, It were too great folly by following accidents that were then unknown for me to judge of the former cause: that which is calamitous in the Event, is not always sinful in the Enterprise; should the change of times make me forget that state that we were formerly in, and changing judgement, by loosing the sense of what then conduced to its information; this folly and forgetfulnesse would be the way to a sinful and not an obedient repentance. Thus (as I have, sayth Mr Bagshaw, already told you) like Caiphas, being high-priest for that year you prophesied. Sir 'tis possible (for what may not a little time, and change of success produce in so variable an understanding) that you may once more repent of your late repentance; for you have given in such evidence against your self, and layd down such convincing Arguments to make us believe your judgment is not yet altered (although your passion and interest is) that I must entreat every serious Reader to judge who hath dealt more candidly you or I, and from whom the p. 202greatest ingenuity is to be expected: For my part I cannot see but your repentance and Mr Leighs recantation may hereafter be bound up together in the same volume, and both be held of equal credit and Authority: Thus far Mr Bagshaw.

SECT. II.

For and against non-conformity.THe next false accusation he accuseth me of is for saying he was for and against Non conformity, viz. sometimes for Non-conformity (in whose tents he hath seem'd to shelter himself in the storm, and with their Indulgence to come forth of his hole) and yet at length so highly to disgrace the same.

To which he saith p. 299. Let him shew you, if he can, where or when I have changed my judgment, since 1640. Necessity having forc't me so long ago to study those controversies so hard as fixed me: and that I never heard any thing since, which had considerably alt…red me therein, which also being so visible in that my dispute of Liturgy and ceremonies written 1658. leaves no cloak for this mans calumnies.

Alas, what shall we say to such temerity and daring presumption!Made good against him. First, to act and talk at such a rate for Non-conformity as the former Section evidenceth, and then to make such a shameful head against it, and yet to have the confidence thus to out-face the Sun, and with the Apostates in Malachy's time ask, Wherein? Mal. 3.8.13. What, write, and fight, and contend so furiously for Non-conformity, and Non-conformists, p. 203as he hath done; and not only to run into that conformity he hath so spew'd upon, but so to load it with all manner of reproach, as the worst of sins which pulls down the greatest of Judgments; but to pour out so much scorn and contempt, upon all the Conscientious in the 3. Nations, whether Independents, Presbyterians, Anabaptists, who separate from Parish-Assemblies and worship, and keep not pace with him in his retreat, as peevish, ignorant, self-conceited persons, pulling down Judgements upon their heads. But whither will not a man, left to himself, run? And yet to say, you disgrace no Non-conformity but such as mine, who am as he saith such a Non-conformist to truth, Christian Duty, and common honesty. But since he reproches the whole Interest, and is so set in the seat of the scorner, I may not wonder to have my share; only this I shall say, it will be the Reader's part to judge betwixt Mr Baxter and my self, who is the most Non-conformist herein, he or I: with whom I leave it.

But saith Mr B. what doth he mean by sheltring my self in the storm in their tents, and coming out of my hole with them; I cannot imagine what, unlesse sense and truth at once forsook him.

That truth and sence were both with me therein, is easily demonstrated to those that have not quit both; for, doth not he know that in his seeming to take up the Crosse with them, in becoming their advocate under those costly circumstances at the Savoy, being first silenced as he tells us, preaching in private holes or conventicles, p. 204persecuted, imprisoned, disgraced, that he hereby seemed to cast in his lot amongst them, and was willing to share of what protection Gods promise and providence might afford such a state; and which, if we can believe his word, has not only Tent, or sanctuary, but Tower, shelter, and protection in it, as Isay. 8.12.13.14. Ezek. 11.16. Pro. 18.20. Rev. 3.10. The sense and truth of which word however Mr B. hath not understood; yet others, through grace, have experienced, and can seal to, in the storm that has been upon us.

And, That, from his preaching in holies or private Conventicles in houses, he came forth with the Non-conformists, to publick Preaching and Lectures, who can deny it? But to this he must say something, when his hand was in, be it right or wrong, whilst he takes the liberty to say almost any thing, viz. what hole was it, that I came out of with their Indulgence? are such men as this, vindicators of God's truth and the Christian world, that pour out untruths at such a rate, in despight of the most publick notoriety of fact; And whereof I say again, let all the world judge; witnesse Shooe-lane, Pell-mell Meeting-place, and Glasse-house-Lecture, &c.

SECT. III.

For and against ArminianismThe next charge he gives me of injustice to his writings, is, for affirming him to have been sometime a friend to Calvin and then agreater to Arminius. To which he saith p. 301. Did he tell the Reader, where, by one I did contradict the other? p. 205As though Arminianism doth not contradict Calvinism, but hath only a difference in sound of words, and not in sense, as our great Casuist is pleased now to tell us concerning this controversy, as well as the Popish doctrines, that have caused so much contention for many hundred years: having found out the new way of reconciling Christ and Antichrist that was never yet discovered. But concerning the nature of those controversies, it is not at all my work to ingage in at this time (which are substantially done by many, notwithstanding his dreames, and are like to be done by more, with shame enough to his rash erroneous and giddy undertaking;) my work being only to shew, that he was a man given to change almost in every thing, and amongst the rest in these controverted points amongst Protestants. And, to make that good, he has in his Cath. Theol. in his Preface, sufficiently acknowledged the same; so that we need say no more thereto.

Then further, in a quibling way, to shew what a wordy Doctor he is; see (saith he) the misery of a Sectarian spirit, that taketh it to be a contradiction, to be a friend to Calvin and Arminius both? he would, as this inferreth, take it ill, to be thought a friend to Anabaptists and Paedobaptists, &c. p. 302. as though I spoke of his friendship to the person of Calvin and Arminius, dead so long before he was born, especially the former; and not, their doctrines only.

p. 206SECT. IV.

For and against the Parliament.The next thing he quarrels me for, is, for affirming that he was sometimes a great defender of the Parliament, and their cause; and then none more ready to renounce the same, and be-traytor them for their pains.

To which he saith, Was there never but one Parliament and one cause, running the changes of Rump, little Parliament, Protectors, &c?

Made goodAnsw. It is enough that he hath so contradicted himself in that Parliament cause, which he owned, stated and 4 years fought for, and which when he or any body in his behalf shall presume to deny, I am sufficiently prepared to make good, and to that degree, that will make the Readers ears to tingle, especially in that part, for which he hath so much betraytor d them, and would be thought to be so innocent. But a word to the wise, is enough.

p. 207SECT. V.

The next thing he calls me to account for, is,For and against Tradition. for affirming that he is sometimes a great opposer of Tradition, and anon a great defender thereof.

To which he saith, That if I take Tradition equivocally I do calumniate by Equivocation; but, if [by thereof] I mean [the same Tradition] my falshood hath no Cloak of an Equivocation. Bidding me prove what I say, by any words of his. And further saith, Did I write a Book to prove the Tradition of Adult Baptism from Christs time to ours, and when I have done renounce and scorn it? calling upon the Reader to see how I value my own work.

To which I answer (and to the last first):Tradition and An iquity urged by me not for probation but illustration. I say; I mention not Tradition of any humane-Authority, to prove Adult Baptism of which there is no need, being so undeniably done by Scripture-Authority, upon which we only lay weight for probation; which I have again and again told you in the treatise. But because there hath been so much stresse laid upon it by the Paedobaptists, I have endeavoured out of their own Books, and from the very Authorities themselves have urged, proved the contrary to what they have affirmed; and, which is Argumentum ad hominem, and good against themselves, making it good from their own Prophets, that Adult Baptism by humane Authority is confirmed in every age) and that there is no good Authority out of primitive antiquity for Infants-Baptism. But withall we affirm, p. 208that it is only Scripture-evidence, not Tradition, that can authorize any ordinance of Christ. Therefore Mr B. mistakes himself in saying that I do renounce and scorne it, and undervalue my own work; which by no means I do, because I say, as a testimony of his instability, that he is sometimes for, and sometimes against Tradition, and do illustrate the truth of believers, and detect the error of Infants-Baptism thereby; which yet stands firm and good for the end I brought it, as much as if I should endeavour to convince a Turk of his mistake out of his own Alcoran and a Jew out of their Talmud, and yet believe neither to be of much force, for the confirmation of a scripture-verity to a Christian.

But in the next place, as to the first; I doubt not to make it good against Mr B. from his own words, viz. That he has affirmed the same Tradition that he has before denyed, and for which I might give him several Instances, but shall crave leave to do it, especially from one of a latter date it being freshest in memory, and of greatest remark; viz. That about his asserting the Creed to be writ by the Apostles 12 years before any book of the new Testament was writ advancing thereby Tradition above the Scripture and denying its sufficiency so much in contradiction to what himself had formerly written.

Therefore in the first place I shall shew you how Mr B. hath opposed Tradition in general as held by the papist and what in particular, respecting the Tradition about the Creed as popish p. 209also: And then what in opposition to both he hath also affirmed.

First, as to his opposing of Tradition,M.B. a great opposer of Tradition. reade his Saints Rest, p. 235. where he tells us, That the Papists sinfully plead Tradition against the sufficiency of scripture. And in his Key for Catholicks, p. 93. That it is in our eyes an abominable impiety for you to equal your Traditions with the holy Scripture till you have enumerated and proved them; And it makes us the more to suspect your Traditions, when we perceive that they or their Patrons have such an Enmity to the holy Scripture, that they cannot be rightly defended, without casting some reproach upon the Scripture: But this we do not much wonder at, for it is no new thing with the applauders of Tradition.

And again in his Right Method, p. 205. That it was the Devil that opened a gap for humane additions [or Traditions] at which he might afterwards bring in more at his pleasure.

And in his Key for Catholicks p. 454. Scripture (sayth he) is the Test of Christianity, and must shew us sound in the faith; though the Church may shew us peaceable; therefore to seek for unity, verity, or felicity, by the loss or distruction of sanctity, Religion or charity, is really to renounce, oppose and lose them, viz. Sanctity, Religion, Charity.

And Secondly,M.B. opposeth the Tradition about the Creed. as to the Tradition about the Creed, being writ by the Apostles themselves, and of the dangerous consequence of such a Tenet, take what largely he hath sayd in opposition to one Mr Ashwel, who maintained that the Creed was written by the Apostles before the p. 210Scripture, and to be received as the Scripture by the Traditions of the Fathers and Ancients with whom it was left for us, In his Appendix to his 2d Edition of the Reformed Pastor, where he tells him. That he thereby advanced the Creed above the Scripture, and with contempt spit in the face of the Scripture, Because as he tells him it cannot be proved by Scripture or Antiquity that it was writ by them but much to the contrary. And then gives these following substantial Arguments why the Creed in that form of words now delivered to us, could not be written by the Apostles, before the Scripture was written.

First, because there is no proof tendred thereof by the affirmers of it.

Secondly, because the Fathers in the first ages do give us the Creed in other words, not one of them giving us this form for above 300. years after Christ: Ignatius, Iraeneus, Origen, Tertullian, write the Churches faith, but none of them in this form; So that it would make a man shake his head (saith Mr B.) to reade such kind of proofs as Mr Ashwel offers, which only serve to disprove the thing heaping up forms to prove the Apostles used this Form.

Thirdly, because (saith he) I finde so many clauses new in this form, and for our better Information mentions them out of Bishop Ʋsher, viz. [maker of heaven and earth] was a new addition not in the Ancient Copies. 2dly, [conceived] is added, the old form is, born of the holy Ghost. 3dly The word [Dead] is added. 4ly [descended into hell] is added, 5ly The name of [God Almighty] p. 211to the Article of Christ sitting at the right hand of God. 6. [Catholick] is added to holy Church. 7. [Communion of Saints] is added. And 8. [life everlasting] is added. All which he tells Mr Ashwel, are a considerable part of so short a Form, and which additions he sayth, (as Bishop Ʋsher observes) were made not at once, but as heresyes sprung up at several times.

Fourthly, That the Nicen Creed was as confidently and more anciently called the Apostles Creed, and sayd to be delivered from the Apostles, (as he sayth Bish. Ʋsher tells us in his Dissert. de Symbol. p. 16.) And therefore that we owe it no more reverence as to the Apostles, than to the Jerusalem, or Nicen Creed, and that the Nicen was the more common Creed.

Fifthly, From the uncertainty and impossibility to know this by Tradition, that if it should be, as M. Ashwel sayth, That the truth of the Apostolicalness of this Creed, and exposition of Scripture also, was to be made out to us by Tradition from the writings of the Church and ancient Fathers, Mr B. pathetically thus expresseth himself: Oh that I knew where to finde the Church that could give me the sense of all Gods Oracles by this undoubted Tradition as from the Apostles themselves; or that I knew the name or characters of those Fathers that had this Depositum the sense of the Scriptures by Tradition from the Apostles; and where I may finde it left to us. Is it each Father individually? or is it the greater Number together? And how shall we take their vote, and knew which of them to account a Father, and which not: surely when I p. 212reade them telling us no more the sense of those Oracles and so often erring and disagreeing, I cannot believe their memories were all so good as to deliver d…wn from father to son an Exposition upon the Bible without writing: And if ever any of them had such a voluminous commentary in his brain from the hands of the Apostles, which was not thought meet to be given in writing, the issue by this time may convince us that either it was intended only for themselves, or else that indeed such a world of matter would have been surely better kept then this Tradition h…th kept it. For I think most of us love our fleshly ease so well that if we knew where the book or the Church were that would give us such a certain Exposition of Scripture as from the Apostles, we would be glad of it, not only to the quieting of our minds, but also for the sparing our time and labour we bestow in our study?

Concluding that Mr Ashwels discourses (and many of his train) were self-conc…ted, dry and raw, and therefore tells him, he matters not what some of those good men over their Pots do learnedly reproach them for these things: Insinuating by this smart reflection, that he, Mr Ashwel and his companions might be good fellows as well as ignorant persons; And to which we may add what Mr Perkins sayth upon the Creed, p. 121 for the better information of any that desire to be established in this truth: viz. It was called the Apostles Creed because it was afterwards for substance taken out of their writings, not that they were the penners of it (conferring besides the matter, the stile and frame of words as we have them p. 213now set down, as Ruffinus would have it in Symbol. ad Hierom. &c.) And that because, first there are in this Creed words and phrases, which are not found in the writings of the Apostles, and namely [that he descended into hell] in which if we in a Protestant sence would understand the Grave, it is a tautology, that being mentioned before, Dead and buried, and [Catholick Church] which began to be in use when the Churches were dispersed into all quarters of the earth, as, saith he, Pacianus Ep. informeth us: 2dly, if mattter and words had been from the Apostles, why is not the Creed, canonical Scripture, as well as any other writings. So Mr Perkins.

Further,M.B. a pleader for Tradition especially that of the Creed. I shall now shew you what M.B. hath said in contradiction hereto. Therefore know, that notwithstanding all this unanswered reason, either by himself or any body else, he so far goes over to Mr. Ashwell the person he so judiciously opposeth herein, that in the Glass-house Lecture as famously known, he did declare, that he was of the opinion, that the Creed was written by the Apostles before the Scriptures of the New Testament were written, yea 12 years before any book thereof was written by any of the Apostles. And as being no Enemy to repentance, did thereby declare his repentance, for opposing that learned man Mr. Ashwell in the Appendix to the Reformed Pastor: and which was the substance of what then was said as near as I could gather from any that then heard him, whereat many being offended and the Town ringing of such strange doctrin…, …e to mend the matter has been p. 214pleased in his Cath. Theol. in the Preface, thus to express himself, viz. As Christ himself was the Author of the Baptismal Creed and Covenant, so the Apostles were the Authors of that exposition which they then used, and taught the Church to use; And they did that by the holy Ghost as much as their inditing of the Scripture (which is nothing else, as he affirms, but the explication of the 3. Baptismal Articles;) and to be the summary and symbol of Christian belief; 12. years before we had any book of the New-Testament, and above 66. years before we had them all: And this of Gods own making which was ever agreed on; when though he truly before tells you (and which also is confirmed by the Magdeburg. Cent. 1. l. 2. ch. 4. p. 66) that the 3 first ages knew no such thing as the Apostles Creed) when many books of the New-Testament were not agreed on, whereas the whole Canon of the New-Testament (as you will hear hereafter) was fully agreed to, in the 2d and 3d Centurys. And therefore Mr. B. tells us, that those who deny the sufficiency of this Test and Symbol (made by Christ and his Spirit) to its proper use, to be the Symbol of such as, in Love and Communion we are viz. now at this day, to take for Chr…stians, do subvert the sum of Christs Gospel and Law, and do worse than they that do add to or alter the lesser parts of the Word of God; And further in his 2d Preface, p. 19. It is to me a certainty that the Apostles made and used a Creed for sense and substance as the very summary and Test of Christianity long before any Book of the New-Testament was written (about 12. years, and at p. 215most 66. before the whole). And it is certain by Church-history that (though some variety of little words was used, yet) this same Creed for substance (except the 2 or 3. clauses mentioned by Usner and Vossius) was commonly used at Baptism from the days of the Apostles. And it is certain, that if the Apostles did take this course so many years before they wrote any of the New-Testament, they did this (as well as that) by the holy Ghost: and so that the holy-Ghost seconding Christs own Baptismal Law, or Instituted test, did make the Creed to be the summary of the Christian belief, twelve-years before we had any Book of the New-Testament, and about 66. as is said before we had them all: And then it will appear what is Gods appoynted Test of Christianity, Communion, and Special love.

And in p. 287. Giving an account what sins (in his apprehension) some Protestants have run into in their opposition to Popery, tells us in the 2d. place, that they have wronged the Church by undervaluing the Tradition of the Creed and the Essentialls of Christianity, by many means besides the Scriptures. Then goes on in his Preface, all which considered, though I think it is the truth which I long ago wrote against a Treatise of a learned man (Mr. Ashwell) in the Appendix to the 2d. Edition of my Reformed Pastor, yet I publish my repentance that ever I wrote it, as fearing lest it occasi…ned the turning of mens minds from this great truth, which he and I agreed in, and which I finde few consider, as it deserveth. Thus far Mr. B. for the Tradition of the Creed.

Now may it not be well left without a Comment p. 216how notoriously Mr. B. hath contradicted himself herein: And whether by that advancing this peice of Tradition before and above the Scripture, he doth not (in his own words to Mr. Ashwell) with contempt spit in the face of the Scripture as so substantially confirmed by those 5 Arguments he gave in the case, and which he now tells you he thinks was the truth; yet again seeming to quit so much Reason of his own and others, and to fall in with so much of what he so severely judged to be the raw, dry, self-conceited notions of some ignorant reprochers, and, as he was pleased to call them, pot-companions, meaning as I suppose Mr. Ashwell for one, against whom he writ, and whom nevertheless he now owns to be a learned man; let who that can, reconcile such contradictions.

And lastly, is it not manifest, that what he affirms as to the precise time of its Fabrication, viz. 12. years before any book of the New-Testament was written, if we may give credit to that which goes for authentick story, is fabulous and ridiculous: For Paraeus, Proaem. in Math. Hen. Alsted. praecogn. Theol. l. 2. c. 103. out of Eusebius and Theophylact. inform us; That Matthew's Gospel was writ the 9th. year after Christs ascension: And Baronius also tells us, as Spondanus p. 46. anno. 41. In this same year S. Matthew the Apostle (as Eusebius in his Chronicle informs,) was the first that wrote the Gospel; so that, this being true, that the Gospel of Matthew was written the one and fortieth year after Christs Nativity, or the 9th. year after his Ascension, as antiquity p. 217informeth, and learned men, both amongst Protestants and Papists, agree: And the Creed as Mr. Baxter now tells us was written 12. years before any Book of the New-Testament was written, then it must be at least 3. or 4. years before Christ dyed: If so, how will it correspond with that part of it viz. suffered under Pontius Pilate, was Crucified, dead and buryed, he descended into Hell, the third day he rose again from the dead, &c. Therefore is it not meet, that he help us in this difficulty also, and give us something besides his own word to prove this Tradition, as well as the precise time mentioned by him; and how this seeming contradiction is to be reconciled, since we are to receive it with equal Authority, if not greater than the Scripture it self. Otherwise that he will give us leave in his own words to conclude, It is abominable impiety thus to equal Traditions with the holy Scriptures, and no other than the Devils Gap, to bring in what more additions he please at pleasure.

p. 218SECT. VI.

THe next piece of injustice he accuseth me of, is, for saying, That he hath sometimes been a violent Impugner of Popery, and yet at last who hath spoken more in favour of it?

To which he saith, Here again, if by [Popery] and [it] you mean the same thing, you hold on the same course: prove it true and take the honour of once writing a true accusation. I have not hid my Judgment about Popery, having written about 7. or 8. Books against it, in about 20 years time, by which you may see in comparing them whether I changed my judgment: If you cannot, refuse not to blush, &c. Concluding, that tears are fitter than In'k for such fearless, rash, continued, visible falshoods to be deliberately published to the World as truths by one that calls himself a man, and a Christian.

M.B against Popery.Answer. That Mr. B. hath written several books against Popery is fully owned, and therefore I say [sometimes a violent impugner of Popery;] But it follows not but he as well as many learned Protestants that have written against Popery while so, and afterwards turn'd Papists, may write for it also. Nay while they profess to be Protestants, may also plead for Popery. For doth not Mr. B. accuse Grotius, Dr. Taylor, Bromhall, and others of the Episcopal party who write against Popery, to be Papists, though they professed Protestantism? And upon which you have Dr Pierce in his New Discoverer. p. p. 219170. Telling Mr B. thus, viz. Though you have writ against the Papists a great deal more than enough, yet that is no more than a Blindition, to escape the rigour of the Law: How could you hold a sequestration, if you did not act the Presbyterian? Dr. Taylor writ against Papists, and yet you know what you have call'd Him, Dr. Hammond, Mr Thorndik, &c. have writ against Papists, but you know what they are for defending Grotius.

In the next place,M.B. for Popery. it is therefore my part to shew… that he that hath writ so much against Popery, hath also writ much for it. And that not only for the doctrine of Popery, but for much of their Discipline also.

First, for their Doctrine,For many of the Popish Doctrines. I gave you some account, in the Treat. p. 379. out of his book call'd the Fu…l and easie satisfaction, viz. And as to Popery I have certainly found that the cross-interest and passions of Disputers have made us (though really too far distant) to seem commonly about many Doctrinalls more distant than indeed we are, &c. I mean in the points of fore-knowledge, predestination, providence, pre-determination, concourse, Original sin, free-will, universal redemption, sufficient grace, the nature of faith, justifification, sanctification, merit of good works, certainty of justification, Salvation, and perseverance, imputation of righteousness, &c. And for his knowing this to be true, (he saith) he is censur'd to be too favourable to the Papists, &c. And who (think you) that deserved not to be censur'd for a Papist, did ever affirm so much before, p. 220viz. That the difference between the Papist and Protestant in these great fundamental Doctrines of the Gospel are but seeming not real differences? What no real difference about Popish merit and works of supererogation? nor any real difference respecting justification by works, as the Council of Trent held it, &c. Then surely we may suppose that Paul and the Galathians were nearer agreed than he was aware of, though he charged them to hold another Gospel; in maintaining the same things with the Papists. And withal it must not be forgotten, that Mr B. in the same Book p. 72. tells us, That the Doctrine of the Papists is not only contrary to many express texts of holy Scripture but also contrary to its self. Whereby we must understand that the Protestants Doctrine is also contrary to express Scripture and it self also; or else in his usual method he doth contradict himself, in affirming that there is no more difference betwixt them in Doctrinals; and it must be remembred, at another time he is pleased to tell us, That their serving God to merit heaven, and doing works of supererogation, are of the Devil, as you have it in his book call'd The right method, &c. p. 255. So that it seems there was more than a seeming difference then suppos'd about works and merit betwixt us and the Papist, or else the Protestant is supposed to comply with the Devils designe herein also. But to put the matter out of doubt in his late Folio book called his Cath. Theology, …e doth wholly cast the scale upon the Papists side, making the Protestant the Heretick and Schismatick, p. 221and they the Orthodox Christians in these points. His own words p. 249. are these that follow, and which were so surprising to me that I would scarce believe my own eyes when I read them,M.B's severe reflections upon the Protestants doctrine. viz. And hereby what an honour is done to Popery and what a dishonour to the Reformed Churches when it shall be concluded that all the Churches heretofore even next after the age of the Apostles, and almost all the present Churches, were and are against the Doctrine of the Protestants and on the Papists side; And yet how many do us this injury and the Romish Church this honour, about the nature of justifying faith, and its office to justification, and about the nature of Justificat…on it self, and imputation of righteousness, and free-will, and mans works and merits, and about assurance of salvation, and perseverance; how many do call that Popery which the whole current of Greek and Latine Fathers do assert, and all the ancient Churches owned, and most of all the present Churches in the World. And those that call all forms of Prayer Popery, or the English Liturgy at least [as Mr B. himself had done before] when almost all the Christian World have forms, and most such as are worse. Do but tell men that the Christian World is on the side that they oppose and against their way [though the Christian world owns the Popes head-ship which he opposes;] And therefore what a crime of Infan…y it is to be taken for a separatist from the universal Church and in Doctrines and forms of Worship, not only to avoid them as antichristian, but to perswade men we are net of the same Body, and to disown a sinful p. 222dishonourable separation. And to encrease Athiesm, Idolatry and prophaness amongst us, while zeal against truth and reproaches of sound Doctrine [viz. such as the Papists hold therein] do make men think that Christs Religion is nothing but proud humour & self-conceit, whilst they see us boldly condemn allmost all the world except our selves, they will think that so few as we deserve not to be excepted, [viz. from condemnation] occasioning all the Papists plots and cruelties at home and abroad, not using us as men, because we use not them as Christians; And which he compares to the dotages of Munster, which, he saith, was as a gravestone upon the Sepulcher which hindred the reviving of the Anabaptists cause, &c: And if this be not to the purpose I know not what is: Yet this is the man that (though he at this rate contemns the Protestant-Doctrine) undertakes so highly to justifie the 39.For and against the 39. Articles. Articles of the Church of England, engaging to make it appear, that they have been successively held by the Church from the beginning. Key for Catholicks Pref. p. 8. If so, then these popish tenets about works, merit, free-will, justification, &c. so positively there condemn'd in so many of those Articles, viz. Original sin, 9. Free-will, 10. Justification, 11. Works, 12. Works before justification, 13. Works of super-erogation, 14. Predestination and Election. 17. were not the opinion of the primitive Churches successively since, as he now in contradiction hereto affirms.

And also in his Grotian Religion, Sect. 12. (as Bishop Bramhal in his Vindication, p. 41.) Mr p. 223B. having charged the new Episcopal Divines to be Papists for favouring the Grotian way, tells us, That the old sort of Episcopal Divines that received the publick Doctrine of the Nation, contained in the 39. Articles, Homilies, &c. I wholly acquitted from my Iealousies of this compliance.

So that if signing and consenting to those Articles and Homilies must acquit from Popery, which undoubtedly in these points they fully do, as Dr. Tully in his 3d Chap. p. 20. &c. manifests, then, by Mr B's renouncing these doctrines so fully there asserted, proclaims himself a Papist and one abounding in contradictions.

The Bishop further tells us, p. 34.B. Bromhal accuseth M. B. of Popery. That he charges the new Episcopal Divines to bend the course of their writings to make the Roman Church honourable, and to vindicate them from Antichristianism, and to make the Reformed Churches odious. And what is this but for himself to do the same thing under worse circumstances? Whereupon the Bishop tells him; That he knows no man who honours the Church of Rome more than himself.

How notorious a Papist Mr B. is herein,So doth M. Crandon. Mr Crandon hath 20. years since discovered, in his book call'd, M. Baxter's Aphorisms Exorcized: who compares his Doctrine about Justification with the most Trentifyed-Jesuitized Papists, Chap. 16. p. 215. 2. part. And how much he exceeds many moderate Papists. Ch. 16. p. 223.

Dr. Owen, near 20. years since compares this his corrupt doctrine about justification with the Socinian; discovering what harmony there is betwixt p. 224them, in his Vindiciae Evangelicae.

So doth Dr Tully.Dr. Tully in his Justificatio Paulina a late piece, proves what a papist he is herein, p. 116.

So doth Dr Pierce.Dr. Pierce discovers that though Mr B. accuseth Grotius and the Episcopal Divines following him to be Papists, yet how much he exceeds them in popery, giving diverse Arguments why he judges him a Papist, and a great factor for Rome in his Appendix, Sect. 5. p. 170.

And most remarkable (for self-condemnation) is that passage in his Catholick Key, making Arminianisme the nest-Egg of Popery, and inveighing against the Episcopal party, as Papists, for the same: Which you may take in his own words as you finde them, p. 326. viz. As for the new Episcopal party that followed Grotius and Arminius in Doctrine, and the Greek Church, and were for a reconciliation with Rome; the interest the Papists had among them, and influence they had on them or their proceedings is evident from what is said before; and much from the copious proofs produced by Mr. Prin in his Canterbury's tryal. And for which he quotes a passage out of the Jesuites Letter mentioned by M. Prin, A most remarkable instance.p. 89. which saith, as Mr B. tells us, for our better information. Now we have planted that sovereigne drugg, Arminianism, which we hope will purge the Protestants from their Heresie, and it flourisheth and beareth fruit in due season: And thereupon tells us, That the papists did creep into the Church under the garb of conformable Arminians, is too well known. And it is no wonder that Dr. Baily, Dr. Groff, Dr. Vane, Hugh Cressy, and p. 225many more of them did openly revolt when the game seem'd to be spoyl'd that was played under-board, it had been far less hurt to us I think if all the rest had been as open.

So that if this be true Doctrine thus providentially dropt from his own pen, what shall we conceive of his now being the declared follower of Grotius and Arminius and the Greek Churches in those Doctrines before-mentioned; (yea so much out-doing Arminius himself therein,) but that it is as he unfolds the mystery to introduce Popery. And what a mercy would it be wholly to get off his Monks hood, that under the shape of a zealous Presbyterian, he may do us no more mischief, but appear a papist in his colours.

But Mr B. will tell you he is no Papist, because he renounces the Popes supremacy as Universal Monarch, and his infallibility, for which however he is censured by the Protestants to favour them in Doctrine, yet is he much more displeasing to the Papists. Because (saith he) I know that one man is naturally uncapable of being the Monarch of the world. In his Ep. to his Full and easie fatisfaction: centuring herein his chiefest opposition against Popery, and by which he would not be thought to be a Papist.

But this is a covering too narrow for him, because he knows the French whom he owns to be so honourable a part of the Church of Christ (and all the world knows to be Papists) do go neer as far in renouncing the Popes Monarchical supremacy and infallibiliiy as Mr. Baxter. p. 226And our Ancestors in England when declared Papists went as far also, witness the Acts and Stat. of Hen. 1. Hen. 2. K. John. Hen. 3. Ed. 1. particularly in the Stat. of the 25. Ed. 1. against Provisors, and another Stat. of Premunire in Ed. 3. and 16. of Ric. 2. and renewed by Hen. 16. which you have at large treated of, in Robert Lalers Case the Popes Vicar-Generall in Ireland, who was there tryed and convicted upon the Stat. 16 Ric. 2. Chap. 5. by Sir Jo. Davis the then Atturny-General of Ireland, and is in his Reports, and printed lately by Sir Jo. Petto for our present information.

The late discovery M.B. hath made of himself in his Cath. Theol.Lastly, another Argument demonstrating Mr B. to be a Papist, is from those strong and substantial Objections he brings against himself upon common voge, and his weak and inconsiderable returns he makes thereto, as you finde them in his last part of his Cath. Theol. in the 13. Conference; betwixt a Sectary & a peacemaker, 1st, p. 286. He asks the Q. to himself in the name of the sectary, are you not warping to Grotianism which you have written against? And again p. 287. You will follow Grotius at last: A very proper Question, to neither of which doth he say any thing, which implies he is conscious thereof or fully intends the same; for why did he ask and not answer, the Question if he did not intend his silence should fully declare his consent. And 2ly p. 298. He brings the Sectary telling him, That he strives against God's judgment's, by which he hath oft-times disown'd Popery among us, and would make that less odious which God by wonders hath oft p. 227call'd us to abhor. A trembling consideration indeed and seasonably urged. But what doth he answer thereto. He grants that God hath oft marvellously preserved us from their attemps, but if you will use untruths against them, they will repay you two for one, whereof he gives several instances out of their popish Legendaries, of lying Prodigies befalling Protestants. Insinuating as though we bear up our selves by such lying fables against their Religion, as though by a series of divine and miraculous providence, God had not preserved this Nation from their diabolical attempts for above an 100 years last past.

3. Again p. 298. He brings in the Sectary further telling him, That it is one of the Artifices of the Papists which you have learn'd when they would draw men to set light by the purity of Religion, and the worship of God, to cry up love and concord and peace instead of it, and so to tie all mens tongues and hands from resisting their wicked Church pollutions by the fear of Schism, or being uncharitable to the polluters, And so you will draw men to indifferency in Religion on pretence of peace and charity. This is to the purpose in the Consciences of all. To which he thus lamely replies fully bespeaking his guilt,Crys up love and mercy against sacrifice. viz. That we come up to the worst of Popery when we imitate the bloodiest men among them in our degree, by pleading for sacrifice against mercy, telling us, That they are cruel in keeping out and judging heresie and Schism, so when they or we grow wrathfully zealous against our Brethren on pretence of purity of faith or worship, p. 228and to make a Religion which quencheth love, we know not what spirit we are of.

Insinuating that our separating from the Papists for bloody Idolaters under pretence of keeping faith and worship pure, was a breach of mercy, and a sinning against the law of Love, and co…tracting the guilt of their cruelty to our degree, in that (which he calls) cruel and unmerciful separarion from them, and which is but agreeable to his former Doctrine you have heard to this purpose.

4. Again p. 295. He brings the Sectary telling him this great truth, viz. That God telleth us himself, that he is Jealous about his worship, and hath in Scripture more severely executed his justice upon the corrupters of his worship, than almost any other crime. A most remarkable observation.M B. seems to make false worship to consist in Idol and Image-worship only. But how doth he avoid the force of it? It is true saith he, God is a jealous God no doubt against Idolatry, and to worship by an Image is to deny him to be God. That the Jews great temptation to the Idol trys of the Nations about them were to be oppugned by great severities of God, and no doubt but Moses Law was to be honoured by Gods severe executions on the breakers of it. But Christs preaching under the Gospel is to send men to learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy and not sacrifice. And when the woman of Samaria like our Sectaries did turn from the Doctrine of faith to the controversie of the times, Christ teacheth her to worship God in spirit and truth.

As though God was not as severe under the Gospel for corrupting his worship as under the p. 229Law, & enjoyn'd not the keeping to institutions as well as to the Moral Law: and as though the popish abominations were not to be abandoned as Idolatrous worship that provokes the Lord, and pulls down Judgments; and as though those that conscientiously pleade separation from them upon that account deserve to be esteemed Sectaries? At another time he can tell us, That false worship doth not only as Idolatry signifie the worshiping of a false God, or the Idolatrous worshiping of Images, but the worshiping of God by Doctrines and prayers that consist of falshoods, or devising worship-ordinances, and falsly saying, they are the ordinances of God. Defen. of Princ. of Love. p. 3. part 2.

5. Again p. 293. further records this great truth from the mouth of the Sectary, who tells him: That all who revolt to P…pery begin with Questioning whether the Pope be Antichrist, and telling men of the Darkness of the book of the Revelation; which reaches his case fully.

To the former part of the Question he thus speaks in the foregoing words,1 MB questioning whether the Pope be the Anti-christ. viz. That it is a dangerous and perverse way of reasoning a minus notis, which will let in almost any errors, from a dark text in the Revela…ion or Daniel, or from the supposition that the Pope is the Antichrist, and all Papists received the mark of the beast; you gather conclusions against the notorious duties of Love and peace, which the light of Nature doth commend to all. Though in his Christian Directory, p. 777. he tells us. If by Antichrist be meant one that usurpeth the Office of a universal Vicar of Christ. p. 230and constitutive and governing head of the whole visible Church, and hereby layeth the ground of Schisms and contentions, and bloodshed in the world, and would rob Christ of all his members, who are not of the Popes Kingdom, and that formeth a multifarious Ministry for this service, and corrupteth much of the Doctrine worship and discipline of the Church; in this sense no doubt the Pope is Antichrist: And as to him discribed in the Apocalyps and Thessalonians, if the Pope be not he, he had ill luck to be so like him: And that Dr. Moores and Dr. Downhams and many others Expositary arguments are such as I cannot answer.

2. Asserts the darkness of the Revelations.Then proceeds as to the latter part about the Revelations, telling us to this purpose; that Peter speaks of many things hard to be understood, which the unlearned wrest as other Scriptures to their own destruction. And if the Revelations be not one of these hardest, I crave your Answer to these Questions.

First, why are five Expositors usually of 4 opinions in the expounding it? 2ly, why do none that judge it so easy, write one certain commentary which may assure, which of the former, if any one of them, was in the right? 3ly, Why did not Calvin expound it? 4. And if you take it to be so necessary as you pretend, tell me whether it was so necessary and so taken by all those Churches that for a long time received it not as Canonical Scripture, surely they were saved without believing it: Yet concludes, that Book is a mercy to the Church, and all should understand as much of it as they can.

p. 231But whether this be not a full confirmation of the Suspition of his revolt to Popery, that not only speaks now so suspitiously about the Popes being the AntiChrist concerning which he had spoken so fully in his former book: And by telling us of the darkness of that book which so fully discovers it, and to that degree so, that as he formerly confest that if he be not he, he has ill luck to be so like him.

But first, as to the instance he gives of the darkness of the Revelations in discovering of these things from the different judgments of Expositors, I presume will be found to be his mistake, for however there may be great differences about the Mistical Numbers, the time of opening the seals, and powring out the Vialls, yet there are few of the Protestant Expositors, I think, I may say, not 4 in 5 but do agree, that the Pope is the Anti-Christ, the man of sin, the head of the false Church, or that Bloody-scarlet-Whore that corrups the Earth with the cup of her fornications, in whom is found the blood of the Saints, and the Martyrs of Jesus: And from whose filthy Church or state Gods people are commanded to separate, and not to partake of her sins, lest they share of her plagues. He confessing ss before that Dr. Moors, Dr. D…nhams, and others Expository Arguments are so harmonious and cogent in this poynt, that he cannot answer; Therefore it is no wonder that since with the Papists he gives way to doubtings about the Revelation or discovery of those Anti-Christian abominations in that Book, that he p. 232comes to be so lax in the poynt of seperation from them.

A viie insinuation and dangerous assertion.And 2ly, as to that other corrupt and mischievous insinuation viz. That if that book be so necessary as we pretend [as though it was not so in truth] then he would have us tell him, whether it was so necessary and so taken by all those Churches, that for a long time received it not as Canonical Scripture; surely they were saved without believing it.] What can he or any Papist or Athiest say almost worse to bring that blessed book or any other part of Gods word into contempt, than to tell us that the divine Authority thereof was long questioned by many of the Churches of Christ.

Revelations vindicated.But whether Mr. Baxter ought not severely to be reproved either of egregious ignorance or desperate folly in this rash and dangerous assertion. For either he knows who and when those Churches were, who so long rejected or not received this book, whose salvation he doubts not of, [though contrary to express Scripture in the case, whose names are to be blotted out of the book of life, and thrust out of the holy City, Rev. 22.18.19.] if he did why did he not mention to us who those Churches were, in what age, and in what Author we may finde them, are we to believe it upon our Dictators word? But if he has no good Author to justifie him therein, why then is he so impiously daring to tell us such a Fable?

I have read the learned disquisitions of John Gerard and Beza upon the point: the first in his p. 233loc. Com. de Sacr. Scrip. c. 10. Sec. 292. &c. The other in his Prolegom. in Apocal. Johan. who give an account from Eusebius Erasmus and others, of those who in any age made any Questions about this book, but finde no such thing of the many Churches who so long a time denyed the same. Gerard observes, that Eusebius in his 3d. book. c. 21. tells that some disallowed it, but mentions none, and his 7. Book 24. c. tells us from Dyonys. Alex. That some of old thought that book to be writ by Cerinthus the Heretick and not by the Apostle John, but mentions neither persons nor Churches. Though Dionysius gives great testimony to the Divine authority thereof. And that Jerom (as Beza and Gerard) in his Epist. to Dard. Tom. 4. f. 29. sayes, That many learned men among the Greeks rejected it contrary to the Latins, but mentions none by name.

To which both Gerard and Beza oppose the learned men by name that declared their high prize of that book and f… owning thereof not only amongst the Latines, as Iraeneus, Damascen, Tertullian, Cyprian, Hillary, Ambrose, Gregorius, &c. but amongst the Greeks, as Justin Martyr, Origen, Clem. Alex. Dyon. Alex. Chrysostom, Jerom, Bazil, and that Epiphanius to that degree did assert it, that he judged they should be rejected as Hereticks who refused it. And that hereupon Gerard saith, that Chytraeus tells us, in Apoc. Vetustissimos Doctores qui temporibus Apostolorum vicini fuerunt, communi consensu hunc librum Johanni Apost. adscripsisse; That the most ancient Doctors nearest to the Apostles times testifie p. 234with one consent that this book was writ by the Apostle John.

They also tell us, that Athanasius was said to leave it out of his Catalogue of the Canonical Books, and that the Council of Laodicea in the 39. Canon, where they mention the Canonical books, do not mention it, and that it is left out in the Apostles Canons. To which they say, as to that of Athanasius, the authority of it is questioned, and the rather because Athanasius, as Gerard observes in his Synopsis, writes, Apocalypsin, à priscis patribus approbatam; the Apocalypse was approved by the Ancient Fathers.

And as to the Council of Laodicea's leaving it out (which my friend Mr Will's calls their rejecting of it and then scoffingly asks me what will become of my Theopolis, writ upon part of that book, p. 28. Vind.) They observe it is only a not mentioning of it and not a rejecting of it. And to that one Greek Council so omitting it, they oppose the ma… Greek and Latine Fathers, who at that time subscribe to it, besides the express owning it had from the Council of Ancynanus. 3. Council of Carthrage, 4. Council of Toletan, who do reckon it among the canonical Books in their Catalogues. And as to the Apostles Canons that they are spurious and supposititious.

This account I thought meet upon this occasion to give you from these learned men who writ in vlndication of that Blessed book in opposition to this venemous detraction of it by our Antagonist, who it may be is able to give some other p. 235account, and prove to us out of some other Authors, that these men had not met with to prove and maintain, that so many Churches for so long time did not receive it as Canonical, and which if he produce not, let this be put amongst his evil dealing with the Church and truth of God. But in the mean time I presume it cannot be denyed, but that he has given a grant to the Sectaries Argument in his objection, viz. That if not to own, or to question whether the Pope be Antichrist, and to tell men of the darkness of the Book of the Revelation, evidenceth a man to be revolted to Popery, that Mr B. hereby hath given a substantial testimony that he is one of those.

6. Again, p. 296.M.B. joins with scoffers in deriding Gods people for their faithfulnesse. But it is a time when Popery is striving to rise again, and how unseasonably would you abate mens zeal against it? And what more certain? or could be more reasonably urg'd? But how doth he answer it?

To this he replyes thus, No more then he was against his Lawyers zeal who grew hoarse with senseless bawling for him, saying, I am glad he has lost his voyce, or else I might have lost my cause; I am so much against Popery that I wish it a wiser and abler Adversary [viz. such as himself] then self conceited unstudyed zealots [For such indeed have the Papists called all our Apocaliptical men who have been the most zealous opposers of them] who would make people believe that it consisteth in some good or indifferent things [for so it seems Popish abominations must be called] as in some Doctrines [viz. merit, and works supererogation, p. 236&c.] forms of Government. [viz. In their superstitious vain inventions] which others can see no harm in [viz. such whose eyes are blinded being drunk with the whores cup;] comparing such zealots to men raving in their sleep against they know not what. But alas! whither will not men left to themselves run!

M. B. mocks on.7. Again, p. 287. brings in the Sectary to tell him Is it not safest to get far enough from Antichrist and Popery [yes sure enough:] your study is to teach men how near they may come to sin without sin, and how to dance about the brink of bell [nothing more certain, but take heed God will not be mocked;] for my part I will be one of them that shall come out of Babilon, and partake not of her sins, nor touch the unclean thing, and that keep there garments undefiled; [As though Christ has not commanded all this, and he deserves the name of Sectary that yields conscientious obedience thereto.] And not one like you that is grown luke-warm by being over-fond of unity and peace: [And is not this the judgment, to have eyes and see not, and ears and hear not, And to know the judgment of God against such things and yet to do the same, and to scoff at and mock their faithful reprovers and Monitors.

M. B's self-judgings.8. Again, Would you perswade us to a union with Anti-christ and to live in love and concord with the members of the Devil, [so Dr. Moor and Dr. Downham and others tell him, whilst he designes to reconcile us to those whorish abominations and Romish false worships, and which are arguments he tells us he cannot answer]. Have p. 237you no way to reconcile us to Rome but by pleading for love and peace? [no sure, that is the most effectuall way, no Jesuite can do it more subtily]. Must we not contend earnestly for the saith once delivered to the Saints- [yes sure, and that those that betray, and deny it, are like to finde to their sorrow though they mock and call them sectaryes that tells them so:] And not to be lukewarm to the Doctrines of Jezabell, that seduceth the people of God to Idolatry: [mock on, the Lord will meet, and knows how to deal with such scorners.]

SECT. VII. A further Demonstration of Mr. B's. Defection to Popery, is the Detection of his 56. Superstitious or Popish Doctrines.

THe next thing he upbraids me for, is the putting into my first Edition, a collection of certain of his positions out of his Christian Directory, which he is so far from acknowledging to be his mistakes, that most impenitently, I had almost said impudently, he justifies and calls the contrary opinions thereto, the sectaries 56. New Commandements, or the new Religion of his backbiters who calumniate him for holding the contrary. Concerning which I shall give the Reader this following account, submitting it to Judgment, whether I have done Mr. B. any injurie herein.

It is very true that book of Mr. B's coming p. 238out, just as I was concluding my Preface, and meeting with such strange Doctrines from a Protestant Pen, and some of them respecting the controversie treated on, did put a short abridgment of some of them in the Preface. In the recital whereof it must be supposed I either did him right or wrong: If I gave truly his sense, why doth he complain for telling what he delivers to the world as truth? And if I injur'd him by any mis-representation which he and others have complayned of, why hath it not been made appear?

It is true, he did in a Preface to his book, call'd the Full and easie satisfaction, insinuate, that I had wronged him herein, wherein I vindicated my self in my 2d Ed. answering his Preface, and to which he hath made no exception, only in this answer he hints at two, to which it is meet I give him some Reply: The first whereof is expressed in Mr B's More Proof, p. 313. viz. of the Question 49. p. 826. as cited by him, The falshood of his inserting [in a Popish Countrey in their way of Baptizing] in that cited place which speak only of the Lutherans, I passe by as weary of answering such.

M.B's mistake about Lutherans Baptism with Chrifm.To which I have already answered, but if he will take no notice of it, to what purpose should I mention any thing to him: The reason, as I have said, of my so saying in [a Popish countrey in their way of baptizing] was to rectify, as I supposed, Mr B's mistake, not finding that the Lutherans did use any such rite in their baptizing, as Chrysme and Exorcisme: 1st, because p. 239none of their confessions of faith, either the Marpurg, Smalkaldick Articles, nor Augustin Confession, 2ly, Because their eminent Church writers, viz: Illericus, Ʋvigandus, Judex, Faber and Osiander renounce these rites as popish, ridiculous, and superstitious. 3dly. That some that have seen them Christen their children, have told me, they use no such custom, to none of which is he pleased to give any return, but satisfyes himself in a bare upraiding me again herewith, without answering my reasons, or justifying his assertions; but how ingenious such a course is may be submitted to consideration.

The 2d. mistake he mentions, p. 314. viz. M B's 2d cavil answered.It is but one of your tricks which you know not how to forbear, to foist in [peril of Law] p. 372. Ed. 2. when I had not such a word or sence as peril: as if you knew of no obligation there but from peril.

Answ. His words are these: But where Law, scandal or great inconveniency forbids, he is not to make this profession openly, viz. The party that hath his child, baptized with those rites which he reputes unlawful, ought to bear witness against it, but in these cases not openly, which made me say peril of Law because scandal and inconveniency are joyn'd with Law, supposing, if publick, witness were born, it might bring inconveniency upon them by breaking the Law that enjoyns it with a penalty, there being no other obligation but conscience or prudence, if he or any body else can give a better sence let them. But if these be not pittyful cavils instead of just exceptions let all men judg.

p. 240But in the next place whether there was not some cause astonishingly to remark such Doctrine from a Protestant, and (one that hath been supposed) a Non-conformist pen, is in the next place to be considered. The first thing I mentioned from him was this, viz.

The sinfulness of baptizing a child with chrysm justifiedThat it is lawful to offer ones childe to be baptized with Exorcism, Chrism, milk, honey, &c. rather than not have it baptized, those ceremonies being so ancient, that their Original is not known, call'd by Epiphanius and others, the tradition and custome of the Ʋniversal Church, p. 826. which he is now so far from disowning, that he affirms for any to say the contrary, (viz. that it is unlawful so to do) that he ought to be esteemed an ignorant silly sectary for ridiculously saying, That it is sin for any man (supposing Infants-Baptism a duty) to offer his childe to be baptized where it will be done with the signe of the cross, or such ceremonies as the Lutherans use (which he has affirmed to be Chrysm & Exorcism, and which he should not have left out) though he profess his own dissent, and disallowance of those ceremonies, and though he cannot lawfully have it done better, but must have that or no Baptism at all.

It is true: I own my self one of those silly Sectaries that holds it sinful and unlawful for a Protestant Paedobaptist so to baptize his childe for the following reasons.

First, because Mr Hanmer in his Confirmation a book so much recommended by Mr Baxter, doth upon such good grounds tell us, that Chrysme, and Exorcisme, are as Homius tells p. 241us so blasphemous and iddatrous; and such excrements of Antichrist as Tilenus: such empty and impious ceremonies as Ames; and such execrable blasphemies, as Calvin informeth us: Yea Mr Baxter himself besides this, tells us in his Right method, however he has so forgot himself, p. 255. That Chrysme, viz. Crossing with Oyle, salt, spittle, and exorcisme, or conjuring out the devil, (as he tells us) were the additions that the devil invented and put into Gods worship; Therefore it being such a blasphemous, idolatrous, filthy, execrable and devilish thing, it will be some vindication to those that shall presume to call it sinful, whatever our great dictator saith now to the contrary.

Secondly, the Scripture is positive, that we must not do evil that good may come thereon, but rather avoid the supposed good than to contract so great a guilt: For what popish Idolatrous abomination may we not do upon this pretence? May we not go to their Sacrament of the Altar rather than want the communion, and thereby partake of all the blasphemies of their Mass, which we may confidently affirm is not less corrupted than this of Baptism? Doth not this doctrine of Mr B. reprove the folly of the old Christians that would rather die than put a little incense into the Censer, or so much as give the least consent that another should do it for them, and how simple were so many in Q. Mary's time to go to the fire when they might have saved their skins with such compliances as these? And how doth it reprove those Waldenses. which as Mr B. p. 242tells us of, from Perin, that rather than have their Children baptized by their popish priests with their blasphemous additions, they refused to baptize them for some hundreds of years.

Thirdly, I judg it utterly sinful and unlawful to commit such abomination,, for by the same reason we give way to own sinful addition in Gods worship, according to Mr B's wholesome rule before given us, we may introduce what the Devil shall make for us. And which to save our selves the labour and our Reader the trouble, may serve for an answer to all the rest of the Popish additions, and inventions that Antichrist has injoyn'd, and Mr B's Logick would hook us into conformity to, viz. the popish Cringings, Kneelings, Bowings, Homilies, Vowes, Apocripha, Crucifixes, Images, h…lyness of daies, times, places, Ʋtensills, persons; Fasts, Feasts, Anthems, Church-Musick, drawn forth by him to 42. And therefore if he please, let him tell the world as he desires, that I am one of those that judgeth it sinful to admit any of these things in Gods worship, without a rule and direction from himself, bespeaking our selves wise above what is written, and as Mr B. himself hath so well informed us already, as p. 32. will serve only to render Gods divine worship a humane thing, declare us exceeding proud in thinking our selves wiser than our maker and Redeemer in exalting our selves above him, by correcting his Laws and mending his work, and contract to our selves a great deal of guilt by sinfully adding to the thing God commands contrary (as he tells us) to Deut. 12.32.

p. 243SECT. VIII. Mr B's Jesuitical Quaerys about the Scripture answered; being a further Argument that he is Popishly affected.

AS to what I said in my Preface about his Quaeries of the Scripture, he seems to be much concerned, expressing himself thus, viz. But yet we have not done with the high charges of his Preface. Oh were not those 20. Quaeries, in his 2d Admon. p. 142. so much against the self-evidencing Authority of the Scripture, in favour of Tradition, a hainous provocation, to say no more of them.

To which he saith, It seems they were so to you, but really did you reade that book and the other to Mr Bagshaw, and yet not fear to follow him and out-do him in notorious untruths, after so full a conviction and warning as was given him, think of it, think on it, and again cry out; Bus alas! whereto will men run left to themselves: And then for my better information and reproof, turns those 20. Quaeries into Catagorical propositions, adding 4. more to them, now 24. in all, which he joyns to the 42. new Commandments before-mentioned, making them 56. in all: And which he tells me as he hath Jesuitically drest them, If I and his revilers own them, so will not sober men.

To which I think Mr. Bagshaws return to those Quaeries may be a good answer, viz. when you have satisfyed me that you sinned not greatly in raising such mists and doubts, and when you have p. 244given me security that you will not ask any more of them, than he would then reply to them.

But if he would heve another answer in the mean time, I'le give it him from his own pen, as he may find it in his Key for Catholicks, p. 200. ch. 31. Deter. 22. Another of the Jesuits deceits is, by quarrelling with our Translations of the Bible and making the people believe that we have so corrupted it, that it is none of the word of God, and so they openly scorn it and deride it.

As to this point, though learned men can soon confute them, by vindicating the Text, as in the Original Languages, and then vindicating our Translation; yet the common Disputant need not put them and himself to so much trouble, if really they will but let the Law of Goel contayn'd in the Scripture be the rule by which our difference shall be tryed and decided; we will cut short the rest of the controversy, and take it wholly together, and we will stand to the vulgar-Latine, which is it that themselves applaud; we are content that this should be the rule between us. Yea, rather than they shall shift off the unlearned by these tricks, we will admit of their own translation, which the Rhemists have (with little friendship to our cause) composed, only we must entreat them that their Commentaries and conceits be not taken with the text as part of the word of God. So that this quarrell is quickly at an end, the Scripture is so full against them, that no Translation that makes it not another thing can make it to be on their side. If he would have a fuller Answer to his 24. Queries, he may reade Dr. Prideaux, Altingus, Amesiu…, Dr. Owen, p. 245Ferguson, John Gerard, &c. who have learnedly treated upon the subject, and fully answer'd all these sophistical and Jesuitical insinuations, whereby they would puzzle the weak, and bring contempt upon the Word of God, the better to make way for their abominable Traditions and Popish Inventions.