Truth Defended, Postscript 1 – Title page 2
POSTSCRIPT.
SInce Mr. Wills in his Cenſure upon the Baptiſts Anſwer to his Appeal, is pleaſed to ſingle me out from the reſt that ſubſcribed it; I hope it will be allowed me to make alſo a particular defence to what he charges me with p… 3.
He obſerves, as he tells us p. 10. That there is much in the Baptiſts dealing with his Appeal that looks like partiality, and to make his inſinuation believed, gives 3 or a Inſtances, whereof the laſt is, Their taking in my ſelf to ſit Judge with them upon his Appeal, though (he ſayes) 1. A party in the cauſe, and apparently byaſſed. 2. Virulent in my Scoffs, And then 3. hints an abſurdity to me, from whence be inferrs, That I am unqualified for the examination of Latine Authors; noting in his Margent that I undertook to propheſy that after Mr. Baxter, Mr. Whiſton, and himſelf none ſhall ſtand up in the defence of Infant Baptiſm. And 4. He preſumes I was the perſon pitch'd upon to examine the particulars of his Appeal, and ſo by my ignorance brought them to Juſtifie Mr. Danvers his Addition to the Milevitan Canon by a paſſage found in Pervetuſto codue. This is what he ſayes to me in particular. And to which I Reply,
1. I can in ſincerety ſay, that what I writ by way of encomium, as Mr. Wills calls it, upon Mr. Danvers his Works, or againſt his Antagoniſts (both Mr. Danvers and Mr. Wills being, when I writ that Epiſtle, equally Strangers to me) was the reſult of that perſwaſion which the clear and ſubſtantial evidence of truth begets in an impartial ſearcher. And I ſhall not be aſhamed to own that my judgment is ſtill the ſame, for all the pains which Mr. Wills hath taken, which ſeems to me, to manifeſt him rather an impertinent captious wrangler, (whoſe maſter-piece is Sophiſm and Logomachy) then an Author of ſuch Reaſon and Sobriety, that all his Readers muſt be charmed into a ſubſcription to his ill-prov'd affirmations. And I am very certain, that men: as clear ſighted as himſelf, and at leaſt, as well advantag'd in Learning and Piety, are fully of my opinion; that though Mr. Danvers (through the toil of ſo many quotations, and being not Infallible) had miſtook ſome inconſiderable things; yet the grand matter in diſpute is managed with ſuch Scripturer evidence, and illuſtrated with ſuch humane concurrence, as is beyond the power of Mr. Wills his Negatives to invalidate, at leaſt with the ſober and impartial.
2. It is to we an inſtance that this Advocate of Paedo-baptiſm manages a languiſhing Cauſe, becauſe be is driven to infiſt upon ſuch a parcel of exceptions, as truly and really deſerve the Epithetes of trivial and inſignificant, and of ſo little moment to the point in hand, that had Mr. Danvers wholly left them out, his Cauſe had been fortified well enough without them; not only by the intire Book of God, but many of the moſt undoubted humane Teſtimonies, not at all, or very faintly aſſaulted. Inſomuch that Believers Baptiſm has been evidently cleared to be the only Scripture Baptiſm, and ſo practiced for the Primitive Centuries, and eminently witneſſed unto, by ſome People and Churches all along.
But I am byaſſed, he ſayes, becauſe I expreſs my contempt of him, &c. I muſt confeſs that I have no ſuch eſteem of his works, as Mr. Baxter beſpeaks for him in his Epiſtle; nor do I look upon him to be ſo infallible as to greet him for an Oracle; nor does his Paedo baptiſm appear to me to be ſo ſcriptural a practice, and ſo ancient as he would make it. And I believe all the Baptiſts in England are ſo far byaſſed. And therefore his Appeal was but at beſt ridiculous, if he inſiſts upon that Objection, that none of them ſhould be admitted to examine his Appeal whoſe Judgements beſpeaks them Parties. And he might level that exception againſt any of them as well as againſt me, ſince they are all parties ſo far as to diſapprove Infant Baptiſm. & Which makes me conceive that Mr. Wills promiſed himſelf, (ſince no Baptiſt muſt without becoming obnoxious to this objection, paſs a ſentence upon his Appeal) that it might paſs without Anſwer But,
2. For any contempt or prejudice to his perſon, (which as I ſaid I am a meer ſtranger to) as far as I know my own heart, I can ſay, I have none, And though I am fully ſatisfied his undertaking is very much againſt truth; yet have I as far as I have been concern'd, examined things, as to matter of fact (which only come under our Cognizance as appealed unto) without any reſpect to perſon or cauſe. And I know that the perſons concern'd in the examination beſides my ſelf, have cted their parts with naked impurtiality and candor, and truly ſtated things as they appeared unto them. And that they are not ſuch Ignorant, byaſſed perſons, as this man of modeſty repreſents them, is already evident.
He ſayes, I confine the Church of God within the narrow limits of my own party — which I affirm to be an untruth, and challenge him to make it good from any word or writing of mine; the contrary is evident from the ſecond line of the verſes he ſpeaks of, where I mention them, as well as our ſelves, by that term [Chriſti-colae] worſhipers of Chriſt.
Mr. Wills ſayes, I am virulent in my Scoffs. But he has taught me how to eſteem his Cenſure. (If I anſwer him according to his folly, Prov. 26.5.) will juſtifie me. And I profeſs, I have ſeldom ſeen a ſerious argument managed with ſuch Jocoſeneſs and Captring Sarciſms as he does it. And to expreſs a rebuke to … without thoſe terms that uſually are beſtowed upon ſuch frothyneſs, I need a new Dictionary. And till that be found out, I judge it ſcarce poſſible to give him a faithful reprehenſion in any mode, but he will be ready to count it virulence.
3. He ſayes I am unqualified for the Examination of Latine Authors, as not able to form Suſtinco, and puts a Scoffing Remark in the margent, that I undertook to prophecy that after Mr. Baxter, Mr. Whiſton, and himſelf (three matchleſs Heroes indeed!) none ſhall ſtand up in the defence of Infant Baptiſm.
Reply, What my Abilities are in that Language, it is not my humour to boaſt of. But that I may ſatis facere Momo I will ſhew Mr. Wills that my diſability in that tongue, is no conſequence flowing from that abſurdity he fancies. And therefore I will take the liberty to inform him, that whatſoever fault it is, it is the Printers, not mine, and he can avouch for me, that I found fault with it my ſelf, my original being — nec unquam
Cauſa patrocinio ſubſtituenda novo eſt. for which ſubſtituenda, he printed ſuſtinuenda] but it was too late to be corrected when I ſaw it; that ſheet being laſt printed off, its errors could not be gathered amongſt the errata gathered elſe where before. And if I had ſeen it before it was wrought off the Preſs, that miſtake, and two others in p. 12. of the Epiſtle in the ſame ſheet, lines 10. and 29. viz. counted for routed, and defer for deter, had not paſt uncorrected.
But that this very word printed for it (as it happens) yields Mr. Wills no ſuch inſtance of my ignorance, will be very evident to him that conſiders what Epentheſis, Syncope, Anthiteſes, &c. are. That the exaſteſt Poets often croſs the known rules of quantity. Epentheſis a letter may be added to Suſtinenda to adapt it for a verſe; and but one is added. Now if Mr. Wills knows theſe things, is not be diſingenuous in corping where he knows no error but the vulgar rules Juſtifie? If he knows them not, how can it be thought, that he came honeſtly by the ſtile of M. A.? Or that he is a perſon qualified to be ſuch a Corrector of Books as he proclaims himſelf? Beſides be perverts my meaning in that verſe; for by patrocinio novo, I mean not Mr. Baxters, Whiſtons and Wills's ſucceſſors in the Controverſy: But I meant, as may be eaſily underſtood thus; that the cauſe, viz. of Paedobaptiſm, is not to be ſubſtituted (or ſet up) inſtead of the true Baptiſm, by that new Patronage or Sanction, viz Gen. 17.7. which I call new, becauſe it was not made the maine prop of Infant Baptiſm, till the other foundations it was built upon by the Popes grew crazy, and the Reformers being aſhamed of them, as being too rank, inverted this in the 16th. Century; viz. a Covenant made Gen. 17.7. with …elievers and their Natural ſeed, which (they ſay) intitles to Baptiſm. And the participle (ſubſtituenda) is not a prophetick, but an ennuciative term; An enunciation being defined, Oratio in qua aliquid de alio verè vel ſalſò pronunciatur. So that this Bagle-ey'd corrector of ſmall, and ſometimes no faults, is out in his Logical, as well as his Grammatical faculty.
I have one thing more to reckon with him for, and that is, his preſumption that I was the perſon pitcht upon to examine the particulars of his Appeal, who by my ignorance brought them to juſtifie Mr. Danvers his addition to the Milevitan Canon, by the paſſage in Pervetuſto Codice, inſinuating as if none but my ſelf had examined it; which is imply'd in that expreſſion of his — that he is ſat…sfied ſome of them have learning enough to have diſcovered the miſtake, had they conſidered it themſelves. But here alſo I muſt inform him that his preſumption is falſe, and no better then the petulant excurſion of an idle thought, that has no umbrage of truth to guide it. And to leave him no cloak for that preſumption, I do aſſure him, that thoſe perſons, whoſe learning he acknowledges ſufficient to diſcover the miſtake, have as well as I, individually examined every particular of his Appeal. And that they are not under ſuch a miſtake, as to this of the Milevitan decree, is already apparent
Thus Reader you ſee this particular charge againſt me is no inſtance of the Baptiſts partiality in their examination of Mr. Wills his Appeal. And to put the matter beyond any ſurther exception, that Epiſtle of mine, which he Cavils at, was but then in the Preſs, and was not ſeen by any of the Subſcribers at that time of our examining the Appeal, which is enough if no more had been ſaid to clear them from this frivolous inſinuation.
The Reaſon why I am …o large in my Return to ſo incon…iderable a charge as this, is, becauſe I obſerve Mr. VVills ſtrikes at the cauſe he oppoſes through my ſides, and therefore I am the more concern'd in my particular vindication. For, 1. You ſee he inſinuates (though nothing more falſe) That I was the only perſon to whom the examination of his Appeal was committed. 2. When he has poſſeſt his Reader with that ſuggeſtion; he repreſents me as a very ignorant unqualified perſon for ſuch work; on purpoſe, that the Reader may conclude the anſwer coming from ſuch a perſon to be but ſorry and ignorantly managed, and that Mr. VVills is therefore apparently abuſed. But that artifice ſhall not ſerve his turn; for as I ſaid before, I declare that I was ſo far from being the ſingle Examiner, that I was no more then an aſſiſtant to thoſe perſons, whoſe learned accompliſhments, parts, and worth I readily own, far ſuperior to mine. And are poſſeſſors of a Reputation too well fortified for Mr. VVills his art to Undermine. And who I queſtion not will, as they ſee cauſe, vindicate themſelves, and their profeſſions, from the Criminations of ſuch an unrighteous Accuſer and Gainſayer.
The 5th. of the 3d. Month, 1676. Tho. Delaune.
FINIS.
Mr. Richard Baxter's REVIEW Of the State of Chriſtians Infants, EXAMINED; And his Grounds for the Baptiſm, of ſuch found to be Inſufficient, and groundleſs.
With a Poſtſcript in Defence of Mr. Danvers his Third Reply; further diſcovering Mr. Baxters Notorious Equivocations, in palliating his Slanderous methods of Writing againſt his Oppoſers.
By Tho. Delaune.
foreign. Athen. ex Paſſid.
Quae in ſingulos eſſundos inſpiciam obiter, & verborum acrimoniam in os Autoris retorquebo. Pu…. 12. Diatrib.
Printed, Anno Dom. 1676.