Truth Defended, Postscript 2
A Poſtſcript to Mr. Richard Baxter, ſhewing the Ʋanity and Equivocation of his Return to Mr. Danvers his Third Reply.
Sir,
THat worthy perſon at whoſe Invitation you ſay you publiſhed your Review being now with the Lord; And your accoſting Mr. Danvers ſo Cowardly (when, I verily believe, you knew him to be under ſuch Circumſtances as neceſſarily obliged him then to wave further conteſt with you) are two motives to qualifie your wonder at my appearing in both their vindications. And I aſſure you I know no cauſe of repentance for the undertaking, unleſs my diſability in defending them, renders it not ſo compleatly done as their own (more able) pens might have done it. Therefore Sir, notwithſtanding the hazard I undergo of being branded with thoſe r…aiting Epithetes you diſpence with great freedom amongſt your Monitors, I will make bold to tell you, that it were more ſafe for you to have returned a private anſwer to that private Letter of Mr. Hutchinſons, and have performed your promiſe of ſilence to Mr. Danvers, then in the firſt to expoſe your ridiculous thread-bare Plea to a new ſcanning, and in the Second to give a notable Inſtance, that you are like that pompious Cardinal, that would not be a ſlave to his word.
Your general exclamations againſt Mr. Danvers; your charging him with ſtrange heaps of untruths (without any Reply to his demonſtrative and large defence, and taking no notice of the groſs falſhoods he proved you guilty of, and his delineating you in your ſeveral true ſhapes and colours, that your diſguiſe may no longer delude us) will ſcarce paſs for Oracles, with ſuch as know that ſuch language is become a Second nature in you. Sir, I am ſatisfied theſe things are evidenced to your juſt conviction, elſe you, being ſuch a proficient in the talking faculty, and one that can Hector it at ſuch a rate in more minute and unneceſsary wranglings, would let us here on't on both ears. But ſince you are ſilenced in ſuch matters as evidence your tongue to be no ſlander, we need ſay but little more.
Are not you the man who without the leaſt reverence or regard to truth, had the boldneſs to publiſh to the world, in your Key to Oath. p. 312, &c. That Sir H. V. was a Papiſt, and a Jeſuite, and had brought his wicked and corrupt opinions from Italy, and how the Papiſts were ſtrong in England under his ma…k; And that he had his hand in chief in the Kings death. And that notwithſtanding your many Reproofs for thoſe horrid and notorious Forgeries and ſlanders, and the many calls given you to repentance, and ſatisfaction, for ſuch impieties, yet have not you hardned your ſelf againſt all admonition therein to this day? as though your tongue and pen was your own, to uſe how you pleaſed againſt any man.
Are not you the man who accuſed that worthy and Learned Mr. Bagſhaw of eighty untruths in the compaſs of a few pages? when ſcarce one could be made appear with any demonſtration.
And if you ſuffer your milk to boyle over at ſuch a rate, and be ſo laviſh with a ſlanderous tongue and pen againſt others, have we not cauſe to conclude your clamorous and rayling out cries and invectives againſt Mr. D. to be of the ſame ſtamp, eſpecially ſince you pleaſe only to give us your own word for them.
Do not you tell us p. 47. That you had detected voluminous untruths in Mr. D's former Book, and p. 49. That the very firſt Paragraph of the latter hath more then one or two lies in it. And yet neither ſhew the inſufficiency of his defence to the former, nor give the leaſt demonſtration of the latter; …nd is not this a very convincing way, and who but Mr. B. think you, appropriateth to himſelf ſuch mediums.
But leſt you ſhould be thought wholly ſilent as to particulars, you are pleaſed to condeſcend to give us one particular inſtance wherein Mr. D. has not anſwered your charge telling us p. 48. His accuſation of the Novatians the neither defendeth (that you ſee) nor confeſſeth to be aſlander, but ſilently paſſeth all the matter by. And is not this very ſtrange that you ſhould ſo punctually call him to an account for this one, being in ſo great an Arreare with him, there being ſo many Forgeries and falſhoods of farr greater moment he hath laid at your Door, which you have neither confeſſed nor defended. But what cauſe you had to fall upon him for this ſuppoſed omiſſion let the Reader judge.
For Mr. D's having in his 2 Reply in anſwer to you defended [the Donatiſts, ſome of his witneſſes] againſt your cavils, whom he had in ſeveral particulars made to appear to have been one in principall with the Novatians, as Treat. p. 223, &c. And 1. Reply p 1…6. Doth in p. 49. 2. Reply, tells us in there Lords. And that the Novatians were the ſame with the … ways doubt from the Reaſons, before expreſſed grone of which you refutes) and to which I ſhall add, what … in Gabriel Prateolus de vit. ſict. concerning the Novations p. 123. viz. That they affirmed Infants did not ſtand in need…, Baptiſm; Infantes non egere Baptiſmo.
And if this be neither to defend nor confeſs, but to paſs over all the matter in ſilence, will eaſ…ly be determined.
You come on afreſh to excuſe your ſlander of Naked dipping, About naked dipping.and tell us, that it was not the way of moſt of them when you wrote that Book; And that you heard of none of thoſe few that for any conſiderable time continued it. Sir, this condems you notoriouſly, that notwithſtanding you knew it was not the way of moſt, you ſhould yet charge it to be their ordinary practiſe in indefinite and Univerſal terms; which no Reader could underſtand otherwiſe, then that it was the generall way of all Anabaptiſts, and the ratifie becauſe you thereupon levey your Arguments againſt Anabaptiſty it ſelf for the breach of the 6. and 7. Commandments charging Murder and Adubery upon it; and I obſerve your craft in ſtuffing in the Quakers quaking, &c. as parallel Caſes, to make the Reader think the matter of equal probability. But Sir, I am ſatisfied your conſcience knows (and it is evident enough to others) that you only delude the world by your ſimiliturdes; there being not the leaſt colour of proof, or ſhadow of evidence (nor ſcarce ſame which you call a lyar) to be produced that ever any ſuch practiſe hath been amongſt us. The Quakers having not only own'd their quaking in Print, but thouſands of eye witneſſes in readineſs to atteſt the ſame (it denied by them;) whereas neither word nor witneſs can be produced for Anabaptiſts naked dipping. And you are not ignorant, that Samuel Fiſher in that Book of his (recommended by you,) did upon your firſt broaching of this ſlander (challenge all the world to bring fofth any one faithful witneſs to confirm the ſame) if they could. Therefore for ſhame go not about to palliate ſo wretched a miſreport, and ſpend no more of your learned non-ſenſe to extricate your ſelf. But rather honeſtly repent that ever you broacht it.
You would now alter the ſtate of the queſtion p. 50 which it ſeems muſt be not whether you reported ſuch …thing? (that's too evident to be cluded) nor whether it was true? (this too, to your ſhame, is made our to be your lye) But, whether you did well, or ill to believe it. And you tell us you would disbelieve it, but you cannot.
To the queſtion as you now ſtate it. I hope an anſwer from your own pen will be ſatisfactory. It is in your Chriſtian Directory p 156. Fame is too ordinary a lyar, and they ſhall be lyars who will be its meſſengers, &c. And a little further you thus expreſs your ſelf — If you know … not to be true, or that there be not ſufficient evidence to prove it, you are guilty of lying and ſlandering Interpretatively; though it ſhould be true, becauſe it might have been a lye for ought you know; more of this Mr. Danvers quotes 2 Reply p. 118. worth your notice, though you ſuperciliouſly ſlight it. Pray conſider another Anſwer to your queſtion Exod 23 1.
You ſay you are not able to dis believe it — What are you indeed hardned in your unbelief? can neither Scripture, notorious evidence, nor your own pen convince you, that you ought not only to dis believe, but alſo repent for falſe report, which you have no other ground for but that fame which you call a lyer? If you be ſuch conviction proof, your caſe is deſperate.
But Sir, you pretended you had more then common fame for your report. Your very words are p 131. plain Script. We diſpute not againſt bare words, but experiences and known practices; For their naked dipping is a known thing, and the wickedneſs that hath followed on ſome, and that ſome have dyed on't. And to excuſe this you tell us p. 53. Review That you never alledged your own experience — But Sir this will not excuſe you from the ſentence your own tongue paſſes upon you, viz. That you are a lying Meſſenger of lying ſame, and lying reporters. For you put the queſtion Chriſt. Direct. p. 156. How know you whether the thing reported is true? Is it only becauſe a credible perſon ſpoke it? But how did that perſon know it to be true? might not he take it upon truſt as well as you? and might he not think a perſon to be credible that is not? And how commonly doth faction, intereſt, paſſion, or credulity make the perſon incredible in one thing, who is credible in another? &c. Can you avoid this condemnation from your own mouth, having pronounced your ſelf an interpretative lyar? if not, bluſhing more becomes you, then to waſt more Ink in palliating ſo pilpable a falſhood.
You ſay, you are paſt doubt that you have read of their Baptizing naked in Forreign writers, p. 53. But what then? was not your calumny of Engliſh Anabaptiſts? and muſt Forreign writers be believed by you (when yet you can produce none) againſt known practice at home.? I am weary of further expoſing ſo temerarious an accuſer.
But what need I ſay any more hereto, ſince Mr. D. has in ſo many particulars (in his 3. Reply) ſo ſubſtantially detected your falacy and falſhood herein, diſcovering that all your endeavours to extricate your ſelf, has but involved you into ſurther guilt.
Therefore Sir, ſuffer me in conjunction with your other Monitors, earneſtly to exhort you to Review & lay to heart this your ſlanderous way of writing, and be prevailed with once in your life to retract ſome of your bad, and particularly, amongſt other of your calumnies, let not your ſlanderous Reviling of the Vaniſts and Anabaptiſts be forgotten by you. And in the mean time, that you'l ceaſe juſtifying or palliating ſuch impieties which will do nothing but inhance your reckoning in the day of Accompt.
You come next to avoid, About his Paper left with the Clerk.as well as you can, the uſe made of the paper leſt with the Clerk — telling us, the motive of it was your pitty to two Pariſhes, containing a million of ſouls (conſider whether you are not out in your Arithmetick) of which not above ſixty thouſand can bear in the Pariſh Churches, which induced you to be as buſie in propagating the Goſpel near Whitehall, as the Jeſuites (you ſay) to their juſt praiſe are in America.
Whatever your motives were, God and your own heart knows. But in my opinion you have fitted your ſelf ad amuſſim with parallel preachers, your juſtly praiſed Jeſaites. For you have taken much pains to preach their Goſpel, as ſeveral learned pens have made out.
You tell us the ſubſtance of your declarations, viz. That you did not meet to worſhip God with any other manner of worſhip, then what is according to the Liturgy and practiſe of the Church of England, and though you did not read your ſelf, but another did…t, it was becauſe you were not able; which if you were, you would do it.
Anſw. Mr. Danvers charges no more upon you, then what you confeſs here, viz. Your profeſſion of Conformity to the Liturgie and practice of the Church of England.
2. You would evade this by telling us, that he that ſaith the Lords Prayer, doth not uſe another manner of worſhip then the Church; but I appeal to your conſcience, whether by the words of your declaration you would not have the Conforming party underſtand, that by your Reading you meant the Common-prayer-book? if ſo, is it not wretched equivocation, and do you think God will be ſerved with ſuch deluding reſervations? And whether you did not pen your declaration in ſuch ambiguous and equivocal terms, as on the one hand to blind the Conformiſts, & make them think you theirs; ſo on the other hand, to excuſe your ſelf to the Non-conſormiſts, by telling them, you meant the Reading the Scriptures? and ſo cunningly play an Ambidexter in Divinity.
And ſo your reading ſome part of the Scriptures, it may be the Lords prayer, ten Commandments, Epiſtle and Goſpel for the day, &c. (as that once in Buckinghamſhire,) may ſerve to elude the Conformiſts, becauſe read out of the Common Prayer Book, but if taken notice on by a Nonconformiſt, then it was only reading the Scripture, not Common Prayer. And for obſerving hereof, you ſo violently fly in the face of Mr. D.
You tell us, you are not able to read your ſelf. But what? why Reader, if thou art a Conformiſt, he means Common prayer, but then he could hear it read well enough. If thou art a Non conformiſt, he means the Scripture. But Sir, are you not able to read the Scriptures? Can you have leaſure and ability to write voluminous Directories, Bodies of Divinity, Catholick Theologies, and no time nor leaſure to read the Scripture? It ſeems your Divinity is no Scripture Divinity.
As for your talk of a conſiderable part of the writing being left out, I muſt profeſs I cannot believe you, & my incredulity is grounded upon firmer evidence, then your flander of naked dipping; if you deſire to know it, 'tis like you may. The matter of fact charged, your own pen acknowledges; which at preſent is enough.
You ſay you are no greater adverſary to the Liturgy then Mr. Hilderſham, Knowſtubs, Ball, Bradſhaw, Paget, and Mr. Gifford were.
Anſw. What adverſaries they were to is I have not leaſure to examine. But I know what adverſary you have been to it I can to refreſh your Memory tell you, that.
In your Book dedicated to Rich. Cromwell Protector, Prief. p. 17. you ſaid, that moſt that are ſerious in practical Chriſtianity, were againſt ſuch formal ways of worſhip — And the ſpirit of prophaneſs comply'd with it, &c. — p. 36. you ſaid, Engliſh Epiſcopacy gratified the Devil and wicked men — that the rabble of ignorant perſons, worldlings, Drankards, Haters of Godlyneſs, were very Zealous for them, &c. p. 3…8. you called the Church of England, the ſink of all the other Churche, in England. The Biſhops Government, you called Ceremonious impoſitions, Uſa pation, and pretended Office, Firſt diſp. p. 457.
Have you not ſaid in your Savoy Conference, of which you are ſaid to be the Penman (but certainly you were an approver, if not the … that t… …e are no Records of known credit for any … for the firſt 3…0 years. p. 11. And have you not given 60 exceptions againſt it, of which ſome were, that it … little from the Romiſh form…, p. …. part 1. That it Unites only in a dead Religion, p. 23. That a Coat may be made for the Moon, as well as a Liturgy framed, ſuited ſufficiently to the variety of places, times, ſubjects, &c. p 55?
And this is the friend ſhip you expreſt to the Liturgy, and the Biſhops when you were in your higheſt elevation. But now you complement them by the titles of the Right Reverend Fathers in God, &c. in the Account of the Savey Conference.
As to Mr. D. leaving out any part of the Paper, was not your exception, but for his groſly falſifying it, and which your own Book ſeller at firſt told me was reſpecting the alteration of that clauſe, viz. I would accordingly read the ſame, For I would accordingly read my ſelf, and which Mr. D. rectified by a copy affirmed to be from the Originall in the Clerks hand, and with all the little cauſe given you thereby for ſo ſevere a Remark; and doubtleſs had there been any ſuch groſs falſiſication, or any conſiderable clauſe left out, we ſhould have heard of it in words at length before this.
Sir, Your diſeaſe ſeems to me to be the more incurable, in that you have turned ſcorner ſince your admonition, Mr. Danvers in his 2. Reply gave you a very demonſtrative one, and which I ſuppoſe you can find no equivocations to ſhift off (which is wonderful) therefore you take no notice of it: But you ſay, you will hear ſome Scriptures he ſends you to. And you draw ſuch mock-conſequences from them, as if they were not pertinent to your caſe. But if you pleaſe, I'le give my ſelf the trouble to draw conſequences more pat from them and leave you to apply them.
2 Cor. 6.4, 5, 6. Paul exhorts the Corinthians to approve themſelves Miniſters of God, in much patience, afflictions, neceſſities, diſtreſſes &c. Ergo ſay you, Did R. B. do ill to come out of the Goal, when he was put in? or not put himſelf in again? p. 61. No Sir, that's not the right Ergo: but Ergo R B. did ill to ſlink his neck out of the Collar, and inveigble a poor Country Miniſter in to ſuffer for him in the common Goal … For I very well remember, that giving that Country Miniſter, (that was clapt upt in your ſtead) aviſit in the Gate-houſe; he ſlewed me a copy of the Warrant by vertue of which he was taken… which was againſt Richard Pa…ter of the pariſh of St. Giles, but when they ſound you were withdrawn, they blotted out your name, and interlined your Deputy-ſufferers name juſt over it And if you have not reimburs'd his charges, 'tis juſt you ſhould.
2. The ſecond text is Act. 20 1…, 1…, 13. Paul preached till break of day &c. Ergo, ſay you, R B. ſhould not preach in the Country; you deny the Conſequence, adding that perhaps Mr. Danvers meant (as 'tis like he did) Act. 21.13. Paul was ready to be bound or die at Jeruſalem — Ergo ſay you, R. B. did ſin in a voiding it oft before. &c. — Whether this conſequence be applicable to you I ſhall not now diſpute: but I may ſafely draw this conſequence, Ergo R. B. ſhould not avoid preaching in the City to inſnare another, nor avoid being bound to bind another.
3. The third is Matt. 10.38. He that taketh rot his Croſs and followeth me, is not worthy of me: Ergo, you ſay, R. B. muſt make his own Croſs, or ſins in avoiding it; or muſt …o into a priſon to a void preaching — But you miſs the right Ergo here too: For it ſhould b…, Ergo R.B. ſhould not make a Croſs for another, nor make another go to priſon to hinder him from preaching. Your phraſe of pleaſing his ſpleen in preſerring a priſon before a Pulpit, reliſhes your Gall Mary have choſen a ſtation in a priſon, before ſuch a Pulpit as you tell us is near a kin to an Ale-houſe or Tavern, p. 113. Grotian Religion or Augean ſtable, which none but ſuch a Hercules as you, would undertake to mundifie
4. The fourth is John 10.12.13. The hireling ſeeth the Woolf coming, leaveth the ſheep, &c. Here you make no Ergo's, but ſay you are no hireling. But Sir, the Ergo that ſhould follow this, ſhould be; that if you have a Meeting houſe built at the great expence of others, and undertake to preach in it: Ergo, you ſhould not upon the notice of danger, trepan another to undergo the impriſonment due to you, and ſlily march off, under the pretence of Country air.
And for your ſaying, you are not ſo much as the Paſtor of any Flock, It may not be un-worthy the enquiry how you came to be abſolved from your Paſtorall charge of your Flock at Kidderminſter, once owned to be committed to you by Chriſt, (viz. thoſe in that Pariſh who gave an account of their faith and good life to you, and thereupon admitted by you to the Lords Supper) and whether that is a relation holding good only in fair weather, or to be plaid faſt and looſe with at leaſure.
5 The laſt is Matt 2….2, 3, 4. They bind heavy burders grievious to be horne; and lay them on mens ſhoulders, but they themſelves will not move them with one of their ſingers, &c. Ergo you ſay, R. B. ſhould not preach in the pariſh Churches; or ſhould bind heavy burdens for himſelf — No Sir, that Conſequence is not in the premiſſes. But Ergo R. B ſhould not when he builds a Meeting-place, preach there only in calm weather, but rather their (when danger comes) others ſhould bare the burden of the affliction (viz impriſonment in the Gate-houſe) upon their — ſhoulders, R. B. himſelf ſhould put in his little ſinger (of equal fortitude it ſeems with anothers ſhoulder) and move off the burden himſelf. Or Ergo, if R. B. has no mind to be priſoner, he ſhould not ſubtilly draw in others, that perhaps have no more ſtomach to the entertainment there then himſelf.
Sir, you have long abuſed the world, too apt of it ſelf to receive opinions upon the bare (though miſtaken) reputation, of ſuch voluminous triflers as you. And I am perſwaded ſeveral of your proſelites have ſuckt in your corrupt Notions, (without any ſerious examination of your reaſons) meerly becauſe you ſaid ſo. And therefore what Dr. Pierce, Dr. Tully, Mr. Crandon, Mr. Danvers, Mr. Bagſhaw, and ſeveral other learned men have writ to detect your corruptions, is, in my judgement, very good ſervice; that you may not under your diſguiſe of piety, learning, and purity, longer infect the Nation with that dangerous leaven your books abound with. And if men will ſtill, after ſuch fair warning, make you the Oracle of their Divinity, let them blame themſelves only if they find the effects of it malignant and perillous.
'Tis like you can write another Book (at leaſt a Poſtſcript) if you be in the humor, to conſute all we ſay; and that you'l call what I ſay to you, Quaker-like oratory and obteſtations, and that 'tis in hypocriſie (as you tell Mr. Hutchinſon, though you boldly aſſume a prerogative, that belongs not to you, of judging the heart) and 'tis probable you'l ſtill out-face Mr. Danvers his large Demonſtrations, with Poſtſcripts containing general exclamations and dictates, and belike you think your ipſe dixit is of as uncontroll'd authority as that of Pythagoras — But Sir, 'tis my preſent intention to give you leave to talk, till you talk your ſelf quiet: for there's no gaping againſt an Oven.
Yet I can (if you will but hear it) cure your pretended ignorance, why people talk of your averſeneſs to martyrdom. And 'tis not (as you would inſinuate) becauſe we judge all perſons graceleſs, that are not Martyred, (for ſo we judge them not) nor that you may be capable enough of our good opinion though unmartyred; nor do we mock at Paul for being let down by the wall in a Basket; nor at our bleſſed Saviours withdrawing into Egipt, into the Wilderneſs, or Galilee; which you would ſain make examples in your caſe — But Sir, it is becauſe you have given too large an experience, that you can conform to whatever mode of worſhip is uppermoſt in the Nation, at leaſt ſo far, as to ſtave off ſuffering And that you are ſurniſht with words to ſuch a degree, as to out-face all the world, that they muſt take you as their exampler in Religion. That when formerly you ſaid, the Engliſh Epiſcopacy was a government that gratified the Devil, you upbraidingly told them, all blaſphemers, and baters of Godlyneſs, voted for them, Disp. pref. p. 17. And now on the other hand, you can change your note, and tell ſuch as conſcientiouſly diſſent from that way you branded ſo dreadfully, that they are ignorant, peeviſh Church-dividers, ſectaries, and what not? And what ſecurity can you give, but if Popery ſhould come (as we hope it never ſhall) to have the upper hand, you would cry up that too, and proclaime all diſſenters from it, as deſerving the ſame Epithetes? Your praſing the Jeſuites for their induſtry in converting the Americans from their Heathen to a Romiſh Idolatry, Review. p. 55. That Popiſh leaven wherewith you mix the moſt cardinal Proteſtant Doctrines; your bold arguings againſt the Divine & ſelf-evidencing light of the holy Scriptures, &c. beſpeak a latitude in you capable enough of ſuch a transformation. And though the examples you mention are a ſufficient plea for avoiding a perſecution ſo Circumſtanced as Chriſts and Pauls were; yet where do you find, that they procured others to ſupply their Rooms, viz. to ſuffer as proxies for them? If you can produce that, you do ſomething towards your vindication.
Tho. Delaunt
FINIS.