A Forerunner to a Large Review of the Dispute Concerning Infant Baptism, Treatise · Section 13
SECT. XIII. That it is not a right way to judge of the truth of a doctrine by strange accidents, though wonderous.
PAge 197. He drives on more furioso, having recited my words concerning unsafenesse to judge of doctrine by such accidental strange things as Mrs. Dyers and Hutchinsons monstrous birthes in New England, and alle adged an example of determining that God was against the marriage of Priests by the falling of a house, and added, we are to judge God may order accidents for stumbling blocks, he flies out thus, Will not this man rather fight against heaven, and dispute against miracles then let go his error? and then in his pathetick Rhetorick insinuates, as if this speech of mine were weakening the credit of Gods testimony in wonderous providences, not farre from the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, that I am fallen so farre as freely to sacrifice Gods glory to my fancies, and then brings in exceptions against me in four things, 1. That I call them onelyonly strange accidents. 2. Compare it to the falling of a house. 3. That I disswade from judging of doctrine by such accidents. 4. Yea rather would have men think that they are stumbling blocks that men should not receive the truth. And then discourseth that the monsters in New England were the extraordinary directing finger of God, and addes: Would Mr. T. have us so carelessely regard Gods judgement &c. yea and rather judge the contrary? It seemes if he had seene the wonders of Egypt, he would not onelyonly have been hardned as Pharaoh, but judged God laid them as stumbling blocks. Who would not tremble to hear the holy God to be accused by man, as if he led his people into evil by his wonders? and then sets down two propositions, 1. That true miracles are never to be distrusted, but believed what ever they teach, that they are Gods testimony, John 15. 24. 2. That some wonders that are not proper miracles in their nature, may yet have a plain discovery of the finger of God in the ordering of them, and so when they are not against Scripture but according to it, should exceedingly confirm us, and such he conceives those monstrous births were, and that the forgetting them among us is no small aggravation of our sin.
To which passage I am nccessitated to answer, being so deeply charged upon such mistaken grounds, 1. That I hope the Lord hath ordered this Shimei-like loosenesse of his pen to discover two things for his own good and the good of them that doate on him and his book, 1. His extreame bitternesse or uncharitablenesse towards me and those he termes Sectaries. 2. His hasty, inconsiderate, rash and immoderate censures, misconstructions and determinations. For wherein do I fight against heaven, and dispute againstmiracles rather then let go my error? In which words did I either weaken the credit of the testimony of God? or sacrifice freely Gods glory to my fancies? or regard so carelessely Gods judgement? or rather judge the contrary to Gods judgement? Whence may it seeme I would have been hardened as Pharaoh, and judged God laid his wonders as stumbling blocks? Or accused God as if he led his people into evil by his wonders? Let Mr. B. prove any of these without his childish exclamations and vaine Rhetorick, and I will confesse my self worthy to be held an Anathema: if not let him be dealt with lege Remniâ, or rather lege Divinâ, Deut. 19. 18, 19. Were I minded to retort I might take up some of Mr. Bs. Rhetorick, and apply it to the Author of the passage in the Epistle to the Church at Kederminster, in which in all likelihood the thanksgiving daies for victories against the Scots are termed offering a sacrifice to Mars, and keeping holy-daies for killing the Saints. In this manner, will not this man fight against heaven? weaken the testimony of God? sacrifice freely Gods glory to his own fancies? regard carelessely Gods judgement? judge the contrary to Gods judgement? &c. Who dare ascribe those glorious workes of providence in giving victories to a weake, and farre smaller Army brought into a great streight, over an Army double the number, when solemne appeales to God were made on both sides to shew whose cause he owned, to chance of warre and call the thansgiving for that victory offering a sacrifice to Mars, using though a Preacher of the Gospel such a Heathenish profane censure and language concerning the actions of praise to God enjoined by a Christian State, and performed by holy Christians, who had by prayer obtained such a signal mercy? But I forbeare any more of this, and proceed to examine what Mr. B. saies, 1. That I call them onelyonly strange things. Answ. If they be referred to [miracles wrought by God] which is in the next period, and in Grammer construction should be the accident, then it is false, that I call them onelyonly strange accidents, and not miracles: if to the monstrous births in New England, I do call them onelyonly strange accidents in that place, being willing to use a general terme abstracting from miracles and wonders, which are differenced by Mr. B. himself in his Saints everlasting rest pa. 2. c. 4. s. 1. yet using a terme that signified they were from remarkable providence. Even Mr. B. himself I do not find to terme those accidents in New England miracles, but the extraordinary directing finger of God, the evident hand of God, wonders of providence, which I also freely acknowledge. 2. He saith I compare it to the falling of the house, which might easily come from a naturall cause. Answ. 1. He changeth [them] into [it] and so leaves it doubful what he meanes that I compare with the falling of the house: But I imagine he meanes the monstrous births, because he addes that the falling of the house might easily come from a natural cause. But the truth is, I did not make any comparison between the one and the other accident as if the one were no more observable then the other, but onelyonly gave an instance to prove, that it is not safe to determine of a doctrine whether pleasing God by an accident: sith that accident in appearance to them was as evident a providence of God as could be, that while they were debating the matter it should then fall on one side where married Priests were, and not on the other side, where were Monkes. And in respect of the time it was in shew a more likely evidence of Gods disproving marriage of Ministers, then the monsters in New England of disproving Mr. Wheelwrights doctrine, they not happening at the time of his preaching, or the Assemblies sitting at Cambridge in New England, August 30. 1637. or the Courts proceeding against them, Oct. 2. 1637. but at another time and place though near them, and not in so open a manner to publique view as that was, though after evidenced sufficiently at the taking up of Mrs. Dyers child. And though the fall of a roome might come from a natural cause, yet it falling at such a time on one part, and not on another, I believe if Mr. B. had been then present he would have been apt to take it as an extraordinary providence of God against married Priests, as Doctor Gouge in his priented Sermon, and many others did the fall of the house at Blackfriers on Drury, Redyate Popish Priests, &c. Oct. 26. 1623. against the Papists. 3. That I disswade from judging of doctrine by such accidents. To which I answer, My words are plain, I conceive no safety of judging what doctrine is true or fals, but by going to the law and testimony, and trying thereby, and therefore bid men take heed how they follow Mr. B. in his direction, and of so adhering to the voice of God in monsters or other providences as barely upon them to judge a doctrine to be false. And this I still think good advice, 1. Because the Scripture is the sufficient and onelyonly rule which now we have to judge doctrines by whether they be true or false 2 Tim. 3. 16, 17. 2. It is the command of God, Deut. 13. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. notwithstanding the doing of a signe or wonder, yet to look to the doctrine of a prophet. The like is Isai. 9. 20. Luke 16. 29, 31. yea John 5. 39. Christ referres them to the Scriptures notwithstanding his miracles. 3. Because though true miracles are never to be distrusted, yet Christ hath foretold us, Mat. 24. 24. There shall arise false Christs and fals Prophets, and shall shew great signes and wonders, insomuch that (if it were possible) they shall deceive the very elect, and the like is foretold, 2 Thess. 2. 9, 10. Revel. 13. 13, 14. 4. Because true miracles themselves do not testifie immediately concerning the doctrine, but the person that he is sent of God, and consequently of his doctrine, John 3. 2. and then they are wrought by the person himself. As for other providences or real wonders if not wrought by the person, but on him, though they should be dreaded and observed as Gods workes, and when we have examined the doctrine by Scripture they have great influence on us either to confirme or unsettle in an opinion, yet they are rather discoveries of Gods judgements of men and their practises, then their opinions; and yet therein we may mistake thinking Gods judgement may be against one when it is against another, and thinking them worse then others contrary to our Saviours doctrine, Luke 13. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. And in the relation of such accidents there is not alwayes that certainty that may settle a person as appeares by the mistakes of many, and many such are invented and related with much art and confidence so as to deceive credulous people frequently. In a word, I conceive Mr. B. himself saith in effect as much as I say, I know wonders that are not miracles are not to be interpreted or trusted to contrary to the word, for Satan by Gods permission may performe them, and Antichrist may do lying wonders. 4. He excepts against me that I say, God would rather have us judge that they are stumbling blocks, that people should not receive the truth, and most of his invectives are against this Answ. Nothing is so well said but may be depraved when a mans words are misinterpreted. My words are, We may think we ought to determine, that God may order accidents so, as to become stumbling blocks, that people should not receive the truth rather then by any accidents to determine a truth to be an untruth. Which are different from that which Mr. B. sets down as my words, 1. He recites my wordes thus [they are] as if they spake of the accidents next mentioned, whereas my words are [God may order accidents so] which note onelyonly accidents possible. 2. Whereas my words were comparatively spoken to this purpose, that accidents are so far from being a rule to determine of truth, that God sometimes orders them to become stumbling blocks, which is the same with that of Moses, Deut. 13. 3. The Lord your God proveth by signes and wonders of the false Prophet, to know whether you will keep his coommandments. Mr. B. recites them thus [We are to judge they are (meaning such accidents) stumbling blocks that people should not receive the truth] as if I had spoken positively of those particular accidents forementioned, that God did order them to that end, whereas I onelyonly to give reason of my advise of warinesse set down my observation comparatively, and spake of accidents that might be not of what were. Which being thus stated, Mr. Bs. exceptions are answered, and shew either his inconsideratenesse in what he saies, or proneness to misconstrue what I speak. That which he puts in by the way of his opinion concerning the sin against the Holy Ghost, as if it did lie much in an infidelity against the convincing testimony of miracles, and of the not believing true miracles, and of Gods ordering some wonders, and the accidents in New England, may be allowed him, yet makes nothing to prove that remarkable providences of God are a safe rule by which to judge what doctrine is true, and which is false. As for his words of me [that it seemes if I had seen the wonders of Egypt, I would not onelyonly have been hardened as Pharaoh, but judged God laid them as stumbling blocks] I leave others to judge what spirit they proceed from, and do resolve that though he paint me as an incarnate Devil or worse. I shall take him for a Saint though a very distemper'd one. Page 198. the Scribe hath written in my words [or none of them] in stead of [or to them onelyonly.]