A Forerunner to a Large Review of the Dispute Concerning Infant Baptism, Treatise · Section 18
SECT. XVIII. The grosse untruths Mr. B. chargeth me with, are not such.
PAge 209. Mr. B. chargeth me with six grosse untruths, though my words were not assertions, but intimations: neverthelesse I conceive not any untruth in them. For, 1. However the motion was not sudden, nor the yielding to it sudden, yet the assault was sudden, without any rules for orderly mannaging the dispute, or notaries on both sides to take it, &c. which I imprudently ommitted, not expecting such a solemne meeting as I found, and because of the opinion I had of Mr. B. as more candid in taking my answers, and explaining himself, and yielding to other things which might sift the truth, then I found him. 2. It is not true, I forced Mr. B. to the dispute. The words of my letter dated December 27. 1649. foure dayes before the dispute were these. Sir, my message was this, sith I intend on the next Lords day to prosecute what I have begun in examining the Hypotheses, upon which the argument from circumcision for infant-baptisme (which is the Paedobaptists Achilles) is built, I was willing to invite you to be a hearer, and if you judged it meet to oppose what you should think good in a Logick way without Rhetorick: Yet if you choose to come over either Munday or Tuesday, I shall be ready to justifie my doctrine openly, or privately by word or writing as it shall be judged convenient. Mr. B. choosing Tuesday Jan. 1. a seat was provided for him with some kind of State, Ministers and Schollers (such as they were) sent for over the Countrey, placed on each side Mr. B. which with Mr. Bs. carriage in the beginning to propound that question (which I had not then meddled with in my Sermons or printed books) about the manner of baptizing, and in that manner as served for no other purpose but to create prejudice, besides his fallacious disputing in the beginning, did cause apprehensions in me of the designe of bearing down me and the truth by indirect wayes, which before I dreamed not of: which if Mr. B. were not privy to yet was he instrumental to promote, which I confesse did not a little perplex me and streightned my thoughts and expressions. 3. That Mr. B. did conceale his arguments me thinks he should not deny, who denies not that he would not give me animadversions on my written notes, nor let me have his arguments in writing. To the rest of his questions answer enough is already given. 4. It is no untruth that I had scarce time afforded me to repeale his arguments: yea at first it was expressely denied me till Mr. Good informed Mr. B. that it was the rule of Schools the Respondent should repeat the arguments. And it was once confessed ingenuously that Mr. Bs. syllogismes were so long as that they could not be easily repeated: which was very true of some of them, contrary to the use of Schools being hypothetical syllogismes to prove an hypothetical proposition. It is true that Mr. B. would open his termes, viz. the chief terme [visible Church-member] when I asked him by what note he meant Infants were discernable as visible Church-members, he did not tell me his note to my best remembrance, and when I did distinguish of visible by profession, or some other way, because I did not express the other member of the distinction (though I could not do it till he explained what other way he conceived as being a visible Church-member besides profession) he derided me. 6. It is true also that he checked me with Satyrical quips, as that he could not help my memory, when I did not repeate rightly his long syllogisme, hat he came not to be catechized, when I asked him of his meaning about the terme [visible]. His speech of my defying the armies of Israel, and calling, give me a man to dispute, &c. for my uncircumcised opinion is conservant with Mr. M. and Mr. Ley their unjust and false charges of me to which I answered in my Apology sect. 7. and Mr. Bs insulting speech thereupon is not without shew of vain glory. Page 211. He blames me for desiring his arguments in writing, though not denying the validity of any one of his reasons against writing, many mens writings being yet unaswered by me, my answer to Mr. Ms. Defence being weak, that I have done him great injury in forcing him to write. Answ. The desire I and others had to see his arguments in writing, was because we could not otherwise well judge of them, which he might easily have done being those as he saith he preached at Coventrey, and had written in his book at the dispute, and therefore might have been easily communicated to us. His reasons against writing I took to be excuses of his unwillingnesse to gratifie us in our request, and that they were meer excuses his printing proveth, to which he was never ferced by me, as he falsely pretends in his title page, and if he be injured it is by himself, whose own minde, or some others designe using him as their instrument, carried him to it; and though I am glad to see his arguments in writing, yet I take it for the greatest injury that ever I received from man, that he hath so unworthily abused me and the truth, (which I pray God forgive him) expecting also if he live both righting me and the truth. Of answering Mr. Cobbet I have said enough already, Mr. Church, and Mr. Rutherfords are in effect the same with Mr. Ms. and others: by overthrowing in my Sermons the Hypotheses of the Covenant, seal, Baptismes succession to Circumcision they were answered. Mr. Drew's main argument page 23. though his book by the Author of the lawfulnesse of obeying the present govenrment be judged to be written with sharp reasons and mild language, yet either there are foure termes in it, or else it concludes we are to circumcise. The dispute of Mr. Baily had been shewed to be very fallacious, if my letter to the press had found one willing to print it. I desired to have Mr. Bs. arguments in writing besides these, because he was better known to those of Bewdley. I compare not my self with men excellent in writing, nor do I think I used the terme [silly people] though Mr. Bs. notary so wrote it, page 212. How unseemly Mr. Bs. language was I have said afore. I conceived it necessary Mr. B. should explain his termes to satisfie the people, who could not judge of his proof without knowing his meaning, which might have been done, and yet strict disputing observed: which Mr. B. denied, though this were or should have been the end of the dispute, and the occasion of it led him to it. If [for peace] and [for fear of scandal] be equipollent (as I take them to be in these speeches) then [Truth must not be lost for fear of scandal] and [no truth is to be concealed so as to be lost for peace] differ not as much as truth from a most destructive falsehood, as Mr. B. saith page 215. Austin I think hath the words I cited in that Sermon, my book of scandals page 273. and in my Apology page 5. though perhaps I am mistaken, and the speech be Gregories, whose words in his seventh homily on Ezech. are thus cited by Aqu. 2. 2. q. 43. art. 7. Si de veritate scandalum sumitur ut tilius nasci permittur scandalnm quam veritas relinquatur. My traducing Mr. B. in my pulpit, mentioned page 217. was nothing but citing his words, which was not frequent, nor is it, if rightly done, any injury when the book is published. What is of me and not of God I pray with him may perish: of schism or zeal for it I am not conscious: that truth I avouch will stand when Mr. Bs. rotten pillars fall to the ground. To many questions and charges in sundry pages 213. &c. an answer may be gathered from what is said before.