A Forerunner to a Large Review of the Dispute Concerning Infant Baptism, Treatise · Section 7
SECT. VII. Many personall occurrences are cleered by relating of which Mr. B. hath in his History sought to create prejudice against me.
NExt to the two Epistles followes the History, in which his designe seemes to be to vindicate himself from my accusations, and to recriminate me. I shall here very briefly answer him about personal matters in the History and elsewhere, that the Readers may onelyonly have to do with arguments, and answers when they come to them. He spends some leaves to prove he did not incosiderately and rashly take up his opinion, as I accuse him. Whereas I do not remember, that any where I accuse him of rashnesse, but Antidote sect. 7. of inconsideratenesse and haste in that passage wherein he names Anabaptists in the plural, meaning me onelyonly. Which whether he did or no it's not material: nor worth while to make reply to the descant of his Corrective on that passage in my Antidote. The next thing in his History to which I am to answer is, that he chargeth me with both there, and in his answer to my Valedictory Oration page 209, 210. with falsehood, in telling them in the pulpit, that I could never know his arguments till the dispute, that he hid his weapons till he meant to strike, that I was set upon at a sudden, that I had the arguments concealed from me aforehand: the contrary whereof was manifest in that he had urged the same argument at Col. Taylors house in London, that I bad seen some notes of his in which the first was that which he urged at the dispute, and therefore that I spake not truth, and it's an evidence his arguments are good in that I gave such feeble answers to them. To which I say, I do not think I said I could never know his arguments till the dispute: I confesse the conference at Col. Taylors house 1646. and the reading of his arguments (as was said) 1647. but the conference being not written, nor the notes then in my hand, there were left onelyonly some imperfect and obscure apprehensions of them in me, which in respect of giving a distinct answer were all one as if I knew them not at all: by reason of which I was very desirous to get his arguments in writing, that I might be the better able to answer them, and satisfie others; which Mr. B. not yielding to, I could not give answer, but on the sudden without premeditation the arguments being gone from me, like Nehuchad-nezzars dream, and I did imagine, and accordingly used these words in a letter, It was said, you would hide your weapon till you were to use it; In which opinion his taking hold of so many indirect ways for advantages to possesse mens minds with his opinion, and to hinder a free examination of what is said on both sides do confirme me. And that things may be apprehended nakedly as they were, I do acknowledge, that it is my disposition, be it dulnesse or wearinesse, to pause on a new argument whether in reading or conference, so that I cannot oft-times give a clear answer to an argument I have not bin used to on a sudden, no nor many times to an argument I have been versed in, when it is not under my eye, when other matters possesse my memory, when fear of speaking ineptly doth benumme me and hinder my elocution, when I have some obscure notion of a fallacy which at present I cannot readily discover. Which knowledge of my self made me unwilling to come to a publick dispute or extemporal conference with Mr. B. whom I had found in conferences I had with him to be quick in apprehension and expression, various and copious in multiplying arguments and expressions, captious of advantages, ready to expose even to contempt, with shew of disdain, those that speak not according to his mind, which made me conceive I should neither well remember, nor weigh his arguments afore I must answer, nor clear truth, nor satisfie my self or others, but occasion glorying in Mr. B. and settling people in his error. Neverthelesse presaging by his declining to argue by writing and his words in his letter Sept. 6. [if I should refuse a conference (called before an open verbal dispute) on such advantages I should think it were almost to yield my cause naught] that it would be taken as if I did confesse I could not answer him, after much endeavour in vain to get his arguments in writing that I might consider of them before the dispute, I yielded to be ready to justifie my doctrine openly or privately by word or writing, as should be judged convenient. Whereupon Mr. B. having drawn me to agree upon Jan. 1. 1649 without any agreement about stating the question, order or rules of the dispute, notaries on both sides to set down what was said people being gathered together from other places by his party, and a place in state prepared for him with his abettors, schollers and others on both sides him, I my self alone without any notary or assistant was forced to answer him prepared in this unexpected manner, lest I should have endammaged the cause by seeming tergiversation; yet presuming that I should have found such dealing after by communicating to me in writing his arguments afore printing, or at lest forbearing to print my answers till I had viewed and rectified them, that might have repaired what seeming disadvantage the truth had by my present answers: in which I found my selfe extreamly deceived, my motion of having his arguments in writing after the dispute being answered by quarrelling with me about things on the by, and in a subdolous and indirect way filling the land with conceits as if his tenet and arguments were unanswerable, and I a person pertinarious without reason. By this true relation the truth of my intimation of the suddenness of the assault, my ignorance of his arguments, my speeches concerning his concealing his arguments, provoking me to dispute are verified, the reasons of my desiring his arguments in writing, the cause of varying my answers at the dispute, and why to so weake arguments no fuller answers were then given, and why I said at Bewdley (which I still think) I preached nothing but truth to them, are assigned: about all which Mr. B. hath endeavoured to misrepresent me and my proceedings in his History of the conception of his Treatise. As for Mr. Bs. inclination now to think me a very proud man however he thought heretofore, and that I have higher thoughts of my self then was meete, because of my dissent from so many Churches and God'y Divines, and because of my answer in private to him about the reason I gave why the error of infant-baptisme being easie to be discerned was not discerned through wilfulnesse or negligence, I say 1. My dissent is not singular, nor my reasons and writings such but that such a one as my self might be allowed to hold my tenet without imputations of selfe-conceitednesse, arrogance, &c. Mr. B. varies from Churches and learned men about justification and faith in his Aphorismes: what he can say for himself why he should not be censured as he censures me may perhaps be my plea. I cannot alter my own judgement or others but by arguments, nor dare I say I do see what I do not. 2. As for my speech in private (which me thinks it was somewhat against the lawes of friendship for him thus to publish) I know not what better answer yet to give, but to ascribe it to prejudice, or faction or some such like cause that men are so wilful or negligent as not to examine and discerne the errour of infant-baptism so manifestly discernable by applying to it their own rules and positions in reformation of Popish and Prelatical corruptions. And I do conceive the same or like answer would be given about the Lutherans holding consubstantiation, images to be retained in Temples, ubiquity of Christs body, conditional predestination, and sundry the like tenets: which may be a just censure without pride. That which Mr. B. saies, [And lest my touching that controversy though at a distance might irritate him to fall upon it, I never spake one word (to my best remembrance) in my congregation of it to this day, for fear of giving any occasion of difference page 209. I never preached one sentence before the dispute, nor since to his hearers or mine that I can remember on the question. Page 281. I never spake one word against his opinion in my pulpit to this day] shewes his memory retaines not all he printed in his Saints everlisting rest, preached on the Lecture-dayes at Kederminster. As page 534. We should see the promises made good to our seed, and the unthankful Anabaptists, that will not confesse, That the children of the Saints are any nearer to God or more beholding to him then Pagans, so much as for the favour to be visible Churchmembers, should by sweet experience be convinced of their errour, and be taught better how to understand that all our children are holy. Page 518. He calls the disputes about baptism perverse and fierce, which did so directly touch the controversy as might irritate me to fall on it at Bewdley, and make those that told me think he did gird at me, which he denies pag. 166. He mentions a speech of mine to Mr. D. whom he terms a godly man [that truth is not to be suspended for peace] and saith, When the times changed (which his words page 220. interpret to be meant, When the ordinance against heresies and errors ceased to be in force) I spake against Infant-sprinkling, prest them to be baptized again, mentioned in Sermons Mr. M. Mr. Blake, and himself, when my doctrine prevailed not (though since I have gotten above 20. rebaptized disciples, whom I often visit and confirm) that I charged them with hypocrisy, with their blood on their heads, that M. Ms. plea from circumcision for infant-baptism is heresie, that by my definition of heresy Independants must be judged Hereticks, that I sought his arguments in writing to put them in my Review of the dispute with Mr. M. and to ing age him in the Controversy; whence he gathered I was unpeaceable, set to carry on my opinion, and to make my self a party. To all this I reply. 'Tis true some conceiving Mr. B. in his speeches had a fling at me, and it seeming likely to me, I did speak to the purpose Mr. B. saies I did, not imagining that a speech upon a conference in a shop without its limitations and cautions should have been (as it is by Mr. B.) published and refuted as my error: but indeed willing only that Mr. B. should know, that in my case I was not to suspend my asserting of truth for fear of losing of peace, as I alleadge in my Apology sect. 3. And I professe I wonder that such as Mr. M. Mr. B. and others that were so earnest against Bishops and ceremonies though warres did follow, and had a great hand in putting them on, should now, the warres being so well abated, be so impatient that Infant-sprinkling is questioned. It is untruely surmifed that the change of times was the cause of my opening my self fully in the congregation at Bewdley. My first meddling with it was when Mr. Bayly had so unjustly charged me in his Anabaptisme chap. 4. page 92. with spoiling infants of all interest in the Covenant of grace, making circumcision a seale to the Jewes only of earthly priviledges, denying to the Jewish infants all right to the Covenant till in their riper years they become actual believers. Which with other fals accusations about twenty in that one page I intreated by letter my dear Father-in-Law Mr. Henry Scudder to advertise him of: after that I might stand right in the thoughts of that worthy man Mr. William Hopkins of Bewdley (now with God) I shewed him how he wronged me, and then cleared my self in my cursory exposition on Ger. 17. brought his book with me into the pulpit, and read a passage of Mr. Ms. Defence part. 3. page 98. for my vindication, which was presently sent up to London. But Mr. Bayly doing nothing to right me, I wrote to Mr. Bayly, and because Mr. Rutherford had my letter to send to him, I wrote since to him to know what became of my letter, but have had no answer. After this I was moved to preach what I did (which was but little till December 1649.) when I found my tenet on the day of fast to be humbled for blasphemies and heresies (which was as I remember March 10. 1649.) reckoned as by others so by Mr. Obadiah Sedgewick in his Sermon before the Lords among heresies, (with which I found afterwards the censure of 52. Ministers about London to concurre stigmatizing me by name as holding four pernicious errors in my Examen) and when the ordinance against blasphemy and heresie was published; which Mr. Boraston though not required, yet published at Ribsford (to which Bewdley Chappel relates) that he might proclaime me an Heretick. Which necessitated me to speak what I did, not the change of times (it's known I spake as much in the hardest times to my opinion as since) nor unpeaceablenesse in me, as Mr. B. surmised. What I preached was in no clamourous manner (as Mr. B. would intimate, calling it exclaiming) but in a way of proof and answer as sober Divines do in the like case. My na ming any was when I recited their words: for which though I was reviled once in London when refuting Doctor Crisp I named him, and Mr. B. in a letter to me, and since in print reckons as no small fault, yet I ever did, and do still think it to be necessary, when the books are in mens hands, and the Auditors are not likely otherwise to know we recite their opinion truly, nor whose error we refute. I do not believe I used those words Mr. B. sets down as mine [Let them budge at it, &c.] though it's likely I might say, it's one of the chiefest signes of sincerity to embrace every truth, and hypocrisy not to receive it for carnal respects; not out of anger that men were not of my mind, but to justify my self after I had fully handled the point about baptism (which I think was either after or immediately before the dispute) I used the Apostles words, Act. 20. 26, 27. nor do I deny that sith our Lord Christ doth, Mark 16. 16. make baptisme some condition of Salvation, I think those that are taught that Infant-sprinkling is not the duty Christ requires of being baptized, and that water baptisme of men at years upon profession of faith is a necessary duty (which I had sufficiently proved at Bewdley) and yet neglect it, do hazzard their salvation living in disobedience to a manifest duty, yea the prime duety whereby they ought solemnly to engage themselves to be Christs Disciples. I have gotten no Disciples to me, and though more then 20 in Bewdley have bin baptized after profession of faith since my removal from them (whom with the whole Town I think my self bound by many ties as often as I may to visit and confirm) yet not rebaptized. It is true to shew how unreasonable the accusation of my tenet as heresy is, I have sundry times said that Mr. Ms. position in his Sermon page 35. [That all Gods commands and institutions about the Sacraments of the Jewes bind us as much as they did them, in all things which belong to the substance of the Covenant, and were not accidentall unto them] is one of the most manifest heresies being condemned, Acts 15. For it expressely asserts that the Gentile Christians are still bound to some rule of circumcision, contrary to the Apostles determination. Nor did I frame a definition of heresie to make good what I said of Mr. Ms. tene, though I deny not the definition I gave with some explication of my meaning: of which what Mr. B. hath in his Corrective page 259, 260. is not much short. Mr. Bs. inference thereupon that by my definition Independents are Heretick, followes not. For though they erre, yet that they make a party for their error is unknown to me: although weary of alteration with Mr. B. as acquainted with his temper I replyed not. If I desired Mr. Bs. animadversions on my writings, that I might see all worth answering and put it in my Review, it was no more unreasonable in me to desire then in Mr. B. to desire the like afore his reprinting his Aphorismes, nor any more folly in him to have gratifyed me then, then in othersto gratifie him with the like; but had been a very friendly & neighbourly part in him to one, who was very glad to gratify him or his neighbours in any thing meet for me, as I deny not (excepting this) he and his neighbours were to gratify me. After his denial of his animadversions I think I came to his Lecture sundry times though not so often as formerly, because of my much absence from Bewdley. To conclude, Mr. B. found me not adverse to the Churches peace, but only his uncharitable surmises imagined me so. And I desire the Reader to take notice that in all this he chargeth me with, there is no one act of separation from whence he should conclude so hardly of me as he doth.