A Third Reply; OR A short Return to Mr. baxter's brief Answer to my Second Reply, in his Postscript to a late Treatise of Justification. WHEREIN His Contradictions, and Slanderous way of Writing, is further detected. By H. D. ' Anvers. He that will injuriously speak to the World, what he should not speak, must look to hear what he would not hear. Mr. Bax. Treat. of Just. in Answer to Dr. Tully, p. 76. Job 21.34. In your Answer there remaineth falsehood. 2 Tim. 3.8, 9 Now as Jannes and Jamberes with stood Moses, so do these men resist the Truth, etc. But they shall proceed no further, for their folly shall be manifest unto all men. Printed Anno 1676. To the Reader. Reader, THE design of this Paper is not to gain the mastery, or to get the last word, to vie slanders with my Antagonist or to return him railing, for railing, which would be as vain, as ridiculous (if not impious) to attempt, especially in a contest with such a master of words, and who has given himself the liberty to let his Pen lose in so luxuriant a manner with whomsoever he contends. But as you'll find, to make a necessary and honest defence against a new personal charge; to plead the just vindication of an innocent people from his repeated slanders, by detecting the falsehood of his feigned pretences in justification thereof. To discover to himself and others how little Demonstration or Conviction there is in his Magesterial way of Dictating. And to declare my hearty concurrence to his fair motion of putting an end to our former Contest, by a candid perusal of our Books, to which he honestly refers the Reader, and to which I am willing to stand or fall. Wherein if the Truth may have any advantage, Mr. Baxter any benefit, the disturbed World any due satisfaction, or the Church any real profit, my end is abundantly answered, who desire in all things to approve myself a sincer lover, and faithful servant of the Truth, whilst H. D'Anvers. A 3d. Reply; Or a short Return to Mr. baxter's Brief Answer to my 2d. Reply, in his Postscript to a late Treatise of Justification, etc. MR. Baxter having, as he saith, perused my 2d. Reply, and being, as I conceive much concerned thereat, (notwithstanding his promised silence) doth, for the better easing of his disturbed mind, and galled conscience, give a very angry return in a cur, but costly, Postscript, which he has ordered to be annexed to his late Treatise of Justification, in answer to Dr. Tully, (since the publication thereof:) I say costly, because by that Artifice, though it be but 7 Pages, is not usually to be Purchased under 5 s. The which may be briefly considered under these following Heads, comprehending the whole, viz. First, the general Confutation he gives the Book. 2dly. His general reference to the Books themselves. 3dly. The 2 particular Instances he insists on for his own Vindication, and my Reproof. 4ly His quibbling reflections upon me and my Back. 1. The general Confutation. In the first place, you'll find he is pleased in his old Reviling way (which he cannot forbear) to confute me by wholesale (with a Bellarmine thou liest) telling us in so many words, That he judges it useless to give the World a particular detection of the evils (themselves) and that if he had so little to do with his time to write ie, he supposes, few would find leisure to read it: And therefore instead of any other confutation, we must upon his word take it to be a bundle of mistakes, fierceness, and confidence set off with the greatest Audacity, etc. p. 74. And if this be not an excellent way of Information and Conviction, and a very exemplary piece of Justice, to be thus Judge and Executioner in his own Case, (without the least Demonstration, and that against the fullest proof and evidence) is submitted to better Judgement. As though a Dictator's Ipso Dixit, big Hectoring words, and contemptuous ill-Language, instead of Proof, sound Arguments, and meek Instruction, was the best way to stop the mouths of Gain-sayers, to silence Opposers, and inform the World. 2. His Reference 〈◊〉 the Books. ●ut 2dly growing a little cooler, and better bethinking him●●●●, he is content to allow the Reader some share in the Judgement, and to that end gives him leave to peruse his Book with mine; to examine the Authors about whose words or sense we differ, p. 74. which is indeed something like. And therefore to so fair a Motion (since his Ingenuity leads him not to a confession of so many things so palpably proved against him) I hearty join Issue with him: Not doubting to meet with a more impartial Decision from a Candid Reader. And therefore to that end I do most earnestly recommend to his diligent search, having Mr. baxter's Book (and Mr. Barrots Queries he also mentions and refers to) in one hand, and my Book in the other) the following Particulars wherein the greatest difference his betwixt us, viz. 1. Whether Mr. Baxter hath not fully justified my Book, he so scor●●●●, ●●●tes against in all the parts thereof, as maintained in the first Chapter. And not only the Doctrinal part, [his Cavils being so fu●y replied to, and removed, p 22, etc.] but the Historical part also having so fully given up the thing, he and his Partners so shamefully wrangle about, as p. 18, etc. 2. Whether my Witnesses against Infant's Baptism are not substantially justified against all his Cavils, and freed from his heinous charge of Forgery and Prevarication, viz. The Donatists, Ancient Britain's, Waldenses and Wickliffians, as p. 33. to ●53. 3. Whether Mr. B's notorious slanders of the Anabaptists and Vanists, are not substantially evidenced, as p. 154, to 175. 4. Whether his shameful broad-faced contradictions are not manifestly detecte● from his own Writings, particularly as being for and against Episcopacy, p. 175. for and against Nonconformity, p. 222. for and against Arminianism, p. 204. for and against Tradition, p 207. for and against Popery, p 218, etc. 5. Whether it doth not evidently appear by undeniable demonstration, that Mr. B. is notoriously guilty of Forgery, Prevarication, and falsifying Authorities. Particularly 1st. in Fathering that Popish confession on the Waldenses, leaving out what should discover the same, p. 98, etc. 2dly. Denying Bede to mention any thing of Birinus, as I affirmed, or that the Isle of Weight was in lower Saxony, the truth of both being so fully made appear, p. 75. 3dly. His notorious falsifications about Beringarius, 263. 4ly. His egregious abusing Dr. Prideux, the 2d. Lateran Council. Otto Frisingenses and Binius, about Peter Bruis and Arnoldus Testimonies, p. 263, etc. 5ly. His most notorious abuse of Wickliff in many particulars, p 263. etc. 6ly. His strange assertions and monstrous contradictions about the Creed, p. 209 And 7ly. His very evil dealing about the Revelations, p. 230. But especially about the Scriptures themselves, p. 243. 6. Whether there is not a faithful Collection of some of his shameful Billingsgate Language, so unbecoming either a Man or a Christian, p. 259. Wherein if I am found tardy, I shall willingly submit to the just censure of the faithful Examiner. If not, I hope it will be judged but reasonable, that Mr. B. should hear the blame and shame of such Temerity and Injustice. 3. The 2 I●stances insisted on. 3dly. As to these 2 Particulars, he is pleased to pick out of the bundle, and to give his exceptions against, notwithstanding the uselessness (as he pleased to tell us) of enumerating Particulars, I shall punctually and particularly reply to, and the rather because it must be supposed since he vouchsafes to mention any, that they are of the greatest moment, and by which he would have the rest judged he doth not mention. 1. About Baptising naked. The first, and that upon which he lays the greatest stress, is that about Baptising naked,, telling us in these words p. 74. That he finds but one thing in the Book that needeth any other Answer than to peruse what is already written, and that is about Baptising naked. And therefore he is pleased in 2 Pages to give us several new shifts to avoid the dint of the evidence that seems to gall his Conscience, instead of such an honest owning of his guilt, and taking the shame that such notorious slanders, and opprobrious evil-dealing calls for, tending, as you'll find, rather to heighten and aggravate, than to lessen or extenuate his crimes. And which for method-sake are gathered up to you under the following Heads. viz. First, About what he saith relating to the Report itself. 2dly. The time when. 3dly. The place where. 4ly. The evidence he yet stands by to justify himself therein. Falsehood 1 First, as to the Report itself, he now denies, That he ever affirmed it to be our ordinary practice to Baptise naked. His words are these, p. 75. The truth is, that 3 years after mistaking my words, as if I had affirmed it to be their ordinary practice, (as you may read in them) which I never did, nor thought: They vehemently deny this. And such heedless reading occasioneth many of Mr. D's accusatioms. Insinuating thereby, that his accusations and reflections respected only some of the Anabaptists, but not their party and way, and therefore those that had mistakingly opposed him, denied that it was their ordinary practice so to Baptise, which he affirmed not. But what truth there is in this shift let the Reader Judge. For you'll find in his plain Scripture Proof, (the Book wherein the accusation is) where he principally designs to render the Anabaptists and their way odious and ridiculous, he gives 8 Arguments against their way of Baptising, and puts this Title to the Head of those Chapters, viz. Arguments to probe the Anabaptists way of Baptising sinful. All respecting the whole party of Anabaptists. not some of them only. Then in p. 136. comes to his 7th. Argument: Wherein he thus expresseth himself, viz. My 7th Argument is against another wickedness in their [viz. the Anabaptists] manner of Baptising, which is their dipping persons naked, as is [viz. at that present, not was] very usual with many of them, or next to naked, which is usual with the modestest of them, and in p. 137. if next to naked the difference is not great. And then from their usual or ordinary custom of Baptising naked, or next to naked, which in his esteem is much as one, thus argues, p. 136. If it be a breach of the 7th. Commandment, ●t must also ●e owned, ●hat the sin ●f naked ●ipping was so very usual with many, and not disowned by the ●est, he night very well attribute it to the whole. [Thou shalt not Commit Adultery] ordinarily to Baptise naked: Then it is intolerable wickedness, and not God's Ordinance. But it is a breach of the 7th. Commandment ordinarily to Baptise naked: Therefore it is intolerable wickedeness, and not God's Ordinance. Upon which, saith Mr. Fisher, I perceive he takes it for a truth, that we ordinarily dip naked, and thereupon disputes against it as our usual practice. And thereupon his own Quaere-man Mr. Barrott, (whom he commends so highly) doth in his Book, writ this present year, called Good will to Men, in p. 443. tell us, viz. What Mr Baxter hath written of this practice (viz of Dipping) in our Circumstances, p. 134, to 138 (of his plain Scripture) deserves to be well weighed, for so far as I am able to judge he there clearly proves, that our Dippers break the Commandment of God (viz. the 7th. Commandment here mentioned) to follow their Tradition. And pray you let Mr. Wills resolve us, when he tells us, That the Anabaptists Doctrine leads to Blasphemy and Immorality, and refers us to Mr. Baxter for some proof thereof, whether he doth not also intent this very passage. So that I presume this figment, that he did not intent us all, will signify little, except it be more fully to detect his own unfaithfulness. For first his scope and design is to reach the whole party (herein.) 2ly. His 3 Arguments fully take in the whole in every one of them. 3ly. The Instance itself in the 7th. Argument most expressly doth it, who are so wicked, as he saith, to dip naked, or next to naked, in their usual way of Baptising. 4ly The Argument itself, whereby he would render us Adulterers and Violators of the 7th. Commandment is for our ordinary or usual Baptising naked, or next to naked 5ly. You see others of his own Party have been so heedless (as he calls it) as well as ourselves so to understand it. 6ly. That Mr. Fisher, who especially opposed him for the same 3 years after, doth not only deny it to be our ordinary practice, (to Baptise naked) but that any that ever he heard did ever so practise it in this Nation that belonged to any of the Churches, challenging him to produce but one Instance of any Maid or Woman that in any serious wise was so Baptised. Falsehood 2 Secondly, His next shift that he hopes to get relief from as an Argument he meant some of them only, and not the Party themselves, is from the time when this was mentioned, which now 26 years after he would persuade us respected only some in the first beginning of the Sect. His words eaten these, p. 282. More Proofs, viz. That in the Year 1647, or 1648. when Anabaptistry began to be obtruded with more successful fervency, I lived near Mr. Tombs, in a Country where some were, and within the hearing of their practice in other parts of the Land, and that in that beginning the common fame of Ministers and People was, that in divers places some Baptised naked, and some did not. And p. 283. Most Sects do in their height and heat at first, that which afterwards they surcease with shame, mentioning the Denatists, Munster Anabaptists, Ranters, and Quakers And again, If he would persuade the World that I wrote that of all the Anabaptists, or of most, or of any in any other Age, or that I have since said that any continue the same practice, he would but deceive Men, for it is nothing so. And p. 74 of Postscript. My Book was written 1649. A little before common uncontrolled same was, that not far from us in one place many of them were Baptised naked, etc. So that all this being laid together, he would have us think, that this respected only some in the first rise of the Sect, as common fame gave it a little before he wrote his Book in 49 but in no Age or time ever since. But how little Truth or Honesty there is in this shuffle, let the Reader judge. For 1st. It is manifest, that Anabaptism had not its rise about this time, as he seems to insinuate, for not to mention the Anabaptists in H. the 8th's time, and Queen Elizabeth's also, as expressed at large in the Treatise of Baptism. p. 306. etc. There were divers Churches of Anabaptists in the Nation many years before this, so that if he respected the beginning of the Sect, he is far less competent to report common fame for so long before, than Mr. Fisher to deny it 3 years after. But 2dly. it is manifest, that the Book itself that reports it, doth not give it as a hear-say of something past, and practised by a few but of the known practice of their Sect at the time of the writing thereof, his words are as before remarked, viz. My 7th. Argument is against another wickedness in their manner of Baptising, which is their dipping persons naked, as is very usual, etc. viz. as they practised at that time of the writing of his Book, by such naked Baptising, or next to naked, not a word of Common Fame, of some people before that time, as now he would be thought to intent, but their known practice at that present. Falsehood 1 Thirdly, His next Subterfuge, to which he flies for some relief, is from the place where (than he would be thought to intent) it was so practised, having, it seems, now found out a particular place near them wherein to centre it, and by which he would be understood not to mean it to be universal. His words are these, p. 74. Postscript. Common uncontrolled fame was, that not far from us in one place many of them were Baptised naked, reproproving the clothing way as Antiscriptural. And therefore tells us, He applied to Mr. Tombs himself, and to divers of his Church who denied it not. And p. 75 Gives one reason why Mr. Haggar and Fisher were not competent Judges of a matter of Fact far from them, viz. Mr. Fisher in Kent, and Haggar in Staffordshire, and Mr. Baxter, and Mr. Tombs in Worcestershire, and the place intended ●ear, or not far from Kedderminster. But whether this Fig-leaf will afford him any more cover than the former, will easily appear. For First, it is clear, the Book itself reporting it, doth not confine it to any such place in their Neighbourhood, but detects it to be the ordinary practice of the Anabaptists to Baptise naked, or next to naked. And Secondly, His More Proofs tells us, the fame hereof was so universal, that it was the common consent of that present time, and that to deny it would be to take all sorts then living for Liars. But Thirdly, it appears he has very much missed his Mark, and ill laid his matters together, to make the Anabaptists in his Neighbourhood (who owned Mr. Tombs to be their Pastor and Administrator (as now he affirms) to have been the most interessed persons, p. 75. and most principally concerned in this matter of Fact, since at another time he confesseth Mr. T. was of another Judgement, so that if very many of them did so usually practise the naked Dipping, it must be without their Admiministrator. But Fourthly, to put the matter out of Doubt, his own words in his More Proofs will rectify him, and at least discover to him, that he has an ill memory, vix. p. 282▪ where he tells us, That in 47, and 48. He lived near Mr. Tombs, in a Country where some were, and within the hearing of their practice in other parts of the Land, and that in that their beginning the common fame of Ministers and People was, that in divers places some Baptised naked, and some did not. So that here the common fame, it seems, respected not only one place in their Neighbourhood, but divers places throughout the Land, and therefore assigns common consent at that time, and all sorts then Living to affirm it. And the Original Book as before, That it was the usual and ordinary wicked practice of the whole party at that time to dip naked, or next to naked, which was much as one in his account Falshood The Fourth shift he makes, is respecting the evidence he yet stands by to make it good, viz 1st. The Positive Testimony, viz: Common Fame, 2dly. The Negative or Circumstantial Testimony, viz. The non-denial of any, no not the most interessed persons themselves. To the 1st. His More Proofs, p. 282. affirms it to be common fame and common consent, and his Postscript common uncontrolled fame. And again in these words, viz. And in a matter of Fact, if that fame be not credible, which is of things late and near, and not contradicted by any one, we must surcease humane converse. But what this signifies let all men judge. It is true, when I called upon him for satisfaction for this groundless slander, he tells us 26 years after, That he had it by common fame of Ministers and People, and by common consent at the present time, and to deny it, was to take all sorts then living for Liars, and again common uncontrolled fame. But is it not very strange, that if it had been such a common uncontrolled fame at that time▪ that no man should mention it but Mr. B. The Anabaptists having many bitter Enemies, who then, and before that time, wrote against them, and was it not much that none of them should meet with that common fame, but he; for surely, if they had, we had heard of it from other hands besides his own. Though as to that kind of Evidence, viz. common fame, I had thought I had inserted enough from Mr. B's own Pen, (out of his Christian Directory) for ever to have prevented his insisting on it any more, which tells us, It is the most common Cloak for the most inhuman lies and Calumnies, etc. And was not that the Testimony which made the Waldenses such Villains? Paul such an Heretic? and put Christ to death, etc. But to put the matter out of Doubt, the ground you will find, that first he assigned for the matter of Fact, was not common fame, bear-say, or bare words, (which as he heretofore owned was so uncertain a thing, yea so great a Liar) but known experience, as his own words evidence, viz. p. 138. plain Scrip. But in both these Cases, (viz. That of Murder and Adultery by dipping naked in cold water) we dispute not against bare words, but experiences and known practices for their naked Baptising is a known thing, and the wickedness that hath followed on some, and that some have died of it, viz. of naked Baptising, not a word of common consent, or common fame. And thereupon saith Sam. Fisher, Sith that I perceive he takes it for a Truth that we ordinarily dip naked, and thereupon disputes against it as our usual practice: And then not confidently only, but of a certain relates to the whole World, that it is no bare words, nor any doubtful thing, but an experience, or known practice, if he can clear himself let him do it, who also summon him in the Name of Christ Jesus to prove it our practice ordinarily to Baptise naked, or produce but any one Witness of any Woman or Maid, etc. And Mr. Haggar thereupon, whilst he chargeth us to break the 7th. Commandment, lays him under the breach of the 9th. for falsely accusing his Neighbour therein. Falsehood As to the 2d. concerning his Negative, or Circumstantial Testimony, which he yet with so much confidence stands by, viz. That none have to him denied it, no not those who were most concerned therein, viz. Mr. Tombs and his Church, his words are these, p. 75. Post. He now tells me, That Mr. Fisher, Mr. Haggar, and Mr. Tombs did deny it. Let any one read Mr. 't's Answer to me, yea, and that passage by him now cited, and see whether there be a word of denial, Mr. Fisher or Mr Haggar he never saw, their Books he had seen, but never read 2 Leaves to his remembrance of Mr Fishers; nor all Mr. Haggars, if he had, he had not taken them for competent Judges of a Fact far from them, and that 3 years after could they say that no one ever did so? Affirming positively, That none ever denied it to him, nor did he ever read any that did deny it. And in More Proofs, p. 282. When Mr. T. answered my Book, and those very Passages he never denied the truth of the thing, (though he did not so Baptise himself) intimating others might. In answer whereto, we must first observe to you his fallacious quibble herein, viz That none ever denied it to him. But what did they not deny? viz. That though they did not themselves so practice, nor knew, nor heard of any that so did, yet they did not deny but some might, because they did not know all things. But how will this relieve Mr. B. It is true, this might have been something, if it had been all that Mr. B. had charged, viz. That some, in some place, he knew not where, might do such a thing. But his accusation was far otherwise, viz. That the Anabaptists Baptising naked was a known thing, and an usual practice of very many in divers places of the Land, and next to naked by the modestest of them, which was much as one, and therefore brings the wickedness of Adultery therein to bear, and reflect upon the whole party and way, as their usual and ordinary practice, which naked Baptising Mr. Tombs, Haggar and Fisher do all of them so positively deny, as well they may, it being the true purport, sense and meaning of his accusation. For otherwise let Mr. B. consider how ridiculous and foolish it would be for an Anabaptist, hearing that some Presbyterian in some part of the Land did play some mad Pranks, should thereupon charge Presbytery itself therewith, and draw Arguments against the whole party and way for the same. As Mr. B. would now be thought by this kind of arguing to charge the Anabaptist, and their way. And that Mr. 't's Answer to him, as suggested, had no other signification than what is before hinted, take his own words in a Letter lately writ to me in Answer to one I sent to him, since Mr. B's Postscript came forth, (confining the naked Baptising to Worcestershire, or their Neighbourhood thereabouts about 48, to 49.) to know whether he ever heard of any such thing in those parts, returned to me as followeth, viz. That he never heard or knew of any that Baptised naked, in those parts, and that if he did not deny they might be Baptised naked, (though he doth not remember that ever that Question was put to him by Mr. B. or any body else) it was because he could not say there were none, unless he were omniscient, some in former times having done so as Vossius tells us. And therefore Mr. B himself in his More Proofs p. 283. can tell me, That in a Negative 25 years after, I cannot possibly be a competent Witness, no nor if I had written at that time; for who can say, that there was no such thing done beyond his knowledge. Which is most certain, it being therefore the affirmers part to prove, and which being required from Mr. B. he cannot produce. And as for what he saith, That none denied this slander to him, it is notoriously manifest, that both Mr. Tombs the same year, Mr. Fisher and Mr. Haggar the 2 following years after, denied the same to him; for they all wrote against him to detect his injustice therein; and for his now saying he read but 2 Leaves of Mr. Fisher, and not all Mr. Haggars, is but miserable trifling; for if Mr. B. writ his mind in any thing, and expresses it but in an Epistle to another Book (his usual way of dictating) or in some small Postscript or Pitance in any of his Numerous Volumes he expects all the World should take notice of it, and if any that writ against him chance to overlook it, at their perils be it, and of which they must expect to hear roundly. And can it be thought, that he who was the great Hector and Champion, yea esteemed so much the Mall of the Anabaptists, would pretend to answer their Arguments, and not read their Books, and that in the height of the controversy, and especially wherein matter of Fact was concerned, and that of so heinous a nature too. And can it be though reasonable, that Mr. B. should be so shamefully injudicious to recommend Fisher's Book to the World to be considered in the Controversy, as he did, and not read the same. Mr. Lamb and Mr. Allen, who have both of them left us, yet exceedingly, as I hear, blame Mr. B. for his broaching, much more for his so defending this slander, & who cannot only testify to the seemliness of our Baptism, but their utter ignorance of so much as the report of naked Baptising among us. But it is manifest in his own words, That guilt is tender and self-love-strong, (Ep. before Dr. Tulley's Answer) and therefore no wonder to see all these Shifts to save his reputation: But whether such evil dealing (not to repeat the same measure meated to the Vanists, for which he has given no satisfaction) doth not bespeak an an maimed either in his Morals or Intellects, and without repentance and due satisfaction utterly unfit to write us Bodies of Divinity, Christian Directories, and Catholic Theologies, is left to the judicious to determine. Instance ●ut fal●ing his declaration The other Instance he gives, to prove my Book is full of false Allegations, and sit off with the greatest audacity, is (as he saith) by those few Lines of his own about their meeting at St. James', left with the Clerk grossly falsified, p. 73. Postscript. Falshood Concerning which, that the Reader may better judge of this gross falsification, let him take here the following Copy I wrote after, and what is without dispute from the Original itself, viz. The Copy I had from my Bookseller. Though when I began to Preach in this Place, I publicly professed, that the notorious necessity of the People, who were more than the Parish Church can hold, moved me thereto, and that we met not under any colour or pretence of any Religious Exercise ix other manner than according to the Liturgy and practice of the Church of England, and that were I able, I would accordingly read the same. The Copy obtained from the Original. Though when I began to Preach in this Place, I publicly professed, that the notorious necessity of the People, who were more than the Parish Church can, hold moved me thereto, and that we met not under any colour or pretence of any Religious Exercise in other manner than according to the Liturgy and practice of the Church of England, and were I able, I would accordingly read myself. So that you see the Sum Total of this gross falsification lies singly in these words Read the same for Read myself, not another Syllable different, which I humbly conceive might well have passed (if Mr. B. meant candidly and honestly) without such a brand, having one and the same sense and signification. For it Mr B. would not be thought as here he solemnly declares, to be a separate from the public profession. he must give his personal assent and consent to the Common Prayer, and accordingly read the same himself, as all Conformists do, and by Law established aught to do. And if he doth really meet under no other colour or pretence of any Religious Exercise in other manner than according to the Liturgy and practice of the Church of England, he must accordingly read the same himself, viz. the Common Prayer, as others of the Church of England, do, so that if he do not prevaricate, but means honestly, as his words import, it is one and the same thing, and no gross falsification. Though how far such an accurate, defining and distinguishing understanding, a mature exercised discerning knowledge, (he seems so arogantly to insinuate, he has arrived to, p. 78. Postscript) can by Reading accordingly himself, make it such a gross falsification, and so different from accordingly reading the same, is worthy of consideration And what mental equivocation and reservation may lie in these words to relieve him at a dead lift, and to help him into a Conformists Pulpit, I know not, he best knows himself Though it is confidently affirmed by some, that Mr. B. hath lately in Hartfordshire or Buckinghamshire, in order to obtain the Pulpit (where he several times preached in public) read the Common Prayer, or at least some part of it out of the Service Book. Though it is also said, that he hath obtained that public liberty, by virtue of a Licence he had from the Arch-Beshop of Canterbury, but whether it be one formerly granted by him, when the Bishop of London before the Act of Conformity, (when by the Bishop of Worcester he was silenced in those parts) or since, is worthy inquiry, and the rather, because in his said Postscript he is pleased to tell us, viz. F. 79. That he is for'd to part with House and Goods, and Library, and all save his Clothes, and possess no thing, his death being sought after the 6 months' Imprisonment in the common Goal, and continually expected, [viz. To fly from his place and charge, (if not to avoid the Cross of Christ, & to shun a suffering Witness, when so lo loudly called thereto) but how agreeable to the following Scriptures it submitted to his Conscience, viz. 2 Cor. 6.4, 5, 6, etc. Acts 20.11, 12, 13. Mat. 10.38, 29. John 10.12, 13. Mat. 23.2.3, 4.] But is not this a strange Paradox, that he should suffer at that rate for a Nonconformist at London, and yet act the part of a Conformist to so high a degree in the Country. The Truth of which story. if I am not misinformed, is thus, That Mr. B. having with his friends built a new meeting Place near Piccadill, and preaching the first time in it himself, did understand that he was threatened with an Imprisonment by some great man (who was offended the meetinghouse was erected so near him,) did to avoid the same withdraw himself the next week into the Country, procuring by himself or friends a Country Minister, who came to Town the week before. to preach for him in the said meeting place the next Sabbath day, and who was in Mr. B's room and stead seized, and for refusing of Oxford Oath committed to the Gatehouse for 6 month, where he lay about 3 months, (but lately Released by Habeas Corpus) and the said meetinghouse shut up for some time; so that by Proxy he suffers Imprisonment for a Nonconformist in London, and in person (though complainingly banished) outdoes all the Non-conformists by his public preach in the Country as a Conformist. Which contradictions in practice so agreeable to those of his Doctrines before remarked to you, puts me in mind of Bishop Hall's Letter to Welliam Laud, afterwards Archbishop of Canterabury, not unworthy to be mentioned upon this occasion. Decad. Ep. 3. Ep. 5. I would I knew where to find you, than I could tell where to take a direct aim; whereas now I must rove and conjecture, to day you are in the Tents of the Romanists, to morrow in ours, the next day between both, our adversaries think you ours, we theirs: Your Conscience finds you with both, and neither. I flatter you not, this of yours is the worst of all tempers; heat and Gold have their uses, lukewarmness is good for nothing but to trouble the Stomach. How long will you bault? Resolve one way, and know at last what you do hold, what you should cast off, either your Wings or your Teeth, and loathing this Bat-like Nature be either a Bird or a Beast. Alas! how full are you of contradictions? How oft do you fight with yourself? Which I desire Mr. B. may apply, I presume others will as a suitable parallel, not only respecting his double dealing about Nonconformity, but even Popery itself also. But let so much suffice as to the 2 Instances, by which all the rest I have said of Mr. B. is so much in his esteem to be judged. 4ly. As to his Rhetorical Reviling in those his quibbling reflections upon me and my Book in 9 Particulars, which take up 4 of the last 7 Pages, are left to the judicious Reader to determine, to whom those Characters (he is so liberal of) do most properly belong, to me or himself, I being not so competent a Judge in my own Case, viz. The disputing contend, One that sets off the grossest mistakes with the greatest confidence, a fierce striver against Truth, an ignorant militant, casting fire about like Sampsons' Foxes, a dividing hurtful Zealot, ● talking man that can say something, Let it also be judged ●o which if us Solomon's Character (Prov. 21.24.) doth most properly belong. for and against any thing, etc. Only I beg leave to make a little Observation upon that mentioned by him, p. 78. wherein he acquaints us in what a forgiving frame he is, and particularly his disposition to forgive me, in detecting in that way his Popery and Crimes, his changes and passages about the Wars, self-contradictions and Repentances, not describing or denominating my citations about them, lest he did that which savoured not of forgiveness. To which I say, if he thereby intends it for my faithful plain dealing, though mixed sometimes with some sharpness, especially in some repetitions from Dr. Pierce and Dr. Stubbs (his needs calling for it to cure his pride, as Dr. P. observes to him) I then accept it, though I think his thanks had been more proper in the Case. But if it must be supposed for some injurious ill dealing with him, thereby it is, as I conceive, a calumniating, by way of insinuation, a recriminating instead of confessing, a giving the lie to (instead of answering and disproving) his Reprovers. And wherein he doth not only beg instead of clear his own integrity so fully impeached, by such ample demonstration in all the Particulars mentioned, but also under pretence of Brotherly Charity, and a kiss of Love stabs his Brethren under the 5th Rib. Though such pretended forgiveness seems to me as ridiculous, as if a man ask satisfaction of another for some slanderous defamation▪ or injurious personal Assualt, (as dragging by the Hair of the Head about the Streets) and he calmly for his satisfaction tells him he forgives him, and that we all stand in need of Divine forhiveness. The Conclusion. TO Conclude, I desire, since Mr. B. has pleased so confidently to affirm, That only that thing about Naked dipping (in all my Book) needs any new answer from him, That he will seriously consider these 2 things, (which I presume others may) viz. 1. Whether the Answer he hath now given thereto, may rationally free him from a public Calumniator and false Accuser? And if not? Whether then such Crimes do not loudly call for due Humiliation, public Acknowledgement, and Recantation? with promise to look better to his Spirit and Pen, for time to come? And no more to improve his accurate distinguishing faculty fluent invention, and ready Pen; thus to bring forth new shifts, to palliate or justify old crimes, and contemptiously to reproach and vilify those that in faithfulness call him to duty therein. 2. Whether that, since it may be possible, he may so grossly mistake himself in that thing he lays the greatest stress upon; he may not as much fail in the rest he so slights and undervalues: And may not from thence see cause also, to call in question his great confidence in those Hetrodox Points, he hath lately so voluminously tormented the World, and grieved and offended his Brethren with. All which is humbly submitted to the Judicious Reader, and Mr. Baxters' Conscience in the sight of God; with these two following words, viz. 1. An Aphorism of his own, lately sent by him to the Learned Dr. Tully, and worthy his own remembrance all his Days, viz. He that cannot endure the sight of his own Excrements, must not dish them up to another Man's Table, lest they be sent him back again, Treat. of Just. p. 77. So agreeable to the following Scriptures though expressed, as you'll find, in far better Language, and very worthy your observation upon this occasion, viz. Prov. 26. 27. Psal. 7.15, 16. Eccles. 10.8, 9 Mat. 7.2. The other, That known Adage of a wiser Man than himself, viz. Open rebuke is better than secret love. And he that rebuketh a Man afterwards, shall find more favour than he that flattereth with the Tongue, Prov. 27.5.28.23. Which must be understood from a Wise I●●●n, who will therefore love his reprover better, whilst the Scorner, he tells us, will hate him the more for such faithfulness, Prov. 9.8, 9 But however; to provoke to that much neglected duty (to which cuarage and wisdom is so much required, Prov. 25.12.) tells us, That to them that so rebuke, shall be delight, and a good Blessing shall come upon them, Prov. 24.25. ERRATA. In the Marginal Note P. 4. r. That if the sin, for That the sin. FINIS.