PRAECURSOR: OR A FORERUNNER To a large Review of the Dispute concerning INFANT-BAPTISM; Wherein many things both Doctrinal and personal are cleared: about which Mr. RICHARD BAXTER In a Book MOCK-TITLED [PLAIN SCRIPTURE-PROOF OF INFANTS CHURCH-MEMBERSHIP AND BAPTISM] hath darkened the Truth.  
By JOHN TOMBS B. D.  
LONDON, Printed by H. Hils, and are to be sold by H. Crips and Lod. Lloid in Popes-head Ally, T. Brewster and G. Moule at the three Bibles at the West end of Paul's, 1652.   

To the right Honourable Bulstrode Whitlock, Richard Keble, Sergeants at Law, John Lisle Esq Lords Commissioners for the Great Seal of England, Major General Thomas Harrison, Edmund Prideaux Esquire, Attorney General for the State of England, Denis Bond Esquire.  
THrough the influence of the favour of many of you as instruments of the Lord for my liberty to preach the Gospel and peace at the Temple in London, I enjoyed sundry years in the late tempestuous times an unexpected calm, until a new storm arising by reason of the violence of men bend to bear down dissenters from the determinations of the Assembly of Divines at Westminster, by reason of the publishing my Examen of Mr. Marshal's Sermon for Infant-baptism, I was necessitated to leave the harbour I had at the Temple, and to remove a great distance from London, to the place of my nativity, in which I hoped for a setlement, which I found not. For partly by the States selling my lands out of which my maintenance there arose, and partly by reason of the alienating of men's spirits from me through the distance between me and the Antagonist I here answer, I was in a great measure frustrated of my hopes. But it pleased the Lord nevertheless to order things so, that by the means of some of you as Patrons, and others as helpers, I enjoy a comfortable supply for my maintenance, together with that which is dearer to me, the liberty of holding forth the truth of the Gospel, where I laboured many years heretofore. In testimony of my thankful acknowledgement of that ample favour which it pleased some of you to vouchsafe me by your appearing for me, and bounty to me at the Temple, and testimonial of me at my departure thence, the readiness of you all either to invest, or to settle me in the maintenance I now enjoy, & that there may be something in your hands to vindicate me from injurious aspersions, under which myself with the truth I avouch do suffer much, I humbly presume to present this writing to your hands, and praying that you may honour God in your places who hath raised you up to do him service, I subscribe myself  
Your Honour's humble and real servant, JOHN TOMBS. Lemster, December 26. 1651.   

To the dearly beloved, my Auditors formerly the Inhabitants of Bewdly in Worcestershire.  
THe fame of the dispute between Mr. Baxter and myself at your Chapel, Jan. 1. 1649. was at first spread over the land by Mr. Bs abusive passage in his Epistle before his book of The Saints everlasting rest: to which I opposed an answer in my Farewell-speech to you, and that it might be communicated to the Nation printed it with some additions in my Antidote, which I intended in the first place for your use. After this Mr. B. printed a large book for Infants-baptism, framed in manner of a Sermon as intended, and accordingly tendered in an Epistle to you. In which how injuriously he hath dealt with me, and how weakly he hath opposed the truth I taught you, will appear in part by reading this Forerunner to the rest of the answer that is to come after. I did presently upon my first reading of Mr. Bs. book in a set speech briefly show you Mr. Bs. grounds, and the reason why they were unsatisfying. Yet neither my Antidote nor that speech do I find much regarded by many of you: nor perhaps will this writing take much with you. However I have conceived it necessary to tender this writing to you, that it might thereby appear, how vain the excessive boastings of Mr. Bs book have been; how justifiable their receiving the truth, who have yielded to it is; and how inexcusable they are that persist in Mr. Bs. way. What ever you think or speak of me, yet I do, and shall study your good, and committing my labours for you and among you, to the blessing of the Lord, I rest,  
Your loving Countryman and servant in Christ, JOHN TOMBS. Lemster Oct. 1. 1651.   

The Contents.  

Sect. I. OF the necessity and occasion of this present writing.  
Sect. II. That the Title of Mr. Baxters' book, is a mock-title.  
Sect. III. Mr. Baxters' citations from Fathers, advantage him not.  
Sect. IU. Mr. Baxters' citations from my writings, advantage him not.  
Sect. V. Mr. Baxter unduly suggests many things in his Epistles.  
Sect. VI The chief points of Mr. Baxters' book are very briefly touched.  
Sect. VII. Many personal occurrences are cleared: by relating of which Mr. Baxter hath (in his History) sought to create prejudice against me.  
Sect. VIII. More personal matters, which the History of Mr. Baxter hath made crooked, are set strait.  
Sect. IX. In my alleging Peter de Bruis and others as Antipaedobaptists 500 years ago, is no untrath.  
Sect. X. That Mr. baxter's charge of accusing and of disputing my children out of the Church and Covenant of Christ, is vain; and some inquiry is made, how they are in Covenant.  
Sect. XI. About Mr. Baxters' 4. Texts, urged impertinently to prove Infants visible Church-membership.  
Sect. XII. That Mr. Baxter unjustly chargeth me to be a Sect-Master.  
Sect. XIII. That it is not a right way to judge of the truth of doctrine, by strange accidents, though wondrous.  
Sect. XIV. That Mr. Baxter doth not rightly expound Christ's rule, Mat. 7. 15, 16. nor is unholiness of men a note to know falls doctrine by.  
Sect. XV. Mr. Baxters insinuations of the wickedness of Anabaptists, is Calumniatory, and vainly alleged to condemn their doctrine of Antipaedobaptism: Anabaptists, and with them myself, are vindicated from charges of Schism, neglect of the Lords day, etc.  
Sect. XVI. The ground of my opposing Infant-baptism, is confirmed by Mr. Baxter himself.  
Sect. XVII. The gross absurdities, to which Mr. Baxter vaunted I was driven in the dispute.  
Sect. XVIII. The gross untruths Mr. Baxter chargeth me with, are not such.  
Sect. XIX. The 6. imagined errors charged on me by Mr. Baxter are cleared from his censure.  
Sect. XX. Many learned men (with the Oxford Convocation) of former & later times, take Infant-baptism only for an unwritten Tradition.  
Sect. XXI. Many things are cleared about my Conformity, Anabaptists necessity to be baptised, the manner of dipping used by them; their standing to their confession of faith, etc.  
Sect. XXII. The speech [that no one Country is gathered into Christ's visible Church] contains no malignancy to-Christ, but is a manifest truth.    

ERRATA.  
PAge 2. l. 13. debare read debate, p. 4. l. 14. specially r. speciously, p. 5. l. 3. after r. afore, p. 7. l. 7. contrary r. century, p. 13. l. 9 way r. man, p. 14. l. 18. conceive r. convince, p. 15. l. 15. wickedness r. weakness, p. 16. l. 15. weari. r. wari. p. 19 l. 27. 1649. r. 1646. p. 20. l. 36. alteration r. altercation, p. 21. l. 18. r. is con. p. 22. l. 29. and r. ay, p. 26. l. 23. r. I been, l. 35. d. likely is, p. 30. l. 9 3, 4. r. 314. p. 31. l. 24. singularly r. singularity, p. 32. l. 11. hot r. not, p. 33. l. 18. overlasting r. overlashing, p. 37. l. 37. mysteriis r. mysticis, p. 38. l. 25. l. it. is as, l. 28. scoffically r. scoptically, p. 42. l. 19 1. r. 10. p. 44. l. 2. eternally r. eventually, l. 20. r. act Act. p. 45. l. 2. r. this is, p. 49. l. 3. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. l. 28. absolutely r. resolutely, p. 51. l 33. they r. them, l. 35. accident r. antecedent, p. 53. l. 1. 9 r. 8. p. 57 l. 15. r. knew them, p. 58. l. 18. me the d me. But what r. that, p. 60. l. 38. notions r. motions, p, 62. l. 35. r. Ampsing. p. 63. l. 17. alteration r. altercation, p. 65. l. 1. in r. ay, p. 71. l. 7. r. come to me, p. 72. l. 11. r, if he, l. 14. el r. all, l. 25. tras. r. trans. l. 31. any r. my.   

Mr. Richard BAXTER in the 2. Edition of THE SAINTS EVERLASTING REST, part. 1. chap. 8. sect. 5. pag. 1795. in the margin, hath these words.  
ANd in the primitive times none were baptised without an express Covenanting, wherein they renounced the World, Flesh and Devil; and engaged themselves to Christ, and promised to obey him; as you may see in Tertul. Origer, Cyprian, and others at large. I will cite but one for all, who was before the rest, and that is Justin Martyr; speaking of the way of baptising the aged, saith, How we are dedicated to God, we will now open to you. As many as being penswaded do believe these things to be true which we teach, and do promise to live according to them, they first learn by prayer and fasting to beg pardon of God for their former sins; ourselves joining also our prayer and fasting. Then they are brought to the water, and are born again (or baptised) in the same way as we ourselves were born again. For they are washed with water in the name of the Father, the Lord and God of all; and of our Saviour Jesus Christ; and of the Holy Ghost— Then we bring the person thus washed and instructed, to the Brethren, as they are called, where the Assemblies are; that we may pray both for ourselves and the new illuminated person, that we may be found by true doctrine and by good works, worthy observers and keepers of the Commandments, and that we may attain eternal salvation. Then there is brought to the chief Brother, (so they called the chief Minister) Bread, and a Cup of Wine (washed;) which taking, he offereth praise and thanksgiving to the Father by the name of the Son and Holy Ghost. And so a while he celebrateth thanksgiving. After prayers and thanksgiving, the whole Assembly saith Amen. Thanksgiving being ended by the Precedent (or chief guide) & the consent of the whole people, the Deacons as we call them, do give to every one present, part of the Bread and Wine, over which thanks was given; and they also suffer them to bring it to the absent. This food we call the Eucharist, to which no man is to be admitted but only he that believeth the truth of our doctrine, being washed in the Laver of Regeneration for Remission of sin; and so liveth as Christ hath taught: Apol. 2. This then is no new overstrict way you see.   

PRAECURSOR, OR A FORERUNNER to a large Review of the dispute concerning INFANT-BAPTISME heretofore managed by the Author.  

SECT. I. Of the necessity and occasion of this writing.  
IT is the observation of Solomon Prov. 18. 19 (as we now read it) that a brother offended is harder to be won then a strong city, and their contentions like the bars of a castle, which being strong will neither bow, nor yield, say our late Annotations on the Place. Which thing as it is true of natural brethren, when they contend about civil affairs, so it is too often found true among Christian brethren, yea even in the ministry of the Gospel, when they contend about the things of Christ whether out of faction, or conscience. We need not go far for instances to prove it: this last age hath verified it too plainly in the contentions between the Lutherans & Calvinists in Germany, Remonstrants & Contraremonstrants in Belgia, Prelatist; & non-Conformists, Independents and Presbyterians in England. Among others the providence of the Lord hath made me a man of contention, as the prophet complains of himself, Jerem. 15. 10, and that which is most grievous to me with my brethren in the ministry and faith of Christ, with whom. I hoped for a brotherly conjunction in the work of Christ, the yoke of Prelates being removed, and about that ordinance of baptism, which should be a bond of union between us, Ephes. 4. 5. I with others asserting infant-baptisme to be a corruption of the ordinance of baptism, others avouching it as of God, and the contrary a pernicious error. The season in which I appeared in this matter, the spirits of men in Old, and New England being very thirsty after reformation in worship according to the word, humane inventions every where cried down, this being taken for a maxim against Papists, and Prelates, that in God's worship we must keep close to the institution, and an Assembly called to that end, and the Parliament with them engaged in solemn Covenant,. I taking the way approved by Protestant writers afore I vented any thing in public to debare the matter with learned Ministers, and after to present my exceptions against Paedobaptism to a Committee of the Assembly, gave me hopes of a facile and speedy way for clearing the point. But whether it were that men's resolutions were pitched on the patterns of other Churches, or swayed with prejudice, or fear or something else, I quickly found my hopes deceived, my very dissenting from them though in this candid manner begetting enmity towards me, and notwithstanding my reasons presented to them, Paedobaptism established in the Directory, and the not practising of it, and gainsaying of it made penal; which things necessitated me to print my two Treatises, and this drew down on me a storm of writers, by whom men's spirits were exasperated against me, whereby I was enforced to print my Apology, afore I could review the dispute as I intended. But my Apology not preventing my removal from that place where I had better opportunity to write, and print then sithence, yet as soon as I could settle myself and family in any sort I applied myself to review the dispute according to the order of the Examen of Mr. Marshal's sermon, which I had gone through unto the third conclusion, and had some purpose of printing a part of it by itself, because of the difficulty in printing and sale of large things: Yet afore I did it by reason of the neighbourhood of Mr. B. I imparted some sheets about 1 Cor. 7. 14. to him, out of which he took notes as he pleased, and quickly returned them to me without animad versions on them, which I hoped he would have done of his own accord, as the manner of Scholars of acquaintance is in such cases. After some of my Auditor's beginning to inquire after the duty of being baptised, it was propounded by one to have recourse to Mr. B. and by me, if they did so, to get his arguments in writing for infant-baptism: but our endeavours not succeeding; I yielded to a dispute though much against my mind, presaging from the knowledge I had of Mr. Baxters' quickness and my own slowness in answering an argument not under my eye, the favour of the most to Mr. Bs. tenet, and a verseness from mine, and other accidents; Mr. B. likely to gain the fame of a victory, and to put back the work of reformation of that corruption, yet hoping Mr. B. would after have imparted to me his arguments in writing, that I might as Dr. Raynolds permitted Hart, mend my answers afore printing. But Mr. B. denying it, and venting the passage in his Saints everlasting rest, wherein he speaks of gross absurdities I was driven to, I was forced to print my Antidote, since which he hath printed a large book in which he hath raised much dust to darken the truth, and to asperse my person: which I am necessitated to answer, and to stay or order the review of the dispute between myself, Mr. M. and others as there shall be cause.   

SECT. II. That the title of Mr. Baxters' book is a mock-title.  
MR. Bs. Book is entitled Plain Scripture-proof of Infant's churchmembership and baptism: which is true only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: to the contrary, and might have been moretruly entitled, no plain Scripture-proof for infant's baptism. Let any man but view his texts which are these: Mat. 28. 19 Acts 15. 10. Levit. 25. 41, 42. Luke 9 47, 48. with Mat. 18. 5. Mark. 9 41. Rom. 11. 17, 19, 20, 24, 25, 26. Mat. 23. 37, 38, 39 Revel. 11. 15. Heb. 8. 6. & 7. 22. Deut. 29. 10, 11, 12. Rom. 4. 11. Exod. 20. 6. Josh. 7. 25, 26. Deut. 13. 12, 13, 14. Exod. 20. 5. Num. 31. 17. Dan. 6. 24. Deut. 20. 16, 17. Deut. 28 4, 18, 32, 41. Mal. 2. 15. 1 Cor. 7. 14. Mark 9 36, 37. & 10. 13, 14, 15, 16. being not prepossessed with his Chemical extractions, but using his own wit or ancient Commentators, yea or modern except about three or four of these texts, and I should as soon expect he should conclude a new world in the moon as Infant-baptisme from them. The very first and only text which speaks a word of baptism is so plain against infant-baptisme, that Paedobaptists in their Commentaries and disputes think it enough if they can avoid the force, of it against them. Yea is not Mr. Bs. own confession contradictory to the title of his book? page 3. posit. 1. He tells us of some things plainly determined in Scripture, others have no such determination. And saith, Such is the case of infant-baptisme. And page 301. If the very baptism of infants itself be so dark in the Scripture, that the controversy is thereby become so hard as we find it, etc. And if it be so dark in Scripture, and found so hard by him, me thinks that he might not be thought to delude people; he should have altered the title, and forborn to talk as he doth in his book of bringing plain Scripture-proof to them that call for them. If I might be allowed to pass my censure on him as he doth on me, I would not stick to say, that laying aside his Rhetoric, his exclamations, interrogations, admirations, expostulations, misapprehensions of my actions and answers, invectives against Anabaptists, and two or three quirks of wit, there's as little matter to his purpose that hath the likeness of solidity in his book as I have met within a book so specially set forth, and so much cried up, and that he doth only magno caenatu nugas agere, endeavour much to trifle much; and that he had done better with the Oxford Convocatior, Mr. Bedford (as he citys him page 301.) with many others to have rested on tradition unwritten, then to bring such impertinent texts as he hath done for infant-baptisme. But I must remember I am an Antagonist. He saith he was constrained thereunto unavoidably by my importunity. Answer, ti's true I was importunate to have his arguments in writing: but never that he should print them, much less print my answers taken only from my mouth either relying on another's pen or his own memory. Doctor Rainolds dealt not so with Hart the Jesuit: nor will I think an ingenuous scholar conceive his dealing candid, who knows the difference of answering in verbal conference, and writing where the argument is before the respondent. If I were so importunate he might have conceived it was for my satisfaction, which he denies to have been manifested to him page 281. or if it were only for my neighbours there had been some love in it if we had had them without printing them, specially with such asperity and foul descirptions of me as he makes. But now he hath printed let's look upon them.   

SECT. III. Mr. Baxters' citations from Father's advantage him not.  
AFter he comes to the arguments which were desired, 20. leaves in quarto are spent in sentences, Epistles, and History, and 5. more in a very small letter in 10. positions and 3. propositions to usher in his arguments with state, or rather to prepossess his Reader. First he sets down 2. texts, which are alleged in his 26. argument to prove his 2d. main argument, and there I shall meet with them. Then sundry of the Ancients speeches. The first of origen's is examined in my Examen part. 1. sect 5. and my answer vindicated in my Apology sect. 16. page 81. The speech of Augustin de bapt. cont. Donat. l 4. c. 23. (it should be 24.) shows he found no Divine authority for infant-baptisme, but the conceit he had that what the universal Church holdeth came from Apostolical authority, and circumsion of infants. The former is no good rule, as appears by the tenets of the ancients about Episcopacy, Easter, Millenary opinion, infant-Communion. I will recite some speeches of men very eminent, Salmas. appar. ad libr. de prim. Papae page 86. Eutychio idem usu venit, quod omnibus fermè scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis Craecis, Latinisque, ut dum morem sui temporis spectant à principio sic semper fuisse existimârint: Molin. vates lib. 2. c. 13. page 133. D●nique Satan jampridem orsus primula initia mysterii iniquitatis tam densas tenebras offudit Historiae Ecclesiasticae primi seculi sub Apostolic, & post Apostolos super is additos, ut Baronius fateatur vix quicquam certi posse statui. Chamier. panstr. Cath. tom. 3. lib. 24. c. 16. sect. 50. (quasi vero, inquam, non Cyprianus quum rebaptizari vellet tincto: apud Haereticos non plenis buccis occlamaret it à semper observ itum fuisse in Ecclesia. The latter is the common mistake about cicumcision, which hath been often answered in my Exercit. Exam. Apology page 85. As for the place of August. tom. 7. de peccat. mer. & remis. l. 3. c. 5. that all Antiquity held, that believers infants do receive remission of original sin by Christian baptism, Mr. B. doth not rightly translate the words. For the words are not as Mr. B. translates [believers little ones, fidelium parvulos;] but [fideles parvulos, believing little ones.] And what he means by little ones believing, he shows lib. 1. de peccat. mer. & remiss. cap. 27. quis autem nesciat credere esse infantibus haptizari, non credere autem non baptizari? who knows not that to infants to believe is to be baptised, not to believe is not to be baptised? So that with Austin all baptised infants are believers, unbaptized unbelievers: and yet lib. 4. the bapt. contra Donat. cap. 23. he saith, that Certe nondum possunt parvuli infants cord credere ad justitiam, & ore confiteri ad salutem, Certainly they cannot yet believe with the heart unto righteousness, as the pious thief on the cross, but do withstand by crying their baptism. But how vain Augustine's judgement was about infant-baptism is showed in my Examen part. 1. Sect. 8. and may be seen by considering how he maintained a like antiquity and necessity of giving infants the Lords Supper both in the passage cited by me in my Apology out of the first book de pecc. merit. & remiss. cap. 24. pag. 82. and lib. 3. de pecc. mer. & remiss. c. 4. next to that which Mr. B. citys which Mr. B. doth not rightly cut off page 162. of his book; whence I gather that Mr. B. is not to be too easily trusted in his citations of Authors. The words he citys out of Justin Martyr his Epistle ad Zenam prove nothing that is denied. The testimony of Cyprian Epist. 59 is answered in my Examen pa. 1. Se. 7. To Mr. B. his question whether a whole Council, and all the Church be ignorant whether infants were wont to be baptised 100 years before, when some of themselves or their Fathers were those infants? I answer, they might be ignorant, it being either not at all or very rarely in that time; nor is it known of what age the 66. Bishops of that Council were when that Epist. was written, nor whose children they were, whether believers or infidels; nor in the whole Epistle is any thing historical set down about the ancient use of infant-baptism: but their determination of the lawfulness of it afore the eighth day, which Epistle because Hierom, Augustin and others do so much allege as their prime testimony for baptising infants for remission of original sin, and I am taxed for calling it in my Ex. p. 1. s. 7. an absurd Epist. & Mr. F. Rous in his late Abridgem. of the 1. Father's hath left out that which was chiefly to have been inserted as the reason of the Counsels determination, which Austin lib. 3. d'peccat. merit. & remiss. c. 5. and elsewhere recites; I have therefore translated the whole Epistle into English, and printed it in the end of this writing, not to show the nakedness of that Father, as I am accused but to clear the truth about the antiquity of Infant-baptism. But there is one testimony higher than Cyprian which Mr. B. urgeth with much earnestness as if he did triumph in it: and it is that of Pope Hyginus, who lived about the year 150. or 140. and ordained something about Gossips at infant-baptism, which must needs show the Apostles baptised infants. To which I answer, 1. The decree in the Epistle as Osiander Epit. Hist. Eccl. cent. 2. lib. 2. c. 5. citys it out of Gratian to a word mentions not infant-baptism, though it speak of Gossips which were at other times than infant-baptism. 2. Mr. B. might have taken notice, that Scultetus med. Patru. part 1. lib. 11. cap. 10. saith, Of all the Epistles of the first Popes, No man that reads them attentively, but acknowledgeth them to be forged. The Contrary writer's cent. 2. c. 7. judge the same, Osiander Epitome Eccl. Hist. Cent. 2. lib. 2. cap. 5. calls the Author personatum Hyginum, and (as I remember) Rivet, Cook, James pass the like censure. Perkins preparative to the demonstration of the problems. These Epistles decretal, which pass under the names of Clement, Evarist, Telesphorus, Hyginus, & e. are all forged, and that for six reasons: yea Doctor Prideaux (whom Mr. B. allegeth for him) in his nineth Oration de Pseudoepigraphis Sect. 3. censures the decretal epistles of the Ancient Popes as counterfeit. Lastly, Doctor Rainolds in his Conference with Hart chap. 8. divis. 3. hath so fully proved in a large discourse the bastardise of them, that I could hardly have imagined any learned Protestant would ever have thus alleged so notoriously forged a writing. So that I need not answer Mr. Bs. allegation of this testimony as by currant consent of Historians assuring us, and his questions thereor, but by telling him he hath reason to be ashamed of abusing men with this forgery after so much eviction of it by learned men, being more like to a brazen faced allegation, then that he so censures me for without cause: He next adds a speech of Tertullian de pudic. cap. 9 and translates it into English. Transgression in interpretation is not less than in conversation: which I know not why he adds but to show the evil of my sin in interpretation, as I imagine, of Scripture: which had he demonstrated he had done more than yet hath been done by him, Mr. M. or any other. That interpretation I give of 1 Cor 7. 14. had sundry godly and learned Protestants, Melanchthor, Musculus, Camerarius, etc. for it (whose words are printed in my Exercit.) before me, nor do Mr. B. his arguments or others take me off from it, but are answered in their place. Of my interpretation of Mat. 28. 19 Mr. B. pag. 14. saith he will stand to most that I said of it. What I said of Rom. 11. 17. Deut. 29. 10, 11, 12. I intent to vindicate in its place. My way and course of interpreting Scripture hath been known where I have preached, at Oxford, Worcester, Lemster, Bristol, the Temple in London, Bewdley. If I make conscience of any thing, it is how I interpret Scripture. Mr. B. his interpretations of texts in this book are too gross, as of Mat. 28. 19 Acts 15. 10. Revel. 11. 15. Mat. 23. 37. etc. So far as I am able to discern by his writings, Sermons and conference, his skill is better in reasoning and amplifying then interpreting Scripture, which I think he had need study better than I can yet perceive he hath done. He takes notice page 191. of an interpretation (as he is told) of mine of Mat. 11. 28. which he censures for a foul interpretation. He saith, Sure it is the guilt of sin, and accusation and condemnation of the law with which persons are said to be weary and heavy laden. But I look for better assurance then Mr. Bs. word. I confess I find nothing in the text for that sense: but the coherence with ver. 25, 26, 27. shows ver. 28. to be an invitation to come to Christ as a Teacher, and ver. 29. is an expression of the end of coming to him, to take his yoke on them, that is, his doctrine and commands, which is expounded by learning of him: which is confirmed by the motive ver. 30. which is, that his yoke is easy and burden light: which can be understood of no other than his doctrine and commands, parallel to 1 John 5. 3. as our translators, Beza, new Annot. Pareus, Piscator, Grotius, etc. conceive. And he useth sundry arguments to draw them. 1. From the burdens on them, which I conceive to be rather meant (the whole context leading thereto) of such Burdens as are mentioned, Mat. 23. 3. then of sins which are not named. 2 From his meekness and low linesse, such as should be in a Teacher, 2 Tim. 2. 24. opposed to harshness, superciliousness, disdain, etc. which is propounded rather as an encouragement to them to learn his doctrine, than (as Mr. B. and others) learn to be meek by my example. 3. From the rest they should find: to their souls, contrary to distraction and disquietness by Pharisaical doctrine. 4. From the ease of his commands, contrary to the rigorous impositions of those Doctors. And this interpretation seems to me to be no foul interpretation, but so fair as that I can discern no other in the words.   

SECT. IV. Mr. Bs. citations from my writings advantage him not.  
AFter the speech of Tertullian he fills a whole page and more with passages out of sundry of my writings, and in the beginning gives this terrible title to them [Mr. Tombs self condemnation] and [ad hominem] as if he had an argument from myself against me. The first passage is out of my treatise of scandals pag. 323. where I reckon Anabaptists among Heretics and grievous wolves. To which I answer, 1. Mr. B. knows I deny myself to be an Anabaptist, though not my own baptism after believing or baptising of believers, which Christ enjoined me, Mat. 28. 19 Mark 16. 16. with preaching the Gospel: Nor doth Mr. B. or ever will prove that for this I am to be termed an Anabaptist, or that the pretended baptism of Infants is a discharge of that duty Christ requires of being baptised into his name common to all Christians, Ephes. 4. 5. 2. Mr. B. himself pag. 10. yields me an absolution in these words [on the one side some think it no less than heresy to deny infant-baptism, and to require rebaptising; not that the generality of Sober Divines (among which I hope Mr. B. reckons me) do so, but for the rest of the errors, which almost ever do accompany it] which Mr. B. might have imagined to have been my mind in the passage he citys, having been my answer in a Sermon at Bewdley to this very objection of the Parson there in the pulpit, of which I can hardly think Mr. B. to have been ignorant. Other considerations of the time of printing that book might have occasioned M. B. to have put that construction on my words, were he or any of my Antagonists willing to give my words or actions their due interpretation. The other passages condemn me not till I be proved an agent for separation, seedsman of tares: which Mr. B. cannot prove, though he tells me pag. 188. he hath as good evidence that I am a Sect-Master as that I am a Christian, because I preach, dispute, talk, and endeavour as zealously to promote my opinion as I do for the Christian Faith. To which I answer, my opinion is no other than the command of Christ, and if we speak according to scripture, to preach for baptism of believers is to preach for Christian faith. 2. Yet I deny that I preach with a like zeal for that particular point as for greater points of repentance from dead works, & faith towards God in Christ incarnate, dead, risen, ascended, to come again, etc. my Bewdley auditors besides others will I doubt not witness against this calumny. 3. But were it true that I did preach so zealously for my opinion, yet sith my actions tend not to make a party to follow me, but only endeavour to reform a corruption like those our Saviour opposeth Mat. 23. Mark 7. there is no show of making a sect in my actions, though I were mistaken in them. The passage from the same treatise pa. 103. concerning an Hypocrites falling foully, doth not justify his exposition of Mat. 7. 16. It proves we oft know an hypocrite by his actions, it is nothing at all to prove a false prophet by his evil manners. The other two passages yield him no advantage for his proving infants disciples from Acts 15. 10. but are against him. For his prooflies on this, That the yokew as put on Infants, and nothing was put on them but circumcision: but those passages speak of the ordinances of the Jews, and with circumcision all the legal ceremonies. If Mr. B. mean more by the yoke, Acts 15. 10. as the doctrines and commands, sure the Teachers did not put that on them till they taught them, which was not in infancy. And therefore my words will not help him as will appear in the examining his first argument. All hitherto produced by him, though by his placing it in the forefront he seems to have made account of it, is but paper-shot, brutum fulmen, a crack without force. I go on to the Epistles.   

SECT. V. Mr. B. unduly suggests many things in his Epistles.  
AS for the Epistle to the people of Kederminster, I rejoice with him in their unity, excepting wherein they agree against the truth; I think if they will use their understandings, as they should, they will find more reason to be unsettled in the point of infant-baptism, by Mr. Bs. book then to be settled by it, and that they had little cause of a solemn thanksgiving for Mr. Bs. managing the dispute. My exceptions against his Aphorisms of Justification are communicated to him. I wish his life may continue to God's glory, and the good of his people, and particularly that he may undeceive whom he hath deceived by his dispute and this book. In his Epistle to the people of Bewdley he mentions a flame of error and discord at Bewdley blown by my breath, and that he came to quench it by the importunity of their Magistrate, Minister, and many of their people. And his words are often enforced with such aggravating expressions, as make people specially afar off imagine, that at Bewdley there is a great schism and discord made by my preaching; whereas there was no such discord as I know of: yea I think afore the dispute the godly did walk together in public hearing, public and private prayer, and conference while I was with them and since, as lovingly as in any other places. And though all do not join in breaking of bread, some going to the Parson, others declining him as a stranger to the private meetings of the godly, and an adversary to such godly preachers as from time to time they had gotten for the Chapel, and a temporizer with the king's party while the Town was under their power went to Mr. B. to Kederminster, others being baptised have joined with me: yet all of them meet together for repetition and conference, and when I am with them I think in greater number than in my absence, and do embrace my doctrine with less breaking out into Antinomian, Familistical, Ranting errors or practices then at Kederminster. The discord of most note hath been between two men and their wives, who were by consent or connivance of their husbands baptised, and broke bread with us, till Mr. Bs. book came forth: which charging us with schism for reforming ourselves, and affrighting people with the danger of our way as leading to error they are kept from our society; which is a manifest separation to avoid an imaginary, of which Mr. B. is the chief author; and I may truly say if there be any such flame of discord at Bewdley, as Mr. B. means, it is blown by Mr. Bs. breath, not mine, who am conscious to myself of being as studious of unity (as I can, with preservation of truth. As for my kindling error) I fear I have done less than I should have done, not meddling with the point of Antipaedobaptisme, but as it fell in my way in my cursory exposition on Gen. 17. wherein I only vindicated myself from Mr. Robert Bayly his false Criminations of me about the Covenant there, and overthrew the suppositions of Paedobaptists from thence about the Covenant and initial seal, and once or twice more on the by, till by occasion of the motioned dispute between me and Mr. B. I saw it was fit I should in some sermons open the controversy, which was not till Decemb. 1649. presently after which my return to Lemster was concluded. The Magistrate a stranger to the meetings of the Godly in their houses, the Minister (such as he is) for his credit, and others of somewhat a like stamp it is likely did invite Mr. B. to oppose me as they had done their School master to make use of their abilities to uphold their Dagon of Infant-sprinking: but Mr. Bs. abuse of Scriptures so palpably impertinent, his managing the dispute with reasonings of wit, and other camal ways do assure me he had no call from God. His alleging Gal. 2. 11, 14. to justify his sharpness in dealing with me is invalid to that end there being no such dissimulation used by me, nor error maintained by me; Mr. Bs. opinion comes nearer Peter Judaizing then mine.   

SECT. VI The chief points of Mr. Bs. Book are very briefly touched.  
THe chief points in Mr. Bs. book he would have observed, in their places shall be (God willing) fully examined: For the present only thus much. My Confession that all should be admitted Church-members by baptism, was meant of such as by their profession are visible, not of such as are visible in Mr. Bs. way without profession. The repeal of the Law or ordinance for infants visible Church-membership will be easily proved when the law or ordinance is showed. As yet I can find no such law or ordinance save what is enjoined concerning circumcision; which if it stand in force, we must keep the whole law, Gal. 5. 3 His first challenge is answered by another challenge to show what one church had infants visible Church-members besides the Jews. His second is answered by showing till Abraham's time there is nothing said about any church-frame; from Abraham's time till Christ's the Jewish church-frame stood: In Christ's time and the Apostles no other are reckoned to belong to the visible Church, than professors of faith. And so it continued till infants were admitted to baptism to save them, which out of the case of danger of present dying was dissuaded by Tertullian and Gregory Nazianzen. Afterwards their baptism was more frequent through Augustine's urging it so much against the Pelegians, as Strabo rightly observed long since, & together with it infant-communion was common, yet not without the continuance of the old form of putting the question to infants, after which at first profession was declared, & catechising mostly afore they were baptised at certain seasons of the year till ignorance and confusion overspread the Churches. But when God began to stir up any to reform other corruptions, there were that sought to reform this 500 years ago, according to truth, notwithstanding Mr. Bs. Mr. Ms. or Doctor Ushers allegations: of whom I persuade myself many may be met with in heaven notwithstanding M. Bs. confident expressions to the contrary. Yet were all Mr. B. says true, if I put Mr. B. to the like, as to show me since the Apostles, one that questioned keeping of an Easter, Lent fast, Infant-communion, Monkish profession, etc. till the last age he will be hard put to it. His considerations depend upon the points in dispute: in examining of which it may appear how frivolous his questions are. Infant's Church-membership I find no where but in the peculiar national policy of the Jews, no universal law or ordinance, for it; the Jewish policy is taken away both de facto by the providence of God, and de jure of right by the declaration of Christ and his Apostles in the N. T. and by altering the way of Church-gathering and constitution. The Jews were heinously offended at the taking away of circumcision, not because he took away Churchmembership of infants, but because of the taking away of the law of Moses, the Temple, Priesthood, &c in which they gloried, Acts 21. 20, 21. Acts 6. 13, 14. If it be true, that it was a known truth, that infants were visihle Church-members, and to be admitted Disciples, and the Apostles did not admit them, Mat. 19 13 (which Mr. B. supposeth) than the challenge is answered, Name me away from the creation till 200. years' age, who did once question infants Church-membership? For after Mr. Bs. dictates the Apostles did so. Let men turn over their Bibles, they will find enough in them against infants visible Church-membership in the N. T. He asks, Why the speech, Mark 16. 16. which excludes infants from baptism, should not also exclude them from salvation for want of believing? To which I answer, It is not doubted but that infants belong to the invisible Kingdom of the Elect Rom. 9 11. Mat. 19 14. but how they attain salvation is not so certain: If by a seed of faith or holiness without actual exercise, the thing is more easy to conceive: if by actual exercise extraordinarily and immediately wrought by the Holy Spirit, than the speeches, He that believeth not, shall be damned, and the like, do exclude infants from salvation if not believing actually; if by virtue of election without any work on them, if by virtue of the Covenant their parents believing (which some assert, but I profess to know no such Covenant) than the speeches, He that believeth not, shall be damnned, with the like, must be understood with this limitation, He of those to whom the Gospel is preached that believeth not shall be damned. For my part, I do much in cline to that opinion, which conceives Mark 16. 16. John 3. 18. and such like, to be understood of belief & unbelief of those of years, who have the Gospel preached to them because the course of the context leads thereto. Which being premised, I answer to the question, That infants are excluded from baptism from Mat. 28. 19 Mark 16. 15, 16. compared together, because these texts show that according to Christ's institution, they that are to be baptised are to be Disciples or known professed believers, and baptism belongs only to whom Christ appoints it. Yet these texts do not exclude infants from salvation, because either it excludes professed unbelievers, not non-believers negatively from incapacity, or it excludes unbelievers that are in no sort believers, neither in the seed nor fruit, neither byordinary, nor by extraordinary operation; in one of which ways infants are or may be believers, and so not excluded by that text, if belief and unbelief comprehend all these ways in that place. To his question, What great comfort would follow this conclusion [that all your infants are out of Christ's visible Church] that men should bend their wits so to prove it? I answer, The question might be retorted, What great comfort would follow this conclusion [that all our infants are by nature children of wrath] that men should bend their wits so to prove it? 2. The answer I suppose Mr. B. would give to the one will fit us, that whether it be matter of comfort or discomfort, we must maintain truth. To another passage of his supposing, That to be visibly in the Church is all one as (to our judgement) to belong to Christ's Kingdom, I answer by denying it, and doubt not to show how this mistake hath much misled Mr. B. when I examine the 27. chap. of the first part of his book. We can prove that Christ will save his elect though no Christians in appearance, nor disciples by profession, nor visibly subjects of his Kingdom. Mr. B. talks vainly of the judgements of God's Ministers and Churches in all ages of the world, when as their judgement is proved by my writings to have been, and to be at this day so various about infant-baptisme; I have little hope to conceive Mr. B. by my writings, which he sleights so much as to say, That the best part of my books is Ink and Paper. Men not inferior to Mr. B. and one I am sure far beyond Mr. B. in disputes, judged otherwise. Were not Mr. B. mounted to an height of disdainful pride, me thinks he might have spied the clearing of some Scriptures, and other things more worth than the Ink and Paper. It is his uncharitable conceit of me, if he imagine I write to have the last word: it is to show his gross a buse of Scripture, and his fallacies of reasoning. If he outlive this answer I now am making, any time he may have the last word if he will for me, who am weary with meddling with such a distempered writer. I blame not Mr. B. for printing: but for printing my answers afore I had fitted them to his arguments in writing, as Doctor Rainolds dealt with Hart, which (saith he in his preface to his conference with Hart) learned men have thought to be most fit for trial of truth, not by extemporal speaking, but writing with advise the question argued of, the arguments, the answers, the replies set down, and sifted of both sides till each had fully said; in fine, the whole published, that the Churches and the faithful all may judge of it. Such a rule was followed also in the conference at the Hague, and in all other profitable Colloquies about points in controversy; to all which Mr. Bs. dealing with me hath been altogether unlike. Nor is he excused by telling me he had a copy of my sermon, and had conference with me. For besides other exceptions this excuse takes not away, it is very apparent that neither in the dispute nor in that conference his judgement about infant's Discipleship and Church-visibility, and other points in his book could be discerned so as to know determinately what to oppose. Which makes me glad of the publishing of his book however, though for the present I suffer much by it, nothing doubting but I shall be able to show the wickedness of his writing, so as that all that are willing may see, that whosoever leans on his arguments to justify their infant-baptisme, rests on a broken reed that will run into his hands.   

SECT. VII. Many personal occurrences are cleared by relating of which Mr. B. hath in his History sought to create prejudice against me.  
NExt to the two Epistles follows the History, in which his design seems 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 only 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 rashness, but Antidote sect. 7. of inconsiderateness and haste in that passage wherein he names Anabaptists in the plural, meaning me only. 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. Tailor's house in London, that I bade seen some notes of his in which the first was that which he urged at the dispute, and therefore that I spoke 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 confess the conference at Col. Tailor's 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 only 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 satisfy 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 Nehuchadnezzars 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 possess men's minds with his opinion, and to hinder a free examination of what is said on both sides do confirm me. And that things may be apprehended nakedly as they were, I do acknowledge, that it is my disposition, be it dulness or weariness, to pause on a new argument whether in reading or conference, so that I cannot ofttimes give a clear answer to an argument I have not been 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 possess my memory, when fear of speaking ineptly doth benumb me and hinder my elocution, when I have some obscure notion of a fallacy which at present I cannot readily discover. Which knowledge of myself made me unwilling to come to a public 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 show 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 satisfy myself or others, but occasion glorying in Mr. B. and settling people in his error. Nevertheless 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 confess 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 justify 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, scholars and others on both sides him, I myself alone without any notary or assistant was forced to answer him prepared in this unexpected manner, lest I should have endamaged 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 least 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 myself extremely 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 weak 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 myself then was meet, 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 easy to be discerned was not discerned through wilfulness or negligence, I say 1. My dissent is not singular, nor my reasons and writings such but that such a one as myself might be allowed to hold my tenet without imputations of self-conceitedness, arrogance, etc. Mr. B. varies from Churches and learned men about justification and faith in his Aphorisms: 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 laws 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 discern the error of infant-baptism so manifestly discernible 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 Christ's body, conditional predestination, and sundry the like tenets: which may be a just censure without pride. That which Mr. B. says, [And lest my touching that controversy though at a distance might irritate him to fall upon it, I never spoke 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 spoke one word against his opinion in my pulpit to this day] shows his memory retains not all he printed in his Saints everlisting rest, preached on the lecture-days at Kederminster. As page 534. We should see the promises made good to our seed, and the unthankful Anabaptists, that will not confess, 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 error, 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 spoke against Infant-sprinkling, pressed them to be baptised again, mentioned in Sermons Mr. M. Mr. Blake, and himself, when my doctrine prevailed not (though since I have gotten above 20. rebaptised 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 heresy, that by my definition of heresy Independants must be judged Heretics, that I sought his arguments in writing to put them in my Review of the dispute with Mr. M. and to ingage him in the Controversy; whence he gathered I was unpeaceable, set to carry on my opinion, and to make myself 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. says 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 allege in my Apology sect. 3. And I profess I wonder that such as Mr. M. Mr. B. and others that were so earnest against Bishops and ceremonies though wars did follow, and had a great hand in putting them on, should now, the wars being so well abated, be so impatient that Infant-sprinkling is questioned. It is untruly surmifed that the change of times was the cause of my opening myself fully in the congregation at Bewdley. My first meddling with it was when Mr. Bayly had so unjustly charged me in his Anabaptism chap. 4. page 92. with spoiling infants of all interest in the Covenant of grace, making circumcision a seal to the Jews only of earthly privileges, denying to the Jewish infants all right to the Covenant till in their riper years they become actual believers. Which with other falls accusations about twenty in that one page I entreated 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 showed him how he wronged me, and then cleared myself 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 concur stigmatising me by name as holding four pernicious errors in my Examen) and when the ordinance against blasphemy and heresy was published; which Mr. Boraston though not required, yet published at Ribsford (to which Bewdley Chapel relates) that he might proclaim me an Heretic. Which necessitated me to speak what I did, not the change of times (it's known I spoke as much in the hardest times to my opinion as since) nor unpeaceableness 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 naming 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 men's 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, etc.] though it's likely I might say, it's one of the chiefest signs 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 myself 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 baptism some condition of Salvation, I think those that are taught that Infant-sprinkling is not the duty Christ requires of being baptised, and that water baptism of men at years upon profession of faith is a necessary duty (which I had sufficiently proved at Bewdley) and yet neglect it, do hazard their salvation living in disobedience to a manifest duty, yea the prime duty whereby they ought solemnly to engage themselves to be Christ's Disciples. I have gotten no Disciples to me, and though more than 20 in Bewdley have been baptised after profession of faith since my removal from them (whom with the whole Town I think myself bound by many ties as often as I may to visit and confirm) yet not rebaptised. It is true to show 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 Jews bind us as much as they did them, in all things which belong to the substance of the Covenant, and were not accidental unto them] is one of the most manifest heresies being condemned, Acts 15. For it expressly 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 heresy 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 Heretic, follows not. For though they err, 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 replied 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 Aphorisms, nor any more folly in him to have gratifyed me then, then in othersto gratify 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 Church's 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.   

SECT. VIII. More personal matters which the History of Mr. B. hath made crooked are set strait  
THe next part of the History is about the occasion and managing of the dispute, to most of which an answer may be gathered out of my letter to him Sept. 10. of which so much as is needful is printed at the end of this writing. To call being baptised in the name of Christ Apostasy, contrary to the Ancients language, and in effect to call white black. Divisions that happen, if the saddle be put on the right horse, are to be charged on them that oppose the reformation of the corruption of infant-sprinkling. I think I answered Mr. Bs. letter sufficiently in mine of Sept. 10. 1649. If I had a design to answer his arguments in my Review it had been an honest design, and handsomer than Mr. Bs. printing my answers to his arguments afore he had them from me in writing. Sigh Mr. B. is unwilling to be put in the crowd among the rest he shall have an answer (so far as it is fit) by himself, that he may not complain of being slighted by being yoked with the vulgar. My dealings with Mr. M. were such as none can justly expcept against. Personal things were fully answered in my Apology: the dispute itself at large I reserved for the Review: only sect. 15. I gave arguments to prove Rom. 11. 17. etc. to be meant of ingrasfing by giving faith into the invisible Church, and sect. 16, 17. pointed at some of the chief things wherein Mr. Ms. defence was defective. I professed not a full answer to Mr. Blake, but gave short advertisements in my Postscript with reasons why I did so, which I yet count sufficient for answer to that piece, however Mr. B. imagine of it. I slubbered over nothing (as Mr. B. and one Mr. George Milward in a letter to one Capt. Freema charge me). If I do not write so quick as M. B. Mr. M. etc. it is from my unsettled condition, ministerial employments, the multitude of them that write against me, though I earnestly entreated that I might see the strength of all together, (which motion had been fit for them that were desirous to have truth take place, and not make use of advantages to hinder the clearing of it) the difficulty and charge of printing, which Mr. B. can easily perhaps have done, people being averse from the truth I hold, and willing to sell or buy or read any thing against me, but not what is for me. That in my Sermons at Bewdley I culled out the weakest arguments, is most false: to the best of my skill I produced the best arguments I met with in their strength, and as much as I could in the Author's words. Mr. Cobbets book being a loose discourse for the most part, having many passages, and expressions proper to the way of N. E. filled with dictates unproved, much of it against f. S. H. D. etc. whose speeches and arguments I am not engaged to maintain, I do not bind myself to answer. If I might be allowed to pass my judgement freely, notwithstanding Mr. Cottons, Mr. Thomas goodwin's, and Mr. Bs. conceits of it, I should say, that I do not perceive in the matter of it any such strength as needs much answering, and that the method and expressions are such as that it cannot well be answered without lopping off many superfluous branches, enquiring into his meaning in many of his expressions which are cloudy (which would be extremely tedious to the answerer and reader, and liable to much exception) and reducing it into a more scholastical form; were it by himself shaped into a succinct treatise like Mr. Nortons' to Apollonius, and should be willng to answer it, if I found any thing in it, which I had not answered before: But I would not have the Reader expect me to answer that again, which in some of my writings is formerly answered, and in which he might by reading heedfully satisfy himself: Yet I did answer the chief of his arguments in those Sermons, and I intent to answer what else I meet with in them, that is opposed to my Examen, and what ever else I shall conceive is necessary to be answered. I little expected to satisfy Mr. B. who I found had prejudice in him, which was not denied by him. Mr. Bs. name was used with respect only in citing his words in his Aphorisms, which I never dreamt would be taken for an injury. His censuring men's writings and confuting them in pulpit without naming them or citing their words as it is less offensive, so it is less edifying. Mr. Bs. prosperity and my conceived failings at the dispute (which will appear to be Mr. Bs. mistakes in the answer of his arguments in print) were ordered by the Almighty's providence for humbling me, and discovery of Mr. Bs. spirit then (which must be refereed to the judgement of the hearers) and since (which Readers may perceive) yet I hope according to the strange-winding of his providence, as in joseph's case, for the advancement of the truth he opposeth. The Ministers about Mr. B. at the dispute were all of Mr. Bs. party sent for up and down all the Country, such as they were, if they may be reputed Ministers, or men that mind the things of Christ: of whom no marvel Mr. B. was cried up, I taunted with dulness, it serving for their ends to keep up their esteem: one or two of better account sat further off, yet of Mr. Bs. judgement. That I did not hearken to Mr. boraston's motion for Mr. Bs. preaching, it was because I knew it would be likely to stir up passion, and settle prejudice in the people (in which I find by that he hath printed chap. 1. 2. especially in the very beginning I was not mistaken) and I hoped to bring the dispute to writing, which is the best way to clear truth, and I suspected (as I had cause) Mr. boraston's and the then Magistrates, and those reputed godly persons devices and motions, which were then by many conceived to be contrived for the Parson's ends, the continuing his power and profits by keeping up that rite which ingratiates the profane and formal persons to him. Whereunto that Mr. B. hath been subservient is the grief of many, and might well befit Mr. B. to repent of. When I saw I could not get Mr. Bs. arguments in writing, I got what notes I could of the dispute from others writing or my own memory; and knowing that vaunts were given out of Mr. Bs. victory, I did as well as I could sum up his arguments, and answer them Jan. 20. and after went to him upon his motion Jan. 25. to confer with him, which was friendly on both sides; yet that which I hoped and I conceived he promised, that though he would not send me his arguments in writing (which I again moved) yet he would transcribe them for such as should come to him to be resolved in that point, after sundry puttings off was not obtained: But instead thereof in March the week afore I removed from Bewdley I met with the passage in his Epistle Dedicatory to the people of Kederminster, to which I after opposed my Valedictory Oration in Bewdley chapel March. 17. 1649. and printed the same in effect in my Antidote in May following. Now Mr. B. allegeth he had reason for his not sending his arguments to me to keep me from erring they being not desired, for myself, but my people, I remained very confident of myself, that when I sent to him I heaped so many untruths about matters of fact I knew, that he durst not answer me lest the very naming my untruths might cause me to say, he reproached or railed, that his conference was with me in private, because he thought my pride of spirit would not permit me to confess truth openly, that he wrote the passage in his Epistle to Kederminster out of zeal for God, compassion to men's souls, my opinion and preaching being like to do more hurt against the Church of God, than drunkards and whoremongers, and therefore he had cause to be bitter in his writing. To all which speeches I reply, He had reason to conceive I desired satisfaction for myself by my desiring his Animadversions, and by my letter to him Sept. 10. If not, yet to have given them in writing, which he had as he says before, at Coventrey preached and were ready by him, had been a neighbourly part to men that were his frequent hearers. But his prejudice against my opinion and uncharitable conceit of my pride (as heretofore Mr. M. and Mr. Ley interpreted my most equal motion in humility of spirit in the end of my Examen to be the challenge of a braving Goliath, so now any opposing what's determined by Synods and leading writers must be condemned as coming from pride) are a sufficient reason not to gratify me, but to do what he can against me, and this must be counted zeal for God, and his insolent bitterness justifiable, as being in pretence against a pernicious sin not yet proved, but indeed against a truth discovering an error, whereby the prime ordinance of Christianity is miserably corrupted. He speaks of a fearful passion a fever of passion I was in when I first read the passage in his Epistle against Anabaptists, such as he would not be infor all my revenues, if I had not a free vent for my spleen in pulpit and press he doubts it might have spoiled me. 'Tis true when I first read it unexpectedly in Mr. Ds. house, I was stirred in my spirit out of the sense of the wrong done to me and the truth by it, and not meeting with the book before, I wrote out the passage: but that by word or carriage I showed such passion as he speaks of I am certain is his tale-tellers addition, whose conscience may perhaps one day tell him of his ill Offices in opposing truth, and nourishing differences between me and Mr. B. Mr. B. hath a jerk at my Revenues, by which he would have the world believe it is very great, and such as were desirable for himself: whereas his outward estate considering his being an unplundered, or not much plundered single young man heir of a good estate in Land, besides his sequestration is more likely to suffice his uses then my estate my uses, though I bless God it is better with me through the favour of some eminent persons sensible of my hard usuage, than it would have been if the party opposite to me had prevailed, and I could reasonably hope; when for no other cause but the publishing of my Examen my remove from the Temple in Londen with my wife and children above a hundred miles in the midst of winter was necessitated. Not content with this jerk about my revenues page 202. He tells me in print of being Parson of Rosse, Vicar of Lemster, Preacher of Bewdley, Master of the Hospital of Ledbury, besides means of my own, and yet complaining of want I and my family might be put to in my books, and he adds, You made so light of having no less than four market-towns to lie on your shoulders as if it were nothing, and then saith Pious sober men think it his duty to say what he did. To which I reply. Mr. M. is taken for a pious sober man, yet in his Defence of his sermon page 3. he accused me most deeply of a Socianian plot of questioning all conclusions inferred by consequence from scripture; the injury of which I showed in my Apology sect. 11. yea his own words in his Defence pag. 205. You neither there nor here deny this argument from a consequence to be sufficient for practice of some things in the worship of God, which are not expressly laid down in the N. T. refute this calumny, yet to this day I never found that he did any thing to right me. The like may I say of Mr. Robert Baillee of Glasgow in Scotland notwithstanding his false criminations before mentioned, and my writing to him about them. How Mr. Geree used me is showed in my Apology sect. 6. yet his Vindiciae vindiciarum was presently after published without any show of remorse of conscience for what he did. And now Mr. B. tells me, pious and sober men advise him to say that which as he puts it down is false and exceeding injurious to me, to wit, that I had four market-towns on my shoulders, which every one will interpret to be 4. beneficial places under my charge together, besides means of my own, and yet complain in my books of want I and my family may be put to. Whereas the truth is, there are no words that have a show of complaint (which yet indeed are not querulous but only narrative) but those in the close of my Examen and Apology, and neither of them, when I enjoyed any thing at Lemster, Bewdley, Rosse or Ledbury; but the former was anno 1644. when all my estate was in the enemy's power, and my small stipend at Eanchurch withdrawn by reason of my not practising Infant-baptisme; the other when I was to leave the Temple for publishing my Examen anno 1646. when the Counties to which I had relation, were but newly reduced to the obedience of the Parliament. And then I assayed to return to Lemster, where I had been almost totally plundered anno 1642. and yet so great was the Antipathy of some men against me, that I could neither get reparation for my losses, nor allowance for building the Minister's house, nor any augmentation, but only kept the bare title till the end of the year 1649. 'Tis true some pitying my condition gave me the rent of the rectory of Rosse anno 1646. which having a Vicar endowed, and the Rectory leased out with the Rectors house, they gave it me with expectation of preaching only some sermons there as I could; but being invited to Bewdley I accepted of the invitation, and though the maintenance were but final, and the years dear, and my charges great in refurnishing my house and study, yet I rested contented therewith till the Dean and Chapter of Worcester's lands being to be sold, out of which the best part of my maintenance did arise, the providence of God cast on me the Mastership of the Hospital of Ledbury, which doth not tie me to the charge of souls, much less puts the market-town on my shoulders. and then presently I yielded up my interest in Rosse though some of the godly there were very unwilling I should. And when my pay ended at Bewdley the Lord opened a way for my return to Lemster, and provision was made for me there. By which it may appear, that it is most injuriously suggested as if I had 4. beneficial places together, yea 4. market-towns on my shoulders, and those that know not the truth imagine me very covetous, and my revenues very great, not knowing my condition what it is and what my losses have been. Me thinks when the people of Bewdley, Rosse, Lemster, were all satisfied (so far as I could discern) with the equity of my actions, Mr. B. and those other he means might have been so likewise, and possibly had been an Assembly-man it would have been no disparagement to me to have been a Master of a House in the University, to have had a Lecture at London, a sequestration or presentation in the Country, besides pay for sitting in the Assembly at the same time: but might have in Mr. Bs. books been styled nevertheless a learned, holy, experimental, judicious, humble, heart-piercing Preacher. I cannot but be sensible of the great wrong I receive in my name, and perhaps in my estate by Mr. Bs. calumnies; and therefore am necessitated to write this which I conceive had been fitter for private audience. I do not take on me to know Mr. Bs. heart: but I wish Mr. B. would consider of what spirit he was, when he vented his jerk at my revenues, and whether the phrases of offering a sacrifice to Mars, and keeping holidays for killing the Saints in his Epistle to the people of Kederminster likely is a most profane, and bitter passage. His quip. pag. 67. members of this Kingdom, or (to please you) Commonwealth pag. 136. of baptising naked maids in Bewdley pag. 245. your feet will take cold or your heart heat, etc. savour not more of an heathen Satirists vain wit, than a Christian Preachers zealours' spirit. He saith that he perceives by one passage in my Antidote pag. 21. I am offended at him for diminishing my esteem: for I complain, etc. But the words there are no complaint, and if I imagined amiss I am sorry that I did so surmise.   

SECT. IX. In my alleading Peter de Bruis and others as Antipaedobaptists 500 years ago, is no untruth.  
BUt there is a foul sin Mr. B. chargeth me with when he saith in his History my reports are untruths, and page 176. he chargeth me with very many palpable gross untruths which I either knew or might to be so. Two he hath selected as most remarkable: The first is, That the lying Papists do accuse the Albigenses and Waldenses (our first reformers) to be witches, Buggers, Sorcerers, and to deny infant-baptisme, etc. now what doth Mr. T. but persuade the world, that the Papists accusations of these were true in this, etc. Is it railing to say, that this dealing is stark brazenfaced and unconscionable: and after he styles it horrible foulness of dealing with other words, He that dare do thus what dare he not? etc. And page 201. A most unconscionable Jesuitical trick to seduce poor ignorant souls. To which I answer, My words Examen part. 2. sect. 2. tend to prove, that there were some that opposed Infant-baptisme 500 years ago, who were both godly men, and had godly societies joined with them: nor do I see cause to recede from the same opinion notwithstanding what either Doctor Usher, Mr. M. or Mr. B. have said to the contrary. I do no where charge the Waldenses, but only cite in my Examen part. 2. sect. 2. Cassander's, and Osianders' words in my Exercit. of the Albigenses. But let us consider what is brought to the contrary, 1. for Berengarius, Deodrinus, Leodiensiis took it up as a common fame. 2. It is not found charged in Synods against him. 3. That it appears to Doctor Usher, they who were charged in those days to hold that baptism did not profit to salvation held nothing but this, That baptism doth not confer grace by the work wrought. Yet Durandus Leodicensis in the 3d. tome of the Bibliothica patrum the last book in his Epistle to Henry King of France makes it such a fame as filled all their ears, praiseth the King of France for calling a Council against him and Bruno by reason of it. Nor are Doctor Ushers words as Mr. M. recites them, that it appeared to him, but nec aliud videntur negavisse, etc. Which is less than to say it appeared to him. And for his conjecture it may be answered by another conjecture, that it seems rather Berengarius did at first discern the vanity of infant's baptism as arising from Augustine's error about the necessity of it, and not much used till after his days: yet finding the opposition of the corporal presence in the Eucharist too hard a business being forced to recant by Pope Nicholas, it's likely he concealed his opinion of infant-baptisme; to which conjecture Cassander's conceit in his preface to the Duke of Gulick and Cleve before his Testimonies for infant-baptisme is somewhat like, That though he overthrew baptism of little ones, yet he brought it not into public, because as Guitmund says, He knew, That the ears of the worst men would not brook that blasphemy. I also related a speech of the same Cassander concerning the Albigenses, besides which in my Exercitation I alleged the words of Lucas Osiander accusing the Albigenses as agreeing with Anabaptists. And to show that there was some reason for what I averred, to wit that there were others that made head against infant-baptisme before Baltasar Pacimontanus, I alleged Bernard Serm. 66. in Cantica. Epis. 240. to Hildefonsus' Earl of St. Giles, Petrus Cluniacensis his Epistle to three Bishops of France, and in my Antidote sect. 9 Eckbertus Schovangiensis his seventh Sermon adversus Catharos in Auctario Biblioth. Patrum tom. 2. Against these allegations Mr. M. excepts and Mr. B. le's fly at me as before: neither deny that I rightly cite the Authors. But 1. That the Authors were lying Papists. 2. That no impartial Authors so charge them. 3. That they did belly them in other things 4 That upon report these with other things were charged on them. 5. That the Counsels charge them not with this. 6. That other Historians charge not the Waldenses. 7. That their confessions acquit them. 8. That I do but join with malicious Papists to take up any the falsest slander to defend my cause by it. For answer hereto I will not return railing for railing, but this I say and leave it to indifferent men (if there be any) to judge between us whether of us be in the right. Cassander was never accounted, that I ever read, one of those railing lying Papists Mr. B. mentions; but as impartial a man as any Papist living in his time. Maximilian the second Emperor who favoured Protestants more than any Emperor prized him. His study was reconciliation and a middle way, which Mr. B. professeth to be his. Mr. B. page 261. saith, He spoke the best of all parties that he might displease none. Bernard is by Mr. B. himself page 265. styled a pious man. Petrus Cluniacensis was though a zealous Papist, yet thought fit by Illyricus to be reckoned among Witnesses of Truth in his Catalogue. They are as impartial Authors (specially Bernard) as that age yielded; if these be not taken for witnesses of things in their times, I know not how Protestant's will make up their Catalogue of witnesses for them in all ages. Protestant writers do frequently allege these very Authors for other things. Mornay in his Mystery of Iniquity progress. 46. citys these very writings against Papists. I conceive Mr. M. Mr. B. think they said true, when Bernard charged them that they derided prayer for the dead, invocation of Saints, Purgatory: and Cluniacensis that they excepted against Altars, adoring of Crosses, the Mass, chanting inquires, praying for the dead. If they be to be believed in so many, why not in this, which they put first? Lucas Osiander Epit. Hist. Eccl. Cent. 12. lib. 3. cap. 3. anno Christi 1158. citys Cluniacensis for the same thing. Eckbertus saith when he was Canou at Bon he with his Companion Bertoly did often speak with them whom he refutes, says in his Sermon that they alleged against Infant-baptisme Mat. 28. 19 Mark. 16. 15, 16. Though I make no question but that they belly them at least some of them in other things, some upon report, as Cluniacansis, that they denied some of the Scripture, it may be saith Osiaander, because they denied the Apocryphal writings, or perhaps because they denied arguments valid from the rites of the old Testament; some upon false inferences, which is a frequent thing in writers to make the consequences they gather from their writings the tenets of the Authors they impugn; some it may be out of that abuse of charging those tenets and practices upon all of the same profession, which is too true of some, as that all Christians did lewd practices, because the Gnostics did so, that all Anabaptists are wicked because those of Munster, Copp, and some others proved so, in which way Mr. B. walks page 138. etc. (for which the Lord forgive him) yet it seems utterly unlikely to me, that in this Petrus de Bruis and Henricus and their followers should be belied, when so many of chief account in their time from several places charge them with denying infant-baptisme, and rebaptising, Petrus Cluniacensis writes to 3. Bishops of France, and Bernard to the Earl of St. Gyles of purpose against them for this reason, Bernard and Cluniacensiis put it for their prime error, Petrus Cluniacensis and Eckbertus produce, and take on them to answer their allegations against infant-baptisme, but not so (as I remember) any allegations against the Scriptures or Marriage, which they charge them to deny, and therefore it's likely they wrong them in these, not in that. As for the Albigenses and Waldenses, it might be true that some might be against Infant-baptisme, yet others not, some following Peter de Bruis, others Waldus; as it was in the reformation, when some followed Luther, others Zwinglius in the points of the Eucharist, Images, etc. or it may be that they all at the beginning held so, but after left it, which seems to be the conceit of Cassander ubi suprà. And yet in the old book wherein their doctrince is cited by Illyricus in his Catalogue. test. verit. printed Argentinae 1562. pag. 3, 4. there are some speeches, which Illyricus is fain by glosses to free from the opinion of Antipaedobaptisme: But whether the Waldenses were Antipaedopatists or no what I did allege was rightly done, not with a brazen face or seared conscience, or out of a desire to take up any slander or join with any party to defend my cause, as Mr. B. doth most unbrotherly insinuate, yea in my Examen part. 2. sect. 2. before I cite Bernard and Cluniacensis, I have these words: Now although he charge them with denying marriage & abstaning from meats, yet you may smell out of his own words that this was but a calumny: but because by the reasons given I am induced to conceive notwithstanding Mr. Ms. and Mr. Bs. allegations that Peter de Bruis and Henricus, and other godly persons and societies were 500 years ago Antipaedobaptists; yea I conceive as good a catalogue of Antipaedobaptists may be made almost in all ages as may be made for Protestants against many Popish corruptions, and better than Antiprelatists can make against Episcopacy. And this I dare still to do, and marvel Mr. B. dare bring such railing accusation, to which I only return, The Lord rebuke him. The other untruth if not malice Mr. B. chargeth me with, is concerning my dealing with himself, when I had in my Valedictory Sermon and Antidote showed how impertinently the 2. monsters in New England were brought as evidences of God's judgements against Anabaptists I added in my Sermon, one of the errors condemned in New England is the 21. [To be justified by faith is to be justified by works] which I moved to be considered whether it were not near Mr. Bs. doctrine Aphorism 73. of Justific. and in my Antidote sect. 8. page 24. said it is near to it. Hereupon Mr. B. adjudgeth this dealing so gross, as he never found in any Jesuit, a shameless charge, and page 190. the vile ebullition of rancour and malice in a most evident falsehood, that hath left no room for blushing. And then clears himself from the sense in which the Antinomists held it, and then adds. Now what doth Mr. T. but bring this as the same tenet with mine? when it is even directly contrary. To which I answer, Mr. B. page 189. in these words [Your language about the absoluteness of the Covenant is too like many of the tenets of the Antinomists in N. E.] useth the same dealing with me, which he chargeth me with towards himself. For he doth or might know when I say with many Divines the Covenant is absolute, I mean it as they do in respect of the first promise, Heb. 8. 10. I will write my laws in their hearts, which Doctor Twisse and many other prove must be absolute or else the grace of God must be given according to man's desert as the Pelagians held, which thing I express plainly in my Examen page 164. whereas the Antinomians make it absolute in respect of justification, in which I am assured that Mr. B. knew by conferences with me that I was against them, and yet he chargeth me with symbolising with them. But recrimination is no purgation. 2. It is not true that I bring it as the same tenet with Mr. Bs. but near it: which is so true, that however their in tent and his were contrary, yet their words are the same. For Mr. B. Aph. 76. and in the first edition of the Saints everlasting rest page 11. saith, Doubtless the Gospel takes faith for obedience to all Gospel-precepts, of which the works, James 2. 16. of giving food or clothing to a brother are a part: which if true, he that is justified by faith is justified by works, and so Mr. Bs. proposition is the same with the Antinominians, however he used it to a contrary end: it's the same medium though Mr. B. prove one conclusion by it, and the Antinomians another, and I think is condemned by the censure of them of N. E. in Mr. Bs. sense as well as the Antinomians. But Mr. B. goes about to clear himself from error in it and singularly, and then saith, How can Mr. T. have ground to think that no Minister in England is of my judgement? and than challengeth me to confute the doctrine of his book, or leaves to judge whether I be not a mere empty calumniator. And adds, that these words of mine [I am sure in his letter to me, he saith he was hissed at from all parts of the Kingdom] are a relation like the rest from a bitter root so most falsely, when I had his letters, which might have directed me to speak truth, that the words [from all parts of the Kingdom] are my addition, which is become ordinary with me. Then mentions the occasion of the passage in his letters, my offer of help to him for dividing ends, but he thought he had no need of my help, and was resolved not to engage with a renter of the Church. To which I answer, 1. My exceptions against his doctrine in his Aphorisms have been sent to him afore his death, though not to answer his challenge, yet at the motion of his Postscript. I conceive he errs, 1. in making justification by faith to be only in law title. 2. In making a first and after continued justification. 3. In making it, a continued, not instantaneous act. 4. In making obedience to all Gospel-precepts an essential part of justifying faith, and not a fruit only. 2. I did no where say that I thought no Minister in England is of his judgement, though I said I thought he had not made one Minister of his judgement. 3. to the crimination of my speaking falsely I will set down his own-words in his letter to me, [That pamphlet of justification I well knew was likely to blast my reputation with most Divines, and the issue hath answered my expectation: I am now so hissed at by them, that I feel temptation enough to schism in my discontents]. I had hot his letter by me when I spoke those words not out of a bitter root but to answer the prejudice against me as conceived singular. But there was no falsehood in my speech [by most Divines] and [from all parts of the Kingdom] being equipollent. And if this be to add falsely, our Lord Christ will be found to add falsely Mat. 15. 8, 9 etc. my offer of help to him in what we agreed was not for dividing ends, but because of his complaint of weakness of body and want of time for study. It seems he accounted me a renter of the Church afore my preaching at Bewdley the many Sermons on Mat. 28. 19 against Infant-baptisme, for discovering of the error of it in my books without other practices. It appears thereby that even then when he seemed to be most friendly he had hard thoughts of me, and however he protest of his love, yet his misinterpreting so many of the things I have done or said to him, and at last casting up his accusations in his book in charging me with frequent untruths, schism, pride, worse than the Devil in accusing my own children, with bitter scoffs, and insulting taunts, with other aggravations and expressions beyond brotherly and neighbourly respects, yea I may I think say, a sober mind are undeniable evidences of want of love to me, and candour towards me, if we may judge what is in a man by his deeds rather than by his words. As for his pretence of zeal for God, the peace of the Church, and the duty of brotherly reproof, were he never so much in the right, and I never so much in the wrong for my judgement, yet these could not justify his carriage to me. And if other Ministers deal with me as Mr. B. Mr. M. Mr. Baillee, Mr. Geree have done without doing me right after their false criminations of me, I shall have temptation to think that they have learned a principle like the Jesuits, to think it no sin to say as bad as may be against a supposed Anabaptist for the Paedobaptists cause.   

SECT. X. That Mr. Bs. charge of accusing and disputing my children out of the Covenant of Christ is vain; and some inquiry is made how they are in the Covenant.  
I Have now gone through Mr. Bs. Epistles and History, vindicated myself and the truth from many objections. There are many other things which are scattered in his answer to my Valedictory Oration and Corrective of my Antidote which are somewhat besides the dispute itself, which I shall rather point at then insist on because many are scarce worth the taking notice of, but for the esteem Mr. B. and his book have gotten with men. Page 165. what he speaks of my exceeding high and passionate disposition was but his misdeeming likely upon misinformation, neither my words nor carriage showed it. Page 166. what the supposed girds were is set down before out of his now printed book, whereby it seems my few disciples (as he miscalls them) are at least excused, and no notorious falsehood chargeable on them: That which he saith, I forced him to the disputation I conceive is not right; how it came to pass is showed above; that there were thousands of people there I think is overlasting: the tale of the dispute is made to prepossess men with prejudice. I told him before that such a dispute was not fit to satisfy, and I gave him my reasons, and I propounded the way used at the Conference at the Hague, judged best by Dr. Raynolds: but the way Mr. B. took he liked best, and his carriage of it looks like an artifice cunningly contrived to please the common sort of Scholars and others of which few can discern between sleight and solid proofs. But I doubt not my answer will prove Mr. Bs. arguments to be mere trifles. The untruths charged on me page 167. are upon his mistake of the words written before him. I said not [to be used by Mr. B.] but by others mentioned next before. That his passage was like to be the beginning of a schism among those of Bewdley was no jest, but a conjecture which the event hath proved true: how he misrepresents my words of charging their blood on them, and hypocrisy to them is before showed: it's not true I had been long time working a fearful schism, unless by accident, it being true which Mr. Allen and Mr. Shepherd say Advertisement to the Reader, pag. 27. scarce truth or error can now adays be received but in a way of schism. His lines were likely to be the beginning of a schism, in that it was taken as if Anabaptists and with them myself were adjudged heretics by him: which if it were an untruth, yet it is so like a truth, that I think he that shall read in one period what Mr. B. says of Heretics, that they end in wicked lives, and in the next find the instance in Anabaptists, and after me named as one of them will conceive he called them and me heretics. And however he protest he doth not, yet his asserting me a Sect-Master page 188. and his inclining to Vossius, etc. their definition of an Heretic page 171. and his words page 259. make me think he comes not much short of counting me an heretic. To his allegations of my speeches concerning Mr. M. and Independents I have answered before. I may say the doctrine was one of the first heresies, yet not censure the men that hold it as heretical; it's one thing to be formally an heretic, and another thing materially, to hold that which denominated a party heretical. In my Examen I tell Mr. M. and now Mr. B. that I think none of those glorious lights mentioned held Mr. Ms. position. I do not judge all heretics that be against my opinion, but that they may be more justly styled heretics then myself. Mr. Bs. quickness in replying afore he weighed my speeches or perhaps my scantness in expressions out of wariness what I said to him (whom I found very captious) hath I perceive created me these hard censures. That which Mr. B. says page 172. he dare say of me I dare say is false. The inference which he calls strange is none of mine: the passage and time of writing it do still prevail with me to conceive that he wanted a spirit of love through ill surmises of me. Page 174. Infant-sprinking or pouring water on them will not be proved baptism. I shall not ease sinners that own their infant-sprinkling as baptism by my assertion: that I tell them they never sinned against their baptism and engagement is a fiction of Mr. B. in which he hath a pretty art. I said not Mr. B. gave us a title to make us odious, but [that might make us odious] which imports the term might make us odious, not that Mr. B. had that purpose in using it. Page 175. He hath a discourse from the end of the accuser and the opposition of justification to accusation and condemnation to prove, That it is proper language to say he accuseth another, who denies a supposed privilege to be due to him. By the same reason the accuser's accusation may be said to be condemnation, and execution too, for that is the end of the accuser. I had thought [accusation] noted the accuser's act, not his end; that justification is opposed to accusation and condemnation shows they are distinguished, the one being the charging with a fault, the other passing sentence. I must confess I yet understand not his language of accusing without charging with a fault, nor do I think any law-dictionary doth so define accusation. I do not think the non-visible churchmembership of infants is penal, or deprivation of a mercy now, it being only by the alteration of the Church-frame. Whether the not acknowledging infants visible churchmembership be a denying a mercy real or imaginary, whether there be injustice, scorn, or any error in my tenet about it, is to be examined in answering his book. What I do hold I do it not without natural affection to my children, out of conscience of maintaining truth. The very same he chargeth upon me for denying infant-baptisme might mutatis mutandis by the same reason be charged on him for denying infant-communion. I do judge this Rhetorical or Satirical passage of Mr. B. to be a mere trifling in a serious matter. That which is said page 176. of my disputing my children out of the Church by denying them to be visible Church-members is Mr. Bs' mistake in defining visible Church-membership as I shall show in examining the 27. chap. of the first part of his book. It's not true I deny all infants to be in Covenant with the Lord their God, or that title to salvation which upon promise they have in point of law. Mr. Bs. conditional Covenant gives no title till the condition be put, which he will not say is true of any infants but the elect, who alone are children of the promise in the Apostles language, Rom. 9 8. pag. 177. he saith, I do all I can to keep infants out of the visible Church, but I deny that to hinder their baptism is to keep them out of the visible Church, or that to baptise them is to bring them in. If it be, why have they not the communion according to that which we read, 1 Cor. 12. 13? Are Janissaries who were baptised children of Greek Christians therefore visible members of the Christian Church? Mr. B. though he had the Copy of my Sermon, yet misrepresents my words. I said not, that it is the Devils part to say that the infants of believers are members of the visible Church, but my words were [it being an error, and such pernicious effects following, that people think therefore they are Christians because baptised, (which opinion of theirs is confirmed by Mr. Bs. words. For they are visible Christians that are baptised into the name of Christ, if they have not since by word or works renounced him) and rest therein, and are thereby held in carnal presumption, we ought rather to think those that maintain infant-baptisme play the Devil's part] which expressions of mine being added, the vanity of Mr. Bs. arguings will appear. That which he hath page 178. [that it is no more thanks to me then to Satan, that I keep not God from making promise to his people] which intimates I would do it if it were in my power (for if there be no more thanks to me then Satan, it is because there's no more hindrance in me from doing it then in Satan, and so the same will) is a suggestion that exceeds all moderation, as if Mr. B. were bend not only to rake up all the dirt he can to cast in my face, but also to put an ill construction on all I say. My answer was a fair answer to a virulent charge. In 2. senses I conceived it might be said that Infants are disputed out of the Covenant of Christ: the one as if my dispute made Christ not Covenant to them, the other as if it made them not Covenant to Christ. I said, neither was true. What says Mr. B.? 1. Election is not a Covenant. Nor did I say it was. And then adds [nor are they in Covenant because elected] which speech is most false, contrary to Rom. 9 8. where [the children of the promise] is all one with [the Elect] as the Analysis shows, as may be seen in the Authors cited by me in my Examen part. 3. sect. 4. Besides whom more may be produced. I will add two now. Mr. Rutherfurd in that piece of his which is the exactest of his works. Exercit. Apol. 2. c. 2. num. 7. Soli electi dicuntur in Scriptures foederati, filii & haeredes promissionis, Rom. 9 8. The elect alone are said in the Sctiptures to be in Covenant, children, and heirs of the promise, Rom. 9 8. and Mr. Norton in resp. ad Apollon. c. 2. pag. 30. Objectum foederis gratiae sunt soli electi. The object of the Covenant of Grace are the elect alone. Next he saith, that I deny that God Covenanteth with our infants to be their God in Christ, and to take them to be his peculiar people, which is the Covenant he formerly made with infants, and which he now affirms. What he affirms distinctly I cannot well tell: he doth so confusedly express himself in his books. He distinguished between an absolute and a conditional Covenant of Grace. The absolute he says belongs only to the elect, but this he will not be thought to mean when he speaks of infants of believers being in Covenant, or baptisms' sealing of it: yea he blames me often for so conceiving of him, and page 223. he disputes against that tenet as my fifth error. The conditional is a Covenant of justification and salvation upon-condition of faith: this he saith is sealed by baptism, not the other, and this he makes belonging to all the posterity of Adam, elect and reprobate. And this it seems most likely he means, when he speaks of infants of believers being in Covenant, because it is that which baptism seals, and they that are in Covenant are to be sealed thereby. But according to this conditional Covenaat either all are in Covenant with God whether elect or reprobate, infants of believers or unbelievers, or else none till they perform the condition, which is faith, and so not all infants of believers. [Mr. B. in his additions to the Saints everlasting rest, part. 3. sect. 3. prop. 2. A conditional promise puts nothing in being, till the performance of the condition; nor gives any certainty, but of such performance.] As for any Covenant of God or Christ besides these containing only the promise of visible Church-membership, or such like imagined privileges in the New Testament to infants of Gentile believers I take to be a phantasm, and when I come to examine Mr. Bs. opinion of infants visible Church-membership (which I could not do till I had his book) I doubt not to make it appear to be so, that not one text he hath brought proves such a promise, and that he hath not proved more to belong to infants by promise than I acknowledge, and yet neither visible Church-membership, nor right to baptism in infancy ordinarily will follow thereon. As for that he saith in general terms, that I deny that God covenanteth with infants of believers to be their God in Christ, and to take them to be his peculiar people, is said like a Calumniator, my words being so plain to the contrary in that very place. In a word, I have said that the Covenant or promise of regeneration, sanctification, forgiveness of sins, adoption, and eternal life is not made to all the natural children of the most godly believers, no not of Abraham himself, or to any barely because they are their children, but because elect, or believers in their own persons, which Mr. M. and Mr. Geree in their answers to me confess to be true, as being expressly delivered, Rom. 9 8. and by the stream of Protestant writers maintained. But I deny not that many infants of believers are in the Covenant of Grace: nor dare I say that no infants of unbelievers are in the Covenant of Christ in this sense: I only say I neither know which of the one or the other are thus in the Covenant of Grace. As for the arguings that he that denies Infant's baptism doth deny them to be in the Covenant of Grace, they are built on these fancies that to be a seal of the Covenant of Grace is of the essence of baptism, that there is a certain connexion between being in the Covenant of Grace and right to be baptised: which with other hypotheses of Paedobaptists I shall examine in my Review. Mr. B. adds, That I flatly deny infants Covenanting with God, whereas my words were far from such flat denial being only these [for my part I know not how any person should Covenant with Christ till he promise, etc.] which were not such a peremptory or flat denial as Mr. B. says they are, and they are true, it being against all experience, that infants do so Covenant: but on the contrary when they are baptised cry and show their unwillingness, as August. lib. 1. de remiss. et mer. pecc. c. 23. flendo et vagiendo cum in eyes mysterium celebratur ipsis mysteriis vocibus obstrepunt. Then Mr. B. says, I dissuade parents from so engaging their children in Covenant, and promising in their names, which yet they ever did in the Church before Christ, and it was their duty to do, as Deut. 29. and other places show. But in which words I persuade parents not to do (as he says I do) he doth not show, my words are there all assertory of what I conceive infants cannot do in their own persons, not a word of persuasion or dissuasion to the parents or any other. And for that which is added [then it seems you know not how a Father should engage his child by covenanting in his name] and after [you would have no parents to engage their children solemnly to God in Christ by Covenanting in their names] there is not a word of it in that place. 'Tis true in my Sermon entitled Fermentum Pharisaeorum, I gave a little touch against the use of sureties at baptism according to the Doctrine of the catechism in the common prayer-book, that they did promise that they should believe, etc. which I conceived only belongs to Christ as surety of the better Covenant, Heb. 7. 22. But I never denied, that the Elders of a Nation may engage solemnly the posterity even the unborn to take the Lord for their God (but this I rather take to be an adjuration under a curse if they do not, than a promise for them that they shall) nor that a parent may engage his child by a promise of his own endeavour that he shall; and that the child is engaged thereby: but not by virtue of the Father's promise, but by virtue of the obligation of the thing promised, the Father's promise is an incitement to do it the rather, but makes not the child bound to do it of itself, but only because the thing is a duty, which he were bound to did the Father promise for him or not. But I deny, that this makes a visible Church-member, or that in nature or law as his child's act according to the Gospel for his being admitted a visible Church-member. Now Mr. B. hastily answering me jumbles things together, and as one impatient of considering what I say, chargeth me with what I avow not, and then concludes scoffically, And I pray you how well do you free yourself from this charge? Should I imitate him I should cry shameless foul dealing, etc. But I am resolved to examine his writing, not to follow his fashion Pag. 179. He says, I did not distinguish of disciples, or yield infants disciples in any sense, & If I acknowledge them disciples in any sense, I should speak out. To which I say, I put in those words in my Sermon in that sense, Christ appointed disciples to be baptised, to intimate that I did not deny, but infants might be disciples by the immediate secret work of God's spirit, though not in the ordinary & mediate way of preaching the Gospel, about which the rule Mat. 28. 19 is set. As for Mr. Bs. sense of a disciple of Christ without learning Christ's doctrine, of a servant of God without service actively or passively, a disciple remotely by the Father's being a disciple it is nothing like the use of the word [disciple] in the New Testament or the term [servant of God] as equipollent to [a disciple] and no marvel I should mistake Mr. B. who used terms in a sense I never met with in the New Testament, and I still conceive to be a piece of new gibberish. And when he saith, he took servant, and disciple according to their relative formal nature, and not either with the accidental consideration of active or passive, it is no marvel I should be at a stand what to answer him using terms in such an uncouth nonsense acception as I never met with before. (For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to battle?) And it seems to me a grosser absurdity which Mr. B. hath in those words, than any of those he chargeth me with, to take disciple and servant in their relative formal nature without learning or service active or passive; whereas Mr. B. himself page 92. where he says, the relation of a servant, disciple, soldier, husbandman, tradesman remains when the act ceaseth for a time, yet expressly saith, the relation and so the denomination is from the act of service, learning, etc. and yet he would have infants to be denominated disciples and servants of God without their act of learning or service, or capacity of actual learning or service in an ordinary way: and he is not ashamed to call learning or service actively or passively accidental to the title or denomination of a disciple or servant. Which is a monstrous absurdity to make a denomination without the form denominating, yea to count it accidental to conceive a relation without the foundation, which is all one as to call one a Father without begetting, a Lord without dominion, a sign without signification, not unlike the riddle vir non vir, percussit non percussit, avem non avem, lapide non lapide, super arbore non arbore, or rather absurdorum absurdissimun oppositum in apposito. And yet this notion of a disciple never proved is the ground work of Mr. Bs. first. argument, and therefore if I may use Mr. Bs. words, they are very tractable souls that are led by his notions. page 180. He thinks strange that a man of my parts should know of no separation to God but by election or calling, he questions whether election be proper separation, he says that the Jews firstborn were separated by a law, and men now by dedication separate goods to God, that he means separation neither by election nor extraordinary or ordinary call, but by the law or Covenant of God. To which I reply, Mr. B. still abuseth me by leaving out my words [as the case now stands] which were put in as remarkable, to exclude that way of separation to God, whereby the first born, Priests, goods, etc. were holy as separated to God. Election is, always with separation, that is, differencing one from another, and as election is said to be according to purpose, Rom. 9 11. so likewise separation, Paul was separated from his mother's womb, Gal. 1. 15. according to God's pleasure and purpose, that is by his election: And with this separation infants may be said to be sanctified, as Jeremiah ch. 1. 5. And so the term [holy] is applied, Rom. 11. 16. to the Jews then unborn, who were after to be called ver. 24, 25, 26, 27. And called Saints is used 1 Cor. 1. 2. As for infants of believers whether elect or reprobate outward federal holiness I know no such, there's no law or Covenant separates every child of a believer to God. According to Mr. B. the Covenant sealed by baptism is conditional, and that belongs to all the sons of Adam till persons are severed by believing, and unbelief: this Covenant therefore of itself without putting the condition doth not separate any to God, and so not infants till they be believers: the absolute is only to the elect, and according to it, and so only the elect are separated, which are not all, perhaps but a few of the children of believers, but an Isaac of all Abraham's children, Rom. 9 6, 7, 8. A law or Covenant of God separating all infants of believers barely for their parent's faith to be visible members of the Christian Church is Mr. Bs. dream, as I shall show with God's assistance in examing his second argument.   

SECT. XI. About Mr. Bs. 4. texts urged impertinently to prove infants visible Church-membership.  
PAge 183. he says it is a palpable untruth which I say, he four texts in his Epistle Levit. 25. 41, 42. Deut. 29. 11, 12. Act. 15. 10. 1 Cor. 7. 14. with Rom. 11. 19 were all he concluded any thing from, meaning in the dispute at Bewdley, and says the hearers know it and is to be seen before. But to my best remembrance with search into the notes I took after, and the notes which were communicated to me it is no untruth. Mat. 28. 19 I think he alluded to, but I remember not it was urged or any other text besides the forenamed as a medium from which to conclude any proposition to be proved. Then he says, I have been fully answered before, but yet adds concerning Levit. 25. 41, 42. 1. The Jews infants, were infants, and the dispute between us was of the species. Answ. 1. Though Mr. B. and before him Mr. Cobbet usually call the sort or rank of men that are infants the species; yet other Logicians usually call [man] the lowest species or kind, and say, age and sex make not another kind. 2. But allowing Mr. B. and Mr. Cobbet their language, I say, the dispute is not about the species or kind, to wit, infants as infants, but infants of believers, who are particular persons, and the question as it was rightly stated between me and Mr. M. was, Whether the infants of believers were to be baptised with Christ's baptism by a lawful Minister according to ordinary rule without extraordinary revelation or direction? And if Paedobaptists will maintain their practice, they should make good this proposition, That all the infant-childrens of professed or inchurched believers are to be baptised with Christ's baptism by the law full Minister according to ordinary rule. Though Mr. Baillee and Mr. B. for some advantage set down this as their proposition to be proved, That some infants are to be baptised. M. B. says he had proved our privileges greater than the Jews, and that I deny it not, and that this (to wit, to be God's servants) was not peculiar to them. Whereas I had proved the contrary from ver. 55. and the whole chapter is about laws peculiar to the Jews, and ver. 38, 39, 40. going before, show plainly that this law was peculiar to the Jews, that they and their children should return from servitude under which they were for poverty, at the year of Jubilee, and ver. 45, 46. plainly restrains it to the children of Israel, allowing them to take the children of strangers so journing among them, and therefore proselytes, as an inheritance. And therefore in whatever sense it is meant that they are Gods servants, it is meant only of Hebrews, as Exod. 21. 2. is expressed. I do not conceive, nor any interpreters that I meet with do expound this of a proselyte, but only of an Hebrew borne. If Cornelius had children they had not been Gods servants in the sense there meant: which is clearly this, that they were his servants in this respect only in that place, in that they were to be disposed of not as men would, but as he only would, who had right to them by his purchase in bringing them out of Egypt, and therefore none can get sovereign Dominion over them (no not by their voluntary selling themselves) to prejudice his, as Deodat. annot. in Levit. 25. 42. Whence I infer, that it is a most gross abuse of this Scripture in Mr. B. to urge it to prove that the infants of Gentile believers now are servants to God, related to him as a peculiar people, separated to himself from the world: which is spoken merely in respect of the Hebrew children, and their corporal servitude, which was to be at Gods disposing by reason of his redemption of them out of Egypt. When he tells me of my accustomednesse to mistakes, it is more true of himself (as I have often showed) yea though the words were written before him. And in this very thing he calls my mistake that he argued thus, Whosoever is called God's servant may be baptised, whereas he might have seen if he had taken any care to set down my words rightly, that my words were as his own notary took them, and he hath printed them [If this be a good argument Infants are called servants of God, therefore they are disciples, and must be baptised] which was his argument either in words or substance. As for the conclusion and argument as he sets it down page 182. I think it was not urged in the dispute, and I have proved that Levit. 25. 42. is meant only of Hebrew children, not of Gentiles, nor in the sense Mr. B. would prove that they are relatively separate to God from the world in the sense as [God's servants]. is equipollent to a disciple of Christ. Page 184 he calls my answers to his allegation of Deut. 19 11, 12 vain, senseless reavils, and then breaks out into words of pity to people that take their opinions on my word. To which is I say, that my answers are not vain, senseless cavil, will appear in my reply to Mr. B. about that text. And as he pities them that take their opinion on my word, so I pity them that take their opinion on his word; or any mere man's word contrary to Christ's privilege, Mat. 23. 1. Page 184. in my words [adoption] is printed for [doctrine] Page 185. he repeats his frivolous charge of our accusing our children as no disciples of Christ, and therefore no Christians, and therefore no ground to believe or hope they are saved: thus calumniating me, when I have often said they may be both Disciples and Christians invisibly, and so have salvation; and we have great reason to hope they are in God's election by reason of the general indefinite promises of the Scripture and Gods usual dealing with his people, though there is no certainty either from Mr. Bs. grounds or mine, sith Mr. B. will not say that every visible Church-member is saved. All the difference between us is about their visible Church-membership, whether the denying that takes away ground of hope of their salvatien: Mr. B. saith it doth, because there's no hope of that persons salvation that doth not seem to be of the invisible Church; but he that is not of the visible Church doth not seem to be of the invisible. Ergo; But the Minor is not true, as he takes the word [seem] and by God's assistance I doubt not to show, when I examine ch. 27. of part. 1. his mistake concerning the term [visible] as if it were as much as to appear such in the judgement of probability though not descernad by sense, by which defini-nition the opposite terms [visible and invisible] may be confounded, and the term [visible] is used contrary to the common use of writers, whereby he misleads himself and others. Then he adds, But Mr. T. will say, I believe that it is better that infants are no Christians, then that they were. But believe him that list for me. To which I say, I will not do as he often deals with me, charging me as playing the Devil's part, and worse, but this I say, I know not what to conceive of these words, but that either by God's judicial act of leaving him to himself, out of addictedness to calumniate, or extreme ill opinion of me, or which I much fear notwithstanding all his protestations out of disdainfulness of his Antagonist and delight in Satirical quips he vented this passage. He cannot show where ever I used such an impious speech: all I have said is only this, It is a mercy that our children are not visible Church-members as the Jews were, because it brought a heavy bondage, and the Christian Church-constitution of volunteers is better, nor do our children lose any thing by defect of such visible Church-membership. Yet if I had said so, that I would say so for the time to come who can say but God? Might I not have repent and altered my speech? Then he goes on to answer my arguing against his allegation of Act. 15. 10. to prove infants disciples, and calls it silly grounds, insipid arguing, according to his usual Rhetoric, whereas the silliness (if any) is in his own inconsiderateness of the strength of it. That text serves not Mr. Bs. turn unless it could be proved, that the very act or action which these false teachers did were the cutting with a knife the little skin of the privy member, for no more was done to infants in actual circumcision, nor were they passive subjects of any other action. Now Mr. Bs. argument is from what was done to infants by false teachers that infants are meant by [disciples, Act. 15. 10.] But it is manifest that the false teachers did not cut off that little skin, but the parents of the infants as Mr. Bs. text shows, Act. 21. 21. and the same text ascribing the contrary to Paul to that which the false teachers did, shows it was teaching that was their putting on the yoke: which is more apparent from Act. 15. 1. where what is said v. 10. they put the yoke on the necks of the disciples, is ver. 1. they taught the brethren: the disciples than are the brethren, and the putting on the yoke is the teaching them. My argument is this, that the false teachers did no other thing but teach, now the act there is ascribed to the false teachers only, not to the parents of infants, none are blamed but they, they are spoken of and to, not the parents; therefore the putting on of the yoke was not actual circumcision, which was the parent's act, not the false teachers: they neither did it, nor by any instrument attempt to do it themselves, though the one might follow on the other. And I dare still appeal to any that are of common understanding, whether that which the false teachers, did Act. 15. 10. were to infants or parents. And for Mr. Bs. exceptions, To the first, Mr. B. mistakes my confession, I confessed they did not put the yoke eternally, but only endeavoured it, because though they taught them the necessity of circumcision, yet their doctrine was not received, but I never said to my remembrance, that the phrase of putting on the yoke noted barely their intent or attempt, but the act they did though sine effectu on the disciples: my words are plain as they are printed, in which it is manifest the putting on of the yoke was by the teaching of the false teachers. As for Mr. Bs. instances they serve better for me then himself. He that teacheth people to be subject to the Turk, though thereby he enslave their infants by consequent, yet the subject recipient of his act are only the people taught, nor doth any man in that speech understand the infants; and so it must be said of Moses subjecting the children of Israel to his law, though by consequent infants were circumcised, yet in this speech Moses subjected (by teaching or commanding) the children of Israel to his law. The term [children of Israel] notes only, or as Logicians speak supponitly parents only. The act of Gods calling Christ out of Egypt is a complex act, noting the sending the Angel; the command to Joseph, his carrying Christ, whereof Christ was the object or terminus, not only of the command. But the false Teachers Act. 15. 10. was formally the single act of teaching not circumcision, they neither acted it nor attempted it in their own persons, and therefore could have no other subject recipient, but those that were taught, not infants. Page 187. He calls my speech [that I think Mr. B. cannot show in any one place where the word [holy] is taken in his sense for a state or person (I do conceive I said for the state of a person) separated to God in that way he would have a person separated to God neither by election nor outward calling, nor any other way that I know of in which holiness is used for a state separated to God] a new crotchet of the nature of the rest, and answers it with a quaver, and a jest. His quaver is, Is it not enough that I prove it always taken for a separation to God, but I must show that the word signifies a separation by this or that way or means effected? His jest follows, A man was out of love with his wife, etc. and is not this the same kind of reasoning with yours? To which I reply, It is not enough. For 1. Mr. B. says, that holiness is always taken for a separation to God. 2. I am sure that it is taken for chastity, 1 Thess. 4. 3, 4. and Mr. B. denies it not page 255. only says it is a part of sanctity, though ver. 3. Beza translates it, id est, ut abstineatis à fornication, which shows the holiness there is no other than chastity, or at least chastity in the first place, which is plain from ver. 4. where it is, to possess the vessel, that is, the body in holiness, that is, chastity, which the opposition to the lust of concupiscence, ver. 5. and uncleanness, ver 7. do show. And this acknowledged by Illyricus in his clavis Script. on the word Sanctus, Piscator in his scholy on 1 Thess. 4. 4. and others which I shall produce in my Review. 3. Then it must needs follow according to Mr. Bs. position, that to be chaste is to be holy in a state of separation to God. But I suppose Mr. B. will not say every chaste person is in a state saparated to God which may entitle him to baptism, therefore it is not enough for Mr. Bs. purpose to prove a person any way holy or in a state separated to God, that thereby he be entitled to baptism: but he must show the way how he is holy, and that this entitles to baptism. The Jews hereafter to be called are holy, Rom. 11. 16. by election. Mr. Cobbet Just vindic. chap. 3 sect. 1. page 37. The Jews yet to come were in Paul's time holy federally, Rom. 11. 15, 16. not actually, but intentionally, yet not then baptizable: the Mede●, say. 13. 3. are called Gods sanctified ones, yet not to be admitted visible Church-members. I further add, that in his general sense [Legitimate] might also signify a state separate to God, as being that only posterity he allows of according to his institution of marriage, Mal. 2. 15. which is very frequently called holy by Divines. And therefore letting pass his jocular tale, my exception or answer to his reasoning from 1 Cor. 7. 14. deserves a better refutation than he hath yet given. Then he makes me say, that no Scripture speaks of holiness in his sense, whereas my words (as above) were more wary, Mr. B. I think cannot show, etc. And then tells me, that the Jews infants are called the Holy seed, and that by covenant or law, which is his sense, and then chargeth me with laying by conscience and common modesty, having little tenderness of conscience in accusing his will in charging him with a gross falsehood, that he was willing to carry things in generals, and not to tell distinctly how infants are holy and in a state separated to God, whereas he told me he meant holy by law or Covenant. Notwithstanding which I may yet conceive him willing to carry things in generals, sith this very explication is in generals, the law or Covenant, as he calls it, being not distinctly named and showed where it is, and upon what conditions that state of separation to God which infants have is ascertained, whether upon their own act or parents, and if upon parents whether immediate or mediate, whether to the truth and reality or profession, nor wherein that state of separation to God consists, or what is the benefit of it: all or of some which perhaps I apprehend Mr. B. rightly in now, yet not till I had read over his book again and again, and picked out his meaning by comparing many passages together: which because he did not then, nor since in his printed writings put together as others do in their theses they maintain. I guessed he was willing to carry things▪ in the general, and if I did say so (which Mr. B. and I must take on his Scribes word) in my Sermon without any caution, Mr. B. might have imagined that I meant it with this caution (which is ordinarily allowed in constructions of such speeches, where thematter leads us to conceive them intended) that I conceived him unwilling: which might be the more allowed to me in that speech which I had not a word written when I spoke it; which of all other Mr. B. is least fit to except against me for, having in print offended in this way in worse manner, page 185. But to the matter now we conceive his meaning, I still say the same, that I think he cannot show one place, where [holy] is taken for separated to God in his sense. He allegeth that the Jews infants are called the holy seed: though he name not the text, (which had been fit) yet I guess by his words page 83. he means Ezra 9 2. in which place only and Isaiah 6. 13. I find this term in Scripture. But Ezra 9 2. doth not speak of infants, but such a holy seed as mingled themselves with the people of the land, which was in marriage, which will not be said of infants; nor is [holy seed] there meant of a state separated to God in Mr. Bs. sense by Covenant promising it to believers, that their infants should be visible Church-members: For this holiness was a state of difference or separation only by legal descent from Israel, not by the faith of next parents, and it did entitle them to a peculiar privilege of being reckoned in the genealogy of Israel, or in full communion with the Commonwealth of Israel in respect of inheritance, marriage, etc. though they fell to Idolatry, as Jeroboam, Ahaz, Manasseh, etc. did. But proselytes though believers were not the holy seed there meant, they were not forbidden to marry the daughters of the people of the land. Yea the children of the holy seed begotten upon prohibited women, as the daughters of the Nations there mentioned, were with their mothers to be put away as unholy according to the law, Ezra 10. 3. contrary to the resolution of the Apostle, 1 Cor. 7. 12, 13, 14. which evidently shows that the Jews are called the holy seed by their descent according to the law of Moses, and that the term [holy seed, Ezra 10. 2.] is all one with [Legitimate] and if the Apostle did allude to that place in Ezra it serves more for my sense then Mr. Bs. and the sense may be conceived this, If the unbelieving husband were not as sanctified to his wife so as that they might lawfully live together, than the children should be unclean, that is illegitimate, as those in Ezra: but now, that is it being determined that the law of Moses concerning prohibiting marriage with some people is voided, and unequal marriage is not dissolved, your children are holy that is legitimate. His evasion page 188. about a judgement of charity will be found insufficient to avoid my exception against his exposition, which is mistaken by him; nor will it at all smite me, my exception being not as he imagines, that upon a judgement of charity concerning the sincerity of a persons profession he is not to be taken for a real believer: But that Mr. B. determining that the unbeliever is sanctified only to the believer, who is not only such according to the judgement of charity, but also really such before God; and the Apostles consequence including this Proposition according to his exposition, that the children of such only are holy, that is, after Mr. B. visible Church-members and baptizable, of necessity all other by his exposition are prohibited to be baptised; and therefore of necessity he that will follow the rule according to Mr. Bs, exposition must know the reality of the parents faith, which being impossible to be known without special revelation, he may baptise none without it. Now Mr. B. answers not at all to the main thing, how by his exposition a man can go upon certainty that he doth his duty: but how without respect to his exposition a man may take a person for a sincere believer, and so baptise him. But this serves not his turn in this case. For it is the duty of the baptizer to baptise only visible Church-members: this Mr. B. will not deny: now of infants who can make no profession, their visible Church-membership is known only by their parents believing; but according to Mr. Bs. exposition of the Apostle, those infants only are visible Church-members whose parents are real believers before God: no hypocrite if Mr. B. rightly expound the Apostle can make his infant a visible Church-member, and baptizable, for his children are unclean. But it is not possible for a baptizer to know the parent to be a real believer before God without special revelation, and therefore without it he cannot be certain he doth his duty according to Mr. Bs. suppositions; yea he may be certain he doth not his duty: For he may be certain he cannot observe the rule of baptising only the infants of those that are real believers before God, it being certain some in the visible Church are hypocrites, and he is not to baptise the infants of such, if Mr. B. rightly expound the Apostle, they being unclean, that is, no visible Church-members, nor baptizable, and therefore he may be certain in baptising promiscuously infants of visible professors that he doth not his duty, if Mr. Bs. exposition be good, but sins against the Apostles determination, in baptising those that are not baptizable by the Apostles determination as Mr. B. expounds him, and if he be intelligent against his own light: but cannot be certain he doth his duty, because he cannot know which are baptizable, those infants being only baptizable according to the Apostles resolution as expounded by Mr. B. who are the children of believers not only so accounted in the judgement of charity, but also really such before God, which he cannot know without special revelation.   

SECT. XII. That Mr. B. unjustly chargeth me to be a Sect-Master.  
TO his virulent and most unrighteous speech of me page 188. that he hath as good evidence that I am a Sect-Master, as that I am a Christian; I have replied before sect. 4. And now I say further, that my conscience acquits me from the guilt of making any Sect; and my proceedings at first with my brethren in the Ministry manifested in my Examen and Apology, in my applying myself to the Assemby and Mr. M. do fully clear my aim, to have been Reformation with peace and concurrence in the work of Christ with them: (which course Mr. B. approves pag. 246.) and if my writings had been fairly examined, it is very probable they had not been printed. What I did, I was necessitated to, by their slighting the thing, aed determining contrary to my positions, in a Magisterial manner, notwithstanding my writings; whereby it became penal to hold my tenet; which enforced me to print. And yet neither then did I meddle with the practice till Mr. Baillee awakened me, by telling me, my infant-baptisme must be null, by my principles. Nor have I baptised (save one nearly related to me,) but where I was chosen a preacher; where I conceived myself bound to baptise (by Christ's rule, Mat. 28. 19) those disciples to whom I preached: nor did I join any in communion, till I saw that those that did their duty in being baptised, were rejected and made odious, with Ministers and people, whereby they are necessitated to join in communion by themselves. And if any others do not join with them, it is partly because notwithstanding I am for my own particular much inclined to unite in the communion, those that differ in judgement about infant-baptisme, according to my judgement expressed in my Apology sect. 12. and Mr. Jesseys' determinations in his book entitled A store-house of provision to further resolution in sundry cases of conscience; yet because it is manifest from Acts 2. 41, 46. 1 Cor. 10. 1, 2, 3. & 12. 13. persons were baptised afore they broke bread together, and Justin. Martyr. Apolog. 2. ad Antoninum hath these words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, This food is with us called the Eucharist or thanksgiving: of which it is not allowed for any other to partake, but him that believeth those things to be true which are taught by us, and is washed with that washing which is for the forgiveness of sins and unto new birth, and that lives so as Christ hath delivered, which passage is alleged by Mr. B. page 156. though maimedly. And Augustin. tom. 7. de pecc. mer. et remiss. lib. 1. cap. 20. Adsacramentum mensae Domini nemo ritè nisi baptizatus accedit. And Lumb. sent. l. 4. dist. 8. Hoc coeleste manna non nisi renatis praestari debet. And the generality of Popish and Protestant Divines hold so. Mr. B. page 342. We have no warrant by word or example in all the New Testament, to admit any member into the Church, without baptism; and therefore the taking any without baptism to the Lords Supper, will but strengthen men in their opinion, that their infant-sprinkling is sufficient; and partly, because by Mr. Bs. book and other means men are so possessed with the restoring of baptism, as if it were an error, schism, a practice accursed by God, that conscientious timorous men do of themselves shun us, and others furiously oppose us; therefore I see a necessity of desisting from that enterprise, yet resolved to join with other Christians of different judgement in what agreement & communion I can with a good conscience in prayer, preaching, discipline, etc. And I speak unfeignedly notwithstanding all the injuries done me by Mr. M. Mr. Geree, Mr. Baillee, and now beyond all the rest by Mr. B. yet my heart is towards them to promote with them the work of Christ according to the solemn Covenant, & I think Mr. B. & others are not ignorant that I have as absolutely and diligently opposed, if not so happily, the Popish, Arminian, Antinomian, Familistical; Socinian errors now broached as other men. What I said in my Apology sect. 20. I say still, I seek unity with truth, and I am certain that Mr. B. hath most injuriously accused me as unpeaceable, whether it hath come from others suggestions or his own misconceits of me. To that which is from pag. 189. to 169. is answered before.   

SECT. XIII. That it is not a right way to judge of the truth of a doctrine by strange accidents, though wondrous.  
PAge 197. He drives on more furioso, having recited my words concerning unsafeness to judge of doctrine by such accidental strange things as Mrs. Dyers and Hutchinsons' monstrous births 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 than let go his error? and then in his pathetic Rhetoric insinuates, as if this speech of mine were weakening the credit of God's testimony in wondrous providences, not far from the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, that I am fallen so far as freely to sacrifice God's glory to my fancies, and then brings in exceptions against me in four things, 1. That I call them only strange accidents. 2. Compare it to the falling of a house. 3. That I dissuade 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 adds: Would Mr. T. have us so carelessly regard God's judgement etc. yea and rather judge the contrary? It seems if he had seen the wonders of Egypt, he would not only have been hardened 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 than sets down two propositions, 1. That true miracles are never to be disinherited, but believed what ever they teach, that they are God's 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 looseness of his pen to discover two things for his own good and the good of them that dote on him and his book, 1. His extreme bitterness or uncharitableness towards me and those he terms Sectaries. 2. His hasty, inconsiderate, rash and immoderate censures, misconstructions and determinations. For wherein do I fight against heaven, and dispute againstmiracles rather than let go my error? In which words did I either weaken the credit of the testimony of God? or sacrifice freely God's glory to my fancies? or regard so carelessly God's judgement? or rather judge the contrary to God's judgement? Whence may it seem 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 vain Rhetoric, and I will confess myself 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. Rhetoric, and apply it to the Author of the passage in the Epistle to the Church at Kederminster, in which in all likelihood the thanksgiving days for victories against the Scots are termed offering a sacrifice to Mars, and keeping holidays for killing the Saints. In this manner, will not this man fight against heaven? weaken the testimony of God? sacrifice freely God's glory to his own fancies? regard carelessly God's judgement? judge the contrary to God's judgement? etc. Who dare ascribe those glorious works of providence in giving victories to a weak, and far smaller Army brought into a great straight, over an Army double the number, when solemn appeals to God were made on both sides to show whose cause he owned, to chance of war and call the thanksgiving 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 forbear any more of this, and proceed to examine what Mr. B. says, 1. That I call them only strange things. Answ. If they be referred to [miracles wrought by God] which is in the next period, and in Grammar construction should be the accident, than it is false, that I call them only strange accidents, and not miracles: if to the monstrous births in New England, I do call them only strange accidents in that place, being willing to use a general term 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 term that signified they were from remarkable providence. Even Mr. B. himself I do not find to term 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 natural cause. Answ. 1. He changeth [them] into [it] and so leaves it doubful what he means that I compare with the falling of the house: But I imagine he means the monstrous births, because he adds 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 than the other, but only 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 Monks. And in respect of the time it was in show a more likely evidence of Gods disproving marriage of Ministers, than 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 public view as that was, though after evidenced sufficiently at the taking up of Mrs. Dyers child. And though the fall of a room 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, etc. Oct. 26. 1623. against the Papists. 3. That I dissuade 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 falls, 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 only 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 sign 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 refers them to the Scriptures notwithstanding his miracles. 3. Because though true miracles are never to be disinherited, yet Christ hath foretold us, Mat. 24. 24. There shall arise false Christ's and falls Prophets, and shall show great signs 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 testify 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 God's works, and when we have examined the doctrine by Scripture they have great influence on us either to confirm or unsettle in an opinion, yet they are rather discoveries of God's judgements of men and their practices, than their opinions; and yet therein we may mistake thinking God's judgement may be against one when it is against another, and thinking them worse than others contrary to our Saviour's doctrine, Luke 13. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. And in the relation of such accidents there is not always that certainty that may settle a person as appears 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 God's permission may perform 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 man's 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 than 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 words thus [they are] as if they spoke of the accidents next mentioned, whereas my words are [God may order accidents so] which note only 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 order them to become stumbling blocks, which is the same with that of Moses, Deut. 13. 3. The Lord your God proveth by signs 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 only to give reason of my advice of wariness set down my observation comparatively, and spoke of accidents that might be not of what were. Which being thus stated, Mr. Bs. exceptions are answered, and show either his inconsiderateness in what he says, 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 seems if I had seen the wonders of Egypt, I would not only 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 distempered one. Page 198. the Scribe hath written in my words [or none of them] in stead of [or to them only.]   

SECT. XIV. That Mr. B. doth not rightly expound Christ's rule, Mat. 7. 15, 16. nor is the unholiness of men a note to know false doctrine by.  
PAge 199. He would vindicate his interpretation of Mat. 7. 15. from my exception, and saith Christ tells them how to discern whole parties of false Prophets, and not how to discern every particular man that is such. But this is only his saying, and the contrary is proved by these reasons, 1. Those false Prophets Christ says we shall know by their fruits, whom he bids us beware of: but they are not only whole parties of them, but also every man that is such, Ergo. The Major is plain by the term [them] which refers to the false Prophets ver. 15. the Minor I think Mr. B. will not deny. 2. They are known by their fruits, which did come to them in sheep's clothing, but inwardly were ravening wolves; for [them] ver. 16. relates to such. But these are particular men as such, and not only whole parties; otherwise Christ should not bid beware of one false Prophet, nor censure such a one as a wolf, but only whole parties of them: which had been very imprudently done so to expose his disciples to be a prey to single wolves, and only warn them to take heed of a company of them together. Then he asks me, But what real Horeticks can Mr. T. name that had holy lives? It is hard to answer his question, because of the difficulty to determine who is a real Heretic, some only making him an heretic that holds an error against the foundation, others any error against the doctrine of Christ, some make it necessary that it be held with pertinacy, some with a party, some against self-conviction. Mr. Bs. speeches show he is not fully resolved. Nor is it easy to determine who errs, nor what degree of holiness is necessary to a holy life, or how it may be known. But I told Mr. B. in my Antidote Pelagins, A●minius and some others have been reputed Heretics, and to have been of holy, and so have many zealous Papists and others. But however (saith Mr. B.) the best have made nothing to sacrifice the unity and peace of the Church to their fancy, and rend it in pieces to strengthen their party: whence Mr. B. seems to infer they had not holy lives, but were wicked. I answer, if any man of purpose do so, I cannot think him to live holily; I know the wisdom from above is peaceable, Jam. 3. 17. Yet holy men thinking their fancy to be God's truth, may out of zeal to their opinion rend the Church, and yet be holy men. Mr. B. saith in his Epist. Dedic. to the Saints everlasting rest direct. 5. That independency which gives the people to govern by vote, is the same thing with separation, which comes from pride and ignorance, and directly leads to the dissolution of all Churches. Then they that hold it hold their fancy, and rend the Church by it, and so by Mr. Bs. rule none of them were of holy lives. If Mr. B. censure so Mr. Atnsworth, Mr. Robinson styled by Rivet. Explic. Dec. Exod. 20. praec. 4. vir pius, a godly man, etc. he will vent a more arrogant speech, than any he chargeth me with. Mr. Bs. opinions about faith and justification are by some counted fancies; if he should by them make a breach in the Church; yet I durst not deny his life to be holy. He calls it my reproach, that I think it may be safely said, that there are proportionably as many unholy Paedobaptists as of the opposites: to refute which he refers us to that said before, where I shall in its place examine it, and show that he hath done much wrong to Antipoedo baptists in two things, 1. In charging them with the evils of sundry who were never of their society. 2. In charging the evils of some few Apostates upon all the Churches, though they expressly rejected the persons, and declared even publicly in print against their wicked principles and practices, yea have been the first and almost the only men who have so declared, though many more than ever were of their Churches have fallen into the wicked Ranting ways besides Copp, and some others termed Anabaptists. He tells me, Lay aside the common people, and compare each party that are carried to it in judgement and in conscience, and experience will confute me, and then bids me show who came to the height of Cop, or those in Germany. To which I say, Who are carried to one side or other in judgement and conscience, it's impossible to determine, and therefore such an estimation as Mr. B. propoundes is not feasible: it's known many have been wicked on both sides: Copps and his followers madness is disclaimed by the Churches in London under baptism in their Heart-bleedings for professors abominations, and therefore by Augustine's rule should not be charged on the Churches. Whether Hacket or any other were as wicked, who knows but God? The evil carriages of the men have risen from their opinion of high enjoyments of God in the spirit, when they left ordinances, as was observed in the Levellers, not while they kept to baptism and Church-communion. Mr. Weld observed in his Story of the Antinomians page 40. that conceit of special revelations was the original of Mrs. Hutchinsons' miscarriage, and the like is conceived of the Anabaptists in Germany, and the like tragedy was near acting in New England as there. Mr. B. I still judge does ill to aggravate so far the actions of those in Germany and some in England, as if no miscarriages of others were comparable. I am sure it is no rule to judge a doctrine false by this, that the professors miscarry, but only to make men wary and fearful. If it be, he must judge the same doctrine false by reason of some men's miscarriages, and true because of others godly living. Page 200. he excepts against my Logic, for saying it is not idem per idem to know a false Prophet by his false doctrine. For what is a false Prophet but one that preacheth false doctrine? I answer, A false Prophet is one that is not sent by God, as a false Apostle, 2 Cor. 11. 13. is one that is not an Apostle of Christ, and it is no trifling repetition of the same, but the sure note that Christ gives, to say a false Prophet is known by his false doctrine. Ball Trial of grounds for separation chap. 13. page 312. If we look into the Scriptures of the old and New Testament, we shall never find the Prophets called true or false in respect of their outward calling, but in respect of their doctrine. When Mr. B. interprets [likely] by [ordinarily, or for the most part, or usually] as our ordinary sense of that phrase, I think he mistakes in the meaning and use of the word, and that [probably] doth better answer to it then [usually.] However, sith he dare not say that constantly all false doctrines end in wicked lives, Christ's direction as he makes it [to know false Prophets by their wicked lives, which ordinarily though not constantly they end in however they begin otherwise] is a very blind one for his people of Kederminster to make use of, sith they cannot by it discern an Antinomian or Anabaptist to be a false Prophet to beware of them, till they have observed the end of a whole party proving wicked, which perhaps will not be till they are dead that are tempted by them.   

SECT. XII. Mr. Bs. insinuations of the wickedness of Anabaptists is Calumniatory, and vainly alleged to condemn their doctrine of Antipaedobaptisme: Anabaptists and with them myself are vindicated from charges of schism, neglect of the Lords day, etc.  
PAge 201. To deter his hearers from Anabaptistry Mr. B. had said, Where hath there been known a society of Anabaptists since the world first knew that proved not wicked? A direct answer to this question thus propounded can hardly be made, nor is it necessary. It can hardly be made, it being a question that depends partly upon much reading of histories in former times both about the doctrine and manners of men comparatively obscure and contemned. Whereas Historians speak little but of eminent societies, and occurrences that make a remarkable change in the affairs of their time: and of things done in those ages in which Historians are but few, and not of the best note, when greatest darkness was on the Church, and hardest censures of the best: partly upon an exact intelligence of the affairs of the present Churches of so called Anabaptists in many Country's, who have been so depressed by the opposite party as that it is somewhat hard to learn where they be. All the intelligence I can get of them is by books for the most part of them that are their adversaries. Besides, it is very difficult to pass a censure upon a society, which is not a consistent but a flowing body, some members coming in, some cast out, some dying, same sound, some rotten, some removing dwellings, subject to change of Ministers, opinions, etc. whether in the end they have proved wicked or not, it being usual that some in such societies do prove wicked, and others prove well. And what man is there that wants not either age to see the beginninig and end of such a society, or opportunity to know the state of all or most of such a society, or judiciousness to conclude when her they proved wicked or not, it being certain that men may fall foully and yet die in Christ, and there being no fixed rule for us to judge who dies wicked, who not. The wisest Divines do advise caution in judging the final estate even of selfe-murtherers that have died with horrible speeches in their mouths not long before their death. I think God only fit to judge of men's final estate, and therefore think him fit only to resolve Mr. Bs. question. If I should ask Mr. B. where hath there been known a society of Antiprelatists, that have not in the end proved wicked, I think it would be as hard a thing for Mr. B. to give answer to it, as for me to give answer to his question. When men speak of men they speak as they are affected, some magnifying whom others debase, some counting that wicked which others count pious, he's canonised as a Saint, a Martyr by some who is judged a Traitor, Malefactor by others. They that pass such a censure must trust much to informations, which whether they be partial or impartial, true or false who can tell? Nor is it necessary to answer Mr. Bs. question. For to what end? Is it thereby to conclude against me the doctrine they held? But what may be known by the certain rule of Scripture without this uncertain sign. And therefore I conceive of this question not unlike the artifice of the Jesuits to deter people from the plain doctrine the Protestants hold by calling for Catalogues of Protestants in all ages, demanding where was your Church before Luther? As if we must not own a manifest truth we find in Scripture, unless we can produce teachers of it in former days, and societies of professors of it that were not wicked. Yet I gave for answer some instances of some societies now in Londor, 500 years ago in France, and some later in Germany. As for those now in London, Mr. B. says, 1. They are not yet come to the proof; when they have reached to the end of what they are tending to, than it will be seen what they will prove, if they do not return and repent. Answ. What he means by the end of what the societies in London under baptism (I mean) are tending to I know not. If he mean Levelling, or Ranting, or universal grace, they have as much for their number and quality opposed them as any other in London; if he know any other dangerous end they aim at, it were fit it should be named, that their design may be prevented: if not, who can interpret this speech of Mr. B. but as from a man out of a settled hatred to the opinion unwilling to hope well of the persons, against the rule of charity, 1 Cor. 13. 7. which hopeth all things in them for the future whom he knows not for present to be desperately bad, which he will not say of the Churches of Anabaptists in Germany, Holland, England, of whom Mr. B. in his book against Mr. Bedford page 310. saith thus: Yea what will you say to all the Churches of the Anabaptists in Germany, Holland, England, etc. Have none of them grace till baptised? Are you sure so many thousands are all unpardoned, or that God is not wont to pardon them and give them grace? I dare not think so uncharitably of them. And after Who dare think that it is (of the Anabaptists) such an error as excludeth them from grace? There have been societies of them for a great while, though somewhat latent afore these times, and of them many of the leaders are fallen asleep in the Lord, many remain unblameable in respect of their faith and life. And therefore why Mr. B. should so forebode as he doth the wicked end of the societies remaining I know no reason but his ill opinion of them. But should God in his just judgement let it fall out so that they should prove wicked, as some Churches, yea the most famous, as the seven in Asia have done, which have begun well and ended ill, it is no certain evidence against their doctrine, sith their miscarriages may come from other causes, whereof here and Examen part. 2. sect. 5. some are assigned by me, and are such as have befallen others as well as they. 2. Saith Mr. B. It is hard with your cause when you cannot name one society of them that ever lived in the world that proved not wicked, except those now alive whose ends we yet see not. Answ. 1. It were not hard with our cause though we name no society or person before ourselves that were Antipaedo baptists as long as we have the Scripture for it. 2. If I could not name one society, yet there may be many, we have but obscure intelligence of many Churches in the East and other places. The Georgians children or the Christians children of Cholcis say Heylin in his Geography in the description of Armenia, out of Brerewood, Alex. Rosse in his censure of religio medici, etc. are not baptised till they be eight years old: How they live, what they be we have no clear intelligence probably honest though poor Christians. The certain state of them in London is not known to many, much less the state of those far off. 3. We have seen the ends of many of the societies to have been blessed: and how otherwise we now alive should see the end of a successive society, I do not well conceive, until is be quite dissolved. Mr. B. adds. 3. If I were never so able to answer this, yet as the world goes it is not safe to speak all or half the wickedness of the Anabaptists now living, which the history of this age will speak to posterity. Answ. 1. Why it should not be safe for Mr. B. to speak half the wickedness of the Anabaptists now living, I cannot divine, except it be, because if he or others speak of them while they live they may be convinced of lying, as Beza did the tale of his dying a Papist. They are not so many, nor so formidable in power, or so spiteful in spirit that it should be unsafe for Mr. B. to tell the worst he knows of them. However me thinks of any man Mr. B. being according to his declaration of himself in such expectations of death as near, and so resolute to speak truth, should not be moved by the unsafeness of speaking truth. Yea if Mr. B. should speak all he could, I think he should not more exasperate them then he hath done part. 2. chap. 14. Those that sit at the stern I cannot yet learn have such hard thoughts of them as Mr. B. And he that reads Mr. Edward's Gangraena, Mr. Baillee his Anabaptism, and other writings, may imagine that if there were worse matters to charge them with, they would not be spared in this age, especially by those that are out of their reach. After-Historians may relate as partially as the present, and therefore I shall not think it lawful to condemn them upon such dark intimations as this, but think the better of them till their wickedness be laid open. 4. Saith Mr. B. Yet if you had named that society that are not guilty of schism and demolishing the Church by division and contempt and reproach of the godly. Ministry and disobedience to those in government, further than they please them, and covenant-breaking, and neglect of the Lords day, etc. you would credit the particular society if you make it good. In the mean time I see them rolling down the hill so fast that I think many have but one step lower to go. Answ. Schism was imputed to Protestants by Papists, for their not joining in their corruptions with them, by Prelatists to non-conformists, for not yielding to ceremonies of Bishops. Covel in his preface to his answer to Burges, accused the most moderate of them as making a rent in the Church, and breaking from the Bishops (even in that where in they were very passive) choosing rather to for sake their function and calling then to yield conformity to the ceremonies of the Church. Allen and Shepherd answer to Mr. Ball page 27. Advert. to the Read. say truly: Scarce truth or error can now adays be received but it is maintained in a way of schism. I confess it is too true, that it is hard to name any society of Anabaptists or Infant-baptists that are not in a schism, and commonly both parties guilty of making the breach. I am conscious to myself of using what means I could for reformation without schism, if possible: but I find (it as men's spirits are) impossible: yet Mr. B. is not ashamed to tell the world in print, that he hath as good evidence that I am a Sect-Master, as that I am a Christian. I made to Mr. M. in the Epilogue of my Examen as fair notions as I could devise, yea such as a holy sweet-spirited man and understanding did much rejoice to read, and blessed God for it afore I sent it to Mr. M. Yet Mr. M. and Mr. Ley interpreted them as the challenge of a braving Goliath. I was desirous to see Mr. Bs. arguments in writing. He would not, but prints in a way that proclaims to the world, that he loo es on me and all the societies of Antipaedobaptists as persons intolerable. Infant-baptisme we see to be a manifest corruption, we know it hath no precept or example express or virtual in Scripture, that it with infant-communion began some ages from Christ's birth upon the conceit of necessity to save an infant from perishing: we know it is a duty to be baptised, yea by Christ made a concurring requisite to salvation with believing, Mark 16. 16. and so a fundamental by Mr. Bs. rule in his addition to the preface of the second part of his Saints everlasting rest, where he defines Fundamentals Those things which God hath made the conditions of salvation. Infant-baptizers will not baptise believers, yea they inveigh, abhor both the opinion and practice we conceive a necessary important duty. We can scarce come to their meetings, but we must hear the truth bitterly declaimed against, persons that hold it reviled, error published, infant-baptisme practised; if we be silent we are judged to consent, if we speak it makes an uproar: we are painted out so deformed as that men are almost afraid to have speech with us, or to hear us, or to join in communion with us. Magistrates are by writings and Sermons incited against us. I know not what we can do less than be baptised as Christ appoints, and receive the Lords Supper. Mr. B. page 341. counts the error of the old and new Socinians denying the continuance of baptism as a standing ordinance in the Church, nothing so bad as my opinion, upon a frivolous pretence as if I made void the end of baptism in that where in the true end of baptism is preserved, which is that the baptised engageth himself to be Christ's disciple. So that even as the rigid Lutherans for their Consubstantiation had rather join with Papists then Calvinists, Mr. B. is more willing to comply with that Antichristian, and I had almost said Atheistical way of living above ordinances, then favour Anabaptists. In this case if there be schism in our practice, let all the world judge whether we be not passive rather then active, and whether the true cause of it be in us, or Mr. Bs. and others invectives and actings against us. We make not schism, but suffer it: Mr. B. by this last book hath done more to promote it then any Anabaptist I know, and how far the ways of other Antagonists have been from peace, the intelligent will perceive though I be silent. Contempt and reproach of Godly Ministers by men of opposite parties, is very frequent and mutual. I have often endeavoured, but cannot express it: yet that societies of Anabaptists as they are a body do so I do not find. As for obedience to Governors further than they please them, the modern so called Anabaptists in England and Holland may vie with their adversaries. The accidents of this year in England which I am unwilling to mention, may serve to wipe away the reproach of Anabaptists in this respect. Covenant-breaking till instance be given wherein is so general a charge that an answer cannot be given. I know men are taken to break Covenant who conceive they keep it. Neglect of the Lords day I think cannot be charged on the societies of Anabaptists, however it may be on some members. Some of the leaders of them appear sound in this point. Mr. Blackwood Apostol. bapt. The Jewish Sabbath being put to an end, Col. 2. 16. we observe the Lords day from the Apostles example, and the morality of the fourth Com. which requires one day in seven. Mr. Edward Harrison Paedobapt. oppugned page 4. makes the rule for one day in seven moral and natural, and the altering the day simply Evangelical from Apostolical example, which having not merely temporary reason is enough to prove an institution from Christ, which sort of proof we have, Acts 20. 7. 1 Cor. 16. 1, 2. Mr. B. knows the Protestant Churches beyond-sea more guilty of looseness in opinion and practice about the Lords day than English Anabaptists▪ When Mr. B. speaks of their rolling down the hill so fast in placing their religion in full mouthed oaths and blasphemies, etc. it is very hard for Mr. B. to charge that upon them, which is the act of some particular persons whom they condemn, and warn others of, and whereof not a few have been of other societies than theirs. My second instance 500 years ago I have vindicated before. My third instance is of societies at this day in the Low Countries, and Mr. B. answers about them, of whom Bullinger and others wrote who were dead afore they were borne, which is not to the business. Yet Mr. B. might consider that it is confessed that even than Menno Simonis detested Muncer, & Becold, as Becman. Exercit. Theol. 21. page 359, 362. acknowledgeth, that even then there were aliqui innocentiâ vitae commendabiles, commendable for their innocency of life, as Heresbachius relates Histor. Anabapt. monast. c. 8. and those at this day it's likely are not guilty of much scandal in practice, when Cloppenburg. Gangr. Anabapt. disput. 148. Ampliug. dial. thesi. 2. Mr. Paget defence of Church-govern. part. 1. ch. 4. who lived near them, make it their fault that they are strict in excommunicating for small matters, and Cloppenburg. in the Epistle Dedicatory to his Gangrene saith, The troops of Anabaptists that dwelled in Friesland after the commotions at Munster, although they trouble not the Commonwealth having cast off corporal weapons, yet they suffer not the more pure reformed Churches to be edified without daily conflicts. From whence I gather that their conversation there is as other men's, saving for their rigid discipline and different opinions: in the most whereof whether truly or falsely charged on them by Cloppenburgius, they are not owned by those in England whose Confession is extant. To Mr. Bs. charging of me of untruths, and covetousness, and malice, and contempt of my brethren page 202, 203. there is an answer made before and after where speeches and practices to prove these are objected. He chargeth me with pride in my usual way of putting off the authority of their arguments and judgements with a contemptuous smile, or wonder at the silliness of them. But therein there is no despising of their persons, but only of their arguments: which if I know to be weak I dare not make show as if I counted them strong: that were to put darkness for light, and if I do show dislike with a smile or wonder (though others rather say I do reject them with anger mistaking my earnestness in speaking for that passion) this is usually less offensive than alteration of words. And if I use wondering at their silliness, I am sure Mr. B. is not behind me in this book, whose frequent exclamations of silliness, etc. are to be seen where he had little or no cause but the defect of his own apprehension, as shall appear in the examining his book, and therefore if for this I be judged proud Mr. B. should do well to search himself who differs from the most learned and godly in the world in more things than I do, and I imagine with more peremptoriness and less evidence than I bring from my adversaries own confessions. Perfidiousness he chargeth me not with: it is a great question in this age whether it be a sin. Answ. I think it is no question whether breaking of Covenants and oaths be a sin: but whether the not settling uniformity according to the advice of the Assembly at Westminster, the not conjoining with the Scots, the engagement to the present government, etc. be perfidiousness or no Wherein if Mr. B. hold the affirmative, it's very probable there will be found some to encounter with him, when his arguments are seen in writing. What he tells me, that my not reproving the profaning the Lords day, and excusing myself from resolving the question concerning its morality hath no good savour, is a charge which I imagine comes from some tale brought Mr. B. whereby he is abused. I have spoken against profaning the Lords day as I have judged meet in the places I have preached: my judgement about its morality is succinctly set down Examen part 2. sect. 8. At Bewdley I did often in my prefaces before I began morning-exercises at the chapel on the Lord's day press them to the observation of it, and in my Cursory Exposition of the three first chapters of the Revelation on public fast-days, and of Genesis on the Lord's day, delivered myself more fully in opening Gen. 2. 3. Revel. 1. 10. And when the question was propounded in the weekly meeting we had to edify one another, Whether the observation of every first day of the week as a Sabbath, be of Divine institution? I resolved it at the next meeting affirmatively. And after I had in one or two Lectures (for so I may call my dictates at Bewdley in resolving their hard questions) cleared the terms, 1. Concerning the measure of the first day of the week, examining whether precisely 24. hours, and when to begin, and when to end, are necessary for the account of the time, resolving it to be measured for observation as we do other days for working, allowing time for necessities. 2. Concerning the observation of a Sabbath, what is requisite thereto; wherein I resolved that it is to be observed by rest and holiness, about both which I resolved many cases. At the next time I drew the substance of my proof into this one syllogism. If solemn worship of God in full congregations be required of God, and fixed days be necessary thereto, and observed by all or most Nations even Heathens, nor belongs it to any but God to appoint it to his service, and God appointed a seventh day Sabbath from the beginning, and commanded it in the fourth Commandment a 'mong the morals, and the Apostles distinguished from other days the Lords day by title, precept and example, as appropriate to God, and Christians with common consent so took it, and used it after their days the Jewish Sabbaths being abrogated, than the observation of every first day of the week as a Sabbath is of Divine institution. But solemn worship of God, etc. Ergo. The sequel of the Major I stood not long in proving, supposing some morality of a Sabbath being enfolded in the first institution and the fourth Commandment and the Apostles fixing that on the Lords day, is a sufficient declaration of God's mind to have it observed. But the Minor I proved by parts. And after I had proved the two first Propositions, by reason first of the failing of the meeting through some sad accidents, and then the removing of my dwelling & books, and my seldom being with them, I did not prosecute it till one moved that I would resolve them about that question, whether it were to tempt me or otherwise they know who had a hand in it. I told them what I had done already, and that of what I had begun I had not any breviate about me, but I conceived that in my study I had, and therefore I desired their respite till my next coming to them, that I might by reviewing what I had done and adding some further reading fit myself to resolve them: in which they seemed to rest, but it's likely some or othertold Mr. B. of this, who I perceive wanted not tale-bearers, and he in imagine sticks not to interpret this my respite (which he calls an excuse from resolving the question concerning the morality of the Lords day, though I had long before resolved it, but had not fully confirmed my argument) as having some ill savour of licentiousness, though about a month after I repaired to them, and so fully confirmed the other seven Propositions, that the company (who were as many of the best-affected and intelligent there as the room could hold) declared themselves satisfied thereabout. Mr. B. also page 258. says of my exceptions against one story in the book of God's judgements on Sabbath-breakers, he is jealous lest it be from no good will to the doctrine of the morality of the Christian Sabbath, as being against the scope of the book, though the occasion show it was only to prove the uncertainty of relations, that men may not rest on them as proofs of a truth. But I perceive as Mr. B. is very prone to have hard thoughts of me, so both he and Mr. M. seek advantage to create prejudice against me about this point of the Lords day, which makes me more full in my clearing myself in this thing, and in other things, not so much regarding my own personal esteem, as desirous to prevent that indirect way of wounding the truth through my sides. I would have no man adhere to my tenet because it's mine, nor would I have any to reject it because it is mine. I know too much evil by myself, yet not in the things in which I am accused, at least not in that degree in which Mr. B. accuseth me. Mr. Bs. telling me in print this manner of crimes not proved, but imagined is no whit justified by the rules and examples he brings: his ranking me with seducers I defy, and know that I shall better be able to prove it against him, than he against me.   

SECT. XVI. The ground of my opposing infant-baptism is confirmed by Mr. B. himself.  
PAge 205. He tells me all the Ministers and scholars that he can meet with, that heard my disputes, did think I had silly grounds to build my confidence in: and though I boast much of my answers by writing, he thinks my writings have little to be boasted of. Answ. I have some experience of Ministers and Scholars, and I sinned few fit to judge of controversies, and of those few not many willing to search impartially into a point that's against the stream, and likely to expose them to hard measure: some that talk much study little, nor is it a new thing to find some that wrangle in dispute for such a sense of a Scripture as when they are out of the heat of dispute they themselves expound otherwise. The Ministers and Scholars at the dispute, such as they were, weigh but little with them that know them best. My writings are not boasted of by me, yet men equal to Mr. B. or any auditors of the dispute have said more of them then I am willing to speak of. My employment in this argument seems to me to be part of my work God hath allotted me, though I am known not to be idle in other work. What Mr. B. calls fallacies passing from me, will be proved verities. My arguments from Mat. 28. 19 Mark 16. 15, 16. are to be found in my Exercit. sect. 15. Examen part. 4. sect. 1. to which Mr. Ms. replies are insufficient as I shall show in my Review. In the worship of God it was wont to be accounted a certain rule, that God's worship should be observed according to his appointment and no otherwise. And so Protestant Divines argue from 1 Cor. 11. 28. selfe-examiners are appointed to eat, Ergo no infants or younglings, though young ones ate the Passeover. Yea Mr. B, himself page 221. If Christ never sent any but Ministers to baptise then no others may do it. If there be no example of any but Ministers that have baptised (though parenrs did circumcise) than no others may do it: (For the Apostles established the Church according to God's mind; and the Scripture is a sufficient rule) page 222. if there be no command or example in Scripture of any but Minister's administering the Lords Supper than no others may do it. Page 342. If we have no warrant by word or example in all the New Testament (since the solemn institution of baptism, Mat. 28.) to admit any member into the Church without baptism, but both percept and example of admitting them by it: then we must not admit any without it (ordinarily) I take his own medium mutatis mutandis, and thence infer, If we have no warrant by word or example in all the New Testament (since the solemn institution of baptism Mat. 28.) to admit any member into the Church by baptism but believers by profession, but both precept and constant example of admitting them by it, than we must not admit any without it (ordinarily) I use his own words and texts. But the Antecedent is evident, John 4. 1. Acts 2. 38, 41. and 8. 12, 13, 16, 36, 38. and 9 18. and 10. 47, 48. and 16. 15, 33. and 18. 8. and 19 3, 4, 5. Rom. 6. 3. etc. the Consequent is undoubted to those that take the word for their rule. If Mr. B. will stand to his own argument he must make good my arguing from. Mat. 28. 19 Mark 16. 15, 16. unless he have some such strange shift as Mr. Cotton puts in the mouth of Silvanus (who personates himself) in his book entitled, The grounds and ends of baptism in the Preface page 3. where he intimates that the urging against children's baptism this main principle of purity and reformation, to wit [that no duty of God's worship nor any ordinance of religion is to be administered in the Church but such as hath just warrant from the word of God] is from Satan, but from God when it is urged against the Prelatists and Papists: so Mr. B. thinks his medium good against Socinians, but not (though it be the same) for the Anabaptists. He adds, All your confident words show me not the least ground for your conclusion no more than thus: Scripture requireth faith to justification, therefore none but believers are justified: which is false, yet like yours, if I know what you would thence deduce. Answ. He now I hope knows what and how I deduce, or rather how Mr. B. deduceth my conclusion from Mat. 28. 19 Mark 16. 15, 16. not only in my words, but also his own (though I had often long before deduced my argument in the places before quoted, and elsewhere in my writings) of the validity of which deduction I am the more confident, because it is in Mr, Bs. own words justly brought by me against himself. If the Scripture requireth saith of all to justification, than it is not false that none but believers are justified. Yet infants may be justified by habitual faith or actual by operation in an extraordinary way: But the Scripture requires profession of faith afore any be baptised ordinarily. As for what may be done extraordinarily elsewhere I have expressed myself, and have vindicated myself from the wrong inferences made thence Postscript sect. 15. and elsewhere. Page 206. The People of Kederminster did not hear from my mouth in the dispute Jam. 1. How little Anabaptists could say in the hardest point of baptism: for I used no such words, nor any thing I said or omitted to say can infer it: and when they have read my answer me thinks they should believe I could say more than I did say then, and see the reason why no more was said then. It is a mere Calumny that he saith, I chose out the weakest arguments or urged some that were strong in a way of my own, and then triumphed and answered as weakly in my Sermons. To my best understanding I chose out the best arguments I found in Mr. M. Mr. G. Dr. H. M. Drew, Mr. Blake, Mr. Cobbet, and some others, and that for the most partin their own words, which that I might not mistake I read in the pulpit, & therefore what ever my answers were, I am sure it is an untruth that I chose out the weakest arguments, and urged some that were strong in a way of my own. When I threatened Mr. B. with the danger he went in or opposing me, unless it were from God for opposing truth I know not, and therefore take this supposed threatening of mine to be either his, or his tale-tellers fiction.   

SECT. XVII. The gross absurdities to which Mr. B. vaunted I was driven in the dispute, were not so as he imagined.  
PAge 207. He makes a catalogue of my absurdities at the dispute, to which (being the chief thing he charged me with in the Epistle to the people of Kederminster) I answer. The first and second will be showed to be no absurdities in examining the first part of his book chap. 6. The third is no absurdity, understanding it of visible membership by profession of their own, in which notion I said in the dispute I understood visible Church-membership, as commonly Protestant Divines do. Upon what occasion the fourth and many other of them were spoken by me (if they were spoken by me) I cannot remember, nor what limitations or explications I then used, but this I conceive was my meaning, that infants of the Jews were not visible Church-members in the wilderness in that manner they were when they had circumcision, that is, by their visible particular note or mark, and yet then they were visible in the lump, the whole congregation being then God's visible Church: in which sense they were then visible, and so the women too who were not circumcised. And when I said no infant can be said to be a visible Church-member without some act of his own: I meant it of visibility according to the note of visibility in the Christian Church. Which things being rightly understood, there was neither absurdity, nor contradiction in my speeches, nor any thing against conscience, nor deserving such derision as was in Mr. B. and his colleagues, though perhaps through distraction of thoughts chiefly occasioned by Mr. Bs. concealing the notion in which he used the term [visible] which I often in vain assayed to understand from him, or forgetfulness, or scantness of words I did not express myself clearly. This is answer sufficient about the fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, nineth, sixteenth pretended absurdities. The tenth a candid man would have conceived rather to have been lapsum linguae, a slip of speech, then errorem mentis, a fault of mind, and that however a mistake might slip from me (a thing very incident to the most learned in the heat of dispute, yea sometimes in preaching, conference and writing) yet I meant [visibility] to be the adjunct, and the persons visible to be the subject. The eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth I conceive no absurdities, the Church-visibility of infants then being from that imperfect Church-frame, which was to continue only till Christ came, and was clogged with many burdens, which by Christ's coming all were mercifully freed from, as, to go up to Jerusalem thrice a year, etc. without any loss of mercy to infants, though it were for a time a mercy to them: which will be morefully cleared (God assisting) in answering Mr. Bs. argument p. 1. chap. 6. The fourteenth is no absurdity, as I then to my best remembrance expressed it, though Mr. Bs. juvenility thought fit to make sport with it, that the elect people of the Jews were natural (not as Mr. B. sets it down naturally) that is according to nature, in that they were descended from Abraham (the root of the Church of believers) by natural generation, and so natural branches, yet not by nature, that is, natural abilities or works of their own, but by grace as the efficient cause, Rome, 11. ver. 5, 6. To conceive it, the olive there notes a race of men who were the Church of believers, which because after Abraham the root it was first in the Jewish Nation, is called their own olive: ver. 24. Of which Abraham is ver. 16, 18. made the root bearing two sorts of branches, some ingraffed who were the Gentile believers, some natural the Jews, and he is a root under a double habitude, one as a natural Father, and another as Father of believers. Both sorts of branches are by the Apostle made to stand in Abraham the root as branches of the Church of believers or the invisible, the one natural in that they were not proselyted or ingraffed, but came of Abraham by natural generation, the other proselyted or ingraffed by believing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, besides the natural way of descent from Abraham, yet both united in Abraham the common root of believers, and in the olive-tree the Church of believers, as particular branches thereof: yet neither by nature, that is, by virtue of natural generation, as the Apostle determines, Rom. 9 8. but by election of grace, Rom. 11. 5, 6. And whereas Mr. B. tells me, Rom. 11. 24. says both, he is mistaken. For 1. it is not said that any was a branch of the root Abraham by nature, but that the ingraffed branches were antecedently to their engraffing in the olive wild by nature: nor is it said of the branches from the root that are called natural, that they were branches in the true olive by nature, as Mr. B. would have it to prove them of the visible Church by nature: but that they were branches of that olive or race of men who were not wild by nature, that is Gentiles bringing no fruit to God, but of that olive which was descended from Abraham by natural generation, which was the Church of God till broken off. 2. Whereas the translation turns 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ver. 21, 24. by [natural] and once ver. 24. [by nature] yet it is the same term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in all. 3. It is not true that the Jews in the translation of ver. 24. are said to be branches by nature. And for the fifteenth absurdity it is no absurdity: they are called natural only in respect of their descent as men from Abraham, but not as branches in the olive-tree. And this is clear. For the ingraffed branches can be said to be no otherwise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 besides nature, but in that they were not descended from Abraham by natural generation, and therefore on the contrary the Jews are natural branches, not as believers, but as men descended from Abraham by natural generaration. The seventeenth absurdity is a relation of a speech of mine that Mr. B. cannot find one Author expounding 1 Cor. 7. 14. of infant's covenant-holiness in his sense before Luther, and Zuinglius; and then asks, is this irue? I answer, I think it is, and if he can produce any one, me thinks he should have done it in his book. If he do, he will do more then Mr. Ms. friend better versed as I conceive in Antiquity then Mr. B. hath done, though attempting it page 21. of Mr. Ms. Defence of his Sermon. Two places; he citys; one in Tertullian, which I have answered in my Apology page 85. The other in Athanasius qu. 114. ad Antiochum, as teaching infant-baptisme by virtue of federal holiness from 1 Cor. 7. 14. But, 1. The Author is confessedly spurious, by Rivet. Critic. sac. l. 3. c. 6. Scultetus part. 2. Medul. Patr. l. 1. c. 42. Perkins Preparat. to the Demonstr. of the problem. The works falsely imposed on Athanasius are these. The book of divers questions of the Holy Scripture unto King Antiochus; for therein great Athanasius is cited. Yet Mr. M. or his friend hath these words ubi supra. These words then which are safe and sound, grounded upon tho same Scripture which I have much insisted on are read in the works of Athanasius: where the question is about infants dying requiring a resolution, that might clearly set whether they go to be punished or to the Kingdom. The answer is, seeing the Lord said, Suffer little children to come unto-me, for of such is the Kingdom of heaven. And the Apostle says; Now your children are holy (observe the Gospel-ground the same that I build upon) it is manifest that the infants of believers which are baptised do as unspotted and faithful enter into the Kingdom. This assertion is owned by all the reformed Churches] But had Mr. M. or his friend recited the words fully then it would have appeared how impertinently the words are alleged to prove the baptising of infants by virtue of federal holiness from 1 Cor. 7. 14. & that none of the Reformed Churches would own the doctrine of that Author, being built on no Gospel-ground, but Popish opinion of Limbus infantum. For the entire words are these Qu. 114. ad Antiochum, Whither go dying infants to punishment or the Kingdom? and where are the infants of believers dying unbaptised disposed, with the believers or unbelievers? Answ. The Lord saying, Suffer little children to come: for of such is the Kingdom of heaven, and again the Apostle saying, But now are your children holy, it is manifest that the infants of believers baptised go into the Kingdom as unspotted and believing: but the unbaptized and Heathenish neither go into the Kingdom nor into punishment: for they have done no sin. Which answer plainly determines that infants of believers if baptised enter into the Kingdom: but neither the unbaptized infants of believers or Heathens enter into the Kingdom or punishment: for they have done no sin. Not a word of federal holiness, but the plain Popish doctrine that infants dying unbaptised go to limbus infantum, but the baptised into the Kingdom of heaven: which is the same with the doctrine fathered on fustin Martyr. qu. 56. add orthod. Now this is contrary to what the reformed Churches assert even from 1 Cor. 7. 14. that the children of believers are federally holy afore baptism, and go into the Kingdom though they die unbaptised. Nor doth the alleging 1 Cor. 7. 14. prove that the Author observed the Gospel-ground (more truly Antievangelical or Jewish) which Mr. M. buildeth on. For the holiness in that Author is meant either of holiness in possibility in being likely to be baptised, because believing parents would likely breed them up in Christianity and they be baptised, in which sense Tertull. de anima c. 39 expounds the Apostle as calling them holy not in act barely by descent from a believer, but because designati sanctitatis, or as Hierome Epist. 153. ad Paulinum alleging, Tertullian de monogamia, quod candidati sint fideiet nullis idololatriae sordibus polluantur, which Erasmus in his gloss on Hierom, renders thus, quodvelut ambiunt et exspectant baptismum; or else of actual holiness in being baptised, believers being wont to baptise their infants when near danger of death not by reason of covenant-holiness, but the giving of grace by baptism, and the necessity of it to save an infant from perishing. I am still confident that neither Father nor Interpreter preceding the sixteenth century did interpret 1 Cor. 7. 14. of holiness of separation to God as visible Church-members by God's Covenant to them: Nor doth Chamier panstras. Cathol. tom. 4. l. 5. cap. 10. bring any though he purposedly sets down the various opinions about the holiness there meant, and says omnes complecti conabor & examinare sententias. Sure I am Augustin. tom. 7. l. 2. de pecc. mer. & remis. c. 26. saith, Ac per hoc & illa sanctificatio cujuscunque modi sit quam in filiis fedelium esse dixit Apostolus, ad istam de baptismo & de peccati origine vel remissione omnino non pertinet: nam & conjuges infideles in conjugibus fidelibus sanctificari dicit eo ipso lo●o, etc. Unto which I think good to add, that whereas Mr. M. in his Defence page 10. 58. brings in the Pelagians acknowledging that infants were baptised secundum sententiam Evangelii, which he imagines to be the Gospel-ground (as he calls it) of federal holiness from the Covenant to the believer and his seed in Aug. tom. 7. l. 2. contra Pelag. & Coelest. c. 5. That he hadadded the next words [quia Dominus statuit regnum Coelorum non nisi baptizatis posse conferri] it would have appeared, that the Gospel he meant was John 3. 5. which with Rom. 5. 12. was elleadged in those days as a reason of the Church's tradition of infant-baptisme, and no other reason can I find for infant-baptisme, nor in any the exposition of 1 Cor. 7. 14. in Mr. Ms. or Mr. Bs. sense till Zwinglius his days. The eighteenth absurdity is, that I said the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken many hundred times for authority, and asks is that true? To which I answer, This was spoken in the dispute, when I had not time or means to collect the number of times wherein 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used for authority in Scripture, and therefore spoke at adventure, and if I did Hyperbolise it might be neither absurdity nor untruth so to speak, as is frequent in speakers & writers without imputation of falsehood. Nevertheless I find it used above an hundred times in the New Testament, in Matthew 10. and 6. of them it is translated authority, and in most places where it is translated power, it might be translated authority, and if it be used for liberty in any of these places, yet it is no where used for a veil but one, 1. Cor. 11. 10. and I doubt not but it is used for authority, or power, or liberty many hundreds of times in the Lxx Greek of the old Testament, though I have not a Greek Concordance of the old Testament, to number them by, and therefore there is neither absurdity, nor untruth in any speech any more than in that John 21. 15. though I conceive there is scarce need of an hyperbole to verify it, but am sure Mr. B. trifles in putting this into the score of my absurdities to which I was driven. To the nineteenth I do not remember I said, the Corinthians doubted whether their living together were fornication. My resolution and exposition of the Apostles words will be made good against this exception, in answering Mr. Bs. fifth argument c. 29. of the first part, which I intent to fit for the press with as much speed as I can. To the twentieth I have in my Examen of Mr. Ms. Sermon, Exercit. Antidote and Review showed a ground of necessity to take the Apostles words, 1 Cor. 7. 14. in my sense, not in Mr. Bs. the reply to which made by Mr. B. will appear to be insufficient upon the examination of chap. 29. of the first part of his book. The one & twentieth absurdity which Mr. B. would fasten on my arguing as most absurd, and like a right Anabaptist (in his scoffing language) is merely from his mistake of my expression, as if by present prayer I meant prayer coexistent and continued during the use of the thing sanctified: whereas my meaning was to exclude an habit of prayer without the act, and actual prayer interrupted in its course, through lapse into such sin as David's adultery, in which time things are not sanctified to real believers till repentance restore their sanctifying exercise. And so the two and twentieth and four and twentieth absurdities which Mr. B. makes so horrid, are also answered, nor was the three and twentieth an absurdity. Mr. B. himself page 98. limits the speech [all things are pure to the pure] that is, all things good and lawful; and is not this all one as to say [some things are pure;] nor is it unusual to limit such universal terms, as the matter requires, as 1 Cor. 13. 7. & 10. 23. etc. The twentiefith and twentiesixth were no absurdities, but fit answers to so trifling arguments. For the term [disciple] importing one that hath learned, it is but trifling to argue [infant's of believers are disciples] without proving they have learned; and the reason why they have not learned is because they are untaught; and if Mr. B. had further asked why they are not taugh, I would have answered, because ordinarily uncapable, and God both not extraordinarily shown them this mercy: But because I perceived he was about to leave the plain way of proving them disciples, by showing that the notation and use of the word disciple (which himself page 92. confesseth to come from the act of learning) did agree to them, never imagining that ridiculous sense in which he takes the word [disciple] page 14. as a relation without a foundation without actual learning for the present, or so much as an assay, intention or capacity to learn, and making actual learning the end of an Infants being a disciple, who hath no thoughts of it, and that he sought to wind about an intangling discourse about God's mercy to Infants, which though it were but frivolous in respect of the thing to be proved, to wit, the appliableness of the word [disciple] to Infants, yet being popular and pausible, would be taking with the Auditors (which I quickly perceived he affected). I conceived on the sudden the answers I gave fittest, and so still do think. The last in number is no absurdity, but if Mr. B. put in [actual] used by him in the dispute, and understand it of circumcision as acted barely, not as taught, and put in the term [yoke] it is Mr. Bs. absurdity to maintain the contrary as is proved above. And for the latter part it is no absurdity, nor seemed to Grot. annot. in Mat. 11. 29. Jugum mandata singnificat. It à vox ista sumitur, Act. 15. 10. & Johannes hunc locum explicans pro jugo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dixit, 1. Epist. 5. 3. To like purpose Pareus in Mat. 11. 30. where he useth the term jugum doctrinae, the yoke of doctrine, applied to the Gospel in opposition to the yoke of the law, Acts 15. 10. So the N. Annot. on Mat. 11. 29. Acts 15. 10. 1 John 5. 3. Pisc. sch. on Act. 15. 10. the yoke] to wit, the law of Moses by comparing it with verse 5. Deod. on Mat. 11. 30. calls it the rigorous yoke of the law unsufferable without Christ, and therefore unsufferable not so much for the labour in observing it, as the imperfection to quiet the conscience, and the condemnation it bound to for not keeping it, on Acts 15. 10. My arguing to prove the repeal of infants Church-membership was only lamentable, in that it met with such a contemptuous respondent, who judgeth that idem, per idem, which was rationally thus. The repeal of Church-membership was proved from the altering the Church-state from Jewish national to Christian personal, this proved from the different call, this proved from the different way God took to gather his Church in the New Testament from the Old, by preaching not authority of superiors as when he brought the family of Abraham, and the Jewish Nation into Covenant. What the Ministers (so called) which sat next Mr. B. judged I pass not. They were much deceived in their judgement about my arguing, and my being mated and puzzled then. What ever puzzling I had was in the beginning, when I was almost at a stand what to answer, and therefore varied my answers by reason of my not understanding where that ordinance of infants visible Church-membership unrepealed Mr. B. speaks of is, and in what sense Mr. B. called them visible Church-members and disciples under the Goipel, which then I understood not, nor did he explain so as that I could clearly understand him, nor so fully since by his book, but that by much diligence I am fain to pick it out by comparing one passage and expression with another. It is untrue that not knowing what to say I was resolved to say something, lest if I were silent the people should think I were worsted, or that I requested him to name my absurdities: or that by private confessions or by my own confession I was conscious of absurdities I was driven to.   

SECT. XVIII. The gross untruths Mr. B. chargeth me with, are not such.  
PAge 209. Mr. B. chargeth me with six gross untruths, though my words were not assertions, but intimations: nevertheless 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 managing the dispute, or notaries on both sides to take it, etc. which I imprudently ommitted, not expecting such a solemn 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, than I found him. 2. It is not true, I forced Mr. B. to the dispute. The words of my letter dated December 27. 1649. four days before the dispute were these. Sir, my message was this, sith I intent on the next Lord's 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 Logic way without Rhetoric: Yet if you choose to come over either Monday or Tuesday, I shall be ready to justify 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 Scholars (such as they were) sent for over the Country, 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 baptising, 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 design of bearing down me and the truth by indirect ways, which before I dreamt not of: which if Mr. B. were not privy to yet was he instrumental to promote, which I confess did not a little perplex me and straightened my thoughts and expressions. 3. That Mr. B. did conceal 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 repeal his arguments: yea at first it was expressly 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. syllogisms 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 syllogisms to prove an hypothetical proposition. It is true that Mr. B. would open his terms, viz. the chief term [visible Church-member] when I asked him by what note he meant Infants were discernible 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 repeat rightly his long syllogism, hat he came not to be catechised, when I asked him of his meaning about the term [visible]. His speech of my defying the armies of Israel, and calling, give me a man to dispute, etc. 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 show 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 men's 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 unwillingness to gratify us in our request, and that they were mere 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 mind, or some others design 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. rutherford's are in effect the same with Mr. Ms. and others: by overthrowing in my Sermons the Hypotheses of the Covenant, seal, Baptisms succession to Circumcision they were answered. Mr. Drew's main argument page 23. though his book by the Author of the lawfulness of obeying the present govenrment be judged to be written with sharp reasons and mild language, yet either there are four terms in it, or else it concludes we are to circumcise. The dispute of Mr. Baily had been showed 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 myself with men excellent in writing, nor do I think I used the term [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 terms to satisfy 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 Gregory's, 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. etc. an answer may be gathered from what is said before.   

SECT. XIX. The six imagined errors charged on me by Mr. B. are cleared from his censure.  
MR. B. adds a confutation of six of my pretended errors. The first was only a speech of mine in conference on occasion of Mr. Bs. words in a Sermon which were taken to be a fling at me, and my meaning was this, that the truth I maintained and such like being about a thing of frequent practice, so that by reason of ignorance sin will be committed, were not to be concealed when if it be it is like to be lost for the peace of the Church, that is to prevent differences in opinion and the breaches in communion that by reason thereof do by accident from the corruption of men fall out. Mr. B. opposeth it, as if I meant a man must not suspend any truth of the Scripture, no not though a total breach bringing bloodshed, ruin, etc. follow; yea by his last argument he would insinuate, as if it would follow on my tenet, that every one that doth but think it is a truth that Christ is not God, that there is no God, etc. that he will think himself bound to reveal it to the world, though it turn all to confusion, and after his satirical vein saith, He that had rather see the Church in this case then his doctrine of Anabaptistry should be concealed, is good for nothing but to make an Anabaptist of that I know. To which I answer, my meaning in that speech of mine was this, that no truth of God that a person is certain is such, and can demonstrate so to be, which concerns the faith or practise of Christians, through concealing of which they shall err and sin, is to be concealed when a person may perceive by circumstances, that if he conceal it at such a time the contrary will be established, and so truth be lost in the eye of reason, though much trouble follow thereon. And this I resolved heretofore in my book of scandals chap. 4. sect. 20. not that I know of excepted against by any ground on Paul's words, Gal. 2. 5. avouched by many Divines, and without which the Waldenses, Hussites, Protestants will be condemned for opposing the Monkish profession, half communion, etc. though wars followed thereon. And our present and former non-conformists will be deeply guilty of sin in opposing the Prelacy, ceremonies, canons, &c, which hath been one cause of the great troubles of the land, which have proved greater than any raised by the Anabaptists. And so far as many prudent men can discern, many of the Presbyterian Ministers of the land, do as little regard the peace of this land at this time, through discontent that they want the establishment of discipline after their mind, as any Anabaptist heretofore did. And I presume they that sit at the stern do find the so called Anabaptists as faithful to the public cause as their opposites.  
As for the two next errors about others than Ministers baptising and administering the Lords Supper, Mr. B. delivers as much himself as the errors pretended affirm in these words page 221. In a case of necessity (as if people were in the Indies) where no Ministers can be had, if any faith that it is better a private man baptise and adminster the Lords Supper then wholly omit them, I will not deny it; and he gives two reasons. But faith he, Mr. T. speaks it in reference to our ordinary case in England. Concerning which I answer, that for baptising it is true I speak in reference to the case in England; all or most of the Ministers ordained 
Tertullian. l. de baptismo Laicis jus est baptizandi.  being against baptising of persons of years sprinkled in infancy, and there lying upon them that see infant-baptisme a corruption a necessity to be baptised upon profession of faith, there is a necessity that they be baptised by persons not ordained by laying on of hands of the Presbytery, though I do conceive laying on of hands an ordinance in force from 1 Tim. 5. 23. and 4. 14. Act. 13. 3. Heb. 6. 2. Nor do I like the argument from Numb. 8. 10. to prove that non-preaching elders may lay on hands conceiving no Mosaical ordinance concerning any positive ceremonial rite belonging to the Jewish service is a rule to us now, and therefore do wish there were either by authority or consent of Churches some way of restoring it; till which I see a necessity that persons not ordained yet preachers of the Gospel do baptise. But for administering the Lords Supper though I acknowledge it most fit in many respects it should be received some Minister ordering it, not so much for the consecrating of the Elements (as they call it) by virtue of office, as for the comely and edifying dispensing of it by prayer and exhortation, the ordinance being holy, and to be performed with much reverence, to which none are so fit as a Minister that is set apart for the word and prayer: yet whereas it is claimed as a part of the Ministers office to be Minister of the Sacraments, or (as they call them) seals, and it is aggravated as if it were the sin of Uzzah or Uzziah for any else to do it, and too much I think is ascribed not only by Papists, but also by others to the power of order, and many require it as a Minister's duty to give them the Sacrament, and if Mr. Bs. doctrine be good in his treatise of the Saints rest page 651. Their being baptised persons or members of the universal Church, is sufficient evidence of their interest to the Supper, till they by heresy or scandal blot that evidence, Ministers cannot deny it them without instustice, and hereupon many perplexities are in Ministers about giving the Lords Supper, and perplexities in receivers from whom they receive it, it being taught that they do justify their Ministry, and own them as their Ministers, who receive the Lords Supper from them; and it is taught that Ministers have a power to deny some the seals, and this is made a chief part of their government, I have I confess said and I think it still true, that a company of believers though they have no Minister ordained in case of want of an ordained Minister may some one or more in holy and seemly manner by giving thanks, praying, and declaring the end and use of that rite, and guiding the action, remember the Lords death in breaking bread, and this may be truly a Sacrament as it is called, and acceptable to God if performed with a holy heart. And my chief ground is, because whereas it is made one of the chief disorders in eating the Lords Supper at Corinth, 1 Cor. 11. 20, 21. that in eating every one took his own Supper before other, this could not have happened if they had been wont to receive it from a Minister that distributed to all; and when the Apostle to rectify the abuse sets down what he received of the Lord, ver. 23. he speaks not a word of a Ministers duty to regulate them, or of Christ's appointing it as a part of his office to distribute it, nor gives any direction to that end: but only ver. 33. that they tarry one for another, and not eat till they came together, whereas if it did then belong to the Minister to distribute, the direction should have been given to him not to distribute till they came together. If it be said (as Saravia against Beza) that there were then Presbyters at Corinth, though I conceive it not likely, but the contrary rather manifest from 1 Cor. 1. 7. & 6. 4. & 12. 28. & 14. 29. Yet it serves the more to confirm my opinion, that then it was not counted the Minister's office to deliver the Lords Supper, and that it might be without a Minister ordained, sith they did receive it then, 1 Cor. 10. 16. yet I acknowledge that it is very ancient that the Minister called the Precedent did order the Lords Supper, as I gather from Justin Martyrs Apolog. 2. ad Antoninum where he sets down the order of the Christian service in his time. And I am against the altering it because of the antiquity of the use, and the confusion likely to follow on the alteration. But being urged by Mr. B. and others in the manner abovesaid, it is necessary that the point be examined. Mr. B. argues thus, 1. He that administereth the Lord's Supper (in breaking the bread, delivering it to all, bidding them take, eat, etc.) must represent the Lord Jesus, who did all this at the institution. But only Ministers and no private men are persons who should represent the Lord Jesus in Church-administrations. Therefore only Ministers and no private men may administer the Lords Supper. To which I answer, 1. [in Church-administrations] in the Minor is added which was not in the Major, and so there are four terms, and the argument faulty. 2. But waving that exception, because it may be quickly rectified, I deny the Minor understanding as Mr. B. doth by a Minister a Presbytery ordained by laying on of hands. For to speak of the Ruling elders Church-administrations, or the preaching of persons not in office (of which anon) It is certain that Deacons have Church-administration, who are not Presbyters; yea it is manifest out of antiquity, that the Deacons did deliver the Elements in the Lord's Supper, and Rogers on Article 23. of the Church of England, prop. 3. saith, at Geneva the elder (a layman) ministereth the cup ordinarily at the Communion, and therefore Ministers did and might represent Christ at least in that part of Church-administration. But Mr. B. goes about to prove the Minor thus. Ministers only are called his Ambassadors, Stewards of his mysteries, and beseech in his stead, etc. Answer, 1. I think that those mentioned Act. 8. 4, 5. of whom Philip was then only a Deacon, as many of the Ancients hold, not only Apollo's but also Aquila and Priscilla Acts 18. 26. Frumentius that converted the Indians, and the captive maid that brought the Iberians to the faith, were Ambassadors of Christ, and Stewards of his mysteries, and might beseech in his stead. 2. But were it granted that Ministers only are called Christ's Ambassadors, etc. how is it proved that they only should represent Christ's person in breaking the bread, delivering it to all, bidding them take, eat, etc. Doth the Embassage of Christ, dispensing of his mysteries, beseeching in his stead, etc. consist in breaking bread, delivering it, bidding take, eat, & c? If it do, than a non-preaching Minister who doth these things may yet be an Ambassador of Christ, and Steward of his mysteries, than the breaking bread, etc. is a converting ordinance, as Mr. Pryn held, which Mr. Gillespy and Mr. Rutherford deny. For my part I think to be an Ambassador of Christ, and to beseech in his stead, 2 Cor. 5. 20. to be a Steward of the mysteries of God, 1 Cor. 4. 1. are all one as to preach the Gospel, and that the Assembly did misallege the text 1 Cor. 4. 1. as they have done the other, to prove that neither Sacrament may be dispensed by any but a Minister of the word lawfully ordained, Confession of faith chap. 27. sect. 4. For mysteries of God never signify Sacraments in Scripture, but the Gospel, Ephes. 6. 19 Rom. 16. 25. Chamier panstrat. Cath. tom. 4. l. 1. c. 4. sect. 9 in Scriptures 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 usurpari pro ipso rei sacrae signo profectò imposturaest. But Mr. B. tells me. It is a silly answer of Mr. T. that Sacraments are not called mysteries of God. For the word preached neither is not the mystery itself, but a revealing and exhibiting that mystery, and so are the Sacraments. The one revealeth them to the ear, and the other to the eye. Answ. Sure if the answer be silly, the refutation is no better. For if the word preached be not the mystery itself, than neither is the Sacrament, much less the breaking the bread and delivering it, and so to be Steward of the mysteries of God is not to be breaker and deliverer of the bread and wine in the Lord's Supper. But however Mr. B. grants that though the word preached be not the mystery itself, yet it is the revealing and exhibiting of the mystery, and that the sense undoubted of 1 Cor. 4. 1. Stewards of the mysteries of God, is revealers of the mystery of God by preaching the word. But than saith Mr. B. the Sacrament revealeth the mystery of God to the eye. I reply, Mr. B. saith so, but not one text of Scripture saith so: nor is it true. The mystery contains not only the thing done by Christ, but the end, use, reason of it: but this is perceivable only by the understanding, and the Sacrament abstractively from the word declares it not, no not so much as a picture: and therefore the Sacramental actions of themselves are not revelations of the mystery of Christ, nor ever so called in Scripture: and therefore I conclude, that the text 1 Cor. 4. 1. doth not prove that it is the peculiar office of an ordained Presbyter to Minister the Lords Supper by breaking bread, delivering it to all, bidding take, eat, etc. And though the title of Minister of the Gospel be used in the New Testament, yet the title of Minister of the Sacraments is a made title. 2. Saith Mr. B. If there be no command or example in Scripture of any but Minister's administering the Lords Supper, than no other may do it; But there is no command or example in Scripture of any other doing it; they that say there is, let them show it. Answ. I find this command, 1 Cor. 11. 28. Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup, and this example 1 Cor. 10. 16, 17. The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the Communion of the blood of Christ? the bread which we break, is it not the Communion of the body of Christ? For we being many are one body and one bread: for we are all partakers of that one bread. But for command or example that an ordained Presbyter only should administer the Lords Supper by breaking bread, etc. let them that say there is, show it. Mr. B. goes on. But by this time you may see whither Mr. T. would reduce the Ministerial office, 1. Others may baptise. 2. And administer the Lords Supper. 3. And then preaching is all or almost all that is left (for he gives them far less in government than I do.) And how well he defended the Ministerial privilege of public preaching in his disputes with Captain Bray is too well known. And what need the people allow so much of their means then to maintain Ministers? is not this next to the utter extirpation of them acoording to the doctrine of their learned Martin-Marpriest. Answ. Pastors and Teachers or Presbyters to teach and govern the Church of God I am assured are a Divine institution, and a very merciful gift of Christ, Ephe. 4. 11, 12, 13. 1 Cor. 12. 28. Acts 14. 23. 1 Tim. 3. 1. Tit. 2. 5. to whom people should yield obedience, Heb. 13. 17. and yield maintenance liberally, 1 Cor. 9 14. Gal. 6. 6. 1 Tim. 5. 17, 18. If any go about to extirpate them let him be accursed as an enemy to Christ and his Church. The railing books of Martin-Marpriest, and such like on the one side; and the slanderous books of Mr. Edward's, Mr. Baillee, etc. on the other side I abhor. Yet I fear more danger to the Ministry by the pragmaticalness of the Ministers, especially their meddling with State matters, then either by Martin-Marpriests libels, or my assertions. Would Ministers keep to their studies and the work of Christ in preaching in season and out of season, it would better establish their maintenance and Ministry, than the asserting such a juridical government and power of dispensing the seals (as they are called) as they do. I ascribe as much to the Ministry as the Scripture gives them. Though the office of preaching whether public or private be proper to the Minister so as to be his constant employment, and he ought not to be hindered in it, sith he is to be accountable to God for it: yet public or private preaching I do not annex to ordained Presbyters as a peculiar privilege to them, so as none else may be said to be sent or called of God to preach in Scripture sense but they. Notwithstanding what Mr. Thomas Hall in his Pulpit guarded, or my quodam scholar and worthy friend Mr. Giles Workman, in his better tempered book entitled Private men no pulpit men, have said, I still conceive that not only for trial of expectants, but also upon other occasions persons not ordained may be permitted, yea desired to preach in the pulpits. I find these words in bilson's Difference between Christian subjection and Antichristian rebellion, part. 4. Strangers also if they were in place were suffered both to teach and bless in the Church, as well as others that were tied to their cures, by reason that many were sent by the Apostles and by the Holy Ghost to visit the Churches and comfort the Christians as they travailed, and such were according to their knowledge and gift not only permitted, but also desired to exhort the people, and to give thanks to God in other men's charges, Grot. annot. in Mat. 4. 23. Mansit is mos aliquandiu in Ecclesia Christiana ut concessu Episcoporum Scripture as interpretarentur non presbyteri tantum aut diaconi, sed & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Vide Eusebium qui Origenis aliorumque exemplo probat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 spectant quae leguntur 1 Cor. 24. 19 Nevertheless I am against the courses of many Soldiers and others, who against the denial of able teachers to whom the teaching of the people is committed, love to get into the pulpits of the ablest men to vent their peculiar conceits, and ofttimes their pernicious errors, not regarding to preach to the ignorant the clear truths of faith and a holy life in places where they have no Preacher, but to new converts to pervert them, and withdraw them from their able Teachers, and to disquiet them and their congregations by frivolous exceptions. And for this reason I was unwilling Captain Bray should preach at Bewdley when I was there, and when he would preach and bend himself to assert a liberty to all that had God's sanctifying spirit, and could express their minds, to take upon them to teach publicly what's the meaning of the Scripture, and what doctrines are true and what false, without any skill in arts, yea though he taught error, I did oppose him. Which if it were not so skilfully and happily done as Mr. B. better acquainted with such men's way might have done, yet me thinks my good will might have been accepted. But I see very little I do is well taken, and therefore see it necessary to wait patiently on God till my words and actions though intended for the furthering of reformation and good of the Ministry, in my Examen part. 2. sect. 7 in my Apology and elsewhere, be better resented and considered.  
The fourth and fifth error Mr. B. chargeth me with as dangerous, and the root of my error about baptism, will more fitly come into the body of the dispute, in which I doubt not but I shall show that both himself and Mr. Blake (however he esteem his writings) do recede from the Scripture and other approved authors in their making the New Covenant common to elect and reprobates, in making reprobates interest in the Covenant a fruit of Christ's death, denying the absolute promise to be most fitly called the Covenant of Grace, hold that a person may not be baptised that is not known to belong to the Covenant of Grace, that God actually seals the Covenant of Grace to reprobates, with sundry other mistakes about Sacraments in general, as if their essence were in being seals of the Covenant of Grace, and deriving thence a right to baptism for believers Infants, though the Covenant be conditional and common to all.  
The fith error of mine he confutes is about the Magistrates not being an officer of Christ as Mediator. And he excepts against me for saying in pulpit at Bewdley it was of dangerous consequence which he held, though he named not me at any time, and he wrote to me, and I would not dispute it with him. To which I answer, It is true, preaching on Mat. 28. 18. the argument leading me to it, I did oppose that doctrine, that the Magistrate is an officer of Christ the Mediator, and because Mr. Bs. book was in some of my Auditors hands, did read the passage in his Aphorisms page 273. and said it was of dangerous consequence. And indeed I think it so still. For I think it will follow, that except a Magistrate can show his commission from Christ, that he is an usurper, and then none is bound to him but to suppress him, than no infidel is a lawful Magistrate who denies Christ, and it will be questionable whether this will not extend to a non-churchmember or an excommunicate person, than a Magistrates doing of right to an infidel against a believer, or to one believer against another, as putting him to death, is an act for Christ as Mediator, and if because all power is given to him in heaven and in earth therefore magistracy, so as that all power must be derived from Christ as Mediator, than a Father's power over his child, but sure that is in a Father by nature, nor do I think it any part of the curse; then ruling Presbyters should do the acts of civil Magistrates as having plain title to rule under Christ. Nor do I think Mr. B. hath answered these arguments or the rest, but that however he proves Magistracy to be from Christ's appointment, and to be subordinate to his laws, and accountable to him, and aught to act for him, yet not that the commission of every lawful Magistrate is from him as Mediator. I think it will follow if Mr. Bs. position be true, that supposing Christ had not been Mediator, there had been no lawful Magistrate, and that Dominium fundatur in gratia, which was heretofore denied. And sith Christ is heir of all things, and believers only are Christ's, and all theirs, 1 Cor. 3. 22, 23. it would be considered whether by parity of reason the Saints might not entitle themselves to all power, and all men's estates, which was charged on Anabaptists at Munster. But I find I digress, and therefore stop till more liberty draw me to a fuller handling of it.   

SECT. XX. Many learned men (with the Oxford Convocation) of former and later times take Infant-baptisme only for an unwritten tradition.  
MR. B. proceeds to answer my Antidote, terms it a Corrective for a circumforaneous Antidote: but the Antidote will appear to be good if taken, notwithstanding his disgraceful term of Corrective without virtue. Page 299. He prints two passages of Dr. Whitakers for the late Oxford Convocation to read, and refers to the like in Davenant. But whatever Doctor Whitaker thought, yet that the Ancients did take Baptism of Infants to have been an Apostolical tradition unwritten seems to me, from that which is said in my Examen part. I. sect. 5. not avoided by Mr. Ms Defence. In the Council of Basil in the oration of the Cardinal of Ragusi it is asserted, Item nusquam legitur in canone Scripturae S. quod parvulus recenter baptizatus, qui nec cord credit ad justitiam, nec ore confitetur ad falutem, inter fideles & crudentes computetur. Et nihilominus Ecclesia ita determinavit et statuit, etc. And, in principip hujus Sacramenti baptizabantur solum illi qui per se sciebant fidem interroganti respondere. To which purpose Walafridus Strabo many hundred years before, and Vives about that time, whose words are alleged in my Exercitation, the title page and sect 17. Erasmus resp. Archiep. Hispal. ad artic. object. 61. Sunt et alia innumera quae prisci non ausi sunt definire, sed suspensae pronunciatione venerabantur, quod genus est an parvuliessent baptizandi. And commonly the learnedst Papists do instance in Infant-baptism as an unwritten tradition in force; and whereas it is objected that Bellarm. and others do bring Scripture for it, Becan. manual. lib. 1. c. 2. sect. 24. answers, aliqua possunt probariex Scriptura quando constat de vero & legitimo Scripture sensu. So he saith it is concerning Infan-baptism, which is proved from John 3. 5. but that the sense whereby to prove it is only manifest by tradition. Which is confirmed in the Canon law and Schoolmen, an Infants-baptism was not reckoned perfect, till the Bishop laid on hands, which act was called Confirmation, to wit, of the imperfect Baptism in infancy. Molinaeus in his Vates l. 2. c. 7. citys the canon didst 5. de. consecratione, as determining that without the Sacrament of Confirmation no man is a full Christian. Can. omnes, et Can. ut jejuni. Thomas 3. part summae, q. 72. art. 9 dicit hoc sacramentum esse perfection●m Baptismi: innuens Baptismum esse imperfectum nisi accesserit Confirmatio. Lumb. l. 4. sent. didst. 7. A. omnes fideles per manus impositionem Episcoporum post Baptismum accipere debent in Confirmatione Spiritum sanctum ut pleni Christiani inveniantur. Bellarm. tom. 3. the sacr. confirm. c. 12. confirmatio est complementum & perfectio baptismi. Lib. 2. de effec. Sacram. c. 8. est Confirmatio quaedam perfectio & consummatio Baptismi. Jewel Defence of the Apolog. page 218. allegeth it as Caistans tenet, that an Infant, for that he wanteth instruction in faith, therefore hath not perfect Baptism. Consonant hereto is the conceit of the common people, that they have not their full Christian doom all they be Bishopped. But that it may appear even learned Protestants speak near the same, I will cite some of their speeches; Among which I will forbear to recite the speeches of the Lord Brook and Mr. Daniel Rogers alleged by me in my Exercit. sect. 18. and cleared in my Apology from Mr. Rogers. his latter gloss, nor the opinion of Mr. Bedford, who judged with the Romanists, that the Scripture gives us proof only of the reasonableness of Infant-baptisme, as I gather by Mr. Bs. I answer to him page 305. Dr. Field of the Church, fourth book chap. 20. The fourth kind of inadition is the continued practice of such things as are neither contained in the Scripture expressly, nor the examples of such practice expressly there delivered, though the grounds, reasons, and causes of the necessity of such practice be there contained, and the benefit or good that followeth it. Of this sort is the Baptism of Infants, which is therefore named a tradition, because it is not expressly delivered in Scripture that the Apostles did baptise Infants, nor any express precept there found that they should so do. Yet is not this so received by bare and naked tradition, but that we find the Scripture to deliver unto us the grounds of it. Doctor, Prideaux fasci. Controu. Theol. loc. 4. sect. 3. q. 2. Paedobaptism rests on no other Divine right than Episcopacy. Doctor Jeremy Tailor in his Liberty of prophesying sect. 18. num. 34. after he had ventilated the point on both sides says, there is much more truth than evidence on our sides, meaning Paedobaptists. To all which I will add the words of Theophilus Philakyriaco Loucardiensis, that is Mr. Young, as I am informed, an eminent man in the late Assembly, and Mr. Marshal's friend that holp him in the first part of his Defence, in his Dies Dominica lib. 1. c. 10. page 54. where he confesseth ingenuously thus. Anabaptistas' Paedobaptismo oblainantes apertis testimoniis ferire non possumus, vesaniam his teles comprimimus, 1. ex parallelo praecepto de Circumci sione. 2. ex praxi Apostalica: quae quum aliquanda fit obscurior, consuetudinem totius Ecclesiae à primaevis & historicis temporibus adjicimus: juae; licet praefractos Anaboptistas non movebunt; apud prudentes, morigeros, & aejuos renum aestimatores valebunt. So that according to him, the main weight lies on the custom of the Church, which is falsely imagined to have been from the Apostles, as in some measure is proved in my Examen part of the first, not yet shaken by Mr. Ms. friend with all his insight Antiquity. From which I infer, that the Ancients and learned afore Zuinglius did account Infant-baptism to have been an unwritten tradition, having reason from Scripture, not evident of itself, but to be received for the determination of the Church, and that because it was not fully perfect, therefore Confirmation was added, which was retained in the English Liturgy as necessarily previous to the Lords Supper; nor do many of the best learned Protestants speak much otherwise out of the heat of dispute against Anabaptists. They are far from Mr. Bs. audaciousness to assert it as having plain Scripture proof for it. The very hesitant resolution of the most learned and considerate is enough to repress his vain attempt, and to awaken those that depend on his proofs, and rest on their Infant-sprinkling, and neglect the practice of being baptised after profession of faith, being so expressly enjoined in Scripture as a prime important duty for their salvation.   

SECT. XXI. Many things are cleared about my conformity, Anabaptists necessity to be baptised, the manner of dipping used by them, their standing to their confession of faith, etc.  
Page 241. he saith, I begin with a complaint of my sufferings, whereas my words were a gratulation for the change of my condition, and for my sad complaints Mr B. makes them more than they were, and misrepresents me in the time and reason of them. I let pass his jerkes about my health, and my grievance of removing from Bewdley, his way to heaven and mine. Mr. B. page 242 would vindicate his passages I cite in the Epistle to the people of Bewdley: but he passeth over that which goeth before in my Epistle, and makes no answer to any of these three things, 1. That he assigns no sufficient note whereby to discern the visible Church-membership of Infanrs of which he speaks. 2. That there is no connexion between his visible Church-membership of Infants and the initial seal, without institution of the rite to be so used. 3. that in the positive rites of the New Testament, there's no reason to be a rule to us, but the appointers will in some precept or practice. And to show the precept to be against him his own words are alleged and that rightly, however he interpret or interlace them. His interpretation agrees not with his own passage Appendix page 56. which saith, neither are the seals useful till the accepting and entering of the Covenant, where he placeth accepting before entering the Covenant, and in both his passages speaks of accepting and entering with consent, which Infants cannot do, page 243. he saith, I seem to speak as if I had some of my old Episcopal ceremonious spirit, though he hoped and believed verily that I did not turn merely to the times, though with the times. To which I answer. Mr. B. was a stranger to me till a little afore these times, and therefore is not fit to charge me with an Episcopal ceremonious spirit. Were it worth while to trouble the world with it, I could show how I examined, as well as at those years, I could the points in difference about which I was to subscribe and conform, and however I was carried away with the stream, yet my subscription was according to Doctor Burges his explication, and my conformity upon Mr. Spruits grounds, I was no promoter of either, and in the worst time I think none can say but I stuck fast to the main, the propagating the Gospel and Conjunction with the Godly. And my opposing the Bishops began with the soon afore this Parliament began, as soon as ever I deprehended the Bishops to be wholly for their own rule, and adversaries to the preaching of the Gospel. And for my nonconformity, reasons were given with some of the first in a Sermon at a visitation at Lemster, November 24. 1641 since printed. And what I said the ceremonies were more excusable than Paedobaptism is true, 1. They were not at first urged otherwise then as indifferent things, Paedobaptism is urged as of Divine appointment, and yet the chief principle of non-conformists doth more strongly plead against it then the ceremonies. 2. Paedobaptism not withstanding the palliating salves of Mr. M. Mr. B. I find far more pernicious than the ceremonies; it being, 1. The great occasion of the soul-destroying presumption whereby a great part of men perish, and the genuine hindrance of the reformation of the Lords Supper and Church-communion. 2. it quite perverts the end and use of baptism, which the ceremonies did only in some sort disorder. I justify not the ceremonies, and therefore I need not answer the men he names, but their writings yield strong arguments for me against Paedobaptism, and better for me then for themselves. Mr. Bs. questions page. 243. are upon a mistake, as if I counted all Pedobaptists mere formal teachers: whereas what I speak was in tenderness to Bewdley, lest they out of averseness to my doctrine should rest in a mere formal teacher, which I had reason to fear was the aim of some, whom perhaps Mr. B. may find (though I wish he may not) he hath mistaken for godly men. Who perhaps might tell him what was not true, that the power of godliness is much diminished since my coming to them, and their profitable converse turned into heart-burnings, jealousies and fruitless contendings. His argument pag. 244. is vain: for were it supposed that Infants of believers were Church-members (which his whole book proves not) and it were true that baptizers cannot otherwise have knowledge when those that are piously educated begin to be Church-members, yet the practice of baptising the children of Christians ordinarily at years of discretion overturnes not the true end of Baptism. For whether the true (to which he adds principal in a parenthesis, as if true and principal were all one) end of Baptism be to be Christ's sign for solemn admission of Church-members or Disciples, or to be an engaging seal as elsewhere; yet both these ends are preserved if they be baptised many years after their being Disciples. It is untrue, that it is my usual artifice to work on the affections, of people when I mistrust my strength to work on men's understandings; it may be more truly said of himself, who usually fills up the vacuity of proofs with childish exclamations, admirations, etc. What I said and preached from Acts 3. 23. is right, people do endanger their being cut off from God's people, who disobey Christ, in not being baptised when their duty is told them, as the Pharisees and Lawyers rejected or made void the Counsel of God against themselves, being not baptised of John Luke 7. 30. I preach against popish necessity of Baptism, and yet hold a necessity of precept for believers to be baptised, yea and an ordinary necessity of means according to Christ's doctrine, Mark 16. 16. I threaten no man for not yielding to my opinion, but not yielding to a plain command of Christ, Mat. 28. 19 and his Apostle, Act. 2. 38. etc. acknowledged by all my Antagonists (except Socinianized) from which Mr. Bs. observations concerning the backsliding of some cannot acquit him. Were my words of any weight with him, I should advise him, more seriously to consider whether this his writing be not a perverting the right ways of the Lord. Page 245. that Mr. B. did not at least mainly direct the passage of his Epistle against me, he will hardly believe that takes notice of the passage, the time when, the texts produced, the accusation itself, the naming me, yea or his own words so often in his book, as page 167. that he used the speeches to preserve his friends from the danger of my error, that being a dying man he might have no opportunity after to warn his people, that a fire being at Bewdley he had reason to provide for Kederminster. And what though it were intended against all that take my course, yet it might be directed mainly against me, whom he singled out for commendation, but yet in such a manner, as I may say with King James in his answer to Cardinal Perons' oration, I defy the praises that ascribe ability and moderation to me, and charge me not only with gross absurdities, but also with little tender conscientius fear of erring, playing the Devil's part, besides other imputations, which if not directed against me solely, yet he might have conceived would be taken as chargeable upon me with others. By officiating Priest I meant not any other then mere reading Ministers, by whom most were baptised, and it was not scornfully used by me, nor like the language of Martix-Marpriest (which I abhor) but to in imate that in that respect, as well as the manner of sprinkling and defect of profession of faith, the Anabaptists so called had reason not to content themselves with Infant-baptism. It is true, our English prelatical Divines do account Baptism sufficiently administered that is so done, yea though it were by a popish Priest or a Midwife, and I think Presbyterians and Independents do agree with them: for they do not question their Baptism, nor seek any other, though it's likely many have been so baptised. Yet I find Spondanus in his Auctar. Chronol. ad annum 1604. reporting that in France, at Vapincum in the Daulphinate, a Synod wherein famous Chamier was Precedent, determined according to a former Synod at Poitiers, that Baptism administered by expectants of ordination was of no value, and to be iterated by Ministers themselves. Whether this relation be true or not, yet my end in my expression being to give reason why Anabaptists content not themselves with their pretended Infant-baptism, Mr. B. doth ill to interpret my words as scornful. I do now profess as I did not long since at Coventrey to Mr. William Swain (who I perceived since upon his misconstruction hath also alleged this passage in the end of Mr. Stephen's book entitled a precept for Baptism of Infants out of the New Testament,) that I do reverence many Paedobaptists as godly Ministers of the Gospel far beyond myself. Yet still I say, that they most injuriously inveigh against Anabaptists for being baptised at years of discretion, and thereby necessitate them to associate themselves, when the Baptism of Infants is confessed by the most considerate not to have clear proof without help of Tradition unwritten; which yet learned men contradict, the sprinkling they have received is not Baptism, nor appointed by Christ, nor the person adminstring it to many Infants a Preacher of the Gospel, and many learned men have made Baptism of Infants imperfect without Confirmation, and Churches have thought it necessary to retain it, yea Mr. B. would have something like it (which but for the dipping in cold water is to the same purpose as rebaptising) page 119. 120. which to me discovers the imperfection and insufficiency of Infant-baptism to its end; and though Mr. B. in answer to Mr. Bedford holding baptising but once only a tradition unwritten, undertakes to prove it fully from Scripture page 305. (whose performances I find very short of his undertake) yet Theophilus Philokyriaces in the book forenamed page 54. says, sacrum baptismum non repetendum semper statuit Ecclesia: de quo tamen interdicto in sacris tabulis nihil occurrit, and therefore unless I will speak against my conscience, I must needs say that it is ignorance or wilfulness holds Ministers and people in their stiff asserting and practice of Infant-baptism, and the violent opposition they make to their practice who are baptised or baptise believers upon so great reason. He tells me it is an untruth that he said [dipping in cold water is murder and adultery] about which I not contend, whether he used those very terms only, but so far as my memory retains, and the notes I could get relate, those words were used by him without addition of [the ordinary practise] or [naked.] But my meaning in my denial of his speech, was to justify dipping as used by those termed Anabaptists, whose baptising so far as I have known it, hath been seemly with cover fit to be quickly put off when they come out of the water, and with meet provision for the health of persons, not tying persons to cold water in the open air or any other inconvenient thing to health and modesty, but only requiring the person to be under water resemhling Christ's burial and resurrection according to Rom. 6. 3, 4. Col. 2. 12. as the stream of the expositors do conceive the allusion. And therefore I cannot be of opinion that the ordinary practice of baptising by dipping the whole body in cold or warm water openly or privately is either a breacb of the sixth or seventh Commandment, unless he condemn Christ and his Apostles as appointing and practising a rite contrary to God's commands, and be of an opinion, which is refuted by frequent experience of aged weak persons men and women baptised in cold stormy times in the open air in cold running water without detriment to their health to mine one knowledge. Nevertheless were it that any person did conceive, that he ought to be baptised naked, as vossius Thes. Theol. and Hist. disp. 1. de baptismo thesi 6. 7. 8. shows in the first ages men women and Infants were, yet he may find there how provision was made against immodesty and murder, & I wonder that either Mr. B. or any other considerate man that knows how persons go into baths frequently, should imagine so evil of a persons going into the water but once in course habit in a penitent form not without grave company, not staying a minute in the water, that it could not be performed without such danger as Mr. B. would possess people with, in the second part of his book chap. 12. 13. His satirical I had almost said scurrilous quips I let pass. I did not charge Mr. B. with endeavours to drive me or others out of the land, or destroy us, but I think the instigators to the ordinance against Heresies, have had such minds. And whereas he saith page 247. I tell him of his danger and elsewhere that I threaten him, is a suggestion that I cannot yet guess whence it should arise. The citation out of his book sect. 3. of my Antidote was to show M. B. paraphrased Mat. 28. 19, to like purpose as I do. That the untruths he chargeth me with page 248. 252. were not such is showed before. The matter of the fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh sections being argumentative, is to be referred to the first part of his book. Page 257. Mr. B. applies that to one term of calling some Sects which I said of the rest of his discourse, especially the accusation of societies proving wicked, that it hath a manifest tincture of reviling. He chargeth my conscience as having a flaw for insinuating that he called all Independents a Sect, and that for denying the power of a Synod to excommunicate, whereas he plainly limited his speech to that Independency which gives the people to govern by vote, which is the same with separatism. To which I reply, I took it, and do still, that in the books of Independents it is their received tenet, that excommunicating however it be not without officers, yet is in the people, from Mat. 18. 17. but that whence they are named Independents by Mr. Her'le and others, is from denying superiority of Synods in governing, and appeals to them, and if a Sect then from thence as their distinguishing tenet. However for the tenet of the people's governing by vote, I know no reason why they should be called a Sect rather than their opposites. The excommunication which the Scripture speaks, of so far as I discern, is no where made a part of government, or of the Elders office any more than the People's. In antiquity it's apparent out of Cyprian, etc. that the people had a great hand in Elections, Excommunications, Absolutions. Nor is a person a Separatist for that tenet, but for dividing practices: other things in that section are answered before; To that page 259. of my logic, I say he is mistaken in it. I know this water to be cold because I feel its coldness, this person to be a false teacher because I hear from him false doctrine. The subject is not the suppositum as a substance but as a substance with its adjunct. I prove not a wall to be a wall by its whiteness seen, but a white wall, and this is not idem per idem. The Apostle shows the evil lives of Heretics for better prevention of their practices, not to prove them Heretics [A ravening wolf] signifies neither error of doctrine, nor visiousnesse of life, but the effect or end of the persons described, to wit, destroying souls, often also lives and estates. That the false Prophets have sheep's clothing, that is, fair shows, though inwardly are ravening wolves, overthrows Mr. Bs. interpretation he pleads so much for, except he think they can have sheep's clothing, that is fair shows of a good life, who are openly wicked, so as by the fruits of their wickedness they may be known, which me thinks comes near a contradiction. Mr. B. often says, he takes me not to be an Heretic nor a mere Anabaptist except they divide the Church. But he taking me for a divider of the Church, for my error must of necessity take me for an Heretic if he stand to the descriptions he there saith he likes, so that I cannot nor any Anabaptist or Independent long look to be out of his black roll of Heretics. Page 260. Mr. B. saith, I make his question an affirmation, and so doth he himself that tells us it speaks what a rarity it is according to his reading that any society of Anabaptists hath not proved wicked. But I make it a peremptory determination, where as it is neither omnino dubitantis, nor yet determinantis, but provo cantis. Nor did I say it was a most peremptory determination, but, no man will I think take his interrogation for any other than a most peremptory determination, which I think is true, the words carrying a plain show of a peremptory determination, and being written to the people of Kederminster were not likely to be a provocation of Anabaptists to look over their own intelligence, but a resolute assurance, that there hath not been known a society of Anabaptists since the world first knew them, that proved not wicked. And therefore I put no false sense on his words, as he falsely chargeth me, nor do I as he saith, call him dog, I only say, like a right-English mastive he flies in the face, etc. not comparing him to a dog, but his bold act to the manner of English mastiffs boldness, whereby he is no more called dog, than Christ is thief, when he says, I come as a thief, Revel. 3. 3. To that which he saith page 261. of my cheat, I have answered. To his question, Did no body contradict Infant-baptism for so many hundred years? and yet is it an innovation. I answer yes: and I think Mr. B. will say of keeping an Easter, Lent-fast, Infant-communion, Monkish profession, Episcopacy, at least some of these are innovations not contradicted for so many hundred years. For his testimonies page 262, 263, 264. for the antiquity of Infant-baptism, to the chiefest of them answer hath been made, that the eldest of them is not till the third age, that they only urge it and practise it in case of evident danger of present death to save from perishing; that the conceit of peculiar privilege to Infants of believers is a late innovation: some of them are merely impertinent without Mr. Bs. vain infernece, some Heathenish rites of expiating Infants are unseeming Mr. B. to allege, they being from Satan. My testimonies page 264. of Bernard, Petrus Cluniacensis, Eckbertus, are vindicated before, Strabo doth not say that afore Augustine's time, Infant-baptism was not, but only, in the first times, nor is it likely that he did mistake Augustine's age 10 years. That the Copies put 25. for 35. Nor do I think he was mistaken in the reason of Augustine's deferring his Baptism, but that the reason he gives was one though not the sole reason of it, and the testimony of Walafridus Strabo though later than Augustine, yet he giving himself to search out and to write of ancient rites, is of more credit concerning the Antiquity of Infant-baptism than Augustine's, who as I show Apology. sect. 6. and elsewhere, did often inconsiderately call that an Apostolical tradition, which was commonly observed in his days within the compass of his acquaintance. Cyprians speech if it be rightly brought by Mr. B. will prove all stillborn Infants to be lost, being not of the visible Church Catholic. That which Mr. B. page 266. saith, fully satisfies him, part of it is false, the rest so frivolous, that I can impute his satisfaction to no other cause than his inconsiderateness. The very same or like plea will serve for communion of young children in which yet Mr. B. is not satisfied. But to me it is very good satisfaction that baptising of Infants is but an innovation, neither agreeing with the institution of Christ, nor the Apostles practise, nor known till it began to be conceived necessary to give grace and to save from perishing, yet then dissuaded and not practised but in case of imminent danger of death, nor maintained on any other ground till Zuinglius his days. What the Churches of Anabaptists so called have done in London that Mr. B. should so much lament, till I know what it is I take to be a Calumny. That Anabaptists have been in danger by the instigations of Preachers and writers it is a marvel to me, that Mr. B. should not understand, who can hardly be ignorant whence the ordinance against blasphemies and heresies came. That any of my Antagonists are turned out of house and home is unknown to me, surely not for nonconformity to rebaptising, most certain, that if any such thing hath been done it was never by my procurement, nor I think any of the Churches of Anabaptists. That which Mr. B. page 267. says, that the same men that subscribe the Anabapiists confession have many of them written other kind of doctrine elsewhere. I doubt whether it be true, I find him only naming Paul Hobson page 147. and citing some passages of his, of which that which is most liable to exception Mr. B. himself gives us this excuse in his Saints everlasting rest part. 2. chap. 1. sect. 2. page 169. not understanding that they affirm and deny the same thing in several expressions: so that however his expressions be dangerous, yet it is probable he held not the Socinian opinion, which he contradicted in the subscription to the confession, but only discovered his weakness. And yet Mr. B. I think is not ignorant, that so holy & learned a man as M. Pemble near the beginning of his Vindicae gratiae hath a like conceit of Gods never hating the elect, but being reconciled from eternity, taking reconciliation for an immanent act in God: which as I imagine Mr. B. would excuse in Mr. Pemble, so might he with a like charity excuse the other in Paul Hobson. What he citys out of Cyprian I wish Mr. B. had Englished it, and that both Anabaptists and their opposites would learn it. Page 268. he saith if my book of scandals were read, men may perhaps receive a preservative from my own hand from the danger of my opinion, to which I say, I wish my book of Scandals were more read, nor do I fear that my doctrine will be the less embraced for reading it, if my interpretation of my own words justified even by Mr. B. be received, as I show before. Page 269. he tells us the Levellers were Anabaptists, but I cannot yet learn of any of them he names except Den that was so: though I deny not but there might be sundry of them such, likely of the Free-willers disclaimed by the seven Churches in London, and that they were but few in comparrison of the rest: by the Newes-books I gather the Levelling business was carried on by such as were in no gathered Church, but lived above ordinances. As for Mr. Bs. dark criminations I can give no answer to them, unless I could plow with his heifer and find out his riddle: But my hope is those great instruments of God to break the enemies of those that are termed Sectaries, though Mr. Bs. words seem to forebode and misdeem evil of them, will and do prove better than he discribes them, though I imagine they be not Anabaptists. Nor do I like Mr. Bs. obscure satirical criminations, they having some show of a malevolent mind. Whatever Mr. B. may conceive of the danger of the Anabaptists way in other things, I am sure if they would keep themselves only to this to be baptised upon profession of faith, they should be in a safe way, even in the way of Christ.   

SECT. XXII. The speech [that no one Country is gathered into Christ's visible Church] contains no malignancy to Christ, but is a manifest truth.  
MOst of that which is in Mr. Bs. answer to the last section of my Antidote hath either been replied to before or in some other part of my writings, or will fall into the main of the dispute, wherein I doubt not but I shall fully vindicate my argument against the visible Church-membership of Infants, from the different cause of the Jewish and Christian Church, though the thing be so manifest, to wit, that the Christian Church was otherwise gathered then the Jewish, that I see nothing but mere wrangling in the questions Mr. B. propounds. And to his words page 279, 280. Sir, if you were my Father, I would tell you that when you say, Christ makes no one City, Country, Tribe, his Disciples, you speak most malignantly, and wickedly against the Kingdom and dignity of my Lord Jesus. I answer, I meet so often with Mr. Bs. high charges, upon palpable mistakes and weak proofs, that I fear his misguided zeal or natural distemper hath brought him to an habit of ill-speaking. My words were not as Mr. B. sets them down, but thus [no one Country, or City, or Tribe together, were gathered by the Apostles or other Preachers into the Christian visible Church, but so many of all as the Lord vouchsafed to call by his word and spirit] which hath neither wickedness nor malignancy against the Kingdom and dignity of the Lord Jesus; but a manifest truth expressly taught in the Holy Scripture as congruous to the glory of God and the Lord Jesus, 1 Cor. 1. 26, 27. 28, 29. Not many wise men, etc. Ergo not the whole Nation, Revel. 5. 9 out of every Nation, Ergo not the whole Nation, as he did the Jews in the Wilderness. The relations in the Gospel and Acts of the Apostles plainly prove it true, that by John Baptist, Christ, the 12. and 70. Disciples was no entire Nation, City, Country or Tribe gathered into the visible Church-christian, but parts of them, and those fewer than the adversaries, who in every place were so numerous (when the Christians are counted at some few thousands) as that even at Jerusalem and elsewhere they prevailed to disperse Christians by persecution. Nor do Mr. Bs. questions prove, that into the Christian visible Church any one whole Country, City or Tribe, young or old, men and women, are gathered by the Apostles and other Preachers, as Moses did gather together the Jewish Nation, Exod. 19 Deut. 29. But saith Mr. B. 1. Hath he noi commanded to Disciple Nations? I answer, yes: to make Disciples of all Nations by Preaching the Gospel to every Creature, as it is, Mark 16. 15. but no where by civil authority to gather a whole City, Country or Tribe, and to draw them into a National or City Covenant together, old and young, but to offer Christ and to baptise so many as are willing to embrace him. 2. Saith Mr. B. Hath not the Father promised to give the Heathen or Nations for his inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for his possession, Psal. 2. and that Nations shall serve him? Answ. He hath, and it is fulfilled, but not in Mr. Bs. sense, as if one whole Nation, City, Country or Tribe were gathered together in the manner Moses brought into Covenant all the Jewish Nation, but as the Apostle speaks by ministering the Gospel, Rom. 15. 16. the Gentiles, that is believers among them, are an offering to God, glorify God, ver. 9 praise him, trust in him, ver. 11, 12. so as it was foretold in Abraham all Nations should be blessed, which is expounded Gal. 3. 7, 8, 9 Rom. 4. 17, 18. believers of all other Nations as well as Jews. 3. And that the Kingdoms of the world shall become the Kingdoms of the Lord and his Christ? Ans. I read those words Rev. 11. 15. but I find the time of fulfilling to be when the seventh Angel hath founded, which some say is not till the world to come. So Mr. Seager of the world to come, part. 1. sect. 8. And this is not improbable from ver. 18. and Revel. 10. 6, 7. The New Annot, faith thus, Antichrist is weakened, and Christ hath begun to take the Kingdom out of his hand, and shall have a visible Church like an Empire in all the known world, and that to the end, but that it is not yet▪ 4. And do you not see it fulfilled before your eyes? Are not Bewdley, Kederminster, etc. and England (till of late) as fully Christ's Disciple, and so Church-members, as the Jews were in Covenant with God, and so Church-members? Answ. If by [it] be meant the prophecies Psal. 2. 8. and 72. 11. I see them fulfilled, though not in Mr. Bs. sense: but the prophecy Revel. 11. 15. I see not yet fulfilled. I see at Bewdley, Kederminster, in England, people who generally are called Christians, but I do not see that all, old and young, are Disciples or Church-members, or aught to be so accounted, or that they were ever brought into such a Covenant as the Jews, orought to be accounted. Church-members by virtue of such a Covenant. There is not a word in my writings to that effect. Mr. B. chargeth me [that I would not have Princes and Masters do what Abraham and Moses did, in bringing the people of Israel into ' Covenant with God] but I say, that should they do so, yet the Infants are not thereby to be accounted visible Church-members in a Christian Church. The commission to gather the Christian Church was not given to the Emperor, but Apostles. The Apostles, it is true, were sent to proselyte them that were no Chuch-members, and yet. they were sent to proselyte, or in the phrase of Scripture to Disciple, the visible Church-members of the Jewish Church as well as the Gentiles. What I said, I still say, that the different Church-call of the Jewish and Christian Churches is enough to show a different Church-state, and consequently the argument is not good from the Jewish Infants visible Church-membership to ours. If Mr. Bs. judgement be not so commandable, as to assent to what I say, it is so much the less commendable. The speech of Mr. Herle, and the jest out of Matthiolus are misapplied. When he saith, why may we not write plainly against one another's judgement by a loving consent? He may know that it was my desire it should have been so, that it was not so, was from himself. He that believes he hath showed love in this his writing, is very credulous. For the rest, if Mr. B. will have the patience and indifferency of judgement which is meet, he may see an answer to his allegations about God's mercy to Infants, and the repeal of their visible Churchmemship. If he remain in his opinion (which I much fear, knowing him sowell as I do) and I in mine, we must leave our writings to others to judge, & especially to that day which shall declare every man's work being revealed in fire. In the mean time (slighting his vain curse, which is page 217.) my prayer for him as myself is, that we may do nothing against the truth, but for the truth.   
FINIS.   

Cyprian, and the other Colleagues which in the Council were present, to the number of 66. to brother Fidus greeting.  
MOst dear brother, we have read thy letters, in which thou hast signified concerning one Victor a Presbyter, that Therapius our Colleague in a time not ripe, and with overmuch haste, hath granted him peace, before he had done full penance, and satisfied the Lord God, against whom he had offended. Which thing hath enough moved us, that he hath departed from the authority of our Decree, that before the allowed and full time of fatisfaction, and without the ask and privity of the common sort, no infirmity urging, nor necessity compelling, peace should be granted to him. But upon counsel weighed long with us, it was enough to chide Therapius our Colleague in that he rashly did this; and to have instructed him; that for hereafter he do no such thing. Yet we have not thought, that the peace however once granted by a Priest of God should be taken away; and for this cause we have permitted Victor to use the Communication granted to him. But for what belongeth to the cause of Infants, whom thou hast said should not be baptised within the second or third day in which they were born; and that the law of ancient Circumcision is to be considered, so as that thou shouldest not think him that is born should be baptised and hallowed within the 8. day; it seemed far otherwise to all in our Council. For unto this which thou thoughtest should be done, none of us have agreed, but all have rather judged that the mercy and grace of God is to be denied to none that are born of mankind. For when the Lord in his Gospel saith, The son of man came not to destroy men's souls, but to save them, as much as in us lies if it may be, no soul is to be lost. For what is wanting to him, who is once form in the womb by the hand of God? For to us and in our eyes they which are born do seem to receive growth according to the course of secular days: but what ever things are made by God are perfected by the Majesty and work of God the Maker. Lastly, the faith of Divine Scripture declares to us, that there is one evenness of the Divine gift to all, whether Infanrs or elder in age. When Helisaeus upon the Infant son of the Shunamite widow which lay dead so laid himself when he prayed to God, that head was applied to head, & face to face, & the members of Helisaeus spread over were joined to each of the members of the little one, and the feet to its feet; Which thing if it be thought on according to the quality of our birth and body, an Infant cannot be equalled to a person grown and come to full stature, neither could he close and fit little members to greater: But their Divine and Spiritual evenness is expressed, that all men are even and equal when they are made By God, and our age may have difference in increase of bodies according to the world, not according to God: unless if the grace also which is given to the baptised be given less or more according to the age of receivers: where as the holy Spirit is equally given to all, not by measure, but out of tenderness and fatherly indulgence. For God as he accepts not a person, so neither doth he accept of age, sith he affords himself alike to all with a balanced equality for the obtaining of heavenly Grace. And for what thou hast said the footstep of an Infant made in the first days of his birth is not clean, because every one of us as yet is afraid to kiss him, neither do we think this to be a hindrance to the giving of heavenly Grace: for it is written, all things are clean to the clean; neither ought any one to be afraid to do that which God hath vouchsafed. For although the Infant is yet new from the birth, yet it is not so that one in giving grace and granting peace ought to be afraid to kiss him, sith in the kiss of an Infant every one of us according to his religion ought to think of the very hands of God as yet fresh, which we in some: sort kiss in man now form and newly born, when we embrace that which God hath made. For as for what was observed in Jewish carnal Circumcision the 8. day, is a Sacrament foregoing in a shadow and in an image, but is now complete in the truth, Christ being come. For because the day in which the Lord should rise and quicken and give us Spiritual Circumcision was the 8. day, that is, the first after the Sabbath, this 8. day, that is, the first after▪ the Sabbath and the Lords day went before in an image, which image ceased, the truth after ●●●ing upon it, and the Spiritual Circumcision being given us. For which reason we think none aught to be hindered from obtaining the grace of Christ, nor that the Spiritual Circumcision ought to be hindered by the carnal, but that every man altogether is to be admitted to the grace of Christ, sith Peter also speaks and says in the Acts of the Apostles, The Lord hath said to me, none is to be said to be common and unclean. But if any thing might hinder men from the obtaining grace, more grievous sins might hinder grown men and come to full stature & elder in birth. But moreover, if to most grievous offenders, and those that sin much before God, when after they believe remission of sins is given, and no man is withheld from Baptism and from grace, how much more ought not an Infant to be withheld, who being new born hath sins no whit, but that being born according to Adam carnally he drew on him in his first nativity the contagion of death of old: who in this respect doth more easily come to receive remission of sins, because not his own sias but another's are forgiven him? And therefore most dear brother, this was our sentence in the Council, that none by us aught to be prohibited from Baptism, and the grace of God, who is mercifult and kind and tender to all. Which as it is to be observed and held concerning Infants themselves and newly born, who in this respect do deserve more of our help and ' Divine mercy, because in the first beginning their birth presently crying and weeping they do nothing else but pra We wish to thee most dear brother always health.   

For Mr. Richard Baxter at Kederminster.  
Sir, some of my neighbours conceived it would be their best way to resolve their doubts about Baptism to know what arguments you could bring for Infant-baptism, and against their being baptised, notwithstanding the pretended Baptism they had in Infancy. Whereupon with my privity one came to you, upon whose relating to me your answer, I wrote to you, and upon receipt of your letter to me think good to let you understand, that I said not, I utterly refused open dispute, but that I affected it not, it being fit for Schools, and not common auditors, entered into usually with animosities and eagerness to obtain a supposed victory, managed with heat and multitude of words, with answers and replies not so delibrate as were requisite to settle any one's judgement, they being misapprehended by Auditors who commonly take him to have the better who speaks the most, ending usually in wrangling or something like it, followed with misreports, accompanied w●●● disorders and inconveniencies insomuch that except in case of betraying truth by declining a dispute, I can hardly bring myself to yield to it. And howsoever you conceive of my advantages, you may if you will, and perhaps do know, that you have such advantages in your ready wit and speech, and the favour and general acclamation to any thing that is said for the superstition of Infant-baptism as to bring things so to pass, that the event shall be crying down truth and disgrace of my person. Nor have your disparaging speeches of my writings without animadversions on them communicated to me, or your carriage at or not long after the receipt of my letter, encouraged me to hope for all candour from you in this matter. For preaching, sith it belongs to you to maintain the Divine institution of Infant-baptism, I shall be willing to examine what you say, when you have said what you think good for it if I may obtain a copy of your Sermon which you will own; and if it satisfy me, I shall confess it, if not in a Sermon in the same place or elsewhere I shall give a distinct and plain answer to it. Fo● writing (which I like best) I desire not to put you to any tedious or voluminous way, but in the most compendious way of syllogisms, yea if it may ●●, that you put in one medium the strength of all you can. Of the sho●●●ispatch you desire, you may assure yourself who are to be the opponent in ●●●oint, my answer will be as short as your argument will permit, and ●●●●●e you conttact it keeping to the point, the more satisfactory it will 〈◊〉 I am  
Yours in our Lord JOHN TOMBS Bewdley, Sept. 10. 16