Tombs Precursor Examined and Proved not to be from Heaven But Men

§. 1.

To your first Section I have nothing to say.

§. 2.

To the second but little; for it needs not. The supposed contradiction in my words, had been removed, had it pleased you to read or cite them all, in pag. 9. And is it a contradiction to say, [The gate is strait, the way narrow] and yet [his yoke is easy, his burden light, and his commands not grievous?]

§. 3.

The sum of your Answers to the words of the Ancients, seems to me to be this [I will regard nothing that Antiquity saith against my opinion.] Such is your Answer to Origen. It is not in one or two places only that he speaks for Infant-baptism, and therefore the less likely to be corrupted. Augustine's rule you cite by the halfs leaving out [and was not instituted by Councils, but hath been ever held.) Your cross instances seem vain. 1. Episcopacy no doubt is of Apostolical Ordination; but if you mean Diocesan Episcopacy, it is so far from having Austin's universal Antiquity, that the first Writers manifest they then knew it not. 2. The time of Easter as it was at first a matter of no great observation to Christians, & therefore might well be forgotten, as was the time of Christ's Nativity, so it never pretended to universal consent, one part of the Church pleading for one time, and others for another. 3. Infant Communion is not once mentioned till many 100 years after Christ; but enough against it in the first Writers. 4. The Millenaries opinion, was only affirmed to come from John by some particular men; and it is not matter of Fact, but of Doctrine, wherein Tradition hath less Authority. But are any of these like to the matter of Baptizing Infants, which must needs be so notorious, that it is next to impossible, that Origen, Cyprian and the Church in their times should be ignorant whether this had been the former Churches practice. Matters of Fact themselves are very different: some practiced, but once or long before, or in a corner: some often even through all the Churches, and ordinarily. This in question is of the latter sort. If indeed you think that Austin's Rule is uncertain in such matters as these, I desire you by the next to tell me, how you know whether the Scriptures which you now use are the same Books in whole or part which were extant in the Apostles age, and that there was not more, and which be Canonical, &c. Do not you care to smite through Christianity, so you may bring down Infant-Baptism? Salmasius and some others speak as rashly and partially as you. Seeing you deny nothing in Justin Martyrs words, you must yield that it was known then to mothers that their Infants were of God's Kingdom, and then certainly they were Church members and known Disciples or Christians; for none but Christians are known to be of God's Kingdom. And all Christians are Disciples, Act. 11. 26. and all Disciples must be baptized, Mat. 28. 19. You think Cyprian and all the Council (and consequently all their Church) might be ignorant whether Infants were baptized 100 years before. And why? Because [it was not at all or very rarely] A rare Argument! if it were [not at all] why might they not know that? You say, They might not know that Infants were not baptized, because they were not baptized; that is, because it were cognoscible. It may be the same is your reason on the other side, They might be ignorant that they were baptized, because they were. But why should you think it rarely done? (If so, yet it was done) Doubtless either the Apostles used and appointed it ordinarily, or not at all. 2. You say, it is not known of what age those 66. Bishops were; a perplexing doubt! You may be sure All or some were Seniors; and its like if never a one of them were old. yet they had old men of their Churches; unless you le say, It is possible that no old men were Christians. I am sure its not probable. 3. You say, its not known whose children they were. But as its most probable that some of them were Christians children, so its certain that the children of former Christians were then Christians among them, either Pastors or Members, or both, and that in great numbers. And for what the Epistle expresseth and implieth of the History, I am content itself be judge. Sure I am, it makes no question of Infant-baptism, nor did Fidus whom they answer. I think you were guided to translate the Epistle to the confutation of yourself. But your great noise is about Hyginus making Gossips: where 1. you feign me to triumph in it, that so you might be thought to have done something in confuting it. But I lay so little stress on it, that I think it not of such moment as you intimate. 2. You fall again to the old way in two Answers. 1. You say [the Decree in the Epistle, &c. mentioneth not Infant baptism though it speaks of Gossips, &c. Reply 1. It is utterly untrue that the Epistles have one word of the Decree or of Gossips: I have not Osiander at hand; but if he do speak so falsely as you say, I will less believe him hereafter; if he do not, you are the less to be believed. 2. You have satisfied me hereby that you never read the Epistles, which yet you might have done in so many Authors: why then would you be so rash as to misreport them, without first consulting them. Neither Blondellus, Surius, Nicolinus, Crab, Binius, Gratian, nor any other that ever I read, have anymore Epistles of Hyginus but two; nelther of which have one word of any such business. 2 You tell me of divers Writers that so disprove the Epistles, that you could hardly have imagined any harmed Protestant would ever have thus alleged so notoriously forged a writing] and you tell me [I have 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, &c.]

Reply. What man that reads these words would imagine that all this were false, and merely forged out of your own brain? Yet so it is. How could you think to persuade any knowing Reader that this is true, who hath my Book to see its all your fiction. Do I not know that the Decree of Hyginus is not in his Epistles at all? but mentioned by themselves by Gratian, as received by Historical Tradition, and not at all on the credit of those Epistles? Did I not expressly therefore tell you that I took it on the consent of History? Did I once mention the Epistles at all? Let any judge that reads my Book. Why would you forge all this without one word to occasion you? Do you think the deceiving of the simple is the winning of your Cause? I am not ignorant what your cited Authors say against the Epistles (whether solidly against all, as well as some, I judge not) and divers more (especially Blondellus) that say much more then Reynolds. Whether the Tradition that I allege be currant, I leave men to judge as they see cause: But certainly you venture far to charge me with these things concerning the Epistles. For what you say about interpretation of Scripture, I easier believe my skil to be small, then yours to be great: at least where prejudice perverteth your understanding. Let your next words stand as witness, where you so confidently limit so many generals; and think your poor reasons prove that Christ there invites men to him only as a Teacher, (and consequently only such as are weary of other Doctrine) and not those that are weary of sin; and teacheth them not meekness by his example, but only by his Doctrine: And you think by proving one, you disprove the other, as if they were opposite.

§. 4.

The next deserves no Reply, being such discernably gross evasions; specially that plain contradiction about Act. 15. 10. For his zeal to promote his opinion, and his actual withdrawing men into other bodies, let his hearers, and all that know his way judge. None that know him I think will believe what he saith of this, but his followers.

§. 5.

I have thanked you for your exceptions against some points in my Aphorisms; but you might have also acknowledged that you received a Reply; even 12 sheets to your one leaf and side. It seems to me an unworthy act to publish all these reproachful accusations against master Boraston, who never meddled with you in that way. Would it not sufficiently ease your stomach that you might have your full stroke at me? But whoever stands in your way must taste of your spleen. Will any man think your accusation should be received, that hath not heard what he can say for himself? I think it needless to tell the word what I have heard him say to these Charges of yours: but this I will say, that if by [temporizing with the Kings party] you mean [staying at home] so did most of the godliest in Bewdley, and thanked God they might: But if you mean, either that he was for them, or did not in preaching reprove them (which yet was then dangerous) master William Hopkins, now with God, did seriously to me profess the contrary, and vindicate him in both these particulars. The Magistrate also must be censured with the rest; yea, and the others that invited me (though as eminent for parts and piety as any I know there) must be said to be [of somewhat a like stamp] whereby it appears of what validity are your Accusations, and how you will stamp all that are against your Anabaptism.

§. 6.

I am the more obliged to observe what you say in this Section, because you say it is to the chief points in my Book: And therefore I may perceive here what way you mean to go in your larger Answer: and perhaps the Reply to this may suffice to the sum of that.

1. You say, your 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 my way without profession.

Reply. But how oft did you confess it of All in general? But I thought how slippery you were! And yet for all this you dare not say yet that Christ hath any Disciples that (ordinarily) ought not to be admitted by Baptism. But the best is, even that which you yielded was proved. Christ will have no Disciples enter at any other door, ordinarily [Go, disciple me all nations, baptizing them.]

2. You say, As yet you find no Law or Ordinance (for Infants Visible Church membership) save what is enjoined concerning Circumcision.]

Reply. What not yet? And yet dare you boast so confidently of your prepared confutation? Yet can you find no Law that made Women Church-members? nor the uncircumcised Males in the Wilderness! O the power of prejudice!

3. You say, you answer my challenge by another challenge; To show what one Church had Infants Visible Church-members besides the Jews.

Reply. 1. The Church in Abraham's family, who were no Jews. 2. My Books answers you as to others. 3. And I answer your Challenge with another Challenge, to show me what one Visible Church on earth besides the Hebrews, we have any such History of, as from whence we may expect any light concerning that Case? when even multitudes of Divines acknowledge not the being of any other visible Church; yet consequential proofs I have given him already. To my second demand [What one man denied Infants Church-membership till within this two hundred years?] He answers, not by naming any one.

But 1. he saith, Till Abraham's time nothing is said about any Church frame.

Reply. But as God had his Church till then; so I have proved God's love the same to his Peoples seed, and that the second Commandment as to its promise was Moral, and that Infants Church-membership begun not with Circumcision. The rest of his Answer I think not worth the taking notice of.

He saith [Infants are excluded from Baptism by Mat. 28. 19. Mar. 16. 15, 16.] As if it were excluding part of Disciples, and part of Nations, for Christ to command them [to disciple all nations baptizing them?] He returns a question [What great comfort follows this, that our Infants are by Nature the children of wrath?]

Reply. 1. It is a point beyond controversy, in plain discovery. Is this so? 2. Take heed of equalling your own opinions to God's clear Truths. 3. It is a point of great necessity to be known, and tends to this consolation; that [else Infants could not be saved by Christ] which now they are. Next he falls on another passage of mine, that [To be visibly in or out of the Church, is all one as visibly (or to our judgment) to belong or not belong to Christ and Heaven.] This he denies, and doubts not to show that this mistake hath much mislead me; and saith, he can prove that Christ will save his Elect though no Christians in appearance, nor Disciples by profession, nor visible Subjects of his Kingdom.

Reply. 1. But whats that to the question? Because he will save an undiscernable Believer, that dieth he can make profession of his Faith; doth it therefore follow that he that is so saved was visibly a Church member? or that to be visibly in or out of the Church, is not to be visibly or probably in or out of Christ's true Kingdom? Can you have any knowledge who they be whom Christ will save, that are not visibly Church-members? 2. I advise you to take heed of asserting the Salvation of any merely as Elect. They must be in Covenant or under the promise, as well as Elect; or else you know nothing of their salvation. And who are under such a promise, besides Christians or Church members? The rest of this Section sweet and sour, shall pass as it is for me.

§. 7.

To all this Section I will say little; only Mr. T. denieth not the Truth of my Narration in any material point. Only where I said, I never spoke against his opinion; he saith, My memory retains not all I printed, &c. and cites a word (pag. 534. of my Book of Rest.) But Mr. T. untruly intimates that those words were preached; for they never were; nor twenty and twenty leaves in that book besides. But I still see weak grounds will serve his turn. I see also he is too tender of his credit when he professeth to have done what he did this way on Gen. 17. that he might stand right in one man's thoughts. I advise him to preach to better ends, or else no wonder if he preach no better doctrine. It is hard preaching Christ and yourself together. I am sorry the Independents Cause is so low with you, that you have yet no way to excuse them from being Heretics, but [that its unknown to you that they make a party for their Error.] Your charity is greater or your knowledge less then they seem; then no wonder if you know not harder matters. I doubt its known at Rome and Constantinople, which yet you cannot know here. You do not know that you make a party yourself, neither its like! Well! I wish these men to consider where you leave them, and look out for a better defense then this: Lastly, you did confirm what I did surmise: for you deny not but that your design in desiring my Animadversions was to put them with the rest into your review: And so now I perceive what would come on it, if I had yielded to your desires.

§. 8.

You complain of the charge of Printing; for which I confess I am not much sorry, and do less compassionate you then for any other of your calamities. But I must tell you it is long of yourself. When you put forth such Books as this, would you be so uncharitable as to wish poor men to part with their money to buy them, and time to read them? If the weekly Pamphlets did sing nothing but the same song, who would buy them? But I find by the last Weeks News book (of August 31) that you have found out a cheaper way of writing: And I confess I applaud it, and think it had been better that your Precursor had gone Post by the same way: Only (though by your oft mentioning me so publicly. I perceive that I have a room in your thoughts) I was sorry there to find, 1. That I was any occasion of the Oxford Challenge. 2. And that you ventured to pass your judgment so far on such men and so many, as to conclude that you [saw little of God's Spirit in their Intentions and ways.] But the angering passage was about your Revenues: where you say, I would have the world believe it was desirable for myself. True or false, you venture to say so. Is reproving your Pluralities a sign of desiring them? Let me but tell you that if I had desired more, I could have had it; yea, was offered 500 per annum without Plurality. I pray you be not jealous of my desiring your Revenues; for I do not think ever a neighbor you have will tell you that you need to fear me. I am loath to talk of these matters. Where you say, I was unplundered, I say, Cantabit vacuus, I had nothing to lose, but Books and a Horse, which were lost, but that part of my books were preserved; and I never sought or received reparations, but served the State much of my time for nothing. And where you tell me of a good estate in Land that I am heir to, I must tell you, I am never the richer for that, nor desire ever to be. Indeed Sir, my 100. l. per annum is much more (for all my very chargeable weakness) then I know what to do with for myself. And had I not better ways to expend some of it, I should desire to rid my hands of it well: but you say [It is false and exceeding injurious to you] that I say, [you had four Market Towns on your shoulders,] and yet complain, &c. Is this false? 1. You say, [There are no words that have a show of complaint, but those in the close of your Examen and Apology.]

Reply. 1. Two is enough. 2. Let the impartial Reader peruse the Epistle to your Antidote, and judge whether this be true. 3. Even this book must yet speak the language of the rest, and in the Dedication complain of a storm from the violence of men bent to bear down Dissenters from the determinations of the Assembly &c. the frustration of your hopes by the States selling your lands, &c. But what need I look further when even here where you deny it, you say [I cannot but be sensible of the great wrong I receive in my name, and perhaps in my estate by Mr. B. his calumnies.] I am sorry you cannot but be sensible, even when its but a [perhaps:] And such a [perhaps] as could be conceived by nothing but distempered jealousy: and jealousy comes from too much love. Never fear it, Sir, I promise you, I will not diminish your estate a farthing, if I can help it. This Terrene Melancholy makes you too sensible. I do not think all your neighbors you have, can conjecture which way I may wrong you in your estate; except only in the sale of your Books: and I hope you mean not that. This is my first untruth: whats the second? I cannot gather it out of all your Narration, except that be it in the first words [that I had four Market Towns on my shoulders; which everyone will interpret to be four beneficial Places under my charge together.]

Reply 1. And can men's interpretations make my true words false? 2. Did not I tell you to your face, that it was the Plurality that I excepted against, more then the benefit? 3. Let me ask you these two or three questions. 1. Were you not at once, even when I wrote those words, Preacher Resident at Bewdley, Vicar of Lempster, Parson of Ross, Master of the Hospital at Ledbury? You will not sure deny it? 2. Had you not three of these long before that? 3. Could I foreknow then how soon you would (willing or unwilling) leave Ross or Bewdley? 4. Were not all these Market Towns? 5. Is there any doubt whether they were all beneficial to you, except Lempster? And 6. did you not long hold the title of that, to the keeping out of any other? And was it not all the Ecclesiastical means you had heretofore? (though I believe you received not much from the destitute people.) And did I not tell you that a reverend Minister told me that they offered you 60. l. to quit your title, that they might put in another, and you would not? and you did not deny it? 7. Ought you to take public maintenance for nothing? Or were you sufficient for all these places? I dare say confidently that you have as much to do at Lempster as you and such another is able to do. 8. Doth not the Hospital at Ledbury bind you to about four months residence yearly? And can you be four months conscionably absent from your charge? But I doubt your opinion will salve this, and you will take none but the Rebaptized for your proper charge. Where now is the untruth? And how seriously have I heard you complain against that godly Knight, in the very words here used by you pag. 25. line last [so great was the Antipathy of some men against me, that I could neither get reparations for my losses, nor allowance for building, nor augmentation &c.] I am forced to speak these (otherwise inconvenient) passages, because you charge me with untruth. As for the Assembly of Divines whom you mention, I think you would not have had them disobey the Parliament that called them to that service: nor yet to have forborne to preach ordinarily in London: (if they had, they might well have been accused:) Nor yet to give up their Pastoral charges in the Country, because they were detained on a temporary service, no more then Chaplains in the Army should give up theirs.

But I must needs tell you, that you go on in mistakes, when you say, that [had you been an Assembly man, you might have been styled in my Books a Learned, Holy, Experimental, Judicious, Humble, Heart-piercing Preacher.] I honor your worth; but had you been an Archbishop or Cardinal, or had you been President of a Council, I think I should have given you no such titles, without knowing more by you then yet I do. It seems you think yourself as worthy of it, as those to whom I gave it; But I confess I never so thought. Must others prize you as highly as you prize yourself? For the profane passages you mention, I say, I never thought Christ spoke profanely in saying, They that kill you shall think they do God service: Nor to tell the Pharisees, Woe to you Hypocrites, &c. Your fathers killed the Prophets, and ye build their Sepulchers, &c. Nor for the Prophet to tell men, That they sacrificed to their own nets; Nor for God to say to the wicked, Thou thoughtest I was altogether such a one as thyself. Or for Elias to say, Cry aloud, for he is a God; either he is talking or pursuing, or he is in a journey. Or for Paul to say, Beware of dogs, beware of the Concision; no nor Baruks description of Idols.

§. 9.

For what is said of the business of the Waldenses, I think it not worth the labor to say anymore then is said, or to discover the additional slips of this Paper; nor yet about his charge against my Doctrine of Justification, but only this. Let the Reader observe Mr. T. his ingenuous dealing. 1. He chargeth me with these words in my book of Rest [Doubtless the Gospel takes Faith for all Gospel precepts] and addeth his own Commentary in the same distinct character, as if they were my words. 2. These words he accused in his Animadversions on my Aphorisms; to which I replied in these words [In that pag. 11. I apprehended myself so obvious to misconstruction, that I have corrected it in the second Edition, which is now Printed: Yet 1. I speak not of Faith as justifying, but as the condition of Salvation, which contains more then that which is the condition of our first Justification. 2. I never termed those [Gospel precepts] which are not in some way proper to the Gospel.] Hereupon Mr. T. sent to me for the second Edition of my book of Rest, wherein all this was altered: He never made me any Reply to this. Yet doth he so long after charge on me those same words which I told him I had revoked, and that in the sense contrary to the words themselves, and my explication to him. He speaks here of sending his exceptions, but nothing of his never returning anything to my Reply. In which Reply I answered the four exceptions here mentioned pag. 32. Nay whereas he maketh this my fourth Error [my making obedience to all Gospel precepts an essential part of Justifying Faith] Let the Reader note, 1. It is utterly untrue: I never wrote such a word: He puts in [Obedience] for [Subjection to Christ] and [justifying Faith] for saving Faith. 2. Yea this same thing he charged on me in his Animadversions, and brought many Arguments against it: and I largely shown him his mistakes; that by [subjection to Christ] I meant the Covenanting or consenting to be at first his subjects; which stateth the relation, and is not strictly obedience to Christ, but prerequisite; Even as contracting or consenting that such a man be my Sovereign, my Master, Teacher, &c. goes before actually obeying him: and the form of obedience presupposeth the said Relation. Yet doth Mr. T. after all this deliberately again charge me with the same words, which I shown 1. that I never wrote, 2. nor ever thought, nor intended his sense. Other foul passages here I will pass.

§. 10.

Again, you go on a very falsehood in vindicating your Informers; as if I preached the words which you mention in my book of Rest, against Anabaptists; which is untrue. Whether you forced me to dispute, shall more appear by your Letters. Pag▪ 34. Mr. T. saith it is my fiction that telleth sinners that they never sinned against their Baptism and Engagement. Reply, 1. I desire the Reader to peruse my words pag. 174. 2. Let any impartial man judge, Whether that man do not wholly excuse sinners from being guilty of violating their baptismall Engagement, (and so teach them that they need not repent of it, nor seek to Christ for pardon of it) who teacheth them that they never were baptized, or by Baptism engaged to God? Can he break a Covenant that was not bound by Covenant?

To prove Mr. T. an accuser of his own children, I shown pag. 175. that there is a double accusation; the one when men are charged with the reatus culpae: the other when they are charged with the reatus poenae, or to be obligati ad poenam: And I shown that this is Satan's end in charging the former: This is the principal Guilt intended by the Accuser; and he therefore proveth us guilty of the sin, that he may prove us obnoxious to the punishment: and therefore accusation is not only the charging with a fault, as Mr. T. imagined. Here he hath nothing to say, but such words as I am loath to give their due Epithites to. He saith I discourse from the end of the Accuser and the opposition of Justification to accusation and condemnation,] and that by the same reason the accusers accusation may be said to be condemnation and execution too, for that is the end of the accuser.] Reply, Strange Law and Logic! 1. All feigned, and made on your fingers ends. It was à materiâ, and not à fine, and the opposition of Justification to Condemnation, that I argued. I desire the Reader to peruse the place. 2. Every word of illustration in the whole page is not part of the Argument. 3. Do you not know that the end enters the Definition of these Relative moral Actions? Yet you say, [I had thought accusation noted the accusers act, not his end.] It seems then you are Ignorant that it denoteth actum moralem, qui à fine specificatur; both his act and his end! I perceive there are some obvious and common truths that you yet know not. 4. And could you think (if I had argued from the end) that it would follow that accusation is condemnation and execution? Have these the same nearest end with accusation? It is the nearest end that specifies: the remote ends may be the same; but the next are not. He adds [that Justification is opposed to Accusation, and Condemnation shows they are distinguished, the one being the charging with a fault, the other passing sentence.] Reply. No doubt they are distinguished. But that accusation is only the charging of the reatum culpae, and not of the reatum poenae, is the thing that you should manifest. And let me now argue from the opposition of Justification to Accusation, though I did only use it for illustration before.

If the reatus poenae charged on us unjustly, be terminus à quo of Justification, then it may be the matter of accusation: But the antecedent is true: ergo, &c. He addeth [I must confess I yet understand not his language of accusing without charging with a fault, nor do I think any Law▪dictionarie doth so define Accusation.] Reply, 1. But our question is, Whether accusation be anything Besides or Distinct from the charging with a fault? though not without it. 2. The fault here is taken pro confesso, and therefore needs no charge: Who knows not that all children have original sin? (except most Anabaptists and such like.) But it is only the debitum poenae, that is in question. 3. The Law knows no accusing a man to be obligatum ad poenam without charging with a fault: because it supposeth men to be reasonable; or at least the Law to be so reasonable as to admit no other accusation of that sort: But what shall we then think of them that are so unreasonable, as to accuse one as obnoxious to so great a suffering, without accusing them of sin? 4▪ The English word [accusation] is used for the two Latin words [actio & accusatio.] 5. Though usually actio is used in civils, and accusatio appropriated to criminals, yet are they also promiscuously used. I need not trouble Mr. T. with Dictionaries. Let him read Wesenbechius, Digest. Lib. 48. de Accusat. Tit. 2. pag. 340. where he saith, Accusare etsi generaliter significat aliquem ad Causam dicendam urgere, unde Accusationis nomine etiam Civilis Actio & persccutìo venit, sicuti contra actio pro accusatione ponitur: tamen obtinuit, &c. And sure you know that Actor doth Declare and Plead against Jus Possessionis, Jus Dominii, usus, &c. Besides Delatio is in English a true Accusation, though not that public one to which use hath commonly affixed that name. See also the same Wesenbech. in Cod. l. 5. Tit. 43. pag. 77. Accusatio autem ab Actione differt, quamvis in hac materia passim & promiscue, alias Accusatio appellatur, alias vero Actio, &c. Quamvis etiam haec quadamtenus est Accusatio, &c. Et haec propria nota est qua Actiones ab Accusationibus distinguuntur, quod in illis petitur aliquid ab Agente, in his vero Actor sibi nihil postulet, sed aut poenam fisco applicari aut reo infligi petat. And do not you desire the inflicting of this sad exclusion from the visible Church Covenant, &c? yet still remember that it is your intending the Poenall Matter only that I charged you with, and not the form of a Poenalty.

For his question about Janizaries or other Infidels, baptized in Infancie; Do I need to tell him again, That Apostates cease to be Church-members? and that the Infant Title will not serve those that disclaim Christ when they come to Age? and that the aged must have a title on personal Covenanting or Faith?

Pag. 35. he affirmeth me to say [that it is no more thanks to him then to Satan that he keeps not God from making promises to his children, p. 178.] when there is neither the words nor sense there. Only when he saith [I did never dispute them out of the Covenant] I said, no thanks to him, and I said, after, [Satan may say the like.] Is this to say, [Its no more thanks to him, then Satan, that he keeps not God from, &c?] Yet doth he exclaim of this as beyond all moderation, when he maketh it himself. Doth he think no man will try his accusations by reveiwing my words?

Pag. 36. he chargeth me with [a most false speech] as he calls it, viz. [Nor are they in Covenant because elected.] Reply, Who will not easily understand these words, de Causa formali: q. d. eo nomine, because elected? And so he confesseth before, Election is not a Covenant. Nor do I believe his interpretation of Rom. 9. 8. that [the children of promise] is all one with [the Elect] if he mean it formaliter, and not only materialiter. But if my speech be most false, at least it will follow [electus est: ergo, foederatus est,] He is elect, therefore in Covenant. But that is falser then my speech. Adam and all the elect were elect from eternity; but were not so in Covenant. And the Covenant that now belongs to the elect before Conversion or faith (of themselves or parents) is not a mutual Covenant, nor such as we treat of, and Baptism sealeth; But such as leaves them yet children of wrath, and hated of God. And doth Rom. 9. speak of that? It is the elect as Believers, and not as elect, (and therefore not till Believers) that are in the proper Covenant which we speak of. Then he citeth Rutherford and Norton, saying soli electi foederati; as if that were all one with Omnes Electi!

He tells me of my confusion about the Covenants, and when he hath done, Distinctly opens it in my words, as mine. He saith as if the Conditional Covenant is equal to all till the Condition be performed; ergo, infants not believing, &c. Reply. As if he knew not, that we maintain the Parents Faith, or accepting the Covenant for himself and his children to be the Infant condition? How forgetful is Mr. T?

He saith, my saying in general terms, that he denieth 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, his words being so plain to the contrary in that very place.] Reply, Quis teneat Proteum—? 1. [Infants of believers] are his words added to mine. It is Infants of Believers as such, and therefore all such that we are speaking of. 2. He saith, [Infants may have an interest in the Covenant of Christ being elected; but whether they have or not, he cannot tell.] But 1. This is but some Infants, even the elect. 2. If he know not whether they have or not, then he thinks it not revealed in the word; and so he denies the Being in Covenant to some, and the knowledge as of all or any? Did I calumniate then in these words?

But I desire Mr. Ts. followers to remember, that he here saith, that he there persuaded not parents from engageing their children in Covenant, and promising in their names: I hope then they will do this much, if they will not baptize them.

Pag. 39. There's a longer insulting over a supposed [monstrous absurdity, nonsense, gibberish;] then I will transcribe, but I will only tell him; 1. The relation of a servant in our case, is founded in God's Dominion-Title, and as it is a Beneficiall Relation, supposeth our consent or our parents for us, as the conditio sine qua non. 2. The Terminus proximus is not service, actual or intentional, but Dominus the Correlate: servus est Domini servus. 3. The more remote Terminus of it, is twofold. 1. As it is a Relation of Duty, Duty is that Terminus, but it is Duty as engaged to, and not as in present Actual existence: that actual duty being yet a more remote term. A wife may be in that relation long before actual procreation: you may bind an Infant as a servant. So do we, promising actual obedience when he is capable; yet the Covenant begins the Relation without it. 2. As it is a Relation Beneficiall having right to the Privileges of God's family and Master-ship, so this Right is its Terminus: And this God is pleased to convey presently: he being capable of performing his promise, and the Infant capable of those benefits in great part, before the said Infant is capable of actual obeying. Even as an Infant that hath his life in a Lease, and is bound to do homage or actual service for it, when he is at age, is stated in the relation of a Tenant, and hath present right to the Land, though not presently capable of doing service. It is sufficient that this service as Due, have a Civil Being, and an esse cognitum, a thing engaged to be done when capable, though it have no present existence. So far the actual existence of service is accidental to the Being of the Relation, that it is seperable from it. Read but what I said, and now say, and review that insulting page of Mr. T. and if your observation meet not mine, that, [He usually is most confident, where he is most notoriously weak,] then you see not as I. If those triumphant passages show not this learned man to be ignorant of the nature of Relations, then I cannot interpret them. Is it so strange to make an Infant a subject, and member of a Common wealth, before he can obey the Laws? They are membra imperfecta sed non imperfecte: at least vere membra, & non tantum secundum quid. Doth he think when one had covenanted for so much with Aristotle to teach him, that he was not his Disciple before he learned of him. He saith, [It is 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 a signification.] and then he comes in with his merry riddle. Reply. But I would ask him 1. Whether he be sure that the Denomination in a Relation, be taken only and ever from the foundation? 2. Whether he indeed did think when he wrote this, that actual service is the fundamentum of the Relation of a servant? If he did—. If not—. 3. Whether actual service have the same place in the Definition of the Relation of a servant, as Begetting in the Relation of a father. 4 Whether Dominion be the foundation of the Relation of a Lord, or rather the Form? 5. Doth he not confound the form, the Fundamentum and Terminus, as if they were all one, or I denied all? I tell him therefore again, that (though he cal this absurdorum absurdissimum, which I should be ashamed of) that actual service in existence is separable from a servant, perhaps while he lives: But I have stayed too long on this. The rest I pass.

§. 11.

This 11. §. hath nothing in it that I can find, which is not fully answered already. If the Reader will peruse my words and Mr. Ts. together, I desire no more: If he will not, I will not repeat the same things. Only I cannot but observe that Mr. T. seems pag. 42. to have a design to make the Reader believe that I use the word [Visible] in some odd sense, yea, and lay so great a stress on it, that when he hath shown the unfitness of that use, he hath overthrown all. And what is it? why [I mistake the term [Visible] as if it were as much as to appear such in the judgment of probability, though not discerned by sense, by which Definition the opposite terms Visible and Invisible, may be confounded, add the term Visible is used contrary, to the common use of Writers, &c.] Repl. I must the rather open the mysterious deceit of these words, because it seems he means to make some great matter of this, in his following book. 1. The word [such] is put ambiguously. If it relate to [the Visible Church membership] then it is a feigned absurdity. I hope he will not persuade men that I say [A Visible member is one that seems a Visible member.] If it relate to the term [Church-member] undistinguished, then it is his fiction still. For I say not thus [A Visible member is one that seems to be a member,] whether he be one or not. But if it relate to a Real member of the mystical body, then it is my sense, which I own: For in the place he mentioneth chap. 27. I distinguish of the word Church, into its Primary and its borrowed secondary sense. In the first it signifieth only the body mystical of Christ: In the second it signifieth All that are engaged by Covenant to him; because they seem to be sincere, and of the mystical body. So that I say, he that is so engaged by Covenant, doth more then seem to be a member of the Church, in the second sense of the word, viz. as it is called Visible: But he doth but seem (qua talis to us) to be of the mystica • l Church, or of the Church in the first sense. (For mark that I divide not the genus into its species, sed aequivocum in sua aequivocata.) And I add that the reason of the Appellation given to the Visible body, is its seeming to be the same with the mystical: or that the name is given seconda • ily, borrowedly, from the mystical to the visible. So that if you ask me, Whether it be certain or only probable, that Infants are members of the visible Church? I say, Certain. If you ask me, What is it that Directly or Immediately constituteth them such members? I answer, Their visible or audible, that is, their external Engagement by Covenant to Christ: This (performed by the parent for them) is it on their part; supposing Christ's Title to them, and the offer of himself in Covenant. If you ask me further, Why are mere external Covenanters called by the name of the Church or Church-members? I answer, Because they do that which makes them appear to us to be Really members of the Church mystical. •• these words you have my sense as plainly as I can express it. (And I believe this is Mr. Marshals meaning in that one questioned Word in his late excellent, honest, solid Sermon for Unity, where he denieth all except the truly gracious to be Members of the Church, but acknowledgeth others such as we must use as Members) 2 The word [Appear] too is aequivocall. I speak not of any [seeming] in General; but of a [seeming] by the way that God hath appointed for manifestation of it, as by external Engagement, by Covenant, or by profession of Christianity. 3 Where he addeth [though not discerned by sense;] If he distinguish not between [discerned] and [discernible,] he speaks his own fictions, and not my sense. I know no way to the judgment, for such an object as a Church-member, but by the senses. But I do indeed affirm, that he is a visible Church-member, that perhaps is not seen or heard: For I never thought that omne visible est visum: nor that a man ceaseth to be a visible member every time he is alone, out of the sight or hearing of others. Yet I think not that God hath any visible member in the World, but he hath been actualiter visus to be such, at one time or other, by some person other. For he that is the means of Converting him, or he that baptizeth him, or his parents that educate him, or somebody must needs discern these signs which God hath appointed to discover it. By [visible] therefore I mean not either, [a thing discerned by the intellect without the sense] as Mr. T. seems to suppose: nor yet [a thing merely as visible to the eye, or discernible by other senses, without considering it as intelligible or discernible by the Intellect:] for then the Church were visible to Birds and Beasts. But by [visible] I mean, [that which is discernible by the Understanding mediante sensu,] there being in it a double Trope; 1 By a Synecdoche speciei [visible] is put for [sensible;] the most noble sense, for the rest; and its object for theirs. 2 And then sensible is put for intelligible mediante sensu. 4 He calls his ambiguous explication of an Adjective [a Definition] and saith, [by this the opposite terms Visible and Invisible, may be confounded.]

Reply. If by [confusion] he means [a consistencie] in concreto in attribution to the same subject, I say, taking them as I have fully explained my meaning, & eodem respectu, they are not consistent. Invisible and Visible are attributions from distinct reasons. The Church is invisible or mystical in its Internal form, and sincere covenanting with Christ: and it is visible in the matter and in the external Covenant and profession. But in these various respects I doubt not but the same Church and the same member, is both visible and mystical. But if by [confusion] he mean, that visible and invisible, discernible and undiscernable (as explained) are terms of the same signification, or coincident; I shall more regard his affirmation when it is well proved. 5. Were it not that I affect brevity, I could by a multitude of Testimonies disprove his affirmation, that [I use the term Visible contrary to the common use of Writers,] if he mean Protestant Divines on this subject. 6 He saith, [he doubts not to show that it is not true, that [he that is not of the visible Church, doth not seem (as I take the word seem) to be of the Invisible.] You may see by this what you must next expect from Mr. T. viz to prove, that [He that doth not seem to be of the invisible Church, doth seem to be of the invisible Church:] that he doth, and he doth not. Or that [he seemeth, (that is, is to be esteemed in probability upon God's warrant and direction) to be of the Invisible Church, who neither by Covenant, profession nor any sign of God's ordination doth make his membership seeming or discernible.] If I can understand him, that is it that he doubts not to prove. If he doth undertake to prove Heathens or any that are no Christians, to be seemingly in my sense (that is, so to be judged by a sign of God's appointment) members of the Church mystical, and so to be members of Christ's body, and to be saved; he will do a strange work; and I think will eodem conatu, prove them members of the visible Church.

One word more. He is so offended at the next passage, that he saith [he knows not what to conceive of it, but that either by God's judicial act of leaving me to myself, or out of addictedness to calumniate &c.]

Reply. And what are these words? Read them pag. 185. [But Mr. T. will say, I believe that it is better that Infants were no Christians, then that they were.] Where 1 I say not that he did say so. 2 Nor that he will (yet he vainly asks, [who can say but God, that he will say so for time to come, seeing he may repent] I wish he may repent. I only said that [I believed this would be his answer] Now whether I had reason to think so, let the Reader judge. Mr. T. denieth Infants to be Disciples, and visible Church-members. I argued with him that if their Church-membership be repealed, it is in mercy or judgment; he said, In mercy. I replied, If in mercy, then either to parents or children; and of them, to the elect or non elect: He answereth, Both to parents and children, to the elect and non-elect. I further proved that Church-members visible, and Disciples are all one, and disciples and Christians all one, in the language of the Scriptures. Have I not reason then to think that he that said Church-members, is revoked in mercy, and that it was better for them to be no Church-members, would say also that, It is better for them to be no Christians? But I am glad M. T. calls this [an Impious Speech] which I desire him to remember and to think so still. And then whereas he talks of such membership as the Jews had, I hope in his next he will tell the world some Reason of his opinion, if he think the Jews membership was worse then none: and he will tell us also, Whether it be in mercy or judgment, for the good or hurt of Infants, that Christ now denieth them to be visible Church-members, or such as he discovereth to us to be of his visible Church.

M. Ts. confident words about Infant-holiness in 1 Cor. 7. 14. show me that it will not be unmeet to add a few words of the fuller explication of my meaning, lest in his next book he run on in the dark on mistaking suppositions. I described the holiness mentioned in that text thus, pag. 80. [A state of separation to God, as a peculiar-people from the world, as the Church is separated; wherein the Covenant or Promise of God being the chief cause, it is oft called [foederall holiness.] Now it seems to me that Mr. T. thinks that by this holiness, I mean mere visible Church-membership; and therefore concludes that visible membership cannot be conveyed to the child by an hypocrite parent, because I say that holiness cannot be so conveyed, and because I yield that such are unholy, I must let him therefore understand. 1 That I take holiness there for much more then visible membership: God's Promise or Covenant, as I said, is the ground of this holiness: but man's Covenanting or Profession is the Ground of the visibility of his membership. This holiness is Relative, and consisteth in being truly Relative to God, as a peculiar people; and truly so accepted by him; and having right to his promised favors in that Covenant, and the benefits that arise from the mutual Relation. But a man may (being a gross dissembler that creeps into the Church to spy out her liberties and to persecute) be a visible member. I confess I have not fully expressed how far this relation and Covenant doth interest them in Christ and his benefits: whether it only give them general Grounds of Confidence in those words, [I will be thy God and thou my People] or [He will have mercy on thousands, &c.] or, whether it be full Relative holiness, which hath the concomitant Right to pardon and salvation, (which [I will be thy God] seemeth also to contain) I thought it not meet to be too peremptory or express in a Case so much disputed among divines: But I must confess I rather incline to think that it is (not Real holiness which is the new Nature, but) that Relative Holiness which is proper to those in a Reconciled state; and that all true Believers Infants so dying are certainly saved, being relatively in the same state with their parents: and that this Infant-relative holiness being on the conditionality of another's faith, may be lost; (without any advantage to the Arminians in the doctrine of Perseverance of actual or habitual Believers.) I desire Davenants Epistle in Mr. Bedford's book may be weighed; and also Mr. Bedford's and Dr. Wards Tractate: though yet I continue my dissent in the points which I have opposed in them. I confess I am not able to answer the Arguments that are in my own mind, for a certainty of true-believers-infants remission and salvation, if they die before their Infant title ceaseth. But however it is apparent that holiness here is somewhat of far greater moment then visible membership. 2 I must next add, that as the word [Church] is taken aequivocally, sometime most properly and in its primary sense, for the true body of Christ (as invisible or visible;) and sometime in its remote, borrowed, less-proper sense, for the visible part, that is but visible and not sincere; (as a picture is called a man, or as a woman is called your wife before the marriage, when it is next to concluding;) so the word [Holy] also hath the like double signification: 1 Primary, as it signifieth the Relation of one sincerely dedicated to God and owned by him. 2 Borrowed, or translated thence: as it is given (frequently by the Apostles) to those that seem to be holy in the first sense, because they so seem. 3 I add, that therefore the children of true Believers have that true relative holiness, which this text primarily intends: and therefore the children of seeming Believers, are seemingly holy in the first sense of the word, and truly holy in the latter, borrowed, less-proper sense; even as their parents are seemingly holy themselves, and really in this sense. 4 I add that the ground of our baptizing is the express command of Christ, to [Disciple all Nations, Baptizing them,] and so to baptize all that are Disciples. 5 He hath not bid us baptize only sincere Disciples, nor told us that we must know them to be sincere before we baptize them. 6 He hath taught us by his Apostles constant example, to baptize those as Disciples that by a sober Covenanting with Christ, seem to be so. 7 He hath authorized them thus to Covenant for (and so Disciple) their infants with themselves. 8 I do not therefore conclude the Baptizing of Infants directly from their holiness, as if that made the Duty: but from Christ's precept directly; and from their holiness as that which infallibly assures me, that they are the due subjects of that Baptism which Christ commandeth; their holiness being either inseparably concomitant with Disciple-ship or eminently containing it; none but Disciples beng so holy. 9 And so (though Christ do Covenant with none but true Disciples; that is, to none other doth this Covenant actually convey right to its benefits; yet) as seeming Believers or Disciples are to be baptized, (being truly Disciples only in the borrowed sense) so I say of the seemingly holy, being indeed holy in the remote borrowed sense by reason of their seeming to be so in the first sense. And therefore though true Discipleship and holiness be the qualification which God looks at in conveying further Right by Baptism, or fealing it to them effectually; Yet it is the visibility of Discipleship and holiness (in the strict sense) which is the qualification which men must look after, (in their external Covenants and profession) and on which we must baptize them. And so I conclude, that though the infants of Hypocrites are not Disciples or holy in the strict sense, yet it is our duty to baptize them as being visibly such, as it was the Apostles duty to baptize the 3000. and Simon Magus; And Mr. T. cannot say that hypocrites convey not a visible membership to their Infanrs because they convey not the true holiness or Discipleship. And I desire Mr. T. when he answers me, to take my meaning as here opened to him.

If any one else ask me, What we shall say of those that have a common faith which is yet undissembled though not saving; I answer, All faith not saving is defective either as to the objective Extension, or as to the active and habitual Intension. 1 Some do seriously believe in Christ, and consent to take him as a Savior to pardon their sins by his blood and intercession, and to save them from hell at last, and to command them so far as will stand with their fleshly interest. These men may be serious in the Acts of Assenting and Consenting; but it is not Christ as Christ that they receive; not Christ as a full Savior and Sovereign, absolutely and unreservedly to be obeyed, and therefore their faith hath not the object of a Christian faith: These men do not dissemble in saying they believe in Christ; but they dissemble in saying they believe in or receive Christ fully and sincerely as he is offered them: and they dissemble or speak falsely in saying they are true Christians. For indeed these men are but aequivocally and in a borrowed sense called Christians. Who will call a Turk a Christian, though he believe in Christ as a true and excellent Prophet of God, and though the Alcoran revile the Jews for rejecting him? who will say that he becomes a subject, who is contented to receive the King as his equal? 2 And as for those that do profess to receive Christ entirely and in sovereignty, and yet do indeed prefer some fleshly interest before him, they are hypocritical as to the act itself; So that, though some dissemble grossly and knowingly, and others closely, not discerning it themselves: Yet all of them seem to be what they are not; and so all wicked men are properly Infidels (though not all in one degree,) some open Infidels, and some hypocritical ones; And so in strict sense none is a Christian but the true Christian; and others are only seeming Christians; yet called Christians usually in the foresaid borrowed sense. Indeed there are some that God is drawing towards Christ, who do not dissemble: for they profess not yet to be his, (or if they do, but counterfeit:) but these are not Christians indeed till they come quite over to him.

§. 12.

The sum of this Section, if I understand it, is, as if he said [I am resolved to go that way which most successfully may promote the suppression of Infant-baptism; If Ministers will not hinder or cross me in that, but let me quietly carry it on, as God's work, my heart is to have communion with them (and it shall not be said unlawful) but because they resist me, I will separate from them, and prove that none but the baptized should be admitted to communion:] supposing that they are unbaptized persons. I do not intend to trouble this with an answer. Only I would ask M. T. whether he would not have taken it heinously if one had told him, after the writing of his three fi • st books against baptism▪ that he would come to this now that he is a • ? And whether on the same grounds as he will exclude us from Communion, he must not deny us to be Christians visible? and to have anything to do with any Church Ordinances? whether he must not affirm that we are no true Ministers? and that our Churches are no true Churches? and that Christ hath had no true Churches or Ministers on earth, but those very few that were baptized at age? and that all the Christians that have been converted, confirmed and saved by hearing Ministers that were baptized only in Infancie, did sin against God in hearing them, and ought to have refused it? Yea must he not on these grounds (if we are not Christians) deny to love us as Christians? or to do any work of charity to any such as Christians? These Consequences practiced are such a life as I would not wish Mr. T. to live. And for ought I see, they are as necessary consequents of his premisses as his own is: For if it be a good argument [It is manifest in Scripture that persons were baptized before they brake bread together &c. therefore I see a necessity of desisting from uniting in Communion those that differ in Judgment about Infant Baptism;] then I would know whether he can name any in Scripture, that were true Christians, true Ministers of the Gospel, true Churches without baptism; or that were to be heard, loved, conversed with, and respected as such, without baptism? If he can name such, I doubt not but it will be proved that the same men brake bread together without baptism. If he can name none such, these consequences will follow as much as the other. Or if Mr. T. lay not the stress of his argument on this Scripture medium, but on our opposition to him (for in such a conjunction of heterogeneous Mediums, I am not sure that I know his mind,) yet I am sure this is the usual way of others of that party. So Mr. Cox one of their Pastors in London disputed with me in writing [we may not be heard preach, because we are unbaptized.] And I think Mr. T. heard Mr. Brown sately at Worcester go the same way; maintaining his communion with those that accused the Scriptures of falsehood; and that Paul might pray among the Corinthians, though some were drunk at the Lord's Supper, and some eat things offered to Idols and Devils, and some denied the Resurrection &c. but that now they may not pray in our mixed Assemblies, because we are unbaptized. Is it not evident that Rebaptizing is become the great Idol which men set up instead of Christ, or a sound faith, or a holy life? Prove to them that there are in their own Assemblies, men that reproach or deny Scriptures, deny the immortality of the soul, deny Christ's Ordinances, (and consequently have not Christ within them,) yet they may have communion with them because they are in the order of the Gospel (as they call it) that is Rebaptized and separated: But with us they may not communicate though never so godly, because we are unbaptized! Was ever Infants-baptism Idolized thus? or abused to this height, by any that pretend to be knowing reformed Divines?

§. 13.

To all the angry passages here, I say but this: 1 I desire not to think Mr. T. means worse then he doth. If I mistook his meaning, I am sorry that I spoke so offensively, and repent the mistake, and the sharp words that it occasioned. 2 But let the Reader peruse his words, and see whether he gave me not cause to interpret them as I did. When in the midst of a Dispute about the Monsters in New-England, he saith, [Nay give me leave to tell you, we may rather think we ought to determine, that God may order accidents so, as to become stumbling blocks that people should not receive the truth rather then &c.] who would think that he spoke not here of these monsters? or that these words do not charge God with a purposed leading men into error by wonders?

In my Epistle I shown my hearers the danger of a perverted judgment, that it will make the hainousest sin seem a virtue, and men think they do God service in killing his Saints, &c. which Christ hath said himself before me: What doth Mr. T. but say, In all likelihood I speak of thanksgivings for victories against the Scots; and so dilate on those providences? To which I only say, 1 I desire Mr. T. to deal with my words, and not to pretend to know my thoughts. If I had said this much of him, I doubt he would have said, I stirred up the State against him, with a persecuting intent (at least) if I had said what he hath privatelyer said of me, which I can prove. Some have observed that the Rebaptizers waters usually turn to blood, and their hands incline much to a crimson die: and that they are much bent to the baptizing of all men; their Proselytes baptismate fluminis; and the rest baptismate sanguinis. I think not that all are of this mind. 2 I must tell Mr. T. that I despise not the strange providences of this age, but observe them, and acknowledge and admire God in them, and discern him testifying against the sins of the destroyed. But I suppose the full interpretation of them is not so obvious as in the case we were upon: Nor do I find in Scripture that it is God's usual course to choose a holy, humble, meek people to be the executioners of his severest judgments on his Church. When we have sinned ourselves into a necessity of such calamities, God usually chooseth executioners whose natures fit and dispose them to the work. Were I to kill a Hare, I would not send a Lamb to do it; or to kill a Partridge, I would not send a Dove. And I here publicly and fearlessly tell the world, that [I take it for one of the remarkable and most happy providences of this age, that when he had such strange judgments to execute as we have seen, he hath chosen out such instruments to be his executioners, and would not suffer those to have a hand in them, who thereby might have brought a scandal on the Reformed Religion; and hath so graciously ordered it, that if any Turk, Jew, or Papist shall dare to say hereafter, [Your Reformed Orthodox Christians did these things] their notorious imprisonments and seclusions will vindicate them forever. When God hath in mercy again resolved on a healing work, he will then make use of prudent, compassionate, healing instruments. And for the Common-wealth, Mr. T. may sit in his chair and talk for them, with less trouble, danger, charge, or pain, then I have acted for them, and yet perhaps with more thanks.

And seeing there is so much offense taken about the matrer of wonderful providences, which I mentioned, I add this much more; I cannot but with joy and reverence look on the hand of God, against the erroneous ways of these times. Was it not the all-disposing Lover of Truth who chose out these two leading women in New-England, the one to bring forth such a multitude of births at once, and the other a birth with such various parts, some of birds, some of beasts, some of fishes, and some of man; hereby to show his testimony against their various abominations? Though Mrs. Hutchinson said, [God did it to harden us,] I think he did it to confirm his truth. The remembrance whereof makes me hope that the same God will yet appear in Old England, against the same Cause, and (some say) the same Agents. And indeed he doth appear, and hath already done such wonders as astonish me to observe them; giving up the minds of some, and the bodies also of others to such a power of the Devils, that some have such strange shakings and trances; and such a multitude in so many parts of the Land, turn Ranters, Blasphemers, commonly unclean that seemed religious: yea, some turn down-right Infidels; so that not only the Racovian Catechism, but the most hellish book that ever I heard of (called The three Grand Impostors, thought to be written by Bernardinus Ochinus) laboring to prove Christ a Deceiver, is translated, and printed in London. And lest men should doubt of the truth of these Delusions, God permitteth a woman to run naked into the Assembly, the men to go about rhe streets, saying they are Christ, and their wickedness to spread far and near; so that it is sometimes the matter of the Weekly Pamphlets to proclaim it, besides others that publish it for the warning of the godly; as Justice Stoaks in his Wiltshire Rant, and other like. Doubtless God shows himself against them apparently, and hath done very much hereby against them already. And I cannot hear of one among a multitude that comes to this fearful pass by another way▪ then first turning to Anabap • istry and Separation, and then usually to villify the Ministry, and so to Antinomianism, and then who knows whether? I dare not shut mine eyes against such providences, in an age when so many call us to the study of providence.

§. 14.

I need to say but this; It is particular men, and not any supposed society which consisteth not of particulars, that are known by their fruits, though not every particular man. That one man's doctrine may be shamed by the life of his companions, though not by his own; And there are signs probable as well as certain.

§. 15.

The answer to the 13. §. shall serve for this also; only adding this: That I should more readily ask Mr. T. forgiveness of my sharp language against Anabaptists, if the most of them in England were as he and his party here: But when I look about me on England, Scotland, Holland, &c. and consider what they have done, and what it is certain they are attempting, and like to do, (were it but against the Ministry of Christ's Gospel) I am afraid of being guilty that I have not dealt yet plainly enough; having just cause to fear that yet England hath not tasted the worst of them, how fairly soever Mr. T. may smooth the business. I would I had known the accidents of this year, which he saith (pag. 62.) may wipe away the reproach of them, as to the disobeying (thats an easy word) of Governors that do not please them! sure he must be a potent Rhetorician that makes this age believe them so obedient, whatsoever the next may do. Else Mr. T. could not have said as now he doth, pag. 60. [Those that sit at the Sterm, I cannot yet learn, have such hard thoughts of them as Mr. B.] Against which assertion I confess myself unfit to dispute. Unless I were nearer the Stern, or knew them better, or had spoke with any that knows who sits there. But if he had said, [Those that did sit at the Stern] I would have considered of the reasons that moved them to think better of them, and have inquired whether by this time their judgments be not changed, or like to be ere long? and whether they will with Mr. T. subscribe to their innocence, obedience, fidelity, and give them his acquittance?

§. 16.

His confidence pag. 66. is marvelous. I doubt not but he knows that I take the words, [since the solemn institution of baptism, Mat. 28.] inclusively. And so I answer, that this solemn Institution is our Warrant, requiring us both to Disciple Nations, and baptize Disciples. And we have other Scriptures which plainly prove Infants to be Disciples. To that he calls a calumny, pag. 67. I say, He chose those which in my judgment were the weakest Arguments. That threatening which he calls a tale-tellers fiction, pag. 68. is in his own letters to me: though since then I could name him men of note far and near, to whom he hath used against me much more of that language.

§. 17.

I know not one word of Answer that this §. needs for him that will peruse any words.

§. 18.

Nor shall I say anything to this, but trouble the Reader with our Letters in the end.

§. 19.

To the first error, I am glad you show your meaning to be better then your words, whether by explication or recantation. Where he saith, [I presume they that sit at the Stern, do find the so-called Anabaptists as faithful to the public Cause as their Opposites,] I will not deny it, till I am so well skilled in Politicks, as to understand [what the public cause] means; and whether [the stern] signifies strength or authority, and how far violence and faithfulness may consist.

To the second, about Lay-men's baptism he saith nothing that I know that needs any answer.

To the third about Lay-men's administering the Lord's Supper, he contents himself with strange Answers. 1 He pleads that Ruling Elders, and Deacons have Church Administrations. But he might know 1 That the question is (in my meaning) of this Administration. 2 That Elders and Deacons are Christ's Officers, and he doth ill to call them [Lay.] Our question is of members not in office. 2 He asks pag. 81. [how is it proved that Ministers only should represent Christ's person in breaking bread, delivering it to all, bidding, Take, Eat, &c? Doth the Embassage of Christ, dispensing of his mysteries, beseeching in his stead, consist in breaking bread, delivering it, bidding Take, Eat?

Reply. 1 Christ did not perform this action as a common person, but as Head; and therefore they only that are commissioned to speak in his name and stead, must do it. Let any other show their Commission. 2 The Embassage to the Believers doth consist partly in this, Take, Eat, &c. He argues to the contrary thus, [If it do, then a non-preaching Minister who doth these things, may yet be an Embassador of Christ.]

Reply. If by [Preaching] you mean publishing and teaching to men the doctrine of Christ, I know no such thing as a non preaching Minister. 2 What if it be granted that he that is not sent on the Embassage of public proclaiming Christ to the world, be yet sent to bid the Believers of a particular Church Take, and Eat? He adds [then breaking bread is a converting ordinance, as Mr. Prynne held.]

Reply. If you mean, that it may convert; whoever denied it? yea or it may be usual to convert unsound Christians to sincerity. But if you mean, that this is the direct end to which it is instituted, to convert men from Infidelity, yea or from Hypocrisy,] you may easily say, but when will you prove that this followeth? Doth Christ send Ministers to do nothing but convert? Have they no message peculiar to Believers? Doth Chamier by [ipso signo] mean the whole Sacrament?

But pag. 82. he saith [M. B. saith so, that the Sacrament revealeth the mystery of God to the eye, 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 that word declares it not; no not so much as a picture: and therefore the Sacramental Actions of themselves, are not the revelations of the mysteries of Christ, nor ever so called in the Scripture.

Reply. 1 If the receiving actions do declare the mysteries of the Gospel, then the administering actions do: But the receiving actions do, 1 Cor. 11. 26. As oft as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come. Are not eating and drinking, actions? and is is not Christ's death and coming part of the Gospel mysteries? and was it not Christ's death with its end, (the expiation of sin,) and his coming with the end, (the glorifying and fully delivering the Saints) that is here meant? but only the mere Death and Comming, without the reason, ends, or use? And is not this text Scripture? 2 Do you think that the Sacrament consisteth only in action, distinct from words? Are words no actions? or no part of the sacramental action? Is not saying, [Take, Eat, this is &c.] as real a part as breaking the bread? 3 Do not you therefore describe a Sacrament which Christ never instituted, if you say, it consisteth of actions without words? 4 We distinguish between the words which are part of this ordinance, [Take, Eat, this is my body which is &c.] and th • words of a Sermon, or other doctrine not essential to the Sacrament. The Sacrame •• might signify without one, though not without the other. 5 Did Mr. T. think that I make the eye an Intellect to see Reasons, Ends and Uses? Or knew he not that I mean, [It showeth by the eye to the Intellect?] 6 Doth he indeed think, that the Word revealeth truths immediately to the Intellect? Let him speak to the deaf and try? 7 Can he tell me in what kind of causality the Word works, which the Sacrament doth not also work in? Doth the Voice by any natural power of its own, acquaint the understanding with truths? I think it works but per modum signi, as a sign of the speakers mind: And that it is not a natural sign (for then children would speak without teaching,) but an instituted: when men by agreement do impose such a sense on such a word, and by custom use it to signify such a notion, then it is fit to reveal that notion by the ear to the Intellect: And when they change the custom and use it to another sense, then it loseth its aptitude to the former: So that words are (under God) in men's own power to signify what they please. (And I think if all the learned men in the world that use one language (as the Latin) would in a Council by their Delegates, fix a common sense of most useful and controverted words, it would be a most excellent work, and the best Dictionary that ever was made.) And may not God impose a sense upon an action of the Hand, as well as on a Voice? Nay, hath he not done it? Doth Mr. T. think that Dipping, and Washing have no imposed signification? or that they signify only to the eye, and not the Intellect? Is it not usual for the dumb to discover their mind by signs? In which way some will readily and ordinarily discourse. Nay, I would know, if you will needs look to the Nature of the thing, without Institution or Imposition, Whether the Sacramental actions be not more significant then the words? Let Mr. T. speak of Christ crucified to an Indian that never heard word of his language, and I think he will make him understand more by other signs then by words.

Also I would know of him what he thinks of Scripture, which is no Voice, but a visible sign; may it not teach the mysteries of Christ? And hath not he that made those words the signifyers of his mysteries, made the Sacramental Elements & actions so too? saying, [This is my body which is broken for you, do this in remembrance of me.] Sure Mr. T. interprets [This is my body] as the Reformed Divines do, by [This signifieth my body;] I hope he doth. And what if I say, that Words are the Primary sign (as the written instrument in Law cases) and the Sacramental actions the secondary, (as the seal annexed,) it would not follow that Sacraments declare not the mystery; Though indeed as to the matter of signification they both work in one kind of causality; though God have instituted one in a kind of subserviencie to the other.

And where Mr. T. adds, that [he thinks to be Stewards of the mysteries, is all one as to preach the Gospel,] I would have him better consider two things. 1 That part of the Gospel is proper to Believers. 2 That the very substance of the Gospel is more closely and exactly comprised in the Sacraments then anywhere else that I know. The expiatory sacrifice is there represented, with the sacrificing actions, and then follows the substance of the Covenant itself, [Take, Eat, this is my, &c.] The Gospel is the Revelation and offer of Christ and his benefits; which is all here done. If that be Gospel [Let him that is thirsty come and drink &c.] then this is. Doubtless it is not the mere bread that Christ bids us Take, but Himself, with pardon of sin, and right to salvation. And Paul talks of the Galatians, as [before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth crucified among them] not only to their ears, but their eyes. Though I deny not (but as Grotius) words may be here chiefly meant, yet I see not but Sacraments and miracles must be included. At least Mr. T. will not deny but in 1 Cor. 11, 26. [ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ] is a declarative action. I conclude therefore that if it be the act of an • fficer to represent Christ ordinarily in his solemn stated worship, Giving himself and benefits to his Church, then this in hand is such: If it be not, there is no act of office at all, and so no officer.

His answer to my second Argument is as strange as the former. I say, [If there be no command or example in Scripture of any but Ministers administering the Lord's Supper, then no others may do it; but &c.] 1 He tells me of 1 Cor. 11. 28. Let a man Examine himself, and so eat,] Is this a proof? or should Mr. T. so importunately expect that other men should be satisfied with that that satisfieth him? The Question is whether private men may administer it; and he proves they may eat. Eating presupposeth Administring, and Taking presupposeth Christ's Giving by his Representers. When God saith [Hear and your soul shall live,] It doth not allow them to preach, nor suppose a hearing without preaching. And whereas Mr. T. saith pag. 70. his chief ground is 1 Cor. 11. 20, 21. that in eating everyone took his own supper before other, and this could not have happened if they had been wont to receive it from a Minister that distributed to all. &c.

I Reply, 1 All (that I know of) are agreed that the 27. v. speaks of their eating at their Love-feasts before the Sacrament, where the old community begun to be forgotten, and everyone eat and drink of his own, and so the poor did hunger. Yet the Sacrament was abused by this, they having such a connection, and there being such a division at the entrance on it. And it was in regard to this feast that the Apostle bids them tarry for one another: that if they would feast publicly, they should do it in community; if not, do it at home. 2 Why might not those that came not in together, receive that which was blest and delivered to the Church? We say not that it was put into particular men's hands. 3 It is so far from being probable (as he conceits) that there were no elders, that its most probable the number of them was great; and that these Elders were the chief in the divisions; and then each party might easily receive it. (As appears in Clem. Roman. Epist. to them, where he is fain to advise the Elders to administer by turns, because they could not agree.) There were many Prophets ch. 14. and they were Church guides: And the Apostles that ordained Elders in every Church, left not this without Christ's order and ordinances: Nor do any of the Texts that he cites give any probability of it.

(But I marvel how Mr. T. should pag. 91. [think that the Presbyterians and Independents agree with Papists about the sufficiency of Baptism by Priests or Weomen, because they do not question their baptism nor seek any other] when yet he pleads that other may administer both Sacraments, besides Ministers: Why then should it be a • nullity because done by a Priest or Woman, if his way be right?) Next he citeth 1 Cor. 10. 16, 17. But he knows that when the whole Church is mentioned, it is usual to say, They do that which the nobler part doth: By [We bless] is meant the Officers act, and by [We are partakers] the Peoples and Officers reception. When we say [This Commonwealth doth command and maintain their Army] the meaning is, the Ruling part commands it, but the whole maintain it. Mr. T. adds [But for command or example that an ordained Presbyter only should Administer the Lord's Supper, let them that say there is, show it.]

Reply. 1. The question is of Ministers as opposed to private men; and therefore you should not thrust in the terms [ordained Presbyters.] It is a doubt whether Ordination be of such necessity to the Being of a Minister, that in case of necessity he may not be without it. 2 The same man is not the same when he looks another way. Doubtless the Will hath a great power over the Understanding itself. I prove that Ministers did administer this Sacrament; and Mr. T. denieth it not. I • put him to prove that any other ever did it; and he cannot. And yet he would have me moreover prove that only Ministers did it; that is, Prove the nega • ive in the matter of fact; viz. that others did not: or prove the positive exclusion in matter of warrant; that is, not only that others can show no commission, but that they are forbidden. But Sir, why will you not then admit the like reasoning in point of Infant Baptism? Do you show command or example that the aged only should be baptized? And do not then press us still to show command or example that Infants should be baptized. But for my part, I shall yield to prove my assertion in both, and have done.

I yet add this: If Circumcision were a sign and seal of the righteousness of faith, then it so far declared the mystery of Faith; and if it may declare it, why may not Gospel Sacraments much more?

M. Ts. next words please me more then all the angry words that ever I had from him (to myself) in Press or Pulpit displease me. I will write them in full Characters, and entreat all those in Parliament, Army, City, or Country, that may be concerned in the matter, to lay them to heart, and prevent this guilt and curse: and those that value Mr. Ts. judgment, to regard it here. [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, Eph. 4. 11. 12, 13. 1 Cor. 12. 28. Act. 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.] I add, [Eccept they repent; however let their design be blasted and accursed:] Oh let the Churches Guardian say Amen. It was God's providence that even when the Pharisees ask their Missionaries [Do any of the Rulers or Pharisees believe in him?] there should be a Nicodemus at their elbow to contradict them, by taking his part. And if it be now asked, [Do any called Anabaptists speak for the Ministry, their Government and maintenance?] here is Mr. T. pronouncing them accursed as Christ's enemies that go about to extirpate them.

But let me say to him, that I fear much lest the Design laid by him pag. 79. may do more to this cursed work, then this curse will hinder it. viz. His pretending [a necessity that persons not ordained yet Preachers of the Gospel, do baptize] (Though the words are a most complete equivocation, as ever was uttered at Delphi: You may take it, [not ordained yet to be Preachers, or [not ordained, but yet Preachers,] but I rather take it in the last sense.) If once those that are no Ministers, must of necessity be preachers and baptizers, and may administer Sacraments, and the Juridical Government (as he calls it) denied Ministers; and all the Ministers that are against Rebaptizing judged to cause this necessity; how short a step is it, if not to the direct extirpation of the office, yet at least of all those persons? and then where will Mr. T. find men enough, of tolerable parts to supply their places? some think Mr. Ts. design here, is now on the wheel for execution. Ministers meddling with State matters I am against as well as Mr. T. so be it he will give me leave to meddle with Church matters, and Christ's matters, and sin: and so he do not as I have known some, viz. when the Act for sequestering all that kept not the appointed days of Humiliation and Thanksgiving was out, and Ministers durst not keep them because they understood not State mysteries, and the cause of the Scottish wars, they were blazed to be medlers with State matters, when they were quoad legem, sequestered for not meddling with State matters, and that before they understood them, and that in an extraordinary duty to God.

I think the ministerial Government, is not properly called Juridicall. And I do not much dissent from what is here said about the preaching of those that are not in Office; t • ough I should have fullier explained it.

The 4. and 5. Errors which Mr. T. puts by, I had rather have dealt with him about, then any of the rest: But seeing he waves them now, I must follow him.

To the 6. Error [that Magistrates are not under Christ as Mediator] I entreat the Reader to see how well he answereth what I have said: and whether he doth not repeat his words which I have already answered, without taking notice of their answer. 1 I shown him where Magistrates have a commission from Christ. 2 When he saith [then no Infidel is a lawful Magistrate that denies Christ] He knew I answered this; but thrusts his repetitions on less careful Readers. He may as well argue [then no magistrate is from the true God, who denies the true God.] 3 He saith [then a Magistrate 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.]

Reply I had hoped no sober Christian had denied it; I fear this doctrine makes so little done for Christ: But if men once cease to acknowledge their tenure from, and dependence on Christ, and think it their duty to stand Newters, between him and Mahomet or Infidels, let them look to their standing, and wonder not if he be as little for them, yea if he manifest his authority by judging and consuming them: For if his wrath be kindled, yea, but a little—. 4 He adds; [then a fathers power over his child; but sure that is by Nature.]

Reply. Did not I already answer this? Nature itself is now committed to Christ, for all things are in his hands. The pillars of the earth are born by him. He saith, He thinks I have not answered these. And I say thats a short Reply. 5. He adds [then if Christ had not been Mediator, there had been no lawful Magistrate.] And why so? May they not be lawful under God Creator under the first Covenant, though they be all under God Redeemer since the Law of Grace? 6 He adds [then Domimum fundatur in Gratiâ.]

Reply. Most cerrain: But in Gratiâ Redemptionis & universali: non in Gratiâ specially sanctificationis vel adoptionis: except you speak of the peculiar right of Saints above others. 7 He yet adds [May not Believers entitle themselves to all Power and all men's estates?]

Reply. Believers have no power but derived from Christ, as they are heirs: but derivatively, and not as Christ. And therefore how can they have that power or estate which Christ never gave them propriety in; yea, hath given to others, and forbid them to usurp? so much of that.

§. 20.

The Ancients took Infant-baptism, as you say, for an Apostolical Tradition, but not unwritten. The warrant they supposed written; but not the History de facto. You might have spared all the 86. pag. where you prove that Papists take it for an unwritten Tradition. We know they are desirous of any pretence to set Tradition above Scripture. Yet you know Bellarmine and others commonly prove it by Scripture. The words of Becanus (not §. 24. as you say, but §. 12.) yield, the text rightly interpreted to prove Infant-baptism, and thats all that I desire. I had thought that Chamiers answer to this might have satisfied you! If you have forgot it, peruse it again, Tom. 7. lib. 9. cap. 10. §. 40. &c. & Tom. 4. l. 5. c. 9. §. 31. Mr. Rogers hath made you know he is of another judgment. Mr. Bedford tells me he hath corrected his words in a later Edition. How could you allege Dr. Field without considering how you wronged yourself? Is nothing written in Scripture but expressly? Yea, is not that Scripture proof and plain proof, which shows plainly from Scripture the Grounds, Reasons, and Causes of the Necessity of the practice? Dr. Prideaux thought Episcopacy proveable from Scripture: and therefore if he thought that Infant-baptism must be proved the same way, he is sure against you. For Dr. Taylor, if you have read all his Books, I hope you will no more reckon him among Protestants, having so much of the Body of Popery in them. Mr. Youngs words (if they be his) are against you in the thing you cite them for. There are testimonia minùs aperta: and there are testimonia aperta pro fundamento & praemissis, quae sunt minus aperta direct proconclusione. My audaciousness in asserting plain Scripture proof must be better repressed then thus, if you will satisfy men of reason and conscience.

§. 21.

I shall pass over all the words that require no answer. He saith pag. 93. [for the tenet of the Peoples governing by vote, I know no Reason why they should be called a Sect rather then their opposites,]

Reply. But do they not err more then their opposites? Did not you even now prove from Scripture that Ministers must govern the Church, and the people obey them? Can that stand with the Peoples Governing? Is it so small a matter to arrogate the Ministerial Office? and consequently destroy it? You pronounced them even now accursed as enemies to Christ that go about to extirpate the Ministry. The Lord keep you from drawing any of that curse on yourself. But lay altogether and see what use you leave for a Ministry. [1 Others may baptize: yea, there is a necessity (because the Minister will not rebaptize, &c.) that some not ordained, yet preachers, do it. 2 Others may administer the Sacrament of the Supper. 3 Others may preach publicly. 4 And if the people may and ought to govern, what is a Ministry to be upheld for? Or at least, how fair a way is here to their extirpation? He adds [The excommunication which the Scripture speaks of, so far as I discern, is nowhere made a part of Government, or of the Elders office anymore then the people's.]

Reply. The term Excommunication, is not in the Scripture; but that which is aequipollent is: when a man is obstinate in a heinous sin, after private admonition and public, should not the Minister charge the people in Christ's name to avoid familiar communion with them? and is this no more a part of the Elders office then the people's? must not the Minister do it as an authoritative act of an Officer of Christ, which clave non errante the people are doubly bound to obey? not only ration materiae, (as they must from another) but also by virtue of the 5. Commandment, and that of Christ. [He that despiseth you despiseth me?] We allow the people judicium discretionis whether the Minister speak according to Scripture: and we allow them actualem executionem, by an obedient avoiding the communion of the party: But have they also the authoritative judgment of discretion, guidance, Commanding non-communion ex officio in Christ's name? or have Ministers none such? Do you think Ministers have anymore power then others in preaching? If they have, then why not about this subject as well as others? to apply the command [with such no not to eat] to particular persons, and charge the people to obey? what is that governing which even now you gave to Ministers? If it lie not in authoritative guidance, and charging on men the duties prescribed by Christ, I know not what it is: And how falls it out that it extendeth not to the duty of avoiding communion with such persons, as well as to other duties? Also, should not Ministers declare to wicked men their misery and God's wrath by a particular application? And is not this part of it? May I not pronounce an obstinate sinner to be a child of the Devil as Paul did Elimas? or to be in the gall of bitterness, and bond of iniquity, and have no part or fellowship, &c. as Peter did Simon? or one that is in an unjustified state? at least, one that with whom the Church should have no familiar Communion? And doth this belong no more to the Elders then the people? are the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven given as much to private Christians as to Officers? or do not the keys reach to this? When Paul charged the Corinthians to cast out (executive) that wicked person, did he no more then belonged to the people? But you say [In antiquity its apparent out of Cyprian, that the people had a great hand in Elections, Excommunications, Absolutions.]

Reply. 1 As to Elections; the people's consent is conditio sine qua non to the execution successfully of the ministerial office: and this Naturaliter, and not directly per institutionem. For who can rule a Peoples Wills against their wills? Consent is the success of persuasion: and therefore the people's consent must be the like condition of the plenary title of an Elder over a particular Church. But whats this to authority of government? to consent to sovereignty is not to be a Sovereign. 2 When the Church had no Christian Magistrates, how could any man be guide to a People but by their consent? or cast out, or take in successfully without it? 3 Did you ever read in Cyprian, or any man worth the reading in all Antiquity, that the people had anymore in excommunicating and absolving, then to judge per judicium discretionis, and to consent to the Officers authoritative censure, and obediently to execute it by holding communion, or avoiding it? 4 Do you not find it frequently in Cyprian that there is an Excommunication and Absolution which are parts of government, and belong more to the Officers then the People? Yea, and such rigid censures (keeping men so long before they would absolve them after a fall, though they begged it in great poenitence; and sharply taking up the very Confessors that presumed to intercede for their readmission) that were they now used, what Tyrants, and Popes and Antichrists should we be called? who would have thought that Mr. T. that hath said so much to the contrary, should say so much for Popular Church-government? He adds [Nor is a person a Separatist for that Tenet, but for dividing practices.] 1 I had thought he had been a Separatist in judgment, that doth not practice his judgment. 2 Is it not a dividing practice to practice popular Voting Government? Nay worse then actual Separation, as subverting the very essence of Christ's Offices, if not Churches. I confess I doubt whether that can be a true particular political Church of Christ where the Government is in the people's Vote. For every such Church essentially consisteth (as a Common-wealth doth) of a Pars Dirigens & Nunciative imperans, & Pars directa & imperata. And in Christ's Church the former are his Officers.

Yet let me add, that we give the people the same things (in their judicium discretionis, and in execution) which sober congregational men desire. Only we are ready to prove, it is not Government strictly so called.

As to the next passage about Mat. 7. 16. Your answer is more and more strange. When I prove clearly a [false Teacher] and [one that teacheth falsely] to be the same; you will disprove it by saying that [a false Teacher] and [hearing false doctrine] are not the same. As if it would prove the objects to be divers, because the object and sense or manner of Reception be divers! or as if it had been Christ's end to tell by what sense they might come to know false Teachers, viz by Hearing; and not by what sign! When the question was whether the coldness of the water, or whiteness of the wall were a sign by which you discern it to be cold, white? or the form so denominating it? You talk of [feeling] the coldness, and [seeing] the whiteness; as if that were anything to the question, which was not de Receptione, but de objecto.

But (though I dare not be suddenly confident, yet) me thinks, I now (with gladness) see my mistake about this Text. And it did lie in the misunderstanding the word [Pseudo-propheta, false prophet] 1 I took [Prophet] to be same with [Teacher] and 2 I took [false] to be spoken of him ab opere, from his doctrine, and not a desectu formâ & authoritate, with a pretence of the contrary. I inconsiderately judged as Pareus in loc. that Propheta est Doctor Veritatis. Pseudo-propheta Doctor mendacii, and as Piscator, that these false Prophets were falfi Doctors qui Ecclesie proponunt dogmata exitialia. So also Calvin, &c. But I now think 1 that the word [Prophet] is not taken for a Teacher as such; but in the strict and usual sense, for [one sent of God extraordinarily to lead men out of Error, or bring men to some special Reformation, as receiving his Doctrine, or his Commission, or both, by an immediate Inspiration or Revelation from Heaven.] 2 That they are called [false] as we call the Papists [Pseudo-catholicos] or others [Pseudo-christianos;] that is, they are counterfeit Prophets: they pretend falsely to be sent or inspired by God; and so to be Prophets, when they are no Prophets. As if a man come to a City in the Kings name, and say, He is a Herald, Ambassador, or special Messenger: and another say, Take heed of him; he is a counterfeit Messenger: the King sent him not. Now in this sense, it is plain that [his Doctrine] may be one of the fruits we may know him by, and it is not idem per idem, as I said, and as in the former sense it must be. And I the rather now incline to this Interpretation also, because I resolve that Austin's rule must be followed, of interpreting Scripture in the most comprehensive sense, where there is no special reason for a restriction or limitation: And therefore I shall take the [fruits] in General, as appliable either to Doctrine or Life, without restraining it to either, as Deodate doth, and the New Annotations (and not as most interpreting it of doctrine alone; nor as some, of practice alone.) Yet I am still persuaded that the Text intendeth practice as much if not much more then Doctrine; And for the Doctrine which I delivered hence, it is fully manifest in several other Scriptures. Peter and Jude give us the description of the Deceivers of those times, as men of enormous lives. And Paul prophesies that they shall hold the same course in the last times. 2 Tim. 3. 1. to the 10. It was they that having a form of godliness without the power do creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, and led away with divers lusts, ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth, &c. who, were the self-lovers, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, truce▪ breakers▪ false-accusers, incontinent, fierce, dispisers of the good, traitors, heady, high-minded, lovers of pleasures above God. These are the fruits they shall be known by. And it is usual for God to give up the Rejectors of truth to vile affections and wicked lives (Rom. 1. 10. to the end, & passim) I will add Grotius words on this Text, [ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ] ex operibus iniquitatis ut infra dicitur. c. 7. v. 23. Atqui dicat aliquis, jam dictum est pietatem ab istis vel maxim simulari: sane, sed verum est illud Mimi, Cito ad naturam ficta reciderunt suam. Lysias: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Interdum morâ aliquâ, interdum atttentione solâ opus est. Secerni, inquit Cicero, blandus amicus à vero, & internosci tam potest adhibitâ diligentiâ, quàm omniafucata & simulata à sinceris & veris. Non diu proficient inquit Paulus nam insipientia illorum manifesta fiet. &c. Fructus eorum hi esse solent, quod perpessiones defugiunt, allectant eos qui in vitiis haerent, praesertìm opulentiores, questiones movent nihil facientes ad profectum pietatis, libenter obtrectant aliis, praesertìm in dignitate positis, ut ea libertatis specie se apud populum jactent, & ad istas res dogmata sua accommodant, ut videre est in utrâque ad Tim. in Jud. Epist. & Pet. 2. atque ita ostendunt se tales esse quales revera sunt, fastuosos, odii & invidentiae plenos, maledicos, avaros, neque tam alienos à voluptatibus quàm existimari volunt, ut iisdem locis videre est. Quae siquis diligenter conferat cum iis quae de Corintho, deque Nicolao, aut si, &c.] If you would have more proof of it, Mr. T. when a little came to himself, told you pag. 83. that it is [the course of many Soldiers and others, who against the denial of able Teachers, to whom the teaching of the Gospel 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 draw them from their able Teachers, and to disquiet them and their Congregations, by frivolous exceptions.] I know very many of these men; but not one of many which are not Anabaptists. And the most of them (how ignorant soever) are boasters of themselves, and despisers of their Brethren: speaking in that language as Mr. T. doth, when he so vilifieth all the Ministers that were at the dispute (as that they weigh little with them that know them &c.) when I think there were some as learned, and many as godly as himself; and give as good testimony of it by doctrine and life.

Mr. T. will never prove, that by [sheep's clothing] is not meant the fairness of their pretences, but their good lives.

Sure he hath not read Hobsons Book, or else he durst not defend or so excuse it. And doth he not know how the Press doth spawn this kind of vermin so thick, that they are among us as the frogs and locusts in Egypt, overspreading the Land?

For his offense at my forboding (as he calls it,) let him 1 cast his eye upon poor Wales, and remember the curse he past even now. 2 Review Mr. Bayly, and see whether he railed or prophesied.

§. 22.

The speech which Mr. T. is here blamed for, was uttered more then once in Pulpit and private speech. It was not de facto praeterito only, [that no one Country were discipled] nor of the manner only [that it was not done altogether] or [by the Magistrate.] But it was in answer to our argument from Mat. 28. 19. which speaks de Debito, of the Ministerial Duty of Discipling Nations, and to what we say from the Prophesies that God will de futuro Disciple Nations: as if 1 It were not Ministers duty to endeavor the Discipling of any whole Nation (for then he must endeavor to Disciple Infants) nor a part of the work of that Commission. 2 Or that Christ would never accomplish it in this world, (when he hath promised it so oft; see my Addition, pag. 339, 340.) As for what he saith of Moses and Magistrates, if you peruse what I have said to that already, I think it will appear that he is nowhere more vertiginous then in this. He concludes with a [slighting of my curse, pag. 217.] where I only desire the cure of his understanding, or if he proceed to publish error, that it may not succeed; and this he calls [a curse.] It is but such a curse as I desire to myself, that the Lord would not suffer me to be an instrument of wronging his Church and Truth by my mistakes; or if I have done it ignorantly in this or any other writing, that he would forgive it, and show me my error, and let me live to right the Church and Truth so wronged. This is my daily prayer to God, especially as to those points where I find my dissent to my brethren so offensive. And the like forgiveness I desire of Mr. T. if I have anywhere unadvisedly or ignorantly wronged him: which I know my frail soul is so prone to that its most likely I have, though I should not see wherein; for I know my corrupt nature will show itself in all that I do.) And I promise him if God show me any weighty particulars of wrong, particularly to confess them. In the mean time I profess that the roughness which appears in my writings on this Subject, was provoked from the consideration of the Cause, and especially of the deep wound given to the Gospel by the Anabaptists of this age, and the attempts in hand; and the fearful danger that the Ministry and Churches of Christ are now in by reason of them; But when I think of my truly beloved Brother Mr. T. it not only grieves me that he is so deep in this Cause, but also that I am forced to speak so harshly to him, (which I knew would displease him) for his Causes sake. It hath cost me dearer to endeavor the Churches deliverance, and the rescuing of an endangered Ministry and Gospel, then it hath done Mr. T. And therefore let him not blame me, if I let not all go so patiently as some expect. If I so oft ventured my life against them that threatened these heretofore; let me be suffered to speak a sharp word or two against those that have brought them into as apparent hazard; (except I be a stranger to, or utterly mistaken in the complexions of the present Agents and affairs,) I am certain, have brought our sacred Profession under greater obloquy and contempt. And let me add (though I cannot make Mr. T. believe that I call him not a Heretic,) that I am so far from the violence and unpeaceableness that Mr. T. doth charge me with, that I am wholly of Mr. Marshals judgment (in his late Sermon for Unity) that men for Infant-baptism, and against it, should quietly and lovingly live together in the same Church. And I should tenderly love such as differ from me in this, and have communion with them, if they were of my charge: so be it when they have modestly given a reason of their judgment, (if called thereto) they would desist from further soliciting others to their way; (as I would do myself on the contrary side, if I were called to be a private Member of a Rebaptized Church, and Mr. T. were my Teacher.) But if they think they are bound to take all seasons and advantages, by secret solicitations and public disturbing contradictions, to propagate their opinions, and bring all others to them, as if God's Glory lay upon their so doing, I know no way of having peace with such men, were the difference smaller then this of Infant-baptism; but I think all good Christians should avoid their Communion, as the fire-brands of the Church and enemies of its Peace, Unity, and Prosperity.

It seems to me God ordered Mr. T. to translate Cyprians Epistle to the disgrace of his Cause with the Vulgar themselves. For none can be so blind as not to see in it the Antiquity of Infant-baptism, which is all that we urge it for. Only observe for the right understanding of it, that the objection that the Council argues against, is Infants incapacitie or uncleanness before the 8. day; and therefore the Arguments are only to the confutation of this, and not to give you the Grounds that warrant baptizing Infants; for those are supposed, the thing being unquestioned. Here was none that raised any doubt whether Infants should be baptized; but only whether before the eighth day.