MASTER BAKEWELLS' SEA OF ABSURDITIES, CONCERNING SPRINKLING CALMLY Driven back by Peter Chamberlain. 12. April, 1650.  
London, Printed by J. C. And are to be sold by Giles Calvert, at the Black-spread-Eagle, at the West end of Paul's, 1650.   

Mr. Bakewells Sea of Absurdities concerning SPRINKLING; calmly driven back by Peter Chamberlain, 12 April 1650.  
MR. Bakewell, There was a Letter, with your name subscribed, brought to Ely house the 24. of March, last (as I heard) and the same was afterwards delivered unto me; whereupon I sent 4 times to your house, to have returned you an Answer, and either you were not at home (as the Messenger told me) or else you would not be at home: so that on the last Lord's day, (7. April present) which you call the Sabbath or Palm Sunday, (which was the first time I was at Ely house since the Letter) I gave a public Answer in the place where it was sent. Therefore you wrong your Friends, in possessing them, that you had defied Israel, and none durst answer you, as your Preamble imports. Nor do you well to charge me with a promise I never made. For you neither could tell whether I made any promise, (you, nor your Messenger, not having spoken with me,) nor could you so much as know whether I had received your Letter, it neither being delivered unto me, nor to any in my presence, nor yet left at my house. Nor truly, were you so civil as to send me a Copy of what you printed, and I had not known thereof, if another had not given me one.  
You say further, that you were requested by some Friends to publish your Letter. I partly believe you are but the Cat's Paw, by your dabbling in Greek (p. 6. & last line) which probably you understood not; and by my Reverend Friend Mr. Downan's vouchsafing you an Imprimatur, and your own confession here of your Friends Request, yet I cannot but a little wonder at it. What? That your Ministers should allow a Layman to take upon him their Function! and to answer what they durst not! They knew (perhaps) none so bold.—  
Well Mr. Bakewell, I shall not be so proud, as because you may be censured by your own party, out of your Element, (under which notion (perhaps) taking me, they permit you to do what you do:) therefore not to grant you an humble and loving Answer; however you are pleased to judge me proud of heart, and taking upon me the Title of Tyrus, etc. Truly I am sorry I cannot so behave myself as to have prevented you from any such rash censure, and do but you teach me greater humility, wherein the truth of Christ may not suffer, and I shall be glad to learn of you that meekness and humility, wherein you follow Christ before me. Which nevertheless in this you seem not to do, in presuming to answer for Dr. Gouge, as supposing yourself the abler man, or abler than any of your sprinkling Ministers.  
I must pass by many impertinencies, and touch upon the most material passages of the Letter, that I may avoid the words of railing, and only return an Answer in love.  
You except against my ask a question of Dr. Gouge, because he is ancient, Of whom should men inquire but of the ancient should not days speak, and multitude of years teach wisdom, Job 32.7. Of whom should we inquire, but of those that take upon them the Office? should not the Priests lips preserve knowledge? Malach: 2.7. Why man, I sent not to fight with Dr. Gouge, and so long the older the better: nor did I confine the question to him, but that others were also lovingly entreated to his assistance. Yet having sufficiently censured and chid me; you will not give me leave to state mine own Question; but pretend to know my meaning better than myself. My Question was, WHETHER THE SPRINKLING OF INFANTS BE OF GOD OR OF MAN? It is the same question which Christ propounded to the Pharisees concerning the Baptism of John, Mat. 21.25. You have made a Question of your own, WHETHER SPRINKLING THE BAPTISED BE OF GOD OR MAN, BE THEY INFANTS OR OF FULLAGE? do you mean by Baptised, Sprinkled? as in your 6 page and last line you intimate. Then you Tautologize and will sound thus in plain English, Whether sprinkling the Sprinkled be of God or Man? or would you have those that are baptised already, to be sprinkled also? I pray consult with your Teachers a little before you either state my Question, or state it in that manner. In the mean time I will suppose you speak sense, and that (at all adventures) you affirm that THE SPRINKLING OF INFANTS IS OF GOD AND NOT OF MAN'S INVENTION, which is quite contrary to what Dr. Gouge affirmed to some. For I have been informed by Mr. Edw. Barber, and have it under his hand since you printed your Letter, that at 2 several times, both upon his being sent unto him by the Bishops, and one Mark Whitlock, to be satisfied for taking the Oath ex officio: Dr. Gouge did acknowledge (not only Sprinkling) but that baptising of Infants was a tradition of the Church, and used it as one Argument to take that Oath: But to your Arguments.  
1. Arg. You would prove that Sprinkling of Infants is of God, because the Lord foretold that in the times of the Gospel his people should be sprinkled with clean water. Ezek. 36.25. Mr. Bakewell, it had been well if you had desired your Teachers to help you to make a Syllogism of it, whereof they that will undertake to dispute, ought not to be ignorant; but because you may chance not know what belongs to it, ask them whether by SPRINKLING here be meant BAPTISM? Or whether by CLEAN WATER, be meant ELEMENTARY WATER? Or whether by the words (UPON YOU, which you interpret his people) be meant LITTLE INFANTS? Or whether by THAN be meant the TIME OF THE GOSPEL with THE GENTILES, as you likewise render it? Or whether this SPRINKLING allude not rather to the SPRINKLING UNDER THE LAW, (Levit. 14.7. Numb, 8.7.) which they understood distinct from those many Baptisms mentioned in Heb. 9.10. which were amongst them, and did not understand john's or Christ's Baptism, which as yet was not? And whether the PURE WATER be not rather the HOLY GHOST in the Language of our Saviour (John 7.39?) And whether the time THAN and the People You, be not rather the glorious times of the CALLING OF THE JEWS?  
I believe these mistakes will rather put them upon a more strict way of keeping the staff in their own hands, and not suffer Lay-ignorance though never so zealous, Talketive, or Devout, to betray their Cause. For when you or any else have said all you can upon this place, IT IS A PROMISE OF WHAT GOD WILL DO, IT IS NOT A COMMAND OF WHAT MAN MUST DO.  
Then you say (Mr. Bakewell) that the water in BAPTISM is A SIGN OF THE BLOOD OF CHRIST: but where doth the Scripture say so? They had under the Law, the SPRINKLING OF WATER. Levit. 14.17. Numb. 8.7. distinct from the SPRINKLING OF BLOOD, Exod. 12.22. and 29.21. and both distinct from their BATHS AND WASHINGS, Levit. 15.5.6.7.8.10.11.13.18.21.22.27. And 16.26.28. and 17.15.16. and Numb. 19.7.8.19. and Exod. 19.10. and 29.4. and 30.18.19. and 40.12.31. Levit. 6.27.28. Deut. 21, 6. and divers other places. And we have under the Gospel BAPTISM distinct from the SUPPER OF THE LORD. And the Holy Ghost is punctual, (John 19.34.) that there came out of the side of Jesus both Water & Blood. Now should they have confounded the sprinkling of water with that of blood, or either with their washings, or one with the other under the Law, they could not but have neglected a great part of those Rights and Ceremonies wherein they were to be so exact: And if we also should confound those few Commands which our Saviour lest us under the Gospel, we should soon arrive to that spiritual Babel which is so rife in these days amongst many who suppose themselves spiritual. Forbear therefore so boldly to affirm or infer that the water in Baptism is called in Heb. 12.24. The blood of sprinkling. But if you will needs find Baptism in that Text, find it in our coming to Jesus the Mediator of the new Covenant, from the which the Blood of sprinkling is distinguished by a conjunction Copulative (AND). That also of the 10. of Heb. 22. must be kept from confusion, and then it comprehends the 2 complete parts of Baptism.  
1. The work and promise of God in these words. Our hearts sprinkled from an evil Conscience, and the work and obedience of men in these words. Our Bodies washed with pure water. For IT IS NOT THE WORK OF MAN TO SPRINKLE THE HEART, NOR IS IT THE WORK OF GOD TO WASH THE BODY. 2. GOD'S SPRINKLING IS EQUIVALENT TO MAN'S WASHING, In which sense the phrase is used of GOD'S FINGER, Exod. 8.19.31.18. And these two parts are distinctly held forth in many places, Mat. 3. Mar. 1. Luke 3. I baptise with water, but he shall baptise with the Holy Ghost. And Act 1.5. John baptised with water, but ye shall be baptised with the Holy Ghost: So Act 2.38. Repent and be baptised, and ye shall receive the Holy Ghost. If either of these be wanting, Baptism is not complete. For Christ himself, who had not the spirit by measure, must be baptised to fulfil all righteousness (Mat: 3.) Peter by Cornelius his Companies receiving the HOLY GHOST, judgeth them thereby fit to be baptised with water: Act 10. Who can forbid water that these should not be baptised, who have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he communded them to be baptised. And on the other side without fruits worthy of Repentance, the Pharisees shall not be admitted to the BAPTISM OF WATER. (Mat. 3.7.8.) Nor probably the Eunuch, unless he had BELIEVED WITH ALL HIS HEART. Act 8.37. For it is not the outward washing away the filth of the flesh, but the inward answer of a good Conscience towards God through Jesus Christ, 1 Pet. 3.21.  
2. Your second Argument or Article with the latter end of the first, lays down a Rule of Similitude between the sign (or Sacrament, in your phrase) and the thing signified. Consider your own Rule, with SPRINKLING OF A CHILD'S FACE, (which is a Ceremony but lately allowed, by the late Directory, and was not allowed (though practised) by the Book of Common Prayer. Consider I pray you, whether by your Rule you do not make a Face-Christian, yea a specled face-Christian, your SPRINKLING being only on the FACE, and that but here and there in DROPS; but if you allow BAPTISM to signify the WASHING AWAY OF SIN, as all Catechisms imply, would you only wash away the FACE and OUTWARD APPEARANCES OF SIN, to make an Outside-Pharisee-Christian? or would you have ALL SIN, even the whole body of Sin washed away? Therefore the washing of the whole Body, as was appointed by the Book of Common-Prayer, and was the COMMAND and PRACTISE of CHRIST and his Apostles, and of those learned men whom they commonly call FATHERS, is the right way of administering the Sacrament, and not a new-invented way of SPRINKLING, which (though practised) was NEVER COMMANDED TILL OF LATE.  
Compare it also with those other REPRESENTATIONS IN BAPTISM, would you have the Baptism of the HOLY GHOST to be but in DROPS, and that but in APPEARANCE, on the FACE, or but one PART? Or would you be FILLED so as to have Rivers of living water flow out of your Belly? John 7.39. Would you have your FACE only BURIED WITH CHRIST IN BAPTISM, or have your FACE only BAPTISED INTO HIS DEATH, and have only your FACE to RISE WITH HIM, or have only an Outside-shew of Death to Sin, and Resurrection to life in Christ? (Col. 2.12. Rom. 6.34. etc.) Or would you make CHRIST only a WIZARD FOR YOUR FACE, to PUT HIM only ON UPON YOUR FACE? (Gal. 3.27.) Lay your hand upon your heart, and consider seriously these things.  
Then you insist upon the VISIBILITY OF THE SIGN OF THE BAPTISED, etc. First, consider your own Practice. Do INFANTS SEE THE WATER wherewith they are sprinkled? Are their EYES commonly OPEN or SHUT? Do any pluck them open? yea, if they were open, would not nature teach them to shut them when they felt the drops of water upon them? Or if they open their eyes, know they what water is, or what it means? Secondly, Whether is a Basin of Water, or a River most visible? Is not this like the old Woman that could see the needle, but not the Barn? Thirdly, whereas you say that he who is plunged doth not see the Sign, if you mean WATER, He doth not only see it but feel it, and if you mean the Washing and Cleansing of his Body, surely they are more likely to see their Bodies cleansed that go into a RIVER, and afterwards dry themselves and wipe away the filth, than they that only have their Face Sprinkled, which they cannot see without a Looking-glass, (a thing of no use to New borne Infants.) And whereas you say that they cannot hear what is said, no more do Infants, nor do they understand if they hear the words; but the baptised according to the Scriptures do both hear the words and know them before they are plunged, although pronouncing the WORDS, do not the work, but the Obedience of being Baptised into the Name of the Lord.  
3. Your third Article saith, that many were Baptised in their houses, and you instance in Paul, Cornelius, and the Jailor, for whom you quote Act 9.17.18. & 16.25.48. You do ill (Mr. Bakewell) to father so many untruths in print upon the Scriptures. The Scriptures say NOT that PAUL was BAPTISED in the HOUSE: but that Ananias entered into the House, and afterwards when the scales were fallen from his eyes, he arose and was Baptised without saying he was Baptised either in a Tub or Pond, (according to your roving language,) or in a River: or that he was Baptised without Water as the Drie-washing Book of the Doctrine of Baptisms will infer. You may likewise read it again in Act 22.16. Paul was not to sit still to be sprinkled; but, now up, why tarriest thou? arise and be Baptised, and wash away thy sins, etc. So Act 10. Peter after having reasoned the business about Cornelius and those with him, who can forbid water, & c? he commands them to be Baptised, but it is not said where, nor by whom. And if you allow any water to be used (as is expressed) you must either suppose it carried up and down with the Apostles in Aqua-vitae-Bottles, or Rose-water-Bottles, to dash them in the face as soon as they had been but taken confessing of Christ, or that wheresoever they came, they either found or called for a Basin of water in the first place (which we do not read they did) or else the same time that would serve to fetch water and bring it back, might serve them to go to the water. And in the 16. of the Acts, I perceive you do not so much as read the 30. verse, else you would never have put in print that the Jailor and all his were baptised in the Prison, quite contrary to the Text, which saith, that the Jailor came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas, and brought them out, at least out of the inner Prison, before it is said that he asked what must I do to be saved? and in the 33. verse, he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes and was Baptised, he and all his straightway, before it is said that he brought them into his house, etc. Nor is it probable that they were Baptised with water, and the blood of the Stripes of Paul & Silas. Absurdities muct not be put upon the Scriptures, but the main being expressed, the rest ought to be understood, especially being fully expressed in other places. All the following Questions therefore denote your extreme ignorance both in the Scriptures & in that Ordinance. And your great partiality appears in that you asked not the same absurd questions about the washing of Paul & Silas, & the Baptism of the Jailor & his household. As what Vessel? Who should fetch it? How often emptied? Did Paul stand in a Vessel? How many times went he in? or went he in at all? Wherefore all these Absurdities cannot but stick fast in your weak Imagination, till they be all dissolved in a RIVER, or SUFFICIENT QUANTITY OF WATFR.  
4. In the 4. place, you say the SACRAMENT must be administered WHERE THE WORD IS PREACHED, because that Mat. 28.19. You say it is, Preach and Baptise. Here you also play the false Prophet in your false Interpretation and Repetition. For the word is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Preach but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Discipline or make Disciples, nor is it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and baptise but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, baptising much less doth the Text either say or infer that they must baptise in the same place where they preach: John Baptist, and Christ, and his Disciples went up and down preaching the Gospel in the WILDERNESS, Mat. 3.1. and about all Galilee, Mat. 4.24. and up in a MOUNTAIN. Mat. 5.1. & 10.7. & 27. & 11.1. and in a CHARIOT. Act 8.4.31. & 35. etc. But they BAPTISED in JORDAN. Mark 1.5. John 3.22. in AENON. Jo. 3.23. etc.  
5. Upon the same score of ignorance you have the like troubled fancy as in the 3. Article, about a River's bank, or half way in the River, or 2 Persons at least to administer the Ordinance, from all which absurdities you sprinkle yourself with Holy water, and rest in a contented ignorance.  
6. Against supposed NAKEDNESS you allege MODESTY, and against ClOTHING you would not have them sit DUNG-WET at meat, and against a Partial Clothing you allege Aaron's Briches, with many other weak things, even answered in the very readding. For by this you allow not Jesus, nor the Eunuch, nor all the rest to be nor Naked, nor Clothed, nor half Naked and half Clothed. And were your modest suppositions true, what think you of CIRCUMCISION? Perhaps when you duly weigh these things, and deny your self-conceits and strange Imaginations, to submit them to the Truths of Scripture, your zeal may be converted into knowledge, which truly is my Prayer for you. For I verily believe you writ not in malice to me, though in hard censure.  
7. Seventhly, Mr. Bakewell, you affirm another untruth of the Scriptures for want of knowledge of the Tongues, owning the error of the Translator. Mark 3.11. where John is made to say I baptise with Water, and not in water, and say you, the Scripture always saith with water. Now if you yourself were such a Grecian, as to be Author sufficient for the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as you undertake in the last line of the 6. page, you might also be credited here, having the translation on your side, which there you have not: but because I believe you are not, but speak by rote as you are taught, I pray ask your Teachers (who know the Tongues,) and they will tell you, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth in water, and not with water. And Ephes. 5.26. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: with the washing of water in the word. And Heb. 10.22. hath neither in nor with, only the Dative Case, which our language will not render with any propriety. And truly it were well, if those errors which are caused for want of a more exact Translation, were taken away by a new Translation. And till you are able to be an Interpreter, it is good to be sober in making your own Conclusion upon matter of Interpretation; but yield the place to those that are better able, and better gifted: till when, I must leave you in the midst of all your absurdities which you have framed and affirmed, and not I, nor any one as I know but yourself.  
8. Eighthly, you began with a hard word Anabaptist, and you should do well to know what that word means, and how to use it, and to whom it belongs, before you undertake to condemn any under that notion. And when you understand the true signification of Baptism, you will not exact Brick, and allow no straw, you will not bid one cut meat without a knife, you will not expect that men should be baptised, and not suffer them to come into the water. And for your Hocus Pocus of saying that Infants are under water for being lower than that handful of water held by your Ministers in sprinkling, it is too ridiculous, as divers other passages, to be either answered at all, or at all seriously answered: nor would your Ministers have pleaded that for an Argument.  
9 Lastly, you promise to show that Sprinkling one part of the Body is sufficient: but you pull in your Arguments with Ropes of Sand.  
1. One DROP of water is as truly water as the whole Ocean; what follows? Therefore one DROP of water is as SUFFICIENT as the whole OCEAN! For what? To feed Whales? To bear great Ships? To water the Earth? to wash and bathe? no nor to sprinkle neither. Or what would you have to follow? That as one drop of water is water as well as the whole Ocean, so is one part of the body a Body, as well as the whole Body? This concludes nothing to your purpose. Or that as one drop of water is waetr as well as the whole Ocean; so if one part of the body be sprinkled all the body is sprinkled. The similitude will not hold nor follow: but try the practice of it when your face is foul, wash your feet, and see whether your face will be any whit the cleaner.  
2. You say there is no measure of water prescribed, only it must be water. No more there is for your Bread, yet one drop will not suffice to make Dow: nor will one drop serve to wash your hands or feet, when you go to knead it: and it were ridiculous for the Apostle to mention that John was baptising in Aenon, BECAUSE THERE WAS MUCH WATER THERE, if one drop would have served the turn; but so there be enough it is no matter whether it be in Jordan or Aenon, or the Wilderness. Act 8. or the River without the City of Philippi. Act. 16.13.  
3. You say (to as little purpose) that the baptised may be under one drop as well as under a Tun; so he may be under a Tun as well as one drop, and we are daily under more in the Clouds: but what would you infer thereon? That a man may be buried and plunged, or drowned with one drop, or by being under one drop, as well as by being under a Tun? He may indeed be as dry under a Tun as under one drop, so the Vessel leak not: in the sense you mentioned last of the Child's being under the Minister's handful of water, but not so soon buried or plunged with one drop as with a Tun of water; and if the Sextone afforded but one grain of earth upon each body that were to be buried, I believe each Nostril would soon complain there were not sufficient.  
But 4. you as desperately attempt to clear this by the Conference of Jesus Christ with Peter about the washing of his Feet. Jo. 13.8. Read on to the 10. verse. He that is Washed (saith he) or he that is already Baptised, needeth not save to cleanse or wash his feet, &c: This shows (say you, from the 8. verse instancing, in me for with me, as almost in all the Scriptures you quote, you mistake somewhat) this shows that washing was sacramental. If you mean it is a Sacrament, why do you not so practise it? If it be the Sacrament of Baptism, why do not your Ministers wash the feet of Infants as Christ did his Disciples, rather than sprinkle the face only, which Christ never did?  
When you have spoken your last, you come with 3. OBJECTIONS for plunging, from Act 8.38. Mat. 3.6. & Rom. 6.4. To the first you answer, that every Pit or River in those hot Countries were not always brimful of water. Be it so Therefore every Pit (which you make a Synonyma to a River) was not chosen: but the chief River Jordan, and Aenon, because there was much water. You say they might go into the Pit, and not go into the water. The Lord deliver us from the Pit where there is no water (Jer. 39.6. Zach. 9.11.) but the Text answers your Cavel, (if you would at all heed what the word saith) that in the Baptism of Jesus and the Eunuch, where the manner of Baptising is particularly mentioned, they went both down into the water, and they came up out of the water, not into the Pit, and out of the Pit. Mark 1.9.10. Act 8.39.  
To the 2. you affirm, that the Greek word (which I suppose you can neither write nor read, which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Infinitive) doth signify as well to SPRINKLE as to PLUNGE, whereas all the Scholars in Europe cannot find it so used in any Greek Author, nor others; but of late some Latin Authors (from the practice) have rashly printed what you here affirm. Which if it should be granted, and your Testament so interpreted, hear a little your own Absurdities. Mat. 3.1. In those days came John the SPRINKLER, preaching in the Wilderness of Jordan. Then went out to him Jerusalem and all Judea, and all the Region round about Jordan, and were SPRINKLED of him in Jordan the River. Mark 1.5. John 3.22. After these things came Jesus and his Disciples into the Land of Judea, and there he tarried with them, and SPRINKLED, verse 23. And John also was SPRINKLING in Aenon, BECAUSE there was MUCH WATER there, and they came and were SPRINKLED.  
Mark 1.19. And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was SPRINKLED of John (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) into Jordan, verse 10. And straightway coming up ut of the water, etc. Act 8.30. And they went down both into the water; both Philip and the Eunuch, and he SPRINKLED him. verse 39 And when they came out of the Water, the Spirit caught away Philip. So Gal. 3.27. As many as have been SPRINKLED into Christ have put on Christ, and Col. 2.12. BURIED with him in SPRINKLING; wherein also ye are risen with him; But I confess, this sort of bettering the Transiation, I shall not like in my Bible.  
Yet not content with all these Absurdities, you say you might add more of plunging in water, and danger of lives, and you condemn men of murder for having plunged in winter, yet name none that were murdered, nor executed for that murder, nor is there any proof save you own Authentic Imagination.  
To avoid the hardship of Winter, the Common-prayer-Book will tell you in the preamble, that Easter and Whitsuntide were therefore appointed by the Ancients for fit times of Baptism. And the Winter-Baptizing of Children in Wales, will sufficiently testify that you foist in your own untruths, by the strength of your own distracted Imagination.  
In answer to the 3 Objection from Rom. 6.4. you would take a great advantage, because there is no mention of water, and will make it a dry Baptism. When you bid your man wash your Cup, or Glass, unless you bid him do it with water, doth it signify nothing? But let him that is diligent read the Texts, Rom. 6.4. Col. 2.12. 1 Cor. 1.8. and satisfy themselves.  
To as little purpose do you bring in all the other places of Scripture, and therefore I shall trouble myself no futrher in the particulars of them. Nor do I intent further to be at Charges of printing a satisfaction to every one that Scribles, after having spent and lost so much for the public, and repaid with so much injustice and ingratitude. Nor will I meddle at present with the lawfullnesle or unlawfulness of your Ministry, which you bring in by head and shoulders.  
Therefore you may well perceive by my patience in answering your weak Arguments, and by my waving all your words of provocation and censure, as of Pride, like Tyrus, Questions of strife, Janglings, that I know nothing (P. 2.) Popish Pilgrimage, (P. 4.) to abide in the Ass or with the Ass. (P. 8.) and his invention who was a murderer. (P. 7.) Anabaptists. (P. 6.) mad and drunk. (P. 3.) Dippers plunged in a Sea of Absurdities (in the Title.) Renouncing of Baptism, denying of God, Devils, Heaven, Hell, Grace, Glory, and the like; that I am not all together so proud as you censured me, but that I desire in meekness and lowliness of Spirit to win you and all of your opinion (not to mine, but) to the truths of God, which the Lord grant through Jesus Christ, Amen.  
FINIS.   

The late coming forth of this Impression is to be amongst the Errata of the Printer: He that desires to be satisfied of the point, may read the Scriptures, and the Disputes between Mr. Den and Mr. Tombs, Dr. Featly and Mr. Martial. And Mr. Blackwells storming of Antichrist. And Mr. Laurence his Treatise of Baptism. Or the Book entitled the Vanity of children's Baptisms, etc. But they that are like Gallie (Act 14.15.16.17.18.) may let all alone.