〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
BABY-BAPTISM MERE BABISM. OR AN ANSWER TO NOBODY in five words, to Every-Body who finds himself concerned in't.  
I. ANTI-DIABOLISM Or the true Account of a dispute at ASHFORD proved a true counterfeit.  
II. ANTI-BABISM Or the Babish dispute of the Priests for for BABY-BAPTISM disproved.  
III. ANTI— RANTISM Or Christ'ndome unchrist'nd.  
FOUR ANTI-RANTERISM Or Christ'ndome newchrist'nd.  
V. ANTI— SACER DO TISM the deep●…tage of the DDDivinés discovered, & or the Antichristian clergy cleared to be that themselves, which they have ever charged CHRIST'S CLERGY to 〈◊〉▪  
By SAMUEL FISHER an unworthy ●…ant of Jesus Christ, and his poor PPPriest-belyed Church and People.  
1 King. 18. 27. And it came to pass that Elijah mocked them, and said, Cry aloud, for he is a God, etc.  
LAND. Printed by Henry Hills, and are to be sold by Will. Larner at the sign of the Blackmore at Fleet-bridge, and Richard Moon at the seven-stars in Pauls-Church-yard. 1653.   

TO THE HONEST HEARTED, unprejudiced Reader of these ensuing Systems, More especially to you my loving Country men of the County of Kent, Greeting,  
BELOVED Friends, and Brethren you have been earnest, and are now wellnigh hopeless, and therefore by this time may possibly be (for aught I know) half angry Expectants of something or other from me in answer to that True Counterfeit (so I call it) of the Ashford Disputation; A Pamphlet, so injurious (not so much to me as the truth) that 'twas provocation enough to the press of itself, to one so clearly concerned in it as myself, but as if it were not, was a while after seconded by another: Nevertheless, what evil surmises soever you have of my so long silence, as I dare not say I am altogether blameless, so I dare say I am not altogether excuseless in the business, for verily 
* Witness the Letter sent to me, in the name of more, from from one of the opponents; which, in fuller satisfaction concerning my call to this work, is extant at the end of this Epistle.  as 'twas little less than half a year after the Disputation before that Hasty Birth of theirs came to light, in which time it threatened the Country to come out upon it, and at last came (out upon't) indeed, so was it little less than a quarter after the nativity of that trifle before I received, from the Publishers thereof, the copy of it, together with this ensuing Summons to let somewhat be seen in my own right, in which since it's declared that they would needs interpret my total silence as a giving of the cause, I stood, as strictly engaged▪ so from thenceforth Irrevocably resolved (being elsewise indifferent) as the Lord should lend me strength, life, and leisure (not in my own, but the Gospel's Right, which now I saw must suffer, if I were silent) to set upon this wearisome work, notwithstanding which resolution of mine, what by Partly my often avocations from home in way of service to the truth, there being (if I may become a fool so far without offence, in satisfaction to such Churches as compel me to it by their unjust offences at my just absence from them as here to utter it) no less than ●…en public (not to speak of Private) Disputations, in which I have been actually interessed since that of Ashford, besides public preachings, other occasional meetings, and writings, Church visit, and visitations of sick members, to whom I have been moved several times to move many miles in such junctures, when (saving the pressingnesse of that case) no other should have importuned me to have stired an inch out of my own doors▪ Partly my own necessary occasions and outward affairs at home, which I am (though but little) yet to this day too much entangled in for a Soldier of Christ: Partly one long and tedious sickness which my God was pleased to exercise me with toward the dead of one winter (a) for almost a quarter together, so that I was in all that 
* In which sad winter visitation I may not but ta●… no●…ice here, in satisfaction to the deluded world, how miserably I was misreporte●… to have met the Devil in a field, to have been out of my wi●…s, and senses, stark mad, bound down in my bed, to have renounced, and that with raging, that way of the 〈◊〉, which, throw God's goodn●…sse, I stand fast in to this hour, of all which not the least Jota is true, and this too no●… only by much people, but▪ in part also by such of the Priesthood, as lived near enough to me to have given t●…uer intelligence, had they, or their E●…rwigs been either of them any better than they should be.  time, and somewhat more, neither capable to stir much without doors, nor do much within. Partly (if not principally) an earnest desire I had (as deeming it not worth while to trouble the world, and travel throw the Press with no more profitable a birth, than a bare contradiction to that Bauble of theirs, which doth more than sufficiently contradict itself, and a mere Nugatory Negation of a few false Affirmatives, that are made in that Account concerning my silly self and one poor particular disputation) to stop more gaps with one bush▪ and to hand forth something more for public use together with it, as I here have done, namely, not only two entire Treatises, viz. Anti-rantism, and Anti-ranterism▪ both which bear little or no particular reference to the Ashford Disputation, but also very many useful Animadversions of a number of lame Arguments, Empty Answers, absolve Absurdities, Babish Ba●…lings▪ Sophistical shuffles, and clear Contradictions, sometimes to themselves▪ and often to each other in their carrying on of the same cause (which are therefore the more remarkable) that are in the books of their best Champions, 
* Dr. Fea●…ley, Dr. Holmes. Mr Marshal Mr Bayly. Mr Blake. Mr Cotton. M Cobbet. Mr Cook.  all which as it asked me no small time to tumble o'er, to summon together, and enter in a new Treaty with, to see if I could yet possibly find cause to agree with, and fall back to them in the point of Infant baptism, before I struck a stroke against them with my pen, so when I could come to no accommodation by that last parley, but saw them all at odds among themselves, and cons●…quently saw more occasion than ever to fall out with them afresh, it took me up much more time to encounter with them all, for so I was fain to do more or less occasionally, as I found them in their several works falling in to the help of the Ashford Disputants by the way:  
Finally partly the starting of fresh Hares (I had almost said Foxes) 
* M●… Symson of S●…ardens so veraign preservative against Anabaptism. Mr. Baxters Plain Scripture proofs.  upon me whilst I was working to weariness in des●…rying the starting hole●… of the old ones, which occasioned, yea even necessitated me to take up and follow those new scents, unless I would rather suffer them to range up and down, and do mischief without putting on in the least measure to prevent them: more especially that Hasty birth of Mr. Baxters, which as well for the sake of some Friends, that commended it to my consideration, as for the sake of that deep delusion I saw the whole Country to be under by doting on it, I was constrained to speak (as I have done at the end of Anti-rantism) though succinctly, yet more distinctly to, then to any other.  
What (I say) with these obstructions Partly▪ and some other also of another nature, I have been forced inevitably to press your patience (Dear Friends) almost to death: whereupon I challenge you notwithstanding to forbear Murmuring and acting in ●…uch sullenness, as, because the book came out no sooner, thereupon to neglect it altogether: if my pains may not abate his displeasure, and balance his patience, who is offended without a cause, for not hasting it out by the halves, as some (for aught I see) had rather I should have done, then tarried till I had done the tenth of what I intended. I desire that man, who ever he is, either to fry still in the fire of his own fretful humour, or else to please himself, when he sees Good, without amends from me, who having disposed of this, that's out, to the public service as soon as I could well do it acceptably to God, whose providence hath hitherto prevented me, dare not disparage his acceptance of me so much, as, in what I have it, to ask forgiveness from men:  
Its never long that comes at last, if withal it effect that in order to which it comes, and if you say, Bis, qui cito, he does indeed, that dispatches, I say Sat cito, si sat been, soon enough, if well enough, or else too soon even yet: whether this present Bulk doth perform its errand so well or no, as to be worth your waiting so long for it, It's not for me to determine; I leave it to your strictest examination, regardless utterly of any censure, whether yours, or theirs, to whom it bears strictest Relation, my business in it lying more with God, then either them, or you; well knowing that he, who spends himself in thoughts of what others think of him & his, hath more pride than wit, and more time than grace and wisdom to improve it, let the work therefore stand or fall to its own Master, I'll neither beg any man's good word for it, nor put it under any patronage, but Christ's, from whom it came to me, and to whom together with all honour, thanks and praise for his assistance of me most unworthy creature in it I dedicate it back again. If any quarrel with the length of it now it is come, as some do in that it was so long ere it came, and ask why I have laid such a large and voluminous siege to so small and trivial a fort, such poor paper works, as might have been battered and taken in much less time, and with a far less train of Artillery than is here brought against the Ashford Disputation? I desire them to understand, that howbeit the daring defiance thereof engaged me to make my first onset upon that petty Garrison, so that there is as it were a vein of dispute therewith continuing, and running (for the most part) throwout the whole Volume; yet the battle is also with the main body of their worthies (as I said before) according as (inter pregnandum) they have occasionally been accessary to their relief.  
Secondly, Possession is eleven points of the twelve, in which respect, they being but defendants, and we now indeed (as they say page the first) invading, or rather re-invading (for they at first by their own invention brought innovation, and invasion upon the truth) both them and the practice of their Church in the point of infant sprinkling, which are both praepossed already of all Christendom, and have now of a long time planted, seated, and settled themselves so firmly in the dark Cells of men's in most consciences and affections, that it hath been and is not only hateful, but hazardous for any to storm them out, we go upon no small disadvantages, and so had need be more free of our shot then else we should be; Intus existens facile prohibet alienum, a few within the walls may be a match to many that are yet without, how much more when the stormed are many to one of those that storm them, even four hundred and fifty of the rest to few of the Lords Elijahs.  
Thirdly, An ell too long is better than an inch too short: he that likes not the length hath enough of the same to make it shorter to himself when he pleases, and liberty from the Author to look into as little of it as he lists.  
Fourthly if you find it not greater in quantity then in quality advantageous to the truth, it may welcome itself into reasonable men's affections, when such a short shuffle as that it relates to, may, without injury, be shut out of doors.  
If the title of it chance to trouble Any body, that shall not at all trouble me: for though the Ashford disputation, which it mainly answers to, was assuredly penned by Some Body, yet No Body is pleased to own it, and therefore to him, even to No body, it was most meet to superscribe the answer.  
In a word, and to conclude (for it were an unreasonable thing, & no less than to set myself upon a new score by wiping out the old one, if while I am excusing myself for detaining the book so long from you, I should detain you long from the book itself, now it is out, by a long Epistle) what ere 'tis, here 'tis, if Every Body be free from the guilt of those errors and He●…esies, those fopperies, and fal●…ties, those dissembling shifts, and contradictions, ignorances' and other evils that are here condemned, than No body shall have need to complain of it, for than it complains of No Body at all, but if Any Body suspects shrewdly that it speaks to him, it speaks to him indeed.  
Yours, and the Truths, SAMUEL FISHER.   

For Mr. Fisher.  
SIR,  
THESE short Collections of the Ashford Disputation had slept long enough, if your private letters had not awakened them by a too much slighting your opponents and their arguments. I know you have seen the thing long since, and heard the other day you intended a Uindicatition. The last Thursday there was a conference at Wadhurst in Sussex upon the like subject, where were more than one of your Opponents at Ashford. This relation was objected to them among other things, as a Pamphlet injurious to yourself, as neither setting down your answers truly, nor fully. This puts the Publisher upon a further work. Not an new thing upon the subject, but a desire of you (if you give not the cause by your silence upon this Provocation) to let something be seen in your own right, by which he may take occasion to clear himself about the publishing of this. To that purpose I was entreated to send you this Copy; that you may not take advantage of those many faults, which through the negligence of the Printer are found in your former. Sir, I pray deal clearly and ingenuously, for you deal with such as yourself in this, that their aim is only God's glory, and the discharge of their own consciences in vindication of the truth, suppressing heresy, reducing those who are gone, confirming those who are doubtful, and praying that God would give the assistance of his spirit to these ends. So resteth  
March 11. 1649. Your Friend R. M.   

An Epistolary prescript to Mr. R. M. and the rest of the Clergy that were present, and (at their own choice) precedent at the Disputation, whether Accountants, or Associates in answer to their expostulatory Provocation  
WORTHY SIRS,  
HAd your sleeping Disputation been some Lion, it had been better for me to have been asleep then to have Awakened it (as it seems I did) by but two or three touches with my pen, but sith it is but a Fox spoiling (as far as they are within its reach) the Vine and her tender grapes, I am (notwithstanding its majestical craft) neither sorry, nor ashamed, nor asraid that I reached it a rap, and roused it into such a resolution towards the vindication of itself; for I doubt not but he, with whom it falls out afresh, even Truth's Champion Christ jesus, that true David▪ who wearied it once before, may possibly Master it again (though by the same silly instrument, that he used then (even a stone and sl●…g in his hand) so as thereby to awaken, if none of yourselves (as O Si, O Si) yet many others (as the first encounter di●…) to come into the Vineyard, and cluster together with the Saints, who else happily would sleep still, so as to remain in that waist Forrest of Parish posture, wherein you Gentiles dwell: ●…pecially when they shall find that though we are a people small and despised, yet we keep Christ's statutes, and cleave close to that primitive simplicity of the Gospel, from which all the clergy in the world, and their coacted more than either truly collected, or (for aught yet appears) elected people, are most miserably straggled, and the best reformed Nations in all Christ'ndome, which yet pass with you (qua tales) for curant Churche●…, are to this very day ●…stranged.  
Now Sirs, as to your Book, of which together with your Provocation to answer or yield you sent me a perfect copy, whether I had seen it before or no, I kindly thank you for it however, and have accordingly put forth this following Answer, in vindication not of my right (for 'twere better for me to d●…e, than not be under injury in the midst of innocency for the truth; yea your book hath righted me more by wronging me in such wise as was obejected to you at Wadhurst, then if it had righted me indeed) but of that truth from which by Heresy both you and the whole world, save a few that return, are departed, which let it live, as it must now, m●…ugre malice itself, and then though I die for it, as I am unworthy to do, yet I trust to be no loser by the bargain,  
2. As to those letters you speak of, which awakened your disputation into this Thing called the Account.  
1. I must tell you that I know but one (that is myself) who did, and but one letter wherein I did at all make mention of your doings: If that be it (as no doubt it is) you were so exceptious at, as thereupon to betake yourselves to vindication in so public a way as the press, one would think you should have excepted, and acted principally in print against such matters in that my letter, as are of more general and public concernment, as lay the Axe to the root of your tree, as strike at the very standing of your Kingdom, and sight at the 〈◊〉 Function of the whole Fraternity of you as false and sa●…ed, and not against such only, as only seem to savour of some sleightings of your single persons, and some (not undu●…) disrespects toward your dispute: but though there is so much in that letter of mine, as clears the whole clergy to be corrupt in the constitution of their Ministry, and congregations, and even so much truth, as you●… never understand, whilst you go on to bark against the Moon, as you do, nor stand under the trial of within a while before either God or man; yea though the Gentleman also, to whom I wrote, being one of quality then Partizing and Patronising in your cause, did turn me over to yourselves for satisfaction to the contrary 
* Whose 〈◊〉 words in his return to mine are these viz. as for that most rev●…rend Clergy, whomin general you spa●…er with so much dirt, with what ●…ingers a blind man may discern, I shall leave them to vindicate themselves, and their profession from such 〈◊〉 obloquys: , whence it migh●… very well be expected, when it was rumbled about that you were at the press, that you would have returned▪ omething to that, rather than turn me off with no more than a few fragments of your old disputation, yet, all this notwithstanding, you touch not the main tenor of that my letter with the least of your fingers, save that you say in the preface of your book, you are disgraced by it, but show it not.  
2. Whereas you judge that you my Opponents, and your Arguments were too much sle●…ghted in that my letter, I judge to this hour, that neither the one nor the other are slighted below that we weakness which was then, and is now much more discovered in your Accou●…t itself, insomuch that a man may well save himself the labour of making good what ere he says in disparagement of your disputation, any otherwise then by sending him thither, where they may see by your own testimony of it, how meanly it was managed, though you have made the best side of your Arguments to stand outward, and the worst of your Ant agonists Answers, yea Qui verbis opu●… est quum facta loquuntur? if any believe not me affir●…ing how poorly infant baptism ●…as proved▪ at Ashford, let him believe the work itself now extant, proclaiming itself weak, its argument's weak, for so the ●…ing called the ●…rue Account th●…reof doth, in word in us preface, and indeed in the resia●…, 
Litera scripta manet non ●…a verba diu.  
Litera sculpta manet not ita scripta▪ diu.   
3. As to the privacy of that my Rescription and Recrimination to the Gentleman you wot of, which you complain of, not only in this your monitory missive to myself, but in your Preface a●…so to the Reader, where you say your Aversaries in Private loaded your disputation with disgraces, as if you had been bobbed behind in some base way, and so secretly suppl●…nted, that he who spoke so diminutively of you and yours, must needs be ashamed that his words should ever see the light; you know Sirs that my letter was not so private, but that it might have been made public (if yo●… had pleased) by yourselves, who as you had a quarrel against it, so both had it amongst you, and free leave also from me (of whom if you had had a mind to it, or any advantage by it, I am sure you would not have ask●… it) to have pressed it out in your service, with your own defence against it, the press being also as open to your excusation, as my accusation.  
4. If you ask me why, I reply not to the sole publisher of the Account, but address myself in way of blame to you all, even such as were no more than present at the disputation. I answer,  
1. How to personate the chief publisher of your collections I knew not, for I know him not: or if I know him well enough for myself, yet I know not how to know him so well, as on my knowledge to notific him to others: he hath chosen to be nameless, whether to this end that he might be the more securely shameless in setting down orno, I will not say at any hand, but many a one will think so for all that: for my part since I saw it pleased him to hide himself, I was not disposed much to inquire after him, much l●…sse shall he be dicovered for me, who can tell, from the time I first saw his work, whose finger it is not, more safely than I can yet, whose it is: for in such sense as some Scripture is, it's doubtless no singer of God, and though I am sure 'tis the finger of mere man, assisted by Satan, yet of what man in special, (I confess I have good ground to pay it with thinking) I may not speak positively in print, unless I'll speak upon bare hearsay, which I heed not.  
Secondly, if it were mainly the employment of one to gather things together, & compose them into one bulk, yet it seems plainly to be the joint issue of several men's brains, and to have been rak't out of more memories than one, and therefore well may you call them Collections, yea that not merely one, but more than one had a hand in it, I am informed sufficiently to belief by the voice of the Baby-book itself, which speaking in some places plurally, but not any where singularly of its Parentage, little less than assures me of this, that howbeit there might be one prime penman of the Pamphlet, or whoere it was that thrust it through the press, yet the minds of more men, yea more Ministers than one is sounded forth in it, yea of such as were but Auditors at the Disputation, whose sense both of it, and of its efficacy upon the people is said in your Account to be so unanimous, that they resolved together with the rest to declare their sense of it in their several congregations, and oppose the growth of Anabaptism, as 'tis called, in their respective flocks, which since it hath been done by them too, accordingly as was then agreed, whether if not all, or at lest a plurality of those Priests, who before laid their heads togethe●… to betray the truth of God, did not since compare their notes together to belly it, and whether birds of a Feather did not flock together to give their several influences toward this hotchpotch relation, 'tis more if (if any of you can clear yourselves of it do) than I can clear any of you of at all, save the Scotchman of Kenington, who at Folston disclaimed his having any hand in it: But should that be more than I have warrant to be sure of, yet however I am certain of this, that either it is the sense of you all, or else some of you have the more wrong, whilst the book is so curiously composed, that it may seem to be the Minister's book, and the Arguments that are set down in it, be they never so silly and inconsequent, are fathored upon you all in gross, recorded as the Ministers arguments, though proceeding but from one Ministers mouth, and not few follies and absurd things, whilst the Penman dances in the clouds himself, are related as spoken, and done by the Ministers, which the Ministers may very well, and will once find time to be ashamed of: yet you seem to take all that's put upon you to yourselves, not any of you entering your dissent: whilst therefore you seem so jointly to justify him, that puts you all upon the score in the Report, you cannot justly condemn him, who Arrests you all for it, in the Reply.  
5. As to these present Returns of mine to that threefold thing you have thrust forth, I am experienced by your wont Demeanour toward such as trouble you too much with truth, how much more Odium then ever I must come under there by among both yourselves and your Admirers; but hic murus ahaeneus esto nil conscire sibi, nulla pallescere culpa. This verily is no less than a Brazen fence to me against all your censures and exceptions, that even herein, as well as in in other things for which you condemn me, I have exercised myself so, as to keep a conscience void of offence, and that toward both God and man. Yea if I have not dealt clearly, as you wish me to do, i. e. according as the truth is indeed, then in the very way of waiting upon God only, singly, seriously, and with many tears for the understanding of it, in which way he, that cannot lie, hath assured me he will be found, my conscience is most wonderfully clouded; therefore see that you see, if you see.  
But if I have not dealt ingenuously i. e. as candidly as so crooked a generation as the clergy is, that do always err in their hearts, and have not known Christ's ways, can justly claim from any, but some Cowardly Clawback, that cares not to be unfaithful in his carriage both toward God and them, than the Lord deal so graciously with us all, as to humble both you under a sanctified sight of such sins as you are as truly guilty of, as here reproved for, and me under my miscarriage in reproving.  
6. Finally Sirs, having briefly premised these things, and praying earnestly that our Lord jesus Christ would vouchsafe you all that holy spirit of his, even the spirit of promise, which (I fear) you are more strangers to then you are aware of, and in order thereunto, adjuring you to repent from your dead works, to arise and be baptised and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord, so resteth, as to this Epistle,  
Your truly loving, though as little Beloved, as Believed Friend SAMUEL FISHER.   

ANTI-DIABOLISM. OR THE TRUE ACCOUNT A TRUE COUNTERFEIT.  
ANd now Sirs (to say nothing of your pretty Preface till anon, for even that also must then be forth coming to give Account of its dawbery, and incongruity, as well as your Account itself) I will begin with your book, which (as diminutive as it is) you have for all that stitched up in no less than three Treatises.  

First, A Report of your Disputation.  
Secondly, A Review of your Arguments.  
Thirdly, A Ratiocination about Heretics.   
In all which, how far forth you quit yourselves like men of truth, and reason, comes now before the world to be examined.  
The first I say, is a Story of the long Disputation that was held at Ashford, july 27. 1649. from noon, till near seven at night, and it's contained in the five first leaves, whereof two whole ones at least (but say so they had need) are spent in your exact setting down of the Arguments and Answers, and the rest in praevious and posteriour passages.  
So that in this first part of your Pamphlet, there are two things in general which you profess to give A true Account of.  
First, The Propositions agreed on between yourselves, and your Respondent, his Position, and what else was precedent, and preparative to the Disputation.  
Secondly, The Disputation itself, and such things as were subsequent to it, in each of which, if I show not that you have recorded more flat falsities, and downright untruths than one (and that were too much to fall from your pens, were you Ministers of Christ indeed) then let my own pen record me for a liar, and my own self bear the blame of overcharging you, and that for ever.  
In order to a trial of the Truth in this case between you and me, though I suppose I shall not be more critical in considering, nor volumnous in dilating on them, than yourselves are numerous in bewraying of your own negligences, ignorances', contradictions, fictions, ●…nakednesses, and abusive shifts, throughout this your threefold thing, yet I shall make little less than a total transscription of your Papers, before I have done, and therein take notice of such absurdities at least whereby you most notoriously delude the world, most grossly oppose the truth; most unworthily wrong your Respondent, and most palpably proclaim yourselves to be rather true Dissemblers, than true Discoverers of the Ashford Disputation, and Smotherers, rather than Publishers of that Gospel-truth in the point of Baptism, which you pretend also to give as true an Account of to the world, as of the other.  

Report.  
You talk first of Propositions agreed upon between your Respondent, and yourselves, the Ministers at the Communion-Table, in the Church of Ashford in Kent, before the Disputation began.   

Reply.  
Give me leave (Sirs, sith silence with you may be taken else for Assent) to say a word or two to this; you style yourselves the Ministers both here, and elsewhere, throughout your book; But if you mean Ministers of Christ, and the Gospel, I am yet to learn that from you (which I never found you very forward to teach me) viz. that you came truly, and honestly by that Title; you have hitherto wanted no provocation from me to prove the lawfulness of your calling: I made bold to denominate you Antichristian Ministers, in my Position, upon the very day of the Disputation, before those Thousands, which (you say) were Auditors thereof; And I have asserted the same more abundantly since in that letter to Mr. G. C. which it seems you know so well, as even thence to take occasion in a Pet, to publish so much as you have done of your Disputation, all which is enough to give you to understand that I own you not at all in that capacity, yet did you never, no neither then at the Disputation, nor since in your so true a Relation of it, so much as once open your mouth, or strike one stroke with your pen, whereby to evince it, that you are Christ's Ministers, which gives me to believe, that howbeit you have a habit of calling yourselves so, yet you had rather men believed you, on your bare words, than put you to prove yourselves to be so, and that you are as utterly uncapable to clear it, as 'tis clear you are unwilling to be urged to it.  
You speak of the Church of Ashford, and a Communion-Table in it: 'Twere strange if I should not know what you mean thereby, yet had you told this piece of your tale in other Terms, it had been so much the less liable to correction: I know but one Church of Ashford, that hath a Communion-Table in't, and that is those few persons, who since they have gladly received the Word of Truth, have been according to Christ's will in that kind, baptised in his name for remission of sins, and do now continue in the Apostles doctrine, and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and prayers, to which the Lord I hope will add daily such in those parts as shall be saved: in this Church there is a Communion-Table indeed, even the Table of the Lord, at which they meet, blessing, and drinking that Cup of blessing, which is the Commemoration, and Communion also of the blood of Christ, breaking, and eating that bread, which is the Commemoration, and Communion of the body of Christ, at which you, and your Respondent never yet met, but may do yet in due time, if the Lord please to grant you, (for till then surely it never will be) repentance to the acknowledgement of his truth: But for other Communion-Table, I wot not Sirs that there is any at all at Ashford. As for that common Table, which stands in the great stone house, where the Bells hang, where the people meet once a week, but never do that they should do, if they were disciples of Christ indeed, which house you call the Church of Ashford, (and I cannot but allow you so to do (sith you disclaim the true one) the very Steeple being well nigh as much a truly constituted Church of Christ, as a parish people, the one whereof is but a compacted number of dead stones in a literal sense, and (for the most part) no less in a spiritual sense is the other, besides stone Churches, and wooden Priests (such as if you are not, yet most of the Pope's children are) suit well enough each with other) as for that Table (I say) where you, and your Respondent agreed better about the Articles of the Disputation, than they do (for aught I see) to this day about that Article of faith they disputed on, you had need to find some fitter phrase for it, than Communion-Table, for it hath long since ceased to be of any such use as for people to communicate at it; The Gentleman, my beloved friend that is now Resident there, and Precedent too (in pretence at least) as a Pastor over that flock, having never administered it at all since his abode among them, nor since the Classis possessed him of that Relation, and gave him orders to feed them with that ordinance: why he doth not meddle with that service in his parish, would be far more wonderful to me then 'tis had not mine own conscience been of the same constitution with his when I was with him in the same condition, for as my own feet stuck once in the, same stocks when I stood in Pastoral relation to parochial people, so I believe him to be further enlightened, then to be free for a promiscuous admittance to the Supper of such Societies, among whom he discerns (not a few) more goats than sheep, or to hold Communion there, with them whom in the Pulpit he cries out on as unbelievers, as knowing well enough, there's no fellowship to be held between light, and darkness, believers and unbelievers in that holy ordinance: yet he sprinkles the Infants of all (as you also do, and myself blindly did) or else that parish will prove happily to hot to hold him: upon what account he doth so I know not, for sure it cannot be upon this, because only believers Infants are to be sprinkled. The Lord open all your eyes to see those sorry shifts wherein you shrowded yourselves for a time from your own sight, so that ye see not when ye interfeer, nor feel when you hack your own shins, for who so blind as those that cannot see how you act quite contrary to that you argue for, and overthrow your own principles by your practice?   

Report.  
These Propositions say you were as followeth. First, that both parties should publicly protest that they sought for verity, not victory.   

Reply.  
I acknowledge this is very true, and it was protested on both sides, accordingly as was agreed, nevertheless whether it be the Proud Priesthood, that seeks to tuck all men under their girdles, and by force to tie high, and low, rich, a●…d poor, Prince, and people, male, and female, bond, and free, to serve God in no other way than the Pope, or their Archbishops or Arch-presbyteries appoint, and to tread all under them, that with never such evidence of Scripture, and demonstration of the Spirit, and power do gainsay them, or that poor party of people, who merely in order to the promotion of truth rejoicingly subject themselves to scorn, shame, hatred of all, revile from friends, foes, neighbours, old acquaintance, etc. whether (I say) it be those, or these, alias you or we that pretend verity, and intent only victory will appear more at large in the examination, of the 23. page of your book, in the first line whereof you charge us therewith, as an evil most specially incident unto us, mean while I let it pass, and go on.   

Report.  
Secondly, that the question to be disputed was Paedo-baptism, namely, whether the baptising of little Children, born of believing parents, practised by the Church of God, were lawful?   

Reply▪  
I remember indeed that when 'twas questioned what the question should be, Paedo-baptism was agreed upon to be it, i. e. whether children ought to be baptised? but had I been as wise as a Woodcock, or minded the matter so well as I should have done, I had spoken in a language more consonant to your practice, for Paedo-rantism was the question I intended i e. whether children ought to be sprinkled? for though Baptism, or Dipping of Infants is that the lawfulness of which you will never be able to demonstrate, an error lying still in the Subject, in case you did (as in truth you do not) dispense it, yet you are gone further from the truth then so, no more (at best) than Rantizing that false Subject, which to do is indeed no Raptism at all: I excepred against this in my Position as well as the other, but your prudence was pleased to leave it out in your accurate Account thereof, lest it should do you more harm than good, and asserted your error to be double, in your dispensation of that you call Baptism viz. first in that you plead to have Infants be baptised when they ought not, Secondly, in that you pretend to baptise them, and yet do not; of both which I demanded an account at that time, and in all reason you should have given it, but not caring how little your sprinkling is spoken of, because you have little, or nothing to speak for it, you so took me at my word at the Table when I yielded to dispute Paedo-baptism, that Paedo-rantism (your only practice) might not be meddled with in discourse at all.  
Secondly, I observe when ever you come to dispute for your Childish-christenin●…s you plead only for the Infa●…s of Believers: but is not your plea by far too narrow for your practice, whilst you commonly christian the Infants of all? you know your people are not all in the faith, why else do you preach to them as profane to the end you may convert them thereunto? yet the wickedest wretches you so keep from the Supper, that you often keep all from it for their sakes; have access with their seed to be christened, as freely for the most part as the other: doth not that same faith that denominates men believers, saints, godly, and gives them, and (as you say) theirs too a true title to Baptism, entitle their persons to the Supper? or must a man bring you another, and that a better kind of faith to the one, than he had need care for toward the other? this some of your Tribe do not blush to say, because (as the case is) there is nought else to be said: but know ye Sirs and they too, that though you have your several sorts of Saints for your several services viz. your grosser sort of believers to admit (not in their own persons neither when at years, but) in their posterity only to your Rantism, and a finer sort for the Supper, yet Christ requires but one sort of faith and saintship to both these ordinances, viz. no more than a true one to the one, and no less than a true one to the other. Again you had much need (had you not think you?) to set children of believing parents as the only subjects of Baptism in the state of the question between us, when throughout your whole Dispute (as I shall show when I come to consider it) there is not a tittle, nor grain of argument brought by you to prove the right of Believers Infants to Baptism, but it serves as much every whit to prove the like for the Infants of Unbelievers also: yea Sirs take this from me, you do your cause a world of wrong in stating your question so straight, for besides that you give the lie therein to your own action, which is the admission of all that are brought to you, and are born within the precincts of your parishes, you drive yourselves to such a Dilemma by your own disputes, that you will not know how to open your Church-doors for Believers Infants to come in thereat, but Unbelievers Infants will with ease creep in at them too.  
Thirdly, one word more to this yet: Did your Respondent assent to you in it (as you seem to say) that the Baptism of children is practised by the Church of God? how prettily have you put these terms [practised by the Church of God] into the very question, and that too as it stands stated beeween us? Did I give, and grant so much? or have you not rather taken it for granted from me whether I will, or no? Sirs I had thought I had given you sufficient evidence of my denial that the Baptism of Infants is practised by the Church of God; yea though the Church of the Pope, and such as you call the Church of God, as the Church of the Prelate, the Church of the Presbyter, and some others too, do dispense Rantism to Infants under the name of Baptism, yet I did then, as also I do still, deny it to be, or have been practised by any true Church of God primitive, or modern, that then was, or now is visibly constituted according to his will in the word: As for what you call the Church of God whether you mean all Christendom, or the Protestant part of it only, it is even therefore no true visible Church of God because it Rantizes Infants: for that being undoubtedly a straggling from the truth, and an undue administration of that ordinance, not only as to the form of it, but the subject also, the name of the true visible Church of God is (ipso facto) destroyed from it, were there no more error in it but barely that, if Doctor Featly (to whom you send us in your Review) define the true Church of God aright; for while he says that (meaning that only) is a true Church where the word is truly taught, and the Sacraments duly administered, consequently that is no true Church where baptism is unduly administered; and so it is, (or rather Rantism instead of it] not only at Rome, but in England also, whilst to Infants; therefore as the Church of Rome is but a false Church, so the Church of England is no true one. I utterly do therefore, yea and did then, deny that Infant-Baptism is at all practised by the Church of God: and yet (O full of all fallacy) as if your Respondent were agreed with you in't that the true Church of God did baptise Infants, how finely have you foisted in this Epithet to the baptism of little children viz. [practised by the Church of God] and that in this very Account you give of our agreement about the very form, and terms of the question, that was yet to be disputed between us?   

Report.  
Thirdly, That the Arguments used in the disputation should be only express Scriptures, or arguments of necessary consequence from them, All Authorities of Fathers and Churches laid aside; though the practice of the Church was pleaded for, yet would not be yielded to.   

Reply.  
1. I agree with you that the Arguments should indeed have been such only by agreement, but that one of those you then used, or any of these few material ones (for the immaterial being of no account with yourselves you Account not for) which you here expose to be perused is grounded upon express Scripture, or any good consequence therefrom I deny, as will I hope be manifested in my ensuing Re-review of them, and Review of your Review itself.  
Secondly, if by Fathers, whose authority you hang so much on, you mean those that were some hundreds of years after Christ, and were canonised more lately for such, as Father Origen, Father chrysostom, Father jerom, Father Cyprian, Father Austin, and the other objects of the Clergies Dotage; and if by Churches you mean those that were in the ages when, and places where these Fathers lived, or any other since the primitive times, which were the purest, it is but a folly to stand arguing from them, whose words and ways are no more the rule of truth to us then ours are to be to them that succeed us: for verily they might and did speak sometimes not according to the word, and then they were as Heterodox as others, and ourselves are in as good possibilities as they to speak according to the word, and then we are as Orthodox, and Authentic to the full as themselves. I did therefore utterly disown all authority of these Fathers, and Churches, for I knew none they had to be a Standard to after ages: yet though I counterpleaded your Plea from their practice, it was not lest your cause should be advantaged thereby, for even the Testimony of those Fathers is against you; but because as they were subjected to the word, so were they as subject to error as ourselves: but if by Fathers you mean the Primitive Prophets, and Apostles to whom all your Forefathers are but Children, viz. Father Peter, Father Paul, Father james, Father jude, Father john, whose Doctrine was the foundation to the Churches, and by Churches those that were then built upon their doctrine, as that of Ephesus, Corinth, Philippi, Rome, etc. before the falling off from the truth, the Authority of these Fathers, and practise of these Churches is pleaded for as seriously by us, as the other superstitiously by yourselves.   

Report.  
Fourthly, Here you tell us 'twas propounded, That the form of the Disputation should be Syllogistical, which I, after many reasons alleged by you the Ministers to enforce the same, at last yielded to.   

Reply.  
A very fit phrase for it: for 'twas enforced by you indeed, yet more by strength of resolution than reason, that 'twas yielded to by myself is as true; yet I must profess it was because the Disposition of your wills did put me as (as we say) to Hobson's Choice, for I saw you so desirous to draw your necks out of the collar, and to make any thing in excuse to break off the Discourse, that I must choose either that way, or none, and therefore rather than the work of that day should fall (as it must have done altogether else for you) to the total failing of the expectation, and hindering the edification of the people, I could not but give way to your desires: Nevertheless your many reasons (which were but two, and those as reasonless too as if you had said nothing) were countermand with as many more, and those also of so much weight, that because you began to feel them sit heavy upon your Scholastic skirts, you would have obstructed my delivery of them to the people: for what great matters did you allege whereby at that time and place to prove the expediency of such a form? First, that 'twas given out (as my desire to them is it never may be again) by them of our party, that I was a Scholar, and durst meet with Scholars in discourse, and therefore seeing I now was before Scholars, it was expected that I should dispute in the way that's most usual among them. Secondly, That the way of Dispute by Syllogisms (for which some of you had little need to dispute, considering their illogicall, and un-syllogisticall doings that day, wherein they were all-to-be-puzzled in their matter by fumbling so much about that form) was the clearest, and most compendious to the proving of things, and the preventing of extrravagancies, and disorder; much what in such a manner did you utter yourselves, in order to enforcing your Proposition, to which the reply was to this purpose, Namely, First, that though I had been in the University, and a Graduate there, yet I pretended to no great Scholarship, yea, that I was a Dunce, and a fool, which very terms, and no other, I repeated again in my Position, and was contented to be counted for no other, as to that kind of learning of much of which I was willingly forgetful, that I might know more of Christ, and the plainness of his Gospel. Secondly, that I came not thither to dispute, (nor did I (the Lord is my witness) in that formal way you stood upon) but in plainness to give an account before all, to as many as should ask it, according to my ability, and what liberty you should allot me thereunto, (which yet was well nigh none at all) of the way you call Heresy, after which I, and many others did worship. Thirdly, that these Syllogistical ways of arguing, and the foolish feigned forms of the Scribes and Disputers of this world, which men might dispute in about the things of Nature, and the world, were utterly unsuitable to the seriousness of the things of Christ, and the Gospel, which were most effectually delievered, for so Paul chose to hold them out, in all plainness of speech, and most commonly hid from people by the Logical terms, and Methods of man's invention; and that the wise and prudent men after the flesh, Doctors, Schoolmen and Casuists had clouded the truth from the world, for ages and generations together, by these their artificial composures, Fourthly, that Christ and his Apostles, the most of which were unlearned, and ignorant men, though they were scarce ever out of disputes about the Gospel, did yet never dispute by the way of Syllogisms.  
Fifthly, That this way was fitter for the Schools, and very unfit for that Auditory, where the people, for whose sake we were chiefly come together to discourse, knew not what belonged to mood and figure. Sixthly, that we ourselves were now countrisied by our long nonresidence in the University, and so might very well be to seek on a sudden, and so I found some of you were, to Syllogise so handsomely as we should do: these were the heads, though 'tis like not the very words and order of that, which with mighty much a do, I had leave to return to your proposal: Notwithstanding, all which you standing still so stiffly, to have either your own way, or none, I said I would not decline it, and so it was agreed to proceed in't. Howbeit, give me leave to tell you now, as than I did not, sith you deem it such a wise way of Disputation to keep to the Rules of the Academies, that for men of gravity, in conference of matters of such eternal concernment, it's a most Pedantic, toyish and boyish piece of business to stand fabling about moods and figures, which are but the A. B. C. or first rudiments to a Scholar, and as inferior to judicious discourse indeed, as spelling with the finger is to reading in full perfection, and that which is as fit for a wise man to forget, as it is for a fresh man to remember: besides, it's the next way round about to the discerning the whole of any matter; for all you then said for your way in Syllogisms, which in substance was no more than this, viz. That infants have the Spirit, faith, holiness, many commendations in Scripture, are such of whom to doubt their having the spirit is a breach of Christian charity, whom to deny baptism to, makes the Covenant of the Gospel worse than that under the law; destroys all the hope that parents can have of their salvation, crosses the practice of the universal Church, which one would think you should be ashamed to make a book of; might have been exposed to the consideration of your Respondent, in much less than half the half quarter, and given out plainly enough in a few positions for him to have replied to with your leave and silence: but time was so spined out by your long productions, and his Repetitions of your Syllogisms, that there was but a very long-little, in comparison of what else might have been delivered; and Sirs, I assure you of this one thing, I beseech you to lay it to heart in time, the generation of you Disputers is rejected by the Lord, and a sort of plain English men raised up, who notwithstanding the curiosity of your cudgel-play, and those fine forms of your Fencing-schools, whereby you shield yourselves from the truth, will by their upright downright dealings with you, and the word, be impowered to beat your cudgels to your heads; and though you seek to lap up the nakedness of your ways, from the sight of the people for a time, in a pair of Logic breeches, yet these are wearing out a pace, so that you shall see within a while, what now you will not, that all your Syllogistical forms, will not secure your Sylli-popicall matters.   

Report.  
Fifthly, you tell us 'twas agreed that I should be respondent, which though there was little reason for, in regard I invaded the practice of the Church, whereof you the Ministers were Defendants, and aught to have showed upon what grounds I did it, the confuting of which would haut tended more to the satisfaction of the Auditory, was by you the Ministers yielded to at my importunity.   

Reply.  
O yes! all manner of persons that were at the Disputation at Ashford give attendance, here's as pretty a prank as you shall likely see played by any, save a Classis of Clergymen, and among them you may likely see the like again, viz. a tale told transversim, a thing storied out Archipodialitèr, or with heels upwards: and you of the Clergy that were there, you specially that fingered out this Article, heed what I say: That I who invaded the practice of the Church, for so I did, not of God but of Rome, England, Scotland, France, and Ireland, etc. in the point of Infant-sprinkling wherein they are all Romishly devoted, should come before 1000s of people, before you Mis-ministers also, professing my desires, and the very end of my being there to be no other than (because I was counted an Heretic for denying Infant-sprinkling) to give account, or (to speak in y●…ur own Terms) to show upon what grounds I did it, moving, urging, earnestly claiming by the very University orders, which yourselves stood strictly to tie me to, that I might have two hours, or (if not so) but one, or (if not so) but half a one, wherein to lay down upon what grounds I denied Infant-spri●…kling, that you the Minist●…rs, Defendants of that way of yours might confute those grounds of mine (if you could) as that which would have tended more in my mind (as well as yours) to the satisfaction of the Auditors, than any thing else (for even all this I did that day at Ashford) and that you the Ministers should be utterly against my giving this account, and showing my grounds, which I would so fain have shown, rather than heard yours (for no less than this do you confess yourselves, saying page 2. that before the Dispute I moved to make a position, and page 10. that after the Dispute I made a motion that you would hear me preach, that is, give account, or show the grounds of my dissent (for so I spoke, leaving you a liberty to take your exceptions when I had done) and that yourselves only concluded it un-necessary, yea, opposed it, and made three or four [frivolous] pretences against it, for even this also you confess yourselves, page 2. page 10. That you (I say) the same Ministers that did thus ponere obicem by your own confession, should yet in the same paper write thus, Namely, that I ought to have showed upon what grounds I denied your practice, that you might have confuted them to the satisfaction of the people, as if yourselves had been very forward that I should give account, or show my Arguments and Reasons, only myself was against it, and opposed it, and that with importunity, as if I had urged, that at any hand I might not give account of what I did, 'tis such a cunning contradiction to yourselves as I never saw penned by the hands of prudent men since I was born to this day; Sirs, if I should have said so much as this of myself, that I ought to have showed my grounds upon which I denied Infants-sprinkling, but was at that time importunate with you that I might not, my own conscience, which is Mille testes, and a thousand witnesses besides, would condemn me as no ordinary self-belyar, for I profess before the Lord, and those many people that then heard me, many of which (unless willingly) cannot be ignorant hereof, I was most forward that day to give out the grounds of the way I walk in, but that yourselves (not the people) were most froward against it: but the people have believed you so long at a venture in other cases, that though both you, and they know the truth to be contrary to what you say, yet you hope they will believe you so still, but the Lord grant them to find out your forgery for the future, and to be no more gulled by your ghostly glosses.   

Report.  
Sixthly, That there should be no tumults, no interruption of the Disputants that no provoking terms, whereby offence might be justly given or taken, should be used, that if any such were, warning should be given and satisfaction made, or the Disputation to break up, and the blame to lie upon that side which did transgress.   

Reply.  
You might as well have given Account who they were that did violate this agreement, as of the Article itself, but than you had brought no little blame upon yourselves, and thereupon very likely you forbore it: for as when you propounded this Article (little considering that yourselves were most likely to grow regardless of it) you made a Rod for your own tails, so you had assuredly slashed yourselves sound therewith had you told all the truth indeed, for though this (as all the rest) was your own by- Proposal, your Antagonists only by assent, yet verily even you the Lawgivers were the the men that did most grossly transgress it, yea some of you seemed to sit there for nothing else but to blur, and blunder the proceedings by some impertinent interposals, or other, so that after questions asked me three or four times over, by yourselves, and leave as often asked you by me to answer, yet the anticipations of some or other of you either forbade me to begin, or at least cut me off before the end: This Article therefore being broken by you in the other parts of it must be kept in the last clause thereof at least viz. the blame of the breach lie upon you.   

Report.  
Seventhly, That after the Disputation ended it might be lawful for any one of the Congregation, leave first obtained of the Ministers, to ask questions, and to propound his arguments not being tied to any Syllogistical forms and to receive satisfaction.   

Reply.  
'Twas the faculty of the Pharisees of old to affect the chief seats in the Synagogues, and 'tis the fashion of you Masters in Israel now, to take upon you to be the Chair-men still, and to bear such sway in the public places, that the people may not meddle there to speak a word, or urge an argument, or ask a question, or without leave from you Masters of the Synagogues so much as once to quack in your presence: but Sirs the best on't is you have now in this year of jubilee 1650. (for so doth your book bear date) given not only toleration, but advice and invitation too to all people to Ask the Priest p. 27. and therefore though formerly they might not do it at all, and even now they do it oft to little purpose, yet I hope you will have them excused (for do it they will, by your leave, now, and then) when they ask you questions in your cathedrals without ask you any more leave so to do.   

Report.  
Next you tell us, That it was also moved by the Ministers, that two Moderators might be nominated, and also Clerks appointed for the writing down both of the Arguments and Answers, the Originals to be left in the hands of the Moderators, that so no misreports might be raised concerning them; or if any were, the truth might be made appear to any that should desire satisfaction, by repairing to them, which I utterly refusing, the Ministers superseded from further urging of it.   

Reply.  
I did indeed refuse to choose any Moderator myself save the whole Auditory) as knowing how basely the truth hath been captivated, and kept under for Heresy by the Claws of the Clergy, when subjected to their determination; yet did I not deny to have any chosen, for I left you the liberty to choose whom you would, who very goodly (but how justly let all men judge) made choice of one to determine as judge in his own cause, who was the only opponent almost (altogether if the True Account were not false, which sets down no Arguments but his) but however the prime Plaintiff in the Disputation, and as finely he fitted your sancies, that are affected so much with falsity, and foppery; of both which there was great store in his Recapitulation. As for me, could I easily have suspected there would have been such immoderation amongst you as was, striking up so many of you together sometimes, that neither I could be heard by any of you at all, nor yourselves very well by one another, it had not been amiss to have admitted of Moderators to have kept you in some better order; for Clerks also for the setting down of things truly, had I thought you would have taken such advantage for want thereof, as to raise (and that in print too) so many misreports as yourselves have done, I had probably closed with you in that motion, and though I refused to do it then, (as being better opinioned of you than you have since the served for) yet it's more than I am like to do again, if e'er I meet you in another Disputation for that slippery tricks sake you have served me concerning this: Ictus Piscator sapit. But as to this there's no remedy now, save my No, to your Yea, and the memories of the people that heard us, my Supreme appeal for moderation is to Christ, the Supreme Moderator of Heaven and Earth, before whom (as I told you then I hoped I should speak nothing of which I should have cause to be ashamed) so I tell you now, I hope I shall pen nothing of which I may be afraid to give account when he appears, and we appear before his Tribunal: the same Lord come quickly, and judge between us, even so Amen.   

Report.  
After these Propositions were agreed upon, you say, I moved to have liberty to make my Position; which after debate of the unnecessariness of it, the question being already stated, and the terms known, and understood by every one, was yielded to, so I exceeded not a quarter of an hour, which was accepted by me.   

Reply.  
Though the question were stated, and terms known never so well, (as I deny they are to every one in the question of Infant's Baptism, for such as are used only to sprinkling, take that to be Baptism which is not) yet the grounds were not known upon which I held the Negative, and therefore 'twas not unnecessary for me to make a Position: Moreover, I invading the practice of your Church, in that point, whereof you profess yourselves to be Defendants, I ought to have showed upon what grounds I did it, that you might have confuted them, this would have tended more to the satisfaction of the Auditory, than the omission of it could do; if you will not believe me in this, yet at least believe yourselves, for these are no other words then your own, yet I confess you have no great reason to give heed to yourselves neither, considering how many offs, and on's you are found in; for one while you assert it needful that I should lay down my grounds (as above) another while (as here) that I moved (and had you said with importunity too you, had spoken now no more than the truth) to make a Position, or, which is all one, to lay down my grounds, only you saw the unnecessariness of it: O pure stuff! at last through much importuning to have an hour or two wherein to do it, and promising much more than you would accept of, viz. That if that day were too short to dispute in, I would give you the next day, and the next, and lastly pleading the equity of the thing from the order of the Schools, where there's no Disputation without Position, to which order you had by Article obliged us, such high condescension was acted by you Precedents of the place, that I was allowed the large liberty of a quarter.   

Report.  
Next you go on to declare the sum of my Position, and that being come into the body of the Church, you the Ministers entered into the Desk, and I standing a little distance off upon one of the seats, leaning to a pillar, and the multitude being silent, I made my Position.   

Reply.  
For your relation of my leaning to a Pillar, it being neither true, nor material, what doth it here I wonder in this your short, and true relation, as you call it, of the most material things that passed? yet sith 'tis acknowledged by you to be a mistake in the margin of the copy that you sent me, I'll not only excuse it for once, though an error, but lend you a little toward the making of it truth, for I did lean indeed that day to a Pillar, even the true Church of God, which is the Pillar and ground of truth, which would you all lean as much to, as you do from it in these tottering times, you would stand a little faster than you are like to do, and secure yourselves from that fall that is threatened in these words Babylon is fallen, is fallen, which though your Tower reach as high as heaven, as that old Tower of Babel seemed to do, the Division of language that is in these days will e'er long unavoidably bring upon you.   

Report.  
The heads of my Position you say are four, to which sith you subject four Answers of your own, I'll reduce each of them to the several head it relates to, and so reply to both of them together. First, That I need not spend time about stating the question it being done before at the Communion Table: to this first you say, answer was made that herein I confirmed the Ministers reasons against my making of a position.   

Reply.  
Though there was no need to spend time in acquainting them with the question over again because that was done before at the Table, yet there was need, and so I expressed my self often enough, to spend time, yea four or five times more than I could get of you, in stating the question, i. e. of making a Position, for even with yourselves these two are Synonima's, for what you style stating the question in the first head the very same you call making a Position in your answer, yet such is your subtlety that you here represent it as if I, who was so earnest before to have liberty to state the question in a Position, and moved it as a matter most needful, were already so altered in my judgement, as in the front of my Position to profess it needless to spend time about it: Sirs, what a sight of in●…, and outs, are here? do you not remember, or if you will not, yet some people will, that my chief complaint of you to them in my Position was this, That though I so much desired it, though it was very requisite, and the manner of the Schools, to which you tied me, and therefore I ought of right to have had an hours time, yet you had crowded me into the corner of a quarter? which shows that though you deemed it waste of time for me to say any thing almost about the question, yet I judged it very needful to speak more to it than your patience was pleased to permit me, and yet it's not enough for you, in your Account of the Position, to leave well-nigh all that little out which in that little time was declared as to the falseness of your administration by the way of sprinkling, and other matters of your Ministry, but you also falter and feign, and forge so foully in your sum of the Position as to set down more in't than was ever thought on.   

Report.  
Secondly, That I came thither to defend the unlawfulness of children's baptism. which an evil and adulterous generation did maintain against me: to which you say it was answered, that I transgressed the Propositions, in giving reviling and opprobrious terms, callng you a wicked and adulterous generation: to which, say you, I replied that my intent was not to fasten those words upon any there present, that I desired they might be so taken, which by you was admitted of.   

Reply.  
I came not thither, i. e. to Ashford so much to defend as to prove, could I have been licenced thereunto by your spiritual Court, the unlawfulness of children's Baptism, yet not of children's Baptism so much, which though it is easy, yet is needless to be disproved, because no where dispensed that I know of, but rather of children's sprinkling, which as it is doublie unlawful, so is universally practised: of this end of my coming I gave evidence enough in debating the fourth Proposition, professing that I came to give account of my dissent, and denial of the truth of your way, but when you denied me to give my desired Account, wherein I would have been a Plaintiff and a prover, I must then defend, or do nothing, neither did I say of this evil and adulterous generation that they maintained it against me, but themselves, for whether they do, or do it not they cannot hurt me thereby, but if they do it the worst will be their own, for as they of old that rejected the true Baptism for none Luke 7. 30. did reject the conncel of God against themselves, so do they that reject it for a false one: as to the terms of evil and adulterous generation, concerning which you first charge me, and then acquitted me as not intending them to you, I meant them then in very deed of this Age wherein we live, yet so long as you go a whoring from God after ways of men's tradition, and teach people to do so, as you do, I see not how I could have been truly said to revile, had I used them directly to your selves.   

Report.  
Thirdly, that though I had once been of that opinion, and a Minister of the Church, and received orders from it, yet now I was of another, and did renounce both the Church and her orders; to which say you, 'twas answered, that it was no marvel that I, that had forsaken the Church, should afterwards revile and despise her, and that God having suffered me to fall into so gross an error, as to deny and renounce my first baptism, did in his just judgement suffer me to fall further and further, Heresy being like a Precipice, where after a man hath begun his run, he cannot stay till he come to the bottom.   

Reply.  
I was once of that opinion indeed, and practise too, together with yourselves, and had not a little zeal thereof (though not according to knowledge) when I acted in your false function, by implicit faith, and made the Directories, Canons, Catechisms, Creeds of the Clergies compiling my Rule (as many more did besides myself) not comparing them so singly as I should have done with that true Directory of the word; but I have since seen good occasion to recant it, as you will undoubtedly do also first or last, (and O that it may be yet in time to your peace!) notwithstanding, your now forwardness to uphold it: I was also (in your sense) once a Minister of the Church, but since, going about to look for that Ministry of the Church, and for that Church whereof I thought myself a Minister, from thenceforth I could never find either t'one or tother: As for your Church of England, I confess I received twice her holy orders, viz. once from the Bishops, in the days of their Dominion, by whom I was ordained a Deacon, i. e. in Scripture-sence, to look toth'poor, but in their sense, half a Priest, for in that capacity, we might sprinkle, if allowed, and give the wine to people also in the Supper, but not by any means the bread, unless very specially licenced thereunto, till we should come into the full order of Priesthood, for so ran the phrase in the old English hornbook, which as to that part, was styled, The book of the Ordination of Bishops, Priests and Deacons, once also by the Presbyters (so called) since the time of their Parricid, or cutting the throats of their fathers the Bishops, that gave the being of Priesthood to them, and inducting themselves to reign in their stead, as the Bishops themselves had dealt not long before with their old father the Pope, who gave the being of Priesthood to them both, from whom not as a Priesthood, but a true Presbytery, as they say, I was in orders to practise their refined Popery more perfectly, which I might do before but by the halves: but now I know not where this Church of England is, if you speak of a true Church of Christ, unless you can prove things to have their true being, without either their true matter or true form: for as the subject matter whereof it consists is false, being not baptised believers, so the form into which the Pope cast it some 600 years since, in to which also the Prelate and Presbyter have new cast it, being and that subpaena too, National, Provincial, Parochial, is utterly false, and her fellowship as good as none at all, because not free, but forced: and as for the true Ministry thereof, I know not where it is neither, if that only be a true one, as you were wont to say it is, that can derive itself by a line from the very Apostles; neither can you make good your interrupted succession from them, unless the Pope, from whom your Series comes, was even then a true Minister of Christ, when he was also an Antichristian Deceiver; and unless Apostasy and Apostolicy, can so stand together, as that Rome was even then an Apostolic Church when 'twas palpably apparent to be an Harlot; neither if I could tell where, can I tell very well which is the Ministry of your Church of England, there are so many Ministries in it now, namely, Prelatical, High-Presbyterian, Presbyterian-Independent, each of which lay claim to that title, but being both themselves, and their adherents for such different forms of government, cannot all three be the Ministry of one Church, unless your Church of England, that was of old so full of uniformity, is now become capable of tri-formety in its discipline and Ministry; and yet to be entirely but one Ministry and Church of England still; which if it be, it's a ●…r-iform monster then indeed.  
As to your answer to this third head, I wish you to weigh how rawly you utter your selves, whilst just after your selves had cleared me from the guilt of Reviling, and before I had used any new terms, that could have the least savour of reviling, you return to charge me of it again; but no marvel when every round reprover, and renouncer of your Romishness, is as much a reviler with you, as your selves are at Rome, for renouncing that grosser Popery that's there. Howbeit, in truth he reviles your Church no more, that calls it a very Harlot, if it be so, than your selves revile Rome in calling her a Harlot because she is so: you hint at my renouncing my first baptism: can a man renounce that he never had? for what was dispensed when I was a child, as 'tis no sign to me now, for I remember not that I ever saw it, so I learn by the hear-say of it, that it was not baptism at all: as for this last, which is also the first baptism that ever was administered to me; I see no cause to renounce it as yet, nor yet I am well assured ever shall. As for heresy, or believing and doing besides the word, 'tis a Precipice indeed, where after men have begun their run, unless the Lord mercifully prevent them, as he hath done me, and many more of late, and I desire may your selves in due time, who are all gone astray from primitive truth, after the doctrines and commandments of men, they cannot well stay till they come to the bottom, even the bottomless pit itself, into which that Arch-Heretitk the Pope who opened it, and that numberless crew of corrupt Clergymen, which by the advantage of that smoke of errors, with which he darkened the Sun, and the Air ascended from it, will fall again; for out of the bottomless pit those Locusts came. and into the bottomless pit they must return.   

Report.  
Fourthly. That I was a fool and an Ass, and the weakest of many, to defend the doctrine of jesus Christ, yet doubted not but to make it clear against every opponent: to which your answer was, that that which I said of myself out of voluntary humility, you the Ministers did acknowledge out of the sense of your wants.   

Reply.  
As to secular literature, I did indeed acknowledge myself to be a Dunce and a Fool, but as to your bringing me in here, as branding myself with the name of Ass, I must protest against it as one of those scandalous and false aspersions, with many more of which this story of yours is stored; in trial of which, I appeal to a letter sent to me, some few days after the Disputation, from an eminent gentleman then of your party; my answer whereunto you cavil at, but care not for answering at all your selves: wherein he writes thus to me as concerning this present passage, viz. If any man should ask my opinion now, notwithstanding your seeming modesty to term yourself Dunce and fool, I should be apt to conclude with the proverb, that to me you did appear by much more knave than fool: either therefore this gentleman's memory was better than yours, or else your faculty of forging is greater than his, and this is most likely of the two; for though he reviles me through ignorance of what I am, yet I think he spoke plainly what he thought, and repeated no more than what I spoke of myself, but you (oportet mendacem esse memorem) whether wittingly or no, it concerns you to examine, have most grossly falsified my words, that you may fasten the fouler blemish upon my person; this language you learned be like from Dr. Featly, who very often, als-to-be-ass the Anabaptists calling his argument from circumcision to Infant-baptism in respect of the Anabaptists Pontem Asinorum a bridge which these Asses could never pass over, p. 40. also in his preface to the Reader, wherein rating the russet Rabbis for preaching against the errors of the Priesthood, what (quoth he) are all the Prophets become mad, that the Ass' mouth must needs be open by miracle to reprove them? nor doth he say so altogether without some reason: for verily we were all once Ass-assinated so far (as most Christ'n creatures are still) as to yield ourselves up to be ●…id by Balaam the false Prophet i. e. Assemblies and Classes of the Clergy, who love Tithes, the wages of their unrighteousness, and take toll of all people for deluding them; till upon a time we saw the Angel of the Lord, with his sword ready drawn in his hand to destroy him, as he was riding us to defy Israel, since when, refusing to go with him any further though he smites us, of Dumb Asses (as we were before) we are become (the Lord opening our mouths) a people speaking with man's voice, and forbidding the madness of the Prophet. Moreover, I may well excuse your calling me Ass by craft, whilst you condescend to call yourselves unawares by the same name of Fools and Asses, for do but mark what you here say of me, and how you make it agree with yourselves; he said (say you) that he was a fool and an ass, and that which he said of himself out of a voluntary humility, the Ministers did acknowledge i. e. of themselves, out of a sense of their wants: fallere fallentem non est fraus.   

Report.  
You tell us further, that you prayed the Congregation that since you were not the men appointed for the Disputation, but only undertook it, that the truth might not be wholly deserted, and the current of slanders, which was likely to rush in against it, might be somewhat interrupted by the seasonable interposing of your selves, they would not suffer any defects of yours to prejudice the cause, that it was the truth on your side did animate you to undertake it, which you were ready to evince by the Arguments following, leaving the success to God, to whom only it belonged to convince the understanding.   

Reply.  
Here's much talk of the truth, and the truth, but the truth is, your undertake have been ever a deserting of the truth, as it is in jesus; and causes of a current of flanders that rush in against it in every parish, from the mouths of your Priest-rid people, who living under your constant out-cries of Heresy, Schism, and such like upon all that suits not with your covetous interest, have learned exactly to speak in your tongue, as if they had been spit out of your mouths: as for your seasonable interposure, it is by so much unseasonable, as 'twill prove successess to your ends; for though, while the Clergies will was the world's law, their interposings did interrupt all arisings of truth, yet now 'tis the time of the end wherein men will run to and fro, and you labour in the fire, and weary your selves for very vanity, to uphold your threadbare traditions, for the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea.   

Report.  
The sum of the Disputation held at Ashford in Kent, july 27.   

Reply.  
Had these two brief businesses which you style above [the sum of my position] and here [the sum of the Disputation] been stilled [some of the position] [some of the Disputation,] or a little of one, and a little of t'other you had been in the right on't, for there's scarce so much as some of either: As for the Position you have disposed on't out of the way, and diminished the Disputation into nothing almost, in comparison of the true proportion of both. Now as to this piece of business which you style the sum of the Disputation, I must talk with it two ways, and deal with it under this double notion, First, as 'tis a Relation of the then Disputation.  
Secondly, as 'tis your Disputation for Infant-baptism: I shall show the falseness of the one, and the foolishness of the other; and then come to review your Review. your relation (so you term it) is most manifestly false, if not as false a one as was ever penned, or printed concerning such a matter; since the Pope and his Priests, perceiving their kingdom to decline by the break forth of truth from under their smothers, began to belie its witnesses to this day: I shall take notice of a few more of your figments, and two or three passages in the Disputation, which passed by the memories of you Accountants, least by telling the whole truth you should shame the devil and yourselves, which may suffice to prove a disproportion between your Tattale, and its Title of true Account, and so leave it to the unprejudiced auditors of our Discourse, and impartial perusers of our Relations.   

Report.  
First, you assert page 3. and that point blank, that I confessed that at three or four years old many began to be instructed in Principles of Religion, and that at that age they might be baptised, but afterwards that proof being offered that infants of a day old were as capable of baptism, I would have recalled it.   

Reply.  
Sirs, why hath Satan filled your hearts to lie thus against the truth, and by filching out of the way (purposely as may be supposed) what was of most moment to the making out of my true meaning, to wrest, and represent my expressions and intentions in them as croslie and contradictorily to what they were intended, as yea, and nay are one unto the other? that children at three or four years old (as your selves then affirmed) may be instructed, I granted, and do still acknowledge with you, but that I said at that age they might be baptised, upon that account of bare instruction unless apparently effectual to their true conversion to the faith, so that by Profession they give good ground to our consciences to believe that they believe, I here disclaim it, as either a mis-conception, or rather a mere conception, and birth of your own brains; and profess it in the sight of God, and all men to be that which (in the sense you here insert it in) came not so much as into my mind, much less out of my mouth at that time; and though I find you so un-ingenuous in your dealing, that I wonder how you can wish me to deal ingenowsly with you●…s you do, yet can I not conceive you to be so unjudicious as to conceive I confessed as you have here accounted; since my speech, to all that were not dull of understanding, was most plain to a very contrary purpose, and tended to show the utter unwar rantableness of baptising, at any age at all, whether in Nonage, Middle-age, or Old-age, unless it be found in the way of Faith, and therefore of baptising any Infants, in respect not only of their incapacity to believe, but much more to make profession of belief: I shall therefore give you, and the world too, whereby yours must needs appear to be a juggle, a more true Account of the Dilation that was then between us: on this wise it was: I confess I granted (for 'tis the very truth, though not of a straw's weight to your purpose) that by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mat. 18. 3. was meant children in Nonage, to which Christ says his Disciples must be like, although buy the phrase v. 6. viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. I asserted then, and see no occasion of saying otherwise to this hour, that he means his Disciples, whom he likens to the other, and not little ones in age, and bodily Stature; in proof of which I referred you to Mat. 10 42. where under the self same greek phrase viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; he expresses no other than his Disciples, there being no little child then among them of which he could be imagined to speak: moreover I showing how that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 [whence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] did properly signify not such an Infant as you sprinkle, which cannot speak (called infans, quasi non fans) but a child capable at least to be instructed (and so you are to seek still for Infant-baptism) 'twas bolted out buy you that at three or four years old many began to be instructed even in principles of Religion, and that then at least they might be baptised; whereupon I replied, that 'twas neither this nor that age, old or young, gave right, yea that no age could make a fit subject for Baptism, but that wherein a person is apparently instructed to conversion, and that when so instructed they were to be baptised, whether old or young, so that if you could so effectually instruct children at three or four years of age as to bring them to make such profession of faith; as I could not but judge to proceed from the reality thereof within, I could then for my part baptise them; yet I thought it was a thing very seldom if ever at all visibly effected; to this effect, and much what in iisdem terminis did I then deliver myself, yet so willingly were you mistaken in my meaning, as downrightly to set me out for such a Childish Novice, as met you before thousands to maintain the unlawfulness of children's Baptism, and held a Discourse of 6 hours to that end, and yet confessed the lawfulness of it so soon as ever we had well begun: but Sirs, suppose I had confessed (as I did not) that children of three or four years old, because capable at that age to be instructed, might without respect to the begetting of faith in them, by that instruction, even then, and thereupon only be baptised; yet will you not at last be ashamed think you of that ignorant assertion of yours, namely, that infants of a day old are as capable of baptism as they? for grant it should be granted you (as it is not) that bare instruction without any success thereof to conversion is a good ground to baptise persons on at three or four years of age, yet is it a ground whereupon to baptise Infants of a day old, that are not capable of so much as that bare instruction? a man may in much wisdom, and some hopes (if not of present yet) of future conversion thereby begin to indoctrinate his children at three or four years old, and instill the principles of truth into them, as preparative to their obeying it hereafter, and also to baptism itself in due time; yet I judge him as very a Child as his Child, that goes about to instruct, and baptise it so soon as 'tis born; yet after your own assertion, by which you would make men believe I asserted that children of three or four years old are capable of instruction, and consequently of baptism so young, you second it with another more absurd, and false than the former, namely, that children of a day old are [as] capable of it as they: Say you so Sirs? are infants of a day old capable of Baptism, that cannot so much as be instructed in principles much less be begotten to the true Religion? or if you say you hold not their right to baptism from a capableness of instruction from which you plead the other, but upon other grounds, upon what grounds? I beseech you Sirs, upon what grounds? as you offered to show them then so show them now if you can, for none of the Arguments in your Account can possibly prove such a thing. What Infants of a day old? I'll say it again that you may consider it, for sure you did not consider what you said when you said it, what children of day old? fie for shame, Sirs had you said infants of eight days old it might have held some proportion with that grand ground you go upon, viz. the Analogy between Baptism and Circumcision, but this opinion doth not cotton at all with that, for the subject of Circumcision, which you all say, though falsely, is one and the same with that of Baptism, was one of at least eight days old, and an Infant of one day only was not a warrantable subject thereof, nor an infant of seven days neither, though likely to die before the eighth; but as for you, though your chief plea for your timely untimely rantizing Infants be grounded upon that timely dispensation of Circumcision, yet, as if you had a mind to proclaim yourselves be-blinded, so that you cannot walk by Christ's Right rules, nor your own wrong ones neither, you take the liberty to outstand, or anticipate the eighth day at your pleasure: hence the birth day is as warrantable with you, as the eight, yea, in case of imminent danger of death (in which case circumcision might not alter) ti's a learned question among some Infant-sprinklers, whether the midwife may not sprinkle it before it's born, i. e. while is hangs yet between the womb, and the world; but too soon is too soon in all conscience) and again when it fits better with your plumcake occasions, the tenth, twelfth, or eight and twentyth day must be as acceptable to God as the eighth, yea, when it seems good to the wisdom of the Church, i. e. the Clergy, it may be deferred for no less than two or three hundred days together, witness the old Rubrik, which saith, that in old time baptism was not ministered but at two times in the year, viz. at Easter and Whitsuntide, but that custom being grown out of use for many considerations (I know not any but the Clergies good will, and pleasure) cannot now well be restored: Thus you ride people to and fro as you list, and run many miles from your own rules as well as Christ's, for if Circumcision be your Rule for the time of Baptisms administration, keep punctually to the particular time of the eighth day, as well as to the general time of Infancy, or else (you may tell me the eighth day is a circumstance not to be regarded, whilst I tell you'tis such a substance that Moses was like to be slain for overslipping it, yet) by your favour, Sirs, and by the same reason that you take an inch, i'll take an ell, yea if you can acceptably go a finger's breadth besides the rule of Circumcision, I may go an hundred furlongs, and by the same Authority that you delay the Dispensation beyond the eighth, to the tenth, twelft, or the hundreth day, I may delay it (unless belief withal the heart do engage to it before) to the ten thousandth day or more, nor can you question me why do you thus?  
Secondly, whereas for my undertaking to rectify you in your gross misapprehension, and reduce you from the misconstruction I saw you make of my speech (which leaves you without excuse in this rude recording) you record me as recalling what I said, I protest against that as another of your sigments, which you had need both to recant, and repent of: there was but one thing recalled all that day that I know of, viz. that john Baptist spoke so soon as he came out of the womb; that being rashly uttered by one in a Black coat was indeed as readily recalled: as for myself what I said then, I was so far from recalling, that i'll give you the advantage of saying the same over again: hear therefore you deaf that you may understand, bring me the children of three or four years old not instructed only (for so the wickedest heathen may be) but instructed to conversion, and profession of faith (not verbal only (for a Parrot may be taught to prate) but 
Expedias pers●…ta co suum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 picasque doceas verba nestracanari.  real (as may seem at least) and to desire baptism In Christ's name) yea more, bring me the Infants of three or four days old thus truly discipled, and blame me for ever if I be not as forward to baptise them, as yourselves are to rantize them undiscipled. This is the sense I then spoke in, the Lord knows my heart to whom I appeal ultimately to judge between us. I have spoken it thus over again, you have now my mind more fully among you, mistake it not, but take it dexterously and make your best on't,   

Report.  
Next you relate (and that most fictitiously) that I having asserted circumcision to be a seal of the righteousness of faith to Abraham only, and not to his posterity, and being urged to show any Scripture that did import a change in the signification, and told that such a change must needs intimate that the same covenant was not made with Abraham's seed, that was made with himself, I was so foundered, that though you engaged to become Anabaptists if I did it, yet I answered nothing that carried any sense or reason to the purpose.   

Reply.  
This I say is another of your your sigments: for first to let pass the Sophistical terms you used whilst you asked how or where Circumcision ceased to be a seal of the righteousness of faith even to Abraham's posterity? as if I had granted that Circumcision was once a seal of the righteousness of faith even to Abraham's posterity as well as himself, and then was changed, ceased, & left off to be so, whereas I told you then, that though 'twas so to Abraham himself, yet it never was so to them at all, & do also tell you now, that when a man says of a thing that it never was so, it is but an illiterate kind of quere to ask him again, when it ceased to be so? Secondly, confessing that I then affirmed, and also still affirming the same, viz. that Circumcision was a seal of the righteousness of faith to Abraham only, and not to his posterity; I profess thirdly, before the world, appealing to your own consciences to witness, that as it is most plain in the Scripture, so I then made a most plain discovery of it from the Scripture, that there were other ends, uses, and significations of Circumcision to Abraham's own person (though in some respects there were also the same) than those for which it was dispensed to his seed, and that notwithstanding many things, which were promised to Abraham, were promised to all his seed together with him, yet there were somethings also promised to Abraham in the Covenant of Circumcision, which his seed had no promise of at all, as namely, First, That he should be the Father of all Believers. This I am most certain I than instanced in, and according to your then demand cleared by Scripture, even that very Scripture which was then quoted by yourselves, Rom. 4. 11. and repeating the whole verse, whereof you, for your own ends, mentioned but a part, I told you 'twas evident even thence that Abraham had one pre-eminence, and privilege that none of his posterity had ever after him, which he obtained of God by his pre-eminence in believing, viz. the Fatherhood of the faithful; of which eminent faith of his, which was imputed to him for righteousness, as well as of that eminent prerogative, the Fatherhood of the faithful, which God gave him upon that great faith, Circumcision was given him as a seal, in such a sense, as 'twas never given to his seed, a Seal I said, for it was a sign only but no seal to his posterity, to honour the greatness, not to strengthen the weakness of his faith, i. e. to confirm him, that was so great a believer, even beyond hope, in that honourable title, which God put upon him; therefore I told you it runs thus, viz. he received the sign circumcision, i. e. circumcision, (which in its ordinary use was a sign) a seal to him in this special sense, i. e. as a seal of the righteousness of that eminent faith which he had, that he might be, i. e. to that very end and purpose as to ratify him in that royal title, The father of all that believe; to this purpose I then spoke, showing withal that in the same sense in which the father is said to seal the son, john 6. 27. to be the giver of that meat that endures to eternal life, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 him hath the father sealed, i. e. authorized to that business, honoured with that office, and as Pharaoh honoured joseph, with the sole Dispensation of all the Corn, and Government of his Kingdom, and as Kings under the Broad seal do seal men to, i. e. honour them with, and settle them in great Places, Trusts and Titles, etc. in such a sense is God in that place said to give Circumcision to Abraham, whereby to seal him up, and settle him for ever in that glorious title, viz. the father of all that believe; in which sense Circumcision (though a sign of some things in common to him with his posterity) was never given to any one of Abraham's posterity at all: this as it is clearly held forth in that place, so was so clearly held forth to you from that place of your own naming at that very time, that as I wondered you could be ignorant of it then, so I much more admire, that you are not ashamed to bewray such dissembling in the recording of it as you do, and such wretched ignorance of it still; besides, I know not whether I instanced then in any other, but I am sure (as shy as you seem to be of it) there were divers more promises made, and privileges made over to Abraham under the great Seal Circumcision, which were neither made nor given, much less confirmed by Circumcision as a seal thereof to all his posterity, viz. that his seed should inherit Canaan, this though it was made. and made good to Abraham, and that seed of his to whom it was promised, yet not to the seed of all his seed, for many of his posterity (as Ishmael, who was circumcised, and his children by Keturah also, and their whole race) had none of all this sealed to them by Circumcision: Again, that Christ should come out of his loins, that in his seed all Nations should be blessed, these were made to Abraham, and were (as the rest also) great Privileges to the honour of which he was sealed, yet though 'twas signified to all his seed by Circumcision, that Christ should come of him after the flesh, all of them had not that privilege by promise that Christ should come of them after the flesh: by all which it undeniably appears that the same Covenant of Circumcision, in every of those respects in which Circumcision was given him as a seal of it, was not given to all the jews, and their children, and that forenamed place speaks of Circumcision only in reference to Abraham's person, and in that sense, and respect in which it was given to him only as a Seal of his faith. i e. that strong faith he acted, and gave glory to God by, Rom. 4. 20. for which God also gave that great glory and dignity to him, viz. the fatherhood of the faithful: All which notwithstanding, and much to the same effect that was uttered then, to show that Circumcision had more ends, and relations to Abraham's Person, then to the Persons of his seed; yea, and though your own paper, which lastly I appeal to, doth testify that I I multiplied words, that is to say, spoke much about other ends of Circumcision to Abraham then to his seed, yet you both be-lie me, and give the lie to your selves so far as to say, I was extremely foundered, which to say, and yet to say in the very same line, that I multiplied words about other ends of Circumcision, the very point your selves had urged me to speak to, if it be not at once to say, and uns●…y, then verily I know not what is; for these two are contradictory to each other: but perhaps you think to salve all with this, that being called to speak punctually to that end, viz. whether Circumcision were a seal of the righteousness of faith to Abraham's posterity at all or not, or if not to show it, I answered nothing to that particular, that carried any sense or reason in it: but really Sirs, I said no less to that very end, but rather much more than I have said a little above, which whether it have any sense or reason in't or no, yet was it both senseless and reasonless in you however to leave it wholly out, and you had dealt far more ingenuously and judiciously in your own Account, and in every rational man's also, had you set down what I answered, and so put your Reader into a capacity of discerning, whether it were to the purpose yea or no: but that its like you were very loath to do, lest (as nothing as it was to your purpose) it should have been more serviceable than you desire it to be to ours. As for that engagement whereby (how wisely a fool may see) you bound your selves to become Anabaptists, in case I made discovery of what I did abundantly discover, I freely disengage you from that double performance, and shall accept much more of your single submission to that 
That's the dreadful phrase whereby you also term yourselves ghostly fathers (to awe poor ignorants into the greater observation of you and yours) express the holy spirit, else the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 might be Englisht by theword spirit at all times, as well as some, both in translations, treatises, and discourses.  ordinance, it being no matter of rejoicing to to me to see any man translated from A-no-baptist to be an Anabaptist for that is from one extreme to another.   

Report.  
Next you relate p. 5. that I said I did not deny but that little children might have the holy Ghost and these texts of Scripture, viz. Mar. 10. 14. Mat. 19 14. Luke 18. 16, 2 Cor. 13. 5. did seem to intimate as much, but that it could not be made appear that they had it to the making of them subjects of baptism.   

Reply.  
To this which is another 〈◊〉 falsity, and connterseit resemblance, I reply thus, first that 〈◊〉 children might have the holy spirit, if God please extraordinarily to infuse it. I might then possibly not deny, nor dare I yet deny but that possibly they may, but it's more than God hath manifested if they have, to either us, or you: nor will this grant either prove the propriety of your Position, who down-rightly declare they have it, or warrant your baptising them thereupon, so long as still 'tis unapparent to you that they have it: for first, à posse ad esse non valet consequentia; it follows not because it may be, therefore 'tis: yet such Country-clearing of things is seen now and then among you Country Clergymen, that if from may-be to mustbe, may not pass for good reason, there must be no more given at all; witness the yery last Argument used by the first opponent at this Ashsord Disputation, whereby to prove infants to have the spirit, who having urged the example of john Baptist, (whose example is also hinted in your Review p. 16. of your Pamphlet) just before to this effect. viz. john had the holy spirit from the womb, therefore children have it, and being answered to that thus, viz. Ex puris negativis, et particularibus nihil sequitur universale, claps in this consequence to close up his discourse with, viz. It doth not appear to you that children have not the spirit (as much as to say they may for aught you know have the holy spirit) therefore they have it. To whom 'twas replied, that it would not follow that I was at Canterbury such a day, because it did not appear to him that I was not: and this as I remember (though your Account doth very freely forget all this, but I hope you will remember to be ashamed on't) was the very period of that man's Disputation with me, saving what he added after in his recapitulatory moderation, and after that in other emergent conferences with me and others, to whose non-sequiturs, as I have in faithfulness set down what I returned then, so (pace vestrâ) I say thus much more now, viz. that if I should go about to prove from the Possibility of things to be so or so, or from their non-appearance to be not so, though not yet appearing to be so, that therefore they are so, viz. more worlds than one, or another world of men in the moon, or, as he from the particular case of john Baptist to other infants, so I should syllogise from the particular and extraordinary case of Balaams' Ass to other creatures of that kind, viz. Balaams' Ass, by a special power of God upon him, did speak and reprove the mad●…ess of the Prophet, therefore very Asses can speak plain enough to reprove the madness of the Priests, though I have learned Christ better than to record him as such a one for the like deduction, yet I know who have so well learned the Featlaean language, that in their Account I should have been an Ass for my labour. Secondly, and this I told you then too, but your Account had no mind to mention what makes against you, Tum d●…mum i. e. proprie et quoàd nos dicuntur res fieri cum incipiunt patefieri, than things as to us are when they appear and not before, and to talk de non entibus, et non apparentibus, is one as frivolous as the other: yet such lazy learning and lousy logic is at Rome with the infatuated Pope, and such of his Creatures, as trouble themselves so much about Tithe, that they have no time to study Truth, nor understand either sense or reason, that whilst wise men indeed, whose wisdom is not as theirs is already turned into foolishnese, do argue from the Appearing of things to be to their being; from the evidence that they are to their existence, they magisterially impose things to be received as truth, because Ipse Dixit, and both assert them to be, and make men believe they appear plain enough so to be, when their say so shows them, though no inquisitive sincere selfdenying Christian can in the word find either how or where: of but a very little better stamp is your way of arguing here, who being housed by custom under a cloudy confidence that infants have the holy spirit, will needs have it appear whether it doth or no: but for my part it appears not yet to me; yea, I reply Secondly; to this part of your Report, that I did indeed then say as you have here truly related, that it could not be made appear that Infants have the holy spirit to the making of them subjects of baptism; yea, I testify the same still that it cannot, notwithstanding all your undertake, which of what little force they are to such a purpose I shall try more at large when I handle your Account over again, not as an Account, but as your Argumentation for Infants having the holy spirit, and so right to baptism. Nevertheless, Thirdly, that I acknowledged any such thing as this in the least, that the Scriptures above named, did seem so much as to intimate such a matter as that infants might have the holy spirit, as it had been most contradictory to that which here you say I said immediately after it, and is most contrary to my Judgement to this present, so I deny it, disclaim it, and testify again it, as another of your abominable abuses of yourselves, myself and the world, into which you have feigned forth this Account, and as an opinion that neither then, or ever since, nor everbefore (since I found the way of truth) hath had the least entertainment within my bosom. And so I pass on to your other juggles, among which Nigro Carbone notandum est, this would not be let slip without a Selah in that some few lines below this you relate thus.   

Report.  
That my Answer was that in Scripture children were indefinitely taken, but concerning this or that particular child no proof could be made.   

Reply.  
Which thing I confess I said, yet take notice, I must, how you let slip (your memories being wilfully weak, as I find them very often to be) something more of my then speech, which had you not declined to set down, would have showed a little more plainly, and yet its pretty plain as 'tis, but hardly quite so plain as the nose on a man's face, how you strike quite besides the iron, star to a wrong point, and in your following undertaking upon that my Answer, stickle clearly to another purpose then that proposed by me, for my speech was not concernng this or that particular child only, but of this or that particular child above another, viz. proof could not be made of this child in its infancy, suppose a believers, more than of a Heathens, if one of these, and one of those be looked on together; whereupon also I then added, but you have absented it in your Account, that if two Infants, viz. a believers, and an unbelievers, as yet unknown which is which, should be presented to you whereof but one secundum to, (o Sacerdos) may be baptised, It would put you very shrewdly to it to disce●… of yourselves which of the two is the believers Infant, by any more manifestation of the spirit in it than in the other; yea I now tell you over again, that such a presentment would fumble, and puzzle both the Priest and his whole Parish, to find the Spirit more in one infant then in all; but you have omitted all this least it should do you too much right, and too much lay open the rottenness of your Principles, and yet you have set down enough to show to any clear capacity how you syllogized besides the business I engaged you in my speech to speak to, as well as merely bawbled in the very business you found yourselves, yea how oddly did you shuffle over the thing you undertook to make Appear, showing not an inch more of ground to prove it in one or two or three little Infants, than your own Argument affords to prove that 'tis in all Infants in the world? but this being more proper to be discovered when I meddle with your Argument, therefore I shall let it pass in this place, where my drift is only to take notice how you have either counterfeited, or curtailed most of that you pretend truly to Account for.   

Report.  
Another, and that no small abuse both of me, and your Reader too, is a little further onward in your Account, pag. 6. where after your relating of your selves ask, and of me answering you to three questions thus, viz.  
1. Quest. how those men and women whom I had baptised did make it appear that they had faith, and the holy spirit?  
Resp. By their profession.  
2. Quest. Whether their Profession, since it is possible mightly, could make it appear infallibly.  
Resp. No.  
3. Quest. What judgement then, I could pass upon them to be the subjects of baptism, as I called them, whether any other than that of Charity.  
Resp. That of Charity.  
At last you leave me in the lurch, and bringing in your selves replying thus, viz. that you would have me pass the same judgement upon these little Infants of whom in general the Scripture hath given so good a report, and against whom in partilar no exception can be raised, and the controversy between us was at an end. You shut me out from any share with you, at the end of this discourse, saying, (but not at all showing what I answered) that to this I answered nothing in the least measure satisfactory, as the most judicious Auditors, being afterwards inquired of, did affirm.   

Reply.  
You speak right as to my answer to the three questions, for so I then replied as you say; and have somewhat more to reply to those questions, when I shall consider them over again, as your Argumentative Conference, for now I deal with them only as Accountative: but Sirs, what a piece of Legerdemain is here, in that you record, that my answer to your last reply was not in the least measure satisfactory, in the judgement of the most judicious Auditors, with whom it seems you consulted whether it were so or no, and yet show not so much as a tittle of it? you intimate sufficiently to our understandings, first, that there was an answer given, secondly, that you, who pretend to nothing more in your book then to give A true Account of what was argued and answered, were so well acquainted with that Answer, that you could have told what it was if you would, else how could you, and they, of whom you inquired, so sentence and censure it as not satisfactory, unless you are, as I believe you are not, those natural bruit beasts jude speaks of that speak evil of that they know not? yet you give us not in the least measure to know, no not so much as the sum of what it was. Now as for myself, I must profess in the sight of the Lord I do not well remember my self, nor can I yet clearly recall it to mind what Answer I then gave to that passage, which if I did, I durst not but express it here, were it weak or strong, but because I do not, I therefore dare not meddle so much as to mention any, being resolved to repeat no more of either yours or mine, than my memory assures me of the truth of: however I shall give answer to it anon, when I come to note it under a second notion: but as for yourselves, who mind it so well that you pronounce it weak, I may well charge and challenge you implicit Accountants to give Account more expressly what it was that men may judge of it together with you, or else to acknowledge your selves, to be evil speakers of what you know not, or else witting concealers of what you both know, and pretend to be revealers and True Accountants of to all men; or else that you here drive on your old design, which is to cry out Heresy, Schism, Error, Weakness, Unsatisfactoriness, etc. leaving men without the least leave, liberty, opportunity, or advantage of trying whether things are yea or nay, as you call them; or else that you would fain have men to be still stunned into that wont blind belief of what you say at all adventures, or else that you cause men what in you lies to be unjust in determining of matters before they hear them, for Qui statuit aliquid parte inaudita alterá aequum licet statuerit haud aequus fuerit, He that judges a matter before he hears it, it is folly and shame unto him, Pro. 18. 13. or else that you have shamed yourselves, injured me, mocked and moped all men, in giving an Account to them of things which yet you refuse to give an Account of; or else lastly, that you have dealt, and I appeal to every ingenuous rational man whether you have not so done indeed, most unreasonably, most perfidiously, m●…st simulatorily, as else where, and well-nigh every where else you do, pretending plainly in your Preface, that you have rendered my Answers to my best advantage, whilst you both falsify them for the most part where you mention them, and also mention the major part of them not at all,   

Report.  
Another and that a most manifest misrepresentatoin of things in this your true Account is this, in that immediately after your third main Argument, for all the rest are but appendicular to the first, drawn from the hopelesness of the salvation of Infants if their baptism be denied, I say immediately after that, without the least mention of any more, or hinting so much as in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that there was any more, as if you would make all men know by these presents, that there was no more, you report thus, that there was no other Answer given by me to that Argument, nor yet to be expected, whereupon then one of the Ministers, being desired by the rest▪ to put an end to the Disputation, spoke as followeth; and so after the Relation of a certain recapitulation of the Arguments that had been urged, and the scribbling o'er of something more in a something more methodical manner, and acquaint composure than it was then spoken in, to which also, as it is a further pleading of Infant's baptism i'll speak more anon, in short you shut up the business, and record the Disputation with me as then ended.   

Reply.  
But Sirs, will this be taken for A true Account think you, or A true Counterfeit rather, by wise men that were there present, when they shall see how you huddle over the matter in such haste, as to leave no less than half of it behind you? what dispatching and patching up of things to an end you make, before your heads are half heated in the handling of them; for verily as Hanun shamefully entreated David's servants shaving off the one half of their beards, cutting off their clothes in the midst, and sending them away, 2 Sam. 10. 4. so have you dealt by the Disputation, cutting off the business by the buttocks, and so sending it out naked into the wide world: your [THAN] Sirs is a word out of joint: 'twas not [then] but a pretty while after [then] before the Disputation came to this full point, which you have already brought us too in your Account, after which you say there was no other Answer given by me, nor to be expected, for as I often offered fuller Answer to all you urged in one entire Discourse, but that 'twas an unseasonable motion in your Account p. 10. and in no wise so pleasing to your Priestly patience, as 'twas to the peoples, to expect so long as to hear it, so there was much more than this uttered by some of yourselves, though you give us not so much as the sum of it in this your sum: Here's but one particular man's influence toward the maintenance of Infant-baptism inserted here in your Account, viz. only Mr. Willcocks; thi●… was he, who when had been the prime pleader in your cause, was afterward (and good reason too, for he was the fittest for your turn, though not the truths) very gravely desired by you (how justly judge you) to be judge in it, and to determine his own Disputation, and be the main moderator of what came out of his own mouth, and mine too; a thing never heard of in accademical Disputations, the Rules of which you were so stiff to have us steer by, this was he, who (if he were (as not I but Report says he was) your special Penman in the Account, as he was your special spoksman at the Disputation) se●…s so light it seems by every man's else as to set down no man's Arguments, but his own: it's like they were not very much to the matter, and indeed they were not, nor his neither, though his own are expressed for the most material: but better or worse there were more Arguments urged then these, one by a Scotchman, who then lived at Kenington, what he is called I know not, so well as whether, for he had a call to Dover since that, from whence whether he is now called I know not: he laid down his Argument in this form, viz. to whom the Covenant belongs to them the initial seal of it belongs, but the Covenant belongs to infants, etc. but seeing me startle at his Antiscripturall term, of Initial seal, by which he denoted baptism, whether he urged more, or what more he urged I remember not well, but I'm sure he was at Ne plus ultrâ in that, for I durst not admit of that improper term, which made his Syllogism Sophistical, and his Disputation ex falso suppositis, for he took it for granted by all men, that baptism (as he called it) is an initial seal, about which yet sub judice lis est, it being doubted by many whether baptism be a seal at all, and denied by some, of whom I profess myself one so opinioned, who in its due place shall (I doubt not) give good account on't: there was likewise another Argument urged by Mr. Vahan, who from Acts 2. would have drawn the right of baptism to believers infants, and being asked whether those Peter than spoke to were believers or unbelievers when he spoke to them, and replying that they were believers, heard the contrary both cleared by myself, and confessed by his Partner Mr. Prigg, my quondam friend unless I became his enemy that day because I told him the truth) who convening with me in that, though not in the true Consequence of it, did however so contradict Mr. Vahan, that he came in to his help o'er the shoulders, There were also two more Arguments (besides these in the Account) urged by Mr. Willcock, viz. one ex particulari, the other ex negativo (as I took occasion to give a hint thereof above) which he, or whoever was the p●…n-man of these passages was (it seems) as little willing to own, as his own name, or his handy work itself: sundry more Arguings there were, and some Arglings also made by some who would have now and then a snatch and away, which me thinks you might have given a transient glance at, at least in A true Account, for your utter silence concerning which, you might justly be blamed, yet I blame you not much, when I consider how sensible you might easily be of liableness to more blame for the matters themselves, had you shown them (such untempered mortar were they) then can well be conjectured by you, you are now under, for letting them alone altogether.   

Report.  
Another flat falsification and abuse, of me and the world is this: you misreport me, and that in two places, viz. at the bottom of both your sixth and seventh pages, which makes you doubly guilty of that single fiction, as having confessed that circumcision was the seal of the Gospel Covenant, and that Ishmael who was that carnal seed of Abraham only because born in Abraham's house had right to it and received it.   

Reply.  
That this is A true Account of what you then said I said, I dare not deny, but do deny it to be A true Account of what I said: whether you understood, or understood not my words I know not, but I uttered not a word to such a purpose; and were you not men minded to mis-understand, wh●…n to und●…rstand seems never so little to make against you, I make no doubt but to make your own true Account make you eat some of that you have here uttered: that Ishmael, who was Abraham's carnal seed, even merely because born in Abraham's house had right to Circumcision, and received it, as every male so born also did, I confess I confessed, but denied all along that Circumcision was a seal (as to Ishmael) of the Gospel-Covenant, or that he had it under such a notion as a Seal at all; I said it was a Seal to none save to Abraham, and that even to him 'twas a Seal of not any thing at all save of the righteousness of the faith he had, which words (in the sense I then expounded them) are not meant of the Gospel-Covenant, but of that particular personal Covenant God made with him concerning his fatherhood of the faithful, a peculiar privildege which God gave to him, and to none in all the world besides him; as for Ishmael, yea, and Isaac himself they neither of them had it in this sense, as neither had they that Covenant, or promise of a fatherhood which it was a Seal of; though even Ishmael himself, and the lowest males in Abraham's house were all to be circumcised upon this account only, if if there had been no other, as he was commanded to circumcise all his males. As to a fuller account of my grounds for this opinion, I shall suspend it till I take my other Account of these passages in you●…s, and take notice only here first of your sacred Sophistication, in giving that out for granted which was so abundantly denied, Secondly, that close contradiction you here give, not only to the truth but yourselves also, for you give out in the next page but one before, that I denied Circumcision to be a seal of the Righteousness of faith, (which in your own sense is as much as of the Gospel-Covenant) to any of Abraham's posterity, and that I multiplied words in proof of the contrary, and yet here in relation to that very Relation of your own, in the weak wilfulness of your memories, you give out that I had confessed Circumcision to be (even to Ishmael) the seal of the Gospel-Covenant, that is, with you still, of the righteousness of faith; thus for your own ends fathering your own false-tenet upon me, ye have not lost all by the shift, for you have fastened the fault of forgery upon yourselves; and this puts me in mind of another of your misreports, which because 'tis so suitable to this i'll give you some little sense of it here, though I find it far off hence in your Review p. 13. l. 1. 2. where looking, or rather lacking over all your arguments again, as somewhat rude and deformed in their first delivery, and among the rest, this from Circumcision of infants to their baptism, you positively affirm thus, that the Adversaries confess baptism to be the seal of the Gospel-Covenant; whereas, if by Adversaries you mean your friend myself, among others, besides what else shall elsewhere be produced in proof of my dissent from you in this point, yourselves can bear me witness, or (if you will not) a thousand others will, that on the very day of Disputation, when the Clergyman of Kenington styled baptism an initial seal, I denied it to be a seal at all, and am sure it would have found you all more work, than you are aware of, to have made good that un-gospel like expression of it, though I grant it to be a sign of the Gospel-Covenant.   

Report.  
Another as flat a falsi●…y as ever fell from the mouths or pens of men, who pretend to truth, is that clause which lies in the last line of the seventh page, and first line of the eighth, wherein consider it with the words before; you say I confessed that the spiritual seed of Abraham and their children, had under the Gospel as good right to the seal thereof, which is baptism, as Ishmael who was that carnal seed of Abraham, had right to the seal of the Gospel-Covenant, Circumcision.   

Reply.  
Whereas, besides my constant denial of Circumcision to be a seal to any but Abraham (as I said immediately above, and as yourselves testify of me) and besides my denial of baptism to be a seal at all, I either did deny the children of the spiritual seed, i. e. of believers to have right to baptism, or else to what purpose did you oppose me? for this was the very question between us; which as you affirmed so I from the beginning to the end of the Disputation all along most inalterably denied. Indeed I confessed o'er and o'er again, that Abraham's spiritual feed, i. e. believers have right to baptism, but that the natural seed of this spiritual seed of Abraham, are Abraham's spiritual seed (as so born) or that believers children (quà tales) are semen fidei, as well as their parents, is a most silly saying of your own, page 14. but that which all the day long I most strenuously stood against, much more that they were the subject of baptism, yet you say here in the Preter-plu-perfect tense, that I had confessed their right to baptism, as good as Ishmaels' to Circumcis●…n, which me thinks (if I had done so) would have been expressed some where or other in the foregoing part of your true Account, or else it is not so true as't would be taken for; but sith it is not to be found that I confessed such a thing in all your Relation of the most material things that past, among which this (had it been confessed as you here say) had been the most material of all, for it had been the full giving you the cause, and saving you the labour of more Disputing) we'll take it for granted (if you please) rather than charge your true Relation of the most material things, as not relating the most material of all, that this your Testimony of my confession of this matter, is most prodigiously false and abusive: Sirs, I wonder you are not ashamed so palpably to speak contrary to what you have here recorded: I know not well what you mean by so many foul misreports, unless as a certain great Benefactor to the Romish religion, perceiving it unable to stand by the Scriptures, bestowed a Legend of lies towards its support, which is called Legenda aurea, so you supposing your Infant-baptism uncapable to be maintained any longer by principles of truth and reason, have thereupon been so bountiful to the cause, as to give in this golden-leaden-legend.  
Another sorry tale, and strange story you tell is not of me, but of one of my side (as you are pleased to speak) and this (me thinks) if I, be not mistaken, with a kind of Emphasis of the Featlean strain, as if it were some presumption for a Russet Rabbi, or secular Artisan to climb so high, and slutter, and file so near the pulpits, and pompous Balconies of the Priests, and as if he were a man Sacerdotalis ambitionis, loving the uppermost Room, and chief place in the Synagogue, more to be taken notice of himself, then that the truth should be taken notice of by the people, in which things if you muse as you use, yet know Sirs that we have no such custom, nor the Churches of God, of whom you say thus.   

Report.  
That having placed himself on the highest of the pulpit stairs, to be seen of all and craved the liberty granted by the propositions to ask questions, and receive satisfaction, he professed himself a stranger, and to come thither by accident, though both afterwards appeared contrary.   

Reply.  
Though both will yet appear to be contrary to what you would have them appear to be if you could tell how, viz. a couple of untruths, for verily he was a stranger, and so I then told Mr. Prigg, who asked me of him, that had not been long in the Country, and was unknown both by face and name, not to myself and some others, yet however to most of that Auditory, in which I believe not one of many could say who, or whence he was; as to his coming thither by accident, so he did too, i. e. unappointed and unsent for, in which sense I'm sure some of you came not by accident, but as specially bespoke in the name of a great Patron of your Party, both to be there, and undertake the business, and appointed, if not primarily, yet secondarily, or upon their refusal, for whom some too confidently undertook they should undertake it, who yet say of yourselves page 3. you were not the men appointed to undertake it; if by accident you mean thus, as well you may, for a man may come by accident enough to a place though he doth not drop out o'th' clouds, or slide down thither from the moon, that worthy friend and beloved Brother, under which name I the rather own him here, because I had a letter from a prime one of your Party that speaks somewhat scoffingly of that compellaton, and besides though with Dr. Featly, and his faction he is one of the Clergy of Laics, and an Apron Levite, yet as his name is Temple-man, so I take him to be a better Churchman than many a one, who for not troubling his people with too much truth goes under the Denomination of a good one; this man I dare say as far as he said he came by accident so far he came by accident as he said, and this proves your hearsay, for its like so you had what you here say, to be Heresy if an erring from the truth may, as I know not why not, be so styled in civil matters, as well as spiritual: And this conducts me to another figment wherein you father as false a thing upon myself, as any of those you fe●…ned of me before, which is at the bottom of that discourse, which you record as passing between yourselves and him, concerning justification of Dying infants, whether it be by faith or without it, in which discourse, though the folly of your opinion in that point, and truth of his, which is also mine, namely, that dying Infants are justified without faith, I shall show in due time and place, yet I cannot but take notice by the war, before I speak of that which more concerns myself, of some Legerdemain and illogicall dealings of yours with him.   

Report.  
Reporting him asserting thus, viz that there may be justification which is not by faith, you report yourselves replying thus, page 9, that it is the grossest piece of Popery to hold ●…ustification by works, and not by faith only, and the greatest controversy between them and Protestants.   

Reply.  
What shameful Sophistry●…ave ●…ave you shown here in foisting in a fool●…sh phrase and term that was neither used, nor touched on by him in any of his foregoing speeches, nor yet in that which your reply most immediately relates to, viz. justification by works; whereas you know well enough even as well as he, and I, and the rest that were there (for your wits could not be so far gone a woolgathering as to need Hellebor here) that he neither spoke nor meant of justification by works, whether without faith or with it, but of the justification of Infants without either faith or works, neither of which, as yourselves confess, they are in infancy capable to act, although you say, but if a man will not believe you he may choose for there's neither Scripture, sense, nor reason for it, they have the habit; this, I say again, you know to be the sense of such as you call Anabaptists, witness yourselves in two places, viz. p. 8. where you give account of our opinion thus, viz, That way of the presentment of the righteousness of Christ without faith is a figment of the Anabaptists, also p. 15. thus, the adversaries are put to theirshifts to find out a new way for the salvation of infants dying in their minority viz. the presentment of the satisfaction of Christ without faith: in both which places you give the world to understand, that you know our opinion to be that infants are justified by neither works, nor faith, which is a work, but, if at all, by that which yourselves hold is the material cause of the justification of men that act faith, and of whom, they being capable to act faith, it is required as instrumental, viz. the righteousness of Christ: secondly, you know that this opinion is farther off, and more flatly contradictory to that Popery, that holds justification by works then yours can possibly be found to be, for the very jesuits may have some colour for saying that you say the same with them whilst their Tenet is justification by works, yours by faith, which say they, and truly too, is a work, theirs by faith, and works concurrent, yours by faith that hath works concomitant, and necessarily consequent thereunto: between which two doctrines, (neither of which need be so much condemned each by other (for aught I find) as they are (provided that all merit on our part be cashiered (for there Rome errs besides us all) for you will find them both true in the end, viz. that both are instrumentally subservient, and not either of them alone to the justification of (not Infants but) men, and women of whom both as well as one are required in order unto life) be●…ween which two, I say, there's not so vast a difference as you deem there is, much less so great as is between these, viz. justification by works and faith both, which is that of the Papists, and justification without either faith or works, which is that of ours, when we speak of justification with reference to infants only, for between these there's not the least colour of coincidence, yet this was that justification that Inquirer spoke of, viz. of Infants by Christ without faith, or any other work either, which you know is no part of Popery, yet first you reply besides the business, which he spoke to, and define, it gross Popery to hold justification by works, as if he had held it, yea secondly which is worse, and down-rightly injurious, you are not ashamed to tell-tale him to the world in the words below that he fell into this popery, and that for asserting of a justification of Infants, so far as they need any, neither by faith nor works, but Christ without either, so much as instrumental on their part, than which you see nothing more fully contradicts it: if ye were blind indeed you had not fined so much in this, but sure you cannot but see how you shuffle, therefore without repentance your sin remaineth.  
Another thing I take notice of by the way as I travel toward that fiction I mention above, as referring to myself, is this.   

Report.  
That when the quere was put to you by the inquirer (as you call him) what need infants have of being justified at all since they have no original sin (which whether it were put for satisfaction in the thing, or merely to hear how readily you would resolve it I cannot say) you bring in one of the Ministers in the name of the rest crying out, as before of Popery, so now of Pelagianism, and that he had not heard so much Heresy in so few words, that the inquirer should take heed how he vented himself in public hereafter, for it became him to suspect himself lest God had given him over to the Spirit of error, and to another that out of the body of the Congregation replied, That that way which you the Ministers called Heresy so wershipt they God: you go on still in the old tone thus, that you were sorry to hear him profess himself a Papist and a Pelagian in saying he worshipped God that way, and that you appealed to me, praying me to declare my mind concerning th●…se things, whether they were Heresy or no, which you charged the inquirer with.   

Reply.  
But not a word all this while was uttered either to prove the things to be as you call them, or towards the satisfaction of the Auditory, or Inquirer himself in the question: Sirs, is not this the clutter you commonly keep? is not this the Clergies constant custom of confuting, and their wont way of withholding men from all audience of what ever comes cross to your conceits when on the sudden you have not what to say against it, viz. to break out into hideous out-cries of Heresy, Schism, a Spirit of Error, an Anabaptist, an Arminian, an Antinomian, a Papist, a jesuit, Popery, Pelagianism, Socianism, Arminianism, and such like? when happily not five of fifty among you ever read Pelagius, Fanstus Socinus, or Arminius so as to know what they hold, and why, any more than by tradition one from another: mistake me not, for I am now neither justifying, nor condemning these men, with whom, they being dead, I have no great matter to do, nor you neither, but that you love to find yourselves more business than you need, for my part my business lieth mainly in the Word, which is the Rule, and being only attended to may (for aught I know) sooner set us to rights then either Austin, or Pelagius, the Remonstrants, or Arminius: for Regula est mensura sui et obliqui, but I here take notice of, and take occasion to condem●… the Popish practice of most Priests in Damning down for heresy in gross what they neither disprove, nor prove to be Heresy when called to't; by their own calling it so before the people.   

Report.  
You relate upon your praying me to declare my mind concerning those things, whither they were Heresy or no, which you the Ministers charged the inquirer with, that I said I knew that what ere he said, yet he did not hold those things, and that your reply was that the inquirer was a stranger, and therefore you wondered his mind should be so well known to me, that whatever his opinion was, the question being whether his saying that one may be justified without faith, and that children are not born in original sin were heresy or no? you desired me to answer positively to that but received no Answer.   

Reply.  
As to this Politic piece of your report, wherein I perceive how fallaciously you represent me as tendering the inquirer as to my knowledge, speaking contrary to his own mind, I have many things to say, and it matters not much which I hebegin with first. First, me thinks I see (as you have set things down, a certain Sophism of Amphiboly lie lurking iustar anguis in herbâ, in these words [Those things] as you express them the second time in this parcel; by reason of which if they be not understood by the Reader in a right sense, I am set forth by you as guilty of a double crime, from censure of which I see a call to clear myself, and my friend, whom you strive to slain together with in that case, that truth may suffer damage by us in nothing: for if by [those things] be meant in that second place those two opinions of justification of infants without faith, and their not having original sin, which were indeed the things that he said, than I am falsely reported (not to say foully belied) by you in that passage, wherein you relate me saying thus, viz. that I knew that, whatsoever the inquirer had said yet he did not hold those things, and am made also to speak falsely against my conscience (as my conscience tells me not that I did in all that day) for verily, as great a stranger as that inquirer was to yourselves, and the major part then present, yet he was not such a stranger (saving all your wonder) to myself, but that his mind was so well known to me in that, that I knew he held those things, viz. that infants have all the justification they have need of without faith, and have no original sin, for I hold them my self, in what sense, since you ask me, you shall see by and by, and if I should have said thus, viz. that I knew, what e'er he said, yet he did not hold those things, I should have been both a belyar of that my friend, and also as very a ●…yar as yourselves, Sirs, would herein fain make me seem to be, but I was both well a ware what he held, and confident that he did not say those things, and not hold them; But if by those things in that place be understood not those two opinions, but those things which the Minister charged the Inquirer with, viz. Heresy, Popery, the tenet of justification of Infants by works, which were those things the Ministers so cried out upon him for, in which sense it is in my speech to be understood, then 'tis no other than the plain truth, which I spoke, and to give you all the advantage that is possible to have by them, I here say it again, that I knew that whatsoever was then said by that our brother, yet he held not those things, i. e. that Heresy and Popery you then falsely accused him of.  
And now sith you complain that you received no answer when you desired me to answer positively to that question whether Infants are justified without faith, and have any origin●…ll sin, yea or no, and whether the things, as we hold them in contradistinction to your selves, be heresy yea or no, as you call them; I must co●…plain of your selves as the sole persons then in fault that you received not as full an answer as you desired, for I appeal not only to the whole people but to the ●…ame page of your own p●…pers also, wherein, in the very next line but one or two below this, in which you charge me, with the fault of giving you no answer, your own selves are witnesses to me that I offered to answer you to all exceptions you had against us in an Entire Exercise, which if you had heard, and not liked you should have had liberty enough to have replied to as long as you pleased, but your selves only opposed it with all your might: but to wave any further recrimination as concerning that at present, and that you may have no occasion in future to feig●…, as if we feared to answer you so positively whether those things, viz. Infant's justification without faith, and their freedom from that, which, not so much in Scripture language, as by an Epithet of men's own coining is called original sin, be heresy or no, I answer no: as to the first though, justification of Infants by works is the Heresy of a Romish Clergy, whether by works we mean the work of faith joh. 6. 29. or any other, yet justification of Infants without that work of faith or any other work, either of their parents or their ow●…, is the truth as it is in jesus, and such sound Doctrine as, notwithstanding your outcries of gross popery, and I know not what upon it, you will never with right reason refute while you breath: as for the other of those things, viz. infants not having original sin, two questions may be asked concerning this, viz. whether they have it? secondly, whether they ever had it if you ask whether they ever had any? I answer, that, as to hold dying infants to be damned unless they believe, which is your doctrine, is as to the poor little ones at least that cannot be lief somewhat too damnable a Heresy, so to say that inf●…nts never had the sin of Adam so much as imputed to them (how far forth it may possibly be to a person, in whom yet is no inherent corruption, is seen in Christ, who had the imputation of sin to him though none in him) is for aught I have ever found, yet to the contrary not a truth: but if your quere be whether infants have any guilt as from Adam's sin abiding on them after birth? I reply, that as in order of nature Infants must stand guilty by the first Adam's sin, before they can be said to be justified by the righteousness of the second, so in order of time I believe them universally to be no sooner guilty, as from Adam, then cleared by Christ, which Tenet, he that tries it, will find it (I persuade myself) so far from meriting to be cried out on for Heresy, (as it is at random by the Clergy) that it rather comes as nigh to truth, as 4 pence to a groat: but such a bugbear makes the Priest, of what ere suits not with his wont imagination, that almost all is damnable that differs from him, and what ere he meets out of the King's highway, or sees Sectarizing from the common Road of his own Cloudy conception, and clerical, Cassicall, Convocationall, Canonical constitution, he draws at it presently, as a thief that comes to Rob him, commits it to prison, and condemns it all to be hanged for Heresy before he hears it.   

Report.  
You relate that after that none did propound any more questions.   

Reply.  
As if all men had been so astonished at your understanding and answers, as they were at Christ's, that none durst open their mouths before you any more that day; yet some would with the help of Christ have ventured to have told the truth in your presence, but (to your praise be it spoken) as you speak below of yourselves, you would not let them.   

Report.  
So (say you) the Congregations was again dismissed.   

Reply.  
An argument of your itching after an end, and being well nigh betw●…led to be gone, if the people had not been more forward to quere after truth, than the Priest was willing to Answer, for all his liberty granted in the seventh Article, and his pretended forwardness to resolve page 27. where dissuading men from going to seducers, you advise them (as from God) to ask the Priest: and if others had not been more free to both, than the Preachers were either to Preach or hear.  
As for what follows, 'tis not so much a model of misreports, and mis-representations (as thus far of your Account is, for the most part) as of true reports and representations of some few more of the Ministers mis-apprehensions, mis-affections and misactions, under a colour of acting for the truth.   

Report.  
You say that your Respondent hindered their departure by making an unseasonable motion, viz. that they would hear him preach.   

Reply.  
Emphatically even to a scoff, that they would hear him preach, alias Sirs, give Account in an entire discourse, and this too after his offer to hear any of you first if you would, but you would not, of what he held, and why; which was the very business he professed to come thither for, more than to dispute, aliâs to show upon what grounds he invaded the practice of the Church of England, Scotland, Rome, etc. in her infant sprinkling, which say you (in words) in the fifth Article he ought to have done, but here in your deeds and denial of it, that he ought not: Do you think that all (save such as have eyes and see not) discern not your daubing, your double-dealing, and your Egypt-like requiring men to make brick allowing no straw, declaring that 'tis our Duty to show our grounds, yet prohibiting our discharge of it, pressing people to prove all things, yet not abiding they should hear all things, te●…ing your Respondent that in reason he should have been opponent, yet yielding him no opportunity on that day to urge so much as one argument, though he offereed it, much less yielding to be responsible to him on the next; magnifying preaching as much as any, yet withstanding it more than all, and making it an unseasonable motion almost at any time, (save when time comes by course) to make mention of it; as if any time were unseasonable for that which is strictly to be attended at all times by Christ's Ministers, both in season, and out of season also 2 Tim. 4. 1, 2.   

Report.  
This required some time to debate.   

Reply.  
As well it might, being a matter of weighty concernment on both hands, viz. of consequence too advantageous to truth, as well as dangerous to your falsehoods; besides, the more time was taken up in debating against it, so much the less time, if it fortuned to be cast that way, that it must be done, would be left to do it in.   

Report.  
The Ministers opposing it.   

Reply.  
And lying in the manger, having no mind to hear themselves, nor yet that those should who had a mind to it, having the key of knowledge, the keys and power of that place, yet neither abiding there, nor abiding that others should abide there to so precious a purpose; which is so much to their commendation, that men must needs see them to be not like Christ's Ministers, for if they had, they would have rejoiced in Christ's being preached, whether in pretence, or in truth, of envy or good will, well knowing all should have tended to the furtherance of the Gospel, Phil. 1. 15, 16, 17, 18  
Ob. And if they object that preaching of error will hinder it.  
Ans. I say that publishing whether of error or truth, gives that advantage of t●…ying all things, which as it is that duty men cannot do, unless they hear all, so that which they might not do by any means in ages above, when the Arch-heretics the Pope, and the Priesthood stopped the mouths of all Heretics, save their own: besides, it puts people into a fairer capacity of right carriage towards all things, viz. if they appear truth (though cried out on as error) of embracing them, if error indeed (as much of the Priestly doctrine is under a name of truth) of declining it, and all this upon none of that implicit, but that explicit faith, which only becomes him that will be a Christian, not in name only, but in very deed: and all this the Ministers know as well as I, page 24. affirming preaching to be a better way to oppose the approach of Heresies, then that of disputing; whereupon, though they stir up one another to oppose in preaching the growth, and propagation of what they call Anabaptism, to prevent people's departure to the truth, yet are they (and I cannot blame them, they knowing no better way, and seeing how fast their old friends fall from them, by the late light that is risen up from under their dark night of traditions) as careful to keep all from their pulpits, save such as sing to the same tune with themselves, though we never speak, but we give them leave, which is more than they give us in the like case, to take their exceptions.   

Report.  
Saying, that the end of their meeting was to dispute.   

Reply.  
Which if it were, yet the foolishness of preaching might possibly have done the Disputer more good than his Dispute; besides, the end of my coming was to give Account of the way you call Heresy wherein we worship, and why I call yours Heresy, and that truth: and sith I freely granted the Ministers their end, 'twas but unreasonable in them (their own turn being once served) to frustrate mine.   

Report.  
That the Disputation was now determined.   

Reply.  
By its own opp●…nent, and therefore that exercise being (as fully as foully) ended 'twas (I told you) the more lawful, fair, fit, and seasonable to begin another.   

Report.  
That it was near 7 of the clock.   

Reply.  
Yet not midnight, much less break of Day, as 'twas when Paul continued preaching, and discoursing at a place, where he knew not whether he should ever preach again, Act. 20. 7. 11.   

Report.  
That the Dispute had lasted above six hours.   

Reply.  
Whether there was so much as six hours' dispute or no I doubt, however, i'll not call you to Account f●… this▪ but excuseyou, for sith you counted every hour seven till you were gone, it might well seem to you no less than 16. yet Sirs give me leave, was there indeed six hours, and more past all in ‛ Disputation? I pray Sir●…, what's b●…me of the odd five and a half? did you press them to death i'th' Press, or lose them i'th' Ashes, whetein you had a design to have smothered it all? for as clean as you would seem to have rak't it out, here's no more returned to give Account of itself then this small parcel, which is scarce the tenth: See therefore that the rest be forth coming, for here is but mere Pigmy semi-demi doings: and besides gentlemen, me things your tale hangs not handsomely together with the thing told, for, if there were six hours work indeed, how is it you repeat no more? or if there were no more than this half an hours reading, how is it you give so large an Account of it here? or must we conceive you to have two true Accounts, one in this cl●…use, which stories the length of the Dispute to be six hours, the other in your book itself, which disputes o'er all that long dispute again before the world, that it might have the true cognizance of it, in little more than the sixth part of one? of which two true Acounts (for so you would have us account them to be both) if the one be a true Account then for certain (sith they come not near one another, by five hours, and an half) the other is a false true one, or a true false one which you please, for howbeit, a man may of a six hours discour●…e say in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in less than six mi●…its that it was six hours long, and that there were many Arguments, and Answers in it, yet if he take on him to relate o'er the Discourse itself, and the Arguments and Answers themselves, and account (as you pretend to do) pro toto integrali, at least for the most material parts thereof, he must either afford it more than six times six mi●…its space to play in, and that's more than you have allowed your Account, or else 'twas a long nothing indeed. Some creepholes I see you make for yourselves, whereat to get out from the shame of that disproportion between your words here, which are S●…squi-pedalia, showing the work to be six hours long, and the work itself, which is like a Span; for you tell us in your Preface, 'tis but a short Relation you pretend to; yet know Sirs that too little is too little in all conscience: neither can you lick yourselves whole of all absurdity; whilst in two seveveral sententious Descriptions you speak of no less than six hours, so hoisting up your Reader into an Expecttaion of something worth looking after, and then shut him off with this Skeleton, or short show of ●…lf the sum, but some of one half, some scra●…s, and broken bits of the bu●…ss, whereof the fag-end of all, viz. how the bells began to play their parts against our preaching, when you had done, by the appointment of who knows not whom? a matter as well worth hearing as much of yours, is left out altogether: so than Sirs, here's two Accounts of your Dispute, a long-short one, and a short-long one, for 'tis Epitomised well nigh to nothing: sith 'tis as 'tis, you might do well, unless you can help's to that odd remnant of five hours and a half, which is either shrunk away for shame, or else s●…ipt off from the whole piece, whilst you were cutting out of it this short-close-coat wherewith to cover your nakedness, to summon it back to the press, and thence sign it out again for a true Counterfeit: but supposing you'll save yourselves so much labour, as to take shame to yourselves for your Demi-dealing, I have here done it to your hands, to save your Reader the labour of being cozened.   

Report.  
And many (say you) were wearied.   

Reply.  
And will be more, as well as more than yourselves will be before this disputation and the effects thereof have done working in their hearts that heard it, or that con●…unction which was july 27th 1649. which began its operation most to'th'purpose, when you pressed it out, will cease to be ominous, and of ill influence in the Clergies climate.   

Report.  
And many had far to go.   

Reply.  
And some so far that night, as was pretended, that in order there unto I hear they took horse the next day in the afternoon.   

Report.  
One of the Congregation replied, say you, that he hoped you the Ministers would not hinder the preaching of the word, or call any time unseasonable for that, the Ministers answered, that they magnified preaching as much as any, yet must needs tell them the Apostle makes it inferior to charity, and that when cha●…ity was in danger to be violated by it, it were but Christian prudence to omit it.   

Reply.  
Antichristian priestly-popely-pollicy (if ye will) but neither Christian prudence, nor Pastor-like pity, nor Peter-like piety, nor Paul's charge to Timothy 2▪ Tim. 4. 1. 2. which was to preach the Word, and be instant inseason and out too, to reprove, rebuke, exhort, etc. with all long suffering and doctrine.  
Ob. But some there would have been grieved at it, in which case better to have omitted it in charity, than hazzar●…●…treds by performance.  
A●…sw. Some there (its like) would not ●…ave endured it, yet is that no plea whereupon to omit it, for than we must preach no more Gospel to th●… world, which sets two against three, and three against two, and occasions (not causes) by means of men's lusts opposing it, more sword than peace at present, Luk. 12. 51, 52, 53.  
Yea, the time will come (and now is) when men, (yea Ministers) will not endure sound Doctrine, but after their own lusts, heap to themselves teachers, (and what heaps upon heaps of false teachers are there in all Christendom? for the Clergy have made themselves many as the locusts, many more than to every parish one▪ tickling men up still with an omnia bene in a bad condition, even when for their sakes Isa. 24. omnia penè penitus peritura sunt) and will turn away their ears from the truth, and be turned unto fables of men's feigning, but watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an Evangelist, fulfil thy ministry, 2 Tim. 4. 3, 4, 5.   

Report.  
That the Congregation consisted of two sorts of men and women, whose opinions were different, that there was a danger of a breach between them, that as they came together, and had behaved themselves quietly all the time, so they might be permitted to depart, that the mischiess which follow Division, are easier prevented then healed, etc.   

Reply.  
Great indeed are the mischiefs that follow Divisions, they are more easily preven●…ed then healed, but as sure as the Lord lives, and his word hath any truth in't the Division●… of these days, the mischiefs of which (and that's the best out ') will light most upon the triple Tower of B B Babel, even the ●…ripple C C Crow●… a●…d Kingdom of the C C Clergy, out of whose clutches God is going to redeem his Captive Clergy, the height of which Tower he will bring down to the Earth, even to the dust, these Divisions (I say) will neither be prevented nor healed, notwithstanding all endeavours to that purpose, till that be fully accomplished, which this Division of Languages truly tends to in the Counsels of God, viz. the u●…ter shattering and disabling of these great Babel-builders, so that their Ambitious projects shall come to a Perpetual end; till then, breach upon breach cannot be avoided: while the Earth was, as in old time of Priestly pomp it was, of one language, and of one speech all saying, nemine contradicente, as the Pope said, all worshipping as the Priesthood appointed, all believing as the Chur●…h believed, there was so much Chari●…y to the Church's peace, that all truth was choked under the name of Schism for the sake on't; the builders, by whom the corner-ston●… is still refused, saying one to another, go to, let us build us a City, and a Tower, whose top may reach to heaven, let us make us a name, and nothing was 〈◊〉 from them, which they imagined to do by advantage of this their unity and uniformity of speech, and Religion; but now God is coming down to view the great Tower, this Po●…pous Kingd●…m of Priests; and finding it swell up to heaven, above the stars of God, over all, on earth at least, that's called God, he s●…yes go ●…o, let us go down, and confo●…nd their 〈◊〉, that they may not un derstand one another's speech▪ whereupon, as the great City is split in three parts, so each of these will be subdivided more and more, into Sectaries of all sorts, so that men understand not now the language of the Pope and Priesthood, nor will Christ's sheep hear the voice of those strangers, by which Division of tongues, if ●…hat Great City cease to reign, and that montanous Babel come down, and become a plain before Zerubabel, as it must, 'tis not so devilish as Divine a Division, which all are not so sorry for as some, whose Alas is lamented back again with Hallelu●…: yea, let the day break more and more, and the shadows ●…ie away, and my beloved be like a Ro●… young hart, hasting o'er these mountains of Bether, i. e. Divis●…on, Cant. 2. 〈◊〉. And now as to the people's being permitted to depart, 〈◊〉 know none were held there against their wills, besides yourselves, yea, both you and they too that would, might have gone in peace, and those that would, might have stayed in peace, had you not troubled all with your oppositions: if such as had a mind to stay, had been as peaceably permitted to abide, as you who had such a mind to be out, were peaceably permitted to depart, for any hindrance you had from us, all might have been full as well (for aught I know) as now it is.   

Report.  
Next you relate, I not 〈◊〉 to the Reasons of the Ministers, it was at last refe●…red to the Minister of the place being there present, and he desired to declare whether he would give way to my preaching, which he refusing to do, upon the reasons before said, one of the Congregation began to utter some words tending to a Commotion, viz. that ●…e had nothing to do with them, that they would do it without his leave, and the like, whereupon the Ministers conju●…ed me, whose interest they observed to be so great in the people, by the bonds of Charity, the candour, and Sobriety of a Christian, and ingenuity of a Scholar, tha●… I would dissolve the C●…ngregation, that they might part without professed hostility, that there would great dis●…race light upon their meeting, besides dangers which th●…y did fores●…e, if I did not, that if I persevered in my motion, they did p●…otest openly before the Congregation against it, and ●…id charge up●…n me whatsoever inconveniency should follow, so being persuaded, I went out of the Church with the Ministers, and the Congregation followed.   

Reply.  
I saw not so much as a grain of reason in all you spoke, in prevention of so innocent, and in itself inoffensive a purpose as that was, to render a reason of my faith to a people that expected it from me, and were (as yourselves were not) then and there so willing to hear it: whereupon I neither did nor durst decline the doing of it upon any such account as convicted that by right I ought not to have done it; nevertheless I must confess when I saw such conjuring, such senseless scarecrows, such reasonles referring, such rigid refusings, such crooked constructions ready to be made by the Ministers of men's words, as Commotions, when very parishioners, who pay Peterpences both to the Presbyter, and the place, only pleaded their Privilege to be there, without his leave, such Emulous observations of the Ministers how great or little my interest was in the people, such desires of me to dissolve the Congration, rather than r●…solve them by an exercise about the truth of baptism, by the bonds of Charity, as if they were to bind us from other duty, by the candour and sobriety of a Christian, as if this lay chiefly, in forbearing to publish the Gospel of God's grace to the sons of men for fear of displeasing, by the ingenuity of a Scholar, which makes many a one forget his integrity as a Minister, such a sense as professed hostility to them likely to be put upon it by the Ministers, if I resused to go out with them, or tarried there to do service to God, such fearful foresights of great disgrace likely to light upon their meeting, and dangers of I know not what, unless of the downfall of their way, which the Ministers had more than all others, if the Auditory were not dismissed without a Sermon, such hideous apprehensions as they had, and direful representations as they made to the people of Chimeras, non entities, things that neither were, nor were like to be, and of they knew not what inconveniency would follow, such chargings of all, lastly, upon myself if I offered to preach there to the people, when I saw (I say) such horrible affrightments at it, and such abominable deal of do made by Ministers against so harmless a motion, as a Ministers preaching in one of their public places, to hundreds that were then ready to hear him, who also would have spoken nothing but the truth, or else have given them all or as many of them as would have stayed free liberty to rectify him if he had not, I was so ashamed to see it, that for very shame I was persuaded to express that love which I truly bear to their persons, though I contest with their corruptions, so far as in a loving manner to walk out with them, and rather, then offend them further than needs must, to perform that service to the truth without doors, which with their leave might as well have been done within.   

Report.  
You relate that one of you then spoke to me as followeth, that I would seriously consider into what a dangerous Error I was fallen.   

Reply.  
Alias a Dangerous tru●…h, that will danger the undoing of you one way or other, and that whether you embrace it or no: for if you do, it will spoil you here, and strip you stark naked of much of your earthly excellencies and enjoyments, and expose you to such ridiculosity, as to be owls and fools among the rest of your Cloth, that embrace it not, for though if you deny yourselves, follow Christ, and suffer with him here, you shall reign with him hereafter, and yours shall be that Kingdom of heaven, yet you will lose your Kingdom here on earth: but if you embrace it not, specially when spoken to your consciences, it will judge you at the last day, and be your condemnation for ever.   

Report.  
And not o●…ely so, but that I was the cause of the fall of many others.   

Reply.  
And of the fall of many more may I be if it be the will of God, if they fall no further then from the Scribes to the Scriptures, but if they fall away from that truth we walk in, after they have known, and owned it, as 'twas foretold many should do, and too many accordingly now do, separating themselves from the true Congregations of Christ, since their separation from the false, sensual having not the spirit, that fall will be on their own score, and not on mine.   

Report.  
That I would saddly remember what Saint Austen saith of Arrius, that his pains are multiplied in Hell, as often as any one departs into his Heresy.   

Reply.  
A sad thing indeed, and seriously to be laid to heart by you, and me, as not only Professors but Promotors also to our power of different ways, whereof one only can be the truth, for the danger will lie on their side that hold the Heresy, and hold it up, and not at all on the others.   

Report.  
That I would consider what arguments had been used, and how unsatisfactory my Answers were.   

Reply.  
So I have done o'er, and o'er again already since you urged them, and, upon occasion of your impression of them, am concerned to consider them more closely yet then ever, and having now well-nigh finished this animadversion of your Account 'tis the very thing I am to go upon by and by; and what ere my answers were then, it matters not, if they were too short then for want of time, and liberty from you to utter them, I shall take liberty to speak the more home to your matter now.   

Report.  
That I would not resist the spirit of God.   

Reply.  
But I am to try the Spirits whether they be of God or no, a thing which you are not yet too much guilty of, unless it be of neglecting it, or else I may resist him unawares: if after trial, and experience of him, I with stiff neck resist his strive with me to own the truth he manifests to me, and leads me to, as I know when I was ready to do, even when he began to enlighten me first in that part of Christ's will ●…e here holds out to your selves, and as they did who stoned Stephen in malice, when they could not resist with clearer light the spirit by which he spoke to them, it is hazzardable whether I shall have forgiveness or no, in this world or that to come, or you either if this, as God forbid it should, ever prove to be your case.   

Report.  
That I would remember that though in this unsettled and distracted Church I did not fear being called to any Account for my doctrines, yet I must appear before the dreadful judgement seat of Christ, who is the patron of Paedo-baptism, praying God to give me a right understanding, you took your leave and departed.   

Reply.  
Though your Church cannot call me to an Account at all, if it be a Church of Christ indeed, I being none of it, the Church judging such only as are within her, and not those without, yet I shall be willing to give it to the utmost in the strictest way wherein your Church could, as a Church, expect it of me, or bring me to it if I were a member of it, which way is not haling to prison hanging, and burning, the wont way of your Churches dealing with falsely supposed Heretics, and should that be the way I should I trust in God submit to give Account in't rather then deny the truth, but it is demanding a reason of men's different faith, and as they find it unsound admonishing, reproving, and in case of non-amendment re●…ecting, disowning, but if your Church, and its Ministry be like each other, I find not your Church so forward to call us to this Account of our saith, for you her Ministry do utterly refuse to accept when we offer it: how often have we been an hundred times more ready to give reasons of our way; than you Churchmen whom she trusts are to receive them? but if we durst not give Account to Christ for what we do, we durst not give Account for it to yourselves: Assure him to our consciences to be what you here assert him to be, viz. the Patron of Paedo-baptism, (but this from Mar. 10. nor act. 2. nor 1. Cor. 10. nor from any other portion of his Testament, nor from his patronising Paedo-circumcision you cannot, much less can you of Paedo-rantism which is your way) and then we are so sensible of our future appearance before his judgement Seat, and have gained so much self denial for his sake, since we practised Pisto-baptism, that we shall as readily lay it down I hope as we took it up.   

Report.  
Af●…er the Ministers were retired, divers Gentlemen and others, who had be●…n present at the Disputation, thanked the Ministers, expressed t●…e satisfaction they had received, assuring them that many were confirmed by their means and the resolution of the Ministers, who were Auditors, was, that they would faithfully in their several congregations, declare their sense of it, and oppose the growth of An●…baptism in their respective flocks.   

Reply.  
Here follows the Story of what event, and success your meeting had among yourselves, and you great friends after you were housed, of its powerful influence upon you Ministers, and your Maecenasses, when you met together at your Randezvous, which was on this wise, you had their gratulatory expressions of their own satisfactions, and assurances of many one's confirmation by your means, and this reciprocally raised you Ministers into joint encouragements, engagements, and resolutions to declare your sense of this happy efficacy, and acceptation your endeavours had among them, and to stickle more stiffly than ever against Anabaptism in your respective flocks, where you usually win all because you play with none there but yourselves, and that you do with such ea●…nestness and zeal, that for fear men should come to Anabaptism, i.e. a second Baptism, you stave them off at a distance, and what in you lies forbid them to own a first: thus while they doted on your Doo-little Disputation, and plastered it o'er with their applause, you in requital agreed to new Whitelime, and daub o'er their Babylonish Idol babyspr●…ling with ●…our untempered Mortar.  
Sirs, I half wonder at one thing, for which (whether more happ●…ly or unhappily it befalls you I wot not) yet I however rather more pity than envy you, viz. that who ere carries the thing, yet you still carry the thank, and who e'er is at loss in your holy wars against us Heretics, yet your selves take upon you still to be Triumphant; you give the satisfa●…tions, the confirmations, for which you have gratulations from the great ones, as if the good issue of things did run only, and always on your side, I find it so in all verbal Accounts, and also in those printed Accounts that are extant of your doings, and disputations with them of this way called Anabaptism, viz. Dr Featly's Account of his Disputation with them in South-wark, and this of your own also with us at Ashford, and another of Mr Baxters with M ● Tombs at Bewdley, penned all as is supposed by the Opponents themselves, who whip them if they have not more wit, and less grace then to disgrace themselves too much, whilst they continue Clergymen. And now I name Dr. Featly, the man whom in the next page you turn us over to for more furniture in this point, I cannot but note by the way how finely you Featlisie throughout your whole Account, as well as here, as if there were a certain Transmigration of Dr. Featly's spirit into that person that was the inditer of your Account: for as most of the Arguments are found in (not to say fetched and filched out of) Featly's farthel, so how many things in yours are after the very Image of his Account, as if one had been the platform of the other? Dr. Featly pens and prints forth his disputation under the title of a True Relation of what passed, and (how properly I appeal to all men) so do you: Dr. Featly says it was the clamours of the Adversaries awakened his, or else it had slept securely by him in a whole skin, so say you, the disgraces the Adversaries loaded your disputation with rak●… it out of those ashes, in which else it was designed to be smothered: Dr. Featly be-Asses us Anabaptists, and so do you both us, and yourselves too, (as is showed above) Dr. Featly makes as if none of that sect ever troubled him any more after that, so ye that after your handling of the enquirer, none did propound any more questions, as if you had stopped the mouths of all: Dr. Featly relates that the dippers were dipped, and plunged o'er head and ears in disputation with him, so you that your Respondent was extremely foundered, answered nothing in the least measure satisfactory, or that carried any show of sense or reason to the purpose: Dr. Featly relates the issue of his, as to himself, to be great thanks, so ye how you were thanked, and as you from diversGentlemen, so he from the Knights, Ladies and Gentlemen, of which rank few stoop so low, as to the plainness of the Gospel, but neither of you from the poor of this World that are rich in faith, and heirs of that Kingdom which God hath promised to them that love him, into which few, Knights, Ladies, and Gentlemen (except more of them repent, believe, and obey the Gospel then mostly do) shall ever enter: thus you flaunt it over the little flock, over this sect which is every where spoken against, as baffled, none plust, worsted by you still: but Sirs, we can give loser's leave to talk, you tell of gratulations, satisfactions, confirmations of people in your ways by your means, but how comes it to pass that there are so many Churches? the true Church, i. e. those you call Anabaptists, may say in her heart after her long widowhood, as Isa. 49. 21. who hath begotten me these, seeing I have lost my children? and who hath brought up these? behold I was left alone, these where have they been? thy people crumble from thee apace (O P P Priest) for all thy satisfactions, and are captivated some more to Christ, and some more to the Devil then ever before, while they served thee: thy Divinity, (O Divine) is as the blood of a dead man, it hath no life in't, thy Common stock, and store of Religion, thou hast treasured up to thyself out of this Author and that, out of Harmonies of Confessions, Counsels, etc. grows stale, and begins to stink before the Scriptures, in a word gray-hairs are here, and there upon thee, and thou know'st it not.   

Report.  
And this opposition of Anabaptism hath been since done (say you) accordingly.   

Reply.  
And 'twere enough to make a man think (though I say it not) that '●was done even immediately; considering what a Tomboys trick was served us so soon after, whilst we were preaching besides the steeple, upon a Tombstone, (which that it grieve you not, know Christ preached in a ship, on the shore on a mountain, in the Synagogues, in houses, even any where where people were willing to stay and hear, and so may his Ministers too for aught I know) for while you were scratching, and clawing one another at your In●…, we teaching and convincing each other in the Outer Court, (for there was no room for Christ in the Inner Temple,) we were cursed most bitterly with bell, though neither with book nor candle; yea there a rose (who knows not whence? for sure 'twas either from you and your party, or you in your party, or you without your party, or (at least) your party without you) such a hot dispute of bim-bom-bell, which put us to such a nonplus that (lest we should perdere in contentione vocem) we were fain to give over, and be gone, and were utterly Routed in the skirmish, tell we could well Raylly together in another place. So here's the upshot of the business of that Disputation, of which somewhat more might yet be written, had my business been to give Account, and not rather to take Account of your Account on't: but this is written, that people may believe your true Account, to be a true Counterfeit, and believing it, may know the better how to trust you another time.    

One word more yet to the Disputers and Scribes OF THE ASHFORD DISPUTATION, OR AN EPILOGETICAL POSTSCRIPT ON THEIR APOLOGETICAL PREFACE.  

Pre.  
THere was never any Intent this Disputation following should have appeared in public, etc.   

Post.  
Like enough so Sirs, for the first appearance, or delivery of itself in public by word of mouth was with so little credit to your cause, that it might very easily be as ashamed to show its face in print, as the Scribes that penned it seemed to be to show their names; And doubtless so it would have been, but that it came disguised; And yet even this false face, whereby you have made it show fairer by far on one side (I mean your own) then at first it did, is so black, so blind, so full of blurs and blemishes, that it cannot choose, when it comes to review itself the second time, but colour red, and blush at its own blindnesses, if it be not Brazen.   

Pre.  
But that like Jonas' Gourd it should have died as suddenly, as it grew, etc.   

Post.  
Like Ionas' Gourd indeed; for jonas-like (O that you were as like him in his best, as you are too like him in the basest of his behaviour!) you run away from God O ye Priests, and refuse to preach the preaching that he bids you; whereupon a mighty tempest is upon you, and upon the waters whereon you ride, i. e. the tongues, nations, multitudes, and peoples, so that they are troubled for your sakes; and upon the Earth itself, which is as it were the Ship, in the bowels of which you have embarked your selves, ever since your fall from heaven thither in the loins of your Father Abaddon, Revel. 9 1. So that it reels to and fro like a Drunkard, is moved exceedingly, like to be split in pieces, clean dissolved, utterly devoured with a curse, for your sins principally, O ye Priests, who have trangressed the Laws of Christ the only Lord, and Lawgiver, changed his Ordinances, broken the everlasting covenant: neither will the sea of the whole world cease to roar about you, and be outrageous till the lot fall upon you, as it did on jonas, to be cast forth, though the Ship-Masters row never so hard to have you spared; nor till the Tempestuous waves, on which you seek still to swim aloft, have overwhelmed you so on every side, that you be fain to cry Alas out of the belly of hell. But Alas though the ship rock, and is ready to suffer shipwreck, yet as if they had made a Covenant with death, and with hell were at at an agreement, So rocked asleep is jonas, so sluggish are our Renegado Prophets, that they yet discern not the mystery of the things that are upon them, but are stark senseless of the stirs that are about them, and of the storms which themselves are most concerned in.  
And what the Gourd was to jonas in his heat, even such is this Disputation also to your cause of Infant-baptism, viz. as short, as slight a shelter, a shadow (for there's no substance in't) under which you have rejoiced a while, and received some thin refreshment, and defence against the heat of that truth with which you were a while tormented: But God hath prepared a silly worm to smite the Gourd, sothat though it blossom like a Rose, and flourisheth as a chief flower among your followers for a time, yet it will die, even as suddenly as it grew, so that, leaving you to your Evensong, to the Tune of [or like the Gourd that Ionas had] mwn will begin to sing matins erelong, saying:  

Their Rose withers,  
Their Blossom blasteth,  
Their Flower fades,  
The mor-ning hasteth.  
Their mour-ning hasteth.  
Their Sun Sets,  
Their shadow flies,  
Their Gourd consumes,  
The Dar-ling dies.  
Their sprink-ling dies.    

Pre.  
The truth is the disgraces that the Adversaries in private have loaded it withal, have rak't it out of those ashes, etc.   

Post.  
For your Respondent, whom you mainly mean here, (witness these words of yours to me, viz. Sir, These short Collections of the Ashford disputation had slept long enough, if your own private letters had not awakened them by a too much slighting your opponents, and their Arguments) not without a just occasion from a friend of yours presented in a letter called a spade a spade, and represented your Doo back again in no worse wise than it deserved, Asserting that your pleading of Infant-sprinkling from that nonentity of Infant-believing was shameful and childish peddling, and that the miserable rawness and rudeness of some, then and there engaged in Syllogistical dispute did savour as little of the Scholar, as that of the Christian; all which and what more is there related was no other than the Truth when I penned it, and I find nothing to the contrary yet in your Account: Howbeit 'twas so disgraceful and loadsome, that you Disputers immediately became Scribes, and posted out a piece of Print on a sleeveles errand, i. e. the Recovery of your Retrograde Repute, being afraid (not more hen hurt) that if this man of war do not (what is not to be done) maintain your Infant-sprinkling (which premi haud suprimi potest, the more you tread the more you spread) your credit may grow so crazy upon't as to die indeed, as indeed it doth, and that daily, for as zealous as you are to unlade yourselves in your Romish ways of disgraces, yet what grace (unless you have the Grace to Repent) in this juncture, wherein the Lord is about to fill the earth with the knowledge of himself, and that glorious truth which you have darkened, and to bring shameful spewing upon all your Ghostly glory?   

Pre.  
In which it was designed to be smothered, etc.   

Epilogue.  
Scarce any Infant ever past alive (I think) under so many murderous, and Smotherous designs as this one poor Insant-disputation that was born at Ashford: It hath had two or three births or appearances in public, one at Ashford the place where it was first held before many, two at the press whence its forth-held before all, from every of which it should have been withheld, so as never to have appeared at all to the view of any, if any of those whose own, more than mine, it was could handsomely have smothered, and broke the neck out.  
The True father, 
b Dr. Blechenden.  who first begat it by venting to a certain Gentlewoman, 
c Mrs. Chute (as she was then called) now Mrs. Dean  (further than he wouldhave done (as it seemsto some since had he thought she would have proved with childby his dallying with her) his pretended desire of some discourse with her seducer, so he was then pleased to style me by Anticipation, having neither before nor since so much as said one word toward the showing of me to be in error, when he saw his offer thrive so fast in the womb of her desires, that there was like to be an Issue, i. e. a Disputation fathered on him to provide for, would for aught ever I could discern, whether to avoid the shame on't, or why else I know not, have smothered the very Embryon in the womb●… but sith that could not be done very cleanly it being noised that there was a conception, he was minded I suppose, to have it smother of itself at the birth, for want of help to bring it forth, for he would have nought to do with it himself when the hour came, but threw it as judas did his business among the Priests with [see ye to it] not vouch-safing so much as to see it himself or to send in so much as one Rag. or Ragged Argum●…nt to hide its shame withal in the day of its nativity, wherein notwithstanding all the help and hand it had from such of you as were sent for far and near to ●…he l●…or, who I dare say did the best for it you could, it was not so well ordered bu●… that it pitied many a ones heart to see how wretched it was, and poor, and miserably blind, and naked.  
Howbeit I say to give you your due, you had bowels toward it far beyond him, who was nearer kin to it then yourselves, for whereas he should have been by right at all the pains and charges too that day, as being most concerned in the business of it, yet he withdrew himself from both; but you, who, as you say were not the men appointed for the disputation, drew near and undertook it, and were at such pains about it, that how far forth you gnawed your tongues for pain I cannot say, but I may safely say you blasphemed the God of heaven both then and since, so far forth as to call his truth Heresy is to blaspheme him, because of your pains and your sores, nor do I hear that you yet Repent of your deeds: in a word though little to th'purpose, yet your cares concerning this Infant-disputation were very great, when his, whose it was, were none at all save how to keep far enough from it, that it might be strangled before ever it came to light.  
Thus it outlived one or two smothers, to which it was designed by its first father, viz. both in and coming out of the womb, much laud therefore which you love more than a little, to you the kind uncles for it, who so seasonably interposing yourselves, swaddled it up as sairly as you could in such foul shifts as you had then about you in such wise at least as to save the life on't, or else it had surely miscarried, and come well nigh to nothing, before it was well any thing at all:  
Now in small process of time, perceiving perhaps that you had overcharged yourselves unawares in Adopting this Ashford-disputation, the fruit of another man's loins, into your own future Tuition, by taking the Patronage thereof upon you, so publicly as you had done that day before many people; and possibly not more ashamed of its former poor appearance, then afraid that a further appearance of it in public might put you to more charge and shame, even you the foster fathers also, who had been so kind as to keep it from killing, and to perform the midwivery und nursery thereof before, had a design now to smother it yourselves, in order whereunto you had buried it alive it seems, and rak'●… it up in the ashes of oblivion, that it might live no longer in men's minds, but rather return dust to dust, Ashes to Ashes as it was, hoping the Sepulchre of your silence was so sure, that the Ghost would never walk about to the cost, shame, and affrightment of its guilty Guardians any more.  
But all this avails not yet, the Baby-disputation was not fully smothered for all that; for people of all sorts were in a kind of Hue-and cry after it, Adversaries talked how ill you handled it, friends were importunate to see a copy of its countenance, so that there's no remedy, but it must be rak't out of those Ashes, in which it was then designed to be smothered, and appear again in public at the Pr●…ss, and so by chance it came to escape a third smother, by which else in your intent it should have perished both out of mind, and sight: 
per varios casus per tot discrimina rerum   
Hath this poor Infant-disputation had the fortune to escape those many smothers, which in the fearful wrath of its own parents, that begat and brought it out, it was o'er and o'er designed to, so that it rubs out still, and remains in rerum natura, in vivis characteribus to this very day.   

Pre.  
And given life to it, etc.   

Post.  
And given death to it you might more truly have said, for verily under a colour of setting it free from the old intended smother you have subtly smothered it o'er a new (as it were) in another: yea, your very Impression is a very suppression of it rather than otherwise, for you have Pressed it almost to nothing in the Press, and made such a Thin-gut thing of it, that howbeit it stands bulked out with an Appendix, and other bumbles, yet it looks no more like the disputation it once was (in respect of the Respondents Answers, which you have robbed it of, as well as of your own weakest Arguments) than the seven lean kine like the fat: you would have sneaped it all out of sight if you could, but necessity urging to set forth somewhat, and shame forbidding the sight of all things as they were, after some picking and stealing, and mincing and making, etc. such Relics of your Raking as you saw most fit for your turns you Tricked together on a bundle, threw them into the press, and so there came out this 
Monstrum, Horrendum, Inform, Ingens, cui lumen Ademptum.   
Nevercheless it lighted on a friend at last, that was well acquainted with it from the beginning, who seeing it so lame, so decrepit, so mis-figured, recovered it out of those Sophistical Glosses, wherein it was designed to have been smothered in your Account, and gave life to it indeed, only to vindicate the truth of it from your misreports.   

Pre.  
Only to vindicate its innocency from their injuries, etc.   

Post.  
It's innocency is a matter which It was never too much guilty of in one sense, though it had enough of it in another, for howbeit (Deo prohibente) it neither could, nor did ever do any, yet it wanted no will to have done a mischief to the truth, and in that respect (as very an Innocent as it was) most honest men do hold it guilry.   

Pre.  
Besides the importunities of many friends desiring copies of it, not without much reluctancy for a good while, proved the midwives to this hasty birth, etc.   

Post.  
This hasty birth: me thinks indeed it looks like some untimely issue, that broke forth in h●…st into the world, as one born out of due time, order and proportion; that slipped out at the rash request of some few friends, whilst those whose work it was, and care it should have been to have looked better to it were asleep, and therefore who ere were the midwives may I be one of the Gossips I shall freely allow it among others, that are answerable to its nature, this name of hasty birth, and had you signed it in the forehead with capital letters, instead of A True Account, by the name of THIS HASTY BIRTH, you had done the world more right by th'half than now you have, for then your frontispiece had been at least A true Account of your Book, though your Book no True Account of the Disputation,  
Canis festinans caecos parit catulos, hasty Bearers seldom bring forth other than such blind businesses as this, which may not be seen for shame without much Reluctancy, nor when they must, without much Apology. This haste Sirs, makes you make waste in your Papers, as well as waste sometimes in your practices, as Saul, who in hast made havoc of the Church: you came in haste to the Disputation, and that made you leave Innumerable Arguments behind you, for there might be innummerable Arguments brought but the haste of the Disputation forbade the Ministers to be so throughly provided, etc. say you p. 11, 12. you ran in haste to give Account on't, and for haste left it all out but a little. THIS HASTY BIRTH of yours was born about six months after it was in semine at the Disputation, had you forborn three months longer, and spent more time in recalling, raking, reviewing, there had not been such a miscarriage, your birth would have had some substance more than now it hath, some more suitableness to sense and Reason, you would have accounted for some Answers, as well as but some Arguments, and saved yourselves that acknowledgement, which upon the after sight of your haste, defect, and oversight you are fain to make in most parts of this Epistle,  
But Insipientis est dicere non putâram, Sapientis discere per non putâram, though it be no wise man's part to fall unawares into folly, yet is it a wise man's part to learn wisdom by his own folly, and so I hope you will show yourselves wisemen at least, viz. in learning by the more haste then good speed of this hasty birth festinare lentè for the time to come, and never to bring forth so hastily any more.   

Pre.  
It had nothing to boast of but the sober and silent demeanour of the Congregation while it lasted, it being a thing scarce credible, that so many (some have guessed them about 3000) and so qualified, should attend with so much devotion without any interruption by the space of six hours, etc.   

Post.  
T●…s a thing scarce credible indeed, to him that hath either seen or heard how much commotion the Testimony of the true Baptism hath been elsewhere entertained, and attended with, that it should here among so many, and those so qualifyed too, i. e. with great prejudice against it as Heresy, and that so long too be attended with so much devotion: and therefore it hath much more to boast of, than such disputations as have been held in some parts of England, which I am loath to shame so as to name, even of old England itself in this juncture of its growing new, but specially of New-England, that is now growing old again apace (as old England did in the Bishop's times) in order I hope to its growing newer than ever, where (horesco Referens I tremble to relate it) after many incivilities, and much barbarous behaviour not long since used toward them, this was added above all that three witnesses to this truth were shut up in prison, and not only so, but (according to M●… Cottons Bloody tenet of persecution for conscience, which even he himself abhorred in the Bishops) merely for no other fault then that of the Apostles at Phillippi, Act. 16. instead of a disputation with them which was pretended to be desired, but never intended to be performed by the Anti-Baptists, the Baptists had a dispensation granted them by the Court at Boston, either to pay one five, one twenty, another thirty pound, or to be well whipped, which they pleased, upon refusing of which fine to be paid, or by himself, or by others for him, who would as well have set him free at their own charge (if he had accepted it) as they did the others, one of the three submitting patiently to their cruelty in order to his being restored in the spirit of meekness (aliâs Romish mercilessness towards that Romish childishness of Infant rantism) received thirty stripes at the whipping post in such wise as may well make the cars of every on that hears it to tingle, and the hearts of Christ's Disciples to stand amazed, and bleed within them that ever such a thing should be heard out of New-England, as is to be seen at large in a book lately extant, styled Ill News from New England: Lord where shall thy Servants live at peace saluâ conscientiâ, if thou lend them not a full liberty to declare against Tithes, and all other truth-voiding traditions in Old England, when they are so bloodily handled in New? where (Father forgive them) they know not what they do.  
Nevertheless had the demeanour of you the Priests at Ashford been as sober and silent as that of the people (as it seldom is when a Classis of you get together, much less was it at Ashford, where you grew into a Chaos of conference and a confused crowd of disputation) it had had much more to boast of then it hath.   

Pre.  
The Scandals that have since been cast upon it were expected etc.   

Post.  
And well they might (unless you reckoned without your Host) if you scanned the Scantines of the provision you made both for your credit, and the proof of your practice: but what Scandals I trow were cast upon your Disputation? here's a great talk of Disgraces, Scandals, Injuries that its under as from us, but (unless summum jus be summa injuria) we righted it rather a little too much in reckoning on it as more than it is worth, or at least not setting so slightly by it as well we might: But 'tis as usual a fashion among you Clergy men to count yourselves scandalised, disparaged, disgraced, vilified, undervalved, &c: when you are but either found out in your falsehoods, or slandered of a matter of truth as 'tis for you, under one vile name or other, to scandalise the Saints most falsely, and slander the truth itself: yet if your repute be at reparations, more than justly, through our occasion, when we know it we shall make you satisfaction by submission, and amends by amendment, mean while have patience with us, and in due time, and Christ's strength I trust we shall pay you all.   

Pre.  
The men which were our Adversaries, and their driving was known before, etc.   

Post.  
Were it in respect only to your Infant sprinkling that you did so frequently style us thus, we are no less than many hundreds of its old acquaintance, who thinking once (as you do) that we did God service to be friends to it, could now freely answer to the name of Adversaries, but we are the best friends in the world to the Truth, and your Persons, could you once see wood for trees, and no further Adversaries to your cause, then as we are well assured you can never make it good while the world stands, by all the shifts you can devise, from the law of Christ, whose cause you call it. As for our Driving, were it like that of jehu the son of Nimshi, it would excuse itself the better, sith 'tis only against the house of the Woman jezebel, that hath sat as Queen over the Nations, and stirred up Ahab the Kings and Powers of the Earth to commit fornication with her, and to do abominably, and to shed the blood of Saints: if you be not she, than our driving is not towards you, but if you be (as I dare not be sworn that you the C C Clergy throughout all Christendom are not) than woe to your house indeed, not as from us, but from the Lord, who yet a little while, wherein space is given you to repent, and if he cast not you and your lovers into a bed together, and into great tribulation, except ye repent, so that all the Churches of Christ shall know that 'tis even he that searcheth the heart, and trieth the reins, and giveth to every one of you according to your works, than the Lord hath not yet spoken at all by me.   

Pre.  
It is no new thing with them to bespatter those Arguments with their tongue which they cannot untie with their teeth, etc.   

Post.  
It is an old new thing with yourselves, for it hath been of old the custom of the new Clergy, though never of the true, by common council to cry down (as Heresy) what truth soever was too hard for them: as for us it is no new thing with us indeed, for it is one of those old things which were in use among us while we were all one with you, but since we sincerely sought the truth are passed away: so that I cannot but clear those men that say it is no new thing with us, as speaking no other than the truth, and must needs condemn those who condemn us of it now, as men condemning us of a mere new nothing.   

Pre.  
Thou hast here a true, though short, Relation of the most material things that passed, etc.   

Post.  
I was musing a while what of the Ashford-Disputation this True Account could be truly counted a True Account of; for I found that it mentioned neither the number, nor the names of the Scribes that scraped it, nor the Disputers that disputed it, nor the Arguments of more than one of those disputers, not all his Arguments, nor half the Respondents Answers, nor many more things that should be in it by right, nor many of those things rightly, that are in it by wrong; at last I had resolution here that 'twas A True, though short, Relation of the most material things that passed.  
Yea Sirs? I assure you a good whipping is fitter for that disputation, than a printed Account of it to the world, unless on purpose to be laughed at, that lasted ●…o less than six hours, whereof five and an half past away mostly in Immaterials, and the odd five & an half too in such Immaterials as these you have here accounted for: and if these are the most material things that passed, how Immaterial (may the world well think) were the most Immaterial that passed in the Disputation, they surely were not worth one quarter of the while they passed in.  
Moreover that your Relation is Short, yea far short of the Disputation Related I dare not deny, but dare you say it o'er and o●…e again that 'tis a true one? how true it is, is so apparent by the preceding Ezamen of your Account, that I need not here so much as assert it to be false; I shall therefore say no more but thus, viz. Had you said [false] where you say [true] both here, and in your title page, where your— etc. is styled A True Account, A True Relation, you had then said true without all question, but your saying [true] in these two places, where you should have said [false] hath made you speak falsely in both indeed.   

Pre.  
The adversaries answers being rendered to his best advantage, etc.   

Post.  
As for example; sometimes his answers are altered, and translated into a clear contrary form, sense, & meaning than he ever spoke in; sometimes added to, sometimes defrauded of such clauses as would have given every body to understand his intent to be directly opposite to what its here represented, sometimes invented as it were de novo; somtimesrendred not at all, but only related to be nothing in the least measure satisfactory, nothing that carried the least show of sense or reason to the purpose etc. and all this if men would believe you, and if they do not, I dare say 'tis because they have neither sense nor reason whereupon to believe it, to your Respondents best advantage; but 'tis utterly against your wills surely Sirs, besides your intentions, and in some such way as you never meant it, if it be, for 'twere a wonder if you should mind my advantage so much, as to render my answers the best way in order thereunto, and 'tis a chance had you intended my best advantage, but that you might have helped me one little dram more than you have done; what not one syllable? not one scruple? not one minutes matter more of all that store that lies a smothering, wherewith to mend the case of your Adversary, whom you seem so to pity too, that if 'twere possible, even for old emnities sake, for old truths sake, which he strives to tell you, you would do all to his best advantage? facile est invenire baculum ad caedendum canem; you can easily pick a hole in his coat; and could you not (resolving to render things too to his best advantage) find some few shreds and old ends, or other out of all those cast clouts, you made in the cutting out of your Account, wherewith to stop a hole, and hide the shame of at least some of that silly silence you sometimes father on him, and some of that foppicall nonsense, that you fain him, and would fain have him at other times be thought to have uttered? was there not one grain more in all his six hours answering to put in his end of the scales, whereby to have rendered his answers a little more weighty than you have rendered them, and somewhat more answerable to sense and reason? but in truth you may well be afforded a pardon, for when hundreds of wise men, that were ear witnesses of the disputation, shall see how grossly you have falsified what you pretend to give a true Account of, the truth will be no loser, but yours the disadvantage rather in the end: by Accident therefore, indirectly and in such sense as the truth of God the more abounds through men's lies against it to his glory, it may possibly prove true, that things are here rendered more to my best advantage, then if they had been more truly rendered; but I suppose there would need no more to make Democritus weep, and his dog laugh too, if he had one, then to hear you say in sober sadness, that in this Ragged, and Rude Rendition you directly intended any such matter, as to render your Adversaries Answers to his best advantage, or that you intended any other than the very contrary.   

Pre.  
And the Ministers Arguments as they were delivered without any addition, etc.   

Post.  
Alack good men, you minded so much the mending the case of your Adversary, and so singly designed by alteration, ablation, addition, etc. the rendering of his Answers to his best advantage, that you durst not transgress so much as a singer's breadth by adding any thing to what you delivered you selves, towards your own advantage in your Account of the disputation; but what ever Additaments, figments, amendments, etc. are used for his alias your own best advantage sake in the rendering of the Adversaries Answers, yet the Ministers Arguments are set down even nakedly as they were delivered, without any Addition for advantage, as if either the Ministers needed nothing to be done in such a way in theircase, but might well spare all the advantage to go on the other side, and yet be on the surer side too, or else were such selfdenying men, that they would rather represent the cause of the Adversary at the very best, than their own in the least measure any better than it was.  
And truly Sirs I must needs say that for you, that you have not advantaged your own matter much by Addition to your Arguments, but what benefit accrues to them as you manage the matter in your Account, is rather by way of Abdition than Addition; for you have hid the most Immaterial of them from being seen at all, and rendered them clean out of the way; the advantage they have, lies more in their being rendered by the ablative case, then by the dative.   

Pre.  
Thou art desired to read them without prejudice, to let thy charity cover the weakness of them, etc.   

Post.  
For my own part Sirs, as I heard your Arguments for Infant-baptism without prejudice, i. e. not passing sentence on them till I had heard them, when you urged them at first at the Disputation by word of mouth, so God is my witness how often I have read them o'er and o'er again without prejudice, seriously setting myself to weigh them most impartially, in the balance of both Scripture and reason, since you urged them o'er again in print: nevertheless I cannot possibly (unless I speak against the light of my conscience) judge them to be any other then what I said before, and what yourselves are pleased here to acknowledge them to be before all the world, begging of people in charity to cover the weakness of them, viz. but weak Arguments; which ingenuous confession of yours if it be not a giving of the cause, jappeal notonly to all rational men that shall happen to read this, who know that the truth or falsehood of all causes respectively lies in the strength or weakness of the Arguments, that are brought in defence thereof, so that they either stand or fall according as the Arguments to uphold them (be they few or many) are either weak or weig●…ty, but also to yourselves, who tell us truly and plainly, that 'tis the weight of Arguments only (and he is a weak man that says weak ones are weighty ones) that carries the cause: your own words if they may be of any weight with you are these p, 12. viz. besides that opinion of Ovid, Et si non prosunt singula, multa juvant, what ever it may carry of credit in other causes ought to have but little in this, where we trust not in multitude, nor measure by number; but substance and weight of Arguments are the foundation of our faith; the other are for pomp and victory, these only for satisfaction and verity: so that if a man might hope you would stick to this candid concession of yours and not start from it, there need not be much said in discovery of the weakness, or non-weightness of your Arguments, and consequently of the Rottenness of your cause, for the world itself may hear what you say out of your own mouths in this very vindicatory Account of yours, wherein you not only publish some of your Arguments in that same weakness and nakedness wherein at first they appeared, so that every eye may discern it, having leave now to examine them at leisure, but also after not a few vain glorious vaunt, and ventings of yourselves concerning them, as of worth and weighry, in way of defence of them from those sleightings, those disgraces, those injuries and censures of them as weak and wanting, which they are under as from us, at last being sensible of their weakness you sing a new song to the tune of cry you mercy, and fall a beseeching the Reader in his charity to cover the weakness of them: by which weak petition you may work upon some weak ignorants, that are not book learned, or (if they be) stand bend to believe all things as you desire them, but on none that are truly disciples, though only A. b. c. darians in the School of Cbrist, but Sirs, what need so much peccavi and precari? if your ware were currant it would go off with acceptance without such a deal of cap and congee, and pitiful entreaty to the Reader to cover the weakness of your Arguments, the strength of which only should cause him to gather the goodness of your cause, and not strong entreaty to take it for good, though the Arguments you plead it by are but weak: Uino vendibili non opus est haedera: if your Arguments and reasons for baby-baptism be strong and solid, your Reader (if rational) will receive them; if weak (as you say they are) he is a Reader scarce worth writing reason to, who will be prevailed with by your desire so to cover their weakness as in charity to suffer himself to be overcome, and carried away by them (notwithstanding that their weakness) to close with you in your cause, and to be beaten into a belief of your baptism as good, though it hath but broken reeds and bulrushes to maintain it, by the force of bare beggings and beseechings 
d Habent artificium quo prius persuadent, quam docent, veritas autem docendo suadet, non suadendo docet. Tertull. as cited by your quondam ●…riend Mr. G. C. in his second letter to me. : or if in this request of yours to us, to cover the weakness of your Arguments your meaning is, not that we should be so silly as to build our belief and practice upon them, though weak by your own confession, whose they are; but only that we should not publish, discover and divulge their weakness to the world, but in charity be content to think our think, or to see and say nothing; truly Sirs, what others will do at your request in this kind I know not, but I assure you I cannot possibly for my part grant your desire in this case, forasmuch as yourselves have engaged me several ways not to be silent, on pain of giving away the cause; which if it were only my own too, the matter were so much the less, you should have it with all my heart; yea verily and my own life too to do your souls good, for I know I could freely part with it to be a means of effecting your salvation; but since it is the cause of God, which he hath entrusted me with the pleading of against you, who presume to enter the lists against it, with such silly tools, and weak weapons, on behalf of a Babish-baptism which is not from heaven, but of men, I dare not give place so far as in foolish pity to spare the City Babylon, or in Charity not to bewray a Breach or weakness in her walls of defence, when I spy it, for that were in Charity to betray the truth of of God, and such Charity is more Antichristian, by far then Christian, what ere you call it, and such as could have small hope of acceptance before God, however esteemed of among men: wherefore I desire you to have me excused, if I cannot in charity cover the weakness of your Arguments, for in Charity to poor souls, that are led aside from the way of truth by your piteous pious pretences, and weak reasonings for your way, and I am concerned in the very next place, after I have done with this of yours to the Reader, to discover to the world the weakness of them: besides sith you have made so bold with yourselves, as to proclaim the weakness of your own Arguments for Infant-baptism (I hope the Counties of Kent and Sussex will consider this, that their choice Ministry that stood up to maintain Infant-Baptism at Ashford, did after in their own Account thereof give out of their own accord, that there was weakness in the Arguments they brought for that purpose) men mutire nefass? I hope it shall be no offence to you for me to second you in your own saying; 'tis you who have published your arguments to be weak, my business shall be only publicly to prove them so to be as you assert them: yet if it be offensive to you, it shall be no wonder to me, for I know already that you can bear it better to have your Disputation lie under disgrace and disparagement, under shame and censure of weakness from yourselves in print, then from your supposed Adversary, and true Friend myself so much as in a private Letter only; and that some men (as the Proverb is) may more safely steal the horse, than some so much as peep o'er the hedge.   

Pre.  
Not to suffer the cause to be wronged thorough the defects of those, who had more zeal to maintain it, than abilities, etc.   

Post.  
'tis both usual, and lawful for us to judge of causes by the effects, that naturally and necessarily flow from them, for qualis causa, i. e. naturalis, & per se, talis effectus, & Retró; e. g. Infant-sprinkling hath been a cause efficient and per se, from whence much evil hath necessarily crept into the world, for it hath been a means of confounding the Church and the World together, of letting the Gentiles or Nations by whole sale into the outer Court, of filling the world with mere nominal Christians, and carnal Christianity, whereby they have got advantage ever since to tread down the holy City, and true worship and worshippers, as Heresy, Heretics, of bringing the nations into one Catholic Church whereof the Pope was universal Bishop, or overseer for ages together, thorough the eyes of his creatures the Clergy, the very Stirrup whereby he and his Ministers, who have blended themselves into a blind and beastly uniformity, have become Masters of the Kingdoms, and have got up to ride them; a plea and precedent for traditions, (it being one itself) which ever make Gods commands void, and men's worship of God in vain; an inlet of these and innumerable more mischiefs and absurdities, for posito hoc uno absurdo sequuntur mille, therefore it is undoubtedly an ill cause: also 'tis lawful to judge of a cause by the common Consequents which come from it, not as caused properly, but merely occasioned by it, and in respect of which it is called only causa sine quâ non, i. e. that without which the other would not be, and yet no other than the bare accidental occasions of those effects, which flow from something else as the cause thereof pierce; and most especially when those consequents are declared by the word of God to be such, as will upon that occasion universally and unavoidably come to pass; and thus we may give a shrewd guess that our cause is good, viz. that our Gospel, Ministry, Churchway and Baptism is the true one, because we see it is seconded now, and ever hath been with what it was of old seconded, and foretold also that it should ever be even every where to the world's end, viz. divisions in families, two against three, and three against two, the Father against the Son, the Daughter against the Mother etc. offences of friends, and fleshly relations, the account of Heresy and baseness, hatred of men, persecution, cavils, stits, tumults about it, by which things Christ's people, Gospel, Ministers, and Ministrations are ever proved to be his Luke. 12. 52. 53. Math. 24. 9 2. Tim. 3. 12. 1 Cor. 1. 27. 2 Cor. 6. 4, 5. So that where there's none of this I avouch the Gospel in its purity is not there though where these are the Gospel is not the cause for that is men lusts and flesh fight against the light, but the only the occasion, whereupon they arise; when Satan the strong man holds the house the goods are all in peace, but when Christ the stronger man comes to storm him out, there's contention, in hearts, houses, Towns and Countries, as when Christ came to jerusalem all was in an uproar, and when Paul came with his Gospel to Ephesus, Athens, Iconium, Lystra, Derbe lewd fellows of the base sort were set on by others to raise tumults, for truth tormented them into rage; thus we often judge of Causes as good or bad, right or wrong, by the effects that slow from them, but to reason upon a cause as good, or ill, true, or false, right or wrong according to the might or meaness, the abilities or defects of the persons that stand up for it is the right way to wrong it indeed, sith the Antichristian cause hath the mighty, wise, and prudent Priests, and Potentates of the world for its Patrons, when the poor only, for the most part, receive Christ's Gospel and the strength that God ordains in defence thereof against the persecutor is the mouths of Babes and Sucklings. Causes are to be rejected as wrong and false according to the defects and weakness that is discovered to be in the Arguments that are brought to maintain, and not by the weakness and defects that may seem to be in those that are more zealous than able to manage them, if there appear to be weight in the Arguments: these if strong however weakly and babishly propounded will carry the cause in the conscience of any, but such Priest-be-charmed Christians, as in Charity to their Churchmen, are resolved to yield themselves up to be carried away with every wind of doctrine that passes from them, and, covering the weakness of them, to be whisled any way by such arguments as the men themselves, that make them are fain to grant to be weak to prove what they are brought for; for no Argument is weak that is sufficient to evince the thing it's used in proof of, though it fall from the mouth of never so weak a man; if a weak feeble hand let fall an heavy Axe upon it, or a sharp sword, even the sword of the Spirit the word of God, that is quick and powerful it may serve to cut off the Pope's head, Triple Crown and all, but if the Pope himself, and all his children, which are the ablest Humanists in the world, come out to war against Christ and his cause with reeds and rushes, blind non sequiturs, weak and broken Consequences, they must ride back to Rome for stronger swords, or else they may force fools into conformity to their follies, but never guide wise men after the spirit to believe their cause to be good: as therefore 'tis not good that an ill cause, that hath but weak Arguments to uphold it, should be owned for good, either in Charity, or upon pretence of ability in the persons that patronise it, as the Clergies crooked cause of Infant-sprinkling is, for what says the Parish to those poor ones in it, that entertain the Gospel, are you wiser than a whole Synod of able Orthodox Divines? so it is a thousand pities that a good cause, that hath strong Arguments enough from Scripture, and reason to prove it right, should be wronged so, as to be rejected as rotten (yet so Christ's true baptism is) through the defects of the persons called Anabaptists, who are supposed at least to have more zeal than ability to prove it; of which sin of wronging a right cause upon account of such defects, even the cause of Christ's true baptism, which in his strength those Babes that are baptised with it are not only zealous, but able to make good against the Ablest Baby-Baptist that is among you, I know no men under the Sun more guilty, than you Clergy men, who take your advantages to cry out the louder against it as error, by the defects of Christ's Disciples that plead and practise it, of whom you say commonly, as you say complementally of yourselves here, they have more zeal, than abilities to maintain it; yea verily you, who seem here, whether more simply or more simulatorily who knows not? so to implore the charitable benevolence of well disposed people to cover the weakness of your Arguments, and not to suffer your cause of Infant-sprinkling to suffer throw your defects, and inabilities to maintain it, are men so far from teaching f●…enda faciendo, from doing to others as you would be done to, that you rather disclaim and proclaim those Arguments of ours as weak, which as feeble a folk as we are, are strong enough to storm you out of your strongest holds, and cause that cause to be despised, under pretence of our defects, which though weak in ourselves, and pretending to little of that outward accomplishment, which you call ability, yet throw Christ's word assertaining it to be his, and his spirit assisting us thereunto, we have both zeal and ability to maintain: who is it I trow that trumpets about the eminency and learnedness of their party and illiteracy of the Anabaptists, whereby to render the way the more contemptible, more than the Priesthood, who charm their people against the receipt of the Gospel, in such sort as the Pharisees of old when they said, are you also deceived? have any of the Rulers of the Pharisees believed on him? but this peop●… that know not the law are cursed joh. 7. 47, 48, 49. So brags D●… Featly and his fellows, despising the way of dipping viz. joint suffrages of so many Bishops in such a Synod: as for the Anabaptists, they are a few, mean, silly men and women, an illiterate and sottish sect, the father and head of whom, quoth he, was Nicholas Stock, and a very blockhead was he: p. 164. Simple rude Mechanics, Russet Rabbis, Apron Levites, whom we own not, quoth he, but detest and abominate p. 113, who know not how to dispute for truth, because they know not the original, and cannot conclude syllogistically in mood and figure p. 1. 2. Thus Featly defeats them in their cause by dilating on their defects, and which of you almost do not confirm your people against their cause by their infirmities of one kind or other? like flies you feast yourselves upon their sores, and let go their sounder parts; you make much of their little to your purpose, you make your best out of their worst, and out of their personal weaknesses strengthen yourselves, and others against the truth, which wise men know is nevertheless truth for the poors receiving it; you root in their very excrements, whereby to find matter to make their good cause bad; and yet here, oh how mendicant of other men's mercy, not only to spare sentencing your cause as wrong, by your personal defects, and want of abilities, but also in charity to cover the weakness of your Arguments? which is such an unreasonable request, as was scarce ever put forth before by any Disputants, who if they find their Arguments to be weak, ought rather to recant them, specially after such public acknowledgement of the weakness of them, and to desire people that they would not suffer themselves to be swayed by them then otherwise.  
But Sirs, do you think in your consciences that there is such weakness in your Arguments, as is here intimated to us in your own book; and likewise that your cause, which is so far from a good one, that it deserves to bear the name of Abaddon, is in danger of suffering so much through your defects in disputing it, unless men be so charitable as to wink at the weaknesses of both? I speak seriously in my mind you had then better by far have concealed then revealed your disputation in an Account, and had provided much better for the honour of it, for now you have vindicated it from the disgraces, with which it was loaded in private like him that fetches a frisk out of the frying pan into the fire, whilst you publish it in the same weakness, (only robbing your Respondent of the strength of his Answers) in which it discovered itself at first, and hang it out against the Sun, so that all men may see clean through it (so thin and threadbare it is) and that without spectacles, and not only so but make proclamation of the weakness of your Arguments, with a petition to pardon the weakness of them: that's an ill bird, which in haste bewrays his own nest, and leaves it to others to make all clean, and such are they that uncover their own nakedness so far, when they need not, that they are fain to be beholding to the benevolence of others to cover it, and yet are so inexorable as to hold the cause of others inexcusable in the self same case, wherein they are earnest to be excused by them; for our cause is at a loss among you for the sake of what ere defects you spy in any persons that profess it.  
But I believe you are not cordial in your acknowledgements here, for if you were, you would surely have endured your Respondents private representations of the weakness of your Arguments, and your peddling in your proof of Infant-baptism with more patience than you did; but its evident by your impatience towards him in that kind, that, what ere you say here of your selves in a voluntary humility, yet you have so good an opinion of your selves, and your work too that day, that (Tam nil as nothing as it here seems to be in your Account as well as ours you take it ill that any should esteem so poorly, and speak so plainly, though but privately, of your trifling doings, as you dispense with your selves to do here in public before all 〈◊〉 world; and howbeit here's weakness, and defects, and defects, p. 3. overtly worded over by you in a general way, yet it's an hundred to one, if a man take you at your word, and yield to what you say as truth, and say it o'er after you, that there's much weakness in your Arguments, and that there were many defects in your Disputation, and your zeal of Infant-baptism is great, and your abilities but mean to maintain it, you will be half angry with him, and think he casts scandals upon your disputation, and be ready to gainsay all this, and to stand up in vindication of your Arguments as strong and sufficient, and ●…ay all the defects that were in the disputation at your Respondents door; and if you be asked, what one individual particular Syllogism, Term, Argument or Scripture you were out in the framing, uttering, urging or underctanding of throughout the whole day of the disputation? I am persuaded you will sooner bite your nails then assign any, or if it be specified by others that in this, and that you were out, you misunderstood such or such a Scripture, such a speech or passage you faltered in, I am afraid your pretended self-denial will be found so little, that you'll justify your selves in every bit and scrap of that which passed from you during the whole discourse, which makes your confessions deserve but little of that favour, you so much implore, by how much they savour of juggle and compliment, more than of a real true sense of what is wanting to you indeed, which verily is a right-baptism to maintain, rather than abilities to maintain that right-none that you stood up for: nevertheless I must needs grant it to be true that you say here, that your abilities were far short of your zeal, yea so short, that howbeit you had a good mind to do it, yet you neither did nor could maintain it at all; but wherefore was it, but because you had a bad cause in hand? yea, had your zeal been as big as your cause was bad, there had been no standing before you indeed: the defects of your cause was the cause of your defects, and not your own defects the cause of your causes: had not the fault been more in your faith, which was a false one, then in your faculty to maintain things; and had that and your baptism been as good, as your parts are great, and both these as probable, as you capable to prove, the meanest among you might have done more at the disputation, than (as it happened) all of you did per vim unitam, because though you fought with one, who was no more than a flea in your ears, yet you happened to be foged so that you faced the wrong way, and fell in unawares ●…ainst the truth, which in these days of its return falls upon inquisitive consciences with more force from the mouth of fools and babes, then mere tradition doth from the wisest Babists in the world: The deepest defect is in the cause you defend, in the way you warrant, 'tis a crooked cause, an unwarrantable way, and therefore those that will warrant mens walking in it, can never do it without faltering and fumbling in the work, and such after occasions of fawning on men for their charitable excusation.  
Gentlemen (that I may neither seem to defy, nor yet to deify your persons, but put things upon a true Account) you are men that have some worth and excellency, and yet some weakness and exigency too, but I impute your miscarriage in the disputation not half so much to your own, as to your causes indigency; your business was well man'd, but ill managed, because there was but an ill matter to be mai●…tain'd; you were at the wrong end of the staff, and therefore well might you be defective in the strife: this makes the least of the flock draw you great Leviathans out now adays, and the feeble to be as David before Goliahs, that have been Polemically exercised from their youth, in that truth on their side doth animate and assist them: you meet them with staff and spear, and humane accomplishments, and they stand before you in the name of God, and strength of that truth,, and true Israel of his whom you yet defy; this makes Schoolmen like Schoolboyes under the rod, when they are taken tardy in their exercise, and see they are like to be whipped for it, cry spare us, in that their Schoolmasters the Pope, and Counsels have overtaskt them, and set them a Theme, which Scripture, whence only they must fetch all their proofs, says just nothing of at all: This makes the Disputers, the Divines to come abroad a begging in print among the vulgar (as you here do) saying cover, pass by, bewailing the weakness of their Arguments, their defects in disputing, their presumption in entering the lists, their non-preparation for the disputation, because it's not the true Gospel they disputed for, a very stripling may make a Giant give back, if he have hold on the hilt of his sword, and the other thrust hard against the blade; 'tis hard for thee O Saul to kick against the pricks: a learned lawyer may be at loss in a lame suit; Asinus ad lyram may play his part better, and make sweeter music than the most accurate musician, that hath nothing to beat upon but a board: it may well put any, but the mere Sophister to his shifts, to prove the moons made of green cheese, and so 'twill any, save the mere self-seeker, that is set to serve it out of a sight that he can serve himself of it, and therefore is resolved to make any Argument serve turn (even libet ergo licet) rather than leave it, to prove Infant-baptism, much more Infant-rantism to be a good cause: and yet (the more's the pity) this is the cause you have to make good, and have been so bold as to stand up for, which though your wishes are here, that it may not suffer wrong through your defects, yet mine are much rather that you may not suffer yourselves to be wronged any more, or to be wronged for ever through its defects, for howbeit it flatters you into an opinion of its ability to be maintained by you, by its appearing ability to maintain you, yet you'll find ith'end, that by its fair flourishes it hath flushed you into more zeal, than furnished you with ability to maintain it, when it shall have brought you to your choice of one of these two, (ex quibus minimum est eligengendum) viz. either of Repentance from it, and all other your Parochial dead works, tithes and other traditions that depend upon it, upon a sight and acknowledgement that you have been mistaken about these, as well as other Romish Remnants, that you have seen cause through the Parliaments eyes to renounce since that long since Lutheran reformation, which after longer standing out will be so much the harder Chapter for you Clergy men to run throw, or else which is worse than nought, of perseverance in your evil ways, and dead works against light, to prevent the other, which last the Lord prevent from befalling any of you if it be his will.   

Pre.  
Who would not have presumed to have entered the lists, etc.   

Post.  
It had been no presumption in you, had you been true Ministers of Christ, and the cause you stood up in Christ's cause indeed: for grant it to be presumption in Uzzah to meddle in the public service of the Temple, and in Uzzah to put forth his hand to uphold the Ark, and consequently (for so you argue, not we) for men to meddle, so as to minister to the Gospel publicly in your Churches, that are not in holy orders; yet it is none (vos Apello) for the Priests, or ordained Ministers of Christ to stand up any where in defence of Christ's truth where it's traduced, but rather duty, which in special they stand bound to; in that therefore you accounting yourselves Christ's Ministers, do grant it to be presumption in you, to put forth so publicly when you saw it tottering, you do no less than give the cause you stood up in to be none of his; as indeed it was not but your own, and that was it only which made it presumption, and very high presumption in you too, in that you durst enter the lists against the Lord jesus in in his own ordinance; and that with such weak Arguments, such flags as flam'd like swords, but alas such as could not bear the brunt when it came to blows here, how much less will they in that battle of the great day of God Almighty, which is now marching space upon you.  
'Tis true therefore (as you here confess) you have been presumptuous, and presumption, is one of the most desperate sins that can be against Christ, yet for all that in his name, and as an Ambassador from him (tho●…gh otherwise an unworthy, and ●…ver a contemptible creature in your eyes) as though himself did beseech you by me, I am bold to beg of you that you would not despair, but come in, and be reconciled to him, presuming no more to stand up against him with such weak weapons as before, lest he tear you in pieces, fall upon you, and grind you to powder; but sit down and humble yourselves, that you have stood so long in the way of Sinners, so that they could not come to Christ through your Blurs; lay down your arms, and yield yourselves prisoners to him, stoop to that golden Sceptre he yet holds out unto you; own him as your King, Priest and Prophet; list no more against him, but list yourselves under him, for he is gracious and will yet rec●…ive you, and baptise you with his spirit, if you turn at his reproof, and repent, and be baptised in water in his name for remission of sins, Pro. 1. 23. Act. 2. 38. become little children in such a sense as you should be, that you may be baptised, and then be baptised in truth, and in token (for your memory hath lost your traditionary token sprinkling) that hereafter you will not be ashamed to confess the faith of Christ crucified, but manfully fight under his banner against sin, the world and the devil, and continue Christ's faithful soldiers to your lives end. How happy had it been for you if you had took quarter from Christ before this time, for he would have given it, and forgiven all your enmity against him in his truth, but you are stiff-blades, and your words have been stout against him; you Clergy men are Lords, you will not come near; but I beseech you become Lord beggars at the throne of grace (as Brightman said truly the Bishop●… were for earthly honour at the thrones of Kings and Princes) that you may have more of that grace and holiness to worship God with reverence according to his own will, which God gives to all humble Suppliants; then had you less learning and living than you have, and more disgrace in this world, than ever any Synods of you had reverence, or Arch-Bishops grace, or Pope's holiness, you would never find occasion to bewail your losses, or repent of your change, or reject the council of God against yourselves, out of his mouth, who is a serious Solicitor, bot●… from God to you that you would be, and to God for you that you may be in the acknowledgement of his truth no less than happy for ever.   

Pre.  
Where there was so great expectation, etc.   

Post.  
There was great expectation indeed, though not greater than little satisfaction: for first some were earnestly expected, (and one also evidently engaged to be there, so that some durst have laid any money he would not fail them) who what ere the matter was, were not there.  
The two Doctors 
e Dr. Austin and Dr. Blechenden.  A. B. were both Absent, yet to my knowledge both Adsen●…, and good reason too, for they were then not only as immediate neighbours to each other, in respect of the vicinity of their houses, as A. B. in the ●…ris-cross row, but also looked upon for ability as two foremen in that whole Classis of Clergymen.  
As for A, whom for his Age I truly reverence, and some other excellencies, in respect of which many are inferior to him, if his prudence forbade his presence, he may the more easily be excused, by how much the less he was engaged; but as for B. the very beginner of all that business (ut supra) though I both loved and honoured his person, more than he did that truth of Christ I pleaded against him, yet I must needs say, for him to beget this Infant-Disputation, and then on its birthday father it per ●…lios, and not per se, 'twas too like them, to whom in that, and many more matters (if he were not) many more of that leaven are like, who bind heavy burdens, and grievous to be borne on other men's shoulders, and touch them not themselves with one of their fingers.  
Secondly, as some were expected to be there who were not, so something was expected by the people from those that were there, which yet could not be performed; first (and last too sith it might not be at first) from the Respondent, that since he was declaimed against as an Heretic and Seducer, that he should have given Account (that being the professed end of his coming) of the way he walked in, that 'twas the way of truth; but he could not, because it was not permitted by the Priests, who pretended to be most strict upon him for it, neither afore, nor at, not after, nor within, nor without (till he got far enough from the Ringleaders) peaceably, publicly, perfectly, and plainly to give it to them.  
Secondly, from the opponents, that since they cried out error, error, heresy, schis●…, sedu 〈◊〉, they would prove (for preach they would not neither) by way of Argumen●…, and by Arguments that had weight in them, that their Infant-baptism was the way of Christ, but they could not neither, for whereas strong Arguments were ●…xpected, they brought none but such weak ones, that they were fain to wish good people to let their charity cover the weakness of them.   

Pre.  
Without better preparation, etc.   

Post.  
Indeed your preparation was bad enough in all reason, and it will be expected, that if ever you enter the lists again your preparation be far better than it was; but yet (as it fell out) it was better than worse, and by so much the better, by how much it was less than ordinary; for take this for truth Sirs that your prepara●…ion may easily be bigger, but never better, if your cause be the same: preparation to any bad matter is ever (if the bigger the better) than the better the worse, for vis est improba quae valet ad nocendum, a power that hurts is best when least: and a little of that which is good is better, than a great deal of that which is nought.  
First, then make your cause good. Secondly, your call: Thirdly, your conscience, as far as it needs mending, than all will be well enough ith'end; and though men will fume and frown on you, yet shall you be backed so well from heaven, as to need no man's patronage here on earth, nor yet so much time for preparation, as you now lack, who are ever to seek when summoned to sudden service: for the preparation of the heart, and the answer of the tongue are both from the Lord, Prov. 16. 1. on whom were you so intimately and immediately dependent as his disciples are bid to be, Mat. 10. 29, 20. Mar. 13. 1. Luke 12. 11. you would not be so sollicious what to say before the proudest Princes, as for want of that and somewhat else you commonly are before the plainest people; nor when you stand up in his name, shall you need to excuse your presumption, if you stood before as many Kings as there were people to plead for truth: but alas deest aliquid intus (as one said who went about to make a dead man stand) the Spirit of the father speaks not in you, you stick to a certain stock of divinity, which you have stored up in your studies, and common-place books, which when you are but 40. foot off from, you are so far off from your harbour and harness, that mere mechanic Scripturists may make you strike sail to them; but you want that inward treasury, and through instruction for the Kingdom of God, Mat. 13. 52. Luk. 6. 45. by which the good Scribe is furnished (as occasion is) to bring forth things new and old; this is one thing, which more than the haste of Disputations, forbids you to be so throughly provided as you should be: besides deest aliquid ad extra too, for the truth is that small preparation you make is more against then for the truth, as it is in jesus, which who ever implead, though with never so much acurateness, and acuteness of dispute (whether it be you or we) can be but homines ob●…use acuti (as a man famous in your Account said well of such) i. e. Acute Blockheads at the best.   

Pre.  
But that they feared the triumphings of the Adversary, etc.   

Post.  
As far as the Adversary is minded to triumph, he hath much more occasion ministered by your undertake, then if you had never entered the lists at all; for than it might have been thought, that you could have said something in proof of Infant-baptism but would not; but now 'tis known you would have said something to that purpose, but could not: But Alas Sirs, as Adverse to you, and desirous to triumph over you as we are Accounted by you to be, we had much rather have occasion of rejoicing and triumphing in your sincere submission thereto, then in either your dastardly disposition, or your weak opposition of the truth, yet thanks be to God, whether you own or decline, or spurn against the truth, he always causeth us to triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest the savour of his love by us in every place, for we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish; and as for our great turn of triumphing truly over them, who have trodden down the truth, we are in serious expectation of that at the Return of our Captain Christ jesus, till than we must be no otherwise triumphant, then as I said above, but with the whole state of Christ's Church militant here on earth.   

Pre.  
And the unanswerable crime of deserting the truth to be charged upon them, if they had not stood up to maintain it, especially when the not doing of it had startled the strong, offended the weak, and confirmed those in their error, which were fallen before.   

Post.  
To desert the truth is an unanswerable crime indeed, the sense of which I believe may be the reason not only why some Priests are so loath to answer any thing at all (as Dr. Gouge was to Dr. Chamberlain, and others, that shall here be nameless, unto myself) but also why both they and their people have so little to answer when they come seriously to be reckoned with about it, for verily as for the people, now the Lord comes by the spirit and power of Elijah, to restore things in the latter days, to that primitive purity, which hath been of old deserted, and to expostulate with them for that Baalitish worship, which jezebel the Queen hath stirred up the Kings of the earth to set up among them, they are either shiftless and speechless before his messengers, so that we may say of them as of that be-Baalited people that stood before the old Elijah; viz. the people answered him not a word, or else nothing is answered that hath any show of sense or reason to the purpose; and sometimes such a miserable mess, and goodly Gallimaufry of reasons is rendered in defence of that one 

Babish  
Babi lonish   way of sprinkling 

In fants  
In fonts   (to instance in no other) the very naming of which (to name no more than hath been named, in way of Account thereof in my own hearing) is evidence enough, that some men) for some are not so gropably blinded as some, though all too grossly that go off from truth) are more than half minded, because they know not well what to say, therefore to say they well know not what: viz. are we wiser than our forefathers? shall we think that so many learned Orthodox divines would practise it if it were not the truth? I am sure it was a custom before we were born; how shall our children come to have names, if they be not Christened? how can they be saved if they die unchristned? they are not Christ'n creatures till they have their Christ'ndome, and such like: As for the Priests, they have been so rubbed up of late, that they have been forced to find more witnesses, indeed more than the Scripture affords to stand by them at their Bason-Business, and how eagerly they agree altogether in one Clashis' is showed hereafter: but the ancient standard of all, which is at hand to serve every one's turn, as a Text in the pulpit, and as a Testimony to the truth of their false way at every turn, is that which every one hath by Roat, and by Root of heart, and at fingers ends, more than the Root, heart, Right end, and sense of those texts they take it out of, viz. They brought little children to Christ, by his permission, that he should touch them, and to such belongs the Kingdom of heaven, Ergo, Infants in infancy must be baptised, the consequence of which, as 'tis no less than this, they brought sick folks unto Christ, by his permission, that he should touch them, and to such belongs the Kingdom of heaven, Ergo, sick folks must be baptised in the time of their sickness, so it sways not me, if it be somewhat more than that of the Papists, viz. they brought an Ass for Christ to ride on, Ergo, Asses are blessed creatures, that have a cross upon their crests ever since, and as for that in special that bore him, happy are hundreds of people that can every one get a leg of him.  
And now whereas you say you feared it; Oh that you did indeed fear the unanswerable crime of deserting the truth to be charged upon you, than would you return from whence in the universal deluge you are departed, and stand up to maintain that faith, Gospel, baptism, Church, Order which was once delivered to the Saints; but now you stand up for error and man's invention, and though you seem to salve all o'er so surely, and to answer so handsomely that all men cannot descry you, yet doth not he see all your ways, and count all your steps? if therefore you are stepped aside out of the way, and walk in vanity upon fetches and far fetched consequences, despising the cause of God, when in plainness he contendeth it with you, out of the mouth of babes, what will you do when he riseth up? when he visiteth what will you answer? yea, when he asks who hath required this at your hands? you will be as blank before him about your Baby-sprinkling, as they about their Bauble Bell-sprinkling, both being but limbs of the Idol Bell that serves the bellies of the Priesthood; your non prohibition excuses one no more than the other. Though therefore you still strive to startle men into a joint perseverance with you in that way, which you are so disjointed about among your selves, yet when Christ speaks to you in his wrath, for changing his laws, he will silence you, yea, he will startle the strongest of you, who by your superstitions offend his weak little ones, and instead of pulling them out (as you ought to do in all your preaching places) confirm those whole parishes in their errors, who were fallen before you came to them,  

Pre.  
Farewell.  
Post.   
So you say indeed, but your Reader may far ill enough for ought you have set before him in your ensuing Tractate; you feed him with a first, second and third course, yet all such course fare, that his soul may starve, that takes no other course than you here put him upon, in order to the salvation of it, which is no other than under a pious pretence, and seeming notion of avoiding Anabaptism, Heresy and Schism to keep off from ever owning Christ in his own baptism, and to bid Farewell for ever to the only way of Truth and Peace.   

T●…e few faults that have escaped the Press in this foregoing part, the Reader is desired in order to his better understanding of the Author's meaning to correct as followeth.  
PAge 1. line 27. read volumninous, p. 15. l. 21. read indeed, p. 16. l. 54. r. it p. 17. in the marginal note, r. psittaco, also r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, also r. cona●…i, p. 19 in the marginal note r. you, who also term yourselves, p. 23. l. 27, 28. r. not, p. 21. l. 45. r. they mightly, also l. 30. r. when he had been.    

ANTI-BABISME. OR THE BABISH DISPUTATION AT ASHFORD FOR BABY-BAPTISM DISPROVED.  
AND now Sirs, having dispatched my Disproof of your first piece of Patch, viz. your True Ac-count-erfeit of the Disputation, I address myself to a Disproof of your Disputation itself, which I take all men to witness, is such a cloudy, crooked, confused, self confuting, indefinite Mingle-mangle, and muddy mess of Argumentation, as was seldom or never (I persuade myself) set forth to be viewed, and reviewed from the pens of professed Disputers. I shall first say a word to it in general, and then to each Argument in its order.  
The Generale praecognitum, which I would have you and all men take notice of is this, first either that you do not dispute, but rather most miserably mis-pute besides the Question, as stated between us, and the Position you took upon you to prove, which was only that Infants of believers are to be baptised (as is laid down in the second Proposition pa. 1.) for you run on all along in such general terms, viz. Children, Infants, little ones, little infants, little children, seldom or never naming the term of believing parents, which ought of right to have been expressed in every Argument that passed you, in order to distinction of those Infants, whose cause only you plead, whose peculiar right to Baptism you profess to prove, from all other Infants, viz. of Infidels, or unbelievers; and this I observe is your manner in all your discourses, for when ever you come to dispute this point, you state your question still in terms too narrow, and such as are no more adequate to your proofs, then to your practice; for in your question you dare affirm no further, then that such children only as are born of believing parents, are to be baptised, but as your practice over reaches this by far, while you dispense your 

Baptism  
Rantism   to all infants, even those of such parents, who in your preachings are noted for no believers, so in your proofs you overlash as much, and shoot far more wide from your Principle, and professed opinion, which is that no infants, but those of believers, have right to Baptism, when yet you huddle over all in such indefinite language as pleads the baptism of all infants as well as some.  
Or else secondly, if ye will needs have us to understand you all along as meaning believers infants only, in contradistinction to all other infants, to whom yourselves say baptism at all belongs not, than you and all may see how curiously you come off, how egregiously your genius hath gulled you all along, for verily if mine own Minerva may be credited by me, there's not one inch of Argument dictated to you, nor tittle of consequence brought by you for the evincing the right of the one to baptism, viz, the Infants of believers; but if it tended truly to such a purpose, it would tend as truly, and undeniably to evince the other, viz. the right of baprism to unbelievers Infants also, to whom (in pretence) you deny it as well as we: yea I appeal to all rational men in the world to judge, whether you have brought one argument in either your Account, or Review, which may not as well be used (though that's ill enough too) on behalf of one of these sorts of Infants, as to the clearing their right to baptism, as of the other?  
There is but four general heads (for all the rest of your proofs are but subordinate to one or other of these) from whence you infer not only that it is lawful to baptise believers Infants; but also that it is wickedness to deny it, viz.  
First, The being, and appearing of the Holy Spirit to be in Believers Infants.  
Secondly, The Deteriorty of the Gospel-Covenant Comparatively to that of the Law, if when little infants of the jews were all circumcised, little infants of believing parents may not now be baptised.  
Thirdly, the Desperateness or Cruelty that is in the denial of Baptism to infants of believing parents, or the destructiveness thereof to all hope of their salvation in the hearts of their parents, and downright endangering their Damnation (so dying) if baptism be denied them.  
Fourthly, The practice of the Universal Church, which having for many hundred years together administered baptism to infants, may not without damnable blasphemy be once thought to have erred so long a time, in so necessary a matter as baptism.  
All which four considerations (not to speak as yet of their utter invalidity to prove the baptism of any infants at all, for so I must do by and by) I am now to show how they do not a jot more prove the warrantableness of baptising of believers infants, to whom we deny that Ordinance, then of the infants of very Infidels, and unbelievers, to whom yourselves Doctrinally deny it also.  
As for the last, which i'll begin with first, and so go back to that which is first indeed, viz. the practice of the universal or Catholic Church; I confess indeed that what you, and the Pope too do call the universal Church, viz. Christendom, or to use your own phrase, the Christian world, which with me rather is, and hath been for many age's Antichristian, that vast voluminous Church body, and Ecclesiastical Empire, or seven headed, ten horned universal beast, that the Whore, or C C Clergy hath so universally bejaded, this hath universally baptizid, or rather but rantized infants, universally I say, not only in respect of time, and place, i. e. in every nation, province, and parish within her Verg, in every age of her Reign, but also in respect, of the subject, viz. all infants that are born in those several nations of what parents soever, whether believers or unbelievers, without exception, and by so much more to infants of very unbelievers then of believers, by how much (as yourselves witness in your pulpits) Christ's flock in respect of the rest, that are none of his, even in Christendom itself, is but a little flock, yea and the number of unbelievers, in the very Protestant, and most reformed nations of it, which dispense baptism to infants as universally as the other, is even many to one surpassing the number of believers: But Sirs, what is all this to you purpose, I say to your purpose, which is to prove by example of the universal Church, the practice of baptism to infants of believers only? Suppose this, which you mistake so to be, were the true Church of God indeed, and that her practice were set for our example, and such a true Topick, as Priests and Papists make it, from whence to fetch good warrant to do the like, yet I pray Sirs, doth it not as well warrant the baptism of unbelievers infants, against which you plead, together with us, as of such infants as are born of believing parents only, the baptism of which infants only you plead against us? will you argue from the universality of the Christian worlds doings to the particularity of your own sayings, as if the universal baptising of all unbelievers infants, as well as others in all Christendom were an Argument ●…b exemplo, and a plain; As for Example, that the infants of believers only are to be baptised? Sirs, what if a man were minded in jest to become a fool so far, in order to the convicting you of folly, as to maintain against you, who deny it, that not believers infants only, but those of unbelievers also must be baptised, and should argue this ab exemplo, might he not (as D. Featly says to us in another case) kill you with your own Dudgeon dagger? for seriously Sirs, as far as that example is of force, it overturns your turn, who use it, in the thing in order to which you allege it, and overthrows you clearly in your question, as you state it, and in your tenet of a right to baptism, for only believers infants; exemplifying rather, if the example were to be heeded, the baptising, not of such infants only as are born of believing parents, which we are against, but such as are born of unbelieving parents also, who see baptism your selves are against, as well as we.  
Ad hominem therefore I conclude, and ab exemplo on behalf of unbelievers infants, as your selves do from the same head on behalf of believers infants only, thus, viz.  
To hold that the universal Church, or Christian world hath erred in so necessary a matter as baptism, for so many hundred years, is little less than damnable blasphemy.  
But to hold it an error to baptise the infants, that are born of unbelieving parents, is to hold that the universal Church, or Christian world, which hath baptised in suo genere such as well as others, hath so longerred, in so necessary a matter as baptism.  
Ergo to hold it an error to baptise the infants that are born of unbelieving parents, is little less than damnable blasphemy.  
Another Argument whereby you strive to evince your opinion, viz. the baptism of believers infants above other infants, and to evade ours, viz. the denial of baptism to them both alike, as desperate and ungodly, is drawn from the danger of their damnation if it be denied them, and the destructiveness of that denial to all that hope, that else may be had of their salvation, which if it be of force, doth it not cry out as loud against your desperate, and ungodly cruelty on behalf of those millions of innocents' of infidels, dying infants, to whom in opinion, and doctrinally you deny baptism as well as we, as it doth on behalf of believers infants, who are no more innocent than the other, to whom we deny it also? for if it be such a business, as not we, but you, and the rest of the right Romish Priests seem to make it, the denial of which, de jure & facto, damns so down-rightly the infants dying without it, that there's no hope to be had of their salvation, so you say, or else my shallow noddle cannot reach the profoundity of your purpose, in pettering out that pure pious piece of sense which with this Argument of yours is stuffed pag. 13. then it's high time, as high a degree of charity as you would be thought to have towards a few infants, viz. one of a hundred, for scarely so many are true believers infants to the rest, to plead for the baptism of unbelievers infants too, and stand up in the cause of those innumerable poor babes, that cannot speak a word for themselves against your Cruelties, who deny baptism to them, and deny all hope of their salvation to whom (they so dying) it is denied: yea verily Sirs persuade us to that once, and make us believe that popish trumpery, that the denial of baptism to any infants doth so much as doctrinally damn them, and then I'll plead for baptising of infants in a larger way than you who confine it to believers infants only, viz. for the baptism of all babes and sucklings in the world, and that least they die, and so be damned before it be dispensed to them so soon as they are well out of the womb: so far are we from that cruelty to infants, which you (commonly, though not properly) charge upon us, that if we thought as you think (but Sirs mistake us not, for we have good ground to act more charity than your selves do to all dying infants) could we think I say that their salvation did so depend upon their baptism, that their damnation would be the issue of denying it, we durst not be so desperately cruel as your selves, nor limit it to some one infant of an hundred, know Sirs we are tender in our construction of the condition of all that die in such minority as you sprinkle in, before they have known or done either rgood or evil, and are well assured there's no damnation to such, of what parents soever descended, and as little need of your Rantism to their salvation; but for you who are so seemingly compassionate and charitable to a few, how churlish are you to a hundred to one, whilst your cruel doctrine (excepting such as are born of believers only) curses all the rest unavoidably to hell? you talk much of your own charity to infants, and our cruelty; but truly Sirs I dare tell you that your tender mercies to that age of infancy are mere cruelty, so long as in your childish dotage on some, you send so many packing to perdition; and as unchristian as our cruelty is, it hath more tender mercy in it to the whole infancy of the world, than all your Christian charity doth yet amount to; for as you prescribe it p. 5. 'tis our rule indeed, but not your own, presumere unumquemque bonum, nisi constet de malo, to presume and hope well, even the best things, and things that accompany salvation of all infants, as well as some, specially since it cannot appear that any of them have yet by any actual sin bard themselves, or deserved to be exempted from the general state of little children declared in Scripture, which is a right to the Kingdom of heaven: but your Christian charity hath not carried you out so far yet, as to hope and presume well of infidels infants, unbelievers infants, or any unrantized infants, though it cannot appear that any of these have by any actual sin more barred themselves, than the other, or more deserved to be exempted from that general state of little children declared in Scripture then the infants of the best believers in the world. Whether therefore we, who though we baptise no infants at all, nor see warrant in the word so to do, yet believe, and that not ungroundedly, nor as being more merciful than God shows himself to be to them, the salvation of all that die in infancy, or one who imagining as sillily as yourselves, that no baptism, no salvation, should thereupon for pity dispute against you limiters of God's grace, for the baptising of all infants in the world, or yourselves, who supposing the same, i. e. no hope to be had of their salvation to whom baptism is denied, have yet no more pity in you, then to dispute for the baptism of believers infants only, excluding all other infants from it (in doctrine though not all in practice) which are no less than an hundred to one, whereby not a moiety only but all, save a small moiety of infants in the world, yea, in the very Christian world, in which the most by far are unbelievers, are cut off at once from not the Church on earth only, but all share in the Kingdom of heaven also, which of all these I say, viz. we, he, or you, are most cruel and desperate, and do most justly deserve the censure which you Priests put upon us, p. 15. of your pamphlet of damning infants dying, contrary to evident testimony of Scriptures; and of damning innumerable innocents', such as infants of infidels are, whose right to the Kingdom of heaven our Saviour declared; I propound it to be considered by your selves, and all other men at leisure; at present, seeing this Argument of yours makes also more against then for you, whose plea is for some infants against other, if your Minor in it, viz. that denial of baptism to infants destroys all hope of their salvation were true, as it is not, and speaks for a necessity of baptising all infants, and not a few only, I'll Syllogise it back upon you in much what your own terms, and so pass hence to the other.  
That opinion which destroys all hopes of the salvation of many dying infants to one in the world, yea, in the very Christian world too, is a most desperate, ungodly, uncharitable opinion.  
But the opinion of you Priests, who deny all hopes of salvation to those to whom baptism is denied, and yet deny it doctrinally your selves to all unbelievers infants, which are many to one in the Christian world, and dispute for its dispensation to believers infants only, is such as destroys all hope of the salvation of many dying infants to one, as well in the Christian world as elsewhere, Ergo, the opinion of you Priests is a most cruel, desperate, ungodly, uncharitable opinion.  
Another fine fancy, whereby you would fain juggle men into a belief that believers infants and these only are to be baptised, runs thus, else (say you) the Gospel Covenant is worse than that under the law, forasmuch as then little infants were circumcised: Now Sirs, when I come to meddle with this Argument o'er again I shall show you plainly the imbecility of it to prove the baptism of any infants at all, and the meliority of the Gospel-Covenant above that of the law, though infants be not now baptised as Circumcised then; at present I am to show how, if it would prove any thing, it would prove the right of baptism to unbelievers infants, to whom you deny it, as well as to believers infants, whose baptism only you seem to plead by it: I say suppositively that this is to make the Gospel-Covenant worse than that of the law, to deny baptism to infants now, sith they then admitted infants to Circumcision, than the denial of it to believers infants, which is your own opinion, makes it worse than it was under the law, as well as the denial of it to infants of believers, for under the law the infants of unbelievers, which were many to one believer among the jews, Is. 53. 1. were both de jure and de facto circumcised, as well as those of the believing jews, and so by your own rule ought the one to be baptised now as well as the other: Again by the denial of baptism to the infants of unbelievers, not only a moiety but the most of Christendom, as in which are by far more unbelievers infants than others, are cut off at once from baptism and membership, I conclude therefore thus.  
If tha●… opinion which denies baptism to little children, makes the Gospel-covenant worse than that under the law, than the opinion of those Priests, who deny baptism to all unbelievers infants, whereby not a moiety only, but most of the Christian world, in which the most are unbelievers, are cut off from being members of the Church, makes the Gospel-Covenant worse than the law.  
But (though not veraciter, yet secundum te O Presbit●…r) that opinion which denies baptism to little children, whereby a moiety of the Christian world is so cut off, makes the Gospel-Covenant worse than that under the law.  
Ergo, thy opinion which denieth baptism to all unbelievers infants whereby more than a moiety of infants is so cut off, makes it worse under the Gospel then under the law.  
Another curious conceit, whereby you undertake to clear the right of baptising the infants of believing parents above others, is the being, and plain, yea more plain appearing of the holy spirit to be in these children then in others, or then in men, whom we baptise that make profession, which plain and sufficient appearance (so you style it p. 5) of the spirits being in these children, is made (say you) many ways, First by these infant's faith, Secondly, by these infant's holiness, Thirdly by those Eulogies that are given to these children in Scriptures, not inferior to those of the best Saints. Fourthly, by that Scripture in special 2 Cor. 13. know you not that the Spirit (that Christ you should have said) is in you except ye be reprobates, lastly and mainly by these children's non-appearing not to have the spirit, by these children's not appearing to be evil; by these infants not appearing by any actual sin, to have barred themselves, or deserved to be exempted from the general state of little infants declared in Scripture, by all which on pain and guilt of the breach of Christian charity, whose rule is praesumere unumquenque bonum, nisi constet de malo, we are bound to believe that these infants of believing parents (not of others) have evidently enough the holy spirit: Now Sirs the Lord help you to your eyesight, if it be his will; for i'll be bold to say these Seers are as blind as a beetle, what ever they seem to themselves to see, who by any thing at all that is here brought do discern the holy spirit to be in any infants, but this which is to the present purpose may be more safely asserted, that all this proves it not one jot more to be in the infants of believers, than it proves it to be in unbelievers infants, to whom you deny baptism as well as we, in plea, pretence, and prate at least, but not altogether in practice, for verily these have as much promise of the spirit as the other, those parents Acts 2. being yet unbelievers while Peter spoke to them, saying, the promise is to you and your children, yea these have as much capacity for the spirit, as much manifestation of the spirit, as much capacity to believe, as much holiness, as much Eulogy in Scripture, for Christ commends not the infants of some parents above the infants of others, but indefinitely the whole age of infancy alike, as little appearance yet of being reprobates, and so consequently as much appearance that Christ is in them as in the other, as little appearance of evil, of actual sin, whereby to bar themselves, or deserve exemption from the general state of little children declared in Scripture, as is in the infants of believers, all which shall plainly appear out of hand, and much of it out of your own handy work, in my handling of your first Argument in particular, which now I am returned to again, I shall begin with, and so pass through it to all the rest, with which I must deal once over again as they lie in order, in your Relation, and Review: which first argument of yours is laid down in this form, viz.  

Disputation.  
No man may forbid water to those that have received the holy Ghost, Acts 10. 47.  
But little children have the holy Ghost.   

Disproof.  
In which Syllogism of yours how be it I then did, and do still deny your Minor as the main matter that is amiss, the falsity of which I shall discover, yet there is much fault to be found with your Major, in that you repeat the words of Peter but lamely, and by the halves out of that Scripture whence you quote it, which you adulterate and abuse, unless you had inserted the whole sentence, the chief clause of which, viz [as well as we] which is most needful to be expressed to the true proof of any ones right to baptism therfrom you whether more forgetfully or fearfully lest the falsity of your Minor should be the more descried by it I say not, do yet leave out altogether: In the absence of which clause the falsity of your Minor lies undiscerned, which upon the putting in thereof would appear (if it be possible for it so to do) more palpably false then now it doth, specially to every common capacity, whereupon very probably you left it out, for if your Major had been thus, viz. no man may forbid water to those that have received the holy spirit, as Peter and other adult Disciples had, i. e. visibly and apparently unto others, by the acts, fruits, and effects of it, as the words [as well as we] do import, your Minor then must have ran thus, viz. but little children have the holy spirit as well as Peter and those adult Disciples Act. 10. 47. i e. visibly, undoubtedly, apparently to others, and then it had been more apparently false in the eyes of all, for verily how perspicuous soever it is to you Clergy men, who for your own ends, seemingly see what you see not, as well as sometimes see not what you see, and to your implicit criditors, that will seem to see that you see, whether it be to be seen or no, yet to such as are resolved to see with their own eyes, and not yours, it is so far from being so visible, and apparent that infants have the holy spirit, as 'twas that Peter and the rest had received it, that it is a thing invisible to you, and more than ever did or yet doth or ever will appear to any, but the blind, and the blind leaders of the blind, while the world stands, by all you have here stitched up together to make it appear by; the inefficacy of all which to any such purpose as you use it for, having thus hinted the crafty quoting, and cunning coining of your Major, besides the sense of the Scripture you fetch it out on, I shall (God willing) make sufficiently to appear in my Examination of your Minor; the proof of which I now come to consider.  
As therefore to your Minor, which is this, viz. little children have the holy Ghost, I lay two evils to the charge of it, first a faltering in the terms, secondly, a falsity in the thing testified in it.  
First it's delivered in tam dubiis terminis, such a dubious and indefinite form of speech, viz. little children, not at all expressing what children, nor believers children distinctly from others, but all alike, which muddling expression of the subject, of whom you predicate this that they have the holy spirit, is made well nigh every where else throughout your book, and possibly on purpose to shelter that absurdity from being too apparent, which unless you dreamed out this Disputation, a more determinate delivery of your selves all along in these terms, viz. infants of believers, you foresaw would light upon it; Nevertheless, as indefinitely and implicitly as you set down your subject, you cannot hide the nakedness thereof let your meaning be what it will, for you must take it in some or other of these senses, viz. all little children have the spirit, or unbelievers little ones only have the spirit, or believers little ones have the spirit, or some children have the spirit but we cannot tell which; nor whether these more than those, or those more than these, the spirit being neither bound to all the children of believing parents, nor barred from any of the children of infidels: you cannot understand it of unbelievers children only, nor yet of all children, nor yet of unbelievers and believers children promiscuonsly, so as to say some of these and some of those, but in particular it cannot certainly be presumed which, though he that reads your eighteenth page, where you confess there can be no conclusion made, which have it, and which not, can hardly tell how to take you handsomely in a better sense, for then all men will say fie upon it, how miserably do these Logicians labour all along besides their question, they propound the baptism of believers infants only, but proceed to prove the baptism of all children, or of unbelievers children only, or at least of unbelievers children equally with the other; they plead to have none but believers infants baptised, yet affirm the holy spirit, the supposed being of which in these infants is the main ground on which they would have these only baptised, to be in all infants, at least in other infants (for aught they know) as well as these; yea even in those infants, even Infidels infants, whom yet they would not have baptised, so partial and cruel are they to these, though the denial of baptism to poor infants (in their own opinion) destroys all hope of their salvation: but if you take it for little infants of believers only, concerning which only the question was stated, than every wise man will wound you as much on the other hand, and say thus how miserably do these men fumble about their business, both proving and practising more than themselves believe to be the truth; they assert infants of believers only have the holy spirit, and undertake to prove it in contradistinction to other infants, yet produce nothing more towards the proof of it, than what tends, if it do tend indeed to such a purpose, to prove it to be in all infants as well as those, how egregiously do these Priest's gull and cheat their people, they profess the holy spirit to be in no infants, save those only that are born of believing parents, and that these only are thereupon to be baptised, and yet practise (another thing under the name of) baptism to unbelievers infants in their parishes, whom they truly judge not to have the spirit, in common with those whom as blindly they judge to have it, i. e. not the seed of true believers only, but the seed of true and apparent unbelievers also.  
The second fault I charge upon your Minor Proposition is an utter falseness in the matter affirmed in't, for take the term little children for what little ones you please, these or those, 'tis utter untruth to utter any such thing as that infancy have the holy spirit, much more that believers infants have it more than others, neither is there any strength in any one thing you have presented the world with to prove either one of these, or yet the other: and howbeit I say suppositively, that all appear to have it, if any at all, by what you have here produced in proof on't, yet I'll positively prove, and partly by way of answer to your own argument, that neither ●…ll infants have the holy spirit, nor any at all, in such nonage as you falsely supposing they have it, do thereupon baptise in: to this end I would I wist what you mean by the holy Ghost (as you call him, but I all along the holy spirit) I am in doubt you scarcely well know yourselves, o●… else you would not predicate him to be in infants, in such wise as here you do; I'll endeavour therefore to search out what your meaning may be, by á serious survey of the senses which the holy spirit seems to be taken in in the word, of which I am confident, if you know what you mean, you must mean one.  
The spirit which is but one and the self same in substance where ere he is, is yet spoken of in Scripture in two, and but two different senses in general, so far as I find, and that answerably to two different offices, which he exercises towards two different kinds of men in the world, viz. godly and wicked, believers and unbelievers, Saints and sinners; these two several offices, which that one holy spirit is found in towards these several sorts of men, are either more common or more special, general or peculiar; the common or general office of the spirit is to convince and inlightes, draw, move, persuade, strive with men to bring them into the way of obedience to God, and of their own good, and this he executes universally to all men, and in this sense is in all men and women, good and bad, godly and wicked, Saints and sinners, Jews and Gentiles, Christians and heathens, but not in the one day old infants of any of all these (that I know of.) The will of man, even every man, so soon as he comes to such capacity as to be able to discern between good and evil, stands ever after, even all the days of his life, between two wooers that solicit him, and seek to win him to their service, and which ere wins him (finally) to its service will everlastingly and accordingly reward him with life or death Rom. 6. 17. to v. 23. Gal. 6. 7, 8. And these two are man's flesh, and God's spirit, which are evermore lusting in him one against the other, and between them persuading him (each in their kind) in this sense he is in the blindest heathens that breath on earth (natural fools and infants only excepted, of whom as far as nothing is required, because nothing revealed, so far they have nothing to answer for) yea the very Gentiles which have not any law in an outward letter, as we have, are said Rom. 2. 14, 15. to be a law unto themselves, and to show the work of the law written in their hearts; and to have their conscience and thoughts witnessing within, accusing and excusing one another, which can be no other (though commonly called the light of nature) than a light from God and Christ, who is said to enlighten every man that cometh into the world, and so doth more or less, even such as never yet knew his person (as the Sun sends some light in some corners of the earth, where the body of it is not at all discerned) yea the very spirit of God shining and striving in them, answerably to which Gods spirit is said Gen. 6. to strive with man, even those evil men of the old world that rebelled against it, by which spirit Christ himself is said to have preached to those disobedient persons, while the long suffering of God waited on them, in the days of Noah, whose outward ministry he also used, while the Ark was preparing 1 Pet. 3. 19, 20, the same spirit is said joh. 16. to be sent to convince the very world of sin, righteousness and judgement, yea the stiffnecked and uncircumcised jews both in heart and ears are said Act. 7. always to have resisted the holy spirit, which they could not have done had he not wrestled with them, yea within them, thus far all men have him, even ill men, the worst in the world, at some time or other, by which spirit the Son of righteousness is the light of the Microcosm, or inward world of man's heart, as the Sun, by the beams that stream from the body of it, is the light of the Megacosm, or outward universe.  
In this sense I cannot conceive you take the holy spirit here, or if you do, you mistake not a little, if you say infants have him thus, for howbeit, in these ordinary ways of his acting all persons male and female may be said to have him at the years of capacity to distinguish, yet infants of one day old have him not in this sense, or if they had 'twill make no more for the baptism of them then of all men and women in the world, much less have they him in those special ways of acting, in which he acts in the Saints, till at least they come to be so far past that minority as to be sensible of his acting towards them.  
Which special and more eminent acts and offices of the spirit are on this wise, viz. special assisting in doing good, when by common strive with them men are persuaded, and prevailed with to set about it, and when in his first motions he is obeyed; also comforting, supporting in and under troubles, trials, sufferings, temptations, persecutions, which will assuredly light on those that do obey him, assuring souls more and more clearly of God's love and favour, witnessing to their spirits that they are the children of God, enabling them with boldness to cry Abba father, sealing them up to the day of Redemption, confirming them as an earnest in their present confidence of a future inheritance, kingdom, glory, revealing to them more plainly the things freely given of God, so that they rejoice mainly therein, whilst others to whom these things are foolishness, rejoice in the things of the world, lusts of the flesh, and of the eye, and of the pride of life; lusting strongly against the flesh, delivering from the law of sin and death, warring against the law of the members effectually, which else would carry captive to the law of sin; mortifying the deeds of the body, teaching all things, leading into all truth, guiding and gifting persons for the Church's service severally as he will, bringing all things to remembrance which Christ spoke, which are subject to be forgotten, manifesting the Father, the Son, and many more things to them that love Christ and keep his commandments, which he will not manifest to the world, nor to any of those in it that do not, and other such like precious performances, in all which he officiates peculiarly towards the Saints only that submit to him, not wicked resisters of him; to which Saints, or true Disciples of the Lord Jesus, he was promised to be given under the Gospel in a fuller measure than in former days, and sent to be their comforter (whilst to such as entertain him not, but a bare convincer) in which respect he is called the spirit of promise, as being promised in this sense to all those that obey Christ, that believe, repent, and are baptised into his name for remission of sins, and ask the father for him; and to be set as by office to minister in way of succour to the mournful spouse in the bridegrooms absence, to help poor souls that give up themselves to be lead by him, and accordingly was, is and ever shall be given to those that do not grieve, resist and quench him, and that are found observing all things that ever Christ commanded, non-observation of which disingages Christ of his promise, so that it fails not, though he be not with men that name themselves his Church, for ages and generations together: In which senses he is not at all in infants in their infancy, neither doth he at all, guide, or provoke them, how far forth soever he may guard and protect them, till they come to such capacity as to have good or evil fastened on them by persuasion, nor doth he any of the aforenamed good offices for infants, in whom there's yet no need they should be done, nor doth he delight ordinarily to be where either he must be idle (as he must in infants of one, two or three days old) or (unless he work miraculously) employed altogether to no purpose.  
As to that of john concerning whom 'twas promised he should be filled with the holy spirit from the womb, besides the singularness and extraordinariness of the case, which renders it unfit for you to argue from, who deny that such examples are to be drawn in as an ordinary rule to judge by, and confess that ex particulari non est Syllogizari; I add moreover, that there's no necessity for such an immediate acceptation of that word [from the womb] as to make the sense of it thus, viz. [in the very moment of his birth] for it may well be taken, as elsewhere the same phrase must be, viz, [so soon as ever he should be capable to receive it, and be assisted and guided by it] which might be in his tender years, but was not I believe in such mere nonage as you wot off, thus the wicked are said, Psal. 58. 3. ab alinare se ab utero, to estrange themselves from God from the womb, to go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies, stopping their ears, not hark-ring to the voice of the Charmer, which terms do all denote actual sin, by which yourselves confess infants cannot bar themselves p. 5. or deserve exemption; it must therefore be understood thus, viz. so soon as ever they are capable to do this or that, to take the right away or the wrong, or to know and act either good or evil.  
I assert therefore once again, that the spirit in this second sense is not in infants in their infancy, nor know I in what sense they can be said to have him, as to have right thereby to baptism, unless you can assign me some more senses out of Scripture, which if you can do, I shall tell you what to say to them, and as I cannot find they have the holy spirit in them, so neither find I any promise of the holy spirit in such nonage as you wot of, if by the spirit you mean the spirit of promise, as you must if you plead a right to baptism there from; and if you should refer me to Act. 2. I find there no more made to any then to all; indeed it's said the promise is to you and your children, but I advise you to consider, first, that 'tis not said to you and your infants, neither are children and infants all one in signification, the one expressing the age or rather nonage, the other the Relation to the parents, of whom they are born: 
e Infant of non fan●… 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  all infants are children of some parents or other, but all children are not infants: Infants are at least such younglings as cannot speak, but children may be children, in respect of their parents, though the parents be eighty years old and the children sixty, so that the promise of the spiri●… might be to them and their children too, i. e. their posterity, as well as to the Gentiles that were yet far off, in both time and place, and their posterity to all succeeding generations, and be made good too on the same terms, upon which, and the same time in which it's made good to the parents themselves, viz. the terms of faith, and the time of their believing, and yet all this while not be made to them and their infants, as in their infancy: moreover it appears most evidently that these parents were yet in unbelief, and bare inquiry after what they should do, having acted neither faith nor repentance as yet, when Peter said thus to them, repent and be baptised, and ye shall receive the holy spirit; for the promise is to you and your children; therefore it may seem rather to be to unbelievers children by that place, then unto believers children; but in very deed 'tis to all men and their children throughout the world, as they and their children should believe, repent, receive the word gladly, come to God at his call, and that in all ages and places to the world's end; and as children of unbelievers have as much promise of the holy spirit, so as much manifestation of it as the other, and that is just none at all.  
But say you these appear to have it first by their faith, i. e. as other men's infants do not, by their faith: Sirs this is no demonstrative Argument I am sure, that they have the Spirit, for demonstratio est ex notioribus conclusione, but this is Ignotum per ignotius, or at lest per aeque ignotum for now you have much more ado by something else (& hoc aliquid nihil est) to demonstrate to us that they have faith, then before you had to demonstrate them to have the spirit, yea this will puzzle you the more, by how much the last error is worse than the first, and more confuted in other places by your selves, however we will consider your Argument and supposing still that you speak of the right subject, viz. infants of believing parents; we will cast this your Enthusiasm into this Enthememe.   

Disputation.  
Little children of believing parents have faith.  
Ergo little children of believing parents have the holy spirit.   

Disproof.  
First I deny your Consequence, secondly your Antecedent, as both stark false, and that is as much as can well be false in an Enthememe.  
First, I shall be bold to tell you Sirs, that your Argumentation from present faith, to a present having the holy Spirit is most invalid, and unconsonant to the Scripture, for if by the holy Spirit you mean (as you must else it serves not your turn at all to the proof of baptism) the spirit in that special sense, viz. the holy spirit of promise; the consequence from faith to the having of it will not universally hold true, for as much as faith not only must be in time before it (unless God be better than his word, and that he may be when he pleases, and so he was Act. 10, 44. where the spirit by Anticipation was given out before obedience at least in baptism, which yet by promise cannot be expected till after it Ast. 2. 38.) I say not only must be before it, but also may be a pretty while without it; this will be counted the mad man's mad Divinity with you (I doubt not) but i'll clear it to the Dimmest Divine of you all, yea see if the whole body of the Testament of Christ doth not tell you plainly, that as faith must be before it in an ordinary way, before we have warrant to expect it, so it may for some while be without it, and therefore cannot prove the holy spirit to be always where it is; for the spirit of promise is given after faith, if given according to the promise, and so long after it too now and then, as is enough to make it undeniably appear, that the having of faith, is no proof of ones present having the holy spirit: among sundry others let those Scriptures be seriously searched into, Ephes. 1. 13. In whom after ye believed ye were sealed with the holy spirit of promise, Act. 19 2. have ye received the holy spirit since ye believed? they answered no, also Act. 8. 12. when they believed, etc. they were baptised, etc. but verse 16. the holy spirit was fallen upon none of them, only they were baptised, Act. 5. 32. The holy spirit which God hath given to them that obey him: yea the gift of the spirit though God's ordinary way so limits not himself but that he may give it extraordinarily before Act. 10. yet is it neither promised nor (as by promise) to be expected but upon obedience in faith, repentance, turning to God, baptism and prayer Pro. 1. 23. Act. 2. 38. Luke 11. 15. john 7. 38. 39 the places are so plain to the purpose, that i'll not disparage your judgement so much, as like a fresh man to stand to frame formal Syllogisms to you out of them: to conclude then as to your Consequence, had you argued from the holy spirit, in the special sense, in which you take it to faith, it might have passed for me without correction, but sith you began at the wrong end of your business, I beseech you take it for a warning Sirs and begin again.  
Secondly, I deny your Antecedent, which if your Consequence were never so true, is most false, for infants of believers have not faith; if they have unbelievers infants (for aught you make appear to the contrary) have as much, and so (though that grieve and go against you, and cannot be owned so kindly by you in opinion as it is in practice) must (de jure) be baptised, i. e. humano (for Divino neither may) as well as they; but in truth as it will not appear by what you here bring to evince it by, that faith is in either, so I trust it will appear by what shall be said in disproof of your proofs, that faith can possibly be in neither.   

Disputation.  
You prove infants of believing parents to have faith two ways (as you say) first by express texts of Scripture, secondly Arguments of consequence.  
Your express Scripture is Mat. 18. 6. Whosoever shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: in the third verse (say you) they are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, whence upon my confession and concession that in ver. 2. and 4. is meant one in respect of age, because it is said there he called to him a little child and who so humbleth himself as this little child, you therefore argue that little ones in respect of age are meant in that 6 verse also.   

Disproof.  
Sirs, let me ask you two questions, first are you sure these are infants indeed? Secondly, are you sure they were infants of believers of whom Christ says, whoever offends one of these little ones that believe in me? for my part if there were any probability that he spoke of little ones literally taken at all, as I know none there is, yet I am sure there is none that they were the little ones of believers he then spoke of, in contradistinction to the infants of unbelievers; for 'tis not specified either one way or other, and is most probable that the child he occasionally called to him might be some unbelievers child, or other, the number of believers, where e'er he came, being few, and not comparable to them that believed not, but what ere that child was yet this is much more than probable, that by the term these little ones in v. 6. he means not infants but his Disciples, whom, having first persuaded them to become such as that little one, or as little children in such things as are generally found in them, viz. plainness of spirit, humbleness, innocency, freedom from malice, in which respects David says Psal. 131. 2. my soul is as a weaned child, from that Analogy that was and ought to be between little ones and them, he here bespeaks (as it was very ordinary for him to do) under the title of [these little ones] besides the plural number he speaks in implies he spoke of such of whom there was a plurality then present, for saith he these little ones, pointing as it were to more than one, but there was but one little one then in the midst of them of whom when Christ speaks, he speaks, in the singular, saying this little child: as to the term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is used in the third verse, whence you argue that they were children in age spoken of by our Saviour, by which you seem much to strengthen yourselves in your Dabbling of Infant's foreheads, I must tell you that of the two you more mar than make your matter, by so much as mentioning of it in this case, for first 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though by some philosophical or poetical licence it may possibly be used to signify [Infantem] some youngling of three or four years old, as (though beginning to prattle) can scarcely speak plain, yet cannot so much as poetically, much less properly signify Infantissimum, such a one day old infant as you talk of, nor such a six days old suckling as you sprinkle, but properly it expresses at least one capable of erudition, and howbeit it hath not its derivation from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as setting the cart before the horse, I say not ungraciously, for many a gracious man is no good Grecian, but ungraecianly you greek it out, yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath its derivation from it, for to say the truth, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the primitive of the two, and though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be the diminutive of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, puer, which is the primitive to them both, yet this is enough to show that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be used, and yet not infancy meant by it neither, but childhood, which is a distinct age from the other, for there's difference between Infantiam and pueritiam, as inter adolescentiam & inventutem, all which have their several and proper periods, yea in truth it signifies child-ship, at least capable to be taught, not such mere babeship as you baptise.  
Secondly if it did, yet what's that to your present purpose, which is to prove by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the third, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the fourth verse, that Christ means the very same, viz. little ones literally taken in the sixth? as much as if you had said nothing at all, for verily as it follows not that he doth, so its evident enough that he doth not mean the very same in this phrase, verse six, viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whom he means in the third by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: for who doubts on't but that by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the third verse, natural little children are to be understood, the intent of Christ there, being to show how his discipl●…s must be like them, if ever they enter into heaven? but in verse six owning his disciples, to whom he tells that they must be such, as already such in some measure as they should be, he speaks of them under that very same name and notion; and this was no unusual term for Christ to denominate disciples, nor yet for them to denominate one another by; for besides that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 itself is the title by which, though not here, yet elsewhere all believers and new converts to the truth are often styled by, yea and your word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. suckling's too, which you make so much of a little below, yea and the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is the very diminutive of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a child, which word you make such a matter of when you find it Acts 2. 36. in proof of all which consult john 21. 35. Gal. 19 1 john 2. 1. 12, 13. 18. 28. 3. 7. 18. 4: 4. also 1 Pet. 2. 2. even this very phrase that is here used viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is also used by Christ himself to his disciples Mat. 18. 42. and a place wherein as no little infant (as here) was apparently present, so compare it with the two foregoing verses, in which the same, who are called little ones and disciples, ver. 42. are styled Prophets, Righteous men, and I'll say you sell yourselves to stark so●…tishness, if you expound it of any other then of such, as are (from Disco their having learned the truth as infants yet have not) styled Christ's Scholars or Disciples.  
But above all, the most undoubted reason of all the rest, which to me doth, and may to any one most plainly clear it, that he means not infants is even this very expression, viz. [which believe in me] whereby he denotes and denominates his disciples distinctly enough from all little infants, who are in no wise capable to do that he here ascri bes to the other, i e. to believe in Christ, for this infants being utterly uncapable to do, it shows plainly that he means not them: whereas Mr. Willcock, whose argument this was, and whose urging it o'er again in print if this be, it shall not trouble my conscience, if it do not his own, whereas he I say argues thus, viz. [These little ones which believe in me] therefore infants do believe, I argue quite contrary from the same Scripture thus, viz. these of whom Christ speaks M●…t. 18. 6. did believe, therefore they could not be infants, who cannot possibly believe.  
And if you ask me how I prove it that infants cannot believe, I might answer out of the mouth of Paul, Rom. 18. 14. how can they believe on him of whom they have not heard? but sith you have a reply to this, p. 18 I'll only hint that here, and handle it further, as I have occasion given me to do by your answering it, as our objection, when I come to review your review, and at present prove the matter out of Mr. Willcocks own mouth, that infants cannot believe, for to believe is to act faith, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credere (as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Docere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 legere, &c,) are speeches that point at the act and not the Habit or faculty, denoting actum secundum, non primum: This Mr. Willcock knows as well as I, yet the same Mr. Willcock, page 8. asserts as plainly and truly, so clearly to the contradiction of himself in this place, that infants have not the exercise and fruit of faith, have it not in actu secundo etc. but I spare him, in hope that he will consider it of himself, verbum sat sapienti: but suppose it were meant of infants literally; yet however it could be but a Prosopopeia, i. e. a figure whereby that is attributed to certain creatures, as done by them, which yet is neither really done, nor so much as capable to be done by them at all, by which figure that is sometimes attributed not only to infants, but even to but sensible and bruit, and sometimes to insensible things, which can properly be done by none possibly but men at years, as not only David is said to be made to hope in God while he hung upon the breasts, because God indeed was, even than the God that did defend him, yea as well in as from his mother's womb, though he was never sensible of, nor acquainted with it, so as to hope it in the womb, but the whole creation also figuratively, Rom. 8. 19, 20, 21, 22. is said to groan, wait, hope, desire, expect deliverance, because it stands in need of it, from the bondage of corruption, and God also hath determined the time wherein by Christ to redeem it, though many creatures under the curse are no more sensible of it, or capable to groan, than the fruitless fig tree Christ cursed, and the Ox, Ass, Horse, Sheep, and sensible creatures that may groan are capable to hope for, and expect such a glorious day as shall once come to the creation: thus figuratively indeed infants may be said to believe on Christ because they have need of his protection, and all the help they then have comes from him also, though in infancy they knew it not, nor him, so as actually to hope and trust in him for it, or properly to believe in his name, even more than inanimate creatures in the other case, this is the first way, whereby you profess to prove infants of believing parentt only (if you speak to your proposed purpose) to have faith, which how weak it is the weakest eye may discern it, that is not disposed to be blind, and the second is like unto it, which is as followeth, by two arguments of inconsequence.   

Disputation.  
Children of the jews had faith,  
Ergo, children of believing parents now.  
The Antecedent is proved thus, viz. God himself did witness that the children of the jews had faith, by setting to his seal, which was circumcision, called by the Apostle the seal of righteousuess of faith.   

Disproof.  
There's but two things to be owned or disowed at all in this piece of proof, as also in the former, viz. the Argument and the Antecedent, and I'll deny him to be a Seer that sees not good ground whereon to deny them both,  
O fine! O fine! O fie: these you call your Arguments of Consequence, but (saving that you say so) I am verily persuaded the veriest implicit Simpleton that ever saluted the University, or swore Allegiance to your Crown and dignity, or was ever implicitly canonised into the obedience of your faith, will never see them so to be, when ceasing to see through your eyes, he shall come once to behold things with his own, for really they are the most false, absurd and inconsequent, that ever I saw with mine.  
Sirs, give me leave to make an answer by these ensuing Interrogatories, and I'll expect your Answer to them again; had the children of the jews faith? and did God himself witness that they had it, by setting Circumcision to them as his seal of it, i. e. (for that's the sense in which you take the word seal) to assure men that they had it? and is it the consequent that the children of believing parents have it now? let me then ask you.  
First do you conclude that all the children of believing parents have it now? that I think for shame you will not say, sith every experience witnesss the contrary; or that some believers children have it now, therefore all believers children are to be baptised? and if so, that is as silly an inference, as if you had argued thus, viz. some people believe therefore all must be baptised,  
Secondly, had the Jews children faith? first I wonder how they came by it, sith the word says faith comes by hearing, and how can there be believing on him of whom they have not heard? and how can they hear without a preacher? and how can they preach except they be sent? and how can they be sent to preach to infants that understand not what is said? except you say (as you are fain to do, not for want of blindness p. 18.) that infants have an hearing, and the spirit works upon them miraculously, and yet not extraordinarily neither, but in that ordinary way as he doth on men, in the conversion of whom you say the spirits working is but ordinary, and yet miraculous too, which Popish Bull deserves well to be baited, but i'll fotbear to fall upon it, till I meet it in its proper place in the Review.  
Secondly, when had they it begotten in them? in the womb? or if after birth, on what day on the 1st, 2d, 3d, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, or 8th? for on some of these they received it, if on the 8th day they were (as you say they were) circumcised in token that they had it; but I muse, and am yet to learn on which, and so are yourselves too I believe, for all your confidence in asserting it.  
Thirdly, was Circumcision God's witness, yea Gods seal to assure men of thus much, that those children to whom it was set had faith?  
First, Risum teneat is amici? did you ever read or hear that circumcision was set to infants to this end, viz. to testify to the world that they had faith? was it set to Ishmael as God's witness that Ishmael had faith? was it set to Esau as God's witness that Esau had faith, when God who would not witness a lie, knew that neither the one of these had it, nor yet the other? unless they lost it again, which sure you will not say; for shame leave such sorry Shuffles, are you Masters in Isra●…l and know not this that ●…ircumcision was set to the jews children, not to show others that they did believe, but as a permanent sign thereof to show them when they should be at years to take notice of it by sight (as of that transient, unseen sign of sprinkling in infancy they cannot do) what things they then should believe, viz. Christ to come of Abraham after the flesh, and circumcision of their hearts by him, etc. was it ever set under this notion as a seal of faith to any person in the world save to Abraham's proper person only, to whom too 'twas a seal not so much to witness, or assure men that he had faith, as to honour that faith, that more evidently, and eminently then ordinary he had before, with that famous title i. e. the Father of the faithful●… therefore circumcision as given to Abraham in Rom. 4. 11. is not said to be the seal of the righteousness of faith (as you corruptly rehearse the words leaving out the residue of the verse, which makes them relate to Abraham only, as if it had stood as a seal in such a sense to all Abraham's posterity) but a seal of the righteousness of the faith, i. e. that famous faith which he himself had, and to this end that he might be (as none of his mere fleshly seed ever were) the Father of all them that believe. Secondly, if circumcision were God's witness that these infants, to whom it was dispensed, had faith, then certainly baptism, which with you at least is of such Analogy and Identity with Circu●…cision, that i●… hath the same subjects and significa●…ions, must also with you be God's witness to others that those infants to whom it is dispensed have faith also, and if so then I must make bold to ask you two things:  
First, Is not this round about our coal fire, to prove two things no otherwise then one by another? for when you prove that children are to be circumcised, or baptised (which with you is all one, who falsely call baptism (as Paul doth not in Col. 2. 12. for he means another thing by that phrase, viz. that of the heart) the circumcision without hands) I say when you prove, that children are to be circumcised either one way or other in answer to our why? you say because they have faith and thereby right to the Covenant, and the seals of it; but when you come to prove that children have faith, which we deny, you say 'tis clear because they have circumcision, and baptism, which are Gods witnesses, seals or evidences to us that they have it: this is not Idem per Idem, the same by the same, that is too effeminate a probation, but 'tis eadem inter se, or per se invicem, the same things reciprocally by each other, and well nigh as womanish as that; for whether is it better to say they have it because they have it, or to say it is apparent they have this because they have that, and that being as much doubted to clear it thus, viz. it is apparent they have that because they have this; and if these two viz. faith and baptism, faith and Circumcision, did ponere se invicem, so that one could not possibly be without the other, they might the better probare se invicem, but 'tis not so, for as faith may possibly be where neither Circumcision nor baptism are dispensed, witness the thief on the Cross, so there's neither of them but may be, and is too too much dispensed where faith is not.  
Secondly, let me ask you, is God's witness, God's testimony true, or is it false? for say you God himself did witness it, that the children of the jews, i e. in infancy had faith: false you dare not say it is, nay you do not, but rather p. 5. that his testimony as to the truth of it, is to be preferred before man's, yea I say let God be true, and every man a liar, but if it be true, how then appears it to be so, if your testimony be not false? how then came it to pass that the most of the jews and their children sucessively in all generations had not faith when they came to years? for it's most evident that most of them were unbelievers, and therefore they could not enter into their rest; but their carcases fell in the wilderness; I know but two shifts you can make, and 'tis much at a pass which you take, for you will contradict yourselves in either of them both, for surely, either they fell from that grace (as those infants do also whom you sprinkle from that faith which (as you say and seem to see) once they had) and this flatly contradicts your own doctrine of impossibility of falling from faith, or else they never had any such faith as you say they had in infancy, and then either God's witness of such a thing must be a lie, which what horrid heresy were it to think, and abominable blasphemy once to utter? or else God by Circumcision never witnessed such a thing, and that flatly contradicts your Antecedent, and so yourselves will be found false witnesses of God, because you have testified of him that he himself did witness by Circumcision, that the children of the jews had faith, when he never witnessed it at all.  
Fourthly, the fourrh grand Interrogatory is this.  
Sirs, what children of the Jews had faith in their infancy witnessed by Circumcision, were they the children of the believing or unbelieving Jews? for you are shy me thinks of expressing too often which you mean, and proceed as indefinitely, that you may deceive as indiscernably as you can, if of the unbelievers than is not this goodly disputing, viz.  
Children of the unbelieving jews had faith and circumcision.  
Ergo, children of believing Gentiles only have faith, and must have baptism.  
Secondly, Is not this goodly doing (if 'twere your practice as strictly as 'tis your plea) to baptise only believers children now upon their own faith, because unbelievers children of old were circumcised upon their own faith? this straitens the grace of God under the Gospel, in comparison of the largeness of it under the law, for then all children of unbelieving jews were circumcised by his appointment, as well as the infants of believers; Answerably to which, if you go by that rule, you should conclude thus, viz. all the Gentiles children should be baptised now, as well those of unbelievers as believers ', but you turn out unbelievers children from the privilege, that unbelievers children had before, but if you say children of believing Jews only had faith then, therefore of believing parents now, than first how doth your Argument and proof drawn from Gods witnessing by Circumcision that there was faith in the Infants, hold any more to the proof of it in believers infants, then in unbelievers, for he set Circumcision to the infants of the wicked and unbelievers among the Jews as well as of the godly and believers.  
Secondly, how doth it appear at all that godly and believing parents children than had faith more usually than children of ungodly parents? when good Ely had two vile sons Hophni and Phineas, good David, wicked Absolom, good Solomon, wicked Rehoboam, good jehosaphat, wicked joram, good josiah, wicked jechoniah and his brethren, etc. when chose wicked Ahaz begat good Hezekiah, wicked Abia, good Asa, wicked Amon, good josia, which shows that faith is not entailed from parents to posterity as you would make it.  
Thus I have spoken to your first way, whereby you prove Infants of believers to have the spirit, and thereupon right to baptism, viz. their faith, and to a first and second of those whereby you seem to prove them to believe, there is yet a third way whereby you would make men believe that Infants of believers do believe, viz. their justification, without which there is no salvation, but because that's not inserted here at all, but toward the end of the disputation, and is prosecuted most vigorously in your Review, I will suspend the prosecution of that head, till I come thither, and proceed next to a consideration of the second, third, fourth and fifth ways, as they lie in order, whereby you would prove believers infants to have the spirit, above the infants of unbelievers.   

Disputation.  
The next thing whereby you offer proof of it that infants of believing parents only (remember these still are the subject on which you pretend to proceed, and predicate that these denominants, viz. the spirit, faith, holiness etc.) that these I say have the holy spirit, is their holiness from whence you confess here that there was no Argument taken, that is to say, 'twas not proved, and yet a little above p. 3. in the fourth and fifth line of this sum, aliâs some of your disputation, you as blindly as boldly bolt it out, that it was proved by their holiness: the Apocaliptical beast that was and yet was not, scarcely seems more Apocryphal to you, than this was and was not of yours seems Apoplexical, or brainsick to me: This Truly might have been ranked among the rest in your true Account, but to let it passthus, this cannot but be granted for a truth, that you made as if you would have proved it by their holiness, that infants of believers have the spirit, but did not, because I wished you (but (fool that I was) I have been sorry since that I did at all wish you) to forbear it, for as I was not afraid to give way to your proof then (save only that I was well aware you would but trifle) so since I marvelled a little more upon the matter, I have found it of more facility to prove (infants-sprin kling by the pope's holiness, whose mandamus it is, then by any holiness of their own.   

Disproof.  
I'll muse a little if you will, now I am upon it, by what kind of holiness of theirs you would have proved it: I deny not but there may be in infants of believers a kind of holiness, yet there's neither that kind by which you commonly conceive you can, nor any kind by which you possibly can evince the verity of such a practice.  
The holiness you mean certainly is either 


Matrimonial,  
Ceremonial,  
or Moral     
Moral holiness, I call that which is opposed to sin, moral wickedness and profaneness of heart and life, but sure you do not mean this holiness, or if you do, what do you mean by it? do you mean some inward quality, inherent habit or principle of grace and spiritualness, as whereby these infants of believers may be denominated as the true Saints or holy ones of God are viz. Partakers of his holiness as Heb. 12, 10. and holy i. e. qualitative, though not quantitative, in the same manner, though not the same measure? and if you do, is this habit innat●…s, acquisitus or infusus, by birth, or begotten in them by frequent acts of holiness, or infused from above? for one of these three it must be, if it be an Habit.  
But 'tis not the first, for secundum te at least (O Priesthood) they are born in sin, and are by birth this way as unholy as any others.  
Not the second, for secundum te again, by your own confession these are not capable in infancy to act either good or evil, yea instruction of the understanding must go before any actings be, yea weigh but your own expressions a little p. 18. of your Pamphlet where you tell us thus much in plain terms, that instruction of the understanding in matter of faith in some sort, must go before any act of faith can be discovered; to which I fully assent, and add, that instruction of the understanding in matter of holiness, (and this infants are not capable of) must go before any act of holiness can be discovered.  
If you say the third, then pray tell me three things.  
First, How it's discovered to you, or how you know that theirs such a habit of holiness infused into believers infants in that nonage whereupon you build your boldness to baptise them? for by the fruits only it is that we can know persons Mat. 7. 6. to be good or evil, and you confess pag. 8. that infants have not the exercise and fruit of faith, and commonly in your pulpits that holiness is the fruit of faith, and james challenges any one if he can to show him his faith without his works, jam. 2. 18. yea you say plainly that the seed of faith sown after discovers itself when the season comes p. 8. and that no judgement of science can be passed, till the acts themselves be seen, and examined for a posteriore only (mark that word only) the discovery of habits is made, these are your own sayings in your Review p. 18. whereby you plainly unsay all that here you say of believers infant's faith, and holiness, for if it be so that the discovery of these habits is only a posteriore, i. e. by the fruits, exercises, and acts, and that Infants have not these, then how I trow have you the discovery of it at all, before the season, that these habits are in them? yet such is your shameless inconsiderateness, and custom of contradicting your selves, that you pretend to a discovery of it so far as to attempt here the discovery of it to the world: will you always feed the world thus with your own groundless fancies, and fashion it in religion according to your own careless conception? will you always affirm things so to be, and venture to make them known, and yet confess they cannot be known too? O curas hominum o quantum est in rebus mane!  
Secondly, pray tell me how this holiness, which you assert to be in believers infants whereby you would make it appear that they have the spirit, doth appear any more to be in them then the spirit itself; are they not both a like dark to us, and unapparent? yet you profess to prove the one of these by the other thus, they have holiness therefore the spirit, and if to one querying, how you know they have holiness? you should say thus they have the spirit, therefore holiness, 'twere a proof no more impregnant than the other, for you could do more than leave the people, whose blind guides you are, as much in the dark as before, by this, and by that I am sure you do no less: when men fall to proving (as you have done hitherto all along in your Disputation) things undiscernible by things as undiscernible as the other, and things that appear not at all, by things that appear no more at all then those they would make to appear by them, 
Nescio an anticyram ratio illis destinet omnem.   
Thirdly, I pray tell me how this holiness appears to be in believers infants whom thereupon you would have to be baptised, more than in unbelievers infants whom (though in your practice you promiscuously admit them with the other yet) in your proofs you except from your baptism? is there any more Specimen or show of holiness in them then in these? the best spectacles that ever I beheld with, could never behold it; Is there any more capableness of such an Infusion of holiness, or of having such an habit infused? Is there any experience of it when they come to years that the infants of believers had this holiness in their infancy and unbelievers infants had not? if so, how is it that when they are grown, the children of unbelievers have holiness very often, when as oft the other prove wicked, and have not? (have a care of your shins (good now) by all means) do the children of believers fall from it? is there any promise of God, whereby he stands engaged to infuse holiness into these infants in infancy, when he will not infuse it into the other? and if so, how it is it that we must necessarily hold (for so you say your own selves in your Review p. 18.) that God is not bound (for if he hath promised it as you say he hath Acts 2. then he is bound) to work it in all the children of Christian parents, nor barred from working it in any of the children of infidels? Is there any promptness to acts of holiness, whence only you can clearly argue ad positionem habitus, in that infancy in which you sprinkle them, in believers infants then in the other? all your skill in Physiogmony can never find it: or can you argue ad negationem habitus, to no holiness in an infidels infant more than in another's? your very selves acknowledge you cannot: if not, why more I wonder ad negationem spiritus? why more ad ne gationem baptismi? why more ad negationem nugationis istius vestrae, viz. your trivial new way, or rather no way of baptism? to which if it were baptism indeed, you must admit, if not all, than not at all in time of infancy, or else your absurdities are unsuffrable, Sirs suffer me to come cross to you, and hit you home with your own cross interrogatory p. 18. are those infants of infidels, between whom, and those of believers, you objectors will admit no comparison, inclinable to acts of holiness? or not? if the former, it presupposes then that infidels infants have the habit also as much as the other, and so the working in them, and those born of believing parents may be one, and so their holiness, and faith, and spiritualness, and baptism be one too, which all your Disputation doth deny; if the latter, I freely confess these are not inclinable, nor yet the other neither.  
These premised the Answer is in your own very words pag. 18. That unless it could be certainly presumed what children have the habit, i. e. of faith, holiness, what have not, the working of the spirit is not known to us, he is neither bound nor barred there can be no conclusion made, and therefore Quis nisi mentis inops etc. how justly may they be concluded by themselves, as well as by others, to have hand plus cerebri quam cimax sanguinis, and no more understanding than those whose right eye is utterly darkened, who premising these sentences themselves, do for all that make this conclusion, viz. that these infants have faith, Holiness, the Spirit, and thereby right to baptism above all others.  
Or secondly Sirs do ye mean by it some Negative holiness, consisting in their being without sin, and having yet no wickedness, and profaneness, the thing, which (and more properly by far) you style innocency in the next words? though yet o curious criss-cross you will not hold them guiltless neither: if so, for my part I give you in my assent to it, that infants are innocent, but I cannot help it if it do you no good in your cause, for first are infants of believers any more innocent in time of infancy than the rest? how so? not by birth, for they are all alike born in sin, secundum te, not in life, for it cannot appear that the one have more blurred themselves, or barred themselves by any actual sin from baptism (if innocency be that which entitles to it) than the other  
But secondly to say the truth Sirs so far is baptism from being entailed to innocents', and holy ones only, as their only right, that it belongs rather only unto sinners, for though Christ for examples sake, and for other ends, submitted to it, who yet had no sin of his own, but he had ours by imputation, yet the most proper use of it to all else that submit is to signify the remission of their sins Mat. 3. 6. Luk. 3. 3. Act. 2. 38. Act. 22. 16.  
If believers infants therefore be so righteous, holy, i. e. innocent, etc. as you make them, and I dare not deny but that they are, nor dare I say otherwise for the world of other infants in infancy, having more charity than your selves, even so much as to presume unumquemque bonum nisi constet de malo, they are so little inrighted to baptism thereupon, that till they sin they are much rather exempted from it: for if baptism be a sign to signify to him who submits to it, the remission of his sins in plurali, (as Acts 2. 38. and in all other places it seems to be) thenits utterly usless to such (and therefore to infants) as, being yet under no Commission of sins, need yet no sign of Remission of them.  
Secondly. Matrimonial holiness I call that, which arises from the conjugation of two viz, one man and one woman only into one flesh, according to God's holy ordinance and institution; the subject of which holiness is not only marriage itself, and the marriage bed, which is said to be honourable among all men, and undefiled, or which is all one, to be holy, Heb. 13. 4. but also the married persons of what rank, quality, religion soever, when once come into that conjugal relation, whether both or either or neither of them be believers; and the seed or infants that are born of them in that condition, which are called by God himself, Mal. 2. 15. a seed of his own seeking, a godly seed, or seed of God, which he owns as truly, lawfully, honestly, holily begotten, according to his own holy appointment, and not basely, beastly, treacherously, adulterously, nor corruptly, as those are which arenot begotten in the bed.  
Opposite to this holiness, these holy ones (I mean the married couples, and their holy seed) are all the lusts of concupiscence, objected on strange flesh; uncleanness, 1 Thess. 4. 7. adultery, fornication, and unclean agents, i. e. adulterers; and the unclean issues of the adulterous bed, viz, the adulterous brood, or the seed of the adulterer and the whore Isa. 57 3.  
This kind of holiness I dare say you do not mean, yea the most of you will hardly be persuaded that there's any such kind of holiness at all, or if you be it makes nothing for your purpose, for what if infant's of believing parents be (as infants of unbelieving parents also are, when begotten in lawful wedlock) holy in such a sense, doth this tend at all to prove them to have the holy spirit, which is the thing in hand? yet this even this, and no other is all the holiness meant by Paul 1 Cor. 7. 14. where he saith, else were your children unclean, but now are they holy, that very place which yourselves so often send us to, for proof thereof, when we deny your Antecedent in this consequence, viz. Infants of believers are holy, therefore to be baptised: This that I say as 'tis not denied (to my knowledge) by some that are for infant's baptism, so is it most undeniable to any that will but plainly and impartially consider the direct drift of the Apostle in the verse, which is not any such matter as to show that there's such a sanctity in the unbelieving husband, or wife of believing yoke-fellows (for these are there said to be holy as well as the children, with the same holiness) and in their children also, as inrolles them all, viz. the unbelieving parties, and the children, as well as the believing parties in the Covenant of grace, or in any such outward Church covenant, as inrights them to baptism, membership and fellowship in the Congregation, but to show such a sanctity or holiness, as clears both their conjunctions, and conceptions to be pure and guiltless, such as frees their bed from the account of baseness, and their brood from the account of bastardy, both which in the sight of God and men would else be unholy, i. e. utterly unlawful and un clean: his scope is (I say) to convince them of the lawfulness of that state, i. e. of a believer and unbelievers being man and wife together, by the lawfulness of the seed that proceeds from them, and by both these not only of the liberty and legality, but the duty also of their continuance together in that civil marriage relation, notwithstanding their different religion, as well as if they were in Religion one and the same: The Corinthians had written to him (it seems verse 1) about many cases; wherein they were scrupled, and among the rest about this, viz. whether a husband or wife coming into the faith, and leaving their yoke-fellows still in unbelief; might lawfully own and cleave to them still, as their true and lawful yoke-fellows, as before they did, when they were both in unbelief, or as they may one to another that are both in the faith, or whether they must not rather leave them now, and disown them as to that old capacity, because of this spiritual difference that now was between them, in answer to which he tells them, that by all means if the unbelieving parties will be pleased still to abide with them, as before, the believing parties must not depart, nor put away; and to satisfy them further in so doing, he renders them this good reason, viz. for the unbelieving wife is sanctified in, or to the husband, and the unbelieving husband to the wife, which is as much as if he had said, you are as true man and wife in the account of God as before, your marriage is an honourable, your bed as undefiled as before, your unbelieving husband or wife sanctified as a lawful companion to you as well as before, your living and lying together is as holy, and unblameable in the eyes of God as before, and to put this more out of doubt yet, lest any should remain unresolved, he minds them further by another argument (ab absurdo) the absurdity which they it seems were too inconsiderate of, that would follow upon it, if this were not so, for else (saith he) your children are unclean; else (that is) if you deny yourselves in this case of different Religion to be lawful man and wife together, you heed not (for wise men do not at all times see the ill consequences of things at present, as Mr. Tombs well observes, and as stark m●…d as Mr. Baxter says page 87. of his Baby-book the Corinthians were, if they did not mind this) you heed not what mad work you will make by so doing, hereby you will deny your children to be a lawful issue; you will bring the blame of baseness upon your beget, and the blot of bastardy upon your offspring; for all men know (though at all times it may not come into their minds, nor then possibly when there's most need it should) that by the same reason that the parents are not holy in their coming together, nor sanctified one to another by the ordinance of God, viz. true and lawful matrimony, the babes begotten and born of them, cannot be that godly seed, Mal. 2. 15: but must be base born and unclean, and this the Apostle here hints unto them in this clause, else were you children unclean, thereby evincing or evidencing to them, who doubted of it, the warrantableness of their abode in their marriage contract: but now saith he, i. e. though you are one in the faith, and the other in unbelief, yet your children are holy; and honestly born for all that (as else they could not) and you consequently holy pure, and honest in your communion.  
And here I cannot but note by the way how egregiously Mr. Baxter pedles in a long prate to Mr, Tombs page 86, 87. about an impossibility of the Corinthians knowing their seed to be legitimate, and yet doubting their marriage to be unlawful, whereas they might in general know it, and yet in special at this time not be so serious in considering it; and how impossible it was for Paul rationally to argue from the effect to the cause, so as to go about to convince them of the lawfulness of their marriage, by a consideration of the lawfulness of their seed, which flows from lawful marriage, and is a consequent, of which that is the cause: whereas in cognition (praesertim confusà) effectus sunt priore●… causis: in order to such knowledge as the Apostle seeks here to beget them to, which was but as it were a certain remembrance of what they might have easily gathered of themselves, had they not been so forgetful as to need a memorandum, 'tis not irrational to clear the cause by the effect, as to say there's smoke, therefore there's fire, yet the fire is the cause of the smoke, these infants are no bastards, but legitimate, therefore their parents were married is the very same.  
This therefore I say again is all the holiness here intended. As for that federal holiness you fiddle men in the ear with as the only holiness here aimed at, I confess I once rawly uttered it in discourse myself, when being a sprinkler of infants (as you are) and as stiff a stickler for that practice as the blindest among you, I was made choice of to defend it against the Baptists, who not by force of Arms (as the Priesthood once did) but by force of Arguments at last overcame me totheir way, but as I was then pretty well faulted for fastening such false constructions as of a faederal holiness on that place, so upon a more serious search into its sense, I have found it myself so faulty, that if I had said a fiddlestick holiness, i●… had been but somewhat more ridiculous, so far is Paul from dilating on any such kind of holiness in that Scripture, where to convince them of a mee●… civil sanctity, and to show that different Religion destroys not any civil relation is verily the very utmost of his errand.  
To inculcate this yet a little more upon you, let me press you to lay to heart these few considerations.  
First that, as here in this fourteenth verse he shows that the civil relation, or institutive holiness of the state between man and wife is not nullified by a difference about the faith, so but that they may abide together therein, though one be a believer, and the other an infidel, without any sin or guilt contracted to the believer by such continuance in their contract, so in the following verses he shows that the civil relation, or civil sanctity of the State between Master and Servant is not nullified thereby, so but that they may lawfully live together in that state, though the Servant should be a believer, and the Master an infidel; or the Master a believer and the Servant an Infidel ve. 21. art thou called being a Servant, i. e. to an unbelieving master, care not for it, i. e. distract not thyself about it, scruple it not solicitously, as if it were an unholy, unclean, unlawful, or sinful state for thee to remain in, for v. 22. he that is called in the Lord, i. e. to the faith being a Servant, i. e. in bondage to a Master not yet called, is Christ's free man, i. e. acceptable to Christ, even in that state and relation to such a Master as before; and in the favour of Christ, as also he that is called being free, or a Master himself is Christ's servant, i. e. one whom he owns for his, accepts and justifies, though happily he may be by covenant in relation still to unbelieving servants, he is holy, honourable, and undefiled in his state as a Master, and that by virtue of the Ordinance of Christ, who hath sanctified that condition and relation of Master, and Servant to each other, as holy for them to abide in together, though in Moral respects the person of one of them may be holy, and the other wicked.  
The very like to which Paul's hints in his exhortation to servants, even of unbelieving masters, 1 Tim. 6. 1. where he bids believing servants that are under the yoke, though to unbelieving Masters (for in that he says & they that have believing Masters inv. 2▪ it argues that he means such as have non-believing Masters in the first) That they should count them worthy of all honour because they are their masters still, by the ordinance of God that hath set and sanctified them in their place and s●…ation as honourable and holy, though in their persons and practice they may be contemptible, vile, and ungodly; the like he says to Christians concerning civil Magistrates, though infidels, Rom. 1●…. that being ordained of God and sanctified, or set apart as his Ministers for civil good, they are to have a reverend, honourable, and even holy estimation of them in their hearts, and to abide in their subjection to them in matters civilly righteous, even for conscience sake.  
The like he says to children that are in the ●…aith (I mean not infants, for the Scripture was not pe●…n'd to such) concerning their parents, whom, as they are their parents, they are to honour as those, who are by right of Divine institution under a stamp of holiness, and civil sanction towards them as Superiors to be respected in that Relation, whether they be believing parents yea or no: for believing children such as are written to in Paul's Epistles Ephes. 6. 1. 2 Col. 3. 20. may and oft have ungodly parents, as well as believing parents ungodly children, or believing husbands and wives ungodly yoke fellows, yet always to be owned in the Relations, as husbands, wives, parents, children still; thus we see that persons may be vile, and so far to be contemned Psal. 15. 4. yet holy, pure and honourable in their capacities, and so far to be so accounted on, they may be unsanc●…isied in their hearts, and lives, and yet be invested with such a civil sancti●…y by a dint of Divine imposition, and institution as may denominate them severally sanctified in their stations, and natural or civil places of Relation, thus Magistracy and Subjection, Mastership, and Servitude, Marriage, and Propagatio●…▪ of mankind in that way being all holy Ordinances of God, all sanctified by his word and stamp upon them as honourable, and undefiled States and ways, to be and abide in, persons may be unworthy, unclean, unsanctified in their manners, and yet be holy, honourable, sanctified, true ●…gitimate M●…gistrates, sanctified subjects, sanctified Masters, sanctified servants, sanctified wives, sanctified parents, sanctified children, so as to be according to their several capacities reverenced, submitted to, served, protected, provided for, used, owned, lawful to be continued with each by other (side & infidelitate non 〈◊〉) without respect to religion, yea though the Relata, Pu●…a Masters, and husbands, etc. be unbelievers, and the Correlata, viz. servants, wives, be believers in the height. This to resolve the Corinthians in, who might possibly, and very easily be graveled herein, specially considering how that under the law, where the dispen●…ations indeed were different from the Gospels, they were commanded to put away their wives, is the downright, and only business, and design of the Apostle in the fourteenth and following verses, where besides his direction in particular, in this difference of faith and unbelief, when it falls out between man and wife, Master and servant, which two he instanceth in only in this chapter, he gives a general direction to all sorts of persons in every condition, quality, capacity, rank, or relation, to abide therein, if they please, as sanctified and holy, i. e. by civil sanction to abide in, in these words verse 17. viz. But as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one so let him walk, and so ordain I in all Churches, and also in these v. 20. Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called.  
The Sanctification therefore or holiness here talked on is only civil sanction, as to men, wives, and their children, a holiness only Matrimonial, and not a faederal or Covenant holiness (as you dream) unless instead of the holiness of God's Covenant, you mean the faederal holiness, or holiness of the marriage Covenant, or any civil covenant, or tie between superiors in relation, and their subjects, which all indeed, when once solemnly contracted, and entered are also God's ordinance, God's Covenant, which he owns, and will most severely punish the pollution of, therefore as the Harlot that deals treacherously with her husband is said Prov. 2. 17. to forget the Covenant of her God, i. e. the marriage contract; and the Covenant whereby the man and wife are one is said to be of Gods making Mal. 〈◊〉. 14. 15. so God threatening judah for her whoredoms most terribly, Ezek. 16. 38. says he will judge her, as women that break wedlock and shed blood are judged; so likewise did he plague Zed●…kiah when in the capacity of a Prince, he covenanted to give liberty to his Servants, but did not jer. 34. 18. so when in the capacity of a S●…rvant to Na●…uchadnezzar that set him up, he covenanted and swore allegiance to him, but slighted his covenant and broke it, which God calls his own oa●…h and covenant, the breach of which he would recompense on his head, Ezechiel chap. 17. verse 16. 17, 18, 19  
Secondly, let it be considered that the holiness and sanctification here meant, and mentioned what ere it is, is said to be in the unbelieving parent, whether husband or wife, as well as in the children, and therefore it cannot be your faederall or outward Church-covenant holiness, i. e. such a holiness; as entitles to baptism, and intailes Church-membership, Church privileges, and Ord●…nances, to the subjects to whom it is predicated, sith the unbelieving husband and wife are denominated by it too, for as of the children it is said they are holy so of the non-believing yoke-fellows it is said they are sanctified, between which there is no more difference then between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which seem to me but a H●…ndiadis, or double expression of the same thing, and not more unlike than two 6 pences, and a shilling; and will not this ab●…urdity ensue, which I dare say you will evade if you can, if the holiness be such as you say, viz. that the unbelieving husbands▪ and wives must be baptised and inchurched also upon their yoke-fellowes faith, being sanctified thereby as well as the Infants? therefore is it not rather think you a Civil and Matrimonial than an Ecclesiastical, & faederal sanctity? Your usual evasion is this.   

Babist.  
The Parents are sanctified by the faith one of the other, not so as to be in covenant themselves by their sanctification, nor yet so as to be baptised thereupon, but they are sanctified as a holy root, so as to bring forth a holy issue, that hath, by virtue of its holiness, a right to the Church Covenant and Baptism.   

Baptist.  
Then it seems the unbeliever is with you a holy root as well as the other, and giveth holiness to the child, and makes it holy as well as the other parent, yea so holy, that by that concurrence the child is in covenant and to be baptised.  
First, do you not say sometimes that the child hath its holiness from the believing party only, as if there were no influence passing from the unbeliever towards its holiness? why then do you say sometimes again, that from a holiness which is in both they are co-contributers of holiness to the Infant? which of the two is most undoubtedly true, for the holiness what ever 'tis is such (and such it could not be if it were any but Matrimonial) as is in, and equally flows from the unbelieving parent, as much as the believing to the infant.  
Secondly, if the Root be holy are not the branches so; and if the branches be holy is not the root at least as, if not more so, in the same sense, with the holiness of the same kind, which it conveyeth to the branches? and if so, then must not this unbelieving parent being a Roo●…, have the same kind of holiness the child hath? is he not as holy as the child is, and so as capable of being baptised, and in covenant thereby? sith you all agree that Nil dat quod in se non habet, and Quodcunque efficit tale (id est) propriè, est magis tale, whatever is a proper efficient to make another so, or so, must be more so itself, so that if the unbeliv●…g parent be as holy, with your very covenant holiness itself, as his child, must he not as well by virtue thereof be admitted to the same privileges? having though no more faith than his child, yet somewhat else, viz. That holiness that with you entitles to baptism, yea it is more eminently in him than the other: either therefore deny those old received Axioms, and that I think you need not do, for they are truths, or else deny that which is so commonly asserted by you, viz. that the unbelieving parents are sanctified, so as to be holy Roots to their children by the faith of their believing yoke-fellows, as well as the believing yoke-fellows are by their own, and this you will be very loath to do, for you will hardly coin such a handsome shi●…t as that is in haste again, if you let it go, or else deny that the unbelieving husband and wife is sanctified or holy at all, but that you cannot do for the text saith they are hallowed as well, and in the same sense as their children and believing companions are, in being married to them, what sense soever that is, or else grant us they are holy with the holiness we stand for, as that only which is meant in this place, viz. Legitimacy, freedom from the least tin●…ture of uncleanness, and baseness in their cohabitations, generations, and issue, and this I believe you must do when all is done; but than you lose such a supporter of your practice, that let go one more, viz. Act. 2. 38. 39 which must be handled also hereafter; and jachin and Boaz, the two prime pillars that stand by the entry into your Temple, i. e. Infants sprinkling, which is your entering ordinance, will be removed, a matter of no small tendency to its ruin, or else le's see in you rejoinder, for I put these things upon you by way of quaere, expecting to see (if by silence you give not the cause) how well you will distinguish yourselves out of the briers, which your opinion upon the place brings you into, and how well you will wind yourselves out of those many absurdities, which you are led aside into from the way of truth, by the extravagancies and cunning concavities of your crooked logic lane.  
Thirdly, let it be considered that the holiness here predicated of the unbelieving parent and the children, is not such as is the result of the faith, and faederal holiness of the believing parent, (as is so frequently asserted among you) but of the marriage Covenant, which being holy by institution, and honourable among all, and undefiled, gives the denomination of civil sanctity to the unbelieving couple and their seed, as to a couple of believers, and their seed, as also the denomination of honourable in an unbelieving magistrate and master a rises, not from any praise worthy qualification in their persons, much less in the persons of the Correllatives, as you say the holiness of the unbeliever doth from the faith of the believer, but from Divine ordination which constitutes them as holy in their places, this will be evident,  
First, if you consider the manner of speech here used by the Apostle, who says, not th●… unbeliever is sanctified in the believing wife, and believing husband but in the wife, and in the husband, i. e. in her being his wife, and his being her husband, and howbeit its true, which is commonly returned to this, viz. that 'tis the believing wife of the unbelieving husband, and the believing husband of the unbelieving wife, when the marriage is between believers and unbelievers, yet the believing party is not here preferred before the unbelieving parent, as to the conferring of this holiness upon the issue, but they are said to be both, and that by yourselves, who confess they jointly make one holy root, equal in this influence, and are sanctified, not one by the faith of the other, as you suppose the unbeliever to be by the faith of the believer, but both by the ordinance of God, viz. their marriage each of other, so that they both alike do sanctify the issue.  
Secondly, if you consider the true genuine proper direct tendency and weight of this Relative particle [else] which if you allow it a right reference, relates not to the faith or believing of either, but to their being true man and wife, to the lawful wedlock of them both; for that which is the ground of your error about this place is the forcing of this particle [else] the wrong way, for Else, i. e. (say you) if one of the parents be not a believer, than the children are unclean, whereas the sense of it runs thus, vix. else i. e. if you be not holy in your copulations, if you be not sanctified one in, to, and by the other as lawful man and wife, by your union formerly contracted, notwithstanding your now disunion in Religion, than your children are unclean, and this is truth, for so the children are in this civil sense, if begotten, and born out of matrimony, whether the parents be believers or no, bu●… the other is not truth, for whether both or but one or none of the parents believe, the infants for that cause alone, and without respect to matrimony, are in no sense ere the more holy or unclean.  
Thirdly, and this will yet appear more plainly, if you consider that faith alone in either one, or both the parents begetting out of wedlock cannot sanctify the seed so begotten with this civil holiness here meant, no nor with that faederal holiness you plead for, nor could it do so even then, when that holiness or birth privilege you talk of was in force (as now it is not) viz. in the days of the law; for if two believers came together then, out of marriage their seed were not only base born 
f See Mr. Blake in birth privilege p. 5. 11.  and so unclean, in this our sense, but also to the tenth generation uncapable to be admitted into the congregation, and so consequently unclean even in your own, Deut. 32. 2. whereupon (how Pharez and Zarah were dealt with it matters not, sith they were born before the law was given) jeptha was exempted from any inheritance with his brethren, because he was the son of a strange woman, judg. 11. 2. and David's unclean issue by Bathsheba, that in the wisdom of God was taken away by death on the seventh day, might not surely, without breach of the law, have been accounted holy, and of the congregation, if he had lived beyond the eighth, whereupon yourselves also are much fumbled about the holiness of bastards, and the baptism of base-begotten babies, so that you scarcely know how to behave yourselves about it, though the parents sinning be believers, at least enchurched in your Churches, yea it's generally known (saith Mr Cotton 
g P. 87, 88 of the way of the Church in N. England. ) that our best Divines do not allow the baptism of bastards and though he is pleased to say they allow it not sine sponsoribus, without Sureties, yet I wonder, sith Deut. 23 〈◊〉 2. God's denial of such of old is made the ground of their denial of such now, to enter into the Congregation as unholy, that our Divines dare take on them to admit cum sponsoribus, and so to go besides their own Rule, viz. the order of things under the law, wherein God gave no such allowance, but to let that toleration pass, which they take to themselves, you may learn thus much of your selves if you will, that though wedlock without faith make a holy seed in our sense, yet faith without wedlock in the parents can make a holy seed neither in our sense, nor in your own, nor any at all, for the infants of the married are holy; but believers bastards are both civilly, and federally unclean; inso much that yourselves see cause to refuse as federally holy, the spurious seed even of those, whose lawful issue you unlawfully sprinkle.  
Fourthly, if you more seriously consider, that the holiness in the Infant here must needs be the fruit and result of that, and that must needs be the cause of the holiness here spoken of in the infant, quo posito ponitur sanctitas, sublato tollitur, which being in the parents. a holiness must necessarily be thereupon, which not being in the parents, a holiness cannot be in the seed: for positâ causà ponitur effect us sublata tollitur: abstract the cause and the effect cannot be: suppose the cause and the effect cannot but be: now that which if it be not in the parents the holiness is not, but being in them the holiness is consequently in the infants, 'tis not the faith, but the conjugal or marriage Relation of the parents, for as for the first of these, viz. faith, it may be in one, yea in both of the parents, and yet no federal holiness at all be in the infants, witness Ishmael the seed of Abraham the father of the faithful, and his Sons by Keturah also, born of him after Co venant made with him, and his seed in Isaac and jacob, and yet neither of them in that Covenant, witness the base born children of true believers among the Jews, suppose David and Ba●…hsheba, which for all the parents faith could not by the law be admitted in th●… Congregation, nor have that birth-priviledge to be reputed holy, which from the parent's faith you universally entail to the infants: moreover this birth-priviledge and Covenant-holiness by generation, which did inright to Church ordinances, which once was, but now is a nonentity, and out of date, might be then, when it was in being, in children, in whose parents faith was not found at all, for most of the jews were unbeiievers, yet all their legitimate children were holy federally, therefore faith in the parent cannot be the cause of such a thing: yea if you will believe Mr, Blake himself, the strictest pleader for a birth-priviledge of federal holiness in Infants that ever I met with, and that from this very place, he condescends so far as to contribute one contradiction to himself toward the helping of the truth in this case, viz. That faith in the par●…nt is not the cause of this holiness, whilst making the holiness in this text to be a birth privilege, or Church-Covenant holiness, and to be the fruit and result of the faith of the believing parents, and consequently their faith to be the sole and proper cause of the same, he confesses flatly elsewhere page 4. that a loose life in the parent and mis-belief, which is as bad, in some cases worse, than unbelief, (for which is worse to believe false things, or not to believe true?) yea Apostasy from the faith, (which all if they be not inconsistent with faith I know not what is) do not divest, nor debar the issue from having that holiness which (himself says) is meant in this text.   

Babist.  
Perhaps he means not by faith strictly the parents true believing, but in general his being in the covenant, and faederally holy himself, and so a cause of this federal holiness in the issue.   

Baptist.  
First, Paul means true believing here, in 1 Cor. 7. 14. whether M●… Blake do or no.  
Secondly, what will he get as to the point in hand by his Synonamizing faith and faederal holiness, for still neither the one nor the other is made here the cause of the holiness of the seed, for the holiness here spoken of may be where neither of them is, and may not be in the seed, even where they are both in the parent, as for example in Ezras' time, Ezra 10, 3. we find abundance of the Jews, both Priests, and people, that were in the faith, or at least in faederal holiness, yet the children were put away as unholy, as well faederally as otherwise, because their marriage was unlawful, and that bed adulterous wherein they lay with strange wives, Ezra 10. 3. and that both parents possibly may be faithful, and faederally holy, and yet their seed be in all senses utterly unclean is evident, for the child of two believing Jews begotten besides the marriage bed, was both a Bastard, and also barred from the Congregation, Deut. 32. 2. again this faederal holiness as well as faith may be in neither parent, and yet the issue not be unclean, but holy still, and so are all (Matrimonially, and civilly at least) that among Pagans are the issue of the marriage bed; and with the holiness of the Covenant of Grace too, when they come to years, and believe themselves, as not a few children of unbelievers do, and sometimes the seed of Turks and Tartars, this therefore i. e. the faith, or faederal sanctity of the one parent, nor of both cannot be the cause of this sanctity, is here denominated of the seed, for holiness in the infants is not always, when this is, and sometimes it is in the infant, when this is not in the parent, which being of each without other, cannot be between a true cause, and its effect; but as for the second viz. the marriage sanctity in the parents, it is that which being in the parents, holiness is naturally and necessarily in the seed that is born of them, whether they be both or either, or neither in faith or unbelief, but being not in the parents, there can be no holiness, no birth holiness in their infants, nor Matrimonial, nor congregational neither: therefore this is that which is the cause of the holiness of the issue in this Scripture, the result of which, and not of faith in the parents, is this non-uncleanness in their posterity, and so I have done with this kind of holiness, and with this Scripture which speaks of this Matrimonial holiness and no other.  
Thirdly, Ceremonial holiness, I call that same holiness which properly, peculiarly, and pro tempore only pertained to the whole nation, and congregation of Israel, denominating them all holy every one of them, and distinguishing them from all other people, and nations; which during the time of the jews pedagogy, according to Gods own imposition were then accounted sinners, common, and unclean by a certain ens-rationis, an extrinsecall, merely notional, and nominal rather than either real, moral or substantial sort of sin, and uncleanness to which the others holiness was directly opposite, and answerable. The subjects of which Accountative holiness were not only the people of the Jews themselves, which were a holy people Deut. 7. ver. 8. Exod. 22. 31. but also and more specially the Priests, and more specially yet, or in a higher degree, but in the same kind of holiness (for degrees do not vary nature) the High Priests, which were holiness to the Lord, Exod. 39 30. also their parents, which were not matrimonially only, nor often morally, yet (to allow your own phrase here, because they were outwardly in Covenant with God, concerning outward promises and privileges, on performance of outward ordinances) every faederally a holy parentage a holy root, Rom. 11. also their natural (if withal matrimonial) issue, which were not at all in their infancy, and but seldom when at years spiritua●…ly, always faederally holy branches, a holy seed, also their land of Canaan, which was the holy Land, their Metropolitan City jerusalem, which was the holy City, their Temple, which was a holy Temple, the utensils, vessels, 〈◊〉, and other accomplishments, which were all holy, a holy Lavar, a holy Altar, a holy Ark, holy Candlesticks, holy Cherubims, most holy place, etc. and in a manner all things belonging to the Law of Moses, and that first Covenant made with Abraham, and his fleshly seed, whether hollowed or consecrated by God himself, or dedicated to him by men at his appointment, viz. the first born, the first fruits, tithes, offerings, sacrifices, days, feasts, which were all holy, and had relation (as shadows and types for a while) unto things Evangelically, Spiritually, and substantially holy; that were to be there after: yea with this same kind of holiness some meats were holy; some flesh Hag. 2. 12, 13. was holy, some birds, and beasts were sanctified as holy, and lawful to be used, and eaten, when others were prohibited as profane, common and unclean, not so much as to be touched without sin, without contracting such an outward fleshly kind of guilt, and impurity, as made their souls in that ceremonial sense abominable; yea with an uncleanness oppositely answerable to this carnal holiness, those fleshly purities, and purifyings, that then were, some actions, as the touch of a dead body; some issues of men and women, some diseases as the Leprosy, some bodily blemishes as crookedness, dwarfishness, blindness, lameness, yea the very easements, and excrements that passed from them in the camp, without covering, did defile and render them sinners, profane, unclean, unholy and guilty before the Lord, Levit. 5. 2. 3. 5— 11. 43. to 46. also Chapters 14. 15. 22. also Levit. 20. 25. 26— 21. 18. to the 24. Deut. 23. 12. 13. 14. which de●…ilements did then reach to pollute the flesh only, which the blood of Bulls and Goats, that could not cleanse the conscience morally, did sanctify to the purifying of Hebr. chap. 9 ver. 13. neither do these things defile any man now in any such sense at all.  
This is the holiness, which when you say infants of believers are holy; I have ground to persuade myself you Ashford Disputants mean not, but rather some inherent moral holiness, when I consider how you talk of infused habits in the hearts of infants in your Disputation and Review; and yet again I have ground to believe you mean this holiness, which was in the Jewish infants and their implements, if I may imagine your meaning, by what is extant in the writings of your brethren upon the subject, specially if I may measure your meaning by Mr Blakes in his Birth-priviledge, or covenant-holiness of believers and their issue, wherein he lays himself out at large, and yet is too short when all is done in proving from the like under the law, among the people of the jews and their issue, that even now in the times of the Gospel also, a people that enjoy Gods ordinances, convey to their issue a privilege to be reputed by birth, not unclean, but holy persons, and thereupon to be baptised; the absurdity and inconsequence of which doctrine (and so I hope to make it appear, now I am upon it) is little less than if he had argued thus, as the Pope doth from that time to this, viz. there was an Hierarchy or holy principality among the Priests under the law, therefore there must be such another under the Gospel, and as then the high-Priests, Aaron and his Sons who were holiness to the Lord, wore holy garments in their ministration for glory and for beauty, viz. Coats, and robes embroidered with gold and blue, and purple and scarlet, and fine linen, and curious girdles of needle work, and mitres, and holy Crowns upon the mitres, so his Holiness to the Lord, the Highpriest of Christendom Appollyon, and his sons must thus swagger in their service, and be set out in such a holy manner for glory, and for beauty, with his Pontisicalib●…, and most holy sumptuous, superstitious attire: this holiness of the holy Priesthood that then was, and its holy pertinances, that holy people, and holy seed you style very fi●…ly, and I agree with you in the term (for 'twas indeed the holiness of that Covenant that then was, while the first tabernacle, and its worldly Sanctuary was yet standing) a federal holiness, nevertheless though you call it by no name but what I freely allow of, y●…t I call it by one or two names, which though they be as true and properly due to it as the other, and Ep●…thites given ordinarily by yourselves to the holiness of almost every thing else under that Covenant, yet lest it pluck you up by the roots as touching your opinion in this point of infant-holinesse and baptism, I much fear you will hardly allow of them as to the parents and the seed, if you can handsomely evade them by secundum quid, or some such like cleanly distinction: these are first, a ceremonial holiness, the rise of which denomination, and reason why given, are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quasi ad tempus durans, for a time only, its non-continuance to the end, or its non-conveyance downwards from the Church of the Jews, to the times and Churches of the Gospel: Secondly, a typical holiness, as being but a show, shadow or figure of some more excellent holiness to come, for the law and first Convenant had but the shadow of things to come, and not the very image of the things, Heb. 10. 1. I say a typical, and therefore but a temporal holiness, which stood and was seated only in divers outward bodily rites, sacrifices, actions, observations, ordinances, offices, officers, places, gestures, vestures, ornaments, meats, drinks, and a certain fleshly birthright, and title to certain earthly preeminences, dignities, privileges, liberties, inheritances, a kingdom: and all this for the time then being only, and to point out a true, more special, real, spiritual and eternal excellency and glory under the Gospel in order to the manifestation of which all the other was but a pageant, for as the M●…p of that jerusalem that then was, delineates to our capacities the beauty of that earthly fabric, yet is far i●…ferious to the City itself therein deciphered, so the old jerusalem with all her holy things, were but a shadowy representation, and pattern of the New jerusalem, and the true heavenly things themselves, which the other is as far inferior to in worth and real felicity, as any Map of it upon the wall is to the City that is set out, and darkly described by it.  
Thus did their High-priests in all their holiness, yea and kings too (King Solomon specially in all his glory) and their prophets also, in all their materially holy unctions to those several holy functions, type out that one spiritually anointed one of the father, our Lord jesus, though a single person, to his triple office of King, Priest, and Prophet over his Church, so their carnally holy meats, drinks and abstinencies, our spiritual meat and drink, which they are said to eat of in a figure, And our abstinencies from fleshly lusts, and moral pollutions; so their holy 
1 Cor, 10. 1, 2.  washings the washing of Regeneration, and renew●…ngs by the spirit; their holy sacrifices, blood of sprinkling, which (as all the rest) could not make perfect as pertaining to the conscience, but sanctified only to the purifying of the flesh, i. e. the delivery of them from that outward imputation of impurity, and uncleanness that would else have lain upon them, the blood of Christ purging the conscience from iniquities, and dead works wherewith it's defiled, to serve the living God in true holiness and righteousness all the days of our life: so Circumcision of their fleshly seed, which was outward, and in the flesh, tipified, not Baptism (as is simply supposed from Col. 2.) but the Circumcision of the spiritual seed, i. e. believers, newborn babes, begotten to Christ by the word, with the Circumcision made without hands, i. e. sanctification, and cutting of the filthy lusts of the flesh; so their outwardly royal Priesthood, the spiritual royal Priesthood, i. e. the true Saints, who are truly (as the other ceremonially and tipically) a kingdom of Priests, made Kings and Priests to the Lamb, and shall once reign on the earth, 1 Pet. 2. 9 Rev. 5. 10.  
So the outward holiness of their nation tipified, not the same kind of outward ho●…esse of any one Nation taken collectively in the lump, as the whole Nation of England, Scotland, etc. and all their seed (as you ignorantly imagine) but the inward holiness of the holy Nation of true believe●…s themselves, whether parents to wicked children, or children of wicked parents, scattered through all Nations under ●…eaven, these Peter writes to, and calls the chosen generation now, i. e. the Regenaration themselves, not the natural generation of these; also a R●…ll Priesthood, an holy Nation, a peculiar people to God in a spiritual sense, as Israel was in a certain carnal and outward sense before, 1 Pet. 1. 1, 2. 9 ●…o their holy land our inheritance incorruptible reserved in heaven the heavenly country, which we look for with Abraham, Isaac and jacob, with whom we are heirs by faith of the same promise; their holy City, our holy City, which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God, Heb. 11. Rev. 12. Heb. 13. their holy Temple, Gods Evangelically holy Temple, where he will dwell, which Temple ye a●…e, saith Paul to the Church, 1 Cor. 3. Their carnal freedom, our spiritual freedom from sin, which who ere commits is but a servant, for all the other: though born of Abraham, john 8. Their passover, Christ our pass●…over that was sacrificed for us, 1 Cor. 5. Their Rock, our Rock of refreshment Christ; their cloud, Christ overshadowing by day, and enlightening by night his people, 1 Cor. 10.  
Their Manna, Christ, our bread that came down from heaven john 6. their delivery out of Egypt the world's Redemption by Christ; and as sundry other things, of which I cannot now speak particularly, so last (to draw yet a little nearer to the point in hand) their holy seed, issue, infancy tipi●…ied, 〈◊〉 ●…as both corruptly and carnally you conceive) the ●…leshly seed of believing, or i●…-churched Gentiles, for these are in no wise the An●…itype to the circumcised infancy of Israel, but as I hinted before, the truly and spiritual holy seed itself, i. e. believers themselves; or if the seed of believers, not their natural se●…d, but their seed in a spiritual sense, i. e. that are begotten by them, by their words unto the faith; for believers as men beget men only, and no more in that way of bodily 〈◊〉, but as believers they may beget believers, by way of spiritual 〈◊〉, by comunication of the gospel to their consciences, thus Paul was the father of the Corinthians, in Christ jesus begetting them all by the gospel, 1 Cor. 4 15. t●…us he traveled with the Galathians till Christ was formed in them, who●… also he bespeaks, as john also doth his converts, 1 john 2. 1. by the name of my little 〈◊〉, Gal 4. 19 thus far if you will I agree with you, but your cause will be no gainer by this agreement, that as ceremonially holy ones begat ceremonially holy ones under the law, as a type in a way of carnal copulation, so spiritually holy ones beget spiritually holy ones, in a Gospel sense, by their spiritual communion and communication: for as Christ himself, who supremely begets, so true Christians as agents, and instruments under him may be said to multiply, and see their seed when in their endeavours to beget others to the faith, the work, will, way and pleasure of the Lord doth succeed and prosper in their hands; th●… holy seed therefore that answers under the Gospel to that holy seed, the Jews 〈◊〉 under the law, as the substance of that shadow, that with all the re●…is 〈◊〉 ●…d away, is Christ, and his truly, morally and spiritually holy ones only, 〈◊〉 holy seed of the law, or that seed which was holy in the old Covenants 〈◊〉, were but as the leaves of an oak, which though they flourish and make a show ●…r a time, yet at last are cast off and fall to the ground, but the holy 〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉 Gospel sense, i. e. the Saints and true believers, not their natural se●… with 〈◊〉, fo●… they are only Semen carnis, and that not of Abraham neith●…▪ 〈◊〉 the I●…w is who yet hath thereupon only no part, nor portion in this matter) 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 Gentiles, these Saints I say are the true Semen fidei, children of the faith, and 〈◊〉 seed of Abraham, and also the very substance thereof, as Isa. 6. 13▪ as the Prophet there speaks of the truly Godly, so I say the substance of the Church of the jews, now it hath cast it leaves, i. e. all its former figurative holiness, holy Priests, and holy ●…eed, the substance thereof is still in them. For all things under the law and old Testament, even the whole Covenant and Testament itself, as well as every part and parcel of the ●…ame, did but serve unto the example and shadow of the New Testament, will and Covenant that stands ratified by the blood of the Testator, (as neither was the first dedicated without blood) and the more holy and true heavenly things thereof, yea as w●…ll the holy promises that were made to that holy seed, as the holy precepts upon performance of which they were made, and the holy seed itself also to whom the promises were made, and of whom these precepts were required, did exemplify a better Testament, and those better promises upon which it is established, and the better and more spiritual ordinances, which in order thereunto are to be observed, and that better and far more holy seed that observing these ordinances shall at last inherit, which all were to come in under Christ, and before which all the other were to vanish viz.  
First, a heavenly Canaan, Country, Kingdom, inheritance, substance, peace, prosperity, plenty, advancement, rest, immunity; glory answering to all that of Israel's which was but earthly.  
Secondly, the life of faith, and obedience to Christ's law, which is more inward and spiritual Mat. 5. answering that law of commandments, contained in ordinances given by Moses, which was more ad extra and carnal.  
Thirdly, that holy seed which is not of the law of Moses nor of the flesh of Abraham by generation, but of Christ by regeneration the seed or successors of the fai●…h of Abraham, and so heirs with him by that faith of all Gospel-promises, answering Antipically to the other; for though the promise of being heirs of the old Canaan, which was but a spot of the world and picked out as a pattern for the time, was made to Abraham and his seed through the law i e. the children of Isaac and jacob, which were counted for his seed under the law viz. the natural branches of his body (for these only were the heirs of that old earthly legal and t●…pical land of promise, in token of which all the males were circumcised in their ●…lesh) yet the promise that Abraham should be heir of the world; which is the Gospel pointed at, couched and exhibted tipically in the delivery of the other was not made to Abraham and that seed of his through the law (qu●…tales) only, unless they were (as some few were) by faith his seed in the other sense also, but through the righteousness of faith i e. to the branches grafted in by personal believing in Christ Rom. 4. 13, 14. where the Apostle says plainly, that if they which are of the law and circumcision only (meaning the fleshly seed of Abraham) as such, unless they also walk in the steps of that faith which Abraham had, be heirs with him of the world, which is the thing promised in the Gospel than faith, which is made the only term intitling to Gospel-promises is made void, and the promise of just no effect at all: much more may we say if the fleshly s●…d of your Gentile believers, most of which are no believers neither, be heirs of this Gospel-promise, and Gospel-inheritance (as so born) so that they may be signed for heirs by the Gospel-ordinance of baptism, upon that mere and simple account of their parents being believers, without respect to faith in their own persons, than the Gospel requires faith to be acted by us in order to salvation altogether in vain, and to no purpose; ye●… if go●…pel promises and privileges be entailed to me upon my father's being a believer, I need no faith of mine own, as to the making of me an heir thereof, and if it were so as you commonly say, but most horrible in considerately from Acts 2. 39 that the promise of the Gospel is not only to the believers but also to their bodily issue, as barely descending from them, qua sic simpliciter, and without their own personal faith, which in infancy appears no more to be in them then infants of unbelievers, and which if it appears (as oft it doth in unbelievers children when they come to years and not in the other) declares them to be heirs apparent thereof, when the other are not) than I say plainly that all believers children must unavoidably be saved, if God be true in his promise, though when they come to years' th●… never believe, and live never so profanely, the terms being still fulfilled upon which you say the promise is made to them, which is this being born of believing parents, for the profaneness of their lives, and non-believing themselves, Non est causa quo minus, etc. is no cause whereupon they are a whit less the seed of believers after the flesh, and if so (and also that that only gives a title to the promise) than he that made that promise on those terms, viz. being the fleshly seed of believers, the terms of being so born being fulfilled by all the natural seed of believers, be they never so ungodly in their own persons, must be faithful to fulfil his own part, and (their ungodliness non obstante) make it good to them concerning their salvation, which drives you oft to such a Dilemma in discourses, that for your ears almost you dare not answer distinctly to us, when we ask you what that Gospel's promise is, which is made (as you say) to believers infants, and upon what terms it is made to them, beyond the infants of unbelievers?   

Babist.  
We do not say that being born of believing parents only, entitles persons to the Gospel's promises, but they are heirs thereof, and of all the glory, and privileges, and salvation held forth therein as they shall hereafter believe themselves also, and live godly, when they come to years, and not otherwise.   

Baptist.  
Yea say you so? then pray how doth the promise of the Gospel appear to belong one jo●… more to believers children, then to unbelievers? for the believers child (it seems by you now) cannot by promise be saved upon his parent's faith, unless he believe also himself, and then he may, and what is this more than I can say to the full of all unbelievers children, yea and as well of all unbelievers in the world? for even the children of Turks and Pagans, and all the children of all the men upon the face of the Earth shall be saved, upon these terms, viz. believing and obeying the Gospel themselves, when they come to years, whether their parents ever obeyed it, yea or no; where then is the pre-eminence of your believers seed above unbelievers, if you go this way to work? either therefore grant the one, or else the other, viz. either that believers children are heirs of salvation upon their father's faith only without their own, or if you say, not so but by their own faith 'tis that they must be saved, then that the Gospel promise belongs not to believers children beyond other men's, and that one man's seed hath no such birth-priviledge and pre-eminence as you dote of about another's, for unbelievers children may as well as they by promise be saved upon their own faith, when they come to age without their Fathers.   

Babist.  
We can easily answer you to all this by distinguishing upon the promise, thus, The promise of the Gospel is either of salvation, life remission of sins, the holy spirit, as the earnest, and the inheritace itself to come, or else of external privileges only, and participations of Ordinances, as Baptism, Churchmembership etc. the promise of the eternal inheritance, life, and salvation we grant is not made, much less made good to any upon terms of the parents faith, but upon our own personal belief, and obedience, but the promise of outward privileges, and of right to participation of ordinances, as to be baptised, and inchurch●…, this belongs to children upon their father's faith, so that believers children are children of the promise in this sense, when others are not, and in this last sense it is that Peter says the promise is to you, and to your Children etc. i e. you and yours have the privilege of right to baptism.   

Baptist.  
Then it seems you quit the former sense, I pray therefore let us here no more of that till next time however, but let me tell you one thing by the way concerning that first sense, before I say aught to your second; viz, that if the promise of salvation belong to persons upon their own personal belief and obedience (as undoubtedly it doth, according to the whole tenor of the Scripture as to men at years) and such only, then as very a sigment of ours as you feign it to be, 'twill put you to your shifts, to find out what way dying infants are saved in, unless you own another way than that which the Scripture tenders it to men in, for the justification and salvation of infants, viz. the presentment of the righteousness of Christ for them without belief in them, or any other kind of obedience; And sith in such sense as this only you own the Gospel promise to be made by Peter Act. 2. to believers infants, viz. that they shall by right be admitted to outward privileges, as baptism and membership, when others shall not, I beseech you consider what a poor piece of promise is made by him, and what a miserable comforter the Apostle is made by you, in making as if this were all his meaning, and all that he intends by that precious word of promise; I suppose his drift was to support the Jews, now smitten down under sense of sin, and the guilt of Christ's blood which then lay upon them, by propounding to them some ground of consolation, but here is cold comfo●…t in what he saith, if that be all, which you say is, the sense he speaks in, he had spoke little to their purpose, and as good he had said never a whit, as never the better; for this promise (as you take it) hath more matter of mourning in it then otherwise to say you shall be brought nearer to the Church, but never the nearer to salvation thereby, further than you do that which others doing, that are further off the Church, shall be saved so doing as well as you: Sirs you had as good cut off the entail of that piece of promise, which you entitle believers infants to, as cut of the best part of the promise from them, which yet you seem to entail as from their parents to them, for this is not worth a rush without the other, for abstract this great privilege you seem to invest them with, from that which you divest them of by this distinction, and its worth little or nothing, if not plainly worse than nothing, without the other: what better to be under a promise of being privileged with, and what privilege at all to be admitted to this, and yet to be no more, nor upon any other terms under the promise of the inheritance itself, than others, such as were yet never at all signed to it: Is it not r●…ther a burden and a bondage? for outward ordinances verily are part of the preceptory part of the Gospel, and the precept in point of ordinances, as well as in point of manners, is part of the yoke and burden of Christ, and of the hard sayings of his, which flesh and blood brooks not to hear off, for though the way of Christ is light and easy, and not grievous where it is lessened by thoughts of the recompense of reward, yet is it in itself a burden, and a yoke, and such a one too as considering the sufferings of all such as submit to own it, well nigh wearies them that walk under it, though under clearest title to the Kingdom, for which they suffer, much more may it be a misery, and not a mercy to such, who have a promise of being barely admitted to it, but no more of life and salvation, or at least upon no other terms, than such as have not the privilege to be admitted to it yet at all; if the promise to believers and their children run only thus, viz: you shall stand under the title of the holy people of God, under rightto outward ordinances, when others shall not, not only you, but also your children shall be baptised and inchurched, but neither you nor they ever the sooner saved, as born of you, further than together with you they shall believe and obey me in all things, in which case of faith and obedience all unbelievers in the world, and their children shall be saved, as soon as either you or they, it is as much as to say, the promise of a liberty and freedom to partake of the ordinance, is to you and your children above others, but the promise to partake of the inheritance is as much to all others and their children as to you, and yours; what most comfortless comfort is this, to men cast down under sense of sin, and guilt? what a piteous pla●…ster is here applied to men wounded in conscience, and smarting under the direful apprehensions of God's wrath? besides what exquisite nonsense do you make the Apostle speak, if his words be taken in your sense, for they must run thus, viz. first, by way of precept, repent and be baptised you and your children, in the name of Christ for remission of sins, and then by way of encouragement thus, viz. so this great privilege of being baptised shall belong to you and your seed, which impenitent unbaptised ones, and their seed shall not enjoy, but the promise of salvation and remission of sins is made no more to you then unto them: this is to restore them from their contrite and weather beaten condition, and to invest them cum privilegio with a witness, yet this is all the privilege, if the promise here made to these parents, and their children be of no more than being outwardly incovenanted, i.e. inchurched by baptism (as you say it is.) But undoubtedly it must be otherwise then thus for all your saying and the promise, take it which of these two ways you will, viz. for the mere tender or proffer of the thing (as the word promise is sometimes used) or for the thing itself proffered or promised (in which last sense its mostly taken) it must needs be of some more excellent matter, then mere outward membership in the Church on ●…arth, ab●…ract from all true and immediate title to remission of sins and salvation: yea verily its most evident that the thing here promised is no less than remission of sins and salvation itself, for as no less is expressed in the very text wherein he names remission of sins and the holy spirit, which elsewhere is called the earnest of the inheritance, so unless you will divide the children from sharing alike with their parents in that promise which in the self same sentence, terms and sense is propounded alike to them both, so as to say the word promise is to be understood of remission of sins, and salvation as in relation to the parents, but of an inferior thing viz. a right to ordinances only as in relation to the infants which were intolerable absurdity to u●…ter, it must necessarily be meant of one and the same kind of mercy to the children, as is exhibited therein to the parents; yea and upon the same terms too, and no other than those upon which i●…s tendered to the parents viz. personal repentance and obedience, and so consequently of remission of sins and salvation, and not of such a trivial title to external participation only as you talk on, which if it be, then unless you assert that God hath promised salvation absolutely to all the natural seed of believers, upon those very terms only as they are their seed, which you are ashamed to stand to, the promise, mean which you will by that word promise in this text, whether the bare proposal, or the salvation propounded, or both, upon these terms belongs of right not only to believers and their posterity, but also to all men and their posterity to, without difference, when at years of capacity to neglect or perform them throughout all ages and places of the world; for as the gospel or glad tidings of salvation are commanded by Christ Mark 16. 15, 16. to be preached or proffered to every creature at years to hear and understand, though not to infants on terms of belief and baptism, so assuredly those terms being performed, the salvation so promised shall be enjoyed accordingly, if he hath any truth in him, who said ●…e that believeth (i.e. lives and dies in the faith of Christ) and is baptised, shall be saved; and Paul likewise Rom. 3. 22. intimates no less, saying that the righteousness of God which is by faith of jesus Christ is unto all, and upon all them that believe, and there is no difference; so that if they that are now unbelievers and unbelievers children also shall hereafter believe, with such faith as shows itself by obedience, which kind of faith only the Scripture means, the promise of salvation and remission of sins is as well unto them, as unto those that do now both believe themselves, and were also born of believing parents, yea and the promise of the holy spirit also Prov. 1. 22. 23. for indeed God so loved the world (not mundum electorum only ex mundo electum) that he gave his only begotten Son, not to condemn one person more than another, but as they should personally reject him, but that the world through him might be saved, that whosoever in it i.e. in all the world, not in the world of Elect (for that sounds as if some of the elect may believe, and some not) doth believe might not perish, but have everlasting life john 3. 16. 17. 18. 19 All which things well and wisely weighed, he is blind that sees any more birth-priviledge or right by birth to salvation, or the promise of it in believers seed, then in unbelievers; neither is there now any more privilege at all in any one man's natural seed above another's, save the mere hopefulness of education and advantage of instruction in the way and means of salvation, which may possibly befall believers children more than others, though in case it happen (as it may possibly also do) that believers children have their breeding among 〈◊〉, and the children of very Indians among believers, in that case these last have not only no less privilege, as to the promise of salvation by bare birth, but a privilege also by that breeding beyond the other.  
That therefore the promise of the Gospel-Covenant in any sense in the world is made to believers seed (as barely such) more than to the natural seed of unbelievers. can never be proved by the word, while the world stands, yea the very contrary is most evidently proved in this place Act. 2. 38. 39 if we consult no other Scripture besides it. For  
First, neither were these parents' believers as yet when Peter said the promise is to you and to your children, but only were pricked at the heart upon some measure of conviction, that the person whom they had crucified was the Lord of life, which thing the v●…ry Devils believe and tremble at; for in order unto the begetting of that saving faith, which yet they had not, he spoke these words of encouragement, and exhortation to them, and this to the contradiction of Mr. Vahan who d●…ag'd in an Argument by the head and shoulders from this place at the Ashford disputat●…on, was ingenuously acknowledged by Mr. Prig. Nor  
Secondly, doth Peter make the promise any otherwise to them and their children then he doth to all others in the world i.e. on condition of their coming in at Gods call, tis says he to you and to your children, and to them that are far off, i.e. all manner of persons, even so many in all nations and generations as the Lord our God shall call i.e. as are prevailed with to come when God calls them, which to be the sense of this place is further illustrated by that pararel place of Paul, Heb. 9 15. where he says thus, viz. they that are called received the promise of eternal inheritance. Nor  
Thirdly, when the parents did believe and were baptised, were any of their infants baptised with them (as they must have been had that promise been to their infants as well as to themselves, on that single account of being their seed) for recording how many were baptised at that time, he concludes them under such a term, as excludes the infants from that day's work, while he says thus, as many, meaning no more than those (for else he deceives us utterly in his Relation) as gladly received the word (this infants could not do) were then baptised, which number, as they are recorded to be about 3000 might in likelihood have amounted to three times 3000, if all the infants of all those had been dipped also.  
Fourthly, nor were there any more inchurched that day among the rest, but such as gladly receiving the word, were then and thereupon baptised, for of these only it is said, and not of infants, they continued together in the Apostles doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread and prayers; but all their infants must have been inchurched also as well as they, if equally with their parents, and by virtue of the same promise, the right of Church-membership had belonged to them. Besides  
Fiftly, It crosseth the current of all other Scripture to put such male-construction upon this, for that the promise of old, I mean the old promise of the Law; which was of the earthly Canaan, and but a type of this did appertain unto a fleshly holy seed I grant, but that the new covenant, or Gospel promise is made to any man's fleshly seed (as such so that thereupon we may baptise them in token of it, before they are called to profess faith in Christ) is a thing, which I confess I found in the common high way, when I looked not after it, but since I searched narrowly for it I could never see it; Sure I am the Scripture holds forth no other seed of Abraham himself to be heirs with him of the heavenly Canaan but his spiritual seed, i.e. believers, that do his works, nor doth it own any but these to the right of membership, and fellowship in his family, i.e. the now visible Church, for the visible Church is Abraham's family in all ages, as well under the Gospel as under the Law, & Abraham's house i.e. the visible church as 'tis under the Gospel is much altered from that it was under the law, yea so differently is it constituted, and totally translated from its Mosaical form, that it is even turned up side down, and in a manner nothing remains the same it than was, as the covenant is not the same with that of that of the law, so neither is any thing else, that appertains to it, but every thing at it were divers from the other, and no way answerable save as the Antitype is answerable to the Type; for neither is there the the same Mediator, nor the same Priesthood, nor the same Law, (for the Priesthood being changed, there must of necessity be also a change of the Law, Heb. 7. 12.) That being the Law of a Carnal Commandment only, in the observation of which perfection was not to the conscience, for it●… sanctified only to purifying of the flesh, i.e. from those outward fleshly, not moral uncleannesses, and therefore with the ordinances thereof called carnal, Heb. 9 9 this the power of an endless life, i.e. available, not to that temporal typical cleansing, purifying, and pardon only, for the procuring of a Temporal life, or well being in Canaan, but to the obtaining of an eternal life, by procuring remission of moral pollution Heb. 9 13, 24. nor is there now the same Lawgiver under God that then was, that being Moses the Servant, who yet was faithful to him that appointed him in all his house the fleshly Israel, for a Testimony of those things which were to be spoken after, this Christ the son, who was worthy of more glory than Moses, and is now over his own house, whose house we are that believe to the end, Heb. 3. 2. 3. 5. 6. Nor yet the same Promises, that being of of an earthly, this of an heavenly inheritance; nor yet the same holy Nation, holy people, holy seed, to which the promises are made, that being the typical promised seed Isaac and his posterity, this the true promised seed, i.e. Christ, and his seed, i.e. all the Saints, that are born of God by faith in him Gal. 3. 16. to Abraham and his seed were the promises made, he saith not unto Seeds as of many, but as of one, and unto thy seed, which is Christ; nor the same ordinances, and administrations signing the inheritance, those being circumcision, the Passeover; these baptism in water, and the Supper; nor lastly the same subjects for those ordinances, those being by nature jews or atleast by profession, and their Male seed only (as to the one) Male and Female as to the other, and that whether believing yea or no, these nor jews nor Gentiles by nature only (but all persons whether jews or Gentiles, Males or Females, yet only as believing; for verily so far are the natural posterity of believing Gentiles (as such, and as yet not professing to believe themselves) from being heirs apparent with Abraham of Gospel promises, and privileges, and from title to the Gospel ordinances, that sign them, and from being holy ones by birth, as the jew once was, and as Mr. Blake contends for it that these are, and from the repute of Abraham's seed in the sense of the Gospel, that even Abraham's own natural seed (as such only) are not at all his seed in this sense at this day, nor at all holy with that kind of birth holiness they once had (for that is ended and abolished in Christ crucified) nor entailed as heirs of that Canaan, without faith and repentance in their own persons, which and no other, are the terms inrighting thereunto, to any of these Gospel ordinances at all, and all this will be seen most undoubtedly to be true, by him that searches the Scripture, which testify no less, and because this is the yery Root, and Knot in the state of this controversy, the unfolding and laying open of which will discover the whole mystery of your mistakes in this point, all which arise originally from your erring in it (for Error minimus in principio fit major in medio, maximus in fine) pray have me excused both in that I have been hitherto so long, and in case I be yet a little longer on this matter.  
First then let it be considered that Abraham's own seed, even that seed that were heirs with him by promise of the Earthly Canaan, though born of his body now by Isaac and jacob as truly, though more remotely then of old, of his body (I say) that was the greatest believer that ever was (Christ only excepted) and therefore must much more than any other believer (if any believer at all could) by his faith confer a right to Gospel privileges upon his seed, even these are not his seed in the Gospel account, no●… his heirs according to this Gospel promise, nor as barely born of his body to be baptised and enchurched, and this I shall make plain unto you from many Scriptures the first whereof is Romans 9 6. 7. 8. In which I beseech you to observe how the Apostle there denies Abraham's own natural children the name of Abraham's seed in the sense of the Gospel; first mark how he magnifies them exceedingly, and sets forth their dignity and pre-eminence above all other people, under the name of Israelites, as to whom pertained the adoption, and the glory, and the Covenants; i e. both Testaments the type and the antitype, unto whom then pertained not only the giving of the law, but also the promises (for verily the several excellencies of both law and Gospel, upon the several terms upon which both were established, did in more special sense belong unto that people at that time, then to any people under the Sun, yea the first covenant, and the promise thereof the Earthly Canaan and all the privileges and ordinances signing it did pertain to them, as the proper heirs thereof, by bare fleshly descent from Abraham, Isaac and jacob; yea all that was theirs ipso facto (as so born) without more ado, whether they were believers or not believers, as to the Gospel; and as for the Gospel covenant, which is now belonging to them in common only with all other men, in one respect it did principally pertain to them above all others, till they lost their pre-eminence, viz. not in respect of any right to it they had by birth whether they received it, yea or no, but in respect of the first tender thereof, which, when it came in fuller force to be ratified to the world in the preaching of the Gospel, was by special order and appointment from God, in the first place to be tendered unto them, nor was it carried at all to the Gentiles, till these Jews had both slighted and rejected it, when brought to them in the Ministry of Christ and john; in proof of which see in Mat. 10. 5. 6. 7. where the Disciples sent forth to preach are forbidden to go in any way of the Gentiles, or to any save the lost sheep of the house of Israel; yea they were the Children whose bred this was at that time; and which till they loathed it, was not to be given to the Dogs, excepting a few Crumbs of it, I mean to the Gentiles, who till the Partition Wall was broken down between them, and the jews by Christ crucified, were accounted Dogs, Common, unclean, sinners by nature, in a certain ceremonial sense in reference to the Jews, who then by birth were holy in a ceremonial sense, now vanished, then answering as opposite to that birth uncleanness of the Gentiles, Ma●…. 15. 24. 25. 26. 27. see also Mat. 22. 3. where the jews are said to be first bidden to the wedding, so Luke 24. 46. 47. where Christ commands that in their preaching the Gospel to all Nations, they should first begin at jerusalem; and so we see they did, after his ascension Act. 2. see also Act. 3. 25. 26. where the Jews are said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 T H E Children of the Gospel's Covenant, in respect that unto them first God sent his son to bless them, in which respect they are said Mat. 8. 12. to be T H E Children of the Kingdom, i. e. the heavenly Kingdom which yet they were cast out into utter darkness from any enjoyment of, for their non-acceptance of it; so Act. 13. 46. where Paul says to the Jews that 'twas necessary that the word of the gospel should be first spoken to them; so Acts 28. 28. 'tis said, the salvation of God, which the jew rejected, was from henceforth sent to the Gentiles: Notwithstanding all which glory, and pre-eminence of this people Israel, whose were the fathers also, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, Paul, after he had showed their high prerogatives above others, comes with Alas, and great sorrow of heart, and much bewailing for their infidelity to exclude them, even all of them, save those few with whom the word of the Gospel took effect, so as to gain them to believe, notwithstanding the ancient and legal title, from the very name of Israelites, and from standing Abraham's children now any longer, for saith he (as who should say the more is the pity) They are not all Israel, that are of Israel, i. e. all that are Israelites after the flesh, are not the Gospel Israelites, or Israelites in the Gospel's account, because few of them did receive it; all that were Abraham's seed after the flesh, and stood in his family, i. e. the visible Church of old, as being his seed cannot stand so now, for belivers only, and such as are Christ's by faith are counted for the seed: that this is the meaning of those words is most evident by them that follows for (saith he) neither because they are the seed of Abraham, i. e. his fleshly seed, are they called children, i. e, his children thereupon, as to his Gospel Covenant, but in Isaac i. e. Christ in the Antitype shall thy seed be called, that is (saith he) expounding himself, and alluding to what was done Allegorically, as in a figure, as concerning Ishmael and Isaac in Abraham's family of old, the children of the flesh these are not the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted for the seed; the children of the flesh, by which he means those that were born of Abraham's body by Isaac, who now stands in reference to Christ, as Ishmael did in the house of old in reference unto him, these are not the children of God, but the children of the promise, (such was Isaac in the legal, typical, ceremonial and carnal account in relation to Ishmael, for not Ishmael but he and his posterity were the promised seed, which should inherit the old Canaan, and such is Christ in the real, spiritual, Evangelical and everlasting account in relation unto Isaac himself, for not Isaac and his seed as they were Abraham's seed by Sarah, though they were the children of the promise of the earthly Canaàn, and a promised seed in respect of Ishmael, but Christ who is the true Isaac, and those that believe in him, among whom si●…h Isaac was one he will inherit here also, as else he could not, these are the promised seed that must inherit heaven, Rom. 4. 13, Gal. 3. 16. these children of the promise, i. e. these that are of Christ by faith, and so his seed after the faith, are accounted Abraham's seed, his sons and heirs of the world with him, and of the eternal inheritance.  
A clearer illustration of this to be the true sense and meaning of the spirit in Rom. 9 you have in Gal. 3. 7. 9 where the Apostle uses this term, viz. [they which are of the faith] to express no other than the very same persons, whom he here styles the children of the promise, know ye (saith he there) that they which are of the faith, i. e. which believe (for none else are of faith that I know of) the same are the children of Abraham, and blessed with faithful Abraham, he saith not they which be of Abraham's flesh, for such neither are accounted his children, as to the gospel promise, nor simply as such are heirs thereof with him, muchless doth he say or mean, that those which are born of the bodies of them that be of faith, are Abraham's children; and such as must be signed as his sons, and heirs by baptism, in such wise as his own fleshly seed were signed by Circumcision as heirs with him of the old Canaan: yet these are your common sayings, who raise such a sort of seed to Abraham at second hand, or third remove, as will never be able to prove their pedigree, or descent from him, either after the flesh, or after the faith either, till they believe themselves, whilst they breathe on earth, as if because Abraham is the spiritual father of all that believe and walk in his steps, and they his seed, and sons and heirs with him by promise of eternal life, therefore he must patrizare to all their natural posterity too, and be the spiritual father not of their persons only, but of their offspring also: But Sirs, let me tell you he is not so much as a father to his own seed in the Gospel sense, neither can they stand his children; or the children of God, and heirs of the heavenly blessing and kingdom, because they come out of his loins, unless they do as he did, for though his fleshly seed as a type for the time then being, stood denominated the children of God, and holy in an outward sense, and heirs according to the earthly promise, yet that account is gone now, and there's no other way whereby the jews themselves, much less any generations among the Gentiles, can be styled the children of God or Abraham, so as to expect the gospel portion, but believing in Christ jesus in their own persons, Gal. 3. 26. 29. Ye are all the children of God by faith in jesus Christ: if ye be Christ's then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.  
Another place which clears it that Abraham's own seed in the old Covenants account are not his own in the account of the gospel, so as barely thereupon to stand in any title to either the privileges or ordinances thereof, or to fellowship now in his family, is john 8. where Christ being cavilled at by the jews for promising them the privilege of the Gospel-freedom from sin,, to which they were slaves, servants and bondmen (for all that legal freedom they did so boast of) upon faith and continuance in his words, discovers so plainly that a man may run and read it, the discarding of the Jews from all these three things which I am now proving, that for want of faith, they are perished from them since the gospel.  
First, from the repute and denomination of Abraham's children any longer.  
Secondly, from any share in the glorious, or spiritual blessing of the Gospel.  
Thirdly, from any right of abiding longer in the Church, which they were the children of before, which Church (as visible) now as well as then, and to the end of the world, since Gods conferring the fatherhood of the faithful upon him, is called the house or family of Abraham.  
First, they say in a snuff two or three times o'er, that they are Abraham's seed v. 33. that Abraham is their father v. 39 that they are not born of fornication (meaning as Ishm●…el the Son of the bondwoman, or servant to their mother Sarah was▪ but they had one father, even God v. 41. to which Christ replies, not by denial of any of all this, for 'twas true every tittle in that sense, in which they meant it, i. e. the typical sense and meaning of the old Covenant, yea they were Abraham's children, and this Christ confesses in plain terms verse 37. I know you are Abraham's seed; yea they were also the children of God by an outward and typical adoption of them unto himself, as his peculiar ones, and heirs of that typical inheritance, Ezek. 16. 8. etc. but by telling them that Abraham's children are accounted of otherwise now then formerly, viz. not as coming out of his loins, but as doing his works, as being like him, and allied to him, not so much after the flesh as after the faith: whereupon they not yet believing, he denies them to be, and goes about to prove them not to be Abraham's children in the true and substantial sense, in this Hypothesis verse 39 if ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham, to which do but add the minor, viz. but ye do not the works of Abraham, and the conclusion follows thus, viz. therefore ye are not the children of Abraham: you see Christ asserts them to be Abraham's children in the old account, so as to stand members of the old house, but denieth them to be Abraham's children in the sense of the new.  
Secondly, they say they are free men, and were never in bondage to any man, to which Christ replies by granting it was so indeed, in the outward typical sense that they were free men, and true heirs of that earthly glory, that was promised to Abraham in that old Canaan, but denies them to be freemen as to the gosspel, with that heavenly freedom of the jerusalem, which is above the mother of all true believers Gal. 4. 26. yea in those spiritual respects, in which the Son makes free indeed those that know and receive the truth and gospel, they were but servants verse 34. and in bondage to sin, which is the greatest slavery of all, as also Paul says Gal. 3. 25. that jerusalem was, which was of old, and was in bondage with her children, so he says for all their Sonship, yet in truth they are but servants and not sons, he grants their Sonship, freedom, and title to the old inheritance, but denies their son and heirship as to the new.  
Thirdly, they boast and bless themselves in their standing in the house or family of Abraham, i. e. the Church, as to the ordinances, rights and privileges whereof who but themselves had the title? for this indeed was their advantage of old, that to them were committed all the oracles of God, to which Christ replies, true they did stand in the house for a time, yet but for a time, and though sons and heirs in the laws typical sense, yet they were were but servants in the Gospels, because they believe not in him, and being but servants (as Moses and all his house or church the old Israel were, in comparison of Christ the Son, and his house or Church, i. e, the Saints) they must anon be packing out of the house, and abide in the Church i e. Abraham's family no longer, that the true Sons and heirs may come in, i. e. believers, who are the blessed seed to whom only the Gospel-promises and privileges do belong, ver. 35. And the servant (saith he) abideth not in the house for ever, but the son abideth ever, if therefore the son make you free, and that he doth not for all your former freedom, unless you believe in him, and continue in his words, then shall ye be free indeed, even to the glory, oracles and blessings of the spiritual house the Gospel-church, which else you must be cut off from for ever: thus Christ tells them, and so indeed it came to pass within a while, for not believing and repenting, which are the only terms ●…at give right and admittance to the ordinances and fellowship of the Gospel, these jews though natural branches of Abraham still as much as ever, if being the fleshly seed of a believer could have steaded them at all, as to a standing here, were yet clean broken off from the Root Abraham, as he stands a Root to all the faithful, because only of unbelief, Rom. 11. 20. when such as were wild olives, and no kin at all to Abraham after the flesh, were in their own persons, but not their natural seed with them (save as they believed with them) owned as his children by believing, and as members of the true Church under the Gospel. And this was also most directly declared by john the Baptist, and the rest of the first ministers of the Gospel, who would not admit of the Jews as Jews, though Abraham's own seed, and holy by birth, and members thereupon of that Church under the law to baptism, and membership in the Gospel-church, when they offered themselves upon the aforenamed terms, without faith, repentance, and amendment; for howbeit the Pharisees and Saducees and the whole multitude of people came forth to be baptised of john, Mat, 3. 7. etc. Luke 3. 7. etc. pretending and pleading that if baptism were a Church-priviledge, it must needs belong to them, as who were the children of Abraham, yet see how he rounds them up as having no part nor portion in that matter: O generation of vipers (saith he) who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? as if he had said, what have you to do with that remission of sins, righteousness and redemption from wrath to come, which I preach and baptise in token of, being though invested with circumcision, Church-membership and other legal rites and privileges, yet corrupt and crooked in conversations? bring forth therefore, i. e. to the end that you may be admitted, baptised, and inc hurched here, fruits answerable to amendment of life, and begin not, (its like that plea was in their thoughts and mouths too, whereupon he puts them off from it) think not to say that we have Abraham to our father, we are the seed of such an eminent believer, for God is able of these stones to raise up children to Abraham, i. e. God will, without being beholding to you, raise a seed to Abraham, rather than want them, from among these stones, which whether he means stones literally, or the Gentiles which were yet as stocks and stones in their eyes, I leave you further to examine, but thus much we may gather hence however, that even in that very time wherein the birth-priviledge and holiness of a fleshly seed stood in full force and power unrepealed (as then it did) so far as to give right to all ordinances of the law, yet, even than I say before, how much more since the Abrogation thereof by faith, Abraham's own seed could not, much less than may the seed of believing Gentiles, now it's repealed, (as such) be admitted to baptism without repentance: the Jews as impenitent and unbelieving as they were, stood uncast out of the Jewish Church, while that Jewish Church itself was yet standing, but they could not pass per saltum out of that Church into the Gospel Church, nor immediately from their right to circumcision, which mere fleshly birth gave them, prove their right, without somewhat more, to baptism; yet thus they might have done, if what gave right of old to one of these ordinances, doth in like manner inright persons to the other,  
And this that Abraham's own natural seed do not now stand his seed, so as thereupon only, or at all to stand in this house of Abraham, i. e. the visible Church of the Gospel, and in title to the promises and privileges thereof, is further and more lively figured out to our undestandings in that admirable allusion of Paul to the things transacted of old, as a type hereof in the family of Abraham, between the two mothers and their children, viz. Hagar and Sarah, Ishmael and Isaac, Gal. 4. 21. to the end, where (to give you but a hint of the thing, that you may follow it in your own thoughts at leisure) having first related what is written of Abraham's having two sons, one by his bondmaid Hagar, viz. Ishmael, that was born after the flesh, the other by the free woman, or his true wife Sarah, viz. Isaac, who though born of Abraham's flesh as well as the other, yet because he was promised to come of Abraham's true spouse Sarah, long before he did, was said to be born by promise, he asserts these things to be an Allegory, i. e. things which though really and truly done, yet were done also in a figure, and as a shadow of some other things to come viz. the two Covenants and two seeds of Abraham thereunto belonging, or the two several Jerusalem's or Churches of the law and the Gospel, with their several children viz. the fleshly seed of Abraham and the spiritual, each answering respectively, not only as antitypes to their several types, that pointnd at them, whether the maid and her son, or the mistress and hers, but also inter se invicem, as the two mothers and their children did, each of them unto the other, for these (saith he) i. e. these two mothers and children, the bondwoman and her son, and the freewoman and her son, are the two Covenants or testaments, meaning in signification, or in way of resemblance of them, the one from mount Sinai, the other from mount Zion, both spoken of, and to the life also pointed out one o'er against the other in Heb. 12. 18. to the end, that from mount Sinai, or that Testament, which was given in the hand of the Mediaror Moses, that gendereth to bondage, or enthrawles her children, this is Hagar, for this Hagar who brought out her son to bondage is (saith he) mount Sinai in Arabia, or that law of Moses given on mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to, i. e. as a type points out, and signifies the jerusalem that now is, i. e. the Church of the jews before Christ, which notwithstanding her children's abode i●… the house of Abr●…ham, and her Hagarlike flaunting, and vaunting herself over the other for a time, as if she were the only mistress, whose seed must inherit all, yet in comparison of the true mother, and her seed, viz. the gospel jerusalem, which was yet to come, was but in bondage with her children, and must when that seed once should come in, be chashiered and cast quite and clean out of doors as a seed to be no more accounted on, so far as to abide with the other: for nevertheless; ay, e. all her present liberty, and immunity notwithstanding, what saith the Scripture? (says he) cast out the bond woman and her son, for the son of the bond woman shall not be heir with the Son of the free woman, i. e. the seed of the old Covenant of the Earthly jerusalem, viz. the natural seed of Abraham, shall not share in privileges, nor the inheritance promised in the Gosspel together with the spiritual seed, viz. the believers or children of the Church under the Gospel.  
Thus as Hagar, and her son Ishmael, that stood in Abraham's house a while, and were proud and insolent, as if they should have dwelled there for ever, were at last packed out before Isaac the true son and heir by promise of the old inheritance, and ordinance, when he was born, and before Sarah, who would not endure to have Ishmael have any portion in Canaan, or any room in the house with her son Isaac, so also Sarah herself, and her son Isaac, I mean the fleshly jerusalem, and Jew that dwelled as Mistress, and heir for a time in the house, inheriting only some outward excellencies, and enjoyments, were at last, being found mocking thereat, cast out of the house, i. e. the Church, the Sonship, the glory, and all before the true Mother and her children, viz, the Gospel Church or true Sarah, and the true Isaac, Christ and his Saints, or seed of Believers, who will not bear not brook it to have a mere fleshly seed, though of Abraham himself, much less of any Gentile believers, to dwell with them in the family: Isaac and the fleshly Israelites were by promise to inherit the old Testament privileges, and the Ishmaelites were not suffered (as such) to partake with them therein; Christ and believers are by promise to receive the eternal inheritance, nor is any man's fleshly posterity, no not Abraham's own by Isaac, I mean the Israelites themselves (as such) permitted or promised to participate therein: Ishmael though as Abraham's seed after the flesh he had a portion, yet had nothing to do with that of Isaac the child of promise in the type; Isaac though Abraham's son, not only after the flesh, but by promise too (as in reference to Ishmael) and so in true title to a better portion than Ishmaels', viz. the Earthly Canaan, and that as a type for a time, yet being but his fleshly seed in comparison to Christ, and believers, and by his bare fleshly birth (save only that he was a spiritual child also by believing) as inferior to them, as Ishmael was to himself, hath nought at all to do (as the fleshly seed of Abraham) with that heavenly portion that belongs to these.  
Now than if it be so (and so it will appear to him that doth not trifle, but truly understand the Scriptures, and this last especially which with many more viz, Heb. 8. Heb. 9 speak expressly of two distinct covenants or Testaments, made with two sorts of seeds of Abraham concerning two Canaan's, viz. an Earthly and a Heavenly, whereof one all along was a type of the other, for a time only, and now ended, contrary to all our blind Seers, that confound, and blindly blend both of them into one) if so I say that Abraham's own sons by bodily birth are not now his own in Gospel account, nor heirs (as so born only) of the Gospel promise and inheritance, nor house dwellers in the Gospel Church, for want of personal faith, though Abraham's children after the flesh still as much as ever, than I cannot but stand amazed at the perverseness of you the Priesthood in three things.  
First in that merely because you and your people do believe (and I would to God you did believe, for so but few, for all your flourish of either you or your people do indeed) therefore you count your natural seed the seed of Abraham, this you express in plain terms in your Review p. 14.  
Secondly in that, even Eâtenùs, as your children only, you hold them heirs of the promise of the Gospel covenant made with Abraham.  
Thirdly in that you sign them as visibly such by Baptism (as you call it) and thereby admit them into membership ●…n the Gospel Church (as you call it) and having yet no evidence of their belief, conclude them under a true title to all outward ordinances, save such as upon your own heads only you keep from them, if by the word they have such title to Church-fellowship, as you say they have, viz. the Supper, of which you make them snap short, as much, and as groundles●…ly to the full (if baptism at all belong to them) as we in baptism.  
Sirs, let me reason with you a little, and beg some cool consideration, and ingenuous answer from you concerning these particulars.  
First which way come your natural seed, you being but Gentiles in the flesh, to be the seed of Abraham?  
Secondly why do you, or how can you sign them as heirs of the Gospel promise so simply upon that account only? there are but two seeds of Abraham that I know of in all the world, viz.  
1. His seed after the flesh, and such are all those that are born of his body, viz. Ishmael, and his Children by Keturah, to whom he gave portions, and those that came of him by Isaac and Jacob, which only (for Esau sold his birthright) were heirs with him of the Land of Canaan.  
2. His seed after the faith, and such are those only that walk in his steps Rom. 4. 12. that do his works John 8. Who are also by that same faith which denominates them his children, said to be Christ's also, and the children of God, and heirs with him of the world according to the Gospel Promise, Rom. 4. 12, 13. Gal. 3. 16. 1 Cor. 3. 21. 22. 23.  
Non datur tertium semen Abrahae: two seeds of Abraham the Scripture mentions, but a third fort cannot be assigned, all and only those that descend from his loins as the Midianites and others by Keturah, the Ishmailites by Hagar, the Edomites and Israelites by Sarah, which last only were the holy seed, and children of promise in reference to the Hagarens in a type and sole heirs of the typical Canaan, all these I say were the first sort, all believers, of what nation soever, are the second sort, but the natural seed of believers are neither of the one nor of the other.  
As for the children of the Proselytes, i. e. jews not by birth, but profession, which by way of exception against this may possibly pop into some of your minds, I utterly deny them (as so born) to be any seed of Abraham at all, or heirs of either inheritance, unless they believed also, though their parents (believing) might be his spiritual seed, and heirs of the heavenly inheri●…ance; and if you ask why then was every male among the infants of Proselytes circumcised? I answer not upon any such account as their being Abraham's seed, or heirs with him of either this or that, but merely as they were Males in the house of one that was a Jew, at least by devotion, though a stranger as to fleshly relation, that being the express command of God, for th●… time then being, and during the standing of that Covenant of circumcision (the like to which if you had for infant-baptism, the controversy were at an end between us) that every man child in every family throughout all generations, whether born in the house or bought with money of any stranger, that was not of Abraham's flesh should be circumcised, Gen. 17. 12 for there was but one Law and ordinance for the stranger, or Proselyte jew, and him that was a jew by birth concerning circumcision and the Passeover, Numb. 9 14. upon this same and no other account very many, viz. foreign man-servants, in every family of any jew, were by appointment to be circumcised, mee●…ly as being males of the family, though neither born of Abraham, nor believing with him, nor any way at all his ●…eed, nor yet heirs with him of either Canaan, which injunction and order of God concerning that old covenant ordinance of circumcision, or the Passeover either, to which the Supper answers, more lively than baptism to the other, if we might at all regard what was done then, as a Rule for us now, who so shall produce as the Pattern or infer any thing from as the instution of God, according to which we are to act in the New Testament ordinances of Baptism, and the Supper; and yet not act according to them neither, but abominably besides them both (as the Priesthood doth, baptising (as not at all but rantizing so) not at all after the manner of circumcision, viz. not males only, not on the eighth day only, but any other, when they may as well upon that, not servants also upon the Masters, faith as well as the Children upon the parents, and as for the Supper denying it utterly to infants that might▪ then eat the Passeover) I avouch them to be not a little besides their natural, but much more besides their spiritual intellectuals.  
Let this then satisfy as to any conceit, that any may have, as that the Prosolites seed were the children of Abraham, and heirs with him because circumcised, viz. that though all Abraham's seed that were heirs with him were circumcised, yet all that were circumcised were not thereby proved to be Abraham's seed, nor heirs with him of either promise, and though his fleshly seed, Israel the heir especially, and his spiritual seed also, i. e. believing Jew's, and Proselytes were both thereupon to come under that dispensation, and that as heirs too severally of the two several promises, viz. the typifying, and typified Canaan, yet many past under circumcision upon that forenamed account only, of being males in the house, that were neither Abraham's seed after the flesh nor after the faith, as Servants, and the seed of Proselyte Masters, Fathers, not appearing yet to believe with them; for even such were to be circumcised under the law, though (by your leave) not such to be by the like reason baptised under the Gospel, for as there is no command for such a matter, so if there had, the Servants of the Eunuch (himself only turning Christian) must have been (as 'tis known they were not) baptised together with him: besides if baptism must be like to circumcision in its subject, than not only he that is not yet apparently an heir, but he also that is apparently not an heir by faith must be baptised, aswell as Abraham's son Ishmael, and his servant Eleazar, and all the other males of his house were circumcised, who were all well enough known to Abraham, to be none of the heirs of that land of Canaan, whereof circumcision was given to him, and his seed in Isaac, in token of their inheriting of it, at that very time when he circumcised them.  
I demand therefore yet once again, what seed of Abraham your infants are, in that thereupon you undertake (as so) to baptise them? you tell us in your Review, pag. 14. They are Semen fidei, the children of his faith, his spiritual seed; I am ashamed to hear you say so, which way do they come to be, in that minority, his spiritual seed, sith believers only are so? you seem to tell us they are so by believing themselves, for so Zachaeus, say you, by believing was made the Son of Abraham, as who should say Zachaeus became, as infants do, the spiritual seed of Abraham by believing, which word believing is as much as not having only, but acting faith, which to act not others only but yourselves, who sillyly assert them to have faith, do somewhat more sensibly p. 8. confess them to be uncapable.  
Others tell us, and even yourselves too sometimes, and in effect in that very same page, that they are semen fidei, or the seed of Abraham's faith, upon another account, viz. as their parents are believers, for the promise is (say you, though that is no Scripture phrase at all in that place whence you quote it, viz. Act 2. 39) to believers and their seed, and if the adversaries say that the Iewe●… were Semen carnis, and had right by the promise so these say you concerning the seed of believers, are semen fidei, and the promise is to them; which words▪ The Promise, The Promise, The Promise, you will scribble down twenty times in one Treatise before you will sit down once and search out seriously what it is, or once show distinctly what it is you mean by it.  
So then howbeit with john baptist, Ma●…. 3. with Christ, john 8. Luke 19 8, 9 with Paul Rom. 4. 13. 9, 6, 8. Gal. 3. 7. 9 there is but one way of becoming Abraham's spiritual seed, or the children of his faith, so as thereupon to be signed by baptism as heirs with him of the Gospel-promise, and this is not by being the fleshly posterity of a believer, though it should be of believing Abraham himself, for even his own fleshly were not his spiritual seed, but only as they believed with him, but by bringing forth fruits of repentance, doing his works, treading in the steps of his faith, you belike have found more ways to the wood than one, whereof when ones fails you in the fight, you commonly take your flight by the other, and with you there's two ways whereby persons, nay, which is a greater mystery, whereby the same persons, even believers infants in their very infancy, may and do become Abraham's spiritual sons and heirs, viz. first by their own walking in the steps of Abraham's faith, i. e. believing themselves, which though it be the true way of becoming Abraham's spiritual seed, yet infants are not capable to walk in it. Secondly, by being the natural progeny of believing parents; which though infants are capable of it, yet is none of the way whereby to be canonised, according to the sense of Scripture, the Spiritual seed of Abraham.  
But it seems the terms upon which persons become heirs with Abraham of Gospel-promises, and stand in true title to Gospel-ordinances, are not uniform, but mul●…form in your imagination, for those on which persons in the capacity of parents are privil●…dged with the title of Abraham's spiritual seed, and title to Gospel-ordinances and enjoyments, are their own believings not another's; but those on which others, i. e. all that are in the capacity of children to those parents are thus highly privileged, are the believing of their parents, whether they have any faith of their own yea or no, and yet some count that the childs own faith which the parent professes for him.  
But Genus, et pro avos, et quae non ●…cimus ipsi vix ea nostra voco.  
Sirs, what pretty intricate blind bo-beep Divinity is this of yours? do the same privileges and promises belong to the believing parents and their children, and yet though exhibited to them both alike in one and the self same phrase and form of speech (for saith Peter the promise is to you and your children, and to them that are far off yea even as many (meaning of you and your children and of them that are far off) as the Lord shall call) do they belong upon such various and different grounds, viz. to the parents upon their own faith, to the children upon the parent's faith? my father then it seems, what ere his fathers were, must prove his pedigree from Abraham by his doing as Abraham did, or else he can be no gospel-son, nor share at all in any gospel-priviledges and immunities, but if he were a believer, I his son may prove mine at easier rates by far, viz. by going no further than the faith and faederation of my father.  
But Sirs, will this hold a trial think you by the word? is there any such manglements as these to be found there? is it to be found there that now under the gospel-Covenant since that outing of the old Covenant, and that fleshly seed▪ that were heirs of it, and all the tipical pertinencies thereof the faith and faederation of father's inrights and enrouls all their fleshly seed as Heirs with them of salvation, without any evidence of their believing themselves? then tell me why the fleshly seed of those great believers, Abraham, Isaac, and jacob stand excommun●…cated from all Gospel-priviledges, participations of ordinances, promises, etc. even from the beginnings of the Gospel Church and first administering of baptism to this very day? will you plead your own right above theirs to stand his children in the Gospel-Church by saying, we had holy men and believers to our fathers, but their fathers believed not the Gospel, therefore worthily are they cut off with them? I reply thus, were not Abraham, Isaac and jacob their fleshly fathers? and though remote ones, yet were they not their true fathers after the flesh still as much as ever? did john Mat. 3. and Christ john 8. and Peter Acts 2. deny them a standing in the Gospel house and admission unto baptism and membership without repentance and belief in their own persons, and doing the works of Abraham? did they I say put such off from all Gospel-expectations and privileges who offered themselves thereto with this plea, viz. we have Abraham to our father? and dare you admit such without faith or repentance, for whom you can make no higher pretence than this, viz. they are the children of believers? me thinks if mere birth-priviledges and fleshly descent, must carry it still without faith in the seed themselves, are not the jews infants to this day higher born than any Gentiles infants in the world, whose parents are believers? for they verily can say no less than this, we are the natural issue of the father of all the faithful, yet may they not be owned barely upon that account to gospel-ordinances, and if the natural seed, and that by Isaac and jacob of Abraham himself the grand believer, which seed could of old claim a room by right of birth from Abraham in the house of Moses, cannot possibly carry it so high under Christ, as by the same descent, only without faith in themselves, to gain a standing in his house, or so much as right to be styled their own natural father's children (as to the Gospel) I am amazed to see you Gentile believers to confer upon your mere natural seed the name of Abraham's spiritual seed, and denominate your semen carnis his semen fidei.   

Baptist.  
The jews, though the natural seed of Abraham, yet cannot have the account of the spiritual seed, nor any right to Gospel privileges because they believe not themselves, which if they did they should have right to the Gospel as well as we who believe, but sith they abide in unbelief they are cut off from all share in these things.   

Baptist.  
Then learn once I beseech you this lessen from yourselves, which you will not learn from john, Christ and Paul, viz. that the ground of standing Abraham's spiritual seed, sons and heirs; and Church-members under the Gospel is not the the faith and faederation of the parents, by virtue of which you plead your children's right to baptism, saying they have believers, as the Jews once to john pleaded theirs, saying, we have Abraham to our father, but faith itself in the particular persons so standing, for so many Jews, heathens, infidels children as are of the faith of Abraham, i. e. not born of faithful parents, but faithful themselves (as he was) are incorporated; incovenanted, inchurched as Abraham's seed, and Evangelically blessed with faithful Abraham; but till even believers children, yea Abraham's own believe themselves, the parent's faith cannot now possibly engraft them, the time of faith or standing by faith alone in the house, or visible Church of God being now come in, the standing by any fleshly generation what soever is done away, yea Abraham's own children, the natural branches that grow out of his loins are cut off from standing (as till Chirist they did) now any longer upon their own Root Abraham, because of unbelief.  
I say then that no infant in infancy, of what believing parent soever, is either Abraham's spiritual seed, or dying in infancy is saved upon any such account as a believers seed, or Abraham's seed, nor whilst living an infant only, may be signed by baptism as an heir apparent of salvation: for if Abraham stand not a spiritual father to his own mere fleshly seed, he stands not so sure to the mere fleshly seed of any believing Gentile, for that were to privilege every ordinary believer▪ and his natural seed above either himself or his own.  
Nor doth this hinder, or deny the salvation of the dying infants of believers, or dispose them ere the sooner (muchless necessarily) to damnation, to say they are not Abraham's spiritual seed (quâ believers infants) nor heirs to salvation upon any such account as that, for though neither upon that, nor any other account at all they may warrantably be baptised, yet it's more than possible, or probable either (because infallible) that there's other Scripture account enough, upon which when we see them die in infancy we may assert them undoubtedly not to be damned; for as it is most sure and true, that all that are apparently (if really) abraham's spiritual seed by faith must so living, so dying be saved, in token and farther evidence of which to themselves more than others they are by the good will of Christ to be baptised, yet is it neither true, nor necessary that all that are saved must be Abraham's spiritual seed by faith, but most certain that some shall be saved, that never were Abraham's seed in any sense at all, witness not only the faithful forefathers of Abraham, for he was their seed, and not they his, but also all dying infants of what parents soever both before Abraham's time, and since, of whom to salvation notwithstanding those are the only terms on which it belongs to adult ones, to whom it's preached, Mark 16. 15, 16. these being truly capable of neither, 'tis not required that they should either repent, believe or be baptised. I know this justification of dying infants without faith is uncouth, and little less, for all it holds forth so much salvation, then damnable doctrine among you Divines, that plead the contrary, but I shall by the help of God make it good to the faces of you all, when I come to consider the baldness of your consequence in this point, as you give me good occasion to do in some places, where me thinks you meddle with it somewhat clumsily, as it were in mittins, as if because there's no other way revealed for the salvation of such by Christ, to whom the gospel is preached, who are capable to hear, and do what's required, for such only the word universally speaks of, when it speaks of salvation in that way, but the way of belief and actual obedience only, therefore there's no other way for the salvation of dying infants by Christ, who can possibly neither believe in him, nor obey him, which as it is such shameful stuff, that I cannot bear it with out inward blushing at your blindness, so whether you have not as much cause to be ashamed on't within yourselves is well worth your inmost inquiry.  
I say therefore again, so far is this from excluding dying infants of believers from entrance into the kingdom of heaven, to say they are neither Abraham's spiritual seed by faith, nor heirs thereof upon that ground only of being so, that it rather concludes and supposes there's some other ground that is common with them to the innocent infants of even infidels, and all the world, upon which these, whom, though they are hundreds to one, yet yourselves in your fierce wrath, and merciless cruelty devote universally to damnation, may dying in infancy universally be saved also; which ground if you will yet know it, is the righteousness of Christ, the free imputation of which universally from the father saves not only all that believe from both that, and their actual transgressions too, but even the whole world, whether they believe it or no from the the imputation of Adam's transgression; so that none at all ever perish upon that account, in which respect he is said to be the Saviour of all men, but especially of them that believe: much more doth it, and that without faith, save all dying infants, who as they believe not, so have not as yet by any actual sin bard themselves, or deserved exemption, or become liable at all to the second death, i. e. the damnation of hell, which befalls not any but upon personal neglect of the light and grace of life, brought in by the second Adam, as the first death only overtakes mankind for only that sin of the first Adam.   

Babist.  
If all dying infants are saved then not few but many, if not the mayor part must be saved, contrary to that of Christ, Mat. 7. 13. 14. Luke 13. 23. 24. where he saith few there are that are saved.   

Baptist.  
There are indeed but few inter adultos among persons that come to years, of whom alone, and not of Infants at all Christ there speaks, and even every where else, where he speaks to us of the way of life, and this is plain by the reason he there gives why so few are saved, which is the straitness of the gate, and narrowness of the way that leads to life, viz. of self-denial, and suffering for Christ, which men mostly being very loath to walk in, it comes to pass that few of them come to life by it; but infants being altogether uncapable to walk in it, are are altogether disengaged from walking in it till they come to capacity so to do, and yet are not damned for not walking in it: when we come to years of understanding, and to apprehend the good will of God to us, in providing a Saviou●… for us, his good will concerning us in order to salvation by him is, that we believe in him and obey him, and apply his righteousness unto ourselves, Gal. 3. 27. but whilst we are yet in such minority, as neither to know what God hath done for us, nor to be capable of putting on the Lord jesus ourselves, he himself is pleased to impute his righteousness to salvation to us so dying, even as we ourselves, whilst our infants are new born, do not only provide, but also put on what clothes we have provided in our pity towards them, for the covering of their nakedness, but when they come to years of such discretion as to discern, and be sensible of their own shame, and capable to dress themselves with their own hands, we expect when in our love we have once provided raiment for them, they should put it on themselves, or go without it: thus candid are we towards the dying infants of all sorts: nevertheless, though we tell you of our charity towards them, and of your own cruelty in sending all heathen infants to hell, and this no less than twenty times over, yet we must expect to hear it from o'er the pulpit cloth twenty times o'er again, before the devil be dead, how blessed and charitable your doctrine is, and what most bloody and cruel opinionists the Anabaptists are concerning infants.  
Infants than I say of what parents soever 〈◊〉 either such as die in the personal innocency of their own infancy, and so are universally saved, and yet in token, or as 〈◊〉 sign thereof to themselves there's neither need, nor sense, nor reason to baptise them; or else such as live to understanding, and then they appear, either not to do Abraham's works, and then we own them not yet as Abraham's seed, though born of believing parents, yea though of believing Abraham himself, nor as heirs according to the Gospel-promise, or else to believe in Christ, and walk in the steps of Abraham, and then of what parents soever, though of infidels, we are to own them as Abraham's spiritual seed, and such as (so abiding) are heirs apparent by promise of the heavenly Canaan: this we can never discern by them in their infancy, not knowing yet whether they shall die infants, or live to years, nor whether when they come to years they will reject Christ or receive him. To conclude this then, that any man's fleshly seed in the world is upon the mere account of their natural descent of such or such parents, or further then as dying in infancy they have no actual sin to condemn them, or living to act sin they believe in Christ (in both which cases the seed of unbelievers are as capable of salvation as the seed of believers themselves) are by promise heirs of salvation, and in toke●… thereof are to be baptised, and in baptism visibly signed (more than other children) as children of God, members of Christ, and inheritors of the Kingdom of heaven, 'tis a lesson which I learned once by rote, and had by root of heart, when in the minority of my standing in the false ministry with you, I was versed in the Priests primer of Common-prayer, and (as to Gospel-administrations) was skilled but little further than the Psalter, but when I once turned over a new leaf, and began to advance a little further, even into the Scripture, which in some volumes was in those days annexed as some certain appendix at the end of it, I could never read that lesson perfectly since, neither can I learn now that any man's fleshly seed, that lives and yet believes not, can make any clearer claim of kindred to Abraham as their father, or to the Gospel inheritance by a mere bodily birth of believers only, than I can make of my kindred to the Great Turk, and of my tied to succeed him (as his heir) in his dominion, by pleading that between them both his Grandmother and mine had four elbows.  
Now therefore Sirs, let it be seriously considered by you, that that outward mere denominative birth holiness, which was once in the seed of the jews, and is now supposed, and asserted by you to be in the seed of believing Gentiles, as it was then peculiar to that people only; that were jews by either nature or Religion, so it is now universally and utterly ended in Christ crucified, and no more to have a being among them, or any other people under heaven. It was not by Christ coming communicated, or (as Mr. Blake cloudily contends, throughout his Treatise●…f ●…f birth-priviledge, and covenant holiness) conveyed from the jews to believing Gen●…iles, and their seed, but clearly cashiered, and confiscated, so that there's now no such thing to be found at all. 'Tis not devolved downwards but rather resolved into that Gospel truth, and substance which it shadowed ou●…, yea and totally dissolved, eclipsed, annihilated, swallowed up (as the light of the Moon before the Sun) being clothed upon with a far greater, and more glorious holiness than itself; for as the type was in time to give way, and be gone when the thing typified thereby should once come into existence, so all that old covenant holiness even the holiness of that seed Isaac, and his posterity as well as other things that were predicated by it, was, as but a type of a more perfect hol●…nes, and holy seed to come, to flee away, as Ishmael before himself, when once Christ should come, and that holy seed to stand in the house to whom the promises of the Gospel do belong.   

Babist.  
This seed you speak of, viz. believers was come before Christ, and in being under the law as well as now, therefore they sure cannot be the holy seed shadowed out by that holy seed that came of Isaac.   

Baptist.  
True the Gospel holy seed was under the law, but not the Laws holy seed under the Gospel, the substance being ever when and where the shadow is, but the shadow not always when and where the substance: Novum Testamentum semper & ubique fuit in vetere velatum, vetu●… non in novo, nisi revelatum: the law, and its holy things are not in being, but only revealed what they w●…re, under the Gospel, but the Gospel, and its holy things were in being (though veiled over) under the law, and yet for all that the Gospel is said truly to come then, because it came not into its full force till Christ came, so faith is said to come in with Christ, Gal. 3. 23. 25. not as if there were no faith in the world before, but because both the fullness of the things before believed came in then, and things before believed came then into full force and act, and also because the way of standing in the Church, which before was chiefly by a fleshly birth, comes now to be no otherwise then by a spiritual birth from above, by faith in Christ jesus, Rom. 11. thou sta●…dest by faith (saith ●…aul, speaking of the manner of the Gospel standing in the visible Church) so that the holy seed, and heirs of the Gospel covenant i.e. believers, which are the seed of Christ, Esay, 53. He shall see his seed, are said to come then, though there was such a seed in the world from the beginning thereof, because they then came to dwell alone as it were in the house, where Ishmael the son of the Bondwoman (to speak after the Allegory) I mean the fleshly Israelites, a mere fleshly seed dwelled together with them (as Ishmael did with Isaac, till he was cast out) in former time; for even as Ishmael the servant dwelled as it were the Son and heir in the house till Isaac was born, and then after a while was cast out, that Isaac the true heir might dwell alone, and such as should successively come from him, so Israel after the flesh, though a servant in reference to the Gospel Israel, dwelled, and domineered, as the only child of the Church till Christ the true Isaac was born, and then afer a while was cast out of the Church, that his seed might dwell there alone for ever after.   

Babist.  
If it be so that believers▪ only are that holy seed which is now to stand in the visible Church; how is it that you baptise, and ●…church such among you sometime's as are no true believers?   

Baptist.  
We receive all that we receive by baptism into the Church under the notion of true believers only; and such they are so far as we are capable to conceive by that outward profession of faith, upon which only we admit them; but if our charity be so mistaken (as that of the Apostles themselves was in the like case) that persons after either appear to be Hypocrites, or prove Apostates, we have warrant from the word, according to which we also act, to cast them out again, as those that have no right at all to stand there, whilst by their works they seem to be unbelievers, till by some future and clearer fruits thereof we can guests them groundedly to be converted truly to the faith.  
All then that we can say of the holiness, and holy things that were under the first covenant, which had then ordinances of divine service, but carnal ones, and a worldly sanctuary, an humane, infirm, and imperfect High-priest-hood, an earthly inheritance, a fleshly seed, which yet were all holy for the time then being, all (I say) that can be now said of them▪ is this, they were Typical, Ceremonial, and abiding only till the the of Gospel's reformation, Heb. 9 9 and are now all abrogated, and out of date, so that we may say (as he fuit Ilium) so fuit Canaan, fuit urbs, fuit lex, fuit Templum, fuit sanctum Sanctorum, fuit sacerdotium, fuit sacrosanctum semen: there was indeed a holy ●…nd, a holy City, a holy Law, a holy Temple, a holy Priesthood, a holy seed, but all these belonging to a first Covenant, which was faulty, and so gave place in time to a second; all ornaments, furniture, and accomplishments of a covenant, that decayed, waxed old, was ready to vanish, and is now long since vanished before a better, there were privileges, there was a freedom, there was a rest, there was a holiness; there was a glory, there was a Mosaical ministration, but as it was less glorious by far than the Gospel ministration of Christ, so, as the shine of a Star when the Sun rises, it passed away, and perished from before it, when the other came in, so that they were at a loss that then did, as those are that still do dote, though but in part, upon it, not looking steadfastly to the end of that which is now abolished, and not considering that all that glory is done away and hath something remaining in its stead that is more glorious than it, nor that all that which was made glorious and holy, as a type, for a while, viz. the holy▪ City, the glorious holy mountain, the holy Priesthood, holy Temple, holy root, holy branches, and what ever else was so denominated, hath now no glory, nor holiness at all upon it by reason of a glory that excelleth, 2 Cor. 3. 9 10, 11. 13.   

Babist.  
Abraham is still an holy root, and his children holy branches, even now under the Gospel, as well as of old under the law, and so are believing parents to their seed, as the jews of old were to their children, for saith Paul Rom. 11. 16. if the first fruit be holy, so is the lump; and if the root be holy, so are the branches, as Mr. Blake also well observeth in his Birth-priviledge p. 7.   

Baptist.  
That the Root here is Abraham for my part I freely grant you, since 'tis supposed you have so much advantage by it, although 'tis sub judice among some, whether by the root in that place be not meant Christ, because the standing upon it is said to be by ●…aith only, which is that only that ingrafts persons into Christ, and (as some say) ingrafts them into Christ only, and not any other: and that by the olive-tree is meant the house or family of Abraham i. e. the visible Church, and that the branches, and lump that are here said to be hly, are Abraham's children al●…o, but I beseech you let it be considered that Abraham was a root two ways, or a double holy root, standing respectively so to a twofold lump, or two sorts of holy branches, viz▪ natural and spiritual, his children after the flesh, and after the faith, ●…is typically and ceremonially holy seed, and his morally and really holy seed, his sons by generation and heirs by promise of the the earthly 〈◊〉, i. e. the carnal Israelites, and his sons by regeneration i e. the Saints and believers, who are 〈◊〉 by promise of the heavenly Canaan, and the●…ue Israelites in whom is no guile▪ under the first Covenant, or old Testament Abraham stood a holy root to his natural branches born of his body by Isaac and jacob, which also in a figure and pro tempore, to shadow out the holy seed to come, that should inherit heaven, were (by bare de●…omination more than inward qualification) a holy seed, inheriting a figurative holy land; but under the Gospel, the substance being come in place, that shadow is fled, and how ●…eit Abraham is a holy root now unto the end of the world, as well as before▪ yet not now any longer to his own fleshly seed by Isaac, much less the mere carnal seed of believing Gentiles, but to the other sort of seed, viz. the children of his faith, that walk in his steps, and do his works, for the natural branches of his own body are now broken off, and can stand no more a holy seed, and branches in reference to that holy root Abraham for the want of faith, but the other i. e. all, and only such as believe, of what nation or parents soever, Jews or Gentiles, are now counted for his seed, and stand holy branches to that holy root Abraham, and the holy lump to him, who was (as it were) a certain first fruits unto God of the whole body of believers, and chose●… of God to be a father of the faithful, and a holy root for ever to all persons that in after ages should believe, to which honour he was also sealed by circumcision.  
The true visible Church then, or olive-tree, in which there's fatness and fullness (as David saith I shall be filled with the fatness of thy house) is coun●…ed his family to the end, in which there's now no right of admittance, or continuance (●…s of old) for his own fleshly seed, the very jews, that were an holy seed before the time of faith came, muchless for any other man's natural seed without faith, but for those only even those individual persons that do believe. There's no room by right for any else in the house of Abraham the Gospel-church, whose members are born unto it not offlesh, but of faith, not by being of Abraham himself, but as Abraham himself was, not by being of believers after the flesh, but by being believers with them. In the Allegory, while Isaac the typical promised seed was only in the word of promise, and not in actual being Ishmael dwelled in the house, but soon afterhe came into the world Ishmael must abide in the house no longer, so while Christthe true Isaac, typified by the other, to whom the Gospel promises were made, was but barely in the promise, the fleshly Israel vaunted it in the Church, but when the fullness of time was come for him to be ●…ncarnate, and in esse real, that fleshly holy seed, much more the fleshly seed of believing Gentiles could have no right of residence in the family of Abraham, nor are any (saving believers) allowed members thereof to this very day.   

Babist.  
But it seems to be the jews themselves, even the natural seed of Abraham, to which in that Rom. 11. 19 Abraham is said by Paul to stand a holy root, if it be considered with reference to the verse before, where he speaks plainly of them, as in contradistinction to believieng Gentiles, therefore Abraham's own fleshly seed, are holy branches still of that holy root.   

Baptist.  
In no wise as they are his natural seed only, but as they may hereafter be hoped to become his seed by faith also, and be grafted again upon their root Abraham, and their own olive tree, i. e. the visible Church, their father's family, by believing and embracing the Gospel, from which they were broken off through unbelief; in which if they abide not still they shall (saith he verse 23.) be grafted in again; but never simply as they are his natural seed only.  
Abraham may be said to stand a holy root to his own bodily issue two ways, first only as they were born of his body by Isaac and jacob, with whom, and whose seed that typically holy Covenant was established, which being now vanished away, he is no longer such a holy root to those natural branches of his body as that they have any birth holiness now therefrom.  
Secondly, as the same persons that were his natural seed might also be his spiri-seed by faith in Christ, and so he is here said to be a holy root, and the Jews in reference to him holy branches, viz. in respect not to their fleshly birth of him (for as they are his natural branches only, and no more they are broken off) but in respect to their future calling to the faith, and receiving in again in time to come, upon account of their owning of the Gospel: the spititual branches only are now grafted into the olive-tree, and growing up upon the root, the natural branches are broken off, and the root as a holy root to them withered, that holiness of it faded, it is alive as a holy root now to none but the believer, not its own natural branches, muchless to the natural branches of believing Gentiles.   

Babist.  
When the jews were broken off their natural children were broken off with them, therefore when the believing Gentiles were grafted in their stead their natural children must in like manner be grafted in with them.   

Babist.  
No such matter Sirs, there's either no good Antecedent or else no good Consequence in this: for first, if you mean as to the Gospel, Church and Covenant, the children of the unbelieving Jews are not so broken off, and excluded with their parents, in such a sense as you imagine, i. e. upon the Account of their parent's unbelief only, but for want of faith in their own persons, and as succeeding their fathers in unbelief, for if any children of the unbelieving Jews, when they come to years (and children when at years are the natural seed of their parents, I hope as well as in infancy itself, if being the children of such or such parents alone would either engraft or exclude) if I say unbelieving jews children do believe, the promise is so made to them, that their parent's unbelief cannot exclude them, but if the children at years do not believe, the promise is so little made to believers, and their seed as that the parents belief avails no further than to the engrafting of himself, and hecannot at all entitle all his natural seed by his single faith, nor as heirs of the same heavenly inheritance with him, inright them to the ordinance in token of it: but if you mean as to the old Church and Covenant than  
Secondly, it follows no more than if you should go about to make a way for the needle by the thread, that because the jews and their seed under the law were taken in, and thrown out of Covenant altogether, so the Gentiles under the Gospel and their seed must be owned, and disowned thus collectively, for as to that old Covenant of the law, made with the fleshly Israel concerning the earthly Canaan, the very promise of that was made to the whole body of that nation and people, that came of Abraham Isaac and Jacob's loins, in such a manner as that their infants were by very natural descent according to the promise, as t●…y and fully heirs of it as themselves, from which consequetnly, when once God took his advantage, by the breach first made on their part, to break it on his part also, he must necessarily turn them all out together, and so he did, discovenanting the whole nation at once, and as it is said in Zach. 11. 10. breaking the Covenant, which he had made with all the people, discarding and disinheriting them from all that glory in the lump; but the Gospel. Covenant, and promise concerning the heavenly inheritance is not at all on this wise, but of a different nature, taking in no whole nation in the world, nor any one or more men's mere natural seed, no not Abraham's, isaac's, and Jacob's (as the other did) to all generations of its continuance, but rather Sigillatim) such several persons out of every nation, tongue, kindred and people that fear God, and work righteousness Rev. 5. 9 Act. 10. 34, 35. even all, and only such as obey him: Singulos generum credentes, not genera singulorum credentium, vel non.  
If therefore you speak of the Jews standing upon the Root Abraham, and in the Church before Christ, upon the old Covenant account, than I confess that the whole body of them were broken off altogether, and that as they, and their fleshly seed were all incovenanted, so they were all discovenanted at once, when that covenant of circumcision, which God gave to Abraham, and his fleshly seed Gen. 17. concerning the land of Canaan was itself abolished in Christ crucified; but then the consequence will not hold from that covenant to this of the Gospel; these being two distinct and different covenants, the terms of standing in which are in no wise the same. But if you speak of the covenant of the Gospel, than your Antecedent is false, for I deny utterly that the Jews and their seed were altogether alienated from that, further than every individual of them did cut themselves off from a right of standing therein by want of faith in their own persons, for as this covenant was never made with any men, and their mere fleshly seed, no not with Abraham, Isaac and jacob, and their natural posterity, so that a bare birth of their bodies doth ipso facto make them heirs of the heavenly inheritance promised therein; nor give them a right (as such only) to be signed as true heirs thereof, but only with Abraham and his spiritual seed, i. e. Christ and all believers in him; so no men and all their natural posterity are outed from it together, but as both they, and their posterity do stand together in unbelief upon which account faith being the only way of standing heirs under the Gospel, and the jews Children proving unbelievers in all ages as well as their parents, I confess they are broken off together, and not otherwise, for if the Children of the jews did appear to have faith (as in infancy they cannot, and when they are grown up unversally they do not) their parent's infidelity could in no wise prohibit their standing; and since neither in infancy, nor at age they appear to be in the faith, their parents in case they were never so faithful can in no wise entitle them to a standing, for then the natural seed of those thousands of jews which did believe in the Primitive times, have a birth-priviledge, and holiness to this day, whereupon they may claim admittannce unto baptism, as well as any, specially if those words Rom. 11. 16. if the Root be holy so are the branches, were to be taken in such a sense as you put upon them, but we know that though they are branches growing naturally upon that holy Root as you call it, of believing parents, yet they are counted unholy by yourselves, because they believe not in their own persons, yea if we should ask how the children of those jews, that at first believed, did come to be such strangers to the Gospel Church, yourselves would answer us because they believed not, as their parents did, by which you do no less than grant what we contend for, viz. that the faith of Ancestors gives no right to their posterity to stand at all in the Gospel Church, and Covenant, but faith in the particular persons only so standing.  
Well then they were broken off: but why? not because they had not believing parents, for Abraham was the fleshly Father of all of them, and the primitive believing jews were the fleshly fathers of many of them, and are to this day as much as ever, if bare birth privilege could engraft them as it did of old in the family of the jewish Church: Nor was it because they wanted title upon which they might have stood still in the jewish Church, if that Church itself had stood to this day, for they were Abraham's seed, and that gave them capacity enough to dwell in the house before, their own unbelief notwithstanding; but because they do not believe themselves, because the terms of standing in the Church which before Christ were these, viz. We have Abraham to our Father, we are the Children of such, and such parents, are now quite changed, so that it boots not to say such a thing as Abraham is our father, Mat. 3. unless we can also say we repent, and believe the Gospel.  
The Jews were broken off by unbelief, and thou and thine (o believing Gentile) must stand by faith, yet not thine by thy faith, but thou thyself by thine, and they by their own; faith is that in which thou standing, and not thy seed, thou hast right to stand in the Church, and not they, in which they standing, and not thyself, they have right to stand in the Church, and thou hast none. Perpetuity in personal faith gives perpetual personal right to baptism, and to Church-membership, but not a perpetuity of the same right to any man's whole posterity; there's now no difference made at all as to Gospel interest, by being either this or that by nature, but in all the world any person Jew or Gentile, male or Female seed of believer or of unbeliever, Barbarian, Scythian, bond or free, is capable both to be saved, and signed as an heir of salvation by baptism upon personal faith, but in no wise the progeny upon the faith of the parentage.  
And yet to put it more out of doubt, that the Covenant holiness, and church-right of men's fleshly seed, which was of old, is not continuing under the Gospel, but Ceremonial and so ended in Christ, in whom yourselves say judicialia sunt Mortua, Ceremonialia Mortifera, I will leave two or three consequences upon the file, which either answer and that not invitâ Mineruâ, nor stretching your Genius beyond sense and reason, rather than want somewhat whereby to prove your judaizing to be judicious, or else by silence say you cannot: I leave you to consult with them as you see occasion.  
That holiness which sanctified the jews Land, City, Temple, Altar, all 
1. Argum.  its untensils, Priesthood, and the whole body of that people, and all the pertinences of the first tabernacle, and old Covenant was Ceremonial only, and is now abolished, and not abiding among believing Gentiles.  
But that holiness, that sanctified the jewish seed, was the same, and no other than that, which sanctified their Land, City, Temple, Altar, and its Utensils, Priesthood, and whole people and all the appertenances of that first Tabernacle, and old Covenant.  
Ergo, That holiness, which sanctified the jewish seed, is now abolished, and not abiding at all among believing Gentiles.  
As for the Major I would wish you not to subject yourselves so much to suspicion of superstition (as you will do in these days of light by putting me to prove it) as to require proof on't, since no intelligent man, or religious Christian (save the Pope and Dr. Featley, and the rest of their several fries, and fraternities) will deny it 
h Featleys' dip. dipped p. 178.  or did ever in the days of the Gospel attribute the same holiness to outward, and inanimate things viz. places, Lands, profits, Emolluments, first fruits, Tithes, Oblations, and other obventions, Temples, Altars, Tables, Lavers, Chalices, Vestments, nor yet to Priests, and people that all these were denominated holy by under the Law, for to me by the same reason that first fruits, tithes, and such like are now to be called holy, the first born of every creature both of man and beast is still to be called holy also, for even these were sanctified and holy Denominatiuè, and Dedicatiuè, as much as any of the rest Ezod. 13. 2. yea as Paul did in another case viz. appeal to the Pharisees to judge between him and the Sadduces, so may I to you of the Presbyterian Priesthood to decide this matter between me and the Seducers of the Popish and Prelatic strain, whose holy sandals, copes, surplices, and other superfluities, viz. rails, high Altars, holy Tapers, and Candlesticks, holy Fonts, holy Windows you yourselves pulled down, and profaned before that part of the wheel where the Baptists dwell, did at all appear so plainly (as now it doth) in the Horizon, of this English Nation, for which sort of sacrilege D ● Featley (much mistaking you, and being half afraid that you had been Anabaptists, when (God wot) you are so far from Rebaptisation, that you neither do baptise, nor ever were so much as once truly baptised yourselves) cries out against you, who were in truth the men, that first began to digrade, and divest all those holy trinkets of that denomination of holiness, wherewith they had invested them, and that with a most hideous outcry, saying pa. 181. of his book thus, What evil their disciples, mingled with the Brownists, have done in the Sanctuaries of God in England, and Ireland, though I should hold my peace, the timber out of the beams, and the Chalices out of the vestry, and the Marble, and brass out of the Monuments of the dead, would proclaim it to the Everlasting infamy of this profane sect.  
You then being together by the ears so much among yourselves about this question, viz. whether Temples, Vestments, Altars, Fonts, and Monuments, and other Steeple house stuff, and Temple trumpery, which was in the Bishop's times, be holy yea or no with that Relative holiness (as D ● Featley calls it) wherewith the holy places, and Temple furniture of the Jews was holy, I might safely slink away here, and leave you Presbyters to tug it out with your Fathers the Bishops, who have indeed already drawn that controversy so near to an end, as to determine all the holy things, and well nigh all the holiness they had out of doors. Yet that you may know I own and honour you so far, as freely to side with you, so far as you are willing to reform indeed, and renounce Rome, and her Religion (but Alas Sirs that is not fully yet, for notwithstanding the covenants whereby you have sworn both me, and yourselves to extirpate to your power all popery, superstition, Idolatry, and mere men's inventions, yet Oh what Remnants of Romish rubbish, viz. national Churches, popish parochial postures, popish payments, and profits, old tricks of trotting after tithes, more than truth, and seeking to benefice yourselves well, rather than to benefit the people, do yet abide unabolished among you) yet so far (I say) as you do reform, I am willing to go along with you, and therefore will lend you my hand so far as to sling one stone after all that Canaanitish holiness, wherewith the Pope and his Clergy hath consecrated and christened not only all the babes born in Christendom, but also the very bells, and other baubles belonging to the several sanctuaries, with the name of HOLINESS to the Lord, as far as 'tis possible to keep it out from creeping into England any more, and that shall be an Argument from the mere typicallness of all that Dedicative holiness, that was once resident in the jewish Church, and every thing almost that pertained thereunto, the like to which D ● Featley feigns to be now in the Christian nations; and thus I frame it.  
All that holiness, which was but typical, was but temporal or ceremonial and so to be abolished under the Gospel. 
2. Argum.   
But all that holiness whereby the jews land, City, Temple, Altar, Priesthood, people, first fruits, profits, and all the appertenances of that first Tabernacle, were denominated holy, was but merely typical, and figurative of a future holiness, that was to come in more fully under the new Covenant, second tabernacle or Church under the Gospel.  
Ergo, all that holiness, wherewith the jews land, City, Temple, & i. was holy, was but temporal, or ceremonial, and so to be abolished under the Gospel.  
The first Proposition needs no proof, for yourselves deny not but that all things under the law that were but types of things to come, were terminated and taken clean away, when the truth, or things typified thereby did come in under Christ.  
The Minor is no less clear than the other, for the Law had but the shadow of things to come, not the very Image of the things Heb, 10. 1. it had but the patterns of holy things in the heavens, not the holy or heavenly things themselves, those holy places made with hands, and all the holy furniture thereunto pertaining, were but figures of the true holy place, i. e. heaven itself, into which our highpriest is gone, there to appear in the presence God for us, Heb. 9 23. 24. yea read through the 8th. 9th. 10th. chapters to the Hebrews and you shall find that all things under the law did but serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, and were but as it it were a figure for the time then being, imposed on the jews until the time of Reformation i e. till Christ came.  
Now as to the Minor in the Prosyllogism, which is this viz. that the holiness which sanctified the Jews seed, was the same, and no other than that which sanctified all the other appertenances of that Covenant, 'tis but a folly for me to offer to prove it, sith Mr. Blake himself (the man that most earnestly pleads the present being of that same holiness in believers seed as in the jews seed of old) doth little less then clearly confess it, in the 3 and 4 page of his birth privilege, where he writes thus, viz. common things dedicated for holy service, and use are holy, a people by nature sinners, dedicated to the Lord, are for holy use and service of the Lord, when others are for the service of Idols, therefore jerusalem a City, none of the holiest for any transcendent holiness of the Inhabitants thereof, is yet called by the Evangelist the holy City, by reason of the Temple, and worship there that were holy and from thence (saith he) this observation follows, A people that enjoy Gods ordinances convey to their issue a privilege to be reputed of a society that is holy, to be numbered amongst, not unclean, but holy persons, in proof of which observation among other things he says thus, viz. The land of their habitation where they dwelled and enjoyed this peculiar privilege is ordinarily styled the Holy Land, being the land of Emanuel, and the language there spoke the holy language, being a mark to discern the people of God, the distinguishing and discrimminating Epithet given to them was still holy, even all of this root who were branches of Abraham, Isaac, jacob, all of this lump whereof Abraham, Isaac, jacob were the first fruits, they peculiarly had this honour to receive, etc. and that in infancy, etc. distinction from all others.  
All which words of his (collectively considered) must needs bear such a sense as this, viz. That as the things that were else wise common, were holy things, and in such sort as the City jerusalem was a holy City, their Temple a holy place, their service, which we know stood mainly in offering of gifts and sacrifices, meats drinks, divers washings and carnal ordinances for that time only, a holy service, their land of Canaan, itself a holy land, their language a holy language, and in a manner every thing of theirs was discriminated by the term holy, from what ever was then counted common and unclean among the Gentiles, in such sort that people were a holy people, and their issue reputed, not an unclean but a holy seed.  
If this be his sense, then me thinks its a very senseless thing for him to affirm that same holiness to be removed from all other things, that were the subjects then denominated by it, and to remain only in people and their seed; but if he deny this to be his sense in those recited words of his, I think he must either crack his conscience to evade the disadvantage that accrues to his cause by owning it, or else grant that he was not sensible of what he wrote, for I see not how he can shuffle those sentences into any other sense: And as he, so Mr. Baxter that backs him in his opinion of birth-priviledge says the same, and confesses p. 81. of his book that the common nature of holiness is one and the same in all these, viz. Priests and Levites, Temple, Altar, Sacrifices under the law, and in the children of believers and their unbelieving yoke-fellows spoken of 1 Cor 7. 14. i e. a separation to God, for so saith he there, i. e. in such sense as the Priests, Levites, Temple, Altar, Sacrifice, etc. were sanctified, both children of believers, and also unbelieving yoke-fellows are here said to be holy and sanctified.  
It being then in both Mr. Blakes and Mr. baxter's own account one and the same holiness, whereby as well the seed as the land, people, Priests, sanctuary and service were all denominated and distinguished as holy, which surely was no other than a mere ceremonial holiness, it's but folly for me to say more in proof of this, that it was the same: nevertheless forasmuch as here is the very foundation of all your falsity and confusion, in that you either do not, or else will not discern a difference between the time of the law, and the Gospel (for distingue tempora, et reconciliabis scripturas) and for that also I am jealous over you with a godly jealously, that I may espouse you, who are yet a treacherous and adulterous, as a chaste ministry unto Christ, would to God you could bear with me in my folly, and indeed bear with me if I yet insist a little further to show the sameness of that holiness, that was then in the jews land; sanctuary, service, etc. and in their fleshly seed, which that it may yet more plainly appear, I beseech you let it be considered, that (as yourselves grant that the holiness whereby the seed was then said to be holy was, not real and inherent, but merely dedicative, relative, denominative, i. e. titular, 
i See Mr. Baxter p. 109 297. 298.  and discriminative, 
k See Mr. Blake p. 4.  so indeed it was but typical, and consequently but temporal as all th●… rest was, for in such wise as their Temple was but tipical of the Gospel Churches (I mean not steeple houses, but congregated and truly constituted Assembliesof people, 1 Cor. 3. 17. Eph. 2. 21, 22. 1. Pet. 2. 5.) And as that nation and people in their holiness, and all other particulars was tipical of the Saints, where ever locally scattered, yet mystically embodied, and not of Christian nations collectively taken, and as their holy land and kingdom flowing with milk and honey was typical of the heavenly Canaan, and kingdom flowing with rivers of pleasures, and their holy City of that holy City new jerusalem that is to come down from God, Rev. 21. and their holy high priesthood of our holy, harmless, undefiled highpriest Christ jesus, and their holy priesthood of all the elect of God, sanctified and anointed, not with material holy oil, but the holy spirit itself, or holy unction to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifice, 1. Pet. 2. 5. and as their holy Altar and Sacrifices was a type pointing out our Altar Christ, that immacculatelamb offered without spot to God, whereof Paul says they have no right to eat that serve the tabernacle, Heb. 13. 10, (by which saying of Paul in that place you may by the wayif you be not stocks and stones take notice thus far of yourselves, that the same holy persons that by that holiness had a real right to be, not only in the nearest service, but highest office also in that Church of the Jews cannot possibly upon the mere account of that holiness, plead a right to participate of Gospel-priviledges, and if the holiness of the priests, which was superior in degree, though the same in kind with that of the people, and seed, by which they were privileged with so high a standing in that Church, could not inright them of itself, unless they were obedient to the faith also, to membership and communion with gospel-fellowships, in gospel enjoyments, shall we suppose the bare birth-holiness that was in the Jews seed (if it were now as truly in the fleshly seed of believing Gentiles, as 'tis certain there's no such matter) can entitle, and give right to enter and partake of Gospel-priviledges, without more ado? be ashamed Sirs to assert it) and last as all that holiness of the old Testament and tabernacle, and things thereunto belonging was no more than a type for the time then being, of the New Testament and Tabernacle and holy things thereof, so even that fleshly seed of Abraham, and that birth-priviledge and covenant-holiness, which they then had, yea that law of infants Church-membership and Circumcision, which Mr. Baxter p. 59 of his book will at no hand yield to be but typical and ceremonial, or to have any anti-type that succeeds it, was as merely typical and ceremonial as all the holiness, that was in the other subjects, viz. the holy persons and things above named; and sith he there challenges us to show what it was a type of, and prove it to be so if we can, as simple as he seems to make himself in this matter, I dare be bold to tell him that there was not any one thing under the Law, or in that whole Church of the Jews, which (though this will not down with him) was all but a Cer●…mony, but it was a more lively type in reference to its Anti-type, than this Infant-birth-priviledge, birth-holiness, and that Law of Infant-Church-membership and circumcision were; for verily as that fleshly seed of Abraham, Isaac, and jacob were reputatively holy, and were by Covenant and special promise from God, heirs by that bare fleshly birth with Abraham, Isaac and jacob of that Earthly Canaan, together with all the glory, privileges, immunities, rest, riches and bodily blessings of that earthly inheritance, and in token of their true title thereunto (as so born) were circumcised in the flesh; so Antitypically all the faithful seed of Abraham, i. e. true believers in Christ, and these only, ate that truly holy seed, which by the Gospel-covenant and promise, are and shall be heirs with Abraham of the heavenly Kingdom or Canaan, together with all the privileges, liberties, dignities, and blessings of that eternal, glorious and incorruptible inheritance reserved for him and them, and to be revealed a●…d brought to them at the next coming of jesus Christ, in token whereof they are not only outwardly baptised in water, immediately after they are thus born, and become the Children of Abraham by faith, but also circumcised in the heart with the circumcision made without hands; i e. inwardly sa●…ctified by the spirit of God, mortyfying, crucifying, cutting off, and casting out the fleshly supersluities thereof, Col. 2. 11. All which as its proved abundantly in each particular thereof in several other Scriptures (as Rom. 4. 13. 14. Heb. 8. 6. Rom. 9 7. 8. Gal. 3. 7. 9 26. 27. 28. 29.) so is it very plainly and summarily showed in Heb. 9 23. 10. 1. where the Law of the old Covenant is said to be, with all the holy things thereof but only patterns of things in the heavens, figures of the true, and to have only a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very substance of the things themselves, the Covenant-holiness therefore and birth-priviledge which was then in the Jews fleshly seed, with whom that Covenant was made, was (as all other things than were) but typical, and consequently but ceremonial and temporal, I mean abiding only till the time of the Gospel: And since your selves acknowledge that what was but typical of old is now vanished, I marvel that you should so much forget your selves, as to renounce the same holiness that was then in all other things, and retain it still as standing in the seed, and you hold it to be removed from Abraham's own fleshly seed too, and subjected only in the fleshly seed of believing Gentiles, you fight against the owning of any of that kind of holiness that of old was (I mean you Priests of the Presbyterian party, for the Bishops and Dr. Featley fight against it in the Pope, and yet hold it themselves to be where you own it not in Temples, Copes, Surplices, Altars, Fonts, Chalices, and such holy Church-geer, as Christ's Church in London, in Oxford, in Cambridge, in Canterbury did once superabound with, but neither Christ's Church in Rome till corrupted, nor Christ's Church in Corinth, nor Ephesus, nor Philippi, nor any of the rest of the Churches in the primitive times ever did, nor any of Christ's true Churches in these latter times ever will place holiness in any more; I say you are against all that relative Jewish, ceremonial holiness, and abide not to hear of its abiding in any thing else, & yet abide not to hear any otherwise but that it abides still in that only subject, i. e. the fleshly seed of enchurched parents.  
But Sirs, although in most things I must needs prefer the worst of you two P Priesthoods of the Prelatic and Presbyterian posture, yet (to give the Devil his due) in this one thing I cannot but commend the Pope and his Priesthood beyond you both, in that since you will all needs Judaize more or less, and regulate your Gospel service by that of the Law, they Judaize more judiciously and more ingenuously than either of you, two P P that pluck him to pieces for it, for thou 

English  
Scottish   Angel art neither hot nor cold, neither gospel, nor law, neither wholly Romish, nor rightly reform, but retaining a little of one, and a little of the other, and lying in a Lukewarm temper, between them both, for which God will spew you out of his mouth as well as them: but as for the other they are not lukewarm, but I bear them record they have (as the Jews also had since the Gospel came in) a zeal of the Law, but not according to knowledge, yea they are zealous of the holiness of that Covenant more, and more completely, then either of you: for they plead not only for the holiness of their fleshly seed, as P. nor only a holiness in Temples, Altars, Fonts, Vestments, Vessels, etc. as P. but for a holiness well-nigh in all those things, and more too, than ever were denominated holy under the Law, in which supererrogating, I must needs uncommend them again as far worse than you, yea they say downrightly to the people, that except it be after the manner of Moses in all things almost, judicial and Ceremonial (only Morals they are a little more moderate in observing, and can better bear an absolute abrogation of) viz. one Holy Highpriest to procure atonement, aliâs, fell indulgencies and pardons, whose supremacy must be owned, and he answerably adorned with holy Mitre and Crown, Purple, Scarlet, fine Linen, Chains of Gold; also if there be ●…ot holy Altars, Tapers, Lavers, holy Water, Offerings, first fruits, fine flower, Wine and Oil, Salt, Cream, spital, etc. holy Fasts, as Lent, Wednesdays, Fridays, holy Feast-days, in memorial of such Saints as the Pope canonizeth (which are more by far then there are days in the year) holy Pictures and Images, holy Wars, holy Pilgrimages, holy Clouts, holy Rags, holy Relics, holy Bells, holy Chanteries, holy Churchyards, of which they say Pueri sacer est Locus extra Mejete, holy persons devoted to service, viz. holy Votaries, holy Monks, holy Friars, holy Nuns & sic de ceteris, from the Universal Vicar to the holy singing men and pipers, and the rest of that rabble, which are the very vermin of Christendom; yea if they observe not all the holy Statutes, and ordinances which his Holiness their Lord God the Pope commands them, especially if they separate from the holy Catholic Church of his constituting they cannot be saved; Thus they clean outstrip you, if pleading for relative, dedicative holiness, and consecration of persons, places, and times, be as proper under the Gospel as under the Law, and are so zealous of that kind of holiness, that in zeal thereof they will have all to be Holiness to the Lord, till they come to be as wicked, and profane as the very devil himself can well desire they should be.  
Si aliquando quare non nunc? (says the Pope) when you question him for his Dedicative holiness, if so once why not now? If under the Law, why not under the Gospel? the same phrase you commonly be speak us in when we demand a reason why you fancy such a birth-holiness in your fleshly seed; in return to which against such time as you shall satisfy us so slenderly in this case, so as to say Si aliquando quare non nunc? arguing from the manner of things under Moses, that thus or thus they ought to be under Christ, and deriving a holiness from that of the Jews fleshly seed, to the fleshly seed of believing Gentiles under the Gospel, I leave this double question upon record.  
First, Si aliquid quare non quicquid? If you will have any thing holy with that Ceremonial holiness now, why not every thing that then was so?  
Secondly, Si aliqualitèr, quarè non aequalitèr? if you will needs judaize at all, why not in all as well as the Pope? though where he doth all, and more too he shall at last have no thanks for his labour.  
The next and last argument whereby I shall prove that typical holiness of Abraham's fleshly seed, as well as of all the other subjects denominated, and distinguished by it under the Law to be but Ceremonial, and now nullified under the Gospel, is this.  
That holiness whose contrarily opposite commonness, sin, and uncleanness was but merely ceremonial, and is now utterly ended, and abolished, must necessarily 
3. Argum.  be but ceremonial, and now abolished also.  
But that holiness, which successively through all generations (for the time then being) did denominate, and distinguish the jews, and their progeny from all people, and their seed as holy, is a holiness whose contrarily opposite, commonness, sin, and uncleanness was but Ceremonial, and is now abolished.  
Ergo, That holiness which did distinguish the jews and their natural progeny (as holy) from all other people and their seed was but ceremonial and is now utterly abolished also.  
The Major cannot possibly he denied, for contrariorum eadem est ratio, contrariorum uno sublato tollitur alterum: of contraries take away one, and the other cannot remain in its opposition to it, any longer: as for example, the commonness, sinfulness, profaneness, uncleanness of some meats, flesh, birds, beasts, places, persons, and their natural seed above others being ended, the cleanness of some meats, flesh, birds, places, persons, and their natural seed above others must without controversy be at an end also: under the law, whilst there was more uncleanness, commonness, and profaneness in such and such meats, places, people, then in others, there must necessarily be by the Rule of contraries more holiness in these meats, places, people, then in those: but under the Gosspel there being no more uncleanness, commonness, or profaneness in these things, places, or persons above those, there must be consequently no more holiness in those than these: and so if there be no such birth holiness as was under the Law, there can be no such birth uncleanness as was under the Law: and if no one man in all the world is more sinful, common and unclean than another by nature, no man can be more holy than another by nature, with the holi●…ess directly opposite to that uncleanness, but all men must now be all alike by nature or fleshly birth.  
And now as to the Minor, viz. that the commonness, sinfulness, profaneness, or uncleanness of some men's fleshly seed above others, oppositely answering to the holiness with which the jews seed was then holy above others, is totally destroyed, as well as all that uncleanness, and the holiness contrary thereunto, that was then in some meats, and flesh of birds and beasts above others is evidently proved to be a truth to any which will impartially consult and compare these three scriptures each with other (viz. Act. 10. v. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 28. Act. 11. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9 also Gal. 2. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17 18. in all which if you be not either so blind that you cannot, or so obstinate that you will not see, you cannot avoid the sight of this very thing, viz. that not only the Commonness, and uncleanness that was once in some meats, and flesh of birds and beasts forbidden as abominable to be eaten, under the Law, but also the commonness and uncleanness that was in some people, and their seed more than in others, even that sin and uncleanness of the Gentiles by nature in respect of the Jews, who were then forbidden to eat with them, as a thing for them unlawful and abominable, is not at all in being now under the Gospel, but quite abolished and consequently the birth holiness directly opposite to it abolished also; which holiness yet, that was as then in the jews by birth, and nature M ● Blake is not ashamed to screw his wits to prove a translation of from the jews seed now, to the seed of believing Gentiles under the Gospel, and that from the last of these Scriptures, viz. Gall. 2. verse 15. then which, I testify, no Scripture doth more clearly confute him.  
As to those Scriptures cited out of Act. 10. and Act. 11. these things are well worthy your observation in them first that Peter (though under the Gospel) stood yet opinioned (God having not till now discovered the contrary to him) according to the Law that such meats as were then forbidden to be eaten, and such people as were not Jews by nature, but by nature sinners of the Gentiles, were unholy, unlawful, unclean and abominable for him that was a Jew, so much as to eat, or eat with still.  
Secondly, that God did not show unto Peter in that vision any such thing as Mr. Blake dreams and seems to himself to have the vision of viz. that he had now translated that old commonness and uncleanness that was once in the Gentiles by nature, and stated it now upon such as are jews by nature, and such as are by nature descended from unbelieving parents, and contrary wise translated and stated the birth-holiness that was once among the jews by nature, because they now believe not, upon such Gentiles by nature, as are born of believing parents; for no more than Gentiles by nature can I call them still, for all their parent's faith, not Christians or Saints by nature (as Mr, Blake frivolously fancies them to be) that are descended from Christian parents after the flesh only; for howbeit the fleshly seed of the jews are jews still, both naturâ, nomine et natione, yet the mere fleshly seed of Christians and Saints, are not Christians and Saints at the same rates in God's account (how ever they are in the Popes and his) any more than the mere fleshly seed of believers are by birth, nature, name and nation believers as much as their parents, which that they are Mr. Blake himself, will not surely be so shameless as to assert: and though he tells us a trifling tale, that the name of Christian would not, long hold in any family, or among any people if it be not so, that as jews are jews by birth, so Christians are Christians, p. 6. yet I tell him again 'tis no great matter whether it do or no, yea 'tis not only worth nothing, but worse than nothing to have the mere name and title of Christian, communicated and derived from parents to children, from generation to generation without the nature, for that's the main mischief that hath overspread all Christendom, and filled it with a thousand Antichristians to one true Christian indeed. Secondly, as simply as he saith God provideth for a continuance in succession of that name from age to age, yet I know no such provision that God hath made in his word for any such thing, as the continuance of the mere name of Christian in one family or nation, by any such birth-priviledge or propagation thereof from Christians to their mere natural posterity, but all the provision that hath been made in this behalf hath been made by the Pope and his priesthood. Yea if God himself had took order for any such matter, then me thinks the name Christian should have been continued to this day among the posterity of that Gospel Church of the Hebrews, i. e. those many thousands of jews, which in the primitive times turned Christians, yea then so many thousands of the jews, which then believed, and became Christians Act. 21. 20 might have multiplied as easily by this time into one Christian nation at least, by the pastoral power, improvement, and sanctity of Saint Simon Peter, as the Church of Rome, i. e. those few Gentiles, which at first believed there, did at last by the politic power, improvement and subtlety of Sir Simon the Pope, his supposed successor increase and multiply into so many.  
And as God did not show unto Peter in the forenamed place, that he had now removed that birth privilege, and old Covenant holiness from the jews by nature, to the natural seed of believing Gentiles, so  
Thirdly, he showed him point blank that he had now quite abolished, and put an end to that old outward carnal, legal, ceremonial account of things, and persons as holy and unclean, so that now as no meats, nor flesh of birds and beasts should be counted common or unclean, in relation to other, as aforetime, so no men now or flesh of men however born, should by mere fleshly birth of such parents, though unbelieving Gentiles, be counted common or unclean in relation to others, whether jews by nature, or believing Christians natural seed, as more holy by birth than they, for being cavilled with by them of the circumcision i e. the birth privileged jews, for eating things common and unclean, and for associating himself with men uncircumcised, common or unclean (for so both the Gentiles or uncircumcision in the flesh, and many meats eaten by them, and prohibited to be eaten by the jews are called and accounted under the law) he tells them chap. 11. that he was at first as scrupulous of the thing as themselves, till a voice from God declared to him that he must not now call any thing common or unclean, that was so before, in respect to other, as more holy than it in the sense of the law, because whatever was then common or unclean in such a sense, God had now cleansed i. e. destroyed that denomination and distinction that was between it, and what answerably to it was wont to be called holy: And that these discriminating terms of holiness and uncleanness are as much abolished in all people and their fleshly seed as in all other flesh of birds and beasts appears undeniably chapter 10. 28. where he tells Cornelius the very same as concerning men, who aforetime were by birth common or unclean, that he tells them of the circumcision as concerning other creatures which aforetime were called common or unclean. Ye know (saith he) that 'tis an unlawful thing (meaning according to the will of God under the law) for a man that is a jew to keep company, or come nnto one of another nation (for then indeed jews by nature might not eat with such as were by nature sinners of the Gentiles) but now God hath showed me that I should not, (meaning in these days of the Gospel) call any man common or unclean: observe the words I beseech you, and consider them with reference to the vision itself, and that further exposition of it, which Peter himself makes in the 11. chapter, and the result thereof is no less than this, viz. That as there is now nothing, i. e. no meats, or flesh of birds or beasts, or other creatures more unclean, unholy, unlawful or abominable to be eaten then other, as some was under the law, so there is not now any man by birth, nature or nation unclean, in such sense as the Gentiles were of old in reference to the jews, but that all men are alike now by birth, and none by nature more holy or unclean than other, in such wise as before, none by mere nature nearer to God or further off, more or less the people of God or accepted with him, further than by holiness or unholiness of life they are distinguished. In further consideration of which v. 34. 35. Peter opened his mouth again and said thus, of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons, i. e. now he accepts not men of one nation above another, no not jews by nature, more than those which heretofore, in relation to that birth-holiness the jew had, were counted sinners of the Gentiles, nor any one man above another, as merely descended of such a parent, but in every Nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness is accepted with him.  
Though therefore time was, when the natural seed of Jewish parents (as merely so born, though proving never so morally wicked, profane and unbelieving in their own persons) were still accepted of God (I mean in that outward ceremonial sense only) as his people, his peculiar chosen generation, his holy nation, above all nations of the earth, though (as Mr. Blake says truly) none of the holiest for any transcendent manners of the inhabitants: yet when Christ came the hour came, and now is, wherein no fleshly birth or being of this or that nation or parentage or natural descent and condition doth invest one person or people with this birth-priviledge of acceptation before God as his people, or denomination of a holy people or seed more than others, the hour now is, wherein in mere infancy there's no more distinction at all between persons as holy and unclean, wherein faith and not typical but true holiness, or holiness of truth only, Eph. 4 17, 18. 24. makes the distinction between the Church of the Genliles, and other Gentiles; wherein there's no difference between jews and Gentiles, and the children of both save according as they are called, and have hearts purified by faith, Act. 2. 39 15. 9 wherein the righteousness and grace of God is unto all, and upon all alike without difference in time of infancy, and upon all alike that believe a alike when they come to years, for there's no difference, Rom. 3. 22. wherein there is neither jew nor Greek, circumcision or uncircumcision, more unclean or holy by nature either then the other (as of old) but all alike accounted sinners or holy according as they live sinfully or holily, and not other wise. If then we may not call any man, of what blood, nation or parentage soever under the Gospel common or unclean, (as God showed Peter that he should not) no not those who (saving the abolishing of that unclaanness) are as abominable by birth as the Gentiles were in the time of the law, then may we not call any man, howevernaturally descended, holy upon the same account of that his natural birth, in comparison of others.  
Whereupon though Christ called the Canaanites by nature, dogs in reference to the jews, and their seed the children, while that birth-uncleanness or holiness stood yet unabolished, Mat. 15. 12. 26. after which example Mr. Blake takes such blind boldness to himself, as to imagine the new born infants of believers and unbelievers may respectively be so denominated still, yet he takes upon him much more than God ever gave Peter leave to do, or any man else in those days of the Gospel, if he now call any person by mere natural birth more holy, common or unclean than other.  
'tis not now fleshly birth, nor circumcision, nor uncircumcision in the flesh that discriminates men as Saints or sinners, children or dogs, holy or unclean, in Covenant with God or out, fit or unfit (further than nonage unfits all alike for such a thing) now to be of the visible Church, which is not now national neither as heretofore it was, for under the law this only made men communicable or incommunicable one with another, this was the cause why those of the circumcision cayilled with Peter till he satisfied them to the contrary, because he being a jew by nature, and circumcised in the flesh went in to men uncircumcised, and did eat with them, Act. 11. from eating with whom he dissemblingly withdrew himself at another time, fearing them of the circumcision, Gal. 2. which way of discrimination of persons each from other as holy and unclean, fit or unfit for Church-communion each with other by mere fleshly birth and circumcision in the flesh, was but a type, the Antitype whereof is not this, viz that believers fleshly seed are holy, Saints, God's people, Church-members by birth, and chose unbelievers fleshly seed by nature dogs, swine, sinners, unclean in such sort as the seed of jews and Gentiles were under the law; but this rather and indeed viz. that believers themselves spiritually born by faith in jesus Christ, circumcised in heart, doing Abraham's works, are now the children of Abraham, a peculiar people, a holy nation, near and dear unto him, that must dwell in his house, and be fed and refreshed with that bread, of which there's abundance, and unbelievers themselves, unholy ones in heart and life, never new born, nor become children to God and Abraham by faith in Christ, but remaining uncircumcised within, under the unclean lusts of the flesh, are those unclean ones, and sinners with whom communion is not to be held by the other in Church bodies, those dogs and swine to whom the children's bread is not to be divided, nor holy things given even the holy ordinances of the Gospel, nor pearls cast i. e. the precious particularities of professed believers, viz. baptism and the supper thrown away upon them.  
Moreover as God showed Peter by that vision Act. 10. that not any man now, no not a Gentile by nature may be called common or unclean any more than one that is a Jew by nature, so he shows him the same o'er again, in a round reproof by the mouth of Paul Gal. 2. 11. to 19 where 'tis recorded how shamefully he separated from eating with the Gentiles for fear of offending the Jews, of whose cavils with him in this kind he had had some experience before, Act. 11. as if he had been opinioned still according to the law, that such meats as were then unclean, and such people as were then sinners by nature, in reference to the then holy seed of the jews had been no less than abomination still for him, or any jew by nature to eat of, or eat with, and likewise how roundly he was dealt with by Paul, who minded him of that, which he knew well enough but was too willingly ignorant of at this time, viz. That these who were but a while since by nature holy, were now no holier by nature then Gentiles, that were then also called sinners of the Gentiles, but that as to that old account of ceremonial uncleanness and holiness, whereby they were distinguished from the very womb before, they were now all alike by nature, viz. jews no more holy than other men, and other men even Gentiles no more sinners by birth than they, all that partition wall of birth holiness and uncleanness, propinquity and alienation that did once difference some men from other ab incunabilis being broken down, and themselves such as must look upon themselves as dead to that law, whereby they stood the children of God and Saints, and all other men sinners by fleshly birth, and under another law now even that of the Gospel, by which there is no other way of being holy and becoming so much as relatively only, much less really the children of God, then that of faith in the Lord jesus for the jews themselves more then for any other: and therefore in case they now go about to build again the things that they had destroyed (meaning that fleshly birth holiness which they had before disownd) they should make themselves transg●…essors in so doing: this verily is the very sum, sense, and scope of that Scripture viz. to cry down all the old ceremonial distinctions of men by nature and Nation, to beat down all that old birth privilege and pre-eminence of one person however descended above another, as to Gospel participation and communion: out of which yet Mr. Blake blindly takes his text, where upon to build again a certain birth holiness in one man's fleshly seed above another, the very thing that Paul there declares rather to be abolished, most perversely propagating to the mere carnal seed of Christians that ancient tipical and now ended holiness of jews by nature, who though the seed of believing Abraham himself, yet have none of it at all now themselves, nor yet whilst they had it could be admitted by john to baptism, and gospel privileges upon that only account, and yet if it still remain as the thing intitling to ordinances both must have it, and a right also to baptism by it, specially if Mr. Blakes own tenet be true, that the ground of a child's admission to baptism is not the faith of his immediate parent only, as he says it is not p. 24. of his birth privilege, but the promise made to believing Ancestors at a great distance; for as he s●…th there that if josia have no right from his father Ammon, yet he is not to b●… shut out having right from his father Abraham, so say I Abraham being not only the remote parent of josia, but of all the jews that are born at this day also, if the jews have no right now from their own immediate parents that in the primitive times, or more lately believed not the Gospel, yet may they have right, if right at all be to be had to Gospel privileges from the parent's faith at a distance, from their remote fathers Abraham, Isaac and jacob, whose believing of the Gospel, is as well worthy to entitle all their seed to this day to the Gospel promises, as the faith of any believing Gentiles only.  
I cannot therefore but stand amazed in my mind to consider how miserably Mr. Blake mistakes himself in taking that text, from which to prove a present birth holiness in the infants of believing Gentiles, which if there were no other to compare it with, doth sufficiently clear it of itself alone; how much more if compared with those forecited out of Act. 10. Act. 11 that there is now no such holiness and uncleanness as was once between jews by nature, and such as were then called sinners of the Gentiles: yea if that distinction of jews by nature, and sinners of the Gentiles spoken of Gal. 2. 15. were now in being, & remaining unabolished, it would be so far from establishing that indeed it would utterly overthrow what Mr. Blake pleads for from it, and instead of advancing the natural seed of believing Gentiles so high in holiness as he would have them to be by birth, debase them rather into a worse condition than I dare say any unbelieving Gentiles seed is in by birth (as to such a kind of uncleanness as they once were denominated by) in all the world; specially if it be so as he himself says p. 10. of his birth privilege, viz. That the seed of believing Gentiles are now under one of those two heads in the text: For if that distinction be not now destroyed, and all men by birth come under one of those two denominations now; under which of them I trow will Mr. Blake rank the infants of believing Gentiles? he will not render himself so ridiculous sure as to say they are jews by nature, and therefore (unless the distinction be totally taken away) he must say they are by nature sinners of the Gentiles, which in the sense of the Law, is as if he should say Dogs, unholy, common, and unclean, and more than we ourselves dare say of any now newborn infants under heaven, as in contra-distinction to other.  
If he say they are neither sinners of the Gentiles, nor jews by nature neither, then either he must say they are some third thing, which if he do Mr. Blake himself will contradict Mr. Blake in that, for he asserts pag. 10. of his Birth privilege that the seed of believing parents under the Gospel must be looked upon under one member of this division in this text, and that the Apostles distinction and distribution is so full and complete that a third cannot be assigned, or else he must grant that this distinction is now wholly ceased under the Gospel, which because 'tis the giving up of his whole cause he will be very loath to do, and therefore rather than do so (than which yet, if he well understood what is best for him he could not do a better thing) of the two he choses, to the utter contradiction of himself, to rank them under a third head, to assert them to be some third thing, namely a sort of carnal holy seed of his own, and the Clergies coining, a Relative holy seed of their own consecrating, a faederal holy seed of their own feigning, a holy seed hatched in their own heads, which are neither fish, nor flesh, nor good red herring, nor sinners of the Gentiles, nor jews by nature, nor jews besides nature neither, i. e. by personal faith as all true Christians are, but quartum quoddam, a certain fourth thing, called Christians from their mother's womb, or ever they are so much as christened into the name, or discipled into the nature, and yet for all this a seed set forth in such a transcendent manner, as if all other were in comparison of them by very descent, p. 13. unclean, sinners, unholy, dogs, and filthy swine.  
'Twere enough to make a wise man wonder to see how superlatively Mr. Blake magnifies this seed of believing Gentiles, above the seed of all other men in the world, even above the fleshly seed of Abraham, Isaac, and jacob themselves, who only, at least mainly; had the promise of this privilege of transmitting a Covenant holiness to their issue, and this but typically, and for a time neither, even till that seed should come, i. e. Christ and believers in him, to whom all, and only the Gospel promises were made.  
He calls them Children of God, and Saints by very nature, Little ones of Zion in reference to infants of Infidels, which with him are little ones of Babylon: and yet (to go round again) this Babylon (in his own opinion) is not the Infidels but Rome, a Church of Christians (in name at least, as well as the Protestant nations) and consequently (to go round again) in his own opinion such (see pag. 26.) as transmit a covenant-holiness into their seed, so far as (in his own sense) to make them little ones of Zion as well as the other: and yet for all this too (to go round again) though it be execration with him to hurt the little ones of Zion, i. e. in his sense the infants of such as are not infidels, but Christians in name, yet (to go round again) it is an happy thing to dash the little ones of Babylon i. e. in his sense infants of Papists who yet are Christians nomine tenus and not infidels, and consequently (secundum se) the Lord's heritage and such as have Christ's name upon them, and such as for a Turk to persecute were to be guilty with Saul of persecuting the Lord Jesus p. 30.) against the walls p. 29. which little ones of both Zion and Babylon he is yet much mistaken in when all is done, in taking either of them for fleshly babes of what parents soever, Zion's little ones in the true spiritual or gospel sense, being the Saints themselves only, and not their fleshly babes as such, even the little ones Christ, Paul, Peter and john speak of Mat. 10. 42. Gal. 4. 19 1 Pet. 2. 2. 1 john 2. 1. 12, 13. And Babylon's babes being no other than the C C Clergies adult disciples, or A A Antichristian C C Christian creatures.  
And (to take notice a little more yet of Mr. Blakes high expressions of the birth holiness, birth happiness, birth mercy, birth dignity of mere nominal Christians fleshly seed, as they lie scattered up and down in p. 28. 30. 31. 32. 33. and other pages of his book) he calls them a seed in relation to God as well as their parents, [and so indeed they may soon be, if he mean of such mere outside Christians as he doth] the inheritance of God, the Saints and Servants of God, a holy seed, having a royal transcendency above all others, as only worthy the name of a people, enjoying the light, nigh unto God, a people of hope and expectation, children that have bliss, [as if they were actually and inalterably already stated in it, and possessed of it, and all other infants and people as inalterably designed and devoted universally to cursing and damnation, as having no Gospel at all belonging to them, no not that Gospel which is to be preached to every creature] a seed by birth privilege to be baptised, p. 27. [which yet is more birth-priviledged than Abraham's own seed could have Mat. 3. even before their birth privilege did perish from them] such as have a large and full right to all the ordinances of God, and privileges of the Church, appertaining to members, as they shall be capable of their use, by personal faith and good demeanour when at years, and grown up, [and I wonder who hath not the like upon those terms? even infants of infidels surely as well as they when at age, and whilst infants, they are no more capable of the use of any ordinance than the other.]  
He tells us, these by birth are of the household of God, of the Citizens of the Saints ['tis much he said not fellow Citizens in Paul's phrase, Eph. 2. sure 'twas because he bethought himself of their uncapableness of fellowship, for all their membership] He tells us that these are orderly admitted, i. e. by baptism then which Scripture knows no other admission, for no sooner do we read of a convert (saith he) but we presently hear of his baptism [whereas of all the converts in Christendom that sit under the ministry of the Pope, Prelate and Presbyter, I never knew one in all my days baptised after their conversion of him by preaching, till being converted from them to the Truth as it is in jesus they convert and come to us, and then we immediately baptise them indeed; but as for them, 'tis impossible for them so much as to preach the Gospel in all Christendom, in the way and words in which Peter, Ananias, Philip, Paul, and all the first and purest preachers did, while they suppose all they preach to to have been baptised in infancy (for what Priest in Christendom can say to his parish repent and be baptised for remission of sins, arise and be baptised and wash away thy sins; he that believeth and is baptised shall be saved (as they of old said, Mark 16. 16. Act. 22. without gross absurdity having christened them all long before he ever preached to them?) neither do they baptise any at all after conversion, and the best baptism they dispense in token of remission of sins (so long before either sins commission, or the sinner's conversion) is at best but mere rantism neither.]  
He tells us that those have right to all the immunities of this house, to all the privileges of this City of God (meaning the Church here below) and have title to all Christ's visible ordinances, that they belong to Christ, and therefore must partake of that which is of Christ, and being of the household they must therefore have of the food of the household, yea the stewards of the mysteries of God must be accountable in case they deny it them.  
[And yet till they are at years not any one of them may participate (as themselves say) of any one of those visible ordinances, viz. neither praying, preaching, hearing, nor the supper, nor any thing else which is the food of the household after baptism, by which they are barely entered in infancy, and only thrown o'er the threshold into the house, and then lie starving for many years together, without bit or crumb of any other food at all, being utterly denied to be communicants at the supper, the use of which their folly will once be manifest, who say they are less capable of in infancy then of the use of baptism, for (as shall appear more hereafter) howbeit they are truly capable of neither they are as truly capable of both as of either, yet are they denied a share in that service of the supper by these shewards of the mysteries of God, the ministry themselves, and that for no less than 16 years together at least, according to the rule of the old stewards the episcopacy, that have almost given up all their earthly account, and I know not for how long by the will of the new stewards i e. the Presbytery, for if their rule be to practise it no oftener, than they practise it indeed, some of them have had no supper at all in their parishes, neither for young nor old for about seven or eight years together last passed, and when they will no body knows, and how they can with a good conscience I cannot tell, nor never could while I stood among them, they standing all, and their people all universally unbaptised to this day, for which neglect of theirs to give persons their meat in due season, order and manner, feeding them with a breakfast in baptism, before they are fit to be fed, so much as with that milk, and then denying them any supper at all when they come to years, though they then both pay for it, and are at least as fit to feed thereon, as they were in infancy to feed on baptism, the Lord of that supper, and of all the other holy ordinances of his which they have dispensed more after their own minds and men's tradition, will, and Testament, than his own, will call them ere long to give account of their stewardship too, and let them be no longer stewards.]  
And yet a little more to trace Mr. Blake to and fro as he danceth the hay up and down in that trifling treatise, he tells us that these are a holy seed, of the noblest birth, yea though they be the children of loose living parents, of misbelieving parents, p. 4. 5. 25. 26. of apostatised parents of excommunicate parents of fornicating parents [and consequently a very bastard brood, which under the law that Mr. Blake himself professes to be tried by were unclean, and not admitted into the congregation unto the tenth generation] of papistical parents' [for even these are but misbelievers and Christians in name still, and as himself says no insidels, though (to go round again) holding such damnable errors in the faith p. 30. as sh●…t them out from the happiness, and therefore I think from the holiness too, of Christians] yet all this notwithstanning (to go round again) if the children but of believing parents that are of the Church, and (to go round again) not true believers neither as believer is opposed to unbeliever, misbeliever or Christian in name only, with all which he confesses the Church may abound, but as believer is opposed only to infidel p. 25. [between which terms unbeliever, and infidel which are not synonimaes it seems with him, yet the Scripture makes no more difference than is between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the same greek word that expresses both, and is translated into latin by infidelis, and Englisht by either unbeliever or infidel, notwithstanding all this I say if born in England, or any where else in any nations, or of any parents that are but Christian in name only, or of but one such Christian parent, the other being an Indian, that is with him an infidel indeed, they are with him a holy seed still, that God owns and challenges for his, yea from the womb God's heritage, a seed so nobly born as noble Nehemiah himself was not, yea p. 28. the least of whom is greater than Nehemiahs' better. These high and Heroic Eulogies Mr. Blake bestows upon not true believers and real Saints only to whom yet they peculiarly belong; but on mere carnal Gospelers, the natural luke warm formalists of the Antichristian more than Christian nations, upon pretensive verbal professors, and that not of truth neither as 'tis in the word, but as in the word of an erroneous Priesthood, who preach truth for tith, and yet not the tith of that truth they should preach neither, but mostly the traditions of men, upon real professors of profaneness, for so many to one of them that are Christians in name only, and yet not on these only but on the mere fleshly seed o●… these doth he bestow such expressions as these, even no less than can be said of the chiefest Saints, he says of the fleshly holy seed of all the sinners in Christendom, viz. a chosen generatien, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people, page 8, people of God that suck in much of God whilst they suck the breast page 32.  
And yet for all this their so timely acquaintance with, and knowledge of God, as it were from the womb his heritage, having the knowledge of the Scriptures, if not with John Baptist full of the holy Ghost from the womb, never in that condition of enstrangement from God as the Ephesians were said to be in Ephes. 2. 11. for thus extraordinarily also doth he extol that fleshly seed that is born within the precincts of the Christian nations p. 32, for all this (I say) to go round again, and to use his own phrases and expressions of them in the quite contrary way page 28. breeding and education not answering birth and descent, by which they are Gods by Covenant; A people ignorant to perdition, and destruction, such as though dedicated to God so soon as born, yet have nothing appears in their lives, but that they might have been given as well to Molo●…, such who (as holy seed and people as they are) are no better but somewhat worse than the Mongrel seed, that spoke half in the Language of Canaan, and half of Ashdod, out of whose mouth scarce a word can be heard, for to argue that they are Christians, lisping out oaths as soon as words, put to learn trades, and little regard had that they may learn to know Christ jesus; for even thus and no less doth Mr Blake disparage this honourable holy seed that is born in Christendom, soon after he had lifted them up as it were to heaven, and set them above the seed of all other people in the world, in respect of this birth-holinesse and happiness: insomuch that if you read how this royal race, and fleshly birth holy seed of all that are Christians but in name, do sometimes ride and float upon the high waves of his windy applause, and by and by are debased and denominated in no higher and better, but somewhat worse and inferior terms then the mongrel seed, which God was so far from owning as his, that he enjoined their own fathers not to own them N●…h, 13. Ezek. 13. 
jam jam tacturos sidera summa putes.  
jam jam tacturos tartara nigra putes.   
Me thinks 'tis very much, and not a little to be mused on, that a seed of such holiness, mercies, glory, honour, royalty, bliss, promises, privileges, carried up so high into the air which words, born up above all men's seed with pompous titles of, high born heirs, intimately interessed in God, in Christ, in Abraham, allied to them all as their own, upon no other than that bare account of being the mere fleshly seed of Christians, and that in name only, should yet when all is done have neither any earthly kingdom, inheritance or Canaan (as the Jews had while they enjoyed this birth-priviledge) whereby to prove them real heirs of something more than bare ordinance (which is but bondage without the inheritance) not a dram more of any outward earthly felicity, power, glory, peace, plenty, etc. then what may befall the seed of Turks and Tartars as well as they; nor yet the least measure of real right, or true and immediate title to the heavenly Canaan, kingdom, and inheritance by any promise thereof made to them as such, i, e. upon the mere account of being such men's seed, unless at years they become believers, and obedient to the Gospel themselves, upon which terms of belief and obedience when they come to age, the seed of the vilest wretch under heaven may be an heir of it aswel as they: for in infancy the seed of believers have not hard themselves from heaven, or deserveed exemption, by any actual transgression, from the general state of little infants declared in Scripture, any more than the Infants of believers, so but that dying in infancy they may be saved equally with the other, and when they grow to years the seed of the best believers in the world have no promise without faith to be saved ere the sooner because they are such men's seed, but in the way of faith or believing themselves, the seed of the worst enemies to Christ that ever breathed have as much promise and assurance from God that they shall be saved as the other. Sirs where is the blessedness you speak of? where the great pre-eminence of believers seed under the Gospel doth now lie, in respect of which they are styled by Mr. Blake, and others such great and high born heirs, nor yet what inheritance it is, which by that bare fleshly birth only they are heirs to, I could never yet find of myself, nor learn from any of you. As for the jews by nature though they were not heirs of heaven itself, upon the mere fleshly birth of Abraham without faith Rom. 4. 13. yet they were not called heirs merely as born after the flesh in vain, for there was an earthly Canaan which they were heirs of, and God gave to them by promise as they were merely the fleshly seed of Abraham, which also they actually enjoyed according to the promise, whether they had any faith or moral holiness yea or no, during that time of the law, but as for the fleshly seed of believing Gentiles, to which Mr. Blake translates the same birth privilege of being holy and high born heirs by nature, they stand heirs (by that natural birth only) of neither the earthly nor yet the heavenly Canaan: Mr. Blake feeds us with an empty title of holiness by birth, heirs by birth, but can't possibly say we are heirs of heaven by birth of believers, unless we believe ourselves, and believing themselves those that by fleshly birth are of unbelieving parents are by promise heirs to it as much as any: nor can he say that the seed of believing Gentiles are heirs by birth (as the Jews were) of the land of Canaan, and yet if the same birth privilege, birth holiness, birth happiness they had, be now (as he says it is) made over to such in the same way as 'twas once standing among the Jews, me thinks as they were disinherited from their land through unbelief, when once the time of standing by faith only came, as well as from their title to the names of Church, people of God, a holy seed, heirs by birth and such like, so those that succeed them in their whole birth privilege, should have their inheritance as well as the name of heirs by birth, or else how is there such an equalizing of the body of Christians with the Nation of the Jews, as Mr. Blake pleads there is p. 8. how can we be said to be as largely and in as full and ample manner invested with, and installed into the glorious fleshly birthrights, which the Jews of old were dignified withal if we have not a plenary conveyance of the outward benefits and blessings of the land of Cana●…n, and the possession of that inheritance, which God then gave to those jews by nature, to us and our fleshly seed, as well as of the outward oracles and ordinances? besides what a poor piteous piece of birth privilege is it, to be adopted instead of the Jews into the mere name of holy sons and heirs, and yet to have nor a foot of that land which was the jews inheritance, in respect to their fruition of which by right of a promise to Abraham and them, they were then honoured with that name of heirs? but if it be said that we are now by a birth of believing parents heirs (as they were then) of the heavenly inheritance, and the true eternal Canaan and kingdom whereof that was but a type, though we have not to do with that typical land itself as they once had; I still strongly deny it that either any jews by nature then were, or any of the fleshly seed of believing Gentiles now are, by the faith of their father's only heirs by any promise at all of the kingdom of heaven, or any further at all then as dying in infancy they never deserved exemption by actual trangression, or living to age they believe themselves, and so viz. dying in infancy before they have bard themselves by actu●…l sin, or believing themselves when grown to age, I say still the fleshly seed, even of such fathers as never had any faith, are by that faith of their own heirs of the kingdom, which God hath prepared for all persons that love him of what parents soever, and shall (so dying) assuredly inherit it once, and that by promise as well as they.  
And so I leave Mr. Blake unless he like rather to return to the truth, to lose himself lest I also lose myself with him from the work in hand, in that m●…drous labyrinth of self contradictions, Romish confusions, jewish conceits and ceremonies, pithles privileges, absurd asseverations, of a present continuance of that old legal typical, and (by God himself) long since in Christ crucified, prosaned and cashiered holiness, which his Baby-book entitled The birth privilege abounds with, which if they have so much truth in them as he confidence in averring then his eyes are not so dim as I now deem they are, but my own rather, with which I seriously and sincerely seek after truth, are, Christ's promise in that case to the contrary notwithstanding Prov. 2. 3. 4. john 7. 17. totally and terribly darkened.  
Much more might easily be said in discovery of the foppicalnesse of that book, but I spare to spend any more time or paper upon it then its worth; besides having by the last argument above urged slockt him up by the stumps, and by the following considerations and returns to sund●…y of his self confuting sentences blasted some of his broadest shows, and chopped off not a few of his most flourishing branches, I shall not weary myself further in fight with any more of his sigleaves, for they consequently will die of themselves, and so till the Lord have ●…cy upon him which is the best good I can, and the worst hurt I do desire should befall him, and take him up into nearer acquaintance with the truth of his Gospel, he must lie where he is for me, only because there seems to be one scruple more behind, which though it be but a gnat, I see many strain at I shall only blow it out of the way, and so hasten from further handling of this head of infant holiness, to the rest of those mediums, whereby you the Ashford Disputants undertake to prove believers infants to have the holy spirit.   

Babist.  
The holiness of that fleshly seed which was circumcised under the law was not ceremonial and typical only; nor only appertaining to Moses Tabernacle, Testament and law as the holiness of the Priests, Altar, sacrifices, and other legal services was: for that indeed as it began with Moses, so ended in Christ crucified, but this holiness in the seed and the matter of infant Church-membership and circumcision upon this birth privilege, and Covenant holiness was before the law of Moses, for that people were a holy seed and children of the promise made to Abraham Gen. 17. and thereupon circumcised 400 years before Moses, and the law, end therefore as it began not with it, so neither is it to be abrogated together with Moses law.   

Baptist.  
Though the Covenant of circumcision, i. e the promise of the land of Canaan to Abraham's fleshly seed, who by birth were a holy seed that were to inherit that holy land, and circumcision itself also the token of it were long before Moses, yet did they belong to Moses law, that is now abolished, and thereto are they by Christ himself accounted to appertain and plainly called the law of Moses, joh. 7. ●…2, 23. And as circumcision and the birth privilege of Abraham's fleshly seed so many more things were many years before Moses was born; as offerings and sacrifices, and distinctions of cleanness and uncleanness of beasts, and yet all were but pieces of the ceremonial law of Moses, and were to cease utterly under Christ, neither is it any good consequence at all to argue thus concerning any thing, viz. It was before Moses was born, and before Moses gave the law, and therefore no part of the ceremonial law, for many parts of that law of Moses were in being before Moses himself had any being, and yet are reputed to no other than Moses Testament, as well as many things that were done no less than 1000 years before Christ came in person, are reputed as apperatining to his Testament, and to tell you the truth both the Gospel and the Law, both the old Testament and the new, though neither of them perfectly, yet in part and secundum quid (as you use to say) i. e. in some respects, and remote beginnings were both in being as high as Adam and Abel; even thousands of years before either Moses or Christ were born, after whose names the two Testaments are called: for as what was of the Gospel was called after Christ, though a thousand years before Christ came, or the Gospel began in its last and most clear and perfect promulgation, for in Heb. 11. 24. Moses is said to esteem the reproach of Christ as great riches etc. So that we see the cross of Christ was before Christ was born, even so what was a part of the typical law, or old Covenant was styled Mosaical though some parcels of it were given out, and in use before Moses was born; yea circumcision itself which was four hundred year elder than Moses, is said to be given by Moses, and called the Law of Moses: Moses gave you circumcision etc. and ye on the Sabbath circumcise a man, that the Law of Moses may not be broken joh. 7 22. 23. And not only circumcision and sacrifices but even the whole Law is said to come by Moses, though circumcision and sacrifices, which were parts of it, came long before him, and grace and truth to come by Christ, i. e. the very things themselves of which Moses Testament was but typical, and a shadow, Though grace and truth were both in the world in part long before Christ came personally into it, john 1. 17. yea something of both Law and Gospel came into the world before either Moses or Christ, yet they are denominated after them Moses Law, Christ's Gospel, and said respectively to begin in them, to come with them, to be given by them, as if they had been altogether unheard of before these times; because when they came they gave the things a new that were before, and also the fullness of the things respectively pertaining to each Testament, which in part were, but not in their ample perfection till their times; and thus the Law was said to begin at Moses, Gal. 3. 17. and the Gospel to begin at Christ birth, Mark 1. 1 the one 400 years the other at least two thousand years after both Covenants, viz. the Law and the Gospel too began in the word of Promise to Abraham, and his two seeds, Isaac and Christ, to whom respectively the two promises were made of two several Canaan's; the Earthly and the Heavenly, whereof the one, together with the promise itself that was made of it, and the Promised seed to which it was made, viz. the fleshly seed of Abraham by Isaac, was a clear type of the other, i e. of the promise and promised seed that by that prom●…se were to be heirs thereof, viz. a spiritual seed of Abraham by faith in Jesus Christ Gen. 17.  
For there the Inheritances of both Covenants were both given in the word of promise, the one, viz. the Heavenly Canaan more darkly, through the other typing it out, the other i. e. the Earthly Canaan more clearly, plainly and in terminis ver. 7. 8. I will give to thee and thy seed after thee (meaning Isaac the only seed, and heir of that promise, for Ishmael and his had not that typical covenant established on them p. 20. 21. but Isaac and his fleshly seed, as also Antitypically Isaac and his fleshly seed, who were sons of the bondwoman, and a mere fleshly seed in reference to Christ, though children of the freewoman and a promised seed (in a type) in reference to Ishmael, had not the true, or Gospel's Covenant established on them, merely as born of Abraham's body, but as believing, and so it is established on all men, but Christ and Believers) I will give thee and thy seed (saith he) the Land of Canaan: even then and there God gave out both the Covenants in the promise, viz. the Gospel more implicitly, and in a shadow, the other 〈◊〉. e. the legal Covenant concerning Canaan in express terms together with a present grant of one of the grand Ordinances of it, as a sign and token, viz. Circumcision, typing out the spiritual jews or seed of Abraham's circumcision in heart, that must be heirs only under the Gospel, Rom. 2. Phil. 3. to which Ordinative, or beginning, or cardinal ordinance circumcision, many more Statutes, Laws, Judgements, and ordinances were to be added in after ages, when the time of their entering their Possession should draw nigh, to the observation of all which (as in time God should give them out more clearly by his Servant Moses (the Deliverer, Minister and Mediator of that Covenant) circumcision was an obligation, and in these Respects that Covenant is called the Covenant of Circumcision Act. 7. 8. and Circumcision itself called an Engagement to keep the whole law, i. e. binding to the performance of all things required to be done on man's part, i. e. the Jews in order to their enjoyment of Canaan under that old Testament or Covenant, Gal. 5. 3. For though Circumcision, as well as that promised Land, whereof it was a token, and that fleshly seed that were signed heirs by it, and all other the Ordinances of Divine Service, which the first Covenant than had, and in a manner every thing else under the Law related thus far to the Gospel Covenant, as that they were types and shadows of something answerable under the Gospel, i. e. Circumcision of the heart, and that other seed, i. e. jews inwardly, both answering to that Circumcision and those jews which were outward only and in the flesh, Rom. 2. 27. 28, 29. Philip. 3. 2, 3. and of the Heavenly Inheritance, which these inward jews, i e. believers or circumcised ones in heart are heirs to by promise; yet both that sign Circumcision, and the promise signified by it, were all alike relating immediately to that Old Testament of Moses, as parts thereof, and were not parts, but patterns only of the new; nor was Circumcision any other than an ordinance of the Law of Moses, and not a direct rule for us to square or steer by in our dispensing any ordinance of the Gospel, for that were to disparage the Lawgiver, we are under even that other great Prophet Christ, whom Moses pointed at, saying Deut. 18. A Prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you, him shall ●…e hear in all things, etc. as if he were not as faithful and punctual to the full in fitting laws for his house, the Gospel Church, as Moses was for that old Israel or Church under the Law, which was his, Heb. 3. 1. 2. 5. 6. 7.  
Though therefore both Covenants were in being, i. e. the Law and the Gospel, before either Moses or Christ, the one concerning the Earthly Canaan to a fleshly seed in a Type; the other a Heavenly Canaan to a spiritual seed as the Antitype; yet are they said to begin the one in Moses, the other in Christ, because these two were respectively the two Mediators of these two Covenants, and as it were the two several Masters and Law givers to the two seeds, or the two several families of Abraham, viz. the two Churches under the Law; and the Gospel, the fleshly Israel, and the spiritual, the personal coming of which two Mediators and abiding for a time in their several houses, did perfect what was lacking in them before in point of outward Ordinances, and institutions, and from thenceforth, i. e. from the several periods of their presence with them, establish them in a more complete posture then before, and each Church severally in its own proper order. Moses then was the Mediator of the Old Testament, established upon Earthly promises: and so gave precepts accordingly; but Christ the Mediator of the new, which is called a better Testament established upon better promises, Heb. 8. 6. and so gives his precepts not by the mouth of Moses but as he pleases.  
Besides all this, though the Covenant of Circumcision made with that fleshly holy seed, began before Moses, yet whether that denomination of a holy seed, a holy Nation, and people did begin so high as Abraham, or before such time as Moses and Aaron had according to Gods command to them, ceremonially sanctified by the blood of sprinkling and dedicated both the Book of the Covenant and all the people, and all the vessels of the Ministry, and all other things pertaining to that Tabernacle (for both that holy people and all their ceremonially holy things whereby you need not be ignorant unless you will that the holiness of that seed and their sanctuary was the same, and began and were to end both together, were first consecrated, didicated, purified, sanctified all at one time under Moses Heb. 9 18. 19 20. 21. 22. etc.) whether I say the holiness of the seed began so high as Abraham is a thing so out of doubt to me, that I dare say that as the holy land was not relatively holy till they came into it, so the holy seed, as well as the other holy things of that Covenant, were not ceremonially consecrated, nor form alley sanctified, nor vouchsafed that title of a holy seed, though virtually they were a choice seed before, till a little before they were to enter it, and howbeit I challenge no man, yet I entreat any man in the world to show me if he can where they were denominated and distinguished from all other people as unclean by that term of a holy people till God entitled them so by Moses, Exod 22. 31. ye shall be holy men unto me neither shall ye eat any flesh that is torn of beasts, ye shall cast it to dogs: which place compared with Levit. 22. 8. 9 Deut. 7. 6. chap. 14. 2. chap. 26. 19 doth so plainly show these two things.  
First, That the holiness there spoken of began but thenceforth.  
Secondly, that it was but a certain ceremonial distinction, and a holinese opposite to that kind of defilement, which might be contracted by eating of unclean beasts, and so fully ceased in Christ, that I even blush to read Mr. Blake, and have been ashamed in my mind to hear some Independents also bring those Scriptures, wherein God called Israel a holy people to himself, to prove, that an inchurched believers mere fleshly seed is now by nature holy in the same sense.  
Now then let us hear the conclusion of this whole matter: of the things that have been spoken this is the sum, viz. that there are three kinds of holiness, of which when you say children of believing parents have holiness, and consequenrly  
the spirit, you undoubtedly mean one, viz. 


Matrimonial,  
Ceremonial,  
Moral.     
The Middlemost of which, because your fellow laborers against the Gospel intent that chiefly in their books, I have treated on last, and most largely, and I now say three things of it in special.  
First, That it is a Holiness which once was, but now is not in being.  
Secondly, That it is a Holiness which of itself, when it was in being, as it was at the beginning of the Gospel before Christ crucified, could not without faith and moral holiness interest the persons in whom it was seated in any of these three things, viz. Gospel Promises, Gospel Privileges, or Gospel Ordinances.  
1. Not the premises, for they were made to Abraham in Christ and his spiritual seed; not his own fleshly seed upon such terms, as bare birth of his body, or such holiness and righteousness as was under the Law intituling to Canaan Rom. 4. 13. 14. Gal. 3. 16. 29.  
2. Not the privileges, viz. Gospel immunities, and Church-membership, for those that could plead they were under the typical freedoms of the old house, or Church under the Law, as Abraham's seed only were, are denied by Christ to be that holy seed that should stand in the Gospel house, that was now to be built, or share in that spiritual freedom which the son gives, which is the only freedom indeed, unless they did Abraham's works, john 8. 32. to the 40 ta.  
3. Nor yet the Ordinances, no not so much as Baptism the initiating ordinance itself, for when that old holy seed remaining yet under their relative and denominative holiness unabolished, did plead it as to baptism, they were put back by john, and not permitted, barely upon that account upon which they stood in the old house, without faith, unless they now believed and amended their lives whose repulse of them when they came to his baptism was this viz. begin not to say we have Abraham to our Father etc. Mat. 3. 7, 8, 9 Luke 3. 7. 8.  
Thirdly, suppose baptism were entailed so to that holiness and a mere fleshly seed of believers, or of believing Abraham himself as truly as 'tis true it is not, yet how grossly were you overseen Gentlemen in undertaking to prove the holy spirit by it to be in infants, for that's the probandum, the very thing which by the holiness of infants you went about to make good, for the minor of your first fylogism which was this, but little children have the holy spirit, being denied was proved (say you) first by their faith, secondly by their holiness, thirdly by those Eulogies given them in Scripture: if then by holiness you mean this kind of holiness, I mean ceremonial, which once was in the jews by nature, you have a wet ●…le by the tail then indeed, for ask but Mr. Blake and he'll tell you, that that holiness was in thousands who yet had not the holy spirit, yea in truth all the jews had that holiness, of whom not a Tenth, even then when they had it, were either in infancy, or at years morally sanctified, or endued with the holy spirit: and as I have said these three things in special, concerning that one kind of holiness, so I have three things in general to say in short concerning all these three sorts of holiness viz.  
First, one of them was in infants of old, and now is not but is vanished, and when it was it proved not the spirit viz. ceremonial.  
Secondly, another is, but nothing to your purpose, I mean the proof of the spirit, though it be in most infants viz. matrimonial.  
Thirdly, the other is not yet come for aught yet appears to infants viz. moral, which if it did appear to be in them positive, qualitatiuè, as an inherent quality, not negative only so as to be without sin, or absolutely innocent (for absolute innocency hath no need of baptism) than I should say something more to you, but you see it doth not, therefore though you said nothing then (as I wish since I had suffered you to do) from infant's holiness, to the proof of their having the spirit and right to baptism, yet I have searched, but cannot possibly find what holiness you could possibly have proved it by.  
I have been the larger here, though you gave me but a bare hint, by the nomination only of infant's holiness: first, because here lies indeed the very principal knot and basis of this controversy, which you erring in are consequently erroneous in all your ways, for Error minimus in principio fit major in medio, Maximus in fine. And as for all other arguments pro and con they are but as Auxilliarie hereunto.  
Secondly, because I am willing also sith you call so much for it, to give out my own grounds for the truth, by the way as I go along in disproving of your false ones, that you may either yield to them if found, or answer and disprove them, if unsound and rotten: in the residue I shall be so much the briefer.  
The next argument whereby you undertake to prove infants of believing parents to have the holy spirit, is drawn from those Eulogies given them in Scripture, not inferior to those of the best Saints, from whence you thus argue.   

Disputation.  
Those who are invited to come to Christ Mark 10. 14. Mat. 19 14. Luk. 18 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 verse 15. babes such as are new come from the womb, blessed by Christ, declared to have right to the kingdom of heaven, set forth for examples of innocency, not to be offended guarded from heaven by Angels etc. have the holy Ghost.  
But such are little children,   

Disproof.  
You say they have Eulogies i e. good language and commendations given to them, not inferior to those of the best Saints. Nay Sirs, they are superior in some sense to the best of Saints, for the best here have sin, but these have yet none, Christ taking away Adam's sin, and they adding none of their own, and yet it will not follow that they are to be baptised, for they have yet no need of it, muchless that they have the holy spirit, which is the thing you would prove by it.  
As for these particular Eulogies, which you instance in, if the most special among them do clearly prove the subject thereby denominated, to have that holy spirit that entitles to baptism, then I'll agree that mine are, but if it do not, than I hope you will agree to it that your wits are little better than sodden; In order to the fuller finding out of the full weight of each Eulogy to such a purpose, I'll consider some of them asunder, that being the best way, and not as you (Babilonicae brevitatis gratiâ) have wrapped and swaddled them all up together into one Syllogism, and if you think it too tedious so to do, I would have you to know my pains in writing will be Tantamount to your patience in reading.  
The first Eulogy, which you say Scripture gives to little children, is their invitation to come to Christ, from whence your Argument in form must run thus.   

Babist.  
Those who are invited to come to Christ have the holy spirit, and are thereupon to be baptised.  
But little infants of believing parents are invited to come to Christ, Ergo they have the holy spirit and are to be baptised.   

Baptist.  
To which I retort, stating only another Minor in room of yours, as the subject to answer to your middle term, and then judge yourselves how false your foundation i. e. your Major is, and consequently your building or conclusion. Thus  
Those that are invited to come to Christ have the holy spirit, and are thereupon to be baptised.  
But all men and women in the world are invited to come to Christ, Mark. 16. 15. Mat. 22. 9 2 Cor. 5. 19 20. 21. Isa. 55. 1. Mar. 11. 28. Rev. 22. 17  
Ergo all men and women in the world have the the holy spirit, and are thereupon to be baptised.  
I need say no more to wise men.  
The 2 Eulogy given from Scripture to little children is this viz. they are blessed by Christ whence your argument must run thus.   

Babist.  
Those that are blessed by Christ have the holy spirit, and so present right to baptism.  
But little children of believing parents are blessed by Christ,  
Ergo they have the holy spirit, and present right to baptism.   

Baptist.  
I answer first by denying your Major, which is not universally true, for persons may be blessed by Christ, and yet not have the holy spirit, for better understanding of which let it be considered that persons may be blest various ways, from which yet to their having the holy spirit there's no consequence viz. outwardly and inwardly, temporally and spiritually, with blessings of the body and of the soul, of this life and that to come: first with outward temporal bodily blessings (abstract from the other) they may be and often are blessed, when yet at present at least (for so they must have as to your present purpose) they have not the holy spirit, who possibly also never have it in all their lives, I mean in that sense from which Peter argues thus to their baptism Act. 10. for that some of you say when you can make advantage on't another way, was the spirit in the extraordinary gifts of it only, as tongues, prophecy, utterance etc. by which sense how ever your infancy is clear cut off from all capacity of having it, and so you are confuted by your own party in the very corner stone of this your babish building; but I'll give you the advantage of your own personal Tenet let it be what it will (save only that forenamed common sense of the spirit, wherein I have told you, 'tis in all men, who yet are not therefore to be baptised) I say again, both men and women, and children may be blessed by Christ outwardly only, as with health, peace, plenty, fruitful seasons, Mat. 5. 45. God is good to all, and sends sun and rain i. e. all temporal blessings on the good and evil, just and unjust. The blessings of bodily protections, as to be guarded with Angels from heaven from dangers, and mischiefs; which is another of the Eulogies you here instance in, which to save yourselves and me some labour, I'll take in hear, it being but a temporal blessing, from which it follows not that such as are blessed with it must consequently have the holy spirit; also bodily salvation from and sanation of diseases, distempers, by Christ, who is a Saviour of the body; these blessings of the body, the barn, the basket, and the store, health, and external happiness persons may be, and often are blessed with from God, who fills their bellies with hid treasure, so that they prosper and are not plagued, when yet they are wicked in their lives, and far from the holy spirit.  
Secondly; If you take Christ's blessing (as in this place you must, for it's so expounded and plainly expressed in one of the three Evangelists you quote, which write all the same thing in some difference of prase) for his praying for the persons whom he blessed, I say that even spiritually persons may be blessed by Christ in prayer for them, yea blessed with the blessing of the spirit itself, as de futuro, and and yet not, pro presenti, have the spirit: for Christ blessed his disciples, Luke 24. 50. i e. prayed for them that they might be endued with the spirit, and yet that he then prayed for, or by lifting up his hands, to the father then blessed them with, did not come on them till some while after: in this sense Isaac blessed jacob Gen. 27. 28. 29. jacob joseph, Gen. 40. 15. 16. the Highpriest all the People, Num. 6. 23. Moses all Israel before his departure also, Deut. 33. 1. etc. and yet they were not actually possessed of the blessings just then, when they blessed them, but along time after. There is a blessing by promise, as God blessed Abraham with a Son, and the Land of Canaan; a blessing by Prophecy as jacob blessed all his Son's fortelling, as I may say, their several fortunes Gen. 41. a blessing by Prayer, as in the forenamed places, and in this of Mat. 19 13. Mark 10. 16. And there's a blessing by putting into actual possession, and fruition of a mercy, so God blessed Israel with the real enjoyment of the Land of Canaan, and all temporal blessings in that earthly place, & so Antitypically will once bless all the spiritual seed of Abraham with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places by Christ jesus Eph. 1. 4. Now the three first ways of blessing persons are all concerning things to come, and sometimes a long while after; yea in prayer Christ blest all that ever should believe on him through the word to the world's end, joh. 17. so long before the thing befell them, that it was even before most of them were born.  
As to your Minor then, wherein you say, little children were blessed by Christ, I grant it to be true, but not in any such sense as truly argues at all that in their infancy they had the holy spirit. For  
First, it of the two most plainly appears that his blessing was no other than bodily infirmities, which are as incident to infants as men, and the end for which they brought them shows the utmost he did to them, which was not that he should baptise them (as I shall more clearly show by and by) but that he should touch them, and put his hands on them, and pray: no question 'twas in order to healing, for 'twas at a time when he healed many others, if you compare this passage as 'tis in Mat. 19 with the first and second verses of the Chapter: yea v. 15. 'tis plainly expressed what he did, i. e. he laid his hands upon them, and departed thence; besides Luke says they brought little children unto him also that he should touch them: which [ALSO] shows that others were brought too, as sick folks commonly were, because virtue went out of him, so that as many as touched him were made perfectly whole.  
Secondly, if he did bless them spiritually in his prayers, 'twas doubtless (yet all whom he healed were not so blessed neither, witness the nine Lepers) concerning things to come, and if he prayed for their particular salvation, yet they might not immediately have the spirit. But  
Thirdly, What ever 'twas he did to those particular infants (which whether they were believers infants or no too no man can tell) for many sought him for loaves, and outward mercles, and many for healing of themselves, and children, merely that they might be rid of their burdens, on whom yet he had compassion for all that) yet first what is this to other infants, or to ours that cannot now be brought to his person? besides what more to believers than unbelievers infants? what more to any then to all? away therefore for shame with such dry Divinity as this: he touched those children and blessed them, that were then presented to him, that he might touch them, therefore all believers infants have the holy spirit, and must be baptised: away with such dribbling dispute also, it is not fit for Christ's School, nor man's neither.  
The next Eulogy you mention is this, viz. Their being declared to have right to the Kingdom of heaven, whence your Argument must run thus.   

Babist.  
Those who are declared to have right to the Kingdom of heaven have the holy spirit.  
But little children of believing parents are declared to have right to the kingdom of heaven.  
Ergo they have the holy spirit.   

Baptist.  
In answer to which I must distinguish upon your middle term.  
There's a two fold right to the Kingdom of heaven, viz. a remote right, and an immediate right, conditional or absolute, a right in potentiâ, and a right in Actu.  
The remote, Conditional, potential, right, ad regnum, to the Kingdom, upon future Contingencies, and Events; this all persons that ever were born into the world have. i e. conditionally, or in case they dying in infancy, do no evil, or living to years shall believe, and obey the Gospel: but what is this right to your purpose? for verily  
First, It proves not the holy spirit, which you speak of to be in those that have it.  
Secondly, if it did it proves it to be in unbelievers as well as believers seed, as unto whom, when they come to years, Christ is a common salvation, and the Gospel of the kingdom is to be tendered, and that not in mo●…kge but truly, and really as theirs, till they reject, or put it from them, and as the ●…ews to all generations since Christ have done; that they may believe, and believing have life through his name, i. e. immediate right to it here, and possession hereafter: or if they happen to die in the innocency of their infancy before they have (to speak in your own phrase p. 5.) by any actual sin barred themselves or deserved to be exempted from that general state of littl children declared in Scripture viz. secundum te O Accountant, right to the Kingdom of Heaven, then have they all such apitudinem regnandi, as will cost the Priesthood of England for all his Christian charity in declaring the right of belivers seed to the Kingdom, more reason than they ever did, or yet have to bestow that way, to clear themselves from the just censure of Antichristian cruelty, for their excluding, and damning all the dying infants of others, which are rari quippe boni, numero vix sunt totidem quot etc. counting the little corner believers will stand in, at lest no less than twenty to one.  
And as for that other more immediate, actual, absolute right to the Kingdom, when it shall come, this Mediante Morte in infantiâ, all dying infants have as well as some, and not in infantiâ) all dying infants of believers then of unbelievers, for even of such (I mean all dying infants, for infants living to years are no more infants; though it be questionable too whether Christ speaks of the same in the place in hand, or of such as are like them in innocency etc. of the two most likely to be the truth) of such I say I grant the kingdom of heaven to be (for aught I know) but of no persons living to years, whether believers seed or unbelievers, Nisi mediante fide, et obedientiâ, and then they have actual and present right to it, all which notwithstanding (mark what I say, for it cuts in two the sinews of your consequence) 'twill not universally follow neither that those that have right have (pro presenti) the holy spirit, for though nothing can come between such as finally believe, and the kingdom, and that fullness of the spirit that comes in with it, of which the spirit here is an earnest, and the spirit it-self as the earnest, so as to cut them off from the future possession of both (God who cannot lie having promised the kingdom, as conditionally to all people at years, if they believe, so absolutely to all that finally do believe) yet many of those that believing the things spoken pertaining to the kingdom, and so having more immediate right then before (unless they lose it again) may (pro presenti) be without not only the kingdom and fullness of the promise, which they stand actually heirs to by faith, till the purchased possession come to be actually possessed by all the Saints at once, but for a time too without the spirit (as but an earnest) for this, in the common way of God's dispensation of old, was neither promised nor bestowed on any by promise (unless at any time God was better than his word as he was Act. 10. nor on good ground to be expected till after faith, repentance, obedience in baptism and prayer, witness the forecited places, john 7. 38 39 Act. 2. 38. 5. 32. 8. 12. 15. 16. 19 1. 2. Luk. 11. 13. Prov. 1. 23.  
The next Eulogy given to little infants, whereby you argue the holy spirit to be in them, is their being set forth for examples of innocency, whence your argument must be thus.   

Babist:  
Those that are set forth for examples of innocency have the holy spirit.  
But little children of believing parents are set forth for examples of innocency.  
Ergo they have the holy spirit.   

Baptist.  
Bare simple innocency, harmlessnesse and freedom from hurt proves neither holiness, nor holy spirit to be where it is, it being capable to be not only in infants, who in respect of age and stature, though not of kind and nature, are in an ordinary way at least an uncapable subject of the other, but also in creatures by kind uncapable at any time of the spirit, viz. doves, sheep, lambs, every of which (as well as infants) are set forth also as examples of meekness, patience, innocency, silence, under suffering, as the Ant is also for diligence and forecast, the vine for fruitfulness, the Serpent for wisdom to the Saints, and yet have not thereupon the holy spirit, yea Eulogies for some one particular natural excellency, qualification and endowment, and those not inferior to those of the best Saints may be given, and that as an example for the Saints, not only to other creatures and innocent infants, but also to such as are elsewise injurious, and no way exemplary to others at all, e. g. the unjust steward Luke 16. who though a mere child of the world, yet is commended by Christ as having done wisely, yea more wisely (in suo genere) then the children of light, and given as a pattern of prudence and forecast to them, and yet I should be in doubt whether that man were well in his wits or no, that should argue from those Eulogies to those holy spirit.  
Secondly from which innocency yet, if it would follow that the spirit is in infants, it must be in all as well as some: for is one Infant more free from actual sin, and in point of innocency propounded as our pattern by Christ more than another? is not innocency in the whole state of infants, even in unbelievers infants as much to the full as in the other?  
The next Eulogy is this, that they are not to be offended; from whence your argument must run thus.   

Babist.  
Those that are not to be offended have the holy spirit.  
But little children of believing parents are not to be offended.  
Ergo they have the holy spirit.   

Baptist.  
To which by way of answer I'll only compose another Syllogism, and so leave you to see (as you may do without a candle) and to search out the silliness of your own.  
Those who are not to be offended have the holy spirit.  
But little children of unbelieving parents, and also the very jews and Gentiles, as well as the Church of God, are not to be offended.  
Ergo little children of unbelieving parents, yea even the jews and the Gentiles, as well as the Chur●…h of God, have the holy spirit.  
And so Sirs having weighed all your Eulogies one after another in the balance of right reason, and found them too light, I'll only add one argument of mine own from the very places you quote, from which if either men did not dote on them, because they are found in the old Liturgy, and the new Directory, or were not resolved to take tag, rag and long tail, to scrape together even all the impertinencies that ere they can meet with, in proof of infant baptism, rather than to forgo it now they are engaged in't, there is no clearer consequence in the world than that infants are not to be baptised, and then I'll pass on to your other proofs.  
If those very numerical infants spoken of in those very places Mat. 18. Mar. 10. Luke 18. from whence, and from the carriage and practice of Christ there toward; them, the priesthood pleads the baptism of other infants, of whom Christ did never so individually declare (as he did of these, that they should be brought to him, and that of such is the kingdom of heaven) were not baptised by Christ, nor his disciples in the primitive times of the Gospel, which are our pattern, than it follows not from the example of these infants that other infants are, but rather that they are not to be baptised.  
But those very infants spoken of in those very places from whence &c. were not baptised either by Christ or by his disciples etc.  
Ergo it follows not from the example of those infants that other infants are, but rather that they are not to be baptised.  
The Major is most undeniably clear, for by what warrant may we take upon us to baptise other infants, when those infants were not baptised that were brought to Christ's own person, and whose particular personal right to the kingdom (as you yourselves say) Christ there declares? for 'tis contended by youthat the word [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. of such] must be meant [of these] not [so such] as are like to these [whereby you utterly overthrow yourselves too] for if that speech [of such] be in sense and signification [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] i. e. not [talium] but [horum] than it can reach no more to other infants of the same kind, then to the other kind of infants i e. the Saints, these being both viz. the one in specie, the other in qualificatione at most but such, and not the same, for the term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 expresses all that are alike to these, whether in kind or qualification only, or both, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is Individuum Indigitativum (as it were that points out these Individuals that were then present and no more: so that, to allow you your own feigned sense (I say) if those were not baptised whom Christ so Individually demonstrates, and indigitates as heirs of the kingdom of heaven, much less may any other infants of whom (if you render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and give the sense to be [horum] not talium] Christ can't be understood as speaking there at all.  
For the clearing therefore of the Minor, which only will need proof in this Syllogism (unless you will say let Christ and his disciples do what they will, we'll do what we list) consider this; that 'tis well nigh universally confessed by your selves that these infants were not baptised.  
Mr. Cottons words upon this very place 
m p. 9 of his grounds and ends of baptising children.  are these viz. neither do I allege this place for to prove that Christ baptised these infants, for it doth not appear that their fathers who brought them were baptised themselves, and therefore neither might their children be baptised according to rule; and as he speaks thus of this place Mark 10. so much after the same sort he speaks concerning another place viz, Act. 2. 38. 39 41. from whence you also ground the baptism of believers infants, from whence also as we do from this, we thus argue the contrary viz. If the infants of those parents Act. 2. that were obedient to the faith and baptised, were not baptised with the rest, than its evident that infants even of baptised believers were not wont to be baptised then.  
But those infants than were not &c. Ergo etc.  
The Minor of this Syllogism also Mr. Mr. Cotton proves to my hands, who says thus, 
n p. 35. 36. of his grounds and ends etc.  But to deal ingenuously and faithfully with you the text viz. Acts 2. 41. might hold forth a just colour of an objection, if you had so applied it against the Argument gathered out of v. 38. 39 for the baptising of infants, for if they who were baptised were such as gladly received his word verse 41. then it doth not appear out of this place that infants were at that time baptised with the rest, because they could not receive the word, much less gladly, least of all express their gladness by any visible profession. This objection I confess would have prevailed with me to have for borne any proof of the baptism of Infants out of this this place, were i●… not partly for the reasons which have been alleged above from v. 39 partly also for that I find the Lord jesus is wont to accep●… the acts of parents in the duties of the second commandment as done for themselves and their children; these are Mr. Cottons own confessions about these two places, in the last of which he seems to say (if I aim right) that those children Act. 2. were not baptised in their own persons, but accounted as baptised by God, accepting their parent's baptism on their behalf as well as though they had been baptised in their own persons, which if it be so, is of itself a clear argument against infant baptism; as for the other place Mark 10. I never could meet with the man yet that was so shameless as to assert that the infants there spoken of were baptised, excepting Dr. Holmes, and he indeed helps this ●…ame business o'er the stile, and lends a left handed lift towards the proof of it, that these infants that were brought to Christ were baptised, and that thus. 
o p. 58. of his animad. on Mr. Tombs Exercit.   
If Christ speaks of and doth such after higher things to such little children, whilst little children, how much more may that which in nature antecedes, and goes before these (namely baptism) be administered to them, whilst little children?  
But there is Mark. 10. mention of, and doing of an higher thing than Baptism, namely confirmation of them by prayer and imposition of hands,  
Ergo how much more may they be baptised?  
The same he both argues and asserts 
p p 63. of 〈◊〉 the same book.  in these words viz, they were brought to him for an outward ordinance, imposition of hands, that ordinance given to them did suppose a former, namely baptism (as we have showed (saith he)) above) and therefore if a little child be brought for the first ordinance, that he (as such) is capable of, as children were of circumision, it must be to baptism, and 〈◊〉 little below he adds this viz. Christ did not only cherish their faith that brought ●…em, but also cherished that baptism the children had received. In which expressions he is so unexpresse, or at least so whifling to and fro, that he must have more brains than I, that can pick out of them what he means distinctly by them: for in some of them one would think he meant as if those infants were baptised before they came to Christ, and were brought only now for imposition of hands, in some again as if they had been then baptised, and brought then to both that and to the other, but which of the two he means it matters not, so long as I shall prove by and by, that 'twas neither this nor that.  
But by the way I desire all men to take notice of Dr. Holmes his proofs, whereby he strives to clear it that the infants brought to Christ-had than the ordinance of imposition of hands, and so had been baptised before, and how they are not only nothing cogent, but so clearly cogent and consequential to the very contrary, that he that reads them with reason must needs conclude the Doctor's right eye of reason was not a little bleared (not to say absolutely blinded) by one thing or other when he wrote them: yea all he says for the clearing of that, doth clearly contradict and overthrow it.  
In proof of what he says in this particular viz. that the ordinance of laying on of hands was dispensed to these infants that were brought to Christ, he alleges the practice of the Ancient times, at it is mentioned by Pareus, Calvin, Hophman, Marlorat, Bullinger, and Cotton too, which all according as Dr. Holmes himself hath recorded their words, first severally in chap. seventh of his animadversions p. 58. 59 60 and summarily o'er again as it were to set his folly on high that all might see it, in the 10th chapter p. 85. 86. do testify uno ore with one consent that in ancient time infants were not admitted to imposition of hands, nor confirmed in the fruition of Church estate thereby, that being indeed as himself asserts, from them too, one prime intent of that ordinance which is one of the foundation doctrines to Church fellowship, till to use the very same phrase he quotes out of them, being past their childhood, past innocency grown up to years, youths at least, that made profession of faith, they were received not to that only, but to the supper, and all other Church liberties also.  
By which term Ancient times 'tis not easy to discem neither from him so indistinctly doth he utter himself in this, as also in most of his other matter, whether he mean the true and pure primitive times of the most ancient fathers the Apostles, which is our rule, or the new and post-primitive times of the fathers since them, which though declining daily into corruption, the priesthood hath ever for aught I find, in more account than the other, yet by one clause he seems more to allude to the Apostles days, viz. in p. 85. the last line, where after he had cited the forenamed Authors, and their joint opinion concerning the dispensing imposition of hands in foretimes to grown persons only, he adds this viz. so that the original of imposition of hands came down from the Apostles; thus far these learned men (saith he) but which ere he means it makes much what one for him, there being no times, primitive, or posterens wherein the ordinance of laying on of hands was given to infants, unless in that midnight of popery wherein they gave the supper to them also: for is it not equally absurd, and (if worse can be) worse than senseless, for a man to gather so undoubtedly (as he doth) that Christ at that time dispensed the ordinance of laying on of hands to those infants in Mark 10. in their infancy, because the Apostles and Churches in after times, whose pattern he was, did dispense it to persons ever, when they were past childhood, and grown to years? doth not this rather most evidently evince one of these two things viz. either that the imposition of hands Christ gave to these infants was not that ordinance the Apostles in ancient Churches practised to men at years only (and that it was not I shall show by and by) or else that the Apostles did dispense the Gospel's ordinances to other subjects than Christ himself did, whom they were to follow, viz. he to infants, and they only to persons past infancy? Moreover if the Apostles did say on hands at years, though Christ in infancy, what if Christ had baptised those infants in infancy also? are we more tied to follow his example in that, then in the dispensation of laying on of hands? you see therefore how the Doctor though he borrows his friend Mr. Cottins reading, and reasons ount of antiquity (as himself sai●…p. 86. of his animadversions) to make good a shameful assertion, and argumentation of his own viz. that those infants which were then brought to Christ had both baptism and imposition of hands, and even therefore baptism before, because imposition of hands then, yet makes so bold with it for all that, as flatly to contradict not himself only, but Mr. Cotton also, whose judgement is far founder then his in this case, by inferring two things from Mr. Cottons words, clean contrary both to Mr. Cottons own opinion (for he professedly denies that these infants had so much as baptism) and to the true consequence of his words also (for Mr. Cottons words directly argue that both re verà, and in his judgement of old there was no dispensing the ordinance of imposition of hands at all on infants, till they were grown up to years. How little therefore the Doctor deserves to be credited in his consequences a fool may see. Nevertheless lest any should more credit and cleave to Doctor Holmes his odd conceits, weo says these infants had both baptism and imposition of hands, then to Mr. Cottons candid concessions, and plain confessions that they had neither; I'll add a little to evince it, that they had neither baptism nor imposition of hands in any such sense as the Doctor dreams on from Christ at that time at all.  
First, that they were not baptised I argue thus.  
If they were baptised. than 'twas either before they were brought to Christ, or else by Christ or his disciples then when brought to him.  
But neither before nor then.  
E●…go as yet not at all.  
If you say they had baptism before they were brought to Christ, I wonder how they came by it, or where they had it, or who administered it, sith this surely was their first appearance before Christ and his disciples, and how any else but they could do it ask yourselves, who make more ado than needs about the bare administrators of baptism, as if they must needs be none but Ministers in orders▪ if you say john Baptist might do it, my no is better than your yea if I say he might not, for as you have nothing but thought to ground your thoughts on that he did baptise any infants, so I have john's one deed declaring that he did not, by whom nor you nor I never find that any were baptised but in doing of that, which infant●… cannot do viz. confessing their sins. Yet of the two this seems rather to be Dr. Holmes' fancy, that they had been baptised before they were brought thither, for p. 61, they are supposed here saith he, to have been before baptised, because they were brought to this higher addition, of imposition of hands, and blessing.  
If you say they were then baptised when brought, it must be either by Christ or his disc●…ples, but neither by him nor them,  
Ergo not at all at that time.  
First not by Christ, for he baptised not all with his own hands, only he is said to baptise because his disciples did it by order and commission from him John 3. 22. 23. with john 4. 12.  
Secondly, nor were they brought to him for any such end as that he should baptise them, but that he should touch them and pray, which so soon as he had done, he went his way.  
Secondly not by his discipl●…s, for they were not brought to them, but to him, and if you say it seems they came to them first, because they blamed those that brought them, I say that argues plainly that they were not brought to be baptised, for if they had, and had been also the true, lawful, wont, and known subjects of baptism to the disciples (as they must have been ere this time, if either john or themselves had used to baptise infants among the rest) they could not have been so ignorant and forgetful of, or carnally contradictory to their own and john's orders, and wont fashion, as so frowardly to find fault with, and forbid their coming to be baptised now, but would have rejoiced in, rather than reproved their forwardness in it, for 'tis most certain that they had been not only spectators of john's Baptism, but dispensers of baptism themselves also long enough before this time, to have been instructed in the true subject of it, for the bringing of those infants was after john was beheaded, but Christ by his disciples had baptised in judea before john was in prison, and whilst john was yet himself baptising in E●…on; yea and had made, and baptised more disciples than john.  
Besides the ground of their rebuke of those that came with little children was no doubt their care, and loathness to have Christ too much pressed, in which case they sometimes rebuked others, when they thronged upon him so fast for healing, that they had no leisure so much as to eat bread.  
Secondly, that they came not now under Imposition of hands in that sense the Dr treats on, is most evident.  
First, by the Dr own quotations of Mr calvin's, and Mr Cottons readings concerning the practice of the first times; for so far are they from clearing such a thing, as he alleges them for, that they clear the clean contrary, the subjects of that imposition of hands, they speak of, being only professors of the faith, and not infants; yea how doth D Holmes belabour himself to prove it, that those to whom the primitive Churches dispensed Imposition of hands were persons grown to years, more than doth his cause good, and more than any wise man puts him to by the denial of it, but those that were brought to Christ for it here spoken of none other than very infants in their nonage.  
Secondly in that this ordinance of laying on of hands was not likely yet in use and being in this prae-primitive-period, wherein Christ laid his hands on these infants; the ends in order whereunto it was enjoined, and practised when it was, being such as in this juncture, not only infants, but also the very disciples themselves were uncapable of viz. (as the Doctors own quotations truly show) perfect and full fruition of, confirmation in Church state, Gospel Church liberties, Church-fellowships in all Church ordinances, viz. the Supper, and suppications, and also the receiving of the holy spirit, none of all which were yet given to any, in such wise as afterwards they were, no not to the Disciples till either just before (as the Supper) or else after Christ was crucified: for howbeit matter for the Gospel Church, and fellowship was fitting, preparing and gathering in by preaching and baptising even from john, who began the Gospel two or three years before that, and the Gospel Church was as it were in a certain Chaos, or Congories of matter not yet digested into its perfect form, somewhile before the Jews Church was ended in Christ death, yet it came not to have its own formal constitution, in point of visible order, posture, fellowship, government, officers, discipline, endowments with the spirit, whereby they might be built up an habitation of God, and ordinance of laying on of hands in prayer, specially relating thereunto, till after Christ crucified, and ascended, the holy spirit being not yet come, because Jesus not yet glorified.  
Thirdly they came not for this but for another kind of Imposition of hands, which is otherwise called touching, which who ever had from him were (in case of diseases) made whole. They came surely for that laying on of hands which Dr Holmes himself speaks of p. 57 out of Hophman, viz. a laying on in order to healing, for which healing, by a touch of him, many men, women and children came, or else were brought to Christ, while others that were well came to hear him Mark 5. 27. 28. 29. 30. Luke 6. 17. 18. 19 Mat. 14. 13. 14. 34. 35. 36.  
This Imposition of hands therefore that these infants had was not that which persons, when past infancy only, had in the Churches after, and for Dr Holmes to say the Apostles and ancient Churches confirmed persons by prayer, and laying on of hands, when they were past infancy, and not in it, therefore surely Christ to the same intent and purpose laid hands on these in infancy, is equally absurd as to argue thus, viz. the Apostles and primitive times practised baptism to men and women only confessing sin, and professing faith, therefore it is most fitting, and likely now to be the will of Christ, that persons should be sprinkled in their nonage: so brittle are all the bottoms you yet build on, but to proceed.   

Disputation.  
Know ye not that the spirit of God is in you except ye be reprobates, and they dare not say that little children are all reprobates.  
Also Review page 16. They are not Reprobates, Therefore Christ is in them.   

Disproof.  
Nor do we say that little children are all reprobates, nor durst you say that any of them are reprobates, if mere blindness did not embolden you thereunto: for the truth is consider them yet living in the capacity of infants, and so though in foro Dei, & in esse intentionali, & conditionali, i. e. with God, who calleth things that yet are not as though they were, and foresees both what they will do, and what he accordingly will do with them hereafter, they are already known to be either of one sort or the other, yet in foro hominum, and in esse actuali, i. e. actually, and in the sight of men they are (finally) neither reprobated nor elected till they finally receive Christ, or reject him. yea I wish you were all but as sure to be saved, as it is sure that none are (quoad nos) rejected, or devoted in the word, which is the copy of God's decree, to eternal damnation, but upon account of their own actual transgression, and as 'tis sure that none at all of them that die in infancy, and no more of those that live to years also are damned, but such as finally put salvation away from them, and so judge themselves most worthy of the other; for though of jacob and Esau they being yet unborn, neither having done any good or evil, it was foretold by God, who foresaw what good and evil they would do in time; and what he thereupon would do unto them, that the Elder should serve the younger, yet this was foretold of, and fulfilled in their posterity, and not their persons, for though Edom served Israel, yet Esau in person served not jacob, but jacob rather bowed before him, and as for that viz. jacob have I loved, Esau have I hated, which you wot was spoken of them as from the womb, you shall find if you look again, that it was not spoken of their persons, but their posterity; nor yet secondly of those without respect to Edom's wickedness above the other; much less thirdly before jacob and Esau was born, and had acted good or evil, but so long after jacob and Esau were born, and had done good and evil, that they were also ere that time, when this was spoken, Mal. 1. many years since dead and rotten, but this would lead me into another controversy, of as large extent and consequence as this in hand, and therefore I will wave it here, yet not so as to decline the discourse of it with you, upon occasion, any more than of the other; well than that they are not all Reprobates it is asserted by you and us too, but what is this at all to your purpose? For  
First, is there no Medium between being a reprobate, and a present having the holy spirit? there were twelve Disciples at Ephesus, which had not so much as heard of the holy spirit, so far were they from having it yet, yet dare you say they were all reprobates? there were many men and women that believed the things spoken by Philip pertaining to the Kingdom, upon which the holy spirit had not yet fallen, were they all reprobates, because they had not yet received it? or those thousands Peter promised the holy spirit to, were they all reprobates, because they yet had it not, when he spoke to them? yea millions of men lie yet in wickedness, and so far from having, that at present they rather scoff at the holy spirit yet dare you not say they are all reprobates; for some of them may turn at Christ's reproof (for aught you know) therefore what consequence is there from not being reprobates, to a present possession of the holy spirit?  
Secondly, do you know so precisely which infants are Elect, and which Reprobate, as to take upon you to distinguish them by baptism? or are all infants of unbelievers reprobate, so that you may accordingly denominate them for such by whole sale as you do? Do not the infants of unbelievers very often prove believers, and so elect, and precious? and as ordinarily believers infants (when they come to years I mean) prove reprobates? were not Asa the son of wicked Abia, and josias of●… wicked Ammon elected both, when Ishmael and Esau the sons of Abraham and Isaac themselves were in Scripture (secundum t●… o Accountant p. 13.) both branded for reprobates?  
Lastly, to the plain perverture of the words of the the text, you quote to your own ends, instead of jesus Christ, between whose and the spirits being in men there is no small difference (for Christ may be in us by faith (I mean we may be in the faith) when yet he is not in us by his spirit, I mean before the spirit is yet given, witness all the disciples that believed, and were baptised with water, some while before Christ gave them the holy spirit, Act. 8. Act. 19) instead of Christ I say you insert the spirit of God: you also wholly pervert the sense of the Apostle in that place 2 Cor. 13. 5. who speaks it not to infants, nor of them neither, but of persons that could both know and prove, and examine their own selves, of all which infants, were uncapable by your own confession; he wrote it of them to whom he wrote it, and so indeed, though you are slow of heart to consider it, the whole Gospel was written, viz. de adult is, & adultorum officiis, of grown persons, whether parents or children, and their duties, but not for the use of infants in infancy at all.  
In the next place upon occasion of my denial that it can be made appear that infants have the holy spirit to the making of them subjects of baptism you argue it on thus.   

Disputation.  
The report of Scripture concerning them, and the necessary consequences of the former Arguments, do make it more plainly appear to any one that will not deny Scripture and reason, than the Profession of any particular person, who perhaps may be an hypocrite (as Simon Magus) can make it appear of himself God's testimony being to be preferred before man's.   

‛ Disproof.  
Here is one of the most prodigious pieces of absurdity, and contradiction of your selves, as you speak in other places, that was ever discerned to pass from men that cried out so loud (as you do) for liberty to reason logically since the art of Logic was found out.  
In that you here call the consequences of all your former Argu●…ents necessary consequences, which is as much as to say such as conclude the thing in hand, i. e. that infants have the holy spirit necessarily, universally, and infallibly, for that, and no other (were, you so well skilled in Logic as you would seem to be) is a necessary consequence, which proves the matter concluded certainly so to be yea certo it à esse, nec alitèr s●…abere posse: a necessary consequence is when there is tam necessarius nexus, & indissolubilis dependenti●… etc. such infallible dependence between the subject, and the predicate, that the conclusion must be universally and perpetually true, whereas your conclusion, which is this, viz. That little Children have the holy spirit, as it follows not so much as probably nor possibly from all that you have here premised toward the proof on it, witness all the Disproof made of your Disputation hitherto, so much less doth it follow from them necessarily to be true, for than it must b●… at least truly denominated the omni, i. e. universally true concerning all little children, that they have the bospirit, de omni being the very lowest degree of necessity: but this for shame you cannot say, that all little children of every sort have holy spirit, no nor yet so much as all of that sort of whom you so peculiarly assert it, viz. the little children of believers, among whom, when they are at years, there are as many destitute of the holy spirit as are endued with it  
And in further evidence hereof that it follows not necessarily from any thing you have said that those little infants you sprinkle have the holy spirit, I appeal from yourselves to your very selves, for howbeit you here affirm (as also p. 16.) ●…ch necessity in the consequences whence you conclude that infants of believers have fai●… and the holy spirit, yet to the utter confutation of your selves herein, you elsewhere confess that at the best your proof can be no more than probable viz. p. 18. where you write concerning the infants of Christian parents having faith and the spirit, as if notwithstanding all that was said before to prove the certainty of it, you could not now tell well what to say to it, for as in p. 16. you acknowledged that all infants have it not, so these are your own words p. 18. viz. the spirit is not bound to work it in all the children of Christian parents, nor barred from working it in any of the children of infidels, so that no judgem●…t of science can be passed till the acts themselves be seen and examined for a po●…ori only (and yet by the way be it known unto you that every necessary consequence demonstrates a priori) 
q Demonstra●… 〈◊〉 ex●…oribus, 〈◊〉, ●…r causis.  the discovery of habits it made: that unless i●… could be certainly presumed what children have the habit, what have not, for t●…w ●…ing of the spirit is not known to us, he is not bound nor yet bard, th●…re ●…a conclusion made.  
In which words see how plainly you acknowledge that no conclusion can be made of it, that infants of Christians have the habit of faith, i. e. it is a thing that doth not necessarily follow, and cannot appear in infancy at all, nor be certainly presumed, whether they have or have it not, till they come to years, and be seen to act, so that then it may be known by your own confession, and yet in this place I am now in hand with you say no more nor less, but in effect the clean contrary, as also p. 16. where you seem to wonder almost, and fault the difficulty in men's understandings that there are at all any doubts in them abou●… their having it, avouching that the Scriptures by necessary consequences confirm the thing viz. that they have it, That the report of Scripture concerning litt●… children, and the necessary consequences of the former arguments do make it appear, yea plainly, yea more plainly than the profession of any particular pers●… at years can make it appear of himself.  
O Earth, Earth, hear the reasonless round abouts of these Logicians, they tell us in one place, that it is to be concluded by no less than necessary consequences, that believers infants (for of such only they assert it) have faith and the holy spirit: by and by (to go round again) they tell us that it cannot be certainly presumed what children have it, what have not, that the working of the spirit is not known to us, he is not bound to work it in all the children of Christian parents, nor barred from working it, in any of the children of Infidels, so that there can be no conclusion made: in one place they tell us that no judgement of science, concerning these or those infants having the holy spirit and faith, can be passed in their infancy, till the acts themselves be seen and examined i e. till they come to years, and show forth some fruits, and it appear 〈◊〉 some acts and professions of it for a posteriore only the discovery or habits is made: but elsewhere (to go round again) they tell us that it doth more plainly appear concerning believers infants in their infancy, that they have faith and the holy spirit to any one, that will not deny Scripture and reason, than the profession of any particular person at years admitted to baptism, can make it appear of himself, as if it could not half so well appear a posteriore when we are at years and capable to profess and act faith, and show forth the fruits of the spirit, whether we have faith and the spirit yea or n●…; as it may do a priori i. e. in infancy, before any act of faith or fruit of the spirit can be discovered, seen or examined.  
Moreover (to animadvert this present passage of yours yet a little further) whereas you say here, that the report of Scripture concerning little infants, which is God's testimony, and to be preferred before man's, doth more plainly prove it that infants have faith and the holy spirit then any particular man's testimony doth prove it concerning himself,  
I answer, first by denying that God in Scripture gives any such testimony at all concerning little infants literally taken, that they have faith and the holy spirit.  
Secondly, if that phrase Mat. 18. 6. viz. these little ones which believe in me could have any such construction as of little infants literally, yet I deny that he speaks of them any otherwise then by a Prosopeiâ as I said before.  
Thirdly, if it were to be proved (as it never can be) that he speaks there of infants, and not figuratively neither, but plainly and properly, yet 'tis most plain that he speaks but indifinitely, not particularly of one infant more than another, o●… of Christians infants more than of infidels, so as that you can thereupon take on you (as you daily do) to distinguish which have the spirit which have not, and accordingly to admit these to baptism, and debar those, yea you yourselves do o'er and o'er express it p. 5. 6. that what the Scripture declares Infants to be, it declares them so to be in general, specially while any particulars of them have not yet barred themselves by actual sin, or deserved to be exempted from what the Scripture hath in general declared them to be: so that all this that you have brought thus far hath not the weight of a feather, to warrant your good opinion of one infant above another, and your practice of baptism to this or that particular infant (suppose a believers) rather then an unbelievers.  
It would be no plain but a muddy, tottered confused implicit shuffling kind of argumentation for me, if I were to give account why I baptise this or that particular man or woman, and not others to argue thus indifinitly (as you do all along) viz.  
No man may forbid them to be baptised that believe and have the spirit.  
But the Scripture declares that men and women may believe, and have the spirit.  
Ergo men and women must be baptised.  
If I should (I say) go on thus in generals only not making it appear, that there's any faith at all in these individuals whom I baptise, more than in others, I should take him for little better than a fool, who should take me for a wise man in so arguing, yet so and no otherwise do you argue, whilst when we put you to prove that those infants whom you baptise have title to it, in contradistinction to heathens infants, whose right to baptism you deny, you give us your account in these indeterminate terms viz.  
Those that have faith and the holy spirit may be baptised.  
But the Scripture testifies that little children have faith etc.  
Ergo little children may be baptised.  
I say what a bald way of arguing is this? wherein you conclude no more concerning the particular infants, whose right to baptism we put you to plead, while you shut out other, then concerning those very infants also whom you so shut out.  
This is just as silly as if you being put to prove your own particular salvation before Iudas' should do it thus viz.  
Such as believe shall be saved; But men believe.  
Ergo men shall be saved.  
Without making any proof of your own faith in particular, whose salvation you would so prove above his, whereas you should of right argue onward from the Major thus viz.  
We believe, and Iud as did not.  
Ergo we shall be saved and not he.  
And so had you dealt down rightly, and played above board in your Disputation, sith believers infants in particular is the subject in hand between us, you should have spoken plainly thus, viz.  
All and only those infants that believe are to be baptised.  
But all the infants of believing parents, and those infants only believe.  
Ergo all and only those infants are to be baptised.  
But you know of your own selves this would be too broad a discovery, the Mino●… being so app●…rently false, that ' you cannot hide your haking by it from the view of the very vulgar, if you should so express it: for he that hath but half an ●…ie may see, that as there is no more faith to be seen, so the Scripture declares no more faith to be in believers infants, than in the infants of unbelievers; or if you will needs have the Minor in such general and indefinite terms, yet at least ●…ant 〈◊〉 a fair Conclusion concerning those particular infants you dispute about, ●…less than that can amount to so much as inge●…uty, and then it must run thus, viz.  
Those that believe and have the holy spirit and so right to the Kingdom of heaven 〈◊〉 to be baptised.  
But the Scripture doth in general declare little children to be such as believe, h●…e th●… spirit and right to the Kingdom.  
Erg●…, the infants of Believers, and these infants only are to be bapti●…ed.  
But than you cannot so well shroud your shuffling from any observant eye, it being equally absurd to argue to universals from mere particulars, and to some p●…ulars only from universals, or to these individuals from indefinite declarations, and verily take your Minor term little children, which you so frequently Syllogise by indiscriminatim not expressing what little children, or else indefi●…tely and more restrictively for some only, not naming which, it's equally ridiculous to argue thus, viz.  
The Scripture gives good report of little infants in general.  
Therefore believers infants only have faith and the holy spirit, and thereby right to baptism, and not any other infants: Or thus,  
The Scripture speaks well of little infants indefinitely, i. e. of some at least (though not all, and we kn●…w n●…t which) as having faith, the spirit and right to baptism.  
Therefore undoubtedly these little infants whom we baptise are well spoken of in that kind and must be baptised.  
As ●…is to argue thus, The Scripture declares that John Baptist had the holy spirit.  
Eego all the infants of believing parents must be supposed to have it in infancy and may thereupon be baptised.  
Yet these are but as it were the several strains which you dispute in, which put all together into a bag, and shuffle as much as you will that which comes out first will be a senseless non sequitur, do what you can. But you offer concerning this & that particular infant, viz. a believers, of whom I denied that if it were brought unto you together with a heathens, the spirit could more appear to you to be in it than in the other, ●…ou offer I say to make it appear that that infant should appear to have the holy spirit above the other; for that was indeed the business I then put you to prove, and this you do as well as those may be said to do, who by mending make their mater worse than 'twas before, whilst there is not a tittle to be found in your Argument, which doth not as fully prove the holy spirit to be in all infants, as in any at all: on this wise it runs.   

Disputation.  
Da That which to doubt of is breach of Christian charity doth sufficiently appear.  
●…i But to doub●… these little children have the holy Ghost is a breach of Christian charity  
i. Ergo that these little children have the Holy Ghost, doth sufficiently appear.   

The Minor is proved thus.  
To doubt that these little children are such as the Scripture in general hath declared them to be, and that they have right to the kingdom of heaven etc. is a breach of Christian charity, whose rule is, Praesumere unumquenque bonum, nisi constet de malo; the Apostle saying 1 Cor. 13. 3. 5. it thinketh no evil, charity believeth all things; especially since it cannot appear that those have by any actual sin bard themselves or deserved to be exempted from the general state of little infants declared in Scriptures.  
Ergo, To doubt that they have the Holy Ghost is a breach of Christian charity.   

Disproof.  
Besides the salsity of both the premises, there's no more at all concluded from them concerning any one infant, then might (if they were true indeed) be as truly concluded from them concerning all.  
First O the rottenness and infirmity of the Major! it is most manifestly falls, for there are many things, which to doubt of may be a breach of Christian charity, which yet do not at present sufficiently appear.  
To doubt that this or that particular infant will hereafter live holily, and embrace the Gospel, may be a breach of Christian Charity, whose rule is ever to hope the best, till it sees the contrary, and yet that this or that particular infant will live holily and embrace the Gospel when he comes to age, doth not yet so sufficiently appear, but that (as more plainly as things appear with you in infancy then at age by particular profession) it may more sufficiently appear when they are grown up, yea till then it appeareth not at all.  
The Minor also is false, for to doubt that this or that infant hath at present the holy spirit is no breach of Christian charity at all; sith (what hopes soever we may have of them as to the future) yet at present there is no evidence that they have it, nor yet any promise at all that it shall be given to them in infancy, nor at years neither till they believe and obey the Gospel: and as there is no promise of it to them in infancy, so in mere infancy there is no such use of it to them, as 'tis promised to be of unto believers; neither doth it either quicken, enlighten, convince, convert, comfort, or any other way officiate as a seal of redemption, and remission of sins to such as have no sins as yet to be remitted.  
Secondly, if both these premises were as true as you suppose them, yet would it follow no more from them, nor from all you say toward the proof of either of them that believers infants have the holy spirit, than it would that unbeleivers infants have it: in the evincing of which I shall only transcribe your Syllogism, and proof of the Minor, and instead of your term these little children, write little children of infidels, and so leave you, and all the world to judge, whether your own Argument doth not as clearly conclude unbelievers infants to have the holy spirit, as the infants of believers, and so consequently that all have it if any at all as well as some.  
That which to doubt of is a breach of Christian charity doth sufficiently appear.  
But to doubt that little children of infidels have the holy Ghost is a breach of christian charity.  
Ergo that little children of infidels have the holy Ghost doth sufficiently appear.   

The Minor is thus proved.  
To doubt that little children of infidels are such as ●…he Scripture in general hath declared them to be, and that they have right to the kingdom of heaven, etc. is a breach of Christian Charity, whose rule is presumere unumquemque bonum, nisi constet de malo, The Apostle saying in 1 Cor. 13. 3. 5. it thinketh no evil, Charity believeth all things, it hopeth all things; especially since it cannot appear, that the little children of infidels have by any actual sin bard themselves, or deserved any more than others to be exempted from the General state of little children declared in Scripture.  
Ergo to doubt that little children of infidels have the holy Ghost, is a breach of Christian Charity.  
In which though both propositions be flatly false, yet I call heaven and earth to witness whether all that you bring in proof of the Minor do not prove it as much breach of Christian charity to doubt that any infants, as 'tis to doubt that believers infants have the holy spirit, one infant having no more deserved ill by actual sin then another.  
Thus all that ever you have done hitherto is utterly undone, for the Argument you began upon, and the basis of your building is, that believers infants (for their baptism only you plead, denying the baptism of other infants, as well as we) have the holy spirit, this upon denial of any sufficiency in all your former proofs to make it appear, is at last undertaken by you to be made sufficiently appear in this last Syllogism; which if it do not make it as sufficiently appear concerning unbelievers infants (considering your own matter used to prove the Minor) as concerning the other, than my candle is quite gone out, but if it do then surely the very light that is in you is utter darkness.  
In the next place, you dispute upon us by way of Question and Interogation, thus,   

Disputation.  
1. How do those men and women that are baptised at years make it appear to those that baptise them, that they have faith and the holy spirit?  
If it be answered by their profession.  
3. Whether their profession, since it is possible they may lie, can make it appear infallibly?  
If it be answered no.  
3. What judgement then can they that baptise them pass upon them to be the subjects of baptism (as they call them) whether any other than that of charity?  
If it be answered that of charity.  
'tis replied, then let them pass the same judgement upon those little infants of whom in general the Scripture hath given so good a report, and against whom in particular no exception can be raised, and the controversy between us is at an end.   

Disproof.  
First whereas you quere how those we baptise make it appear that they have the holy spirit before we baptise them.  
I answer I know no necessity of making it appear that persons have the holy spirit before their admission to baptism, for though we find once that God Anticipated his promise, and gave the holy spirit before baptism, Act. 10. yet I know not, nor yet do you, any promise there is, whereupon in an ordinary way we can expect it, of receiving the holy spirit of promise till after faith, repentance obedience, turning to God, baptism, and ask of it, Prov. 1. 23. john 7. 38. 39 Act. 2. 38. chap. 5. 32. chap. 8. 16. 19 Luke 11. 13. Ephes. 1. 13.  
Secondly, as for the holy spirits appearing infallibly.  
I answer first it may possibly appear infallibly to be in some, in whom it is, as Act. 10. 44. 45. 46. 47. by sundry fruits, and manifestations of it, which may warrant us to say God is in them of a truth: Mat. 7. 16. 17. 18. 19 20. 1 Cor. 12. 7. 1 Cor. 14. 25.  
It may I say undoubtedly appear to be in men and women, but cannot any way at all so appear to be in infants, if we may believe yourselves, who tell us p, 8. that infants have not the exercise and fruit offaith, and p. 18. that instruction of the understanding in matter of faith in some sort must go before any act of faith can be discovered, and that no judgement of science can be passed upon infants, till the acts themselves be seen and examined, for a posteriore only the discovery of habits is made, and that unless it could be certainly presumed what children have it, what have not there can be no conclusion made.  
And howbeit I am not of the seekers' mind, that an appearance of the holy spirit in any person before baptism in water doth exempt him from it, but am well assured that it strictly rather engages him to it, or else Peter could not have commanded them in name of the Lord to be baptised in water, upon whom the holy spirit fell Act. 10. but must rather have forbid it, as frustraneous, and altogether superfluous; yet that the spirit should appear at all to be in men, in order to their baptism, much more that it should appear infallibly to be in them, is a matter of no necessity that I know of, sith in the word it's not required that persons be baptised with the holy spirit first in order to their baptism with water, but that they be first baptised in water, in order to their receiving the holy spirit Act. 2. 38. for the baptism of the spirit as 'tis promised only to believers; so we believing, obeying the Gospel, and ask the holy spirit, 'tis signified to us as one thing that shall be given among the rest, in that very way of water baptism: so that its enough for us (as to the baptism of persons) to take cognizance of it that they believe and repent, which things though they cannot do without the spirit performing its common office of striving, drawing, moving, enlightening, convicting of good and evil, sin and righteousness etc. in all which it acts to the whole world, Gen. 6. Rom. 1. 20. john 16. 8. Act. 7. 51. yet they not only may do them without, but must dothem before they can by promise expect the spirit, in those special respects, wherein he is promised to believers, and called that holy spirit of promise.  
And now because you ask how we know they have faith whom we baptise? I answer by their profession, which gives though not infallibility; yet by your leave, for all your preferring the Eulogies given in general to all infants above any man's personal profession for himself in this case a far clearer and better grounded judgement of charity concerning them, that they have faith, then that you have concerning infants, which at best is but charity mistaken for cruelty, whilst it takes that to be in infants, and that on pain of their damnation too they dying without it, viz. believing see p. 8. which infants are utterly uncapable of; and whilst it takes even that too, without which it holds no infants are saved, to be in but very few infant's viz. believers infants only, and so damns all other dying infants, which are far more innumerable, and as capable of faith, and as little barring themby actual sin from salvation, and as little deserving damnation, as the other, so that whether we or you plead the cause of innocent infants let the world judge.  
And whereas you suppose that because in charity only we judge men and women to believe, therefore we pass no other judgement then that of charity only on them to be the subjects of baptism: herein you grossly mistake our grounds of baptising, for though that of charity only is the judgement whereby we judge them to be believers, yet that is not the only judgement whereby we judge them to be the subjects of baptism, but as to that we go upon a judgement of certainty and infaellibility also, for though it be not infallible to us that every one that professes to believe, doth as truly believe as he professes, yet this is infallible to us concerning him that professes viz. both that he professes, and also that professing to believe with all his heart, so that we in charity may judge him so to do, whether he lie or no, he is by the rule of the word quoad no●… a warrantable, undoubted, and (as no infant is) infallible subject of baptism, for the word requires us to baptise such, as after our preaching the faith to them, do truly profess to believe whether they believe as truly as they professed or no, for that indeed is not so infallible to us, but it warrants us not to baptise any infants, who can neither believe nor profess.  
Moreover sith you say let us pass the same judgement upon little infants as you do, of whom in general say you the Scripture gives so good a report, and against whom in particular no exception can be raised, and so the controversy shall be at an end.  
I tell you we do pass not the same, but a far surer judgement then that of charity upon infants dying in infancy; and have an hundred fold moreclear, and more tender opinion of them then yourselves, whilst we have from the word well grounded hopes and assurance that no dying infant is damned, but you with over pleading the bare outward privileges of some, most ignorantly damn 20 dying infants to one. But as to your judgement of charity concerning infants believing, and being thereby inrighted to baptism, or that same judgement of charity which we act toward professors of faith; you may dream as long as you will on such erroneous Enthusiasm, but those that are awake to righteousness, and resolved to sin no more by popish superstition, know well enough that infants (though ne'er the worse for want out yet) cannot believe in Christ of whom they are not capable to hear, much less can they profess so to do, and thereby give that good ground, which right charity must have, whereupon to build her faith of this, i. e, to believe that they do believe, and believing are certainly to be baptised, so that we have charity well grounded concerning infants, and such as comparatively to which your tender mercy to millions of them is mere cruelty, and yet the controversy is not ended, nor is likely to come to an end in such a way.  
Give me leave therefore a little to play upon you here with your own weapons, and to call for an answer from you to your own queres, and so it may be in a fair way towards an end in time, whereas then you plead the baptism of believers infants and no others, upon such a sufficient appearance that they have faith and the holy spirit. I ask  
First how do these make it appear that they have faith and the holy spirit since they cannot do it by profession.  
Secondly, how far forth do they make it appear to you? infallibly? or but probably? your selves say not infallibly, for the spirit is not bound to all the children of Christian parents, nor barred from any of the children of infidels.  
Thirdly, what judgement do you pass upon believers infants to be the subjects of baptism, rather than other infants? that of charity? or that of certainty? that of certainty you disclaim p. 18. in these words, no judgement of science can be passed, till the Acts of faith themselves be seen and examined, and in these also viz. unless it could be certainly presumed what children have the habit, what have not, for the working of the spirit is not known to us, he is not bound nor barred, there can be no conclusion made.  
That of charity than is the only judgement you pass on these, and, whereby you judge believers infants and no other, to have faith, the spirit and right to baptism●… which charity teacheth us praesumere etc. to believe and hope all things & hope the best concerning all till ye see the worst, especially since little children of believers have not by any actual sin barred themselves, or deserved to be exempted from the general state of little children declared in Scriptures.  
Well then to close up all, let me but desire you to pass the same judgement of charity on all little infants, as you do on some, even upon the little ones of unbelievers, Infidels, Turks and Pagans (whilst infants) of whom in general, and indiscrimmatim the Scripture gives a good report, not commending believers infants above them, and against whom in particular no exception can be raised, more than against the other, saving that one fault (of theirs) only that they were not born of believings parents, which I hope you have so much charity as to pardon.  
Hope, I say as well of the infants of unbelieving parents, that they have faith and the holy spirit, specially since it cannot appear that these have by any actual sin barred themselves, or deserved any more than the other to be exempted from the general state of little infants declared in Scripture, and then the controversy between you and me, which is whether little children born of believing parents only, may be lawfully baptised, is like to be at an end, for then certainly you will either agree to it that all infants in the world, even of infidels, Turks, and Pagans (there being in the judgement of Charlty as undeserving damnation as others) may be and are (dying in infancy, though this with you is as heinous a thing as to say the Devils may be saved p. 7.) in as much possibility to be saved, and so at least in as much right as the others to be baptised, or else that no infants at all (it being not possible to be presumed certainly which have the spirit, and which not, and charity judging a like of all, till it see a difference) are at all to be baptised, both which being the very truth, I am content for my part to agree with you therein with all my heart.  
To which Dilemma I am well enough assured you can answer nothing in the least measure satisfactory, as the most judicious readers (if you Ministers inquire of them) will undoubtedly affirm also. and so I proceed to your other Arguments.   

Dispuration.  
That opinion which makes the Covenant of the Gospel worse than that under the Law, contrary to the Apostle in Heb. 8. 6. is a wicked and false opinion.  
But the opinion of the Anabaptists, which denieth baptism to little children, whereby a moiety of the Christian world is cut off at once from being members of the Church, maketh the covenant of the Gospel worse, then that under the Law,  
Ergo that opinion is a wicked and false opinion.   

Disproof.  
The Major here is most undeniably true for what opinion soever doth make the Gospel covenant worse than that under the Law contrary to Heb. 8. 6. is indeed both false, and wicked.  
But the Minor wherein you say that the denial of baptism to little infant●… makes the Gospel covenant worse than that under the Law, contrary to Heb. 8. 6. where the Gospel is said to be a better covenant than that of the Law, in this respect as it is established upon better promises, this is most palpably false; yea I appeal to every man, who doth not wilfully shut his eyes against the truth, to judge between us, whether our opinion or your own rather doth most clearly contradict that Scripture of your own alleging Heb. 8. 6. in order to the true discerning of which,  
First, Mark well what it is that is there asserted concerning the meliority of the Gospel covenant above that of law, and you shall find it to be this, viz. That the Gospel covenant whereof Christ is the Mediator is a covenant that promises better things, better enjoyments, 〈◊〉 a better inheritance then that of the Law did, whereupon it there bears the name of a better Covenant, then that of which Moses was the Mediator.  
Secondly, Mark whether our denial of infant baptism do at all contradict that; for what if infant's be not baptised, doth that make that the promises of the gospel are worse than the promises of the Law? nay verily who ever is or is not baptised, the promises of the Gospel are both in our opinion, and our constant manifestation of it too in this particular, better and as far beyond the promises of the Law, as the substance is beyond the shadow, the City itself beyond the map of it that is on the wall; for the promises of the Gospel are of the whole world Rom. 4. 13. of a heavenly inheritance, incorruptible Canaan, Crown, Kingdom, 1. Pet. 1. 5. jam. 2. 5. Rev. 2. 10. of eternal salvation Heb. 5. 9 and this not to the Jews only, upon obedience to Moses voice, but to all men in case of obedience to the voice of Christ the Mediator of it, in point of faith baptism, and other things which he requites in order thereunto, of those only which are capable to perform them; but the promises of the Law were but of a spot of the world, of an earthly Canaan, inheritance, kingdom etc. to the posterity of one man only viz. Abraham and not to all his fleshly posterity neither (for his posterity by Hagar and Keturah were excluded, and that covenant established with Isaac and his seed only, and that in case of obedience to the voice of Moses the Mediator of that Testament, when God should give out his mind to them by hi●… in that covenant more perfectly than he did in the days of Abraham, and in case of observance of the Law, whereof circumcision was a part, though given before, and an Engagement to them to keep the whole, when it should be given, and all this but as a Map, and type for a time of the Gospel Covenant, which was made and established on better promises with a better seed, i. e. not a carnal, but spiritual seed, not such as are of Abraham's own much less of any inferior men's flesh, but such as are of Abraham's faith, and do his works, i. e. believers themselves this is our opinion, which if it do not rather confirm then contradict that meliority of the Gospel-covenant, and its promises above that of the Law, which meliority is spoken of Heb. 8. 6. (your very selves being Judges of it) then surely Satan hath shut up your eyes from seeing that you see.  
But now as for yourselves, who stand so much in vindication of the Gospel covenant, as a better Covenant then that under the Law, and that in that very respect, in which it is said to be a better Covenant Heb. 8. 6. viz. established upon better promises, i'll show you plainly how you are so far from making, it better than the Law, as that you make that of the Law at least equal to it, for whereas that Scripture which you quote says plainly that the Gospel is a better Covenant than that of the law; forasmuch as it stands on better promises, yet that is never the better for you in your cause whose tenet utterly denies, & flatly contradicts that, for you say that the things promised in the word of the Law, which were signed, and (as your phrase is, not ours) sealed by circumcision, were the very same things that are promised in the word of the Gospel, and signed and (as you say) sealed in baptism, viz. the kingdom of heaven; a●…d howbeit this is most manifestly false, for in reality, though you jumble them together into one when it seems to serve your turn so to do, in such a confused way as preaches to the world your present ignorance in both the Law and the Gospel, the Law and Gospel are two distinct Covenants, established on two distinct kinds of promises whereof the one was typical of, and so inferior to the other, the one an old o●…e, and a first that vanished before the second and new one, Gal. 4. Heb. 8. 6. 13. 9 1— 12. 18. and though all that was then promised in the Law, and signed in circumcision, as well as circumcision itself were types of things under the Gospel yet the things then promised upon keeping the Law, and immediately signed to Abraham and all his fleshly seed by Isaac (save Esau and his seed that slighted it) in that covenant of circumcision, which God gave him, were no other than that literal Canaan, that earthly land of promise flowing with milk and honey, and not the heavenly inheritance, Gen. 17. 8. etc. for they that were heirs of the other according to the Law, are not thereupon heirs of this also according to the Gospel Rom. 4. 13.  
Now howbeit I say that be very false, yet you asserting it that the promise under the Law, and under the Gospel is the very same, do therein deny the one to be a covenant of better promises then the other: for to say the promise of the law is the very same that the promise of the Gospel is; is to say that the one is as good as the other, and so to contradict that of Hab. 8. 6. which says the Gospel's Testament, and the promises thereof are better than the promises under the Law.  
And secondly if you say the Meliority that you hold to be in the Gospel covenant consists not in the Meliority of the promises of it above the other, but in the Meliority of the administration of it, the Gospel ordinances belonging not to the same only, but to more subjects, than the ordinances of the Law, in which respect we denying Gospel ordinances to infants, which were admitted to the ordinances under the Law, and so cutting of a Moiety of the Christian world from the Church, which stood members of it before do streiten the Gospel, and make it worse and of less extent the Law.  
I answer first, That the Meliority of the Gospel covenant spoken of in Heb. 8. 6. lies in the Meliority of the promises of it above the others, which Meliority we affirm but you deny, in saying the promises of both Covenants are one and the same, therefore it is yourselves however, and not we that by your tenets make the Gospel Covenant at lest no better than the Law, contrarily to that of the Apostle, Heb. 8. 6. and so your opinions and not ours are false and wicked by your own Argument.  
But secondly if it be in very deed to make the Gospel's covenant worse than the Laws (as you say it is) to hold infants no capable subjects of Gospel ordinances, some of which were capable subjects of the ordinances of the law,  
I shall first disprove your charge of us toge●…her with your proof of it in that particular.  
Secondly prove that if notwithstanding all that I shall say toward the clearing of ourselves, we must needs be held guilty of lessening the grace of God under the Gospel, in comparison of what it was under the law, because we deny the ordinances thereof to infants, to whom the ordinances of the law were dispensed, than you that judge us, condemn yourselves also as being in the same kind guilty of the same, to this purpose le's see what you bring in proof of your Minor, in the last Syllogism; and how punctually it concludes to your present purpose, thus you argue.   

Disputation.  
Under the Law the seal of the Gospel Covenant was by God's appointment set to little infants, viz. circumcision, which was the seal of the righteousness of faith, which is the Gospel's covenant, and therefore is called by God an everlasting covenant, and that I myself confess it to be the seal of the Gospel's Covenant, and that even Ishmael only because born in Abraham's house had right to it, and received it.  
Ergo this opinion denying the seal of the Gospel's Covenant, which the defenders acknowledge baptism to be to little infants, makes the covenant of the Gospel worse to the spiritual seed of Abraham, than it was to the carnal seed under the Lax.   

Disproof.  
How often shall I adjure you the next time you write to write no more than truth at least in matter of fact? if you will needs utter falsehood in matter of Doctrine? do not yourselves bear me witness before all the world not above two pages behind that I denied circumcision to be a seal of the righteousness of faith, to any but Abraham's person only, and avouched it to be no such thing to his posterity and yet how quickly have you forgotten yourselves so far as to the contradicting of yourselves, as well as the truth, to represent it here as if I had confessed it? and having began to falter, and falsify things for your own ends, how easily do you multiply misreport, and run from o'er shoes, as the Proverb is, to o'er boots too, for no less than a pair of pretty ones are here recorded; for how be it my declared judgement than was, now is and I believe ever will be, for ought you can say to clear the contrary, that circumcision (though a seal to Abraham to honour the greatness of that faith he had, and to notify him to be the father of the faithful, as it is plainly expressed Rom. 4. 11.) was not set as a seal in any sense at all to any other, but as a bare sign and token in their flesh to mind them upon sight thereof, immediately of the Covenant that then was, remotely as a type (as every other thing under the law did) of something in the Gospel Covenant viz. circumcision of the heart, and that baptism itself is no seal at all, but a bare sign of the Gospel Covenant, and is not so much as a sign, or any thing else, but a mere nullity to little infants, yet the world is here belied into the belief of it, that I confess both that circumcision was a seal of the Gospel Covenant, and that under such a notion as a seal of that Covenant Ishmael himself had right to it, and received it, for so you express it p. 7. and that baptism is the seal of the Gospel Covenant, even to little infants themselves as well as others.  
I do therefore in answer to this last piece of yours, and in order to your better understanding of me for the future, and of the truth too, as it is in Jesus, at present profess against two things herein,  
First your forgeries and misrepresentations of my opinion to the world, which was not so darkly declared at that time as that you must needs mistake it.  
Secondly, against the falsities and mistakes that are in your own opinion in this point viz. in styling both circumcision, as dispensd to Abraham's fleshly posterity and baptism also as dispensed not to others only, but even to infants by the name of seals of the Covenant of grace. As for circumcision that it was not so, though I might add much more to what hath been before spoken in proof hereof in my animadversion of your account, yet I'll save myself that labour, and refer you for fuller understanding, what circumcision was, and was not, to a certain book, that is extant of one Mr. jackson, once of Bidenden in Kent, styled 19 Arguments, proving circumcision to be no seal of the Covenant of grace, whereunto is annexed the unlawfulness of Infant baptism upon that ground, of which book I must needs give testimony thus far to the world, that it being brought to me, whilst it was but a manuscript, and myself a Presbyter of your high places, in some confidence that I could answer it, how easily I might have shuffled it off, had I set myself so to do I will not say, but I could not answer it solidly, nor saluâ consciencia, and therefore I let it alone for a time, till considering further of it, and of other things I was stirred up to the study of by it, I was at last converted to the truth, whereupon as the best answer I was capable to give, I signed it in such wise (as I find Luther once signed another book in the like case) viz. memorandum that taking this book in hand at first to confute it, I was at last convinced by it.  
Which 19 proofs of circumcision to be no seal of the Covenant of Grace, if they be weak, and invalid, such a multitude as you are have time enough among you to disprove them, but if you yield to them, be silent and say nothing.  
As for baptism I confess it to be truly and properly a sign, and that of the Covenant of Grace, remission of sins by Christ his death and resurrection, which are both not only signified, but also lively represented, and resembled in the true dispensation of it to believers, yet that it is so much as a sign at all to infants in infancy, or when grown to years either (if dispensed in infancy) I absolutely deny, and affirm that the very nature, use and office of it (as a sign to its subject) is totally destroyed by such immature administration: for a sign (specially propriè dictum) that is properly, and not improperly so called in reference to that person, whose sign it is, is some outward thing appearing to the senses, through which some other thing, some inward thing is at the same time apprehended by the understanding, This is the most true and proper definition that your Divines give of a sign in general, but in special of these signs, viz. baptism, and the supper, so Pareus and Kekerman both do define a sign out of Austin 
r See Pareus p 357. and Kekerman System. log. p. 12. lignum est quod seipsum sensui, et preter se aliquid animo ostendit. or R●…s. p●…eter speciem, quam inger●… sensibus, aliud aliquid facien●… incognitionem veni●…e.  and so do you all define these signs viz. in oculis incurrentia signa, but such a thing baptism cannot be to infants in their infancy, nor after their infancy neither, if dispensed while they are infants, the sign and thing signified being not possible in that way to be ever apprehended both together as they must be viz. the sign by the senses, the thing signified by the understanding, and that at the same time when the sign appears to the senses, or else the sign is a mere Nullity, and of no use and benefit as a sign at all, for though infants may have the sense of the thing so as to see and feel if they were dipped in infancy, yet have they then no understanding of its meaning, and though when they come to years they are capable to gather the meaning of things, or from an appearing sign to conceive what is signified thereby, yet then the sign itself is fled out of sight, and so far out of the reach of their remembrance, that as there's nothing now presented, so neither ever was there any thing (for aught they can conjecture any more than by mere human hearsay) objected to their senses at all: when the Jews required a sign of Christ, they required something that might be seen, what sign showest thou that we may see and believe?  
A sign then must be some memorandum, some object obvious to the senses, of that person to whom 'tis a sign properly taken, either continually, or at sometime or other, even than which the understanding drinks in the thing signified, else if there neither is, nor ever was any such sight or sense of the sign, as from the then, or now present appearance of it, while the understanding of the party, whose sign it is, is lively acted on the thing, then to that person the sign (unless improperly, and improper signs the sacraments are not) can possibly be no sign at all, this Pareus teacheth us to the life, p. 35. 7. where desining baptism and the supper to be signa in oculos incurrentia, hoc est visibilia, signs that are, or once were to be seen by him whose signs they are, even at that time while he is to learn something by them, he further backs it, as I have set down in his own words in the margin, and for the use of the unlearned Englished thus viz. for they ought to be such 
Taia enim debent esse, utres invisibiles significent, 〈◊〉 enim debent esse adminicula ●…idei, oporter percipi externo sensu, quo movetur sen sos intern●…s, quod enim non vides non est tibi signum, qui sacit signum invisibile, implicat contradictionem et sacit signum non signum: res sunt invisibiles non signa, alioqui signa non possent significare res, multo minus confirmare, quia incertum confirmaretur per aeque incertum, hinc veteres sacramentum ita definiunt sacramentum est signum visibile invisibilis gratiae.  that they may signify things invisible, for if they ought to be helps to our faith, they must be perceived by the external sense, whereby the internal sense is moved, for what thouseest not is no sign to thee, he that makes an invisible signim plies a contradiction, and makes the sign not a sign at all; they are invisible things, not signs, otherwise also the signs could not so much as signify the things, much less confirm them, because an uncertain thing would be confirmed by a thing as uncertain as itself hence the ancients define a Sacrament thus, a sacrament is a visible sign of some invisible grace.  
So then we see that according to yourselves a sign is no sign at all to him, that is never seen all by him, who is to observe it, and that too at some time or other after he comes to observe what is meant by it, whereupon I testify that what was done to us in infancy had it been the true sign of Christ's own institution viz. baptism as 'twas rather a sign of mere man's institution viz. the sign Rantism, and the sign of the cross, neither was nor is, nor ever will be any sign at all to you or me, if at any time it be a sign to us it must be either while we are infants, or when grown to years, but not while infants, for than we apprehend not the thing signed, nor when at years, for than we apprehend not the sign. How mighty your memoties, and how exquisite your apprehensive powers are to bring these two, I mean the sign and thing signified together in your thoughts. I know not, but I plainly acknowledge (notwithstanding Dr Channels council to the Auditory at the Dispute at Petworth jan. 5. 1651 to remember, and call to mind what was signified to them in their infant baptism) that as in infancy I perceived not to what purpose I was signed, so now (save what I have by hearsay) I perceive not, nor ever did of myself to my best remembrance that I was then so signed at all. As for that true baptism, which I have since submitted to some 4 or 5 years ago, as it then preached (so far as a sign may be said to preach) most precious things to my understanding, so it lively appeared to my senses, and left such impression upon then and such an Idea thereof in my mind, that me thinks I both see and remember it still, and so shall I hope have good cause to do whilst I live. I conclude then that to signify things to infants by baptism in infancy is a mere blank, and utter nullity, a silly cipher, that stands for nothing and is of no use to them at all.  
Yea as it would be thought no better then mere mockery, or witless wisdom, for any Priest to stand talking, and making signs over one a sleep, while he is understandingly sensible of nothing, and then after he is awake, and as little a ware of any thing as before, begin to make the application, and will him to divine both what was done to him, by whom, and why, and to take cognizance and clearer evidence of such, and such things, by the same token that they were told him, and signified to him by what was done while he was asleep, by certain signs, which he never saw yet, nor never shall: so is it to me to baptise meet infant●…: or as it were no better than flat folly for any father (in a serious and not lusory way) to show the form of the City jerusalem to his infant i●… infancy by the figure, and draught of it in a Map, saying look here child, this stands for the Temple, this signifies, and sets forth the manner of Mount Zion, and and all this is showed thee now, that thou mayest remember it another time, that jerusalem is thus and thus situated, and then when he comes to age (without any more resemblance of it to him in the map) to indoctrinate him in what was done in his iafancy, and bid him reflect back, and call to mind what was shown him in that map, in which it was manifested to him what manner of city jerusalem was, and other such like ridiculous stuff and prate of the things so long since done, that they are now flown both out of sight and mind; even such and no better is it, yea such piteous poor, and mere painted piety is it, for persons, whether Priests or parents to stand prating to and o'er poor ignorant infants and signing them at a Font or Basin, whilst (if they be not a sleep, as my ow●… silly experience teaches me they have been many a time, while I have been sprinkling them in the midwives, or the mother's arms yet) they are at best no better than asleep, because as heedless of what's done, saying to them very seriously by name, as if they would have them mind what is said, Thomas— ●…nne— etc. I baptise thee in the name of the Father, etc. in token of remission of sins, and then to sign them with the sign of the Cross, in token to them still that hereafter (when it is impossible) they must by what is now so clearly manifested to their senses, understand, and remember that they must not be ashamed to confess the faith of Christ crucified etc. and then when they are grown up, to set them to School to the Font again, and wish them to learn by what was once done to them there, that this and that is signified, saying, you must understand that Christ was crucified, dead and raised for the remission of your sins, and that you are now to leave your sins, to die to them, live a holy life, take up your cross and follow him, and all these things I now inform you in by word of mouth, you must call to mind how they were most plainly manifested to you, and lively evidenced to your very external senses, and thereby to your internal senses in your baptism, which is a visible sign to you, and a most sensible demonstration thereof, a most lively preaching and resembling of them before your eyes; these things you must remember by the same token, that you had once such a most not able, remarkable, memorable matter done unto you (so long since that you cannot possibly observe, perceive, discover, remember, that ever it was done at all, but as we tell you)   

Babist.  
This reflects with no small disparagement on the wisdom of God in appointing the sign circumcision to be set to infants even in their infancy.   

Baptist.  
No such matter; for God did not appoint it to be set to infants for any such end, or use as to be a sign of any thing to infants themselves in their infancy, but when at age.   

Babist.  
Nor do we set baptism to infants for any such end as to signify any thing to them in their infancy, but when they come to years.   

Baptist.  
Circumcision being a permanent mark in the flesh remained Gen. 17. 13. and though set in infancy, yet was a sign visible to the persons to whom it was set, and to be seen by them as long as they lived, but to baptism being a transient thing, which vanishes soon after the dispensation, without making or leaving any mark or impression upon the body, whereby any one that nores it not while dispensed to him, can possibly be capable to note it another time it is gone and lost, and can be no sign to him any more for ever.  
A permanent sign may be set at any time without prejudice to their use of it as a sign, to whom it is set, but the use of a transient sign must be made when it is set, and it must be set at such times when its subject is capable to catch the meaning of it whilst it passes before the senses, and upon occasion to recollect an Idea of what was done, or else it perishes from being a sign to those persons from thenceforth even for ever.   

Babist.  
Then Circumcision might have been as well for born till the persons were of years, the use being not made till then, yet God who doth nothing in vain, and out of season, did for all that enjoin it long before, why therefore may not baptism by the like reason.   

Baptist.  
Besides that baptism is transient and that permanent, which is enough to satisfy in this particular, there was much other use and end for which circumcision was rightly dispensed to the infants of the Jews, for which there's not the like reason in baptism, as namely to distinguish and sign them out to be what they were, viz. heirs of the kingdom by birth.   

Babist.  
That is the very end on which we baptise infants and no other, viz. to sign and distinguish the seed of believers from the seed of unbelievers, and sign them out to be what they are by birth, and what when they come to years they learn that they were made in Baptism, viz. heirs of the Kingdom of Heaven.   

Baptist.  
When you have the same evidence of believers seed in infancy (that the Jews had of theirs, viz. that they are heirs of the kingdom, than I will allow you to do as they did, viz. to sign and distinguish them as such: but of the one of these you have evidence in nonage, not so of the other●…: the kingdom that the Jews by very nature were heirs of according to the promise was that of the Earthly Canaan, of which (and that as a type) they were apparent heirs by no other than very natural birth, and that so soon as ere they were born, and therefore full well within a while might they be signed.  
But that which you take upon you so timely to sign persons as heirs to in baptism, is the Antitype or heavenly Canaan, which no creature is an apparent heir to according to the Gospel promise, upon mere natural birth of any parents, whether Jew or Gentile, till he appear to us (unless he die before he hath deserved exemption by actual transgression, and then Charity teaches us, to hope as well of all as, of one) to be born by faith in Christ, which birth (if any infants were capable of it (as to us none are yet) because we cannot presume which have it, and which not, the workings of the spirit being so unknown to us, that there can be no conclusion made, we cannot by dispensation give right distinction: but as in the type they signed them well nigh as soon as they were born with that natural birth of Abraham, Isaac and jacob after the flesh, upon which alone they were heirs by promise of that earthly Canaan, so we sign them so soon as they appear to be born with that birth of Christ by faith, by which they are heirs of the true Canaan, and that's all the baptism of new born babes can possibly be found any where in the word, this birth if it could be in any infant at all, at lest cannot appear to be in one living infant above another, for either they die before actual transgression hath barred them, and then though our hopes are the same of them all, yet are they passed signing by baptism, or else they live and are seen to believe, or not believe, and so as they do, or not do they must without distinction, or respect to natural descent, be signed or not signed alike.  
Baptism therefore though a sign in its nature use and office to believing men and women; yet is never so much as a sign to that person to whom it's dispensed in infancy.  
But as for your signing it with the name of a seal, I should wonder much more at your ignorance, had not such a wonderful thing as ignorance been threatened to those wise men, that teach Gods fear after men's precepts Isay 29. in that you make both your sacraments to be seals, for so runs your ordinary definition concerning them viz: in oculis, incurrentia signa, et sigilla, considering how clear the Scripture is against you, for verily though you receive that denomination of a seal, together with all your vain conversion and worship, by tradition from your fathers, yet you never learned it from our fathers in the word, wherein show me (if you can) from the beginning to the end (save in Rom. 4. 11. where in anosense sense viz. not to strengthen a weak faith, but to honour great faith circumcision was set (as Gods broad seal) to confirm Abraham in his fatherhood) any one of the four which you call God's seals viz. either circumcision, or the passover, baptism or the supper is called a seal by God himself.   

Babist.  
The formal term of a sign is no more to be found in Scripture to be given either to baptism or the supper, than the term of a seal, yet you grant it to be properly called a sign, and so why may it not be called a seal, though it be not so called in Scripture?   

Baptist.  
Though the express denomination of a sign be not given in Scripture to either baptism or supper, yet no less is sounded forth in sense and signification, but the other term of seal (as to these things) is not consonant to the rule of faith, for verily as no other is expressed, so no more than one seal of the Gospel Covenant is so much as implied or hinted at in holy writ, and that one seal is no other than the holy spirit by which those that believe, are said to be sealed Eph. 1. 13. Eph. 4. 30. and howbeit God preacheth the Gospel to us outwardly by words, oaths, signs, and visible resemblances viz. baptism and the supper, and this in the ministration of men, who may minister to us all these, and set them close to our ears, and to our eyes, yet when he preaches it to us inwardly, so fully; and firmly as by seal, he preaches it himself alone, and though by a baptism, yet a better baptism then that of water, that is the holy spirit, which (though the sign may be set, first, to professed believers that are not so indeed, secondly, and this very visibly and openly to the view of others, thirdly by men like ourselves) yet first is never set to any but believers in truth, secondly, and that secretly and indiscernably to any but themselves that are sealed, thirdly, by none but God himself, who only sets that baptism close to the conscience within, which baptism no man under heaven can administer: what we set i e. the sign may very easily be to a blank, our ministration being liable to mistake, but what Christ sets i. e. the seal that makes us most sure from himself, that cannot possibly be misplaced, for where and whensoever the spirit of God within is sent to bear witness, and cry Abba, i. e. father, there and then God is a father indeed: your own selves say that where the seal is, that soul is sure at that time, a real heir, and from that time forth say you also for ever, and so say I, if that soul continue for ever, cleaving to the Lord, not quenching, resisting, or so grieving that holy spirit, as to cause it to depart for ever (for if so there's another tale told you from several Scriptures, 1 Chron. 28. 9 Heb. 6. 4. 5. Heb. 10 29.)  
But if it be so as you say, that God's seal seals up none but such as are both true heirs by faith at present, and must necessarily abide so for ever, than first here's an Argument (ad hominem) how ever, i. e. an evidence to you out of your own mouths, that your baptism is none of God's seal, sith it is set by you not only to 1000s that after it fall from him, but indeed to 1000s that never knew him their father, nor never will. I again therefore once more for all (that I may not trouble myself with them, when I meet them in other places) protest against these your expressions of circumcision and baptism by the name of seals, Gods seals of the Gospel Covenant etc. first as none of mine, wheresoever you are found fathering them on me, as p. 6. 7. 14. Secondly as none of God's expressions, though (I know not how many times o'er viz. p. 4. 6. 7. 8. 13. 14.) you aver the ordinances to be God's seals, and father that very phrase on God himself, who as he useth not such a phrase, when he speaks of those foolish things (as the world counts them 2 Cor. 1.) which he chooses as his outward witnesses, shows, signs and love tokens from himself to us, so he useth no such tools indeed as these Instrumental signs are, when he ministereth himself, for these he appoints men to minister in; these are the instruments of the foolish sheapherds' Zach. 11. 15. even the outward instruments which God hath chosen for the under shepherd's to act by, he uses none of these I say as his own seal and inward witness, for that's no less than the holy spirit, which whattypes, shows and signs of the Gospel Covenant soever there have been outwardly both before and since the Gospel begun, hath been, is and ever shall be the only earnest that God hath given, the only witness that himself hath used, the only seal that he hath set in any age, whether before the law, or under the law, or under the Gospel, Psal. 51. 11. 12. Eph. 1. 13. 4. 30. 2 Cor. 5. 5. Rom. 8. 15. 23.  
So having removed the rubbish of rude expression, with which your last argument was clouded, and not a little over loaded (as you delivered it) I come now to consider it nakedly as it lies substantially enough comprised in these expressions viz.  
Under the law circumcision was by God's appointment dispensed to little infants, Ergo under the Gospel baptism must be to infants also, or else the Gospel Covenant is worse to the spiritual seed of Abraham now, than it was to his carnal seed under the law.  
This is in short the plain sense and ordinary way of urging this argument.  
By way of Answer to which let me be so bold first as to ask you this one question viz. why you stand so stiffly to have baptism dispensed so strictly after the manner of circumcision, and yet stray and vary your very selves from the fashion of that administration in a manner as much as any men in the world? for verily though the way of circumcision be that you stickle for, yet you straggle from it, and as to the very subject itself, vary from it as much as in any thing else; if that be the rule after which men must baptise (as you plead) why then do ye not baptise (for so they circumcised)  
First only males, and no females?  
Secondly all male servants upon the master's single faith, as well as male cchildrens on the fathers?  
Thirdly, on the eighth day only, and neither sooner nor later, nor one day before it nor behind it?  
Fourthly, by the hands of parents, fathers, Mrs. Mothers, as well as by the hands of the Priests only?  
Fifthly, any where viz: at home or abroad, in Inns or other places, as occasion is, but only or for the most part in your great stone houses? for this is both the liberty and the bondage of your late directory, that baptism must be dispensed by a Minister only, not in any case by a private person, much less by a mother, or any woman.  
Secondly, in the places of public worship only, not in private places or privately.  
Thirdly, on any day, not specifying he eighth, so it be not unnecessarily delayed.  
Fourthly, to any child whether male or female for aught you express to the contrary, if so be the parent be a believer.  
Fifthly, to no man servant so far as I find on the master's belief, though a Christian may chance to hire into his house an Indian or infidel: when as its most notoriously known that thus it was then viz. that not the public Priests only in the public places, but master's might and must circumcise all their male servants, fathers or mothers their male infants, on the eighth day only, and that either at home (as Abraham in his house Gen. 17.) or any where else (as Zipporah at an Inn Exod. 4. 24. 25. 26.)  
O the prodigious proling that you Priests make from your own pattern! how crookedly close do you keep to your own copy? there are about some seven several modifications of actions, in respect of which one may be said to differ from, or be like another, which for memory's sake are couched altogether in this verse of interrogatories.  
Quis? quid? ubi? qualis? quando? quibus auxiliis? cur?  
In all which if inquisition be made, how far forth your baptism and circumcision do agree or differ, though you contend or rather pretend them to be like one another in each, yet we shall find a deep disparity between them in no less than all.  
First, if we ask (as the subjecto) this question quis? who is the true subject of circumcision, who of your baptism, yea even your own so circumcision-like baptism (much more that baptism which is rightly dispensed) how far is the one divers from the other? though this is one of the main things wherein you profess they must be alike, for that (as I showed before) did belong to males only, this you dispense to females also; that to the natural infants of the Jews though the parents were known to be unbelievers (for joshua circumcised the seed of all those murmurers that were cut off for unbelief) this (as to no natural infants at all by right, no not to the Jews infants) so by your own confession, not to any infants whose parents are unbelievers, whereby you may see that as the law is changed, so there is a plain change also in the subjects of these two ordinances circumcision and baptism not only as we, but as you yourselves contend to have baptism dispensed, for as only so all the male children of the Jews both might and must be circumcised though their parents were never such wicked unbelievers, but even yourselves say the Jews seed are all cut off from baptism and the Gospel Church, because their parents are un believers; both all the Jews and their males might be circumcised though none of them believed, while that Covenant of circumcision stood, merely as they were of the stock of believing Abraham, but might not be baptised when the Gospel Covenant began in john's Baptism upon that account, unless they now believed in their own persons though they were of the stock of Abraham still as much as ever, nor may to this day in your own opinions.  
Secondly, if (as to the nature, matter and essential form or being of the Rites themselves) we ask the question quid? what circumcision was, and what your baptism? how far do they differ? the one being a cutting off the foreskin of the flesh, the other a wetting of the foreskin of the face only with a few drops of water, no more like it then chalke's like cheese.  
Thirdly if, as to the place where, we ask the question ubi? where circumcision was dispensed, and where yourselves say baptism ought to be? how greatly doth your manner of baptism differ from it? and how much more than ours? for circumcision might be dispensed any where but in the Temple, where I find not they were to be brought at all till circumcised, as Christ himself Luke 2. 21, 22. but your Rantism no where else by appointment but in your Temples; herein I say our baptism squares more with it than yours, who pretend so much to baptise after the manner of it, for all places are to us alike, where there is conveniency of water enough to baptise in, and therefore we must except the Font and Bason.  
Fourthly, if, as to the quality, special properties, uses, ends and offices of these two dispensations, the question be asked in quale quid? what were the special properties, purposes, uses, ends, and offices of these two several administrations? what things persons were specially obliged to by them? what was specially signified to persons in them? and such like how little do these look each like the other? for circumcision tied men to the observation of a certain carnal, cumbersome, costly service, Law, Priesthood, in order to their inheriting the Earthly Canaan, which all are now clean changed and confiscate, but baptism, as dispensed by us according to the word, binds to the observation of another Law, and the voice of another Law giver, High Priest, and Prophet Christ jesus, whom Moses spoke of, and God hath now raised up accordingly, and this in order to a future enjoiment of a heavenly inheritance typed out by the other; and as for your rantism it ties to neither this nor that, but to a certain service, and law of Ordinances, and Gospel, and Church posture, and priesthood of man's own making, which one knows not well what to make of, nor what part of speech to call it but a participle, for it takes part of the Law and part of the Gospel, and is neither perfectly, but patched up out of both by the politic power of the Priesthood, so as it may make most for the people's painted piety, and their own pay together, in order to their labour for their pains Mat. 15. 9  
Again, Circumcision pointed as a type indeed at the circumcision of the heart but as a sign so it signified a promise of outward felicity in Canaan, and that Christ should come of Abraham after the flesh, etc. true baptism signifies the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, and remission of sins by his being crucified, and such things as were no ways resembled by the other, your rantism just nothing.  
Fiftly, if as to the time of those two services, the question be asked Quando? when circumcision, and when your baptism are by right to be dispensed? how miserably do you yourselves miss of hitting right with it here too? though it be a main matter you intimate to us your imitation of circumcision in, circumcision being punctually to be performed on the eighth day, true baptism not till the day wherein persons appear to believe withal their heart, and so not in any infancy at all but the infancy of our faith, and even your rantism, though in infancy, as circumcision was, yet on what day you please besides the 8th, sometimes after a fourt'night, or a month, and sometimes at the half year or years end.  
Sixthly, if, as to the administrator, it be ask quibus auxiliis? by whose hands these ordinances are to be administered? how different are they? circumcision being dispensed by the Master, Father, or mother, but as for baptism (as you dispense it at least) none but men in holy orders are to administer it, in which you go not only besides the Gospel which records Ananias, and Philip dispensing baptism, who were but gifted disciples, and neither of them in any orders to the ministry, save that Philip was in office as a Deacon to look to the poor, by virtue of which Deaconship if you Presbyters judge (as the Bishops did before you) that Philip baptised, and not rather by his Discipleship, I deem you will dote at last as much as they; but also besides the Law you live by.  
Seventhly, if (as to the account and warrant) it be demanded Cur? why they circumcised infants, and why you baptise them? how far do you fall short of the Jews in this also? for they had express precept, and institution to circumcise infants over and over again repeated in Moses Testament, besides the precedent of Abraham's own family the self same day wherein the command was given to circumcise all the males at eight days old, whereas if that which we call the New Testament, be indeed the Register of Christ's will there is, as is confess by the most ingenuous of your coat, witness Mr. Hunton at a public dispute at Warbleton in Sussex, neither one plain precept, nor so much as one precedent of such a matter as baptising infants: God never appointed such a thing, neither, to speak in that figure in which God speaks of himself jer. 19 5. came it at all into his mind.  
So like are circumcision, your rule for baptism, and your baptism which yo●… profess to act in by that rule of circumcision, that to say the truth your run ou●… from your rule in every line you write after it, so that I much wonder that you above all men should argue baptism comes in the room of circumcision, so that they are both as one, and the one must be ordered after the example of the other, who in your baptism come no nearer circumcision than so. For verily they meet one another very little nearer than in that general denomination of a sign or token of a Covenant, in which the Rainbow may be said to be like them both. That two things should be one thing, for so with you your Rantism and circumcision are, and yet be adequate well-nigh in nothing is riddle me what's this with a witness.  
And by all this we may see how forcible your Argument is that is drawn from the Analogy of baptism with circumcision, which Argument your Dr. Featly says may be truly called, in regard of the Anabaptists, Pons Asinorum, a bridge which these asses could never pass over, for to this day they could never, nor, quoth he, hereafter will be ever able to yield a reason, why the children of the faithful under the Gospel are not as capable of baptism, as they under the law of circumcision p. 40. but by your leave, through whom that Doctor being dead yet speaketh, the Dialogy and discrepation that is between, not only your Rantism, as is above mentioned, but also the true-baptism and circumcision, is such a reason to the contrary, as all the Classes of Clergy men combined together in one Synodical Convention, will never be able clearly to refute as long as they breath.  
As therefore to the Argument of yours which I am now in hand with, I come now directly to deny the consequence thereof, for it follows not in any wise that because circumcision was by God's appointment dispensed to little infants therefore baptism must be so now, and that not only for those many reasons above specified, but even for this also, because God did appoint that circumcision should be dispensed to infants under the Law; but did never appoint any such thing as that baptism should be dispensed to infants under the Gospel, nor is there the least tittle in all the Testament of Christ tending to the manifestation of one crumb of commission for that matter.   

Babist.  
What you jest is not Mat. 28. 19 commission plain enough to baptism infants, where all nations are bid to be discipled and baptised?   

Baptist.  
That very Scripture which is commonly conceived by you, and consequently urged as Christ's commission to baptise infants, so plainly commissionates the very contrary, that if some self interest or other had not besotted you besides the true sense of the spirit in that place, you could not be so abominably absurd as to argue infant's baptism from s●…as you do, for to say nothing here, as anon happily I shall, of the contradictory doings that is among your prime penmen and patrons of infant-sprinkling in their verdicts about this place, some venturing to draw it in to the vindicating of that foppery, some, seeing they cannot thus maintain it, willing enough to let it lie dead, supposing themselves pretty well apaied from this place, if they can but barely evade the receiving of bangs from it; and therefore will not be too busy with it themselves, but are content to assert no more than this from it, that it is no prohibition of infant's baptism.  
Of this sort is Dr. Holmes, who p 7. of his Animadversions, disclaims it to be Christ's commission to the Apostles, and D ● Featley, who, howbeit he is so bold as to mention it as Christ's command for baptising of infants, and to argue from it as such p. 39 yet in answer to Mr Cornwell, asserting infant baptism to be against Christ's commission Mat. 28. 19 Mark 16. 15, 16. professes, that there is no mention at all of infants in either of those texts, much less a prohibition to baptise them p. 62. among those that assault us from this place Dr Featley and M ● Martial are the Chrieftanes and this is the common way of argumentation from it, viz.  
All nations are to be baptised.  
But children are of the Nations.  
E●…go, etc.  
To this purpose your approved D Featley argues, but as falsely as a man can likely do: whose Syllogism is this p. 39 viz.  
That which extends to all Nations belongs to children as well as men, for children are a great part if not the half of all nations.  
But Christ's command of baptising extends to all nations, Mat. 28. 19 Mark 16. 15. 16.  
Ergo Christ's command of baptising belongeth to children and they ought to be baptised as well as men.  
On this wise also Mr Marshal reasons in his answer to Mr. Tombs p. 214. by way of repetition of what he more largely delivered in his Sermon, viz.  
In every nation the children make a great part of that Nation, and they are always included under every administration, whether promises, or threatenings, privileges, or burdens, mercies, or judgements, unless they be excepted.  
Much after the same sort also doth Mr. Blake express himself, p. 20. of his birth privilege concerning Mat. 28. 19 viz.  
The words there comprise infants, they are no more excluded then men at years, serving to make up a Nation as well as parents, the infants of any nation make a part of the nation.  
But who would think such goodly gear as this should manifest itself to the whole world, as a fruit of the most serious meditations of men so eminently polemical as they by the Clergy are esteemed to be in their several Tracts in this point, and that it should pass without the least item of correction for it, from any one of their brethren, who rather seem all to consent to, then contradict them? However I shall make as serious Examen of it as I can.  
First, then is it so Sirs, that what ever administration extends to all nations belongs to infants therein, as well as men, so that they are no more excluded, from it, than men at years? how is it then that preaching the Gospel, and prayer with laying on of hands for confirmation, for the spirit, which Dr Holmes dotes was dispensed to these infants that were brought to Christ, and therefore much more baptism in infancy, and as a proof thereof brings testimony that it was never used in the primitive times to be dispensed till past infancy; how is it (I say) that these, and also fellowship in the supper are by your very selves denied to belong to infants in infancy? what is the reason that you exclude infants here? are not these privileges belonging to men, why then (if yours and Mr Marshals assertion be true) not to infants as well as men? are they not mercies, administrations, merciful administrations of God, extended to all nations? yea is not preaching an administration to every creature that extends not to infants? and yet (saving Mr Marshals cunning insertion of this clause (unless they be excepted) whereby to salve his proposition, from default of falsity, though thereby he renders it plainly useless to his purpose) are infants any where by name excepted from any one of these administrations, any more than they are from baptism itself? yea is it not an administration of God extending to all nations that persons should work, or else not eat, in which infants are not included, for than must they starve, and yet no where at all excepted? yea he that believeth and is baptised shall be saved, he that believeth not shall be damned; Christ is the Author of eternal salvation to all them that obey him; Christ shall com●… in flaming fire, taking ve●…geance on all them that know not God, and obey not the Gospel; be that confesseth me before men, him will I confess before my father which is in heaven; he that denieth me shall be denied; whosoever is ashamed of me and of my words of him will I be ashamed; he that denieth not himself, and taketh not up his cross daily and followeth mè; and hateth not his father and mother, and his own life, and all that he hath, cannot be my disciple; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever be saith unto you, and whosoever heareth not his voice shall be cut off from among his people: if any man love not the Lord jesus Christ, 〈◊〉 him be Anathema Maranatha, repent and be baptised, and an hundred such like, are not these Gods Gospel-administrations of duties, promises, threatenings, privileges, burdens, mercies, judgements extended to all nations, from which infants are not excepted? and yet do these include and comprise infants as much as men at years? or are infants excluded by express exception from any of these, any more than from that one amongst the rest viz. the duty and ordinance of baptism? how then dare you aver so peremptorily, so universally that every administration that extendeth to all nations, belongeth to infants as well as men? yea (that I may shame and silence you in this out of your own sayings) some of you, namely Mr. Marshal perceiving that if you grant that Infants did eat the passover it will follow from that to their eating the supper, as well as from their circumcision of old to the baptism of them now, do assert that infants did not eat the passover, yet was not the passover an administration to the nation of Israel, from which infants were never excepted? and if so, how then can your other sayings be true, that every administration that extendeth to the nations, belongs to infants as well as to persons at years, unless they be somewhere excepted?   

Babist.  
We mean not of a formal exception, but a virtual exception, an exception in effect at least infants must have, or else be supposed as included under every administration that is given to the nations, and thus infants are excepted from all those last mentioned precepts, promises, threats etc. forasmuch as it is most notoriously known they are not capable to do the things upon the performance, or non-performance of which those mercies and judgements are promised and threatened, for they cannot hear Christ's voice, nor know, nor love, nor obey him, nor deny themselves, nor hate their lives, nor confess him, nor deny him, and whereas 'tis said that if any will not work let him not eat, infants must necessarily be understood to be excepted there, though not by name, because they cannot work, and so (unless excepted) must perish by God's appointment for want of food; so concerning eating at the supper, Infants are excepted, not expressly, yet implicitly, and in effect in those words, let a man examine himself, and so let him eat, because there's that required in order to eating there viz. self examination, discerning the Lord's body and blood which infants cannot do.   

Baptist.  
'tis very true, they are excepted from all these as you say implicitly, and in effect, though not expressly, but then (let it be considered) is there not as fair, and as clear an exception of them from baptism, as from any of these, or in particular as from that service of the supper? in as much as there's that required in order to baptism which infants can no more do, than they can do what's required to the supper? viz. to believe with all the heart, Act. 8. 37. and to be discipled i, e, to be taught, and to learn the Gospel Mat. 28. 19 If any should ask this question, what hinders why I may not eat the supper? you would answer thus, if thou examinest they self thou mayest eat of that bread, and drink of that cup: so when the Eunuch enquired of Philip, what hinders why I may not be baptised? he answers him in the very same viz. if thou believest with all thy heart thou mayest: for whoever shall say these answers viz. let a man examine himself, and so he may eat, let a man believe with all his heart, so he may be baptised, or if thou examinest thyself thou mayest eat, or if thou believest with all thy heart thou mayest be baptised, are not the self same in sense and signifification, shall never go for a wise man more with me, and whoever shall say that the phrase of Philip to the Eunuch's question, what hinders why I may not? viz. if ●…hou believest with all thy heart thou mayest be baitized, is as not exceptive of infants from baptism, as that phrase of Paul, let a man examine himself, and so let him eat, is exceptive of infants from the supper, can seem no other to me then one, whose reason is basely captivated to some carnal interest or other, yea the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 8. 37. doth full as much (if not more) imply an unlawfulness of their admission to baptism, that believe not with all the heart as the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Cor. 11. 28. doth imply an unlawfulness of their admission to the supper, who do not first examine themselves, what ever exception therefore ye can find in the word of infants from the supper, the self same will I find of infants from baptism, and what e●…er ground of admission to baptism you shall find there for them, the same will I bring for their admission to the supper.   

Babist.  
Those places where it's said if thou believest thou mayest, he that believeth and is baptised, repent and be baptised, go teach and baptise, imply only an unlawfulness of baptising persons at years without instruction, belief, and repentance, and are phrases that relate to such only, and not to infants, who may notwithstanding any thing to the contrary there exhibited, be baptised without any of these.   

Baptist.  
So you use to say still indeed of these Scriptures, that they speak of persons at age and not in nonage, and so say I too, but I wonder then where are the Scriptures that speak of infant's baptism? if all the places of Scripture that speak of baptism at all, speak only of the baptism of adult ones (and so you are fain to confess they do when we come to examine them one after another, yea I remember that at two public disputes, when we have put you to assign what Scripture infant baptism is commanded in Mat. 28. 19 hath been nominated as your warrant, out of which when it hath been plainly proved that Christ commands no more in that place to be baptised, than such whom he commands also first to be instructed, reply hath been made to this purpose viz. that Christ there requires that such as are capable of instruction should be instructed first, but that hinders not why infants may not be baptised before instruction) but if so I say I wonder still where that place is that warrants it that infants may be baptised at all, si●…h you are fain to confess that that phrase go teach and baptise, yea even you yourselves sometimes, who just before assigned it as the warrant for infant baptism, that it speaks only of persons capable to be taught, and not of infants.  
As you say therefore that these places speak of the baptism of men and women only that are capable to learn, believe and repent, and not exclusiuly of infants, because they are not capable to do those things, who yet may be bap●…ized for all that, so I say of these words, let a man examine himself, and so let him eat, they imply an unlawfulness in men and women only to eat the supper without self-examination, but not in infants, who being not capable to examine themselves, may (any thing to the contrary there notwithstanding) be admitted to the supper without it: 'tis men and women only, and not children who upon non-examination of themselves are excepted.  
As you argue therefore that every administration to an Nation includes infants, as well as men, unless the be excepted, and therefore they must be baptised: I conclude the same from those premises, concerning their right to other ordinances viz. therefore they must be preached to, therefore they must eat the supper, two administrations given to all nations, from which infants are no more excepted then from baptism. As therefore you take it for an implicit exception of infants from the supper, in that they cannot perform what is required in that place to the receiving of it, i. e. not examine themselves, nor discern the Lords body, though by name they are not excepted, so (if you be not partial) your own consciences will compel you to take it for at least as implicit an exception of infants from baptism, in that they are no way capable to perform those things which are required of persons in order to their admission to baptism in other places viz. nor to believe with all the heart, nor to confess ●…in, nor amend their lives, nor repent, nor call on the name of the Lord, all which were required of adult ones that come to baptism, as we see Mat. 3. Act. 2. Act. 8. Act. 22. and also in the Rubric where it being asked what is required of persons to be baptised? answer is made thus, viz. repentance whereby they forsake sin: and faith whereby they steadfastly believe the promises of God made to them in that sacrament, though by name they be not excepted in any of these places.  
Your cui signatum ei signum nisi obstet etc. your threadbare Argument viz. to whom the thing signified belongs to them the sign, unless there be some impediment or in capacity to perform what is required in order to the receiving of the sign, if it had one farthing worth of force in it to give infant's access to baptism, would equally avail to give them access to the supper, if we were minded in good earnest to plead their right to both, in evidence of which I shall argue upon you with your own Argument, thus  
To whom the thing signified belongs, to them the sign also belongs, unless there be some exception or incapacity to perform what is required to the receiving of the sign.  
But the thing signified in the supper which is the same that's signified in baptism viz. Christ and his benefits belongs to infants, and there's no more exception of them from it, them from baptism, nor more incapacity in them to perform that which is required to the supper, than there is in them to perform what's required to baptism.  
Ergo if they may receive the outward sign of baptism, they may receive the outward sign of the supper also.  
But in truth as they are no more capable of one of these signs then the other, so are they in very dead both uncapable of, and plainly enough alike excepted from both.  
Secondly, is it so Sirs, that infants being a great part (if not the Major part) of all nations must therefore be baptised, because it's said baptise all Nations, unless they had been excepted, than I answer again, if you mean thus, viz unless they had been some way or other (at least virtually or implicitly excepted) than infants are most manifestly and clearly excepted in this very text itself, Mat. 28. 19 if there were no other in all the Scripture to exclude them: for first though that be Christ's commission and direction to his disciples whom to baptise, yet there's no mention  
at all of children, nor yet in Mark 16. 15. 16. where the same will of Christ is declared in other ter●…s, concerning the baptism of such as are converted to the faith by preaching, and this Dr Featley himself more than confesses, for he urges it with earnestness p. 62. in these words, viz. there is no mention of children in either of these texts, and if so that there's no mention at all than they are not implied, as both Mr. Marshal and himself (to the contradiction of himself) affirms they are in the word Nations, for for children to be both implied, and included in that word Nations, and yet neither to be mentioned, nor meant therein at all, are inconsistent, and such a bopeep as is impossible, and if they be not so much as implied, and mentioned in the commission they must needs be understood to be excepted and excluded.  
Secondly, as there is no mention of children, so there is such a plain limitation, and restriction of baptism to such persons, as infants in infancy are not capable to be viz. Disciples of Christ, aliâs persons so taught and instructed by the ministration of men, as to believe the Gospel, that they are more than purblind, who discern not infants (for they are uncapable to learn by the teachings of men) to be in that place excepted: for it is said go ye and teach all nations 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Nations, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 understood in the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the nations, as by the figure Synthèsis, which is oratio congruae sensu non voce, I grant it may, yet not the Nations by the lump, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 persons in the Nations, that are indoctrinated and instructed, as infants cannot be, i. e. them that you have taught, and that have learned, and are become disciples by your teaching: it is as plain as the light, that not any more of the Nations are here bid to be baptised, than those, even those very individuals, that are first bid to be taught, or made disciples by man's ministry: for the Pronoun [them] that is put after the participle [baptised] can possibly have no other substantive then [those persons in those nations] who ever they are, that are both capable subjects of teaching, and also actually instructed, and discipled; it is most evident that teaching of persons is here commanded before the baptising them.   

Babist.  
The order of words, by which teaching is here set before baptising proves nothing, for in Mark 1. 4. that order is inverted, and baptising set before preaching, thus, viz. john did baptise, and preach the baptism of repentance.   

Baptist.  
So says Dr. Holmes indeed p. 7. and 'tis also a common saying among you all but I tell yod if you were not minded more to pervert, then to preach the Gospel, you could not be ignorant, that that inversion M●…rk 1. 4. is such, as altars not the sense so, but that 'tis in sense, and signification the very same as we contend for out of Mat. 28. 19 viz. that preaching is to go before baptising, for though it be said there john did baptise and preach the baptism of repentance, it must necessarily be understood thus, viz. that he preached baptism to persons before he practised it to them; for you cannot be so silly sure as to imagine that john first baptised persons when they came to him, before he opened his Mouth to tell them wherefore; yet I know one that being in a strait, did not stick to strain himself out by such a simple saying as that, but for all that, if that honest man who said thus (I forbear to name him lest I shame him) were as true a Minister of the Gospel, as he supposes himself to be, and should go forth with his Gospel to a Nation as ignorant of the truth of baptism as himself, and offer but such a small matter as his rantism, much more so worthy, so weighty and burdensome a business to the flesh as the true baptism is, viz. to overwhelm them in water, without declaring to them first for what end, and purpose, either he would show himself an Egregious and Arrant simpleton in once conceiving they would, or they themselves but senseless Animals, if they should so suddenly submit to him.  
Moreover its apparent to any, but such as are resolved to shift off t●…uth as long as they can, that the same passage of Mark 1. 4. as 'tis recorded Mat. 3. 1. 5. Luke 3. 3. 7. shows that john first came preaching the baptism of repentance for remission of sins, and then and thereupon people came out to him and were baptised of him in jordan confessing their sins.  
Out of that place therefore Mat. 28. 19 which is so usually assigned by yourselves, as the main Scripture, in which Christ commands infant baptism, though upon examination it is oft asserted to be a place that neither mentions at all, nor once meddles with infants, and that by the self same persons that so assign it, I argue thus in disproof of them who assign it, as Christ precept for infant's baptism, and in proof that its a plain prohibition of such a thing, viz.  
If Christ there commissionates and commands his Disciples to baptise none but the very same persons whom he commands them also first to teach, and make disciples by teaching, than that place is a plain prohibition, and not at all a precept to baptise infants; for men cannot teach or disciple infants.  
But Christ there commissionates and commands his disciples to baptise non●… but such as he also commands them first to teach, and make disciples by teaching.  
Ergo, that place is a plain prohibition, and not at all a precept to baptiz●… infants.  
The Minor, which only you can rationally require proof of, is so clear●…, that the blindest of you may see it in the text itself, where the Pronoun them, that is governed by the participle baptising, can possibly relate to no other substantive, but to the self same persons that are immediately before commanded to be taught, or made disciples, and whether you will have the substantive to [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] to be [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] understood in the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (as when it serves your turn, so far as to furnish yourselves by comparing this place with Act 15. 10. with matter of proof (prate I should say) for infant's discipleship, you will needs have it, for upon this account Mr. Cotton, Mr. Baxter and many more seem to proceed) or [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] by the figure Synthesis (as some of you will rather have it) 'tis much at a pass, yea not a straw's worth of advantage to you, take it which way you will, for still it will amount to this, that whether you make [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] to agree with [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] or [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] the nations, 'tis not the nations in gross (as Dr. Holmes also tells you p. 7.) for then all must be baptised (saith he and truly too) if the word Nations, universally taken, doth there note the subjects of baptism) but 'tis the Nations with restriction, the nations discipled, i. e. so many in all Nations as are first made disciples by teaching, and not more, that there are commanded to be baptised: and this Mr. Cotton, and Mr. Baxter, and Dr. Featley, and Dr. Holmes, and wellnigh all your champions are well aware cannot be denied, and therefore rather than assert such a thing, viz. that any more are here bid to be baptised, than such as are first bid to be discipled, they choose to take so hard a province upon them, as to proceed to the promotion of their cause by way of proof that infants are disciples.   

Babist.  
In Christ's precept teaching doth not go before but follow baptising Mat. 28. ●…0. teaching them to observe all things. etc.   

Baptist.  
So Dr. Featley fiddles this o'er indeed p. 39 for these are his very words; to which I reply, who denies that in Christ's precept preaching follows baptising? but what of that? doth it follow, and is that the Drs. meani●…g trow, that therefore it doth not go before it? me thinks the man should not be so senseless, nor do I think he was so senseless as to think so, but the ground he stumbles at is the new found meaning of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of which I shall be occasioned to say more anon, only here it shall suffice to say thus much viz. as 'tis clear there's a teaching to follow baptising in Christ's precept, so 'tis as clear that there's a teaching to go before, of all persons to whomsoever baptism is dispensed, a teaching a priori, and a teaching a posteriori, the first in order to discipleship and baptism, the other after baptism in order to perfection, baptism is by precept to be immediately after the first, and the other is to be by precept so immediately after baptism, that infants being uncapable of both the one and of the other, viz. of being taught just before baptism and presently after baprism, are thereby universally excepted from it, yea these two teachings, neither of which is to be used to infants, are to come by precept so near together, that there's no room for infant's baptism to come in between them.   

Babist.  
They are not so much excepted by the words [TEACH] v. 19 and [TEACHING] ver. 20. but they are as much concluded to be the subject of baptism under the word [All nations] because they are a great part, if not the half of all nations (as Dr. Featley) and serve to make up a nation as well as their parents (as Mr. Blake) and in every nation make a great part of that nation as well as their parents, as Mr. Marshal urgeth.   

Baptist.  
As if the precept for baptising did extend itself to all persons in every nation without any limitation, or restriction, or any praevious preparation to it save only barely bei●…g of the nations, Nec mediante doctrinâ, nec disciplinâ: but is it so Sirs, then let me ask you, are not the infants of Turks, Pagans, Tartars, Indians, Jews, unbelievers a part, yea a far greater part, and do they not serve much more to make up the number in nations, than the Infants of believers? why then (if that be the ground you will needs go upon) must not these be baptised as well as the other? yea surely if this be a good argument to prove any ones right to baptism from this place, because he is of the nations, then stark natural fools, as well as infants, yea very professed profa●… ones, open enemies against the name of Christ, as Turks and Pagans, being a great part of all Nations, have as good right to baptism as any of those you rantize, or we ourselves baptise either, for shame therefore forgo such rude kind of ratiocination.  
This therefore that all Nations are bid to be baptised, cannot make Mat. 28. 19 to be a precept for baptising infants, though they be of the Nations, unless they were capable to be taught, which because they are not, that place ●…mmanding no more to be baptised, than the same whom it commands also to be taught, and that not only before but immediately after baptism, is a plain prohibition of infant-baptism.  
A second way wherein 'tis argued by you that there's command in Mat. 28. 19 for the baptising of infants, is from their being disciples, which weak twig, seeing yourselves as it were sinking in your cause, you all catch at: yea I meet with none of you almost, but in one place or other of your writings I find your fortifying yourselves in that foolish practice by this childish consideration, thus doth Dr. Featly, Dr. Holmes, Mr. Marshal, Mr. Bayly, Mr. Blake, Mr. Baxter, Mr. Cook, Mr. Cotton, among all which Mr. Cotton being the most formal and Syllogistical in his argument from this place, & beginning his book with it (as Mr. Baxter also doth, with whom I may chance to deal more than I will do in this place before I have done) I'll begin with him and in him, and after him, speak to you all sooner or later (as occasion is) about this particular.  
Thus than he reasons from thence.  
Such as be disciples they are to be baptised..  
But the children of the faithful are disciples.  
Ergo the children of the faithful are to be baptised.  
The former proposition is clearly expressed in the text (saith he) make disciples and baptise them, therefore all disciples are to be baptised, but had he concluded according to mood and figure, or the tenor of this text, or had he not been both blinded, and minded to go besides the sense of the spirit in this place, he would have said therefore all that are first made disciples by instruction are to be baptised, and then he had marred all his proceedings concerning infants.  
As for the second proposition which is the assertion of you all viz. That infants are disciples, Mr. Cotton toward the proof of it so miserably misapplies 2. pieces of Isaiah, that he rather proves himself thereby to be yet but an infant in discipleship, and Gospel understanding then proves infants to be disciples from thence.  
The first place is Isa. 54. 13. whereby its said, by way of promise to the Church of the New Ierusa●…em, when once it shall be established a praise in all the Earth (as it is not yet, nor ever shall be till Christ's second appearing) when God shall wipe away all tears from hereys, and secure her for ever from all future sufferings, and oppressions, That all her children shall be taught of God, and great shall be the peace of her children: from this place, which is meant of all the Saints, and that immediate teaching which they shall once have, he argues thus, to all the natural infants of believing parents in the Church now, viz. if they be taught of God, then are they disciples, for that is the meaning of the word disciples.  
Disciples are taught or learned of God.  
His second place is Isay. 65. 20. where its said there shall be no more thenceforth an infant of days etc. in which place, what ere the meaning is, it matters not a rush as to his purpose, so long as it's spoken of a time that is yet to come▪ Now here is such a mess of mistakes as may well make a wise man amazed, and and make him muse whether the penman of this proof of that Minor, that infants are disciples, and consequently to be baptised according to Mat. 28. 19 were well awake, or asleep when he set it down, concerning it I'll propound four things to be well examined of you all,  
First whether he be not egregiously mist●…en in the persons to whom those promises are made, which if they be all infants of the faithful, considered as in their minority, then is there a mighty mist before my eyes, for really by the b●… improvement I can make of my understanding, I can possibly ken no such matter, nor that it is any other than the Saints, and faithful ones themselves; even all of them, and not any of their children after the flesh, but as they prove faithful, and do ●…ome Saints in their own persons as well as their parents.  
Secondly whether he be not grossly mistaken about the time wherein these promises are to be fulfilled, in fuller evidence of both which consider, first as to the first Scripture, who ever they are that are there expressed by the term [thy children] they are all and every of them without exception▪ partakers of the Lords teaching, and of all the other privileges there promised, for it's said, All thy children shall be taught of the Lord etc. at that time therefore wherein this shall be fulfilled this promise shall be performed to every individual of those kind of persons, to whom it's made, not one excepted, which shows that it is meant only of the Saints, for they are the Church's children, and not their natural seed, and of that time only when the New jerusalem, which is not yet, shall come down from God out of heaven, for so shall it then be with all the faithful that shall inhabit that City of the Lord, whose people are said also to be all righteous, Is. ●…0. 21. but this is not performed to all the children of the faithful now, neither are they all taught of God, with that effectual teaching there promised, as is evident, in that many of them in time prove reprobates, when wicked men's children prove elect.  
Secondly, It is expressly showed in the 17 v. who are the persons whose portion and heritage these privileges are, for this (saith he) is the heritage of the servants of the Lord.  
As for the second place, so far is it from speaking of infants in infancy, that it rather shows that there shall be no infant of days, i. e. that shall die an infant, nor old man that hath not filled his days in that time, but the very child shall die an hundred years old, i. e. he shall be counted as dying young, or a child that lives but an hundred years, so long lived shall they be in those days, yea as the days of a tree shall be the days of my people (saith God) and mine elect shall long enjoy the works of their hands.  
And as to the time when these things shall be, 'tis not now, but in the reign of Christ, when the New jerusalem shall be built with Saphires, and all precious stones, and when the Lord shall make the New Heavens and the New Earth, which is not yet in being, but is looked for of all the Saints at the coming of Christ, and the redemption of Israel (as Peter saith) according to his promise, which appears plainly by comparing Isa. 65. 17— 66. 2●…. with 2 Pet. 3. 13, 14. and also by the last text of the two, which Mr. Cotton abuses, viz. Isa. 65. v. 20 which saith this shall be from thenceforth; i. e. from the time of Gods creating that new heavens and new earth.  
Thirdly, Whether he doth not most palpably depart from the matter he took first in hand to prove unto another thing, which is no more to his purpose, then if he had said bo to a goose; yea he runs clear away from the Scripture he began upon and never returns to it more, as if he were afraid to come near it, scarce ere so much as facing about, or looking behind him: for what he ought to have cleared (but surely he thought he could not, and therefore was not minded to meddle with it) was this, viz. that in order to being the subjects of the baptism there enjoined infants are disciples, in such a sense as is there spoken of viz. made so by the Ministry of the word, and teaching; for saith Christ go teach all nations baptising them, but his is not to the same, not ad idem, but ad aliud quoddam, a certain other thing, which if he did prove (as he doth not) it could in no wise prove what he brings it in proof of, viz. that infants of the faithful, upon the account of some uncouth, unheard of, strange, secret sort of teaching and learning, which these infants have from God above any other, may be truly said to be disciples, and thereupon to be baptised.  
And this though it be not spoken so broadly by any as by Mr. Cotton, who makes it his business so far as to wrest and pervert certain Scriptures into the proof of it, insomuch that some of his fellow fighters for infant-baptism are ashamed on't and disclaim it, (witness Mr. Bayly p. 145. where, speaking of infants being disciples, I speak not (saith he) of that which divers maintain, viz. the application of that in Esay to infants, they shall be all taught of God) yet is it more tacitly hinted to be the opinion of most of you, whereupon you attribute both discipleship, and baptism to infants, as if that were the main thing meant in Mat. 28. 19 where Christ means no such matter as the inward secret and unknown teachings of God, but the teachings or making disciples to him by the Ministry of men.  
Thus says Mr. Cook in his Answer to the vanity of childish baptism, p. 33. Infants of believing parents are made disciples of God and Christ.  
And Mr. Martial in his reply to Mr. Tombs, p. 216. though they be not capable of receiving instruction from men, yet they are capable of Gods own teaching even in their infancy.  
So Dr. Holmes p. 8. God can preach to the heart and so to children.  
So Mr. Baxter, page 2●… If they can learn nothing of the parents, yet Christ hath other ways of teaching then by men, even by the immediate workings of his spirit.  
So you Ashford Disputants▪ p. 8. & 18. infants have an hearing the spirit opens their ears, quo magistro, quam cito discitur, quod docet?  
But Sirs first is there any Scripture that teaches you this twattle, unless you misuse to that end those Scriptures Mr. Cotton doth, that God teaches believers infants thus?  
Secondly, doth it appear to you, that any one of the infants, that you sprinkle in particular, is taught or hath learned any thing of God before you sprinkle it?  
Thirdly, is it any more evident to you that all believers infants are taught of God, then 'tis that unbelievers infants are taught by him? have ye not instance, that unbelievers children, not in infancy, but so soon as ever they are capable to learn any thing are often taught of God, and as oft believers children are not? as josia at eight years was taught of God, and became a precious Saint, though the child of wicked Ammon, when all the children of this good josia himself, were left untaught by him, I mean unconverted under all his teaching.  
Fourthly, if it were as sure (as the contrary is sure, for who sees any effects of Gods teaching them from the womb, when as we see not that they know a jo●… more than other children, till God teaches them by the instruction of men?) were it sure I say that these infants are taught of God in infancy, yet what is this to prove infants to be the persons commanded to be baptised in Mat. 28. for 〈◊〉 Christ doth not bid them go, and make disciples to him by God's inward teachings, for that was more than they could perform, but he bids them go, and disciple the Nations, and instruct them, and baptise them, i. e. those that by their teaching are made disciples: nor is there one crumb of commission there for their baptising of any other: and in this sense taking the word [disciples] his Minor is most false.  
Fiftly, Let it be examined, whether the words of Mr. Cotton do not clearly contradict sundry of your expressions about the meaning of that word [Disciple] about which several of you not a little also contradict yourselves, about which therefore either he, or you must be mistaken: for he confesses the true meaning of the word [Disciple] is taught, or learned, and Disciples are such as are taught and have learned: but several of you say that Discipling is not teaching, and breeding Scholars, or making them learned, nor to be discipled, to be taught, or learned, but that baptising may well be rendered a discipling, and to make disciples, or disciple persons, is to admit Scholars, and to admit to be taugh●….  
So Mr. Marshal says he learns from certain Critics, better than Mr. Tombs, in his reply to Mr. Tombs p. 212. 213.  
So Mr. Cook p. 33. To make children disciples (saith he) is to give them up unto God, i. e. in baptism, promising to bring them up in the knowledge of God, so soon as they shall be capable of outward teaching, so that they are ipso facto disciples in respect of that promise, and of God's obligation to teach them, and such like stuff.  
So Mr. Bayly p. 254. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not to teach, but make disciples, i. e. to bring to them to the School of God, the visible Church, to dedicate them to God's discipline to give their names up to be God's subjects and Scholars.  
So Dr. Featley p. 39 Though children in their nonage cannot be taught, yet they may be made Christ's disciples, by being admitted into his school, their parents giving their names to Christ, both for themselves and their fami lies.  
So Mr. Baxter p. 22, 23. they say, saith he, they cannot learn, but they may enjoy the privileges of the family, and School, and be under his charge and dominion, and that is enough to make them capable of being disciples. As if so be when Christ commissionated his disciples to disciple N●…ions, he meant not that they should teach them; but in a sense abst●…act from their own teachings, he means thus, go and admit Scholars to be taught, b●…ptide persons, and thereby give them up to me, consecreate them to me, put them out to School to me, so that though they cannot learn, yet they may partake of my protection and provision, and such like confused foppery as this which to assert is un●…ound, shamefully nonsensical, and unbeseeming the judgements of any men, but such as devote themselves (unawares) to the delusion of themselves and others.  
But howbeit you are all of one mind in this, and are agreed to shu●… out teaching from being any part of ●…hat work of making disciples u●…to Christ, that you may uphold that mere tradition of admitting infants unto baptism, as if the act of b●…ptizing were ●…o make persons disciples, more than the act of teaching, yet I shall close with Mr. Cotton he●…e against you all, a●…d undertake to make good, what he says ●…owards your confutation herein, viz. that 〈◊〉 true meaning of the word [Discipl●…] is one that hath learned by instruction, and not one that i●… admit●…ed to be taught, before he is so much as capable to learn, as is frivolously feigned by Dr. Featley. Mr. Marshal and others: yea though Dr. Fea●…ley doth shift off all teaching before baptising, by saying that t●…e words of our Saviour are not [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] but [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] p. 39 make disciples, not by teaching but admitting into Christ's School, yet (to let pass his false rendering of the word, for want of looking into his greek testament, which is not [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) I must tell all you that so adhere to him, and Mr. Martial also, who holds the same with him, and Criticizes out of the Rabini●… Doctors, and Spanhemius, saying that with them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is not as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 make Scholars learned by teaching, but only to admit them to be taught, Non quia erant docti. sed ut essent, and that [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] signifies not only to teach, 
p. 212. 213. of his reply to Mr. Tombs.  but to make disciples▪ which is done (saith he out of Spanhemius) by these two actions viz, baptising and teaching: I must tell you I say, and them and their Cri●…icks also, first if their own wo●…ds were never so true, yet they make much more for us, who deny infants to be disciples, than you, and are much more exclusive than admissive of such younglings as you sprinkle to the name of Scholars, disciples: fo●… if it be but so as the Rabbis say that [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] be only to admit Scholars to be taught, doth it not signify much more than infants of eight days are capable of? and were not he more simple than sober, and well in his wits, that being a father should enter his child, or being a 〈◊〉 should entertain a child of 7 or 8 days old to be taught, whilst he is yet, and is long like to be uncapable of the least tincture of tuition? and doth he deserve to be called a Scholar himself (as to that particular, how learned soever otherwise) who both calls and contends to have persons called Scholars, not only before they have learned ever a letter, but some years before they are capable to be taught a ●…ittle: as for circumcision which was so timely dispensed, its intent was not to admit the subjects to be taught, as Mr. Marshal vainly contends, saying that they were then discipled when circumcised i e. then first initiated and admitted immediately to be taught, but somewhat else (as I have showed above) for when it was dispensed to infants it was set to a subject utterly uncapable to be taught, and when to grown men, that subject was to be instructed before it; and as for baptism to which from circumcision Mr. M●…rshall analogically argues the same, that is not by intent and institution the first admission of persons to be taught, though persons are to be further taught after it in other doctrines, Act. 2, 42. Mat. 28. 20. but it was one of these doctrines of Christ itself which was to be taught before dispensed, and as it were a certain sermon, wherein the person submitting is to be instructed and showed many precious things viz. Christ dead, buried, and raised while dispensed, and though it is one of the six principles, or first doctrines of Christ that is to be preached, believed and practised by new born babes, and (I 〈◊〉 not in your sense but another) by beginners in Christ's School, yet is it not the first among the six in order, but the third, to which two other Doctrines, viz. faith and repentance ought to be Antecedent, Heb. 6. 1. 2. 3. Act. 〈◊〉. 38. Mark. 1. 15. Mark. 16. 15, 16.  
And if it be so as Mr. Martial says Spanhemius affirms, giving go●…d reason (though it's but bald reason as I shall show by and by) for his Analysis viz. that [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] to m●…ke disciples doth not signify simply to teach, for the●… there would be fou●…d Tautology in Christ's words, because he repeats teaching again after baptising, but to baptise and teach both, so as that Christ's meaning is this (as he says) viz. go and make me disciples out of all nations by baptising and teaching, and so as that this business of making disciples is to be accomplished or attained by two, and not under these two actions at least, viz. baptising and teaching (as he says 'tis) then let all the world judge, whether infants be not still by that opinion as uncapable to be made disciples as before, for whether [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] to make disciples be a matter, or end attainable simply by that one action of ●…eaching only, or whether not under these two mediums viz. baptising and teaching both, still no men in the world are able to make infants of a few da●…es old disciples, for howbeit they are capable to have one of these actions acted on them viz. to be baptised; yet till they come to years they cannot be instructed or taught, ●…ill when (as Spanhemius says well) the end of making them disciples is not attained.  
By those very testimonies therefore, whereby Mr. Martial would prove infants to be disciples (o how is the understanding of the prudent brought to naught) that infants are not capable to be made disciples in Christ's sense and present ‛ Dialect, he hath in print proved it to the world, and that for ever.  
Moreover what if notwithstanding all that Mr. Marshal and his curious Critics conceive, his Rabinick phrases (as he calls them) viz. his [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] and his [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] which are in sense the same, be both found to signify otherwise then his learned Spanhemius, and reve●…end Rabbis do render them? viz. not merely to admit to be taught, much less to disciple one barely by baptising (as Mr. Martial would persuade us, quite contrary to his own quotation out of Spanhemius, in this very application of it, for Spanhemius says (and so ●…e quotes him) that to disciple is to baptise, and teach both, but he that baptising only is discipling) I say what if they be found to signify neither baptising only, nor baptising and teaching both, nor admitting one by baptism to be taught, or consecrating, or initiating into Christ's School by baptism, or any such like thing, as you Divines dream on, but rather mainly, if not only, the acts of teaching and instructing persons, till they have learned what is taught them, abstract from the acts of baptising, and admitting into the Church? will it not appear much more plainly then, that infants are not capable to be made disciples? and yet to the contradiction of Mr. Marshal, and all the rest, Mr. Cotton declares this to be his opinion, viz. that the true meaning of the word [disciple] is taught or learned: or if Mr. Cotton may not be credited, if Mr. Martial will take Christ's own word for it, which is more worth than either Mr. Cottons, or those Rabbis, and from whose use of the word, and not theirs, its best to be understood●…, [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] is to make disciples before baptism, and not by it, and (though baptism is necessitate praecepti, and for many ends viz. the visibility of the thing to others, and fuller evidence of things believed to themselves, ●…ssarily and immediately to follow after i●…) to teach an instruct men in the Gospel, for th●…re can be no other way of making disciples but this of teaching, assigned as Antecedent to baptism: and in proof that that phrase so signifies in Scripture, see john 4. 1. where it's said of Christ, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. he maketh and baptizeth more disciples than I●…hn, which phrase [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] you see by the conjunction copulative [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] is set down as a distinct action from [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] he made disciples and then baptised them, therefore he did not make them by baptising them, but by something he acted towards them before viz. by preaching and instruction so it must be, for else, if you talk of tautology, here had been t●…utology in the Ev●…ngelists words indeed, for if he had said thus, viz. he made or baptised (as it must have been, if the words [he made Di●…ciples and baptised] had been Synonimaes, in sense just one and the same) than you had had some colour for your conception, but sith he says he made Discipes and baptised them, it shows plainly that he made them before he baptised them, and that these two words [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] and [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] are not one and the same in signification, for then there had been tautology in using them bot●…, and though the expression be different yet the sense is no other than if i●… were said thus, viz. jesus baptised, and baptised more than Ioh●….  
I appeal also to your own consciences, whether what Christ speaks in this very text we are yet upon, viz. Mat. 28. 19 by the participle [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] may not without any violation of the sense, be read imperatively by the verb [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] thus viz. teach all Nations, and baptise them, and if so whether [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] and [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] would be terms equipollent in that precept, and if so whether it weet not tautology to say (as in sense you would make Christ to say there) go and baptise all Nations, and baptise them, and little better than such vain repetition is it though you read it by the participle, if [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] to disciple be rende●…ed to baptise, and (Retro) baptising may well be rendered discipling (as Mr. Martial says it may) for then at the best it is but thus, viz. go and b●…ptize the Nations, baptising them, which kind of geminations, though they are not more frequent, then elegant in the Hebrew tongue, yet are but tautology in your own judgements among the Greeks: Besides that [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to make disciples is to teach persons till they have learned, and nothing else (properly taken) is plain to any that considers what these substantives signify, a●…d the several roots, from whence they are derived, in the several tongues to which they appertain, for as [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] in the H●…brew comes of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 didicit, and ●…s rendered dis●…ens ab alio, and used in Scrip●…ure for one that learns, and is actually u●…der teaching, 1 Chron. 25. 8. so [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] in the Greek is of [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] disco, and signifies the very same, viz. one that learns at least, and is so used in Scripture, yea so necessary is it to learn the commands of Christ, in order to the being his Disciples, that he himself professes whoever hath not learned to bear his cross▪ and follow him (which infants cannot do, and yet may b●… sav●…d nevertheless (dying infants) these things being not required of infanc●… as neither to be Christ's disciples or to learn of him) cannot be his disciple: which term disciple comes also of the Latin word [disco] to learn, and signifies one l●…arning, and is never used in Scripture for any other, yea further that [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] doth (contrary to what Mr. Martial, and his Critics say it doth in M●…t. 28.) signify elsewhere, if not every where else simply and only to teach, is to be seen by Christ's own usage of i●… in other places, for speaking in the passive Mat. 11. 29. viz. learn, or beye taught of me, for I am meck etc. he hath this very phrase in the Greek, viz. [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] so john 6. 46. [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] every one that hath learned, so sa●…es Paul Phil. 4. 11. [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] But if you will not learn of Christ and Paul, yet be pleased to learn this one from another, that [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] in that place, M●…t. 28. signifies only a general teaching, for if either you that follow Dr. Featley who says [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] is not teach, or Mr. Bayly▪ or Mr. 〈◊〉 (who above all the rest hath most reason to hearken to Dr. Holmes, sith he mannageth the very same cause of infant-baptism with him, and that against the very same Antagonist Mr. Tombs) will but consult Dr. Holmes p. 7. he tells you that as [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] is ver. 19 so [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] ver. 20. therefore most likely in v. 19 it signifieth only a general teaching, and this he says not of his own head, but out of as great Critics, as Mr. Martial quotes to the contrary, viz.  
Legh Crit. S. Novar. in Matth. 28. 20. The great Arias, who renders it only [docete] teach. So the Renowned Vatablus. So the Syr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Arab. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. So many other which for brevity he omits.  
See also his Alphabetical Index in the Letter D, where he says that [go teach] is not rendered to disciple, or make disciples by the Arabic, Syriack, and Saint Mark, or the exactest Latins, or by the best translations of the new Testament in French, Dutch, german, Hebrew, another Syr. Italian Margin, or by the holy spirit, which (saith he) p. 8. renders this text (meaning Mat. 28. 19 and that term [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] by plain [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] preach the Gospel Mark 16. 15. much more in proof that [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] cannot be any other than teach, he hath p. 8. and all this over again p. 102. yea so (saith he) the Great Critics, or learned men in the Greek tongue say, that [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] is to teach them that are strangers to doctrine, that they may become diseiples, [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] to teach them that are Disciples so say we that are no Critics, viz. that there is a first general teaching to acquaint persons with the Gospel, which when once they believe, and are baptised, there is a second teaching to bring them on towards perfection; by all which, though the words of Christ, who says go teach, baptising, teaching, are vindicated from tautology, yet you will never be vindicated from the fault of flat Antalogy, or contradiction among yourselves, who quote Criticism against Criticism to the overthrowing and falsifying of one another's opinions, and principles, and all this in edification of the same practice of infants sprinkling, which must needs be believed to be a good one, when in prosecution of it, O Woman that ride and misguidest the Nations, thou art so contrary to thyself, some saying that [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] Mat. 28. signifies only to teach; some to Disciple not by teaching, but baptising, or admitting to be taught; some to make disciples by both these actions not either of them alone, viz. teaching and baptising; some arguing thus viz. infants are disciples, and therefore they must be b●…ptized, as Mr. Cotton, and Mr. Baxter, Mr. Bayly, Dr. Holmes, Dr. Featley, Mr. Blake, Mr. Martial, and who not? some again thus, viz. that they must be baptised, and thereby made disciples, as Mr. Martial, Mr. Baxter, and others of you, who tell us that by baptism they must be discipled, i. e. entered and admitted into Christ's School that they may be taught: O pure round abouts! for thus it runs up and down in your writings, viz. that they are not made disciples but by these two actions, baptising, and teaching, and yet to go round again, they cannot be taught, nor made disciples in that way of teaching, and learning, but must be discipled by baptising; and yet to go round again, infants of believers are disciples, and upon the account of their being so are to be baptised.  
Lastly, as to tha●… frivolous flim slam from Acts 15. 10. into the blind belief of which you are all indoctrinated, and discipled one by another (for there is scarce any of you that write but you have a touch on it, witness Mr. Cotton p. 7. Mr. Marshal in his Sermon p. 39 in his reply to Mr. Tombs p. 217. Mr. Bayly p. 145. Mr. Baxter p. 15. Dr. Holmes himself, that denies utterly that they are bid to be discipled in Mat. 28. p. 7. yet asserts that in Acts 15. 10. infants of believers are called Disciples p. 8.  
I shall say a little to your folly in that also, and so leave you to consider it at your leisure. And because Mr. Martial is the main man I had last in hand, and the man that frames the most formal argument from that Scripture, whereby to prove infants to be disciples, i'll single out what he says, and see what may be said in answer to it, and in him you will all stand or fall in this particular: the form in which he reason's Serm. p. 39 is this.   

Babist.  
All they upon whose necks those false teachers would have put the yoke of circumcision are called disciples.  
But they would have put the yoke of circumcision upon infants as well as grown men.  
Ergo infants as well as grown men are called disciples, and to be called so.   

Baptist.  
The Minor which is so undeniable that it needs no proof (for who denies, but that they who taught the brethren or disciples at Antioch, would have put circumcision upon the necks of their male infants as well as of themselves? for after the manner of Moses, though not of Christ, so it was to be) he falls pell mel upon the proof of that, but as for the Major which is so palpably, and apparently false that it needs no disproof, that (saith he) is undeniable, and so he slides away without once offering to make any proof of it at all.  
I shall therefore show you how plainly he perverts the text, how false his foundation or Major proposition is, and consequently how rotten and weak his whole building.  
That Scripture hints only thus much to us viz. that they would have put the yoke of circumcision upon the necks of the disciples, out of which, but how inconsequently a very Idiot may understand, he publisheth this proposition viz. All they upon whose necks they would have put the yoke of circumcision were called disciples, but what monstrous solaecism, what ignorant incongruity is to be seen in these two sentences, if laid together? what naked arguing is this, they would have put the yoke of circumcisiin upon the necks of the disciples, therefore all they were disciples upon whose necks they would have put it? I appeal to Mr. Marshals own conscience to judge whether it be any better than this viz. 
Caesar put the yoke of Tribute upon the necks of Christ's disciples.   
Ergo all they, upon whose necks Caesar put that yoke, were Christ's disciples.  
I am hardly persuaded within myself that such a man as Mr. Martial could first preach this ore, Secondly, print it o'er; Thirdly, repeat it, reprint i●… o●…e again, with so slight an answer to it as he gives to Mr. Tombs p. 217. of 〈◊〉 ●…eply, and not see the nake●…nesse of it, which if he doth see, I charge him as he will answer it before the L●…rd jesus at the last day, that he declare it to the undeceiving of 1000●…, that for aught he knows may be dangerously deluded by i●…, and that he do not dare any longer thus to darken counsel by words without knowledge: as for that sorry allusion whereby he puts off Mr. Tombe●…, who denies his Major for this reason, viz. because it is not said, they would have put the yoke of circumcision upon the disciples only, it's but a further delusion of himself and others. I hope saith he you will receive the same law you give, therefore when yourself do plead, meaning against infant's baptism, john's and Christ's disciples required confession of faith and sins of those whom they baptised, I answer saith he, that it's no where said they baptised only such.  
But Sir, though it be not said totidem verbis they baptised only such, yet it is said in t●…rminis aequivalentibus, in words that can imply possibly no less, for when it's told us by way of true narration Mat. 3. 5. 6. that jerusalem, and all judea, and all the Region round about jordan were baptised, confessing their sins, it is in sense as if he had said, that all they of jerusalem, judea, and about jordan, that were baptised, were baptised thus, viz. confessing their sins and consequently that only those who confessed their sins were baptised, and when it's told us for truth, to the end that we might know who, and how many that day were baptised and added to the Church, Act. 2. 42. in these terms, viz. Then they that gladly received his word were baptised, and the same day there were added (meaning to those 120. that continued in supplication Act. 1. 14.) about 3000 souls, those terms [they that gladly received the word] must needs be exclusive of all others that did not gladly receive the word, & consequently of infants that could not, or else we are clearly cozened by that story; for if I undertake to relate truly by way of Chronicle, who and how many were executed at such an Assize, or slain in such a battle on such a day (as Luke doth in Act. 2. to show who and how many were baptised on that day) and express it in such terms as do include the third part of them only (for the several households to which tho●…e 3000 souls did belong, would surely have amounted to thrice as many more, had all those whole households been baptised with them) I should be reputed as no better than an Impostor: but the case is not the same in Act. 15. 10. for the end and intent of Luke the historian, and Peter the spokesman in that place was not to relate how many they would have yoked with circumcision, but the drift of Peter was only to reprove the false teachers, and of Luke only to declare how Peter did ●…eprove them for offering so to subjugate, and subvert the brethren, for so they are called ver. 1. even the very same persons which are called disciples ver. 10. which shows also that by the word [disciples] he means not infants, for they were persons capable to be taught, yet this is the strongest hold you have whereby you argue infants to be disciples, and taking it by force from thence, that infants are disciples, you run headlong with it to Mat. 28. 19 where Christ says, go teach, or by teaching disciple the Nations, baptising them, and from thence rest an argument for their baptism, but I am ashamed that I must take occasion (unless I'll betray the truth) to reprove the rudeness of such renowned men, and conclude (all their conceits to the contrary notwithstanding) that Mat. 28. 19 is no commission nor command for infant baptism. It follows not therefore from the wont circumcising of infants, from which you A●…hford Disputants dispute it, that therefore they are to be baptised, for this reason viz. because there was a command for the circumcising of infants, but (as I have showed above) none at all (no not from Mat. 28. 29. nor Mark. 16. 15. muc●… less from any other piece of Christ's will and Testamen●…) that they are to be baptised now. But Mr. Marshal fetches it about another way yet, and because Christ's own Testament is somewhat barren of provision by way of precept for infant's baptism, he runs back to Moses Testament, and fetches what help he can from thence, and undertakes to prove the command for the circumcising of infants, to be a consequential and virtual command and commission for the baptising of them now, p, 35. 36. 37. of his sermon.  
In prosecution and proof of which position, he spends himself in above 40 pages of his reply to Mr. Tombs, in which great compass, who ever lists to follow him, and tumble o'er all that talk of his to Mr. Tombs, may soon be lost in a labyrinth of legal customs and institutions, into which he leads men back from the plain simplicity of the Gospel, then find on inch of Evangelicall institution of infant baptism, of all which I may safely say seriously, before ●…such as know the law of Moses from the Gospel, as Mr. Tombs is taken (if not mistaken) by him to speak jeeringly p. 197. that though in bulk and show it look like the travel of the mountains, yet the birth and result of all is but a mere silly mouse, for this is the conclusion of that whole matter viz, That that very command for circumcision of infants, that was expressly given before Gen. 17. and expressly bound Abraham to sign his infants with it in infancy, so teacheth and reacheth us now by Analogy and good consequence, that even that alone, that old testament institution without respect to any reviving thereof in any part of the new testament, may serve our turns as a sufficient command, that doth virtually bind us to baptise our infants now: to which absurdity, though many a wise man would afford no other answer then a laugh in his sleeve, yet as very a fool as I am, I shall only soberly reply to it as follweth.  
First, is it so that the command to circumcise infants is virtually a command to us to baptise them? then Sirs why do you not keep close to your command, and by Analogy baptise precisely on the eighth day, but on any other as you see good?   

Babist.  
The variation of the time is but a circumstance, but an accidental thing, neither here nor there, nor much material when ordinances are administered, whether at this time or at that, as Mr, Marshal well observes p. 202. 203 saying the eight day only was an accidental thing, and therefore binds us not, as nei there the time for the passover binds us to the same time for the supper: you must not make every thing a substantial part of the Sacrament, which God hath made a part of the outward administration only, that circumstance of time had some peculiar relation to that manner of administration, and had nothing common to the nature of a sacrament in general, or to the end and use of that sacrament as the seal of admission.   

Baptist.  
Say you so, that the time is but a crcumstance, and such an accidental thing in circumcision, peculiar to that administration only, not binding us to the same time in the administratton of baptism, but left to us to do it ad libitum, according to our own discretion? then pray tell me, sith to do it on the eight day is not needful, wherher to do it on the 10th 12th or 20th day be any more needful than that, and whether to do it on the 8000th day be any more than a mere difference though at a greater distance in that circumstance of time, and so whether I may not consequently let it alone till the 20th or 30th year of their age unless they profess faith and desire it before, before I baptise my children by your own opinion and assertion: for it appears by you there is no time prescribed, more than other wherein baptism is enjoined to be dispensed, unless you say that time wherein they appear to believe, and therein we will join with you with all our hearts, let it fall out when it will early or late.   

Babist.  
No such matter neither at any hand, for by that means the subject will come to be altered to, which by such a degree of delay must necessarily be men and women only, and no infants at all: for as we must so far keep analogy with circumcision in our administration of baptism, as to dispense baptism to the same subject at least, though we differ in that mere circumstance of time, so we must differ no further in the time than is consistent with the Iden●…ity of the subject, which is one and the same in circumcision and baptism, this is not an accidental, but a substantial business in the Covenant, and so altogether in ●…terable, that there may be no variation of it with●…ut violation of the Covenant Gen. 17. for though we need not stand particularly upon the precise time of the eighth day, yet at least we must keep within the general time of infancy, so as that we must baptise infants under the Gospel consequentially, and by virtue of that command to circumcise infants of old.   

Baptist.  
That's the great matter pleaded by you indeed, as wherein of necessity there must be such an Analogy between baptism and circumcision viz. an Idendity in th●… subject of both: you flee to the institution of circumcision as your supreme warrant for baptising infants; but is there not as much deviation from the manner of circumcision, as touching the subject itself among you, as there is in any thing else? ●…f you must keep so strictly to one and the same subject in circumcision, and baptism, why do you alter the subject yourselves? why bap●…ize you any females, when God commanded males only to be circumcised? and why not male servants though unbelieving Moors, Turks or Pagans if of believing masters? or have you a certain dispensation or liberty lent you to dispense baptism, as much besides your rule as you please, and yet to be accounted as conformable to your Rule still?   

Babist.  
We find the New Testament injoining baptism, and dispensing it to females, as well as males, for it's said Act. 8. that when they believed the things spoken by Philip pertaining to the Kingdom of God, they were baptised both men and women: and therefore there is warrant enough for us to vary so far from circumcision, though it be virtually a command to us concerning bap●…ism, as to admit of Females to the one, when Males only were adm●…ed to the other.   

Baptist.  
You say right: for howbeit indeed under the Covenant of Circumcision, all the Males whether children or Servants born in the house or bought with money; and they only (not any females were admitted to that administration, yet it is most evident th●…t (as to baptism) it matters not whether persons be male or female, for they are all one in Christ's account, according as they believe in him, one sex having no more right thereto then the other, Gal. 3. 26. 27. 28. But if you betake yourselves to the New Testament only as your rule for baptism, though you find warrant there for men and women, yet you find none at all there for infants to be baptised: yea that is as much warrant to us in our varying from the manner of circumcision in the point of infants, by omission of it unto them, as 'tis for you to vary from circumcision in the point of females by admission of them unto bap●…, for as you are fain to plead for all your strong hold of circumcisions being ●…ted, and of old dispensed to infants, no less than New Testament institution, and instance for the admission of females, so if we insist upon only the New Testament institution, and example we can as truly say there is neither precept nor precedent for baptising infants, as you can say there is both for baptising females, and with as much confidence as you can say 'tis evident there, that both men and women were baptised, may I say it is evident that infants were not, at least it is not evident that they were, and that is enough to serve our turn in this case, wherein it lies upon you, who practise infant's baptism, to produce some proof or other that 'twas practised in the primitive times, and some precept direct, or consequential, from the law of Christ, and not to content yourselves, and cousin the world with such a poor pretence, as to say that the command for the circumcision of infants is a consequential and virtual command to us to baptise them, which as binding as you say it is to us in this case, when it comes to be examined, you see it binds us as little to the same subject, as to the same circumstance of time,  
You lie groping for a warrant for your way in the Old Testament, and Law of Moses, and being not a little aware that you have not warrant enough in the new, you look after that Law-Giv●…r, that is long since out of Date to the church, for the doing of which you need no other to accuse you then he, even Moses, in whom you trust, who instead of inviting you to learn of himself under the times, and promulgation of the Gospel, how Gospel ordinances should be administered; rather conjures the very jews themselves, that were as we never were, his own disciples, whilst his Testament stood john 9 28. and that with a curse, from any longer attendance unto his voice, to attendance unto the voice of another Prophet Christ jesus, when God should raise him up unto them, you forget Sirs that we are now under the new Testament, and the teachings and Law of another Lawgiver, another Apostle, and High Priest of our profession, who was faithful to him that appointed him as a son over his own house, i. e. the Gospel Church, as Moses though a Servant, was faithful to him that appointed him in all his house, the fleshly Israel: so faithful was Moses as to make all things plain in his Testament, so that his Disciples during the time of that Covenant, whereof he was mediator, might easily see, if they were careful to look into his Law, the mind of God concerning them in every administration of that Testament, so that they need not look any where else but to his Law, yea in Heb. 9 19 Moses spoke every precept to all the people according to the Law, and shall we think that this man, who is worthy of more glory than Moses, and who is now as a son over his own house, hath not been so faithful, as to make sufficient provision of plain precep●…s, Laws, and ordinances so as to speak distinctly, and to give out his will and Testament clearly, so that his disciples may know it, withou●… running back to learn of his servant Moses? doth not God himself say of this Prophet by the mouth of Moses himself, Deut. 18. 18. I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him, him shall they hear in all things, whatsoever he shall say, and it shall come to pass that whosoever shall not hearken to my words which he shall speak in my name, I will req●…ire it of him, and he shall be destroyed from among the people, Act. 3. 22. 23.  
Is it likely then that he hath left his will so darkly delivered, concerning his own institutions, that his Ministers should be fain to fetch it so far, as you fetch infants baptism, who say there is a consequential, and virtual command, and institution for it in the old Testament of Moses, for as much as infants are there commanded to be circumcised? I am ashamed to see such Masters in Israel (as you go for) so dishonour and disparage the great Master of the Gospel's house, and Mediator of the Gospel Testament, as to straggle and wander and run from him to Moses, to learn how to administer his ordinances: from the son to the Servant? from the living to the dead? from the Gospel to a law long since ended? from the truth to the type? from the substance to the shadow? as if there were not light enough shining forth from God in the face of jesus Christ, for the use of his household, without beholding the veiled face of Moses; for that he gave circumcision as a part of his law, though it was of the Fathers and was in being before him, as sacrifices also were, and other parcels of that old Testament whereof he was Mediator, is showed abundantly above out of john 7. 22. 23. certainly Sirs, that cause is none of Christ's, whose defendants are so hardly beste●…d, when they are put to clear it that they are driven from Christ himself to call out to Moses, Master help us or else we perish.   

Babist.  
Though there is no such Syllabicall, or express precept for infant's baptism in the New Testament, as there was for circumcision under the old, yet there is precept enough to us, so long as we find no prohibition.   

Baptist,  
This was M Kent's way of arguing the lawfulness of infant's baptism in public one day at Crambroke, and at Staplehurst also, the same evening following, with myself in the prese●…ce of some others; it is not forbidden (says he) therefore it is commanded: to which it was answeted to this effect, viz. that it is not commanded therefore it is forbidden: for we being forbidden to add to the words of Christ, and to preach any other than what was delivered to the Churches by the Apostles Gal. 1. 8. 9 Revel. 22. 18. what ordinance, dispensation and piece of worship, and service soever is not appointed by him, must consequently and clearly be prohibited, and be but mere Will Worship, if performed: in fuller proof of which, viz. that it is suffic●…ently forbidden, that of Philip to the Eunuch was made use of, whose words [if thou believest with all thy heart 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, li●…et, thou mayest] being made in answer to the question quid ni? what hinders why I may not be baptised? as they express it to be lawful for such as believe with all their hearts, so they must plainly imply to any understanding, that is not resolved to be impudent in withstanding truth, that non licet, it is not lawful for such to be baptised as do not, even as (your selves being judges) there's not more permission for self examinants to eat the supper, in that expression of Paul [let a man axamine himself, and so let him eat] then there is prohibition of all such to approach in that service, that are neglective of self examination: but all this would not then be accepted for an answer, without an express Sillabicall, formal forbidding it in such words viz. ye shall not baptise infants: (by the way I wonder where the express prohibition was for circumcising females, if it lie not virtually in this viz. that there's no command nor example for circumcising them) whereupon in our after, and occasional discourse that night, I calling for an express prohibition of that popish practice of baptising bells, it was returned (in sense I am sure, as I remember in words) to this purpose viz. that if it were not forbidden than it might be done, but it was forbidden in this respect, forasmuch as bells were not capable of baptism, to which I said nor infants neither; and so we parted, since when I never saw him, nor now shall (since he is departed this life) till we meet before the Tribunal seat of Christ in that life, which is to come,  
And lest all this should be of as little weight with others, as it was with him, I shall add a little by way of proof, that there's prohibition enough of infant's baptism, in case it be not clearly commanded, For  
First, what is not commanded of God is but tradition of man, for which men shall have no thank for their labour Mat. 15. 9  
Secondly, neither are we altogether without such positive prohibition, as may be sufficient to satisfy you at least, who hold the command for circumcision of infants to be a command for the baptising of them: in order to your understanding of which, I shall refer you to Act. 21. 21. where its said of Paul, that he taught all the jews, which were among the Gentiles, to forsake Moses, saying, that they ought not to circumcise their children, nor to walk after the customs. In which Scripture I beseech you in the fear of God to observe how 'tis rehearsed that three things were most expressly forbdiden, as unlawful for the jews themselves, much more to any believing Gentiles under the days of the Gospel, by Paul's preaching.  
First, they were forbidden (in general) to follow Moses, i. e. to live after his law and testament any longer, they are charged to forsake Moses.  
Secondly (in particular) they were forbidden to circumcise their children, that being indeed a business the Jews still so doted on, that of all things they were unwilling to let it go, which by the way, shows us plainly, that there was nothing enjoined to be done to infants in the room of it, as some (but simply) conceive baptism was by Peter Act. 2. in order to their comfort, under the loss of the other; for if there had, then surely it would have been specified, and Paul would have preached thus to the Jews, the more easily to wean them from that ancient custom of circumcising their children (specially considering how loath they were to part with it) viz. you ought not to circumcise your children now, but instead thereof to baptise them, and this may well serve in lieu of, and satisfy you under loss of the other, as being not so painful a service, but an easier sign, and that of better things than those promised in the Covenant of circumcision: but he says no such matter, if he had there would have been doubtless less ado, than it should seem there was, to bring the jews off from that practice of circumcising their infants, of which even after they believed they were so zealous, as not to hear of the abrogation of it without offence, for this would surely easily have contented and satisfied them, if they might have had their children baptised, as of old they were circumcised, but this doubtless made them so difficult to be persuaded to a forbearance of circumcising there infants, because they saw the gospel had no answerable dispensation belonging to their infants in the place of it.  
Thirdly, in general again, they were forbidden to walk so much as after the manner of Moses, for the word here rendered customs is [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] the same that is used in the singular number. Act. 15. 1. [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] which is there rendered after the manner of Moses, which word [after the customs] or [after the manner of Moses, prohibits not only all observation of those ordinances of the law itself, but also all walking after the same fashion, way and manner as the ordinances of the law were administered in, here's not only an injunction of nonconformity to the law itself, but prohibition of all conformity to the manner of it: they are not only taught not to do the same things that were done under Moses, but also not to do under the Gospel in the same way and fashion as of old: they are not only bid not to circumcise children, but also not to walk after the manner of circumcision or after the customs of the law; and therefore consequently not to baptise children now, which practise you of the Priesthood not only confess to be agreeable, and conformable to that custom of circumcising children under the law, but also contend with all your might to ●…ave them baptised now, upon no other account mainly then this, upon which Paul plain lie seems to forbid it: for you say 'twas the custom and manner of old to circumcise children, therefore though circumcision itself be ceased, and baptism come in the room of it, yet thus far at least we must follow the fashion of the Church of the Jews, that as they than circumcised infants, so we in like manner must baptise them, but Paul says plainly, that we must forsake Moses, and neither circumcise children now (as of old they did) nor yet walk after the manner of circumcision, nor conform to such Jewish customs, therefore we may not now baptise them, which to do yourselves, as you contend so to have it, so confess it to be after the manner of circumcision.  
Whether therefore we shall believe him or you in this case judge ye.  
This, as it is of weight in itself, so it must needs be an argument ad hominem however, of force enough to stop the mouths of all such as though they yield the law itself and circumcision to be ceased, yet will needs in point of Priesthood, national Churches, Tithes, Temples, outward administration, infant's admission have all things at least after such a manner as the Jews had, and specially to Mr Martial and Dr. Holms, and all such as assert, that the very command that was given to circumcise infants of old, is virtually the command to us to baptise them: for thus says not only Mr. Martial but Dr Holmes also out of A●…nsworth, p. 9 and 7. of his animadversions, fetching his argument for infant baptism as far as from the first book of Moses called Genesis thus.  
Where there is a command for a thing never remanded, or contramanded, there the thing is still in force.  
But there is a command for signing the infants of a believer, with the sign of the Covenant of Grace, Gen. 17. 7. 9 never yet remanded or contramanded.  
Ergo signing believers children with the sign of the Covenant of Grace (namely baptism now) is still in force.  
The Minor of which argument hath no less than three false assertions in it. For First, circumcision was not a sign of the Covenant of Grace (as baptism now is) nor did any further relate to the Covenant of Grace, than all other things under the law did viz. as types and shadows of the things to come; but that Covenant of which circmcision was giyen to be immediately a sign and token, was of that earthly Canaan, made with Abraham's fleshly seed only: nor Secondly, were they believers infants only, who were there commanded to be circumcised, but all the male infants and male servants also of every household of Abraham's posterity by Isaac only, through their several generations, though the parents and masters were unbelievers, as the jews were (for the most part of them) in all ages, and both they and theirs nevertheless to be circumcised, while that Covenant of circumcision lasted.  
Thirdly, whereas he says that circumcision of infants (for that's it he falsely signs there with that name, viz. the sign of the Covenant of Grace) was never yet remanded, or contramanded, it is as false as all the rest for we see plainly that it was remanded by that text I am yet in hand with, viz. Act. 21. 22.   

Babist.  
But baptism, which is the sign now was never remanded.   

Baptist.  
I grant it is not, yet i'll prove it to the faces of you all, that 'tis as much remanded, and contramanded, as ever it was commanded in Gen. 17.  
Sith then Mr. Martial and Dr Holmes both say (and so indeed you say all in effect) that the command for circumcision of infants was a command to us to baptise them, and therefore (unless we can show that command to be remanded again) it is still in force to bind us to baptise them, I dare be bold to tell them that if infant circumcision, and infant baptism were both commanded together in that one and the same precept Gen. 17. 10. where God bids Abraham, and his seed to circumcise their children, than they are both uncommanded again in that one and the same prohibition, wherein God by the mouth of Paul forbade the jews to circumcise their children any longer: I say if infant's baptism were commanded in that very command for the circumcision of infants, then by Analogy, for contrariorum contraria est ratio, infant's baptism must needs be remanded in the remanding of infant's circumcision, the remanding of which by Paul, among all the jews that dwelled among the Gentiles, where he mainly exercised his Ministry, is related plainly Acts 21. 21.  
To conclude then though I utterly deny, as being well assured that nor Dr. Holmes nor Mr. Marshal neither have yet, nor ever will make it good, that the precept for circumcision, is so much as a virtual or consequential command to baptise infants, yet, if it be, I hope they will receive the s●…me Law they give, and rest satisfied in it, that this Countermand to circumcise infants, is a consequential and virtual countermand also to baptise them.  
By all which it appears still that there is not only no precept, but also plain prohibition enough of infant-baptism.  
And as there is no precept, so neither is there any precedent of baptising infants, as there was of circumcising them of old, from which practice of circumcision therefore there is no consequence to infant-baptism: there is not one example to be found any where upon the file of such a thing, as infant baptism, unless it be in your Parish Registers, and there indeed you may show us, not only three or four hundred (as upon occasion of our calling for example, Mr Kentish in a discourse we had with him and Mr Glenden at Swevenock said he could) but as many as we can show you of baptised believers in the Scripture-Register, viz. no less than three or four thousand: but this, though it satisfy them that live by the example of the world, yet will in no wise serve their turns that live by the example of the Word, and therefore Ms Kent's negative precept, of non express prohibition, and Mr Kentish his popish precedent of parish church admission may go both together, as things that can never pass for currant among the true Christians of Kent, though they pass for good proof of infant-baptism among most Kentish Christians, and Priestridden people: As for the Scriptures, there's not so much as the least show of any example of baptising infant's i●… them, for howbeit you draw in the several households, that were baptised, as that which you would fain seem to make somewhat of, to this purpose, yet how well they serve your tum that way judge ye, when as whether there were at all any one infant in any one of them, is confessed to be uncertain by yourselves: so Mr. Blake, Birth-priv. p. 22. and also a matter so immaterial that the cause doth not depend upon it at all; so Mr. Martial to Mr Tombs, p. 218. yet both he, and Mr. Blake and Dr. Featley p. 42. 43. and I think well-nigh every one that writes presses all these, households as a precedent, and forces from them all they have in them, and more too in proof of infant baptism.   

Babist.  
We have examples not to be contemned of the baptism of whole households (says Mr. Blake) and whether infants were there or no, as it is not certain, though probable, so it not material. The precedent is an household he that follows the precedent must baptise households, it appears not that there were wives there yet he that follows the precedent of baptising households, must baptise Wives, and so I may say (quoth he) Servants if they be of the household.   

Baptist.  
Pray stay Sirs, not to fast at ●…st lest you run yourselves out of breath at last. Is this a competent account upon which to baptise wives, and servants too, as well as infants, viz. if they be of the household, then tell me whether unbelieving wives, and unbelieving servants, may not be of the household, where the husband, and Master believeth; and if so must these also be baptised? for shame call in that again, this is a pig of the old sow, believers children are of the Nations (and I wonder what man, woman or child is not) therefore they must be baptised. For shame also forbear to name those households any more, as precedents of infant-baptism, wherein yourselves confess that it is not certain that there were any infants, nor material whether there were any or no.   

Babist.  
You shall find, says Mr. Martial, the Gospel took place just as the old administration, by bringing in whole families together, usually if the Master of the house turned Christian, his whole family came in, and were baptised with him.   

Baptist.  
Just so Sirs, and not a jot otherwise? what not one way, nor other otherwise, then of old?  
Then first me thinks the wife and other females should not be actually baptised with him but rather virtually, be baptised in the husband; for you say just so it was in the administration of circumcision.  
Secondly, Then I marvel in my heart how it came to pass that there was such querying whether believing husbands, and unbelieving wives, believing wives, and unbelieving husbands, believing Servants, and unbelieving Masters, etc. might not live together, and resolution given affirm●…ively that they might, if that there were whole Families taken into the Gospel all together.  
Thirdly, But most of all I wonder how there was such quarr●…lling as there was, and Christ said there would ever be in families about the Gos●…el, that instead of embracing it all together, they would be divided against t●…emselves for the Gospel's sake, so that from thenceforth that the Gospel began there should be five divided about it in one house, two against three, and three against two, the Fath●…r against the Son, and the Son against the Father. the Daughter against the Mother, and the Mother against the Daughter, the Daughter in Law against the Mother in Law, and the Mother in Law against the Daughter in Law, the husband against the wife, and the wife against the husband, so that he must be fain to keep the doors of his lips from her that lies in his bosom, Mich. 7. 5. and a man's foes (for the Gospel sake) should be those of his own house Luke 12. 51, 52, 53. and also such oppositions on earth in countries, and Nations, whereby Christ's disciples should still be d●…agged before the Rulers, and Governors, that under one pretence or other should still persecute the Gospel till Christ coming (for till then the term of Nursing Fathers falls not to them) which immethodical, and tottered face of things, which was at the beginning of the Gospel and is to be again towards the end, at the Gospel's resurrection from under popish superstition and man's tradition, that hath made it void, I have often seen, and do see daily in that true, though troublesome, way of the Gospel we now walk in, but I never saw it in all my days in that false, smooth, fine, fashionable, formal, forced, national Gospel of yours, where whole families, Countries, and Kingdoms. i e. all the folk within such a Dominion, are threatened into one Mock-Christian Religion, whether they will or no: I wonder I say how all this should come to pass, if as of old the whole Nation, and therein the whole families of the Jews were taken in at once to that covenant, so now (and so you say all it is now) whole Nations, and therein whole families, and households without exception, are to be brought in and baptised all at once into the Gospel.  
Sure I am that though persons were so born Christians to the Popes, Prelates, and Presbyters crooked Christianity, viz. of the flesh and of blood, and of the mere will of man, m●…king laws to compel them so to be, yet none are, by right, to be admitted to Christ's Christendom, but such joh. 1. 12. 13. as appear by faith to be born of God.   

Babist.  
But me thinks (as Mr. Marshal says well) the whole household of Co●…nelius, the household of Stephanus, the household of Aristobulus, the household of Crispus, the household of Narcissus, the household of Lydia, the household of the Jailor, these are examples for baptising whole households (and so consequently infants) not to be contemned.   

Baptist.  
I muse much why the household of Caesar is not named as well as all the rest, but then Mr. Martial had clearly contradicted his own assertion, viz. that whole families were taken in all at once: for there were many famous disciples and Christians that embraced the Gospel in Caesar's household, though Caesar was no Saint nor Christian himself.   

Babist.  
It is not said the household of Caesar, but they of Caesar's household.   

Baptist.  
Nor is it said the household of Aristobulous, and Narcissus, but them of Aristobulus, and Narcissus' household, which shows that though with him these two masters were disciples themselves, yet but some of their households were disciples with them, yet he alleges these as examples of infant's baptism, when in the Scriptures nomination of them there is no nomination of infants, or baptism either.  
As for all the rest if they are not to be contemned, yet are they not to be confided in, unless there were much more than is expressed, at least implied to such a purpose, as exemplary proof for infant's baptism: for if those whole households were all, and every one in them baptised, yet possibly no infant, for all that: for at this hour I know some whole households of baptised believers, that have not so much as an infant within them: yea one where there is or lately was both parent, children or grand children all baptised, and yet no infant nor infant baptism amongst them neither: and indeed howbeit the word [whole household] is no where named in the new Testament in relation to this case, yet I do believe that whole households might sometimes be baptised then as well as now they are, from whence yet it will not follow that infants were baptised, yea whole thousands were ba●…d sometimes in one day, and yet no infants among them▪ and that all th●…●…sholds you so often instance in, either had no infants in them, or if they had yet none baptised however, is evident enough to those that are not blind, if ●…ll ●…e particular instances be examined.  
As for the jailor, the Apostles, who never used to preach to infants, spoke to him the word of God, and to all that were in his house, the effect of whose preaching was not only his rejoicing and belief, but the belief of all his house also, as well as the baptism of all his house together with him, Act. 16. 32. 33. 34.  
And as for Crispus, whose household is not reported to be baptised (though no doubt they were so) it's said that all his household believed in the Lord as well as he, Acts 18. 8. and as for such as were baptised with Cornelius, which were more than they of his own household, that none of them were infants, 'tis evident, forasmuch as they were all both ready and capable to hear, and the holy spirit fell on them all in hearing the word, so that it was evident to Peter, and as many as came with him, that they embraced the glad tidings of the Gospel; upon the account of whose gladly receiving the word only, and that apparently; Peter says who can forbid water why these may not be baptised & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and he commanded them to be baptised in the name of the Lord, Act. 10. 44 to 48.  
And as for Stephanus' household, as they are said 1 Cor. 1. 16. to have been baptised, so are they all said to have addicted themselves to minister to the Saints which are actions exclusive of Infants 1 Cor. 16. 15. besides, if households must needs be taken as comprising infants, than that phrase salute the household of Onesiphorus 2 Tim. 4. 19 must be taken so to, and w●…at absurdity were it, to tell Cradle-bed-Infants, that Paul the prisoner remembered his respects unto them: as for that of Lydia, as its likely enough she then had none, so no man knows whether ever she had any husband at all, if she had she might have no children, if she had children she might be an ancient widow, whose children were grown up to believe wi●…h her, and besides that those of her household, whether children or servants or both, that were baptised with her, were not infants but adult disciples is evident, both by that compellation viz. the brethren (a denomination never given to them) and mostly because they were such as the Apostles did actually comfort (as we never find they did any infan●…s in their infancy) Act. 16. 14. 40. By all which by that time you have laid it to heart, so little ground will be left you from all these instances for the baptising of infants, that it may without crowding, be well written within the inside of a cherry-stone.  
And now whereas Mr. Marshal, more downrightly then rightly, denies that children did eat the passover, which most undoubtedly they did, I demand of him why, if households be a term so conclusive of infants, when its said households were baptised, the same word doth not as much conclude children, when its said households did eat the passover.   

Babist.  
Mr. Marshal himself gives you good reason for that p. 40. of his Sermon, the Argument (saith he) from the term household, is not so strong to prove that infants did eat the passover, as it is to prove they may be baptised, because no other Scripture shows that the passover doth belong to children, but we have other plain Scripture proving that baptism belongs to infants, as well as grown men.   

Baptist.  
I remember indeed that Mr. Martial speaks thus: yea more (and more absurdly than thus) doth he speak p. 219. in his reply to Mr. Tombos' viz. that we shall never find so good evidence out of the households eating the passover, Exod. 12. thereby to prove that women did eat the passover as this proves that the ●…nfants of the house were baptised: but I must tell him first, that what influence other Scriptures give toward the proof of either one or the other makes these never the stronger simply, and in themselves, so but that their particular strength and weakness stands the same, but Secondly, how dares Mr. Martial say there's no other Scripture save that, is not that one particular sentence wherein the word household is expressed as eating the paschal lamb enough? specially when the next verse, or the latter part of the same verse viz. Exod. 12. 4. says plainly, that it was to be taken and eaten according to the number of souls in the house, and by every one according to his eating, and if the family were too little to eat it, they should join families together; are not children expressed undeniably here? are they not among the number of souls capable to eat, every one pro suo modulo, according to the measure of his eating and digestion? and doth not this evince as much for women? And whereas, for the exemption of women (not as holding these did not eat it, but to secure himself the more from that deadly wound, which he is aware will light upon him if he grant that children did eat the passover viz. our arguing upon him from thence to their right to the supper, according to his own arguing from infant's circumcision to their baptism) he brings this reason viz. because according to us they were not circumcised, and no uncircumcised person might eat the passover, I have to or three things to say to it.  
First, that phrase, no uncircumcised person shall eat it, must either necessarily be understood concerning those uncircumcised ones only, who were both capable of circumcision, and of whom circumcision was required, or else  
Secondly, it must be understood that the females were accounted as virtually circumcised in the males.  
Thirdly, that very phrase that excludes all, and only such uncircumcised ones from the passover as were capable of circumcision, and of whom it was required, serves us against you thus far however as to include and enright all them to the passover that were circumcised, and so if women did not (as none need doubt but that they did) yet all circumcised males, and cons●…quently male children, as soon at least as they were capable to eat, were under a right to eat the passover, and so as to prove you who deny them the supper, to be engaged in the guilt of diminishing God's grace, and robbing poor infants of their right, as well as we, if your own arguments be true, viz. that to deny such dispensations to infants under the Gospel, the answerable ones to which were dispensed to them under the law, is to lessen the grace of God in the Gospel Covenant, and make it strai●… than it was under the Law, and to bereave little children of what belongs to them.  
Thus Mr. Marshal, where by the word households he should understand children as well as others, for his own ends he leaves them out; but where by the word households such families are expressed, as in which he knows not that there was one infant, and may know (if there were) by the very places themselves, that they were excluded, yet there he winds things aboutto wind them in.  
By all this you see how little consequence is in the Argument, children were circumcised.  
Ergo they must be baptised.  
Yea (say you Ashford disputants in the tail of your argument) or else the Covenant of the Gospel is worse to the spiritual seed of Abraham, than it was to the carnal seed under the law.  
Bus Sirs (to conclude this matter) I say no, for if by spiritual seed you mean Christians natural infants, I must (as before) cry shame on you still, for styling them the spiritual seed of Abraham, for if Abraham's own semen carnis be not (qua sic) his semen fidei, are the semen carnis of believing Gentiles abraham's semen fidei? but if by his spiritual seed you mean such as are so indeed i. e. true believers, are this spiritual seed ere the worse because a mere fleshly seed, may not without faith be signed as heirs together with them? how will you ever be able to make that good? yet again (to take your words so punctually as may be) by mere denial of baptism to your carnal seed, is the Gospel made worse to Abraham's spiritual seed, than the same Gospel was to Abraham's carnal seed of old? no such matter, surely Sirs, for the Gospel was preached but darkly to the Jews of old, which were Abraham's carnal seed, viz. only in types, and figures, and shadows, and prophecies pointing out only Christum exhibendum, a saviour to come, but now it's preached not only to believers (that is Abraham's spiritual seed) but also to unbelivers, and to the whole world, and this more plainly too, and without a vail, holding forth salvatorem exhibitum, a saviour that hath already offered himself a ransom, and salvation by him in common to all, jews and Gentiles, bond and free, even every creature that puts it not away from him, when tendered to him, Mark. 16. 15. 16. 1 john 2. 2. so that the Gospel is as good now to the full to all men in its administration as it was of old, and in many respects far better, though no infants at all be baptised, and so I have done with this argument, and come to the next.   

Disputation.  
That opinion which destroyeth the comfort that the holy ghost administereth over the loss of our children by death, is a desperate and ungodly opinion.  
But such is the opinion of the Anabaptists concerning little children.  
Ergo, it is desperate and ungodly.   

The minor proved.  
It destroys the hope that parents can have of the salvation of their children, for it makes them in no better condition than Turks and Pagans, and so our Respondent himself professed, and when the Apostle saith 1 Thess. 4. 13. I would not have you sorrow as those without hope, the grieved parents might reply; what hope can we have of our child, who is in no better condition than the children of infidels? what comfort can we have from the Covenant made with, and the promises to our children & c? therefore why should we not sorrow as those without hope?  
Our Respondent replied to this, that for aught he knew the children of Turks and Pagans might be all saved, and one replied, Perhaps he thought the devils might also, which was the end of the argument, there being no other answer given, nor to be expected.   

Disproof.  
As I replied then, so I reply still, that for aught I know the children of Turks and Pagans (dying in infancy) may be all saved, yet will it not follow (so much as probably) that therefore in reality, or in my opinion either, the Devils may be saved also, which rude return is recorded by yourselves to be then given, and stands for ever before the world, as the end of this your argument, and of your Disputation also, there being to this assertion of mine viz. for aught I know the children, or dying infants of Turks and Pagans may be all saved, no other answer given by you in the Dispute, nor yet since in your Account, nor yet ever to be expected.  
But Sirs, as great an Ecstasy as you seem to be in about this position, yet I assure you if I had not learned it before, yet I have learned it since from your very selves, who so strange at it, to be a thing not so strange as true viz. that the dying infants of Turks and Pagans may be all saved, and that the dying infants in your Christendom are in no better condition than the dying infants of Turks and Pagans (for so I said, and not as you here misrelate it, than Turks and Pagan's themselves) for if the dying infants of infidels are in no worse condition than your dying infants, then surely yours are in no better condition than they, and that they are in no worse condition than yours, nothing need hinder you more than me (for aught I know) from a belief thereof, unless you will refuse to believe yourselves, who preach no less both to me, and all men no further off hence then in the next page, and the next save one above; for do you not say there that unless we will violate Christian charity, whose rule is praesumere etc. to presume every one to be in a good condition, till he appears to be in an evil, we must believe and hope all thing●… of the little children of believers, since it cannot appear in infancy, that they have barred themselves, etc. and if so ●…hy not of the infants of Turks, Pagans, and infidels? specially (to speak in your own dialect) since it cannot appear that these have any more than the other by any actual sin barred themselves, or deserved to be exempted from the general state of little children declared in the Scriptures, which is this, viz. That of such is the Kingdom of heaven.  
You see then how you teach us this precious piece of truth yourselves p. 4. 5. therefore I hope you will learn it yourselves, viz. that we are to hope well of such infants as have not by actual sin barred themselves from Salvation, and allow us to teach it too in time, though hitherto you seem to be so far from giving way to us to teach the same, that when we speak well of inf●…nts, that have not by actual sin deserved exemption, and hope well of their salvation so dying, you so wretchedly forget it to be the doctrine yourselves deliver, that with detestation you ptotest against it as abominable, as if there were as little hope to be had of the salvation of such dying infants, as are not born in Christendom, as of the salvation of the very devils: but your first doctrine shall stand of the two for truth with me, from which, though you often contradict it yourselves, I shall not be frighted by your big words, but still hope as well of one dying infant as another.  
Secondly (Risum teneatis amici?) it is enough I think to set him on smiling who is never so deep in his dumps, to see what a most pat, and pertinent place of Scripture you have here dragged in to the proof of infant baptism, viz. 1 Thes. 4. 13. from whence (as the wheel barrow goes rumble to rumble so) it follows that infants are to be baptised: you might as well have said you may find it in the fifteenth of go look it, as send us to a text of so little tendency as this is of, to your present purpose: for what if we are not to mourn over the death of Saints, and Godly friends that sleep in Jesus, as those that can have no hope of such friends as they see to 〈◊〉 (which is indeed the direct drift of the place) will it therefore follow that all those infants, that die without baptism, are universally, and unavoidably damned? yet no less than this is here told by yourselves to be your tenet, whilst you say our denial of baptism unto them destroys all hope of their salvation.  
But Sirs is it so in earnest in your opinion, that no baptism no hope of salvation?  
Then thirdly, I have a treble charge to draw up against you.  
1. of unchristian cruel●…y.  
2. Of point blank popery.  
3. of clear contrariety both to yourselves, and to those very authors you refer us to, to read and learn by, and also to the very professed doctrine of the church of England whereof you profess to be the Ministers.  
First I must cry out oh the Unchristian cruelty that is hatched in your hearts, and here expressed, not only to these thousands of infants, even of Christians that happen to die unbaptised, at least to whom baptism is at this day denied to be dispensed, but specially to that numberless number of infants of Turks, Pagans, and infidels, to whom in infancy your own Doctrine denies baptism, as well as ours, and consequently (if your own bloody tenet of no baptism no salvation to dying infants were true) all hope of their salvation.  
'tis your common course to clamour and cry out against us, as having no christian charity, as being most inveterate, and cruel enemies to infants, only for denying the baptism of those few, to whom you dispense it, as well as those Myriads of little ones, to whom yourselves deny it together with us: but I appeal to all people, who are not already so perfectly prejudiced against us by your prating, as to stand resolved to believe nothing but your blind dictates, to judge between us whether we are so cruelly opinioned towards infants, who barely deny them baptism, believing the salvation notwithstanding of all that die in infancy without it, or yourselves rather, who deny that dispensation to all infidels infants, which are twenty to one in the world, and yet hold that dispensation so necessary to salvation, that there is no hope of other than damnation to whomsoever it is denied, whereas in confutation of you out of your own mouths (if your own sense of Mat. 18. 14 be true, where you contend to have the word litt●… ones taken literally for infants) Christ himself says there, that it is not the 〈◊〉 of my Father that so much as one of these little ones should perish.  
Secondly, oh the palpable papistry which is here openly professed by you, who yet would seem to protest against every inch of it, for it is one of the grossest pieces of popery to hold no salvation to infants without baptism, and one great controversy between them and protestants; yet you give the cause thus far, as to grant it to be necessary, and effectual to salvation of infants (whether ex opere operato or no, as you are silent in it here, so pray tell us another time) that there need be neither doubt nor fear of such dying infants damnation to whom it's dispensed, and can be no hope of the salvation of such as die without it, or at least to whom doctrinally it is denied.  
Thirdly, oh the wretched contradiction, that is here given.  
1. To yourselves, who say above p. 5. that it is breach of Christian charity to presume otherwise then well of such little infants, of whom it cannot appear, that by any actual sin they have barred themselves or deserved exemption from salvation, and such are all infants in infancy, whether baptised or unbaptised, whether of Christians or heathens; and yet here you say, there is no hope of the dying infants of infidels, and in case we deny baptism to them as little hope of the salvation of such dying infants, as are born of Christian parents also: Hay-Ho! I dare say the dog is not good Mutton, if this be not uniform Divinity.  
Secondly, not only to other writers on this subject, as Mr. Cotton, who p. 85. of his book called, The way of the Churches in New-England, saith, one may remain a member of the invisible Church of the first born, when yet he hath neither part nor portion, nor fellowship in the particular flock and visible Church of Christ jesus; which shows (to the confutation of you, and Mr. Baxter also, who pin's the salvation of infants so much upon their Churchmembership and baptism) that infants may be supposed to be out of the Visible Church, and yet be hoped to be in a state of salvation also; I say not only to other writers, but to the writers yourselves will us to peruse, viz. Calvin, and Ursin.  
For first, Ursins Catechism, (as insufficient as it is to prove infant baptism) furnishes us with enough wherewith to confute this unsavoury stuff you have here recorded, viz. the hopelesness of the salvation of such infants, to whom baptism is denied, whose words are these viz. 
s Privatio sacramenti non damnat si non accedat contemptus, christus non adimit salutem eyes, quibus adimitur baptismus.   
The want of the sacrament doth not damn persons, that die without it, if those persons do not contemn it (and whether infants in infancy can possibly be said to contemn it though their parents permit them to die without it, needs no great explanation) again Christ doth not ere the more deny salvation to whom baptism is denied.  
Secondly calvin's institutions confesses at large that baptism is not so necessary to salvation as you seem to make it: his words are these Li. 4. c. 15. S. 20. 
t Quantum damni invexerit dogma ill●…d, male exp●…, baptisma esse de necessitate sal●…is, pauci animadvertunt: Ideoque minus sibi cavent, nam ubi in●…t opinio perditos esse o●…nes, quibus aquâ tingi non contigit, nostra conditio deterior est quam ●…eteris populi, quasi restrictio●… esser Dei 〈◊〉 quam s●…b lege, venisse enim Christu●… censebitur non ad implendas prom●…iones sed abolendas, quando promissio, q●…ae ●…unc ante octavum diem, saluti conferendae per se erat satis 〈◊〉, nunc absquo signi admi●…iculo rata non 〈◊〉.   
What mischief that opinion brings viz that baptism is necessary to salvation, few consider, and therefore they take the less heed in asserting it, for where that opinion grows on once, that they are all damned that die unbaptised, our conditiis worse then that of the jews, for hereby Christ may be thought to come not to fulfil, but to abolish the promises, if the promise which then was efficacious of itself to salvation before the eighth day, be not now available thereto, without the administration of the sign. and a little below Sect. 22. he saith thus:  
Infants are not shut out of the kingdom of heaven that die before baptism, 
Non arceri a regno caelo●…m in●…ntes, quibus è prae senti vi●…a migrate continget, antequam ●…qui m●…gi d●…um fuerit, at●… 〈◊〉 j●…m vi sum est fieri non levē injuriam dei saede●…i, nisi in eo acquiescimus, acsi per se infirmum esset, quum ejus effectus neque a baptismo, neque ab ullis acessionibus pendeat.  therefore there will no small injury be done to the Covenant of God, unless we rest in that alone, as if it were not valid enough of it s●…lf, when its efficacy depends neither on baptism, nor any other matters accessary to it.  
By all this it may be easily perceived not only who they are that streiten the Grace of God under the Gospel, and make it narrower than of old under the law, viz. not ourselves (as you feign) but yourselves, who say denial of baptism to infants destroys the hope, that else might be had of their salvation, but also what an individuum vagum your Pamphlet is, wandering and swarving clear aside from the stars, you direct us to for light, and would s●…em to steer your own course by, Thirdly, to the doctrine of the Church of England, which though it own baptism as a sign and (falsely enough) as a seal of the Covenant of Grace that may lawfully at least be dispensed to infants, yet rejects that tenet however, as spurious, and popish that makes salvation and damnation depend so much up▪ the dispensation, or denial of it to infants, that there's no hope of the salvation of those infants that die without it: witness R●…gers his Analysis of the 39 Articles, of the Catholic doctrine of the Church of England p. 167. 168 we condemn (saith he) the opinion of the Russeis, that there is such a necessity of baptism, that all that die without the same are damned, we may see how well the Church of England is served among you, whose own ministers swerve from the sense of those Articles she makes them swear to.  
If you mean that a denial not the facto, but de jure i. e. not of baptism itself to infants, but of their right to baptism damns them, and that doctrinally only, not really, they dying without it, you might have said so then if you had pleased, but your blunt delivery of yourselves here, without any modification of your meaning, makes it out, as if you meant to fright the whole Country to baptiz: all their infants in all haste, as ever they mean to have any hope they shall be saved: besides if they be but doctrinally damned, and not really by the denial of baptism to them the matter is so much the less, for as they are not one straw the bet●…er, whether living or dying in infancy, if they have it, so they cannot be (as to salvation) one straw the worse, if they want it, and die without it, and then what need such thundering out of terror to the parents, as if there were no way but one, that is damnation to their dying infants out of hand; if they do not see to the baptising of them in infancy before they die? moreover, if it be doctrinally to damn all infants to deny their right to baptism, then how damnable is your doctrine to that innocent age, who deny it to no less than 20 to one viz. all the dying infants of unbelievers? but the best out is though your doctrine is so desperate and ungodly as to declare nought but damnation to all such, as the Pope doctrinally damns i e. all that are not born within the pale of the Church, yet there is salvation enough for these infants, as well as for the other in Christ Jesus, whereby till they deserve exemption by actual transgression, they may be saved really, though with you they are doctrinally damned, and with us as well as you denied to have, or so much as to have any right at all to baptism.  
Thus Sirs I have done with your deep Disputation, there remaining no more but a certain magisterial moderation or determination, in which you are your own carvers, taking upon you to manage it by the mouth of him, whose only arguments all these are, in which piece of your Pamphlet I shall briefly take notice of some passages wherein you speak very fairly of yourselves, very foully, falsely and injuriously of your respondent, very conrradictorily to what you said before, very ignorantly of the word, very impertinently as to the proof of faiths being in, and baptisms belonging to those infants you plead for, more than those you plead against, and then come to consider your Review, you speak as followeth.   

Determination.  
Sin●…e it hath been proved that little infants have the holy Ghost &c. (here let there be a recapitulation of the former arguments) therefore baptism is not to be denied unto them.   

Detection.  
Doubting belike whether any slander by can find in his conscience to give so good a testimony, as you afford, and such ample approbation to your Arguments, as you desire and they deserve not, you engross the dijudi●…ation of the disputation between yourselves and me, into your own clutches, and then claw yourselves in the face of the world, and bestow such commendatories upon your simple shuffles as if it were proved, and put out of doubt thereby that believers infants have the spirit, faith, holiness, and such apparent right both to heaven and baptism as no creatures have in the world besides them, but having showed how shallowly, sillily and slenderly you have argued all this above, I decline, detest, and disclaim this your positive dijudication, and make my appeal from the high Commission Chair of you Clergy men, who for ages and generations have sat judges in your own cause, unto the people, whom you have ever misled by your blind guidance, to judge between us, among whom not they who have so long commended themselves (as Orthodox) will be approved at last, but those whom the Lord commendeth.   

Determination.  
If any doubt be raised concerning particular infants, the judgement of Charity will cast that out, especially considering no other judgement can be passed upon those that are Adul●…i.   

Detection.  
That the judgement of charity concerning faith, the holy spirit and right to the kingdom can in infancy be past no m●…re upon believers infants, then upon all infants is told us so plainly by your selves, that if you be not resolved that you will never learn any thing that is truth, from yourselves you must needs see it as well as we, since you say. p. 18. there is no discovery of the habit of faith, but by the acts, and none by the acts in any infants at all in infancy, and that the spirit is neither bound to work it in all the children of Christians, nor barred from working it in any children of infidel●…, and p. 5. that the judgement of charity must so pass, that we are to presume well of all, who by actual sin have not barred themselves, and deserved exèmption, and that there's better ground to build a judgement of charity concerning faith, and the spirit in adultis, then ●…ibus, viz. profession and visible manifestation by the fruits and acts, and a better judgement, then that of charity viz. of certainty, is to be had of adult persons right to baptism, we seeing them certainly to profess faith (as infants cannot) which whether they deceive us in that profession or no, is clear ground to baptise them on, this I have showed so sufficiently above, that there needs no more be said of it here.   

Determination.  
Our Respondent hath confessed that Ishmael who was that carnal seed of Abraham, yet had right to the seal of the Gospel Covenant circumcision, and that the spiritual seed and their children have under the Gospel, as good right to the seal thereof, which is baptism.   

Detection.  
O rare and base! what again Sirs, what again? I professedly denied baptism to be a seal at all (witness my then disavowing the Scotchmans' proceedings in the dispute of baptism under the term of initial seal) I also denied circumcision to be the seal of the Gospel Covenant, or that it was set to Ishmael under such a notion, yea, you yourselves are my witnesses but three pages above that I said, circumcision was a seal to Abraham only, and not to his posterity, and yet here again, (as well as before) you turn false witnesses against me, and will needs fasten this upon me for a farewell, that I grant all for truth, that yourselves ignorantly assert in these particulars, and not content therewith (a matter more monstrous t●…en all the rest) you say I confess not only Abraham's spiritual seed themselves, i. e. believers, but their children also to have under the Gospel as good right ●…o baptism, as the seal of it, as they, the direct contrary to which is the Position I stood then to evince, yea which I both then did, do still and ever shall, till you disprove it better than you have yet done, maintain against you or else wherein do we differ?  
Sirs, you should have done well to have expressed your minds in plain right down English, and then the scope, sum and scum of them would have risen, and appeared thus, viz. we the Disputers and S●…ribes of the Ashford disputation having more mind that victory than verity should befall us, and having first given and granted to ourselves the priestly prerogative, of being sole judges and determiners of that day's disputation between us and our respondent, do thereupon determine, and by these our letters, patents, give and grant the cause, and the day to be wholly ours, and lest it should be hardly confessed, and yielded to by fair means, we will have it by fowl, and wrest it from our Respondent as fully granted by him, though we know it was not, and take it from him pro confesso by force, even by forged cavillation, and false accusation, and therefore know all men by these presents, that though it be most expressly denied by our Respondent that infants of believers have right to be baptised, yet it is most expressly confessed by him, that infants of believers have good right to be baptised: had you said thus, well indeed might the world have cried shame on it more than now but in effect it had been but the proper paraphrase of what you have more closely, and covertly presented it with in this place.  
Wherefore, Sirs, I do you and the world to wit once more, to prevent any one's being charmed into a misbelief of me by your juggles, how little I concur with you in these things, and to say no more than what I have showed above, viz.  
First, That baptism is no seal at all of the Covenant of Grace, but a sign of it only.  
Secondly, that believers infants have no right at all to be signed with it in infancy.  
Thirdly, That circumcision was no seal of the Gospel covenant, but a sign only, or token between God and Israel of the old Covenant, concerning the Land of Canaan, and some other particular personal promises, and privileges pertaining to that people (though it was a type of Circumcision in the heart, wherewith Abraham's spiritual seed are circumcised, and thereby inrighted to the heavenly inheritance.)  
Fourthly, that it was no seal at all to any but Abraham's person, and that in another sense then the word seal is accepted in with you;  
Fiftly, that it was dispensed to Ishmael under no such notion as a seal of the Gospel covenant, but merely as he was a male of Abraham's house, on which account it was set to every male born in his house, or bought with his money; though visibly an heir to neither the earthly, nor the heavenly Canaan, as wicked servants were not, and no doubt to his Sons by Keturah also, as well as to Ishmael, though both he and they before known to Abraham to be no heirs of that covenant of circumcision, which God gave him in Gen. 17. and told him that he would establish that with Isaac only Gen. 17. 19 21.   

Determination.  
It is further added for satisfaction how children have faith, viz. in Semine, radice, munere, habitu, actu primo, not in fructu, folio, usu, actu secundo, in a word, they have the habit, and the seed, not this exercise and fruit of it.   

Detection.  
You asserted above p. 3. from Mat. 18. 6. that little ones do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credere believe in Christ, which phrase [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] as also [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] etc. to believe, to drink, to eat, to read, to teach, to hear etc. do ever express productionem potentiae in actum, not simply the habit, faculty, gift, inclination, power, seed etc. but the very second act, the use, the fruit, the putting forth of these faculties into their several acts, and exercises, this (as all well studied Scholars know) so yourselves cannot but acknowledge, that to believe, is not only to have faith but to act faith, and it cannot properly be said of any that they d●… believe, but such as (quoad nos) do so indeed.  
As for such as are only in potentiâ ad fidem, though proximâ, and s●…ch as are in capacity to believe, and do not, they cannot be said by wisemen to believe, for then all men m●…y be said to believe, who have facultatem, munus credendi, as well as intelligendi, ratio●…andi, Eligendi etc. though they never do it: I appeal therefore to your own consciences, whether your saying that infants do believe, and yet cannot act, nor show that faith by any fruit of it, hath not in it plus Idiotae quam Idiomatis, and be not as palpable a contradiction as can fall from men's tongues or pens.   

Determination.  
Their not declaring of it themselves can no more conclude against infant's faith, then against their reasonable soul.   

Detection.  
The Reasonable soul is in them universally, essentially, in the highest degree necessarily, and praedicable concerning them the omni, per se, & qua sic, as being de esse consti●…utive, for Animarationalis est forma hominis, quae dat esse, the very essential form of mankind, so that he can as easily cease to be, as to be without it, therefore there can be no conclusion against that in any infants, sith t●…ey are no longer than while they have it, but faith in Christ is (according to yourselves) Habitus ad placitum a deo infufus only, not innatus, and is in them neither (qua sic) nor essentially nor universally in all, nay but in a few infants, by your own confession, and you know not which neither, for though you do altum sapere so f●…r sometimes, as to conclude it is in infants of believers yet you do insipere so far sometimes as to undote that again, and say the spirit is neither bound nor barred in his working of it in these or those, so that till they are at years there can be no conclusion made p. 18. therefore me thinks you should blush at this illiterate, and indigested assertion, viz. that there can be no more concluding against the being of faith in them, than their having reasonable souls.  
Secondly, if from their non declaring it there can be no more concluding against their having faith, then against their reasonable souls, than there is no more concluding against the being of faith in one infant more than its being in another, or against its being in unbelievers infants than in those of believers, for the reasonable soul is in all, even in the infants of unbelievers, as well as of believers.  
Secondly, if their non-declaring it be no ground to conclude against their having faith, yet I am sure it is ground enough to bar you from concluding that they have it, specially that this infant hath it, more than that, for though you confess there can be no conclusion made till you see the fruits of their faith, yet that is the bold conclusion you undertake to make.  
Fourthly, whether we can upon its non appearance conclude against their having faith yea or no, yet upon its non appearance we may boldly conclude against their baptism, and admittance into the visible Church here on earth, into which not an invisible habit of faith gives right, but an outward appearance, and profession to believe, witness not myself only, who am of little credit with you, but Mr. Cotton also, none of the least of your Champions that appear for infant baptism, whose very words p. 48. 49. of his Way of the Churches in New England these are, viz.  
It is not the seed of faith, nor faith itself, that knitteth a man to this or that visible Church, but an holy profession of the faith, and professed subjection to the Gospel of Christ in their communion.  
Be ashamed therefore of such a monstrous position, that persons not appearing to believe in Christ can conclude no more against their faith in Christ, then against their reasonable souls.   

Determination.  
The seed of faith sown, after discovers itself when the season comes.   

Detection.  
Yet so audacious are you, that whilst it is but in the seed at most by your own confession, as in infancy, to attempt a discovery of it to all the world to be in these infants, viz. of believers, and not in those, viz. of infidels before the season.   

Determination.  
The testimony of Scripture concerning their faith, and the proofs taken from thence are equivalent to the best testimony, and profession of any man concerning his own faith.   

Detection.  
O Sapientia! as if the Scripture did as punctually, personally, and particularly testify concerning this and that individual infant which you sprinkle, that it doth believe, and those infants that you deny to sprinkle, that they do not believe, as men at years do to us by their words, and works, that they do, or do not believe.  
Secondly, there is but one testimony of Scripture alleged by yourselves, where you say it's asserted of infants that they do believe, viz. Mat. 18. 6. and that (as I have showed).  
First, speaks not of little ones in your sense, but of little ones in Christ's sense viz. believers indeed, and his disciples, whom he styles little ones also a little above Matth. 10. 42. a place where we read not that any infant was among them.  
Secondly, that Scripture testifies of those of whomsoever it speaks in actu secundo, that they do believe: and so to do yourselves yield is impossible for infants; therefore it cannot be meant of them.  
Thirdly, if it did speak of little ones properly so called, so as to say they do believe, yet that they were believers, and not unbelievers infants is a thing which a wise man may fumble himself 55 times over and become a fool before he once find it so to be.  
Fourthly, 'twere but a Prosopopeia however.   

Determination.  
If it be further asked, how faith is bread in them? it is answered by the holy spirit, whose ways are inscrutable, who ties not himself to means works where he will, and how, quo magistro, quam cito discitur quod docet? saith Cyprian.   

Detection.  
And yet you screw so far into the inscrutable ways of the spirit in this matter as, though he works where he will, and how, both to bind and bar him, and to determine both where he doth, and must work faith, and where he doth not, and must not viz. in believers infants, not in infants of infidels, else why do you refuse to baptise the one upon non-appearance of faith, and yet plead for the baptism of the other, as in whom it appears to you so clearly, that by argument you say you make it more plainly appear to any one, that will not deny Scripture and reason that they have faith, than the profession of any one particular person that ev●…r I baptised, can make it appear of himself? for thus you peremptorily conclude p 5. and then as prettily unconclude it all o'er again p. 18. saying, unless it could be certainly presumed what children have the habit of faith, what have not, for the working of the spirit is not known to us, there can be no conclusion made: why also do you say the promise is to believers and all their seed? which is as much as to say, God is bound upon his word and covenant unto these children, not unto others, and therefore must be as good as his word (for I hope you all agree that God will not lie) p. 14. though I confess p 18. you unsay all this ore again, and grant that he is not bound to work it in all the children of Christian parents, nor bard from working it in any of the children of infidels: O fine whisles!   

Determination.  
If it be inquired how faith can be said to be in them without their consent? the answer is as well as original sin, to which they never consented, and that Christ is more powerful to salvation, than Adam to condemnation.   

Detection.  
That original sin is in infants so far as it is in them without their consent, I do not deny, it being a matter more imputative, as I have showed above, then inhaesive, and that Christ is more powerful to salvation, than Adam was to condemnation is an undoubted truth, which makes me believe otherwise then once I did, viz. that whatsoever befell whomsoever merely by Adam's sin is as universally, as well in respect of the subject made miserable thereby viz. whole mankind, as of the misery befalling that subject, by the coming of the Second Adam taken away: for which tenet I could give more proof than you can easily disprove, were it not besides the Argument I am in hand with, but that faith is in any persons without the consent of those in whom it is, is a lesson th●…t I shall never consent to learn while mine eyes are open, I have found many Divines defining faith by the very term of an assent or consent unto the things promised, preached, proffered or propounded to us to believe, and making assent or consent such a necessary ingredient to the very essence, being or nature of faith, that faith cannot be faith without it, thus Mr. Baxter your fiercest fellow-fendent of infant's baptism, the very essence of faith, saith be p. 98. lieth in assenting that Christ is king and saviour, and consenting that he be so to us.  
Yea he denies them to have any true faith who do not thus assent and consent, but of all the faiths that ever I have heard, or read of, and of all the kinds of believing that ever were broached in the brains of men, I never yet heard of a believing of things whether one will or no, I mean a real believing, and not such a feigned forced faith, as that of those who must say they believe as the Church believes, when happily they know not what that is, nor did I ever hear of believing without assenting to the things believed since I was born, till I met with this figment of yours, nor ever shall again, I am persuaded while the world stands from any men, but such as having uttered one absurdity, are resolved rather than to recant it, to uphold it with an 100 worse than itself.   

Determination.  
It is further added, that there is no other way revealed for the salvation of little infants but by justification, and that by faith: that way of the presentment of the righteousness of Christ without faith is 〈◊〉 figment of the Anabaptists without ground or reason from Scripture, the Covenant of the Gospel being the righteousness of faith.   

Detection.  
To which I contradictorily reply, that there is another way revealed for the salvation and justification of little infants from all the guilt that lies upon them in infancy, which is no other than that which comes upon them for the sin of Adam only, and from all that mischief which comes on them only, merely and simply for that sin, than that way of faith, and that is the presentment of the righteousness of Christ to God on their behalf without faith, and this way is no figment of the Anabaptists, as you No-Baptists do foolishly fancy, but that which hath such strong ground and reason from Scripture, as you will never overthrow while you live, although to men at years that have acted transgression in their own persons, and are capable to act faith and other good as well as evil, the Gospel is granted to be a Covenant that gives righteousness by Christ in no other way then that way of faith and obedience to him.  
We usually put clothes upon infan●…s, but men put their clothes on themselves, and so must we put on Christ by faith in order to justification, when we come to years of discretion Gal. 3. 27. and not before.  
I know the multitude of Scriptures that speak in general, or at least in such indefinite terms, as are in sense equivalent to universal, concerning salvation to all them that believe, and nothing but condemnation to all them that believe not, as Mark 16. 15. 16. john 3. 15. 16. 18. 19 36. 11. 26. Act. 10. 42. Act. 13. 43. Rom. 1. 17. 3. 22. 25. 26. 28. 30. 4. 6. 24. a most monstrous mistake of all which, as also of the whole Scripture makes you miserably misbelieve this matter viz. the way that all dying infants are saved in, for you deem, or rather dream that the Lord by these expressions, whosoever believeth in me shall never die, he that believeth not shall be damned, he that believeth not on the Son shall not see life, etc. delivers his will and testament not only concerning persons at age, but concerning infants in their very infancy also: whereas if you Divines had not Divined yourselves to very dotage, you could not but understand, that little infants are not intended in any of these, or any other places that hold out faith as the way of our salvation: for do but judge in yourselves, were it not shameful senslessnesse to read thus out of those places viz. God so loved the world etc. that whosoever infants in infancy as well as men believe in him should not perish, but have everlasting life, those infants that do believe on him are not condemned, but those infants that believe not, are condemned already, and why? because they have not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God: And this shall be the condemnation of infants as well as men, that light and life is come to them, and yet infants believe it not, neither will come unto Christ that they might have life, but but love darkness more than light, because their deeds are evil? for thus you may read it, if infants as well as men be there meant: and so were it not sottish to read thus out of Rom. 4. 23. it was not written for Abraham only that faith was imputed to him for righteousness, but for infants also, to whom it shall be imputed, if they do believe on him, that raised up jesus our Lord from the dead etc. so would it sound any whit savourly in the ears of one that's of a sound judgement to read Mark. 16. 15. 16. so as to understand infants together with others viz. go preach the Gospel to every creature, who ere believeth, and is baptised shall be saved, but whoever believes not, man or woman, old or young, infant or suckling shall be damned? would not this grate harshly upon charitable ears? but surely infants are not spoken of here, nor are they in any other Scripture (for aught I can find) with the best sight I have, where faith is spoken of, as the condition on our part, without which nothing is to be expected but condemnation: I am sorry Sirs to see you Clergy men clothe your selves with such dark conceits, and confusedness of mind, as not to know of whom, and to whom things are spoken in the word, nor whom in general the Scriptures, you profess to be so profound in, concern and preach to, and I beseech you be not too wise in your own conceits to learn one lesson at least from him that is a fool among you for Christ's sake viz. whereas you say infants must believe, or not be saved, the Scriptures declaring no other way to salvation but faith in Christ, that the Scriptures were written only for our instruction, that are at years to understand them, and not for the use and in●…ruction of infants in infancy in the way of life, the Scriptures were given as a copy of the testament, and the will of God concerning men and women, to declare to them what he requires of them, and in what way he would have them to wait upon him, in order to the attaining of that salvation he hath purchased by the blood of Christ, and will freely confer on them for his sake viz. the way of faith, repentance, baptism, supplication, submission, self-denial, obedience both active and passive, perseverance therein to the end, and in a word attendance to the law of Christ the voice of that prophet, that he hath now raised up, in all things, or else to have no part among his people, from all which conditions and performances (I say from every of them as well as any one of them) from believing as well as obeying in baptism, or any other part of his will, or any other works of God under the Gospel, among which belief is a chief one john 6. 28. 29. little infants (as being yet uncapable subjects to obey in any of these) are universally exempred in their infancy: otherwise I dare a vouch no dying infants in the world shall ever be saved; for can they do any of these things in infancy? so such as are to be baptised are called to do, Act. 22. 16. and who ever so doth shall be saved, and whoever doth not shall perish, jer. 10. 25, if the way wherein men are to be saved must be walked in by all infants too, in order to their salvation, than woe to all infants that die in nonage, for alas how shall infants call on him, in whom they have not believed, and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not yet heard, and how shall they hear without a Preacher, and who can preach to them before they can understand? Rom. 10. 14. 15. so then they cannot believe, for faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God, some way or other outwardly as well as inwardly 〈◊〉.   

Babist.  
The spirit here speaks de subjecto capaci only viz, of the way how men come by faith, and not of the way wherein infants have it, and 'tis confessed that faith in adultis, in them that are capable to hear and understand is begotten by this means of hearing, but not so in infants who cannot hear, the spirit is not tied to work by means in little infants, to the bringing of them to the faith, as ●…e doth in men, but without the outward hearing of the word he works faith in little children.   

Baptist.  
This same that you now say fits us very well to you ward again, when you say justification comes by faith, for we grant that adultis, to them that are capable to act faith, justification comes by faith, nor shall they by any means obtain it who are capable to believe, and yet believe not, but not so to infants who cannot believe, the spirit is not tied to work by means in little infants to the justification or bringing of them to salvation, as he doth in men, but by the righteousness of Christ imputed without obedience in baptism, or faith either he saves them in nonage, and farther that they cannot believe, which is properly (as I showed before) not only to have, but act faith in Christ, yourselves tell us saying, they have not the use, the second act, the exercise, the fruit of it, and so do not believe, and so must according to your sense of Scripture, if the word speak of them, be cast into the lake of fire Rev. 21. 8. but further grant they could have faith in both the habit, and act of it also, yet can they not obey Christ in other things, which are required necessarily to salvation in the word of the Gospel, at least concomitanter, et consecutiuè, as well as faith itself, they cannot hear Christ's voice in all things, they cannot confess Christ before men, nor to be come in the flesh, they have not crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts of it, they cannot deny themselves, and take up their cross and follow Christ, nor hate father and mother and life for him, nor keep his commandments, nor abide in his Doctrine, and many such like things, all which the Gospel says as universally, whosoever doth not, as well as whosoever believes not cannot be his disciple Mat. 18. Luke 14. Is not Christ's Gal. 5. 24. hath not God 2 john 9 is a ly●…r, and shall not enter into the holy City 1 john 2. 4. Rev. 21. 27. 22. 14. 15. is a deceiver, and an Antichrist 2 john 7. shall be denied by Christ, yea punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of Christ, for non obedience to the Gospel, 2 Thes. 1. 6. so that if the Scriptures speaking, of the ways and means of salvation be to be understood as the terms, and conditions on which dying infants shall be saved as well as men, and without which they must be damned, than all dying infants must perish contrary to your sense of Mat. 18. 14. who take the little ones there for infants, for it's said there it is the will of my Father that not one of these little ones should perish, put the case therefore that infants could believe, yet their case would be little the better (as to salvation) so long as still they must be short of showing their faith by other good works, without which faith is not saving nor worth a straw, for what would it profit if infants could go so far, as to say they have faith, and yet have not works, can faith save them? I●…m. 2. 14. 26. no, its dead and helpless for as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.  
Therefore the body of Scripture is to be understood, as spoken concerning men and women, and the means and way of their salvation; and no●… of infants.   

Babist.  
Yea when the word speaks of works of holiness, self denial, suffering, mercy, etc. as the way to life, which infants cannot do, it excepts them from the doing thereof, as no capable subject, and not from the salvation nevertheless, n●…r yet doth it except infants when it speaks of faith.   

Baptist.  
Is not faith a work as well as repentance, and the rest? yea the main and principal work of the Law of Christ, i. e. the Gospel john 6. 28. 29.  
Secondly, is it not as difficult a work for infants to believe in Christ, as to obey Christ's voice in other things, and are they not still as uncapable a subject to do that, as to do any more things that are required? why then not exempted from that for the sake of their incapacity, as well as from other things?  
Thirdly, if the spirit doth go extraordinary ways to work at all about the salvation of infants (as you must confess he must) and brings them to it without, and besides the ordinary means, he brings men by, why will you tie, and limit him him more to the ordinary way, and means of faith, then of obedience in other matters, as repentance, self denial &c, as to their salvation, seeing he must go out of the road, and tract, in the saving of them, wherein he saves men, may he not as well save infants without faith, without which he will save no man, as without self denial, and suffering, and confessing of Christ, etc. without which he will save no man?  
Fourthly, specially since infants are not mentioned as meant a jot more in the places that speak of salvation by faith, then in the places that speak of salvation by obedience in all things; for as it is said, He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved, and he that believeth not shall be damned, (infants no where expressed or meant there) so 'tis said as universally he is the Author of all them that obey him, and he shall take vengeance on all them that obey him not, and cut them off that harken not to his voice (infants no way expressly excepted as not meant there.)  
The Scriptures therefore are still to be understood de subjecto capaci, when they promise or threaten things on conditions, and terms of faith, unbelief, and other good and evil works, as confessing and denying Christ, and exclusively of infants, where infants cannot possibly perform them; for as when it's said he that works not let him not eat, infants are no where excepted, yet are not by the spirits appointment to starve, though they work not, neither are they meant there because they cannot work, and as under law, when it was said, Cursed is he that continues not in every thing written therein, and do this and live, the way wherein men were to live or die was set forth by those words, and not the way wherein infants should be cursed or blessed, accordingly as they were or were not found therein in infancy; so Analogically when it's said under the Gospel the just must live by faith and he that believes not shall be damned, and Christ in flaming fire shall render vengeance to him that obeys not the Lord, etc. it is to be understood as spoken of the ways, wherein men walking shall live or die, and not at all of the way wherein he saves or damns dying infants, for that stands still by good reason from Scripture that they being uncapable to do, what on man's part is required to life, i. e. to act belief (unless we'll hold they are all damned dying in nonage, as you pitiful merciless men hold that 20 to one are, but we bloody Baptists that none at all are) we must hold them to be excused from the terms of believing, and presented righteous before the Father, by the righteousness of Christ without faith, and therefore though I see I shall meet with this argument again in your Review, where I'll talk with it a little more, yet i'll conclude here just contrarily to what you conclude with, viz. that the tenet of no justification nor salvation for dying infants by the righteousness of Christ without faith in their own persons, is a mere ●…igment of the Arch-Anti-baptists, i. e. the Priests, without ground and reason from Scripture, whereby (as by some show of reason) to flatter men on to a continuance in that false way of bringing infants to be sprinkled, that so their Kingdom and priesthood many continue to spread its black wings over whole provinces and parishes at once, and to submit them to their arbitrary jurisdiction, as well a ware that it can stand no longer than the other, for once give over christening the whole parish infancy, and then farewell that parish posture, which the Pope set up in all Christendom some 600 years ago, yea than down falls the parochial-Church-steeple-house, Priesthood, pay and all.   
Amen so be it.   

THE SECOND PART OF ANTI-BABISME. OR A REVIEW OF THEIR REVIEW.  
I Come now to take notice of the second piece of your Pamphlet a thing made up of several sorts of matter, and ●…rickt together into one slender Tractate, and entitled A Review of the Arguments used in the Disputation, my Animadversion of which I answerably style a Re-Review or Review of your Review. In which Review of yours I find some things said, and disputed over again, which are before disputed in the Disputation; some things (as it were) un●…aid, and undisputed o'er again, which are disputed before in the Disputation; and somethings, viz. here a little, and there a little disputed, which the Disputation disputes not before at all. So that the business (if you view it one way) stands ternal, i. e. branched out into 3 heads, barking all like those of Cerberus against the light: but if you review and behold it another way it seems to stand Quaternall or quartered out into four heads, acting all in their several turns against the truth, viz.  
First, A Preamble or March towards the battle, p. 11, 12.  
Secondly, An Onset, or charge given by a Forlorn hope of three worthies, or choice Arguments, whereof the first is a freshman, that was not in the last dispute, the two last old Soldiers that are bold to face about and fight us again, though wounded well-nigh to death in the last battle, p. 12. 13. 14. 16.  
Thirdly, A very hot dispute or Reply against Reason, and its forces storming your strong hold of infant-baptism, or an earnest encounter with such objections, as Reason (say you) makes against it, all which you make a puff at, and attempt to vanquish in seven or eight several repulses p. 16. 17. 18. 19  
Fourthly, A Bugbear bringing up the Rear of the battle, horribly dressed, and horned with seven horns, all pushing and poking against the truth, on purpose to to fright men from being baptised, and make such as are ready to turn to the truth to tremble, and forsake its tents; alias a warning, or Morter-piece charged with a number of small shot, viz. the horrid sins this wretched error of the Anabaptists, alias that od●…ous error of owning the truth involves men in) that more hits then hurts them that have the spiritual armour on, presented and discharged to scare the Christian Soldier, i. e. the Christian Reader (if possible) out of his Christian wits and senses.  
Thus does this Squadron of military matter made and raised in defence of Infant-baptism divide itself, and play its part: against which notwithstanding we shall (God willing) adventure forth in the strength of Christ, give battle to it, and to each part of it successively as it lies in order.  

Review.  
There might innumerable Arguments be brought both from Scripture and Reason for the confirming of the practice of the Church of God from the beginning, whose authority alone, if it were of any esteem with the adversaries thereof, were enough to have silenced these disputes, at least to have laid the itch, and quenched the heat of them, in baptising the children of believing parents, but as the hast of the Disputation did forbid the Ministers then to be so thoroughly provided with them, modesty doth now to insert them here; Therefore the Christian Reader is desired to peruse Calvins Institutions, Ursins Catechism, and Dr. Featley 's Book upon this subject, where he shall be thoroughly furnished. Besides that opinion of Ovid, Etsi non prosint singula, multa juvant, What ever it may carry of credig in other causses, aught to have but little in this, where we trust not in multitude nor measure by number; but substance and weight of Arguments are the foundation of our faith, the other are for pomp and victory, these only for satisfaction and verity. Whosoever thou art that desirest to be grounded in the Truth, examine diligently and understand these three arguments following, which are but the same reviewed that were used in the disputation, and thou shalt be able, being confirmed thyself through the grace of God, to strengthen thy brethren, whose faith is every where assaulted in these miserable dates, by the watchfulness and cunning insinuation of the adversary: nor are these three commended unto thee, as if among David's Worthies they were the first three, the composer of them arrogates no such thing to them, thou shalt find many both better appointed, and more strongly armed, and which go forth i●… strength of those that fight the battles of the Lord among the Worthies of Israel, these were never intended but as a forlorn-hope, yet till the adversary shall have worsted them, thou shalt not need to desire fresh supplies.   

Re-Review.  
This first part or Praeambulary approach to the battle gives big words, but no blows, it only vapours, and vaunts, carries the colours, and flourishes them, advancing with a company of broad brags of what Innumer●…e forces your cause hath at command from Scriptures, and from Reason, and from Church's practice, and authority, and from Authors of Renown Calvin, Vrsin, Dr. Featley, whereby, fearing lest they should forgo it upon sight of your own apparent slenderness, and that unthorough provision your Disputation presented in proof thereof, to flatter your followers.  
First, into a false faith of more full and thorough furniture, c●…mming in from all quarters toward its defence, and so to a secure continuance in your crazy cause and to keep close still to the Clergy and their colours, in order thereunto also, highly enhancing the price of three following forlorn-hope highway Hackster's and Hachny Arguments as not the last, nor least, though not the first three among the worthies that are engaged in it.  
Whereas that poor, blind, Implicit-opinioned p●…ople, and Clergy-clawed christened creatures may no longer, to their utter erring from the way of Christ's truth, and their own peace, trust in the lying words of their Prophets, that profit themselves more than them by their traditionary doctrine,  
I do here in the name of the great King Jesus, who gave commission Mat. 28. 18 to make persons disciples, and to teach them first, and then to baptise them, proclaim it aloud to the whole earth, that all these are either clearly against you, or (all things considered) nothing for you.  
First, the whole region of Scripture in every coast and quarter thereof is up in arms against you, neither is there any one part or place throughout it, wherein you ever find that way of infant baptism (much less your way of infant-rantism) so much as probably to have been practised: or the war you wage for it promoted by so much as one piece of a precept, that such a thing should be done, or inch of instance that ere it was done at all: yea in all places where ever baptism was dispensed you find it done only and downrightly in that despised way, wherein we do at this day i. e. of dipping persons immediately after, but never before converted and discipled; all they of jerusalem, and judaea, and Galil●…e that were baptised by john in jordan, and by Christ's disciples in his presence, and by his appointment, confessed their sins 3. Mat. were first taught and instructed, or made disciples Mat. 28. 18. john 3. 22. john 4. 1. 2. 3. all they who were baptised by Peter and others after his serm●…n at jerusalem, to the number of 3000. did first gladly receive the word Act. 2. 41. all they that were baptised by Philip at Samaria, and between jerusalem and Gaza were men and women that believed the things spoken by Philip concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of jesus Acts 8. 12. 36. 37. all they that were commanded to be baptised by Peter in the name of the Lord at Caesarea were such as were converted at the hearing of the word Act. 10. 44. 48. all that were baptised at Corinth by Paul, Silas, Timotheus, were such as believed Act. 18. 8. all they that were baptised by Apollo's, or any other at Ephesus before Paul came thither, which were about 12. were every one of them adult believers, Act. 19 1. 2. etc. All that ever we find A●…anias baptised at Damascus, though there were other disciples there besides himself, with whom Paul walked a while, was Paul that was baptised calling on the name of the Lord. All they of the Church of Rome (to every one of whom Paul writes his Epistle Rome 1. 6.) that were baptised into Jesus Christ, and buried with him by baptism into his death, were such as had formerly lived in sin, and actually obeyed it in the lusts thereof, and yielded themselves up as servants to it, and had now visibly obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered unto them Rom. 6. 3. 4. 12. 16. 17. 19 21. which things I take him to be little better than an infant in understanding, that judges they were performed by any infants. All they at Galatia, who were baptised into Christ, were such as had received and embraced the Gospel, and had put on the Lord jesus Christ, and such who through ignorance of God had done service to such as by nature were no gods, but now had attained to know God, by the preaching of the Gospel to them, which things that are spoken to all the Churches of Galatia, cannot be said of any infants Gal. 1. 9 3. 27. 4. 8. 9 13. verses, among all which this is most notable in that he saith, As many of you as have been baptised into Christ have put one Christ, we see all along throughout the whole body of the new testament, It was not the rule of Christ, nor the practice of the primitive times to baptise persons, till they had had first preached the Gospel to them, and according to the commission converted them, or made them disciples, indeed so soon as ever they were thus discipled or made disciples (that no infants can be so in infancy is showed above, as simply as Mr. Bazter seems to suppose believers infants are so from the very womb) I agree with Mr. Baxter, that their baptism was not to be delayed, and forasmuch as he abundantly proves the period of time, wherein persons we●… ever baptised in the primitive times by the will of Christ to be immediately after they were converted and made disciples, he consequen●…ly agrees as much with me as I desire him, insomuch that in confirmation of this that I say, I mean to declare this truth viz. that persons are not to be baptised till they are first made disciples, in the same words wherein he himself declares it to us by the space of well nigh a whole page together, in order to the making of his matter to serve our turn against himself, and all you that baptise infants, but especially against his fellow soldier Mr. Marshal, and his critical observations, out of which he tells us that infants are not disciples before, but are made disciples by baptising, I shall frame this argument viz.  
If Christ's Rule be that persons should be baptised when they are first made disciples without delay, or immediately after they are converted and discipled, than persons are not to be baptised before they are converted and discipled.  
But Christ's Rule is that persons should be baptised when they are first made disciples, or immediately after they are converted and discipled.  
Ergo, they are not to be baptised before they are converted or discipled.  
The Ma●…or is most clear, and consequent, for if it be Christ's will that baptising should immediately follow our discipling persons, or converting them to the faith, then consequently 'tis his will that baptising should not go before our discipling, and converting them: if baptism must be immediately subsequent to teaching, or making disciples by Christ's commission, then teaching persons, or making them disciples must be Antecedent to baptism, unless both these be the mind of Christ in his commission whom and when to baptise, viz. that they should not baptise persons till they are taught and discipled, and yet (to go round again) that they should not teach them till they have baptised them i e. in Mr. Marshal's sense initiated them first to be disciples by baptism, and thereby admitted them to be taught, as for the Minor, which is this viz. That it is Christ's rule that persons shall be baptised without delay, when they are first made disciples, or immediately after they are converted, as I have fully proved it already above, both from the commission for baptising, and from Scripture example explaining that commission, and from the end and use of baptism, so I shall further prove it in Mr. baxter's own words, than which I think there need no other (if they be well weighed) to convince a wise man that by Scripture rule no infants in infancy are to be baptised.  
To which purpose he writeth thus p. 126. 127. at large viz.  
First, in the commission Mat. 28. 19 20. Christ adjoineth baptising immediately to discipling, go disciple all nations baptising them.  
Secondly if any person be so impudent as to say, It is not the meaning of Christ that baptising should immediately without delay follow discipling, they are confuted by the constant example of Scripture; for there is no men●…ion that I can find of any one person that was baptised long after their discipling or that ever the Apostles of Christ did delay the baptising of disciples, John 4. 1. 2. jesus made and baptised more disciples then John. See how making and baptising disciples are conjoined, Act. 2. 38. 41. the 3000 were presently baptised the same day that they were made disciples without staying till the morrow, though one would think the number of 3000 might have excused the delay, if they had taken longer time to do it in; And some would think that their conversion being so sudden the Apostles would have waited for a trial of their sincerity, but this is not the wisdom of God, though it seem to aim at the purity of the Church: Scripture tells us of another way Acts 8. 1. 2. the people of Samiaria when they believed were baptised without delay. And v. 13. 14. Simon Magus was presently baptised, though yet not brought out of the gall of bitterness o●… bond of iniquity, and had no part or fellowship in that business: yea the Samarita●…s were generally baptised by Philip, before they had received the holy Ghost: for he was yet fallen upon none of them, only they were baptised in the name of the Lord jesus verse 16. So Acts 8. 36. 37. 38. the Eunuch was baptised in his journey as they went, without delaying one day or hour after he professed himself to be a disciple. So was Paul baptised as soon as he rose from his blindness upon the words of Ananias, Acts 9 18. So was Cornelius with his friends baptised immediately without delay, the same day Lydia and her household were baptised without delay Acts 16. 15. and the jailor the same hour of the night that he was discipled Acts 16. 38. So the Corinthians Acts 18. 8. and Ananias language to Paul repeated Acts 22. 16. is plain, and now why tarriest thou? arise and be baptised etc. and of the household of Stephanus that Paul baptised, it is implied too; and it is most observable which is said in john 3. 26. of jesus himself that he baptised (by his disciples) and all men came unto him; where it is undeniable that jesus baptised without delay, even as fast as they came to him and pr●…fessed themselves disciples, and can we have a better example than the Lord jesus himself?— And thus you see (saith he) that according to all the examples of baptism in the Scripture (not to speak of John's baptism) there was no delaying, no not a day usually but they were all baptised as soon as they were discipled.  
Thus far are the very words of Mr. Baxter, brought by him in proof of infant baptism, and here brought again by me in proof of the clear contrary viz. that according to all the examples of baptism in the Scripture, c●… one infant was ever baptised in the primitive times, but that all that ever were then baptised, did first believe and were converted, were first made disciples by the preaching of the Gospel to them, and did first come and profess themselves disciples, and thereupon were immediately admitted: which things I dare say, 'twill be out of doubt with all rational considerate impartial Christians, that they were never performed by any infants, and if not, then whether all these examples do not clearly show rather that no infants were then baptised, then that any were or now aught to be, a child of 7. years old at least may easily decide it: notwithstanding so childish is Mr. Baxter, as to set down this at large, that he may thence make himself a clearer way (as by the constant example and practice of the primitive time) to prove your present practice of baptising of infants: which premises and conclusion viz. that men and women of old were baptised without delay, so soon as ever they were converted to the faith, and were discipled and professed themselves disciples, therefore we must baptise the children of Christians in infancy, or else our practice is utterly inconsistent with the rule of Christ, and contrary to the practice of the primitive times, and consequently a sinful practice, are as suitable, as 
Humano capiti cervicem pictor equinam  
jungere Si velit,  
or as when— Mu●…er formosa superne  
desinat in turpem piscem.   
And howbeit Mr. Baxter in defence hereof tells us p. 128. they who baptise the children of Christians at age (as the Anabaptists do) cannot possibly do it when they are first discipled, I am so amazed at that expression, that I can hardly believe he minded what he said when he penned it, nor do I think the man had his wits well about him when he wrote all the rest that follows in proof thereof through out that whole chapter of his, where the further he proceeds, the more he abounds and sinks o'er head and ears in absurdities, contradicting himself and his own principles, and overthrowing the very thing he there prosecutes the proof of, for  
First, so far is it from being impossible to baptise believers children immediately after they are discipled, if we forbear them till they come to years, that indeed it is impossible that they should be discipled at all till then, in such a way as all those were discipled in, whom he hath produced as examples in this case, for whatever conversion there seems to him to be of all, or at least the most of the children of believers so timely, that neither themselves nor others be can discipled when by the preaching of the Gospel they are brought over both to believe, and to be willing to obey the Lord Jesus, and do freely, seriously and (as may seem to us) sincerely profess their faith in him, and their readiness to obey him, and their repentance from those dead works, and ways of the flesh they have formerly lived in (unless he suppose it possible that these should live in sin) and their desires to be baptised in the name of Christ for remission of their sins: then (I say) they appear first to be discipled in foro hominum, 
* ubi vides ibi fides. where we see it is there we say it is.  & Ecclosiae (for whatever they were before in foro Dei is nothing to us) and then and not before to be baptised.  
As for us therefore we have a steady rule to go by in the baptising of persons, according to which we still baptise them as of old they did, when first discipled, yea though they are persons whose parents were Church-members, or in other mere relative only, or real discipleship, yet they are first made Disciples when they first appear to be converted, witness the three thousand jews, whom Mr. Baxter himself doth instance in; who though they, and their parents were all relatively holy by birth, and Church-members of the visible Church of old, and as Mr. Baxter is pleased to say most simply p. 20. both disciples and Servants of God by very nature, yet in the Gospel sense they were first made disciples, or discipled so as thereby to be in right to baptism, when they were by Peter converted only, and not before: so that if the children of Christians had now either such a Relative discipleship (as he calls it, and as he says the jews children had once by birth) and such a real discipleship, or invisible conversion to God in very infancy, as he deeply do●…es all such to have so soon as ever they they are born, neither of which yet they have indeed, yet nevertheless that they may be, and also must be first discipled when they are at years in that sense wherein discipling was in the Commission enjoined in order to baptism, it is evident by Mr. baxter's own alleged Instance of the jews Acts 2. who though they were (according to Mr. Baxter himself as nigh, and in truth more nigh to God by birth, than the fleshly seed of believing Gentiles are, yet were not for all that their old Church-membership and discipleship (for indeed they were (not in infancy) but when grown up discipled unto Moses) admitted to baptism thereupon, till they were first discipled unto Christ, and had both heard, and gladly received the word of the Gospel: neither were ever any (as appears by all the Examples forecited) of what parents soever descended, though of Abraham himself admitted to baptism in the primitive times, till discipled, i. e. till visibly appearing, and verbally at least professing to repent, believe and embrace the Gospel: nor is it possible for men, to whom Christ gives order to make disciples to him, to do it any other way than by instructing persons till such time as they learn, and receive the things that are taught them.  
Moreover to let pass that round he runs p, 127. where after he had showed so abundantly, that to be Christ's disciples gave persons admission immediately to baptism (to go round again) he expresses himself thus lin. 32. that baptism admitteth them to be his disciples; whereas Mr. Baxter asserts, that we cannot possibly baptise children of Christians at age, immediately after they are first discipled, because we cannot possibly know when such children are first discipled, except it be in their first infancy, as I have showed him already what a steady rule, & direct period of time we keep to in baptising as they did in the primitive times, viz. as soon as they are first discipled, i. e. when first they appear to us truly to be converted, and profess seriously and sincerely (as far as we can judge) to repent from their sins, and believe in Christ, and desire, and proffer to be baptised in his name for the remission of sins, so I must return his own proposition upon him ' that they who baptise the children of Christians in infancy (as the Antibaptists do) cannot possibly do it when they are first discipled, and that because they cannot possibly know when such persons are first made disciples, and except they account them to be first discipled as we do, viz. when professing verbally, and when first appearing visibly and (for aught we can discern) truly to believe and repent from their sins, and desire baptism, which things no infants ever do.   

Babist.  
But Mr. Baxter supposes infants of Christian parents to have a Relative infant-discipleship from the womb, and so hath a sure way of baptising them, when they are first discipled if he baptise them in their first infancy.   

Baptist.  
That Relative infant-discipleship (if by that he mean the same birth-priviledge (as I am sure he doth) which the Jews infants once had) is a real piece of nonsense, and such a phrase as the spirit never expressed the Jews birth privilege by, as not by any other so much as tantamount thereunto in sense or signification in either the old Testament or new: neither can any such denomination as that of disciple (which is of disco) properly be given to any person, upon a mere account of such a relative holiness, as the Jews infants once had, without respect to their being actually under some tuition or other, any more than it might be given to the Temple itself, which had then also the same relative holiness.  
Secondly, if it could, I have sufficiently showed that birth privilege and holiness, which the Jew had by nature to be abolished in Christ, and not derived to the fleshly seed of believing Gentiles.  
Thirdly, if it were now both in force, and of force to denominate a person to be relatively a disciple of Christ by birth, what's that to the purpose of Mat. 28. 19 and the tenor of all those precedents Mr. Baxter brings out of the New Testament, whereby to direct us in baptising, in all which it is both enjoined, and exemplified, that in order to baptism persons should be first made disciples, or discipled really by us, i e. taught and brought to the faith, and obedience to the Gospel, and not baptised upon account of a mere Relative birth-discipleship, for the 3000 Jews (but that is nonsense to call their birth-holiness by such a name as that of Infant discipleship) had as much of that Infant discipleship, as Mr. Baxter says falsely Christian's children now have, yet till better discipled then, so i e. till visibly embracing the Gospel, could not be baptised, though pleading we have Abraham to our Father, besides to be born disciples, if there were any such thing at all (as Mr. Baxter dreams there is) is one thing, and to be made disciples by the teachings of either God or men availing to conversion, which is that only we are according to all that precept, and precedent Mr. Baxter himself produces above to baptise persons upon immediately, is another; to be disciples born, and to be made disciples by men, are as different as those that are born Eunuches and those that are made Eunuches of men: now if they 
* nati Discipuli sacti  were (as there is no such thing in Rerum natur â as disciples of Christ by nature, nor ever was, but by a birth from above) such a way of becoming Christ's disciples relatively from the womb, yet every one of those that were baptised in 
nati Eunuchi c●…rati  the primitive times, whom Mr. Baxter brings in for our example, were discipled by men's teaching, according as in the commission Matth. 28. they were enjoined to be before they were baptised: yea even those three thousand jews themselves, who (secundum sacerdotem) had the relative infant discipleship, could not be baptised merely thereupon, till they had attained to a better discipleship by Peter's Ministry.   

Babist.  
You see Mr. Baxter does take discipleship in Mr. Tombe's own sense and yours viz. as it signifieth one that doth seriously and understandingly &c. profess Christianity, laying by at present the consideration of mere Relative infant discipleship, for I speak but his own words p. 128. and yet makes it good, that your rule of baptising children of Christians at years, is utterly inconsistent with the rule of Christ, and that constant example of Scripture, wherein baptising did immediately follow making disciples, forasmuch as the true beginning of the discipleship, or conversion, or sincere profession of faith in men, who are born, and brought up of Christian parents, cannot possibly be discerned, it is wrought on by such insensible degrees, and consequently they cannot be baptised, when first made disciples, unless they be baptised in their first infancy.   

Baptist.  
Unless they be baptised in their infancy? why are you so sure of hitting upon the day, and hour of their first discipleship, or conversion to the faith, if you baptise them in the first of their infancy? what are all the children of Christians (I hope he doth not take Christians in so large a sense as Mr. Blake does, for Papists and formal Protestants, as well as zealous professors, and yet by some passages in his book me thinks he makes the pale of the visible church as wide to the full as the other) are all these I trow disciples with him, not only relatively, but really also i. e. converted truly from their mother's womb? or if he mean not this of nominal Christians, or the seed of Christians at large (which with Mr. Blake at least are born Christians) but of the children of true converts, sincere believers, such as are Christians indeed, what is it evident that all, or at least the most (as Mr. Baxter says) of the children of real disciples are as real disciples as their parents so soon as they are born? are the seed of true believers true converts mostly by birth? how then do so many of them as well of the seed of mere nominal Christians, prove wretches, and ungracious a great while, till God works on them, and many of them, to the grief of their parents, even to their dying day? and yet thus it should seem they are in Mr. Baxters' opinion, so that if they be baptised in their first infancy, under the notion of such, they are in all likelihood baptised when they are first made disciples even immediately upon the point, and period of their conversion: and besides if they may so safely be supposed all, or most of them to be truly converted, and upon that account baptised in their first iefancy, as he says, then how doth this square a squint, with what he says also (to go round again) in the same chapter p. 128? viz.  
That men are usually who are born and brought up of Christian parents, wrought to this, meaning to conversion and true discipleship by such insensible degrees, that the true beginning cannot be discerned.  

1. by others.  
2. no not themselves.   
And p. 139. Now if it be the sincerity that is looked after, who knoweth what day or year the child began tobe sincere in his profession? for my own part I aver from my heart that I neither know the day nor year when I begun to be sincere, nor the time when I first began to be a Christian: how then should others know it? and when Mr. Tombs would have baptised me I cannot tell, and as large experience as I have had in my Ministry of the State of Souls, and the way of conversion, I dare say I have met not with one of very many that would say they knew the time of their Conversion, and of those that would say so by reason that they then felt some more remarkable change, yet they discovered such stir and workings before, that many I had cause to think were themselves mistaken; and that I may not tell men only of mine own experience and those of my acquaintance, I was once at a meeting of very many Christians, most eminent for zeal and holiness of most in the land, of whom divers were Ministers, and some at this day as famous and as much followed as any I know in England, and it was there desired, that every one should give in the manner of their conversion, that it might be observed what is God's ordinary way: and there was but one that I remember of them all, that could conjecture at the time of their conversion, but all gave in that it was by degrees, and in long time, now when would Mr. Tombs have baptised any of these?  
All this Mr. Baxter says in proof out that the time of the first conversion of children of christian parents, or when they are first discipled cannot be known for the most part, by either themselves or others, whereupon he concludes that if we baptise them at age, though never so punctually at the time of their profession of faith, repentance, and desire of baptism▪ we cannot possibly baptise them when first discipled, or immediately after conversion, as we ought to do by the example of the primitive times (wherein yet they did thus, and no otherwise, witness all the instances of his own alleging) but those that baptise them without delay so soon as ever they are born, they cannot do otherwise then jump just with the very time wherein they are first discipled (according to the primitive pattern he himself produces, wherein of all that were baptised, whether jews or Gentiles, immediately upon their being discipled, we read not of one infant) And good reason why they must needs hit right upon their first being discipled or converted, that baptise them in the first infancy, for though the time of the first conversion or discipling of the children of Christian parents be not scarce possible to be conjectured at either by themselves or others, yet (to go round again) it may so safely and surely be supposed and conjectured to be in the first of their infancy, that they may warrantably be baptised then (as then newly made disciples) without any danger of aberration from either Christ's commission or the primitive custom of baptising persons when first discipled, and professing themselves disciples: O the wisdom! he that being in the fire would not come out to hear how bravely Mr. Baxter brings about, and about again his business in that 8 chapter of the second part of his book, 'tis pity but he should be burnt.  
And lastly whereas Mr. Baxter queries so oft when Mr. Tombs would have such baptised, the set time of whose conversion? is not distinctly known leaving Mr. Tombs to tell him his mind as he sees good himself, I tell him (if he ask me the same question) that in my mind such whose conversion is not known when it is (as by his own confession the conversion ofChristians children some times is not, witness that one in which he instances, and (as few as he knows of that sort) yet how many hundreds of the children of Religious parents (among whom I myself make one) do know when they were first truly converted? such I say should be baptised as near as may be, upon the time of their conversion and becoming disciples, and if it have been then fore●…owd, it must be after as soon as it can, but in no wise so many years before it, as the priests unviversally do it: and such of whom it is not known nec per se, nec per alios, when they first were discipled, and converted) but oh how do I fear, that as he that never doubted never believed, so many of those implicit converts Mr. Baxter talks on, that never knew when they were discipled and converted, were never yet truly discipled ●…or converted at all to the truth as it is in jesus, but as they had it more by tradition from their fathers, then unfeigned search of Scriptures) such I say of whom 'tis not known when they first were converted and discipled, shall by my consent be baptised, when ever it is first known that they are converted and discipled unto Christ, by their own profession of their conversion and discipleship, and desire of baptism, and this not by my consent alone, but by the joint consent of all these very Scriptures, which Mr. Baxter himself hath coted for our example and warrant, all which if (as far as Christ's own precept and practice, and the primitive Church's example can do it) they do not warrant the baptism of all, and only such persons as were first taught, or made disciples by preaching, or instructed till they both learned, believed and embraced the Gospel, and professed themselves disciples and offered themselves to baptism, and consequently of no infants, then for my part I'll lay aside all sense and reason, as no more to be heeded as a help to understand the Scriptures, and turn a very Tom-fool, and he that can Altobe logic these Scripture institutions and instances into plain Scripture proofs of infant Church membership and baptism, Erit mihi magus Apollo: for there's no mention of infants either expressly or implicitly in any one of them: Oh (therefore to Echo back to Mr. Baxter a little in much what his own words to us concerning those Scriptures p. 127) that those who are so inclinable to separation from the primitive practice, would consider the unfitness of infants to be admitted by baptism to be Church members under the Gospel! Oh that they that inchurch whole parishes, as if they, because the Pope will have it so, were all Churches, and will have no trial at all, and discoveries of the work of persons conversion, before they admit them, but take them all at hap hazard as they fall from the belly within the bounds of that parish where they are placed, and popified, would but lay to heart all these Scripture examples, and make more conscience of observing their rule, and not presume to be wiser and holier than God, when it was man's first overthrow to desire to be but as God, though he did not attempt to go beyond him, as the priests do in adding other Subjects to his ordinances, than himself appointed: which changing of his law will be man's last overthrow Isa. 24. doubtless those that Christ baptised by his disciples, were Church-members; but those were not infants, but such as were first made disciples by preaching only john 4. and he that will go beyond jesus Christ in strictness shall go without me, I do not think he will be offended with me for doing as he did i e. for baptising none but such as believe and profess themselves disciples, and as repent of their sins, and desire to be baptised in the name of Christ for the remission of t●…m: and so I have done with Mr. Baxter till we meet again, only since  
Mr. Marshal is pleased ponere obicem to object, and bolt in here, that we cannot say none in these places were baptised, but such as did thus, i. e. believe and profess themselves disciples p. 217. to Mr. Tombs because the word only is not here, I may well call it obicem, or objectionem obularem, a hint not worth a half penny; and if he appeal to his own conscience, it will tell him no less; nevertheless what ere he thinks, I say again, all that were baptised in the forenamed places, were such as are there specified to be professed converts and believers, and if there were any more let him assign and show us whom, and we'll believe him: as for the households himself is in the sands, whether there were any infants in them or no, and I have showed above, that they that were baptised in them, are expressed all by some clause or other exclusive of infants, and conclusive only of adult disciples: besides Mr. Cotton confesses that the infants were not baptised with their parents, and that the infants that were brought to Christ were not baptised at▪ all (for aught he knows) not their parents neither, and here are all the Scriptures that declare how baptism was done then, and to whom, most of which are cited by Mr. Baxter himself, from which you cannot possibly scrape so much as any old odd end of an example for such a business as your baptism. As for us, besides that plain precept we have in Mat. 28. even every whit of this is plain precedent for our baptism, and comes into our assistance against all your cavils (O ye Priests) for thus I argue viz.  
The baptism of men and women professing faith in the Lord jesus, confessing sins, calling on the name of the Lord etc. is a baptism, yea all the baptism that the Scripture speaks of, either in way of command or example.  
But the baptism which we dispense, is a baptism of men and women professing faith in our Lord jesus, confessing sins, calling on the name of the Lord, gladly receiving the word etc.  
Ergo that baptism which we dispense is a baptism, yea all the baptism the Scripture speaks of in way of either command or example.  
Therefore Sirs, how hath Satan bewitched you that you cannot believe and obey the truth? what will you only think things, and thrust your thoughts of them as oracles upon all others? will you imagine and suppose, and dream, and dote, and fancy, and fain a baptism, that the Scriptures and first Churches never knew, and then father your figments upon the Scriptures, and fasten them as the fashion which, the whole world must be forced to follow and conform to?  
Moreover I do not at present remember any one part of Scripture, which yourselves summon into your help in this case of infant baptism, that doth not yield ammunition, and much matter against you more than for you, unless it be one or two used by yourselves, which one may as well with Skoggin untile the house to look for an hare as urge either pro or con about infant's baptism, so far shall he be from finding in them any proof for that, or the true baptism either: as namely 2 Cor. 13. 5. 1 Thess. 4. 13. There are but two places that I know of, besides those I have already turned upon you above, that are held out by any of you out of the armoury of Scripture in defence of infant baptism, and those are Col. 2. 12. 1 Cor. 10. 1. 2. both which not only knock sprinkling oth'head, but may also very easily be sheathed in the bowels of baby-baprism: As for the first it speaks (as well nigh all scripture doth, not much meddling with infants) not only to, but of adult disciples only, of whom as well as to whom (and not of infants) in way of satisfaction to them, and answer to those that would have brought in the old circumcision made with hands among them, Paul says ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, which circumcision without hands there spoken of, is not baptism neither (as some d●…eam, who thence also draw in circumcision and baptism to be of so near kin that as they have both one name, so they must both have one subject also) for baptism is no more done without▪ hands then the other, but the sanctification or inward circumcision of the heart, cutting off the foreskin i e. the filth of the heart, which things infants do not, in token of which he tells them they are (not sprinkled) but buried i e. overwhelmed in water with Christ in the outward baptism, wherein also they are risen with him through faith etc. All which things he that imagines they more include then exclude the sucking infants of such, to whom he speaks, is no man in discretion with me.  
As for the other place its most evident the Apostle speaks not of baptism literally but Me●…aphoically only there, they were baptised unto Moses i. e. by the visible tokens of God's presence amongst them viz. the cloud and Sea assisting and siding with them, and overthrowing their adversaries, they were confirmed in the belief of God, and his servant Moses, as we by baptism are in the faith of God's goodness to us, and of his Son Jesus Christ: in further confirmation of which mere figurative sense of the word [baptised] you may do well to consider that though they were said to be baptised in the cloud, and in the sea, which phrases however▪ sound forth such a total immersion as is not in two or three drops of water fingered on the face, yet they were not so much as wetted with either the cloud or the sea, for its said Exod. 14. 21. 22. the sea was made dry land under them, and they went through it dry shod, or on dry ground, which they could not be well said to do had it so much as reigned upon them, such a figurative sense of the word [baptise] there Mr. Baxter himself denies not p. 90. yet Dr. Channel urged that place in a public dispute at Petworth jan. 1651. as one of his arguments for infant baptism, besides Secondly, if you will needs have it properly taken that they were baptised really, and not quasi baptised, as Mr. Baxter yields they were, and if you will needs make that baptism such an emblem of ours, that ours must have an adequate subject to that, which say you, was infants as well as parents, than 'twill put you to your trumps to excuse yourselves handsomely in your now denying to infants the same spiritual meat and drink in the supper, which they then eat and drank of in a figure also viz. the Manna and the Rock, which both were no other (Antitypically) than the bread and wine are mystically in the supper i e. the Lord Jesus Christ.  
For all your vain boasting therefore of what innumerable arguments you have from Scriptures, I say the Scriptures are sure enough on our side, nevertheless taking the word in a suitable sense you do well to call your Scripture arms or arguments innumerable, for indeed they are not to be numbered (for even unit as, much more nonit as non est numerus) being no more than just none at all.  
Secondly, whereas you boast of the innumerable Arguments which may be brought for your infant rantism from reason, the full force of reason is utterly against you, and so wholly assistant to our cause, that the unreasonablest man amongst you will once see it, when sound reason comes to reign, and sway the sceptre indeed. Yea not to stand reasoning on it now how reasonless a thing it is to ask a company of men and women, as the priests were wont to do at the font, thus viz. do you believe in God the Father, and Christ etc. and will you be baptised in this faith? and when they answered yes, that is all our desire, than instead of them who profess their faith and desires to be baptised, to take a small sucking babe out of their arms, and that him with a drop or two on the face, and send away all the other unbaptised.   

Babist.  
The sureties or parents in so saying do but represent the child, that could not speak for itself, and express his good resolutions to forsake the devil etc. and his desires to be baptised.   

Baptist  
How reasonless is it to put questions to infants through their parents ears, and then very gravely suppose them answering again through their parents mouths? yea as reasonless as to suppose that all people should see through none but the blind priests eyes; nor yet to stand reasoning how reasonless a thing it is to signify things to sucklings while they understand them not, and that too by such a vanishing visible sign, that when they can understand, they neither see, nor never shall, and such like Trumpioall transactions, to which there are as few grains of reason concurring, as there are inches in an Ape's tail, even yourselves, however it happens that you so contradict yourselves (yet that is no news with you) as to sound it out here how Reason fights on your sides for infant baptism, are even in this very cause found falling out with, and fight down right against reason hand smooth but some four or five pages below this, why else is there such a reasonles reply made to seven or eight several objections, which byyour own confession p. 16. reason makes against infant baptism, but i'll spare you till I come thither.  
3ly That the practice and authority of the Church of God you so much boast of from the beginning and the Fathers thereof, which you complain and grumble much p. 1. 11. 12. that 'twas set aside, and might not be admitted into your assistance at the Disputation, is so utterly against your infant baptism, that even this alone were it of any esteem with you, had been enough to have silenced all your disputes for it, and laid the itch, and quenched the heat of your hearts after that mere novelty, is most manifest, if by the Church of God, and the Fathers thereof you mean what I do, viz. the Church of God in the primitive, which were the best and purest times of the Gospel, whose practice in this particular is set out in the word, but specially in the Acts of the Apostles, the fathers of which Church and of the Church in after ages too were the Apostles themselves, viz. Father Peter, Father Paul, Father Barnabas, Father james, Father john, and the ●…est whose authority from Christ was great indeed, and adequate with the Scriptures then written, and the foundation for all the Churches to build on, and such was not the authority of the Churches then, much less since which are to be subjected to their word in Scripture, this Church, and these fathers never knew such a baptism as yours, nor is there the least tittle of talk concerning any such matter to be found among them.  
Or if by the Church and Fathers of it, whose authority and practise you build on, you mean those of the ages next to the Apostles.  
Then first I marvel, why you should put yourselves upon the trial by succeeding ages, and decline the first and purest age of the Gospel of all, specially since there's as clear history, and more infallible testimony given in the word, of what was done by the Church, and the first fathers the Apostles, than ever was in any age inferior to it whatsoever, and more specially yet since its being in after ages is no palpable argument of its being in the first age, for the mystery of iniquity was at work from the very Apostles, 'tis now, Ergo it was then is not so good a wherefore to our why as we look for, besides 'tis ingenuously confessed by your own writers viz. Mr. Blake in answer to Mr. Blackwood p. 58. that faith can hang on the humane testimony of the succeeding fathers, in whose days infant baptism was, no further than de facto viz. that it was only, and not de jure that it ought to be, and Mr. Marshal p. 5. of his sermon, that the practice of the thing in their days proves not the truth of it at all.  
Secondly, neither doth the second Century help you so much as to a proof de facto. For  
First, as much as you would seem to be versed among the fathers (in which many Priests are better read then in the Scriptures, and some to seem to be better read there then they are, will quote the fathers when they have not read them, but by snaches, and picked a few fine phrases out of them, to make their sermons the more sententious, yea and sometimes for those very sentences, for which they might more truly quote the Apostles, that primitively penned them, witness one of your tribe whom I heard with my own ears say of Heb. 2. 16. he took not on him the nature of Angels, thus viz. for as Saint Barnard saith, when as he might as well have said, as the spirit, or as the Scripture saith, He took not on him etc. if yet he knew that 'twas in the Scripture) as much I say as you are versed in the fathers, you are desired by Mr. Blackwood (a man better read in those fathers then either you or I) yea you and Mr. Martial also, who quotes justin Martyr, are desired by him in his storming of Antichrist p. 25. 26. 27. to prove if you can out of any place of justins' genuine works, who is the ancientest father extant next the Apostles, whose works are accounted on, that there is so much as the name of infant baptism, much more the thing; yea he tells you ye may as soon find a Dolphin in the woods, as any such thing: save only that 'tis once mentioned in a spurious book falsely called his, out of which book Mr. Marshals quotation is, neither doth Mr. Blake gainsay this, nor yet Mr. Martial in their replies, nay they rather seem to grant that it's to be doubted it was so, which makes me as well as Mr. Blackwood, not a little wonder that Mr. Martial should quote it with so much confidence, I mean so as to assert it thereupon as a matter manifest, that the Church (counting from the time of justin Martyr viz. 150) hath been possessed of the privilege of infant baptism for the space of 1500 years and upwards, for had he not doubted but that the words the citys were without question the words of justin himself, he had not had sin, but now he hath no cloak, sith he demonstrates to all men Dubitatum per magis dubium, and tells the world to make them believe that justin disputes the condition of children that die baptised and unbaptised, when yet it's not believed, but much doubted by himself, whether justin did any such thing yea or no: as to the words Mr. Marshal p. 4. of his sermon citys out of Irenaeus who lived toward the end of the second Century, which Englisht are thus viz. Christ came by himself to save all, all I say, who are born again unto God, infants and little ones &c. it's not likely that in this sentence that father by the word [born again] meant baptism (as Mr. Blake and Mr. Marshal contend) for by that sense they father such absurdity upon that their father, as children that pretend to honour their father, may be ashamed of, whilst they make him say, Christ came to save all infants that are baptised, when as neither all infants, that are baptised are actually saved, quâ baptised, nor are any unbaptized infants damned, quâ not baptised, but both alike saved as both alike they either die before they have bard themselves by actual sin, and derserved exemption, or living to years believe and obey Christ, and both alike damned as living to years they both alike obey not his Gospel, but however let Mr. Blake and Mr. Marshal squeeze what they can from the quotation, it must yet remain as doubtful whether the speech of Irenaeus (if it were his own) were at all of infant's baptism, as it doth whether the speech fathered on justin (though it be of infant's baptism) were at all his own▪ and so what dubious evidence the second century affords, so much as de facto, that infant baptism was then in being, all men may see, whilst you can say no more than perhaps it was so, and a fool may say as much as perhaps it was not, which is a proportionable answer to that argument, for 'tis commonly said in the Schools (says Mr. Marshal) that fortè ita, solvitur per fortè non.  
Secondly, but what if your testimony de facto concerning the practice of infant baptism in the second century were as clear, as 'tis cloudy, yet what green headed anuquity is this in comparison of that we plead from viz. the Apostles themselves? when you are stormed out of all your strong holds than you send us still to ages above us, and cry out your practice is of 1500 years standing, but sith you cannot say as we can of ours, 'tis above 1600 years old (nor is yours now likely to live to it) as good you had said but 15 for our way only being found in the first century, and yours not at all before the second, we are a people so much elder than you upstarts, that your antiquity is but novelty with us, whoregardlesse of what by man's wisdom was foisted in in after ages, can aver with as much confidence as you can that now it is that from the beginning it was not so, nor yet in end shall be: I much marvel why Mr. Martial contents himself to preach positively no otherwise than thus, p. 3. viz. this privilege of baptising infants the Christian Church hath been in possession of for the space of 1500 years and upwards: he might as easily have said 1600, had his ground been as good for that as for the other, and yet his ground for the other is so infirm, and sinking under him, that I believe he must fall down as low as the third century, before he find sure footing for his proof of no more than the bare practice of infant baptism.  
As for the Ius of it its ne'er the nearer, if he could prove the matter of fact to be in the second, though that still is the main question between us, sith 'tis confessed by Mr. Martial that he uses not the Testimony and judgements of the Ancients to witness to the truth of it, but only to prove a then practise of infant baptism, and the question de jure whether infants ought to be baptised, no one of the fathers, nor yet the joint consent of many (saith Mr. Blake p. 58. of his to Mr. Blackwood) is a competent judge, therefore if any of you, who stand so much upon that young antiquity of it, and plead the authority of the Church and fathers shall argue thus, 'tis 1500 years old, therefore it is 1600 you live below that candour ingenuity, and discretion that I find in Mr. Marshal and Mr Blake, who both deny your consequence, and in this case close with us in the very truth.  
Thirdly, as for the third century, 'tis somewhat more than probable that such a superstition as infant baptism was coming in at least, or else 'tis like there would not have been such pro and con as was about it, for, true, Origen (if the Testimonies fathered on him be his own (which he who well weighs what evidence is put in to the contrary by Mr. Blakwood p. 34 of his Rjoinder to Mr. Blake, where he saith, that the original of Origen is lost, that the Translator confesses he added many things of his own, that Erasmus says one cannot be sure whether one read Ruffinus or Origen, that the learned put his commentary on the Romans among his counterfeit works, as much sophisticated by Russinus, and also what is said by Mr. Tombs too (notwithstanding all that Mr. Martial brings p. 15. 16. 17. 18. of his to Mr. Tombs, whereby to salve it, will find small ground to believe) Origen I say, a man of many errors, styles it a tradition received from the Apostles, which if you will believe implicitly you may, but else you need not, for 'tis no more than a bare scripturelesse assertion, Cyrian also, and a Council of 66 bishops, almost contemporary to Origen, are supposed to be of some such mind, but upon such silly grounds, as you that now plead infants baptism, are ashamed of, witness Mr. Blake p. 40 who denies them not to be erroneous as Mr. Blakwood calls them, and therefore you may as well be ashamed of their opinion and expression of▪ it also, it being (for all their reasons) as scriptureless as that of Origen, who brings nothing to prove what he said.   

Babist.  
But Mr. Marshal p. 18. tells you that it was because none opposed the lawfulness of infant-baptism, which if they had, Origen would no doubt have maintained by Scripture, as well as affirmed it to come from the Apostles.   

Baptist.  
This is strange, when it is most evident, and Mr. Martial himself denies it not, that famous Tertullian, the first of that Century, that might in respect of his Seniority to Origen, and Cyprian be styled a father to them both, persuades by many reasons to defer the baptism of children, as most profitable, Saying,  
Let them become Christians when they know Christ.  
And in another place, It behoves them that are about to enter into baptism to pray with frequent prayers, fastings, kneel, watchings, and with the confession of all their sins past, which things infants (we know) cannot do.  
First, than I appeal to your own consciences, and Mr. Marshals also, whether this be not a plea against it as unlawful, for to decline what's most profitable is unlawful.  
Secondly, whether here be not pro and con among the Fathers about it, and so though their testimony serves to prove what Mr. Marshal brings it for, viz. that it was practised in their times, yet it serves not to your purpose, who upon the Fathers and their church's authority, would gather and ground the right of that practice, for who but children will go about to prove the verity of a practice by the Authority of those Fathers, whose witness agrees not together, and who are contradictory to one another in their testimonies of it, and some of whose testimonies in that thing are quite and clean contradicted by the testimonies of such as concur with them almost in every thing else? for so I may truly say the testimonies of Father Austin are, who in one place viz. ad Volusianum Ep. 3. (according to Mr. Blakes quotation of him p. 51.) writes thus viz.  
The Custom of the Church in the baptising of infants is by no means to be despised, nor to be accounted superfluous, nor yet were it at all to be credited, were it not a tradition of the Apestles.  
Thus this Father who though inferior to the other in time, yet is not inferior to the chiefest of them in your Account; but he brings no Scripture neither any more than Origen for the same, yet it is like some slighted it as superfluous in his days: but Ludovicus vives, a man so observant of Austin, that he wrote Annotations upon him, in those very Annotations of his upon the 27th chapter of the first book De civet. Dei (according to Mr. Denns quotation of him p. 51. against Dr. Featley) is so far from crediting that he corrects Austin rather as to that piece of faith saying,  
That of old it was the custom to baptise none unless they were of full ago, and did desire baptism in their own persons; and did undeestand what it was to be baptised.  
Now who can safely build so much as you do (unless he mean to be both blindly guided with you, and a blind guide to the blind) on the authority of such Fathers, as (saving their honesty in what they knew, and eminency in some things, were yet so silly in some others, that they did the Church no such good office as they wot of, who ere they were that canonised them into such fatherhood over the faith, that their opinions must be as Oracles for all to act by: witness good Saint Bernard, the last in that Catalogue, who (saving that he knew some truth, as other honest men did in those dismal days wherein he lived) was wrapped up into a mist of so many other errors, besides that of infant's baptism, that we may boldly use the proverb, viz. Bernardus non videt omnia, for (as Mr. Blackwood quotes out of his 65 servant in p. 31. of his storm) speaking of some Christians that opposed the popish stream he saith thus.  
They laugh at us, because we baptise infants, because we pray for the dead, because we require the prayers of Saints.  
All which doctrine, though falling from a father, is yet indeed too ridiculous to be received for truth, in these days of its return from captivity, by any but mere children in the Gospel.  
Thirdly, I appeal to your consciences (not to Mr. Marshals and Mr. Blakes here, for they from the Fathers assert no more than matter of fact, that infant-baptism was then, whilst you matter of faith that it ought to be) whether that foretold testimony of Tertullian may not balance with those of Origen, Cyprian, etc. who were not so ●…ear the pure times of the Apostles as he, and whether he were not as likely as Origen and Austin to know if it had been so that infant-baptism was a Tradition from the Apostles, and in case he did know it, to what end he should deny it to be now dispensed; or do you imagine him a man of so mean a conceit of the Apostles wisdom, and so highly conceited of his own, that he would forbid that as unprofitable, which the Apostles prescribed, and prescribe a more convenient way himself? sure he must know as well as they if it were Apostolical, and they possibly might not know so well as he that it was not, being all juniors to him and one of them, viz. Cyprian, so much beholding to him for much of what he had, that he dignified him with the name of his Master, such a diligent disciple, i. e. reader and learner of Tertullian was he, that Da mihi Magistrum was his common speech of him; so that his rational dissuasion from infant-baptism, cannot but be a more cogent ground of faith on one hand, than origen's Scriptureless position, and Cyprians Antapostolick, and reasonless reasons, and persuasion to it are one the other, unless you will needs so father it over the Fathers themselves, as to authorise which of them and which of their sentences you please, disowning the rest, as not Orthodox, or Authentic, further than they serve your own turns, and then by my consent they shall be no longer fathers to you, but you fathers over them, and us too in their stead.  
But Mr. Martial, who hath a longer arm than every body, reaches us a rap yet by a certain quaere, which he propounds to Mr. Tombs p. 35. 36. 37. to which till he h●…h some answer he will conceive we are so sick of Tertullian that we'll say no more of him. his quaere is this.   

Babist.  
Why may not the dissuasion cited out of Tertullian de baptismo infantium reasonably be interpreted of the infants of infidels only, whose baptism he would have deferred, till they come to years, and to profess faith themselves, and not of the infants of Christians? I am inclined to believe that to be the true meaning of the place for such considerations.  
First, because Tertullian alleges this double reason why he would have the baptism of little ones delayed, viz. lest their Sponsors, or Sureties be in hazard of not fulfilling the promises they make on their behalf, by either their own mortality, or the children's proving untoward, or inclineable to iniquity, for whom they undertake.  
Secondly, Because 'tis clear and evident by the 39th. Chapter of Tertullian book, the 18th. Chapter whereof hath this dissuasion to baptise little ones, that Tertullian did acknowledge that the children of believers are by birth designati sanctitatis & salutis, counted holy from 1 Cor. 7. 14. not sancti till they be born of water, and the spirit, and have a kind of privilege, and prerogative by nature, yea such a sanctity, and the very same as is called faderall, or covenant holiness, that gives right to baptism.   

Baptist,  
And so says Dr. Holmes also p. 122. upon the same text of Tertullian Mr. Marshal quotes, and out of which he raked his 2 reasons, to which second reason of Mr. Marshal I answer.  
First, and that thus confessing that that good old Father, who is no more infallible than yourselves, so that his Sentence without reason proves any thing at all to be de jure, doth seem to me to err together with you, though not so grossly as you, as touching the genuine sense of the Agostle in that 1 Cor. 7. 14. When he saith to parents of two religions in one civil relation, that their children are holy, and to own a certain mere reputative holiness as there meant, which is not to other children, yet denying altogether that he held any such thing, as that thereupon these children should be baptised, for that is a fictitious conclusion of your own, which follows not, if such a reputative holiness as you wot of were there meant, nor doth Tertullian so much as hint it in that place, which Mr. Marshal is so brag off, that he supposes he wounds us shrewdly by setting it down in words at length, and not in figures, 
x p 37. to Mr. Tombs.  which place will for all that never scare in any wise any wise man of our way, though it be set down by Dr. Holmes 
y p. 1●…0, 121. of his Animadv. on M. To. Exercit.  in words at more length and not in figures, i. e. in plain English, and not as Mr. Marshal doth in unerg●…hed Latin, for what if some men think, as for reasons above rendered I surely never shall from that place, that the Apostle is willing to give way to faithful parents to hope well of their children, and to count upon them, till they see either that or the contrary, as more hopefully than others, holy and happy ones, tam ex seminis praroga●…v â quam ex institutionis disciplina, as having some prerogative above others in being the seed of such who have prayed for them, before they were born, as well as in being more likely to be does cipled into the way of holiness and life, by their godly education of them, is there an necessity of their thinking consequently they must baptise them out of hand, unless tberes were more command from Christ for so sudden administration of that ordinance to them then there is? I trow not: for a man may look upon his child as some way privileged by being his seed viz. as a child of more prayers and hopes, and future happiness and advantages, and present holiness too then many others, being ignorantly conceited (as you are) that some infants in very infancy are eith●…r really o●… reputatively more holy than some from that place, viz. 1 Cor. 7. 14. and not think them fit as yet to be baptised; or else (if he do) yet not find good ground in Scripture for that thought, by beating the best brains his head piece holds, either about that place, or any other: yea verily I myself, who hold not that high birth privilege of some infants above others, as you do, who by your mouth (I mean Mr. Blake) declare some by nature now as of old to be Children of God, and Saints, and some dogs and swine, some holy i e. in your sense in Covenant as the jew of old, and some un●…ean i e. in your sense out of Covenant with God, and sinners of the Gentiles, which distinction is ●…ow destroyed, much less that such prerogative of seed is intended by the Apostle in that text, even I myself I say do look on all infants as holy in some sense (as I have showed before) i. e. neg●…ve, as far as mere innocency, and freedom from iniquity may denominate holy, not cou●…ing them to be in Adam, and so impure, but recounting them in Christ, till by actual sin, and a wicked life they take me off from that account, and on some children also viz. those of Christian parents, as having in some sense a prerogative of seed, so far as they may be a seed of prayers, more than othess, and in some sense too (not yours) a holiness above others i e. as they may be sanctified to their parents, as blessings, as every thing else may be by their prayers, whether good or evil in itself (if yet what is blest to us may be properly denominated holy, as every creature is said to be sanctified to the Saint 1 Tim. 4.) and yet for my life dare I not baptise any at all: and as for Tertullian, though he mistaking Paul's meaning, holds such are holy by a kind of prerogative of seed (as Mr. Martial speaks) yet 'tis very questionable to me, whether it be that so transcendent kind of birth holiness, and prerogative you expound him of, and howbeit Dr. Holmes and Mr. Martial would fain fetch that father in by force of forged construction to witness as a Godfather to their federal holiness; yet I cannot easily believe by his words, that he hath respect to any more than a bare recounting, and reputing these to be holy, in a sense abstract from any reality of their being holy by natural birth, and in their childhood as the Doctor vainly descants on Tertullia's phrase wherein he mentions them to be holy, or till such time as they are holy indeed by that new birth from above; and Mr. Marshal takes my part against the Doctor in this too saying they are in Tertullia's sense designati sanctitatis i. e. as these words are expounded by the following, witness the Doctor himself, counted holy; but not Sancti i. e. not holy, till they be born of water, and the spirit p. 36. much less can I ever believe that he counted them holy and privileged above others so far, as thereupon to assert them, or so much as to allow them to be baptised, for that's an utter in consequence of your own from Paul's text 1 Cor. 7. 14. and from Tertullia's text to, who though he take Paul's speech of such children's holiness a little the wrong way, yet wrists them not so far out of the way to the proof of such a popish practice as you do, yea there is not a little in Tertullia's testimony you so talk of, that tends at all to testify the truth of infant baptism; indeed had the Epithet given by Tertullian sidelium filiis been so as that instead of that phrase, wherein he says they ought to be designati sanctitatis et salutis i. e. reputatively holy and happy ones, he had said they should be signati sanctitatis, & salutis i. e. signed, in your own phrase, sealed ones of holiness and happiness, there had been some hint towards baptism, but as 'tis there is none at all of such a matter.  
The Dr. draws neck and heels together to make Tertullian speak to his mind, but 'twill appear he was of another mind than he, as to the baptism of any infants when all is done. for saith he   

Babist.  
Tertullian shows children's capacity of grace and salvation.   

Baptist.  
And what then? yea what if we grant you that they are capable of salvation, yea the Scripture asserts it, and we do not deny it, therefore you need not trouble Tertullian for this testimony, but what follows upon it? what then?   

Babist.  
What then? why consequently they are capable of the seal, for the deeds, and their seals follow the right of the inheritance.   

Baptist.  
This is your inference Mr. Dr. from which inference of yours, now we talk of inferring, I'll infer two things by way of quaere, and so let it pass viz.  
First, if the seals in plural, mark your words therefore both at least, yet both are but signs neither in true locution, must both follow the right of the inheritance of which children are in capacity as well as men, then to fill you with your own phrase, why is not one seal of the same inheritance, of the same salvation given to infants by you, as well as the other? i. e. the supper as well as baptism?  
Secondly, if these in plurali, or if no more than baptism be to be given to children consequently upon no more than capacity of salvation, the capacities of infants being equal, and they quoad nos all alike capable to enjoy it, if God, who is neither bound nor barred, please to bestow salvation, why are not both these, or at least that one sign of baptism, which you give to some infants, given by you to all infants as well as some? i. e. to ungodly men's children as well as to those of godly parents? the Dr. strives with all his strength and strains one point more yet to strain Tertullia's testimony to his turn, yet will it not do in any wise.   

Babist.  
Tertullian in that text mentions not only children's being holy, but he mentions also that place john 3. 4. in relation to children, except a man be born again of water and of the spirit etc. from which we may perceive that Tertullian grounds infant's baptism upon Scripture.   

Baptist.  
To which first supposing that by that birth of water, and the spirit is meant nothing but baptism in that place of Tertullian, we are yet upon, I reply.  
Secondly, thus viz. appealing to the Drs own conscience, and Mr. Marshal's also, whether he speak that very clause of Scripture in that very place of his we are now upon to that very intent, as to ground infant baptism upon it, or whether if it be read with a right and true Emphasis, and reference, it doth not of the two rather suppose it was not to be in infancy? for having (as Mr. Marshal understands) confessed so far of infants of the faithful, that they are designati sanctitatis, et salutis i. e. to be held in the mean time (to wit) in childhood, and before baptism, as holy and happy reputatively only, yet he says that none of all them are sancti i. e. holy indeed (for that we see is Tertullia's sense of the word enter into the kingdom) unless they be born of water and the spirit, that is (as I conceive) till they be converted and baptised, which thing that it is at all to the infants of the faithful in their minority he saith not at all here, nor any thinglike it, but elsewhere, mentioning the same Scripture john 3. 5. as he puts the water and the spirit together, so both before and behind it, he puts teaching and dipping, faith and baptism as things that by the law of dipping are imposed as of necessity to go together, saying he hath bound faith to the necessity of baptism, therefore all believers (speaking of none else) were baptised, and then Paul when he believed was baptised, in his book de baptismo advers. Quintil. Editio de la. cerda. vol. 2. p. 153. ibid. c. 13. as Mr. Blackwood quotes him in his storm of Antichrist p. 28. 29. so that in the quotation were are yet upon the Antithesis lies thus in my conscience as I read him viz. infants of the faithful in their infancy may be reputatively holy, but not really holy, none being really holy till such time as they be born of water and the spirit, which was not in infancy in Tertullia's apprehension, as it seems to me in that very place which the Dr. and Mr. Martial make so much of, as the words designati sanctitatis, non sancti do show, whereupon I persuade my self it was that in that other place of his, that I must return to, he uses dissuasion from dispensing, and persuasion to deferring baptism to all, but specially to infants, not of infidels only, but believers also, as I shall show clearly to Mr. Marshal now, who scruples it, and that by such reasons as shall take that rub and stumbling block of his out of the way (I mean this last text of Tertullian of his own and Dr. Holmes his alleading) by which they were both gravelled from believing Tertullian to be ours, for indeed whereas that place he last alleged did give him supposed ground to scruple whether Tertullia's dissuasion from baptising of infants were from any, but the infants of infidels, I hope to show him such a necessity of understanding his dissuasion to be from the baptism of any infants whatsoever, as shall give him contrarily sure ground of belief, that howbeit Tertullian would have some infants higher accounted on then some, yet he would not from thence have any baptised: to which end I shall set down Tertullia's dissuasions of infant baptism in English, as I find them quoted by Mr, Marshal in latin, who (I observe) seldom Englishes what may make against him p. 34. of Mr. Martial against Mr. Tombs, and in p. 122. of Dr. Holmes in English, and more largely then by either of them by Mr. Blackwood in his storm p. 29. together with the grounds why he would not have little ones baptised, and leave it to be judged what little ones he means. Tertullia's words are these viz.  
According to every one's condition, and disposition, and age, the delay of baptism is more profitable, but especially concerning little children, for what necessity is there (if it be not so much a necessity) as to have the sureties also brought into danger? who may both by their own mortality fail of fulfilling their promises, and by the increase of an ill disposition be deceived. The Lord saith indeed forbid them not to come unto me, let them come therefore when they grow up to youth, etc. thus far Mr. Marshal and the Dr. Mr. Blackwood writes further thus.  
Let them come whilst they are young, whilst wherein they come they are taught, let them become Christians when they know Christ:— a little further he saith, shall it be done more warily insecular things, that to whom earthly substance is not committed Divine should be committed? they sh●…ll know to beg salvation, that thou mayst seem to give it to him that asketh it, all so in the 20 chapter of the same book he saith, it behoves them that are about to enter into baptism, to pray with frequent prayers, fastings, kneeling, and watchings, and with the confession of their sins past, in all these words, is he recorded by the three authors above named, dissuading from baptising infants: now whereas Mr. Martial professes he stands much inclined to believe that these little ones to whom Tertullian would have baptism delayed are to be interpreted of the infants of infidels only; and Dr. Holmes helps him what he can in this, by quoting the words of learned junim upon the place, who is just of the same opinion with Mr. Martial, yet lends him as little reason towards it as one can likely look for from so rational a man, I shall immind them first, that Vossius on the place quoted by Dr. Holmes, in one and the same page with junius, found no good ground to evade the bang Tertullian gives to infant baptism in such a fashion, as to say he denies only the baptism of infidels infants; how far you will heed him I know not, but he thinks his think thus, viz. not that infants of the faithful are here denied by Tertullian, but that nothing is denied by him but only the necessity of these infant's baptism, when there's no danger of death, because 'tis said what necessity? (if there be no necessity) defend you yourselves if you will, against that consenr (by silence) of Vossius to us in this, that 'tis all infants to whom Tertullian would have baptism delayed (for that affronts your poor put off) and I'll look to Vossius his own put off as well as I can, that he shall not go clear away with it, for my own part then allowing Vossius his own thought, I take the like liberty to think otherwise, and the boldness to assert the contrary viz. That Tertullian denies more than a necessity of infant baptism, yea he denies any conveniency or lawfulness of the thing also, especially in the testimony cited by Mr. Blackwood, which the Dr. and Mr. Marshal durst not mention, and clearly enough in those cited by themselves, for if it behoves them that are baptised to pray, confess sin etc. which no infant can do, than it behoves us not to baptise them, and if it bring sureties into danger then 'tis not convenient nor expedient, as well as not necessary, and if it be more profitable to delay it to infants, than we are so by duty bound to do what's most profitable, and edifying, that to do otherwise is to do that which is unlawful: moreover it being granted, by Vossius that Tertullian denies but so much as the necessity of baptising any infants, I'll prove thence a necessity not to baptise any, for if there be not more or less a necessity of one kind or other viz. vel praecepti vel medii, there's a necessity at least of letting it alone, for Christ commands no ordinance of his without need, and with such indifferency as destroys all necessity of obeying it, and what way or point of worship was not ordained by himself, is by command from him of such necessity to be declined, that as he who preaches it (though an Angel from heaven) is to be held accursed, so he that doth thereafter shall have no thank for his labour, for in vain do they worship him, that either teach, or take for doctrines the traditions of men.  
Secondly, and further to prove it, least Mr. Marshal and the Dr. should not grant Vossius that Tertullias denial is of the baptism of all infants, even of believers as well as infidels, I argue that more plainly.  
First from the universality of the expression of himself in his dissuasion, which extends to all manner of persons without exception; for it may be thought he was somewhat soiled with that superstition, which was rife in after ages viz. that baptism was best dispensed towards the end of a man's life, that he might have a sign of the forgiveness of all his sins at once, whereupon Tertullian would not have unmarried persons baptised until temptation was over, so far was as he from desiring such early dispensation of baptism as that to infants, I say his persuasion to delay it extends to all manner of persons, and therefore to the infants of believers as well as to other little ones.  
Secondly, his indefinite and indifferent expression of these little ones concerning which he speaks, for (saith he) specially about little ones, promiscuously including all, excepting none, as it had been necessary for him to do if he would be understood to speak but of some, and not of others: for if Mr. Martial should preach or write his opinion against the baptism of unbelievers children only. retaining to himself his present earnestness for the baptism of other little ones, and deliver himself downrightly and indifinitely thus only, in way of dissuasion viz. I would not by any means have little one baptised, I find no ground baptizare parvulos to baptise infants etc. so running on and never distinguishing, so as to say in that sermon or speech, I mean only infants of infidels, I should not take him for so judicious a man as I yet hold him to be, saving his holding so stiffly still for infant baptism.  
Thirdly, by the reason he gives why he would not have little ones baptised viz. lest their sureties should be in hazard of non-performance of their words, by reason of their own death, or their God children's untowardness, which danger may come as well by baptism of believers infants as of others: As whose Sponsors, whether fathers or mothers, or Godfathers and Godmothers may die before they grow up, or if they live, be frustrated of their ends by the wickedness of these children, or god-childrens also.  
Fourthly, in that he speaks of such children of whom the Lord said forbid them not to come unto me, which in the Priesthoods own sense at least are believers children, yea and them only, by which clause according to you he may seem to speak of them only, rather than of infidels children's only, whom you yourselves forbid to be brought to Christ at all.  
Fiftly, in that he says let them become Christians when they know Christ, belike then, if your sense be true, some Infants may be warrantably enough made Christians before they know Christ, but some infants again may not at any hand be made Christians till they know Christ, which if it were Tertulliaus meaning, as 'tis yours, he might mean honestly in it (as you do) but 'tis too mean an opinion to keep touch with the word, which never knew any way but one, wherein disciples and Christians were made, i. e. of professed faith, repentance and baptism, after they knew Christ by the preaching of the Gospel.  
Sixtly, in that he says we should be more wary then to commit Divine substance to them, to whom earthly substance is not committed, now we know that earthly substance can be no more wisely committed to infants of believers in their non age then to infants of infidels.  
Seventhly, by one end why he would have them be capable to beg salvation first, viz. that God may seem to give it to them that ask it, which end is destroyed, if baptism be dispensed to believers infants in infancy, for they can no more ask it then the infants of unbelievers.  
Eightly, because he says it behoves them, indifinitely (meaning all them) that enter into baptism to pray and confess sin, etc. which conditions are as exclusive of all infants as of some, those of believers being no more capable to do that then infants of infidels are.  
Ninethly, what ever children he dissuaded from the baptising of here (and so saith Mr. Martial and Mr. Blake) its most evident de facto that they were wont to be baptised then, or else there had been no object of his dissuasion, therefore if his advice to delay to them, were concerning infants of infidels, than its evident that in Tertullia's time 'twas the custom to baptise infidels infants as well as Christians, and so if antiquity of infant baptism were an argument of its goodness, it's as good an argument of the goodness of baptising infidels infants also, which with you is well-nigh as bad as the other is good.   

Babist.  
True de facto we have evidence that the baptism of infidels infants than was, but that father's dissuading from it is an argument that 'twas nought and though crept in yet a thing that was not so from the beginning.   

Baptist.  
Then I hope, if ever you come to be persuaded, and it is a wonder that none of the reasons above be cogent, that 'twas indeed from baptising of any children at all that Tertullian dissuaded, we have an argument of your own for it that the baptism of any men's infants is naught also, and a thing that was not so from the beginning, and so if Mr. Martial himself be not by this time sick of Tertullian I assure both him and you all that I am, and of all the Fathers also, with whom in this controversy I would not have meddled, but that your Pamphlet flutters so so with naming the Fathers; and takes it ill that testimonies from the Fathers were not taken on the day of the Ashford disputation: I say again I am sick of them, not so much with fear at the sight of any thing in any of them, that makes against us, for I find nothing that hath the strength of a straw against our way throughout them all, even these few junior, inferior ones themselves, that are most against us, for the Seniors are more fully on our sides, and some of the junior ones also, as Basil, and Chrisostome, both in the fourth Century, whose words, as Mr Blakwood citys them p. 28, 29. of his storm, are thus viz.  
First he ought to believe, and after to be sealed with baptism, and if any one have not corrected the transgression of his manners, and hath not made virtue easy to himself, let him not be baptised.  
Which words are exclusive of infants, 'tis not therefore any disadvantage that comes by them to our cause, which I am sick of, But  
First, with spending so much time, and searching so much into their testimonies (as you have compelled me to do) that me thinks I am out of my element, where I desire to be, i. e. the Scriptures, whet●…er I'll return by and by (God willing) especially this last testimony of Tertullian, which yet I could not help unless I would for want of help betray the truth, when I saw how Mr. Marshal, Dr. Holmes, and others had almost stolen away corrupted and by fair words enticed our old friend Tertullian, to serve on their side, for we would not willingly be cousi●…ed of what is our due: yet lest any man should think of me above that he seeth me to be, and take me to be a man of much reading, because I talk so much of the Fathers, I testify that I am of little further acquaintance with these Fathers, for my converse is mostly with Matthew, Mark, Luke, Peter, Paul, jude janies, and john, than this controversy hath brought me to, which now is so much that though I honour them, as honest and good men in their times, as finding many things of much worth, and excellency in them, yet for all that I am sick,  
Secondly, with seeing what abundance of absurdities, silly reasons, senseless anti-scriptural sentences, odd conceits, vanities, varieties of error, as well as verities, uncertainties whether some of their books be their own or no, mistranslations, foisting of what of their own other men please into their works as Ruffinus into Origen, falsities, flat contradictions amongst themselves, and such like are to be found among them, sufficient enough to cause all men to trust no more to their testimonies, then with their own eyes they see the same testified in the Scriptures.  
Thirdly, I am sick more yet to find the whole Clergy after whom the whole world wonders, and walks in error, wondering so much after these Fathers, and walking after them, where they walk in error, and yet neglecting to give heed to them where they speak the truth, and which is worst of all, slighting the short pure, and plain ways of God, the Father of all, of Christ our Father, and the first Father's next and immediately under God and Christ, Supreme Governors of the Church, and givers out of the Gospel to the world, I mean the Apostles, who in my mind write the way of the Gospel, if men were not willing to go astray from it, because it is narrow, self denying, and thorny, though more briefly yet more clearly to any common capacity, than the most voluminous of all the other fathers do, for we use all plainess of speech says Paul 2 Cor. 3. Wherefore  
Fourthly, and Lastly I am sick most of all to consider, what a stir ministers make in their quotations of the Fathers, marching on, and giving such a broad side, as they think, with two or three sentences on of the fathers, as if they would bear all men down before them, that come near them, no higher read then in the Scriptures, no better armed then with the sword of the spirit, the word of God; For this only is despised as much as David's sling and stone before Goliath, and this too, though in cool blood the Scripture is confessed by themselves to be so instar omnium, that nothing is of any force, but what slows from it: for though some Clergy men dote so far that they believe the Fathers, no otherwise then they would have the world to believe themselves, i. e. because ipse dixit, yet some are so wise as to confess, that how far forth soever the Fathers may serve to prove to us things de facto to be done in their several ages, yet their testimonies de facto cannot prove any thing to us to be de jure at all, whereas if it be so, and ye so it is, I am me thinks become a fool at this time in falling, before I was aware, so up to the ears in contest about a few testimonies of the fathers, as well as I and others heretofore, in counting so extraordinarily on them: wherefore I do henceforth humbly conceive, and confess myself to the people, together with all my fellow father-fooled friends, viz. the Clergy of all Christendom, to have been no better than childish and semi-simple so far as such high and holy heed, and such heedless submission hath been given by us to these fathers, Schoolmen, and other authors, as hath occasioned extreme seduction from the Scriptures: hear therefore O thou most miserably be wildred Priesthood of the Nations, and understand, for so thou shalt if thou return from out of that thick wood of Authors, Polemical Tracts, Schoolmen, Casuists, Tomes, Volumes of Fathers, Counsels, Commentators, Treatises, Systemes of Theology, framed forms of old and New Creeds, long and short Catechisms, confessions of Churches, etc. in which thou hast wandered and lost thyself from the truth, to the unfeigned study of that little book of Scriptures, which alone, if thou wilt be admonished by it, is able to make thee, and them that hear thee wise enough unto salvation: Thou speakest what thou hast seen of thy fathers we speak what we have seen of our Fathers: what thine teach in their books, we regard not quâ ipsi dixerint, unless quâ dictum prius by our Fathers, if they teach no other than what our Fathers teach in theirs, it is no more than what thou, having the same Scripture, the same liberty, to search, the same promise of the same spirit to guide, the same access to God in prayer for it, mayest learn, not at second hand from them, but at first hand from thence, as easily as themselves, but when they go aside, from that, and thou with them, and thine with thee a venture, this seems no other to me then Ignis fatuus with a false flash going before, and Ignoramus fatuus with his false faith, and a number of ignorants following after.  
Thou tellest us of thy novel antiquity of Counsels, National, Ecumenical, of Churches Greek and Latin, of Fathes, Austin, Gregory, etc. and yet confessest thyself that particular Churches have erred, and may err, and if all particulars, then why the universal, which consists of all particulars cannot, thou canst not prove, and that general counsels, which the Schoolmen term the representative Church, are subject to error. and have sometimes decreed heresy and falsehood for truth, thou confessest by Dr. Featley p. 17. of his figment; And that none of the fathers, nor yet the joint consent of many is a competent judge for faith to hang upon, concerning the right of things, is confessed by Mr. Blake p. 58. of his to Mr. Blackwood, and yet (to go round again) thou ventest thyself out of the mouths of others, as if their verdict were enough to warrant, and canonize all that for verity that is vented by them.  
Tell us therefore no more (as Dr. Featley doth) of Gregory nor yet of Gregory the great, whose testimonies if they were for thee (but now I think on't they are not, for in the place cited by Dr. Featley himself, in the very forehead of his book in the next page of all before the first, 'tis evident that Gregory Nazianzen was for infant's baptism but in case of danger only i. e. if they were likely to die in infancy, otherwise saith he (for so Mr. Den citys Gregory's words more fully) in the place which the Doctor docks. and custs off in the midst p. 49. of his answer to Dr. Featley, otherwise let them stay still they be capable to hear and to answer, and no more to your purpose speaks Pope Gregory the great, whose words are cited out of Mr. Fox by Mr. Cornwell, and out of Mr. Cornwell by Dr. Featley p. 63. 64. in way of resolution to Austin the monk are no other than the same viz. that in case of necessity infants might be baptised as soon as they were born) yet were their testimonies any more for thee, than they are against thee they could make nothing for thee, as to evince the equity of thy cause.  
As for our way of baptism, if it were our way only, we trust we should be against it ourselves, but sith it is the only way of that word, by which all works must be tried, and all persons judged, whose authority alone being absolutely divine, if it were of any esteem with the adversaries thereof, were enough to silence their disputes against it, it will stand though never so many Counsels and things which thou callest Churches, and a 1000 Gregory's were against it.  
By this time you may see O ye Ashford Synodians! how little ground you would have gotten by it if the Authorities of the Church of God from the beginning, and the fathers of both that and after ages had been used by you, to the advantage of your disputation, when as not only the primitive fathers of all i e. the Apostles, and the Church in their days, whose authorities you rebel against, are wholly against you, but also the prime of those postern fathers, and the Church in their days, whose authority you so stand upon, are nothing for you.  
But if by fathers and Church you should chance to mean either the universal C C Clergy, and their C C Christendom, or the Christened Emperors, Kings, and civil govern●…rs, that have thrown down their crowns to the Clergy, and according to the C C Clergies cruel sense and wicked will, have been hitherto nursing fathers, to the Christian Nations, which they have reigned over, both of which the Clergy hath reigned o'er and nursed, alias nuzzled in ignorance to this day Rev. 17. then indeed (as Caiaphas did in an another case) you speak truer than you are aware of, for their authority alone (I mean so far forth as it hath acted itself in a way of mere might besides right●… if it were of any esteem with such as choose to obey God rather than man, were enough to silence all disputes against infant-baptism indeed, at least to lay the itch, and quench the heat of them, when not only the Pope's paternal precepts, and decretals in the latin Church, (witness that of Innocentius the third, who Decret. Greg. l. 3. (as cited by Mr. Cornwell) enacted that the baptism of infants should succeed circumcision) but also the imperial laws and constitutions. as well as Synodical cannons, required infant baptism in the Greek Church, and that so strictly too (as Mr. Martial himself alleges out of Photius p. 33. 34. to Mr. Tombs) that whatsoever baptised persons would not bring their children and wives too (that's more whereby you may note the goodness of those rhymes and Churches when a baptizd husband was forced to bring his wife as well as his seed to baptism) should be punished, and who ever denied baptism to a new born infant should be Anathematised, or curs●…d with a most bitter curse: when also (as Dr. Featley boasts out of Gastius p. 68 of his book) At Zurick after many disputations between Zwinglius, and the gainsayers of infant baptism, the Senate made an act that if any presumed to rebaptiz●… (●…liàs baptised such as were falsely supposed to be baptised before) should be drowned; and at Vienna many, merely for baptising such, were so tied together in chains, that one drew the other after him into the river, wherein they were all suffocated: and at Ropolstein, the Lords of that place decreed, that such should be burnt with an hot Iron, and bear the base brands of those Lords in whose lands they had sinned, and p. 182. out of Pontan. Catolog. Through Germany, Alsatia and Swedland many 1000s of this sect, who defiled their first baptism (i. e. their no baptism) by a second, (a true one) were baptised the third time with their ow●… blood, i. e. miserably tortured (as some have been in England also both old and new) yea massacred, and murdered by fire and faggot for this, and other resistance of the Romish stream, by racking, heading, hangings, pinching with hot pincers, stabbings, and such like ways whereby the self-preserving commonwealth of Clergy men, that they might testify their cause by the Neronean cruelty of it, to be of Christ, who in the 9th chapter of just no where, charges all his ministers to empower all Christian magistrates to imprison, spoil, torment, hang, banish, burn, drown, whip, fine, flea and destroy all such, as in foro hominum Synodicantium, non Dei, deny his name, have restored those that have to their offence been overtaken with the fault of unfeigned faith, and true obedience in the spirit of meekness, in all ages of their reign.  
So that if either fear, or fire, or blood, or water were sufficient, there hath hitherto wanted none of all these to suffocate the disputers, to lay the itch and quench the heat of disputes against infant baptism: but as the hast of these times wherein God begins to find the magistrates othor work viz. to curb the Christian cruelty of that whore, that hath thus rid them into rigour against the Saints, doth forbid the the ministers to be so throughly provided with them as heretofore, so modesty doth to use those knocking arguments now in these times of Orthodozism, where in both the Clergy, and their bloody tenet of persecution for cause of conscience, are discovered daily in their colours.  
How little then the Authorities of fathers and Churches, in case we grant them to come in thereunto, can contribute to your assistance is apparent, and now that those modern authors you promise your Reader such through furniture from viz. Calvin, Ursin, and Featley upon this subject, and also such others, as (though you name them not here yet) have improved themselves more singularly on that single subject, than any of these have done, as little help you, if they be well heeded, I come now in the fourth place to discover.  
And first, as for your worthy Dr. Featley, he is so worthily defeated and disarmed of all his Artillery by Mr. Denn, that it were but to attempt the stripping of a naked, and encountering of a wounded man, to meddle much more with his arguments, which are all sufficiently secured, and disabled from doing much mischief to the true baptism; only for his high charges of the Anabaptists (as he calls them) as a bloody, illiterate, lascivious, lying, sacrilegious s●…ct, whether they may not more easily be made good against the Clergy in general, then against the generality of them he calls so, may possibly be examined hereafter.  
And as for Calvin and Ursin, 'tis true they are both against us in the main, but in some things so slatly against you in the mean, that you have as little cause to brag of their assistance of you, as the Kirk of Scotland had to bless themselves in the help of their King and his party, who though they were all against England yet were so eager against each other, that they rather weakened each others forces, for thus do you Ashford arguers for infanr-baptism, and those two Champions you seem to crack of, as propugnators with you of the same, who are such strenuous impugnators of their opinions, asseverations and principles about the point, as to debillit●…te and raze them down as impious, and impedimental imbecilities: for they cry out (as I have showed more at large above) Christus non ad●…mit salutem ●…is quibus adimitur baptismus: quantum damni invexerit dogma illud etc. Christ doth not deny salvation to them to whom baptism is denied, what mischi●…f that opinion brings that baptism is necessary to salvation few consider, and the opinion that they are damned who are not baptised, makes as if the grace of God were less to us then to the jews &c. and there seems no small injury to be done to the covenant of God not to rest in this principle, that infants are not excluded from the kingdom of heaven, who depart out of this life without baptism, and more of this sort; so that instead of being strengthened in your last arguments at least, wherein you assert that denying baptism to little infants destroys the very hope of their salvation, which is as much as to say, Baptismum esse de necessitate salutis, and perditos ●…sse omnes quibus aqua tingi non contingit etc. that baptism of infants is so necessary to their salvation, that parents can have no hope of their salvation if it be denied th●…m, and that in●…ury is done to the Covenant of God, and that the Go●…pel is worse than the law if infants be not bap●…ized, instead I say of being strengthened by these m●…ns testimonies you turn us off to, contrary wise you are rather spoiled, and stark 〈◊〉 of a moiety of that argumentative furniture, whereby you strive to stiffen yourselves, and others against the truth, even of no less than one or two of those three principal pillars, wherewith you under pin your false practice, and fortify it from falling flat unto the ground.  
As for the other men, that together with yourselves are up in arms in this age for infant-baptism, so odiously are some of them at odds with you, and among themselves, as also some of you are with them, and among yourselves, that it's well ●…igh enough to render a wise man mad, at least a doubting man more distracted then resolved, to hear, read, and see the wonderful jars, that are among modern Divines, as touching the various opinions, ends, grounds and principles, upon which they plead and practise in this point of infant-baptism.  
For not to sp●…ak here of the jars, which the baptism of persons in infancy, occasions necessarily between the preachers assertions of baptisms nature, use, offices, ends, and the people's practicals, and infants capacities, not one of which in infancy appears to the preachers to have any of those things, which they say baptism signs, seals, and is used for viz. regeneration, real union with Christ by faith, and incorporation into him, 〈◊〉 of his spirit, and confirmation of their faith by it etc. nor one of many, when they grow up to years neither, the most of them whom they so incorporate into Christ, and signify to the world (by baptism) that they are without doubt so accep●…ed, and eternally beloved of Christ, proving wicked, and rejected of him as much as those, who remain unbaptised till they are at age, of which jars Mr. Blackwood speaks plainly p. 17. 18. 19 of his storm. to which as little or nothing to the purpose as Mr. Blake replies, p. 41, 42. yet he is answe●…ed again in Mr. Blackwood●… rejoinder p. 30.  
Nor yet to speak of the jars that are between the grounds upon which our modern Dieines plead infant baptism, and those of the ancient fathers, as Cyprian and such others viz. his 66. Bishops, which are so silly and ridiculously superstitious, that I am persuaded our Divines who live in these days wherein truth is coming from under those clouds, which then it was coming under, are ashamed of them, and therefore invent what new ones they can, and let them alone, thus mangling the Fathers, and qua●…rtering to their own use what they please out of them, and even deifying some, whilst they defy others of their sayings, receiving their words, and witness in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that infant-baptism ought to be, as right and rare, rejecting their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or reasons why it should be, as unsound, too rank, stark nought, refuse, and rotten; but not to meddle (I say) with these disco●…ds here, my intent is rather (have patience with m●… whilst I do it; but do it I must, whether you take it patiently or no) to discover the deep discord that is between you modern Divines among yourselves, which till you are better agreed will make you uncapable of ever subjecting others again unto your dictates in infant's baptism.   

Babist.  
Is it not a marvel that so many eminent Divines, industrious in the study of this Argument, should so unanimously jar with their own principles, and not be able to discern it, but all those many must leave it to you to discover it?   

Baptist.  
So says Mr. Blake indeed p. 41. of his repulse in a lu●…ory way to Mr. Blackwood, to whom I seriously reply, yea 'tis a mighty marvel indeed, to see such an heap of witnesses concur so well together by the years (as all your famous Oxthodoxists do, in their d●…ctrine about infant bap●…ism, some teaching one thing, others clean contradictory ●…o that, and yet all remaining orthodox still for all this.  
Really Sirs such a shameful conjunglement is to be found in your positions about the grounds you profess to go upon in this point, as will in time though now you will not see it, make you all amazed one at another, that ever such a marvellous work and wonder, should fa●…l out among you, as in the just judgement of God for your teaching his fear after men's precepts, there doth at this day, viz: such a hiding of understanding from the prudent that even the princes of Zoan should be befooled, confounded, contradicted by none more than themselves, and yet not take notice of it.  
Sirs you had need to Synodize one year more, and to Catechise one another into a little more Concord●…nce about your principles before you Catechetically impose that practice upon whole nations, unless your grounds were more agreeable than they are with both the word and each other; for some of you preach up that your practice, and plead it with all your might from 1 Cor. 7. 14. taking the word ho●…y there as it stands in Deut. 7. 6-14. 2-26. 19 and other places, where it is most evident that it signifies a people consecrated to God in the same way, as the Priest's Temple, Altar, Sacrifices, and all things then under the law were, and now nothing at all is, and y●… I have known some of you again, that have acknowledged the words sanctified and holy in 1 Cor. 7. 14. cannot be taken in any such sense, but in that very sense wherein we take them, yet supposing infants-baptism to follow from other places;  
Some of you preach it up and plead it with all your might from Mark 10. ●…3. etc. as if you did believe, and would make folks believe, that the children that were then brought to Christ were baptised either by him or his disciples, and truly if you believe it not, what is that Scripture then to your purpose? nay it makes more strongly against you for if these very infants that were brought to, and blessed by Christ himself, to whom you say he declared the Kingdom to belong, were not baptised, your presumption is very high, who dare baptise other infants, of whom you have no such testimony: yea some of you say that their bringing to Christ for imposition of hands doth suppose them to have been baptised before they came (I wonder by whom) witness Dr. Holmes p. 61. 63. yet some of you again confess the contrary, viz. Mr. ●…otton p. 9 of his grounds and ends, whom Dr. Holmes so justifies, and magnifies, who in confutation of him says thus.  
That it doth not appear that the Fathers that brought these infants were baptised themselves, and therefore neither might their children be baptised according to rule.  
And yet both Mr. Cotton and his neighbour Mr. Cobbet also, and eve●… every one else almost that writes, or speaks as well as you Ashford Disputants, make mighty ado (but nihil ad rhombum) from that place also.  
Some of you plead the sprinkling of believers infants (for none else must be sprinkled by the Pope's confession, only he takes believers not in so strict a sense as some do) from A●…t. 2. 39 suppo●…ing that those to whom Peter said the promise is to you and to your children, were believers and already in the faith, even then when he thus bespoke them, which if they were 'twere nothing to your matter, witness Mr. Vahan of Smarden at the Dispute at A●…hford, whose Arguments being it seems none of the most material, are excluded from your Account, whose supposition was supported with a position as false and silly as itself, yet is it a maxim with the Clergy that was then blerted out from among you, viz that the desire of grace is grace; in refutation of which your doctrine, appeal was made by your Respondent to the people, whether the desire of Drink was Drink? and whether because they all desired to go to heaven, therefore they were at heaven? others again acknowledge the truth in this, viz. that the men were yet in unbelief while Peter spoke that to them, as Mr. Cotton p. 35. of his grounds, who saith thus, when he calleth man to believe, or to repent he cometh to them not as having faith, and repentance, but as wanting both, and Mr. Prigg also, who hasti●…g into the help of Mr. Vahan at the Ashford disputation, happily more than heartily help the Respondent against Mr. Vahan, and himself too by his plain contradiction of the other, and conjunction with the Respondent in that, viz. that the men to whom Peter then spoke in presenti, the promise is to you and your children etc. were not yet in the faith, but the promise was made to them, as they who yet did not, should believe, i. e. in futuro: for (by your favour Gentlemen) if it be thus, than it should seem, and so 'twas told you then, but you would not hear it, that the promise of remission of sins, (though it be made good to believers, and none else, no not to their fleshly seed (quá tales) unless they also believe, when they come to years, for if they be taken away in infancy, both they and all other infants, of whom I find not where God requires faith, so dying may be saved without it, and are too though it cross your cruel conceit of heathen infancy) this promise I say was made by Peter to unbelievers, and their children, yea and is in very deed to all men in the world, and their children, Jews or Gentiles, near or far off, whether, in time or place; yea to every Creature that then was, hath been since, now is, or ever shall be to the world's end is the promise made Mark 16. 15, 16. by Christ himself, who is the purchaser of eternal salvation for all men, though actually the eternal saviour of none of those, to whom his Gospel is preached, save only such as obey him Heb. 5. 9 yet none of all this warrants your sprinkling believers infants only in their infancy, any more than it warrants your sprinkling of so many hundreds of unbelievers infants, as you do still, as s●…riet as you lace up baptism to believers infants only in the state of your question; for to say no more than the truth that's another of your H●…us pocus, which when your customers come to find out, they will be ashamed of you & you of your selves if you be not passed it, you I say, yea specially you of the strict Pres●…ytery, who cry out upon your parish people as for the most part profane, and ignorant, impenitent, and unbelieving, & in such a wretched condition that except they b●… converted they will perish, nor dare you admit them to the Supper lest they eat and drink their own damnation, and yet their children are the seed of believers with you still, to whom belong the promises, and right to the seals for their sakes.  
Yea (O ye several parishes where these men preach, not in the city only, but in the Countries of Kent, Sussox, and other places) let me Apostrophize a little to you, lest your Clergy should not heed it, if I speak only to them, have you not heard your teachers thundering you as Malignants, for the most part, t●…reatthreatning you to come in and to be reconciled to God, as those that are yet enemies to him, and his people, (meaning those few that are better friends to them then the major part o●… you are) calling to you as crucifiers of Christ, and preaching Peter's doctrine Act. 2. by the halves, saying repent, repent? for how beit they should say somewhat more to such sinners as you seem to be in their eyes, viz. repent and be baptised every one of you in the name of Christ for remission of sins; yet they put themselves out of all capacity of preaching, and you of practising thus, whilst they make you believe you are aforehand in the business of baptism, because of something like, or rather very unlike it, which was dispensed to you in infancy called sprinkling, which they have sprinkled into the name of baptism: yea have not some of them, kept the Lords Supper wholly from you all, for as many years together as they have lived among you, and the rest kept back many hundreds of you as wicked, and unworthy from that ordinance, communicating in it with two or three score, upon such like pretence of Scripture, viz. what communion, what part hath light with darknsss, Christ with Belial, the Temple of God and Idolators, believers and infidels? for what else can they pretend? for if you were all believers, and all walking in the light as God is in the light, ye might have fellowship one with another therein, the blood of Christ his son cleansing you from all sin; as to the Supper therefore you are unbelievers, yet are you not all, or at least the most of you believers when you have children to be sprinkled? you are unbelievers when your Minister is in the Pulpit and at the ●…able, but owned all as believers, while he stands at the Font or Basin, whose persons for want of faith, repentance, and better behaviour they will not admit to the Supper: do you not see how you are nosed, and gulled and Priestridden? whilst with them you are ungodly persons, and yet godly parents; Church-members and belivers at one time, and yet neither this nor that at another; one while sheep (specially at washing and sharing time) whose little ones are lambs, that must be bosomed, and brought to Christ, and baptised as those to whom the Kingdom of heaven, and privileges of it are entailed, and belong by right of generation, and birth of Christian professors, and many such good morrows: another while, viz. at next Communion, that entail is cut off again, you being unbelievers, and perhaps (to go round again) at next child you have to christian its tack on again: so that when they are pleased, or rather profitted by that title, you are the flock of God, purchased with his own blood, over which the holy Ghost hath made them overseers both to feed, and feed on; and when they please to improve the power and turn the key of the kingdom upon you, they shut in with an hand full of their own leaven, as the true Turtle, choice Church, spiritual Spouse, Synagogue of Saints, and lock twenty to one of you out from feasting with them, as a company of Carrion Crows, of Carnal Christians, hateful ha●…gbyes, Servants of Satan, as a heard of Wolves, and Goats, and Dogs and Swine.  
Again, some of you say Paedobaptism is a tradition of the Church as Dr. Gouge, who used such an assertion to Mr. Barber, as an Argument to him to take the oath ex officio, and therefore belike, being like to offend his fellows if he did, he would not at any hand deliver his opinion pro or con in answer to Dr. Chamberlain, whether the sprinkling of infants were of God or man? also Mr. Daniel Rogers who saith it is as reverend a Tradition of the Church as any, but confesses himself unconvinced by any demonstration of Scripture for it; others say it is an Apostolical Tradition, and institution of Christ, and among these some say there is neither express nor positive command or example for it in the New Testament, as Mr. Hunton, yet good consequence for all that from the Old to prove it Christ's Ordinance; yea & as good from the New as there is for women to eat the Supper, as Mr. Martial, though the best consequence that I find the wisest of you make is to me as far fetched as Peter had the keys given to him, therefore the Pope may sell pardons for money, and save as many souls as he pleases, and that's a ground or consequence as far short as an improbabillity, yea as an impossibility is to a certainty, in respect of that which is for women's fellowship in the supper, for there's as much precedent and precept too for that, as there is for men's, if either women may be disciples, believers, and Church members as 'tis sure they may, and were Act. 1. 14. 2 41. 42. 17. 12. (though infants, neither were nor can be, till they have learned) or if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be of the common gender 1 Cor. 11. 28. expressing both sexes, and as well the woman as the man, as those gentlemen know very well it is, that shroud themselves under so thin a shrub, from the storm that is now lighting on their garrisons, as Mr. Calvin once did, and Mr. Marshal, and others still do: others not venturing the cause wherein the whole Clergy is so nearly concerned upon such a ticklish term, as that of a tradition of the Church stand to it that there's both precept and precedent for it in the Scriptures seeming to yield, that if at least there be not one of them, we have not warrant to meddle with it; and of this sort I have met with many a one, I am sure with more than one, who when they have in public disputes been but put to assign and produce those places where that plain precept and precedent is contained, they send us to such Scriptures where unbiased men may sooner find the way of a serpent upon a rock then either institution or instance of infant sprinkling viz. for precept to the second commandment Exod. 20. so Dr. Channel at Petworth jan. 1. 1651. saying that the second commandment enjoines us to observe all the institutions of God and Christ from time to time, but not seeing that he was by right to have brought some other scripture first, whereby to prove infant's baptism to be one of those institutions which was the thing denied, and not the other, for we grant that all Christ's institutions are to be obeyed. without putting any man to carry us so far back to the second commandment to convince us of it, but we deny still that its one of Christ's institutions that infants should be baptised: also to Mat. ●…8. 19 20 which was assigned to me both by Mr. Reading at Fowlston 1650. and also by Dr. Channel at Petworth, out of which I making it appear by argument, and by comparison of this with the same passage (as recorded in other words Mark. 16. 15. 16.) that those, who are bid to be baptised there, are such as are also commanded first to be taught, preached to etc. therefore not infants, these two men, that might both be worthily renowned (for aught I know) in respect of their worth otherwise, were their parts improved as much for, as they are against the truth in this point, and were it not their hap to be yet besch●…old beside the Gospel, as 'tis in truth, replied both to one & the same purpose, but nothing to their own viz. that when Christ says go teach and baptise, and he that believeth and is baptised, in these expressions he speaks of persons at years, not of infants, for such must be taught first, but that hinders not but that infants may be baptised before teaching: and this is the very common wind away of you all, to all whom (as to them then) so I say now again, if the Scriptures, and commands of your own assigning do speak of persons at age only, and there's no mention at all of children in either of them (for in those words Dr. Featley expresses all your minds concerning Mat. 28. Mark. 16. when brought by us against infant baptism) where are the Scriptures that do mention infants, so as to institute their baptism? if I should assert this that Christ commanded that infants should eat at his table, and being put to assign what Scripture it's commanded in, should name 1 Cor. 11. 28. and when it's argued against me to the contrary, saying that place permits them only to come, that can ex●…mine themselves, as infants cannot, therefore 'tis no command for infants to come, should answer thus viz. there's no mention at all of children in that text, much less any prohibition of infants to come, when Paul says, let a man examine himself, he speaks of persons at years only, but that hinders not why infants may not come without self-examination, would you not say I were half out of my wits? yet thus do you all almost (as well concerning places of your own assigning, as those we bring viz. Mat. 28. Mark. 16. 16. Act. 2. Repent and be baptised Act. 8. if thou believest thou mayest) return thus viz. those phrases speak of adult ones, and not of infants; and so say I of these and every Scripture else that speaks of baptism, and I trow where is that place that makes mention of any such thing as the baptism of infants?  
Secondly, in precedent of which you send us to the households, wherein yourselves cannot tell that there was any infant therein at all: which is as much as to say and urge (ab exemplo) thus viz. 'tis not certain by any one instance thereof, that any one infant was baptised in those households, which are said to be baptised in the primitive times.  
Ergo no doubt but by the same example infants ought to be baptised now.  
Again, some of you urge Mat. 28. as the institution of Christ for baptising men of ripe years at least, yea and in●…ants also (as Mr. Martial) some of you again deny this, saying that Mat. 28. is not an exact platform of Christ's commission concerning the matter of subject of the administration of baptism (as Dr. Holms p. 7.) both which men direct their different doctrines to Mr. Tombs in order to his direction: but how shall that man be resolved? which shall he cleave to? whose words shall he take, the Doctors or the Divines?  
Again, some of you say, that semen carnis a fleshly seed is entitled to the promise, (for even this seed with you is emen sidei) some of you say semen sidei the spiritual seed only: i e. as many as are of the faith (and so saith the Scripture) are blessed with faithful Abraham, but then semen sidei with you is no other but semen carnis the fleshly seed, and that of such too, as are Abraham's seed, not after the flesh, nor after the faith neither: thus you wander in a wood, and trace too and fro in a thicket, moap up and down in a mist, are rapt up in a cloud of confusion, contradiction and unanswerableness about the proof of a popish practice, dancing round, and crossing the way one of another ever and anon, and yet ken it not, nor consider how all men's eyes, that are but half open, are half amazed at your shufles.  
Again, some of you pin your practice upon the score of the infant's faith, and of these aga in there are several subdivisions, for some ground it on seminal faith only i e. the habit, or on infants having faith, denying utterly their capacity to act it i. e. to believe (as Mr. Willcock and many more.)  
Some again deny that they do build it upon seminal faith, but say they go upon more certain grounds as Mr. Blake p. 24. to Mr. Blackwood, who faith of faith in the root, or of this semnial faith, this faith is not our ground for infant's baptism, being undiscernible.  
Some again upon their acting faith, which they assert infants capable to do (though against their wills) as well as to have it, as (to the clear contradiction of themselves) Mr. Willcock, and many more do, whilst they with him, and he with them speak of children in this phrase viz. that they do believe, and thus they speak whilst they interpret that clause Mat. 18. 6. i e. these little ones which believe in me, of little ones littterally taken, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cr●…dere i. e. to believe expresses not the habit only, but the act of faith, as to know, to read, to teach, to love, to learn do sound out non munus, non actum primum only, but actum secundum also.  
Some of you again put that practice upon score of the parents faith, not the child's, and of these, which are also subdivided, some the faith of the next parents only, as Dr Holmes, who in his to Mr. Tombs p. 216. 217. saith thus, the children are not to be baptised whilst the next parents are unbelievers i e. though the grand parents be believers, and Mr. Cotton also, who p. 87. of his book styled the way of the Churches of New England saith thus, God never allowed his Church any warrant to receive into Covenant the children of godly parents, who lived a thousand years ago, nay rather the text is plain that the holiness of the childrend pendeth upon the faith of the next immediate parents, or one of them at least, as if the seed of parents were not their seed at two or three generations off; others the faith of the remote parents, as Mr. Rutherford Pres. p. 164 where he saith, all infants born in the visible Church, what ere the wickedness of the nearest parents is, are to be received into the Church by baptism: yea p. 173 Joshua had commandment of God to give the seal of the Covenant to their children, who were as openly wicked against the Lord, as murderers, drunkards, swearers etc. also Mr. Martial and Mr. Baily who commends Mr. Cottons learned maintenance of infants sprinkling in p. 132, and yet contradicts him in this thing, no further off then p. 134. saying, although the parents are wicked, (meaning the immediate parents) yet the Lords interest is in the children i. e, not of the 3d and 4th but of the 1000th generation; and by this shift the Ishmaelus, the Edomites, the Turks are of Abraham, though not of Isaac, and so Gods by birth; yea we and the whole world are of Noah, though not of Abraham, and so belike must be baptised, and Mr. Blake in p. 24. of his birth-priviledge, who saith, If the ground of a child's admission to baptism be ●…ot the faith of his immediate parents, but the promise made to Ancestors in the faith, whose seed is though at a greater distance, than the loose life of an in mediate parent can be no bar to his baptism: this is plain if Josia have no right from his father Ammon, yet he is not shut out in case he have right from his father David, or his father Abraham, yea even all the national Clergy (I think) excepting your new English, and congregational men, and lastly they themselves too, witness Dr. Holmes, who p. 11, makes the remote father Abraham he, upon whose belief those 3000 jews in Acts 2. were to be baptised, a●…d Mr. Cotton himself (Aliquando bonus dormitat Homerus) who p. 79. of his grounds etc. affi●…ms all the seed (and then surely the seed to many generations as well as the nearest) to be holy by adoption, and wearies himself, and his reader in about 20 pages, to prove remote Abraham to be the parent, upon whose faith the ●…ew shall be taken in at last viz. from p. 79. to p. 100  
Some again put the practice of infant baptism upon the score of neither the childs not the father's faith necessarily, but on the faith of Christian Sponsors, and of these there's two sorts too, considering Sponsors as either witnesses, or sureties, alias Gossips or Guardians: first, some sprinkle them upon the witnesses or gossip's faith, thus all that still retain the old English deformation, after which yet the New English Christians that were born here, were Christened by the Priests, saying I baptise thee when they did but Rantize, which practice though the directory allow as the ordinary way, yet the common prayer book did not, save in case of necessi●…y, which Priests, when they should by right baptise the sponsors professing their faith and repentance from dead works, and desires to be baptised in that faith in those words, we forsake them all, all this we steadfastly believe, that is our d●…sire, instead thereof take a child, of what parents it matters not, out of the midwives arms, putting two or three drops of water upon the face of it, and so there's an end of the business: this is that which Mr. Cotton the great Gamaliel of New England, though after that fashion possibly himself was sprinkled, is now utterly and bitterly against, professing for himself and those Churches p. 88 of his way of the Church of new England, that they know not any ground at all to allow a faithful man liberty to entitle another man's child to baptism, upon the pretence of his own promise to have an e●… to his education, unless the child be either born in his house, or resigned to him to be brought up as his own, and then he is confident, but from no other law then that of circumcision, from which I may be as confident that males only, and that on the eighth day, must be baptised, it may be done. Some upon the faith of the sureties or guardians, as Mr. Cotton, who from Gen. 17 12. 13. grants, but very doubtfully, and therefore whether damnably or no let him look to it) so much liberty to a Christian Sponsor, i. e. Surety, that if a stranger, or a very wicked man should give him his child from his infancy, to be brought up as his own, it may be baptised as his own, in confutation of which i'll quote no Author but Mr. Cotton, who in that same 88 page, where he speaks this; but two or three lines above it says thus, The Covenant is not entailed to Sureties, i. e. to such for whom they undertake, but this is the utmost bounds of liberty Mr. Cotton says he can give, and I wonder who gave him power to give so much in this case, he allows a little bit and no more, because he is not sure he may allow that, but (by his leave) from that inch i'll take an ell, for if a wicked man's child may be baptised, than it may, and then why not a 100 as well as one, in the like case? and so at least the promise is not entailed to faithful parents only, and their sced, yea his grant p. 88 intailes baptism to the children that have believing Guardians, as well as to such as have believing parents, and so he gives the question, as stated concerning believers children only.  
Some again put it on the score of neither the child's, nor the parents, nor the sponsors faith, but at least either the fathers, or the Mother's membership in a gathered Church, so as if this be not the parents, though otherwise never so faithful may not have their children baptised: thus the Churches in New England, yea and I think all of this indifferent semi-demi-Independent way, both in Old England, and New, and elsewhere, witness Mr. Best Churches plea p. 60, 61. who saith thus,  
A man must not only be a Christian, and by profession, within the covenant only, but also a member of some visible Church, and particular congregation ere his child be baptised.  
For which Mr. Rutherford rounds him a bout again, and takes him to do, p. 174. 175. of his Presb. and flatly contradicts him thus, saying,  
Baptism is a privilege of the Church, not of such a particular Independent Church, and the distinction between Christian communion, and Church communion in this point is needless, and fruitless, for none are to be refused baptism whose parents profess the faith, etc. howbeit not members of a settled Church.  
Which also contradicts Mr. Cobbets Castle of come down, whose whole structure is settled upon that same dainty distinction of Church choice, and true choice; of this mind also was my beloved friend Mr. Charles nicols, of whom I have more hopes yet then I have of every one of his own form, that he will fully own the truth in time, forasmuch as he doth more fully appear for it, against that Truth-destroying thing called Tithes, than those of his way do in other parts of Kent, who either per se, or at lest per alios take them, not to say rake and rack both Christ's flocks. and the parish flocks also for them still: which Mr. nicols preaching publicly at Dover in my hearing jan. 1650. (whether he fetch his doctrine out of Mr. Cobbets book yea or no I cannot tell, in page 17. whereof the same is found) declared himself to be of Mr. Cobbets mind by the delivery of this doctrine, viz. That an enchurcht believers natural seed is faederally holy from 1 Cor. 7. 14. which position I have also since seen under his hands, so narrow a corner is the case crowded into now, that it is not the believing, but the enchurcht believing parent, ay, e. who, leaving the perochiall posture, betakes himself to membership in some separated society, who sanctifies the unbelieving parent and the seed, else were the children unclean, but now are they holy, i. e. from the time of one or both parents entering the borders of a separated society: and so by this means if an old man or woman that hath ten or twenty children, the youngest whereof is no less than twenty years old, they all though never so morally wicked, yet from thenceforth are faederally holy, but not before, no though their parents believed before.  
Upon this Account the Churches in New England deny their Nullity sprinkling to infants of such parents, as are either not yet joined to them, or (for which they are very oddly also at odds among themselves) excommunicate from them: in justification of which Gambole, Mr. Cotton laps himself up in such a manglement of discourse p. 81. to the 88 as betokens, that wisdom is perishing from the wise for man's tradition sake, which they hold up against Christ's institutions: yea he sticks not to assert p. 81.  
Th●…t the Apostles and Evangelists gathered men whom they baptised, into a visible church estate before they baptised them, unless they were church-members before they preached to them.  
Which is as if he should say they brought them first into the visible Church, that they might be baptised, and then (to go round again) baptised them that they might be brought into the visible Church, for unless he contradict all those thousands of Old England (now becoming New, whilst New England grows old) who after sprinkling still used this phrase, viz. We receive this child into the co●…gregation of Christ's flock, as in the English refined Masse-book the Priests universally did, preaching baptism to be the entrance into the visible Church, not in word only but in deed also, by placing their Fonts at the Church doors, unless I say he be contrary to all Paedobaptists, who hold baptism to be the way into the Church, and not the visible Church the way into baptism (and than what another cross whet doth he wipe them with) we must needs take Mr. Cotton in that manner, and yet to say the truth the Clergy is cross enough to themselves in this case, for this is but like that of them that say, believers infants are born in the bosom or within the pale of the Church, and so must be baptised, and must be baptised, and so enter within the pale of the visible Church, or else they are out, and in no better condition than the children of Turks and Pagans.  
What pretty Gimcracks are here? yet surely not much above the tithe of those round abouts, and contradictions to themselves, and one another that are to be found among the Paedorantists, should I stand upon a full discovery of them, but verily I am weary to see Old England, New England, and Scotland all together by the ears about their infants sprinkling, and had rather if it were possible gain them all to be at peace in that point by laying down their dispensing it any more to infants; and pitching all upon the undoubted subject of true baptism i. e. a professed believer, without which it is impossible to reconcile them till they have routed each other, and stormed themselves out of their strongest garrisons with their own hands.  
Among whom (and so to make an end) what hold, and keep is there likewise about the sprinkling of bastards, may be seen by Mr. Cotton page 88 of his way, & e.  
Some and those the best Divines holding the baptism of Bastards, but not sine sponsoribus, i. e. not without witnesses or sureties.  
Others holding it without witnesses (for aught I find) of which sort is Mr. ●…obbet, who brings in Bastards to baptism by a certain fetch beyond his fellows, viz. the faederal interest of those bastard infants that are born in the Church, saying, Though the parent's faith do not sanctify such, yet the force of Abraham's covenant fetches them in; which I much marvel at sith the law, or covenant of Circumcision admitteth not such into the Congregation unto the tenth generation.  
Others again denying that the Scripture warrants any such thing at all; as the admitting of Bastards to come by baptism into the Congregation, as his neighbour Mr. Cotton, who gives liberty to Christian Sponsors to entitle wicked men's children to baptism by their undertaking for them, yet can scarce find in his heart (for aught I find) to allow them the like to entitle a bastard, alleging out of Deut. 23. 2. that in the old Testament a Bastard was not to enter into the congregation of the Lord unto the 10th generation (and so indeed he was not upon any terms for aught I see, whether the parents repentance or the child's good behaviour when at years, after once that particular statute was delivered) yet takes upon him to deviate from his old Testament Rule so far himself, as to admit such a one into the congregation, and to baptism, either when the parents repent, notwithstanding his bastardy, or when the child professes better in his own person, p. 87. 88  
By which kind of often interfearing of so able a man as Mr. Cotton, I perceive and therefore believe, believe and therefore speak it, that the nearer men come from Rome towards reformation, if they come not to the perfection of it according to the word, the more miserably a great deal are they bewildered with any human tradition, that is remaining among them unremoved, in so much that the Papacy is less troubled with contradictions, quarrels, quirks and foolish quiddities about their infants sprinkling, than Praelacy, Praelacy then Presbytery, Presbytery then Independency: for though they hold none but believers, and that all those are to be baptised, yet the Pope carries it clearly to all infants born in his Christendom without streining, these being all believers with him, as in opposition to Turks.  
The Prelate to the infants of Protestants only, that are his believers, in opposition to Papists.  
But the High-Presbyter to the infants of protestants universally, though with him not 10 of 100 in his parish are believers, when they administer the supper.  
The Independent to none but the infants of those that are inchurcht with him, though himself believes there are 1000s of believers that are not of his way: those I say that are most reform in other things, are more muddled, and less capable to maintain that popish practice of infant-sprinkling, than those that are deformed in all other parts of outward order besides it, and as they stand in the narrowest strait to hold it up, so are they for the most part at the nearest step to lay it down, not a few discovering daily more and more the absurdity, and unsuitableness of it to so pure a posture as they pretend to, and [quod fieri non debuit factum valet] availing more to the keeping off many from the true way of baptism, than any arguments they have, whereby to satisfy themselves in the sufficiency of that way of sprinkling.  
Thus we see what a labyrinth you Clergymen would lead poor creatures into, if they should follow you, yea I know not how a man can follow you, unless he go nine ways at once, such Noniformity there is among you, some saying this, and some that, and some you wot not well what yourselves.  
What pretty Chequer work is there in your judgements about one and the same thing? wherein you would be unanimous and uniform if you would return all unto the truth.  
O how doth Babel come tumbling down by this Division of tongues, even as when thiefs fall out, true men come to their goods, even so surely will the true Church come at last to the understanding of this truth, even that no infants at all are to be sprinkled, when they shall see what a do there is about it among divines, and how they would hold it if they could tell how, and say something for it if they could tell what; the disputers and scribes will scuffle one with another till their poor people, not knowing which to follow, will at last betake themselves to leave them all, and follow Christ.  
What Sirs is the Gospel, the plain simple gospel, such a maeander as this? is Christ thus divided? were Paul, Peter, and Barnabas, and john, and the rest of the Apostles and ministers, whose Successors you all say you are, but are not in very deed, so intricately entangled in vain janglements about one and the same question, as you are both among and within yourselves, so that your answers and Accounts for your practice hang together more conjangletim, then conjunctim? but no marvel if the Cat winked, when both her eyes were out? you draw nigh to God (O ye Priests) with your mouth, and honour him with your lips, but have for the most part of you removed your hearts far from him; and your fear towards him is taught after the precepts of men, therefore are ye drunken, but not with wine, you stagger, but not with strong drink, for the Lord hath powered upon you the spirit of deep sleep, and hath closed your eyes, you Prophets, you Rulers, you Seers hath he covered; you have disserted the truth, and are degenerated into a counterfeit kind of Baptism, that never descended from above, that hath stood now of a long time jure Ecclesiastico, but not jure Christico, and so the best of you know not how to hold it, now the truth returns from the land of her captivity, without fiddling, and feigning, and patching, and shifting, and such shameful ridiculous thwarting of yourselves, and one another with yea and nay in your joint prosecution of one and the same cause as will, if you reform not in time, object as much to the Ha-Ha-He of that part of the Christian world, that yet wonders after you of the protestant Clergy, as other popish toys have done the Papacy to the Pape of such as once wondered after them; give over therefore your dabbling of infant's faces, and baptise believers by profession, cast away all your wood, hay; and stubble, which cannot endure the trial by the light of that day, that is now approaching, and begin the Gospel again as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be (in this world) world without end, Amen.  
Thus Sirs (saving your vain boasting what innumerable Arguments, and such through furniture from Scripture, from reason, from the Churches, and Father's Authority, from more modern Authors, amongst whom you mention Calvin, Ursin, Dr. Featley) I have showed that Scriptures are against you, that Reason is against you, that the Primitive Church and Fathers are against you, that the immediately sub-primitive Church and Fathers are against you, that the praepostern-Church and Fathers are (though some against you, some for you) so little to be regarded in their testimonies, in respect of the Superstition of their times, that if they were all wholly for you they prove nothing the jure (as neither do the testimonies of the more ancient Fathers by Mr. Marshals and Mr. Blakes confession) that though the Clergy, and all Christendom, Pope, Civil powers, and people have been so fully for you for ages together, as that they have persecuted all that have been against you, yet this shows the badness of your cause by the bloodiness of it, and so makes more against then for you; that two of those three Authors of your own alleging are as much for you, as men can be that are opposite to you, for they (as ignorantly as yourselves) own your practice, though they disown, and overturn one or two of the prime pillars, and grounds you practice from: that the third, viz. Dr. Featley, is killed as dead as a door-nayle by Mr. Den, and that yourselves, and the other sticklers that still stand up in your cause, are so miserably imbroiled in civil wars, divisions, diversities of design to bring about the same thing, contradictions, clashings, Ayes, and noah's among yourselves, that you can never make an handsome head against the truth, till your matters hang more harmoniously together: so that nought remains in which you can hope, (unless yourself excusing, quarter crying Epistle to the Reader, which is also answered, can stead you) but your forlorn hope of these three following Arguments, which are more than half laid sprawling already, and that tottered troop, and ragged Regiment of Scufflers against Reason, and that Scarecrow that comes up in the Rear of the Review, and that Pathetical summons of all the Pastors to come in, and succour you, and oppose the growth of Anabaptism, by preaching what they can against those Heretics the Anabaptists, but disputing no more with them, because the effects of disputing with them are dangerous.  
All which by then I have dispatch a little more dispute with, whether I shall be more weary of writing or you of reading this, as I know not well, so it matters not much, I shall its l●…ke give over then however. First then to the first of your three Arguments that ensue.   

Review.  
The First is taken from the universal practice of the Church of God, which the Adversaries would not hear of at the Disputation. The grounds of it are express texts of Scripture, Mat. 28. 20. Lo I am with you always to the end of the world. john 14. 16. The Comforter shall abide with you for ever. ver. 17. The spirit of truth. ver. 26. Who shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance which I have told you. john. 16. 13. He will lead you into all truth: The Argument is this. To hold that Christ's promise is not true, is damnable blasphemy: But to hold that the universal Church hath erred in so necessary a matter as baptism, and that for so many hundred years, is to hold that Christ's promise is not true, his promise of being with his Church, of guiding it by the spirit into all truth.  
Ergo, To hold the Universal Church hath so erred is damnable blasphemy.  
If the Anabaptists object, That the Church of Rome useth this Argument for her traditions; The Answer is, That those traditions which she pleads for were neither universal nor doctrinal, as this of baptism, and therefore the exception against her was just, and those errors which she defends by that, were denied to be of the universal Church: But the Anabaptists can never prove, that this practice hath not been universal, or dare not say, that this matter is not doctrinal.   

Re-Review.  
This Argument is so far from having any substance, and weight in it toward the demonstration of the truth of infant-baptism, that it is not so much as a Topical syllo gism, but merely Sophistical, so that any that are never so little learned in Logic may discern it to be the fallacy called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Ignoratio Elenchi, in which is proved aliud a quaesito, i. e. quite another thing then that which is by us denied, in which Illud infertur, ut contradictorium negato, quod revera non contradicit: it doth not at all conclude the point in question: for that you are to prove is not that it is damnable blasphemy to hold that the universal Church hath erred in baptism, but that to deny infant-baptism is damnable blasphemy, toward the direct and legitimate illustration of which bold charge, wherewith you assault us, viz. that our denial of infant-baptism is damnable blasphemy, you ought of right to have made this pro-Syllogism, viz.  
To hold the universal Church hath erred in so necessary a matter as baptism is damnable blasphemy.  
But to deny the lawfulness of infant-baptism is to hold that the universal Church hath erred in that matter of baptism.  
Ergo, To deny infant-baptism is damnable blasphemy.  
The Major of which pro-syllogism we do not put you to the trouble of proving, neither do we hold any such thing that the universal Church hath erred in baptism, any more than you, for the primitive Church did not err in it, though you do; yet how do you belabour yourselves here to prove what we deny not?  
But the Minor of that pro-syllogism, which we do deny, as being indeed i●… itself most peccant, and apparently false, (for to hold infant-baptism to be an Error is not to conclude the universal Church to have erred, for the universal Church hath not held it) the prove of this you evade, and most serpentinely slide away from, never meddling with it at all, unto a business you might as well have spared your pains in, and fall a Syllogizing upon us in the self same sophistical way as Rome doth for her Pope's Supremacy, and all other her traditions, for thus say they indeed when they summon us back again to their fopperies sub paena damnabilis blasphemiae viz.  
To hold Christ promise is not true is damnable blasphemy.  
But to hold that the universal Church hath erred is to hold Christ's promise not true.  
Ergo, to hold the universal Church hath erred is damnable blasphemy.  
So for the Pope's Supremacy thus.  
That which is above all the members hath Supreme authority over them all.  
But the head of the Church is above all the members.  
Ergo the head of the Church hath Supreme authority over all.  
Which Syllogisms are both fallacious per ignorationem Elenchi, for in this last the●…es concluded what is not questioned, for the question is not whether the head of the Church have supremacy over all or no? for none denies but that it hath, but whether the Pope be at all that head? that is it which we deny, and they take perforce for granted from us before we have yielded it, or themselves proved it, and so proceed to have more mischief by it: so again in the first the question is not whether the universal Church hath erred or no? but whether Rome be that universal Church or no that cannot err? or whether those traditions she practices, (among which infant baptism is said to be one by Cardinal Bellarmine, and is taken by Mr. Rogers to be the most reverend) have been universally practised or no? which we deny that they were, for the first Gospel Church knew none of them, and so they are not universal: which Romish Sillygisms the best Logicians among the Protestants are so far from answering so formally, as you strive to do to the first of them in this place, that they rather explode them as Silly and Sophistical, and so must I do yours, which is not only Istiusmodi, but in terminis the very same with the first of theirs.  
Therefore good Sirs fall back a little, and begin again, and make a prosyllogism or two if you please, before this Syllogism takes its turn, and do not beat the air, and let fly such hot bullets, as accusations of damnable blasphemy, before you have any adversary appearing against you: for verily you first falsely suppose us your opposites in that, wherein we agree with you, and bestir yourselves to fight us in such a fierce fashion, as if you would fright us out of our cause before you come near us, and set yourselves to prove that, which whoever doth yet, I for my part do not deny; for verily 'tis the minor, and not the major in the Prosyllogism, which we quarrel with, and as for this Syllogism of yours, I honour it not so far as to own it: nevertheless if it be lawful to make a formal answer to an unlawful argument, and lest you take it ill, and think much on't if I slight it so as to give no other reply then that above, I'll make bold to answer it now it's brought by you for infant-baptism, as you do when the same is brought by Rome for other traditions viz. that this tradition you plead for is not universally practised: therefore taking your words in a true sense, and in their largest latitude, though I dare not be so damnable in my doctrine as you viz. to bring every one under blame of damnable blasphemy who holds a possibility of error to befall the universal Church i. e. the whole state of Christ's Church, which is but imperfect here on Earth, yet can I not say, nor do I that in esse actuali the universal Church hath erred in the practice of this point of baptism, so as that she hath been totally diserted by the spirit of God, and that Christ hath not made good his promise to her any more than yourselves: yea really if you use the word [universal Church] in its due and proper extent viz. in respect of both time and place, and in the like latitude, in which Dr. Featley (from whom you borrowed this argument and some of the ●…est, and might as well have sent us to him for it, as troubled yourselves to hold it out here in a new harness) uses the word [universal Church] as expressing All the assemblies of Christians in the world, that ever were from the Apostles days to this present, which he styles the formal Church, this universal Church cannot be impeached with error in the point of infant-baptism, for it hath not universally owned it, neither was it in use from the beginning, there have been some ages and places wherein the Churches practised baptism so agreeably to Christ's will, that you shall never be shent by him as failing in that point if you do it no otherwise than it was done then and there viz. the days and places wherein the primitive Churches dispensed it, for they were all so wholly strangers to your infant baptism, that not so much as the sound of such a thing was ever heard among them: and howbeit Dr. Featle, tells us a tale p. 16. out of Origen on the Romans (whose original is lost, and into which work of his on the Romans 'tis shrewdly suspected by the learned, that Russinus, and the Romans have Sophisticated such a sentence, that the Church had infant-baptism from the Apostles) and thence very goodly grounds.  
A positive argument of very great moment (saith he) that may convince the conscience of any ingenuous Christian, viz. that the Apostles in their days began to baptise infants, and the whole Catholic Christian Church in all places and ages, even from the Apostles days, hath admitted the children of Christian parents to holy baptism, therefore 'tis no error.  
Yet I must tell you that origen's bare word, and single say so (if it were his own) is no warrant, whereupon all men may safely, muchless must necessarily believe it was so: but the word of the New Testament, of which the Apostles mostly were the Penmen, is warrant enough to us to believe that it was not so, were the word only silent about it, how much more whilst it hath so much against it, that we may say 'tis exclusive of it; Howbeit therefore you say that infant baptism hath been universal, it is sufficient proof of its non universality in that you can never prove that it hath been universal, and we have proved that in the Apostles days it was not so, that in the first Century 'twas not so, nor in the second for aught any man living can possibly show, how ere it began to creep in about the third, and howbeit it hath been never so universally and erroneously practised from the fourth or fifth Centuries till now, yet neither will it follow that the universal Church hath practised it, nor that the universal Church hath erred in it, nor that Christ's promise Mat. 28. 20. joh. 16. 13 14. 16. 17. 29. concerning the spirits abode and guidance is not true, for that's not more made, then made good to those that perform the condition and terms, on which it was made viz. the observation of what he commanded, in which case the spirit is ever present, and ever was and shall be with those few that keep the truth; as for the most, when they began to dote on men's teachings and traditions, and to fashion themselves more at a venture after the words of the wise and prudent, then after the word of God itself, and to Idolise the dictates of Synods, and Ghostly fathers, so as blindly to subject themselves to their sentences, as their only Oracles, then Terras Astr●… reliquit, Christ who did engage to lead them by his spirit, who would be led by it, was disengaged, and true enough in his promises, though he left the world to lie in darkness, and to be filled with their own ways, and with the fruits of their own inventions.  
Moreover 'twas not the Church, in the capacity of a Church in respect of outward form and order, but his disciples to whom that promise was made, to whom also it was performed, and made good in all ages according, and in such measure as they kept close to him, for in the time of the treading down of the Temple and holy City, and the true worship and worshippers, and of all that visible fabric and Church posture which stood in the primitive times, and even in the grossest darkness, God gave power to his two witnesses i e. by his word, and spirit in the hearts and mouths of his Saints, impowered them to prophesy and testify to the truth against the traditions of Rome, and against infant baptism as well as other of her superstitions, and heresies, how else could Bernard have said (as he doth Serm. 65. supper cant:) of some that opposed the corruptions of his time, They laugh at us because we baptise infant●…s, because we pray for the dead, and require the prayers of Saints: yet even to those Martyrs that did witness to some truth in times of Ignorance, the l●…ght was (though not so totally and terribly, as to the rest of the world) much eclipsed o'er now it is, and that promised manifestative presence of Christ not a little interdicted, and communion with him interrupted by the interposition of that smoke, which coming out of the bottomless pit clouded the su●…, and thickened the air, and as Christ himself foretold also it should be, john 14. 30. by the intervening, of the Prince of the darkness of this world, who was to have his time, wherein to darken all things, and had it too, so that by his delusive wiles the whole world was won to be once an Arrian, and after that an Antichristian, worshipping the Dragon and the Beast, wondering and erring all together into one Catholic Church-body called Christendom, and by common consent bearing the whore, or false Ministry, called Clergy, warring at her will against the Saints, and though not finally (for so the gates of hell cannot) yet ●…or a long time prevailing against them that dwell in heaven, Rev. 13. 4, 5, 6, 7.  
In all which time nevertheless (as I said before) some truths were revealed to some, and so much to such as then sought to Christ, and not to men, as may well serve to verify Christ's words, and justify all the promises of his presence with his people, as to the true purport of them, as yea and Amen.   

Babist.  
But where was your Church then all this while till these latter times?   

Baptist.  
Where it was to be according to the word of prophecy, Rev. 11. 1. viz. trodden underfoot, for 1260 years by the nominal Christians, or Gentiles coming by the lump into the outer Court, i. e. into a bare name, and feigned form of Christianity after the time of Constantine, at the compulsive call of the Clergy; since when though there have been an number of Saints in sackcloth, that have seen much light from Christ, and suffered for it, yet I am so far from undertaking to prove there was, that I am rather of the mind there was not, nor was to be (if the word be true) any truly collected, truly constituted visible Churches at all in right outward form, and order, standing upon that true foundation, i.e. the principles of the Doctrine of Christ, and the primitive prophets and Apostles, for many ages upwards; even from the Clergies carrying the Church captive into Babylon unto these days, wherein the foundation (Heb. 6. 1. 2. with Eph. 2. 20. 21. 22.) which hath been razed is laid again, and the measuring line gone forth upon the Temple, is in the hands of the true Zerubbabel, Christ jesus, who shall also finish it, not by Army, nor by strength, but by my spirit saith the Lord of Hosts.  
If this answer be not satisfactory that our Churches are true ones, unless I can prove a lineal succession of them from the Apostles times to these, let me see what lineal succession is of your Churches from the Apostles days, if I ask you Praelatick Priests (as the Mass Priests do) where was your Church before Luther? and you Presbyterians where was your Church before Calvin? in both whose days you cannot deny, but that of those that denied infant-baptism there were abundance; must you not needs see both your Churches swallowed up in the Sea of Rome, and for ages and generations together, making one with that? were not the two little heads of the Roman Eagle spoken of 2 Esdras 11. 12. which are the two smaller kingdoms of the Clergy, i. e. Prelacy, and Presbytery, making one head with the great one, i e. the Popedom, till of late they separated from him.  
First sure I am you may labour till you are weary, and look till your eyes fail before you find a series of visible protestant Churches before Luther, and as universal as you Protestant priesthood do proclaim yourselves, and your Church to have been, yet I tell you 'twill puzzle you to derive your pedigree from the Apostles, if the Pope put you to prove it by induction, and ennumeration of Churches, succeeding without interruption, unless you will own him to be your father, as to your clerical function you are fain to do.  
Whereupon in the book styled Luther's predecessors, or an answer to the question of the Papists; viz. Where was your Church before Luther? p. 3. 4. I find it ingenuously acknowledged by the nameless Author thereof, in his undertaking to answer that question, That if the Papistry the Protestant to assign any visible constituted Church, which might have been known by the distinction, and succession of Bishops, Elders, Deacons, etc. the task is unequal, and that records of such a thing are wanting, insomuch that he puts it off in replying to the Papists, thus.  
That they cannot prove that the Church must always be in such manner visible: that in Elias time there were 7000 unknown to him, much more to Ahab: that in Christ's passion some papists say the Church was in Mary, the Church being like the Moon, always lasting, yet not always in the full.  
And then in resolution to the quaere itself alleges not any one protestant Church at all, but only here and there a Protestant professor, as Wickliff, and such mostly as were after him enlightened by his Doctrine, and did suffer for giving testimony thereto: so the ●…esuitish question is thus answered.  
I find it also thereupon the ●…le, that in a conference which was once held upon the same question by Dr. White, and Dr. Featley against two others, viz. Fisher, and Sweet, Dr. Featley chose rather to prove a continual succession of protestants by the truth of their doctrine, than the truth of the Protestant Churches and doctrine by a perpetuity of succession; and so doth that Author himself who ever it was, that wrote the answer to that papistical question, as well aware that protestant Churches cannot prove themselves true by succession p. 1. 2.  
What saith he if we could not prove that the English Church was before Luther, Must it needs follow that the doctrine we hold is untrue? or shall the doctrine of Rome be ever the truer because of Antiquity only? No certainly, And why not? because the Church must be proved and allowed by the doctrine, and not the Doctrine authorized by the Church, which the Papists (a people wise in their generation) well knowing have overturned the course of Nature, and will have the Scripture, and all doctrine to hang upon the determination of the Church, hoping that if once they have amazed any one with the name of the Church, and driven him from title and interest in the Church before Luther's time, they shall easily call in question the whole frame of the doctrine of the reformed Churches.  
So that we see the Protestants are fallen to fence off the papists arguments from universality, Antiquity, perpetuity, in which Rome outstrips the reformed Churches, with pleading only the verity of their doctrine, and its being persecuted in some few professors of it before Luther.  
Yea verily if universality, perpetuity, or antiquity either (I mean that post primitive Antiquity of the fourth or fifth Century) may pass for precedent more current than the primitive, the Pope and his priesthood may prove the protestant priesthood to be but upstart Novices to them by this way of arguing from the ancient, perpetual, universal practice of their Church.  
I write not this as taking the Papists part against the Protestants, for so far am I from justifying the Jesuits, that I rather fight with Dr. Featley, and his 
Non cum jesu Itis qui Itis cum jesuitis.  friend against them in this case, holding with them that no succession of true visible, and rightly constituted Churches can be shown of either your way, or ours in all that time of popish unity, and universality, but I do it to this end only, ut hos●…uo I●…gulemus gladio (as Dr. Featley says of us p. 88) that I may fight against Featleys' followers in the point of infant's baptism with Featleys own Falchion i. e. sa●…isfie them concerning the narrowness, novelty, and invisibility of our Church in times of popery, when they say, where was our Church before Nicholas Stock? the very same way and no other than that, wherein they excuse the non-appearance of their Protestan●…s Churches then to the jesuits, when vaunting in their own visible universality they ask, them where was your Church before Luther? for verily if it must be taken from you by the Papists, as evidence good enough that your Churches are the true Churches, and lineally descended from Christ, though none of them ever visibly appeared before Luther, in all that time of the Pope's Peterdome o'er his fellows, because your doctrine is truer than that of theirs, and specially since several witnesses successively held it out against Rome's contradictions, than I hope it shall be taken from us by you Protestants as good evidence that our Churches are yet truer than yours, and such as have been as much as yours have been in visible constitution from the time of the treading down till this modern resurrection, because our doctrine and practice is that of the primitive and purest times, specially since we can evince it as clearly, that many witnessed the truth of it against infant-baptism, in times of priestly tyranny, as you can that any have witnessed yours at all.  
For howbeit you say your infant's baptism was not so much as questioned, till of late, if you had your wits so well about you as you should, you could not but see that 'twas almost ever opposed: for though it were never heard of in the first Century, yet that it hath been ever withstood since it came up, is most evident by the conflicts of corrupt times for it, for what made such controversies among the fathers about it? what m●…de Cyprian and his 66 Bishops convened in council, lay their heads together to find out such superstitious stuff (as yourselves are ashamed of) wherewith to support it? what made Bernard complain that 'twas laughed at among other ridiculosities as praying to, and for the dead? what made Imperial laws, and Synodical cannons enjoin it under such strict penalties? what made Pope Innocent 3. who together with the 600 Bishops, and all the rest of the Clergy, which in the council of Lateran determined Transubstantiation, confession, were called fools and blockheads, seducers of the people, heretics and blaspemers by john Purvey one of Wickliffs' followers p. 17 of Luth. praedec. what (I say) made that Innocent among other things decree so strictly, as he did, that the baptism of believers infants should succeed circumcision, if that tradition found no Traitors which sought the death out, and if the risets up against it were hardly heard of before Luther  
Either then the verity of doctrine in Churches, reform from Rome's downright dotage, doth prove as Dr. Featley says well it doth, a perpetual duration of it, so that it must needs have professors in all ages, or it proves it not: if not, than the main argument whereby Dr. Featley defends Protestanism, to have been perpetually before Luther, doth not vindicate you in your Religion from the name of novelists any more than us, and so the Pope by his plea for the verity of his Church from perpetual visibility, universality etc. carries the cause clean from us all; but if it doth, then as we deny your infant-baptism to have been perpetual, because its false doctrine, and our Church and way of baptism we hold in contradistinction to you, being as consonant to the word and primitive pattern as the truest of those doctrines you hold in contradistinction to the Pope, is vindicated by Featleys own argument, to have been as perpetually before Luther, as the purest piece of Protestanism, and party of Protestants whatsoever.  
Again, an ennumeration of a successive number of particular persons barely professing the truth in the times of all Christendoms erring from it, but not visibly constituted into any right Church form or order, either doth prove Christ and his spirit to have been with his people always, and in all ages according to his promise and consequently his promise in that particular to be true, notwithstanding the worlds so universal erring for a time, or else it doth not prove it: if such an ennumerarion of single professors successively witnessing to the truth against Romish error doth not clear Christ's promise to be true, than yourselves are as justly charged by the Jesuits, who use the same argument against you, that you use against us, to be guilty of that damnable blasphemy of denying Christ's promise to be true, as we are charged to be guilty of it by yourselves, for as much as all that you say towards the salving of Christ's promise of his perpetual presence with your Church, while he left Rome, from fault of falsehood, is but an induction of certain persons, that before Luther testified to your doctrine; yea he that answers the jesuits' question says no more, confessing that a succession of Protestant Churches cannot be showed; but if it doth prove Christ his promise to be true, than I hope it serves to prove it in our case as well as yours, or else it's a hard case indeed, for as much as though a perpetual succession of such visible Churches as ours are, is not to be showed through all ages of the Clergies crushing down the truth, yet we can give as full evidence of a sort of single S●…ints, that testified against infant-baptism, even in those times, as you can of such as testified against any other popish tradition whatsoever.  
By this time you may see the foreman in your for-lorn hope, that is sent before as a subtle scout in a sophistical coat, to entrap us, is not only discovered in his drift, but divested also of his deceltful dress, disarmed and disabled from your service, and laid a bleeding: nevertheless sith he opens his mouth, and prates against us ●…ll with malicious words, falsely charg●…ng us again, and bespattering us what he can with his tongue, because he sees he cannot hurt us with his teeth, we shall be constrained to lend him one or two blows more toward the dispatching of him out of the way, and then we shall be ready to meet with the force that follows.   

Review.  
And indeed they do conclude the whole Church of God to have erred most fearfully, in one of the most necessary points of religion, as if she had been totally deserted by the spirit of God, and Christ had not made good his promise.   

Re-Review.  
First I observe that, when ever it seems best to serve your turn so to do, you style baptism so necessary a matter, one of the most necessary points of Religion, abou●… the administration of which to err is most fearfully to err, lit●…le l●…sse then downright damnable: otherwhile again, as when you would modify men's spirits towards your proceeding in infant baptism from proceeding so eagerly against that practice, in case it should prove to be the error, and ours the truth, than you speak as diminutively of it as may be, as if it were a matter which it matters not so much whether it be done your way or ours, in childhood or at years, by dipping or sprinkling, so it be done, an error which is not worth so much ado and striving to r●…prove and rectify as the Anabaptists make, of such indifferency, that 'tis not fit, sith 'tis now the custom, that the peace of the Church should be disturbed about it, as if this truth of the Church, though trodden down, must not have an hand lent it to help it up again, for fear of displeasing and awaking the Church from her sw●…et sleep of superstitious security till she pleases, not so fundamental a defection which hand soever it lies, but that it may be left ad libitum, dispensed ad placitum, so that such as will have their infants sprinkled may, and such as will not or cannot be satisfied that is the true baptism, may choose, and be baptised themselves if they please or not at all if they please, and yet not be disowned so far one by another, but that they may (notwithstanding different judgements in so fiddling a thing as that is) fall together (but it will be by the ears sure at last) into one fellowship; and I know not how much such pretty prate doth pass from your party sometimes, to lull us in as it were to wink at small faults, and to make no noise about such a petty matter, if infant's baptism should be (as many Priests know it is, e. g. Dr. Gouge, yet know it not) no more than a mere Tradition of men, 
At Pater ut gnati sic nos debemus amici,  
Si quod sit vitium, non fastidire.—   
What a deal of Pathetical, Popisticall persuasion to this purpose as to pacify people's spirits towards your errors in small points, passes from you p. 26, 27. of your paper, viz. to avoid a querulous conscience, misliking, finding fault, complaining, taking offence at every thing where there is no cause, streining at agnat, giving over the company of the flock [of more goats than sheep] for every rub [alias refusing to reform [separating from the congregation [alias the parish church of the Pope's congendring] for a ceremony [alias some small thing, which to synodical prudence it hath seemed good to add to the ordinances, of Christ, as if his wisdom had not made things full, and fine enough e. g. the surplice, the forced gesture of kneeling before the rails and Altar, yoking of sheep and swine together in the Supper, and in baptism the cross, the form of slatting two or three drops of water with wet fingers on the face, instead of dipping and o'erwhelming, and this too but to an infant instead of a professed believer, by which ceremonious qui●…ks, they brought in not so much alterationem, as a●…erum, and ceremonized the whole substance of what Christ required quite away] to endeavour after a true temper of a son of the church, humbly to submit to the judgements of others sooner than our own [alias to see through the Priest's eyes, and say we see it not what ever we see to the contrary] not to dare to contend with any much less Superiors [alias Popes, Counsels, whole Classes of Clergy men, for they will bite Mic c. 3. 5.] without strong and evident and convincing reason for our assertions [which if we have not for our baptism against yours, never men had in any controversy since truth's resurrection from under the paws of the Pope, and Priesthood to this day] not to see things amiss [alias go on hoodwinked with implicit faith] if we cannot but see things amiss, to hide and cover them, specially the nakedness of our father, and shame of our Mother [alias the Pope, and Clergy out of whose loins, and the Catholic Christendom, in whose womb almost all error is engendered, lest if their spiritual fornications should be rendered too discernible, reformation should prove too desirable, and that too destroyable to their enjoyments] not to let a light matter [alias so light a●…d vain a thing as the vanity of infant-baptism] work dislike in us, much less departure and divorce, not to depart by separation save in case of a great and unsufferable crime [alias some worse and more fearful error, then can well be about the dispensation of baptism] of which there's despair of redress, which was the Protestants case with the Church of Rome [and our case also with the Protestant nations, in which though we reprove them roundly for it, as well as declare against it, we see little forwardness to forbear their infant-sprinkling] which by your leave gentlemen, for all your soothing, and smoothing, and smothering over the thing as no great one, if it be one; sometimes for your own ends, y●…t, to take you at your own words in this place, is little less than an unsufferable crime, and a business in which to err is most fearfully to err in one of the most necessary points of religion, and either betokens a total desertion by the spirit of God, or else you show yourselves but ignorant men in speaking so of it, and that is the very truth of it indeed, for though an error about the subject, and essential from of baptism be at no hand to be set so light by, as 'tis by you when you see men resolved to depart from your societies in case of your refusal to reform that double error, which in that point remains yet among you, while you Rantize infants, yet neither is it to be so mightily magnified, and made such a hideous, such a fundamental, such a dangerous, such a damnable error, (unless persevered in wilfully against light or conscience, and then a smaller matter than that may prove of sad consequence to any soul) is as inconsistent with all possibility of their salvation, that in times of ignorance did happen to hold it, or puts all such persons under an absolute impossibility of having any thing of the spirit of God in them, as, merely by reason of non discovery of it, do go astray by it, as (to go round again) you who care not which extreme you run out into, when you suppose your own turn against us to be served by it, do seem to make and magnify it in this place.  
Nevertheless (as I said once above) as much as you slight it other while, and Mr. Baxter also, who spends a pair of pages viz. 10. 11. to show how little stress God lates upon this point, making it (as the non-Churchers us●…y do, upon whose principles how near he borders, some see better than himself, though he yet own the use of ordinances) as it were a low, small matter, a piece of ●…remony 〈◊〉, which God will dispense with, saying circumcision is nothing i. e. (in su●…o sensu) not much material, whether baptised or not a small part of the ministers work, which Paul left to other; to dispense at belonging not much to him to administer, who was sent to preach, (and yet I believe if we say (as indeed we do) that there's no such need that the dispensation itself be done by the hands of one, that is specially sent to preach, and in holy orders, Mr. Baxter will either be against us, o●… else against all his brethren of the (lergy (who will have none to baptise but such as are sent to preach) as much I say as you and Mr. Baxter slight it, and as little fundamental as you make it, yet I must tell you in Mr. Baxters' words, and your own too, that Christ's commands are to be obeyed by us, great and small, as far as we know them, and so necessary a point of Religion is this (as to the outward part of Religion) that how beit Mr. Baxter p. 11. denies that outward part of baptism, or external washing to be called one of the foundations Heb. 6. 2. any otherwise then for its praecedency viz, because its first laid in order of time, not because it beareth up the building) even that outward burying of believers in that baptism is both to be done necessitate praecepti, by special command from him Act. 2. 38. 1●…. 68 whose voice, whoever will not hear i e. obey when heard, in all things whatever he saith, little commands as well as greater, Mat. 5. 19 shall be cut off from among his people Act. 3. 22. 23. and therefore how far forth necessary, necessitate med●…, and ad salutem to life itself, so far forth as we know his will in that particular let Mr. Baxter judge.  
And also Secondly, is to be done in such wise and manner as he himself hath commanded, and not after man's precept and tradition, there being no less rejection, plague and cursing denounced against changing the ordinances, and serving God after such manner as men require, then to neglecting it altogether Isa. 24. 5. 6. 29. 13. Mat. 15. 9  
And also thirdly, is to be done first after once we do repent and believe, and that so necessarily first (necessitate both praecepti and medii) in order to outward membership and fellowship in the visible Church of Christ, and in order also to the true being of the visible Church in that outward right form and order, that if it be not first done, and done according to his own mind, and not man's, and first laid as a foundation among the rest of those principles Heb. 6. 1, 2. of Christ's doctrine, which altogether are called the foundation i e. to the visible Church of Christ, which is said to be built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets i e. their doctrine, or that form of doctrine they delivered, whereof baptism in water was a part, and a principle, though not the principal part Eph. 2. 22. Rom. 6. 2. 3. 17. I deny that there can be any visible Church of Christ at all, truly constituted according to his own will, and such a bearer up of that building it is, tha●… abstract it, and there is no building fitly framed together, nor people growing together visibly an holy Temple in the Lord, and he that in these latter days will ever erect that holy City and Temple which was trodden under foot by the Gentiles, advancing all into the name of the Church at the door of infant-sprinkling, must preach and practise again that true baptism of repentance for remission of sins, in the absence of which there was no true visible Church as to outward order and form at all, in their opinion as well as mine, who hold (and so does the whole Clergy) that baptism is the way, by which persons enter, and out of which there is no entering at all into the visible Church, in which therefore to err is in truth such an unsufferable crime, and so fearfully to err in one of the most necessary points of Religion (as pertaining to visible Church order) that except ye repent of your infant-sprinkling (O ye Priests) and be baptised truly according to Christ's will in the name of the Lord jesus for remission of that, and all other your sins and superstitions, your error is enough to justify our separation from you, nor find we how we can in Christ's name, and according to his will, or without violation, and palpable breach of that outward order, (which he gives no dispensation for to us) abide in one body, or Church fellowship with you in the supper.  
Secondly Sirs, though I told it you before, yet to conclude this, I now tell you again, though we deny infant baptism, yet, we do not hold at all, nor conclude thereby that the whole Church of God hath universally erred i. e. the Church of Christ in all ages and places; and howbeit, it is true (as Dr. Featley says p. 19 and we with him) That particular Churches have erred, and may err (as the Greek Church, and the Latin Church (the two legs upon which Mr. Marshal strives to make infant baptism stand still, because it hath stood there so long) and general counsels, which the Schools term the representative Church, are sub●…ect to error, and have sometimes (as Dr. Featley says, and so often say I that that I'll never build my faith upon them) decreed here sie and falsehood for truth, & howbeit all christendom hath erred after the Clergy in this point, and many more for 1260 years, yet 'tis true (as Dr. Featloy says) that the formal Church (as they speak) i. all the assemblies in the world cannot be impeached with error in this point of infant baptism, forasmuch as the true●… Churches of the first times never knew it, and many faithful witnesses that knew it to be a corruption testified against it in the darkest times, and the best reformed Churches, even no less than scores of Assemblies do deny it at this day, to the shame of that one general Assembly that would have settled it.   

Review.  
And not only so, but if Mr. Fishers doctrine which h●…●…ely delivered, as a judicious gentleman affir●…d, who heard him, that ●…ll that did believe and were dipped should be saved; but all that did believe and were not dip●… should be damned, be true; they as much as lies in them, damn to the pit of hell all the Matyrs, Professors, Fathers, believers for many hundreds of years together, Which only doctrine should make all men to abhor them, and not let their souls intermeddle with their secret, whose rage is so fierce, whose wrath 〈◊〉 so cruel, Christ shuts out only unbelievers from heaven, whosoever believeth not shall be damned. This doctrine shuts out believers if they be not dipped, i. e. if they be not Anabaptists; it cannot be the ceremony they are so hot for, without the substance.   

Re-Review.  
But saving the over apprehensive powers of that judicious Gentleman, who ere it was that heard me, he most grossly abuses, in it himself and me, in reporting such a thing to you, as also you abuse both him and me, and the world too in reporting it as from him to the world (yet you have done him honour so far I confess as to conceal his name, or else you had done him a greater spite indeed) himself in showing such shallowness of capacity in hearing, as scarcely calls for that worthy title of judicious Gentleman and me in not only mistaking, but mistelling his mistake also to you, who print out his mistake to all the world: for such doctrine as this, That all that did believe, and were not dipped should be damned, ●…id never yet fall from my mouth, nor did ere take place, or was ever owned for ●…uth in my mind: yea howbeit I summon you, or any else to show me in the word (not taken by snatches, but in the w●…ole intent, and scope of it) Gods promise of salvation by Christ without obedience to him both in repentance, faith and baptism too, to those, of whom all these things are required, I say it again (lest you mistake me as speaking of infants, for they being capable of none of these, of them to salvation none of these are required) of whom all these are required, since all those that obey not the Gospel, in what part soever of it it is manifested to them, shall be damned, 2 Thes. 1. 7, 8, 9— 2. 10, 11, 12. Howbeit, I say I wish you to advise how safely you, that know it to be your duty, may neglect it, and how groundedly you can assure yourselves, that you do believe at all in truth, if you receive not the love of every tittle of Christ's truth, so as wherein it appears to you to embrace and obey it, yet I am well assured I never uttered the other, viz. that all that did believe, and were not dipped should be damned, no●… is it now, nor ever was it my judgement to this hour; of which for the worlds and your satisfaction, sith I have been very often charged, and that twice or thrice in public places where I have preached, so to hold, I shall here give this brief account.  
I judge that all persons in the world (meaning not infants, but such as 〈◊〉 at years of discretion, to whom the Gospel comes in any measure) are of some or other of these three sorts, viz.  

1. Either such as neither believe at all, nor so much as in words profess so to do, Or  
2. Such as in words say they believe, and indeed do not. Or  
3. Such as both profess to believe, and do indeed believe as they say.   
Now I suppose we all hold the first sort, viz. professed profane ones, so living so dying, will be damned, and unless we will deny the Scriptures, we must needs hold the second sort, whose professed faith is a dead faith shall not be saved, for what doth it profit if a man say he hath faith Jam. 2. 14. and have 〈◊〉 works, etc. whereby only faith is proved to be true indeed as it is professed, can that faith save him? as for the third sort, viz true believers, I subdivide them in my thoughts into 2 ranks.  
First, such as believing in Christ truly for salvation, believe also baptism in its true way of dispensation, and not rantism, to be Christ's will concerning them, and these I am certain will submit accordingly and obey him in it, for such as say they have faith, and live in rebellion to what parts of Christ's will they know they ought to obey him in, have not faith to salvation what ever they say. Or  
Secondly, such as believing in Christ, neither see nor believe, nor practise baptism in that only true way wherein we dispense it, and all this merely for want of means to discover it to them, or by means of the invincible ignorance of their times, and ages wherein they lived, and wherein, according to the will of God permitting it so to be, the mind of God in that thing hath been hid, and, as we know it hath in many more things for ages and generations together, remained undiscovered, which times of ignorance I believe God much winked at, in those who sincerely owned truth, and obeyed it so far as it then appeared, and as they saw it, tho●…gh now he commands all men to return from Babylon in these days of light, wherein men may see, but that they will not, yea many prophets, and righteous ones in the height of Popery, have desired to see, and hear what we do, or may do▪ yet could not, the Scriptures lying locked up as unlawful well-nigh for any to consult with, therefore look you to it who say you do not this or that because you see it not, for I testify to you that it is a time wherein the true light shineth so clearly, that men need not err, if they love not darkness more than light because their deeds are evil. And the same measure of light and reformation and truth, which might have denominated you reformists, had you lived 100 years ago, will not serve to denominate you so now, since the smoke that darkened the sun, and the air, is much more perfectly dispelled then in that twilight, in this form, I mean of such as could not see, not because they would not, but because it shone not, do I rank all the Martyrs, and those honest men, whom you do●…e on as Fathers, and all true professors and believers for many hundreds of years together, who witnessed to truth, and suffered for it too, so far as it did appear to them in their times, to this sort of men I am more charitable and tender in my censures than you can possibly prove yourselves to be, and so I am also to infants, for all your p●…ate of pleading for them against our cruelties, neither doth any doctrine that ever I delivered damn any of these to the pit of hell, as your doctrine of so rigid, harsh, fierce and cruel rejection of all infants from salvation, save those of believers, doth damn an hundred to one of them, that die in innocent infancy: and where it should be that that Gentleman told you I preached that doctrine, That all such as believe, and yet are not dipped shall be damned I know not, but this I know, that I was ever so far from conceiving, much more expressing any such thing that where I speak in public of that point of baptism, in prevention of that prejudice, and opinion of our harshness, which your public bawling at us bege●…s in your heare●…s, I commonly deliver myself to the contrary.  
But now Sirs, as for yourselves, who so falsely father this doctrine upon me as mine, and that with such abhorrency of both it, and me for it, and with such pathetical expressions of your zeal against it, as that you even set your teeth an edge as it were, and whet the spirits of all men to abhor us for it, if they had nothing in all the world against us, in point of doctrine but that, & not to let their souls intermeddle with our secrets, whose rage is so fierce, and whose wrath is so cruel, what if I go no further than your own Account of the Disputation at Ashford, to prove that yourselves are the men that hold this doctrine, that though persons believe, yet if they be not baprized they must be damned, and not we? are you not then condemned out of your own mouths to perpetual abhorring? now therefore Quid rides? de te fabula narratur, thou O Accountant art the man of whom this tale may be told more truly then of us, who hast plotted so well, as to plat a whip here for thy own back: yea I appeal to the whole world of wise men ●…o judge, whether I do not bring proof out of your own paper, if your true Account be yours, and be as true an Account of your judgements as 'tis pretended to be of your disputation, that it is your own judgement, and not mine, that baptism is so necessary to salvation, that even such as believe, and yet are denied to be baptised, notwithstanding that very belief of theirs shall be damned: go burr back with me therefore to the 7th page of your Pamphlet, and compare it with what you say in the third and fourth pages concerning children's believing, and see what an Account you have there given of your own minds in this matter.  
In the fourth you conclude, from the like in the children of the jews, that the children of believing parents have faith, in the third page you conclude from Mat. 18. 6. that little ones do believe, now look but in the seventh page, and let all the world judge, whether you do not there say of these same persons, viz. of the infants of believing parents, of whom you asserted before they were believers, that if they may not be baptised, and that's none of the children's fault neither as the neglect of baptism is in men, it destroys the hope that the parents can have of their salvation, for it leaves them in no better condition, say you, than Turks and Pagans, and their children: the salvation of whom is with you as hopeless, for aught I see, as of the Devils: which things let that or any judicious Gentleman spell, and put together and see if it be not tantamount to such a testimony as this, viz- that those that believe, and are not baptised shall be damned, for to be damned, and not saved are all one, and as for children of Turks and Pagans dying in infancy, you record it it as a monstrous thing that I should say, that for aught I knew they might be saved; yea by the reply that was made to that speech of mine by one who said perhaps I thought the devils might be saved, it appears that your party thinks it as possible that the devils may be saved, as soon as the dying infants of Turks and Pagans: and yet of the children of believing parents, who in your opinion do also believe themselves, you say the opinion of the Anabaptists, which denyeth baptism to little children, puts the parents out of hopes of their salvation, und makes them to be in no better condition than Turks and Pagans: yea you say believing parents may say of their children, that die without baptism, what hopes of our child, who is in no better condition, than the children of infidels? and really they say true if the state of infidels dying infants be so damnable, as you say it is: is it you or we, Sirs, whose doctrine damns believers, if they be not baptised?  
I'll conclude this matter with you, much what in your own words, and form of speech.  
Christ shuts out only unbelievers from heaven, whosoever believeth not shall and be damned, this doctrine of yours, that little infants are believers, and yet out of all hopes of being saved, if not baptised, shuts out believers if they be not baptised, i e. if they be not rantized (for that is the best baptism you use) and by consequence if your doctrine, which you delivered in this Account (●…s judi●…ious Gentlemen that read i will affirm) be true, that even believers not baptised shall be damned, you had need baptise your believing infants indeed, i. e. to do more than cri●…rosse two or three drops of water on their faces, or else (for all your plea for their baptising on pain of their damnation) they'll be damn●…d, if they be no more then sprinkled, for want of true baptism when all is done: for that is not so much as the Ceremony itself in truth, which you are so hot for without the substance, yet would I not have you be an abhorring for all this, but pitied and prayed for rather. that you may in time for this and all other your follies, and false accusations of others, of things whereof you are more guilty yourselves, abhor yourselves in dust and ashes, that you may not be an abhorring (as he is more than half blind that doth not see who will be once) amongst both God and men Rev. 17. 16. Rev. 19 2. And thus I have done with your first Argument.   

Review.  
The second is this, little Children under the law received the Seal of the Gospel covenant; for circumcision was the seal of the righteousness of faith, which is the Gospel-Covenant. The Law saith, Do this and live: the Gospel, only believe in the Lord jesus Christ; and therefore God calls it an everlasting covenant; and the Apostle saith the Law that came 430 years could not disannul it, Gal. 3. 17, and he saith expressly the Gospel was preached to Abraham, ibid. ver. 8. nay more, the carnal seed of Abraham, Ishmael and Esau, men branded for Reprobates in Scripture, yet because they were born in Abraham's house, received that seal by God's appointment. Why then should not children under the Gospel receive baptism, which the Adversaries confess to be the Seal of the Gospel-Covenant?   

Re-Review.  
This poor forlorn wretched Argument hath been handled, and laid sprawling once or twice before, where both its consequence is denied, and good reason gien of the senselessness of such syllogizing, as is here from the Law to the Gospel, therefore it is but needless to defend ourselves any further against it, it being a demi-dead man, that is disabled from being dreadful to us already; nevertheless sith he hath strengtheners himself again what he can, and comes up recruted, and attended with a company of scambling, and for the most part very unsound sentences at his heels, 'twil not be amiss to enter the lists a little with him, and these his Auxiliaries.  
First then Sirs, whereas you come in again with that crooked consequence viz. inf●…nts must be baptised under the Gospel, because circumcised under the law, we might more pertinently set up a shout at your shameful folly in this particular, then set upon the showing of it any more, it is so palpable; for verily (as is proved sufficiently above) these two viz. the Covenant of the law and the Gospel, from the Identity of which you infer an Identity in the subject of the ordinances and administrations of both, and by way of analogy, would evince them both to belong to the same persons, I must tell you these are two Testaments, or wills of God, concerning men, in those two different times viz. before Christ and since, and these two so specifically distinct, that they not only run upon different strains and require different terms (as yourselves here confess) the law saying do this and live, the Gospel only believe, but also stand upon different promises, whereof the Gospel's being of the heavenly Canaan, are better than the laws, which were but of an earthly one, and these also pertaining to two different seeds viz. the legal to the natural children of Abraham i. e. Isaac and his posterity by generation; the Evangelical to the spiritual seed of Abraham i. e. such as are of Christ by faith and regeneration; and they had also different dispensations, the one circumcision, the other another thing viz. dipping, a thing no way like it, and different subjects also for those different dispensations, so that (if men and their ministers were not all turned Momes) they could not, but must manifestly perceive it, the old Testament admitting to circumcision only males, and these only on the eighth day, in case they were in the house so young, and all the males in the house, whether sons or servants, whether born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, and all this without respect to either faith or repentance in the persons to whom dispensed, or any prae-preaching to them by the person dispensing, the new Testament taking in to baptism as no servants upon the master's faith, so all persons in the world both males and females upon their own, and that upon any day, and not the eighth only, wherein after they have been preached to, they profess to repent and believe Mat. 3. Act, 2. Act. 8. Act. 18.  
The proof of which real, specifical diversity of these two Covenants is yet far more evident.  
First, because the spirit denominates them so to be in Scripture, calling them expressly the two Covenants Gal. 4. 24. and also very often (in plurali) the Covenants, the covenants of promise.  
Secondly by that contradistinction of speech, which the spirit useth, when he speaks of them, and those oppposite Epithets, by which he diversifies them, calling one the Law, the other the Gospel, and the law by the name of the first testament, or will of Cod, the Gospel the second, the law the old testament, the Gospel the new; the law (which bound to circumcision, and to the observation of which in all other things circumcision bound its subjects, when they came to years) not of faith (though faith than was too in a few, and also from the beginning as to the eternal inheritance) but of flesh rather, and the time before faith came Gal. 3. 11. 12. 13. also a law of a carnal commandment, a faulty and a unblamable testament of weak and beggarly rudiments, (in respect of Christ, who is the end of them) standing in imperfect and only flesh-purifying precepts, and on merely terrene, inferior, and flesh-pleasing promises, as Canaan and jerusalem here below also the Letter, in ink, in 〈◊〉 of stone, the ministration of death and condemnation, the Covenant gendering to bondage, the hatred, the hand writing of ordinances that was against us, yet thus far not against, but subservient to the promises, as 'twas the similitude of heavenly things, the figure and shadow of the good things to come, and a schoolmaster to bring to Christ, Eph. 2. 14. Col. 2. 14.  
The Gospel chose the time of faith Gal. 3. 25. for after faith came etc. the power of an endless life Heb. 7. 16. a better Testament, standing in less painful ordinances, more plain and soul purifying precepts, and on better and more precious, and foul saving promises, a Canaan, a jerusalem from above Heb. 8. 6.  
Also the ministration of the spirit in fleshly tables of the heart, of righteousness, of life, liberty, love, grace, reconciliation, the very Image and truth itself, of which the law was but the shadow.  
Thus you find the Scripture opposing one of these two to the other, so far is it from signifying them to be one and the self same Covenant, as you frivolously fain them to be, that you may build your infant-baptism thereupon.  
Now whether we shall believe the holy spirit, which styles these two expressly two Covenants, or yourselves, who will have them to be but one, judge ye.  
Moreover, how two Covenants or testaments can be plurally pointed out and called two, and opposed respectively ad se invicem, by the names of the first and second, the old and new, the type and the truth, a better and a worse etc. yea and contradictorily predicated too, as the law and the Gospel are, of which it's said the one is of faith, i. e. ever (for so the Gospel ever was, saying, believe and live, and the ●…ust must live by faith) the other not of faith i e. never (for the law never was of faith, but the man that doth them shall live in them, was the te●… thereof) and yet all this while be but one and the same Covenant and Testament, i●… no less than a mystery to me sith, 'tis an undeniable rule among Logicians, that oppositio semper subinfert pluralitatem, also that contradictio est oppositionum perfectissima, pugnacissima, et Eternae●…d ●…unctionis: opposition, specially contradiction, which is the greatest of oppositions, doth suppose a plurality, so that 'tis impossible that one thing should be two contradictory things at once, or that contradictories should eodem tempore cadere in idem, i. e. be truly spoken both of the same thing at the same time.   

Babist.  
The one is called the first, and the old Testament merely because it went before, and is now vanished away and alienated, the other is called the second, and the new one merely because it comes after that, and is now in being, not because it is really another Testament, another Covenant as you contend, but two parts rather or periods of one and the same Covenant of grace, which was from the beginning of the world.   

Baptist.  
I confess that the Gospel Covenant was in the world before the Law, and under the law also, only in smaller measure of manifestation, as well as now, but deny still that the Law, which is called the old and first Covenant was the Covenant of the Gospel, or that it was not a Covenant clearly distinct from it: for its being opposed as the new and second, to the other as a first and old one, preaches no less to the meanest capacities, than a plurality:  
And as for that reason, which you give of those terms first, second, old and new, viz. because the law was more ancient and antecedent, the Gospel more of late, and subsequent, in this sense 'tis true the Gospel is succedaneous to the other, as to its last and clearest promulgation under Christ crucified (for else in some degrees of it the Gospel was before the law, and was preached to Abraham (as you allege out of Gal. 3. 8. 17.) 430 years before Moses, yea and to Adam 2000 years before that, yea indeed to say the truth, the Law and the Gospel, were both even from the beginning, though both more lively illustrated toward the end: the Gospel in dark promises being both before, and under those plainer promulgations of the Law, as given by Moses, and the law in some parcels viz. Sacrifices and some other ceremonies of it, being from Adam and Abel before the brighter break forth of either the one, or yet the other, in this sense I say 'tis true, the Law came first by Moses, before the Gospel of grace and truth came by Christ; whereupon that may be properly called the first and old one, and this also the second and the new, nevertheless not only thereupon, for howbeit the bare notions of first second, old and new arise from the one's being once, and now abolished, the others being since, and still abiding, yet could they not possibly and properly be called so much as two Covenants, much less a first and a second, if they were not truly two, or were only one, for than we may properly call two years one, or one single in tire year by the name of two years, and those two the first year and the second, the old year and the New year, because there is two parts, two periods, two halves in that one year, whereof one is Antecedent to the other, which Py-bald Bull, Bipartite business, odd concerted one-two, or simple duple is both ridiculous, improper and impossible.   

Babist.  
They are called two Covenants in regard of the double outward dispensation, and different administration thereof, though the Covenant be one and the same, and so saith Mr. Martial p. 8. 9 10. of his Sermon, viz.  
The Covenant of grace for substance hath been always one and the s●…e, though not for the Manner of administration so p. 12. The external administration of the Covenant is not the same with us (saith he) as it was with them, but the Covenant is the same, they were under the same misery by nature, had the same Christ, the lamb slain from the beginning of the world, the same conditions of faith and repentance to be made partakers of the Covenant, the same graces promised in the Covenant, circumcising the heart to love the Lord etc. Theirs was dispensed in darker prophecies, and obscurer sacrifices, types, and sacraments, ours more gloriously and in a more greater measure: the clothes indeed do differ, but the body is the same, and so p. 13. The very self same privileges, formerly made peculiar to the jews, are now (saith he) through Christ communicated to the Gentiles.   

Baptist.  
That the Covenant of grace is for substance not two but in all ages one and the same within itself who denies? but what then? is it therefore one and the same with another, that most manifestly, and downrightly differs from it, and is as distinct a convenant also as that within itself? for so verily the law, which is also called the first covenant, or the Covenant of Circumcision, was varying wonderfully from that Gospel Covenant, whereof yet we confess it to be the type, in both its Priesthood and People, its Mediator and Atonement, sacrifices and offerings, precepts and promises, inheritance and heirs, birth-priviledges and seed, ordinances and their subjects, and all things thereunto pertaining: I say they were very divers each from other, saving still that one was to shadow out the other, viz. Moses the Mediator, joshua the Saviour, Aaron the Highpriest, and his burnt offerings, for that temporal annual Atonement, Heb. 10. 1, 2. and purgation from fleshly impurities, were all to point out Christ, who is all this spiritually, viz. the Mediator, Saviour, Highpriest, Sacrifice, and author of eternal Atonement between God and us, and purification of our Consciences in the Gospel; those earthly promises and inheritance were to represent our heavenly, their fleshly heirship, birth-priviledges, seed, and admission of new born babes to ordinances, to shadow out what high born heirs those babes are, who are begotten to the faith, and their right and title to a standing in the Gospel Church.  
O but says Mr. Martial, they had the same Gospel Covenant that we have, the same Christ, the same conditions, i. e. faith and repentance etc.  
First, take notice that with him faith and repentance are the conditions on which persons stood then, and ever before, and do now in the Gospel's Covenant which things he knows infants have not, and therefore are not by right to be visibly inchurched, and incovenanted under the Gospel. till they visibly appear to have them, yet under the Law they were in covenant, and inchurched for all that and why? because faith and repentance were not the conditions of that Church-covenant andordinances, nor of heirship to that Earthly Canaan, but mere fleshly descent of Abraham, Isaac and jacob, which whoever had, had title to circumcision and Canaan (though not to heaven) thereupon, if they never believed, nor repented whilst they breathed.  
Secondly, but what if they had the same Gospel Covenant, that we have, held forth to them, at least in a darker way, will it follow therefore that they had not also another Covenant over and above that peculiar to themselves, which we have not, whereof circumcision was a token, and which believing Gentiles, much less their seed have nought to do with at all? I trow not, for though we grant Mr. Martial, that they had the substance of the Gospel among them, as also Adam, Noah, and Abraham had, and the same privileges of that Covenant that we have (excepting some circumstances of it, wherein we are beyond them) that will not run retro (as Mr. Martial would fain have it)  
That the self same privileges formerly made peculiar to the jews, are now through Christ conveyed to the Gentiles: for the old Covenant privileges viz. the fleshly birth holiness, and heirship to Canaan, and title to be signed as heirs, upon a mere natural descent are such as the best Gentiles, and best believers seed in the world can lay no claim to, for that was (as we see Gen. 17.) a distinct proper Covenant to themselves, as the fleshly seed of Abraham, Isaac and jacob, whom the spiritual seed themselves have (as such) no right to partake with in their inheritance or earthly Canaan, as this fleshly seed (as merely such) have no right to partake with the other in their heavenly Canaan.   

Babist.  
But Mr. Marshal says p. 11. that all their external promises in case of obedience, all outward blessings, which were to be enjoyed by them, the land of Canaan, and all the good things in it, all outward punishments and threatenings, loss of their Country, going into captivity, and their sacrifices, their washings, their sprinklings, their holy persons, holy feasts, and holy things, were all of them but so many administrations of the Covenant of grace; earthly things were not only promised and threatened more distinctly and fully, then now they are to them who are in Covenant, but were figures, signs and types, and sacraments of spiritual things, to be enjoyed both by them and us.   

Baptist.  
As I grant the Covenant of Grace, which promises eternal life on conditions (as Mr. Martial confesses) of only faith and repentance, to be for substance for ever the same within itself, so I grant that the other covenant viz. all those external promises of outward blessings, which were to be enjoyed by the jews in Canaan, in case of their obedience, was a certain outward administration, and lively type of that inward and true covenant of grace, yet still must it be regranted by Mr. Martial and all men, that even that was a true, real, and really distinct covenant also of itself, and though that were a plain picture, and a map of the other, and as it were a different dress wherewith it was clothed upon, and wherein it was exhibited to the world, yet was it not only an administration of the Gospel, but also an entire covenant, so substantially divided from that, as that its most properly denominated another covenant, and not that, and they both are truly denominated to be two viz. an old and new one, a first, and a second, which they could not genuinely be, unless one were more then merely another form and manner of administration of the other.  
Nay seriously if that Gospel covenant, which both you and we say is one and the same in substance, only admitted variation in its circumstances, doth multiply itself answerably to the number of those different clothings, which that one body hath successively come forth in, and must be as multifariously expressed, as it hath showed itself in various habits to our view, and bear the names of two, of first and second, old and new from its several and remarkable periods and administr●…ons: then sith there hath been not two only, but as you say truly yourselves, four remarable periods, and circumstantial appearances of that covenant viz. the first from Adam to Abraham; the second from Abraham to Moses; the third from Moses to Christ; the fourth from Christ to the end; the word would sure have spoken of four covenants, or testaments, and not two only viz. two old ones, and two new ones, or the first and second, the third and fourth, and so by that reckoning this is the fourth testament that we are under, yet truly it is but a second, and a second truly it is, in respect to that first testament that's now vanished, that once was in force, and had truly, though more carnally and also typically of this, and as this also more spiritually hath, ordinances of divine service, and a sanctuary, and a mediator, and Saviour, and salvation; and Priesthood, and sacrifices, and blood of sprinkling, and purifying, an atonement, and an inheritance, and a promised land and a seed entitled to it, and a circumcision evidencing it, and given as a token viz. that to the fleshly seed which was circumcision of the flesh, this tooth spiritual babes, I mean believers i e. the circision of the heart.  
And howbeit that was a kind of administration of this, that the map, this the main thing meant by it, that the picture, this the person represented, that the clothing this the body, at that time set forth gloriously thereby, yet all this denies not but that that map, that picture, that clothing, that glorious administration was also (as it is also called a distinct Covenant within itself, which though it stood truly for a time, yet because also as a type of what should be under Christ, is now utterly abrogated, u●…terly nullified together with the holiness of all its most glorious holy ordinances, whereof circumcision was a chief one, and in infancy to be dispensed, and with the holiness of all their holy things, and their holy persons also i. e. the whole race of the jews to all their posterities, which holy persons Mr. Marshal (welfare his heart for it) in that clause I now answer to, confessing to be a type, must consequently confess their holiness to be totally taken away now the truth is come in, and not translated from that holy people to believing Gentiles and their seed: for these can have none of the holiness of that old Covenant now, which yet you will needs have to be no more but a bare administration of the new.  
And lastly take it to be but so, you will gain by it no small disadvantage to your cause: for though you yield it not to be point blank another Covenant, yet if you yield it to be another administration of the Gospel Covenant, divers from this we are now under, you grant us enough as to our present purpose, yea as much as we need to desire, for our dispute is not now to the Covenant itself so much, as to its manner of administration; so that let that covenant and this be as much one as they will, yet if the manner of administrations of the Gospel Covenant in its outward ordinances, were then (as you say) unlike to what they are now, you give us no less by your own argument then even all that we contend for, for the very thing you plead from the consideration of that Identity, which is dreamt by you to be in the Covenant, is an Identity in the manner of administration of ordinances under both the law and the Gospel: for whoever shall say that the manner of administration of baptism under the Gospel must be as the manner of administration of circumcision was under the law, and in proof thereof shall say the Covenant of the Law and Gospel is one and the same, though the manner of administration be different, suo se ingulabit gladio, will even quite cut the throat of his own cause, yet thus plainly doth Mr. Martial speak p. 12. of his Ser. viz. Now this external administration of the covenant is not the same with us, as it was with them but the Covenant is the same.  
But is it so Sirs? so you say it seems as well as we; then you have brought your hogs to a fair Market indeed, for if the external administration, which was then be, as to the manner of it, different from that which is now, than I wonder what pattern you can pick from that manner of administration, whereby to steer your cause now, and to direct yourselves about the true manner of this: for will any wise man in any w●…rk, action or administration he is about to perform take his example by another work, action or administration which himself confesses is quite different from it, and not after the same manner as that is to be done in, which he hath now in hand to do? yet thus do you whilst contending that the outward administration of the covenant among the Jews was not in the same manner as the outward administration of it is to be now, you yet contend to have our baptism as much as may be after the manner of their circumcision: you must, and you must not it seems (and these both at once) walk after those customs, and do things now after the manner of Moses.  
If any man than ask me this question, viz. sith the Gospel covenant is everlastingly the same for substance, and little children under the law received circumsion the seal as you call it, of the Gospel covenant, why then should not little children under the Gospel receive baptism, the seal (so I hear you say) of the Gospel covenant? and why should not this administration of the covenant in outward ordinances be after the manner of that of old?  
I answer him out of Mr. Marshals own mouth thus, because though for substance the Gospel Covenant be ever one and the same, yet the manner of external administration thereof, is not the same with us as 'twas with them, and therefore we are not to take example in our Dispensations, and administrations by them, nor regard to do after the manner of them, the Priesthood being changed, of necessity there is a change also of the Law, for the administrators are not the same with us, as with them, nor the administrations the same in matter, not the manner of administration to them the same, nor the subjects to whom these administrations belong the same, for those were to all the holy Jews, though never so unholy and unbelieving, but these to Jews and Gentiles as they believe and no otherwise: lest of all is the subject of circumcision and baptism the same, for that above all the rest was limited to all males, and those only at eight days old, this extending to males and females, and those only when they profess to be believers.   

Babist.  
Circumcision was a more Evangelical administration then the rest, as being given when the Gospel was preached to Abraham 430 years before the Law, therefore we may give the more heed to that, sith it is of the Fathers and more than to the other ordinances, which by institution were more immediately of Moses.   

Baptist.  
Though it were in being so long before Moses, yet was it as directly belonging to his law as any other administration whatever, for howbeit it was before him, yet it is said to be of him, as all the Sacrifices also were, which were of old before circumcision, because he gave them all anew, and plainer promulgation, and was Mediator of all that old Testament service, which ended in Christ, and was even from the very beginning.  
Moreover, Though the Gospel Covenant was preached in a type to Abraham in Gen. 17. where circumcision was also first appointed, yet that in reference to which Circumcision of the flesh was there instituted, was immediately that first and old covenant of the Law, which was in some parcels and pieces of it before Abraham, and now was propounded a little more fully in the promise of that land to his fleshly seed, and the express appointment of that one more special precept thereof, i. e. Circumcision, though the fullness of it came not till four hundred and thirty years after: yea he that hath but half an eye in his head must needs see that to be the covenant, viz. that which was made in a type (I grant) of another, yet really with the seed of Abraham's body, whereof that circumcision was the token, which covenant and circumcision were so near kin, that Stephen calls that Acts 7. the Covenant of circumcision, which also I have spoken to so sufficiently above, that howbeit you here give me the occasion de novo, yet i'll trouble you no further with it here.   

Review.  
1. These are the seed of Abraham, Semen fidei, Gal. 3. 7. so Zacheus by believing was made a son of Abraham, nay the spiritual seed.  
2. The promise is to believers and their seed Act. 2. 39  
3. The Gospel is a better Covenant Heb. 8. 6. and it would be far worse if the children of believers under the Gospel should not be counted within the covenant, nor have right to the seal, nor be esteemeed members of the visible church as well as the jews children, nay accor●…ing to the Anabaptists valued but as Turks and Pagans.   

Re-Review.  
Here to enforce this Argument a fresh, lest the front should fail, you come up three a breast, and le●… fly at us thick and threefold with a first, second and third report.  
First, you tell us that these, i. e. believers fleshly seed are the seed of Abraham, nay the faithful seed, or seed of faith, and that in such manner too as Zacheus was made the son, or seed of Abraham, and how was that? viz. by believing: nay the spiritual seed: quid ni? they cannot choose I warrant bu●… ipso facto be believers, i. e. born again by faith (for such only are of faith) yea and the spiritual seed too, i. e. born of the spirit (for such only are a spiritual seed) and that so well as Zacheus himself, if once barely born of the bodies of the flesh, of such spiritual parents as do believe, alias live in Christendom, at least in reformed Christendom, for if all papists be not a spiritual body of believers with you (as they are with the Pope) all protestants are taken by you so to be, I mean to be such, whose fleshly seed are of faith, and the spiritual seed of Abraham and so to be baptised, O fie! Sirs O fie! O fie!   

Babist.  
Our meaning is not that these are, or are to be counted in the spirit, or of the faith as Abraham was, but only to be accounted under the Gospel, and reckoned all to Abraham, as his children in an outward sense, so far as to a being in his family, i. e. the visible Church.   

Baptist.  
1. Me thinks any man's own motherwit should tell him that God never appointed things to be accounted by us, otherwise than they are, or at least appear, much less otherwise than they can be.  
2. Appeal and lay close siege Sirs to your own consciences, search and see whether they will tell you, that the place you quote, viz. Gall. 3. 7. be at all for you, or be not much rather against you, mean which of these two ways you will.  
For if you mean in as plain English as you speak it, that the infants of believers are really the seed of Abraham, the seed of faith, the spiritual seed, so as Zacheus himself was, that is, by believing, doth that Scripture so much as implicitly say any such thing, either that the seed of believers do believe, or that they are the seed of Abraham, when it saith v. 7. they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham, and ver 9 they which be of faith, are blessed with faithful Abraham? doth that phrase (I say) they which be of faith signify believers infants? or believing infants? (quid ●…ides? such folk as those, though some are ashamed to say they see, yet some are not ashamed to say are to be seen in the world) or doth it signify such as are true believers indeed? which of the two think you doth it express, such persons at years only, as are in the faith, or only the natural fleshly seed of such? or if you say both, that that one phrase viz. they which be of faith should express two kinds of persons, so differently descended of two so different births viz. believers themselves born of God by faith in Christ, and also the mere fleshly seed of believers, who are no higher born then of their bodies, is so far from truth, that it is more than flat folly to conceive it  
And if you mean it not of their being Abraham's children really by faith, so as thereupon to be assured heirs of salvation, but of their being counted of the faith, so as to outward membership in the Church only, 'tis plain that Gal. 3. 7. 9 speaks of such only as are truly in the faith i e. faithful as Abraham was, so as to be not only outwardly inchurched, but eternally saved also, as none can say all believers children are, some of them proving wretches when they come to years, for as many as be of faith (saith he) i. e. faithful as Abraham was, are blessed, and shall be justified and saved with faithful Abraham, whose faith was imputed to him for righteousness, as faith shall be imputed to us also Rom. 4. 22. 23. if we believe on him that raised up Ies●…s from the dead etc. answerable to that also is Gal. 3. 26. 29. ye are all the children of God by faith in jesus Christ, & if ye be Christ's i. e. by faith, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise i. e. the promise not of the law or old covenant, or earthly Canaan (for the Galatians were never heirs according to that) nor yet of mere membership and participation of ordinances in the Church, that's more pertaining to the preceptory than the promissory part of the Gospel, but of the eternal inheritance itself, which is made not only to believers and their seed, as you lace it up, but to all men and their seed, on terms of believing and coming in at Gods call, and made good to as many as are so effectually called, so that they obtain the promise of that eternal inheritance indeed: compare Heb. 9 15. with Act. 2. 39 answerable to that also is Rom. 9 7. 8. where its said in a figure that as the seed of Abraham himself by Ishmael were not children of God i. e. as to the old Covenant, so as to be counted heirs of that Canaan and members of that Church, though they were his true seed, and the children of his flesh as well as Isaac was, because Isaac only and his seed were the children of that promise Gen. 17. 19 2●…. 21. for in Isaac shall thy seed (saith he) be called; the children of Abraham's flesh, the Ishmaelites, these are not the children of God in the old legal sense, but the children of the promise are counted for the seed, so even the seed of Abraham by Isaac himself are not at all children i e. the children of God as to the new covenant, so as to be counted heirs of the Gospel Canaan, and members in the Gospel church, though they were his true seed and children of his flesh as well as Christ was, because Christ only and his seed are the children of this promise, for in Christ who was the true Isaac of whom the other was but the type, must Abraham's seed now be called i e. they that are the children of the flesh only, whether of Abraham, or of any other man in th●… world, these are not now (as of old the fleshly seed of Abpaham Isaac and jacob were) the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted now for the seed.  
'tis true, to Abraham and his seed the Gospel promises were made as well as those of the law, but mark it, he saith not unto seeds in plurali, as of many, but of one, and to thy seed in singulari, that is Christ Gal. 3. 16. of whom being born by faith we are his seed, to whom in and with him the promise is made, for as the believer himself as a believer i. e. as Abraham's spiritual seed had no share in the old covenant promise i. e. Canaan, if not descended from him by Isaac after the flesh, because to Abraham and that fleshly seed only (in a type of something else, and yet truly too) those promises were made, so a believers fleshly seed, as barely a believers seed, though born of believing Abraham's own body, as the jews are at this day (and that's a higher birth one should think to entitle to the Gospel, if any fleshly birth could do it, then to be born of our Protestant believers) have no share in this new Covenant promise, if not born (as I may say) of Abraham by Isaac i. e. Christ after the faith. or by faith in Christ, and so personally, even every individual for himself, not Catervatim, or domesticatim, whole families, whole nations of parents and children at once ingraffed as branches upon the root, and spirituallized into that stock or family of Abraham i. e. the visible Church in which his own natural branches, much more any other man's mere natural branches, can have no place now, any further than as they appear to believe.  
Indeed the natural branches stood of right upon mere fleshly birth of believing Abraham without faith, so long as that fleshly birth-priviledge lasted, and could give a standing, and till the time of faith, and standing there by personal faith only came, and then they were broken off indeed because of unbelief, yet not nationally as you say, i. e. the whole body for the unbelief of some viz. the persons of the children through allages, for the infidelity of the parents, for its evident that as many as believed, and those were not a few, when the rest were rejected, were then and thereupon admitted Act. 2.  
And as many children of them in any age as believe, the unbelief of their parents shall not prejudice them, but personally every individual that did not believe, which the more is the pity, were for the most part both children and parents too in the primitive times, save some few persons that did then believe, whose children yet for all that promise to them and their children you so talk of out of Act. the 2. 39 came all to nought through unbelief, for else indeed the promise, even after Christ crucified was to them, as also to all others so sure in case of faith, that that causeless curse of their parents, wishing the blood of Christ to be on them and their children, should never have hurt any, but them that wished it.  
In further illustration of which yet, I mean that personal faith only, not 〈◊〉 gives a standing in the Church now, because I write to a generation of men, that have more time to read then I to write, I hope I may be bold to trouble myself and you with the transcription of at least a page out of a little treatise termed a confutation of infant-baptism by Thomas Lamb, very plain and pregnant to this purpose: and the rather because I fear you will not search the book itself sound if I should send you to it, only by telling you 'tis worth your reading in this point, though at your request I have all-to-be-read Dr. Featley, in the 12. and 13 pages of which book of Thomas Lamb, he writes as follows.  
So then when Christ the true promised seed was come the seed in the flesh, that lead to Christ ceased, for the natural relation ceased at the death of Christ, and not before, at which time the distinction or different holiness between jew and Gentile ceased, Act. 10. 28. Eph. 2. 13. 15.  
In Rom. 11. 20. it is said through unbelief they are broken off, now 'tis manifest they were the true Church till the death of Christ, and then broken off through unbelief: why were not the jews in the sin of unbelief before? yes no doubt, why then were they not broken off before? and why then? the reason is because the time of faith was come, and therefore now they were broken off through unbelief; the seed was come therefore the natural seed ceased, Christ was come therefore the law ceased. As long as the law lasted they did remain in the Church by being circumcised; and observing the rites and ceremonies of the Law, though they did remain in unbelief, but when the time of faith was come Gal. 3. 25. then they were no longer in the Covenant, and Church by observing the rites and Ceremonies of the Law, which they entered into by circumcision, but now they were broken off through unbelief: which notes out unto us that the standing in that Church before Christ in time of the Law, and the standing in this Church since Christ in time of the Gospel is upon different grounds, for the standing in that Church was by being circumcised, and observing the rites and ceremonies of the Law; but the standing in this Church is by faith, and being baptised into the same faith Act. 2. 38. 41. Joh. 4. 1. Gal. 3. 26, 27. Rome, 11. 20.  
And it is to be noted that the jews, the same people that were circumcised, and in covenant with Abraham according to the flesh, and thereby members of the jewish Church could not be the visible church according to the Gospel, unless they did manifest faith, and so be in covenant with Abraham according to the spirit, and baptised into the same faith.  
Whereas if the Covenant now under Christ were the same that was before Christ with Abraham and his posterity in the flesh, then by the same right they possessed circumcision and the jewish Church state, they must possess this since Christ, which they could not do, therefore it is not the same.  
It is true therefore that the Covenant of God makes the Church both in time of the Law, and Gospel too, for the Church is nothing else but a people in covenant with God, now look how the covenant differs so the Church and people differs which is made by it, and which enter into it.  
Now the Covenant, whereby God took a people outwardly to be his people then, was that, whereby they did, being circumcised, participate of all those outward means which led to Christ, which was to come, Psal. 149. 19 20.  
But the Covenant, whereby he takes a people outwardly to be his people now, whereby they are admitted to be baptised, is that profession they make of faith in Christ Acts 8. 12. 37. Mat 3. 6. Whereby they have true and spiritual conjunction with God and are his people Heb. 3. 6.  
Indeed it is true that Christ is and ever was the Mediator and Means of salvation, and also that all those that were saved, were saved through faith in him both before and since his coming: But yet because the outward means of making Christ known doth differently depend upon his being yet to come, a●… upon his being come in the flesh; the one being more dark, the other more plain, the one more carnal, the other more spiritual, therefore the participation of these means doth make the state of the participants to differ.  
Thus far are his words: and then noting certain differences to the number of seven or eight between the Old Testament and the New, which is  

1. Established upon better promises.  
2. After the power of an endless life.  
3. In Christ.  
4. And liberty of the spirit.  
5. A Celestial Jerusalem.  
6. A State of faith.   
He very truly concludes that such only as are in the New Covenant, in Christ, in faith of the promises, born from above, and partakers of the spirit, and the power of that endless life: or of the world to come a re suitable to be admitted to Gospel Church privileges.  
In the time therefore before Christ (saith he) such as would circumcise themselves, and their males, and observe the Law in the rites, and ceremonies thereof, together with their children by generation were the seed and in covenant with that Church, but now since Christ, only such as believe in Christ, and are thereby children by regeneration, are the seed and in c●…nant with this Church, and this he proves further yet.  
First, Because None of the Natural seed of Abraham are in the Covenant by virtue of any natural relation, though they did remain in the jewish Church till the death of Christ, and as that Church then ceased so their being in the Church by an natural relation ceased also Act. 10. 28. Rom. 9 8. Gal. 5. 28. 31— 3. 7, 8, 9 14. 16. 19 26. 28, 29.  
Secondly, The Gentiles have no natural relation to become Abraham's seed by, therefore a believers child cannot become the seed of Abraham by being the seed of a believer, unless such children do believe themselves, and cannot otherwise in no respect be participants in the covenant made with Abraham p. 14, 15.  
And again p. 18. No Gentile (saith he) is Abraham's seed at all but by believing the righteousness of faith, although he be the child of believing parents.  
Now therefore because you tell us not only,  
First that believers children in infancy are Abraham's children, though they yet do not the works of Abraham, i. e. believe not on him that justifyes them, as some of you do●…e they do, but also,  
Secondly, that the promise of the Gospel is to believers and their seed.  
These both are abundantly confuted by that quotation of mine, which quotes more Scripture than you will ever answer, so that I wonder you blush not to shoot out so boldly two such blind, and un●…ound assertions together, the second of which I shall say no more to, it being virtually answered by what is more formally spoken to the first & also because I have showed so undeniably above, that I know your consciences must yield to it, and that from this Act. 2. 39 whence you would wrest a proof to the contrary, that the promise, if you take it for the proffer of the Gospel Grace, is to all men in the world, every creature, and so not to believers and their seed only, but to all unbelievers and their seed also, in case they shall believe, for he conditionats the promise on calling, for such these were, whom Peter spoke to, whilst he was yet speaking that very word to them, viz. the promise is to you and your children; but if you take it for the thing promised, which is not Church-membership and participation of baptism, as some say whose absurdity therein I have declared, but the spirit, remission of sins, and salvation, this is made, good also to the believer himself; and it is mercy enough to him that it is so I think, but not at all to his seed for his sake, nor his faith's sake, for if it be I testify his children need no faith of their own: nay more God never made promise to save any of believing Abraham's natural seed, without faith in themselves for Abraham's sake, as nearly as he took Abraham to be his friend; for even he had sin enough of his own to have ●…unck him, if the same Mediator that saves any of his seed, in that way of faith, had not mercifully saved him the same way, nor yet for Abraham's 〈◊〉 sake, for that merited not salvation for them, nor was it instrumental, but faith only in themselves, to any one of his son's salvation, for every one must bear his own burden, if Christ bear it not, and the just must live by his faith, and not his fathers, neither did he ever promise for his faith's sake to give faith to his natural seed as his, for than they must all have had it (qua sic including d●… omni, and being universale summum) or God shouldly which he cannot; neither could God blame them (as he doth) for unbelief, but himself, without whom (say you they could not believe & who had promised to make them believe and did not, though yet he promised to circumcise i. e. by his spirit to sanctify the hearts of his spiritual seed, as well as his own i. e. all such as believe, and are in the faith with him, for the promise being still sure to all the seed, which it is made to they all must be blessed with faithful Abraham.  
Now if God, who made the old Covenant promise of the earthly Canaan to Abraham, and his fleshly seed, did not make the Gospel promise to him and his fleshly seed, but only that 〈◊〉 of his that believes with him, can we think that he made that promise to the Gentile believer, and his fleshly seed, for his father's sake, unless he have faith of his own?   

Babist.  
No we do not say without respect to his own faith, but as the believers seed shall believe, so it's made to him, as well as to his parents.   

Baptist.  
So it's made to the unbeliever and his seed also viz. as they shall believe, as well as to either of the other, and by that account you may baptise all the world.  
Again, none of the Jews, though the natural seed of Abraham, and partakers of all the ordinances of the old testament (as Abraham's children) could be admittted to be baptised upon that same natural relation, though they pleaded it never so stisfly Mat. 3 but only on manifestation of amendment, besides that 3000 converts should not baptise their children, when they were baptised themselves, as Abraham by command took all his males, and cirmumcised them the self same day with himself, argues plainly that both the covenant and the promise (as Mr. Marshal says truly) as to the manner of administration was now changed, and not continued to parents and children both alike, but as they both alike believed.  
And that these were not baptised with their parents, I take Mr. Cotton at his word, who (as I have showed before) confesses it, and if he should not stand to his testimony herein, yet these words viz. as many as glady received the word were baptised, which exclude infants, and were an imperfect relation, if he meant not only them that received the word, are so cogent that they cannot but compel him.  
So I have escaped two of your bullets, and as for the third viz. that the Gospel, which is a better Covenant, would be far worse, if believers children be not counted in it, and have not right to baptism, and membership as well as the jews children, and be valued but as Turks and Pagans, this is so sick of the same disease of absurdity with the rest, that I fear not its doing much execution: besides, we have lamed it before, having told you before, and proved it too, and now will again, that the exclusion of the fleshly seed from this Covenant and administration, which was taken into the first, doth not lessen or straiten the grace of God under it at all, not render this covenant worse than the first contrary to Heb. 8. 6. the place twice quoted by you, where it's called a better, for the meliority there spoken of of this covenant above that, lies not so much in the extension of the grace of it to such subjects, as in the meliority of its promises, for this is a better covenant still then the other, who ere it belongs or belongs not to, forasmuch as it makes better promises then the other viz. of a heavenly Canaan, and all spiritual blessings in and by jesus through faith, when that promised an earthly Canaan only, and certain temporal blessings therein, on performance of those tedious services of the law.  
'tis true, theirs in this sense, and thus far was a Covenant of great grace too, as 'twas made freely to that people above other nations (for he did not so to any people else) concerning outward benefits, and such statutes and judgements, as should on their observation of them, not only continue them therein, but as a shadow, type and schoolmaster conduct them to this: yet greater is the glory of the Gospel covenant, which now is, so that the other had no glory in respect of this glory that excelleth, therefore the grace of God under the covenant, to them that are under it, is greater also.  
Besides, if you speak not only of the intention, but extension of the grace of God in this Covenant, and in the administration of it too, it goes beyond the other, for not only is the Gospel a clearer promulgation of the eternal covenant, than that typical covenant was, whereby the glory of it may be seen more plainly, and with open face, then when it was seen only in the type as a thing to come (for we preach Christum exhibitum Christ crucified, a sacrifice already offered, and baptise and break bread in token hereof, but they (and that in much dimness too) Christum exhibendum, a Messiah to come, he was veiled, though seen through the veil in the old, but revealed in this new dispensation) but also it is of larger extent in respect of the subject to which it belongs, for the revelation of it by preaching, and real proferring of the grate of it in the name of God (who is not willing that any should perish, and fail of his grace unless they will) is to all people in the world: the old administration of circumcision, and other pertinances of that covenant, which was the type of this, was limited and narrowed into a little corner, the land of Israel, the people of the jews, yea more the very new covenant administration that we are now under, as preaching, baptising &c. while the old covenant did continue (as it did for two or three year after the beginning of this by john, till Christ crucified) was straightened exceedingly above what it is among us, for saith Christ then, go not into any way of the Gentiles, but now since Christ crucified its extended freely to every nation, and every person in it of capacity, of years to receive it (and till then (dying before) they shall never be damned for rejecting it) without any exception, as they believe, for go (saith he) into all the world etc. Mark. 16 Mat. 28. then circumcision was limited to males among the jews, but Christ and baptism is to Jew and Gentile, male and female w●…thout difference as they believe, so that the grace israther lengthened in the administration of baptism by taking in the females, that were not circumcised, than straitened by the denial of it to infants in their infancy only, for even those also may be baptised too if they will, when they come to years: the grace of the new covenant therefore is even thus as well as otherwise better than the old, in respect of the extent of it, and its administration also to more subjects, for the Jews only were the subjects of that grace, and heirs by promise of the earth lie Canaan, but all the world are heirs of heaven by promise according as they repent and believe the Gospel,  
Besides, if you think that ever God took the whole body of that nation Israel, that belonged all to the typical salvation of the old covenant, into the covenant of everlasting salvation by C●…rist in relation to their father's faith without their own, and thence conclude that the whole body of believers seed must be by faith of their parents admitted into that same Covenant of the Gospel, this is a mere Chimaera of your own brain, for no such grace of God as this (though some priests of the jews dreamt of it as well as you, for which they were pretty well curried by Christ, and john Mat. 3. john 8.) ever was, now is, or ever shall be.  
As for our valuing believers infants as Turks and Pagans, I tell you we ra●…e them higher than yourselves, for we set them not so low as Turks and Pagans that are at years, and wicked, for they though not without many possibilities of life by Christ, yet dying impaenitents will be demned, as well as many of you that abuse more light, nor yet so low as the infants of Turks and Pagans, for though they (dying in infancy) are by your own doctrine all alike i e. none deserving exemption by actual sin from salvation, yet living these have in likelihoood more advantages for life then those of Pagans, but you though you set by a few more than the rest in your account (and yet in some parts of your Account too you make them equal (yet no less than 20 to one are valued little higher than the Devils, for your speech p. 7. supposes that the devils may be saved as soon as the dying infants of Turks and Pagans.   

Review.  
If they object children cannot be taught nor made to understand the sacraments; no more could they at circumcision: If further that they shed tears at their baptism, as unwilling to receive it: so they did at circumcision; If they say they were semen carnis, and had right by the promise: so these are semen fidei, & the promise is unto them: If they say the seal is often voided by their infidelity afterwards, because many baptised so young become reprobates: so it was among the jews witness Ishmael and Esau and those of whom the Apostle saith that they entered not in through unbelief.   

Re-Review.  
Here you drive on four deep, and against a fourfold assault, make a four fold repulse, pelting us amain, but with pellets of brown paper.  
To the ●…irst I reply, no more need they be taught at circumcision, but the baptised are command●…d to be taught first, until they believe Mat. 28. 19, 20. Mark 16. 15. 16. and also immediately after, which is so plain, that though here you answer by denying all possibility of children's being taught before circumcision, yet else where viz. p. 10. and 18. you fence this off with such pretty contrary quiddy stuff as this, viz. that as to baptism infants have a teaching, a hearing and a learning, for the spirit say you opens their ears, quo magi●…ro, quam cito discitur quod docet: he doth it in them, and in adultis too, or else for all their hearing they'll not believe: but that we shall have more to say to when we come to it,  
To the second that as unwilling as infants were to receive circumcision, and as tedious as it was to them, or servants either that received it, y●…t by express command if they were Males in Abraham's house, he was to dispense it to them, whether they were willing or no, but you have no such flat command to disease your little infants ●…o far as to dip them in water (for so you should if you baptizd them indeed) whether they will or no.  
To the third O wonderful! that Abraham's own fleshly seed, even by Isa●…c himself, by bare descent from their bodies; unless they also believed as Abraham did, could become, and be counted no more then bare semen carnis, the children of Abraham's fl●…sh, & have right by promise (qua sic) of no more than the earthly Canaan, For Ishmael though born of Abraham, and circumcised also as a male of his house, was not heir by promise of so much as that Gen. 17. 19 20, 21. and yet that the fleshly seed of believing Gentiles should become and be accounted no less than Abraham's semen fides, the children of his faith, and such high heirs thereby, as have right to the heavenly Canaan.  
Abraham's faith it seems doth not privilege his own natural seed, so far as to be his seed in a spiritual relation, but the faith of every Gentile privileges his natural seed, so far as to be spiritually the seed of Abraham: but Sirs me thinks if any fleshly descent in the world could dignify the seed so descended with the high name of the spiritual seed of Abraham, and heirs with him according to the heavenly promise, a fleshly descent from Abraham, Isaac and jacob should do it, ye teven that me●…rly, without more, makes the seed no more than the na tural seed of Abraham, and heirs with him of only the earthly promise. Yea, Sirs, that Abraham's seed is shut out from all ●…piritual kindred to their own faithful father Abraham, notwithstanding the faith of that their Father, unless they believe also themselves, and yet our seed who are but Gentiles after the flesh are so specially, so spiritually a kin to Abraham by the faith of us their fathers, without their own, is not only to equalise our seed with abraham's, which is the utmost you pretend to, but rather to reckon it as a higher race than that of Abraham's, a matter which the most capacious brain pan of you all is no way capable clearly to conjecture.  
To the fourth that circumcision was not voided by the Jews after infidelity, for 'twas not set on supposition they had faith, neither was it after voided by their proving Reprobates, for it was not set to signify them to be Gods elect, they being not so at all (as Jew's I mean) as to eternal life, but only to that earthly life in Canaan, for had it been set to have supposed believers only, and elect ones, than it must not have been set to Ishmael and Esau, for they were not at all known to be, but rather foreknown not to be the elected heirs of either Canaan, viz. the typical or the true, for God who foresaw how in time they would deserve it, the one by scoffing, the other by ●…elling both the birthright, and the blessing, had to Abraham Gen. 17. 19, 20, 21. and to Rebecca Gen. 25. 23. either plainly, or figuratively foretold their rejection from both, yet both these were circumcised, and that neither of them in vain, sith being males in the house God's command was fulfilled in circumcising them, as well as othe●…s, but baptism which is lawful to be set to none bu●… taugh: persons Mat. 28. professed believers in token of remission of sins Act. 2. is ever voided, and abu●…ed when dispensed to infants, not only because there is no command for such a thing, but also because there is no use of such a thing to such as those, for before they are made guilty of commission of sins, they neither do, can, nor need believe remission, and when having committed sins they believe them to be r●…mitted, their infant-baptism being transient, and not permanent (as circumcision was) doth no way become visibly evident to them itself; much l●…ss can it be a visible evidence to them of the other.   

Review.  
The re●…son of these objections against paedobaptism is this, because they understand not the nature of baptism, it is God's seal, ●…e sets it, they that receive it are passive, in that he appoints it to be set to whomsoever he hath made the promise, and with whom he hath entered into covenant: A seal of an estate made to infants in their cradles is firm, so is God's: Now here must be a sealing on the other side, for both parties must seal in a Covenant, we seal when we believe, John 3. 33. The Covenant is sealed on both sides when faith comes, God may set to his seal as he did to many of the jews, and the seed made void to them through unbelief. The End of Gods setting it to such as he foresaw would have no benefit of it, is the same with the making of his promises, and sending of his Son, to let them know how he would have received them, how sure his mercies should have been unto them, but they would not.   

Re-Review.  
The reason of all your Objectations against our way of baptism, and pleas for P●…do-Rantism which you practise is this, you understand not the nature of baptism: it is not Gods seal which he sets (which you sillily suppose) for that is his spirit only as I showed you plainly enough above, but God's sign which man se●…s, which they that receive aright, are not altogether passive in, but voluntary, and very active; i. e. confessing their sins, calling on the name of the Lord, desiring to be baptised, professing faith in order thereunto, going down in●…o the water with the dispenser, and there setting their senses and understandings on work upon the sign, and things thereby signified, submitting their bodies freely to the dispensation.  
Neither doth God appoint it to be set to whomsoever he hath barely made the promise, for in the word preached he makes it to every Creature Mark 16. 15. 16. but to such as professedly believe in that promise he hath made, and visibly, verily (for aught we can judge) have entered into covenant with him to become obedient, such only (so far as it is possible for us to know) are those, with whom he hath entered into Covenant, for say you, there must be a sealing on the other side, and both parties must seal in a Covenant we seal when (and not before) we believe: neither is the Covenant sealed on both sides, so that it can be said these two parties are now entertained into covenant each with other, till faith come and that is not in infancy but after.  
And this your manner of speech; viz. when ●…aith comes, here implies to be your own opinion as well as ours, though else where as p. 3. 4. 8. 9 15. 16. 17. 18. 19 you strenuously contend it, yea and (to say the truth) 'tis well nigh the whole businese of your book to assert and assay to prove it, that faith comes to infants in their infancy, and to make it appear to us (as well as you can by contradiction) that infants do believe.  
Moreover, (if ever men were troubled with the simples, I think you are) is baptism God's seal of an estate, i. e. the heavenly inheritance made over to infants in their cradles? and is that seal of his firm to, i. e, so sure that it cannot fail? then I wonder how that seal, (for so you still style circumcision and baptism) is made void and infirm to so many jews and Christian people as it is, for not all, yea few of many do obtain that estate at last, and that most lose it for all that seal, you tell us by their unbelief: but I had thought you had been of the mind, when you wrote your 4th page, that children of jews, and of believing parents did believe all without any exception; for asserting it there positively that the jews children did believe, and consequently that believers children do now, you prove the Antecedent viz. that the jews children did believe, because God did witness it by setting to his seal circumcision, which if it were Gods seal to them of their eternal salvation by faith, and witness to the world that they had faith also, that seal must be firm, and that testimony true concerning them all, being set to all as well as some, so that unless they depart from the faith, which you say God who cannot lie, witnessed they once had (and that your principle of not falling from faith will in no wise give way too) they could not possibly void it by unbelief, and so must necessarily and universally obtain the inheritance: but sith 'tis most clear you selves also yielding it, that they do not, therefore assuredly one of these must be true viz. either that circumcision was not to infants in their cradles Gods seal of their eternal salvation (as you say it was) or else that that seal of God is not firm (as you attest it is) or else that God did not witness by it that those to whom it was set had faith (as you say he did) or else that God's witness and testimony was not true which were blasphemy to think) or else that they fell from that faith, which at first they had in infancy; and at the time of their circumcision (and that self confutes you in another case) among all which grant which you will to be true, you must contradict and convict yourselves of falsehood.  
And lastly, if the end of Gods setting baptism to persons be no other than the very same with that of making his promises, and sending his son, merely to let them know how he would have received them, how sure his mercies should have been unto them, but they would not, (not to speak of your telling truth here unawares viz. that man's own will rejecting God first, and not Gods own will first rejecting them without respect to their fore-seen rejection of him in time, is the true cause of their condemnation) then as God makes his promises to all, and sends his son in his love a Saviour to all, so baptism should be dispensed to all without exception, belonging as well as Christ himself, tell they appear finally to reject him, to every one as well as any one in the world, but that being denied by both you and us, doth show that the end of baptising a person is somewhat more viz. not to beget him to the faith before he doth, but to improve him in it when he doth believe.  
To conclude, this whole train of stuff or long tail of that short shower of shot that went before it, is not of so much force as a scottish mist, nor scarce enough to wet a naked man to the skin, therefore bear with my folly in sheelding myself so much against it, i. e. in saying so much in answer to it, for a wise man would have said no more to it but mumm.   

Review.  
The third argument is this.  
Those that have the holy spirit, that have faith, the Anabaptists will not deny but are the subjects of baptism, but children have so, as their justification declares, without which there is no salvation.  
Hence it is that the adversaries are put to their shift s to find out a new way for the salvation of infants, dying in their minority viz. The presentment of the satisfaction of Christ without faith, otherwise they conclude they could not be saved; which invention of theirs destroys the Gospel covenant, which is the righteousness of faith, and either damns innumerable innocents', whose right to the kingdom of heaven our Saviour hath declared; or grounds their salvation upon a figment of their own brains, such as the Scriptures are wholly silent in, and the Churches of God never dreamt of.  
They allege two texts for their proof, Rome 5. 18. As by the offence of one judgement came upon all to condemnation, so by the righteousness of one the free-gift came upon all men unto justification of life, Rom. 11. 7. Election hath obtained it: of which two texts, the latter is nothing for them, for it excludes not justification, for the Apoctle saith plainly, Rom. 8. 30. Those whom he predestinated he justified: and though the elect only shall be saved, yet justification goes between.  
The former is directly against them, for it expressly mentions justification of life: so that the Anabaptists must either prove that justification is not to go before salvation, and so pull in pieces the golden chain, by taking out the link, Rom. 8. 38. or else that justification is not by faith, and so destroy the Covenant of the Gospel; till when, they justly deserve the censure of damning all infants dying, contrary to evident testimony of Scriptures, and the sentence of our Saviour, that to them belongeth the kingdeme of heaven.  
And whosoever shall consider the impertinences of their proofs in a cause of so great consequence, shall have just cause to suspect all their other doctrines, and take heed how to take any thing upon trust from these new masters.   

Re-Review.  
Here is an argument hath neither head nor tail in it able to hurt, for both have been bruised already, we having had to do with them before, the one in the front, the other in the rear of the disputation: therefore no need, to fear it, yet sith it turns about again and Reviews us, hisses in our faces, and makes such a flutter, as if it would both bite and sting us to death, I shall secure it a little further how ever.  
The head of the argument is this syllogism viz.  
Such as have the holy spirit, and faith are the subjects of baptism, but children have so.  
The first proposition whereof you say the Anabaptists will not deny, but I tell you what the Anabaptists will do I know not, because, if there be such a people in the world, yet I never was so privy to their principles and practices as Dr. Featley and his fellows pretend to be, who paints them out, and presents them to the world in his title page as dipping naked, and daily:  
But in the name of 100s of them you commonly and abusively call so, I mean the truest baptists that are in England, i'll be so bold as to deny it to be true without more, for 'tis not the inward unseen seeds of grace and faith, nor that invisible having of these, which is the u●…most you dare or do affirm concerning infants, but the visible having thereof, so that we see they have them by the fruits, effects, acts, operations, and professions, that quoad nos makes a subject for baptism: as for what is within it is nothing to us, we are strangers to it, neither can or may we intermeddle therewith, till it shows itself without: secret things belong to God only, and things revealed only to us, and therefore for your blind brazen faced minor, wherein you positively affirm here again, that children (not specifying what children, nor whose, whether of believers or unbelievers, nor both, nor if of believers only, whether all or only some of them) have the spirit, and faith, I shall be as bold to deny it ever, till they give some better specimen of it then the best infant that ever you or I saw did, in that nonage wherein you sprinkle them, specially so long as to the stark spoiling, utter unsaying and clear contradicting of whatever your own selves would prove it by, you are fain to confess page 16.  
That all have them not, and p. 18. Which have and which have not (the spirit being no more bound to believers infants, than others, and no more barred from working in unbelievers infants than believers) cannot be certainly presumed, and that whatever the spirit may work in children, yet this is not known to us, so that there can be no conclusion made.  
And howbeit this Argument being by your own concession thus crushed in the head, i. e. this Prosyllogism turns about with his tail, and thrusts at us therewith, I mean this ensuing Syllogism, viz.  
No justification nor salvation to them that have not faith.  
But justification and salvation is to infants.  
Ergo infants have faith.  
Yet I return thus to your Major, viz. that though there is no justification nor salvation, without faith, of such as are capable to believe, and of whom to believe it is required, yet of such as neither are capable, nor called on to believe in order thereunto, there may be, and is a justification and salvation without it: and this is the case of all dying infants in the world, the presentment of the satisfaction of Christ without faith, and without obedience also in any thing else, both which are in ordine ad vitam enjoined to adult ones, doth save dying infants or else innumerable of those infants are damned, neither is this any new way for the salvation of infants dying in minority, nor a grounding their salva●…ion upon a figment, and invention of our own brains, nor such as the Scripture is altogether silent in, nor such as destroys the Gospel Covenant, which is the righteousness of faith: for howbeit it is true that the Scripture runs on this wise, saying,  
The just shall live by faith, he that believes shall be saved, he that believes not shall be damned, and to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifyeth the ungodly, his faith shall be accounted unto him for righteousness, and twenty more such like expressions of the Gospel Covenant, Rom. 1. Rom. 3. john 3. etc. as that which gives righteousness, and life by faith only, without the works of the Law, yet I beseech you set your wits on work, and see whether these Scriptures were written of infants, or to them either, or whether only of, and to men's at years only, to show unto them on what terms the Lord will accept, and save them in the Covenant and promise of the Gospel: Me thinks your own reason should dictate thus much, that all those places speak no more of infants, than they speak to them in minority, and that you will assuredly yield that they do not; yea you may as well say these places, viz.  
'tis a people that have no understanding, therefore he that made them will not save them, and he that form them will show them no mercy, and the lord jesus shall come with flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and obey not his Gospel, and that because they received not the truth in the love thereof, that they might be saved, for this cause God shall send them strong delusions to believe lies that they all might be damned, who had pleasure in unrighteousness etc. who ere transgresseth and abideth not in the the doctrine of Christ hath not God; every soul that heareth not the voice of that Prophet shall be destroyed, with the mouth confession is made unto salvation, and an hundred such like as speak of an necessity of good works as well as of faith, viz. self-denial, taking up the cross and following Christ etc. speak of and to infants in ●…on age, while they know not their right hand from their left.  
But Sirs oh that you would once understand (for then all your intricacies, sottish, and absurd assertions, and disputes about infants would be ended, and save you a world of perplexity that now you are in by the ignorance of it) that the word was not written as the way, and will of God concerning infants in infancy, but concerning men and women, in order to their salvation by Christ, john 6. 39 40.  
And this Sirs, is no other answer than you use to give us, when we argue against infants believing thus, viz.  
Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word preached.  
But infants cannot hear so as to know Christ by the word preached.  
Ergo infants cannot believe.  
You tell us true; faith in Adult is can come no other way but by preaching, but in Infantibus faith is begotten otherwise, so you fancy, but you have no Scripture for it, as we have that faith comes no way but by hearing.   

Babist.  
But that Scripture Rom. 10. speaks only of the way of faiths coming to adult ones.   

Baptist,  
So say I of well-nigh the whole body of Scripture, it speaks of the way, wherein men at years must expect to be justified and saved, and not of infants, for they may be saved without faith, so when we plead with you against the baptising of infants (I mean such of you, and such there be amongst you as are ashamed, as well as some that are not, to say that infants have faith) we tell you the Scripture speaks only of baptism of persons confessing sin, professing faith, that faith and baptism use still to go together, as he that believeth and is baptised; the Corinthians he●…ring, believed and were baptised, if thou believest with all thy heart etc. therefore those that believe not may not be baptised: you tell us again of these places, and of all that ever we bring out of Scripture, where baptism is mentioned, that they speak of adult persons, of whom 'tis confessed by you that faith and confession, and profession is required in order to baptism, but not of infants that cannot perform them.  
So Pareus in Ursin Cate. p. 384. 385. and also many others, and your answer is very true, and grants all that we desire, for indeed all the places, where ever baptism is mentioned throughout the Scripture, do speak of it as in relation to grown persons, and not to infants, therefore because the Scripture is wholly silent in such a thing, we dare not meddle to baptise infants, but as we grant your answer to be true, so I hope you will grant it to be as true in our present case, for if some of you, when we call for faith to a persons baptism, or else deny that person to be baptised, say thus, viz. true, no baptism without faith of such of whom faith is required, and who are capable to act it, i. e. of men at years, but infan●…s being uncapable to act faith, and it being not required of them, therefore they may be baptised without it (which conclusion you make without book to, for the word warrants you not to make it) why may not we, when you call so universally for faith to every one's salvation, or else saying assuredly they are damned, return the like, viz true, no salvation without faith of persons capable to act it, and of whom it's required, but infants being uncapable to act it; and it being not required of them, therefore they may be saved without it.   

Babist.  
This conclusion is spoken without book, and as unwarrantable by the Scripture as you say ours is, sith the Scripture speaks as much of salvation by faith, as of baptism upon faith; and as little of salvation without faith, as it doth of baptism without it, therefore still we have at least as good ground to say infants may be baptised without faith, as you have to assert they may be saved without it.   

Baptist.  
No: I shall leave you behind here, for sith the Scripure speaks of the impossibility of infants believing, and yet with all of their salvation, as yourselves confess in your own interpretation of that clause viz. of such is the kingdom of heaven, but no where at all of their baptism, it shows that they may be saved without believing, but shows not that they may be baptised without it; besides to hold any of them to be damned, before they have by actual sin debarred themselves of salvation is abominable cruelty, and breach of Christian charity with you, who yet confess that all of them have not faith p. 19 but to hold they need not to be baptised cannot bear the like construction, sith 'tis acknowledged by them that deny their bap●…ism, and by them also who absurdly assert, to the contradiction of themselves, that the denial of baptism to them denies all hope of their salvation that they may be saved nevertheless, though they die unbaptised, so that whether we, who hold that to them all belongs the kingdom of heaven though they neither believe nor are baptised before they die, or you that hold no salvation to them without faith, and yet hold that all of them have not, nay that very few of them (for how few are believers infants to others?) have faith, whether we or you I say do justly deserve the censure of damning all, or at least innumerable infants dying, contrary to that evident testimony of Scripture, and sentence of our Saviour, that to them belongeth the kingdom of heaven, and contrary also to the rule of Christian charity set us by yourselves, which is to presume well of every infant that he is in a good estate, till he appear to be in a bad, and by actual sin to bar himself, and deserve exemption from the general state of little children declared in Scripture, which is this that they have right to the kingdom, let the most simple, but honest Reader judge between us.  
As for the two texts you say are brought in proof of justification of infants without faith viz. Rom. 5. 18. Rom. 11. 7. who urges the last of them I know not, for my part I take it to be of no tendency at all either to your purpose or ours, therefore I shall not trouble myself with it, but the first of them, which you say is so directly against us, 'tis because you are blind, if you do not perceive it to be an express downright declaration of a general justification of all from Adam's sin, as to life, i. e. a resurrection from that bodily death, which that sin brought upon all mankind, and from which as there is now a universal return of every individual by Christ, so there had never been any returning for any one man in the world, but by Christ to all eternity world without end, 1 Cor. 15. 21. 22.  
Yea as universally as that judgement or condemnation to that first death came by Adam upon all men, so that it spreads its black wings upon them all, and brings them all down to the dust from whence they came, so universally is justification unto life i. e the benefit and resurrection from that death, from which else no one man should ever have risen, come by Christ upon all men, really and truly, and not only so, but a capacity also, and possibility of eternal happiness and well being after that resurrection, and all this whether persons believe it yea or no, yea and a promise and certainty of it in case of belief in this Christ, otherwise indeed a loss of the Resurrections becoming a mercy, and benefit to them, and a liableness even after that escape of the first death, that came by the first Adam, to a sorer, even that second death, that lake of fire, which by the second Adam, by whom comes eternal blessedness on believers, comes upon all unbelievers, and that for ever.  
So that if there be no salvation to infants without justification, yet there's justification of infants without faith, or baptism either.  
And whereas you argue from the cart to the horse, from the justification and salvation of infants to their faith, I argue from their non capacity to believe to their justification and salvation without it: no salvation or justification without faith, say you, but infants are justified and saved therefore they believe: if no justification and salvation without faith, say I, infants, who cannot believe can neither be justified nor saved: but infants, so far as they need justification, for they have no sins of their own, are justified and saved also, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to them, therefore there is justification and salvation for infants without faith.  
To conclude therefore: this opinion of you adversaries to the truth, which allows no salvation to infants without faith, puts you miserably to your shifts viz. either to find out a new way of coming by faith, which Paul says comes only by nearing, or else to damn innumerable dying infants, who whilst they lived, were uncapable to hear the word preached, and so to believe, or else as you do p. 18. to dream out a new kind of hearing, whereby infants come by their faith, viz. an inward, wonderful miraculous hearing of some voice of the spirit within, such a sigment of your own brains, as the Scripture is wholly silent in, and no true Church of God, nor rational man, but yourselves, who dream dreams, and divine false divinations, and things of nought, deceits of your own heart, and tell them to the deceiving of others, did ever dream of; and whosoever shall consider the impertinencies of your proofs in a cause of so great consequence, shall have just cause to suspect all your other doctrines, and to take heed how they take any thing any more upon trust, as the whole world hath done now of old, from these new masters, the Clergy, who instead of being ministers in truth, or servi servorum dei, have been domini dominorum Lords over the heritage, and over the faith of all civil powers and people, teaching them instead, of the true doctrine of the old ministers, the traditions and commandments of men.  
And so I have done both with the head of this third argument, and with that long tail also that trails after, there remains no more of it to be meddled with but a certain slender sting that sticks to this tail, put forth against us, with more length than strength, in prosecution of the argument, which I shall cut out into many pieces, and after set upon each section severally, and then I hope your great hope of help from these three unworthies, will prove a forlorn hope indeed.   

Review.  
But to prosecute this Argument for the full satisfaction of the simple but honest Reader, since there is no way to come to salvation but by justification, and no justificatnon but by faith, why should it be doubted by any but little infants, which are ordained to salvation, are also by faith made subjects of justifi●…ation? those souls which please God so well as they are to see him presently after their separation from the body, why should they not be capable of faith, without which the Apostle saith it is impossible to please God, Heb. 11. 6.   

Re-Review.  
The Reader had need be honest, for I dare say he will be simple enough, that receives full satisfaction your way by your present prosecutions of it; because there's no way for salvation and justification for men that are actu●…l sinners, and capable to believe, and to whom justification and remission is preached, to the end that they might believe it to their comfort, is there therefore no other wav whereby God willing, and ordaining to save little infants from eternal wrath, can possibly, or doth certainly save them, that can neither sin, or be preached to, nor believe, but that very self same way of believing? is he tied to that means to save infants by, as we are tied to it in order to the saving of ourselves, viz. the way of faith? if so, why not to repentance, and self denial also? for both these are the way to us, Act. 2. 38. 40. Mat. 16. 24. and would it not shift a man out of his seven senses to hear such doctrine, that infants as ever they will be saved (dying infants) must even in their infancy repent? is it not manifold more suitable to reason, and sense of Scripture that as infants (so far as they are guilty) become guilty unwittingly to themselves, by the presentment and imputation of the first Adam's sin, without personal disobedience in themselves, so also should be justified from that imputed sin, by the presentment of the satisfaction and imputation of the righteousness of the second Adam, as unwittingly to, and without personal obedience in themselves? and because without faith 'tis impossible to please God, for such as have actually incurred his wrath, such as come to him by prayer, for these indeed must believe that is God, and is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him) there fore is it impossible for infants also who yet actually disspensed him, nor yet are capable to come to him by belief or prayer. Is that Scripture think you intended to infants? for shame scope the Scripture a little better.   

Review.  
Is it not the work of the spirit to infuse faith? and are not souls which are all equal in their creation the subject of it? He works indeed where he will, and therefore all have it not, for the spirit of God is not bound but where he will work it who can hinder him.   

Re-Review.  
Are souls all equal in their Creation, and are souls which are all equal the subject of faith? how then can it be so positively asserted, concluded, attempted to be discovered, and made appear as 'tis by you, who confess also that all have it not, that the infants of believers have it and therefore must be baptised, but infidels infants have it not, and there must not? specially since not only the one, by by your own saying that all souls are equal, are as capable of it as the other, if the spirit please to infuse it, but also since by your own saying too, the spirit works it where he will, and is not bound i e. (as you explain this place p. 18.) to work it in all the children of Christian parents, nor barred from working it in any of the children of infidels, and most especially yet, since p. 18. you say that unless it could be certainly presumed what children have the habit of faith, what have not, the working of the spirit being not known to us, he being not bound nor bard there can be no conclusion made.  
Have not we as much power to forbid the spirits working faith in the infant you sprinkle, and so to forbid their being baptised as you have to forbid his working it in the infants of infidels, and to forbid their being baptised? will you bind him to all the infants in Christendom, and bar him from doing any other infants in the world? O ye house of Levi is the spirit of the Lord thus straightened? are these your doings? you that preach the spirit of the Lord is not bound nor barred, do not you both bind and bar him, while you say and suppose he must needs, and is by the Gospel covenant bound to be gracious, and show mercy to believers children, alias such as are born in England, Scotland and other nations of Christendom, so that you may safely sign them all as heirs of his mercy, and barred from saving any infants of Turks and Pagans, so that not one of them may be signed forsomuch as an hopeful heir of salvation.   

Review.  
John Baptist had not been filled with the holy spirit had he had not faith Luke 1. 15. the Scripture shows us plainly in that one example what the soul of infants is capable of, what the spirit of God can work in that, it was the measure only of his gifts, makes his example extraordinary, the spirit and power of Eliah in which he came: The testimony of an Angel renders it undoubted concerning him. The Testimony of the Scriptures concerning other infants are of equal authority saying, They have right to the kingdom of Heaven, and that they are called to come to Christ, and that Christ received them and blessed them; compared with that of the Apostle, 2 Cor. 13. 5. jesus Christ is in you except ye be Reprobates?  
The Argument is this, 
They are not Reprobates.  
Ergo Christ is in them.    

Re-Review  
Not to trouble the world with a Re-Review of every odd conceit, that lies in this piece of Review about that particular instance, and extraordinary case of john, which you mightily misunderstand, and most rudely wrest in as ordinary rule in proof of an universal; and also about the proof of believers infants, being no reprobates from 2 Cor. 13. 5. a place most absurdly abused by you, for it speaks not to nor of infants, and if it did, no more of one infant then of an another, no infants appearing reprobates in infancy, and of their right to heaven above all infants, all which passages being spoken to above may be reviewed there by any that have a mind to it, the utmost intent and drift of this whole Section is to prove infants to be capable of faith, which thing if it should be granted for truth, yet I wonder how that redounds to infant-baptism, since it's neither bare capacity, nor actuality of believing, but professing to believe, that is our warrant to dispense baptism to any subject, for i●… will not follow from the having of faith to bap●…ism, unless that faith be professed, much less will it follow from a capableness to believe or have faith, that a person hath it and therefore must be baptised.  
For than first heathen infants are as capable of it as other infants, all souls being equal in their Creation, therefore they must be baptised also, yea Sirs, if you give back, and let your Argument fall so low now, as to say infants are capable of faith and therefore must be baptised before they have, or appear to have it, then I'll warrant every ones right to baptism as well as any ones, thus, viz.  
The souls of men and women are capable of faith before they believe, and whether ever they do believe or no, the spirit of God can work it in them.  
Therefore men and women before they believe, or whether they believe or no, must be baptised.  
Yea all souls are as capable subjects of faith as well as the souls of believers infants, and therefore must be baptised.  
But Sirs though persons be not only capable subjects to believe, but such also as (for aught you know to the contr●…ry) do believe, and of whom you cannot say they do not, yet may you not at all baptise them, w●…thout some kind of evidence that they do; and that's more than in particular any infant can give for itself; and as for that muddy manner you argue it in when you say, the Kingdom of heaven consists of infants, they are called to come to Christ, and Christ received them, therefore they must be baptised, besides that those indefinite expressions ex●…end no more to believers infants than unbelievers, we may as well argue thus, the Kingdom of heaven consists of men, men and women have right to it, are called to come to Christ, received and blessed by him, therefore men and women, or these men and women, whether it be evident of them in particular or individuo yea or no, may be baptised, which were absurd nonsense in the abstract: yet such are your pleas for those particular infants you sprinkle, whilst you deny baptism to heathen infants, viz. the testimony of Scripture in gross, and infant's capableness to have the inward baptism, and such like: on this wise did Dr. Channel at Petworth dispute jan. 5. 1651. saying,  
If infants are capable of the inward baptism, than they may have the out ward. But etc.  
And could not prove the consequence or sequel of his Major four times over repeated by himself, and as often denied by his Respondent.   

Review.  
The difficulty in the understanding how fa it hshould be bred in them, and after what manner, is that which hath bred the doubts about their having it; but if we had learned to believe the Scriptures, which by necessary consequence confirm the thing, we would leave the manner of doing it to him whose work it is, the spirit of God, who is able to do it: we do it in other articles of faith, and the resurrection of the body, and ask not how it can be done, because the Scriptures have delivered it; and this of the renovation of soul is no less Miracle.   

Re-Review.  
And well may it be difficult to understand how faith should be bred in infants, and doubted that they have it not, since if we have learned to believe the Scriptures, they are so far from confirming such a thing so much as by any possible, or probable consequence, that by necessary consequence they contradict it, while they tell us that there is but one way whereby faith cometh, and that such a one as it can never possibly come to infants in, viz. hearing the word of God preached, not inwardly by the spirit only (as you prate below) for he speaks not of such a thing there Rom. 10. but outwardly by some visible, or audible creaturely ministration, as is plain by the words foregoing, viz. How shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? how hear without a preacher? how preach except they be sent.  
And whereas you tell us the spirit is able to work faith in them, therefore we must leave the manner of doing it to him, not offering as it were to pry into it.  
Good Sirs spare your labour & talk not about the unknown manner, of a matter as unknown as the other: for the thing itself is not yet clear in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, neitherdoth the spirits ability to do it, prove that it is done, any more than it proves there is a 1000 worlds, or that all men have faith, because these things arepossible ●…o be effected by him, but the evidence that he doth such a thing, which if it be wanting (as it is in this case) it is but egregious folly to argue it from the other, so as to say God can do it, therefore though the manner how he doth it is not known to us, yet we must not meddle further then to believe it is, leaving the manner of doing it to him.  
Moreover Sirs, assure yourselves of this that in some sort the manner is usually manifested to us in the word, as well as the matter of such things, as we are there called upon to believe, even that miraculous work of the resurrection of the body, which is your present instance, wherein 1 Cor. 15. 35. to the end. the Lord condescendeth at large to explain the manner of it, as well as to prove the matter of it before: and whereas you say you leave the manner of the doing things when it is nor clear to you, to the spirit himself, whose the work is, in other articles of faith, I wonder you are so forgetful as to bear such false witness as this against yourselves, when as in the point of dying infants salvation, which for the matter of it is so clear, that you cannot deny it, though not clear to you in the manner, you leave not the manner of it to God himself, whose work it is to save them, but limit him to the way of Church-membership faith, baptism, and holiness etc. whereas the word, that was not at all for infant's instruction, declares to men and women what way he will save them in, ask in many places of your book, how can infants be justified without faith? how can Turks and Pagan's infants be saved? what hopes of our infant salvation without baptism? and all this too, though there is no fear of their damnation by actual sin, though it also ask you plainly enough, how can they believe in him of whom they have not heard, and consequently how can they be saved by faith? though it tell you also plainly enough Act. 8. where that question is expressly asked what hinders etc. even because they yet believe not with all their heart, you had said true therefore had your words been thus viz. we do it not in other articles of faith.  
And whereas you say the renovation of a soul is no less miracle than the matter of infants having faith, it seems you confess it to be a miracle, that faith should be in infants: and for my part I fully confess it with you, for surely 'tis such a thing as was seldom or never yet seen since the world began to this day: but the renovation i e. conversion of souls of men, and women depraved, and corrupted (as infants never were by any actual sin p. 5.) is no less miracle indeed then the other: for the one is not at all, and the other where it is, is yet no miracle at all, but a matter that happens ever and anon in the ordinary course of things, as a miracle doth not, and besides you are of those I am sure, who are in the mind that miracles are ceased.  
And lastly, for you to sprinkle all the new born infants in all the Christian nations at this hour, as taking it for granted that these all have faith (for so you suppose (though you see not any individual or particular infant hath it, that is brought to you) and yet hold in fants' faith to be a miracle, and yet to hold miracles to be ceased also, it is, if not miraculum, yet mirandum monstrum et horrendum, at least to me i e. a marvellous work and a wonder that ever the wisdom of wise men should so perish, and the understanding of prudent men so come to nought.  
Thus having done with your forlorn hope, I'll march on now to give checkmate to that wretched crew of cavillers, that are so impudent, as to be responsive against reason and its Regiment, and to undertake to make it good against them, that infants have faith, and must have baptism.   

Review.  
The objection that reason makes against it will easily be answered, it is done for satisfaction to the Reader.   

Re-Review.  
Yea Sirs? is Reason in so little request with you, as that you not only dare so audaciously engage against, but also set so light by it, as to say its objections are easily answered? let it be put to the vote if you please throughout the whole earth, whether you deserve the title of good Logicians i. e. Reasonable men, who hear professedly wrestle against reason itself, and whether your faith can possibly be found any other then faction and mere fiction, against which Reason itself is by yourselves confessed to be opponent.  
I confess I have heard men (called divines) speak of many points of Religion and faith as above reason, but I yet never met with men under the name of ministers, so far devoid of Reason, as to say that Religion and faith are against Reaso●…, till I met with you, whose faith and practise of baptism to believers infants (upon account of their appearing to believe, more plainly than the profession of persons at years can make it appear of themselves) is, as seems by yourselves, a faith and practise against Reason, why else doth reason object against it.  
Indeed the Papists are so unreasonable in sundry articles of their faith that they hold some things not only above but against Reason, and that's the worst that can be said of the most absurd, and abominable tenets that are amongst them, and that is so bad, that even thereupon the Protestant priesthood finds occasion enough to abhor them, witness their Tenet of transubstantiation, or real presence of Christ's very body in the supper, of which when we say how can this be? its not only against other articles of faith viz. his bodily ascension, session, and local mansion in heaven, but also against common sense and reason, it being in reason impossible, that one body should be at once in two places, as well as in consubstantiation it is for two distinct bodies viz. the bread and Christ's body to be at once in one place, they say much what as you say here, and in the lines above viz. that howbeit its difficult to understand how it should be so in Reason, yet if we had learned to believe the Scriptures, which in plain terms assert the thing, saying of the bread this is my body, we would believe it, and leave the manner of its being so to him who says it, with whom all things are possible, as we do in the articles of faith e g. the resurrection of the body, not ask how it can be because the Scriptures have declared it.  
The Reformists tell them again that the resurrection of the dead is a thing not only in respect of God, who can do all things (save such as imply imperfection, as to lie, and die, etc. and contradiction, for its impossible utterly that pure contradictories should be both true) but also in respect of the thing itself possible to be effected, but the ubiquity, and the actual universal eating of one and the same numerical body, and so small a body too as that of Christ's, and at one and the same time, in so many several places, are matters and fancies savouring of such contradiction, and so adverse to the very nature of God, that as Kekerman system. log. p. 42. says, Ne deus quidem producer●… potest; et logica e as e suis excludit ordinibus: such as God doth not, and Reason knows not.  
O but saith the Papists, nothing but humane reason judges this impossible and repugnant to other articles of faith: to whom among other things our Divines use to reply, that in matters of religion, and faith, and things of God, reason is not to be laid aside, as if we were to bring bare bruit sense i. e. blind implicit faith only to the word of God, but to be used by us, that we may thereby, as without which we cannot, distinguish truth from falsehood: yea to speak yet in the very words of your own author in this case, I mean Ursins Catechise, to which you send us, whose these words mostly are, which I have already spoken, see page 414. 415.  
For even therefore was reason given us of God, that we might by the light of the mind discover contradictory opinions, and clearly understanding what is agreeable to the word of God, and what repugnant to it, may embrace this, and refuse that:  
Hoc nisi firmum maneat, nullum erit dogma tam absurdum, etc.  
Unless this stand for granted, no opinion, though never so absurd, and impious, yea nothing in the sinks of all heretics, though never so impure and monstrous, can be confuted out of the holy Scripture; for heretics, and deceivers will reply, their opinions do not contradict the word of God, but only it seems so to humane reason.  
You see then how among your own writers, the foundation of faith and true religion, is laid not only in the Scripture as the rule and fountain whence we fetch all, but secondarily in sound Reason also, improved in way of trial of things by it, as without which no use can be made of Scripture: so that though some Divines proclaim it to the whole world (for so do yourselves in this place) that Reason itself is against them in their way, and consequently that their way is against Reason, and many Divines confess their faith and religion in some articles, and particles of it to be above Reason (which is but a gentl●…-gigg too, if by above Reason they mean so, as that Reason cannot comprehend how they are, at least conceive them possible so to be) yet however farewell such a faith for ever for me, as Reason fights with, and far be it from me either to do, or believe any thing against reason: for as they that see not good ground in reason to believe what they believe, can never be always ready (as every Christian ought) to render a reasonable answer to such as ask them a Reason of the faith that is in them, and are at best but implicit in believing, so they, who believe not only without, and beyond, but even against Reason itself, opposing them in their faith, are most unreasonable believers indeed: and such as shall find, that Reason (as easily as they think 'tis answered) will make good what objection it makes against the most unreasonable of them all: but to leave this, and to come to the discourse or ratiocination itself, which follows between Reason and reasonlese, for what else can I fitly style such an Antagonist, as stiffens himself against Reason, and counts it nothing to refute it? yea 'tis done here in your Review for satisfaction to the Reader (as you say) but 'tis undone again in the Re-review to the undeception of the deceived and the deceiver.  
The objections of Reason, and replies of reasonless and re-replies of Reason's friend are as follows.   

Review.  
1 Infants have no knowledge of good, or evil, 
Reason.   
Ergo no faith.  
By the same reason they should be denied to have the faculty of understanding, 
Reasonless.  the exercise of their faculty they have not, no more have they of their faith, not the act but the habit, as was said before.   

Re-Review.  
Good Sirs, consider what a reasonless reply to reason this is.  
For if by faith you mean only a faculty of believing, what ever in time may be told them, which is the adequate object of faith in general, that is in all reasonable creatures: and is de esse to them, universally, innate in them, as a part of the rational soul, as well as the faculty of remembering what in time they may hear, and of willing, and choosing what in time may be propounded to them, and of understanding what in time may be taught them; but what is all this to your purpose, who plead faiths being in some infants only, not in all: when as faith in that sense is as much in all infants as in some, and would (if it could at all entitle such as have it to baptism) entitle all mankind to baptism as well as some, sith all have the faculty of believing things (as beasts which are merely sensitive have not) flowing naturally from the rational soul in man?  
But if by faith you mean restrictively, that faith in special, whose adequate object is the word of God preached, in the promise and precept of it, which only makes us subjects of salvation and baptism, dare you say that 'tis of equal necessity, and certainty that faith in such a sense is in infants, as the faculty of Reason, and understanding is? so that by the same Reason that we deny one of these to be in them, it may be therefore denied that they have the other? and that their non knowledge of good or evil will as much prove them to be habitually no reasonable creatures, as it proves them to be habitually no true believers of the Gospel?  
For shame Sirs blot out and abjure this absurdity, for you cannot but know that the faculty of understanding in man is Habitus a nature â innatus, a habit engendered in them in very nature, yea in all mankind necessarily, & qua id ipsum: but yourselves say faith, in the sense in which we speak of it, is but Habitus infusus, a habit infused, and that into some only, for all say you have it not, and I say 'tis Habitus acquisitus, rather an acquired habit, which comes if not without the gift of God to persons therein, yet also in that way of hearing the word, which on our parts is first done, in order to its being begotten in us, whereby we come to know good and evil first, i.e. to be convinced of sin and guilt in ourselves, and righteousness and mercy in God, through Jesus Christ, and then to have faith in him to justification: in this therefore Reason remains unrefuted, and rather routs you, than is routed by you.   

Review.  
2. Their dislike at baptism testified by their crying: if they had faith they 
Reason:  could endure it with much patience.  
The same reason might be brought against circumcision, children, when they felt the pain, it is likely cried as much: 
Reasonless.   
Besides, we must deny faith to be in the best of God's children, if their sense under the cross, and their complaing of it be an argument to conclude against it: against the weakness of faith it may, not against the being.   

Re-Review.  
Had circumcision been administered on persuasion that the subjects to whom it was set were believers (as baptism is to be Acts 8.) this same reason might have been borough also against infant's circumcision, though I must confess it to be the least among an 100 that in reason may be brought to disprove infants believing, and therefore possibly you (whom I observe sometimes to set up a man of straw, of least strength to annoy you, and then to show your skill in fencing at him) have singled out this easy opposite to encounter with; and yet (so far as 〈◊〉 see) you do not (as the proverb is) give him as he brings neither: but circumcision, as is well known, well-nigh to every body but yourselves, was dispensed to persons upon a far different account from this, viz. merely on their being males of a Jewish household, and sometimes one a more slender acquaintance with Abrahams●…a ●…a mily then so, witness the whole City of the Shechemites, whose males were all all circumcised on mere hopes of their prince's marriage with Jacob's daughter: but 'twas not dispensed as you senselessly suppose it was on supposition of its subjects having faith: for as there was not present evidence to any body that any of those infants that were signed had faith, so (for all your childish conclusion p. 4. that the children of the Jews had faith, witness their circumcision, therefore the children of believing parents have now) by future experience 'twas evident to every body that they had it not: how else came they to be complained on in general, when at years, as a body of wicked ones, and unbelievers, unless you will say they lost, and fell from their faith, as I am sure you dare not, and for my part I cannot say they did, except I could see more clearly than yet I do see, or you can ever make me see that at first they had it.  
As for your further following flim-flam, wherein you tell us that we must deny faith to be in the best of God's children, as well as in little children, if their sense under the cross and their complaining of it be an Argument to conclude against their faith; I give you to understand Sirs, that its an ignorant inconsequence, and so you will yourselves discern it to be, by than you have weighed what a difference there is, between that voluntary submission, which by the power of faith in the Saintsis acted, and yielded to the cross, and yoke of Christ, in either circumcision or baptism, or any other difficult duty, or dispensation, service or suffering they are called to for Christ's sake, and that forced and not more unpleasant than unwelcome imposition of it, that is made when that cross, or yoke, viz. the affliction, or pain of circumcision or baptism, is put upon the necks of infants, for the one freely choses it, when they have the liberty to refuse and decline it, if they please, and therefore though they have some sense out to the flesh, no affliction being joyous, but grievous, yet are so far from complaining of it, that they rather comply with it of their own accord, as counting it better than to be without it, witness Moses, who by faith chose rather affliction and rep●…oach with Christ, as deeming these better than the pleasures and treasures of Egypt, which were at his choice as well as these; but the other, i e. infants are so far from offering themselves to either duty, or difficulty for Christ, as by faith esteeming it better so to do then to escape, that they rather are solely sensible of the smart, so as to gainsay, refuse and avoid it what they can, but only that will they nill they, men make them bear it, and cross them whether they will or no; neither can infants by faith choose, welcome or delight in either the disease that is by dipping, or the sore that seconds circumcision, but suffer both full sore against their wills; and whereas you say the sense of the cross may conclude against the weakness of faith, not against the being: that clause reasons Reasonlesly against Reason indeed, for it hath neither good sense nor reason in it to your own purpose, or ours either: the best I can make on it for your turn is to suppose it a mere mistake, and that's the least a man so concerned to meddle with it as I am, can well say of it, for surely Sirs if I read it right, you write it wrong, and set down your mind in words, the sense whereof is just contrary to your meaning: for certainly you would or at least should have said [Against the strength or greatness of faith and you say [Against the weakness of it] if this were but lapsus Calami, when 'twas penned, yet 'twas lapsus animi, and Error men●… is too, to let it pass uncorrected, when 'twas printed; but most of all when 'twas corrected after the for verily among all the printers mistakes, which you hint to me in that corrected copy you sent me, when you summoned me to answer your Pamphlet, there's no mention of this mistake of the penman, who cannot impure this as an oversight, of the printer but of the overseers themselves, which weakness (to conclude with you in your own kind) may serve to conclude against the exercise, and eminency of your Reason, though not against the being of Reason in you at all.   

Review.  
3 Why are they not after admitted to the supper?  
Because the Apostle expressly requires of every one that comes to examine 
Reason.  himself 1 Cor. 11. 28. 
Reasonless,   
If any such thing were required of all that are to be baptised, they might lawfully be barred from that.   

Re-review.  
Here reason demands of you why after bap●…ism you admit not infants to the supper? and good reason too for cui signum ei signatum, is a pig of your own sow, and  
I add; cui admissio, et accessio per, et post baptismum, cui incorporatio, ei continuatio, progressio, corporis communio fractione panis, et precibus, Acts 2. 42. cui nativitas ei facultas auctrix, nutrix; et quare non nutrimentum?  
He that hath the thing signified (as infants of believers appear it seems to have to you, but not to us more than other infants i e. indeed not at all) must have the sign, he that hath membership must have fellowship in things pertaining to the body, he that is once born grows, and is nourished, yea (to speak in Mr. Blakes phrase) being of the household, they must have of the food of the household, the stewards of the mysteries of God must be accountable in case they do deny it, why therefore should not infants have the supper?   

Babist.  
In answer to which I tell you that baptism is an initial sacrament of our spiritual birth, and entrance only into the Church, of both which infants being capable, in token thereof must be baptised so soon as they are born, specially of spiritual parents (though that be but a fleshly birth neither, that hath no more appearance of the spirit, or spiritualness in it then is in the birth of the children of the most carnal in the world) but the supper is a sacrament of our spiritual growth, nourishment, continuance, further establishment etc. of which infants being not so capable, are consequently not capable of the supper till they come to age, and become men of some growth.   

Baptist.  
As if there is not a growth ensuing every birth, even the spiritual as well as the natural, and as if every babe as well spiritually as naturally born, doth not continue, and desire the sincere milk i. e. to suck and receive nourishment and relief, as if Mr. Blake were out (and so I suppose he is, but not that he supposes himself so to be) in saying to the confutation of his fellow helpers (as he doth p. 32) that children of believers have such timly knowledge of God, as to be sucking in somewhat of him, whilst they suck milk from the breast, which if it be true, then if one sign belong to them, the other doth also, because the things signified severally in both do belong, and they are as capable to eat, and to drink as to be dipped, and to know the meaning of one as of the other, and in order to the one i e. the supper as capable to examine themselves, as to believe with all their hearts in order to the other i. e. baptism, why therefore not have that sacrament of their spiritual nourishment, as well as that sacrament of their spiritual birth? but if it be false, then (besides the untruth of Mr. Bl●…kes testimony) there is sure no such thing in infants as spiritual growth and nourishment, and so consequently in infancy no spiritual birth neither, and so no right in token of either to be admitted, either to one sacrament or the other: but your reply to Reason in this place is this viz. self-examination is to precede in the subjects of the supper, no such matter in the subjects of baptism.  
No Sirs? are not repentance from dead works, and belief towards God with all the heart, and confession of sins, and calling on God such kind of matters? is not self-examination ever praevious ●…o repentance Lam. 3. 40. Let us search, and try, and turn, was there ever any confession of sin without it? yet these things are all required in order unto baptism.  
Doth not Philip to one that asked him this question, why may I not be baptised? return this answer, if thou believest with all thy heart thou mayest? and doth not that imply that else he might not? as much as let a man examine himself, and so let him eat, is as much as to say or else he may not.   

Babist.  
That was spoken by Philip first to a man, and not to an infant, secondly, to one man only, and not to all.   

Baptist.  
Was not that of Paul spoken of men only at years? yet is it reckoned by you exclusive of infants, and why not Philips also?  
Secondly if Philip spoke but to one single man, and Ananias to another, when the one said if thou believest thou mayest be baptised, and the other arise and be bapt●…zed calling on the Lord etc. yet john baptist spoke to more than one, even to all the people that came forth to his baptism, or to be baptised of him when he said repent, and amend your lives, and they did so, and were baptised of him in jordan accordingly, confessing their sins i e. they that were at all baptised by him; and Peter said repent as well as be baptised to all that he preached to, yea repent every one of you exempting no one from repentance, to whom he enjoined baptism and they did so, and were baptised accordingly i. e. as many (no more, for else it's a fallacious relation) as gladly received his word, that did not infants, therefore all this is also as exclusive of them from baptism surely, as let a man examine himself, and so let him eat is exclusive of them from the supper, or else I'll never trust reason more, but f●…rgo it, and become as reasonless as yourselves.  
To conclude then, in granting positively that without self-examination there is no right of access to the supper, and also in granting it suppositively, that if there be any thing equivalent to that required of all that are to be baptised, than infants may lawfully be barred from baptism, you answer as answerably to reason as men can do, or even reason itself: but in supposing that no such thing as self-examination is required in order to baptism, as it is to the receiving of the supper, you wretchedly bewray your self-non-examination of the Scripture.   

Review.  
4. When they come to ripe years not one of millions gives testimony of his faith 
Reason.  without further instruction.  
Nor should he of his reasonable soul, not so much as in speaking if he be not 
Reasonless.  taught.   

Re-Review.  
First, the faculty of not only believing in general, but also in special of believing the Gospel, of believing in Christ to justification is belike as naturally, and necessarily in infants of believers, as the faculty of reason itself, so it seems by your talk, why else is that frequent analogy made by you between these two, and such frequent allusion in proof of one of them to the other, as if whosoever deni●…s one of them viz. the grace of saving faith to be in such infants must needs also deny the other, and as if whatsoever concludes against such infants being believe●…s concludes as much against their being reasonable creatures? I am much amazed at your ignorance in this, specially since yourselves agree, that all infants, even those of Indians, Turks and Pagans are reasonable creatures, and yet that few, not one of many infants are habitually believers, as namely the infants of believers only.  
Secondly I blush at your rudeness and folly in this also in that you assert, that not one infant of millions should give any testimony of his reasonable soul i. e. ever evidence it that he is a reasonable creature, when he comes to ripe years, if he be not taught.  
What S●…s, will children never show themselves to be risible, and so consequently reasonable by laughing, when tickt and toid with in such minority, as they are not capable to learn in, if they be not taught and instructed how to laugh? will they not show themselves intelligible, if not so much as in speaking, which with you it seems is the first, and least expression of reason in them, yet not so much as by understanding what is spoken to them? yea how think you, must they not be imagined, and understood in some measure to be understanding, and so consequently to have reasonable souls before they can be rationally instructed at all? for verily he is a fool, unreasonable, and of no understanding himself, that offers to teach children to act any act of reason, that is to be produced by teaching, or to know their letters, or to read, or write before they can discern them to be at least intelligible, and teachable in these things they are to be taught in, and consequently to have reasonable souls:  
Yea verily the faculty of reason is habitus naturâ innatus and naturâ notus, a habit that comes by generation, and puts forth itself into several acts of itself, even so many as clearly testify it to be in us before we are at capacity to be taught, and whether ever we be taught any thing or no, for a specimen of reason in us must be before we begin to be endoctrinated, or else as good endoctrinate a brute creature: but justifying faith, or belief of the Gospel is such a habit of which we may not only say (as you do truly in the next page) p. 18. that instruction of the understanding, in the object of it in some sort must ●…o before any act of it can be discovered, as whereby only say you discovery of the habit can be made, but also that instruction of the understanding in some sort must go before the habit of it can be in us at all: for whether you will suppose it to come by infusion only, or by aquisition only, or both, it comes not by nature and generation (as reason doth) but by teaching and instruction, if we will believe the word, which saith faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.   

Review.  
5. They lose it again when they come to more years, else why are they taught 
Reason.  the element of faith?  
By the same reason they should lose the faculty of understanding also, because 
Reasonless.  after they are set to learning: learning is for the brin●…ing forth into act, and perfecting of the degrees; otherwise one that is at 24. years of age, having received faith once, might give over learning more: for if this argument might hold either they lose it, or why do they learn?   

Re-Review.  
H●…op Sirs! what pretty, cutted stuff is here? as if you did not know well enough, but that, for advantage sake to your crooked cause, you rather choose here to seem ignorant of it, that teaching and learning is not only for the further bringing forth of habits that are in us into their acts, and perfecting of them in their degrees, but also for the begetting of some habits in us that never were before viz. no●… natural and innate habits, as the faculty of reason and understanding, for instruction is not for the engendering, but improving of these in us, but all such kind of habits as faith is viz. acquired habits; teaching tends not only, to the perfecting of such a posteriori after they are once begun, but a priori also to the very being, and begetting of these, whether they be habits about matters of this life, or that to come, 'tis true therefore learning is to be continued for the perfecting of habits begun, and begotten in a man, otherwise indeed (as you say) one of 24 years, having once received the faith, need be taught no more, but it is to be also for the beginning and begetting of faith in him, otherwise to one at 24 years of age having not yet received it, the faith is preached by you in vain that he may receive it.  
There is a teaching to beget grace and faith where it is not, and a teaching to increase it where it is, Mat. 28. 18. 19 a teaching before, and a teaching after faith and baptism, and if you ask a reason of both these, the one is to beget faith into both the habit, and the act, the other to build it up into higher degrees, the second teaching indeed supposes a being of it in men, the first teaching no being of it as yet when you begin first to preach to them, for your preaching speaks to them as to unbelievers: whereupon this argument holds good, that if ever they had faith in their infancy, they have lost it now, for why else are they taught the element of it? why taught in order to the receiving it? for reason in this objection must be understood as speaking suppositively only i. e. in case persons had faith in infancy it's now lost, why else are they taught to this end that they might have it? but not so positively as your expressions represent it, as if reason did really assert that infants do lose any faith they had in infancy, for howbeit reason acknowledges that such in whom faith is, may lose it if they look not to it, yet reason knows well enough that those can never be said to lose faith, in whom faith never was at all.   

Review.  
6. Habits incline more towards their proper actions, but children of Christians are not more inclined to actions of faith than infidels. 
Reason.   
An Argument from comparison is subject to many exceptions; caeteris paribus being to be proved before it can hold, if the objector had considered that among children born of the same Christian parents, under the same education, one gives a better 
Reasonless.  specimen, not only in acts of piety, and religion, but knowledge; he would not have concluded to the denial of the habit of faith in one, more than of the faculty of understanding in the other. We must necessarily hold, 1. The habit of faith must be, before it can work. 2. That the Spirit of God infuses this habit. 3. That he is not bound to work it in the children of Christian parents, nor barred from working it in any of the children of infidels. 4. Whersoever this habit is, it inclines to holy actions when there is opportunity, and the season for bringing them forth. 5. This inclination is not equally alike in all in whom the habits themselves are. Samson and David are sufficient instances; David for exceeding in acts of piety and relegion. 6. Instruction of the understanding in matter of faith in some sort, must go before any act of faith can be discovered. Lastly, that no judgement of science can be passed till the acts themselves be seen and examined, for a posteriore only the discovery of habits is made. These premised, the answer is, 1. That unless it could be certainly presumed what children have the habit, what have not, for the working of the Spirit is not known to us, he is not bound nor barred, there can be no conclusion made. 2. That in those children where there is less promptness to acts of faith then in others, we cannot argue ad negationem habitus, because they work not equally. Lastly, by this cross interrogatory, are those children of infidels, with which the objector makes his comparison, being called and instructed, inclined to acts of faith or not? If the former, it presupposes they have the habit, and so the working in them, and those born of believing parents may be one. If the later, the Argument is denied, for the children of Christians are more inclined.   

Re-Review.  
This is wit whether wilt thou: I think he is wise that well knows either what you say, or what to say to what you say, so reasonless are several pieces of the return that is here rendered to reason's objection.  
I speak not of a few faults, which in the first part of it escaped the press, and made it nonsense, for those you corrected in the copy you sent to me, so that I might do no less than do you right so far as to transprint it (as I have done) according to your own emendation: Nec tibi Typographi crimina dem vitio.  
But of the faults which escaped the pen, or rather the pates of those that composed this rambling responsion, the major part of which, whether it passed from you willingly, and ingenuously, or rashly, and unadvisedly rather I know not, is a most flat unsaying of most of that you have said before; and much of what you say again in the next page after, and an acknowledgement of the clear contrary to that, which you have hitherto tugged for, and which you pursue the proof of well-nigh throughout your whole Pamphlet, an absolute overturning of the basis on which your book builds infant's baptism, which is this assertion, viz. That it sufficiently appears that these little infants in particular have faith, meaning infants of believers in contradistinction to those of Turks and Pagans, whom as concerning their original condition, and their birthright to salvation you rather rank with the Devils, then with the children of Christians; I say a plain deponing of that position you ground all on, viz. that 'tis apparent the infants you sprinkle do believe, and so a serving of our turn as much as we desire; and as for that little which seems not so directly for us, though by reason of, not the profundity (for 'tis shallow enough) but the darkness, and muddiness of the matter, it be hard to see clearly to the bottom of it, yet if I do truly sound the sense of it, and reach to the utmost of your meaning in it, it seems to speak as li●…tle for yourselves.  
You tell us first, that an Argument from comparison is subject to many objections, and cannot hold, unless caeteris paribus be first proved; whereby you subject the most of your own Arguments in the present point to exception, for I appeal to yourselves, and all men to judge, whether they are not mostly drawn from comparisons between the children of the Jews, and the children of Gentile believers, the circumcision of the one, and baptism of the other; and yet caeteris paribus is not at all proved by you to this hour, nor yet ever can be, sith caeteris imparibus, I mean disagreement almost in all things between Jew's children and Christians, between circumcision and baptism is so manifestly made appear by us, that there hardly appears any analogy at all between them. Besides,  
Secondly, So far as to the freeing of this Argument from comparison between infidels and Christians infants, so as that it may hold without any exception, caeteris paribus is granted by yourselves, for if by this parity in other things you mean an equality of souls by creation, yourselves assert that parity but a page above, viz. p. 16. where you say all souls are equal in their creation, and so the souls of believers and unbelievers infants.  
But thirdly, If by parity in other things, which you would have proved, you mean an equality in their natural capacities, and endowments of wit and ingenuity, then either there is such a parity in infants of Christians and infidels, or else so far as disparity is, the excellency may much rather of the two be supposed to be in the children of Christians, in whom yet caeteris paribus, suppose them to have the same education, and instruction, there is no more inclination to believe in Christ by verrue of any habit of faith infused into them in infancy above the other, then there is in the children of Indians.  
Next you tell us, If the Objector had considered etc. he would not have concluded thus as he doth, The objector you say is Reason, so that Reason belike was much besides itself in arguing so unreasonably against your fiction of faith in the Infants of Christians; but what if Reason should consider the very same, that you here wish it would, must its conclusion against the belief of believers infants be thereupon ere a whit the more unconcluded? and what though among children born of the same Christian parents, under the same education, one gives a better specimen, not only in acts of piety and religion, but of knowledge also, may not therefore the habit of faith be more groundedly denied to be in one, than the faculty of understanding can be denied to be in the other.  
What still Sirs? still will you make the being of faith in the infants of Christians of equal necessity with the being of the principle of reason and faculty of understanding in infants? the faculty of understanding is an innate habit necessarily to be concluded, and that in the highest degree to be in all infants, 'tis in omni, per se, quâ ipsum, but faith in Christ is by your own confession, but an infused habit, and by your own confession as not in all infants, so in you know not which, and which not till you see them act it: and yet by your own conclusion (to go round again) 'tis in such not in such, viz. not at all in Turks and Pagan's infants (for they are all in a damnable condition with you) but in all infants of Christians, even such as yet give no specimen of it, and that so necessarily, that a man may as truly deny that which is natural to them, even the faculty of understanding, as deny the habit of faith to be in them.  
Next in order to a fuller, and more direct answer you prepare the way by a panel of six or seven positions, which you say you must necessarily hold, concerning two or three of which we may say it's no great matter whether you hold them or no, for any undoubted, and infallible truth that is to be found in them, in the sense wherein you take them, or at least for any great matter of assistance, that accrues to your cause by them, and as for the rest, of which you say you must necessarily hold them, you might have said rather you must necessarily yield them to us, for indeed they are the giving up of your cause, and no other than the drawing of a dash with your own pen over all that ever you say, throughout the residue of your works, as concerning that sufficient appearance of faith, you assert to be in believers infants: yea he is blind that doth not see you thereby perfectly blotting out again, what ever you penned in that particular with your own hands.  
First say you the habit of faith must be before it can work, I know no necessity of holding this for truth, neither indeed would you hold it but that you imagine faith to be another kind of habit than it is, for there are more kinds of habits than one, though you speak of habit by the lump all along, as if you were aware of but one, for here's ore and o'er again, habit, habit, habit, habit, habit, but not the least hint of what kind of habit you mean; you are never the men that distinguish of habits, whereas qui bene distinguit bene docet, there being some habits acquired, and obtained no otherwise then by acting, and faith itself is such a habit, as will hardly be proved (for all your confidence in the contrary) to be any other, at least to be apparent in any one, or visible to the view of others till some act thereof hath past the persons in whom it is, neither is any one in the world, that I know of habitually a believer in Christ, till having heard of him or his word he doth actually believe.  
Secondly, whereas you say the spirit of God infuses this habit; I grant he infuses it, if you take the word infuse in a true sense i. e. for begetting it in persons by the preaching of the word, other infusion of faith (if yet that may be properly called infusion, which is a phrase rather of your own coining in this case) the word knows none: God indeed gives it, but he gives it in the way of hearing the word of faith, in the way of hearing Christ preached, in which way he never gave it to infants, neither is it his gift to them in any other. the spirit works it, but not without the use of means, not per saltum. and in 〈◊〉 ocul. i e. so suddenly as you fancy, but by the discharge of that office he bears from the father to that end and purpose, towards the whole world, i. e. moving, striving, persuading inwardly, whilst the word doth without, enlightening, convincing a man of sin in himself, of righteousness to be had, and of a judgement to come, wherein we shall be saved, or damned according as we believe, or believe not, accept, or neglect so great salvation; upon which motions and convictions, which are stricter and stronger in some then in other four, some yield, and believe, and obey the Gospel, and some for all this rebel and obey not, so that 'tis true the spirit thus effects the business within us yet not so as that he is said wholly to do it without us; he is the supreme efficient, the operative cause of it, but we are to be concurrent cum causa operante, we have a part to do as well as he, when he hath done his part towards us, i e. to believe, which if we do not, he will not force us, he will go no further, nor shall he be blamed, but we, and we not only blamed, but damned for not doing it accordingly: but if we do believe, and turn at his reproof; then indeed there is a promise of an infusion, or rather effusion of the spirit in other i e. those more special and peculiar offices, of a witness to our spirits, that we are Gods children, a seal, a comforter, a reve●…ler of the things freely given us of God, a supporter under sufferings etc. all which it performs towards the Saints, and in respect of which only its called the holy spirit of promise Eph. 1. 13. in this manner the spirit of God in order to that sweet infusion of itself into us may be said (if you will call it infusion, for which a fitter word may be found) to infuse i. e. to work faith, other infusion of faith into men, much less into infants, or such a downright infusion as I suppose you dream on, the Scripture makes no mention of at all.  
Thirdly in that you say he is not bound to work it in all the children of Christian parent, nor barred from working it in any of the children of infidels: this indeed you must necessarily hold (as you say) for 'tis undeniable truth, but in holding it you must wholly let go ●…ll you held before, concerning believers infants appearing to have faith, and that in contradistinction to the infants of unbelievers; for first you use to say as p. 14. out of Act. 2. that the promise of it is to believers, and their seed, i. e. as believers seed, and so consequently to all, and only their seed, not the seed of unbelievers: for quod convenit qua ipsum, convenit omni, soli, semper, belongs always, to all of one sort, and not any man of another, and thereby you use to bind the spirit (unless he will be unfaithful) to work faith, as without which you think he cannot give them salvation, in all the seed of believers, for a promise that is made to such or such a seed (qu●… si●…) must needs be sure as the Scripture saith Romans 4. 16. and made good (or else God that cannot lie breaketh his word) to all the seed to whom (as such) it is made.  
But sith now you say that the spirit is not bound to give faith and salvation to believers seed, nor barred from giving it to any of the seed of infidels, which is as much as to say he is at liberty from all obligation of himself by promise to either of these above the other, and to work it in which he pleases, you will I hope (unless you be more ashamed of seeming to have been ignorant, then ashamed of your ignorance, so as to give glory to God by confessing it) relinquish that wont position of a birth privilege in this point, in believers seed, more t●…en in others, which you ground and prove from that promise A●…t. 2. and ingenuously confess, that for ought you know the one hath no more ingagemeat of God to them by promise then the other: so that unless there were more warrant than you have to single out one from the other as the special subjects of baptism, and heirs of salvation, you ought to baptise them all alike i e. in very deed to let them all alone till you come, as in infancy you confess you cannot, to presume what children have the habit of faith, and what have not.  
Fourthly, whereas you say wheresoever the habit of faith is, it inclines to holy actions, when there ●…s opportunity and the season for bringing them forth: whether this be necessary to be held or no, yet we'll hold it to do you a pleasure, in calling you thereby from your false cause, for else its like to do you more displeasure in your cause of infant's faith, than you well considered, when you penned and printed it: for wheresoever faith is, the opportunity and season for its bearing fruit, and working by love and other holy actions is ever present and perpetual: yea its never unopportune or unseasonable for him that hath faith to be acting obedience in one thing or other: yea if any one say I have faith and have not works, and holy actions, much less, if no inclinableness to holy actions, that faith cannot save, nor stand him instead faith without works being dead and profiting nothing: therefore if where ever faith is it inclines to holy actions when opportunity and season for it is, than I am sure there is no faith at all in infants, for there is no opportunity or season at all in infancy, wherein faith is found fruitful in them: and if you will say they have faith though you have no evidence of it, and prove it is so because it is so, than it is a faith without works, and that faith is dead, unprofitable and cannot save them, james 2. and if so, you would be better opinioned towards infants in my mind, to hold them saved without faith, then to hold they have a faith which cannot save them, for better never a whit at all then never the better.  
Fiftly, whereas you say that this inclination to holy actions is not equally alike in all, in whom the habits themselves are, that may be so too, yet Samson and David are no such sufficient instances of it, but that more sufficient might have been given, for as there are many worthy things recorded which both these did by the power of faith, Heb. 11. so he of whom you say he exceeded in acts of piety was in some things, not to say as impious, yet impious as well as the other; besides to make comparisons between two such worthies, as doing, the one more good, the other less, both which by faith did no less the subdue, and in their times fully deliver Israel from the Philistines, for which the spirit is pleased to record, and recommend them both as examples to all ages, and rank them among others, of whom the world was not worthy, in one line Heb. 11. 32. caeteris paribus unproved too, such comparison (if any be so) is beyond all comparison odious, and subject to many exceptions, but be it all just as you have said it, yet as little yields it to the support of your infant faith, and childish baptism, as if you had said nothing at all.  
Sixthly, whereas you say that instruction of the understanding in matter of faith in some sort must go before any act of faith can be discovered.  
And seventhly and lastly, that no judgement of science can be passed i e. true demonstration made of this habit of faith till the acts themselves be seen, and examined, and that a posteriore only the discovery of habits is made, and then from all these preparative premises draw up your conclusive answer in three heads answering thus in the first place viz.  
That it cannot be certainly presumed what children have faith, what have not, and that the working of the spirit in that particular is not known to us, and o'er again also that the spirit is not bound nor barred, and therefore there can be no conclusion made.  
I say 'tis all necessarily to be held for truth, yea 'tis a truth so preciously pertinent to our purpose against the purpose of your own pamphlet, that had we been to conclude in a little compass all that need be said toward the appearance of this position viz. that it doth not sufficiently appear by any evidence of it in their infancy, that infants of believers have faith, any more than other infants, we could not in so few words have spoken so pithily to such a purpose, which when I consider, I cannot but wonder, and conceive you will once wonder at yourselves, when your eyes are open, that they whose words all these are should act against them all, so absurdly, as to make it the biggest business throughout their book, to make it appear and that sufficiently, that believers infants have faith beyond other infants.   

Babist.  
A charitable judgement concerning their having faith is sufficient to admit them to baptism, and that is the utmost that we assert can be had of their belief, not a judgement of certainty.   

Baptist.  
A judgement of charity that there's faith in persons sufficiently, warrantably, and certainly grounded is sufficient to baptise upon, and such is that judgement on which we baptise, who baptise none, but such as the word requires us to believe to be believers i: e. such as personally profess so to be, and of such as those, though we have but a judgement of charity concerning their faith, yet have we from precept and precedent out of the word a judgement of certainty concerning their right to baptism, but a judgement of charity taken up on mere fancy and conceit, without warrant from, or rather against both Scripture and reason, warrants no man to dispense baptism upon it, as from God, for if it do I may as well baptise the great Turk as a little infant, and no better is your judgement of charity concerning faith in little infants, upon which you attempt to baptise them.   

Babist.  
Our charity is better grounded then so, yea far better than yours, as certain as it is, and is as due to children of believing parents, as to persons at years; for we have God's testimony concerning them in this matter, whilst you have but man's testimony concerning himself, yea Christ hath amply declared his good will to them in Scripture, whose testimony is not only Tanta-mount, but to be preferred before men's, from which it more plainly appears, that infants have faith, than the testimony of any particular person can make it appear for himself.   

Baptist,  
So you say indeed both before page 5. and behind p. 19 but how dare you assert then that you go not about to prove certainly, but only probably that believers infants do believe, for verily if it be so as you say that God himself gives testimony for them in Scripture, that these little infants do believe, than never say no judgement of science can be passed, no discovery made of the habit of faith, nor peremptory presuming what infants have faith, and what not till you see them act it: for God's testimony is more credible than man's indeed, hath he said it and is it not so? yea verily let him be true, but every man a liar; for man's own word can create but probability and charity, and not so much neither, unless he speak it from God's word that believers infants do believe, and infidels infants do not, but if God have said so, then cursed be he that will not believe it to be so, for if his word be not perfectly demonstrative, and scientifical and past all doubt, (but I confess I find not a word of his concerning such a thing) then I'll never trust self confuting Clergy men any more.  
2. Whereas you answer that in those children, where there is less promptness to acts of faith then in others, we cannot argue ad negationem habitus, because they work not equally.  
What is this to the present question and position concerning no more inclinableness to holy actions in children of Christians, then of insidels? for those are such of whom yourselves assert the one have faith, the other have none: but these you speak of now are adult ones, such as in whom there is some promptness to acts of faith appearing, differenced only secundum magis & minus, some inclining more some less to acts of faith, concerning all whom, sith those of them that have least promptness, have at least an apparent promptness to acts of faith, who denies but that they may have faith, though they work not equally? but what's this to the proof of more, or less inclinableness to holy actions among infants, who are so far from having some more some less, that even none of them have any promptness thereto at all?  
3. Whereas you fiddle it on a little further, and think to coop us up by your cross interrogatory, you may well call it a cross one indeed, for its a net that catches yourselves, let us answer it which way soever you would have us.  
For if we say heathens infants are inclined to acts of faith, and should make that good against you, as we shall hardly ere trouble ourselves to do, unless we did believe it to be truth, can you give any just account of your denial of baptism to these? yea who can forbid water why they may not be baptised, that have and are inclined to act faith as well as the other, and in whom as in those of believing parents the work is palpably at least possibly and probably the very same?  
But if we say no, infidels infants are not inclined, than we must take what comes on it, for you are resolved to hit us home indeed, and so you do, while you do that at last cast, which had you done at first, you had saved yourselves a deal of hurt, which you have done yourselves, by circumlocuting so long in way of proving the very Minor proposition of that last Argument which Reason urged against you, viz. that Christians children are not more inclined to actions of faith then those of infidels; for at last you fall flatly as your safest way to deny that Minor, and assert contrarily thereto, that children of Christians are more inclined to holy actions, than other children, which if it be true.  
First how grossly do you contradict that you say in the lines above, where you seem to grant that there may be more inclinableness in infidels children, and promptness to holy actions then in Christians?  
Secondly, I wonder how you come to be experienced in it, for if you Clergy men be all Christians, and so you are in your own account, your children (excepting some that by the breeding you give them, grow up to the same stamp of Christianity you print upon them) do (for all their native holy inclinations) not seldom prove the lewdest and rudest of any men's children in a Country; for not only through the Priests and Prophets own practice, but from their posterity too oft times profaneness goes out into all the world, or else the Popes had never filled it with iniquity as they have done. The next objection of Reason is as follows.   

Review.  
7. Faith comes by hearing. 
Reason.   
Little children cannot hear, must less understand.  
Ergo they have no faith. 
Reasonless.   
They might also conclude they have no faculty of understanding neither, for that comes by hearing: but infants have an hearing, the spirit opens their ears he must do it in adultis, or for all their hearing they will never believe. He is not tied to means though we are, without the outward hear of the Word he works faith in little children. The manner of his working is miraculous, as it is in the conversion of every soul, enough hath been said to that before; nor ought it to be objected, if miraculous then not ordinary; for the work of the spirit in the conversion of men is both.   

Re-Review.  
Had Reason had the managing, representing and writing of this Argument herself, she would not have set it down in so weak, absurd and silly a manner, as Reasonless hath done it in in this place.  
Reason never held such a thing yet as is asserted in this Minor, viz. that children cannot hear, much less understand, for abstract hearing from understanding, and take these two in sensu diviso (as you do here) and children can hear; but in sensu composito they cannot: it cannot rationally nor truly be said they cannot so much as hear, much less understand, but they cannot hear so as to understand, or they cannot hear understandingly, as those must that hear in order to believing, and whose faith comes by hearing: a hearing 'tis true infants have, for they are not destitute of that sense, more than of seeing, and the rest: Auriculas Asini quis non habet? the same hearing, that an Ass, horse, or other bruit beast hath, which is only the sound of words, without the knowledge of the sense, who hath not, save he that is deaf but the hearing they have is neither such as Paul speaks of there, nor yet that heating you say they have, viz. an inward hearing of the voice of Christ, and the spirit opening their ears so as to make them learn things as adult ones do, that is a mere figment, of your own fancies: besides if they had such an internal hearing as you dream of, what were that to the matter in hand, or to the answering the objection, that is grounded upon the alleged Scripture, which speaks not of an inward but an outward hearing the word of God preached, as that by which faith is begotten, and without which it cannot come? out of which outward way and means if persons be brought to believe as usually as by it (and so it must needs be if little infants believe by the understanding of certain secret whisper and teachings within) the spirit would not have spoken of it, as such an impossible case as he doth, in saying how can they believe on him of whom they have not heard? and how hear without a Preacher?  
But say you that is the usual means, by which faith is begotten in adult ones but the spirit is not tied to means though we are, he works faith in little children without the outward hearing of the word.  
Is it so Sirs, that the spirit is not tied to work by means in little children, in the same cases, wherein he works by means in men, and women? I wonder then that you, whose opinion this is, should be so forgetful, as to teach quite contrary to your own tenet, for verily of all the men that are, I know none that limit the spirit, and tie him to means in his dealings with little infants, like unto yourselves.  
As for us we own this position fully, and to a tittle viz. that what God acts at all for infants, he acts without means, as to their salvation, but as for yourselves you own and disclaim this by turns, according as it seems to serve your own turns: so far as to hold it helps to hold up your monstrous odd opinion of infant's faith, which hath no footing at all in Scripture, you inwardly entertain it, and outwardly proclaim it for undoubted truth: but when you find it makes against you, then 'tis no other than a figment of the Anabaptists, for when we tell you there is no right to baptism without faith, but infants cannot believe, because faith comes by hearing understandingly the word preached, which infants cannot do then such of you as Rantize infants on such a sottish supposition, as their having faith in themselves, excuse the matter thus viz.  
The spirit is not tied to means, nor to the outward way of hearing the word, so but that though he begets men to faith that way, and by that means, yet he begets infants to believe without it: and such of you as ashamed to assert that the infants themselves have faith, do Rantize them on the father's faith without their own, excuse the matter thus viz.  
The spirit is not bound to admit infants to baptism in that same way wherein he admits men, viz. the way of faith, but admits infants to have right to it without that outward means of believing:  
But when we tell you faith and baptism are the way wherein, and the outward means by which the spirit justifies and saves men and women, but without this outward way of faith and baptism, he can and doth save dying infants, and that the spirit is not tied to the same means of belief and baptism, in the justifying and saving infants through Christ, by which, and which only he saves men, than you plainly disclaim what you proclaimed for truth before viz. the spirit is not tied to means in infants, but works without them in infants, though not in men, and hold that he doth work by means among them so, that there is no hope to be had by parents of the salvation of their infants, out of the way of baptism, and no justification of them ou●… of the way of belief.  
Thus you tie and untie, confine and lose the spirit at your pleasure, you give him leave, for your own lust's sake, either to approve of your baptism of children out of his own declared and only approved way of faith, or if it be needful as some of you think it is, for infants to believe in order to baptism, then to beget faith without that outward means of hearing the word, but though it is his own good will to justify and save dying infants by Christ without the outward means of faith and baptism, there he is limited, and cannot obtain your good will, he must give way to you to baptise infants, out of that ordinary way of faith, wherein his will is that men shall be baptised: but he may not save infants out of the ordinary way of faith and baptism, wherein his will is that men by Christ shall be saved, no not by any means in the world.  
There's but a matter of four gross, false, unsound, and absurd assertions in this reasonless reply, which I must entreat you to be ashamed of before I leave it.  
The first is that old piece of sing song, which is canted o'er some three or four times before, but would be rather recanted, if you were not resolved on perseverance in perverseness; wherein you tune it out as if faith in Christ, and the faculty of understanding were both so con-naturally and con-necessarily in believers infants, and them only, that we may as rationally and safely conclude neither to be in them, as not both.  
This blue vain of artificial nonsense keeps its course well nigh throughout this whole discourse of yours against reason, so that every foot when reason alleges any thing that's clearly conclusive against the being of belief in Christ in believers infants, as namely their not knowing good and evil, their giving no testimony of faith when at years without instruction, nor upon instruction neither sometimes, so much as the adult children of unbelievers, their not having any faith at all for the most part, witness your successelessenesse in your preachings to your parishes to beget it, whereby it is evident, that either they never yet had it when rantized, or else have lost it if they had, their non inclinableness to believe (caeteris paribus) more than other people's children, their uncapableness to hear the word with understanding, which is the only way and means, whereby the word declares faith to be given, and to be gotten, you answer all along (Cuckoo-like) in one tone, and that's this viz.  
That by the same reason we may conclude against the faculty of understanding in them, and against their having a reasonable soul, as if it were full as clear, and altogether as absurd to doubt that these infants have faith (which yet yourselves confess you cannot presume, what infants have, and what h●…ve not) as to doubt that they have the reasonable soul, which is notoriously known to every Novice in very nature to be in all mankind by nature without exception, and that so also, as essentially to difference them from other creatures.  
The second remaining and remarkable absurdity is this viz. in that you most shamelessly assert that the faculty of understanding comes to persons by the same way and means, whereby justifying faith comes, and no other i. e. by hearing the word preached, for when reason argues against infants believing thus viz. faith comes by hearing the word of God, but infants cannot hear so as to understand the word of God preached, Ergo, not believe; you reply thus viz.  
They might also conclude they have no faculty of understanding neither, for that i e. the faculty of understanding comes by hearing i e. as faith doth, O prodigious piece of priestly prudence! did ever any; but men minded to manifest their folly to all men, utter such a thing, that the faculty of understanding comes, as faith in Christ viz. by hearing the word of God, are not the faculties of the soul of man, I say the faculties of it, i. e. the faculty of understanding, the faculty of the will so inseparable from it, so essential to it that a person is neither sooner nor longer a reasonable soul, than it hath these? I confess that Plus notitiae, or acquisitio ul●…erioris intelligentiae, increase of knowledge, and the obtaining of more and more understanding may come by hearing, wherein the faculty of understanding being set on work, not only exercises, but improves itself also, and comes to act itself on more intelligible objects then before, now newly discovered to it, but that Ipsa facultas intelligendi, or ipse intellect us, the very faculty of understanding itself, which comes by nature, and generation, and is as essentially in man, as the reasonable soul itself, doth come by hearing, is such a mess of matter, as was never heard of to this hour, nor can I conceive what kind of hearing any faculty of the soul can come by, sith the understanding and will must both be known to be in persons, and they thereby to be both reasonable, intelligible and eligible creatures before they can be fit subjects to be spoken to, and before intelligible, or eligible objects can reasonably, seasonably, or any other wise then senslessely be propounded to them in preaching, neither, if at all they had such a monstrous kind of inward teaching from the spirit, as you talk of, can they have even that teaching, before they have the faculty of understanding, for that teaching must be at least after they have a being, but they are not in being sooner than the faculty of understanding hath a being in them: yea in order of time the sense of hearing itself is not in us before it.  
And howbeit the Axiom be true, if rightly taken, Nil est in intellectu quod non prius fuerit in sensu, the understanding apprehends nothing, which some sense or other doth not first some way or other apprehend, yet still the faculty of understanding, whereby we conceive, and the will whereby we receive, begin to be in us at least as soon as the senses, whereby we outwardly perceive i. e. as we ourselves begin to be.  
Thirdly, other ridiculous silly stuff, that with the rest this section is stuffed with, is this, in that you would seem to make the spirits converting, and begetting little children to faith to be some strange miraculous, and more marvellous piece of business than his converting and begetting faith in grown persons, because in infants he uses not that ordinary means, whereby he converts men; without the outward preaching of the word (say you) he works faith in little children, his manner of working i. e. in little children is miraculous, and yet when all comes to all, instead of proving (as one might very well expect you should do) that the conversion of infants is such a different, transcendent and wonderful matter, o'er that of men is, you confess plainly in the very next words, that the conversion of every soul, is a matter as miraculous as that: as also above p. 16. where your words are these, the renovation of a soul (meaning of any souls of either adult ones, or infants) is no less a miracle then that of the resurrection of the dead, which you mind us of here also, saying, enough hath been said to that before, and I say too much, unless it were bee●…ter, for they are both alike egregiously absurd, and full of falsehood: as for the conversion of infants, at 7. or 8. 9 or 10. days old, for than you sprinkle them upon that account, 'tis a figment, a mere Ens rationis, and yet I can hardly call it so, so little reason is in it, unless I may call a non entity so, or that which never hath a being any further than in the brains that broac hit, in a word nothing at all, and therefore no miraculous thing at all, for that which is not, is not a miracle: and for the conversion of men unto the faith of Christ, it is so far from being miraculous, that of the two, though indeed neither of them is properly a miracle, it is more to be admired rather, that no more persons are converted, and that considering the pains, patience, and goodness of God, that leads to repentance, the plain dispensations of himself to men in promises, and threats, and discoveries of the way of their peace, they should yet be so obstinate and unbelieving.  
It was wonderful and marvellous indeed that the Jews (for the most part) did not believe in the wilderness, for all they saw so many of God's wonderful works; but no wonder that some few of them did: herein is a marvellous thing that ye know not whence Christ is, i. e. own him not by faith, as the son of God (saith the man joh. 9 30.) and yet he hath opened mine eyes: 'twas not so marvellous that men believed in Christ, when they heard his words, and saw his works, but much rather because they believed not, Act. 13. 41. 'tis wonderful when God's works are not believed though declared, yea Christ himself is therefore said to marvel at their unbelief, Mark 6. 6. 'tis not marvellous that some men see and accept of excellent things, when they are shown and tendered to them, but that most men seeing do not see them, much less is a persons believing as great a miracle, as the resurrection of the body from the dead, for than 'twas as great a miracle that many Jews believed on Christ, when they saw him raise Lazarus, as it was that he raised him from the dead, which thing, who ever doth believe, I believe him in that particular to be a marvellous unwise man for his labour, it being rather no less than marvellous stupidity, that when they saw Christ's marvellous works, yet for all that they did not believe on him.  
Besides if every conversion of a sinner to the faith be a miracle, the gif●… of working miracles is given to men as commonly in these days, as in the Apostles, for how usual a thing is it now for men by the gift, that is in them, and given them from above as instruments under God (and no other were they that wrought miracles) to convert sinners from the evil of their ways? but that cannot be granted by you however, who cry out that the working of miracles was an extraordinary gift, that hath ceased since the times of the Apostles; finally the conversion of souls of men to faith by the preaching of the word is that, which is effected ordinarily, and therefore is not miraculous, for ordinary and miraculous are clear contrary, so that they do rather 〈◊〉 invicem, then are capable to be denominated of one thing both at once, for an ordinary thing is not only that, which comes to pass usually, and frequently, but chiefly which is accomplished secundum ordinem, according ●…o a common order of means, and constant course of second causes, as faith in infants doth not, being wrought (if at all) without the outward means, as yourselves confess, and even thereupon, and in that very respect here called miraculous, and if I could ever see such a thing at all (as neither you nor I ever did) I should say it were a miracle indeed, to see an infant believe on him, of whom understandingly they never heard, but Miracles are such things, which as they are done more rarely than other things, so when they are done, 'tis (if not contra) yet at lest praeter, extra, supra ordinem, either against, or besid●…s, or out of, or above the usual way, not keeping the accustomed use of means, nor process of second causes.  
Fourthly, whereas to back one absurdity with another you assert the work of the spirit, in the conversion of men, i. e. adult ones, which is by outward means, to be both ordinary and miraculous, I judge it to be as very a Bull as ever was conceived, and gendered in the brains, or calved out of the mouth of man.   

Review.  
8. The only Scruple is the making it appear concerning particular children, 
Reason.  which are brought to be baptised, whether they have faith or no, for say the Anabaptists faith is an inseparable condition required in persons to be baptised and we know not the heart nor the work of the spirit.  
Though enough hath been said to this in the disputation, yet these two things 
Reasoulesse.  are added for further satisfaction.  
1. That true faith is not required in every one to be baptised, for than none but justified persons should be baptised, and those that are apostates afterwards, must be said to fall totally and finally from grace.  
2. That a charitable judgement concerning their having faith is sufficient to admit them to baptism, which judgement is as due to children of believing parents, as to any of years that make profession.  
First, because the Scripture hath so amply declared the good will of Christ to them, which is tantamount to any ones single profession of himself.  
Secondly, because we know nothing against any particulars, whereby they should be excepted from such judgement.   

Re-Review.  
You begin first to storm the rear or last clause of that Argumentative matter, which you have here charged upon the Anabaptists, as their opinion: but you might have spared that pains if you had pleased, for those you call Anabaptists assert not such a thing, as that is, they say not that faith, but that an outward appearance or profession of faith is an inseparable condition required in persons before they be baptised by them, for they know not what belief is in the heart, but as confession of Christ is made with the mouth, and profession of him in the words and works: whether therefore persons have faith or not, and whether there be any (as he that is blind ●…ees no such) that receive the truth in truth for a time, and after fall totally from it, that is neither here nor there to us, in this case, for if there be inwardly no dram of faith at all, yet if there be such an outward serious profession made of it, that we thereupon (I say again) thereupon, and not on charity misgrounded, can judge it to be, we are excused in baptising such hypocrites and apostates, and their coming to holy things with unhallowed hearts will be not upon us, but themselves, but if there be never so much faith in the heart, and no profession of it without, whereby it appears concerning this and that particular pe●…son, that he believes, so far as we can discern, God will not hold us guiltless in baptising such persons for taking his name in vain.  
That opinion therefore of a necessi●…y of faiths being really in persons, as well as a profession of it before we may bapt●…ze them, Re●…nlesse might as well have written under his own head, as under the head of Reason, for that is owned no more by one then by the other, 'tis a real profession of it, that in foro hominum gives admission and warrants the administration, which because it neither is, nor can be made by any particular infant, and consequently no appearance made, that it hath faith, therefore infants may not be baptised.  
This indeed remains a scruple unremoved by you to this very hour, or is rather a matter unscrupled and altogether undoubted by us, viz. that it cannot be made appear concerning this or that particular infant (suppose any one of them you sprinkle) that it hath any faith at all.  
You tell us enough hath been said to this in the Disputation, I tell you that more then enough is said against it in the Disprobation: yet sith you are pleased to add as little as can be in further satisfaction, I shall add as much as need be in further refutation of your folly.  
You say that a Charitable judgement concerning this or that particular persons having faith (for your proof now is to be de individuo) is sufficient to admit them to baptism, and that this judgement is as due to children of Christian parents i.e. every particular amongst them, that are brought to be baptised as to any a●… years that m●…ke profession.  
It seems then that the believing parents personal profession of his own personal belief, which is that only whereby we judge him to be a believer, doth prove himself to us to be a believer, not one jot more plainly, than it proves all his children (if he hath never so many) to be believers as well as he, and that we are bound by duty to judge all the children of a professor to have faith, as certainly as we may judge that professor himself to have it, for the same judgement of charity that is due to professed believers is (say you) equally, and every whit as due to such believers children.  
Are you not ashamed of such a blind business as this? what doth a man's personal visible acting, and professing of faith discover it to others that the habit of faith (as you call it) is in himself, no further than it discovers it to be also in his children? did you not say but the very next page above that no judgement of science concerning a persons having faith, can be passed, till the acts of faith themselves, which are never seen in infants, are seen and examined? which is as much as to say that when the acts are seen and examined, as they may be in men, than a judgement of science may be passed on them; do you not say that the discovery of the habit of faith to be in infants is made only a posteriore i. e. only by their future professings, and personal actings of it? which is as much as to say when children come once to act faith, than it may appear and be known that faith is in them, but tell then, or in their infancy it cannot appear to be in them: do you not say it cannot be certainly presumed what children have f●…ith, what have not, the working of the spirit being not known to us, and the spirit himself not bound to work faith in all the children of Christian parents, nor barred from working it in any children of infidels, and tha●… there can be no conclusion made of this thing, which infants have faith, which have no●…? which is as much as to say, that though it may be more certainly concluded, presumed and judged concerning men at years, who have, and who have not faith, yet the same doth not appear concerning infants in infancy; are not these your own sayings but a few lines above? and yet for all that have you so soon forgot yourselves, as to unsay it all again in this page, where you engage to make it appear concerning the particular children, which are brought to be baptised, that they have faith, and to determine that in charity we are bound to judge faith to be in believers infants, as much as we are bound in charity to judge it to be in the believing parents themselves, that make profession? and such judgement is as due to one of these as to the other? were there ever such contradictions as these committed to paper before?  
But le's us examine your reason why we are to judge faith to be in these infants, as we are to judge it to be in any that make profession, you say because the Scripture hath so amply declared the good will of Christ to them, which is Tantamoun●… to any ones single profession of himself.  
I answer, that the Scripture declares the good will of Christ to little children in general, without exception, and not to one more than another, but what's this to prove any of them to have faith? much more what is it to the proving and making it appear that this and that particular infant hath faith (which is the matter now in hand) when other infants have it not? or to prove believe●…s infants to have it exclusively of the infants of unbelievers? yet you say this declaration of Scripture, w●…ich yourselves confess p. 5. declares concerning infants in general, proves this or that single infant, in contradistinction to others, to have faith as sufficiently as any ones single profession proves it concerning his single self, Nay this report of Scripture makes it appear (say you most ●…ottishly p. 5.) that infants have faith, more than the particular profession of any, whom we admit to baptism, can make it appear of himself; and yet (to go round again) a p●…steriore only i. e. by profession of it only the discovery of the habit of faith is made: O curious criss-crosse!  
The second reason you here give, why a charitable judgement concerning their faith is due to these particular infants, and not others i. e. infants of believe●…s, and not unbelievers is this viz.  
Because you say we know nothing against any particular infants why they should be accepted from such a judgement.  
To which I answer.  
Do you know any thing against the particular infant of an heathen? if this be a reason upon which we are to judge any infants in particular to have faith, because we know nothing againstany particular, 'tis a reason upon which we are in charity to judge all particular infants in the world to have faith as well as any, yea the infants of infidels as well as Christians: for who knoweth any thing more against the infant of an infidel in his infanny, whereby he should be excepted from our charitable opinion of him, than he knows against the infant of a Christian? especially (that I may to your confutation conclude against you in your own words p. 5. 6.) since it cannot appear that one of these more than the other, hath by any ●…ctual sin barred himself, and deserved to be exempted from the general sta●…e of little infants declared in the Scripture, viz. that the kingdom of heaven belongs to them.  
So, having run through and repelled that rout of responsives that would not be ruled by reason, I come now to enter skirmish with your Scarecrow, for verily what follows is no other than a false Alarm, a sound of words, a number of Iacke●…s and Breeches stuffed with stubble, and bombasted into the shape of men in arms to fright fools at a distance.   

Review.  
We shall only present to the Christian Reader those horrid sins, this wretched error of the Anabaptists involves men in, and so for bear to be further troublesome; it may be the sight will make many tremble and forsake their tents, and not suffer them to be so frolic about the h●…le of the Asp, or play with the Leviathan, and walk upon the ridge of thos●… Alps, whose Precipice is so fearful.   

Re-Review,  
Bona verba quaeso, and not thunder without lightning.   

Review.  
1. It makes them deny their first ●…aith, with their baptism, for there is but one faith (saith the Apostle) and one baptism Eph. 4. 5,   

Re-review.  
Aliâs it makes them first confess, and visibly profess that one faith, and own that one baptism, which what ever they did in words, in works they denied till now, and makes them renounce that none faith and none baptism, which they had in infancy, for if they had faith while they were infants, how can they deny it in your opinion, who deny any falling from faith? but if they had none in infancy, then how can you deny but that they had none? and so they deny none at all.   

Review.  
2. It makes them crucify Christ again, for we are baptised in●…o Christ's death and therefore but once because Christ died but once.   

Re-review.  
It makes them crucify Christ often o'er and o'er again indeed, i. e. in the Supper where in a figure they break his body and shed his blood, an orderly fellowship, and communion in which service they are engaged to, and enter upon, after the example of those Acts 2. 42. immediately after baptism.  
Other crucifying Christ I know none among them, that is caused by their doctrine, but that of those, who after they are enlightened in it, and have tasted the good word of God, etc. do after that fall away again, and such indeed crucify to themselves the son of God a fresh, and put him to open shame Heb. 6. 4. but I hope the truth among none, but Re●…nlesse persons shall bear the blame and be made the cause of their crucifyings of Christ, who depart from it; as for us we are crucified, dead and buried with Christ by baptism Rom. 6. for we are baptised into his death; and that but once, because Christ died but o●…ce, and yet once, because Christ died once, and that is more than any Rantized Priest in Ch●…istendome can say of himself, for he is not so much as once baptised at all.   

Review.  
3. It makes them count the blood of the Covenant an unholy thing, for if it be holy, what need they repeat it? if unholy, how do they profane it?   

Re-review.  
How far forth Anabaptism properly so called, i. e, the repetition of baptism, (without such warrantable ground as it was repeated upon Act. 19 5.) doth (saving the nonsense that is in that expression) repeat the blood of the Covenant, and so count it an unholy thing, I am not so much a friend to it as to gain say, but sure I am that A-no-baptism (and such yours is) doth count not only the blood of the Covenant, but also that holy ordinance of baptising believers, which is the token of it, an unholy thing, for if it be holy, why do you neglect it? if unholy, in so saying oh how do you profane it?   

Review.  
4. It makes the Covenant of the Gospel worse than the l●…gal, this taking in all Children into the visible Church, the Anabaptists excluding them, making them no better than Turks and Pagans.   

Re-review.  
What again?   

Review.  
5. It destroys all the comforts that afflicted parents can have over their deceased children, the grounds of them being destroyed, their right in the covenant and promises of Christ.   

Re-review.  
What again?   

Review.  
6. It unchristens the whole Church of God for many hundreds of years together, and calls in question the truth of Christ's promises, of being present with his Church to the end, and guiding it by his spirit into all truth.   

Re-review.  
What again? what o'er & o'er, and oreagain? are you drawn so dry, that you are fain to fill up, to swell up your Review into the magnitude of a sheet with old ends and pieces, and patches of things, that were precedent, or did these three Renegadoes, fearing a storm, run from their old ranks hither to secure themselves, by c●…ouding in amongst the rest of this rubbish stuff? for every one of them have faced us once or twice a piece before page. 6. 7. 12. 13. nevertheless sith I meet with them here again, I'll have a word or two with every of them now.  
To the first I say thus, if the legal covenant did take in all children into the visible Church (as you say, & as indeed it did) i. e. as well the children of unbelieving, as of believing Jews, neither had the one of these a straws more right to circumcision then the other, then sith the Covenant of the Gospel is enlarged and communicated to both Jews and gentiles, between whom the partition wall is broken down, and they both made one.  
And sith now by the Priests own confession it stands in the same way to be administered among the Jews and Gentiles as that legal Covenant did for a time among the Jews only, the Priest himself makes the covenant of the Gospel worse than the legal, that taking in, at least to the visible Church, all children of that people to whom it extended, i. e. the Jews without any exception, without any respect to the parents being godly or ungodly, believers or unbelievers: the priests chose under the Gospel Covenant, which extends and belongs to the whole world, i. e. both Jews and Gentiles, 2 Cor. 5. 19 1 john 2. 2. and to all nations as well as one Mat. 28. 18. Mark 16. 15. Luke 24. 47. excluding now the Major part, yea almost all children by their doctrine, viz. the children of unbelieving Gentiles, of heathens, Turks and Pagans, and unbelieving Jews too, which (for all their parent's wickedness, and unbelief) were wont to be received into the Church under the Law, and this not only from the visible Church neither (for that were more tolerable of the two, and can do them no hurt, if it be all) but also from the Kingdom of heaven, and salvation itself in their cruel Charity, before they have by actual sin deserved to be exempted.  
And this I speak not as believing any infants in infancy to have right to entrance into the visible Church, and fellowship thereof here on Earth, though yet I believe all infants, as well as some, dying infants, and before they have deserved exemption and damnation by actual rebellion, to have according to the general declaration of Scripture, right of entrance into the kingdom of heaven; but that I may discover the unruliness of the Priest, who wherein he judges others of straightening the Gospel condemns himself, who undertakes to make laws, prescribe rules, impose principles upon all men, and yet breaks his own laws, varies from his own rules, straggles from his own principles through blindness as much as any other whom he blames for it.  
To the second thus, if it be so indeed (as you told us once before it is p. 7. and here tell us over again that we may know your mind in it) that to deny baptism to infants before they die, doth ipso facto destroy all the comforts, all the hopes that any parents can possibly have of the salvation of their infants, that die unbaptised, and all the grounds of those hopes, i. e. all those children's right in the covenant, and promises of Christ, and consequently (this necessarily follows) doth subject them unavoidably unto eternal damnation.  
Then first as I told you once or twice before, so I tell you now again that 'tis yourselves, and not we who are the men, that say, no baptism, no salvation, for (say you) there is no ground for parents to hope their children can be saved, no though those parents be believers, though those children believe also themselves, and so both by birth, and by their parent's faith, and their own faith too, have right (as you say the infants of Christians have) in the Covenant, and promises of C●…rist, yet they must damn for all this, if baptism be denied them, and if they die without it, their parents must mourn without hope of their Salvation.  
This is your judgement of Charity concerning unbaptised infants; even of never so believing parents, having also the habit of faith in themselves, for though parents believe, and believe their children to have faith, too and right to salvation, yet deny them baptism, and (all the other notwithstanding) there's no hope of them, the parents can upon no good ground be comfor●…ed concerning them, but that they are damned.  
'tis you therefore that place such high, and migh●…y necessity in the bare outward dispensation of the ordinance, that are so for the ceremony, that hold that the substance doth no good without it, why else do you say that be there never so many grounds otherwise, on which to hope infant's salvation, viz. their parent's faith, and their own faith, and title thereby to the Covenant, which, though false, simple, and rotten, yet are the grounds on which you hope some dying infants may be saved, though you fear the most are damned (for indeed the true grounds on which to hope the salvation of all dying infants, is there non-deserving exemption by actual sin, and personal rebellion against the Gospel) why I say though there be never so much ground of hope of their salvation, do you say the grounds, whereupon they elsewise may be hoped to be saved, are all destroyed, if they be denied to be baptised?  
Moreover I tell you, that you run round, like a blind horse in a mill, and contradict yourselves egregiously, by holding ●…uch a high necessity of infant's baptism that there's no hope of their salvation if it be denied them, so that unless you recant it, you'll in the end repent it that ere you lived yourselves, and led others so long in such delusion; for mark how you mope too and fro in a mist, sometimes you say that birth of Christian parents, and faith in the children so born, these give right to the Covenant, and the promises of Christ, and so to salvation, and the kingdom of heaven, and their right to the promises, and the kingdom, that gives them right to baptism, and to entrance into the visible Church, supposing their right to salvation to be without baptism, and before it, as that which entitles them thereto, making their visible right to baptism, and the visible Church to depend upon their visible right to salvation, saying they must be seen by some thing or other distinguishing them from others, who are not heirs, to be heirs belonging to the kingdom, before they be signed as such, and so you argue, making an apparent right to baptism posteriour to their right to salvation, viz. to whom the thing signified i e. heaven appears to belong, to them consequently the sign i. e. baptism, else not, but that appears to belong to infants, therefore this, which is as much as to say, we must first look upon them, and believe them to be heirs of salvation, and upon that ground afterward baptise them, so making the right to the sign depend upon the being of the thing signified.  
Other while again (as here) you turn the cat i'th' pan, and tell us a tale, that turns all this up side down again, and makes all their right to the Covenant & promises of Christ, to salvation by him, to the kingdom, which all are according to your other opinion to be Antecedent to baptism, and entitling to it, so that no apparent right to the Covenant, and promise, and kingdom, and salvation, no baptism, you make I say all these, on which you made baptism depend before, so necessarily dependant on baptism, so subsequent to it, so no way appearing to belong to infants without it, that no baptism no title to life; deny them baptism, and entrance into the visible Church, and they are visibly in the kingdom of the devil, there's no hopes they can be saved, if their parents let them die without it, no grounds on which to hope it, but though believers children, and apparently enough believing themselves, and so thereby in apparent right to the Covenant and promise of Christ, and consequently of salvation, and all this before they may be baptised, yet they are in the visible kingdom of the devil, and do but deny baptism to them, and all those old evidences are worn out, their names blotted out of the book of life, their parents can have no hope of other than their damnation, nay all the grounds on which to hope that any good comes of them, are utterly destroyed.  
So then of the doctrine that you deliver this is the sum, in two round heads viz.  
That infants right to salvation must needs be apparent, or else they may not be baptised.  
Secondly (to go round again) baptism of infants must needs be, or else there's no apparent ground, on which to hope they can be saved.  
Finally, I tell you I marvel in my heart, it being so that such danger comes by denying infant baptism, that parents cannot hope they can be saved, how you dare for your ears delay so long as you do, sometimes a week, sometimes a fortnight, sometimes almost a year, as the custom of England was of old to baptise but twice in the year viz. at Easter and Whitsuntide, and do not rather baptise your infants so soon as they are born, least happily their lying in the visible kingdom of the devil longer than you need to let them, they happen to die before your good cheer can be made, and all your kinsfolks come together, and then the parents be left without hope of any other, but that their children remain in the kingdom of the devil for ever: for persons live or die visibly (say you) either in the visible Church of Christ, out of which you say also there's no salvation, the visible entrance into which is by baptism, by which therefore unbaptised infants never entered; or else in the visible kingdom of the devil: this is one of Mr. baxter's diseased disjunctions p. 71. for there isno more necessity than there is of sprinkling infants (and that's as little, as little can be) of their being visibly in either, neither are they visibly in either the visible Church of Christ, or visible kingdom of the devil, till they are at years, but in medio abnegationis: you salve al●… that danger, which I confess is none at all in infants dying unbaptised (but only that I speak according to your own principles) by telling us that 'tis not the bare omission, or neglect, but the contempt of the ordinance, that damns the persons that die without it.  
I tell you again, that if this may pass for true and curr●…nt doctrine among those that hold baptism due to men and women only, and not infants (as I scarce know how it should, sith neglect of known duty is damnable in a lower degree, as well as contempt of it is in a higher) yet however its false, silly, and nonsensical doctrine among you that baptise none but infants, apply it how you will: for the parents neglect, and the parents contempt of the ordinance as to his infant, is much at one i e. neither of them damnable to the infant, unless you will hold up that saying again in the world, which God protested long since men should never have occasion to use any more viz. that the child shall die (eternally) for the father's sin, surely the father's contempt doth not redound any more, than his bare neglect, with any danger, or disadvantage to the infant, and as for the infant he cannot be damned for not being baptised in infancy through his own neglect, or contempt of i●…, for he neither contemns, nor neglects it.  
To the third of these three things that you, and I both have thrust here into one place, you in the Review, and I in the Re-Review in order to the dispatching of them all together viz. it unchristens the whole Church of God etc. I say thus, confessing that our doctrine unchristens whole christendom, which the Pope hath called the Church of God, but is indeed the whole world of Gentiles, that hath got into the outer court, the mee●… outward form, and name of christianity, and hath trod down the holy City, and true worship for 1●…60 years, that whole world that hath for ages and generations wondered after the beast, nor is this inconsistent with the truth of Christ's promises of his presence, and guidance among those that are his true Church, and people indeed, for howbeit he hath, according to the word, left those to their own ways, that left and liked not his ways, yet he ever hath, still doth, and ever will lead those into truth, that love the truth, and will be led by his spirit, when he will lead them: yea though he tied not himself to teach them, that should choose the Pope for their Tutor, yet according to his promise he hath been more ●…r less with those, that observed what he commanded them in his word from the beginning, and so shall be even to the end.   

Review.  
Lastly it doth the devils work in the sh●…pe of angels of light, to make men renounce their baptism, and if from Nero's hating the Chrictian Religion, the ancient Apolo●…etist of the Church did rightly gather the goodness of it; we m●…y the validity of infant's baptism from the devil's hatred of it: it hath ever been said of him, he will not make a bargain with any soul till it hath renounced its first bargain which was made with Christ at baptism: the Anabaptists are his Pro●…tors, and do it to his hand.   

Re-Review.  
Of whichdesire of his tohave us renounce our baptism being not a little aware, though immediately after I renounced that Rantism, I once had (unawares to myself) in the innocency and ignorance of m●… infancy, & in the room thereof received real baptism, I had one messenger from Satan to buffet me, and beat me off from further proceeding in, and owning of that practice, yet through the goodness of God and that grace of his, wherein I still stand, I was so far from being removed, that I was much more settled, strengthened, and established in the present truth, wherein I walk, and I trust shall walk in, unto the end, unless I receive more evidence to the contrary, then ever I have done from any wri●…ings, or any discourses of any, that ever I met wi●…h of what principle, or profession soever: which messenger (whose name was William Everard after the flesh, but the name that the father had given him was Chamberlin (as he said) for he lived in the secret chambers of the most high) though he came to my house, pretending that he was immediately sent from God, with a message to me in particular viz. to renounce that practice of baptising, which himself had sometimes walked in also, but now relinquished, did to myself, and some others after half a days most serious observation of his speeches, strange ecstasies, and uncouth deportment, by many prodigious passages, blasphemous pratings, and (as by experience we then proved them) flatly false pretences to what he had not, and most presumptuous, yet successeless, undertake and frivolous fopperies (of which I am willing at any time, but not capable under a hours time, to give fuller account to any that shall desire it) discover himself to be one of the Archangels of darkness, which the devil now sends forth a new in the shape of angels of light, and is now no less apparently I think to all that know him, and where he is.  
And howbeit, it hath been more than once, but once especially, as I have hinted to the Reader in a shrewdshake of sickness, that befell me above a twelve month since to the great retarding of this work, reported that I was shaken sheer out of my mind, and judgement concerning this way and baptism, so as to have recanted and renounced it, yet I call my God to witness, to whom also I give thanks for his mercy toward me in that particular, that partly by the more than ordinary advantages I then had, through my sequestration from all other occasions, to seek the Lord, to search and try my ways, and turn again unto him, partly by the more than ordinary engagements that were then upon me so to do, and that seriously and sincerely, through my daily expectation to be clapped up in clods of earth, till the great day of acccounts, I have been much more sweetly satisfied since then concerning the truth of this way, than ever I was in all my life before, neither did I then find any cause to repent me of coming to Christ in it, as neither shall any, that renouncing your Rantism do rightly receive it, so they continue to walk uprightly in it to the end: but this I must confess, I found good cause to repent of it that I had not honoured it so much as I might have done since I owned it, nor walked so profitably, serviceably, blamelessly, holily, and worthily in it, nor so suitably to so holy and worthy a way as it is in itself, not withstanding the account of basensse and foolishness that it hath in the world, 1 Cor. 1. 30.  
So that ever since that forenamed sifting I had from Satan, by the mouth of that his Agent, by whom he solicited me to forgo my baptism, I side with you in this, viz. that 'tis the Devil's work in the shape of an Angel of light to make men renounce their baptism, and though I am somewhat otherwise opinioned about the Devil's affection to infant's bap●…ism, than you are, for I think if he hate it, 'tis as he hates holy water, or any other of his own inventions, whereby he hath juggled away the truth, and imitated Christ's ordinances out of doors, yet I am fully of your mind that he so hates the true baptism, I mean the baptising of professed believers, from whence I gather the goodness, and validity of it against him, that it is most of the business about which he is at work in the shape of an Angel of light in these days, wherein his time grows short, and his old kingdom begins to fail him by means of the true baptism, to erect to himself a new kingdom, and in order thereunto to make men renounce that baptism, as knowing that he cannot strike a downright▪ bargain with a soul to become fully his, as the high Notionists, and spiritual Sensualists of these times do, till it hath renounced its first bargain, made with Christ in baptism, not what was made with Christ at infant rantism, for infants are not capable per se to bargain with Christ, and how they do it per alios I do not see, sith such as say they do it for them, were never appointed by them so to do, nor by Christ neither, that I know of, nor do I remember any bargain to own Christ and not be ashamed of him that either I, or others for me made with Christ on that day wherein I was sprinkled, no though, as they tell me, in token thereof, that I might never forget it, I was signed with the sign of the Cross: this work of dissuading men from owning baptism as long as he can, and persuading them to disown it when they have it, though the Devil be at one end of it, yet dares ●…e no●… be seen in it himself, but acts all by his emissaries; the Antibaptists are his Proctors, and do it to his hand, the Rantizer and the Ranter, the sprinkling Priest on the one hand, the sparkling Prophet on the other, between these two he does, or rather undoes what he can: in order to prevention of whose design, I shall as the Lord lends leave, say something to them both, before this work go out of my hands, though it hang so much the longer in them.   

Review.  
They will peradventure wave the fury of some of these blows by denying their name, by saying they do not rebaptize, but baptise those, that were not baptised before, whose baptism is null: But we sh●…uld renounce our baptism too if we should yield them that plea, till they have proved it null by better Arguments, than any yet ever urged by them, they shall be denied that evasion: and one would think they ought to be sure of their footing, and not walk upon slippery ground, for no better is their proof, where the fall is into hell. If thou art warned, thou wilt be armed against them, they will never encounter, where they find this preparation, if thou wilt not be warned, we have delivered our own souls.   

Re-Review.  
Having spent all your other Ammu●…tion, and vented your verdict to the bottom, you here once for all discharge your great Warning piece, and Roar us all at once down into hell, what else mean you by this clause, where the fall is into hell? is the error on which hand soever it lies, yours or ours, so damnable in the question about the true subject, and the true form and administration of baptism, that the opposite parties to the truth herein must needs damn without more ado? I trow not in case they act through ignorance altogether invincible in the very integrity of their hearts: but if the truth's Antagonists in this point, whether it be you or we, either see and see not, or may see and will not, or can see and dare not, or find the footing and ground they go upon to be unsure, and slippery, the proofs they practise from to be poor, peddling, and paltry, as God knows yours are, if you do not, and yet for fear and shame of men, find it not, than the fall may chance to prove a desperate one indeed, and therefore Sirs see ye to it, see that ye see to it, for ye are a generation that in these days of discovery are seen more into than you are aware of, and may see much more than you do, if you will. And they that say it is so dangerous to be out in the question disputed, that the error, on which side soever, reac●…es, and leads them that follow it to the end, as far as hell, had need be more sure of their hand, than you can be in your cause, from the most serious search of Scripture, that they are in the right, and if they find that they are out to return in time.  
Or do you make the game in this case, and question between us and you to go thus, viz. That if it chance to appear hereafter that we are out in the point of baptism, than we must to hell without remedy, but if the error prove or fall out tobe on your side, it shall be so venial, and tolerable a trangression, that you may go to heaven for all that? verily one would think it were to ●…un thus in the thoughts of you, Clergy men, of some of you at least, for some are more moderate towards us and our tenet then other some, and some of you at sometimes more moderate than yourselves at other times; amongst whom bitter Mr. Baxter is one who though he be far more immodest in his discourse of our dipping, than we are in our dispensings of it to any (in which respect I confess I count him as keen to the full as he confesses himself to be) and one that pursues the controversy which more crabbidness than it calls for, for if it be so small a matter as he makes out, yet however he is so modest about it, that he can scarce afford the Anabaptists the term of Heretics, much less of damnab●…e Heretics as most of you do, yea, he speaks so diminutive●…y, and Apologetically of our supposed error, p. 9 10. (but that (to go round again) he is as hyperbollicall, and egregious in accusing it, page 12. 13. where he loads us, who descent from him in it well nigh as low as hell) viz.  
That this controversy considered in itself is of less moment than many imagine, and a point that God lays not so great a stress on as many do.  
Nevertheless some of you are tam in vestris talpae, in alienis lynx's, so eagle eyed a broad, and bleared eyed at home, that if your infant-sprinkling be made appear to be the error (as more than one of you that persist in it deny it not to be) O how it's excused, extenuated, exempted from so much as guiltifying, much more from damnifying hell deep its dispensers?  
Though it had been better it never had been brought in, and that baptism never had been changed, yet since 'tis now the present custom, and authority requires it, there's not so much evil in it but it were better stand, than the Church fall a contending about it.  
But while our dipping is supposed to be the error, 'tis an error of so dangerous concernment, that finally to stand in it, is to fall flatly into the pit of hell: And little better than thus it is (for aught I see) with you Ashford disputants, if we compare this place with page 26. of your pamphlet; yet we take it the more kindly from you however, since 'tis your watch word to us, whether we be warned from baptising of believers by it yea or no: if we be not warned, you say true you have delivered your own selves, yet (one good turn for another) I warn you again, that you have delivered yourselves hitherto more against the truth of God, then from the wrath of God, unless you warn more wisely, and deliver yourselves more divinely for the future.  
You tell us peradventure we will e●…ade the fury of some of your blows by denying our name, you may well say the fury of your blows, for the very title of Anabaptists is a bang, wherewith in your wrath, and fury you wound many honest men, and baste them till t●…ey stink again in the nostrils of their neighbours for your sakes; whereby you basif●…, and prate them out as odious ones to the world, when you cannot prove them erroneous by the word: you need not say peradventure, nay you may be sure out, that we'll deny though not our own name, yet that nick name Anubaptists, which you are pleased improperly (not to say impiously) to impose upon us, though we bear with your illiterateness in so doing, for I trust we shall not more say, then sufficiently show, that we do not Re-baptize, but only baptise those which never were baptised before, and whose baptism, which you say they had in infancy, is null, i. e. nothing, and yet not nothing, but a new thing rather, another baptism, another thing than baptism, which is neither the baptism of Christ, nor indeed any true baptism at all.  
Let us both pawn our baptisms upon it, ours, which you call nothing but Anabaptism, yours, which we call nothing but Rantism: if we do not make it good that your baptism is no baptism, at least not that, which Christ instituted, than we shall engage not only to yield up that our plea, but to renounce our Baptism also, but if we do it, and you never disprove it, than we shall expect it answerably from you, that you both yield up that your plea, and renounce your Rantism also?    

〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. ANTI-RANTISM, OR CHRISTNDOM UNCHRISTND, IN An Appendix added about sprinkling wherein the shallowness of that dispensation is showed to be such, that it can neither properly, nor possibly without perverture be called Baptism.  
HAving razed the rotten Basis of your Babism, I come now to reckon with your Rantism, and to examine whether our manner of baptising, which is by dipping, or yours, which is only by sprinkling, is the baptism which was instituted by Christ, according to that small hint you give me, which is no other than a bare, single, simple denial of your baptism to be null; for no less than that is the next fault wherewith we charge it: As for yourselves, as if you were unwilling to have it sifted, as I verily believe, and have sufficiently experienced that you are, you slide so silently by this question, which is as requisite to be discussed, and duly understood as the other, that howbeit you are not a little concerned for the securing of your baptism, to back it in this particular also, specially since you confess that you must give it up, if our plea against the form of it prove valid, yet you afford not so much as one wea-bit of an argument, whereby to disprove our form of baptising, nor yet to prove the truth of your own, save only your homely reply to our plea, viz. we should renounce our baptism too if we should yield them that plea: which words of yours in a Sillogistical form run thus, viz.  
If we yield them their plea we must renounce our baptism.  
But we are resolved we will not renounce our baptism.  
Ergo we will not yield them their plea.  
Thus you are resolved to hold the conclusion: nevertheless such shameful tergiversation, and utter loathness to put yourselves upon trial by the word I have ever found amongst you in this point, that how justly Mr. Baxter complains of Mr. Tombs for refusing to dispute it publicly p. 134. I know not, but I am sure not more justly than I have occasion to cry out of your unworthy waywardness in this case: for though at the Disputation at Ashford I did in my position (some, but not half the sum of which you set down in your Account) positively declare my exception against two things in that, which you call your baptism, viz.-  
First the false subject.  
Secondly the false manner of administration, together with my ear●…est desires to have satisfaction from you concerning the latter also, as in respect of which I proclaimed it null, as well as in respect of the former, yet you drilled away all the time about the first without either giving out a warrant then, or granting us your presence another day, wherein to give your warrant for the second.  
In like manner at the public dispute, which was at Folstone before many hundreds of people, where there was one, if not more, of my opponents at Ashford, the Opponents part being put upon me, much more against my expectation then desire, I told that C●…ssis of Clergy men, who were there, that 'twas most proper to direct my dispute to their practice, which sith it was the Rantizing, and not the bap●…izing of infants, I would prove that their sprinkling of infants was not lawful; but I could at no hand be permitted to proceed in such a way, or to come near their copy hold in that p●…nt, viz. their false form of dispensing, though I promised to abide a whole week among them, rather than they should not have discourse enough about the subject; at last I obtained with much ado a division of the question into two, viz.  
1. Whether infants were the true subject?  
2. Whether sprinkling were the true manner of baptising?  
And a solemn Engagement from them, that if so be I would begin upon the first, there should be a discourse after it upon the other.  
But as I forewarned the people, and that before these men's own faces, that it would be at first, viz. that they would evade all controversy about that, if it were possible, even so it fell out indeed at last; for after some two hours, or little more, though it were well-nigh a winter's day yet to night, it was on their parts so uncessantly urged, that the disputation might cease, and the people for that time be dismissed, that the devil is blind if he did not see that day, that those who sided with him, unseen, against the truth, did judge that there was discourse too much, though but a little, about the Subject of baptism, and enough, though none at all, about the form.  
But I let pass this, and come to prove the point now in hand, which is this, that dipping or overwhelming in water, and not sprinkling, is the only true form, or manner wherein baptism is to be dispensed, and without which it is either properly no baptism, or at lest none of that baptism which is required in the word and may be owned as the ordinance of Christ.  
This is most plain, and ●…n a most plain way I desire to prove it: and first from the signification of the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is ever used in the original, as that whereby this ordinance is expressed, and whence it derives that denomination of baptism, the proper plain English of which is to overwhelm, or cover with water, to plunge ●…ver head and ears, to put under the water, to dipp, do●…ze or drown in the water.: and it is the derivative of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is tinge, quod fit immergendo, to dipp in that manner, as they do that dy cloth and colours, which is by that total submersion of things in the liquor, as all men know they do that die, and not by sprinkling here and there a drop of water on them.  
Thus I say the word baptiz●… signifies, and not to sprinkle; and therefore that I may rouse all those people into a remembrance of this matter, whose Priests deceive them, and draw them to dream that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies both to dipp, & to sprinkle, which some, whether it be of that ignorance of the truth that cleaves, and accrues to the common sort of Priests, through their taking things upon trust, and tradition one from another without trial, or of mere malice making them wilfully to hide the truth after they have received the knowledge of it, I know not, God knows, but some I say stick not still as much as they can to make their people believe it; But to awaken such to some attention to the Heterodoxness of their Priests, as well as all ways to the Orthodoxness of them, I here summon all the priests in Christendom out of either Stephanus, or Scapula, the two Greek Lexicons that are in so great request, and of such ordinary use among you, and such friends to yourselves, as you may see by the bitter invectives of both of them against us as Anabaptists, as a diobolical sect, and therefore would favour your cause as far as in conscience they could, to show the contrary to what I here have said, viz. that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 either doth not signify a total dipping of the immediate subject that is denominated baptised, or dipped by it, or that it ever signified such a thing as sprinkling at all.  
Yea the word that signifies to sprinkle is another word, viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is ever used in Scripture by the spirit, when he speaks of such a thing as sprinkling: yea 'tis used three times in one chapter, viz. Heb. 9 13. 19 21. and is all along englished by sprinkling, neither is there any one place of Scripture wherein the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendered to baptise, or used to signify baptising, neither is there one Scripture wherein the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendered sprinkling, or used to signify such a thing as sprinkling, nor is there any reason why it should be so rendered, specially if you consider  
Secondly, The Non Identity, and deep diversity that is between these two actions, viz. Sprinkling, and Baptising [Anglicè dipping] by which, as by a second Argument, its most plain that sprinkling is not only not the baptism of Christ, but in truth no baptism at all, and so consequently that he is properly no-Anabap●…ist, who baptizeth them that were but sprinkled, and he A no-Baptist that doth but sprinkle.  

Rantist.  
Our sprinkling is baptising as well as your dipping, and these two are one say you what you will.   

Baptist.  
I tell you, and you will see it at last, that as Christ hath but one water baptism, and as he hath by appointment but one subject for that one baptism, a●…d not two kinds of subjects, as you dream, viz. a believer only, and not both a believer and a believers seed, so he hath but one true way, and essential form, wherein that one Baptism is to be dispensed, and that is baptising [Anglicè dipping] and not two ways, forms or dispensations of it specifically, and essentially distinct from each other, so that they are not so much as in special kind the same but sprinkling and baptising [alias dipping] are truly two ways, two forms, two actions, two kinds of actions, so really different in their essentials, so specifically diversified in their nature, as actions, that even homo and bru●…um, which he is a brute that will say are all one and the same, do not differ more essentially in Praedicamento Substantiae then sprinkling and baptising [alias dipping] do differ in the Predicament of action: and therefore they cannot be called one and the same.  
'tis true, all things that are, are the same in general i. e. genere remoto, for Ens dividitur in omnia: so that all things that are, are equally denominated entia i. e. things that are, so a man and a beast in genere proximo they are both Animals, yet are they not so all one as that the one may be universally understood by the naming of the other, nor the one denominated by the other, so as to say a man is a beast, and a beast is a man, they are one in genere, two in specie; and the like may be said of dipping and sprinkling, which are two dividing members of one and the samegeneral (as Homo and Brutum also are) and as specifically distinct, they are in genere remoto both actions, yea they are in genere proximo both wettings with water, yet are they not one kind of action, or wetting in specie nor all one, so as the one may be universally used, and done instead of the other, and yet the business be as well done, or both done, and yet but one and the same thing done, but one and the same word of command obeyed in so doing; nor so as that the one may be as well understood as the other, when ei●…her of them is expressed, nor so as to be denominated properly by each other, nor so as that the one is the other; but all actions that are so specifically the same as sprinkling and baptising [alias dipping] are made to be with you are so, as that they may be indifferently, promiscuously, universally used, and done one in the room of the other, and yet no other than the self same thing in specie is done still, as much as if we had used or performed the other; yea so as they may be properly denominated one by the other, so as that in specie one is the other, so as that in speech sense and signification, they are so alike, that it matters not which term you use, or which of the two you speak by, for the sense ●…ill still remain the same, and stand perfect sound and entire, and the sentence have no nonsense at all in it notwithstand: e. g. smiting and striking, or to smite and strike, to be smitten and stricken are all one, and may be denominated one of the other, so as that one is the other, and though here are two terms, yet but one thing is expressed thereby, and the sentence you place them in may be without nonsense, and as entirely the same as before, if you use one of them in the room of the other; as he mass stricken, or he was smitten are the same in sense: yea universally in all speech where you may use the word smite, you may use the word strike, and both the sense and matter signified thereby will still be the same:  
But now so it is not between sprinkling and baptising, 'tis so indeed be●…ween baptising and dipping, baptising and overwhelming with water, baptising and putting under water, baptising and dousing, or plunging o'er head, these are all one they all denote the very same kind of action, the very same kind of wetting with water, and though here be a difference in terms, yet 'tis in word only not in deed, the distinction is only nominal, not real, not specifical, not essentially formal, for take any sentence of Scripture that hath (speaking of water baptism) the word baptised in it, and you shall find any of the other terms in sense coincident with it, and consistent properly in the room of it in speech and signification: as Mark. 3. 5, 'tis said of the people they were baptised of john in jordan confessing their sins, it may as properly be said they were overwhelmed, dipped, plunged o'er head, put under water by john in jordan, but 'tis scarce propriety of speech to say they were sptinkled of john in jordan.   

Rantist.  
No? do we not in common locution say the same, while we say sprinkled in a font, or in a Basin?   

Baptist.  
I confess in common locution we speak so (as brevitatis gratiâ we do improperly many times in other cases) yet is it scarce so proper, as to say sprinkled with water out of a font or basin: but however Mark 1. 7. 'tis said of Christ that he was baptised of john 
a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  into jordan, now I am sure you may say sensibly enough he was dipped, plunged of john into jordan, butit cannot be said without most palpable nonsense, he was sprinkled of john into jordan: therefore certainly the form of Christ's own baptism, than which we cannot have better precedent for ours, was dipping (as ours is) and not such a simple sort of sprinkling as is still in use among yourselves; in the doing of which you do not only (as is evident by the premises) another thing then that which was dispensed to Christ, and enjoined by Christ to be dispensed, but indeed, as toward the fulfilling his command in that ordinance, you do plainly nothing at all that you shall be accepted in for your labour, for in vain you practise another thing, as in obedience to him, neglecting what he hath required, which he never required at your hands: and such is that sprinkling, which by custom in the corrup●…ion of the times came superstitiously to bear the name of baptising, and then by little and little, till it had wholly worn it out of the world, to be practised, and pass for currant instead out, and this I will give you some account of too, sith I have given you the hint on't, for in Cyprians time people being overgrown with such a superstition, as because baptism was the token to them of remission of their sins, therefore they would commonly after conversion delay their submission to that dispensation till toward their latter end, as near as they could guess it approaching on them, that they might thereby have evidence of remission of all their sins at once, fearing, if they should be baptised before, lest they should sin again, and so spoil all the comfort they received by baptism, (so far were persons from posting (as they do now a days) to dispense baptism in infancy to their infants, that they at years did too much delay their own) hereupon it came to pass not seldom, that the procrastinators of baptism were taken with sickness on a sudden, and confined to their beds unawares, before they could be baptised, in which case not knowing how to be baptised in that manner, wherein 'twas usually dispensed i. e. by dipping in places of much water, and yet unwilling withal to die without it, they sent to Cyprian, who was the oracle of his time, to be resolved, whether in such a pressing case as this was, wherein they were as unwilling to die without Baptism, as uncapable to be baptised as they should be, it might not as well serve the turn, and be counted sufficient baptism to have a little water applied to them, or sp●…inkled upon them in their beds? to this the good man being loath to leave poor sick souls upon the wrack, whom he saw somewhat afraid to die unbaptised, returns his opinion to this purpose viz. that in this case, wherein without manifest hazard of the sick persons life it could not be so well done as it should, it should be done as well as it could, and that they might have some application of the element to them in their beds, which if they died at that time should pass for currant, and be counted lawful baptism:  
Nevertheless (saith he himself) if they happen to be restored to health again, let them be had to the River, and there be dipped:  
He that doubts of this may read it in Cyprians own Epistle to Fidus, who wrote to him about the case.  
So that we see he judged it fit to be done o'er again, to be done better, to be done indeed if they lived, but if they than died, he allowed it to be called Baptism (though it was none) in favour to the weak, rather than otherwise.  
And here now comes in the first Rise of your Rantism, and no small occasion I believe (if it were before begun) of the growth of your Babism also, for when the needle was once so clearly entered, how easily would the thread follow after? when it had once past through the mouth of a man so reverend, and respected in his generation (as Cyprian was) that it was baptism enough to be sprinkled only in such a case, how easily might not only every tender person that is loath to dipp the foot in cold water, but even every person also, that will do no more than needs must against the will of the flesh, mistake it so far as to make it serve the turn in every case? and when such an easy kind of baptism as that was, was grown into use, that could be no more dangerous to infants then to men, how willingly would all persons (specially those of that gang that grew apace a little after, (for Cyprian himself, and 66 Bishops more gave ground for it, when in a certain council they gave this ground for infant baptism viz. because, so far as lies in us, no soul is to be destroyed) who held baptism in such necessity as to say it saved ex opero operatio) how willingly I say would they embrace such an easy, and such a necessary baptism, not only for themselves, but for their infants also?  
But to return (I pray pardon this digression) this sprinkling which you use is not baptism, or at least not the baptism of Christ (Cypriano judice) let Cyprian judge of it, for if it were, he would not have required persons to be baptised after it, in case conveniently they could.   

Rantist.  
Miscarriage in the manner of baptism doth not nullify the matter itself, neither doth an error in mere circumstance annihilate the substance of the ordinance, so but that's its baptism, and stands Christ's ordinance still.   

Baptist.  
True miscarriage in the mere manner of doing any thing doth not null that thing, if that very thing be done indeed, which we wot of, though error in bare circumstance (and such it seems you confess your retained Rantism to be) is too abominable to persist in, but miscarriage in the matter of a thing, and such gross miscarriage as makes it another matter, or thing (and such is that, when not the same that's reckoned on, but another thing formally, specifically, essentially distinct from it, is done instead of it) then that's another matter I trow, is it not?  
And such as this, is your miscarriage in the matter we mean i e. your Rantism wherein besides your foul faltering in materia circa quam i. 〈◊〉. the petty party about which you busy yourselves in that dispensation, for that being not a believer discipled by your teaching (as the subject of baptism ought to be according to Mat. 28. 18. 19) but an untaught non-believing infant, doth clearly null it, in case you did baptise, from the name of the ordinance of Christ, that only being his ordinance that is ordained by him, who never ordained baptism to be dispensed to other, than such as are disciples so made by men's teachings;  
Besides (I say) your foul faltering in the subjects, you dispense to, 'tis another thing than baptism you dispense to them.   

Rantist.  
What then dipping belike is so necessary, and essential in baptism, that baptism is no baptism if it be done in another form, or if it be done by sprinkling.   

Baptist.  
No not so, for baptism is baptism still, let it be done in what form soever, nevertheless what is not baptism, is not; and such is that sprinkling, which you call baptism, for it is not thing you call it; for if it were baptising that you used, whether it were thus or thus, it mattered not, because that thing that's properly styled baptism is still dispensed, yea though your subject be so false, as to bar it, even then, from bearing the name of the baptism of Christ yet, even then, might it bear the name of baptism, but sith it is not that which Christ at first instituted, but which men have since invented in stead thereof, notwithstanding its being done of old among the Clergy, yet is it no other than an old nothing.   

Rantist.  
This practice hath born the name of baptism before you were born, among wiser men than yourselves for ages and generations together, and must it now be dis-nominated, and digraded from that title it hath been denominated by so long, and cease to bear its own name?   

Baptist.  
It's own name? no, sprinkling is sprinkling still, and so it ever will be, where it's used, but it must cease for ever from bearing the name of baptism, because baptism it never was: if your administration hath indeed the form of baptism than baptism it is, but than it can be called spirinkling no more, but if it have the form of sprinkling then sprinkling it is, and can be called baptism no more, for these two, though the materia quâ et circa quam i. e. both the Element which you use, and the subject, to which you use that element, be never so the same, yet are two such specifically and formally different actions and dispensations, as do not ponere, but tollere se invicem, and can in no wise meet in the same subject at the same time, so as that by the dispensing of either of the two, it may be denominated indifferently (I mean properly) by either, for he that is baptised cannot be said thereby to be sprinkled, and likewise he that is but sprinkled cannot be said there upon only to be baptised, for these two actions of sprinkling, and baptitizing, having two different forms, they cannot possibly be properly called the same.   

Rantist.  
Then it seems the different form wherein we do things, makes the thing so done so to differ, that they may not admit of one and the same denomination: and by this reason, sith there are several and various forms, wherein you dispense your dipping to persons, for happily you dipp them sometimes forward, sometimes backward, sometimes sidewaies, these various ways of dispensing cannot all be called by that one name of dipping.   

Baptist.  
By forms I mean not the accidental but the essential forms of things, which whensoever they are two, those things, whose forms they are, cannot be one, for unius rei est unica tantum forma i. e. essentialis, of one thing there can be but one essentiaell form, there may be more accidental, for the essential form is that quae dat esse rei, which gives every thing to be what it is, and distinguishes it so exactly from every thing else, that its uncapable thereby to be at that time another thing, and another thing of another essential form uncapable utterly to be that: now 'tis the very essential form, wherein sprinkling and baptising [alias dipping] do differ for the essential form of that action of baptising [Anglicè dipping] of persons is the putting of them under water, a covering them with water, or plunging them over head in water, but the essential form of your sprinkling is only the f●…ing of a little water upon their foreheads, for it is not so much as a total sprinkling you use neither.  
In a word Baptising properly is the application of the whole subject to the whole element of water Collectim, here or there gathered together, so as to overwhelm him in it, but sprinkling properly is quite another thing, viz. the application of a little water, or some liquid element to the subject guttatim, i. e: by drops or small portions only, so that these two, viz. your sprinkling and true baptism are no more one thing, than the hurling of a man down some Precipice, or steep place upon spikes, that let out his heart blood, and the pricking of him till be bleed only with a pin, which in general are both a shedding of blood, as ou●… two parallels are both a wetting with water, but in special not the kill of a man, as neither are the other both baptising: so that there may be many ways and means of doing a thing, and the thing be but one still if it have essentially but one form, but where there be many essential forms, there are ever as many several things as those are.  
A man may ride many ways, viz. East, West, etc. many manner of ways, viz. backward, forward, apace or slowly etc. and yet all this is riding still, while the man moves to and fro on horse back, because the very formality of that action of riding consists in being carried by another, but while he moves upon his own Legs up and down, you cannot at that time denominate him riding.  
In like manner a man may be baptised [Anglice dipped] or put under the water many manner of ways, viz. forward, backward, sideway, toward the right hand or left, quickly, slowly, and yet all this while he is baptised, if put under, because the essential form of baptism, viz. dipping in water is to be found in all these ways; but if he have two or three drops of water only flerted upon his face, he is no more truly baptised then if you sillip him with a wet finger, for here is Differentia essentialis, the very formality of baptism is absent.  
If accidentals only, and mere accessaries be wanting unto baptism, specially such superfluities as were in use about the Popish Rantism, as Chris●…, salt, spittle, crossing, Gossips, Fonts, Basins, Cakes, and Wine, and other silly solemni●…ies, there may be good baptism without these, but abstract the absolutely necessaries, i. e. two things, or but either of them, which yet are both wanting among you, and as blind as the Priesthood is now, yet my life for his he shall behold it once, and own it too, that his business is not only not the baptism of Christ, but truly not any baptism at all.  
These two are first the true Subject, to whom Christ appointed baptism to be dispensed, which who it is, and who it is not (and how it is but one, for there is but one baptism, and not two) viz. believing Abraham's spiritual seed, and not a believing, nor unbelieving Gentiles fleshly seed, i. e. all that quoad nos believe as Abraham did, and not all that ever shall to all generations, for such are the seed as well as the immediate, descend naturally from the loins of such as do believe with Abraham, I have abundantly showed above, nor is it my business here.  
Secondly, the true form in which Christ appointed baptism to be dispensed to believers discipled by us, which what it is you cannot be so ignorant as your practice proclaims you to be, for I dare say it is not rantism, and you da●…e not deny, but that it is baptism: Both these are universally wanting, as I have proved, to your practice, yet if but either only were wanting it were null enough: For  
First, it is most certain that a mistake in the subject, to whom any t●…ing is appointed to be done, doth so nullify that thing so appointed, that it can neither be said to be done as 'twas apponted, no nor yet that the thing appointed is done at all, e. g. The Parliament commanded men to take, or in ca●…e of their resistance to sl●…y those Rebels that were routed at Worcester, but should he have been taken by them as obeying their command, that should in persuance thereof have beaten and killed other men, who were never there, nor at all engaged in the King's cause? they ordered a thousand pound to him that should bring in Charles Stewart, should he have been rewarded as a doer of their will in that work that should have brought in another man in his stead? Christ hath ordained, and so consequently 'tis his ordinance that persons shall be first taught by us and then baptised, is it therefore his ordinance to baptise them who were never taught? the Papists have a trick to baptise (as they call it, for they do but rantize as you do) bells as well as babes, but if they did truly baptise their bells, were it the ordinance of Christ? you say no; because bells are a wrong subject, which Christ never appointed baptism to be dispensed to: the very same say we of your babies: a mistake therefore in the subject makes a nullity in the service, i. e. denies it to be any ordinance of Christ at all.  
Secondly, 'tis most certain that mistake in the matter ordained, so as to make another matter of it, or do distinctly some other thing instead of it, makes all that is done of no effect: Quod fieri non debuit factum valet holds only where the error is in accidentals, and merely circumstantials, and not in the very substance of the thing itself: if men do one thing on their own heads instead of another that God bids, they may have pardon in case they cry him mercy, but very little thank from him for their pains: neither is he accounted, much less accepted as doing the ordinance of God, that doth not so much the same things that he ordained otherwise, but other things than he hath ordained: when the Parliament ordained, and gave commission to have Canterbury's head cut off, those Synodians, who also themselves waited to have his kingdom, would hardly have counted that ordinance performed had the trusties cut off his little finger only, and let him go.  
Nor would the law little less than hang that executioner, that having strict charge to hang one man, lets him escape, and in satisfaction falls a whipping of another: the case is yours, who being commanded to teach persons, and then baptise them, and to keep the commands of Christ without spot till his appearing, do in his absence let go the making and baptising disciples, and in place thereof only rantize and rantize only little infants too: in doing which, sith ye do not the thing Christ appoints, ye had as good do nothing.  
A certain man had two sons, and he said to them both, go work to day in my vineyard, one said flatly he would not, but afterwards repent him and went, the other said he would, yet did not, but found himself work of his own to do: the first did the will of his father; so I say that the Rebellious Ranter repenting and being baptised, for else indeed heu quam procul? how far is he from it as now he stands, whilst he says plainly he will have no baptism? shall enter into the kingdom of God, before the responding Rantizer resolving wilfully to persevere in his error, under a pretence of willingness to obey the truth, and refusing to return, when he is convinced of it.   

Rantist.  
But the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which you so much stand upon, signifies though not to sprinkle; yet not only to dip and overwhelm in water, but also to wash, and so 'tis rendered in the Lexicons, where Lavo, abluo, are set down as at least the remote signification of it, and therefore though sprinkling be not dipping, yet 'tis a kind of washing, or wetting, and so may be called baptising, as well as that, and in aliquo sensu in some sense 'tis one and the same with that, for quae conveniunt in aliquo tertio sunt idem, dipping and sprinkling meet both in the word washing, which is a secondary signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and so may well enough both be styled baptising.   

Baptist.  
No such matter Sirs, no not by any means in the world. For  
First your Rule of two things being the same that agree in a third, holds first only and properly quoad mensuram in matter of measure, as two pieces of cloth that square every way both with one ell are the same i e. in length, breadth, etc. not necessarily any way else.  
Secondly, quoad rem it holds in the things themselves in some case and sense, i. e. if the ●…ight respect be had to that same third thing, in which they agree; which third is no other than that which stands the genus, in reference to them both, as Homo et Brutum agree both in the general name of Animal, but this serves not your turn here at all, where you are to prove sprinkling and baptising [alias dipping] to be all one, not in general, for so many things may meet in one, that are as different as things can be, for omnia corpora sunt substantia, yea all things are one, for omnia sunt entia, but in special, so that the one is in specie the same with the other, but this cannot be said of dipping and sprinkling, for though they are both wetting with water, yet are they not both baptizings, for baptising is not the genus in respect to them i e. the general of which dipping and sprinkling are the special dividing members, but baptising itself, or dipping, for these two are adequate each to other, is the member opposite to sprinkling, and and specifically different from it, under the general word wetting with water: so that still these are not the same so as that sprinkling can possibly be called baptising.  
Secondly if the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, do signify to wash any other way then by dipping, yet that's not the direct, immediate, primary signification of it, for that is to dip or plung, as you see in the Lexicon, but at the best it is but indirectly, collaterally, by the by, improperly and remotely that it so signifies; and I ask whether when we try any matter by the signification of the word, as ●…is in the original, we shall go to the direct, original, prime and proper, onto the the occasional, remote, indirect, and improper signification to be tried by? your practise it seems is built only upon the indirect, improper, remote acceptations of the word, and therefore is at best only an uncouth, indirect, improper, and far fetched practice.  
Thirdly, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies washing but it is a real total washing only, such a washing as is by dipping plunging, and swilling the subject in water, and that signification is yet many miles off from sprinkling: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies L●…vo, abluo i. e. to rinse, to wash away, to cleanse, which things are done only, or at least most effectually immergendo, by putting things in water, and swilling them therein: So that still such a washing as baptism is, sprinkling is not, and so you are never the nearer for all this. Yea  
Fourthly, neither do baptising and sprinkling meet one another so much as in that third word washing, so that they may be both properly predicated by it, though in that more general word wetting they do: for howbeit baptism is truly called a washing Heb. 10. 22. and your bodies washed in pure water, yet ne in aliquo sensu can sprinkling be truly so called unlese it be in insano sensu alias, non-sensaliter, for in sano sensu it cannot: yea I appeal to all men to recollect to their remembrance, whether they ever saw any thing truly washed in the way of sprinkling, especially whether ever they saw any one wash things so well as they must do, who are said Lavare, abluere, to rinse, to cleanse, which are the senses, in which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, signifies to wash, in such a sleight way of wetting them, as is made by such a sprinkling only as you use?   

Rantist.  
The pharisees Mat. 7. 4. held the washing of hands, cups, pots, brazen vessels, beds and tables, and their washings are called baptisms, and ye can you 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  conceive they did any more than sprinkle water upon them?   

Baptist.  
Yea surely Sirs, why not? they swilled, and rinsed, and cleansed, and totally wetted them with water, or else I am sure they could never be said properly to baptise; but by the spirit, whoever uses that word when he speaks of sprinkling, they would certainly be said to Rantize them:  
Besides show me any that use to wash, whether it be hands, face, dishes, spoons, trenchers, pots, cups, clothes, brazen vessels, or beds either, when they are by any issue defiled, and I'll venture to vent this verdict on such that they are but sluts, and slovens if they do but sprinkle them.   

Rantist.  
There may he washings though, and dippings too, but what needs such a total dipping as you use? what command can you have in all the Word for such a mad manner of administration, that surely is more than needs: a man may love his house well enough, and yet not ride on top on't, and so many persons like the way of dipping, and washing in the dispensation, we now talk of, yea and practise it too, and yet judge it needless to run persons into rivers, and ponds, and there plunge them quite over head and ears.   

Baptist.  
To make good this doctrine of total dipping against such as dip only secundum partem, as well as those that (in part also) do but sprinkle, I argue as follows.  
Secondly, from the practice of the primitive times, wherein it is most evident they were totally baptised, or dipped, and that they were so appears plainly.  
First, by the Scripture forms of speech, and expressions used about that matter, which import and betoken no less, viz. 1. if there were no other evidence the very denomination itself of baptised that is given shows it, which in propriety of speech, and according to the prime and native signification of the word is as much as totally dipped, or wholly overwhelmed, and covered with water, put under water, which they could not possibly in common sense, and reason be said properly to be, if they were but a little wet about the eyebrows only, as those are to whom you dispense, handling th●…m as if you were afraid too much to wet them: surely i●… would not have been said baptised, much less baptised in jordan, lest of all baptised into jordan, (as 'twas said of people had they not been immersi, submersi, for so baptised is, i. e. put into, put wholly under the water by john.   

Rantist.  
But if you stand so much on the signification of the word, why do you not drown persons when you baptise them? for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to drown, as well as douze or dip.   

Baptist.  
This interposition is so weak and silly, that some may suppose I frame such a simple business as this myself, on purpose to render the Rantists the more ridiculous; but I profess, as ridiculous as it is, it was once put to me by a Country Clergy man before a great Auditory of people, and was as well laughed at by them.  
To which I answer (if a little more yet much what) to the same tune as I then did, viz. besides the signication of the word, which justifies our practice of putting under water, we have precedent, not only for that, but also for the bringing persons up alive again, not only for burying them in baptism, but for the ra●…ing them again therein before their bodies are dead, neither have we any precedent that they of old did use to drown them, and thereupon we let it alone; yea Sirs we leave that Diabolical dispensation of Drowning the disciples of Christ to the Churches, of whom Dr. Featley boasts, who at the Rates, whereby you reckon us to be Anabaptists are An-Anabaptists, whilst they ordered as he sa●…es p. 68 That such as profaned their first baptism by a second dipping, should rue it by a third immersion: as namely at Zeurick where after many disputations between Zwinglius, and the Anabaptists the Senate made an act, that if any presumed to rebaptize those that were baptised before, they should be drowned; and at Vienna, where many Anabaptists (so you call Christ's true disciples) were so tied together in chains, that one drew the other after him into the river, where they were all suffocated: This precedent we leave to those Ministers, and their Churches, that list to prosecute according to it, as Dr. Featley, and not he only, whose patience was Praelatical, but even Presbyterial Mr. Baxter also seem to do, whilst they incense the Magistrate against us what in them lies, merely for baptising believers totally according to Christ's will, as if we were even therefore only the veriest vipers unde●… heaven, and charge us downrightly (for so Mr. Baxter doth) p. 134. as wilful murderers, which in conscience can call for no less than cutting off by the civil sword, which rash charge of us the Lord never charge him with if it be his will to condemnation, but only to conviction; that he may see and confess with confusion of face to his cons●…lation, that he hath wronged a people precious to God, and more privy to his will in many things than himself.  
But if he or any still list to be contentious for such a baptising of disciples as that was viz. a drowning of them in the deep waters of affliction, and overwhelming of them in the proud billows of persecution, the baptism wherewith Christ himself was and every disciple of his must be baptised, let that be the custom of them and their Churches to baptise the Saints so if they will, But I assure you we have no such custom, nor the Churches of God.   

Rantist.  
Now you talk of dipping and drowning and baptising by afflictions, you put me in mind of one thing which seems to me to make against you in this, for the very sufferings of the Saints with Christ (as you hint above) are styled a baptism, and therefore sure the word baptism may be used to express a smaller matter, than that total dipping and drowning, which it signifies sometimes, for the Saints, though they have many sorrows, yet are they not totally drowned, nor s●…nk under them, for Christ both bears them up, and brings them out, if he should contend for ever their spirits would fail before him, and those souls that he hath made; and yet these are said to be baptised: and also they are said to be baptised with the spirit, when yet it's but poured upon them.   

Baptist.  
Totally drowned? no: who doub●…s of that? neither do we totally drown them we dip, but bear them up, and bring them out, and save them from dying, as else they would do, under the water, if they should lie there after a while, and this we do in token and resemblance of that salvation, which Christ shows to his Saints, both under and after some small sufferings for him. Nevertheless the Saints sufferings are not so small, but that they are oft times totally drenched thereby, and overwhelmed (as he that is baptised in water) with tribulation, temptation, scorn, ignominy, and covered therewith as with a Cloud: as we see the Saints complaints in this case Psal. 55. 5. horror hath overwhelmed me Psal. 61. 2. my heart is overwhelmed Psal. 77. 5. I am troubled, my spirit is overwhelmd Psal. 102 1. entitled a prayer of the afflicted, when he is overwhelmed, or covered is the title of the Psalm, and this is with the waters of affliction, Psal. 124. 4. so 142. 3. 143. 4.- so see Psa. 69. 2. 16. where there is complaints of sinking as it were over head and ears, in deep mire, and in deep waters, where the floods overflow, and prayer for deliverance from those swallowing up by them, in token among other things of which continual dying in the world, as well as to it, and universal passing under the waters of affliction, and overwhelming therewith here in this life, we do baptise, i. e. sink persons over head and ears, as well as raise them again alive, in token of their resurrection from all troubles at the last day: therefore o how much of that precious signification, and representation, that is in true baptism is lost in your sprinkling, and dribbling dipping the face only, which some use? In respect also of which plungings and overwhelmings with sufferings their sufferings are Metaphorically styled a baptism Mat. 20. 22. which Metaphor is very familiar in Scripture, which compares the calamities, and miseries the Saints suffer in this mortal life gurgitibus aquarum, quibus veluti merguntur, to overflowing streams of water, wherein they are almost drowned, and therefore said to be baptised.  
As for the baptism with the spirit, he that shall say it is not such a pouring out, as seasons the whole man soul and body, and every faculty of one and member of the other (which if it be, it may well be called a baptism) where in part atleast all parts are purged, but of spiritualizing of some parts of the man only, suppose his face and head, not his he art hands and feet also, but leaving other parts of him carnal and unsanctified, is not yet so well seasoned as he should be with understanding in the Grace of the Gospel. All this therefore speaks plainly to our purpose, and so it is evident still that the primitive Saints were totally dipped, by the bare denomination of baptised, which in that particular is spoken of them.  
Secondly it appears yet much more plainly by the subject so denominated in Scripture, and said to be baptised, which is their whole persons, for 'tis said they were baptised, i. e. men and women, and not their faces or their hands, or their feet only; for if any member only had been baptised, it could not be said properly but only figuratively and improperly (and we are to take things in the most proper sense they will well bear) that men and women were baptised, or that their bodies were washed with water, as in baptism they are said to be Heb. 10. 22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, when a denomination is made of any whole subject to be so or so, that is not wholly and totally so, that denomination is commonly made saltem ex majori, from the Major part of the subjects being so atleast, and then too it is but by the figure Synecdoche, whereby we must understand that by that whole some part only is meant, but a denomination of a subject Ex minori parte, only from some small part thereof being so, is a thing seldom or never used, and scarce cleared always from absurdity, when it is by Synecdoche itself: for he that should denominate his horse white, and commonly call and distinguish him from all his other horses, by the name of his white horse, only from a star he hath in his forehead, when all the rest of his body is black, would be counted as brutish as the horse himself, specially if he should conceive himself speaking properly enough when he speaks so: yet little otherwise then thus do you speak, and think you speak properly enough too, whilst you commonly call them i. e those persons, baptised, that never had more than a little, baptism I cannot call it neither, but mere Rantism on their faces, from which though we are fooled together with you by a custom of speech to afford persons that denomination of sprinkled at least, yet to say the truth, 'tis more than may be well challenged from us, if we should stand upon it, and plead for propriety to the utmost, or for denomination but ex majori, which reason would back us in if we should, so little of that little subject i. e. the infant, whose face only you sprinkle, is sprinkled by you when all is done, but we let that pass:  
Nevertheless, know this that total baptising is the only true baptising, and a subject not baptised totally may not be said to be baptised properly, but only figuratively and Synechdochecally, and surely the spirit speaks not all along by Senechdoche, and 'tis as improper almost if not altogether to say that man is baptised, whose fingers, face, hands or feet only have touched the water, as 'tis to say the swan is black, because his feet are so, or the black-moor white, because his teeth are so: express not dentes et pedes, and then Ethiopes albus, and Cygnus niger are two monstrous creatures indeed, and baptizatus merè rantizatus is no other, then rara avis in terris nigroque simillim●… Cygno.  
We may not therefore, without abuse to ourselves and them, conceive them that wrote the histories of the new Testament, that we might know the certainty of those things, which were at first done Luke 1. 14. and to this very end too that we might do thereafter, to speak so improperly all along, as to declare and denominate those to us to be baptised i. e. in true English washed, plunged in water submersi dipped under water, who if it were then as you say, or at least, as you do now, were only wetted with a few drops, or if dipped, whose noses, foreheads or faces only felt the water: the wisdom of the spirit in them would rather have used the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as he ever doth, when he would have us conceive no more than sprinkling, as Heb. 9 or else some more moderate phrase suitable to such a petty paddling as face dripping is, had that been the only way of those times, than the word baptise, or else have expressed that particular, or member of the body, which only was baptised, if he would not have been understood as speaking of the whole, for that's the usual way wherein the spirit speaks, when he speaks of the dipping of some members only, as Luke 16. 24. when he speaks of the dipping of a member only, he expresses the member so dipped, and the particular subject so denominated, he says not send Lazarus that he may be dipped, or that he may dip himself, or that he may dip his body in water, but that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, so Mat. 26. 23. ●…e that dippeth his hand with me in the dish; he denominates not the man dipped from the dipping of so small a member as the hand, or face, or feet, or what ever member of the body it was that you imagine was then baptised; for that wetting of the face only came up surely in Cyprians days, when they had got that trick of ease to be baptised, I should say to have their faces, the only member at that time extant, besprinkled in their beds.   

Rantist.  
But Mark 7. 4. Christ speaks thus of the Pharisees, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. unless they be baptised they eat not, and yet by that baptism is meant no more but the washing of their hands, and that appears plainly in the very verse above where it's said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. unless they wash their hands, and then immediately after thus, and when they come from market, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, except they be washed i e. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in their hands, suitable to what's said before, they eat not, yea and surely he would have expressed so much as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but that 'twas expressed so ●…ust before under 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that it was needless to repeat it, and therefore he rather leaves it to be understood, therefore sometimes you see Christ denominates men baptised, or washed, when no more than some members of them are dipped, or washed.   

Baptist.  
Thatby the baptism or washing spoken of v. 4. and expressed by the term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is meant no other than the washing of the hands of the Pharisees I freely grant, and also that the 3. verse so clearly proves it, that no man living I think may rationally deny it: nor can I think that the Pharisees when ever they came from market were plunged o'er head and ears before they sat down to dinner, or were washed or baptised any further than man●…um tenus, only in that pa●… viz. their hands, but I beseech you be you as ingenuous in acknowledging what you must also necessarily grant, and what you have in a manner given and granted also viz. that the force and sense of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the verse before is carried to the 4 verse, so that it must be understood to the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also, as following it, as well as it follows the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, though it be expressed only under the first of them, and then your recourse to the former verse for the finding out of the sense of this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 makes much for the proof of what I say viz. that Christ does not usually denominate the whole man to be dipped, or baptised, when yet he means that some part of him only is baptised or washed, without expressing some way or other that part of the body, wherein he is washed, and according to which only he denominates him so to be: for even here, by your own plea (and 'tis the truth) we must to the word [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] except they be baptised, subaudire 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 understand this word [their hands] which as you say, so I say also would undoubtedly have been set down under the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to show that to be the plain sense and meaning out viz. washing the hands, but that it was so newly named before under 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that its more elegantly understood then expressed.  
So that the place runs as smooth for us as we would have it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (subauds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Pharisees except ever and a non they wash or be washed (as to ●…he hands atleast (for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the first future of the middle voice, and is read either actively, or passively, but rather passively) they eat not, and when they come from the market unless they be washed (meaning manu●…●…enus as just before) they eat not.  
Assuredly, therefore Sirs, sith the Apostles, and Evangelists all along in the new testament tell us of men and women that were baptised, or washed by dipping into the water, without varying this word, or using any more words, whereby to give us to take that in a more moderate sense then for total dipping, and all this too without any expression of any particular parts, or members of those men and women, nor any more particular subject of that baptism than the whole persons, the bodies of those men and women, they meant to acquaint us thereby, that those men and women were totally dipped, that we might be so also after their example, or else their denominations of men and women baptised, dipped in jordan so often, so only used are scare ●…fair, free, plain, and proper, but rather (contrary to what Paul professes, when he says we use all plainness of speech) forced, improper, figurative, dark, and delusive, which far be it from us once to think.  
Thirdly, as far as the thing well can, or atleast need to appear in the word by instance, and example it appears in Mat. 3. 16. Act. 8. 38. by the baptism of Christ, and the Eunuch that the form and manner of baptising was then, and is now to be by a total dipping of the party.   

Rantist.  
There is no pooof of universals by particulars; besides it will hardly be make good that Christ and the Eunuch were dipped: mark and peruse what Doctor Featley says to this, and some other passages, and places of Scripture p. 69. This ●…aith he is a weak and childish fallacy, for ex particulari non est Syllogizari, no man in his right w●…s will conclude a general from a particular, viz. some men tha●… were baptised went into the River, therefore all that are baptised must do so; the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sometimes signifies to dip, Ergo it must always signify so, besides Act. 11. 16. john 1. 26. the Preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies not in but with (as the words immediately following 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 make it plain) notwithstanding I grant (saith he) that Christ and the Eunuch were baptised in the River, and that such baptism of men, especially in the hotter Climates, hath been, is and may lawfully be used: yet there's no proof at all of dipping or plunging, but only of washing in the River, but the question is whether no other baptising is lawful, or whether dipping in Rivers be so necessary to baptism, that none are accounted baptised, but those, who are dipped after such a manner? This we say is false, neither do any of the texts alleged prove it, it is true dipping is a kind of baptising, but all baptising is not dipping, the Apostles were baptised with fire not dipped into it, Tables and beds were baptised, i. e. washed, yet not dipped, Israel baptised with the cloud not dipped into it, Christ and Zebede●…s children baptised with blood, yet neither he nor they dipped ●…to it. All this he writes in Answer to what you say as if he had foreseen it by way of preoccupation, and one thing more which I had like to have left out, The Fathers called Tears a Baptism, yet there is no dipping in that Baptism.   

Baptist.  
These are Dr. Featleys' feat, feigned and frivolous interjections indeed, in Answer to Rs. Argument from the same examples, to all which I reply as follows.  
First, from particulars universals will not follow is a rule that will not universally follow neither, but in some particular cases only, For first out of its particulars coll●…im consideratis considered all together the knowledge and true understanding of the universal doth not only consist, but exist also, i. e. appear by all its singulars severally observed.  
Secondly, Though there are cases, wherein one or some few singulars singled out, and considered Sigillatim apart from the rest, do not prove all the rest universally so to be, as they are, as namely when that one, or these few particulars are extraordinarily, or (as I may ●…v) singularly or choicely so or so, e. g. the particular cases of john the Baptist being filled so timely with the holy spirit, and of jeremiahs' being separated (for so the spirit means by that word sanctified jer. 1. 5.) from the womb to be a prophet, and of Paul's being separated from the womb to be an Apostle, Gal. 1. 15. these do not prove (as you sometimes very simply, falsely and fallaciously infer, at least from that of john) that therefore infants of believers at least are in general filled with the holy spirit, and ordinarily sanctified in their infancy: for it was only the measure of john Baptists gifts (say you my Ashsord Antagonist p. 16.) that makes his Example extraordinary as if it were ordinarily commonly, and generally so, that believ●…rs in fants are filled with the spirit, as well as he, though not so fully as he was: but these are childish consequences, and infantish inferences indeed, from these singulars, for the cases were singular cases, and notoriously known not to be incident to all.  
Or else when the matters in such particulars, from which we would argue that 'tis generally or universally so, are merely fortuito, accidentally adventitious, not necessary per se, de essentia, & natura thereunto, then there is no evincing a general by it, for it follows not that because one man, or a few men are blind, and lame or maimed, or sick, therefore all are so; or when a matter is merely indifferent, ad placitum, and not ex necessitate praecepti, necessary by any positive command of the same thing unto all, as well as some, then 'tis silly Syllogizing from some to all, as to say some men, who were weak did eat herbs, therefore all the disciples did, and we all must eat no other.  
But again there are cases, wherein it follows from one to all, as when the matter spoken of that one doth agree to it, per se, and qua tale, then 'tis true de omni also, as one man quâ homo is a reasonable creature, Ergo all men are so; there are cases also, wherein the Example of what particular persons than did do prove what all than did, or should have done, & what all ejusdem capacitatis now should do in like manner; as namely when the matter done by those particulars is necessary & no other than what by duty they stood bound to, & that by virtue of a clear command given out not to them only, but to all those that are in the same capacity in common with them; but specially when those particulars are recorded for our instruction, and to be patterns and examples for us to follow, than all aught to be in general, as that is, and so Paul followed Christ, and others ought to follow him & be as he was: and of this sort is the case here in hand, and the examples of the baptism of Christ Jesus and the Eunuch, from which we show how all men (if at all) ought of right to be baptised: for though your Doctor disciples you (not denying in the mean while but that baptising in Rivers is lawful, and mark that I pray, for it sets our baptising in rivers out of the reach of all your exceptions, who snarl at it) though I say he disciples you blindly into a belief, that there is another baptism lawful besides that which Christ & the Eunuch had, and that dipping in rivers is not so necessary to baptism, but that they may be accounted baptised, who never were dipped after such a manner, yet I tell you, through whom he being dead yet speaketh, that if by Rivers he means as we mean viz. any places where there is so much water as will well serve to dipp persons (and some must mean, for else it might be but a pond for aught he knew, where the Eunuch was dipped, for it is called but a certain water in the way) and if by that other lawful baptising, then that which is received in Rivers, and places of much water, he mean no other than rantizing at Fonts, or as you have now contracted the business at Basins, where there is water enough to sprinkle an 100 but not half water enough to baptise one, you will find that at last to be so far off from being the same water baptism wherewith Christ and the Eunuch were baptised, that it doth not come so near it as it would do, if it were (as the Doctor calls it) another baptism, sith it is not so much as any bap●…ism at all, for another baptism (such as Paedo-baptism would be if men did use it) would be some kind of kin to the baptism of Christ, they both meeting at least in the name of baptism, yet so little that Christ will never own it for his, but no baptism, and such Paedo-rantism is, is not so much as nomine tenus in the bare name of baptism any kin to Christ, but that you falsely father it on him as his.  
So that in truth our talk with you about another kind of baptising then that of Christ, and the Eunuch will be but impertinent, unless, you practised another, nevertheless for discourse sake, and in resolution to the question as the Doctor states it in reference (no question) to his own practice, viz. whether no other baptising th●…n that which Christ and the Eunuch had is lawful? which is as much as to say, whether another water baptism may not serve the turn as well? or whether Christ hath not more water baptisms then one? I answer no there is, i. e. aught to be but one baptism Eph. 4. but one water baptism, one kind of baptism of that one kind, that must be the meaning, for else there's more i. e. more kinds of baptism than one: Hebr. 6. 2. i e. of Water, Spirit, Sufferings.  
Supposing therefore your Baby-rantism to be that other baptism (where note that himself confesses yours, for that sure he means to be another baptising then that john and Philip dispensed) supposing it I say to be that other baptism he pleads the lawfulness of, yet sith Christ owns but one, even that alienation were enough to discard it as unlawful, and none of Christ's, as well as its being none at all, for new baptism and no baptism will speed both alike with him at last; or if he mean only that another manner of baptising in water is lawful than he hath no enemy of us in that point (save that we still shall differ about the subject) for let any administrator take professed believers only, and baptise them, i. e. overwhelm them in water, and let him do it where he will, yea how he will for me viz. backwards or forwards, sidelong or headlong, so he do it, and they be not naked.   

Rantist.  
But still me thinks the main things the Dr. drives at remain unresolved, for he tells you first that if it could be made appear that Christ and the Eunuch went into the water, and were totally dipped, yet thereby it appears not that all others must be baptised in such a manner.  
Secondly that it cannot be made appear, that either of them were dipped or plunged, but only washed in the River.   

Baptist.  
No? did I not show you sufficiently above in what cases particular examples do prove, what the general primitive practice was, and may be argued from as from a general rule of what ever ought to be viz. when that, or those particular practices are enjoined to all as well as to some, in one and the same word of righteousness, but specially when propounded as patterns, and written as rules for our instruction, and such are both these baptisms of Christ and the Eunuch, which had never been recorded, but for our learning and for examples sake unto us, in which respect, though he needed no baptism, as we do, to be a token to him of the remission of any sins committed by him, Christ himself submitted to baptism, for howbeit it was partly, and perhaps primarily, to fulfil all the righteousness of his own law, as well as of Moses Law, in his own person, as he testifies it became him to do in Mat. 3. for he exacts, and expects no more obedience to himself, and the father either active or passive from us, than he acted and yielded to the father first himself, yet was he baptised partly also to the same end, in order to which he did all things else, that he either did or endured, which was imitable, and remaining for us to do after him, as baptism is viz. that he might leave us, who are so often charged to follow him, an example that we should follow his steps Mat. 16. 24. 1 Pet. 2. 21.   

Rantist.  
This is true the matter of his baptism is imitable by us, and we are to be baptised as well as he, nor do I yet see reason (as the Ranter seems to himself to do) why Christ himself should be engaged to baptism, or the Eunuch either, and ourselves exempted from it: but whether it be so needful to be done just in that manner as you would make it to be, I see no ground yet to believe that.   

Baptist.  
Can you be baptised in a better manner think you then that wherein john baptised Christ, and Philip the Eunuch? me thinks you should not derogate so much from the wisdom of those Primitive Administrators, as to imagine such a thing, and if you cannot are you not half wild in contending for a worse?  
Or Secondly would you be baptised in, not so low, base, contemptible, ridiculous tedious a way to the flesh as they, but in a more honourable, more moderate, more easy, more tolerable, more world winning, more self pleasing, more flesh favouring a manner? or what is it you would have? me thinks either that sour service of going down into a River, or pond, and being dipped, or overwhelmed in water there, which served our Lord jesus Christ, and that honourable Eunuch, might serve you, or else that easy sweet service of sprinkling which you content yourselves with, might have served them, one of the two: for as they were required to be baptised no more than you, so surely in no more unwelcome a way of baptism than yourselves; and they would not have so far supererrogated as to have been baptised at all, if it would have fulfilled righteousness in that point to have been sprinkled only on the forehead.  
Nay that would not, for says Christ when he came to john, and john at first refused to baptise him, Thus it becometh us to fulfil righteousness:  
Thus i. e. not only in this matter, but in this manner, but if you will needs perform this service more easily than Christ and the Eunuch did, perform it only (as in sprinkling you do not) and let be done in what manner, or accidental form you please, and if you like not to do it openly in Rivers or such like places, we stand not on those niceties (though many thousands of Primitive Saints as well as modern were, and are so baptised) let it be done in a Cistern, so it be totally and truly done, yea make one big enough for the disciple and the dispenser to go down in both together, so that the one may conveniently be overwhelmed in water by the other, and then let it be done in a basin, if you please.  
As for the other thing the Dr. says viz. that there is no proof at all of the dipping, or plunging Christ and the Eunuch, but only of their washing in the River I wonder the Dr. did not look into his Lexicon, before he asserted such an absurdity as this, if he had, he might have found cujus contrarium, that there is proof enough that they were dipped, or plunged in the alleged texts, but no proof at all that they were washed in any other way: for the very thing that is related of them both, is that they were dipped, plunged, or washed by dipping; 'tis said of Christ plainly Mat. 3. 15. 
c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  that he came to john to this very end that he might be baptised by him, and verse 16. 
d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  being baptised he ascended presently from the water, and of Philip and the Eunuch Act. 8. 38, they descended down both into the water, both Philip and the Eunuch, and he baptised him, and ver. 39 when they were come up or ascended out of the water:  
Now I appeal to all rational and unprejudiced men in the world, that are skilled so far in the greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as to have once seen the genuine sense, and signification of it in any Lexi●…on, which is to dip, plunge, put under water, overwhelm 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  with water primarily, and secondarily to wash or cleanse by dipping, or dousing, whether there be not in those Scriptures plain proof of their dipping 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  and plunging, or washing by dipping, and not the least hint or evidence of any other washing at all.  
The Dr. himself grants that they went into the River, I marvel to what purpose if not to be dipped there, he confesses also that Christ and the Eunuch were baptised, which in plain English is dipped, or overwhelmed in the River, mark his words [in the river] also that such baptism of men, especially in the hotter climates, both hath been, is and may be lawfully used, and yet for all that, denies either of them to have been dipped, or plunged in the River, or that any one may now lawfully be served so: I marvel much what they did in the river, before they came out of it, o●… quoth he) they were washed in the river, and yet not so as by dipping neither, good Sirs let us examine this a little, for I cannot for my life ken what washing the Dr. means, besides this of dipping, or how any other washing was performed.  
First to be sure it was not by sprinkling, which yet is all in all among you, and that for these reasons.  
First, because it's most certain that the greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath no such signification as to sprinkle, neither is it rendered any where Aspergo, in any Lexicon or any translator of the testament whatsoever.  
Secondly because sprinkling is no kind of washing at all, neither is there any thing in the world (save as I said before by sluts and slovens) so much as undertaken to be washed only by that act of sprinkling, much less by such a sparing sprinkling as yours is, who sprinkle not the 20th part pro toto: indeed a thing may in time be so totally wetted by a continued sprinkling, as it may be put thereby into some kind of capacity to be cleansed by rubbing it while the water is on it, and that is far from your practice too, but not half so well as when it is swilled in water; and in a long while a garment may be all covered coloured, and as it were died by sprinkling, as Christ is said in the continued war he wages at the last, partly by the sprinkling of people's blood upon him, and partly by his riding up and down in the wine press, where there are, as there are usually in wars, garmen●…s rolled in blood, and blood up to the horse bridles, to have his raiment all stained and his vesture as it were died and dipped in blood, but all this is hyperbolical locution, and not to be wrested to such purpose as Mr. Cook and Mr. Blake do, who because there is not enough near hand, fetch a proof for sprinkling forty miles off, which yet proves nothing when it comes, for they know Allegories do rather illustrate then evince, but this is not such a deep dying as is by dipping.  
Thirdly, it had been a most vain thing for them to have gone down into the River merely to be sprinkled, if that were the only business they might well have been dispensed with from descending into the water, but sith they were not, it shows that such a thing as sprinkling might excuse them, and if not them, I know not why it should excuse the best of us; though men do much in the service of God in vain, when they do things that man doth, but God never did require at their hands, yet we cannot think Christ did any thing in vain, yet so we must think if we think he went into a river to receive no more than sprinkling: and so we must think of the Eunuch also, of whom we have little reason so to think, for great folks and nobles, such as he was, love to do as little as may be in contradiction to the flesh, and no more than needs must be in this point of baptism, if at all they stoop to it: for he need not have hindered himself so long in his journey, nor diseased himself so much in his body, as to have descended out of his chariot, and after into the water, but might much rather have sent Philip, or his servant to have fetched so much water in the hollow of his hand, as would have served very well to have sprinkled him, if no more than so had been required.  
Fourthly it had been stark nonsense for Mark to have said of Christ as he doth Mark. 1. 9 he was baptised of john in●… jordan, if he were not dipped, or if by baptised we must understand sprinkled, for he was sprinkled into the River is 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  as absurd and unelegant English, as to say he was dipped into the rain.  
Secondly it was not by pouring water upon them, that Christ and the Eunuch were washed: this is the baptism Mr. Baxter pretends to, as that, and that only which ever he saw dispensed in all his life, as it were disclaiming the way of sprinkling, which yet is your only wont way: I believe he saw good cause to be ashamed of owning that any longer for baptism, as many a one besides him is, who with him puts it off thus, that their baptism is not by the way of sprinkling, but pouring of water upon the infans, for my part (saith he p. 134.) I may say as Mr. Blake, that I never saw a child sprinkled, but all that I have seen baptised, had water poured on them and so were washed.  
And Mr. Blake says p. 4. of his answer to Mr. Blackwood, that he never saw nor heard of any sprinkled.  
O the egregious shifts and shuffling evasions of these men, who perceiving the perverse practice of sprinkling infants summoned, and sub paenaed, to come to a trial by the word of God, do disguise it out of its old name, that it hath born with content, and without control for ages and generations, and doth still among many of their own party, till now they begin to see it more strictly than ever enquired after, and likely to come into trouble for its transgression from Christ's command) and shrowded it under another name, whereby to secure it, so that now they know not, nor ever saw or heard of any such manner of thing done in all the world.  
No Sirs? what never? that is strange: what parts of Christendom have you lived, or do you live in? I profess for my part I have lived a Sprinkler of infants myself about some seven or eight years, not only in several parishes, but in several parts of our English Christendom, far distant, yet so far as I remember, I did never see till I came acquainted with the people, whom you neck name Anabaptists, any thing done by any in that particular, that might well bear any other name than that of sprinkling, yea I know where a dispensation of baptism (as 'twas called) was done so slenderly once to the child of a noted Clergy man, that the father himself was so far in doubt, whether there was so much as sprinkling, or any water at all dropped from the fingers of the Dispenser, that he doubted a while after (whether he do still or no I know not) whether it were not his duty to have it done over again a little better; the Gentleman I speak of, if ever he read this, will surely remember both what, and what Child of his I mean.  
Mean while what more than sprinkling was ever done by myself, or any other in that place, or any other wherever I have been, I cannot call to mind, neither do I know that ever (till of late, that men see advantage lost by it in this controversy) the name of sprinkling was denied to what was done in all places of England, save such where the manner was, and very newly is upon sight of the falseness of the way of sprinkling, to dip a little more than the tip of their Noses.  
Besides though the Rubric did prescribe dipping as the only right form, wherein baptism is to be dispensed and in case of weakness declared it sufficient to pour water upon a child, yet what kind of pouring was universally used by them who never used dipping, is evident by the Rubric, if we will give it leave to expound itself, for in the Catechism thereof, which is not unknown to Mr Blake, and Mr. Baxter both to have been taught or commanded to be taught all children at any years in all parishes of England, this question, viz. what is the visible sign or form in baptism? is thus resolved viz. water wherein the person baptised is dipped or SPRINKLED with it, in the name etc.  
So that how beit the Bishops were pleased to use the word pouring water (as you do) yet a great piece of pouring it was I promise you that their Priests practised to infants (and it is a chance whether Mr. Baxter and Mr. Blake have not in the infancy of their administration, which I suppose was in the bishop's reign, done the like, though now happily they make a little better measure, or at least seen the like at some time or other, but me thinks they cannot choose but have heard of the like in one place of the world or other) a poor piece of pouring, I say when their hands only being put into water were after held up perpendiculariter over the infant's face, that it might be wetted a little with what fell guttatius from their finger's ends.  
And this hath been the most usual way that I have seen, in respect of which I may say the Priest that administered all commonly by book, and wi●…hin book, did act beside book, and without book in that service, for howbeit he was in joined to dip the child in the water, as the most expedient way at least, and not so much as to dispense by pouring water, unless in case of weakness only, yet he made bold, having an inch given him to take an ell, i. e. upon leave granted him to forbear dipping in time of weakness only, to forbear dipping altogether, and being authorized by the same Ghostly fathers the Bishops to make pouring suffice instead of dipping at such time only, wherein dipping might not be safely used, to make sprinkling serve instead of pouring also: and in this manner I am persuaded the world was gulled by the Clergy in Cyprians days, and after, who having the verdict of so grave a Father as Cyprian was, that application of water in the bed might stand for baptism in time of sickness, in case the sickness proved unto death (for if they recovered even in his judgement they ought to be had to the River and dipped) for ease sake to the flesh, and such like self ends, made some slender slabber to stand for baptism altogether.  
And that sprinkling only hath been the general way of England its evident enough to any, save such, as seeing see not, and have ears and hear not: yea as shy as Mr. Blake and Mr. Baxter are of that name sprinkling, as blind and deaf as they would make themselves in this case, as though they never saw nor heard of any sprinkled, yet there are Divines famous in their account, who own it, some of which seem to speak, as if they never heard of such a thing as pouring of water in the dispensation of baptism, but only of dipping and sprinkling as the only forms that ever they had the hap to hear of: w●…tnesse (besides several other Catachistical composures, that I have seen) that specially of Mr. Ball a man not only vindicated by Mr. Martial, but much magnified by Mr. Baxter by the titles of rutherford's second, excellent Mr. Ball, judicious Mr. Ball, no Dull Divine to be easily ●…isled p. 131. 132 which Mr. Ball in his Catechise p. 24. speaking of the outward sign, element, action, speaks much what asit is in the Rubric, viz. water, wherewith the person baptised is washed by dipping or sprinkling in the name etc. as if he had never seen water poured on a child, but all that ever he saw had been either dipped or sprinkled.  
Nay more than all this, witness also the very man that manages this very cause together with them, viz. Mr. Cook, whom I dare say Mr. Baxter and Mr. Blake have read, and made no little use of, for he hath furnished them both with sundry of their Arguments against dipping, this man in opposition to A. R. which A. R. speaking of sprinkling, excludes it by this disjunction, viz. that the use of water must be either by infusion or dipping answers thus, not only to the clean contradicting of Mr. Blake and Mr. Bax●…er and to the proving of them but so so in their denials, that ever they saw, or heard of any sprinkled, but also to the excluding of infusion or pouring, which yet in other places he pleads for, which Mr. Blake and Mr. Baxter say is the only way, vea all the way that they have seen save dipping, which yet one of them never saw at all, and to the evincing of sprinkling to be one of the ordinary ways of baptising: for page. 11. where is A. R. says the use of water must be either by infusing or dipping, but not by infusing nor sprinkling, for he counts them much what one, therefore by dipping, Mr. Cook tells him, as if he had never seen or heard of such a thing as pouring, which is all that Mr. Baxter says he saw in his days, that the ordinary use of the water is one of these two ways, viz. either by dipping or sprinkling yet Mr. Blake that hath read Mr. Cook, n●…ver heard of any sprinkled: So Calvin, Tylenus, Buchan, and all call it either Aspersion, or ●…mersion: yet again some Divines seem to speak, as if they never saw nor heard of such a thing as dipping, unless among the Heretical Anabaptists, which yet is the only true and primitive form of Baptism, but only of p●…ring on of water or sprinkling, witness the whole Synod of Divines, who in their directory direct the world further out of the way of the word in point of baptism, than the Bishops in their Rubric did, for they in their Liturgy appointed dipping to be done, as the most expedient form, and pouring on water only in case of necessity, but the other in theirs directly exclude dipping, as a thing no where appearing to be needful, and order that either of the other shall serve without it: for these are their words p. 45. of the Directory, viz. He is to baptise the child with water, which for the manner of doing it, is not only lawful but sufficient, and most expedient to be by pouring or sprinkling of the water on the face of the child: whether any thing that ever hath been done by any in obedience to this directory in that second way of sprinkling, which Mr. Baxter denies that he ever saw done, and Mr. Blake that he ever heard of as done to any, did ever reach Mr. Baxters' eye, or Mr. Blakes ear, I leave them seriously to examine; but this I am sure of that the baptism of Christ and the Eunuch was dispensed neither by sprinkling as I have showed above, nor yet by bare pouring on of water which they so plead for: and this I shall now make appear as plainly as the other. For  
First in vain did they descend into the River to have nothing but water poured on them with no greater spout or stream then what runs down contiguously from the hallow of ones hand; but Christ did nothing surely in vain, and Philip and the Eunuch might well have spared their pains in wetting themselves so much, as they must needs do by going down both into the water, and as sufficiently discharged such a service by standing only on the shore.  
Secondly, if by pouring you mean the pouring of a far greater quantity of water then what can he held in the hand, as namely out of some scoop, or vessel used to such a purpose upon the face or head, as that might have been done full as well by the water side, if they had not gone down into the water, so it must have been as tedious by running down into their necks and bosoms, and so necessarily have occasioned the trouble of the shifting of themselves, as very dipping itself can be, or do.  
Thirdly, 'twas not by washing them in any other way, excepting still that of dipping, suppose by applying water to them with their hands or otherwise, and then rubbing it on their bodies, for if so, than this washing must be of their whole bodies, or of some part or parts of them only, if some part or parts only, then of those parts which we commonly keep uncovered as the face and hands, or else let it be assigned what other parts, but it was not the face or hands only that were thus washed, for this again were a very vain thing to go down into the water for, as it's said of Philip and the Eunuch that they both did: frustra fit per plura quod potest fieri per pauciora: 'tis mere foolishness to fetch a beetle and wedges to cleave a stick no bigger than ones singer, & little wisdom to run so much as o'er shoes merely to wash one's face or hands, which may be done as well at the water's side, as in it: if their whole bodies were thus washed, than it must be done either with their clothes on, and that is impossible, for though the whole body may be baptised i. e. washed by dipping or swilling it under the water as conveniently, and more comely with clothes on then otherwise, yet they surely have little else to do, and find themselves more work than becomes wise men, that go about to wash persons by rubbing water upon them through their garments, besides while you can totally wash one in that form of washing, I'll wash by dipping at lest no less than a score: or else exut is vestimentis i. e. stark naked, & that were more immodest than naked dipping.  
Fourthly, nor was it done by dipping some part of their bodies only into water, but the whole, for to dip a person but in part, besides that it is not properly to dipp that person, but only to dip some part of him, is to the dispenser, and the disciple too, tantamount in difficulty if not surmounting a total dipping, yea to dip the whole body of a man at years (for we speak not now of infants, that may at ease be dandled any way in ones arms) is easy enough to the dispenser, when the disciple is once gone down with him into the water, and yields himself to be laid along in it by his hands, but conceive what part of a man you will, except the hands which you will not for shame say is the only member to be baptised, and I'll say hic labour, hoc opus est, 'tis a matter of no small difficulty to dip merely that: for if you will dip a man's head and shoulders only in the River, you must poise and posture him Archipodialiter with his heels upwards, if his feet and legs only, you must first at least lift him up wholly, and carry him in clearly from the ground, which kind of dipping men in Rivers, as 'tis more toilsome surely than that total dipping, which john and Philip used, so let him take it, who is minded to make himself more moil than needs, for our parts we have a way wherein to do it with more ease, and to do it more sufficiently too, then by the halves.  
As for the other of the Dr. quibbles viz.  
First (for the rest of them are elsewhere removed) That the Israelites were baptised in a cloud, not dipped into it.  
Resp. nor sprinkled neither, but only metaphorically baptised.  
Secondly, that Zebedees' children were baptised with blood, the baptism wherewith Christ was baptised, and yet neither he nor they dipped into blood.  
Resp. Both he and they were baptised with sufferings, shame and contempt, and affliction, and all misery in the world for truth's sake i. e. penè, yea penitus submersi, sunk o'er head and ears in deep waters of the proud, going over their souls, and overwhelmed with the waves of the wickeds wrath, prevailing against them for a time, and that's the bloody baptism he speaks of, not literally the sprinkling of their own blood upon them, when they were slain, for john suffered otherwise, but his blood was not shed at all.  
Thirdly, that the fathers speak of the baptism of tears but no dipping in that baptism.  
Resp. we mind not what your fathers spoke hyperbolically, but what our fathers spoke in truth, and plain soberness in this case.  
It was therefore a total dipping certainly, which was then used, and by which Christ and the Eunuch were baptised in the water, and not any other kind of washing there, as the Dr. dreams, which is also evinced yet a little further by this, forasmuch as though the Eunuch was gone down with Philip into the water, yet he was not said to be baptised till Philip had dipped him therein: for if the wetting or washing, or dipping of some parts of the body only might pass for sufficient baptism, then as soon as Philip had conducted the Eunuch into the River, he might have led him out again as a person sufficiently baptised, for he was washed already and dipped so far as to the Ankles, but the business was not done though the Eunuch was in the River, till he had baptised him thereinto.   

Rantist.  
Give me leave though to put in one thing by the way, and that is this, 'tis a question to me for all your confidence, whether Philip and the Eunuch went down into the water at all or no, the preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, whereupon you ground it, doth not always signify into, but sometimes unto, and why may it not in this place be thus read viz. they went down both of them unto the water, both Philip and the Eunuch?   

Baptist.  
No it cannot, for they came unto the water before, and so it's expressly spoken in the text ver. 36. where its said, and as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water, ('tis probable some ford or brook that they were to pass through) and the Eunuch said see here is water, what hindereth me to be baptised, if they were come unto the water already (as the word says they were) they could not be said properly (except they had gone from it first) to come unto the water again after they were come unto it, therefore the next motion was into it without question: yea the very Dr. himself, with whom we now deal, confesses no less than this, that Christ and the Eunuch were baptised in the river, and that such baptism of men hath been used, if then they were used to be baptised in the water, they went down first certainly into it, not unto it only, for than they could not be well said to be baptised in it.  
As therefore to that other quirk whereby the Dr. seeks to evade all baptising in water, and pleads for a baptism with water only viz. that the preposition 〈◊〉 which commonly is put after the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, signifies not in but with and is so translated) and this is one of Mr. Cook's Crotchets too p. 12. of his book) the Drs own grant quite cashieres it, while he says that john and Philip baptised Christ and the Eunuch in the river, for though I deny not but that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be, and sometimes is truly enough translated with especially in Rev. 19 21. the place quoted by Dr. Featley and Mr. Cook, who both strive to enervate A. Rs' argumentation from that preposition, which is used Mat. 3. 7. Mark. 1. 8. where john says I indeed baptise you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. in water (saith A. R.) with water ●…saith the Dr. and Mr. Cook) yet if it be granted (as it is by the Dr) to be in the River, than it cannot be denied but that it is in water however, and so the Dr. thwarts himself in that.  
Nei●…her is there such inconsistency in my conceit between baptising in water, and with water, as that either this or that should be held exclusively of the other, for they rather necessarily stand both together, yet so as that the advantage stands still by it on our hand, for whoever baptises at all, yea he that baptizeth in water baptizeth with water also, and likewise he that will baptise wi●…h water must necessarily baptise in water too, i. e. obruere over whelm or plunge persons over head and ears therein, or else if we go to the truest signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in reality he baptizeth not at all.  
Let it be rendered therefore baptise in water, or with water which you will, it's all of a price to us, sith the one of these includes the other.  
And whereas the Dr. and Mr. Cook both make such a matter of the words that follow viz. 
i 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.   
He shall baptise you with the holy spirit and fire, the Dr. pleading that the Apostles were baptised with fire not dipped in to it, and Mr. Cook that one may as well say Christ baptised in the holy spirit, and in fire, or put the party into the holy spirit and fire, as that John baptised in w●…ter, the preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being there also.  
I answer, we may as well say so indeed, for 'tis a truth as well as the other, they that are baptised with the spirit and fire, are also baptised in the spirit and in fire, and put into the spirit, and into fire i. e. wholly into a holy flame of zeal for God, and the Gospel, for that's the baptism with fire that is there mainly spoken of, and not as the Dr. divines that outward appearance of cloven tongues only, like as of fire that sat upon them in the assembly Act. 2. 3. for that was but a special, accidental, visible token of God's presence extraordinarily appearing among t●…ose particular persons at that time, baptising them inwardly with the other, which is no more necessarily incident to all persons that are baptised with fire, and to all those unto whom that baptism with fire is promised, which are indeed all the Saints, that repent and believe the Gospel, as well as those that were met on the day of Pentecost, (as we see Mat. 3. 11. where john promises the baptism with fire, as well as with the spirit to all penitents, most of which never had that vision of cloven tongues) which appearance of cloven tongues I say, is no more incident to, nor to be expected by all that are baptised with fire, than the appearance of the spirit descending in shape of a dove, and lighting upon Christ at the time, when he was baptised or filled with the spirit, which was much what such another special, casual and visible token of God's presence as the other, is incident to, or to be expected by all those that are baptised i e. filled with the holy spirit: and albeit this phrase [in the spirit] may seem to found so nonsensically to Mr, Cook out of our mouths, that are a people of no account with him, yet I hope it shall seem congruous enough out of the mouth of the holy spirit, and the holy Apostles themselves, for they use it more than once, or twice in the holy Scripture, and me thinks he should not be, unless he be willingly, ignorant of it; for not only doth john say twice viz. Rev. 1. 10. 17. 3. of himself in this manner viz. I was in the spirit, and he carried me away in the spirit, but likewise Paul says plainly to all Saints Gal. 5. 6. walk in the spirit, and to himself and all Saints, v. 25. if we live in the spirit let us walk in the spirit, and testifies of the also Rom. 8. 9 that they are not [in] the flesh, but [in] the spirit, if the spirit of God dwell in them, where by [in the flesh] he means all over, altogether, or totally fleshly, drenched, drowned in flesh, plunged over head and ears as it were, in flesh, filth, and corruption as the world is that lies in wickedness, so that there is nothing but flesh to be seen upon them, as he is that is buried in water, whom that Element hath wholly covered, and by being [in the spirit] no other than that which is the baptism with the spirit, i. e. being endued with the spirit, wholly sanctified in every part though but in part, with the spirit, all over seasoned, washed, cleansed by the spirit, for thus he is, that is baptised with the spirit, i. e. he is in the spirit as well as the spirit in him.  
More than this yet, though the word [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] may be rendered [with] as well as [in] for 'tis both [with] and [in] water that we are baptised, when we are baptised as we should be, when it stands between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so that we may read it as well I baptise you [with] water as [in] water, yet can it not be very properly read so when it stands between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and yet so it stands Mat. 3. 6. Mark 1. 5. for though I can bear with him that says thus, viz. john baptised [with] water, yet he that shall say that john baptised [with] jordan or with the River Iord●…n, as if all jordan was used to every one's baptising rather then [in] jordan and [in] the River jordan, I shall think that his brains crow out nonsense which is intolerable.  
Whereupon as to the word [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] all Translators do there English it [in] and not [with] and though I can read it [with] together with them, as well as [in] when the Greek is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, yet by their leave, and with non-submission to their judgements (as no way slighting them) further than I find them not fallible, and saving both the Dr. and Mr. Cook's conceits to the contrary, I see no reason sith one of those places is a relation of the same thing with the other, but that as Mat. 3. 6. Mat. 5. 1. we must read thus, viz. they were baptised of john [in] the River jordan, so we may without such uncouth utterance of the thing, as seems to them to be in it, yea and as agreeably to Scripture language as otherwise read Mat 3. 11. Mar. 1. 8. thus viz. I indeed baptise you [in] water, but he shall baptise you [in] the holy spirit and fire.  
But more than all this yet, though the word [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] that is used in those places, may without any advantage to you be read with as well as in yet the preposition [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] which is used Mark 1. 9 where it is said that Christ was baptised of john into jordan, that cannot possibly be rendered with which yet in the intent of the 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  spirit is doubtless the same in sense and signification as [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] is in the other, and more significant to our purpose, for howbeit, it be rendered in jordan as [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] is elsewhere, yet into jordan were more agreeable to that rendition of it, that is usual in other places: but so to read it, viz. he was baptised of john into jordan doth render your sprinkling a plain piece of Nonsense, for it cannot be sensibly said, he was sprinkled into jordan, therefore you will in no wise give way to that: the Doctor indeed leaves A. R. and bids him farewell in that point, as if he were afraid to have any noise of it, and says not a word against it; but Mr. Cook and Mr Blake, who saves himself a labour, & uses not a jo●… more than what Mr. Cook furnishes him with to that purpose, do both sternuously stand against the reading of the word [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] Mark 1. 9 by into Mr. Cook p. 14. and Mr, Blake p. 4. of their respective returns to A. R. and Mr. Blackwood, who both make mention of that passage; yet the utmost that both these repugnants bring against it is of no more force than a very feather, for all that they say is this, that the word [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] doth often signify in or by and not into as Mat. 2. 23. Mark 4. 13. Mat. 5. 45. Mat 10. 9 11. 13. 33. he dwelled in Nazareth, in Capernaum; neither by jerusalem & t. neither possess money in your purses; in the name of a prophet, she hid it in three measures of slour, in all which places the word [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] is Englished in or by.  
Resp. As i●… because this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath other significations besides into, but specially the signification in in other places, where very common sense, and reason show that it cannot there bear be Englished into, but only in, therefore it cannot by any means bear to be Englished into in this place where it's as good sense, save that it shows sprinkling to be nonsense, yea and more suitable to a genuine, and candid construction of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and undoubtedly to the spirits meaning in the place to English it into then to English it in, for though he was rantized [Anglice] sprinkled into jordan be ridiculous, yet he was baptised [Anglice] dipped into jordan is as proper to the full, as he was baptiz●…d in Jordan, yet they blush not to say, for so says Mr. Cook, and there lies the very force of his reason, viz. that because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies in, though he knowesi signifies into also, therefore it were absurd to render it into here at all; Mr. B●…ake also makes this his sole ground whereupon to say that the Scripture is against our Englishing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here by into, because elsewhere, viz. in the places they allege, where the sense will not bear it to be read [into] ●…s rendered all along in or by; I cannot but believe that those two gentlemen are Judicious enough to discern their own halting, and mere shuffling 〈◊〉 this case, for if I should argue upon them, as to but one of those places, where they will have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be Englished in on this wise viz the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 very frequently, and most properly signifies into as namely Luke 5. 3. he entered into one of the ships Rom. 11. 24. thou art graf●…ed into a good ol●…ve tree Ephes. 4. 9 He 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  descended into the lower parts of the Earth, Mat. 6. 6. Enter into thy Clos●…, Mat. 6 13. lead us not into temptation Acts 8. 38. they went down both into the water both Philip and th●… Eunuch, therefore it is absurd for you to render it in in Mat. 4. 13. and the Scripture is against that interpretation, if I say I should urge so upon them (and so they argue to us ward) they would quickly spy out my nakedness in that consequence, but O how abominable blind are they at home?  
Nevertheless I tell you plai●…ly that though right is right, and to be stood for to a tittle, and that if the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mark 1. 9 were rightly rendered, it should be rather into then in yet the service the word in will do us in that place, is little less than what the word into will do, so that we need not stand contending for the sense of into having enough from your own professed sense of in without the other, wherefore waving our right in that at present, we w●…ll freely fall in with you as the sense is in, yea we grant that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies in and that in many more places, than those alleged by yourselves, as namely to add to your store Act. 2. 27. thou wil●… 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  not leave my soul in hell Luke 11. 7 my children are in bed with me.  
But is it so that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies in and is so rendered in that place, and many more? then I am sure hat here it doth not signify out of for he that is in a City (put a Nazareth or Capernaum) is at that time when said to be in it, not out of it nor only by it but in it, money that is truly denominated to be in a purse is at that time truly in it and neither out of it nor beside it, leaven hid in three pecks of Meal, whilst hid is in it, overwhelmed, covered with it, and not on the outside with a few dusts of meal sprinkled on it only; He that is in hell i. e. the grave, in bed while he is truly said to be in it, he is in it, and not at it only, and so he that is truly denominated to be baptised in water or in jordan in the River Jordan is not ou●… of it, not at it, not by the side of it, not near it only as you fancy them to have been that were baptised of John in Jordan.  
He I say who is said truly (and the spirit lies not) to be baptised in Jordan must needs be, whilst he was in the Act of this baptising, not out of Jordan, nor just by it only, but truly in it, and that's more than he needs to be in order to baptism, if he can be baptised as well standing by it only in that fiddling way of sprinkling.  
Whereas therefore you contend against baptising, i. e. dipping into Jordan into Rivers, and plead for a baptising in water only by the Example of Christ's baptism which you yield in Jordan, but not into it, I marvel what wide difference you see in these two, that you should grant it to be in, and yet be afraid to grant it to be into Jordan: you cry out not into, not into by any means, for that is no way consistent indeed with your dry washing, but by all means let it be in only, viz. in water, in the River, in Jordan: let it be in water then as [much as you will for me, so it be [in] water that you are baptised, and not out of it, and not well nigh without it, as most of y●…ur christened Creatures are, whilst little or none, in comparison of such a measure of water as must necessarily be in order to a true baptising of them, doth once come near them.  
Fourthly, it appears plainly that the way of baptising in the primitive times was by total dipping, not sprinkling, in that they chose to do it in places, where there was much water, or many waters, which they need not have done, if sprinkling might then have passed for baptising, john baptised in the River jordan, and was baptising john 3. 23. in Enon near to Salem, and the reason is rendered thus, viz. because there was much water there, and there they came and were baptised; and as the reason why they went to be baptised there, was because there was much water, or many waters (for the word is Plural) so surely the reason, why they went to such a place was that they might be baptised i. e. dipped in water, as they could not conventently be elsewhere, at least not every were, for where might they not easily have been sprinkled? and upon this account no doubt, as john chose to preach about those River sides, viz. jordan and Enon, that their conver●…s might conveniently be baptised, Paul and Silas being at Philippi, and abiding in that City certain days to preach the Gospel, on the Sabbath, the most likely time of vacuity from other occasions for people to assemble to hear in, went out of the City by a River's side, and there sat down, and spoke to as many as resorted thither to hear, viz. certain women, (for men for the most part were more shy of the Gospel as now they are) that they might conveniently dispense baptism to them, as should embrace the Gospel, as a certain woman named Lidya, and her household did, and thereupon out of hand were all baptised, Act. 16. 12. etc.   

Rantist.  
Their baptising where there was much water for this reason, that they might do the work so effe●…ually to every person as by dipping, is a frivolous conjecture, as if there could be no reason, why john should choose a place, where many waters were but that he might dipp the whole man in the water, the cause rather seems to be this, because waters in those hot Countries were rare, and in some places could not be had in a great distance, and because there came multitudes to be baptised, for the dispatching of which they might well seek places of many waters, where John and his disciples might at once be employed, one water of depth sufficient would have served for the use of dipping, for dipping sake he might have sought for a deep, but needed not to seek many waters.   

Baptist.  
So says Mr. Cook indeed to A. R. p. 15. 16. and Mr. Blake to Mr. Blackwood, who jumps as just with Mr. Cook, as one that never saw nor heard of any sprinkled, can likely do with another, who maintains sprinkling to be the only way of baptising, but both weary themselves to little purpose.  
The question is not whether john had no reason. but that which we allege of baptising, where there was much water, but whether that which we allege viz. that he might dipped the whole man be not one reason: as for that you bring viz. because there came multitudes to be baptised, and that john and his disciples might at once be employed in baptising, that can be no reason at all of their running into rivers to baptise, nor of their dispensing in jordan, In Enon, and in places of much water, or in many waters, and therefore (for aught I see yet) ours is the only one: for verily were it not for the sake of total dipping, they need not for the multitudes sake that came to be baptised, nor yet for the multitudes sake who did baptise (I mean john and his disciples, who no doubt were all at once employed in that work) have sought for a place of much water, or many waters: for as one basin of water may well serve to sprinkle a whole parish of many persons, or if not, it's easily replenished, so many persons employed at once in sprinkling might easily put their hands into one, or if not, might they not easily have it in many basons? what a poor shift is this? Rivers, jordan, Enon, many waters, and why? because many were baptising, and many to be baptised; one water of depth (quoth Mr. Blake) would have served for the use of dipping: for dippings sake they he might have sought for a deep, but needed not seek many waters: but would not one water of no great depth, as a basin, yea of no depth at all, as a cock or conduit have served for the use of sprinkling 1000s? for sprinkling sake, even of multitudes, they need have sought for neither deep waters, nor for many waters neither: or if they must needs have had as many waters as they had dispensers, they might quickly have made many waters out of one, by filling out of one well, one cock, one bucket, many basons.  
Mr. Blake rejoices in Mr. Blackwoods' rendering the word plurally viz. many waters, which the translators render in the singular viz. much water, supposing he hath such a prize in our yielding to read it so, as taketh off the whole force of our reason: but I hope he understands himself better than to believe, that by many waters is meant several waters, waters in several sources or channels divisim, Sigillatim, seorsim sumptae, divided and a part one from another, for by many waters is meant a confluence of much water together, many waters meeting in one, flowing, running contiguously, and contained jointly in one source, river, channel; otherwise in one River Enon it could not be said there were many waters, for 'twas but one flood, as jordan was, so that by Enon, or many waters he must needs understand much water, a sufficiency, a competency of water for the occasion in hand, enough to baptise i. e. to dip, and overwhelm in, and not several waters, for several persons at once to sprinkle in, for this might be done easily without much water, and if not without several waters, yet at least in several basons of water only, but the other could not: many shallows were sufficient for many to Rantize, and be Rantized in, but they sought some one deep, one jordan, one Enon of depth sufficient, those being only the most fit to baptise i.e. to dip in.  
Fiftly, it appears plain that the Saints in the primitive time were totally dipped, or overwhelmed in water by that denomination that is given to them after baptism Rom. 6. 3. 4. where the Romans are said to be baptised into the death of Christ, and buried with him in baptism into death: also Col. 2. 12. when the Collossians are said to be buried with Christ in baptism, and therein also raised with him, through the faith of the operation of God, who raised him from the dead:  
Now we all know that he that is buried, is totally put under that element wherein he is buried, whatever it be, whether water or earth, and all over covered with it, not sprinkled with a little only. Non quaelibet aquae guttula, nec quaelibet terrae globula: 'tis not a little parcel of water, sprinkled on a man can denominate him baptised, as 'tis not a little clod of earth crumbled on a man can denominate him to be buried, for baptism is a burial, an ordinance, and visible sign, wherein every believer is to be visibly buried, and every one that's truly buried, is totally covered, subjected to that element that buries him, and for a time at least translated by it out of sight.   

Rantist.  
Buried? yea, but mystically and spiritually, invisibly and inwardly only, in respect of the thing signified in baptism, and effected in them viz. death to sin by virtue of Christ's death, in which respect also they are said to be raised i e. to newness of life by the power of Christ's resurrection; but this is not meant nor spoken with reference to the visible sign itself, as if there were to be a burying of the body under water, and bringing that up again: It's the inward grace, and not the outward sign itself, in respect of which baptism is called a burial, and a resurrection, the things signified being our dying to sin, and rising to righteousness, even as Christ did die and rose again.   

Baptist.  
I am glad to hear you grant so much truth as you do at the present, and I hope you will see the whole out in the end, for all will not own so much, some, perceiving no doubt what a foundation it lays for us to build firmly upon all that in this point we contend for, do rather choose to deny this truth that baptism signifies, or at least that it resembles a death, and resurrection, then by owning it, be forced to own the true way of baptism indeed.  
Your Dr. Featley little better than denies both at first p. 70. saying thus,  
As for the representation of the death and resurrection, that is not properly the inward grace signified by baptism, but the washing the soul in the laver of regeneration, and cleansing us from our sins, but I can little less than admire that he above all men, who quotes the Rubric with little less authority, than he doth the bible, and hath no question little less than an 100 times in his days taught little children the catachism contained therein, should quite forget to learn it himself, for there it's set down plainly, that the inward and spritual grace signified by the outward sign of baptism, is death unto sin, and a new birth unto Righteousness; and besides he knew that in true regeneration, there is a death and resurrection.   

Rantist.  
However in the manner of baptism as it is administered in the Church of England there is a resemblance of a death and resurrection, for though the child be not always dipped in water, as the rubric prescribeth, save only in case of necessity, which would be dangerous in cold weather, especial if the child be weak and sickly, yet the minister dippeth his hand in the water, and plucketh it out again when he baptizeth the infant: and these are the very words of Dr. Featly next following the words you quoted, and therefore whether he be right in those or no, I am sure he is in these, for there is a resemblance of death and resurrection in our baptism.   

Baptist.  
Whether the Drs mind misgave him or no after he had asserted that a death and resurrection is not the thing signified, and that which is to be resembled in baptism I know not, but me thinks he speaks as if he feared whether that would hold water or no, and therefore lest it should be found to leak, in the v●…ry next words, which you now speak in, as one supposing it the safest way to grant tha●… there ought to be a res●…mblance of a death and resurrection in right baptism, he rather goes another way to work viz. to patch up a proof of it that there is a resemblace of a death and resurrection in that administration of it, that is used in England; but 'tis in such a way me thinks as may well make all the seers ashamed, and Divines confounded, specially you that so dote on that Doctor as to give up yourselves to be so blindly discipled by him (as you do and would have others to do so also) that ever such a piece of doctrine should be delivered (and yet behold you justify and side with it) by England's Doctors in Divinity.  
It seems than you dare nor quite gainsay, but that a representation of a death and resurrection is fit to be made in the manner of baptising, and that the Church of England hath prescribed that it shall be done in such a manner, as may be tanta mount thereto viz. by dipping, unless of necessity th●…ough the infant's sickness it be done otherwise (yet notwithstanding that prescription of the Church, which of you priests did ever do any other than sprinkle the healthiest infants?) but because the subject of your baptism in England, being an infant, is too tender at all times to be dipped or buried in water (where note that your false subject of necessity engages you to forgo the true way of baptising, which yourselves prescribe unless necessity forbid it) because I say the child cannot conveniently be buried with Christ in baptism into death in his own person, therefore (ecce signum) this visible death, burial, and resurrection with Christ must be all transacted for him per altum i. e. by the ministers hand, that is dipped into water, and brought out again as it were instead of the child.  
And this is even very suitable to all the rest, for all the rest of your service in the point of baptism is done by representatives, as little as it represents what is malnly to be represented by it, and one part would mock the other is this should not be done so too: 'tis true all is done in the child's name, and in the child's stead, but nothing done that of right aught to be done either by, or to the child himself: The infant indeed is asked, dost thou believe in God? dost thou forsake though devil? will: thou be baptised & c? but others must answer, and promise, and profess, assent to, and vow all these for him, others mouths must speak his mind, and there's the profession: again he is spoken to by the minister saying to him, I baptise thee i e. dip or bury thee with Christ in baptism into death, for so 'tis in a little plainer English, and true sense and intent of the service, but alas it's nothing but the ministers hand that is dipped, buried, raised again with the drips that hang upon which the infant is only rantized, and there is the resemblance of the death, burial and resurrection: but I trust Sirs you will understand at last that when Paul says to the Romans and Colossians that they were buried and raised in baptism, he doth not mean that the dispensers hands, but that their bodies were put under water, and brought out again, in respect of which they were said to be buried into death, and are raised again, i. e. not spiritually only, and really in respect of the souls dying to sin, and living to righteousness, but outwardly, visibly, bodily in water also, and this significatively, and representatively of the other, and this is my third argument for total dipping.   

Rantist.  
Significatively I grant if you will, but not representatively, I know no necessity that in every sign there is to be aresemblance of the thing signified thereby.   

Baptist.  
If that be granted you will not easily withstand the other, yet that is granted by the most, and must be granted by all whether they will or no: as for Mr. Cook and Mr. Blake themselves they neither of them seem to me to deny, but that such a thing as a death and resurrection are signified in baptism, yea Mr. Cook affirms it, yea, who questions saith he p. 19 but our justification and sanctification, or remission of sins, together with mortification and vivification are signified by baptism? and he says right, for none can, and I think none doth deny it, but Dr. Featley, of all Divines that I know of: yea Calvin and Zanchee both assert it in their several expositions upon these very places Rom. 6. 4. Coloss. 2. 12.  
This participation in death saith Calvin, is principally to he respected in baptism, for not only purgation, but also mortification, and the dying of the old man is proposed there, etc.  
And of spiritual circumcision Paul maketh two parts saith Zanchee, the first he calleth burial with Christ, the other resurrection with him, and of both these he maketh baptism the sign etc.  
Nevertheless our above named opposers will at no hand give way. that there should be any representation or resemblance made in baptism of these two things, which are the prime significations of it, by putting under water and plucking out again: yea they seem to chide with their several Ant agonists A. R. and C. B. for offering once to urge that the outward sign ought to hold analogy or proportion with the thing signified in that particular; A proportion between the sign, and these things signified, viz. a death, burial and resurrection Mr. Blake grants there is in our way of baptism by dipping, but that there need be, or should be so by institution, this he hears not of with patience, no, nor Mr. Cook neither.  
But if it please you to have patience with me so long, sith those two are the main men that (beside the Doctor whose repulse is not worth a rush) so mainly oppose our Argument from Rom. 6. Col. 2. He take the pains to transcribe their several replies, and then see what strength there is in all that they say to the contrary.  
Mr. Cooks defence is as follows.  
What you go about to gather saith he from Col. 2. 12. Rom. 6. 4. l know not, unless this, that as Christ was buried, ab●…de in the grave three days, and then rose again, So your party baptised must be put under the water, abide there some considerable time, and then come up again, for if you press a similitude of Christ's death in going down into the water, and of his resurrection, or coming up out of the water, why not also of his abode three days by abiding three days or some considerable time, under the water? which will make bad work, neither can any such thing be gathered from those Scriptures.  
I would demand two Questions (saith he) 1. How you gather from these places a dipping of the whole man over head and under water? and that a similitude of Christ's death, burial and rising again, to be represented by dipping in water, is signified here? these Scriptures show indeed that the end of our baptism is to seal our communion with him in his death, and resurrection, by which we are dead to sin, and raised again to holiness: but if you will press hence a resurrection by our descending into, abiding in, and coming up out of the water, take heed lest you be one of those, which add to God's word, lest he reprove you as a liar, and add unto you the plagues written in his book, for I know no word of God, wherein this representation is necessarily employed, much less expressed.  
Besides if you urge death and resurrection to be resembled by deseension into, and ascension out of the water you must urge also burial, which is principally there expressed by the biding of the whole ma●…, head and all under for a time, answerable to Christ's three day's burial, which cannot be without danger, yea certainty of drowning.  
2. If it should be granted that a representation and resemblance of Christ's death, burial and resurrection is set before us in baptism, and so of our death to sin, and rising again to holiness, yet I demand why this may not as well be by infusion of water as dipping? can you give me an example of so many killed and buried by immersion, or dipping into the water, as I can give of them that have been put to death and buried by infusion of water? I am sure a whole world of men and other creatures (those few that were in the Ark only excepted) were buried in the universal deluge at once by infusion, not by dipping: so that infusion or sprinkling may as well clearly signify death and burial as dipping: and to the preservation of No●…h and those that were with him in the Ark (on which waters were poured) from drowning: the Apostle compares baptism as its Antitype. Thus far Mr. Cook p. 16, 17.  
And then again p. 19, 20. 21. he undertakes further viz. to argue back again upon us at large, and to prove, that if there must needs be a resemblance and representation in baptism of the things, that are signified thereby, than it may be as well, nay must be rather by washing, pouring sprinkling then by dipping and putting under the water, sprinkling and infusion being as (if not more) agreeable to the nature and institution of baptism then dipping or immersion, for as the word used, i. e. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies washing, so the thing represented, sig●…yed and sealed (saith he in the wont implicit phrase) in baptism is a washing 〈◊〉 Cor. 6. 11. ye are wasted. etc. the washing of Regeneration 2 Tit. 5. having your bodies washed with pure water Heb. 10. 22. 'tis a cleansing and purging 1 John. 1. 7. blood of Christ cleanseth us from all our sins Heb. 9 14. blood of Christ shall purge your conscience, which things viz. washing, clonsing, purging are done as well by infusion of water saith he as dipping, and though it were granted saith he, that in those hot countries they commonly washed by going down into the water, and being dipped therein, that will no more enforce a necessity on us of observing the same in baptism now, than the examples of Christ, and the Apostles gesture in the supper ties us to the same which was leaning and partly lying, but it may be objected (saith he) that sprinkling a little water doth not so fitly represent the washing of sins away, as dipping or plunging, sith here the whole body is washed, there the face or head only: I answer first saith he, the Scripture no where requires washing of the whole body in baptism.  
Secondly, with as good reason one may plead thus, that 'tis most convenient that at the supper every communicant should receive his belly full of bread and wine, and take as long as his stomach and head will hold, to signify the full refreshment of the soul with the body and blood of Christ; but who would endure saith he, such reasoning?  
These outward elements of water, bread and wine are for spiritual use, and to signify spiritual things, so that if there be the truth of things, the quantity is not to be respected further than is sufficient for its end, namely to represent the spiritual grace, and that it be neither so little as not clearly to represent it, nor so much as to take off the heart from the spiritual to the corporal thing: yea the spiritual grace and visible act of God upon the soul signified, and represented by the outward act of baptism viz.  
The application of Christ's blood, and donation of the spirit is expressed in Scripture by the name of pouring, spr●…kling, and that probably, if not certainly, with allusion to the administration of baptism Isa. 44. 3. Joel 2. 28. I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh, Ezech. 36. 26. He sp●…inkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean, this clean water questionless is the blood and spirit of Christ represented in the water of baptism, so in the new testamet Act. 2. Heb. 10. 22. 1 Pet. 1. 2. Heb. 9 13. and 14. verses compared together and Heb. 12. 24.  
Now (saith he) let any one without prejudice consider these Scriptures, whether at least some of them speak not in allusion to baptism, and whether baptism be not a lively resemblance and representation of the things here spoken of, and withal let him consider whether the thing exhibited in this sacrament, be ever so fully set forth by dipping, and then I leave him to judge whether sprinkling be not as, if not more, agreeable to the nature of this sacrament as dipping or immersion.  
In this manner Mr. Cook delivers his conceptions in his to A. R. we will only see what his parallel saith, who argues as Mr. Cook doth, epitomizing as it were the labours of Mr. Cook, unto his own turn against C. B. we'll first fully receive his charge also, and then fully return what in right reason remains to be returned to both.  
If by baptism saith he we are planted into the likeness of Christ's death, and also made partakes of his resurrection, will it follow therefore that there must be some ceremony in the application of the water to resemble it? if you may take this liberty of argument, give me leave saith he to attempt the like, and with as good reason to conclude, that baptism must be no other than sprinkling, that there may be proportion between it, and that sprinkling of blood and water, that did foreshadow it: or baptism must be only by pouring of water, there being a lively representation between that and pouring out of the holy spirit; or that baptism must be by washing with water only, there being a lively proportion between that, and washing away of sins by Christ's blood; you see (saith he) what you will gain from these disputes from Analogy and proportion.  
To this purpose Mr. Blake p. 6. as if he had stopped all our mouths, by this at once for ever, yet I hope he shall see that he hath left us room enough yet to breath in, and by which to breathe out some reply.  
Now to give the more plain, quick, clear, and condign check to these two palpable controulers, not to say contram●…lers of the present piecious and apparent Truth, reducing Mr. Blakes sharp and snap-short Syllogisticalls unto that long circumferaneous collation of Mr. Cook, out of which (for ouhgt I find) he fetch it, and in the answering of which Mr. Blake is answered as well as he, I most earnestly entreat both those two, and all other opposites to that one, and only true way of baptising we plead for, viz. of total dipping, seriously to advise what is granted and denied, what is asserted and argued, and by what weak Mediums, and on what crazy grounds those things are, that are in contradiction to us denied, asserted or argued by them or either of them.  
They are indeed Copar●…ners so that both seem to side with what either saith, which yet I marvel at the more, because Mr. Blake who quotes but contradicts not Mr. Cook in it at all, so far as I find occasion to guess by some passages in the first and fourth pages of his Reply to Mr. Blackwood, is against sprinkling, so far at least as to judge the way of dipping Mr. Blackwood pleads for, which himself professes he hath been an eye witness of, and known to be the constant practice of many Ministers for many years together, when yet he never saw nor heard of any sprinkled, to be more suitable to the word then sprinkling, but Mr. Cook is so earnest for the way of sprinkling, as the most excellent and pertinent way, that if we may judge his meaning by his words, he thinks dipping doth set forth the things signified but by the halves in comparison of it; why else doth he say sprinkling is as (if not more) agreeable to the nature of the Sacrament as dipping.  
Mr. Blake grants not a necessity, but an expediency at least in dipping more than sprinkling, yet is silent towards them, & sides exceedingly against us with them, that are both againt us and himself too for sprinkling as more eupedient than dipping▪ what reason he hath so to do is worth his earnest examination, he grants that in baptism we are planted into the likeness of Christ's death, and made partakers of his resurrection, he grants, and Mr. Cook cannot deny it, that de facto there is a proportion and similitude of Christ's death, bu●…al and resurrection, by which we are dead to sin and rise to righteousness, held in the way of dipping, and in that respect I am persuaded judges dipping in his conscience more expedient than that of sprinkling, yet will no more than Mr. Cook himself allow, but denies us the liberty to argue that by duty, necessity or institution, there ought to be de jure any ceremony to resemble it: what little reason he hath so to do will appear easily, and without further proof to himself, who grants so far, if he consider that 'tis duty, and necessary for us, necessitate praecepti) by command, commission and institution from Christ, to do that ever that is most commodious and expedient; and whether it be not most expedient, and more than expedient too, to resemble the death and resurrection of Christ, and ours with him in baptism, and whether dipping be not more expedient than sprinkling, or any other way, and more pertinent to represent all those things, which are signified and are to be resembled in the ordinance of baptism, will fall under our examination by and by, when we come to consider what the things are that are specially signified in baptism, and how requisite it is that they be also represented in it.  
In the mean time let it be considered what is granted and denied by Mr. Cook of whom I may truly say so little do I ken what the man means by it, that he both grants us full as much as we desire, and yet denies us too no less than every thing we would have; denying indeed, to the contradiction of himself, the very self same things that yet he grants: the truth is I know not what to call it but confusion, nor find I a way how to reconcile some parts of it to the rest, so full of vatiance it is within itself: one while he grants, asserts and argues the same in general that we do, viz. that the spiritual grace, or thing signified in baptism is, and aught to be represented, or resembled in that outward sign, and that respect is to be had that the outward element of water, which is to signify the spiritual thing be used, as to the quantity of it, though not further, yet so far as may be sufficient to us end, which end (saith he mark his phrase in this passage p. 20) is to represent (which is as much as to say to resemble, or lively to set out to our eyes) that spiritual grace or thing signified, and that it be not so little as not clearly to represent it; yea and which is more, and as much as we say ourselves he grants, and asserts it for undoubted truth that the spiritual grace, or thing signified by baptism is (among other things) a death and resurrection: for 〈◊〉 questions (saith he p. 19) but our justification and san●…ication or remission of sins together with mortification and vivification (which is as much as to say those two parts of our sanctisication, viz. our spiritual death and resurrection) are sealed and signified by baptism, i. e. are the spiritual grace of it. Also p. 17. these Scripiures viz. Rom. 6. Coll. 2. show indeed (saith he) that the end of our baptism is to seal our communion with Christ in his death and resurrection, by which we are dead to sin and raised again to holiness.  
And in all this he sides so sourdly with us, and jumps so just into our opinioo, that if we did hire him to speak our mind for us to the world, we could scarce desire him to propound it more plainly than he doth, bating only his styling baptism by the name of a seal, instead of which I wish he would call it only a sign: yea he gives us all that in this case we contend for from those scriptures, viz. that the spiritual grace or thing signified in baptism is to be therein also represented, and that our death and resurrection by virtue of Christ's is that thing that is signified there, or that spiritual grace the signifying of which other things not excluded) is the chief end of our baptism.  
Otherwhiles again he gain says this grant, speaking of it suppositively only as page 17.  
If (saith he) it should be granted that a representation and resemblance of Christ's death, burial and resurrection is set before us in baptism, and so of our death to sin and rising again to holiness,  
As if he were never the man that had granted, as you see he doth, or ever would grant, or give way to such a thing, and not only so, but as if he were loath, and half angry that any man should speak the truth but himself, or the same truth with himself, he charms A. R. and little less than charges him as a liar, and in him consequently us all, for saying no other than what (if you put his sayings together) he says himself, which is this, viz.  
That our mortification and vivisi●…ation by virtue of Christ's death and resurrection is the spiritual grace or thing signified, and that respect or care must be had in the administration of it, that the quantity of water be sufficient clearly to represent the spiritual grace [but how that can be without enough to be buried in water and raised again, what ere he thinks I know no:] but if you will, saith he, press hence a necessity of Resemblance of Christ's death, burial and resurrectiby our descending into, abiding in, and coming up out of the water, take heed lest you be of those that add to God's word; lest he reprove you as a liar, and add unto you the plagues written in his book, for I know not any Word of God, wherein this representation is necessarily employed, much less expressed.  
Thus whereas he says elsewhere, as I have showed above, that the end of baptism was to represent the spirival grace as well as signify it, and that the spiritual grace, or thing signified, and to be clearly represented is mortification and vivification, or communion with Christ's death and resurrection (which things 'tis strange he should say against the word of God, for he protests it to be against the word when we say it, and if there be any word expressing or implying a representation, which himself so much talks on, I am sure there is none like those two which we produce, viz. Rom. 6. Cot. 2. which most lively show it, as I shall show anon, and undeniably declare) yet here in the passage last cited, he that talks of this representation, and resemblance of Christ's death and resurrection, and ours with him, as needful to be made in baptism, is a liar with him and an adder to the word, which warrants no where to press a resemblance of the thing signified in the dispensation of the outward sign, no not so much as in those Scriprures Rome 6. Col. 2. So this representation in baptism is with him it seems a matter that must be, and yet must not be, and yet must be.  
And yet for all this (which is the wonder of me, and will be of many more, but specially of every wise man, that hath his wits about him, and would have been of Mr Woodcock too, who without taking notice of any weakness in it, extolled the Book in the beginning of it, and put it forth to Sir john Burgoines patronage, had he well weighed these passages of it) Mr. Cook wheels about once again, and will needs have a representation and resemblance of the thing signified by baptism in the manner of administration of it, and argues stiffly for it to, but the representation must be of what he pleases among the things signified, and not of the main thing signified in baptism, it must be of sanctification as 'tis called a washing a cleansing, a purging, a pouring of the spirit on us, a sprinkling of the blood of Christ on us, and so be done by sprinkling water: but not as it stands divided into its two parts mortification and vivification, a death and resurrection: or else if there must be a resemblance of this death and resurrection in baptism, then by an As for example fetched from the old world, that was drowned, dead, buried by an infusion of water, not an immersion, and from the Ark which was reigned upon only, and not overwhelmed, this death and resurrection must needs, and may better be resembled by an infusion and sprinkling then by total immersion or dipping in water, for if we urge to have the death and resurrection resembled by dipping, i. e. a descension into the water, and ascension out of the water, which we all know was the way of Christ's and the Eunuch's baptism, we must urge also burial, which is principally expressed. Rom. 6. Col. 2. to be resembled too by biding of the whole man under the water for some time, answerable to Christ's three days biding in the bowels of the Earth, which cannot be without danger, quoth he, yea certainty of drowning: and if sprinkling should not so fitly resemble as dipping and plunging, yet the Scripture no where requires the washing of the whole body, to all which I answer.  
Resp. 1. which thing of his called sprinkling of water on the face, for all he says it may as well or better (sith so many were of old killed and buried by sprinkling, or raining on them in the days of Noah) serve to resemble our death, and burial then dipping does, yet in truth resembles a death, burial, and resurrection, little more than a knock o'th' pate.  
Secondly, which drowning of the old world, as it would make not a jot for such a purpose as he pleads for, had it been by such a way as he dreams it was by viz. sprinkling, raining on them, by infusion and not immersion, yet in very deed (and so he'll see, when he is awake, and his eyes are open) was by immersion immediately, and not infusion, for it might have reigned long enough upon the earth, before the men that had houses to shelter themselves in from that, would have been killed, and buried under water, if the waters had not prevailed by a flood so high over the earth, as to overwhelm the men under it, and plunge them o'er head and ears: and if he call that sprinkling and infusion, let him sprinkle or infuse water in such abundance, till the water sprinkled or infused, become of such depth about the parties he is about to sprinkle, as to swell o'er their heads, and to swill them wholly under it, and I shall own such infusion for right baptism, yet none of Christ's ordinance neither, unless dispensed to a right subject i. e. babes or beginners in the faith.  
Thirdly, which elegant allusion of his to the ark, as that on which water was only poured or sprinkled, whence he seems to argue thus viz. that it reigned only on the Ark, or water was only poured or sprinkled upon the Ark, which Ark was a type of baptism,  
Ergo, baptism must be dispensed by sprinkling, is as simple a delusion as ever was devised, for if he intent that for an argument to prove that baptism is to be done by sprinkling (and if not what does it there?) it does rather conclude that baptism must be sprinkled as the Ark was, for reduce his matter into the form of a syllogism, and see how sillily it concludes viz. thus  
The Ark was a Type of baptism.  
But the Ark was only sprinkled with the rain, not dipped.  
Ergo, baptism its antitype, is to be dispensed by sprinkling.  
He concludes more than he can possibly squeeze out from those premises, and another thing then what is asserted of the Ark in his minor: whereas in right form it should run thus.  
The Ark typified baptism.  
But the Ark was reigned on, baptised or wetted by infusion only.  
Ergo baptism must be reigned on, baptised or wetted by infusion only.  
But than what simple stuff were this? what a logical lump of artificial nonsense?  
Besides, if it would follow that because the Ark which was a type of baptism was sprinkled, therefore the way of baptism is sprinkling, it would more truly follow that because the Ark was half dipped and half sprinkled, one part of it being under the water, another sprinkled with rain above the water, therefore the way of baptism is to dip one half of the person, and to sprinkle the other half: but alas the Ark was a type of baptism, as 'twas the way and outward means of salvation, but not in this respect as it was reigned on: nullum simile currit Quatuor.  
Fourthly, which washings, purge, sprinklings of Christ's blood, and clean water typified of old, and foreshadowed by the blood of calves and goats, with water and scarlet wool, and hyssop, wherewith Moses and the high priests after him sprinkled the old Israel, so that they were typically and ceremonially counted holy, and clean thereupon in a fleshly sense only, are all expressions spoken not with such allusion to baptism (as Mr. Cook imagines) nor are so near a kin to it as he lays claim to: for if they are all to be resembled and respected by us in our baptism, as things some way or other signified to us therein, yet are they not at all the main, or principal things, or such as are immediately, or primarily, but only remotely, and secondarily signified to us therein, and so not necessarily to be either all, or at all so much resembled as something else: But the death, burial and resurrection of Christ, which is the rise and root, the original and meritorious cause of all the rest, being that which (though you would shut it out altogether from its interest and right of being represented in baptism of all the rest) is mainly and most immediately signified, and primarily to be eyed, and respected. and all the rest but consequently, and through that, therefore its necessary that this should be resembled most lively, that it may take the deeper impression upon us.  
Yea these matters of Christ's death, burial, and resurrection are such cardinal things to be considered, as quibus non mediantibus, without the mediation of which we cannot conceive clearly, nor lay claim to any of the other as ours.  
For as in the supper remotely heaven itself, and all spiritual excellencies are signified to us to be ours, yet all the things signified cannot be represented to the eye, but only such as are the more immediate significations of it, and are the rise and proper cause of all the rest, viz. Christ crucified, and our feeding on him by faith, theseare, and are to be lively set forth unto us, and resembled before our eyes in bread and wine broken, and poured out and received and applied to us, but not all the fruits of his death and our faith. even so it is likewise in baptism; and indeed the main signification in both is Christ's person crucified, dead, buried, and raised, and that is to be resembled in both, and other things viz. the benefits of his death as remission of sins, and purging, etc. to be consequentially gathered from that, neither can, nor are, nor need all those to be resembled:  
But as for Mr. Co●…k he pleads stiffly to have all these resembled viz. washing, purging, pouring, sprinkling of the spirit and blood of Christ, but excludes the main thing altogether viz. Christ's death and resurrection, which are the very rise and ground of all those: And yet if he will needs have all those to be resembled, are they not as much, and much more resembled by dipping and plunging a person in water, then by pouring and sprinkling a little water upon him? and is not swilling under water a more effectual way of washing and cleansing then sprinkling? which though it be a Diminutive way of wetting, yet in truth is no way of washing at all: If therefore he will have washing, and such a washing as well deserves the name of cleansing to be resembled in baptism, can he have even that done in a better way than by dipping, or dousing? for verily plunging, is a washing, and a more eminent way of washing, and purifying, and so more lively resembling ablutione●… peccatorum the purging away our sins by the blood of Christ, than aspersion, or bare infusion, either of which without some after rubbing is a way of washing and cleansing seldom used by men or women, unless it be among slatternes that are minded to leave things as foul well nigh as they find them: and I am sure there's no rubbing succedaneous to your sprinkling, which is any ingredient to your dispensation, for what the priest drops on the midwife rubs indeed, not on, but off, and so as that is no washing, so (if it were) I hope you do not allow the midwife to give equal influence with the priest unto the dispensation of baptism.  
Besides, both sprinkling and pouring are vertualy implied in plunging, and burying in water, but these are not at all supposed in the other, every lesser wetting being contained, and included in the greater, not so the greater in the less.  
Fiftly, which quirk of his concerning a necessity of abiding 3. days under water answerable to Christ's 3 day's burial, if we will needs urge an necessity of resembling him in his death, burial and resurrection, is so fond, that a fool may find enough wherewith to refel it, for Mr. Cook knows that nullum simile currit quatuor, no similitude answers in all things, besides 'tis the truth and substance of the thing, not the circumstance, or quantity of time of abode, which is to be respected here, for a burial is as true a burial, when a person abides but 3. minutes wholly under the element, wherein he is buried, as if he abode 3. days, and a burial is as truly represented by being once under water, as if one continued under altogether, and the resurrection a little better by being brought up again alive, then if one lay till he were altogether dead.  
Sixthly and lastly, which assertion of his, uttered in favour of his assertion viz. that the Scripture no where requires the washing of the whole body, is so much the more favouring of either ignorance, or forgetfulness in him, or both, by how much one of the very Scriptures, that are quoted by himself, as speaking in reference to baptism, doth require it, for its said Heb. 10. 22. let us draw near with a true heart etc. and having our bodies washed with pure water, which clause (if meant of baptism as undoubtedly it is) requires not a sprinkling, but a washing (and that's more than your sprinkling is) and this too not of the face only, which is the only part you sprinkle, but of our bodies; which word whether we shall take properly to signify the whole body indeed, or run to figurative acceptations, when we need not, and take the body by a Synecdoche of the whole for a part to signify so small a part as the face only, I need not wish a wise man to determine, for every unprejudiced man that hath but common sense will see cause enough to take it plainly as it lies.   

Rantist.  
But all this while me thinks you make it appear so plainly as you not must, before I believe or receive it, that it is so needful as you would make it that there should be a resemblance of the thing signified in that sign of baptism at all, that's the thing I wait to see proved; for let Mr. Cook make what suppositions and grants he will of a resemblance, yet I see no reason at all to urge a necessity of such a thing, nor will I speak so much as ex hypothesi, if there must be, for none need be for aught I know.  
What I hope there are an hundred signs of things, which have not any analogy at all with those things they signify.   

Baptist.  
Having thus blown away the strange mist, whereby Mr. Cook endeavoured to thicken the air, so that men might not discern clearly the true intent of those Scriptures Rom. 6. Col. 2. nor the truth at all in this point of total dipping, I come now in answer to his and your, and Mr. Blakes flat denial of any word or warrant for any representation, and also to his demand p. 27. to show how we gather from reason, and your own authors, and those very Scriptures you oppose, the diping of the whole man over the head, and under the water, and that a similitude of Christ's death, burial and rising again to be represented by dipping into the water is signified there.  
But first I must tell you I observe you know not greatly what to say among you against our urge of a resemblance of Christ's death, and burial, and resurrection from these Scriptures: for some of you stand it out, as much as you well can, that there is not to be any representation of a death and resurrection, as Dr. Featley and Mr. Cook both do, the Dr. keeping at such a distance from it, that to fence it far enough from him he denies any such thing to be so much as signified, Mr. Cook yielding that that very thing among others is signified, and that the spiritual grace or thing signified is to be represented too, only you must excuse him as to that piece of the spiritual grace, all the rest but that he will give way to have resembled, but fearing lest it can hardly be so clearly evaded, but that 'twil needs be proved against them that a death, burial and resurrection must be represented, they fall a proving it that there may be, and is a death burial and resurrection reselmbled in their way of sprinkling, and infusion, as much (if not more then in our way of dipping) but either of them shift for themselves in several ways, the Drs way wherein he proves there is a resemblance of death and resurrection in the manner of baptism, as it is administered in the Church of England is this, though the child be not dipped in water himself (saith he) yet the minister dippeth his hand in water und plucketh it out again when he baptizeth the infant, where note, that the Doctor doth conceive that though sprinkling may serve to represent a death and resurrection, as well as our dipping, yet it is upon this absurd account viz. in that there is a certain dipping accompanies their sprinkling, whereby that resemblance is made viz. the diuping the hand of the Administrator: but Mr. Cook though he be not so gross as to imagine with the Dr. that the burying of the ministers hand will serve instead of burying the persons body, which is, if any burial be at all, to be buried in baptism, yet he is as gross in his conception another way, while he goes about to prove sprinkling, or infusion itself to resemble a death burial and resurrection as sufficiently as dipping, and this too by such a coined Chimaera, such a crude and in mature imagination as is ridiculous, viz. of the old worlds being drowned and buried by no more than sprinkling, and the fall of rain, for verily neither was the rain a resemblance of a death, burial and resurrection, or any thing like thereto: nor yet was it the rain but the overflowing of waters by reason of the rain that drowned them, and though that o'erwhelming was a lively emblem of death and burial, as baptism is to be, yet there was nothing that resembled a resurrection, as in baptism there must be, sith they never rose from under it any more.  
This crooked come off therefore of Mr. Cooks is far more ridiculous than rational, and yet I know more men of his mind in this particular, I mean so far as to agree to it, with less ado than he doth, that a death, burial and resurrection is to be resembled in baptism, and yet to think that the sprinkling or casting water upon the party doth sufficiently make that resemblance, but I testify to him that this his way is his foily, and theirs also that apptove his sayings, and I advise both him and them that adhere to him to be heartily ashamed of two opinions of his, so equally odd and absurd that I can scarce tell well which of thetwo are more absurd than the other.  
The one is his supposition that the spiritual grace to be represented and resembled in the manner of administration of that ordinance of baptism is sprinkling, besprinkling with the blood of Christ, whence in order thereto he as unworthily argues, that baptism must be dispensed by sprinkling, which indeed nullifies it from being baptism, if he consider the inconsistency that is proved to be between them.  
The other is the thing in hand, viz. his supposition that sprinkling may well not only signify, but resemble a death, burial and resurrection as well as dipping, and is as well required, for so he hints p. 19 to be used in this Sacrament as the other.  
If those, who own these things, and whose own they are, will not be ashamed of them, for my part I am, for to think that the wisdom of the spirit, that in condescension to our dull capacities did leave visible signs to be not only true remembrances, but also lively resemblances of spiritual things, should order things so unsuitably to sense, as to require and appoint matters utterly unlike one another, and between which there is no Analogy at all to answer one the other by way of resemblance, viz. such a thing as ran●…sm to resemble a death, burial and resurrection, which are to be, and are truly resembled all in true baptism, i. e. in dipping, or appoint such an ordinance as baptism, which in plain English is dipping, to resemble rantism only, or sprinkling with Christ's blood is no less the absurdity in the abstract.  
But as for you yourself, you are it seems of Mr. Blakes mind, i. e. resolved to own no necessity at all of any resemblance of any thing, not of any ceremony to be in the sign of baptism, representing the things signified in it, I shall therefore show that as in true baptism, i. e. dipping, there is de●…to, and that Mr Bl●…ke confesses, so there aught to be de●…re a proportion and resemblance of the death and resurrection of Christ, and of ours with him in that ordinance: whereas therefore you say that all signs do not represent the thing signified thereby, 'tis true who questions that? but 'twill not therefore follow, but that there are some signs that both do, and may and by institution must not only signify, but also resemble at least the main things that are signified, of which sort baptism is without question one.  
We must here therefore distinguish concerning signs, among which some are natural, which by nature signify the things, whereof they are signs, as smoke signifies that there is fire, as we say there is no smoke but its a sign there is some fire, a red and ●…ouring morning a sign of a foul day.  
Others Preternatural and institutive, which by institution signify the things whereof they are signs, and this either by humane appointment, as the Ivy-bush is a sign among men that wine is to be sold, where it hangs; or divine, as the Rainbow is a sign by divine appointment to signify that the world shall never be wholly drowned again by water: and these signs by divine institution are either such as are simpliciter signantia, merely and simply significative of the things they signify without any Analogy, or likeness to them at all, as the Rainbow, which signifies, but resembles not the world's deliverance from drowning, and the dew, and drought that were by turns on gideon's fleece, which were signs to him of it, but not resemblances of his victory, and the shadows going back upon the dial of Ahaz, which was a sign to Hezekiah, but not a resemblance of his recovery, and such like.  
Or else such as are sign 〈◊〉 similantia si●…, having in them the signification and similitude of the things signified together: and of this sort are all those signs which you commonly, but not properly call seals also viz. the sacraments, whether those of the old, or those of the New Testament, viz. Circumcision, and the Passeover, baptism and the Supper, from the manner of the administration of the two first of which you use to argue to the manner of the administration of the two last, which so far, but no further than serves your turns you say came in the room of the other; for though by way of Analagy with Circumcision, as coming in the room thereof, you would have baptism dispensed to infants, yet neither Anallogically to males only, nor on the 8th day only, nor to male servants also, nor yet by way of analogy with the passover, which admitted of every circumcised soul, will you admit baptised infants to the supper, which came by institution more truly, and immediately in the room of the Passeover, even when it was moriturum, if not plane mortuum? for it was no more to be meddied with for ever, whereas circumcision was in use de jure after baptism was begun,  
But I pray Sirs be not pickers and choosers thus at your own pleasure, but if you will have an analogy to be held, let it be in such things, wherein it should be held between the old testament sacraments and the new.  
An argument however add hominem i. e. sufficient to confute you out of your own mouths, who plead so for analogy between those two administrations of the old testament, and these two of the new arises naturally from your own opinions, for if a proportion must needs be kept between circumcision and baptism in point of administration otherwise, why not in the manner of the administration of these signs, as they stand in reference to the things thereby signified, so as that the one of these signs viz. baptism, may stand in some proportion to its signatum, as well as the other i. e. circumcision?  
The Pascal lamb without blemish, a bone of which was not to be broken, did not only signify, but lively resemble also Agnum immaculatum exhibendum, that lamb Christ jesus, which was once to be offered without spot to God, and not a bone of him to be broken, also the supper that came after it doth not only signify, but resemble also Agnum exhibitum, Christ crucified, that immaculate lamb now offered, whose body was broken and blood shed, by bread broken and wine poured forth.  
Circumcision or cutting off the superfluous foreskin of the flesh did not only signify, but lively represent the signatum, the Circumcision of the heart, i. e. sanctification, the paring off, and putting away the fleshly superfluities of the heart, and can you give us think you, or give yourselves either any good account, why baptism only of all the rest should be exempted in this case, from bearing with the rest an Analogy, proportion and similitude to its signatum, i. e. the thing mainly notified therein? which originally is the death, burial and resurrection of Christ, and our communion therewith, and plantation into the likeness thereof: is not the manner of administration of that to be such also, as may resemble (and so only the way of dipping doth) a Death, Burial, and Resurrection?  
Rouse up and reckon but with your consciences a little, and see if they will tell you otherwise, if they do they give the lie (and that you who deify your Orthodox Divines will be loath to do) to all divines both ancient and modern, who so far as I find (except only Mr. Blake) do teach us that the end of all the institutions of the Old and New Testament, to which you allow the name of Sacraments, are ex instituto, to resemble as well as signify their signified objects.  
Kekerman refers all the Sacraments to the signs of that sort that do signify cum Analogia, i. e. that bear a likeness to the things signified, System. log. p. 12. 13.  
Calvin and Ursin, that are men of much note in your Account, are thus opinioned both, as you may see in the institutions of the one, and the Catechism of the other, whether we are directed by you for sufficient furniture for infant's baptism. Calvin says thus of the Sacraments: Institutionum lib. 4. cap. 14. sect. 20.  

a In eundem in quem nostra nunc intendunt Scopum, et vetera illa spectarunt, nempe, ut ad Christum dirigerent, & pene manu ducerent, aut ipsum potius ceu imagines representarent, ac cognoscendum proferrent,  The Sacraments of the old Testament, did tend to the very same end, and purpose, as ours now do, namely that they might direct and lead us, as it were, by the hand to Christ, or rather that they might represent him as certain images or pictures, and set him forth to us to be known.  
Ursins Catechism says no less, but much more, and that much more plainly to this purpose, and what is spoken there too is not spoken as the opinion of Pareus or Ursin only, but as the mind of one, that may be more taking with you then any of these, viz. Saint Austin, who is styled Malleus Hereticorum, one that ma●…ld the Heretics in his days, who also is sainted up in so many pages of your Ashford Pamphlet, that you cannot for shame unsaint him so far, as not to believe him, but to rehearse a little what is there said, in the 358. 359. pages of that book: after mention made of the promise of the Gospel you may find these words, viz.  

b Eam promionem in evangelio datam per sacramenta nobis magis declarat Deus, nempe per analogiam signorum cum rebus, quae per ea significantur, sicut similitudo declarat id, cujus est similitudo, haec enim quando intelligitur, etiam id cujus est similitudo fit perspicuum, et quidem magis quam fine similitudine, et ut vera similitudo non intelligitur, nisi analogia similitudinis intellegatur, ita nec sacramenta nisi Analogia signorum et rerum intellegatur: hoc sensu Apologia Augustanae confessionis aliquoties sa cramenta vocat picturas.  That promise that is given us in the word God doth more plainly declare to us by the sacraments, namely by that likeness which is between the signs and those things which are signified; as a picture or image declares that of which it is the image, for when the picture is understood, that even that of which it is the picture is made clear, and verily far more clear than without a picture: and as a true picture is not well understood, if the likeness or lively resemblance of the picture be not observed, so neither are the sacraments, unless the likeness of the outward signs, and things thereby signified be understood: in this sense the appology of the Augustinian confession, doth divers times call the sacraments by the name of pictures.  
And again p. 363. showing wherein the sacramental union between the sign and the thing signified consists, it stands (saith he) in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vel similitudine signorum cum rebus signatis, in the analogy and likeness that is between the signs and things signified.  
And then he goes on quoting Austin thus.  
De qua Agustinus, Si inquit sacramenta quandam similitudinem earum rerum quarum sacramenta sunt, non haberent, omnino sacramenta non essent, and then again p. 365. speaking of those sacramental locutions (as you call them) whereby the sign is oft called by the name of the thing signified, and said to do, and be that, which only the thing signified is, and doth in truth,  
This (saith he) is by a sacramental metonimy, and the meaning of it is not that one is changed really into the other, but because the sign doth so lively resemble the thing signified:  
Next to which he citys again the very same sentence out of Austin, which is rehearsed in latin just above, together with somewhat more, all which I English thus viz.  
If the sacraments should not have in them some likeness to the things, whereof they are sacraments they could not be sacraments at all, but by reason of this likeness, it comes often to pass that they bear the very names of the things they resemble.  
By the way I cannot but take notice what an argument here is against infant's baptism, as well as against the form of Rantism, for if true baptism must resemble, as well as signify, to the very eyes, and so mediante oculo to the understanding and minds of persons, to whom it's dispensed, is it possible for that baptism that was dispensed in Infancy to represent lively and clearly to my sense and reason, when I am at years, the things therein signified? for to call that a sign, much more a lively resemblance of a thing before our eyes (so Buchau says of baptism, ante oculos objicit) which we never saw at all, or if we did, 'twas when we could not apprehend it, and so long since that we necessarily, and universally forget it, and that so far that our fancy can never possibly recollect that outward appearance of those inward things, is no better than mere childishness, and very vanity to me.   

Rantist.  
This shows indeed that 'twas the opinion of these Reverend men, that there ought to be of necessity as clear a resemblance as may be of the thing signified in the administration of the outward, and visible sign in all sacraments, or else they are no sacraments, but that is nothing binding to us without some good ground out of Scriptures to believe it, therefore le's see it appear from thence, and if you will from the Scriptures you began upon Rom. 6. Col. 2. in which I see nothing on which you can ground, that in baptism there must be visibly, and representatively a death, burial and resurrection, though I grant all these are signified thereby.   

Baptist.  
I rejoice much to see you renounce that implicit faith, whereby you have formerly lived, it may be more upon the mouth of Calvin, Ursin, Austin, and other Authors, then on the mouth of Peter and Paul, or the mouth of Christ himself in his word; neither do I urge any thing out of these Authors to be taken upon trust without trial, yet prove what they say however in this point, and hold it fast too, if by the word you find it to be good.  
I come therefore to consider that which first occasioned all this discourse, and to see if such a matter as a death, burial and resurrection of Christ, be not here expressed, or at least employed, neither of which yet is granted by Mr. Cook or Mr. Blake as things to which true baptism is to bear some resemblance, and here let me tell you though you and the rest are engaged to make the best of your rantism, now you see it questioned, and have begun in the face of the world to defend it, will soothe men up, and tell them there is none but the Anabaptists gather that there must be a representation of death, burial and resurrection from those places, and such like, yet we are not alone in our assertions even from those places, that these are to be resembled: for some that wrote impartially upon the places, Rom. 6. Col. 2. even of your own way before the matter came so much in question, have showed their sense thereof to be the same with ours, as concerning the representation of all these; witness one Mr. Thomas Wilson, who in an exposition of his upon Rom. 6. declares from the 3 and 4 verses thereof in this manner.  
That baptism is a pledge of our sanctification in all the parts of it thus, the death of sin (saith he) is effectually represented by the water cast on us at our baptism (though by his favour, who was I perceive of Mr. Cook's conceit that infusion might serve turn, not half so effectually as by the water overwhelming us) the burial of sin by our being under the water, and by our coming out of the water our arising out of our sins to a better life through the power of the holy spirit applying Christ's death and burial for the b●…ating down of our corrupt nature, and his Resurrection for our quickening to godliness of living.  
Thus he, Neither is he alone in this sense upon these places, but most, if not all modern writers, that do purposely, or but occasionally touch upon these places, as Calvin, Ursin, Paraeus, Ti●…enus, Zanky, etc. do fully agree with him in this particular, viz. that the lively resemblance of Christ's death, burial and resurrection, and of ours with him, that is to be held forth in the administration of Baptism, is among other things signified in those Scriptures, and do with him expound the words baptised in his death, buried with him in baptism into death, wherein ye are also risen with him etc. not of the things signified only, viz. our Mortification of sin and rising to holiness in a way of likeness to Christ's death and resurrection, but also of the outward right and form of administration of the sign itself, to be done in a way of likeness to them both, so that we by that (as by an image or lively resemblance) may not only be kept in a lively remembrance of the matter of them, but may beat the manner of those matters also in our minds.  
Thus Calvin l. 4. c. 15. s. 5. Alterum sructum affert baptisnius qui nostram in Christo Mortificationem ostendit, etc. id est, another fruit of baptism is this, it sets forth our death to sin in Christ and our new life in him, fitly, as the Gosspel saith Rom. 6. 3. we are baptised into his death, and buried with him in baptism into death that we might walk in a new life.  
By which words he doth exhort us to an imitation of him, as if he should say we are admonished by baptism, that by a resemblance of Christ's death, we should die to our lusts, and by the example of his resurrection, we should rise to righteousness etc.  
Also l. 4. c. 16. s. 16. speaking against such as say (no more than truth though) Baptismum esse sepulturam, in quam nulli nisi jam mortui tradendi sunt, id est, That Baptism is a form or way of burial with which none, but such as are i e. appear to be already dead to sin, or to have repent from their dead works are to be buried.  
And that he might vindicate infants who yet in infancy cannot die to sin, or repent from dead works, tells us (but believe him who will in that.)  
Nos jam ante Mortuos per baptismum sepeliri, id est, That persons are to be buried in baptism, before they be dead, before they repent, or appear to have died to sin, and to prove that, he coats this very place Rome 6. 4. which the scripture (saith he) Desert reclamet, nos ea conditione in mortem sepeliri, ut emoriamur ac mortificationem istam exinde meditemur, i. e. very elegantly proclaims the contrary, namely, that we are buried in baptism into death, on this very condition, that we may die to sin, and may even by that outward visible burial we have in baptism be minded of the duty of mortification.  
Which Exposition is the truth, yet not the whole truth, nor yet so much as serves the turn Mr. Calvin brings it for: 'tis true we are baptised into death, or buried in baptism in token that we must, and on this condition that we shall die to sin, yet not only so, but also in token, and on condition that we are dead in a measure, or have repent already; nor doth it follow because we are buried in baptism, that we may, and in token that we must die more, and more to sin, that therefore we are to be buried in baptism before we die to sin, for we are to repent before baptism and after it also.  
But however the truth that is in it is enough to serve our turn at present, i. e. to prove his Judgement and ours to jump together, as to the true intent and meaning of those phrases in the text, viz. buried with him in baptism into death, which both he and we take to express the outward ri●…e of baptism, and that that outward rite be performed answerably to the name here given it in manner and form of a burial, which cannot be without submersion, and this too in token, and as a resemblance of our death to sin and burial with Christ, the signatum or thing signified and resembled, which whether it go before or come with or after the sign is not material.  
And though Mr. Calvin and we are twain and cannot agree whether we are to be baptised, i. e. buried in baptism before we are dead to sin or after, yet herein we meet in one with all other Expositors on this place so far as I find (Mr Cook and Mr. Blake only excepted) viz. that whether Mortui or Morituri we ought to be buried in baptism according to this place, not spiritually only, for that is the inward thing signified into which, i. e in token and resemblance of which we are outwardly buried, but visibly and representatively also in the ceremony.  
Much what to the same purpose speaks Calvin again about three or four pages after, ' where coting both the places we are now in hand with, viz. Romans 6. 4. Col. 2. 12. He Expounds the words buried with Christ in baptism of the verity of the outward rite itself, representing and betokening the spiritual death to sin that ought to follow it.  
Paraeus also upon Vrsin p. 375. speaking how baptism is a token not only of remission of sin, but regeneration also, which he makes so synonimous with our death and burial with Christ that he coats these these two places Rom. 6. 4, Col. 2. 12. to prove regeneration to be signified in it, (for we are said (saith he) to die and to be buried with Christ in baptism) gives this as one reason why we are said to be regenerated that is, in his sense, dead and buried with Christ in baptism, because of the likeness that is between baptism and those things: so that he also takes the phrase buried with Christ in that place to sound forth Sepelitionem externam internae simulacrum, that external act of being buried in water by baptism, that is the lively emblem of the internal.  
Zanchy also upon Col. 2. 12. writes thus viz. Regenerationis duae sunt parts etc. of Regeneration there are two parts Mortification and vivisication, that is called burial with Christ, this resurrection with Christ, the sacrament of both these is baptism, in which we are overwhelmed or buried, and after that do come forth and rise again; it may be said truly but sacramentally of all that are baptised that they are buried with Christ and raised with him, yet really only of such as have true faith.  
Now I appeal to all men whether he do not here expound Paul in the words buried with him in baptism and therein risen with him as speaking of the outward rite of baptism whereby the spiritual death and resurrection is resembled, yea and so lively resembled that even such as have no more than the bare outward sign of water in baptism without the thing signified may be said, though Sacramentally, i. e. and analogically and in respect of near resemblance yet truly to be buried and raised with Christ, this cannot be said of them that are but ran●…ized only, for if in respect of any Mortification and vivisication they may be denominated buried and raised with Christ, yet that outward rite and ceremony cannot of itself denominate them so much as Sacramentally buried and raised with Christ, for there is not so much as any likeness of such things in it, but he that hath the true outward rite of baptism, i. e. dipping dispensed to him may be truly said to be buried and raised with Christ, though he have no more, for he hath the same visible overwhelming, and burying in water and raising again in baptism, which in the bare ordinance of baptism Christ himself had.  
Bucan also that famous professor of Theology though he were so far benighted, by being no doubt accustomed to sprinkling, that he saw not the difference that is between it and dipping so far, but that he supposed one might serve as well as the other, yet co●…es this six●… of the Rom. 3. and 4. to prove the Analogy that is between the sign and the thing signified in baptism in his 24 question in page 668. quae est analogia & conventen●…a sig●… et rei signatae in Baptismo? optima, etc. saith he. What is that Analogy and Agreement which is between the sign and the thing signified in baptism? Most ap●…, forasmuch as in the same Manner as the water washes the body, and cleanses it from bodily impurities, so the blood of Christ by its merits washes away our sins and spiritual impurities, and his spirit sanctifyes us. Moreover that immersion into water or aspersion doth most clearly denote Rantismon the sprinkling of the blood of Christ in order to remission of Sins, and imputation of righteousness; but the abode (Quantumvis Momentanea, quantula cunque saith Tilenus) though never so small (so that both these confute Mr Cooks fancy of a necessity of 3 day's abode under water; if we will have Christ's burial represented) lively denotes the death & burial of our corruption by virtue of the death & burial of Christ, that is, the mortification of the old man, but the rising out of the water doth most analogically as it were object unto our eyes ●…he resurrection of the new man or our vivisication, and newness of life and also our resurrection at the last day:  
See how this man, saving that he shuffles in aspe●…sion and immersion as nothing differing, doth own immersion into water, abode under it, rising out of it as the most admirable way of analogy to signify and resemble what ev●…r was to be resembled in baptism; again in his 53 question p. 692. he quotes Rom. 6. 4. saying with allusion to that Scripture that Predicatione sacramentali we are said in baptism to die, to be buried, to be raised with Christ, and that baptism confirms our faith in these things, because it doth pingere mortem etc. plainly paint out the death, burial and resurrection of Christ, and therein is documentum etc. a certain lesson of our renovation, and resurrection.  
Now the reason of all such sacramental locutio●…▪ whereby the things signified are said to be done in the outward sign, is (saith Paraeus) analogia signi et re●… signatae, tale enim quiddam est res significata in suo genere, quale quiddam est signum in suo genere etc.  
The likeness that is between the outward sign and the thing signified, for such as the thing signified is in its kind, just such a thing the sign is in its kind for as the water washes away the filth of the flesh, so Christ's blood our sins, and in such a manner as the sign is outwardly dispensed, so inwardly the thing signified, as the minister acts without, so God within etc.  
As therefore God within by the power of Christ's death and resurrection mortifies, buries to sin, and raises us to righteousness, so must not the administrator without semblably bury the person in water in baptism unto death and raise him again unto life? or in token of his resurrection to a new life? if not where is then the analogy? and if no analogy why are we said sacramentally in baptism to be buried, and raised? sith the cause of all such sacramental locution is because the sacraments are (as Austin says) pictures of the things signified in them? or is aspersion an action as answerable to a burial and resurrection, and painting it out as lively as submersion and emersion do? hic murus ahaeneus esto,  
This I know (as sorry a shif●… as it is) must be your most inmost shelter, when all is done for it can never be with any colour of reason, nor is it by any reasonable men, that I know, save Mr. Cook and Mr. Blake, denied but that baptism must 〈◊〉, according to the word, yea that word Rom. 6, ●…ol. 2. bear analogy to, and the image of the thing signified, yea and that very thing of all the rest, which are represented therein viz. a death, burial and resurrection by being under water, and brought out of it again, though by all that sprinkle 'tis mo●… heedlessely thought, and therefore as senselessely taught that rantism, i. e. aspersion sets forth those to the life, as much as baptism i e. immersion or overwhelming.  
Among the rest that write of baptism with any allusion to those Scriptures we are yet in hand with, what learned Tilenus saith is worth your▪ animadversion, I confess the man, though in his judgement he seem clear for our manner of baptising by immersion, submersion, and emersion, as that which was the only primitive action, and institution, yet is so far benighted by the mist and black vail of implicit faith which hath covered all Christendom, as to suppose that aspersion may now serve the turn, and that for sundry reasons some of which are apparently fa●…se, and never a one of them worth a ●…raw, which i'll repeat and answer as I go; for saith he Ritus in baptismo est triplex, immersio in aquam, 〈◊〉 sub aquâ, et emersio ex aquâ, quam vis autem immersio us●…atior olim fuerit presertim in Judea, etc.  
The outward ceremony to be used in baptism is threefold, dipping into the water, abode under the water, and rising out of the water, but howbeit this immersion was the usual way in former times, especially in Judea, and other warmer Countries, rather than aspersion [where note that he grants (and who does ●…ot but Mr. Cook, Mr. Baxter, and Mr. Blake, that having once denied it do strenuously resist it?) that the primitive way in judea, and those▪ Regions was total dipping;] yet (saith he) the circumstance pertains not to the substance of baptism, [which is false, for I have proved that to be no baptism that is but sprinkling.]  
Secondly, and sith the analogy of the Sacrament may be held out no less in aspersion, than immersion [which is as false and fond a fan●…asm as the other, for sprinkling hath no more likeness in it to a death, a burial and a resurrection (which though Mr. Cook and Mr. Blake deny it, yet Tilenus himself abundantly pleads, as I shall show, and that ex instituto from these Scriptures Rom. 6. Col. 2. ought to be represented in baptism) than it hath likeness to immersion, submersion, and emersion, and that's not so much, as is between an apple and a nut.]  
Thirdly, and sith in legal purifications sufficieba●…t 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sprinklings did suffice [which if they did, it was because these sprinklings with blood of the sacrafices, which were as well on the mercy seat as on the people in token of oneness or atonement between God and them, were instituted directly, and solely to point out the spiritual sprinkling of Christ's blood on the mercy seat in heaven, and on us here on earth in token of atonement, which is not the thing only, mainly, originally, or immediately signified, neither so as that it only is to be remembered and resembled in baptism, but the truth of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ, as the root whence all the other flows, and therefore that reason, though true, yet is nothing to the purpose.]  
Fourthly, sith immersion [quoth he] may endanger the health, specially of such tender infants as are wont to be baptised now a daie●…, [which shows that of old such were not baptised, and that Christ never instituted this ordinance for infants, who cannot bear the dispensation of it to them, as it should be by right, without danger of death, but must of necessity, and in charity, and in humane prudence taking upon it to correct the divine wisdom of Christ, and model his ordinances more to their own ease, have another thing i. e. Rantism universally dispensed to them instead of it.]  
Fiftly, sith both these rites viz. sprinkling and dipping are expressed by the name of baptism Mat. 3. 26. Luke ●…1. 38. Mark the 7. 4. [then which nothing is more contrary to truth, for though 'tis true that dipping is styled baptism in Mat. 3. 16. the place he brings to prove that (where note again that Christ himself was baptised by submersion) yet that's not true that Rantism is any where called by the name of baptism; yea in the very places he uses to prove that viz. Luke 11. Mark. 7. 'tis most evident that 'twas more than sprinkling, yea and no less than a dipping, that is there called baptism, for 'twas washing of hands, which if ever any body living saw any, but slovens, wash, when foul, by no more than sprinkling two or three drops of water on them, they have seen more than ever I saw to my remembrance since ever I were born and christened.]  
For these for●…named reasons saith Tilenus we suppose the Church by the law of charity, an●… ne●…essity may use which of these rites she pleases.  
By all which it appears that though speculatively he saw submersion to be the way by institution, unless out of necessity, and charity the Church forbid it, yet practically he was as you are for aspersion, and this makes the more against you in this matter, in that a man that retained sprinkling as you do, sith 'tis the fashion in these colder climates, should yet be constrained to confess so much institution as he does for that way of truth, I mean submersion, which we contend for; for seriously take away the wretched reasons, which flattered him in to speak favourably of sprinkling, he was, as to the true way of total dipping, caetera orthodox●…s, as orthodox as we desire him to be.  
I●…e bestow the pains of rehearsing what he writes so far as concerns our purpose, in very elogan▪ Latin p. 884. 886. 889. 890. of his disputations in as plain English as I am able.  
Baptism (saith he) is the first sacrament of the New Testament instituted by Christ, in which with a most pa●…, and exact Analogy between the sign and the thing signified, those that are in Covenant are by the Minister washed in water, the outward rite of baptism is three fold immersion into the water, abiding under the water, and resurrection out of the water: the form of baptism, to wit, internal and essential, is no other than that Analogical proportion which the signs keep with the things signified thereby, for as the properties of the water in washing away the 〈◊〉 of the body do in a most suitable similitude set forth the effi●…acy of Christ's blood in blotting out of sins, so dipping into the water doth in a most lively similitude ●…et forth the mortification of the old man, and rising out of the water the vivification of the New: although that Levitica●… rite of sprinkling of blood Exod. 24. 8. did more grossly resem●…e the blood of Christ, yet that was not so exact a similitude as is in the water of our baptism. That same plunging into the water holds forth to us that horrible gulf of of divine Justice, in which Christ for our sins sake, which he took upon him, was for a while in a manner swallowed up. Abode under the water how little a while soever (yet says Mr. Cook it must be three days, answerable to Christ three day's burial, or else it answers it not as a true resemblance of it at all) denotes his descent into hell, even the very deepest degree of lifelessenesse, while lying in the sealed and guarded sepulchre, he was accounted as one truly dead: rising out of water holds out to us a lively simitude of that conquest, which this dead man got over death, which he vanquished in his own den, as it were, that is the grave, in like manner therefore it is meet, that we being baptised into his death, and buried with him, should rise also with him, and so go on in a new life Rom. 6. 3. 4. Col. 2. 12. that these things are signified unto us in baptism the very outward rites themselves do teach, for immersion shadows out to us the pravity of our nature, dying in us, in which our old man dies and is buried with Christ, the progress of which benefit, putting forth its power in us by a little abode under the water points out, even as rising out of the water sers forth a new life, corruption being done away: hence it is that baptism is called the washing of Regeneration, and that whereby we are saved ●…us 3. 5. 1 Pet. 3. 21. namely because what is done outwardly by the body in the sign, the same is truly performed, and confirmed to believers in the soul; and even therefore both the names, and properties of the sign and the thing signified are very often interchangeably attributed to each other by a Sacramentally metonimy.  
Thus saith Tilenus in the forecited pages, and some of this he repeats o'er again page. 1078. whereby you may guess that in this his thoughts were well digested.  
Forma Baptismi est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says he sive Relatio, etc. The Form of baptism is that Analogical relation of the external and earthly, which are the signs, with the heavenly things, or things signified: this relation and most lively similitude, that is between them, is the cause why both the names, and the properties of the signs and things signified are frequently given to one another by a familiar metonimy of the holy Scriptures, wherein baptism is called the washing of regeneration, and is said to save us, saith he, and in this respect also (say I) we are said to be buried and raised in baptism in those places, because of that lively resemblance of and likeness to a burial and resurrection that ought by institution to be in the dispensation of baptism, and that is in that institution, if practised as ordained by Christ.  
Now who would think by all this but that this man had been baptised indeed, i. e. dipped into, buried under, and brought out of the water in his baptism, in remembrance and resemblance of Christ's death, resurrection and his own with him? for how does he speak, and that out of these Scriptures we are upon, that we ought thus to be baptised? and these things are exactly exemplified to us saith he, as if he had the lively Essigies of all that was done to him in his baptism dwelling indelably in his mind, as if he had been truly buried, and raised visibly in baptism indeed? and yet behold I believe I may be so bold as to guess by what he says in favour of infants sprinkling, and by one thing or other, that he was not baptised all this while, but merely a Rantist, and none of us in practice, though so much for the way of dipping in his discourses.   

Rantist.  
But quorsum haec? what mean you by all this quotation of Authors.   

Baptist.  
Because Damnati lingua vocem habet, vim non habet, the words and constructions of a condemned man, that is prejudged to be a heretic before he is heard, are like to sway but little among his Accusers, and therefore I rather chose to convince Mr. ●…ook and Mr. Blake who deny these Scriptures either to express or imply a representation of death, burial and resurrection to be held forth in baptism by immersion, submersion, emersion by the judgements of their own approved orthodox Authors, then by my own, judging within myself that those words of Paul Act. the 17. 28. viz. as certain of your own poets have said, was ad hominem an argument of more weight, than an Argument of ten times more weight than itself, and that if the joint harmony of Modern Divines, holding forth from Rom. 6. Col. 2. a necessity of resemblance of burial and resurrection to be made in baptism by immersion, submersion, emersion, be not considered, the never so well grounded Testimony of my single silly self must needs be slighted.  
Nevertheless whether you will hear, or whether you will forbear I shall leave a word or two upon record, whereby either to enlighten you, that there is a resemblance of a burial and resurrection necessarily to be held forth in baptism, and that no less is necessarily employed at least in these two places, Romans 6. and Coloss. 2. or else to leave you without excuse in your disowning of it: For  
First, this will appear plainly; if it be considered that by the word baptised in the texts is undoubtedly meant the outward rite, ceremony, sign and form of the administration of baptism.  
Secondly, if it be considered that the phrase buried with him and risen with him, i. e. Christ, doth expressly relate immediately and specially (if not only) in those texts to that outward sign itself, as that in which, taken distinctly from the mystery and inward grace. we are said to be buried and risen, not only in signification, but in lively representation of the inward and spritual burial and resurrection with Christ, and not to the spiritual, internal death and resurrection itself, as that which is to be understood by those phrases at all, muchless only, or altogether, or abstractively, and apart from any outward and bodily burial and resurrection in baptism, as Mr. Cook and Mr. Blake, seem too impishly to imagine.  
Thirdly, this appears yet further insomuch as there are other phrases in that 6 of the Rom. that do intimate, and express that spiritual death and resurrection that is signified by the an alogical, and representative burial of the body in water, and raising it again in baptism viz. dead to sin, alive to God, newness of life, etc.  
Here is mention made of the things signified: And as for that that is spoken of und●… this expression buried in baptism 'tis delievered as a medium whereby, as a motive whereupon, as a reason wherefore, as an image and representative wherein we are both to read, and remember, and also to practise, and perform that other: for do but mark, how shall we (saith he) that are dead to sin i. e. should be so, live any longer therein? know you not that as many of you as were baptised into Christ i. e. into or in token of an interest in him of a oneness, and fellowship with him by faith, are baptised into his death, i. e. in token of such a communion with the power of his death, as kills sin, and crucifies the old man, So that henceforth we should not serve sin? therefore, or hence it is, saith he, that in baptism i. e. the outward ordinance, we are buried with him i e. outwardly, visibly bodily in water into death i. e. in token and resemblance of our dying to sin by virtue of his death, that we should be ever practically mindful of this, that like as Christ rose again after he was dead, so we should rise to a new life: for if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death i. e. signally in outward baptism, spiritually, and really in the inward work, and washing, performed by the spirit upon the soul, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection i. e. we should be de jure, and shall de facto as we believe.  
Fourthly, this burial and resurrection that is immediately expressed by the words buried with him in baptism wherein you are also risen with him, is made a motive, argument, and incitement to the spiritual death, and resurrection, for therefore are we persuaded to die to sin, and live righteously, because in baptism we are buried in water; and raised again in token that we ought so to do, and on this cond●…on are we baptised and buried and raised therein, and so interessed into all the other benefits of Christ's death, remission of sins and salvation viz. that we should die to sin, and live holily; and to this end also that we may be minded thereby to do so.  
Nos ea conditione in mortem sepeliri in baptismo Scriptura reclamet, ut emoriamur, ac mortificationem istam exinde meditemer, Saith Calvin l. 4. c. 16. S. 16.  
Now if this death and burial, that we are buried with in baptism, be to this end to teach us, and show us that, and how we must die to sin, than the burial in baptism there spoken of is not the death to sin itself, for the motive and things we are moved to are two, and so are the sign and thing signified. now  
Fifthly 'tis not only such as is made a motive to the other, therefore is not the other, but such a death and resurrection as is performed, accomplished, transacted 〈◊〉 baptism i. e. in the very time and juncture of our baptising, therefore cannot be meant of our spiritual death and resurrection immediately, but o●… that burial and resurrection which the outward man in a figure, or resemblance passes through both at, & in the administration of the ordinance, for the spiritual death and resurrection is that, which though it be signified and resembled in baptism, yet it is seldom, if ever, transacted in a person in that juncture of time wherein he is baptising, but for the most part before or after, yea ever either before or after, and never in the very nick and act of baptism, no neither of your baptism nor of ours, for you who profess to baptise infants have a subject, of whom you hope that he will die to sin, when he lives to years, but you look not on him as one that is mortu●…s, but moriturus, and that not in baptism but long after it, unless you suppose baptism confers the inward grace viz. death to sin ex opere operato still; but we baptiz●…ng believers baptise such as repent from dead works, and in fieri, though not insa●…o ess●…, are dead to sin before we baptise them, as well as oblige them to die more to sin after it, yet you say your subjects for all that are buried in baptism too, and so say we of ours, therefore the burial in baptism there meant is no other than that of the sign, for the thing signified viz. the death to sin is not done in baptism, whether it be before or after it, and one of the two it is, for Calvin says truly that we hold baptismum esse sepulturam in quam nulli nisi jam mortui already dead i. e. dying to sin are to be buried, but of himself and others that are baptised in infancy he ●…aies quoting Rom. the 6. 4. nos jam ante mortuos per baptismum sepeliri i. e. before we are dead to sin, we are buried by baptism l. 4. c. 16. S. 16. the burial therefore is not the signatum, but the signum i. e. their putting under water in baptism, which sacramentally is called a burial, even therefore because of the analogy and likeness it bears to such a thing, even to Christ's burial, and ours with him, which are the things analogized and lively resembled thereby i. e. by immersion, for by aspersion they are not.  
And so I have proved by three arguments hitherto that Christ's ordinance of baptism is a total dipping viz.  
First by the prime signification of the word baptise which is to overwhelm or wash by swilling, or dipping, but never to sprinkle, as Rantize never to dipp●… wash.  
Secondly by the practice of the primitive times, which was totally to dip, as I have made appear many ways.  
Thirdly by the name of a burial and resurrection, that's there given to the outward sign by a sacramental Metonimy i. e. in this respect as in its dispensation it must bear analogy and likeness, as spirinkling does not, to the death burial and resurrection of Christ, and ours in him, which are the things immediately signified in baptism, and therefore mainly, and as lively as may be to exemplified thereby. If there be yet any more to say against dipping, and for sprinkling, let us hear it, and as I find it true upon trial, or false and feigned, so accordingly I shall eit ere answer it, or yield, for I know that he, who is not as desirous to hear all that can be said against what he holds, as what is to be said for it can never be so solidly settled in it as he should be: for nil tam certum quam quod ex dubio certum est,  
Nothing more sure to a man than that which he sees as well on what ground some doubt and disown it, as one what himself owns and embraces it, and though I profess myself to be beyond all doubt that Rantism is no ordinance of Christ, but a mere figment of men meaning to serve Christ by the halves, nor infant baptism neither, (howbeit I have disputed for them both, and thought I did God service in it too) yet he that knoweth my heart, knoweth that I have so unsatiable a thirst after the knowledge of truth, that if I could think those things to be the truth of God, as I once did, upon the same rotten, and reasonless principles you now think so on, I should re-entertain them with rejoicing in my flesh, which would find much ease, and honour by it, and in the spirit much more, which would have that ease, and honour, with peace of conscience, which I was once constrained to deny myself of, because it was once inconsistent in me with such peace, but welcome that disgraced truth of dipping disciples, sith 'tis that truth, which I am certain (howbeit they have trampled it for a time) the gates of hell shall never prevail against, nor the ablest man on earth so as to disprove it by all that is to be said to the contrary from the word of Christ.   

Rantist.  
There's more to be said yet to the contrary, and more than ever was answered yet, or ever will be to any purpose by you, or any one else of your gang, and that ●…t only in way of exception against much of that you have alleged about the childishness, vanity, and insufficiency of infants sprinkling, but also against that dipping fancy you are fallen into, which is some new motion, or renewed notion at the best, having (for all you have said) neither good ground, nor example from the word, only the old greek word may be so construed, and that's all the ground I could ever learn for that fluid practice, and I am confident that you and that party are wholly in the wrong, for I have seriously studied that controversy, and besought the Lord to guide me, and his good spirit by principles from his word of truth sealed upon my conscience doth assure me that way of dipping is groundless, irrational, and more uncivilly foolish, than infant baptism can be called childish, and I desire you to tell me what commission he had that baptised you, who may possibly be an unbaptized person, or if he was not yet if you look but some few removes backward, and inquire who baptised him? and who him? and who him? etc. you must come at least to unbaptized persons, I mean even in your own account, who deny sprinkling to be baptism, and such I hope you do not count fit administrators of baptism, and yet such must begin it, for your way was not in use very long agone, also what commission hath Christ given you to baptise, you being no minister of the Gospel? and also what commission he hath given you or any else to baptise in that manner, which is without Scripture, against reason, and common sense and discretion? yea I may say against all principles of modesty and common honesty, and charity to men's lives, and so against both the sixth and seventh commandment that many judicious men have judged it to be little less than murder, and adultery, and I could easily prove it to be as bad as I say of it, but that its super●…uous so to do, sith sundry of our worthy Mr. Baxter Divines viz. Dr. Featley, Mr. Blake, Mr. Cook, and especially have some of them in one particular, and some of them in another, done it so sufficiently already that i'll rather refer you unto them.   

Baptist.  
I have been so much innured to such hot-shots since I owned the truth, that I can well walk in the midst of them now without amazemeut: much of this sort of matter I have under my hands in private letters to myself, and others, and what of it is not there is legible I confess, as it were in text letters in the printed Polemicals of your Champions, whose sharp censures, and heavy charges of the way of truth, which we walk in, how judicious they are shall (God willing) be anon examined, sith you send us to them: at present you shall have a short word to your queries, and such other passages which may occur, and intervene either from yourself, or their writings in way of contradiction or obstruction to any thing that hath been said before.  
Your first is grounded upon a simple supposition, that an unbaptized person may in no case baptise, or make a fit administrator of baptism, whereas there is nothing in the world more clear than this, that when it is to be done, and cannot be well done otherwise it may be done (as well as by one that was) by one that never was baptised at all: yea why not in case of innitiation after intermission as well as at the innitiation of the Gospel itself? I wonder who baptised john the Baptist, that was the greatest administrator that ever was? for either he was baptised surely, or else he was not, if he was ever baptised at all, who baptised him? but if he was never baptised the matter amounts still to be the same, i. e. to evince no less than we assert that at the innitiation of the dispensation, whether at first, or after a long unlawful cessation, an unbaptized person may baptise: for if john the Baptist himself was not baptised himself, or if he was, either by one that was unbaptised, or else by one that was first baptised by himself, he talks in his sleep that says an unbaptized person may not in such a pressing case baptise.  
Your second query is as unsolidly grounded as the other, and supposes your opinion to be this, that no man, though baptised himself, unless he be a Minister, i. e. an ordained officer may baptise, for say you what commission have you to baptise you being no Minister of the Gospel? whereas if by Minister you mean one officiating as a pastor over a people, there is nothing more clear in the world or in the word either, then that others besides the Ministers may baptise, viz. not any she, for which there's no precedent, but rather precept to the contrary 1 Cor. 14. 2 Tim. 2. but any prophet i. e. any he gifted disciple, especially who by the improvement of his gifts he proves, as not seldom such do, instrumental of the party's conversion: Ananias baptised Paul himself, yet was he but a certain disciple Acts the 9 if you say that he was sent by God himself, to that service, it serves to show this however, which we affirm that God limited not that dispensation to the Ministry, for if he had he would have sent Peter, or at least some other officer to that work.  
Did not Philip baptise the Samaritans and the Eunuch? yet he did it in the capacity of a disciple, and howbeit 'tis true he was ordained to be a Deacon, and Deacons were by the Bishops babishly authorized to baptise, yet that was no part of his office as a Deacon, for his Deaconship designed him to no more than barely to have a care of the poor, and if you say he was an Evangelist also, so is every one that is gifted to preach the Gospel, and doth it, whether he be in any office or no, for Evangelist is nothing but a preacher of the Gospel, and such are they that occasionally preach it, as well as such as preach it constantly by way of office: therefore all the disciples that were scattered together with Philip it's said went every where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 8. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Act. 11. 20. and Philip that was one of those disciples 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Acts 8. 40. preached or did the work of an Evangelist, whence Philip was called Evangelista, that being the very thing made him an Evangelist, and not his Deaconship, besides which he had no other office, because he did Evangelizare: no man can give a reason why the scattered disciples that did Evangelizare, or preach the Gospel with him should not be denominated Evangelists as well as he, and indeed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 differ no more than a Preacher and he that preaches, and though every Pastor be both an Evangelist and a Prophet; yet he that saie●… every Evangelist, and Prophet is a Pastor or an ordained officer qua sic, or that either of these are nomen off●…cii, or sounding forth more than a person thus or thus gifted viz. the Evangelist to preach the Gospel for the conversion of such as are yet without, the Prophet to speak to the exhortation, edification and comfort of the Church, and people already converted, and both these occasionally only, and not as by virtue of an ordination to an office, may say it ten times over, before the Scripture, rightly understood, will furnish him to make proof of it once.  
And as these ordinary disciples, for the Apostles abode still at jerusalem Act. 8. 1. went every where as well as Philip, pro suo modulo Evangelizantes preaching Christ according to their abilities, so the hand of the Lord was with those occasional preachers, that a great number believed, and turned to the Lord by their means, and were baptised also undoubtedly by their hands; yea the famous Church of Antony's ioch had its foundation from this, and grew into a Church, which they could not do without baptism, before any actual officer came near them: for though Paul and Barnabas walked with them for a year and improved their gifts for their edification, yet neither of these, were yet actually any more than Evangelists, and Prophets, though before by God intended, and not long after by the Church visibly ordained to their Apostleship, i. e. men of excellent gifts, and this will appear Act. 11. from verse 19 to the end, with Act. 13. v. 4. and backward to the beginning: you do therefore greatly err not knowing the Scriptures, which tell you also plainly that though Paul converted all the Corinthians, yet his own hands baptised but a few, committing that dispensation, as an inferior work to his preaching, to the hands of inferior disciples, as Mr. Baxter himself also confesses to your confutation, asserting it from 1 Cor. 1 17. so though Peter converted the company in Cornelius house, yet surely he baptised them not all, if any at all, with his own hands, but left the administration to the hands of others, some one or more of the brethren that came with him; And the manner of speech implies plainly no less, for he commanded that they should all be baptised in the name of the Lord: yea so far is the word from tying up the dispensation of baptism to an office, that we have much more precedent and proof after Christ's ascension of common disciples, than you have of officers baptising.  
You therefore make much more a do in this then needs, you strain indeed at a g●…at, and swallow a camel, and busy yourself so about the truth of administrators, that you have lost the truth, and substance of the administration itself; were your baptism true baptism indeed, there is no necessity that ordained Ministers must administer it, but unless it were ●…ruer than 〈◊〉 it is, no matter if it were neve●… administered at all.  
Know therefore Sirs I beseech you that the verity worth, weight and efficacy of baptism depends not upon the quality of the person administering, but upon the truth of the subject to whom, and the true form wherein 'tis administered; the Scripture prescribes plainly who they are that shall, and in what manner these shall, but not at all by whom they shall be baptised: 'tis the duty of them ●…at believe to be baptised, and his duty that baptises to baptise indeed, not rantize only, and to baptise such as, being taught the Gospel, do believe it, but who they must be that are to baptise those is neither here nor there to the baptism for aught I find in the word●…, so they be but Masculine disciples: nay though the person baptising be not only no officer (but in the case above named as yet) unbaptised himself, yet if the person baptised be not only a believing disciple, but also baptised really, and indeed his baptism is never the worse for the other:  
Experience tells me, and I believe many more, that have been baptised according to truth, that 'twas drawing near to Christ with true hearts in his true ordinance that made us accepted in his sight, not the qualifications of the baptizers, whose baptism and ministerial functions (were they invested with both) could add never the more validity nor verity to our baptism, as neither could the nonentity of either of those in them have possibly made the baptism so sincerely submitted to, be in any measure void, and of no effect; the placing so much in persons administering as to think ourselves ere the better for that, was that fantastical fopery of the Corinthians for a while, one saying I am of Paul, another I of Apollo, another I of Caep●…as i. e. I was baptised by such or such, which made the Apostle Paul, who with his own hands baptised but some of them, well ●…igh wish he had baptised none of them at all, when he saw their carnal glories in the persons administering, and bless God that he baptizd no more, lest they should have thought the better of themselves, and of their baptism for its dispensation of it by his hands.  
The administrators therefore being baptised or not baptised, minister or no minister maketh the baptism, if elsewise warrantable, neither better nor worse of itself: all this I speak all this while, not as granting that our baptism is by unbaptized persons, and that myself am no minister of the Gospel, for neither of these shall be yielded by any means, unless you were more able than you are to prove them, I speak it suppositively that if these were both so, yet both my baptising and being baptised may be warrantable enough notwithstanding or else if we deemed it worth while to seek out what succession our baptism hath had from the Apostles, in a series without interruption, 'tis possible there were some disciples in all ages that owned the truth, though so few and despised, that their generation can scarcely be declared, for who can declare his generation, whose life in himself, and his was still cut off from the earth? but we go by the word that is above all Church and Ministry in our account of our baptism and ministry, and not by succession in either: and as for yourselves, that hold so much on succession, and boast of a lineal descent of your ministry and Rantism from the Apostles, 'twill pussle you no less to prove that, if we put you to it, than 'twill if we put you to it to disprove a lineal succession of our baptism, for if we cannot name the particular persons that baptised one another in this way, wherein we do it, successively from the persons of the Apostles in answer to this question who baptised you? and who him? and who him? and so upwards till we come thither, are you able if we ask you who sprinkled you? and who him? and who him? and who him? etc. to particularise more punctually than we? are you able to assign who began our way of baptism first of all in the world, unless you begin as high as john the baptist? nay verily though Dr. Featley would fain father it upon Stock, yet it's most manifest unto you all that infants sprinkling was denied by some ever since it was known to have a being, for it was controverted in the days of the fathers, and that it would not have been had there been none that had then denied it, and denied it could not be by any but such as pleaded the baptism of believers, in those times, and were the right way baptised themselves.  
You have not one precedent of one infant sprinkled, nor proof that such a thing was so much as talked on, for at least an hundred years after Christ, but we are most certain, and yourselves canno●… deny it, that the bapti●…m of believers began at john the baptist, and the Apostles, and if we could prove a succession of it de facto no further downwards than so, yet it is enough to us that we find it then was so, whereby to prove that it ought to have been so in all ages since, and is to be de jure at this day.  
One word more and then we have done with this, if none at all save such as are baptised themselves may in any case dispense baptism to others, save such also as are by ordination true ministers of the Gospel; than yourselves, who pretend solely to the title of baptising, are no right administrators, as being in truth neither baptised, nor ordained in such wise as the Scripture requires: that your baptism is null I have cleared it enough already, and that your ministry is no less is apparent, sith whilst you endeavour to derive it from the Apostles, you can derive it thence no other wise than the Pope doth his, for if a line of succession be a proof of true ministry, you may indeed derive it as well, but not one jot better than he, he can show you his line of succession, if not from Peter, yet at least from Linus himself, that lived in the days of the Apostles, and you can show us the line, wherein you came from the Pope, and so through his loins from the other: there is no other way for your ministry to prove its pedigree from the Primitive times but this, no way for you to climb up to the Apostles as the fathers, and founders of your function but by a chain of many links, whereof if one happen to prove unsound, and 'tis a chance but a flaw may be found in some of them, that have been trailed for many hundreds of years together through the hands of that Apostatical harlot, the entail is clear cut of, your pedigree and descent from the Apostles, as a ministry, perishes, is spilt upon the ground, and can never be tact on again any more for ever: you have hitherto owned your ordination as handed by an uninterrupted lineal succession from the Pope to the present Presbytery, and if we put the question to the veriest novice or youngling among you, who ordained you? and who ordained those that ordained you? and who them? and who them? and who them? you can find your function flowing in a continual stream from the Primitive fountain no other way, but through that stinking sink and corrupt channel of the holy chair; Pope Gregory the great gave power of ordination to Austin the Monk, when he sent him over into England about a thousand years since, he to the Popish Bishops, they to the Protestant Bishops, they to the Presbyters, and the Presbyters to their present Preachers: thus what Ministerial power you have ●…angs upon the Protestant Bishops, theirs upon Austin, Augustine's upon the Pope, the Popes upon Peter: you came i. e. descended from the Pope, the Pope came i. e. departed from the Apostles, and thus from the Apostles you came all, but thither you must go again, letting go your sweet succession, and from their words, which are the same now as then, begin your business again before you can be ●…ight, or know any thing clearly where you are, for if he whom yourselves call Antichrist, made you a ministry of Christ, you may be the Ministry of the Church of England if you will, which if it be vere Ecclesia a true Church at all, y●…t is such a one as had its parochial posture from whence you had your power, and therefore fit enough each for the other, but of the Church in England, which is vera Ecclesia the true Church indeed, you shall never be the Ministry for me, till you repent and be baptised.  
As for myself whom you deem to be no Minister of the Gospel, I must not lead you so far from the other work in hand as to stand upon the proof of that now, having transgressed (as some will think) too far already, though else it were no impossible thing to prove it, and therefore I say this only in short that whether I am now a true Minister of the Gospel or no, 'tis now my utmost aim to preach and promote the truth of it as 'tis in Jesus, but as for the time in, which I was owned a Minister of the Gospel, I was at that time no true one at all, yea though I have obtained mercy, and such mercy as to be made a Minister thereof since, because I did what I did ignorantly, yet so far was I then from a Minister of the Gospel that I rather rejected the counsel of God against myself, being not baptised of them that preached it, and disputed much against it as well as you.  
And now as unto your third query, viz. what Commission have any to baptise in that manner? that is, by dipping, which you style such an irrational, and undiscreet way, 'tis that which I have resolved you in so satisfactorily before, that unless you have more to say against it then to miscall it, as you do, before you have proved it to be so base as you are pleased to style it, I shall rejoice in Christ Jesus that hath chosen such foolish and base things as dipping in water is, in the account of men however excellent in itself, and in proof of its warrantableness, unless it be occasionally, add no more.   

Rantist.  
I have referred you already where you shall find exception against all you have said before, as concerning the truth of the way of baptism, and I desire that you would find yourself work a little therewith, I mean the forenamed books that are extant, specially that of Mr. Baxter whom I know to be a very able and godly man, who hath in mine, and I think in all discerning men's Apprehensions so solidly disproved, and clearly confuted your way of dipping, that few or none of those, that see what he says in that point, will be of your mind, and follow your fashion therein, for whereas you say that dipping was the custom in the first times, and therefore go about to seduce men into the belief of it, because it's said that the Eunuch went down into the water, and that John baptised in Aenon because there was much water there, he replies that is a thing never proved by any, and that the Jailor was baptised in the night in his own house, and therefore not likely over head in that Country, where water was so scarce, and that the Eunuch might well be said to go down into the water, for the Country was mountainous, and the brooks in the bottoms, and that even the River Aenon itself where john baptised because there was much water, is found by Travellers to be a small brook, which a man might almost step over, and much more, that gainsays much of what you have said, is in the 135. page of his book, which I shall expect your answer to, but if you please le's see what you can say to this first.   

Baptist.  
I shall very freely speak to any thing which hath not yet been spoken to in particular, and to Mr. Baxters' exceptions in that particular rather than any other, because he is most noted in those parts were he lives, and also in the examination of his Exceptions, I shall have the more hint to take notice of such relics, and broken pieces as remain yet unspoken to, as the gainsayings of the rest in this point, for he seems to me to have gathered them up there, and to have epitomised those men's matter as i●… were into a fardel of fewer words: excepting the two last grand Arguments of Mr. Cook against dipping, one of which Doctor Featley affronts us with in the title page, and both of which are more sparingly spoke to yet, covertly touched, and tacitly touched upon by Mr. Cook, and those Mr. Baxter rather comments on at large, and makes (I cannot say a fairer, but a fouler, a falser, and far more miserable improvement of then any of the rest do: This he professes to be the business of his book p. 13. viz.  
To use the proofs that others make use of in some newer kind of way, confessing that few have improved their Arguments as they might have done, nor managed them in the most forcible way, and not to meddle much with those arguments that others have fully managed.  
Yet (by his leave) he meddles so much with the Arguments that others almost every one makes use of, that he makes some of them the worse again, he ●…ars many a one with his mendall Mannagement.  
It is not to use many Arguments (saith he) but to drive home a few.  
Yet he uses many more than any one else, viz. three capital ones to prove infants to be disciples, twenty cardinal ones, to prove them members, to which (Nos numeri ●…umus) a number of others are subservient, and subordinate two more in proof of babisme, besides eight in proof of no body knows what, all these in his Disputative piece of book, so that for aught I find Etsinon prosint singula, multa juvant, his genius stood more to numerosity, than dextery in handling a few, unless by few he mean only the three main Mediums as Capital, and Cardinal to the rest, the first of which, but especially the second, in tot ramos, ramulos & ramusculosse ipsum Rantizavit, hath straggled itself into so many small branches, that indeed it hangs not handsomely together within itself, and indeed the whole is but a certain three legged stool, which he hath made for people to sit at rest upon in their vain Worships, and servings of God, after the Precepts of men, which if they never be broken by any hand, writing responsibly to them, yet are so rotten, that they will wear out within a while of themselves: but be they few or many he might well say he would drive home a few, for verily above all the rest, those two I speak of, viz. wherein dipping is called Murder, and adultery, he drives on beyond the bounds of modesty, truth, sense and reason, as far, I dare say to the full, as God would suffer the Devil to direct, and drive him.  
For my part I never saw Mr. Baxters' face that I know of, but I see too much of his spirit in his latest labour, in which, if the spirit of God had been his leader, he would not have led him into that confident utterance of such utter untruths, not only in point of doctrine, but matter of fact too now and then: let his parts, let his piety you talk on, be more than his parts if it will, God once left as honest as holy, as worthy a one as he can be, in punishment of a people whom he had a mind to plague for their dotage on him, to be stirred up by Satan to do things inconvenient, and unseemly 1 Chron. 21. 1. and so it seems to me he hath left Mr. Baxter, as Godly as he is, or else there could never have issued from him such inconsiderate crudities, such rank venomous, viperous, ulcerous fluxes of folly, flesh, fierceness, fiction, falseness, firery invectives, to the madding of the very magistracy, if it would be any longer blinded by the bawl of a mistaken ministry, against many a dear Saint of God, against a people precious to God, though base in his eyes, against thousands that are as intimate with God, and more privy to his will in point of baptism than himself, that thus he does shall appear by and by, at present see what little verity and less validity is in that first viz. that it is not yet proved by any that dipping was the primitive custom, when yet it's proved, if not by many, yet at least by two of our way viz. A. R. and Mr. Blackwood, and that so sufficiently that if Dr. Featley, and Mr. Baxter, Mr. Cook, and Mr. Blake did not decline them, and if they had been minded to mark and seriously to search the Scriptures, and not to dazzle men's eyes with all the fiddle-faddles they could find to fling before them, and to satisfy themselves at slender rates in the present custom, rather than cry out for a change, sith it is the present custom, the Scriptures they hint on are so plain, taking the words thereof, not in feigned, forced, figurative and foreign, but in their own prime, direct, native, ordinary, proper, and rational sense and signification, that he who runs may read no less than this, that dipping, yea total, was the way wherein baptism was then dispensed: but if we had not such proof of it extant from our own party, yet 'tis so clear of itself that men famous, even of your own way that have not thrust their fingers too far into the fire of this controversy, concerning the primitive form of baptising (as these men have done, and therefore will on in what they have once asserted, and get thorough by hook or crook, rather than recede with that shame (I should say honour) which is the right of every recantant, when he sees he hath misreckoned) do not only confess, but also teach us the very same that we stand for.  
Witness Tilenus, who tells us that Immersio usitatior olim fuerit praesert in in judea et aliis regionibus etc. p. 886. dipping, yea total dipping (for in the very line before he defines the right of baptism to be triple, Immersio in aquam, mora sub aqua, emersio ex aqua, plunging into the water, abode under it, resurrection out of it) was rather used heretofore specially in Judea, and other warmer countries then sprinkling.  
Yea Dr. Featley, that is as ●…were the fronteer or fileleader in doing all the disgrace he could to dipping, did yet find occasion to acknowledge little less p. 69. notwithstanding saith he, I grant that Christ and the Eunuch were baptised in the River, and that such baptism of men, i. e. in rivers, specially in the hotter climates, hath been, is and may lawfully be used: though I confess he gives this a pull in again, and very cleanly contradicts himself in the very next words, saying that there is no proof at all of dipping or plunging, but only of washing in the River.  
O gross, First, as if the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did signify only to wash in some other way, and not at all to wash by dipping.  
Secondly, as if ever any things, or persons, that are washed in Rivers are washed ordinarily otherwise then by dipping or plunging.  
Thirdly, as if he could properly be said to be washed in a river that was never in it, but was only scrubd a little by the side of it.  
Or Fourthly as if wise persons would go into a river for no more than a little fourbishing their faces.   

Rantist.  
You talk of in the river, and into the River, but you heed not what Mr. Baxter says in the present section that you are desired to speak to, he tells you the word into is not to be taken as if either John and Christ, or Philip and the Eunuch were at all in the water or descended into it, but unto it only, it being below in the bottoms, and the country being montanous, in which respect they might well be said to go down into it: Mr. Cook also and Mr. Blake do both very elegantly answer your observation in that particular Mr. C. thus to A. R. viz. your collection from Philip's going down into the water with the Eunuch, therefore they used dipping is as vain, must they not go down to the water where it was if they would use it? would the water have come up to them in the chariot any sooner for sprinkling then for dipping? of the same stamp is your inference from Mat. 3. 16. Mark 1. 10. from Christ's ascending from the water, for as Christ was pleased to be baptised with water, so he was pleased to go where the water was viz. in the channel, where there was a descent, and from which there was an ascent, so that he must go down to, and come up from the water.  
Nay rather your conceit is here confuted, for if our blessed Saviour had been plunged of John into the water than it would rather have been said that John cast or plunged Christ into the water, and took him out of the water, but it is only employed that Christ went down to the water, and came up again from it.  
Mr. Blake thus to Mr. Blackwood viz. for your criticism of the ascending and descending, if you compare Acts 24. 1. 25. 1. also with your places quoted, you will see it nothing for your purpose, those phrases are used when men go to a place, or from a place, when they neither ascend upwards, neither descend downwards, Bishop Usher will furnish you with ten several Scriptures, where the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Acts of the Apostles is used for no descent from a higher place to a lower, but only a removing from place to place, though in this place we may believe there was some ascent and descent, waters being lower places, and when they went to the place of waters the channel in which the waters had their current, they may be fitly said to go into the water, howsoever one or two examples serve not your purpose, but a General concurrence of all examples:  
We have examples giving full evidence of a different practice, and nothing can be concluded from those examples.   

Baptist.  
O the wondrous ways of wretchedness, if not of wilful wiliness that the wits of these men work in whereby to wave of the way of God from taking place among them! how do they strive to keep it off as ●…were at staff's end, not yielding it an inch lest it should get an ell, one brings one kind of furniture, wherewith to fight it, another another, yet altogether are but a bulrush, a flag, that shows like sword and Rapier, but will scarce hold a push if put to it to the purpose: Mr. Blake he fetches furniture from Bishop Usher that says there are ten Scriptures in the acts where the words ascend and descend express no more than removing from one place to another, of which if those he alleges be two of the ten, or supernumerary it matters not, for if there were 10000 it would do him no right, and truth no wrong in this place, where it is believed by every of the three both himself and his two Colleagues, that here was going up and down from higher places to lower, therefore he may set that cipher some where else, or send it home again to the book whence he had it, and where perhaps it was of use, for here it stands void and serves for nothing.  
And as for their joint sneaping the words they went down into the water, and came out of the water into such a short sense as may serve your own curtailed, and cloudy conceptions of the matter, and exclude our construction that is most clear, and congruous, perverting and mincing it thus, viz. that they went down to the water, i. e. the channel where the water was, to which there was a descent, and ascended from the water; or if it be allowed to be read (as 'tis most properly rendered by the Translators) into the water, yet the meaning of that word into must be no other than unto, I admire how men of such professed piety can convince their consciences to content with such homespun cover, such grievous glosses, pitiful put ofs, as they do in this case, I profess they might almost as good say that the heard of Swine, that Mat. 8. 32. are said to run down into the Sea, did but run down to the Sea, and no further, as to limit these Scriptures that relate the baptism of Christ and of the Eunuch, so as to force them to no further signification than this to, and unto, and from the water as if they went not into it at all.   

Rantist.  
Nay not so neither by your leave, for the words that follow, which relate that the Swine were choked in the waters show plain enough that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, though we will not allow it the sense of into Mark 1 9 must needs be Englished into here, and that the English word into, though we allow it to signify no more then to or unto, Acts the 8. verse 38. yet signify that the Swine were really not at only but in the waters, for how else, could they be choked there?   

Baptist.  
How? why man 'tis as possible a creature may be choked with water pouring down his throat, yea and a little more possible than 'tis for any Creature to be said truly, not Synechdochically, to be baptised by sprinkling, or pouring water only upon his face, and yet 'tis sure enough that this choking of the Swine was otherwise then so, and no other than by an overwhelming in water, forasmuch as it is said they ran down INTO the Lake and were choked Luke 8. 33. choked IN the Waters Matth. 8. 32. IN the Sea Mark 5. 13. and yet 'tis as sure to me, who dare not suppose the spirit to speak nonsense, as they do in my mind, who say that this baptising Act. 8. 38, 39 Matth. 3. 16. Mark 1. 9, 10. was, though with water also as their choking was, (and therefore Dr. Featley will get nothing by pleading for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signify with) yet not as truly inthe water also, i. e. by an overwhelming therewith, forasmuch as 'tis said Act. 8, 38, 39 they went down both into the water both Philip and the Eunuch and he baptised [Angli●…e dippt or overwhelmed] or (if you will have washed) washed him by dipping, for as dipping and swilling is a true washing, so by washing, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is Englished by it, is meant neither infusing nor sprinkling, but that washing only that is by the way of dipping, and I testify to their faces, that would fain make a baptizm of rantism, that 'tis more easy to choke then to baptise a man without overwhelming  
But Mr. Cook foreseeing no doubt what absurdity must needs be committed in granting the words to be read as they be translated, viz. they went down into the water and ascended out of the water, and yet denying that they were at all in the water, and being sensible also surely how it might be noted as a piece of paltry and partiality, to allow the sense of into to the preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Acts 8. 38. and yet so deeply to disown and deny that sense of into to the same preposition in Mark 1. 9 as he does, he is more wary than either Mr. Blake or Mr Baxter in that particular, and will not by any means read it as the other do viz. they went down into the water, nor yet as 'tis in the text they came up out of the water, but runs it over more smoothly in a phrase suitable to his own purpose, viz. they went down to the water, and came up from the water, but I hope he'el condescend freely to be corrected for the same fault, and with the same rod of reproof with which himself hath corrected others, or else his partiality will so appear as to deny him to have any of that wisdom, which is from above james 3 the last: wherefore as he checks A. R. most sharply for offering to alter, and vary from the wisdom of interpreters, so as to English the preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by in, which they thought good to English with p. 12, in these words, viz.  
I would demand of you whether you think that our Translators, and most or all others, who have englished it with knew not how to render the original in its proper signification as well as yourself.  
So I must take the boldness, sith our Translators, and most or all others, but himself, do read Act. 8. 38. thus they went down both into the water and ascended out of the water, to demand of him in his own words to A. R. whether he think that our Translators, and most or all others, who english those passages by into the water, knew not how to render the original in its proper signification as well as himself?  
As for the other two, viz. Mr. Blake and Mr. Baxter they foreseeing no doubt it would be no safe, handsome, acceptable, nor advantageous way to take upon them, as they saw Mr. Cook did, to correct the Translators, and mend their constructions, they are more wary than Mr. Cook in that particular, and so (thus incidit in Scillam, qui vult, etc.) to decline the Rock of insolence, they drop into the gulf of nonsense, owning the original to be rightly rendered, and reading them according to that rendition, viz. into the water, and up out of the water, yet denying those phrases they descended into the water, and came up out of the water,, to sound out any more than Mr. Cook says the Greek words do viz. to and from the water.  
But I must entreat those two Parallels in that opinion, to consider what imparalleld impropriety it is to express no more than going to the water side, and coming from it again by these phrases, viz. going down into the water, and coming out of the water for they imply necessarily a being in the water, and not only at it: he descended into hell is more than being at the brinks of hell, he descended into the lower parts of the Earth, is more than bare being on the superficies of the Earth, and so he descended into the water, is necessarily more than being at the side: the situation of the water below in the bottoms will not salve the absurdity of such expression, concerning being at the water only, and returning, for he descended to it, and ascended from it is enough for that, but to express that only by into it and out of it, is superfluous and superlative simplicity: whatsoever element, or place in any element we are said to go down into, and come up out of we were once in or else we are fowlly belied: had it been said of Philip and the Eunuch they went down both to the water, or into the bottoms, they descended into the valleys, where the water was, as Mr. Cook prates by a Periphrasis, and when they came up out of the valley, or bottom from the water, than it had showed somewhat like the sense these men like best and long to have it in, but into the water, and out of the water express not only a bare being in the bottoms, where the water was but in the water also; for whatsoever place or element is put after the prepositions into and out of is a place or element that the persons denominated to go into and out of were once really and truly in.  
Daniel was thrown into and taken up out of the Lion's den, does not that show plainly enough that he was in it? the Swine ran into the sea, were they not then in it? I threw it into the fire (says Aaron of the molten image he made) and there came out this calf, will any say that the metals he made it of were only warmed at the fire side? they went down both into the water, both Philip and the Eunuch and came up out of the water, jesus was baptised of john into jordan, Mark 1. 9 and when he was baptised went straightway out of the water, Math. 3. 16. can any man say that these two persons jesus and the Eunuch, of whom also Dr. Featley grants that they were baptised in the River, were never in it at all, but only wetted at the water side?  
But that Philip and the Eunuch went into and were in the water, and not unto it and at it only, is evident by what I have hinted once already, viz. in that it is said they were come unto the water before, and therefore this mustneeds be into it, or else either the Spirit Tautologized, or they tautopoiized, and came unto the water twice over, but never into it at all.  
Two more odd conceits, and emblems of the emptiness of their apprehension in this point, two a piece I mean in Mr. Cook and Mr. Blake, I shall take notice of briefly in their forecited shuffles, and so pass on to the rest.  
First, how partly doth Mr. Cook squitch up A. R. with a question or two as if he would catechise him in that which he hath yet need to be further chatechisd himself?  
Must they not go down to the water (saith he) if they would use it? would the water come up to them in the Chariot any sooner for sprinkling then for dipping?  
In answer to which question, I entreat Mr. Cook to ask his conscience this question, whether if they had used the water only for sprinkling, there was such necessity of going down to it as he seems to intimate, would not the water have come up to them in the Chariot sooner by far for sprinkling then for dipping? yea verily both Philip and the Eunuch might have sat still in the Chariot and commanded water enough for sprinkling to be brought up to them thither in the hollow of the Chariot drivers hand, if there were no bigger a vessel to bear it in, but for dipping enough could never possibly be brought up into the Chariot at all.  
Secondly, he must, says he of Christ, go down and come up from the water, but here is not the least hint that John doused Christ over head, or under water, nay rather that conceit of yours, saith he to A. R. is here confuted, for if our blessed Saviour had been plunged of John into the water, than it would rather have been said that John cast or plunged Christ into the water, and took him out of the water, but it is only implied that Christ went down unto the water and came up again from it.  
O how egregiously, how shamefully doth this man forget, and utter himself as if his senses were sodden into Trapizuntius his temper! I would therefore ask him one or two questions viz.  
First: whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth at all signify to douse over head, or under water, or to plunge into water yea or no? if not (but I suppose he will not deny it so to do, though he denies it to signify only plunging) than I would have him to go to school again to the Lexicons which will teach him that it mainly signifies mergo, immergo, submergo, and if lavo, a bluo it is such an ablu●…ion as is made immergendo, but if it doth signify to plunge dip or douse under water, or overwhelm at all, and I dare say he and every one else shall find it for all lavo, quod fit immergendo, to signify a swilling in water altogether, than I advise him to be think himself, for I think he was asleep when he wrote this passage, that there is at least some little hint that john plunged Christ into the water, when it's said Christ was baptised alias, plunged, dipped of john into jordan, or washed in jordan, sith that pleases himself, unless he put a difference between the active and the passive and will not yield it to be all one, that john baptised Christ, and Christ was baptised of John, but though it be said Christ was baptised i. e. plunged of john into jordan, overwhelmed in jordan, and that he came out of the water, which is a shrewd sign that john did not keep him there, yet this is not plain and significant enough for him it seems unless he may have the framing of the spirits speech another way, that is no whit plainer than the other neither, viz. that john cast or plunged Christ into the water, and took him out of the water, unless it may be said just so all that is said, which yet is the same with that he would have to be said, implies no more than that Christ went down unto the water and and came up again from it, without being baptised, so belike: how A. R●…. opinion that john doused Christ under water, which is also mine, and the very plainest expression the original can be read in, is confuted by those texts Mat. 3. 16. Mark. 1. 9 10. I can no more conceive, than I can conceive that this expression viz. Philip and the Eunuch went down both into the water, and he baptised him, is a confutation of him that supposes the Eunuch to be baptised at all, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are Mr. Cook's marginals whereby he would have us learn 'tis like from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that their ascension was but from the water, but I muse why he would not set down the words of the other Scripture, Act. the 8. 39 which expounds this, and where 'tis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is in latin ex, and englished most naturally out of.  
The second thing more observable in Mr. Blakes business runs thus, First, saith he, howsoever one or two examples serve not your purpose, but a general concurren ce of all examples.  
See how Mr. Bls. heart misgives him; and well nigh wavers within, whether he had not best yield us these two examples, for all his tugging for them before, into our cause, and therefore now falls, for fear these two will side against him, to serve himself against them another way, i. e. by denying that the te●…mony of the spirit in these two examples, is of any validity to us without a concurrence of all examples:  
To which I say, had Mr. Blake but one half inch of an example in the new testament of baby baptism how much he would make of it we may see by his cunning counterfeit examples for that thing out of scriptures, that in truth are not only far from exemplifying such a thing, as the households he makes use of are, but also clear examples to the contrary, as the non-baptizing of those very infants that were brought to Christ, and the non-baptizing of those very infants with their parents Act. the 2. to whose parents, and their children to, on the same terms of repentance when at years, the promise is there made: both which Scriptures he wrists into his turn, yea verily, and had he but one true single example of any one infant baptised in all that word, we should lay down to him, and never open our mouths more against infant baptism: yet if these two examples do prove for us, it seems they shall not be heeded, whilst against them, unless there be a general concurrence of all examples.  
Wherefore secondly, I tell him of a truth that though me thinks the single example of the Lord jesus might content him, and of the Eunuch, for can he show a better example than these? yet there's as general a concurrence of all examples in this particular, as there is of the example of any one thing, that is exemplified in the Scriptures: all jerusalem, all judea, and the Region about jordan were baptised i e. dipped of john in jordan confessing their sins, Christ dipped of john into jordan, the Eunuch going into the water and there baptised, baptising in Aenon because much water, and indeed the very word baptise makes them all examples of our practice, while it signifies obruo, submergo.  
Secondly says he, we have examples giving full evidence of a different practice, and nothing can be concluded for you from these examples of yours.  
Mr. Bls. examples it seems for his different practice must conclude for him, but our examples though never so clear must conclude nothing for us, ipse dixit Mr. Bl. hath forbidden them so to do, and therefore we must sign ne plus ul●…ra here, and urge our examples no more, wherefore i'll cease.  
Only secondly, I hope he will give me leave to ask him what different practise it is he means, of which he hath examples giving full evidence against ours, and if it be either baptism of infants, o●… Rantism of infants, or pouring water on infants, or washing infants any other way, or dispensig Christ's ordinance of baptism to men or women in any other way then in the way of dipping, or washing by dipping, which baptizo signifies, i'll promise him faithfully that upon his giving us any one example that gives full evidence of it, or any other kind of full evidence of it besides that of example, any of which he is far from giving in any thing that was ever penned by him yet, I shall yield and become his disciple, and follow him as far as I find him following Christ in that or any thing else, and that for ever: till than he must excuse me if in love to his soul I seriously beseech him to search and try his ways and turn in truth to that truth of the Lord jesus he yet tramples on.   

Rantist.  
There is example given you enough against your way by Mr. Blake, Mr. Baxter and Mr. Cook too of baptising otherwise then by dipping, in the jailer, whom they all instance in either expressly, or implicitly, First Mr. Baxter says in that section of his which you have not yet fully spoke to, that the jailer was baptised in the night in his house, and therefore not likely over head in that Country where water was so scarce, and to this agree some words of Mr. Blake and Mr. Cook concurrent in matter though different in form: we read saith Mr. Cook p. 16. of multitudes baptised ●…ven 3000 in jerusalem without mention of going to the Rivers, and of whole families without mention of going to the waters, or fetching store of waters, it is like the waters they had within doors at midnight sufficed Acts 2. 41. Acts 16. 15. 33. and saith Mr. Blake p. 10. sometimes baptism was administered where water for dipping was not to be had, and though the Eunuch coming to a river saith here is water, what hindered that I should be dipped? yet there is little probabili●…y that Paul could say so in Judas' house in straight street in Damascus, nor the jailer in his prison in Philippi: you say that baptism was ordinarily in rivers, where there were many waters, but sure there were neither many waters, nor rivers in these men's dwellings, and as sure they went not out in the night unto any such places, yet were they baptised.   

Baptist.  
Are these your Examples of baptising otherways then by dipping? certainly unless these three men were every one of them either shamefully slighthy in their searches, or willingly ignorant, or smitten with blindness, and given up in some measure at least, for their not embracing this plain easy truth of dipp●…ng, in the love thereof, to deep dotage and strong delusion, they could never believe, much less print such palpable untruths, absolute absurdities, and clear self confutations, as are avoidable to be seen by him that reads with understanding these parcels they have published to the eye of all men.  
See first how Mr. Cook contradicts himself in that clause, we read of great multitudes baptised even three thousand in jerusalem without mention of going to the Rivers.  
To say nothing of the invalidity of this piece to his purpose, nor needlessenesse of the Scriptures mentioning the particular place where every one was baptised, for what if that be not specified every where where baptism is talked on, lest the volume should swell, is it not as much as to say they were dipped in that it is said they were baptised, i. e. submersi, obruti, abluti immergendo, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies mainly, I suppose I may safely say only such washing as is by dousing, dipping or swilling, specially since in places enough it is said they were baptised in Rivers, and places of much water: but to say nothing I say of that, mark how this clause of Mr. Cook clashes with another of his within a matter of ten lines upwards from it, for there giving other reasons, then that of dipping, why john chose to baptise in Rivers and running waters, among others he gives this as a special one, viz.  
Because of the multitudes that were baptised, especially saith he, seeing there came such huge multitudes to him to be baptised, and yet here were great multitudes baptised even no less than 3000 and yet sith there is no mention of the place where, which by Mr. Cooks own reason, if it be a reason, must be a place of running waters, and streams that many might be employed at once in baptising along the river, for the more speedy dispatch, with so great multitudes, therefore these belike went not out to the rivers, though yet there's no more mentioned that they did not, then that they did.  
There were thousands of converts Act. the 4. the 4. of the matter of whose baptism there is no more mentioned then of the manner of it, and yet there is ground enough to believe they were all baptised, as well as the rest, yea Mr. Blake believes it, and in the same way as the rest whose baptism with the manner of it is expressed, for why should others be baptised in rivers because they were multitudes, and yet these multitudes be exempted from that and be dispached with so small a matter as sprinkling? therefore the not mentioning 'twas done, is an argument as good as nothing; and whereas he says there is no mentioning of fetching in great store of waters, 'tis true, that we never read at all of water fetched to the persons, but of persons going to the water we do, though he says we do not, for even Lydia herself and her family, which is no other than his own instance, were gone out to a river side to hear Paul preach, where being converted they were baptised, that being the wont place of preaching and praying no doubt in order to the conveniency of baptising, before ever the Apostles were so much as invited to her house.  
Secondly, of this stamp also is Mr. Blakes conceit concerning the baptism of Paul, who because the particular place or source of water wherein he was baptised is not expressed, imagines that he must needs be baptised within doors, and no where else, and so consequently not by dipping, but some other way, whereas there is neither necessity nor probability of his being so, but rather evidence if not from the very place, yet at least from what Mr. Blake says that it was otherwise; For  
First, it seems to me that Paul was not to be baptised within, but to go some where or other to the dispatching of that business, wherefore else should Ananias rub him up to it as he doth in such wise as this, and now why tarriest thou? arise and be baptised and wash away thy sins etc. Which as it Argues it was a service Paul was tardy to, and I know no man's flesh forward to it further than by faith it is overpowred, specially in such a weak case as Paul it seems was in at that present, so it was as who should say, why art thou so undisposed to thy duty in that particular, make haste, and linger not longer about it, but come away and be baptised: now had aspersion or infusion been only the work, Paul could not have been so backward as to need such sharp exsuscitation, when once convinced, for there's no such great unpleasantness to the flesh, as to engender any averseness unto that, but that Paul was more tardy than he should have been (and why he should be so I know not if among the other impediments, at least he was not sensible of some tediousness in the service) was uttered in a public exercise once from that very text Acts. 22. 16. by a friend of yours, and mine now deceased, at his sprinkling one of mine own children, in which Sermon the doctrine was this (and a good doctrine it was, and very truly grounded upon the Example of Paul's dulness in that Scripture, and further cleared by Lots loitering in Sodom) viz. That by reason partly of the remainder of corruption in the best, presenting evil when they should do Good, and partly the great grand enemy of our salvation Satan, opposing himself to all good, the best that have even renounced their vile life, have an indisposition to holy duties, and have need of excitation and stirring up.  
Again had he not either been to be baptised within by dipping or been to receive within an aspersion or infusion upon his face only he need not to have been bid to arise, or stand up in order to either of these, so much as from the present posture he was in, for if he were then sitting, face rantism might have been done as well, and if he were lying down (which in his then case is the more likely of the two) much better than in a standing posture, in which 'tis not so easy to dispense a pouring upon the face, least pouring so little as you do it prove rather a Rantism then a baptism, or pouring so much as the baptizer should do on the disciple, if he will needs do it by pouring i. e. till he hath buried him in baptism, or wholly covered him with water, in resemblance of the spiritual, he make way for his bodily burial in the earth also.  
Whereas therefore Mr. Blake says thus, viz. that though the Eunuch coming to the River might say here's wa●…er what hinders why I should not be dipped, yet there is little probability that Paul could say so in judas his house in strait street in Damascus, or the jailor at his Prison in Phillippi, I say it is very likely it was so indeed, that they had not any Ponds or Rivers in their houses, to dip in, but will it follow therefore that they were baptised in the house without dipping? no such matter by Mr. Bls. favour, but rather that sith there was not water enough for their dipping within doors, as there was for the Eunuches dipping without, therefore they went out to some water or other that they might be baptised, i. e. dipped conveniently, as the Eunuch was, and that may possibly not be far, for many a one that hath not brooks nor ponds in their houses, yet have them oft not far from their doors, and that judas had not so who can tell? but whether he had or no, the matter is not great, sith he lived not far from much water however whilst he was living in Damascus, for were not Abana and Parphar Rivers of Damascus though not for Namans' disease, yet for dipping full as good as jordan itself, and all other waters of Israel.  
Thirdly, See how miserably Mr. Baxter is mistaken, he would make men believe, if they would be such Idiots, as to take his single word for it, against the express word of God, that in the Country of the jailor water was so scarce that he could not be dipped over head, whereas (oh that Mr. Baxter would see how the Lord hath left him to discover his too hasty galloping over the Sripture) it is related that a River ran just by the same City of Phillippi where he dwelled, even that, by the side of which Paul preached, and prayer was wont to be made, where also Lidya, and her household were converted and baptised, and all this no further off then in the very same chapter, where the jailors baptism is spoken of viz. Acts 16. 13, 14, 15.  
I perceive this scarcity of water is made a mighty Argument among you against dipping, some saying that water for dipping was not to be had in the houses of the disciples that were baptised, therefore they received no more than some aspersion, or infusion within, some speaking as though water for dipping were not to be had in whole Cities and Countries where the disciples dwelled, thus doth not only Mr. Baxter, who denies a sufficiency of water for dipping over head to be in that Country where the Jailor dwelled, but also Senior Mr. Simpson one of you my Ashford opposers, who in a letter under his hand to a neighbour of his (much of which is partim directe & verbatim partim oblique & collateraliter, out of Mr. Blake, so that it stands or falls in him, and of the rest that is not translated thence into his turn, some already is, and some that is not yet, is to be spoken to as I go along) tells us that there was not any water in Jerusalem wherein so many as were there baptised, in so short a time, at that time of the year when water was more scanty, could possibly have been dipped.  
What a strange conceit is this? what not water enough in nor yet about all jerusalem to dipp a man over head in? for sith he says not so many, the same water course I hope that one can be dipped in, may also serve to dipp a thousand; shall we think that in the greatest drought that could happen all those brooks the Scriptures mentions viz. Cedron and Siloam, and the fountain of Gyhon, and the Conduit of the upper pool, which ran with several streams, and were at one place all coincident with Cedron, were dried up so that not a place could be found of any competent depth for men to dip in?  
But perhaps what Mr. Baxter says concerning Aenon upon the report of travellers viz. that even the River Aenon itself where john baptised because there was much water, is found to be a small brook, that a man may almost step over, or as I find it expressed to me in a letter to a near and dear friend of mine, upon the credit of eye witness historians, Aenon was but a small pearl scarcely knee deep at the deepest, so Mr. Simpson may say, but it is on his own head if he do, concerning these brooks, that were about jerusalem, to all which I shall for brevity's sake dispatch this answer here now I am about it.  
And first I entreat Mr. Simpson to consider that this serves not his turn howe-ever, if Cedron and Siloam, and the rest that were without the City, and the stream also that ran through the City, from the fountain of the old pool into Cedron, should be all such as Aenon is supposed to be, sith the fishpool Bethesda, at which lay a great multitude of impotents, and into which one amongst the rest desired to be put, or cast (for the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) but could not, was both deeper and broader than so, and convenient for many to dip in at once, for if we may credit Bethesda itself, the very name instructs us in no less 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being in english no other than the house of flowing down, so called for the concurrence, and confluence of many waters thereinto, see Calvin upon the place, who tells you that it was a pool he thinks, into which water did flow down continually, through either channels or pipes, that the Priests (for it was near the Temple) might as well be furnished with water for their sacrifices, as the people were with sacrifices themselves in the sheep market wherein it was; others think, and as I take it Beza in his Anotations, that it was a pool at which cattle drank, and in which they used to be plunged; whereof saith he there could not but be great store in jerusalem: so much may well serve without any more to salve the sore eyes of Mr. Simpson.  
As for Mr. Baxter i'll bate him his almost. and yet he will not get much by the matter, for as I have seen others baptised by total dipping in the like, so was I seen to be baptised myself in a place of so little latitude, that an active man might make shift to step over, not almost but altogether, in which yet there is water enough left behind to baptise a thousand, if not a million more in the same manner, and so, not to say how possible it is, if not a thousand to one that Aenons eye witnesses never sounded Aenons' depth in all places, nor secondly how possibly a brook might be much swerved up since then, & somewhat shallowed in so many Generations, nor thirdly how possible it is to deepen the shallowest stream that is very easily in order to such a purpose, for I have seen ankle deep streams so ordered as I speak of, more than once or twice for a need, though that Aenon had need to be made deeper in those places, where john did baptise, may be twenty times told by some Travellers, that love to hear themselves talk, before I shall believe it once;  
Not to say any thing I say of these, let Aenon be but knee deep if you will, experience hath so taught the expedience of knee deep to dip in to myself, and other Baptizers that I know, that as we have dipped persons oft where it hath not been so deep, so, except in such a channel where we cannot well avoid it, we choose now not to go in much deeper.  
See Fourthly how all your three Worthy's Mr. Blake, Mr. Baxter and Mr. Cook do deceive you, as being indeed deceived themselves, and that in a manner so plain that none but Blind Seers can look beside it, for though each of the three were alone in each of those other errors, which they severally utter in your last joint quotation, and confident commendation of them, yet (woe is me may England say that my leaders are so misled) the whole Trinity of them is at unity, but against all verity in this, even in the very thing in which principally you would have us mind them, for whereas, as an instance that baptism was not by dipping, they all allege that the jailer was baptised at midnight in his house, and therefore probably not in such a way as dipping, that he was baptised about midnight is true enough, but that he was baptised in his house, is so contrary to truth, that a very child may find the falseness of that assertion, for howbeit Mr. Cook says plain-ly, it's like the waters they had within doors at midnight sufficed, and Mr. Baxter more plain-ly, that the jailer was baptised in the nightin his house, and Mr. Blake most plain-ly, 'tis sure there was not many waters nor rivers in the jailors dwelling, and it is as sure that they i e. the jailer and the Apostles went not out in the night to any such places as were fit to dip in, yet what saith the word in plain truth? no less than this, that the jailer after he was baptised brought them into his house and set meat before them, and rejoiced: for it is said first, that upon the earthquake, and Paul's crying out to him, that he should do himself no harm, the jailer hasted into Paul and Silas and brought them out, secondly that they upon his then inquiry told him what he should do to be saved, and preached the word to him and all his, whereupon in this intertime, i. e. between the time of the jailors bringing them out, and his bringing them in again, he took them and washed their stripes, and was baptised he and all his straightway. Thirdly, that when he had brought them into his house, which words compared with verse the 30. where it is said he brought them out, show clearly that he, and his were with them still without hearing the word, washing them, and submitting to be baptised i. e. immergendo washed of them, he made them eat, and rejoiced: now what man, but one minded to overlook what likes him not, can choose but see this to the confutation of these three men's opinions? which I doubt because it is theirs more than any thing else, may be the opinion of 3000: that the jailer first brought them out, and then washed their stripes, and was baptised, and then brought them in, and rejoiced with them is clear.   

Rantist.  
You have spoke long enough to little purpose to this, for I am not yet of your mind; pray let us see what you will say to those worthy men's writings, in disproof of the proofs that you have brought.   

Baptist.  
I come then to consider what is said by either any, or all of these three repugnants in exception against what is said by us for the way of dipping, having spoken already to the first as you desire in its several parts:  
The next exception I find Mr. Baxter makes against what we say is this, the word signifies saith he, to wash as well as to dip, and so is taken when applied to other things as Mar. the 7. 4. 8. and herein he sums up in short the whole mind of Mr. Cook and Mr. Blake also in this matter, who say viz. Mr. Blake p. the 4. 5. to Mr. Blackwood, that Scapula says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to dip, to drown, and sometimes to wash, the Septuagint use the words baptising, and washing promiscuously; Mr. Cook p. 11. to A. R. much what the very same viz. that baptism signifies washing, and p. 13. quoting the same Scripture Mark the 7. here you have saith he, the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to wash.  
To all which I answer, but briefly, having touched at this before, who doubts of this that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to wash? how is it possible that it should not signify washing so long as it signifies dipping, dipping being no other than a kind of washing? what ever word signifies properly, and primarily (as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth) to dip, drown, plunge in, overwhelm with, put under water, must needs be supposed secondarily, consequently, and even thereupon to signify ●…shing, neither does it signify sometimes only to wash, as Mr. Blake observes out of Scapula, but it always signifies to wash, there being no dipping, but signifies a washing, dipping being not a dipping only, but necessarily a washing also; wherefore very oft baptising and washing are, and well may be; promiscuously used each for the other, but what will the men make of all this, that because baptism signifies a kind of washing viz. the washing of its own kind, or such a washing as dipping, 
x See legh. crit. sac, p. 76. 77. where he o'er and o'er again confesses, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to dip plunge under water etc. primarily, and properly, p. 76. it signifieth primarily such a kind of washing as is used in Bucks, where linen is plunged or dipped. Beza neque vero 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 significat lavare, nisi a consequenti, nam proprie declarat tingendi causa mergere, also p. 77. the native & proper signification o●… it is to dip into water or plunge under water, Joh, 3. 22, 23. Mat. 3. 16. tanquam ad tingendum mergo Causab. immer go, intingo, abluo, Bucan. mergo, et tingo Bullinger, proprie significat immergo, submergo, obruo aquà Zanchius, videtur copiam, abundantiam, perfectam quandam perfusionem denotate Aret.  plunging, or swilling is, therefore it signifies all manner of washing: a kind of washing it ever did, but all kind of washing it never did yet signify since the world stood: a washing by immersion and submersion is the sense out, a washing by infusion is not, but as for your washing by bare aspersion so far is it from being the true sense of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that it is no kind of washing at all, yea if you will go critically to work (as Mr. Blake would have us) about 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, between which yet there is no such difference, as he imagines, and keep close to the signification of the words, both your petty pouring, and your spoil-all sprinkling will be discarded so far from the name of baptising, that they will not be found to meet it half way, nor on a true account to amount to so much as the name of washing, for that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies originally to dip, plunge or overwhelm, and therefore consequenly to wash, we deny not, that being indeed not only a way, but also the most effectual and usual way of washing: therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is sometimes promiscuously used with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, both which originally signify washing, of what kind soever, whether that which is by dipping in water, or rubbing water upon the subject, when they are each applied unto the other, but as for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the one signifies to pour out only, the other to sprinkle only, but neither this nor that alone, and abstract from some other concurrent action, as rubbing the water on that's so applied (which was never done at any Rantizing that ever I saw) doth yet signify so much as any kind of washing whatsoever: therefore though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendered not only by mergo, submergo to dip or plunge over head and ears, but also by lavo, abluo to wash cleanse or wash away, and very fitly sith baptising or dipping is really and truly such a washing, yet'●… 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendered effundo to power out and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by aspergo●… perfundo, irroro, to sprinkle or moisten, as it were with a small dew, but neither of them by lavo, abluo, nor do they signify such a thing as to wash, nor are they such a thing as washing in any wise, so far are they therefore from bearing the name of baptism, that you may as well render baptising by rantizing, and say to baptise is to sprinkle, which is a thing that all men in the world cannot show to be so much as a remote sense of the greek word baptise, as render rantizing by baptising, that is to say that to sprinkle is to baptise, which likewise can never be shown to be so much as a remote sense of the word Rantize: if therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 come not so near 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as to be idem with it in tertio to be latind with it into lavo, or to be englisht with it so much as by the name of washing, which is but a secondary sense of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, how will you ever reach your rantism into the name of baptism itself, whose prime signification is submergo i. e. to overwhelm, out of which prime signification that it should be used continually, as you say the spirit uses it in Scripture, where all along you strain a point to have it englisht washing, and never overwhelming at all (for pray where shall it be englisht by the term of overwhelming? just no where by your good will) is a piece of simple slipslop to utter.   

Rantist.  
But Mr. Blake tells you another tale that I believe will make you eat these words you last declared, for whereas you talk so much of dippings being the prime signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what then? he p. 2. says in way of answer to that, that there is nothing more ordinary then to have words used out of their prime signification.   

Baptist.  
Nothing more ordinary then to have words out of their prime signification? what a strange extraordinary expression is that? I dare undertake to show him something more ordinary than that, and venture to avouch that it is more ordinary to have words used in their prime signification, than out of it, or else I know not how we should handsomely understand one another in any tongue: for howbeit there is now and then a word figuratized besides its proper meaning, yet that a secondary, borrowed, bastard, foreign sense should carry words so quite away from their own proper, direct, prime, proxime, native signification that we must take them in no sense, no not in their genuine sense more ordinarily, then in those secondary senses, is such a piece of senseless, as will hardly enter into the centre of my understanding while I have one, yet so do you dote upon the far fetched senses of words, when they only, though never so untowardly too, may be wrested in o serve your turn, that nothing is more ordinary among yourselves indeed in such a case, then to shut out the aptest, the amplest acceptions altogether, and force the first senses from having to do at all with those words whose own, whose plainest, whose nearest, whose likeliest, whose chiefest, properest senses they are: and on this wise do you deal with the truest sense and signification of this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which because it signifies sometimes only, as Mr. Blake observes (which is however argumentum ad ho●…m) though I grant it signifies ever, yet only secondarily to wish, therefore, if you may have the vote of it, it must never sigaifie any thing else, and never be interpreted by its prime signification at all, it signifies i e. usually, and for the most part and primarily (for who can take Mr Blake as meaning otherwise) to dip or drown etc. and sometimes, quoth he out of Scapula, to wash, but if I should ask Mr. Blake how often he would give it leave throughout the whole new testament to be taken in that sense, which his word sometimes annexed to the sense of washing shows he takes to be the most usual and common sense of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 viz. to dip, plunge, or overwhelm, I am afraid he will change his note, and say it signifies always to wash, and not allow the sense of it to dip, or plunge so much as sometimes, no not yet so much as once throughout the gospel: yea I demand of him where he dare give way to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be construed in its prime sense, i. e. to dip, overwhelm, or in what one place he will be pleased to let us give it any other than the secondary, that only sometime signification of washing? I doubt it must be contented for him, and all the Rantists to be without its nearest, to be stripped of its plainest, to be banished and forced for ever from bearing its truest sense, in all places of the book of God unless they may be forced once to be without their wills, for in all the Scripture that I know of, where the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is placed, it is thus displaced from its principal signification by them, so that all our desires to them on its behalf that it may sometimes at least be granted the sense of dipping shall in no wise prevail for its own sense to be allowed it: I remember but these places at present where the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used, where water baptism of persons is spoken of viz. Mat. 3. 6. 11. 13. 14. 16. 28. 19 Mark 14. 5. 8. 9 10. and the 16. 26. Luke 3. 7. 12. 16. 21. L●…e 7. 29. 30. john 1. 25. 26. 28. and the 3. 22. 23. 26. and the 4. 1. 2. A●…t. 1. 5. and the 2. 38. 41. and the 8. 12. 13 16. 36. 38. 39 and the 9 18. and the 16. 15. 33. and the 18. 8. and the 22. 16. Rom. 6. 3. 4. 1 Cor. 1. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. Gal. 3: 27. Col. 2. 12. in which of all these places dare they allow us the prime signification of the word? not so much as one I dare say, yet Scapula quotes but two places viz. Mark 7. Luke 11. wherein it is taken to wash, we would be contented to allow them that not sometimes only, as they talk of, but that always it shall signify to wash, for dipping indeed being, a chief kind of washing it cannot be rationally gainsayed, only (proh dolour) we must not once english it dipping or overwhelming, no not by any means in the world.  
But Sirs, though you are so accustomed to that trick, so that it is to be feared you will be hardly brought off it viz. to have nothing more ordinary among you, then to carry words, and specially the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 clearly, and that not sometimes only, but continually besides its prime sense of dipping, into its far off sense of washing, and into its nonsense of sprinkling (for it signifies no such thing as that) yet we have no such custom, nor the Churches of God, but to take words ordinarily in the sense which they most properly bear.   

Rantist.  
But Mr. Blake denies dousing over head to be the prime signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and tells you p. 3. that the great Critics in the Greek tongue will not allow you your sense to douse over head and years, to be the prime, distingishing between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, making the Latter to bear your sense, the former to be a dipping more light and overly, as Luke the 16. and the 24. it is evidently used.   

Baptist.  
O that's another matter he should have said so then at first, for because he talked that words are used out of their prime signification, and among the rest this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for the sake of which he says the other, out of its prime signification of dipping, I took it for granted (and so I might well, for he allows it to signify washing in Scripture, and what sense is it that he pleads against by that speech, viz. that words are oft used out of their prime significations?) I took it I say for granted, and seriously a grant it is if he well examine it, that he took dipping, or overwhelming to be the prime sense of baptism, unless almost a page of of his be pennd in vain, and dares he now deny it? that is worse than all the rest: but I wonder what is if that be not the prime? for I am sure the prime is not to wash: it is (quoth he) a dipping more light and overly then so.  
To which I say let the persons baptising dip the persons baptised as lightly and overly as they will so they dipp them, and not some of them barely, for than I know they must do it underly also, for what man is truly to be baptised, that man is to be put under water, not a part of him only, as also what part of a man less or greater, yea if it be but the tip of the finger, that he instances in as an overt dipping, is truly to be dipped, must not be dipped so overly as that it is not dipped underly, I mean put truly under water, for else it is not properly a dipping of that part: but I would I could hear some of those Critics (for he mentions not one of them) that distinguish him so besides the way of God by their fair false glosses upon the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, making 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 only to signify that we stand for i e. a total overwhelming, and baptising no more than some dribbling kind of darting some part of the subject under water, for verily they are but cracked brained Critics to me, if the Lexicons be at all to be heeded: for howbeit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth signify the same that we say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies, viz. dipping or being under water, and it may be more deeply than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for that is as it were Imum petere to go down to the very bottom, yet neither doth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signify any less than we say, and that primarily also, viz. at least to put under and overwhelm with water, which is enough for us, or else it would never be rendered by obruo ond submergo, which words if they do not as truly express as total a covering with water as subco, ingredior, which are the senses by which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendered than I have as much sense in my heel as my head; but if those Cricticks think this no right rendition, let them do the world that right as to take upon them to correct those Erratas in the Lexicons that are extant, and to turn Lexicographers themselves.  
The third exception of Mr. Baxter against what hath been before said in proof of dippping is this, viz.  
The thing signified is set forth by the phrase of washing or sprinkling and the sign need not exceed the thing signified.  
And in this fashion argue both Mr. Blake, and Mr. Cook especially, out of whose larger drivings home of this head, a man that hath but half an eye may see Mr. Baxter borrowed most of that little he says in exception against what we say for dipping; abridging two or three pages of Mr. Cook, viz. page 19, 20, 21. into these two or three lines of his, and coting the same Scriptures, and no other, and that in the self same order, and no other, than Mr. Cook doth, viz. the 1 Cor. 6. 11. Tit. 3. 5. Heb. 10. 22. Isa. 44. 3. joel 2. 28. Ezek. 36. 26. 1 Pet. 1. 2. Heb. 12. 24.  
To which I say it is true, some but not all the things signified, nor yet that which is most immediately signified, and therefore mainly to be resembled, are set forth by the phrase of washing, pouring and sprinkling, and it is as true that the sign need not exceed the thing signified, but the sign need be adequate to the thing signified, and so is not any kind of washing, but that of dipping under water, nor doth that exceed the thing signified, for that which is the main matter, the signandum or the radical matter to all the rest, is the death, burial and resurrection of Christ, and ours spiritually with him, which things are no way Analogized in sprinkling and pouring, but only by a burial under water, and bringing up again, which yet are the only things that these three men plead to have left unsignifyed, and unrepresented in the sign, but we must have them all not only signified, but also, as much as may be, lively pictured out in the sign of baptism, this cannot be by infufion or aspersion, for they are too narrow to resemble all, but they may be and are in submersion and immersion, for these are neither too narrow, nor too wide, but just adaequately resembling the signata, there must be a sufficiency in the sign to the end says Mr. Cook p. 20. namely to represent the spiritual grace, though yet p. 17. he knew not any word of God, wherein this representation is necessarily either expressed or implied.  
Now the whole spiritual grace being the death, burial and resurrection of Christ, together with all the benefits thereof, viz. the washing of our souls from guilt as to justification, from filth as to sanctification, as by the blood of Christ sprinkled and his spirit poured, respect must be had that, as near as can be, all these must be represented, and that the Elements and actions be neither so overmuch, as may take off the heart from the spiritual to the Corporal thing, as we might easily do if we should do more than dipp under, and raise up, or should hold so long under water as almost to suffocate the subject, nor yet so little, as Mr. Cook says well, as not clearly to represent the spiritual grace the whole spiritual gracebeing therefore all these things forenamed, care must be had that they be all Analogized, as far as it is possible, and especially the main, which is fundamental to all the rest, viz. Christ's death, burial and resurrection; for this however aught to be done, nor ought the other altogether to be left undone, but it sprinkling be the way then the main thing is left undone, for there is no representation of Christ's death, burial and resurrection.   

Rantist.  
And if Totall Dipping be the way, than many things are left undone, for there is no representation of the blood of sprinkling, and the Spirits pouring.   

Baptist.  
Not so neither with your leave, for howbeit in bare infusion, and aspersion death, burial and resurrection are excluded, yet in submersion and emersion, both pouring and sprinkling are concluded, the greater wettings containing in, and under them the less, but the less no way reaching to the other.  
Moreover that remission of sins by the blood of Christ sprinkled is represented sufficiently in emersion, as well as in aspersion, not so the death, burial and resurrection in Aspersion consult a learned Author for this, that was for asspersion as well as yourselves, though I believe he saw submersion to be the better way, i. e. Bucan, who in page 668. as I have hinted above says thus, viz.  
Illa in aquam Mersio, sive aspersio perspicue denotat Rantismon, id est, aspersionem sanguinis Christi in peccatorum remissionem, & justitiae imputationem; mora autem etc.  
So that we see he counted submersion, though it exceed that one part of the thing signified, viz Christ's blood sprinkled, yet to signify, & represent that virtually as well as other things; I conclude therefore notwithstanding any exceptions that Either Mr Ba. Mr. Cook, or Mr. Blake hath put in hitherto against what hath been said by us in proof that baptism was by dipping in the primitive time, that that was the way of baptism then.   

Rantist.  
But Mr. Blake hath many more Arguments than those you have yet spoken to whereby he clearly evinces it, that baptism was not only by dipping then: I hope we shall have your answer to them too, and the rather because they are of some weight, and therefore you are the more willing to slip by them: First (saith he) if the way of baptism were only dipping, than the Baptizer must put the baptised over head in the water, and after a space receive them up again, otherwise he could not say in your sense I baptise thee, but we read of no such thing any where in Scripture, we find Christ and the Eunuch going to the water and coming thence, but neither John nor Philip putting them into the water or taking them from thence p. 8.   

Baptist.  
I strange that Mr. Blake should grant as he doth above p. 6. that Philip and the Eunuch are fitly said to go into the water, and yet say so shortly after, we find no more than their going to the water, and from it again; how fitly can they be said to go into the water and out of it, that go but to and from it I have showed already, but 'tis more strange to me that he should so far forget himself, as to say we read of no such thing in Scrip●…ure as of john and Phillips putting Christ and the Eunuch into the water, or taking them from thence, for we read plainly that Christ was baptised of john into jordan, and in jordan, and we read that Philip and the Eunuch went down both into the water, and Philip baptised him, and that Christ came up out of the water, and that Philip and the Eunuch came up out of the water, if all this be not partly an expression, partly an implication of the same thing that Mr. Blake says we no where read of, than I shall never trust my spectacles more, for what shall we think was done to Christ by john when it is said he was baptised by him into jordan, if he was not dipped, overwhelmed put under the water? was he sprinkled into jordan? and what shall we think Philip did to the Eunuch when it is said he baptised him, after they were both gone down into the water, if he did not put him under it? did he no more than sprinkle, or pour a few drops of water on him? either of those might have been done as easily, and more if they had never gone into the water, yea ●…f they had never went so much as to the water at all; and when it is said of Christ and the Eunuch that they came up out of the water, is it not necessarily employed (and therefore what need it be expressed) that john and Philip, who put them under the water did take them up again after a space, and not hold them always under it? for if they had, how they could have come up out of it I know not.  
Had Mr. Blake therefore more believed the Scripture, than he did Mr. Cook, from whom he borrowed this Argument (and lent it again to Mr. Simpson of Bethersden, or else Mr. Simpson stole it, for without any cotation of Mr. Blake he hath it word for word in that forenamed Letter of his, which he desired should be communicated) he would not have transpenned Mr. Cooks matter, who says p. 16. of his there is not the least hint that John doused, cast or plunged Christ into the water, and took him out of the water, into another phrase viz. we read of no such thing any where in Scripture that John and Philip put Christ and the Eunuch into the water, and took them up again, but it is your fashion to follow by implicit faith, and to take up things at a venture by tradition one from another as the people do from you.   

Rantist.  
Now you talk of dipping under water, and taking up thence again, I pray tell me how it is possible for the baptizer to dip the whole baptised under water, and to lift him up again above the water? sith for this the strength of more men than one is necessary: perhaps you will say the person to be baptised may be an assistant, and an agent in the business so far himself as to go into the water, and stand there up to the middle, and then to yield the rest of his body to be put under ●…y the administrator; but this is for a man for the most part to dip himself, and divinity doth not admit of se-baptism, and permits not the baptised to be agents, but in this act will have them to be patients, and baptised by others; is there any command for them to go into the water?   

Baptist.  
I think Mr. Simpson of Bethersden, and you have laid your heads together, you jump so right in one mind in this matter, for in this manner, and almost in the very same words doth he speak in that letter of his I spoke of above, divinity admits not say you of se-baptism etc. what your sinodical divinity admits of as good baptism I weigh not, and what you call se-baptism I know not, but if you call that self-baptizing for the baptised to go with the baptizer into the water, and there submit himself to be overwhelmed in the water by the hands of the administrator putting him under, the Scripture admits of such a se-baptism as this, and if we had no command for acting so far in order to our own baptism, yet we have precedent so plain as is equivalent, witness the Eunuch that went down with Philip into the water, and yet (saving your ignorance, which permits not the baptised to be agents) Paul had command to be so far an agent in order to his baptism as to do more then barely sit still viz. to arise, and put himself in a posture suitable to that purpose, neither can you totally deny him to be truly baptised and overwhelmed in water according to the will of Christ (and that is sufficient) that betakes himself not only to the water, but also so far into it, that the dispenser may conveniently put him under it, unless you suppose that the dispenser of old did carry the disciple in upon his back, and then dash him in against his will, and that were in the disciple the part of a proper patient indeed; besides doth the condemned man's being agent, and assistant so far toward the cutting off of his head, as toly down, and fit his neck to the block make him a se-slayer, or accessary so far to his own death that you can properly call him a murderer of himself? what dribbling Divinity is this?   

Rantist.  
Mr. Blake says surther that if the Scripture way of baptising were thus to dip or drown them, the baptizer and baptised must both put off their garments, and lay them aside for that business, but we find no such thing mentioned, we find saith he, one in the new testament stoned, and the laying aside of the garments of the witnesses is more than once mentioned, but among all the multitudes that were baptised there is not one word of un loathing for that end, nor yet of the putting on of garments after baptism, when yet sometimes there had been all reason for the mention of it, as in the case of Paul, of whom after he was baptised, it is said he received meat, and was strengthened, but not that apparel was put on him, nor dry and warm clothes applied to him, which we should sure have heard of, if he had been dipped over head in water.   

Baptist.  
If by putting off of clothes Mr. Blake mean, as it appears he doth by his talk of naked dipping in the same place, such a putting them off as is in order to putting on others fit for such a purpose in their stead, I know not only no necessity, but no modesty also in such a divestment; nor yet does Mr. Tombs I dare say, though in his expressions viz. that informer days it was thought no immodesty, and that there is no necessity that persons be dipped naked, Mr. Baxter is so abominably uningenuous as to wrest his words into such base and sinister senses, and to abuse him to the world as if he had meant it was no immodesty in old time to be dipped naked, and as if he held it lawful to be dipped naked, though not necessary, when ingenuity of judgement, and such love as he pretends to Mr. Tombs would have construed his meaning to be this, viz. that it was counted no immodesty in former times, though it be now by Mr. Baxter, to be dipped in that way, wherein we are dipped, which is not naked, as Mr. Baxter bruits it, and that it is not necessary to be dipped naked, as Mr. Blake Mr. Baxter and Mr. Cook think it is, if persons be baptised by a total dipping; and as for the Scriptures mentioning of the putting off, and on of their clothes in their addresses to, and dresses after baptism, there was not only no necessity, but at all no expediency in the mention of such a matter: yea both reason and nature itself suggesting how needful that was to be done, it would have been very vain and superfluous to have talked on it: as for the double mention that is made viz. by Luke Acts 7. 58. of the witnesses that stoned Stephen laying aside their garments at the feet of a young man, whose name was Saul, who is said Acts 8. 1. to be consenting to his death, and also by Paul himself Act. the 22. 20. confessing to God his persecutions, and how when the blood of the Martyr Stephen was shed he was standing by and consenting to his death, and kept the raiment of them that show him, Mr. Blake cannot be so silly as to think that that clause concerning those men's clothes was put in as a piece remarkable, or worth recording of itself, or in any other respect in the world, save for this end only as it was an expression of the malice, that Saul, who was afterward converted and called Paul, did at that time bear against the truth, for surely had there not been that good reason wherefore, the laying aside of their clothes had not been worth our notice, nor should it ever have been mentioned simply for itself sake; but now there was no such weighty end as this nor any end, or purpose at all in order to which it was needful to mention the circumstance of their clothing, and unclothing about the administration of baptism, it is enough that we have recorded of the thing in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 viz. that, and how, and why it was done, but it would have been frustraneous, and even every way endless to have minded us of such impertinent appertenances to baptism as the dressing and undressing of the disciples: if any one tell me a story that such and such infants were sprinkled at such places, is not that relation sufficient, and complete unless he tell me how the infants were dressed in their blankets, and what a fiddling was made by the midwife, and the minister about the unpinning and turning up of their face clothes? is not the story of naaman's washing himself seven times in jordan full enough to our use, because there is no mention of his putting off and on? Christ washed his disciples feet, and wiped them, it may well be supposed they put off their shoes first, and put them on again, yet there is no mention of that: Mr. Blake thinks that among all the multitudes that were baptised there must have been some words about their unclothing, and clothings, and specially that there was reason that we should have heard that Paul had dry and warm clothes put on him after his baptism, as well as mention of meat given him, if he had been baptised by immersion, because he had been weak; but what crude conceits are all these? it was related that he was weak through fasting three days, and that was but proper, and answering to the other to tell how after he eat his meat, and gathered strength, but the other must have come in (for aught I see) without either sense or reason: and sith he stranges that among so many baptised, no mention should be made of their preparations viz. the seponing, and resuming their garments, I wonder what mention he finds of the accommodations that those multitudes had that were circumcised in Ahrahams' family in one day, and in the City of the Shechemits, and those thousands in the wilderness, after the long cessation, both before and after circumcision? and yet that was such a tedious bloody, sore, and painful piece of service, as required (no question) ten times more attendance with clothes and other accomplishments till it was whole, than this of baptism, even in that so troublesome way to you wherein we dispense it.   

Rantist.  
But pray give me leave a little: Now we talk of their clothes, I remember that no sooner was Christ come out of the water, but immediately the spirit drove him into the wilderness, the spirit of the Lord caught away Philip and the Eunuch went on his way rejoicing, Act. 8. whence I argue thus, viz. if they put off their clothes they did not stay to put them on, but went away naked, 〈◊〉 they had them on, then being as you say, dipped over head and ears, they must have worn them wet, but the first had been unseemly, the later prejudicial to their health.   

Baptist.  
Well argued Mr. Simpson again: as sure as can be you have got his Arguments by root of heart, for these also are Mr. Simpsons' very words in that letter of his above mentioned.   

Rantist.  
Whose Argument this is it matters not, I suppose it is passed your answer, and here is reason enough in it to disprove Christ and the Eunuches total dipping, as a mere groundless and reasonless conjecture, and crotch●…t of your own coining, or if you have any thing to say to it I pray let us have it out of hand.   

Baptist.  
Reason say you? it were well if there were so much as common sense in it, for my part I suppose it a senseless fancy, but I am sure there is so little truth in the ground of it, that its stark rotten at the very roo●…: it is a dispute Ex falso su●…posit is, 'tis taken by you for granted as necessary, when it shall never be yielded to by us for so much as probable, that Christ and the Eunuch were baptised either naked or else in the clothes they beware immediately both before or after either: for both Christ (coming purposely to be baptised) and the Eunuch though not thinking of baptism till Philip met him, yet returning homeward from Jerusalem, where he had been for some time, were undoubtedly accommodated otherwise, and with change suitable enough to such a business.  
Secondly, it supposes that both Christ, Philip and the Eunuch, posted all so immediately several ways from the water, that they stayed not so much as to cover themselves with other clothes, than those they went with into, and came up with out of the water: whereas, as nature itself ●…orbids us to believe they went in, much more that they went away naked, for common sense forbids us to take the word immediately in so strict a sense, as to think they departed in such extremity of haste as was no way consistent with the shifting, and so fitting of themselves for departure: Immediately doth seldom sound forth such a suddenness as admits of no intertime, nor invening action at all: yea sometimes it signifies no sooner than some hours, some days, some years after, according to the nature of the matter asserted in the sentence wherein it hath its use, as Matth. 24. 29. nor doth it express any other in Mark 1. 13. where it is said Immediately the spirit drove Christ into the Wilderness, then within a while after his baptism, as appears not only by Matth. 4. 1. where it is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which wo●…d is there [per act is predict is] ordinative of another story, but specially by Luke 4. 1. where i●…s said plainly that he was returned from jordan, before it is said he was led into the wilderness: and had you or Mr. Simpson, compared Scripture with Scripture, or heeded the harmony of the Evangelists, you had saved yourselves the labour of all those lines, and lost nothing by it but what is worth nothing, viz. the Argument itself, for as if I should say immediately after the child was sprinkled the Gossips and friends went along with it home, it were absurd to understand me so, as if I meant that they did not stay so long after, as to wipe the child's face, and put the face clothes over it, and lap it up again in the loose blanket to keep it warm: so no less absurdity is it to understand that speech, viz. And immediately the spirit caught away Philip, and immediately after Christ was baptised he went into the wilderness, so strictly as if there was not staying so much as to reassume any garments they had laid aside, in order to the more conveniency of their baptising.  
One thing more I cannot but take notice of in this clause as 'tis Mr. simpson's and that is what little proportion, if not contradiction, it holds with the words of Mr. Simpson (or rather of Mr. Blake used by Mr. Simpson) immediately precedent to these in his letter, for he will not give way to it at any hand that Christ and the Eunuch went into the water, or at least that they were put into the water by john and Philip, or taken thence, but only in the phrase of Mr. Blake, at the third hand of Mr. Cook, that they went to the wa●…er, and came thence, and yet here he forgets himself so far as to the confutation of himself and them to speak in the phrase o●… Scripture concerning Christ and the Eunuch, viz. that they came out of the water, which if they could do, and neither went into it, nor were put into it, than I know not how to understand plain English.   

Rantist.  
Well this is all but by the business, let us go on and consider what more Mr. Bl. brings to disprove dipping to be the primitive custom, he tells you further p. 9 it was the Apostles way to baptise disciples as soon as they were become Converts the same day, rather sometimes the same hour, as we see in the Eunuch, the Jailor, and Lydia, and multitudes of others; but conversion of Disciples necessarily happened when there was no season for dipping, the Element of water being over Cold for that service.  
If any object that in those Countries there was no danger in the coldest times.  
He answers, the commission being for all Nations disciples were made in all Country's; how soon saith he came the word to this Nation? etc. sometimes therefore saith he the water and weather was too cold for dipping.  
Secondly, the Number of Converts were so numerous 3000, 5000. in one day that there was no possibility of baptising in that Manner, Acts 2. 41. and the 44.  
Thirdly, Sometimes the Baptizers were in that condition that they were unable for that work in that way, as Paul and Silas men newly taken out of the stocks in the Inner Prison, with such stripes that their Convert was fain forthwith to wash them, in this case they were unfit to wade into the water for that work, and had they made any such adventure the Scripture would not have been silent.  
Fourthly, Sometimes the baptised have not been in case for dipping and plunging, which was Paul's case upon the Aparition of the vision he was lead into Damascus, where he continues without meat or drink three days, and upon Ananias his coming in, and instructing of him he is baptised, and when he had received meat, saith the text, he was strengthened, will any believe he went out in this case with Ananias into the water, over head in water before the taking of any sustenance?   

Baptist.  
That persons were baptised as soon as ever they became Converts, and could be discerned to be disciples, even the same hour commonly without delay is an undeniable truth, for that and no other was the very period of time at which, what ever their parents were, they were deemed to have true title to baptism: for neither if their parents were wicked were such excluded as were, nor if the parents were godly, were such admitted as were not converted upon the Account of the father's goodness or badness, but as they believed or not themselves, and this makes me the more amazed at it, that it is come to pass since that the faith of the father can now entitle the child to baptism, though the child have no faith at all of his own, and yet I muse more sith you all count infants, at least of believers, to be disciples from the womb, why yet you delay their baptism so long, and do it not at the same hour of their birth: for whether they be Discipulinati, or discipuli facti if they be disciples (as you falsely suppose they are) if the primitive rule were to baptise persons as soon as ever they appeared to be disciples, than (unless you have any special instinct, whereby you know them to begin to be disciples, and in the faith, as many of you count them, about that very hour you baptise them in, and not before) you will appear to be a little tardy in your dispensations by your own rule, though in truth you are too hasty for all this.  
Now as to Mr. Blakes terrible conceit, concerning the coldness of the water, specially in some weather, when yet, if dipping were the way, there would by means of men's conversion, occasion be ministered to dip in, sith I see occasion will be ministered to discourse more of winter dipping, when I come to Mr. baxter's grand Arguments, with one of which this is coincident, I shall say nothing to it here, but there speak to both under one, save only that I must here tell Mr. Blake that conversion of disciples necessarily happened when there was no season for dipping without danger, the Climate being, by reason of persecutions that rose against that way, much more over hot then the Element of water can at any time be over cold, for the owning of that service, must it therefore be forborn for fear of hazarding our lives? if no exemption from a hotter service, why from a colder for the life's sake? which whoever will save shall lose, but whoever will lose for Christ's name sake, and the Gospels shall preserve it to life eternal: as for the rest under that head I fully agree with it viz. that whatever that is, there is commission but for one manner of baptism for all nations.  
As to the multitude of Converts three thousand, five thousand converted in one day, which shift word for word Mr. Simpson covers his nakedness with, adding thus much the●…eunto, viz. could Peter and those few with him the dispensers of this ordinance have stayed so long in the water, or by dipping every one dipped so many in so short a time?  
I answer how many and in how short a time does the man mean? as for the 5000 it is doubtful whether they were all converted in that one day, or whether he speaks not rather o●… the whole multitude that believed before, which were 3000 together with those that afterward were added, which might be some 2000 and so 5000 in all; but if there were fully 5000 that then believed, and that they were all at the same time baptised too, which is not said, and 'tis more probable (for done it must be) that 'twas done at another time, or else by other hands then by Peter and john's, for they were laid hold on in the Temple as they were speaking, but suppose I say that there be at any time full five thousand newly believing in so short a time as one day, if they could not be baptised all in one day they must necessarily, they might lawfully for aught I know stay till the next, but yet 3000 we read were baptised in one day, neither is it such an impossible thing as you, who stumble at every straw, are slugged by every rub, and look on duty with such difficulty, as if a Lion were in the way, would seem to make it, for 5000 to be baptised in one day;  

Multorum manibus Grande levatur Opus,  
Multorum manibus Grande levatur Onus,   
Many hands of them that have love to Christ may both lessen, and lighten that service, and suffering that is sustained for him, and make but then some performances, (and such I perceive it is to you tenderlings, that make provision for the flesh to fulfil it in the ease thereof, to dipp many, or be dipped yourselves in cold water, or weather) possible, easy, and pleasant, and how many hands there might be at work at once at the dipping of the 3000 besides the hands of the 12. who as occasion was made use of others to dispense the ordinance, it being an inferior work to their preaching, see Act. the 9 Act. 10. 1 Cor. 1. may be conjectured, when the number of disciples were a hundred and twenty, where if there were but forty dispensers, with what ease might they baptise a 100 a piece, and do themselves no more wrong neither with abiding in the water, knee deep, or a little more for half an hour together, than he that stands deeper for almost a day together, and washes many a hundred sheep, as I have known some do, and that not by plunging only, but longer paddling with each of them by far then need be in only dipping persons, and so letting them go again; besides when once 3000 were baptised, how many hands there were ready to baptise not 5000 only, but 5 times 5000 if occasion were, and that quickly too, is evident to any rational man that reckons it; for it is a work which when it is once ready to be done, is done in lesser time, than I have seen taken up by the Parish Priest in his dropping, and cross, and other font fiddle about an infant's face: and if you suppose it may ask so much hand for so many persons in so short a time as one day to make themselves ready for such a work, I hope the same time that serves one to undress and dress in, which may be some a quarter, or at most not above half an hour, may as easily serve ten thousand, for as if all set at once to sweep every one his own door, a whole City may be cleansed in an instant, so every one that is willing addressing himself to the work, a thousand may be ready as soon as one.  
And as for that other conceit of Mr. Blake, which Mr. Simpson transcribes out of his book into his own letter in these words viz. that Paul when he was baptised by Ananias was not in case by reason of his weakness to be plunged in water over head and ears, as he was not by reason of his stripes to have gone in a deep river or pond, when he baptised the jailor, it is as wisdomless as any of the rest, for what if he were taken out of the stocks in the inner prison & had such stripes that his convert was fain to wash them, was he therefore so unfit, or was it such a strange adventure (as Mr. Blake proclaims it) to wade in the water for such a work as the dipping a few persons? could that water that touched his legs while he waded, be more mischievous to him, than the water that washed the blood of his stripes? and when he was baptised himself, what though he had fasted three days from food in that sudden ecstasy of his mind, which time its like he spent in fasting and prayer to the Lord, for behold he prayeth saith the text, yet I trow, as dainty of danger as our Clergy men are, that dare dip their fingers, but not their feet in cold water for Christ, that voluntary keeping under of his body did rather fit, then unfit him for burial with Christ in baptism, which his proud flesh would else not have stooped to.  
Surely Sirs you are men that make so much of every little for Christ's sake, that Crosses and diseases your flesh, that you will hardly ever commend yourselves as the ministers of Christ did of old 2 Cor. 6. 5. 6. etc. 2 Cor. 11. 26. 27. in much patience, in afflictions, yea in necessities, in stripes and imprisonments, in tumults, in cross, in labours, in perils of waters, in weariness, in painfulness, in watchings often, in hunger and in thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness, in endurance of hardship as good soldiers of Christ 2 Tim. 2. which sith you decline with all the might you can, rather than expose yourselves freely to for truth's sake, therefore (the Lord have mercy upon your persons) your ministerial capacity will be cashiered.   

Rantist.  
Well what if it was so in the primitive times, that total dipping was the custom, must it therefore needs be so now? will it follow that we must follow their fashion in that particular? there may be sundry reasons, whereupon they might baptise in such a manner then, and yet no reason at all why we should tie ourselves to the same:   

Baptist.  
If it was so? what do you speak suppositively of it still? nay verily I hope you will not be so obstinate as to deny, for all your gainsaying it hitherto, but that it was so then, for sure enough it was otherwise then in that way of sprinkling, or pouring, nose dripping or face dipping either, which are in use amongst you; and, keep it out at swords point as long as you can, yet you will be forced to yield to it in the end, when you consider, that your own par●…y are fain to flag so far in this case, as to confess it, for not only Tilenus reacheth us, that heretofore submersion was the way of baptising, rather than aspersion, but Dr. Featley also furnishes us (as I have showed above) with as much as we desire, and if it be once granted (as it is in a manner already by not a few, if not all but Mr. Blake, why else do they trouble themselves, and the world to render reasons why it might be by submersion in the primitive ages and places of baptising, but not so now?) I know no reason worth a rush, on which we can be held excused from baptising by submersion as they did:   

Rantist.  
'tis true it is confessed by some, and if it were granted by all that baptism was then by dipping it were not so material to your cause, nor would you get so much ground by it, sith both such as flatly agree to it, and such as see not cause to agree to it so fully as some do, are all agreed in the grand reason why it was so then, and why it may not be so now at any hand viz. the different temper of those climates, wherein baptism first began, and of ours, wherein it now is practised, theirs being so hot, that there could be no danger by dipping in the coldest times, ours so cold, that it cannot but be very dangerous, if not destructive to life and health.  
I grant saith Dr. Featly that Christ and the Eunuch were baptised in the river, and that such baptism of men especially in the Hotter Climates hath been, is, and may lawfully be used, but the question is whether no other baptising is lawful? or whether dipping in Rivers be so necessary to baptism, that none are accounted baptised, but those that are dipped after such a manner? usitatior olim fuit etc. submersion was more usual in Judea and other warmer Countries saith Tilenus then aspersion, notwithstanding sith submersion may prove prejudicious to the health, specially of such tender infants, as for the most part are baptised now a days, we suppose the Church may use which she pleases, and says Mr. Baxter, if it were otherwise in the primitive times, it would be proved but occasional from a reason proper to those Hot Countries; and saith Mr. Cook though it were granted that in those Hot Countries they commonly washed by going down into the water, and being dipped there, whether in ordinary, or ceremonial, or sacramental washing, that will no moee enforce on us a necessity of observing the same in baptism now, than the example of Christ, and the Apostles gesture in the sacrament of the supper, ties us to the same; which was leaning, and partly lying, which was their usual table gesture then, now the ordinary table gesture which is usual among us, is most fit, so the usual manner of washing among us is most fit to be observed in baptism, and that is by pouring as well as by dipping: so you see these men are all of a mind, that is was, or at least might be so possibly in the primitive times, but if it were, yet not so in ours, in regard of the coldness of our climate.   

Baptist.  
Then it seems we shall have it amongst you pro confesso that in the Apostles days the way was dipping, for though Mr. Cook keeps a loof off in his hypotheticals, saying, though it were granted, and Mr. Baxter, who borrows well nigh all he says against dipping from Mr. Cook, Cooks it out but conditionally, saying, if it were otherwise, yet Tilenus takes our part plainly, and the Dr. draws nearer to us then so, giving it for gone that in those Hot Country's baptism in rivers was then used, only whether such manner of dipping in rivers be so necessary to baptism in all countries, this we say says he is false, and so for aught I see you say all.  
But Sirs first, I pray tell me from the very bottom of your consciences, whether you can conceive that Christ hath appointed two sorts of baptism viz. one kind of baptism for judea, and those regions round about jordan, and another for England, Scotland, France, Spain, Italy, and all the regions round about of the Romish Christendom? whether he hath ordained two baptisms, or rather two different dispensations, whereof one is not baptism, to be used in different places, viz. baptism for the Hot Countries; and Rantism for the Cold? or whether he hath not rather willed one only baptism, and that a true one, to be used throughout the world, Dr Featley, Mr. Cook, Mr. Baxter suppose the first, but where's Mr. Blake all this while their wont Co●…diutor in the cause? verily he leaves them a little here, and lends us his hand, who hold that Christ gave order, and commission for no more than one way of baptism in all Nations; for howbeit he finds in his heart to let Rantism pass for currant baptism among them that take the liberty to maintain, and use it for fear of cold p. 4. yet whatever way of baptism the commission was given out for in those Hotter Countries, whether submersion or infusion, (for a spersion he owns not to be it however) the very same way, and no other, he holds the commission to be for in the coldest Nations under heaven; and this will appear if what he says in his 9 p. be considered, where after he had used this argument to prove that total dipping was not the way of the primitive baptism viz. because the conversion of disciples, and so consequently their baptism happened sometimes to be, when there was no season for dipping, the element of water being over cold for that service, he speaks thus in way of answer to an objection viz. if any object that in those Hotter Countries there was no danger in the coldest times, I answer saith he,  
The Commission being for all nations, disciples were made in all Countries: how soon came the word to this nation? etc.  
In which words he is void of common sense that doth not discern Mr. Blake siding with us, saying that the way of baptism should be one in all ages, and places, and asserting quite contrary to his fellow disputers against dipping, so far as to confute them to our hands, for whereas they all uno ore with one consent cry out that the reason why they baptised by dipping in the primitive time was because Judea and the regions round about were Hot Countries, but England is a colder climate, and therefore we need not baptise the same way as they d●…d: he Tells them plainly that the heat of those Countries could be no reason why they should use total dipping then, more than other nations, because the commission for baptising was one and the same, to all Nations, and disciples were then made in all Countries, as well as in judea, in cold Countries as well as in hot, yea how soon says he, came the word to England itself? baptism therefore in his account should be the same in England as in judea, not by dipping in judea more than in England because that was a hot Country and this a colder, but the commission is a like in all places cold and hot, this is the sense those words of his sound forth, but if Mr. Blake were silent in this case, the Scripture speaks loud enough, that there is but one baptism for all Nations, and no Rantism ordained for any, for then the commission must include Christ's willingness to dispense with colder climates in this point, and in our understandings at least run thus viz. go and teach all nations, baptising them that live in hotter countries, and rantizing them that live in colder climates; he that believeth, and is baptised, if he live in judea, or any Hot●…er Country, or is but rantized if he live in England, or any cold Country shall be saved, in which silly unsound sense to understand those Scriptures is to be silly indeed, and without either sense or understanding: and yet thus it may be understood if this be the reason why they in judea must be dipped, and we in England must be no more then sprinkled for fear of danger viz. because judea was a warm Country, and England a cold one: for either Christ did ordain the thing to be done in this different manner in different regions, or he did not, if he did than it must be first some way or other intimated in the commission, but there it is not, and secondly it must be done accordingly in this different manner in the execution, or else they are high transgressors that do but rantize in judaea, and they high transgressors (and so Mr. Blake and Mr. Cook say they are with a witness, but will never prove it) that baptise by total dipping in England; but if he did not ordain it to be done in such several ways in several Regions, according as they are hotter or colder, but in one way only in all places, than that one way is by baptising, i. e. dipping only, or else by rantizing only; and if by baptising only, than they are high undertakers that take upon them to correct Christ's comm●…ssion saying 'tis better, and safer to rantize only in some places; if by rantizing only, then (non tutum est ludere cum sacris) they were vain persons that made a M●…ygame, and matter of pleasure of the ordinances of Christ, that in judaea and the hotter Countries would choose to be baptised for delight and coolness sake by total dipping, and bathing in water, rather than otherwise, when Christ ordained no more than sprinkling, or infusion.  
Secondly, Sirs you grant so much as to say possibly, probably it might be done by dipping in judaea, and the Hot Regions round about, but may not be in these colder, pray tell me from the bottom of your consciences without stifling them, or shuffling with them, so as not to suffer them to speak, what constructions must be made of those Scriptures, which we have canvased to and fro, which relate the manner of their baptizings that then were, viz. Matth. 3. 16. Mark 1. 9 10. Act. 8. 38. where it is said of the people and Christ, that they were baptised in jordan, into jordan, went down into the water, and came up out of the water, yea were buried with Christ in baptism Rom. 6. Collo. 2. yea and of all the other Scrip●…ures, that tell us of the baptism that was dispensed in those Hot Countries as john 3. 23. Act. 16. 13. 14. 15. 33. where it is said john baptised in Aenon because there was much water, and Paul went out to a River's side, and sp●…ke the word, at which time Lidya and hers were baptised, and a while after the Jailor and his, tell me I say what construction all these, and all the Scriptures that talk of baptism, as dispensed in those Hot Countries, must consequently bear, if it be once granted that such total dipping was the manner of baptising in the primitive times in those Hotter Countries, must they not then needs have the senses we put upon them, viz. that Christ and the rest did really descend into the water, were buried under the water, and raised again, and not those forced senses, into which you would rest them to your own ends, viz. that they went but to the water, and there were wetted only by sprinkling, or pouring, and from the water again without going into it, or being dipped in it? if you give us one for granted, viz. that in judaea and those Hot Countries, as Rome, Phillippi, and Colosse the manner of baptising was by going down into the water, and being dipped therein in this Sacramental washing, you must necessarily give up also all the interest that you claim in those Scriptures for sprinkling, they being no other than the relation of what baptism was done in judea, and those Hot Coun-countreys', and not what was done in cold; if then it be supposed that baptism by submersion, and not aspersion, was the custom in the Scripture times, it must semblably be supposed that the Scriptures themselves, that story out the baptism of those times do speak of that Manner of baptism that then was, and not of another, unless we suppose it must be interpreted as speaking of another thing, then that it only speaks of, and so consequently this Scripture, this Testament must be supposed to be wholly on our sides, and to speak only of men's baptism by submersion, and you must suppose out some New Testament of Christ, if you can tell where, for the exemplifying of your baby 

Baptising.  
Rantizing.    
And further had you chanced to be born, and bred in such Hot Countries where dipping is the Custom, as you happened to come out in such a cold Climate where for fear of cold, more than any thing else, that is to warrant such a practice, the custom is only to sprinkle, I appeal to your own consciences, whether such a thing as rantizing would once have come into your minds upon the single search of those Scriptures?  
Thirdly, whereas you talk of dipping as the way of baptising in those Hot Countries, both Mr. Baxter and Mr. Cook also p. 15. assert that In those Hot Countries waters for dipping were scarce and rare, and could not be had in some places in a great distance, and therefore, if sprinkling or pouring only must be used in some Countries, and dipping in other some, in all reason and likelihood, if any places may be exempted from dipping, sprinkling should be dispensed with rather in those Hot Countries to save people the pains of travelling so far as they must do for dipping, where the waters were at such a distance from them, and dipping rather appointed to be used in these Countries, where the Service, as it is not much more tedious than it was in judaea, at least in coldest, and sharpest seasons, so may it be moderated as touching the tediousness thereof, by being done and dispatched through the vicinity of waters here not very far off from our own doors.  
Fourthly, even those Hot Countries of judaea, Rome, and the Regions thereabout were not within the Torrid Zone, nor so hot, but that if cold water would have quenched love to Christ, and pretence of danger discharged from duty, they might have been as shy as yourselves of being dipped in water, for even there the waters (says Mr. Blake) was over cold for such a service, and also this Colder Country (as you count it) of England is under the Tepid Zone, and not so exceeding cold in summer Seasons, but that dipping may be as well digested then, as in judaea, or as it is by such as then washed themselves in way of pleasure.  
This Hot Country catch therefore is an Argument that flashes fairly in the p●…n and makes a report with a powder, for almost every one le's fly at us out of this Engine, but verily it is an empty Engine, a piece discharged to keep Cold Country Christians from killing themselves with Christ's service, but charged with no great store of truth nor sense, nor reason: wherefore Sirs if the coldness of this service of total dipping do cause you to stand so coldly affected toward it as not to submit to it here in England, unless the Climate were a little hotter, yet at least let us, who by dipping as weak folks as yourselves in winter have experienced how tolerable it is, through Christ strengthening us, for Christ's sake to be with Paul in cold and perils of water, (so you suppose 'tis to be dipped) as well as in other hardship: Let us, I say, who are willing to venture on the way of dipping, proceed without your offence, and as for us we shall in order to your good be so far offended at your neglect of it, as uncessantly to call upon you and yours, to repent and be so baptised every one of you in the name of the Lord jesus for the remission of sins, till you can show us (as jam sure you never will) his letters patents for your Exemption.   

Rantist.  
But Mr. Cook forces this Argument further yet, and tells you that their custom of being dipped enforces us to the same, no more than the Gesture that Christ used at Supper binds us to the same, you are willing to overlook that perhaps having little or nothing to say to it, but I pray take all along with you as you go, and be not so par●…ial as to pick out what is easiest to be answered, and let the rest alone.   

Baptist.  
As for that poor piece of sustenance, that Mr. Cook affords beyond all the rest toward the further improvement of this exception which from the heat of those Countries you make against the Example of dipping in the primitive times, it hath no substance in it, whereupon your cause can possibly live, for though he says their going into the water then, and being dipped therein no more enforces us to observe the same in baptism, than the Example of Christ, and his Apostles gesture in the Supper, which was leaning and partly lying, ties us to the same: but as the table Gesture of sitting now in use among us is fittest for the Supper, so the usual way of washing, which is by pouring as well as dipping is fittest to be observed in baptism.  
Yet I desire Mr. Cook to consider these things,  
First, that if the priesthood had but any such clear example of their being sprinkled in the primitive times, as we have of their going down into the water, and being dipped there, they would enforce us with more than Arguments to an observation of the very same, yea how hardly have we escaped being enforced by them from dipping, though they have not an inch of instance for their sprinkling?  
Secondly, there is a vast difference between an example in point of circumstance, and mere gesture about a service, and the very substance of the service itself, variation from Christ's example in the first is naught enough, but in the other worse than nothing; yet even such is your degeneration from dipping to sprinkling, from baptism to rantism viz. not a variation from some certain circumstance in that one matter of baptism, but a variation from the ordinanance itself, a doing, not what Christ did in another manner, but a doing of another matter than Christ did: dipping with the face upward, and with the face downward is the same thing still, though in a different gesture, and (to satisfy Mr. Simpson, who in his letter scarce thinks it a burial in baptism, if the face be not upward, and the water poured on, as the earth is on them, we bury with their faces upward) whether this way or that way is not so much material if there be a total covering and overwhelming with either earth or water, it is a true burial still notwithstanding; but dipping and sprinkling are two such divers things, that the first is both baptism, and burial in baptism, but the second neither the one nor yet the other.  
Thirdly, and yet the gesture is so far to be heeded in every ordinance, that if we know any one to be better than another, and more ass●…redly to be that which Christ and his disciples used, I suppose we are bound, if not of necessity, not to decline it to follow any other men's fashions whatsoever, and I believe Mr. Cook did think it worth contending for to exchange the Bishops kneeling at supper, for one more suitable to that Christ used.  
Fourthly, the gesture Christ used was the same as ours i. e. sitting not leaning, nor yet lying, for though Mr. Cook asserts with such confidence that lying was used by Christ, 'tis undoubtedly utterly untrue: what ere was the usual table gesture than is nothing to the point, or if it be it is most evident it was sitting, as it is now, for if it was in some places the fashion to lean or lie on beds at great banquets (as some tell us) yet I am sure the table gesture was not lying nor leaning neither any otherwise then as we do viz. on one elbowor both when we please: the Scripture says all along that he sat: Mr. Cook greeking it out in the margin as he does viz. Mat. 26. 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mark 14. 18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Luke 22. 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mat. 14. 19 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will not help him in what he says, for if any or all of these words viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do signify to lean or lie down, yet they all signify to sit down also, for they are all rendered by discum●…o the plain english of which is to sit down, and therefore also our translators do so English them, and I would demand of him again as he does of A. R. p. 12. whether he thinks that our translators, that have englisht them thus viz. he sat down, and as they sat down, and he commanded the multitude to sit down on the grass, known not how to render the original in its proper signification as well as he?  
Nor yet five is the usual manner of washing among us, which you confess is most fit to be used in baptism, by pouring as well as dipping, for pouring is (and yet but in some cases only, as namely the washing the hands, and in that very case but sometimes and seldom only, for mostly that is by dipping, and this too, but when the infusion is so large as totally to wash the hands so washed) a preparative to such a washing, but a complete true washing it is not of itself, without some subsequent act of rubbing, which you use not about infant's faces; but swilling in water is the most usual way of washing, and a washing of itself some times, and some times used without any after rubbing at all, therefore this by Mr. Cooks own rule by right should be observed in baptism.  
Sixthly, whereas he argues from the custom of the present times to an exemption from the primitive customs and practice, he might as well take upon him to say thus, if any man contend for that faith, way of worship, way of baptism, that was in the primitive and purest times. and for a reformation of all things according to the word; and example of the Churches the word speak of, it is true those Churches indeed worshipped thus, were congregated thus, ordered thus, baptised thus viz. by dipping when they believed, but sprinkling infants is the way, and fashion now adays, and as for what was done of the Churches of old, we have nothing to do with it, and if any list to be contentions for it we have no such custom now, nor the Churches of God of which sure Mr. Cook cannot but be ashamed, who hath covenanted to reform according to the word fi●… a covenant keeper, and a Custom-monger cannot possibly be denominated both of one.   

Rantist.  
Nay stay a little, you'll forget your own words I think anon, did you not say yourself even now that we must put difference between examples in substantial matters, and in matters merely circumstantial? we desire to keep as close as yourselves can do to the primitive custom in things of weight, and that there may be no variation from it, without a violation of the will of Christ in any point that is positively commanded, but I hope you will not make such a matter of moment of the manner of baptising, as if Chrst had enjoined this way or that way of dispensation of it, viz. dip●…ing so strictly as that sprinkling may not be used, nor yet sprinkling so as that dipping may not be used, nay rather its a mere ceremony, a prudential point, in which the Church may use her discretion so as to dispense it either way, as conveniency and charity may dispose her, and no less is very well observed by Mr. Baxter p. 135. Christ saith he hath not appointed the measure of water nor manner of washing, no more than he hath appointed in the Lord's supper what quantity of bread and wine each must take, and as it would be but folly for any to think, that men must needs fill themselves with bread and wine, because it best signifies the fullness of Christ, so it is no better to say, that we must needs be washed all over, because it best signifies our burial with Christ, etc. Christ told Peter that the washing of his feet was enough to cleanse all, a little may signisie as well as much, as a clod of earth doth in possession of much lands, and a corn of pepper signifies our homage for much, and much to such a purpose are those words of Mr. Cook p. 20. some of which having been quoted, and spoken to before, though not so satisfactorily, but that they sway with me still, I am almost loath to repeat them, yet sith they be so among the other, I can hardly decline the mentioning them once more, by your leave, in answer to the objection, that a little water doth not so fitly and perfectly represent as dipping and plunging, sith in the one the whole body is washed, in the other the face or head only:  
He says first, that the Scripture no where requires the washing of the whole body in baptism.  
Secondly, that with as good reason one may plead thus, that at the supper it. is most convenient that every Communicant should receive his belly full of bread and wine, and take as long as stomach, and head will hold, to signify the full refreshment of the soul with the body and blood of Christ, but who, says he, would endure such reasoning?  
Thirdly, These outward Elements of water, bread and wine are for special use, and to signify special things, so that, if there be the truth of things, the quantity is not to be respected further than is sufficient for its end, namely to represent the spiritual grace, and that it be neither so little as not to represent, nor so much as to take of the heart from the spiritual to the corporal thing: not the washing away the filth of the body in baptism, nor the glutting or satisfying of the natural Appetite in the Lord's Supper is to be looked after, but the washing and refreshing of the Soul, which may well be represented by the sprinkling of a little water, eating and drinking of a little bread and wine, In circumcision a little skin was cut of.  
You see what these worthy men say you, need not be so hot as you are for the ceremony, if so be you keep the substance.   

Baptist.  
I have received as much as all this comes to long since in a loving letter from a worthy friend of mine, whose words shall sway me, where I see them suit with the word of truth (where not I must be excused) to the full, as much as Mr. Cook and Mr. Blake and Mr. Baxters' sway you be they right or wrong;  
Grant that dipping was always used in those Hot Countries, yet you know saith he, that necessity and charity dispense with Ceremonies even of Gods own institution, nor is the Nature of the Sacrament altered by this change, viz. from dipping to sprinkling, for seeing the whole virtue of the Sacrament is in signification perablutionem, it no more matters Quantum quisque abluatur then it doth in the Supper Quantum quisque comedat.  
But verily I am not able to discern either in this, or in that you say above, or in that you cite out of Mr. Cook and Mr. Baxter the least warrant in the world for the way of sprinkling, or for waving the old wont way of dipping, with all the wisdom I have to weigh it by at this instant: as for what you take notice of that I said myself above, viz. that there is difference between matters circumstantial, and substantial, so that we need not be so strict in the observation of the one, I will not eat any thing I then uttered, but me thinks you might as well, had you not been partial, have taken notice of what followed, as of that, which had you done, you would have seen how little accrues to your purpose out of that grant of mine, for I told you there and now tell you again, sith I see you so quick to catch at things by the halves, and slow to mind what in them makes against you, that howbeit it is not so material which way you baptise, so you baptise, yet if you Rantize only, you vary not only in a circumstance, but in the very substance of the Ordinance, doing quite another matter then that you should do, and not the matter, i. e. Baptism, in another manner only; for we will bear with that, as a thing neither here nor there, whether you baptise, i. e. wash a person by overwhelming or burying him in water in this gesture, or that, this form, or that, with his face up or down, yea be it by infusion of water on him, or immersion, or putting him under it, which of the two is most proper, and easy, we weigh it not, so you see to it that you bury, and overwhelm him: for all this while you retain both the true outward sign, which is baptism, or burial under water in baptism, in its nature, and essential form, in its true Analogy and proportion to the spiritual things signified, which are primarily the death, burial and resurrection of Christ, and secondly our being washed from sin by his blood; but if once you fall from baptising to rantizing, from submersion to aspersion, from dipping to dripping, from a total covering to almost a total keeping him from the water, you vary from the very thing that is required, not from one manner of baptising to another, but from baptising to another matter: There fore Sirs when you talk of our being hot for a ceremony, if by the word Ceremony you mean some petty, trivial, immaterial mere circumstance in baptism, which may indifferentèr aut adesse aut abesse sine baptismi interitu, be or not be, and yet baptism be baptism still, as dipping backwards or forwards in ponds or Rivers, you are much deceived in us, we regard not such ceremonies; But a ceremony is a thing, which though it stand but for a time, yet stands by positive command for that time, wherein it is to stand, by no less than divine institution, nor know I any man, Church or Angel that can institute a Ceremony to be observed and imposed; and if by a Ceremony you mean thus, not the mere manner of baptising, but the matter, even baptism itself, which of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may altogether with the ordinances of the Gospel or new Covenant very properly be styled Ceremonies, as well as all the Ordinances of Divine service under the Law, forasmuch as these last but for their time, viz. till the second appearing of Christ, as those of the old covenant Heb. 9 1. lasted only till his first appearing, than I confess we are somewhat stiff for the ceremony, nor can you blame us if you consider what we do, for in so doing we contend for no less than substance, as far as you can call any ordinance of Christ so that hath a tendency, as a sign or otherwise, unto something yet more substantial; the rite of Circumcision, the Passeover, and all the other Sacrifices of the Law, though shadows in comparison of what they pointed at, yet were ordinances so substantial, as instituted of God, and so strictly to be observed, that who so should have taken upon him to alter, and shape them more to the model of his own mind, would have heard as ill from God for it as, without his leave, for omitting them altogether, & how ill that is he cannot be ignorant, that hears how sharply he speaks to them, that were too short but in tithes and offerings when in force, saying that a curse had therefore devoured their blessings Mal. 2. and also that neglected circumcision, saying every soul that is not circumcised, meaning of whom circumcision is required (but it was not of females than any more than baptism is of infants now) shall be cut off from among his people, and I appeal to your own consciencies if any should have said, circumcision is a painful, a tedious, and dangerous piece of service, and dispensation to little infants (and so it was indeed much more than dipping in cold water) and thereupon in charity circumcision being nothing, and uncircumcision nothing, but a new creature, we will only pair there nails, and make that serve instead of the other, would the Lord have took it better at their hands? would either God or good men have held them guiltless, yet whether they had circumcised thus or thus viz. with a knife, a sharp stone, or a pair of shears, I suppose that circumcision had been dispensed with, and even thus may we say of baptism as nothing as it is, it being an ordinance of God's institution, both they that omit it to whom it is commanded, and they that in charity take upon them to alter it, so as to make Rantism serve instead of it, preaching or practising no baptism at all, or another thing that is no baptism under the name of it, were it the Apostles themselves, or an angel from heaven, that should thus alter the Gospel, shall equally be accepted, or rather equally accursed before God Gal. 1. can you blame us therefore if we contend for the right baptism? for it is not another manner of the thing than you use, but the very thing itself we plead against you, who cannot be said to alter the right way of baptising, but the rite of baptism itself; it is not a bare circumstance in the ceremony we differ in, but we differ in the substance i e. in the ceremony, or rite itself, which you have changed, having no parts at all of the rite in your wrong practice, which your own party divide the rite of baptism into.  
Ritus in baptismo est triplex says Tilenus the rite or ceremony in baptism is threefold, immersion, or plunging into the water, continuance for a time under the water, resurrection out of the water, in resemblance of Christ's death, burial and resurrection and ours in him.  
Which of all these three are to be found in your aspersion? unless you will all own Featleys fetch for good resemblance viz. the dipping, burial, and resurrection of the ministers hand, when he sptinkl●… the infant's face: sith therefore you have broken the law of Christ the Son, that Lawgiver and Prophet, whose voice we are to hear in all that he saith, and changed the ordinances so far as to turn his baptism into rantism, you will as they that despised the Law of Moses the servant, be cut off from his people Acts 3. Heb. 2. Heb. 10. sith you make void his plain word under pitiful pretences viz. the coldness, the tediousness, the danger of dipping in these climates, as if the reason for dipping were proper only to Hot Countries, no marvel if such as see from under the vail of priestly pretence, that hath darkened the whole earth, are hot to have a recovery to the truth, specially since it is a truth not unknown to us, nor yet so trivial tru●…h as these that ink is made of gum, and paper made of rags, nor yet such a Scripture truth as is not material to be known, as that about Paul's cloak and parchments, and that Abiam was the Son of Sacar as Mr. Baxter babbles p. 218. 219. (a sign that paper is made of rags by his wasting it in such toys) for these we are not so strictly held to reveal, but a truth of such worth, that it is to be preferred before that truthless peace he pleads for, the disturbance of which he calls hell p. 2●…0, saying,  
We are little beholding to those men that would have turned the Church into hell i. e. privation of peace, rather thensilence their supposed truths.  
To whom I say, 
If that be hell which priests so call,  
Then truths true friends are hellhounds all.   
But a word to Mr. Baxter out of Mr. Baxter p. 218▪ in vindication of our loathness to betray this truth by our silence viz.  
The Law commandeth us to do our duty, to preserve truth from being lost, so that if truth be lost, while I do my duty, 'tis no sin of mine, if it be not lost while I neglect my duty, it is yet my sin, God disposeth of events, not we, therefore what consequences may be occasioned, sith they are not caused by preaching the Gospel, I may not, for fear of them, nor shall shun to declare the whole counsel of God.  
I know necessity and charity do dispense with circumstances in ceremonies, and with ceremonies or ordinances themselves of Gods own institution sometimes,  
But first, it is with the omission only, but not with the alteration of them into other, if a man converted on his death bed, or on the ladder, when ready to be executed, as the thief was upon the cross, be willing to be baptised, if it may be, but cannot, in charity he may, and of necessi●…y he must be dispensed with dying unbaptised in such a case, but no man may dispense another thing to him i e. Rantism in its room and stead, no more than he may give other things than bread and wine in the supper, to a stomach too weak to bear either of those, for that is to take upon him to make another institution, and Gods leave man never had so to do.  
Secondly it must be by leave from the Lord implicit or express, upon which only we can ground the lawfulness of omission, and necessity, and charity, but not charity mistaken, are leave enough no doubt to let alone, though in no wise to alter what ever he ordains, as when it neither can be at all, nor can be done conveniently, nor possibly without killing men indeed; whereupon we find no fault found with Israel in the wilderness for forbearing to circumcise 40 years together, it is like least it should hinder them in their warfare, but sure I am they should have heard of it from the Lord if to forgo the soreness of that circumcision they had circumcised i e. cut off only the hair of their heads.  
Let the Ranter therefore show us Gods word for his omission; and the Rantizer for his mutation of Baptism, and we will fall in with either, as we see it evidenced therein.   

Rantist.  
If you do but mind the Testimonies I cited out of Mr. Cook and Mr. Baxter, and what you hinted yourself as w●…tten to you in private, you cannot choose but see word enough for our use of sprinkling, though dipping were used never so in the primitive times, for they tell you (but me thinks you do not much mind it) that the Scripture requires not total washing, that Christ appoints not the measure of water nor manner of washing, more than the measure of bread and wine in the Supper, he hath left it ad libitum, and as they say very well, the whole virtue of the Sacrament lying in signification per ablutionem, it matters no more Quantum quisque abluatur, then quantum quisque comedat, and as it is folly to think that men must eat in the Supper as long as head and stomach will hold, because it signify the souls refreshment, so that in baytism we must be washed all over, because it best signifies our burial with Christ: a little signifies as well as much, a clod of earth, a pepper corn, a little skin cut off in circumcision, so by a little bread and wine eat and drank, and by a little water sprinkled may the refreshment of the soul be represented.   

Baptist.  
That which best signify is best to be done, and forasmuch as t●… at best signifies, that both signifies and resembles the quantity of the Element, that manner of action which best resembles is best and fittest to be used undoubtedly in baptism, in which Christ hath undoubtedly appointed what is best, whereupon if Mr. Baxter grant (or if he do not he cannot deny) that overwhelming best resembles, and consequently best signify our burial with Christ, he never will give good reason whilst he breathes upon this earth, why washing all over (as he calls it) should not be used; as for that reason that is given against it here by himself at second hand, and by Mr. Cook at first, of whom he borrows well nigh every bit of what he says against a total dipping, save only his fearful, fairfowl flourishes upon it, viz.  
First that the measure of water, and manner of washing the whole body is not appointed,  
Secondly, That then in the Supper there must be a eating to the full,  
Thirdly, That a little may serve as well as much, there's little weight as far as I see in any part of it.  
The first hath so little reason, that it hath no truth in it for Christ hath appointed virtually in some measure the measure of water in that his very appointment of the manner of washing in the way of a total overwhelming, as appears before in the signification of the word Baptise, which signifies a dipping or overwhelming of that subject, that is particularly denominated to be washed by it; whether it be the whole man, or but a part of him; if the tip of the finger only be said truly to be baptised, than that tip must be totally washed; if the hands be denominated, without a figure to be baptised, than the hands at least are totally washed; if the man be the subject properly predicated to be baptised, than that man also must be totally washed; but in Scripture the man is required, and appointed to be baptised; to the performance of which such a measure of water is consequently appointed, as may be at least sufficient for that end, and required it is that it be neither so little that it cannot totally wash him, nor yet so much as must necessarily drown him, as an ocean would, but a proportion suitable to that purpose.  
To the second I might answer, that there is not altogether the same reason, for such a total filling, and swilling in the Supper, as there is for a total swilling in baptism; sith the main and radical matter, that is to be resembled in baptism is Christ's death, burial and resurrection, but the radical thing, that is resembled in that action of our eating and drinking in the Supper, is our faith, whereby we feed upon Christ, and accept him each to ourselves as our Redeemer, without which that he is a Redeemer will do us no good, for faith is the appropriating of of Christ the bread of life, e●…ch to ourselves, who is set before us in common in the whole loaf, and as it will do a man no good to have bread and wine before him, which are elements most refreshing, unless he take them, and eat and drink, so neither us to see a Saviour set before us, unless we take of his salvation to ourselves.  
This is that which is most immediately signified, and particularly represented in the Supper, which business of bare taking Christ Jesus to ourselves by faith, is represented truly in taking never so little, but a burial and resurrection not ●…n never so little water; a few crumbs of bread and sips of wine taken do reptesent a taking of Christ in the Supper, but not so a few drops of water tisfled upon the face Christ's death, burial and resurrection: and sith you say the refreshment of the soul by the fullness is represented in our eating and drinking in the Supper, and yet that eating and drinking a little bread and wine not to fullness is enough in the supper to represent that, and so why not a little water, not deep enough to dip and bury in, applied to us in baptism, the burial and resurrection of Christ?  
I might answer that the refreshment of the soul by Christ is represented rather in the elements, then in the action of either, eating or drinking in the supper, by the bread which is a strengthner of man's heart, and wine which is for them of a sorrowful heart, and therefore there might not be altogether the need of representing our r●…freshing by eating and drinking much, at least so much as Mr. Cook and Mr. Ba. talks of, viz. to the filling and glutting of ourselves to the top as long as head and stomach will hold, that action would yield but a small resemblance of a refreshment, and were enough to make a sound man sick, but there is a reason in all things, and a difference as we say between staring, and stark mad●… thus I say I might answer, and cut off your arguing for analogy, and a small portion of the element in baptism, as well as in the supper, between which there is not fully the same reason.  
But verily I am of your mind that a refreshment of the soul by the fullness of Christ is very fit to be resembled and represented by the quantity of the elements, as well as by the elements in the supper also; and yet am I not of your mind that so little, as you ordinarily use, is so very fit as you dream it is to represent it, but of the mind rather that as you are in your baptism viz. not out of your element, as you should be if you were baptised in truth by submersion, or putting clear under water, but out in your element rather i. e. in the measure of your water, which is not adequate to the true manner of washing, so you are also in the supper too poor in your provision of elements, for that which is the true and full purport of that sacred service; you have got together many littles to prove that so little element as you use both in baptism and supper may do as well, if not better, then more, all which are very little to the purpose, a little may signify as well as much says Mr. Baxter, a clod of earth, a pepper corn: but what then? we are to signify with resemblance, or else a sacrament is no sacrament, saith Austin, but says Mr. Cook a little may resemble the washing, and the refreshing of the soul may well be resembled by a sprinkling of a little water, eating and drinking a little bread and wine, in circumcision a little skin was cut off; what then?  
First it was as much as God required to be cut off.  
Secondly it was so much as made it circumcision.  
Thirdly, as much as truly and clearly resembled the circumcision of the heart, which is signified, but such is not (for all Mr. Cook's conceit) that little water you sprinkle, nor yet that little becad and wine you distribute, it is neither so much as represents clearly the things signified, which are not only the clearing of the soul by Christ's dainties in the supper, which should be resembled by eating and drinking it, but some more cheering and refreshing of the body, then that which is commonly in your communions;  
But alas the burial and resurrection of Christ, in baptism should be resembled by submersion, and emersion; and therefore to answer Mr. Cook in the words of Mr. Cook, the outward elements of water bread and wine are for spirritual use, and to signify spiritual things, so that if there be the truth of things [but what I wonder if there be not (as I am sure in Rantism there is not) the truth of baptism] the quantity is not to be respected further than is sufficient for its end, namely to represent the spiritual grace [so far then it seems it must be, and that is enough to confute Mr. Cook's Rantism, for it represents not the spiritual grace] and that it be neither so little as not clearly to represent it [yet so little is the quantity that you use, not of water only in the one, but of bread and wine also in the other ordinarily] nor so much as to take off the heart from the spiritual to the corporal thing] content with all in my heart that it be not too much on this hand, provided that it be not too little one the other, so but that it may reach to resemble the things signified, for the whole virtue of baptism lying in signification per ablutionem i.e. per submersionem, per sepelitionem in aquâ, and the virtue of the supper much what in signification per recreationem, per representationem plenitudinis: non multum interest, quantum quisque abluatur, modo obruatur, submergatur, sepeliatur, nec quantum quisque comedat, modo comedendo repleatur.]  
To conclude Sirs you are too short in that point of the outward element in the supper as well as baptilm, in the Church of Corinth there was so much bread and wine that if some hungered, others were drunken, as neither of these should have been, so the latter could not have been, but that the use than was to have more abundance of the elements, than you have in your parish passovers, wherein the people are passed over with so poor a pittance, that all may in likelihood be hungry enough, but none at all very easily drunken, such niggardly ships and sups; not at Rome only, where the Priests expounding Christ as speaking to themselves, when of the wine, saying drink ye all this, and not to the people, saying drink ye all of this, do impropriate the liquor wholly to themselves, but in England also do the priests sup, I should say dine (for it is done at noon days with them) their poor patient dependant people at the Lords table.  
There's one thing among Mr. Baxters' bedrow which I had almost quite passed over without any answer, which if I had you would have said it is like I willingly forgot it; Christ told Peter saith he that the washing of his foet was enough to cleanse all; Mr. Blake gives us a touch here too through the persons of a popish party p. 10. of Peter's mind saith he not to be washed in o●… part only, which say some from the same place also viz. john 13. 9 10. is as sufficient as the washof the whole.  
As if that Scripture even therefore because it speaks of washing, doth speak of this ordinance of baptism: either it doth Sirs in your opinion or it doth not, if not, to what purpose do you quibble upon it here? if you say it doth, I much marvel why youthink so, but more if in earnest you argue from it that a man need be baptised but in part only, sith you all confess practically that the face and head, but not the feet are the subject of baptism. yea verily you had as good have said Pilate took water and washed his hands before the multitude, therefore the ordinance of baptism is no total dipping, for the story of Christ's washing Peter feet speaks no more of the ordinance of baptism, than the other does; yea it is most evident that the washing of the disciples feet was clear to another end and use viz. not to baptise them, much less to show how they should baptise others, but merely to teach them humility one toward another, and to condescend to the lowest offices that could be for love's sake to each other; this Christ expressed himself to be the direct meaning of what he did, v. 12. 13. 14. 15. etc. after he had washed their feet he says to them: know you what I have done to you? you call me Lord and master, you say well, so I am; if I your Lord and Master have washed your feet, you also aught to wash one another's feet, for I have given you an example that ye should do as I have done unto you, this was Christ's end therefore to learn them humility, which was done as well in washing their feet only, as all the body, yea the feet only indeed, because the feet are the viler parts of the body, for us to stoop to wash, whereby to express our humility each to other, in which respect and no other it is that when Peter yet ignorant of what Christ was about to do, cried out Lord my hands also and my head, Christ replies, that he that is washed, i. e. not in Baptism, but in this washing he was then about need not more i. e. ad rem substratam then to wash his feet, but is clean every whit, i. e. as much as he need be to this intent, for which I now am washing you: besides that the washing of the feet only is not a sufficient washing to denominate a man baptised according to Christ's ordinance, is evident by the Eunuch, that went into the water, and so was washed in his feet, and yet not baptised for all that according to Christ's will, till Philip had baptised or dipped him there: it is a sign you are put hard to your shifts, when you use such impertinencies to help you as these.   

Rantist.  
Impertinency? I think all is imper●…enency with you still, though never so solid, that is brought in disproof of your id●… dipping: but what say you I trow to those two last unanswerable Arguments of Mr. Cook against total dipping viz. that it is against both the sixth and seventh Argument, both which Arguments Mr. Baxter also takes after him, and bangs you about with them a little better than Mr. Cook did, and laces your sides so handsomely therewith, that I believe you selves will be all sick of Mr. Baxter, and your cause scarce be whole of those two Gashes he hath thereby given it, salve it over as long as you will, for he proves it plain that your plunging practice is no better than flat Murder, and Adultery.   

Baptist.  
I say these are knocking Arguments indeed, if they be but as solid as they show for, but for all that let us see a little for our money before we part with it, and hear what their Arguments are in words at length, and not in figures, if it chance to prove as you say they say, and as they say indeed in this particular, viz. that it is Murder and Adultery to dip as we do, I assure you in the word of a Minister and a Christian, that hopes to be saved in the way of innocency, as well as yourselves, that dipping, as it is no idol of mine, for I adore it no otherwise then I ought to do every ordinance of our only King, Priest and Prophet Christ Jesus, for his sake that ordained it, so it shall never be adored so much as to be owned more by me, but be abhorred rather with deeper decestation, than I dispense it with affection to this hour; but I believe that their proof will fall wondrous short of so high a charge, as they venture to charge us with, be pleased therefore since you mention it in gross, to repeat their Arguments more at large, which I dare say your memory is more tenacious of then of any other, and I shall examine them as exactly as you shall desire me.   

Rantist.  
First then let it be well considered what they say to the first thing.  
This dousing over head and ears and under water saith Mr. Cook, that you plead for, as essential to baptism, seems directly against the sixth Commandment and exposeth the person baptised to the danger of death.  
For first suppose the party be fit for baptism (as you account) in the sharp winter as now believing, professing etc. he must immediately be taken to the River as your tenet seems to hold, and there plunged in over head and ears, though he come forth covered with you. But if he scape perishing with cold, how can he scape being choked and stifled with the water, if he must be plunged over head to signify his death to sin?  
Secondly be kept under water to signify his burial?  
And Thirdly be taken up again as A. R. and you seem to reason? But whatever be the danger of freezing or suffocation 〈◊〉 seems, this you hold the only baptism and therefore must not be swerved from p. 21.  
Thus he, but more largely and plainly Mr. Baxer p. 134.  
That which is a plain breach of the sixth Commandment, Thou shalt not kill, is no Ordinance of God, but a most heinous sin, but the ordinary practice of baptising by dipping over head in cold w●…er as necessary, is a plain breach of the sixth Commandment thereforè.  
And Mr. Craddock in his book of Gospel liberty shows the Magistrate ought to restrain it, to save the lives of his Subjects etc. that it is flat Murder and no better, being ordinarily and generally practised, is undeniable to any understanding man, for that which directly tendeth to overthrow men's lives, being wilfully done is plain Murder, but the ordinary or general dipping of people over head in cold water doth tend directly to the overthrow of their health, and lives, and therefore it is murder: here several answers are made saith Mr Baxter some vain, some vile.  
First Mr. T. saith that many are appointed the use of bathing as a remedy against diseases.  
To which I reply saith he, 1. though he be no Physician, yet his own reason should tell him 'tis no universalremedy.  
2. Few diseases have cold baths appointed them, I have cause, saith he, to know a little more than every one in this, and I dare say that in Cities like London, and amongst Gentlewomen, that have been tenderly brought up, and Ancient people, and weak people, and shop keepers, especially women that take but little of the cold air, the dipping them in the cold weather in cold water in the course of nature would kill hundreds and thousands of them either suddenly or by casting them into some Chronicle disease; & I know not what trick a covetous Land lord can find out to get his tenants to die apace, that he may have new fines and heriots, likelier than to encourage such Preachers, that he may get them all to turn Anabaptists; I wish that this devise saith be not it that countenanceth these men; and covetous Physicians me thinks, saith he, should not be much against them; Catarrhs and obstrustions, which are the two great foúntains of most mortal dis●…ases in man's body, could scarce have a more notable means to produce them where they are not, or to increase them where they are, Apoplextes, Lethargies, Palsies and all comatous diseases would be promoted by it, so would ●…phalagies, Hemicranies, Phthises, debility of the stomach, Crudities, and almost all Fevers, Dissenteries, Diarraeas, Colicks, iliack passions, Conv●…sions, Spasmes, Tremors, etc. all Hepatick, Splenetic, Pulmoniack persons and Hipocrandriacks would soon have enough of it, in a word, saith he, it is good for nothing but to dispatch men out of the world, that are burdensome, and ●…o ranken Church yards.  
But Mr. T. will salve all this, for he saith that there is no necessity that it be in cold water.  
To which I reply, saith he, 11. But then he forsaketh the generality of his partners in this opinion, so much as we can learn, who usually baptise in Rivers and ponds.  
2. And his warm bath would be very dangerous also.  
3. Where should this bath be prepared? if in private, it will scarce be a solemn engaging act, if in the meeting place of the Church, than  
1. It will take no small room, ●…nd require no small stir to have a bat●…iag place, and water to dipp people over head.  
2. And if they do not run home quickly before they are well engaged, the hot bath will be turned to a cold one to them, and make them repent this badge of repentance, except they will have all things ready and be brought to bed also in the Church before the people.  
3. And it will be long ere Mr. T. can clear out of his reading Antiquity what Church had such a bathing place in it; but me thinks they that call for Scripture for infant baptism, should also bring Scripture for their baptising in warm water, but some say they may stay till the heat of summer, when the water will be warm.  
To which I reply, saith he, where is your Scripture for that? I have proved the constant rule, and Example of Scripture is clean contrary, and requires that men be baptised, when they are first made disciples, and not stay till summer.  
But some desperately conclude that if it be God's way, he will save our lives, how probable soever the danger may seem.  
I answer, saith he, that this is to beg the question, nay I have showed, and am showing that it is not God's way; God hath appointed no ordinances contrary to his great moral commands.  
2. God must not be tempted, this was the devil's trick to have drawn Christ under pretence of Scripture, and trusting God to have cast himself into danger of death.  
3. So you might have said to the disciples, that if it were Gods command to keep the Sabbath than they might not rub the ears of Corn, for God could sustain them without.  
4. If it were a duty, yet when it is inconsistent with a greater duty it is at that time a sin, for it is always a sin to prefer a lesser duty before a greater, for the duty of self preservation is a moral, natural duty, and baptising is but positive etc. God hath not appointed ordinances in his Church that will destroy men ex●…ept they be preserved by Miracles, for than it were a tying himself to a constant working of Miracles etc.  
So that I conclude saith Mr. Baxter, if Murder be a sin then d●…ing over head in cold water in England is a sin, and if those that would make it men's religion to murder themselves, and urge it on their consciences as their duty, are not to be suffered in a Commonwealth any more than High way Murderers, then judge how these Anabaptists, that teach the necessity of such dipping are to be suffered.  
Thus you see what opinion these men are of concerning your total dipping, and upon what ground; yea though Mr. Tombs, and others make so light of it, and wash it over as well as they can, yet Mr. Baxter wipes of all their varnish, and represents it in its proper colour to the world, in its own ugly hue, and maintains it to be no less than mere Murder, and you may prate a while, and practise to if you please, having your quiet advantages so to do in this distracted juncture of time, but I hope an order will we taken with you in time according to your deserts, if the right Kirk Government were once settled, though hitherto you have the hap to scape Scot-free.   

Baptist.  
If one were disposed to give no other answers, than Mr. Tombs viz. that bathing is a remedy against diseases, and that it is not necessary to be in cold water, as vain as these are with Mr. Baxter, they may serve to salve the cause sufficiently from any sore that Accrues to it from that much more vain, and peddling prit●…le-prattle in which Mr. Baxter reanswers him, e. g. his learned conjectures about Covetous Landlords, Physicians, and his wretched wishes that they, in hopes to have men die apace, do not divise countenance for the way of dipping, and the divine verdict he vents on it, as good for nothing but to dispatch men out of the world, that are burdensome, and to ranken Churchyards; what Rotten Riff-Raff is all this? if one should answer him according to his folly, saying, and covetous Clergy men should, me thinks, be not much against it, if it ranken Churchyards that the Parson's horse may have the bigger pasture, I wish they have not a trick to favour it, etc. were it not as wise a wish as the other? but I spare him, lest I be like him, though if he be not answered according to his folly, I fear the man may be so wise in his own conceit as to suppose his folly to be wisdom.  
Further what great store of small stir doth the man make about a warm bath, wondering much where it should be prepared in private or in the Church, and what stir it would require? [as if it were more difficult to build a bath a little wider, and a great deal lower than a font, then 'tis to build a steeple house] and what room it would take? [as if the Church had rather retain her Rome then be robbed of her room, in removing that Romish relic of infants sprinkling] and how dangerous this hot bath may prove too, and become such a cooling card as may soon make men repent of the baptism of repentance, unless they run home quickly, or be brought to bed before the people [as if it were more impossible to bathe in baptism without danger, difficulty, and immodesty, than it is to bathe (as thousands do) in order to mere health and pleasure.]  
What frivolous quibbling is all this? what is the man made of brown paper, and fit for nothing, but to sit by the fire side in a pair of slippers, that his body may be baptised, neither in cold water nor warm, but it must needs be his death without more ado?  
I speak this not as intending to answer as Mr. Tombs doth, but to note Mr. Baxters' fiddle, for whether bathing in cold water be a remedy against diseases or no, I am not so far a Physician as to know; Mr. Tombs says it is against some, and Mr. Baxter very wisely confutes him by confessing the same, saying only,  
First it is no universal remedy.  
Secondly few diseases have cold baths appointed them, it should seem therefore some ●…ve, and whether there be necessity to baptise in cold water or no I say not, Mr. Tombs says no, and indeed I see not how degrees of cold, and heat in the element can well vary the nature of the ordinance; but this I say at least, there is no necessity that I know to baptise in warm; for my part I am one, who, as grievous as Christ's commandment is to Mr. Baxter, do winter, and summer usually baptise in rivers and ponds, nor shall I go about to scape his scrape, or Mr. Cooks either, (who as if a man were undone presently if but dipped in cold water and weather, cries out of freezing, starving, choking, stifling, death, murder etc.) by balking one bit of the truth in this point, or disowning the way of dipping in cold water and weather, for which dispensation sith 'tis, as I have proved, and Mr. B●…. cannot disprove, the ordinance of Christ for all Nations at all times, as people happen to be converted in them, I know no season unseasonable, no time at all untimely, save when it is dispensed to one in time of infancy, nor would it be then untimely, as tedious as it is, any more than circumcision, that was a far more bloody business, were it strictly enjoined to be dispensed to infants as that was, and as this is to believers at riper years: as for all the pains Mr. Baxter bestows against it, Improving Mr. Cooks argument with all his might, it is all mere babble and bawbling, he tells us it is a desperate conclusion, and a vile answer to say that if it be God's way he'll save our lives, how probable soever the danger may seem, and that it is to beg the question.  
I answer, for my part I beg no question of him, for I have proved the question already, and can prove to his face that dipping is Gods way, and will not be beholding to him to grant it, and being so if this be to be vile and desperate, to conclude that God will save our lives in his own way, I'll be more vile and desperate yet, and conclude with the three worthies, that for God's way sake ventured one a baptism more bitter than this viz. baptismum flaminis not fluminis with fire, not water, more hot than this is cold, our God is able to save our lives, but if not, be it known unto Mr. Baxter and all men that we are willing, when we must, to lose them in, and for his way.  
He tells us God hath appointed no ordinance contradictory to his great and moral commands, and that we might as well have said to the disciples if it were Gods command to keep the Sabbath (he should have said Sabbath, had he either known the Hebrew, or remembered himself, for saboth is another thing, for sabbath is rest, but saboth, or sabaoth is hosts as we may see in these places Mat. 12. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 9 26. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) they need not have rubbed the ears of Corn, for God could have sustained them without, if it were a duty, yet when it is inconsistent with a greater duty, it is at that time a sin, for it is always a sin to prefer a less duty before a greater, but the duty of self preservation is a natural, moral duty, and baptising but positive.  
As if circumcision were not as contrary to the duty of self-preservation as dipping in water, as if the Priests profaning the sabbath by servile work, were not as conadictory to the moral command (as your very selves call it) of Sabbath observation, as either of those to self-preservation, and yet when all is done all these were to be done, and none of these contradictory to the other neither, for in very deed God never commanded sabbath-observations so strictly, as that the ordinance of the daily sacrifice should be neglected, yea and the life not only hazarded, but utterly lost, and laid down for Christ's name sake and the Gospels; he tells us that the duty of self-preservation is a moral natural duty, and baptising but positive, I tell him again he says as much in that, as I desire he should say, to the confirming of our tenet, for if baptising be a positive duty, so far as 'tis positive it must take place against the other, a positive command being to be obeyed rather than self to be favoured in any wise, in any case whatsoever: God gave Abraham a positive command to slay his son, therefore that being positive, and the favouring and sparing of himself and his son, though moral and natural, yet but suppositive, i. e. to be looked at so far only as God lent him leave to enjoy his son, it must be done, and the other let alone, God must be trusted, and his will obeyed, and the saving of his son must give way to the slaying of him: the positive duty of killing him being the greater, and to be preferred before the other, and the sparing him being inconsistent with this, though elsewise a duty, yet would have been at that time a sin. In that therefore he yields baptism to be a positive command, as if self-preservation were not so, he yields us more than we are willing to take of him, for how beit for the most part it is positive, and therefore, so far as such, to be observed, without respect to the ill consequences of it to the lifeward, yet verily I question myself, though I find no express exemption from baptism in any case, whether there be not (yea it is certain there are) some cases, wherein the forbearance of the dispensation may, yea and must be dispensed with, but those a●…e not the coldness of the water and weather, but the utter impossibility of the persons submitting to it, of whom else it is required, or his being bard from it, either as the thief on the cross was, or by imprisonment, or by some such absolute sickness or weakness as confines persons necessarily to their beds, and puts them out of capacity and ability to betake themselves, where it may be done as it ought, I am willing to modify Mr. baxter's. rigid epithere of a positive command, whereby he denominates baptism, so far as to spare persons in these cases and respects, and to style baptism a duty but suppositive i. e. a thing that necessarily must be done, if either possibly, or conveniently it may be done; but if it cannot, may be let alone: but this proves not that self-preservation must be always preferred before baptism, for than it need never be obeyed at all, there being no time, wherein it can be done with so little seeming tediousness, and disease to a man's self, but that self will willingly excuse itself from obeying it, by pleading the duty of self-preservation.  
This duty of self-preservation hath cozened as honest a man as Mr. Baxter ere now; and it cousins the whole Priesthood to this hour, who generally suppose that God is no further to be served, than self may be preserved, hence no pay no preach, no countenance from the magistracy, no continuance in their ministry, but for selfs' sake they turn still with the times, but no faster; as if they durst trust God no further than they see him, and this was the plea, whereby Peter would fain have put Christ beside a duty that he foresaw would be dangerous, for Christ and himself too: but Christ gave him no great thanks for his labour, far be it from thee Lord quoth he, to go to jerusalem and suffer; by no means let this be: he thought he did well to rebuke Christ for owning the Gospel in that case, wherein he must expose himself to suffer, but get thee behind me Satan saith Christ, thou art an offence, thou savourest not the things of God, but those that be of men, thou thinkest as if he should say that self must be favoured, before positive duty be performed, that the life must be saved, and the gospel obeyed no further than is consistent with self-preservation, but I tell you saith he, that if any man will be my disciple he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow me. for he that will save his life i. e. discharge no duty that may prove dangerous to his life, shall lose it, but he that will lose his life for my name sake, and the Gospel, shall save it, Mat. 16. 11. to 26. if Paul had stood so much upon the point of self-preservation, and counted his life so dear unto himself, as Mr. Baxter seems to do his, he would have hearkened to such as besought him to favour himself, and not have gone up to jerusalem, where he knew not what should befall him, save that he knew that bonds and afflictions did there abide him, if he would there testify to the Gospel Act. 20. 22. 23. 24, 21. 22. nor would he have exposed himself to so many hazards and perils by sea and land, perils by water, perils by hunger and thirst, and cold and nakedness, none of all which things moved him, that he might witness to the Gospel:  
He tattles to us that God must not be tempted, and that it was the devil's trick to draw Christ under pretence of Scripture and trusting of God to have cast himself into danger of death, who doubts of all this, but is it tempting to perform a positive command of God, and expose ourselves to danger and difficulty in the discharge of our positive duty to him, because it is so to endanger our lives by doing that, which we have no call to, nor warrant for, and which is absolutely sin, and hath not the least dram of duty in it at all? it is true it would have been but pretence of Scripture, and trusting of God in Christ's casting himself from the pinnacle of the Temple, but dare he say there is but pretence of Scripture and trusting of God in submitting to his own ordinance of baptism? is there no more word to warrant us to be baptised, and to trust in God, and to expect his protection in the execution of that so absolute a command, than there is to warrant the execution of ourselves, which God universally forbids, and that on no more ground than the bare bidding of the devil? who would think a mininister should be so moped as to make these two alike warrantable? it was the devil's trick therefore to draw Christ under pretence of Scripture and trusting of God to self-execution against duty; and whether it be Mr. Baxters' trick only, or the devils in him to draw men under pretence of Scripture and tempting of God to self-preservation so far as not to trust God in the discharge of duty, is not amiss for Mr. Baxter to examine for that it savours not of spirit but of flesh it is so sure that it needs no examination.  
If therefore it were indeed so dangerous to be dipped, as is imagined by Mr. Cook and Mr. Baxter, yet I see no word of Christ willing a declension of the dispensation.  
But what if this be but a mere Chimaera of those men's coining, how much less are we then excused in our non-submission? and yet such and no other will it be found to be at last by then we have sounded this most murderous mater to the bottom.  
For as to Mr. baxter's dismal divination of the hideous consequences that are (if you will believe him) as it were entailed to this course of constant dipping, and his composed catalogue of chronical diseases viz. Catarrhs, obstructions, Apoplexies, Lethargies, Palsies, all Comatous diseases, Cephalalgies, Hemicranies, Phthises, debility of the stomach, Crudities, Fevers, Disentaries, Diarrhoeas, Colicks, I●…ack passions, Convulsions, Spasmes, Tremores, and all Hepatick, Splenetic, pulmoniack distempers, and Hippocondriacks also.  
All which to what end he hath Nomen-clattered together here I know not, unless to make himself, whilst he denies Mr. Tombs to be a Physician, seem to be a smatterer in the Art of Physic; as to that pitiful piece of proof I say, together with that formidable lecture Mr. Cook reads us concerning freezing and suffocation, it is ridiculous and frivolous sibbling, to fray faint hearted folks with, from finding out that strait gate, and narrow way that leads to life: but a few will find it for all this, especially when they shall find their so much believed Mr. Baxter to be such a flat false accuser as he is of this way of truth.  
Hear therefore o ye doters on Mr. baxter's deep divinity; he talks (if you will believe him) as if it were little less than impossible that persons should be dipped in cold weather in cold water, and not be killed suddenly by hundreds and by thousands, or at least not be cast into some Chronical disease, which within a while must be an occasion of their death; whereas there are hundreds if not thousands alive at this hour even in this cold Country, as they call it, many if not most of which have passed through that sharp service in the sharpest seasons, conversion falling out as ordinarily in winter as in summer, whose present health both proves the falseness, and reproves the madness of your prophet.  
Yea I have cause to know a little better than every one, and a little more than Mr. Baxter in this, Expertus loquor, I speak by experience, against which no Argument of his avails, I have seen since my five or six years' converse among the commonly called Anabaptists many a one baptised totally in cold water and weather too by others, besides toward two hundred by my silly self, many of which have come forth covered, though not with ye, as Mr. Cook phrases it out, yet with that water which ye truly covered but just before, yet never saw I any one so baptised in all that time, who was not, if not better in mere bodily respects, yet at least as well after it as before; he tells you (if you will believe him) that total dipping is for nothing but to dispatch men out of the world that are burdensome, but then I wonder how the Creature called Anabaptist, that is so burdensome to Mr. Baxter, doth not die out of the way by hundreds and thousands, and so save him and others that labour of dispute against their growth, but rather grow from hundreds into thousands so fast that they are not likely to be dispatched out of the world, till they are such a burdensome stone as will press them to death, i.e. the whole Priesthood, that is troubled with them.  
He tells you (if you will believe him) that dipping will destroy men except they be preserved by Miracles, why else doth he say (speaking specially as to this ordinance of dipping) God hath not appointed ordinances in his Church that will destroy men except they be preserved by miracles; now if it be not so as he sales viz. that it is a miracle to be dipped and not destroyed, than what a strange man is he to say so? but if it be so indeed, viz, a Miracle to be dipped and not destroyed, then ●…o fools and slow of heart to believe the truth, though the Lord confirm it to you with Miracles, which are wrought day by day amongst the Disciples, who are dipped Winter and Summer as occasion is, yet are not destroyed!  
Yea whereas Mr Baxter dares say that in Cities like London, and amongst Gentlewomen that have been tenderly brought up, and ancient people, and weak people, and shopkeepers, especially women that take but little of the cold air, dipping in cold weather would in the course of nature kill hundreds and thousands suddenly, or cast them into some Chronical disease, I dare say that in the City of London there is hundreds, if not thousands dipped in cold water, and as it happens, in cold weather too, many of which are Gentlewomen tenderly brought up, and ancient and weak people, and shop keepers, and women that take but little of the cold air, and yet by the course of grace they are preserved from perishing by either cold or suffocation: yea and out of the City of London too, for these hands have baptised of all these sorts in the Country, viz. Gentlewomen most tenderly brought up, very ancient people, very weak people, shopkeepers, and specially two women both alive at this day, which I'll become a fool in telling you of them sith Mr. Baxter compels me, did take so little of the cold air that one of them, if my memory fail me not, and if I were truly informed, was but once out of her house in 5 year before, by reason of a dropsy; and that was with much ado, and but a little before her dipping, and to hear this doctrine, notwithstanding which weakness, and such swellings that she was wellnigh twice as big as now she is, and scarce able to betake herself to the water, she was dipped, and was rather better in body, then worse after it, and after sending for some elders of the Church to●… pray over her, and anoint her with oil in the name of the Lord according to his own institution in that behalf jam. 5. was within a while so assuaged in her swellings, that she is now as sl●…nder as in former times, before ever he distemper took hold on her.  
The other had scarce been out of her Chamber in two years together, and durst not dip her finger in cold water, and was ready to have her breath stopped with the least annoyance that could be yet was dipped, and was better after it (through God's mercy) for a pretty while so as to go abroad: though she now is weak, and much what as she used to be before.  
If then you will not believe the words of God, believe the works, believe the Miracles, for it is by Miracles that they are preserved who are dipped in cold water and not destroyed sa●…es Mr. Baxter, which if it be then God hath wrought very many Miracles among the men you nickname Anabaptists of late, for they are constantly preserved from perishing by either cold, or suffocation: yea I have known many a one better in body, but I ne'er knew any one, of whom I could safely say they were the worse in body or Soul for being dipped, save such as turned from the truth after turning to it, for the latter end with such indeed is worse than their beginning.  
Yet how rashly do these men shoot their bolts to the murdering of the truth, whilst they make the ordinary practice of it no less than flat murder itself, and that undeniably to any understanding man, unless there be a preservation by a miracle; for else it destroys men quoth Mr. Baxter, it directly tendeth to overthrow men's lives in the course of Nature, it will kill hundreds and thousands of them; but if a man scape perishing with cold, yet how can he (i.e. how is it possible for him) to escape being choked quoth Mr. Cook and stifled with the water, if he must be plunged over head to signify his death to sin?  
2. Secondly kept under water to signify his burial?  
How can a man escape choking Sirs, if he be put and kept under the water? why I tell you that either he can, or else he cannot, if he can, why then he can, and so Mr. Cook is confuted; if he cannot in the course of nature, without miracle, than it being certain that thousands do scape choking, it should seem God by Miracle secures them, and yet for all this nor Mr. Baxter, nor Mr. Cook are convinced; whether it be the more shame for them or no not to be so, I leave it to themselves, and all understanding men to consider.  
Or perhaps Mr. Cook means how can a man escape choking if he be kept three days under water, for so quoth he the disciple must, as Christ abode three days under water, if Christ's burial be represented, but not only his own party, for mora sub aqua quantulacunque saith Tilenus, quantumvis momentanea saith Bucan, abode under the water for never so little a while doth most lively resemble Christ's Burial, but his own practice confutes him clearly in this, for as the Minister's hand with which Dr. Featley resembles Christ's burial is not dipped three days together under water, so the infusion of water upon the face of the infant, which why may it not represent the burial as well as dipping quoth Mr. C. p. 17. doth not last for three days together neither.  
Thus you see how well Mr. Baxter and Mr. Cook have quitted themselves in their proof of our practice to be murder, and against the sixth commandment, and what high and mighty reason Mr. Baxter hath to accuse us to the magistrate as murderers, and to suggest it his duty to him out of Mr. Craddock, to restrain us to save the lives of his subjects, and not to suffer but to destroy us.   

Rantist.  
But if you give way to Mr. Baxter to answer for himself, he clears himself of moving the magistrates to destroy you; I never moved Magistrate or people, saith he p. 246. either to drive them out of the Land, or to destroy them.   

Baptist.  
What an egregious untruth is there? doth he not say here if those that make it Religion to Murder themselves, and urge it on their consciences as their duty are not to be suffered in a commonwealth any more than Highway Murderers, then judge how these Anabaptists that teach the necessity of such dipping are to be suffered.  
Is not this to tell men that we are no more to be suffered in a Commonwealth then high way Murderers, which high way Murderers Mr. Baxter's conscience I dare say desires that they may not be suffered, but may suffer no less than hanging: and yet dares he say he stirs not up the Magistrate against us? I know not what is to excite the Magistrate against persons if this be not, to charge them to be as guilty as high way Murderers, which if he judges us to be indeed, he is bou●…d both in law and conscience to prosecute us to the very death, but if he in his conscience judges us not to be such (as oh how after to the contradiction of himself in this doth he judge more charitable of us then so e. g. p. 310. where he saith who dare think their error to be such? and yet such is high way murder when lived and died in, as concludeth them from grace) then Imarvel how he dare charge us so high as to rank us with, and represent us as bad, and as unworthy to be suffered in a Commonwealth, as high way Murderers themselves, especially since it remains yet on his part unproved, that ever any disciple died in the time of dipping, or by occasion of submission to that dispensation.   

Rantist.  
If there be not such danger of death to the Baptised, yet the Baptizers may be murderers of themselves, for it is evident that if the Minister must go into the water with the party, it will certainly tend to his death (says Mr. Baxter p. 137) though they may scape that go in but once, for weak Students to make a frequent practice of going into the water, it will cure their ich after novelties, and allay the heat of their intemperate zeal: therefore me thinks (says Mr. Baxter) the Ministers should have regard to themselves.   

Baptist.  
Me thinks so too, or else they are not like their wont selves, for self was ever yet for aught I see regarded by most national Ministers much more than truth.  
But I pray Sirs how certainly will it tend to your Minister's death, any more than it doth to the death of our Ministers that do dispense it, among whom I have known men full as sickly, though not half so selfish as you, that have often dipped men in the sharpest seasons, and yet never lay by it so much as once, but your ministers are weak students indeed, that are studied no further in common sense and reason, and experienced no more in cold, and other Gospel hardships, which Paul was skilled in, then to think that genum tenus must certainly and unavoidably make an end of them, unless the Lord by a miracle deliver them, and such as are fitter to make Curates of for gentlemen's chapels of ease then to take care of the poor afflicted Church of Christ.   

Rantist.  
Well, if it do not prove to be murder, and so against the eighth commandment, yet I am sure it will prove to be adultery to dip naked, as they say you do, and so flatly against the seventh, for either you dip naked or you do not, if you do not, than you cannot dip the whole body: but if you do, if that be not so shame fully sinful as is scarce fit to be named among Christians, I know not what is: and this Mr. Cook and Mr. Baxter doth intimate to us, whose words I shall also intimate to you at the present.  
I would know with these new dippers saith Mr. Cook, whether the parties to be doused and dipped may be baptised in a garment, or no? if they may, then happily the garment may keep the water from some part of the body, and then they are not rightly ●…baptized, for the whole man say they must be dipped.  
Again, I would ask what warrant they have for dipping, or baptising garments more than the Papists have for baptising bells? therefore belike the party must be naked, and multitudes present, as at John's baptism, and the parties men and women at ripe years, being able to make confession of their faith and repentance; yet though they both sin against the sixth commandment endangering life, and against all common honesty and civility, and Christian modesty required in the seventh commandment, they must have this way observed, because they fancy it the only baptism: shall we think saith he, this was the baptism of John, Christ and his Apostles? thus he,  
And says Mr. Baxter, Another wickedness in their manner of baptising is their dipping persons naked, as is very usual with many of them, or next to naked, which is usual with the modestest that I have heard of, against which I argue thus.  
If it be a breach of the seventh commandment, thou shalt not commit adultery, ordinarily to baptise the naked, than it is intolerable wickedness, and not God's ordinance, but so it is, therefore.  
The Minor is thus evident saith he, that commandment forbids all incitements to uncleanness, and all immodest actions, but to baptise women naked is an immodest action, and an incitement to uncleanness therefore, and to this he says Mr. Tombs answered it was thought no immodesty in former times; but though it may seem no immodesty in Countries where they still go naked, yet among such as are not savages me thinks it should saith Mr. Baxter; if Mr. T. could baptise naked all the Maids in Bewdly, and think it no immodesty, he hath lost his common ingenuity, and modesty with the truth.  
Thirdly, every good man is to watch over his heart, and to pray that he be not led into temptation, and would it be no snare and temptation to Mr. T. to be frequently employed in baptising maids naked? me thinks the very mention of it saith he, could I avoid it is immodest, and what it may be to all sorts of spectators I stand not to express;  
Besides all this saith he, it is likely to raise jealousies in Ministers wives and others, and so to foment continual dissensions, and it will make the ministry a scandal, and make the people look on them as so many vile incontinent men, if auricular confession brought that infamy, no wonder if ordinary baptising naked do it.  
Further, it would debauch the people, and bereave them generally of all common modesty, if once it grows into custom to behold each others nakedness, and sure that practice is not of God, which so directly tends to bereave men of all common civility, modesty, ingenuity and humanity:  
Moreover, it would make the worship of God ridiculous, would not vain young men come to a baptising to see the nakedness of maids, and make a mere jest and sport of it?  
Moreover the practice of baptising naked would bring a general reproach upon the Christian profession among the enemies of it, and discredit the truth, for when Christians have the repute of Adamites, who will turn Christians? sober men will be loath to take a woman to wife that hath the impudence to show herself naked to an assembly, and would esteem it next to taking one from the stews.  
If they shall say to all this, as Mr. Tombs said in his Sermon, it is not necessary they be naked, I reply saith he,  
First if it be next to naked the difference is not great, and the former inconveniences will follow, and God would not have the jews go up by steps on his altar, lest their nakedness be discovered thereon, Cam was cursed for beholding his father's nakedness, Christ tells us it is adultery to look on a woman to lust after her; the Scripture forbids filthiness, and uncleanness, as not to be named among Saints.  
Secondly, such as would have them wholly, or mostly covered differ from their partners, and to dip them covered will overthrow their own arguments, for the necessity of washing the whole body, for this will be no washing but a soaking or steeping, if they stay in long enough, it may wash the garment, but the body will be but infused in all likelihood, and so I leave this unsavoury practice, which were it not necessary to confute I should not meddle with it.  
But in these last cases we dispute not against bare words, but against experiences, and known practices, for their naked baptising is a known thing, and the wickedness that hath followed on some, and that some have died on't, and I would saith he, have others more wise, and escape both dangers, only let me say saith he, thus much more that it is very suspicious, and to me unsavoury that Mr. T. should say no more, bu●… that it is not necessary they should be baptised naked, and in cold water, as if he took it to be lawful, but not necessary: me thinks he should rather have given his testimony against it, as sinful, and expressed some dislike, if he ●…e do indeed dislike it, and judge it sinful, and if he do not, I dare say he is very far gone: one may see what you are by the words of these men, who have here set you out in your colours, so that I hope all, that read or hear what they say, will rather abhor then adore your dipping doings, and if you were not a people past all shame and sense of sin, me thinks you should abhor yourselves in dust and ashes, at the remembrance of your abominable baseness in this particular; yea give me leave to say one word more to you, who were a minister once that did baptise infants, and it is the words of Mr. Baxter to Mr. Tombs p. 255. I conjecture that by that time you have baptised half as many maids and women naked in a cold River, as you have baptised infants like an officiating Priest, your feet will either take cold, or your heart will take heat: if you would be ruled by me you should not endeavour to introduce into the Church a custom for every young minister or neighbour, so much as to look on a bathing Bathsheba or Susanna, lest to those without, the name of a Church and a stews, a Presbyter and a Pander, a Christian and a fornicator, do prove Synonimaes.   

Baptist.  
To those without? I wonder who those are? those without your Church must be out of the Nation too for aught I know, and cannot well see what is done by you in it: but to let that pass.  
Here is thunder enough, but no lightning, a shrill sound but an empty barrel; such is Mr. Baxters' book indeed, specially this twofold fardel about murder and adultery, in which whether there be more noise or nonsense I know not, but sure I am there is ten times more twittle-com-twattle than truth: this doctrine would make a terrible tumbling in a Country Church as they say, and make all the people amazed to hear what manner of men these Anabaptists be, but he that sleeps there with his eyes open, will be stunned no more at the hearing of this clamour, then by the barking of the bells in the steeple; I must needs confess that this is matter of weight indeed, and a stone is heavy, and the sand weighty, but a fool's wrath is heavier than them both: this soon shot bolt is big enough to hure where it hits, but as it happens it hits not us: and so happens to hurt them most that manage it; as for us, against whom it is managed, it rejoices us rather than otherwise, sith it reproaches and reviles, and says all manner of evil against us falsely for Christ's sake Mat. 5. 11. 12. 1 Pet. 4. 13. 14. 15. if our dipping were such evil doing i. e. murder and adultery as these men say it is, we had reason to hang down our heads indeed, and might well be ashamed in suffering from them in this particular, but sith as Paul said Act. 24. 13. they cannot prove the things whereof they accuse us, we are not ashamed, but glorify God on this behalf.  
Of these two accusers of the brethren Mr. Cook is more candid, and a little more modest than the other, and yet he utters so much that he hath much reason to be ashamed of it, for howbeit he does not so audaciously charge us with that foul fact of naked dipping as the other doth, yet by some simple supposals,  
First, that persons cannot be rightly baptised by dipping with a garment on [as if they may not be put under, and covered and buried therein clothed aswell as naked, and as if a soaking or steeping in water (Mr. baxter's bald conceit of our dipping) were not a washing or burying.]  
Secondly that it is as unwarrantable to baptise garments, as 'tis for the Papists to baptise bells [as if those that baptise persons in garments, did as directly, and intentionally baptise garments, as the papists do baptise bells, or as if it were more unwarrantable for us to wet the clothes, that persons are baptised in, when we baptise their bodies, then 'tis for the priests to wet the head clothes of infants when they rantize their faces.]  
By such silly supposals I say as these that there can be no true total dipping, unless the persons be unclothed, he subtly insinuates the world into a certain supposition, at least a shrewd suspicion that dipping naked is the only baptism dispensed among us, for which he'll once be ashamed; but as for Mr. Baxter he is so uningenuous, impudent and uncivilly foolish in this present parcel of his, you have here spread before us, that I profess against it as having in it much falseness, and more immodesty than I ever saw expressed at the total dipping of any person that ever I saw dipped in my life: for he not only makes a long supervacaneous discourse of his dislike of dipping women and maids naked (in which is such a needless and over often nomination of those terms too, as tends more to the offending of chaste, and corrupting of unchaste consciences, then to any use of edifying at all) but also most rashly relates it to the whole world to be the usual, ordinary known practice of a people, that are as abhorrent of such abominations as himself.  
As for his Argument it is a fallacy called Ignoratio Elenchi, for he concludes not the point in question, for they, who stand most for baptising by total dipping, are all (for aught that ever I heard of) as much against naked dipping as himself: yea so far are we all, (if any had been otherwise minded Mr. Baxter would surely have assigned them, whose design was to vilify us what he could, so far are we all from countenancing such a practice, that I dare, in the name of all the Churches of the Baptists through England, declare their unanimous utter detestation of it, in Mr. baxter's own words, viz that it is a breach of the seventh Commandment, an in●…ollerable wickedness, an immodest action, an incitement to uncleanness, likely enough to raise jealousies in Ministers wives, yea and other women's husbands too, and so to foment continual dissension, a means to debauch people, and berea●… them of all common civility, modesty, ingenuity, and humanity, to turn God's worship into contempt, and make it merely ridiculous, to bring a general reproach upon the Christian profession among all the enemies thereof, yea amongst the most sober and discreet, to discredit the truth, and prejudice men against it; yea verily 'tis scandal, reproach and discredit enough, in that it is but belied by Mr. Baxter to be so base, how much more, and more justly would it be reproached, if his reports were as true as they are full of falsehood; we I say acknowledge the practice of naked dipping to be as bad, as Mr. Baxter proves it to be, therefore quorsum haec? to what purpose doth he with such prolixity proceed to prove, what no sober minded man of either party doth deny?  
This is aliud a nogate; a plain absurd aberration from the question, which is not whether it be a sin ordinarily to dip naked or no? but whether we ordinarily use that kind of dipping?  
The first which none doubts of, he endeavours to make evident as one that light●… a candle, whereby to show men that the sun shines.  
The second, which is unknown utterly among us, he proclaims to be our usual' notorious, known practice: but he offers no proof of this at all.  
Such silly Sophistry as this Mr. Baxter uses also in almost every of these Arguments, whereby he professes to disprove our practice as unwarrantable, concluding all along another point than that in question; for whereas our tenet is that persons at years, professing to believe, of what parents so ever born, are to be baptised, he most simply, and sinisterly concludes against us, as he supposes, in a matter of four or five Arguments that the children of Christians may not be baptised when they come to years, and that this practice of baptising of Christians children is utterly unconsistent with the Rule of Christ: as for us we say as much, neither is it our practice or opinion to baptise Christians children at age, upon that account merely, as they are Christians children any more than the children of them that are no Christians, unless they profess to be believers and Christians themselves as their parents do, and upon that account, viz. as they profess to believe, we baptise heathens children as soon as them.  
Thus the man busies himself beyond measure in beating the air, and wearies himself ad ravim usque, and his reader ad nauseam in refuting non entities, about the proof of such things as no body denies, and per ignorationem Elenchi concludes that, which is as clear to his Antagonists as to himself, and leaves that utterly undemonstrated, which is the only thing denied by them, the absurdity of whose way he pretends it to be his business to discover.  
For verily those, against whom he fights under the name of Anabaptists, are as clear in it as he can be, that no Christians child qua talis is to be baptised when he comes to years, saving upon the same account, on which an heathens child may be at years so baptised as well as he, viz. his own personal profession of faith, and desire of baptism.  
Again they hold dipping naked to be intolerable wickedness as well as he, yet these things he belabours himself not a little in making good, but that which is denied indeed, viz. that it is our usual practice to dip women and maids naked, this he charges us with most stoutly, most desperately, and tells a tale of us most absurdly to the base abusing of himself, the true Church, and the whole world also, but he is so impertinent, and impertinently employed in proving naked dipping to be a sin, that he either forgets, or has no while to prove it to be practised by us at all,  
But Si●… who, but he that sees the right eye of the idol shepherd to be u●…ely darkened, would ever think that from such a man as Mr. Ba. desires to be accounted, such a piece of paltry should proceed, that such a mess of balterdash as here is should ere be broached by him, that such a mad report of the walkers in truth should be published by one that goes for a publisher of the truth among thousands of deluded people?  
Me thinks I see Satan gone forth and become a lying spirit in the mouths of the prime among their prophets, persuading and in the just judgement of God prevailing with multitudes of mere formal Gospelers to be strongly deluded, and to believe lies out of their mouths that they may be damned, because they receive not the truth, that was trodden down for 42 months, and now rises again and shines forth, in the love thereof that they may be saved, but have pleasure in unrighteousness and superstition and have no pleasure in the truth.  
Me thinks I see National Ministers of singular piety in people's eyes prove men of singular pravity, singularly bewitched into an implicit belief of the base tales that vain fellows raise of the way of truth, and singularly bewitching their people into implicit belief of them, that so it is as they say, that neither Priest nor people may obey the truth, but both stumble, and fall and be broken, and snared, and taken, and ashamed each of other in the end.  
Good Lord how is the practice of the truth made a reproach unto thy people, and a derision daily? for I have heard the defaming of many, report say they, and we will report it, possess the pulpit and make the Priest believe it, and then all the Country shall ring out, and the people soon be diabolized into the faith on't; but hear ye rude reprochers of that people, that are reprovers of the ways, whereby you run a whoring from the Lord, you shall not prevail by such sleights, such plausible pretences, you shall be greatly ashamed, you shall not prosper, and, unless you repent of your belying the truth of God, your everlasting confusion, shall never be forgotten.  
It is too bad to be credulous to flying reports, worse so violently to vent them, worst of all malevolently to ●…invent them, I dare not say, nor dare I deem Mr Ba. to be guilty of the last, but of the two first I cannot clear him, sith I perceive that he takes it for a truth that we ordinarily dip naked, and thereupon disputes against it as our usual practice, and then not confidently only, but of a certain relates to the whole world that it is no bare word, nor any doubtful thing, but an experience, a known practice: if he can clear himself he hath leave to do it for me, who also summon him in the name of Christ Jesus, whose true disciples he hath done such despite to (the Lord keep him from despiting the spirit of grace) the people of whose love are the people of his wrath, to prove it our practice ordinarily to dip naked, yea to produce but one instance of any women of maids that ever he saw dipped naked in all his days, and I'll abate him much of that I now accuse him of in the court of my conscience, but if he say as indeed he does in effect that he never saw any dipped at all, whilst p. 134. he says that all that ever he saw baptised had water poured on them, how can he say Epertus loquor, it is his experience, he having never so much as seen such a thing, unless it were upon the brazen faced front of Featleyes' book, where he falsely, feignedly, and filthily describes men and women dipping in that fashion, or else upon the Titlepage of Ephraim Pagit, who there paltrily pictures out this people practising, thus and there I believe he hath experienced it, or if he only hath it from the the mouths of such as heard it from the mouths of others, who never saw it, but receive it by tradition as well as he, and that originally ●…o from the mouths of some that made it, and in such a manner very likely it was first bruited, for I am persuaded there was never such a thing done of late in England unless by some Arch Knave and Arrant Whore in way of mockage to the Gospel, which is rather a glory, than a shame to Christ his truth, then let Mr. Ba, bear the blame of his blind blaspheming though people of the everliving God.  
Or if he know indeed that such a thing as baptising maids and women naked hath been done in serious wise by any persons, I further challenge him to make some proof of it, and to print the names of such men as have done it; and such maids and women that have suffered themselves to be dipped naked, and the names of such credible eye witnesses as will testify it as in the fight of God, which if he can, though I shall not give place to him thereupon so as to be satisfied thereby for his overlashing in asserting it to be our practice to dip naked, or for condemning and denominating a whole party, much more their cause, by the defects & abuses of some persons whom the cause disclaims, for then there was 12. devils because one among the twelve, and then what an Augaean stable is your Church of England by many members of which notorious roguery is committed every hour? Yet I shall satisfy him so far as to undertake that the Church, or Churches where such are shall declare every such person as hath wrought such abomination, incommunicable without solemn repentance for that sordid practice, or be themselves incommunicable by all o her Churches.  
But I believe he cannot do it, though I canno●… positively possibly prove a Negative, much more am I confident that he cannot make good his charge against us, viz. that it is our ordinary and usual practice: for besides no less than between one and two hundred, which in gross I can guess at, which with these hands I have baptised, I have seen with these eyes many a one more baptised by others, yet never did I see male or female baptised naked to this hour, nor nex: to naked neither, if I understand Mr. Baxs. meaning in that bawbling phrase of next to naked; Yea I suppose I may safely say my converse for these 5 years together and upward hath been with them that are commonly called Anabaptists, and my business hath been for so long time at least among that people more than I perceive Mr. Baxs. hath, and much more than among any other people, being more or less acquainted with a score of their Congregations, yet howbeit Mr. Blake flings a little at us too, and hath his fingers so far in this spatter, as to say page 8. Those that have put a kind of necessity upon dipping have spoken much of being received naked ●…n bap●…sm,  
I never heard the least speech of such a thing, nor a syllable among them to such a purpose.  
And if Mr. Ba. cannot prove it to be our ordinary known practice to dip naked then in the name of the Lord Jesus before whom he and I shall shortly both appear, I entreat Mr. Ba. who as concerning zeal yet persecutes the Church of God, & pours out reproach upon true Christians, giving his voice for them with as much modesty as Haman Est. 3. 8. as for high way Murderers, alias that they may all suffer execution being through blindness and excaecation exceedingly mad against them, that of an ignorant Saul he would become a seeking, a searching, a seeing, a preaching Paul of the faith, which he hitherto destroys: and though he verily thinks with himself that he ought to do what he does against the truth, yet I beseech him to know that he is but as others have been b●…fore him, zealous of God, but not according to knowledge, sith it is but of the Traditions of his Fathers Gal. 1. 14,  
And sith he avers from his heart page 129. that for his part he neither knows the day nor year when he began to be sincere, no nor the time when he began to profess himself a Christian, in which I believe him, if he mean a Ch●…istian in Scripture sense, I beg of him in the bowels of Christ Jesus, that he would now begin to be sine cerâ a Christian indeed, not by the halves, but altogether, for there is yet a mixture of much wax among his honey, and of much antichristianism in his Christianity, and as sure as he is ignorant when he began to profess to be a Christian, so sure I am that he never yet began to profess to be a Christian in truth, who knows not that ever he was otherwise, but hath and holds his profession as the Turk and Jew do theirs viz. for the true one at a venture, because they were born and bred in it, and received it by Tradition only from forefathers.  
And as he will prove himself to be what he professes to be viz. a hater of ignorant violence, so I advise him to be a hater also of violent ignorance, of which hateful quality in my mind he hath as much as any of the greedy gang, Gangraena itself only excepted, not excepting Dr. Featley, Dr. Bastwick, Mr. Bailiff, Mr Pagit, not any among the proud pack of Prelates, that most perheminently prate against the Gospel.  
And sith Mr. Ba. says this much more that it is very suspicious, and to him unsavoury that Mr. T. should say no more but that it is not necessary that they be baptised naked, as if he took it to be lawful, though not necessary, and thinks he should rather have given his Testimony against it as sinful, and expressed some dislike if he do indeed dislike, and judge it sinful, and if he do not he dare boldly say he is very far gone, let me say thus much more, that then it is as suspicious, and to me unsavoury, that Mr. Ba. should say no more but that it is a breach of the seventh commandment, ordinarily to baptise the naked, as if he took it to be lawful to do it sometimes, but not ordinarily: me thinks he should give his Testimony against it as sinful, to do it at all, and express some dislike if he do indeed dislike and judge it sinful, and if he do not, I dare boldly say he is gone farther in filth, then Mr. T. or any baptised person ever went yet, save such as are gone quite off from the way of truth to the dishonour of it since they owned it, whose sin yet (the more shame for Mr. Ba.) he in his next argument, lays to the truth's charge, and theirs, who both own and honour it by a biding in it, who are less gladly, and more sadly sensible of their sins, and villainies then Mr. Ba. can be, by how much by reason of their lascivivos ways, which many follow, the way of truth they walk in is, as was foretold it should be 2 Pet. 2. 1. 2. 3. by Mr. Ba. and his admirers evil spoken of.  
But if Mr. Ba. shall still say it is suspicious and unsavoury for Mr. T. to say the one, but not for himself to say the other, and will none of the foregoing advice to repent and be baptised, but rather reject the counsel of God against himself being not baptised, because he hath experience (by hearsay) that we baptise females naked, than a rod and a rod for the back of Mr. Baxter, who pardons to himself the same defects, wherein he holds others guilty, who so slenderly takes up every tattle against the truth, and proclaims it for truth to the whole world, for the simple believeth every word, but the prudent man looks well to his going Prov. 14. 15 a prudent man foresees evil and secures himself, but the simple pass on and are punished Prov. 22. 3.  
As for his next and last argument against us which he draws from the judgements of God that ever follow us, wherein he jumbles all kinds of sectaries into the name of Anabaptists as the Antibaptists use commonly to do, witness Featley and others, and makes them bear the burden of all the mischiefs that were ever perpetrated by all the mad brained men in all the world, as john of Leyden and all the rest of his ranting strain, it is scarce current consequence to say God's judgements are upon a people, therefore that people are none of his, for all things come alike to all, & none knows love or hatred by what is before him here Eccl. 8. 14. and the 9 1. 2. 3. yet sith he speaks of ruinating judgements, let the consequence pass as valid, but then his minor is utterly false, for the Anabaptists are not all ruinated yet, nor will be till the Clergy are quite cashiered, as evident as it is that they have every where withered and suddenly come to nought heretofore, and since he speaks of spiritual judgements e. g. that practice saith he hath never helped, but ●…ndred the work of God where it comes, nor hath God blest their ministry to conversion of souls as he hath other men's, but rather they have been instruments of the Church's scandal and misery.  
Secondly, that hath been the inlet to most other vile opinions, few stop at it but go much further, God hath usually given up their societies to notorious scandalous wicked lives, and conversations more than others that profess godliness, and never prospered them so far as to have any established Churches, which should credit the Gospel. I grant that some of these are sad emblems of a people none of Gods, only Mr. Ba. hath here saddled the wrong ass, for this way of baptism hinders only the work of man's Tradition, which would make void the commandment of God, but being itself the work and way of God, is hindered where ere it comes by Priestly malice, preaching Gods fear after precepts of men, nor hath God blessed the national ministry to the true conversion of souls as he hath done theirs, but to the conversion of them to a Gospel of their own making, for repent and be baptised was the Gospel that Peter preached, and that is it that is now practised by us, and how many are converted and baptised accordingly is so evident, that it needs no proof at this hour, but repent and be not baptised is the Gospel the Priesthood preaches, and if you call that conversion, which indeed is confusion, we confess their converts are more more than ours, such instruments of scandal and misery to the true Churches are the Priests in all places by their reproaches, nor is baptism the inlet of any vile opinions any more than the same was in the primitive times, wherein many that were baptised did turn heretics, when they had done, as they do now, but what wise man than imputed it to their baptism? and yet some of those opinions Mr. Ba. calls vile, will be proved to his conscience in due time to be the truth: yet many that are baptised do run out to very vice opinions; and practices no better than their principles, and stop not there indeed as he says, but go much further, and degenerate into ways of wickedness more abominable than ever in former time, and of these Ranters Mr. Copp is none of the least attainers, whom Mr. Ba. p. 148. hath very well set forth in his colours, for I believe God in justice hath given him up, and many other besides him to more notoriousness of error and enormity, than ever any that professed godliness,  
But what then? shall we impute that fault to his being baptised? I trow not; for howbeit M●…. Ba. so imagines, yet it was because he honoured not the truth, when he had owned it, nor walked in Christ after he had received him, in which case how often God gives over to strong delusions is evident, not only by the word, which declares that when men like not to retain God in their knowledge he oft gives them over unto vile affection,  
But also by sad experience in the world in these last times, wherein 2 Pet. 2. 1. 1 Tim. 4 1. and the 2. 3. 1. doctrines of devils are rise among them, that once owned the faith, yet the faith not a whit in fault for all that, but departure from the saith before expressed.  
And that the fall of these men is into worse than ever before, it is no argument against, but rather for the way they newly fall from, the sensuality of such as separate themselves from the true Churches in the later times, i. e. congregational after these are once separated from the false ones i e. the national, being prophesied of 2 Pet. 2. jude 19 of old, that it should be greater than that of all beastly men that were before them; besides corruptio op imi pessima, the higher the rise into reformation, the more desperate the fall into deformation, of those that reform and prove deformed again: that greater depth of hell therefore men fall into that fall from us, proves the height of our Churches to be nearer heaven, than that of yours, for if after they have escaped etc. 2 Pet. 2. 20. 21. 22. when Cop was in his standing in the Church of England, I remember very well, for I knew him better than then ever since, he had some bounds from conscience to his corruption, but having been once enlightened higher than Mr. Baxter ever was yet in the will and way of God, and tasted of the heavenly gift, and made a partaker of the holy spirit, and obeyed the truth as it is in Jesus, and yet fallen away, his conscience is feared with a hot iron, and I have small hope of his renewing against by repentance, who thus denies the Lord that bought him, and cruçifies the Lord afresh, and is twice dead, plucked up by the Roots, a raging wave of the sea foaming out his own shame.  
But what is all this to those that yet walk in truth of baptism, more than to warn them that they depart not from it, as he hath done, lest they come into the same condemnation with him? doth it prove baptism to be the cause of that grossness that often follows, when a person is baptised? in no wise, for his non abiding in the love of the truth and that doctrine of Christ gives God occasion to give over to the height of wickedness.  
I appeal therefore to the conscience of Mr. Baxter,  
1. Whether the Pope may not by as good consequence charge all these errors that are upon Protestanism, saying Thus, the Protestants stop not there, but run out further from Episcopacy to Presbytery, and to Independency, and so to Anabaptism, and so to all? it is true, Protestanism is occasio●… or causa sine qua non, for such as sit still in the smoke of the Pope's Traditions, are not acquainted with the new found fancies of the Ranter, But Protestanism is not the true cause.  
2: Whether Mr. Ba. be so well aware as he should be what time of day it is, when Peter and jude point out these things so plainly; and yet he wonders at them as a Mystery?  
3. Whether the few owning, and the few abiding in the true way of baptism, doth not prove it to be the strait and narrow way that leads to life, which few find?  
4. Whether he think we lay not to heart their misery and madness that run off from us as well as he, and strive not to warn and watch over them as much as he? and if so, why he blames us more than himself, that, do what we can, so many run to ruin? besides some he names were never baptised, though near it, as Mr. Saltmarsh.  
5. Whether it be just to load them that still stick to the truth, with the blame of all their blasphemies that go off from it? T●…s true the way of truth will be evil spoken of by the Priest, by reason of the madness of the false Prophet 2 Pet. 2. 2. but that is aught let every reasonable man examine: The Rantizer renounces his sprinkling, and is baptised in truth, and after renounces that, and runs on to be a Ranter, and then all is reckoned to his baptism: poor truth may say quum remini obtrudi potest, itur ad me: every one shifts it off from himself, and truth must carry the scandal, and baptism bear the burden of all: the Priest and his people are they by whom, the false Prophet and his people they by reason of whom the way we walk in is evil spoken of but vae illis per quos, vae illis presertim propter quos, veritatis via blaspemabitur, quam optimum esset utrisque, si nati non fuissent: Mat. 18. 7. & 26. 14. 2 Pet. 2. 2.  
What force therefore is in this Argument to conclude against the truth of our way? yea what absurdity is in all Mr. baxter's Arguments against us you see, in all which he sits beside the cushion, yea and indeed the whole bulk of them is nothing but a thing full of emptiness.   

Rantist.  
I would fain see you answer that book as nothing as it is, I believe it is more than ever will be answered by any to any purpose.   

Baptist.  
First, there is a great part of his book needs no answering from us, being such an absurd aberration from what we hold and practise in contradistinction to him, to other things, which he undertakes to disprove, though we (and who doth not?) do join with him fully in them, and do hold as he does, as namely, almost all those 7 or 8 Arguments from page 125. to page 138. wherein he spends himself mostly in declaring against judgements and practices, that are no more ours, nor any ones else, that I know of, more than his own: for who holds Christian's children quâ Christians children, i. e. without their own personal profession of faith, and Christianity, in which case heathens children may be baptised also, are to be baptised when they come to years, any more than the children of heathens?  
Again, who holds or practices such a thing as naked dipping of women and maids? not I, nor any man breathing under heaven I imagine, nor will any wise man be coxcombd into the belief of it that 'tis our practice I hope, because Mr. Ba. disputes against it as ours, yet these are the main matters argled against well nigh in all those pages, yea if he prove the baptism of Christians children at years ordinarily to be against rule, 'tis fully sufficient against the Anabaptists, faith he, if we had not a word more against them, the man feigns adversaries to himself, and finds himself work with them, and takes on and lays about him like a Thatcher, and fights, and fences against his foes when he hath none at all about him.  
Secondly, much if not more than a third part of it, viz. from p. 262. to p. 286. consists almost universally in a particular private public prate to Mr. Tombs in vindication of himself from Mr. Tombs' valedictory vindication of himself from Mr. Baxs. abuses of him, which tedious, mixed, blattering recrimination, and red-argumentation, if any save Mr. Tombs himself, whom it so personally relates to, shall trouble himself with from better employment, and the world with any more reply to, than the Lord rebuke him, he hath more time than wisdom profitably to improve it.  
Thirdly much if not much more than a third part of the residue, viz. from p. 289. to 338. he spends in division with other divines for pleading and practising baptism to infants from other grounds and principles and to other ends and purposes than himself doth, as namely, from Tradition, and yet in order to baptismal regeneration, as Mr Bedford, who is fain to fly to tradition for proof of infant baptism, and yet holds that baptism doth really as an instrumental efficient cause confer, and effect the grace of regeneration of nature on infants, which Mr Bedford, Dr. Burges, Dr. Ward, together with Mr. Baxter himself, and I know not how many more Divines, in the meandrous multitudinous mist of whose pro and con opinions a man may sooner lose himself then find the truth, are all o'er the tops of the boots in dissentaneous discourses about a business called baptismal regeneration, the quiddity, quantity, and commodity of which none ens, of which nonsense, as to infants, is so curiously pried into, and learnedly inquired after by them, that it is not for every ordinary body, that hath no more learning than Peter and john had, who never Scholasticallized the plain Gospel out of the reach of plain men and poor folks, as our Rabbis now adays do, to come within a mile or two of their meaning; some divining on this wise, some on that, some one thing, some another, some that baptism is instituted to work the first grace in infants, i. e. habitual, but not in men, in whom the first grace is prerequired, as Mr. Bedford, some thwarting that by this reason, that baptism cannot have two different uses to men and infants, and yet saying with all, that it may be for some ends to the Aged, for which it is not to infants, as Mr. Baxter, some saying that baptism is a Physical, some a Metaphysical, some a Hiperphysical instrument to convey real grace into infants, the spirit working it in them thereby naturally, or rather supernaturally, as Mr. Bedford who holds that it really conveys grace on all infants elect, or non elect, and Dr. Burges, who yet differs and subdivides from him, holding that it conveys grace on the elect infants only, and not on the non-elect, some that baptism is only a moral instrument, and the spirit neither a Physical nor Hyperphysical, but a moral Agent in baptism, signifying and so working on the souls, sealing and conveying no real grace, but relative grace, i. e. right to the real, as Mr. Baxter, who saith that real true grace and change of mind is to go before baptism, as a condition both in the institution, and every example of baptism through all the bible, therefore not to be conveyed in it, this Mr. Baxter proveth by the institution Math. 28. 18. Mark 16. and by the examples of the jews, Samaritans, the Eunuch, Paul, Lydia, the jailor, the Corinthians, who all did gladly receive the word, repent and believe, and then and thereupon only were baptised p. 300. and because all this is exclusive of infants, who have no faith nor grace (for to the utter confutation of the Ashford Disputers, who say infants in their infancy have faith and the spirit of grace, and that apparently enough, the Scripture making it plainly appear concerning them)  
Mr. Baxter professeth that it is utterly unknown to any man on earth and unrevealed in the word, whether God give infants any inherent spiritual grace or not p 301.  
Therefore to salve his baptism of infants that have not that grace, and faith in them, that is prerequired to be in persons to be baptised, as a condition, he very goodly tells us that by grace and faith being prerequired, as a condition, he means either in the party or another for him, so than though infants have no faith in themselves yet o mirandum! they have faith in the loins, i. e. in the hearts of their parents, and so are to be baptised, they are buried in the dipping of the Ministers hand saith Featley, and believe by the faith of their Parents, saith Mr. Baxter.  
Thus oh how these men, who more stink of the Schools than skill in the Scriptures, are at variance about their own inventions, bending their brains some one way, some another, to botch up their business of infant-baptism, and yet, as fast as one builds up, another of them saves us a labour, and razes and pulls down to our hands; oh what stoch, what stuff, what stirs, what strife, what stickling, what striking flatly against each others principles, what a ditty, what a do is here among them? as if the Divines were all mad: so let all the fraternity of divines be divided o God, and fall out ever about their own falsities, till they find thy truth, and never let them agree better among themselves on what account to baptise infants, till they (ashamed of themselves, and people ashamed of waiting on the Seers for determination of what is truth) be all driven to confess as (blessed be thy name) Mr. Baxter doth already p. 301. That they find it a hard controversy to prove infant baptism it is so dark in the Scripture, much more a hard task to prove different uses of it to men and infants, as needs they must if they prove it to be of use to infants, for it signifies not at all to them as it does to men, and so to conclude, to the freeing of themselves from that puzzle and perplexity, and fire of contention that now they fry in, for their hatred of that one only plain way of truth that leads to piece, that verily 'tis not thy will that any infant at all should be baptised; and let Mr. Ba. who was once in doubt of infant baptism, upon sight of the slender grounds that other divines did hold it from, till satan seduced him back again to the belief of it again, be persuaded, if it be thy will, on sight of the more weak and slender principles, which with much ado he hath found out, whereon to satisfy himself and others, and to sit still in the shadow of that superstition, to be not almost only, but altogether, saving their sufferings from him, such as thy servants are, whom he yet vilifies what he can.  
As then to Mr. Baxters' Appendix of Animadversions on Mr. Bedford's, Dr. Burges, and Dr. Wards absurdities about baptismal regeneration of infants, 'tis no matter to us, yea I conceive it a likely means of itself to make wise men renounce Infants baptism, that read there at what odds they are, and how they wrangle among themselves that own it; beside sith he that passing by meddles with a strife not belonging to him is like one that takes a dog by the ears Pro. 26. 17. isle pass by for my part, and not meddle with it at all.  
Fourthly, another part of Mr. Baxters' book is a small slender tract of about one leaf long penned in proof of baptisms a biding a standing ordinance of Christ to the world's end, and therein so far am I from excepting and contradicting, that I rather approve it, & considering the high head of contradiction that in this last loose age already is, and within a while much more, and more headily will be made against it, and how the subtlety of Satan is such that sith he can uphold his kingdom now no longer by his old soldiers t●…e Rantizers, which changed the laws and ordinances of Christ's kingdom, he seeks to do it by erecting a new moddle, of men, I mean the seekers, and Ranters, who race the very foundations of it, and how sith he can prevail no more to deceive the nations from the narrow way of truth by his old Spiritualty the spiteful Priest, he hath spit a new Spiritualty out of his mouth, from which as from a greater Carnalty than the other, the earth, that it may be ripe for the sickle as it must be at Christ's coming, shall abound with abomination i e. they that separate themselves from the true Church after their separation with them from the false, sensual having not the spirit, yet pretending more highly to it then ever any, considering all this, I ●…ay, I seriously side with Mr. Ba. as to that subject, and to show him, who simply supposes we are all a people posting towards the pulling down of Christ's ordinances, because some do, and because all of us, as we are sworn to it, seek what we are able to pull down men's, to show him I say notwithstanding his conceits to the contrary, how close we keep according to the counsel both of Peter and jude in that behalf 2 Pet. 3. 2. jude 17. to the commandments of Christ and his Apostles in these last days, wherein they declare that others should depart from and despise them, to show him also how little reason he hath to charge us with their evils, who are (to use his own phrase p. 26.) above ordinances i e. above obedience to God, and so Gods themselves, I intent God willing before this work escape my hand, that is now under it to bestow some few lines on the same subject, having been often requested to it by others in vindication to the truth.  
Fifthly, as for the forepart of Mr. Baxs. book, for more than a fourth part of it is worn out in Pream●…ular passages, apologies, epistles to the Church at Kederminster, at Bewdley, which Churches alias parishes of Ked. and Bew. (for all the people, till of late that some few have separated themselves together to Mr. T. are Church-members with Mr. Ba. in those two places p. 280) which parishes I say howbeit, sowing pillows that they may sl●…ep themore securely in superstition,  
Mr. Ba. by a dedication of his doings to the C●…urch at Ked. to the Church at Bew. would feign flatter into a faith, that each of them is a Church of jesus Christ, yet I must crave leave to inform those Churches from Christ, that as yet they are no other than Churches of the Pope's calling and constitution; for the parochial posture of Christening, and so inchurching of all that are born within the bounds, and barely abide within the preincts of the parish, had its order from the head of those Churches viz. the Vicar of Christ; but not at all from Christ jesus himself, yea and though there may be many honest men in both Ked. and Bewdley, among whom if Mr. Ba. be one it shall not grieve me at all, yet according to Dr. Featleys, nor yet according to Mr. Baxs. own definition, who say a true visible Church is a particular company of men professing the Christian faith, known by two marks viz. t●…e sin●…ere preaching of the word, and due administration of the Sacraments Dr. Featly p. 4. or a society of persons separated from the world to God, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 called out of the world etc. Mr. B. p. 87. neither of those two parishes are true visible Churches of jesus Christ, for neither were they ever yet called out of the world, or separated from the world to God in that wise i e: by such means, and in such manner as Christ's Church is i. e. by the pure preaching, of the word and pure power of God, but rather by the power of the word of man i e. partly of the Pope, and partly of the civil sword in this nation of old, under a penalty imposing upon them their present posture; nor is the word preached to them to this hour sincerely by Mr. Ba. or any other parish minister, who unless he sing a new song will make them no more a Church of Christ than he found them, but with wonderful much mixture of man's invention; yea the fear of▪ God is taught by him according to the precepts of men, much less are the Sacraments rightly administered, for their baptism is no baptism at all.  
And as touching separation, I know but three separations they have had since they stood under the name of Christian Churches, answerable to the different Christian Religions, of point blank Papism, prelatical Prostantanism, and present Presbyterianism, which the parishes have passed under since they have been Parishes, viz. a Presbyterian separation by appointment of the present Parliament, who on pain of their displeasure commanded all to separate from the lesser superstitions of episcopal forms, ceremonies, services, to a finer and more directorian▪ kind of Protestant profession; a general Protestant separation by the Appointment of our english state under K. Ed. and Q. Eliz. who commanded all on pain of their displeasure to separate from the Romish grosser superstitions, Pope's Supremacies, mass and other Marian opinions and professions, also a parochial and a paropopical separation, or distinct oppidal division of their particular selves from each other, and all other particular Churches i 〈◊〉. Towns besides themselves, by the appointment of the Pope and his Subs and Subsubs viz. Christian Emperors, Kings and Princes, who when they threw down their Crowns, and gave up all their power to make one beast called Christiendome, and themselves and theirs to be ruled and reigned over wholly by the whore at her will, did both separate all Christendom from the world, and then sub-separate it into many smaller Christendomes, and constituted Churches i. e, national provincial, parochial: and thus Ked. and Bew. first began to be Churches, or societies visibly separated from the world viz. by the call of the Pope, who separated one parish from another; but Christ's Churches had another separation i. e. by the word barely preached, and not by outward force imposed, they were called to faith in Christ, and baptism, not Rantism, into his name for remission of sins, and after that continued in the Apostles doctrine, and in fellowlowship one with another, not forced, but free, and in breaking of bread and prayers: these are the Churches to which as then, so now the Lord adds daily such as shall he saved, and therefore I must tell Mr. Ba. and the honest men in either Ked. or Bew. that are of Mr. Bs. beg●…iling that except they repenting both for and from their dead works, and their vain conversation in point of baptism, worship, Church-fellowship &c received by Tradition from their fathers, and their unadvised zeal in siding to smite Christ with reproaches thorough the sides of the true Churches, be baptised better than ever they have been, and do as those did in Act. 2. which as no infant than did so now none can do, they have neither the true matter nor the true form constitutive of the visible Church of Christ, yea so many of them only as shall gladly receive the word, which infants cannot do, and yet may do well enough too, neither that nor walking in fellowship being required of them, as it is of others, and be baptised according to his will, shall be owned as the true visible Church of Christ in these two parishes as Christ's appearing.  
Sixthly, the residue of Mr. Bs. book which coutaines his arch argumentation from three principles for infant's baptsm viz. their discipleship, Church-membership and rightship of being dedicated unto Christ, is for the most part, to the satisfaction of any that are minded to own the truth, though not so intentionally in way of formal answer to Mr. Ba. so fully and effectually enervated before, where the same arguments, as they are used by others, are examined, that it could amount to no other than superfluity, and Tautology to answer them over again, because they are urged in another, that is a more pedantic for me by him, whose work is not at all to produce any new principles from which to prove the point, but only to improve more largely in a way of labour more long than strong, to manage more formally in a way of hipothetical syllogism, and to drive on more furiously these few old ones; therefore excuse me, specially since Mr. T. hath given reply some while since, who is more strictly concerned in it, if I am loath, unless there were more need than Mr. B●…xs. new triming up of two or three old arguments ministers thereunto, to begin and play over the whole game again; I know a trick worth two of that viz. to refer you to what is already written by Mr. T. and what I have said myself above, and my friend thereby be admonished, for to make many books, much more upon one subject is to no end, and mu●…h study is a weariness to the flesh, yet a general return I may chance to give, and some brief reply to his arguments in particular.  
The truest general verdict I can give of it, if I may speak my judgement without offence, is this, it is a three footed stool, the legs of which are all lame, and decrepit made by Mr. B●…x. for the people of Ked. and Bewd. to sit at ease on, in that popish posture and practice, in which truth being hid for ages and generations, both they and all Christendom have been housed, and out of which Christ Jesus is now about to storm them; it is a tree shooting forth with three Trunks against the truth, whereof the middlem●…st which is the main, runs out 〈◊〉 ramos, ramulos, & ramus●…ulos so many smaller boughs, twigs, and twiggles, and lays itself forth at large into such a train of Trivials, so many littles to the purpose, that he will find himsel●… gre●…t store of small business, that does more than think his think to his own self of each particular odd conceit, that is in it, or that alkes to the world of it any more than in the general, and in the lump.  
In the lump therefore I say in the sincerity of my soul, as in the sight of God, I see not what to style it more suitably to itself in short, than a lump of Logical superfluity, a system of Syllogistical simplicity, wherein the man mannages his war like some fresh man that is newly metriculated into the faculty of Logicking in mood and figure, that delights to hear himself syllogise out every syllable, as he hath scribbled it over afore hand, and treasured it up in his papers; so he comes out with a huge heap of hypotheticals, arguing at a vast distance from the business of baptism, and some times ex suppos●… is non supponen lis too, as if he would fetch infant baptism from far, sith 'tis so dark in Scripture, as he confesses it is, that he cannot have it ●…igh at hand, proving more roundly then sound, in a great circumference of consequence upon consequence, syllogism upon syllogism thus, if this than that, if this than that, if this than that, but this therefore that; when not seldom neither this nor that is true; but will you hear the conclusion of the whole matter? it is this.  
ma. If some infants be disciples, and churchmembers, and to be devoted to God therefore to be baptised.  
mi. But so they are,  
Therefore to be baptised.  
To which besides the sequel of the Major, which I shall show to be utterly false, i'll prove the Minor false by the prosecution of this Syllogism.  
If infants be neither disciples in any sense, much less that in Mat. 28 nor church members of a Gospel Congregation, nor are to be devoted to God in such a sense as the Jewish males, than not to be baptised;  
But so they are not,  
Ergo, not to be baptised.  
As for his Mediums whereby he Argues infants to be disciples, they are so frivolous and foolish, that a very child may be ashamed of them.  
The first, which is taken out of Act. 15. 10. is so abundantly declared to be absurd before, that I need not clear it further, and therefore I'll say the less to it here, he argues thus viz.  
Those i. e. all those on whom the false teachers would have put the yoke of circumcision were disciples,  
But some of those on whom they would have laid that yoke were infants.  
Ergo infants are disciples.  
The Major of which is a foundation so false and infirm, that I stand amazed at it that a man of Logic should dare to lay it, yet well nigh every one of you builders lay it as your basis, from whence you divine a discipleship to infants, and thereon build the business of their baptism, as Doctor Featley, Mr. Martial and others, yea who would think it? inter scribendum while I am a writing this very line in Answer to Mr. Bax. there is a triste brought to my hands of a sheet and a half, piping hot from the press, penned by Mr. Simpson of Marden, son to that Mr. Simpson of Bethersden, whose private letters I answered above, styled a sovereign preservative against Anabaptism, in which there is nihil novi, no news at all, for 'tis a furtive collection of some few fraggments out of other men viz. Mr. Blake, the Ashfordian dispute and others, which all are also more then enough enervated before, whereupon I shall trouble myself no further than thus with that toy, the author whereof in his epistle to the Anabap●…sts, as he calls them, about Marden, tells strange stories of his being stormed on every side, and almost tired out with onsets and oppositions from their private letters, and among the rest he minds them how he had once to do with a host of them viz. September the tenth 1649. in which conflict myself, who was more than an eye witness, though much inferior to a worthy brother then in presence also, viz. Mr. Blackwood, and therefore far from arrogating to myself the title of Champion, with which he smites me in his Margin, can testify how uncivilly and shamefully the man stormed against the truth, insomuch that unless he repent of the mad-blind, harebrained zeal he then expressed, many, if not most of that Auditory he then interrupted, whether he remember them of it or no, will surely never forget it while they live.  
In which book,, I say as there is no new Argument, so to be sure there is this old Argument, as well as some more, translated out of Mr. Bax. or some other, whereby to prove infant's discipleship p. 20. because the false Teachers would have put the yoke of circumcision on them.  
But Sirs what though they would have put the yoke on the disciples necks, will it therefore follow that they were all disciples on whose necks they would have put the yoke? me thinks it should not, if you look well about you, any more than this, viz.  
Augustus Caesar put the yoke of Tribute on all the Jews, i e. taxed all the Jews,  
Ergo, all they were Jew's whom Augustus taxed.  
Nay verily had it been said they would have put the yoke of circumcision on all the disciples, as it is not, yet would it not have held Retro that therefore all those on whom they would have put the yoke were disciples, but in very deed neither of those was true, for as it was not all the disciples on whom they would have put that yoke, for they did not teach that women should be circumcised, so all were not disciples on whom they would have put that yoke, for male infants not being capable to be taught cannot possibly be disciples at all, much less such disciples as are meant in that place, of whom it is most evident that they were taught verse 1.  
Much more might be said in disproof of this foolish fancy but that enough is spoken to it before, yet this is the first Medium whereby Mr. Bax. bends himself to make it good that some infants are disciples, and his other are as mean to the full as this, he proves it next by a disjunctive thus,  
If infants be not disciples, it is either because they are uncapable so to be, or else because God will not show them such a mercy.  
But neither of these can be the cause,  
Ergo, some infants are disciples.  
To which I answer that 'tis not because God will not show them so great a mercy, for most undoubtedly the Lord shows far greater mercy than that, though not that to infants that die in infancy, for he saves them and gives unto them everlasting life, and admits them into the Kingdom of Heaven, and as for that bare simple notion, outward account and denomination of disciples, what extraordinary great mercy is that I wonder if it be abstracted from the other? 'tis not so great a mercy but persons may have it, and yet be damned for all that, nor so great a mercy, but that the mercy of God may be as great to them without it, nor so great as that they are capable of any more benefit by it from the Church, or from their parents, than they are capable of if they have it not, they may be prayed for by the Church and by their parents full as much, and be brought up by them in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, not only as well, but much better, when they are capable of being disciples, and instructed, though in infancy neither counted disciples, nor baptised, as if they were supposed to be disciples before they are taught,  
It is therefore because they are not capable to be discipled in their nonage, and the true reason why they are not capable, is that which Mr. T. alleged, and alas that it should not satisfy Mr. Bax. viz. because they cannot learn what is taught them.  
Mr. Bax. knowing that, fetches a compass about another way whereby to prove them capable to be disciples, viz. their being servants of Christ, and subjects of Christ's Kingdom, and thirdly their belonging to Christ, but what a pitiful piece of proof, what a mess of miserable mistake is this, as if to belong to Christ, to be Christ's subject, God's servant, and Christ disciple were convertable, and altogether one and the same, whereas howbeit it cannot be denied but that every disciple of Christ belongs to Christ, and is his Subject, and God's servant, yet that every one who may be said to belong to Christ, to be God's servant, and his Subject, is Christ's disciple cannot be asserted without more absurdity, then Mr. Bax. is willing to take notice of in himself, for Mr. T. gives him an Item of it plain enough, for any reasonable man to consider of, but he is deaf to it through a mind forestalld against the truth.  
He tells us that infants are capable to be God's servants Levit. 25. 41. 42. and therefore consequently Christ's disciples, and consequently to be baptised, for disciples and Gods servants signify the same thing, denote the same persons, and that there is the same capacity requisite to both p. 18. 19 yea if there be a difference saith he, there is more required to a servant then to a diseiple, but what wretched evidence is here, when as there's nothing more clear, and palpably evident, than this, that more is required to make a disciple then a servant, yea verily the consequence holds sound from Christ's disciple, to God's servant, but from God's servant to Christ's disciple, which is his way of arguing a very novice may see it rotten, and invalid: there is enough in all the creatures, the earth and heavens, which as books, wherein we may read it, though not as men that make any verbal narration of it, declare the glory of God Ps. 19 1. to denominate them Gods servants Psa. 119. 91. Nebucad. Nezar had enough to denominate him God's servant Ier 43. 10. as Mr. T. truly tells him, but not enough to denominate him Christ's disciple.  
Yea I appeal to Mr. Ba. own conscience, whether at that time, when Christ exercised his ministry among the jews, the whole Nation of the jews as well as those he mentions out of Levit. 25. 41. and in the self same sense with those, were not, jure Redemptionis by right of his Redemption of them from Egypt, the servants of God, had relatively a peculiar people to himself, yet how few of them were Christ's disciples viz. those only that attended to his law, in which respect though he style all Israel his servants, yet he distinguishes those few only from the rest that hearkened not to his law, by the denomination of his disciples Isaiah 8. 16.  
And whereas he says of infants may they not be called Gods servants from the mere interest of dominion that God hath to them? p. 20.  
I answer, who doubts of that? but may they thereupon be called disciples, and be baptised? if so then from the mere interest of dominion that God hath to all men, all men may be called Gods servants, as well as they, and so consequently be baptised as Christ's disciples.  
He tells us further p. 21. that infants are capable of being subjects of Christ's kingdom, taking kingdom not in the larger sense, as it contains all the world, nor in the strictest as it containeth only his elect, but in a middle sense as it contains the visible Church, therefore consequently capable of being Christ's disciples, and of baptising; and to prove the antecedent viz. that they are subjects of Christ's kingdom i. e. members of the visible Church, he uses this medium, they are capable of being subjects in any kingdom on earth, and therefore why not of Christ's kingdom saith he i. e. of the visible Church of Christ?  
Now if this be a good consequence, they are capable to be subjects in any Kingdom on earth and therefore to be subjects of Christ's Kingdom i. e. his Church, than the infants of heathens as well as these, being capable to be subjects in any Kingdom on earth, are consequently as capable to be subjects of Christ's Kingdom and Church, and consequently to be Christ's disciples, and in their infancy to be baptised, but Mr. Baxter himself will say non sequitur unto this.  
He tells us further that Christ would have some infants i e. believers infants, for those he means, to be received as disciples, therefore some infants i e. such are his disciples.  
To prove the antecedent he jumbles together a number of places out of Mat. Mark and Luke viz. Mat. 18. 5. the 10. 42. Mark. 9 41. Luke 9 47. 48. in one of which places because Christ says of a child, who so shall receive this child in my name receiveth me, by comparing this place with the rest, where Christ says to his disciples, and of them also, not of infants, whoso shall give to you a cup of water in my name, because you belong to Christ, or as Matthew hath it in the name of a disciple, he shall not lose his reward, he gathers that some i. e. believers infants are disciples, and to be received to baptism, as such, for saith he, in Christ's name, and as Christ's disciple, and as belonging to Christ are all one in Christ's language.  
To which I answer,  
First, by denying that in Christ's name, and as a disciple, and as belonging to Christ are all one: for in Christ's name is a Term of larger extent and latitude than the rest, so that we may be said to do good in Christ's name to some persons, whom yet we cannot do good to as belonging to him in that near relation of his disciples: in the name of Christ, besides several other significations, which the phrase hath, is as much sometimes as for Christ's sake, who requires it, and to do good to others in the name of Christ is to do good to them for Christ's sake, and then we may be said to do good for his sake, not only when we do good to them that are disciples of Christ, upon that account of their belonging to him as his, but also, when we do good to them that are none of his disciples, upon the mere account of his command, who injoines all persons as occasion is to do good to all, though especially to the household of faith: whereupon also I persuade myself varily, nor is it very unworthy of observation, that the spirit when it speaks of doing good to professed disciples indeed Mar. 9 41. he incourages to receive them, not only in the name i. e. for the sake of Christ so requiring, but as belonging to him also as his disciples, in the name of a Prophet, in the name of a righteous man, in the name of a disciple; but when he speaks of our doing good to that child Luke 9 48. he says no more than barely in the name of Christ i. e. for the sake of Christ owning such an action, but expresses not the other notion, and account of discipleship, and Relation to him, as that on which he would have him to be received.  
Moreover were it otherwise, it would make little to the purpose of Mr. Ba. who brings it to prove some such sucking infants as men sprinkle, i. e. believers babes to be disciples, sith that it was a believers child of which Christ there speaks, or that he speaks of such children rather than of the children of other men, is much more than Mr. Ba. can ever clear, and that it was a child of such a stature as to come to Christ, when he called him, and therefore no infant of a span long, nor such as is the subject of your sprinkling, is too clear for Mr. Ba. to gainsay, without clear contradiction of the Scripture Mat. 18. 2.  
These are far fetched faddles, whereby Mr. Ba. backs his people in the blind belief of his fond and false opinion that all believers infants are Christ's disciples, and thereupon to be baptised.  
The mediums whereby he manifests their membership in the Gospel-church are many, more than a good many, and not more many then manifestly weak, and utterly unavailable to such a purpose.   

Rantist.  
Many more than ever will be answered easily by you or any other that set so light by them as you do.   

Baptist.  
That may possibly be too, for I think no wise body will immittere pecus in pratum ubi non est sepes busy himself beyond measure in such a boundless prate, and piece of sillogization about infant membership as it is, nor be so extravagant from Mr. Bs. own advice, who p. 12. tells us that we shall never be able to justify it, if we lay out but the thousandth part of our time, study, talk, or zeal (yet if he have not spent the twenteth part of his own, I am must mistaken) upon this question itself, either for or against it, as to lose a moiety of his time in replying distinctly to such a mint of impertinencies as are handled at arms end here by Mr. Ba. for my own part I am not minded to tyre myself to much with tracing at large after every new hare that starts in my way, nor to stand dancing the hay after Mr, Ba. into every corner of that labyrinth of Logic, into which he leads me, and yet leaves me after view and Review as little ground for infant baptism as if he had said nothing at all: nor shall I bury myself up from better employment in the bottomless pit of those absurdities, which this part of his book also is fully fraught with, partly because I find that most that he says there is in effect answered already in the book called Anti-babism, where the genuine sense of the main Scriptures he rests into his own use, is given out viz. Rom. 11. 1 Cor. 7. Mar. 9 36. Rom. 4. 11. Mal. 2. 15. partly also because I perceive a vain of particular contest with Mr. T. to run thorough the whole, which Mr. T. according to the particular interest he hath therein, hath already taken notice of in Print, so far as its worth an answer, partly also because I am not so happy as to have the patience of many, scarce of any of the churches of Christ, whose servant I am, suffering me hitherto, without such frequent avocations of me from this to services of another nature abroad, as are inconsistent with my writing of much more at home.  
Nevertheless besides some animadversion of as much of its absurdity as may be with conveniency, I shall take the sting out so clearly that it shall not hurt, and that by both a clear, though general disproof of it all, and as clear though general, and brief demonstration of the contrary,  
Take notice therefore of the most cardinal argument, upon which he grounds infant church-membership under the Gospel.  
It was so once that infants were of the church, and it is not repealed, therefore it is so now.  
To which I answer, by granting 'twas so from Abraham's time, and downward to Christ (for before that time all the pairs he takes doth not, and all the brains he hath in his head cannot produce the least solid proof of such a thing) for all that Church and the materials of it were a ceremony and a type, and never the viler for that, as Mr. Ba. foolishly fancies p. 59 of the church under Christ, 'twas so in that outward typical covenant that God made concerning an earthly Canaan with the natural seed of Abraham in the loins of Isaac and jacob, not Ishmael, Gen. 17. 20. 21. nor any of his seed by Keturah, Gen. 25. 1. 6. upon the performance of certain carnal ordinances as circumcision, and the rest of the ordinances of Divine service pertaining to that covenant, which circumcision bound them to till the time of reformation Heb. 9 but that therefore 'tis so now in the church under the Gospel-covenant, that was typified by the other, I utterly deny, whose heavenly inheritance and spiritual seed of Abraham, i. e. believers born of God by faith in Christ, answer as the Anti-type to that earthly Canaan, and fleshly seed of Abraham, and before which the type is fled away, for all the ceremonials of that law are vanished, among which this admitting of fleshly babes was one, and what it pointed at is showed abundantly in Anti-babism, which may serve as an answer also to his fourteenth argument, for their present membership, where if the law of infant-Church-membership were ceremonial, he bids us show what it tipified: the membership therefore of infants, which belonged only to that particular Church of the Jews, which was also the whole universal visible Church that God then had upon earth, unless we shall dream with Mr. Baxter of more particular visible Churches then that of the Jews during its standing, different from it in form, order and constitution, which together with that made up some one universal visible of which infants were members first, as he dotes, and then secondarily of that particular; which conceit of his concerning such a universal visible, is a mere invisible chimaera, for who ever saw any visible Church, or people whom God visibly inchurched, and gave his oracles to besides Israel? of whom it is said God dealt in that particular, as he did not with any other Nations, suffering all others to walk after their own ways Act. 14. 16. nor can there be now any universal visible Church, but what is made up of the particular visible Churches, so that a person must first be a member of some particular Congregation, before he can be of that universal: the Membership I say of infants that belonged to that Church only, which was to be National, and tipical of that true holy nation i. e. all the saints, where ever scattered, is now repealed, nor can any of that Mr. Ba. syllogizes to us evince the contrary.  
He tells us that if it be repealed then either in justice, or mercy to infants, but it is in neither saith he p. 38. Ergo. he falls a proving the Minor, but with his leave I shall make bold to deny the Major, it was neither better nor worse as to the whole species of infants, it was severity to unbelieving Jews, goodness to believing Gentiles, but 'twas not done with any such special respect to infants in their ●…onage, as that if it had stood the whole species of infants through the world would have been much the better, for such a mere titular thing as membership, in the Church, unless that membership would Ipso facto have more entitled them to heaven, nor now it's taken away are sucking infants ere the worse, for saving the great dignity that you deem to lie in the bare title of being a member of the visible Church, whether they die before your admission of them, or just after, if in infancy, their salvation is for that neither more nor less, and if they live to years as they are then are no longer infants, and no nearer heaven for their being baptised, when they were infants, unless they repent and believe the Gospel, so repenting and believing it, they are as capable then of heaven, though they were not, as if they had been baptised, and in bare church-member ship from the womb: this therefore is petty reasoning indeed as Mr. T. calls it see Mr. Ba. 40.  
His second, third, fourth, fifth, six Arguments are all out of Rom. 11. which place, as I have declared my sense of it before, so I testify again is so clear against the standing of infants as members in the family of Abraham, or Church of God now under the Gospel, that he is as blind as a beetle, that sees any thing in it tending to the proof of it, for it seems plainly that the natural branches, or seed of Abraham, Isaac, and jacob themselves, that stood the children of the Church before without faith, upon the mere account of being their natural branches, cannot stand children of the Church now, unless they be also spiritual branches, as Abraham, Isaac, and jacob were; yea if being the fleshly seed of a believer could engraft persons into the Gospel Church, as it did of old into the Jewish Church without faith, than the Jews to this day, being as much believing Abraham's natural seed as ever, might by that birth stand Members as truly, as any Gentile believers seed, but they cannot, yea the same persons that were members of that Church without faith, were not admitted to pass from that Church to membership in this, for want of faith; but when very foreigners, that had no relation to, nor descent from Abraham, became his children in the Gosspel sense, and members of the Gospel Church by personal faith, the very natural seed of Abraham, was cut off through unbelief, so that the standing before was by a fleshly birth of Abraham, of some believing proselited Gentile, but the standing now in the Church is not by a birth natural of any parent, no hot of Abraham himself, unless there be faith in the persons themselves, as Mr. Baxter believes not there is in any infants, for to the confutation of the Ashford Pamphlet, which pleads infant-faith, Mr. Baxter p. 98. Makes the very essence of faith to lie in assenting to it that Christ is King and Saviour, and consenting that he be so to us and whether infants do thus both assent and consent let Mr. Ba. be judge of it if he please.  
Because of unbelief the natural seed were broken off, thence Mr. Bax. argues that infants stand still in the Church, but thence I argue they cannot stand, because those that stand now stand by faith ver. 20. ay, e. personal, not parental; thou standest (saith Paul) by faith, i. e thy faith, not thy Fathers, for than we may as well say the just shall live by his father's faith, not by fleshly descent, though of Abraham, Isaac and jacob themselves, as of old they did, and infants cannot stand by faith unless they had it, and therefore not at all.  
Mr. Baxter argues it was the Jews own Olive tree or Church they were cut off from for unbelief, Therefore infants stand in it still, But the●…ce I argue that our infants cannot stand therein, for if god spared not the Natural Branches of Abraham, but broke them off their own root, their own father Abraham and his family, so as to be counted no longer his children, their own olive tree the church so as to abide no longer in it, because they believed not, the terms of standing church-members being now no fleshly descent but faith, then much less will he admit any Gentiles, that are not natural branches of Abraham, to be grafted into the good olive tree without faith, and therefore no infants that believe not.  
Mr Ba. tells us that some branches only were broken off, therefore not infants, It is true all were not broken off, and why? because some believed, and so abode in the family, others and those the most believe not when they should, others and those all infants nor believed, nor yet could, and therefore could not abide, nor have a visible being, a visible membership, a visible standing in that visible church, the terms of standing in which is only and alone by faith.  
Mr. Bax. argues that Israel shall again be grafted into their own olive tree, and saved, even the children with the parents, and therefore infant-membership in the Gospel church is not repealed.  
I answer it is true that if they abide not still in unbelief, they shall be grafted into their own olive tree, the visible Church, and family of Abraham, that is so many as shall believe only, this infants do not, but whether they believe or believe not, when the Redeemer, i. e. Christ Jesus shall come, all Israel shall be saved, and be owned, and made the most glorious people upon earth, and enter into a flourishing state indeed, but not in this way of baptism, and membership, Mr. Baxter speaks of, who I perceive is not a little ignorant of this mystery as yet, how long blindness shall happen unto Israel, and in what manner their calling shall be, of which I also have at this time as little list, as leisure to inform him.  
Mr. Ba. argues from the sameness of the Olive tree the Jew was broken off from, and the Gentile was graf●…ed into, that therefore as infants stood members then, so they must now.  
I answer it is true there is some kind of identity between the Jewish, and the Gospel Church, but not such as concludes an identity of membership for infants, they are the same ingenere visiblis Ecclesiae, they agree in the common name of Church, and visible Church, elected and segregated from the world, but there's little else that I know of wherein they are the same, they differ in circumstantials, in their accidental forms, in their officers, ordinances, customs, constitutions, subjects, members, that being constituted of one whole nation of people, or fleshly seed of Abraham, taken out from all other nations, this of a spiritual seed of Abraham, i. e. believers scaterred here and there, taken out of any nation as they happen to be called, almost every nation some, the ceremony of inchurching Abraham's own, much more any other man's mere fleshly seed being ceased.  
Mr. Bax. peddles on a pace, and brings a company of Scriptures in proof of infants Church-membership and baptism, which though he style them, as indeed his whole book, Plain Scripture proofs for those two, yet a man that is not minded to force the Scripture into the Service of his own fancy, because it does not serve it freely, may look till doom's day before he see in them any plain, perspicuous proof of either one of these or of the other.  
Christ saith he Mat. 23. 37, would have gathered jerusalem oft, as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings▪ but they would not, therefore sure he would not have put them, or their infants out of the Church, the strength of the consequence lies here, saith he, he would have gathered whole jerusalem, and that into the visible Gospel Church, therefore infants also; Now that Christ does not speak of whole jerusalem here, as he saith he does, both men and infants, the circumstances of the text do fully evince to us, for he speaks of the same persons he speaks to, and the same persons he complains of, saying ye would not, the same and no other are they to whom he speaks, when he says, Oh jerusalem how often would I have gathered etc. but those were men and women only, whom he called to believed in him, and not infants.  
Again he gathered them by preaching of the word into baptism, and membership, and received all that came, and no more viz. sometimes the children and not the parents, sometimes the parents and not the children, so that a man's foes for the truth's sake sometimes were they of his own family, his own flesh, therefore he offered not to gather infants, for he preached not to them, nor called them at all, nor were any more baptised and added to the Church-fellowship in the Gospel, than they that gladly received the word, that did not infants, yea 3000 were gathered into the first Gospel Church by preaching and baptism in one day, and never an infant among them all, for they surely did not continue in fellow ship, in breaking of bread and prayers Acts 2.  
Therefore whereas Mr. Ba. in his Epistle to the parish of Bewdley challenges Mr. 〈◊〉. to name him one particular Church since Adam either of Jews or Gentiles, where infants were not Church-members, if they had any infants, till 200 years ago; I name him the first Gospel Church that ever was A●…t. 2. in which there was not one infant; yea there was three thousand baptised in one day, and it is a hazard but that those three thousand had many, perhaps no less than three thousand infants belonging to them all, and yet as Mr. Cotton thinks, so think I, that none of their infants were baptised with them, much less were added with them to the Church, or continued with them in fellowship, as the whole Gospel Church did, in breaking of bread and prayers; yea though-there was no infants in that Church, which was gathered at jerusalem itself, to which Christ says how oft would I have gathered thy children, etc. and therefore Mr. Baxs. sense is very sinister, so I challenge him again to show me, not by such dubious, muddy, cloudy, circumlocutory, inconsequential consequences as he doth, but undeniable evidences any one of all the Gospel C●…urches of the primitive times, either of Jews or Gentiles, which we are all to re●…orm by viz. jerusalem, Rome, Corinth, Galatia, Philippi, Ephesus, Thessalonica, or any other to fellowship in which there was one infant baptised, added and admitted, and I shall cry him mercy, and lay down the Cudgelis at his feet, and acknowledge he hath broke my pate.  
The next Scripture he uses is more impertinent than this, yet Mr. Ba. makes a certain shift to squeeze an argument out of it, and to compel it invita mineruâ not a little against its own intent, and meaning to corroborate his crooked crazy creed concerning the inchurching and cristening of infants viz. Rev. 11. 15. whence he thus Syllogizes,  
If the kingdoms of this world either are or shall be the kingdoms of the Lord, and of his Christ, than infants also must be members of his kingdom i. e. the visible Church, the Antecedent is the words of the text indeed, as he says, but the sequel is so sure, and follows so firmly in his fancy, that he says nothing can be said against it, that is sense or reason: but indeed itself is against both sense and reason.  
Who would ever think, if the word did not declare that the things of wisdom are hid from the wise and prudent, that such a disputer as Mr. Ba. holds himself to be, should deduce the now membership of infants, f●…om such a premise as this viz. because the kingdoms of this world are, or else shall be the kingdoms of God and Christ? what's this I trow toward the eviction of the other? much every way saith Mr. Ba. yea so much, that for any thing he can see this▪ text alone were sufficient to decide the whole controversy whether infants must be Church members,  
Amen so beit say I, let this Scripture decide it, and let's see what Mr. Bard says out.  
If they can say, quoth he, by kingdoms is meant here some part of the kingdom, excluding all infants, such men may make their own creed on those terms, let the Scripture say what it will, I know in some places the word kingdom, and jerusalem etc. is taken for a part, but if we must take words always improperly, because they are taken so sometimes saith he, than we shall not know how to understand any Scripture, so of necessity it must be understood properly i e in its prime signification of the whole kingdoms, and whole jerusalem with him, and not improperly for a part only, though Mr. Blake to Mr. Black, saith upon occasion of our pleading for the proper signification of baptise, nothing more or dinary then to have words used out of their prime signification, whereby we may see how these men will needs have that signification that best serves their turns, whether proper or improper, when the proper most fits them, than the improper cannot be meant there, when the proper makes against them, the improper is pleaded for as none more usual than that, thus the word household must include infants, when baptism is spoken of, but when the passover is spoken of then infants are excluded, because else we shall argue from thence to their eating the supper, as they from circumcision unto their bap●…ism, but this by the way that it may be noted how the men will have things their own way, by hook or by crook, not that I deny the word kingdoms to be taken properly for all the whole kingdom here, yea I grant it, but let us see what of that? why even this, if the whole kingdom be the Lords, than infants must unavoidably be members of Christ's Church, and if we ask how comes this about? he will tell you two ways,  
First, as infants are all of the Kingdoms of this world, taken for the whole kingdom,  
Secondly, as by the word kingdom of Christ is meant Christ's church.  
Now let us spell and put all together, and it is thus much,  
First, by Kingdoms of this world is here meant the whole Kingdom of this world, or Kingdom taken universally, not for some part of it only.  
Secondly, by Kingdoms of the Lord and his Christ is here meant Christ's church only.  
Thirdly, infants are a part of the Kingdoms of this world, and so consequently of Christ's church, for the Kingdoms of this world are become the Kingdoms of the Lord and his Christ i. e. Christ's church, oh brave and plain Scripture proof for infant church-membership and baptism.  
Let us examine what is true and what is false in this.  
First, as above, I grant that here the Kingdoms of this world signify the whole Kingdom, as he pleads it, but that here the Kingdom of the Lord and his Christ signifies Christ's church, I utterly deny it, and am amazed that a reasonable man should affirm it, and so consequently I deny that it appears from this place that infants are now members of Christ's church.  
But he brings reason for it, such as 'tis, and that shall be a little examined.  
First, if they say saith he that the Kingdom of Christ is not here meant Christ's church, they speak against the constant phrase of Scripture, which calls Christ's Kingdom his Church, et conversim, Christ is King and saviour of the same society, what is Christ's Kingdom but his church?  
To which I answer, Christ's Kingdom is the whole world as well as his church. And  
Secondly that he is King and Saviour of all men in some sense as well as of that same society. And  
Thirdly, that it is not against the constant phrase of Scripture to say by Christ's Kingdom here is not meant his church, for ●…hough it is true by his Kingdom is sometimes expressed his church, et retro by his church is meant his Kingdom in a special and restrictive sense, yet not constantly, there being many places where the word Kingdom of Christ is taken in a larger sense, as signifying not the church, but the whole world O bad. 21 the Kingdom i e. Monarchy of the whole earth shall be the Lords i. e. Christ's so Dan. 7. the Kingdom i e. Dominion, Monarchy and greatness of the Kingdom under the whole heaven is given to the son of man, and the Saints, yea his Kingdom is over all, he shall rule the Nations, govern and judge the whole world in righteousness;  
Oh saith Mr. Ba. the Kingdom of Christ is more large, and more special; but here it cannot be meant of his kingdom in the larger sense, nor as he ruleth common societies, and things for so saith he the Kingdoms of this world were ever the Lords and his Christ's, and it could not be said that they are now become so.  
To which I answer,  
First, that in granting what he here does, that Christ's kingdom is taken sometimes in a larger sense, then for the church, he contradicts himself above, where he says it is the constant phrase of Scripture to call Christ's Kingdom his church, and what is Christ's kingdom but his church?  
Secondly, whereas he says the Kingdoms of this world were ever the Lords and his Christ's in the larger sense, as taken for his Government and Rule, I grant de jure Christ hath been Lord of the whole earth a long time, but de facto he is not King, so as actually to reign over the whole earth, as ere long he shall do i e. at his appearing 2 Tim. 4. 1. to this very day, but in that indeed i. e. when he comes he shall be King, Monarch over all the earth, and rule with a rod of iron over the Nations, and judge the world in righteousness together with his Saints, who hath been judged in unrighteousness by the Nations and Rulers hitherto Zach. 14. Dan. 7. Act. 17. P. 2. Rev. 2. then he shall be in point of execution, as before by commission, and really, and actually, as now intentionally King of Kings, and Lord of Lords Rev. 19 but till then, as yet a little while, and his Kingdom comes to his hand, and the Kingdoms of the world do thus become his, for the work of recovery of his right is now very hot in fieri, and will not be long before it be in facto esse, till than he hath been an underling, and other Lords besides him have had dominion over him in his, and also over the whole earth, which is his, and over the Kingdoms of this world, which de jure are his, but specially that servus servorum, dominus dominorum the Pope and clergy, that are the whore that hath reigned in three divisions over the earth, between whom and Christ the great justle now is in all christendom, whether he or they, that by permission have had it so long from Christ, who only hath the commission for it, shall be King of Kings and Lord of Lords, hitherto Christ hath reigned in the world as Charles the second hath reigned in England, and no otherwise i. e. hath reigned in the hearts of a few of his friends and followers.  
But I perceive the Gospel or good news of the Kingdom of Christ coming, which is to be preached more had more before the end, is yet a riddle to Mr. Ba. and though I hope it will be, if seeing he will see, yet 'tis not yet given him to know the mystery and manner of Christ's Kingdom.  
Thirdly, whereas he says that the Kingdom taken in the larger sense i. e. for the world cannot be meant here, but the church only by this phrase the Kingdoms of the Lord and his Christ, I strongly assert that of all places in Scripture the word Kingdoms of Christ cannot here be construed for the church, that the church cannot be meant in that phrase, but the Kingdoms in the largest sense i. e. the whole world, and directly oppositly to Mr. Ba. who says it is the church, I disprove his opinion thus,  
First, If by the kingdoms of Christ be meant the Church, than it must be thus read, viz. the Kingdoms of this world are become Christ's Church, but what an absurdity must that be, specially with Mr. Bax. above all men, who so strenuously contends that by the word Kingdoms of this world is meant not in part only, but the whole kingdom? for to hold that by that phrase the Kingdoms of this world is meant all the kingdoms upon the earth, taken wholly, and not Synechdochically for a part of those kingdoms only, and that by the kingdom of Christ the Church only, is to make the sense thus, viz. the whole world is become Christ's Church, therefore it cannot be so, but thus (and so all the circumstances of the text do evince, for it is spoken of Christ's reign over all the world in the latter days, after the seventh Trumpet hath sounded, and not over all his Church only, and of Christ's taking to himself ver. 17. that great Monarchy, power, kingdom, or greatness and glory of his reign, which before he permitted to be in the hands of the Dragon, beast and whore, so that they reigned over the whole earth, and the saints too in rigour, and unrighteousness Rev. 13. Rev. 17. ult: I say it must be thus viz. the Kingdoms of this world, the Kingdoms under the whole heaven, the Monarchy of the whole Earth is now come into Christ's own hands, or the Government over all is now actually on his shoulders.  
Besides what will Mr. Bax. gain more by his sense of that Scripture towards the proof of his infant-membership then I for the membership of heathen infants, then for the Church membership of the whole world, if I were minded to plead for it, if the Kingdoms of this world wholly taken, none excluded, do become the Church of Christ then all men as well as infants must be Church-members on that account.  
Besides he speaks as de futuro what shall be under the seventh Trumpet, therefore if it were to be taken as Mr. Bax. imagines that the Kingdoms of this world, infants as well as men, are now become Christ's Church, than it would evince that it was not so from the beginning of the Gospel Church, for what effects are spoken of as falling out now newly under the seventh Trumoet, are things that never were in being before.  
Besides observe Mr. Baxter how he pleads to have Kingdoms taken in the largest sense in the former part of the verse, and how angry he is if it be taken for lesser than all the whole kingdoms of the world, but in the latter part where Kingdoms must needs be, and is as largely to be taken (for it is the Kingdoms of the world are become Christ's Kingdoms, i. e. dominion, not Christ's churches) there he will needs lace it up into the narrowest acceptation that the word kingdom can possibly bear.  
Oh therefore the gross pieces of ignorance, that are in that Argument of his for infant's membership in the Church, which he grounds from a Scripture, that will as well prove all the world to be Gospel Church-members as believers infants, if his very own false sense of it should be admitted, but in truth proves not the one nor the other; thus he argues viz. the Kingdoms of this world, i. e. all, and all in them shall become Christ's kingdoms, therefore infants of only believers, not heathens, are Church-members under the Gospel.  
He that says this follows any better than the Pope follows Peter in the holy chair shall never be counted, or voted mentis compos, whilst I am compos voti.  
Mr. Bax. therefore had better have found 40 shillings, where he never looked for it, then have looked for infant-membership in this scripture, where he will never find it with his eyes open.  
His three next Arguments, viz. the ninth, tenth, and eleventh run all upon one strain, and therefore as he need not have made more than one of them, so I need not make more than one answer to them all, yea, I need make none at all, having spoken to that point sufficiently before, yet a hint of it here may do no hurt.  
They stand all upon one bottom, viz. the meliority of the times under the Gospel above the times of the Law, of this new covenant above the old, the sum of what he says is this, if believers in fants may not now be members of the visible Church, than both Jews and Gentiles are in a worse condition now then before Christ, and Christ is come to be a destroyer, and not a Saviour, and to do hurt to all the world, the believing Jews, and the Church; yea and the very Gentiles thereby, in regard of the happiness of their children, are in a worse condition then of old, but this is a vile doctrine, saith he, for Jesus is a Mediator of a better covenant established on better promises Heb. 8. 6. where sin abounded grace much more abounded, Rom. 5. 14, 15. 20. and the love of Christ love hath height, length, depth, breadth, and passeth knowledge Ephes. 3.  
To which simple inconsequent conceits I answer by denying the consequence, it follows not that the world is in worse estate under Christ then before, because infants might be members of the Jewish church, but not now of any visible church of the Gospel, nay verily the world is in a far better condition then formerly, by how much they are under more clear, and plain promulgations, more fa●…re and universal tenders of salvation, then in the narrow or shadowy dispensation of the Law, and also under greater love, richer grace, better and more glorious promises, unless they fall short of them, through their own unbelief, than those which were made to the natural Israelites only, all whose glory was but a type of the other, for the great favour, love and promises of God to them, as merely Abraham, Isaac and Jacob's natural seed, unless they also believed, and then they, as now all the world might be heirs with Abraham of the grace and promises of the Gospel, did make them heirs of that earthly Canaan only: but the Gospel grace makes all men heirs on terms of faith and obedience to Christ, of the glory of the heavenly Canaan for ever, the grace of God that bringeth salvation unto all men now appears: and as for infants, albeit no infants now be baptised into fellowship with the visible Church, nor are privileged as the Jews infants once were with interest in the blessing of an outward earthly Canaan, nor yet vouchsafed that merely titular account, of sanctified and peculiar people of God, as in opposition to other infants, as by birth, accountatively sinners, common and unclean, which distinction of a birth holiness and uncleaness Mr. Baxter had he but half an eye in his head might clearly see Acts 10. 28. is so taken out of the world and ended in Christ, that now no man however born, no not a Gentile may be called in that sense as the Gentiles were of old in reference to the Jews, either common or unclean, and if no man can be called by birth common or unclean in reference to other, than none may be called by birth holy in reference to other, for this birth holiness and uncleanness are such Correlatives that the one cannot be supposed to be in the world without the other; albeit I say no infants have now such stand in such external happiness and salvation, yet they are in no les capacity to be saved then the Jews children of old, & so neither their parents whoever they be, in any worse condition in regard of their comforts in their children, whether they die infants, or live to years, than the godliest Jews were in regard of theirs, for either infants die in infancy, or else do not, if any man's infants die in such nonage as in which they never committed actual transgression, our Ashford Pamphlet tells us they have not deserved to be exempted from the general state of little infants declared in Scripture, viz. that of such is the Kingdom of heaven, yea I wonder what should damn such dying infants, as never had iniqu●…y of their own, sith God himself assures us that the son shall not die i e. eternally for the iniquity of his father, but every soul that dies shall die only for his own iniquity, Ezekiel 18. and no better hopes could be harboured of the Godliest Jews infants then this, that dying infants they were not damned.  
But if any man's children, even his that is ungodly and profane, do live to years, then if they believe and obey the Gospel, the tender of which is to every creature, they may be saved though their parents be wicked, when Iewes children not doing so, shall be damned, for all their father Abraham's faith, and their own Church-membership for a time, and that with so much the greater condemnation: whereas therefore Mr. Ba. tells us such a story of a meliority of being in the visible Church rather than out, I tell him it is not universally true, but as it may happen, for besides that children may aswell be prayed for, and instructed by their godly parents, remaining unbaptised, and non-members in their nonage, as if in infancy they be admitted to both, it may so fall out, and mostly it did among the jews, that a lifting up to heaven in respect of participation of outward privileges and ordinances, may prove an occasion unhappily through their abuse of it, of their sinking deeper into hell.  
His next Argument is drawn from Deut. 29, 10. 11. 12. a place that doth as well prove that all the wives and the servants, and the slaves, even all the hewers of wood and drawers of water are to be taken into Covenant with God, as his, and admitted into Church-membership upon the Membership of Masters, and Husbands, as little ones upon the membership of the Fathers; and so indeed it was in those days, wherein the whole body of the Nation was inchurched together, though not so now, therefore though I might easily discover that (yea he is blind that sees it not in the same chapter, notwithstanding it is alleged in that allusion of Paul in the tenth chapter of the Romans to that place) to be no other than that covenant which was made with the nation in particular, which God brought out of Egypt, yet I shall trouble myself to say no more to it then so.  
His 13 Argument is from Rom. 4. 11. where circumcision is said to be a seal of the righteousness of the faith which Abraham had, is answered above, where I have given out the genuine sense of that place, and disproved that crooked construction, which is by others aswell as him commonly made of it, therefore i'll say no more to it here.  
His 14 Argument is also answered, but a little above, where I have showed the inchurching of that fleshly seed to be ceremonial, and also what it typed out, therefore no more of that also in this place.  
His 15. plain Scripturelesse proof for infants present churchmembership and baptism is this viz.  
If all infants, who were members of any particular Church, were also Members of the Universal Visible Church, then certainly the Membership of infants, he means by virtue of the membership of their parents, is not repealed.  
But all infants who were etc.  
Ergo.  
The consequence saith he is beyond dispute, because the universal Church never ceaseth here, yea the whole Argument so clear, that were there no more it is sufficient.  
To which as unanswerable as he judges it, I answer first by denying the consequence of his Mayor, as most flatly false and inconsequent.  
Secondly, by saying as Mr. T. did, whose answer is both solid and sufficient viz. that infant's membership in the universal visible church was only by reason of their then membership in that particular national church, neither can Mr. Ba. while he breathes prove them to have been members of that universal visible, as he calls it, but as they were members of that, and therefore when that particular, national church of the Jews ceased, the standing of infants as members upon the mere account of their parent's membership ceased also therewith, as one of the things that were not essential to a church, but circumstantial only to that church, as one of the particular accidental ceremonies pertaining only to that individual national church; for accidental ceremonies Mr. Ba. himself confesses, and must confess did cease still with that particular church, to which particularly they related, otherwise he will be paid home with his own weapon, and in his own coin, yea if Mr. baxter's consequence be true, and if it be not so as we say, that accidental ceremonies, and so this accidental ceremony, and circumstance of infants being members upon the membership of their parents, did cease with that particular church of the jews, 'twill pass all the brains Mr. Ba. hath in his head to answer his own argument, if we retort it on him in proof of that which he denies, as much as we do the inchurching of infants upon the father's membership viz. the inchurching of wives, and servants to this day upon the membership of their husbands and masters, for whereas he argues thus viz. if all infants who were members of any particular church were also members of the universal visible church, then certainly the membership of infants by virtue of their parent's membership is not repealed, but all etc. Ergo  
What answer will he make, if we answer him by arguing back upon him thus viz. if all wives and servants, who were members by virtue of their husbands and master's membership of any particular visible church, were also members of the universal visible church, then certainly the membership of wives and servants, hewers of wood, and drawers of water, by virtue of their husbands and master's membership, is not repealed, but all etc. Ergo.  
I leave it to wise men to consider and examine whether Mr. Bs. argument doth not as fully tend to the proof of it that the wives and servants ought, as of old, to stand members in the visible church now, upon the husbands and master's membership, as infants upon the membership of their parents.  
Several other palpable absurdities are obvious to every observant eye in his amplification of this argument, which whoever notes, will take heed of pinning his faith implicitly on Mr. Bs. sleeve, and of listening to his Logic, so as to be led by it besides all sense and reason.  
To say nothing to his universal visible, which is little less than a visible bull, for sensus, adeoque visus est proprie solum modo singularium, intellectus universalium, the proper object of sense, and so of sight is particulars only, and universals only properly of the understanding, yet this universal visible church is the universal vision, and dream of the universal Clergy, but to bate them the baldness of that term, and grant that there is a Catholic visible church, is there any unversal visible church, but what is existent in, and made up of all the particular visible churches? I trow not: yea that was wont to be good Logic, and Theology too heretofore, to say that all the particulars make up the unversal, that the universal visible Church, and all the particular visible Churches are adequate, and convertible, yea Dr. Featley p. ●…2. makes the universal visible church, and all the particular visible churches equivalent, the universal or formal church saith he i. e. all the assemblies of Christians in the world: the whole is not broader than all its parts collectively taken, nor without its parts, for omne totum ex suis partibus constituitur, ordinatur, mensuratur, determinatur, every whole consists of its parts, is measured and determined by its parts, and so the whole universal visible Church, and all the homogeneal parts of it simul sumtae i. e. all the particular visible churches taken together, are of equal latitude; so that he that is of a any particular visible church must needs be of the whole, and he that is of the whole universal visible must needs be of some particular visible church, yea cui adimuntur omnes partes totius universalis, eidem etiam totum universale adimi necesse est, whoever is not a part of some part or other i e. of some particular visible church, cannot be a part of the whole i. e. the universal visible: this I say is the Logic and Theology, which was wont to pass for currant among yourselves, but Mr. Ba. learns men a new kind of Logic viz. that all the parts put together are not so big as the whole, that the universal visible church is larger than all the particular visible churches in the world, of which yet it consists, so that there is room enough for a person to stand a member in the universal visible church, though he be of no particular visible church at all; I ever understood yet that he, who is removed and cast out of all the particular visible churches of the Saints, is consequently cast out of the universal visible church, but he tells me a tale that to be removed out of every particular visible church, is consistent still with a standing in the universal visible: so that excommunication out of all the particular visible churches in the world, is not excommunication out of the whole visible church with him.  
Another thing worth noting, though worth nothing, is this, he tells us there that Keturahs' children, when they left the family of Abraham, that they continued members of the universal visible church still, which compared with the clause above, where he tells us that it is a far higher privilege to stand in the universal visible church then to stand in any particular whatsoever, amounts to thus much viz. that the Midianites, for they were some of Keturahs' children, had far higher privileges, than those that the Israelites had by being members of that particular visible church of Israel, which if it were so, than we may say what advantage hath the jew indeed, and what profit by circumcision, and by God's commission of his oracles unto them? yea what necessity of circumcision of themselves, and their males at all for any strangers, or of joining themselves to that particular church of the Jews, sith they might have had as high privileges if they had joined themselves to the seed of Abraham by Keturah, of whose posterity circumcision, nor the strict law it bound to was not required, and so consequently what need of baptism, if persons might be of the universal visible, which is the greater, though not of the particular visible church of the jews, without circumcision and keeping the law?  
But it is a question with Mr. Bax. whether Keturahs' children must leave their seed uncircumcisied p. 60. yet I tell him it is out of question, that unless it were in order to joining, and inchurching themselves with that individual Church of of the jews, to which pertained peculiarly the adoption, and glory, and covenants, and law, and promises, and which was all the visible church, that I know God had then upon the earth, circumcision was not enjoined to any other of Abraham's own posterity, not the Ishmalites, nor Midianites, but those only that came of Sarah by Isaac and jacob, for the covenant, of which circumcision was a sign, was established with none of them, but with Isaac only and with jacob, and his seed after him, and so many as should join themselves unto them.  
Many more odd conceits about this universal visible church, Mr. Ba. broaches, but I spare him, and hasten to what follows.  
His 16. plain Scripturelesse proof for infants church-membership and baptism is from a clause in the second command●…ment viz. I will show mercy to 1000s of them that love me, and keep my commandments, a phrase out of which a man may as easily prove the Pope to be head of the church, as prove either of those points in proof of which he doth produce it.  
Yet oh the miserable muddy, wretched, ragged, crooked, cloudy piece of disputation for infant baptism, which this man makes from that place!  
For my part I mean not to wander after him in that wilderness of worthless discourse, that he vents about mercy, Church covenant, promises, nor am I so wise as to wots what he means, nor so foolish as to believe he knows well what he means himself by much of that he there utters, or else he would never say that wicked men in the church are within the covenant, and so have this mercy spoken of in the second commandment stated on them by promise; as if wicked men in the church were in some special wise beloved of God, when yet they are more hateful to him by far then heathens.  
It is enough to serve my present purpose, that what proof Mr. Baxter pens in the head of this argumentation, his own pen dashes it all out again in the tail of it.  
For first after a great deal of wiestling to make the mercy here promised to thousands of them that love God, necessarily to include church-membership, he confesses at last that it lies doubtful in the text what mercy in particular is there meant, which if he do, then 'tis not necessary that church-membership be implied in it, for there may be much mercy, yea special, yea eternal saving mercy showed to persons, to whom the mercy of membership in the visible church and baptism is not vouchsafed, or else what becomes of such infants, as notwithstanding your timely admittance, do yet die without both membership and baptism? are they shut out of the kingdom of heaven?  
Secondly, he confesses it is doubtful in the text to how many generations God shows mercy to the children of parents t●…at love him, whether it be to the remote or nearest progeny only; and though he pass his judgement that it is only to immediate children of godly parents, that the promise in the commandment is made, yet thereby he contradicts his own sense of the place, and overthrow●…s all that he contends for, in that if the words were as he would have them read, viz. I show mercy to a thousand Generations, or to the thousandth generation of them that love me, it were evident that he meant not the nex●… generation only, for that to a thousand generation should signify no more than one generation to come is most irrational, and plain brutish to imagine; and if he say 'tis to a thousand generations, if such children succeed their parents in godliness, that sense excludes infants quite from the mercy here promised, and extends it to such children o●…ely as are at years, and that on condition of being godly themselves, and on that condition of being godly themselves God shows mercy to the immediate seed of the very wickedest parents, as well as of the Godliest parents in the world.  
But in very deed to put him out of all his doubts at once about this place, viz. whether God mean the remote or immediate children, I desire Mr. Baxter to consider that this promise is not made to any man's posterity at all, but only to all such individual persons as love him, and keep his commandments, for the words are not as he reads, and construes them, viz. I will show mercy to a thousand generations of them, but to thousands of them that love me, i. e. to thousands of such people, such persons as love me and keep my Commandments; and so if the mercy were that of membership, yet it were nothing concerning infants in their infancy at all, but concerning thousands of such individual persons as love him and keep his commandments, or else God must show mercy to all infants in their infancy to this day, merely for their father Noah's sake, though the immediate parents be wicked, and if he he do not he shows not mercy to the thousandth generation of believers infants, there being not a thousand generations from Noah to this day.  
We may see what little plain proof these men can find for their false way of inchurching and baptising of infants in the New Testament, in that they are fain to fetch it so far off as the old, thus doth not Mr. Ba. only but others also as well as he, who would certainly never look for it so far behind as ●…he second commanment, if they could easily find it nearer hand: among the rest this minds me of one of more than ordinary note, viz. Dr. Channel of Petworth in Sussex, who january the first 1651. in a public discourse with my unworthy self, being desired to assign some particular place of Scripture, where Christ commands the practice of infant-baptism, assigned the second commandment, to whom as I said then before hundreds of people, so I testify here again before the whole world, that if any man see infants baptism commanded in the second Commandment it is because his eyes are out: for though he tell me that the general scope of the second Commandment is to command all God's people to observe all God's institutions from time to time, yet I tell him again, as also I did then, that infant baptism is none of those institutions, yea I tell him yet further, and Mr. Bax. also, that unless it can be made appear by plainer Scripture proofs then ever were yet brought by either of them, that Christ Jesus enjoined the baptising and inchurching of infants, or that its any other than a tradition of man, and an addition to the Gospel, which was not so from the beginning, and that is more than either of them will ever make plainly to appear, the second Commandment doth rather forbid them both, yea (Ah si fas dicere●… sed fas) the second commandment, the general scope of which, as their own selves expound it, is to p●…ohibit all will worship and superstition, all serving of God after our own invention, all customs, devices, innovations, Traditions of men, all addi●…ion to and alterations of Christ's will and Testament, all teaching other doctrine than is containedin the word, doth forbid, it, and therefore i●… haled in by head and shoulders to serve the turn of these men, and to help to uphold them in their rantizing of infants into the same visible body with them, whom yet they deny to drink with them into the same spirit, as all that are baptised into the same body are to do 1 Cor. 12. which infellowshipping persons by the halves into Gospel participation, if it be of Christ, what else is of man I plainly know not.  
His 17 plain Scripturelesse proof for infants Church-membership and baptism is drawn from Psalm. 37. 26. where it is said that the seed of the Righteous are blessed, whence he argues as before, and therefore need not have made a distinct Argument of this, if God have pronounced the seed of the righteous blessed, then certainly they are members of his visible Church, its absurd once to imagine quoth he, that god should pronounce a society blessed, and take them for none of his visible Church.  
But I am ashamed of such trifling stuff, such straw●…, and stubble as he here builds upon, as if God himself can no way be said to bless the seed of the righteous, unless he require them to be baptised, and inchurched visibly in their infancy, as if God had but one blessing, even that of baptism and church-membership, upon which all other blessings are so eternally entailed, even to infants, that such of them as attain not to an actual interest in these are ipso facto accursed in all respects else & that for ever, whereas to say nothing how that phrase the seed of the righteous may be taken for the race of righteous ones, that succeed one another in righteousness, as well as a seed of evil doers Is. 1. 4. for the whole race of evil doers, that succeed their forefathers in evil doing, for these indeed I take to be the seed to which the Scripture oft pronounces blessing and cursing, and not always the mere natural seed of good men and bad, for the●… there is manifest falsehood in many promises and threats, the natural seed of righteous men often perishing, and being not counted their own father's children, unless they be like them in righteousness as john 8. 39 Christ denies Abraham's natural children to be Abraham's children, and blessed with him, because they did not as Abraham did, and contrary wise the natural seed of the wicked prospering, when they do well, contrary to Prov. 2. 21. 22. Is. 20. 14. Ps. 37 20. if the word seed were there taken for the natural seed, where it is said the seed of evil doers shall never be renowned;  
And so the seed of the serpent, and the children of the devil expresses those that do his works, to say nothing I say of this, which yet is enough to blunt the edge of Mr. Bas. argument, grant the word seed here to be taken for the natural seed of the righteous, even those in infancy may be many ways blessed though they neither be baptised in infancy nor inchurched, yea they may be blessed with eternal salvation, dying in infancy, without either baptism or membership in the visible Church, for I hope you will not say those 1000s. of Jews and believers infants, that have died before circumcision, baptism, and visible admission, are damned without any more ado, because they fell short of your admired membership, and if these be blessed with salvation to whom you delay baptism, why not those to whom we deny it? doth our denying baptism to an infant before he dies send him to hell sooner than your delaying it till he be dead?  
But however the seed of the righteous may be blessed with many temporal blessings, as provision, fruitfulness, multiplication, and yet not be taken into the visible Church, and to say the truth if Mr. Basilius▪ had not been resolved to wrest this Scripture besides its true sense, to botch up his proofs into a multitude, he might easily have seen by consultation with the verse before that it is not such a thing as membership, that is here meant by the word blessed, but mere matter of outward sustentation; I never saw the righteous forsaken, nor his seed begging bread; he is ever merciful and dareth and his seed is blessed i e. provided for, and preserved from beggary, and considered by others in time of adversity, as he considered others in the like case.  
And lastly, whereas he challenges us to show where ever God pronounced any blessed, and yet took them for none of his visible Church? saying 'tis absurd once to imagine it that he did, I assert it is most absurd in him to imagine the contrary, for God himself by promise pronounced Ishmael blessed, saying as for Ishmael behold I haved blessed him, and I will make him fruitful, and multiply him exceedingly, and make him a nation, because he is thy seed: and this at the very same time when he denied to establish the Covenant with him, which he established with Isaac, and commanded that he should be cast out of Abraham's family from sharing with Isaac in that very covenant, which Mr. Baxter contends with all his might p. 64. 65. that whoever are not in it are not under the promise of the mercy, which Church-membership is with him a special part of.  
In proof of this consider and compare Gen. 17. 18. 19 20. 21. with Gen. 21. 10. 11. 12. 13. as if there were no blessing but that of Church-membership, or atleast no blessing without this of Church-membership, whereas, as admired a mercy as this mere membership is with Mr. Baxter, persons may be blessed without it, and also (witness the Jewish Nation, which for the most part were reprobates) they may have admission to the mere mercy, and bare blessing of membership, and yet perish and be accursed for ever.  
The 18th. plain Scripture-less proof for infant Church-membership and baptism is this.  
If infants were Church-members before circumcision was instituted, then certainly it was not proper to the jews, and consequently is not ceased, but infants are, therefore. The Minor of which argument Mr. Baxter endeavours to prove as well as he can, and this he doth,  
First, partly by perverting the sense of the text Mal. 2. 25. where it is said God made two one i e. instituted the ordinance of marriage between man▪ and woman, that he might seek a seed of God i. e. a legitimate Issue, for legitimacy only in the issue is the result of marriage, and that among what parents soever, even heathens as well as others, for whom as well as others that state of marriage is sanctified, yet Mr. Baxter says he made two one, or ordained marriage that he might seek a seed of God in another sense, that better serves his turn i. e. to seek Church-members, as if Church-membership in the seed, were the direct result of the state of matrimony in the parents, which every simpleton knows to be false▪ for marriage is honourable among all, and was ordained for all mankind as well as the Godly, and yet the seed are not therefore Church-members; besides marriage was instituted in the state of innocency, to this end that mankind might be propagated in a more modest way then other creatures, and not that the seed so propagated might be Church-members.  
Secondly, partly by a heap of frivolous conjectures of his own, in which a man may warrantably enough choose whether he will believe him or no, but whether his Minor viz. that infants were Church-members before circumcision was instituted be true or false it makes nothing to his purpose unless he had made surer work in his Major; for that is so inconsequent, and utterly unsound that had I happened to have heard his argument before it came in Print, I should have spared him all his pains about the Minor, and have put him to the proof of his Major, the consequence of which he'll never make good by fair play while he breathes; for there were many things long before circumcision was instituted, which were proper, if not to the Jews till the Jews were in being, yet to the ceremonial law that was after more clearly given to the Jews, and to that old Testament of which Moses was the Mediator, and circumcision the sign, and the Jews the subject, and yet were tipical and ceremonial only, and so ceased together with circumcision, as the keeping the seventh day, the sacrifices, the cleanness and uncleanness of certain creatures, and (if that were at all before circumcision, as Mr. Ba. does not plainly prove it to be) among the rest the Church-membership of infants.  
His 19 plain Scripturelesse proof is this.  
If God be not more prone to severity then to mercy, than he will admit of infants to be members of the visible Church but God etc. therefore etc.  
Oh the wit of this man how wonderfully doth it work, and wind to and fro, and wander far and near to fetch in any manner of fuel, wherewith to feed that false faith men live in, concerning infant baptism, for fear it should be quite extinguished, and brought to nothing.  
Ex nihilo nihil fit in an ordinary way, but such is the extraordinary eagerness of Mr. Ba. to have the game go his way, by either fair play or foul, that he is wise to extract something out of any thing, and any thing out of just nothing to his purpose: this that God is not more prone to severity then mercy, may serve, and that sound to make against those that say God is willing to save but a few, and did peremptorily determine to damn personally an 100 men to one before they were born, and that without reference to their foreseen rejection of his grace, but how it seems to make a jot against such as suppose the salvation of all dying infants, denying only infants mere membership in mere gospel fellowship, I must profess myself too shallow to conceive, yea I am astonished, saving that the word tells me the seers must be blinded for teaching Gods fear after men's precepts, that the the ministers should buzz such a business abroad in print viz. that if infants be not now Church-members, than God is more prone to severity then to mercy, and then back it so baldly too as Mr. Ba. does: it is evident thus saith he God hath cut off multitudes of wicked men's infants both from the Church, and from life for the sins of their progenitors viz. Dathan and abiram's, achan's, Amalecks, the Midianites, daniel's accusers, the Hittites, Amori●…es, Canaanites, Perrezites, and Jebusites, therefore if he should not admit of some infants of faithful men so much as to the visible Church, than he should be more prone to severity then to mercy.  
I cannot but inwardly blush at Mr. Bas. blindness, as if God had no way whereby to vindicate the honour of his mercy, and clear himself from the censure of more severe than merciful, but one, that is by giving commission to us, which yet he no where gives us in any part of his will and Testament, to baptise and inchurch some infants: as if he had no way to recover to his credit again to his most merciful name of the Lord, merciful, gracious, and slow to anger since his cutting off so many infants together with their wicked parents by mere temporal death, and to make amends as it were for all the slaughters, that he made of innocent infants, with their rebellious fathers in the days of the law, unless in lieu thereof he grant some infants of faithful men to be members of his visible Churches, and in visible fellowship with them in the days and ages of the Gospel.  
Who sees not the weakness, the wretchedness of this consequence? yet so it is with Mr. Ba. that God is more prone to severity then mercy if he now admit no infants into the visible Church under the Gospel, except saith he, it be proved that God giveth them some greater mercy out of the Church. To which exception of his I say thus.  
First, it need not be proved, and yet his consequence will prove false, for if the mere admitting of some faithful men's infants into the visible Church will so make up the matter as to salve God from censure of proneness to severity, rather than mercy, and magnify his mercy so as to make it appear to be that he delights in more than judgement, notwithstanding his severity in slaying so many infants with the parents, than God magnfied his mercy in that kind of way sufficiently to make amends for that severity in the very time of the law itself, forasmuch as then he did admit for 2000 years together not only some infants of faithful men, but in all that time innumerable infants of unfaithful and wicked men (for such were the Jews for the most part in their several generations and yet such infants yourselves would not now have admitted) to stand in the visible and national Church of the Jews. And so there is no need of any admittance of infants now, in order to such an end as satisfaction for his severity to some infants of old, into visible fellowship with Gospel Churches.  
Secondly, to satisfy him further it may easily be proved that God giveth infants, if they die in their infancy unbaptised and not inchurched (for if they live to years they may be baptised all, and inchurched too, if they believe) a greater mercy than that of mere church-membership here on earth, for they having never committed any actual sins whereby to deserve exemption, charity teaches us to believe, and hope thus much says the Ashford Pamphlet of all such, that of such is the kingdom of heaven.  
One thing more I cannot but take notice of in this passage not in way of contradiction to Mr. Ba. but in way of discovery how contradictory unto him some of his brethren are, who manage the same cause with him, that they may either close more handsomely together, or else excuse us if we believe none of them till they be agreed more among themselves, for whereas Mr. Baxter lays it down as the manner of old that when the parents sinned and broke God's covenant so as to deserve to be discovenanted thereupon, the children that had right to stand by the Quondam membership of their parents, were wont to be discovenanted, dischurched, and sometimes destroyed with them;  
I find the fornamed Dr. Channel of another mind, for when in a second public discourse with him at Petworth on january 5. 1651. I asserted his practice to be contradictory to his own judgement, forasmuch as his judgement was that believers infants only were in covenant with God, and in right to Church-membership and baptism, and yet his practice to baptise all or most of the infants in his parish, not one of many of whose parents he judged to be believers, as appeaed by his refusing communion with them for many years together in the supper,  
He gave answer to this purpose, viz. that the parent, i. e. believing (or else the child hath no right secundum te O Presbyter) may sin himself out of covenant again, out of all communion in the Church, and be damned, and yet the child stand still in right to baptism and membership which he had by the faith of those parents; which as it thwarts the wont wayof discovenanting, dischurching of children with the parents, so it contradicts himself more another way, though he evade his first contradiction by it, to say that believing parents (for such only say yourselves give right to their infants to be baptised) may sin themselves out of covenant, and be damned, for though as I then told him he preached it in saying thus, yet I am persuaded he holds no falling from grace.  
More things I take notice that that Dr. and Mr. Bax. knock heads in, but I spare to do more than advise them to accord better with each other, but specially each of them with himself, or else as implicitly as men have believed them heretofore, they will try them ere long, and scarce trust them any longer.  
His 20 Plain Scripturelesse proof for infant churchmembership and baptism he draws as he says from Deut. 28. 4. 18 32. 41. blessed shall they be in the fruit of their body that keep the covenant, and cursed in the fruit of their body, i. e. that break the covenant etc. he may well say he draws it, for there's no such thing as he draws flows freely from that or any other Scripture he produces, he draws indeed, but at such a distance, that I see nothing follows from thence at all: he does not fall flatly upon it, nor deal down rightly with the text alleged, nor doth he interpret the blessing and cursing to be membership, and non-membership, so as to say that by blessed shall be the fruit of thy body is meant thus, i. e. thy infants shall be inchurched, and by cursed shall 〈◊〉 of thy body thus, i. e. thy infants shall be dischurched, for that had 〈◊〉 ●…lpably to pervert it, but he keeps a loof off from it, and doth not draw●…●…o the heart and centre of it, but syllogizes in a circumference, and fetches it from far for fear, I think, lest it should fly in his face.  
The Argument that I fetch hence is this.  
That doctrine, which maketh the children of the faithful to be in a worse condition, or as bad, than the curse Deut. 28. maketh the children of covenant breakers to be in, is false doctrine.  
But the doctrine which ●…denyeth the children of the faithful to be visible Churchmembers, doth make them to be in as bad or worse condition than is threatened by the curse Deut. 28.  
Therefore.  
The Minor of which Syllogism is most false, for infants may be both unbaptised and no visible Church members, and yet be in a better condition than such as are under the curse, and the captivity threatened Deut. 28. and so are all these to whom baptism and admittance into the visible Church is delayed by yourselves, who in the Church of England in old time were wont to defer the baptising of all infants to two times in the year, viz. Easter and Whitsuntide, and so are all those also to whom we deny it, for both those to whom you delay it, and those to whom we deny it, dying in infancy without it, may be saved without it as well as if they had it.  
And at the same rates as they dispute them to be under cursing to whom we deny baptism, and visible Church-membership, and our doctrine to be false that denies it, may we dispute those infants to be under cursing, to whom they delay baptism and visible membership, though but for a week during the time of their delaying it, and their doctrine to be false that delays it, if we retort the same Argument on themselves, which I shall do and leave it.  
That doctrine which makes the children of the faithful in as bad or worse condition than is threatened in that curse Deut. 28. is false.  
But that doctrine which delays baptism and visible Church-membership to the infants of the faithful till the tenth, twelfth, or twentyeth day of their age, till Plumcake be made, maketh them during the time in which 'tis delayed in worse Condition than is threatened in that curse, Deuter. 28.  
Ergo 'tis false.  
Till than you have engrafted your children into the Church by baptism they are it seems with you in worse state than if they were in captivity, and all the poor innocent infants of those parents that are in England, to which yourselves (O Presbyters) deny baptism, unless the parent will confess his faith before the ●…ason, are in worse and more cursed condition then if they were in captivity.  
And if an Indians infant should be born and bread up here in England, and be in never such a hop●…ful way of coming in time to the knowledge of the truth, yet all the time he remains unbaptised, and not visibly added to your corrupt church of England, he is belike under a worse curse, and condition then if he were in slavery or captivity: I wonder where Christ or his disciples ever preached such kind of Gospel.  
His 21 plain Scripturelesse proof for infant-Church membership and baptism runs upon this disjunction, viz. Either they are in the visible Church of Christ or in the visible kingdom of the Devil, for there is no third state, saith he, in which they are, but if they be not in Christ's visible Church they are visibly out of it, and if they be visibly out of that visible Church than they are visibly in Satan's Kingdom.  
This is the sum and substance of what he lays down, and the basis upon which he builds a necessity of admitting the children of the faithful into, and reckoning upon them as in the visible Church of Christ, or else we must (saith he) say they are in the visible Kingdom of the Devil; which to say saith he is false doctrine; the rest is but amplification and augmentation rather than Argumentation of this position; now how be●…t a wise body that is not resolved to trouble himself, and fill the world with curious pryings, long proofs, and prolix prates about matters, which the wisdom of Christ in the word of his Testament, which was written to, for and concerning men and women, and not infants, is pleased to be silent in, would surely have sat down satisfied with that sober saying, which Mr. B. himself coats out of Mr. T. Apol. p. 66. viz. that infants are neither in the Kingdom (i.e. visible church) of Christ, nor Satan visibly till profession.  
For really so it is, and no otherwise properly, and quoad nos, who have no warrant to take cognizance of them as in either one or in the other visibly, but as at years they visibly appear to cleave to either, neither are these two, viz. the visible Kingdom of Satan, and the visible Church of Christ the adequate dividing members of the whole world, but (excepting infants) of the adult ones in it only, which visibly obey either Christ or Satan; neither doth Satan's visible kingdom consist of any infants visibly at all, but of such as visibly are acted by him, even the children of disobedience, in whom he works Ephes. 2. 2. nor Christ's visible Church of any infants visibly at all, save when some were inchurched and incovenanted as a type for a time, but of such only as visibly obey him, these I say are visibly the subjects, servants, disciples and children of each Rom. 6. his servants ye are, i. e. visibly, to whom i. e. visibly ye obey, whether &c. 1 joh. 3. 10. in this i. e. doing or not doing righteousness are manifest, i. e. visibly, the children of God, and of the dev●…l so john 8.  
They are visibly of their father the devil, who do the works of their father i. e. in Gospel account; for else in the laws account they, as Abraham's seed, were then the Church's children, howbeit I say any one that is not willing to be wise above what is written, and to have vision of more than is visible, would rest in this, yet sith Mr. B. will put us positiuly to prove a third state, denying that there's any medium asserting that infants, if they be not in the visible Church of Christ in their infancy, are in the visible kingdom of the devil, which to say is false doctrine, I shall bring Mr. Baxter to stop the mouth of Mr. Baxter and to convince him that either there is a third state, in which believers infants are in their infancy, which is neither of these two, or else to drive him to that Dilemma, to preach this false doctrine himself that believers infants are in the visible kingdom of the Devil.  
To this purpose I first demand of him, which of these two viz. the visible church of Christ or the visible kingdom of the devil believers infants are visibly in before baptism?  
First as for the visible kingdom of the devil he must say they are either visibly in it or out of it, if he say they are in it, than he himself preaches that false doctrine, which he says is ours, and makes all infants, even of believers members of the visible kingdom of the devil; if he say they are out, and not in the visible kingdom of the devil, than that doctrine, which teaches men to leave them unbaptised, and denies them to be admitted members of the visible church of Christ till they come to age, is not guilty as he says it is, of making them doctrinally members of the visible kingdom of the devil, for it is but a delay indeed till they can do what is required to baptism.  
As for the visible Church of Christ he must say they are either visibly in it before baptism, or not in but out of it, if he say they are in the visible church of Christ visibly before baptism, than they cannot be said to be (as oh how oft o'er and o'er again are they said to be by Mr. Bax. p. 24. 25.?) admitted to be members, entered, listed, added, initiated into it as into Christ's School, and first stated into it by baptism, for to be first entered into it by baptism, and yet to be visibly in it before baptism, these two are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 utterly inconsistent each with other, as to be let into a room when, and while one is already in the room is impossible, yet with Mr. B. persons are let into the visible church after they are in it, yea they must be in it, saith he, before they may be admitted to be in it, nor will his distinction of a member complete and incomplete p. 24. which he used before to the term disciple, which I know he will make, help him at all here, sith with himself an incomplete member is one that hath but jus ad rem, not in re, ad Ecclesiam, not in Ecclesia a right to only, not a standing in the Church, a title to the relative change, and not a being yet in that relative change, that he says passes upon him by baptism.  
Besides, to say the truth they are but incomplete members after baptism, whom you baptise, sith when baptised and in the church they have not present right to other ordinances of the church, for you admit not your infant members to the Supper: but if he say they are not visibly in the church of Christ before baptism, but out of it, as indeed they are, then either he must say they are in the visible Kingdom of the devil, which is false doctrine with himself to say of believers infants, or else say they are in some third or middle state, to the unsaying of what he said before by way of denial of such a third state, which let him say, and we will agree with him, and such a third state there is, which all infants are in as well as some, whether he will deny himself so as to acknowledge it yea, or no.  
His 22. plain Scripture-less proof for infant Church-membership and baptism is this viz. That doctrine which leaveth us no sound grounded hope of the justification or salvation of any dying infant in the world, is certainly false doctrine, but that doctrine which denieth any infants to be members of the visible Church doth leave us no &c.  
This argument I have spoken to sufficiently above, and thereupon might well pass it by here, and refer Mr. B●…. thither for an answer, where in answer to the Ashford Disputants, that urge the same argument, enough to satisfy is returned;  
But finding this to be that which of all things most gravels Mr. Baxter and makes him stick so stiffly to his plea for the baptism, and Church-membership of infants, because unless that be owned he can find no good ground in all the word whereupon to hope or believe that any dying infant in all the world can be saved, which if he could find, he would find the vanity of his venting so much concerning a necessity of baptising, and inchurching infants, and save himself a deal of puzzling himself about that, which the New Testament hath not one word of, and fearing lest I should be judged cowardly to slide by it, as if I saw Mr. Ba. handled it more unanswerably than any other, and partly because Mr. Ts. suspension of his judgement concerning the future state of any infants is puffed at by him, and uneffectual to his satisfaction, unless he could assure him of the salvation of some dying infants, at least of believing parents, which if he could assure him of out of the way of their church-membership and baptism, it should satisfy him sufficiently, I perceive, to censure all other infants to hell, and to say all those millions of poor innocents', I mean the dying infants of other men, in respect of which these he is so pitiful to are scarce one of a 100 are all damned for ever, with which harsh, cruel, bloody and merciless censure of his I am much more, and more groundedly dissatisfied, than he is about the denial of mere outward membership, and bare ordinance of baptism to those few, on whose behalf he pleads them, and lastly hoping the Lord may lend him some light: whereby to see a consistency between the non membership and baptism of believers infants, and the salvation of the dying infants of, not believers only, but all dying innocent infants in the world, I shall enter on an examination of what he says to the contrary, and an explication of what apprehension in this particular I am begotten to by the word of truth, and though I shall decline sacerdotale delirium that common stock of divinity, which the Clergy have treasured up in their Theological Systems, out of which ocean of error, and dead sea of tradition the younger Rabbis use to draw into their common place books, and store themselves with arguments against Anab aptistical heresy, i. e. this trouble some truth, yet I trust I shall give a good account before all the world at the Tribunal of Christ Jesus.  
In order hereunto therefore I first flatly deny the Minor of Mr. Bas. above cited syllogism, which by another Syllogism he proves viz. They that are not so much as seemingly or visibly in a state of salvation, of them so dying we can have no ground of Christian hope that they shall be saved.  
But they that are not so much as seemingly or visibly of the Church, are not so much as seemingly or visibly in a state of salvation, therefore of them so dying we can have no true ground of hope that they shall be saved.  
The Major of this second syllogism, which he sets himself to prove, I freely grant to be true.  
The Minor I have many things to say to;  
First, I take notice how he changes the terms from what they were in this pro-syllogism, which, had he been minded to deal fairly, and not to sophisticate and shuffle, I know not why he should do, and a sincere disputant whould not have done it.  
In the Minor of the former syllogism the terms were thus viz. that doctrine that denieth infants to be members of the visible church, but here he writes, leaving out the word visible, foisting in the word seemingly and visibly to fill up the room of it, that it might not be missed, they that are not seemingly or visibly of the Church, whereas he ought of right to have brought in the Minor, and conclusion thus viz. but they that are not members of the visible Church, are not so much as seemingly or visibly in a state of salvation, therefore of them viz. them that are not members of the visible Church, we can have no true ground of Christian hope that they can be saved, I say he should have expressed it visible Church in both places, else the word Church being understood by Mr. Basilius, for the invisible Church sometimes, ay, e. them that are not only seemingly sincere, and in state of salvation, but as really and truly in state of salvation as they seem, by this variation of his from visible Church to Church without the term visible the state of the question may be changed: and how beit he premises this and takes it for granted that to be a visible member of the church, and to be a member of the visible Church is all one, saying he that denies that will show but his vanity, yet he takes it before it is granted him from me, who am one of those vain ones, that by his favour deny these to be all one, unless by the word Church in both places he means the visible Church, which though I do notsay he doth not, yet I say if he do, he should by right have expressed it, or else there may be fallacy in it, for I aver to Mr. Ba. and albeit I seem to him to speak paradoxes, and parables thorough the distance of our principles, yet I hope to make it clear to his conscience, that the visible Church doth not so contain the invisible in it, as he says it doth p. 75. but that there are cases wherein persons may be both real and visible i. e. to us seeming members of the invisible Church, or mystical body of sincere ones, and in state of salvation, and yet not be real members of the visible Church; or else (not to speak now of the state of believers infants, whom you rantize, before you rantize them) let him tell me what visible state believers themselves, whom only, and not their infant's Acts 2. 41. 42. the first Gospel ministry bap●…ized, were in immediately before they baptised them? they were not visibly members, after profession of their faith, of the visible Kingdom of the devil, and therefore at least visible and seeming members of Christ's mystical body, and of the invisible Church, and in state of salvation, and yet were they not members visibly of the visible Church of Christ till (though I hold not baptism itself neither to be the immediate formal entrance into the visible Church, yet necessarily previous to it) till I say they were (to use Mr. Bas. own phrase by baptism admitted, and stated in it: for to be admitted to be a member of the visible Church, and yet to be a member of that visible Church before that admittance are utterly inconsistent each with other, yea to enter in by baptism, and yet to be in before baptism, beside the contradiction that is in one of these to the other, it makes your baptism, which you call the sacrament of visible entrance, to be what you say the supper is, i. e. a sacrament rather of continuance: to be seemingly therefore and visibly a member, or to be a visible member of the church, unless we mean the visible Church, (and then it ought to be so expressed by them that hold there is an invisible) and to be a member of the visible Church are not all one: thus having first justly faulted the Minor for its fallacious faltering in the terms, and form of it, and varying from those of the first syllogism and setting down the syllogism in the plain terms in which Mr. Baxter should have done it, viz.  
They that are not so much as seemingly or visibly in the state of salvation, of them so dying we can have no true ground of Christian hope that they shall be saved.  
But they that are not members of the visible Church, are not so much as seemingly or visibly in a state of salvation, therefore of them that are not members of the visible Church, so dying we can have no true ground of Christian hope that they shall be saved.  
In the second place I fault the Minor of this argument as most false and unsound in the matter of it, and therefore I lay down this for truth, which is directly opposite to it viz. that they that are not members of the visible Church may be seemingly and visibly in a state of salvation, and so consequently that of them that are not members of the visible Church so dying, we may have true ground of Christian hope that they shall be saved.  
These two positions with the consequence thereof are so contradictory each to other, that if this latter be truth then the former universally understood i. e. of all that are not of the visible Church, as it must be, or else it serves not Mr. Ba ˢ purpose, must needs be false: whereupon I need do no more toward the disproof of his then to prove my own, in order to which I shall premise what the visible Church is, and then examine whether it be not possible for some persons as Mr. Ba. it seems thinks it is not, to be seemingly and visibly in a state of salvation, and yet not be members of the visible Church.  
The true visible Church now in the times of the Gospel, and so only it concerns our purpose to consider of it, is all those several particular visible assemblies, and societies of persons in the world, or visible disciples collectively taken, which in all places and ages since Christ passed, present and to come, being first separated, or called out of the world to personal procession of repentance from dead works, and faith towards God, of remission of sins by Christ jesus, of resurrection of the dead, and the eternal judgement, and baptised in water in the name of Christ for remission of sins, and together with imposition of hands, prayed for, that they may receive the holy spirit of promise, do afterward continue steadfastly in the doctrine of the Apostles, and in fellowship, and in breaking of bread and prayers: all the true universal visible Church that I know of, if you will needs have an universal visible is that which doth exist in these particular visible societies, and is neither narrower nor wider than these particulars.  
Such was the visible Gospel Church in the primitive times, and the same and no other than that which was the visible Church than is the visible Church now, and in all times of the Gospel, wherein it is at all: the visible Church was that which did consist and was made up of all the particular Churches that then were viz. Rome, Corinth, and all the rest, which were societies and assemblies of persons thus called, gathered and built up an house unto God, upon the foundation of the first principles of the doctrine of Christ, as the six above named are called Heb. 6. 1. as they are also called Eph. 2. 20. the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles i. e. that form of doctrine as 'tis called Rom. 6. 17. which every beginner in Christ did own and obey, and which obeying he was fit matter for the visible church, and was after by mutual consent of the party offering himself, and their suffering him to join with them Acts 10. 26. formally added, actually admitted to visible fellowship with them in breaking of bread and prayers, for that with freedom on both sides such persons as had thus far been taught, and had learned these principles, this a b c, and owned it i. e. professing to believe what of it was matter of faith, and visibly practising what of it was practical, were visible disciples, new born babes Heb. 5. 13. and such babes being baptised, and, having laid this foundation as to fellowship, were then accepted thereunto that they might grow up to perfection, in order whereunto unto this visible church Ephes. 3. 21. which though it exists in many several particular bodies, each of which is independent on any other head than Christ, and impowered from him to determine all its own affairs ultimately within itself, yet since it endeavours to keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace, is said to be but one body, because of one spirit, one call, one hope, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and father of them all, who is above all and through all, and in them all, God hath given officers gifted for its service, viz. some Apostles, some Prophets, some Pastors and teachers, for the perfecting of the Saints, for the work of the Ministry, for the edifying of this visible body of Christ, till we all come to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of ●…hrist Eph. 4. 3. 4. 5. 6. 11. 12. 13.  
As for that Catholic visible church, I mean that voluminous body or part of the world commonly called Christ'ndome, which was once all as it were of one language and one speech, and is now rather three in one or a Triune treader of the truch viz. Papal, Prelatical, Presbyterial, yet to this day exists in those particular visibles as were never thus separated, and called, and constituted upon the foundation of the doctrine of the Apostles, but conglomerated by the lump by the Apostle Peter's supposed successor into national, Provincial, Parochial, (to call a spade a spade) I can call it no other than the C C Catholic Beast, that bears now in three parts a B B Babilonish C C Clergy Rev. 16. 19 i e. indeed the very C C Catholic whore Rev. 17.  
As for particular persons, though professing to be believers that yet are not baptised, and added to some such particular visible society or church, but are yet abiding in the capacity only of single though visible Saints, till they are both baptizd and added as members to walk in fellowship with some particular assembly, and congregation in breaking bread and prayers, as every such a one as supposes himself to be a saint ought to be, or else his saintship may be much suspected if he will not, they are no visible members of the visible church but only fitter materials than they were before their faith, and in a nearer right to be both baptised and admitted to be members, then when they had none: they are better matter for the visible church, but not yet formally of the visible church, have jus add re●…, not in re, ad ecclesiam, not in Ecclesia a right to the church, but not actual standing in it till entered and admitted.  
Nor yet are they immediate matter for, or in immediate right to membership, though believing, till baptised, but materia remota, and ●…n ●…re quodam conditionali, & remoto, a certain remote matter, though nearer than when merely men, and in a conditional and remote right.  
For as believers are the immediate matter for, or in immediate right to baptism, so baptised believers after laying on of hands in prayer are the immediate subject, i. e. in immediate right to be admitted, yet neither are baptised believers actual members till admitted, the formality and most immediate entrance, and way of becoming a visible member of a particular visible Church, and so consequently of the general visible (if I may so call it) which hath its existence in all the particular churches, which are the immediate matter, of which that is made up, being not simply the act of baptism, but the act of joining ourselves after it Act 9 26. and the constitutive form of a visible Church is not their being all baptised, but their free falling into fellowship with each other, and though we are said to be all baptised into one body, 'tis an expression of the necessity only of every ones being baptised in order to a being in the visible Church, for none hath right to be of the visible body unbaptised, but though the baptised have immediate right to be of the body, yet are they not merely of it because baptised, till added to it, and as one cannot be said to be actually under baptism, from an immediate right to it by faith, till he have submitted, so neither can we be said to be actually in the body from our immediate right to it by baptism, till we are admitted.  
Self condemned sinners have a right to believe in Christ, believers a right to baptism, baptised believers a right to the spirit of promise & to have hands laid on with prayer, that they may receive it according to the promise Acts 2. Acts 8. Acts 19 such as these to fellowship in the visible Church, yet not in fellowship till, assaying to join themselves, they are accepted, and yet in a visible state of salvation too both before baptised, as the thief, and after baptised before added to the, Church visible, as the Eunuch, who both were seemingly members of the invisible Church, and yet then when converted and baptised, neither one nor the other as yet actual members of the visible: stones though never so unhewn and ragged are remote matter, hewn and polished stones immediate and fit matter for a building, yet not a building, till built together; many sheep are fit matter to make a flock, yet not formally a flock till they come near together.  
Christ's visible church is Christ's flock, God's house, Temple, building, several sheep, and single disciples, that hear his voice, believe in him, and are baptised into his name for remission of sins, are pecious materials, and in potentiâ proximâ thereunto, yet be they never so many of them, not visibly, actually, nor formally a flock, an house, a Temple, a Building, his visible Church longer than embodied into fellowships, nor till fitly framed together they are builded an habitation of God through the spirit, Ephes. 2. 20. 21. 22. any more than many sheep that never came near each other, are a flock, and a multitude of fitted and squared stones, lying a long way a sunder each from other make a building.  
Mr. B. shall be no Champion of my choosing to manage the matter against the non-churchers of these times, for all he flourishes his sword so against them at the end of his book, if he plead the cause of them so, that sit down satisfied in single fellowship between God and themselves only, living up with him in the spirit, contenting themselves to believe only, and renouncing all ordinances, forsaking the assembling of themselves together, and all fellowship in breaking of bread and prayers; if he grant the denomination of the true visible Church to such as these, as well as to those that continue steadfast in the Apostles doctrine, and in fellowship in breaking bread and prayers: yet Mr. B. does not yet agree with me in this that the particular assemblies collectively taken are the only visible Church, for indeed he is aware that it overturns all his visibilities from the bottom, and lays this foundation of no salvation for infants without the visible Church, on which he frames his present Argument, flat on the ground, to allow the bounds of the visible Church to be no broader than all the particular visible societies that are actually baptised, and in formal fellowship in breaking bread and prayers, so as to say he is no member of the visible Church, that is not actually entered, and solemnly stated in some particular congregation or other; therefore being politic, he premises this among the rest.  
3. You must understand, saith he (but a man may understand a little better if he will) that to be a member of the visible Church is not to be a Member of any particular, or politic body or society.  
Nay more to make his own matter good, and that he may find out a way of his own, whereby to hope well of all the infants of believers before baptism, that they may be saved (for let all other dying infants damn for him, he cares not for harbouring any hope of them) and finding no way but one, whereby to help himself to any hope of those, i. e. by feigning them to be of the visible church, he fetches the visible church so far, that he makes it larger than the number of visible baptised ones, and holds all believers infants to be in the visible Church from the womb, and though in the last page but two of his book he disputes against twice entering into the visible body; he feigns them to enter first into the visible church, when they first enter into the world, besides and before their second first entrance into the visible Church by baptism: I wonder whether he hold those believers infants to be of the visible Church or no, that were once alive yet die again in the womb?  
But for all these flim-flames, Mr. Ba. will once know I hope that the true visible church is no other, than all those particular political assemblies, in whic●… baptised believers hold fellowship together, and that to be a member of the visible church is to be a member of some political society (or else how can such be ruled, admonished, complained on to the church as Mat. 18. and excommunicated, if need be, in case of obstinacy, if under no Ecclesiastical Government?) and yet to hope well of the salvation of all infants that die in infancy too without either baptism or visible membership in those visible societies.  
And if he will not agree with me about it, that the visible church is all the visible assemblies of Christians only, will he agree with Dr. Featley, who defines the true visible church to be where the word is truly taught, and the sacraments duly administered? where therefore neither word is taught, nor sacraments at all administered, as to unbaptized infants I judge they are not, nor baptised infants neither, there's no visible church;  
Again, the universal visible church, that is saith he, all the assemblies of Christians in the world, the visible church and all the assemblies are adequate with him, at least therefore unbaptized infants cannot be of it, for they were never entered into the assemblies; but if Mr. Ba. will agree with neither of us, we shall persuade him I hope to agree in this with Mr. Ba. for nowbeit Mr. Ba. will needs reckon upon the very unbaptized infants of believers as not in right to the visible church only, but of it, in it, visible members of it as as soon as born (for let him study his own book, how oft does he beat upon that, saying, there is but two states for them to be in, or members of the visible kingdom of the devil, or the visible church of Christ, but believers infants before baptism are not in the first, therefore in the visible church of Christ?) though I say he speak of them as in the visible church before baptism, as not knowing else how to hope their salvation, if they die without it, yet if any man living do deny infants, or any other to be of or in the visible church before or without baptism, Mr. Ba. denies it, with whom how often is it expressed that baptism is the first visible entrance into it?  
Yea (to say nothing of his own definition of the visible church, p. 75. to be such as were baptised and continued together in fellowship in breaking broad and prayers, which ought to conclude the whole church so, defined unless he have defined it by the halves) in his plea for the continuance of baptism against the seekers p. 342. 343. he says so, and says moreover that we must not admit any to be of the body without it, that it is the appointed ordinary way of engrafting all into the body that are engrafted, and p. 24. 25. he says baptism still is to be at and not after persons are stated in the Church, at and not after our admission, at and not after our igrafting and entrance into the visible Church, making baptism and our first being in or of the visible church so simultaneous, that we may not, must not be supposed to be in, to be of, to be visibly members of the visible church before baptism, which if it be true, as indeed it is, that none can be counted to the body, as one of it, though in never such right to it first, before baptism ordinarily, at least as he pleads, how doth all this hang together, and agree with what he pleads here and in the foregoing argument p. 71. where he saith it is not the denial of baptism directly that leaveth infants in the visible kingdom of the devil? I would every one, and Mr. Ba. himself would consider this grant of Mr. Ba. for then, what ever necessity there may be of supposing them, as he doth, to be visible members in infancy, and even before they are baptised, we can suppose them in as good a state as he, yet at least there will be no need to baptise them, whereby to put us into more hopes of their salvation if they die in infancy, for if I can hope the salvation of some believers infants that die without Baptism, upon that account, what ere 'tis, I may as well hope the salvation of them all dying without Baptism, and so save the frivolous pains of baptising infants at all, he goes on thus, 'tis true saith he, that many unbaptised are in the Kingdom of Christ, meaning his visible church, but no man who is known to be out of Christ's visible church ordinarily can be out of Satan's visible kingdom: I say how do these things square? hear what he says, no entering into or being in the visible Church, but by baptism, and yet many unbaptised are in the visible Church viz. all believers infants before baptism viz. from the womb.  
Either Mr. Ba. must hold two first entrances into the visible church viz. natural birth and baptism, or else he must hold that baptism is not the first entrance, or else that believers infants are not entered, and if not so, not in the visible church before baptism, whether they have right to be so or no, which is another question; if he choose to say the first, than he contradicts what he says of entering the visible Church p. 343. if the 2d. he contradicts all he says of baptisms being the only entrance; if the 3d. that believers infants are not entered, and so not in not visibly of the visible church before baptism, then of these two things he must say one viz. either that all the infants of believers that die before their visible entrance into the visible church by baptism are damned without hope, which he neither will nor can say, or else say that there is hope of dying infants salvation, and that they may be seemingly and visibly in a state of salvation, and yet not be visible members of the visible church, and then what need any further witness or disproof? for he'll confute the Minor out of his own mouth, which I am to disprove, and save me the labour.  
For if they may be in a visible state of salvation and yet not be visibly in the visible church; then 'tis so, and there's an end.  
If to all this he says that he means not more, but that believers infants before baptism have right to be baptised, and to be of it, and to deny them that right to it denies them salvation, I deny that infants dying without right to be of the visible Gospel church denies them to be in state of salvation, and shall show the contrary, nevertheless Mr. Ba. might have spoken more properly, and plainly, then to call a right to visible membership by the name of visible membership itself, as he often, yea all along does, therefore we might wish him to mend his Minor before we meddle with it, and also he must confess to the contradiction of himself, that there is a third state between the visible church of Christ, and the visible kingdom of the devil, in which infants must be supposed to be by himself viz a right to the church, but not a present standing in it, which kind of right and middle state I acknowledge unbaptised believers to have, but as for infants, though they are in a present visible state of, and right to salvation as well as they, unless living longer they reject God's grace afresh which dying infants cannot do, and so not in the visible Kingdom of the devil, yet are they neither in, nor yet in immediate right to the visible Church as men and women of years not yet baptised and yet believing are, but in medio abnegationis together with them, these things premised, I come now to the disproof of his Minor, in which i'll take him in a fairer sense for himself then he expresses himself in, and yet make no question but to disprove it, in contradistinction unto which I say down myself thus;  
Viz. That not only some men may be de facto no members, but all infants de jure in no right to membership in the visible Church of Christ under the Gospel, and yet both be possibly in state of salvation.  
Now how far forth de facto persons may be out of an actual standing in the visible church, and yet in a visible state of salvation, i'll not meddle much to examine, because the question is (though Mr. B. does not so fairly express it, but I take it in the way that is most to his advantage) whether denial of the jus this immediate right to membership excludes them not from salvation? yet thus much I shall say to that viz. if persons must be seemingly, and visibly in state of salvation, before they are to be admitted members, they may be as yet no members of the visible church de facto, and yet in a visible state of salvation.  
This is evident not only by the singular case of the thief, who never was actually admitted into the visible Church, nor so much as baptised at all for want of opportunity, and yet in a visible state of salvation, but also if we instance in all others that ever we read were baptised in the primitive times, who were first seemingly and visibly in a state of repentance, faith and disposition to obey Christ in all things, and therefore in a visible state of salvation Heb. 5. 9 and then after this added to the church Mut. 3. Mark. 16. 16. Act. 2. Act. 8. Act. 16. Act. 18. for a certain remote, and conditional right all persons have; thus the facto: and now the jure that the denial of persons present and immediate right to membership in the visible church doth not deny them universally to be in a visible state of salvation is evident also thus, viz.  
If some persons both men and infants may appear to us to be in state of salvation, and yet not in immediate present right to be joined to the visible Church, than the denial of persons present and immediate right to membership in the visible Church does not universally deny them to be in a visible state of salvation.  
But some persons, yea both men and infants, may appear to us to be in a state of salvation, and yet at the same time not be in so much as immediate and present right to be joined to the visible Church.  
Therefore.  
The first proposition is most clear, the second I shall make as clear.  
First, briefly concerning men,  
Secondly, More largely concerning infants, because the question mainly is of them.  
Concerning men I instance in all the believers in the primitive times, of whom comparing Scripture with Scripture Act. 2. Act. 8. Act. 19 Heb. 6. 1. 2. its most evident they had not an absolute immediate right to visible fellowship in the visible church, though converted to faith and repentance by the word, and so in a visible state of salvation, as the thief upon the cross, so far as with him visibly repenting & believing, till such time as they were admitted after baptism, and ●…aying on of hands with prayer, and of single disciples, as they were before, they were added, and admitted in to the visible body, till of single living precious stones, as they were before by their precious faith, they were built up visibly into a house, the whole building the whole body was fitly framed together, fitly joined together, as well as shaped before, therefore they that were not actually added and joined were not of the body Ephe. 2. 21. the 4. 16. if the whole were compacted by joints, and bands, than all the parts were actually added and joined, and those, that were not joined, were no part of the whole so Col. 2. 19 kn●… together.  
Mr. Bax. argues 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the Cart before the horse, they must be first supposed to be visibly members in the visible Church, before to be visibly in a state of salvation, but it is undeniably apparent they must have visible right to salvation, and that by faith too, before visible right to membership in the visible church.  
Mr. Bax. supposes persons must be first supposed to be members of the visible Church a priori before they can be warrantably supposed to be of the invisible, i. e. to be such as shall be saved, for if a person be of the invisible Church he must be thought to be of the visible much more, for the visible contains the invisible in it saith he p. 72. and ordinarily we may not judge any to be of the invisible Church, he means in real state of salvation, who are not, meaning first, of the visible p. 72.  
But now I say and suppose the clean contrary viz. that persons must be first supposed to be of the invisible Church a priori before they can be warrantably supposed to be of, yea or so much as to have right to be of the visible; who backs Mr. Ba. in his sinister supposition I weig●… not, let him choose his second if he will, i'll choose Mr. Bax. himself to back me, and to be witness to the truth of mine, whose words are altogether the same with mine p 73. viz. if we were fully certain by his own external discourses that any man were not of the invisible Church, that man should not be taken to be of the visible. In order of time therefore persons were to seem to be members of the invisible church, and were visibly in a state of salvation first before they could have any right at all so much as to be baptised, which with Mr. Ba. himself was the first entrance into membership in the visible church, but with me is not so much as an immediate entrance into it, but that which is necessarily to go before it, therefore persons may be seemingly in a state of salvation, and not yet in present right to membership in the visible Church, much less actually and visibly in it.  
And now concerning infants, of whom Mr. Ba. asserts that they must be members of the visible Church, or else cannot be seemingly or visibly in a state of salvation, upon such slender grounds as these, he concludes it to be clear viz.  
First, because it is the body that Christ is the Saviour of, and his people that he redeemeth from their sins, and his sheep to whom he gives eternal life, and those that sleep in jesus that God will bring with him, and the dead in Christ that shall rise to salvation, and those that die in the Lord that rest from their labours and the Church that Christ will present pure and unspo●…ed, all which places I appeal to Mr. Bas. conscience whether they speak not of the mystical body, and invisible church of Christ, to which all and only they square, and are adequate, and not to the visible Church, which he was to speak to, or else speaks nothing to the purpose, to all which visible church, and to only which these things agree not, for neither all those that are of the visible churchare saved, nor only those of the visible Church saved, witness many infants of believers whom Mr. Ba. dares not say are damned, some never living to enter the visible Church so far as to baptism, and some, once alive, coming dead out of the womb, which he is blind that ever saw to be in the visible church, so that he sits here beside the sa●…dle.  
Secondly, and Thirdly, because there is no divine revelation for the salvation of any without the visible Church, that yields good ground of Christian faith, or hope that any such shall be saved, as notwithstanding he says there ●…s not, yet I shall show there is by and by.  
Fourthly, because it is said Acts the 2. 47. that God added to the visible church daily such as should be saved, which though he did, yet 'twas not all nor only such, but only such men and women, not such infants, as should be saved.  
Concerning infants in proof of the proposition above viz. that some infants may be in visible State of salvation, and yet not be in, nor yet in present right to membership in the visible Church,  
I argue thus downrightly.  
First, if all infants are in infancy in a visible state of salvation, and no infants are members, or in any right to be members in their infancy of the visible church under the Gospel, than some infants may in infancy be in a visible state of salvation, and yet not be in, nor yet in present right to membership in the visible church,  
But all infants etc. and no infants etc.  
Ergo, some infants ut supra.  
The first proposition is most undeniably clear, the Minor hath two parts, which I shall prove successively one ofter another, and then I have done with this argument of Mr. Ba. I'll prove the last first, and the first last, and here I dare-say I might easily muster up scores, if not a century of solid arguments toward the fuller clearing of it, that no babes now, but the new born babes spoken of 1 Pet. 2. 2. 3. 4. 5. i e. at least in appearance spiritually born babes, such as those 1 john 1. 1 Cor. 3. 1. Heb. 5. 13. are to be baptised, and built upon the foundation i e. doctrine of Christ and the Apostles, a spiritual house, a holy templ●… i. e. visible church unto jesus Christ now in these days of the Gospel●…, and that no man's fleshly seed or natural posterity, no not abraham's own barely on such an account as being his bodily seed, much less any believing Gentiles, who hath not m●…re privilege than his seed I think, but only the (at least seeming) spiritual seed of Abraham i. e. those that are children of God, and Abraham's too by faith in Christ Gal. 3. 26. 28. as no infant is, have right to dwell in this family, the babes, the seed of Abraham circumcised in heart, the children of the heavenly promise pointed at, and typed out by the jews babes, and that circumcised seed of Isaac, and those children of that earthly promise of the old Canaan, these are the true sons of the free woman, the Gospel visible church, before whom the bond woman, and her son i. e. Abraham's mere fleshly seed, though by Isaac, are cast out, that they may dwell alone in the house, as Hagar and her son were cast out of Abraham's house of old before Isaac and his seed, that they might dwell alone, for look how Ishmael and his seed stood in reference to Isaac and his, that were the children by promise of the earthly Canaan viz. but servants that must not abide the house longer, when the other came in to stand, so Isaac the type, and his seed themselves, in reference to Christ the true Isaac and his seed i. e. believers viz. as servants that must be packing, when he comes in, and not abide in the house together with him see john 8. Galatians 4. ult.  
But that were to begin the work again, which I have finished above, where I have given a touch of these things, and but a touch in comparison of what might be said; And of multiplying Arguments, and making many books there is no end.  
Therefore i'll hint but a few, among which this shall be the first.  
If the standing upon the root Abraham, i. e. the family or visible Church of God since Christ be by faith in the person only so standing, and not by faith in the parent, as of old, than infants cannot now stand therein.  
But so 'tis,  
Therefore the other.  
The consequence is cleared by the consideration of the incapacity of infants to believe, faith being assent to something propounded to us, faith coming by hearing, and hearing by the word Rom. 10. so that who so thinks it possible for infants 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credere when it is said how can they believe in him of whom they have not heard, is wretchedly inconsiderate.  
The Minor is evident out of Rom. 11. where it is said the very natural branches of Abraham's body, that did on that account merely as the fleshly seed of that father of the faithful stand in the olive tree, the visible Church, before time, yet now could stand no longer on that old account, why? were they not the seed of Abraham still, that stood without faith in the old visible Church to the very end of it? yes, but they believed not in their own persons, therefore could not stand in this house, but were cast out of their own olive, their own father Abraham's family, i. e. the visible Church, now Christ came in, because of unbelief, and thou (saith Paul to the Gentile) standest, how? by fleshly descent? no, that standing is gone from such as come of abraham's himself, therefore is not to thee, nor to thine, but by faith, i. e. personal, and not parental.  
A Second this,  
If all they that are baptised into one visible body under the Gospel are made in the supper to drink into one spirit, than infants, who cannot drink into one spirit with the body, secundum te may not be baptised into that visible body.  
But this is true 1 Cor. 12. 13.  
Therefore that.  
So Col. 2. 19 All the body is knit together, and by joints, and bands hath nourishment ministered, and increaseth by that which every joint, and member supplieth Eph. 4. 16.  
But infants are not capable to have Spiritual nourishment Minstired, and to grow in grace, as all the body ought to do at least, and this in the use of the Supper.  
If you say they are capable of spiritual nourishment, I say as capable I think as of the spiritual birth, for where there's a birth there's a growth, but then me thinks they should be as capable of the supper, which is the Sacrament of spiritual nourishment, being capable of that, as being capable of spiritual birth, they are of baptism the outward Sacrament of the same.  
But Mr. Bax. denies that page 114. 115. among other reasons for this, because though capable to be washed, yet not to eat bread, and drink wine in their first infancy.  
Oh strange! they may have it then as they can eat and drink.  
A third is this,  
If no infants were baptised and added to the first Gospel visible Church, then surely they had no right so to be, for the Apostles would not do them that wrong as not to add them that had right,  
But this is true, Therefore that.  
The Minor is plain out of Acts 2. where to the 120. men and women that without infants continued in fellowship Acts 1. there were added 3000. more in one day, and not one infant among them, but as many only as gladly received the word, nor more nor less (for else Luke cousins us in his history) and continued after their baptism in fellowship in breaking bread and prayers, which no infants did, and yet it is well nigh infallible, that those 3000 had some infants belonging to some of them, which would have been added with their parents, if the promise is to you, and to your children and them a far off, even as many as the Lord shall call would bear the sense divines draws it to.  
Yea Master Cotton himself conceives that no infants were baptised at that time, and when else either these or any other were, neither I, nor any one else ever found, since they began to read Christ's Testament with their eyes open.  
Yea Peter commanded no more to be baptised but the same persons whom he speaks to also to repent, which me thinks he should have done, saying be baptised every one of you, and baptise your children also, if any such thing had been intended, and Christians infants were to have been separated out of the world, and called to be saints, and baptised, as Mr. B. believes they are to be, but not I.  
For what says Paul in his Epistle to the Romans, chapter 1. I suppose he wrote not to infants, yet to all the called Saints, to all that be in Rome called to be saints.  
So in 1 Cor. 14. the 23. If the whole Church come together, and all speak with tongues, and all Prophe-y.  
So 26. Every one of you hath a Psalm.  
So 31. Ye may all prophecy one by on's that all may be edi●…yed.  
He writes, and so surely he seems to me to do all his Epistles, to the whole church, and speaks to the whole body, yet I cannot conceive that to any infants, who are uncapable to be edified and comforted.  
Yea 1 Cor. 12. 25. 16. The Members of the visible body of Christ ought to have the same care one for another, so that if one Member suffer all the Members suffer with it, if one be honoured all rejoice with it.  
This cannot infants do,  
Therefore surely are not of this visible body of Christ.  
Another Argument which Master Baxter himself mentions, and slights, as simply supposing that it excludes infants from salvation, is that of Mr. Tombs viz.  
That the only way now appointed by Christ to make visible church Members is by teaching the persons themselves, and that none else must be Members of the visible Church, but those that have learned as infants have not.  
This Argument is of great weight, and receives as trifling an answer from Mr. B●…or ●…or saith he, than it will much more follow that they are not, or at least that we may not judge them to be of the invisible Church at all i e. to be such as so dying shall be saved.  
The contrary to which, and inconsequence of which I have showed above and shall show more by and by.  
Secondly (saith he) If they may argue from Matth. the 28. 20. that none, but those that are taught are true Disciples, and are to be baptised, why may they not as well Argue from Mark the 16. chap. 16. verse, who ever believeth not shall be damned, that all infants are certainly damned?  
To which I say first I am one, who argues from Ma●…h 28. that none but such as are taught are disciples, and to be baptised, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is teach ye, or make ye disciples by teaching, or cau●…e to learn, than which I testify to Mr. B●…. face that there is no other way, whereby we can make disciples of Christ, persons being properly called disciples of disco 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to learn, and I blush at that bald stuff, wherewith he strives, and strains his wits till he becomes ridiculous, to make the denomination of disciple appear to be due to infants p. 23. as namely,  
Because they are taken into Christ's school and Kingdom, i. e. his visible Church, [whereas 'tis before persons are taken into this School that they are disciples therefore not by it] also because they are not less docible than some bruits [as if some brutes are so docible as to deserve the name of disciples of Christ, therefore much more infants] because Mothers, Nurses teach them by gesture, action and voice partly, and dishearten, and take them off from vices, and if not at first to know Christ, yet if any of the duty of a rational creature it is somewhat [somewhat indeed but nothing to purpose, for as if mothers could take them off from vices in such mere nonage wherein you baptise them, as or if they could learn them any of a natural creatures duty so young as at eight or nine days old, as if to learn the duty of a rational creature, which many a man learns, but no infants, could denominate disciples of Christ] because Christ can teach them immediately by his spirit if they can learn nothing of their parents by action, and voice] [from which Christ can teach them to denominate believers infants disciples of Christ, before we have any evidence that he does teach them any more than other infants, that must be no disciples, when Christ can teach these as well as those I cannot conceive the foppery of it it is so great] because when a Philosopher was hired to teach a man, and his children those were children disciples of that Philosopher [as if ever any wise man did hire another wise man to teach him and his nine days old infants] because infants can so quickly learn to know father and mother and what they mean in their speeches and actions [as if so quickly as you baptise them, and lastly as if this will be an accurate account for baptising of infants, and accepted as an answer of Christ's commission, who there bids us teach or make persons disciples to plead th●…s, viz. Lord we could not teach infants, nor make them thy disciples by teaching, yet seeing they could quickly learn to know father and mother, we supposed upon this, and several such like reasons, that the name disciple of Christ was their due, and so that 'twas our duty to baptise them.]  
Moreover Adhominem, as he says of the word holy p. 82. So I of the term disciple, whose constant meaning is one that hath learned as Mat. 11. 29. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so john 6. 46. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 every one that hath learned, we shall have better defence before the judgement seat of Christ for taking the term disciple in that sense as the Scripture uses it in scores of times viz. for persons learned or taught than they that take it for indocible infants, a sense the Scripture never uses it in at all, but a hundred times otherwise, to say nothing of john 8. 31. Luke 14. 26. 33. where Christ says if we do, what (I am sure) infants do not we are, and if we do not what infants cannot do, we cannot be his disciples.  
Secondly, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is teach them i e. the Gospel, so none are here bid to be baptised, but the very same individual persons, that are bid also to be taught: first baptising them, and after teaching them again, whom? those persons in the Nations whom they have taught only, and not their infants; for we may as well say the men that they never taught, as them, since Christ hath in precepto conjoined teaching, or our discipling and baptising together, and infants cannot by our teaching of them be discipled visibly.  
The argument in its true form is this viz.  
What Christ hath conjoined i e. in his commission for baptising that man must not separate, i. e. in his practice.  
But Christ hath conjoined our discipling persons and baptising them in his commission, for baptising, as a standing course to the end of the world as Mat. 28. 19 200. shows.  
Erg no man must separate these two in his practice.  
If Dr. Featley were alive to answer this he would happily say 'tis no Topical, but a Sophistical Syllogism, for when A. R. makes much what the like from Mar. 16. 16. viz.  
What God hath joined together no man ought to separate,  
But faith and baptism God hath joined together Acts 8. 37.  
Ergo faith and baptism none ought to separate.  
He says there's a double fallacy in it viz. homonimiae, or ambiguity in the premises i, e. in the terms joined together, for it may be meant saith he, either in precepto, and that no man denyeth, or insubejcto the subject i e. so as to say that all that are baptised have faith, and none have faith but the baptised, and in this sense it is apparently false saith he, whereupon to prevent Dr. Featleys' followers from charging the above syllogism with that fallacy▪ I have expressed in what sense I mean it, viz. in precepto, in which sense the premises are granted to be true by the Dr. himself, and therefore I know no●… why they should be denied by Mr. Ba. or any else, and then the co●…lusion must be true: but saith Dr. Feat. there is a fallacy called ignoratio elench●… in the conclusion i e. it concludes not the thing in question, but that which is not denied by us, for they that are for baptising of infants, do not separate faith and baptism, for they baptise children into their father's faith saith he;  
Secondly they believe that infants of believers receive some hidden grace of faith in time of their baptising, his followers say before baptism p. 3. of their pamphlet (oh how contrary are they each to other) therefore are to be baptised; but Mr. Ba. will say none of all this I hope, for he is against Baptismal regeneration, nor will he charge the syllogism with sophistry I hope, but deny either the Major, or the Minor, either of which if he do, he answers his own grand argument against the seekers p. 341, where word for word (saving a term or two put in here for explication) this very syllogism is his own, or else he will grant both these, and consequently the conclusion to be true, and then why will he dispense baptism to persons i e. infants, before they so much as seem to believe?  
But it may be that which is a good syllogism, when used by himself, will be mere sophism with him too when urged by us:  
Secondly the reason why we may not argue that all infants are damned from Mark 16. 16. though they believe not, is this viz. because that place speaks of persons at years only, to whom the Gospel is preached, and not of infants, that are not capable to believe.  
But than says Mr. Ba. the same may be answered to the argument from Mat. 28. against infants being disciples, and to be baptised.  
To whom I reply thus.  
First, if he says (as we of Mark 16. 16.) of Mat. 28. 20. viz. that go teach all nations baptising them, is meant of men at years only, and not of infants, than he grants as much as we desire, and confesses that Christ, in his commission to teach and baptise the nations, do●…s not mean discipling and baptising infants, but men, and if the commission to baptise extend not to infants, as the subject, then what warrant to baptise them?  
Secondly if that place be meant of men only, and not of infants, than Mr. Ba. was well busied the while, when he brings that very place in the very front of his plain Scripture proofs, for his infant membership and baptism, its ill stumbling at the very threshold.  
But I shall not multiply, nor improve as Mr. Ba. hath done to the utmost, but give one argument more against infant membership, and so come to the other member viz.  
If all that can be said in proof of the visible Church-membership of infants may be disproved as weak, and inconsequent utterly to that purpose, then sure there is enough, if one would stand upon it, to be brought against it.  
But all that is said by Mr. Ba. in his two dozen of arguments, who improves himself to the utmost to say as much as can be said in proof of the visible Church membership of infants, is well nigh already, and will be altogether by and by disproved as weak and inconsequent.  
Ergo there must needs be enough against it: for contradictoriorum uno negato statuitur, probatur alterum.  
If all, that can be said on one side to the proof of this that infants ought to be members of the visible Church, will not avail to evince that to be the truth, than that infants ought not to be members of the visible Church of Christ is a thing will prove itself well enough.  
And so I have done with one member of my proposition, that I may say a little also to the other, which is this viz.  
Though no infants have right in infancy to be baptised and joined to the visihle Church, as I have already proved, yet all infants in their infancy are in a visible state of salvation.  
Mr. Ba. finds out or rather fancies to himself certain grounds whereupon to hope, that some dying infants are saved viz. some of the dying infants of the faithful, as in opposition to all the dying infants of the wicked, I say some of them, for he dares not say p. 78. that his own grounds yield a certainty, though a probability, of the salvation of all such neither, so doth he narrow up the grace of God to that innocent age of infancy, for all he would seem so merciful as to plead its cause against those cruel conceits which he conceives are conceived of it amongst us, yet he finds no good ground whereupon to hope the salvation of the dying infant of any godly man, but the same on which he conceives them of nececessity to that salvation to have also a right to membership in the visible Church, but such a necessary dependence of them each on other, that suppose one to be no member, at least in no visible right to membership in the visible Church, of that person, so dying, there can be harboured no hope at all of his salvation: but what if I can make it good from one of those very grounds of Mr. baxter's own bringing that there's a ground to hope the salvation of one such dying infant, as of whom it is most palpably evident, that it was neither actually a member of the visible Church before it died, nor so much as in any visible right to membership in the visible Church if it had lived? Mr. Ba. will then I hope let go his wretched conceit of a necessity of dying infants membership in order to our having hopes of their salvation.  
And in order to the making good of this, I instance in the very same child, which himself brings in as his fifth ground page 77. and alludes to, as his example of the contrary viz. the child that David had by Bathsheba, while she was yet the wife Uriah, of whom I testify the very same that Mr. Bax. does viz. that David's comforting himself concerning his dead child, because he should go to the child, but the child not return to him, was an evident argument that David was confident that that child of his should not be damned, and yet he could not hope so upon any such account as his child's dying a member of the visible Church, for the child never lived so much as to the 8th day, nor to be circumcised, and thereby entered into the visible Church, for its plain 2 Sam. 12. 18. that it died on the 7th. and if Mr. Ba. say it was a member de jure, though not de facto i. e. in a right to have been a member had it lived, I deny that with as much confidence as the other, for a bastard was not to be admitted into the congregation of the Lord unto the tenth generation, and its evident that that child was a bastard.  
I conclude therefore contrary to that round Mr. Ba. runs about in like a horse in a mill, making a necessary concatenation between being in visible right to Church-membership, and in a visible state of salvation, proving the one by the other, concluding sometimes, that infants of believers are children of the Gospel promise, & so visibly in a state of salvation, & therefore they must be baptised and in churcht, or else they could not, and others may not, sometimes that infants of believers are in visible right to be admitted into the visible Church, and therefore we may have sound ground to hope their salvation, so dying, as denying their right to membership we could not have, and of other infants we cannot, I conclude I say that there may be sound ground whereon to hope the salvation of some dying infants, that die without actual membership in the congregation, or visible Church of Christ, and without any right to it also in their infancy had they lived longer.  
And if we may hope well of some infants that die without membership, and without right to it also, I know not why we may not hope the like of all, for all Mr. Baxs. impropriating the unlimited and boundless grace of God, and engrossing all hope of the salvation of dying infants, to the dying infants of none but faithful parents, specially considering, besides what grounds more of my own I shall add in proof of it by and by, two more at least of Mr. baxter's own grounds whereon to hope the salvation of believers infants are grounds, whereon to hope the salvation of other dying infants as well as them, the Scriptures he refers to for them speaking, if of infants at all, then of the whole species, of the whole kind of that Stature called infants, and not of infants of one kind more than another.  
For first whereas his 6th ground for the salvation of believers dying infants, and of being without any fear of their damnation is this viz. because it is said Psal. 127. 3. 4. 5. children are the heritage of the Lord, and the fruit of the womb his reward etc. if that be spoken of infants at all, as it seems rather to be spoken of children that are grown up, that are the strength of their father and his family, it is surely spoken of all infants as well as some, and he that particularizes that indefinite term of children, and the fruit of the womb, where ever the scripture speaks hopefully of such, so as to understand it universally to express, and sound forth no more than those individuals viz. the seed of believing parents (and yet thus Mr. B●…. muzzles up all such Scriptures, and makes them sound no more than he would have them) doth little less than force the word to his ownfancy.  
Secondly, whereas his 13th ground is from Mat. 18. 10. where he argues thus,  
If little ones have their angels beholding the face of God in heaven then they shall be saved, for that is a mercy peculiar to the people of God.  
I argue that if little ones literally taken (i. e. if infants be there meant, as he says, but never shows, they are (saving per alios and not per se) then surely all infants as well as some, for he speaks not there of the little ones of believing parents in special, but of what kind of little ones soever he speaks, he speaks of that kind of little ones in general without exception, whether it be of infants, or of his disciples, and if yet it must needs be understood of infants only, that they shall be saved, it is understood universally of them, and so much Mr. Ba. might have seen, and would have said had he consulted the 14. verse, but just below where it is thus said of all little ones that are lost, and so of all as well as some, viz. it is not the will of your heavenly father that one of these little ones shall perish.  
And sith Mr. B. so suches it out below p. 104 105. etc. from Mark 10. 14. 15. saying that of such is the kingdom of Heaven must needs be meant, viz. by kingdom of Heaven salvation, which I grant, and by such (as i'll grant also at this time however, sith thence I shall have another Argument ad hominem to give hope by of the salvation of all dying infants) not such as are like infants, but infants themselves, and that not of those individuals only that were then brought, which whether they were children of believing parents or no too is more than Mr. B. ere can demonstrate, there being many that came to Christ for healing of themselves or theirs, as 'tis most evident that these did, of whom not more than one of ten were as they should be, for of 10 lepers cleansed where were the nine?  
I say not of those individuals only, but of the very species of infants, yea how oft o'er and o'er and o'er again does he inculcate this upon us in that place, saying, it was the species of infants, the very species, infants in specie, and not those individuals, whom Christ says the kingdom of heaven, i. e. salvation doth belong to, I appeal to Mr. B●…. own conscience, whether there be not out of his own mouth a strong Argument of hope, if not of assurance from Christ himself that the whole species of infants, so dying, i. e. all infants, and not some only shall be saved: for the ●…pecies of infants expresses not some infants only but all infants, or infants quâ tales, so that quatenus ipsum evermore including the omni, whatver belongs to infants inspecie i. e. to the kind or to infants as suchbelongs toal infants, quod convenit homini, purely qua est homo, convenit omni homini and so what ever belongs to any thing, as 'tis such, belongs also to all that is such.  
But Mr. B. teaches us the truth in this, that the kingdom of heaven and salvation belongs by Revelation from Christ himself to infants, not in individuo only, i e. not to those infants only that were then brought to Christ, nor any other, but to the kind, to infants in specie i. e. all infants as infants, therefore the kingdom of heaven and salvation belongs to them all, and so did that kind of coming to Christ's person, while he was on earth, with infants, not for, nor by baptism, but for healing, belong to all infants that needed it as well as some, that were then on earth, as coming to Christ with infants by prayer to him to help and heal them, in whatever malady, since his person is absent, belongs to all infants in the world, and not to believers infants only; and yet not baptism, and a standing in fellowship in the visible Church, for they indeed are not fit for fellowship.  
Therefore though Mr. Ba. contracts the grace of God to infants, as concerning their everlasting salvation into little a little corner, yea good lord how few dying infants does he hope shall be saved, that hath hope of none but of some i. e. believers infants, which are but one of many, and also not of all, but only some of them? yet (to conclude this in a way of resemblance to Mr. B●…. conclusion of his Argument from Mark 10. p. 107.) I bless the Lord Jesus Christ King of the Church, though he gave no order to baptise, and inchurch infants here on earth yet for having a greater tenderness towards the eternal state of all dying infants, than Mr. B. is yet aware of, and towards all that live to years such a tenderness as to invite them to himself universally, and bid them welcome, and so great a care to inform his Chutch in his Word and Gospel concerning his good will to all men, and to all infants also in that particular, so as to speak it so plainly, that plain minded men, that are not minded never to change their minds, as I hope Mr. B. is not, may well see his mind in this case, even as if he had therefore done this, because he foresaw that some would arise so carnally, and so cruelly conceited, as to suppose it impossible to be, and but in vain to hope it almost, that Gods saving mercy should extend to any more dying infants then those few, and not all those few neither, of their own: and for my part I gladly accept Christ's information, and submit to his discovery, let them resist it that dare.  
And lastly, one more Argument of hope that I have within myself that all dying infants must needs be saved, is this yet, because I could never find since I looked for it, as also none ever shall that look not without their eyes, what should, nor what (save the Priesthoods divine kind of Doctrine) does damn them, I mean any of them so dying, any more than one of them.  
First as for sin, which only damns, I know none they have of their own, and to say that any infant dies eternally for theiniquity of his father only, makes the word of God, which is truth itself, no better than a flat falsehood to me, who read in jeremy 31. 29. 30. & Ezek. 18. 3. 4. 19 20. & Deut. 24. 16. & 2 Kings 14. 16. that the ways of God who requires it strictly of man, not to put the children to death for the sins of the father, but every man only for his own sin, are so equal, for all the false accusation of him by the wicked Jews, that seeing he both says, and also swears it, that men shall never have occasion to say, the child's teeth are edged by the grapes the father only hath eaten, and in way of complaint for injustice, doth not the son bear the iniquity of the Father? but that every soul that dies shall die for his own iniquity only, and that individual soul only that sinneth shall die, i. e. eternally, for temporally 'tis true we all die in Adam, as far as a to temporal death, God may, and often doth visit the sins of the Father on the children to the third and fourth generation of such as hate him not only when children inherit, so as to imitate their father's hatred of God, in which case only 'tis a punishment to those children, but also on infants, so as to take them out of the world with the fathers: as in the case of ‛ Dathan and Abiram, Amaleck, Hittites, Amorites etc. yea Sodom and Gomorrah, and the old world, on which for ensamples sake to them that in after times should live ungodly, the flood, and the fire fell, not only temporal but eternal to the adult ones that gave themselves over to fornication and followed strange flesh, though but temporal only to infants, who neither lived ungodly, nor gave themselves over to fornication as the other did, and therefore though passing hence with the rest to a temporal death by that fire, yet are not set forth as an ensample with the rest to all that should live ungodly, by suffering the vengeance of eternal fire 2 Pet. 2. 6. jude 7.  
But the same temporal death that may be in fury to one, as 'tis a passage to worse, may be a mercy to another, and so to those infants a passage from worse to better, as good josiah was slain in battle, as well as wicked Ahab, and that for going on his own head to war as well he, yet was it in respect of that eternal state that followed, as well for him, as ill for Ahab.  
Sith therefore it's said so plainly the son shall not die for the iniquity of the father, and yet temporally they may be taken away with the father, it must needs be meant that eternally none die, nor lie for ever under wrath for no more than merely the father's fault, whereupon all dying infants having no trangression of their own, cannot be damned for their own, nor yet for their father Adam's transgression, and so are all, as well as those of believers, in a visible state of salvation, and while they live infants, unless hereafter they reject it, as Esau did the land of Canaan, in visible right to so dying to the heavenly Canaan.  
Yea many thanks to my Ashford opposites for that clause of their pamphlet, which is assistant to me almost at all assays, Christian charity itself, which doth presumere unumquemque bonum, nisi constet de malo, constrains us to hope all things, believe all things concerning the salvation of dying infants, and of all infants as well as some, specially since these, more than those, i. e. the infants of unbelievers more than of believers, have not committed any actual sin, whereby to deserve to be exempted from the general state of little infants declared in Scripture viz. that of such is the Kingdom of heaven.  
Secondly as for righteousness there's enough in Christ to take away, it being imputed, what ever unrighteousness is imputed for Adam's sin, and why that righteousness should not be imputed, if the Scripture had not said it so plainly as it does Rom. 5. 2 Cor. 5. 19 21. 1 Cor. 15. 22. to all poor dying innocent infants as well as some, I cannot imagine, unless you say not God the father's love to all, but man the father's faith, is that thing that must save some of those infants of believers, that are saved, by interessing that fruit of his body in the righteousness of Christ, as well as himself, for the taking away the sin of his soul, which faith a father wanting, the child shall perish for ever in default out, and yet be in no fault in the world about it:  
Alas poor infants indeed, that descend from such parents as believe not, if it be so, that that the father's faith only does interest the infant in Christ, their forefather, the first Adam by his sin unawares to them damned them say they, and say I, if it did, there's righteousness enough in the heavenly father, and the second Adam to save them, but because not they themselves, for they have no more ability so to do then a new born infant hath to dress its naked body, but their fathers put it not on by faith for themselves, and theirs, which if the dying infants might live to years, as Christ said of Sodom, they happily would do, therefore millions of these poor innocents' must perish: so then belike it is thus, and this is the covenant of the Gospel, the father's faith saves him, and all his dying infants, and the father's sin of unbelief damns for ever not himself only, but all his dying infants also.  
All infants that are damned then, are damned through the fault of two unhappy fathers, a remote father for sinning, and and immediate father for not believing, between which two the love of the heavenly father cannot come at them: a wise man may spend all he hath with looking, but never find such as this in all the Scripture: earthly inheritances are oft stated, and removed to and from posterity for father's faith, and faults, as all Abraham's posterity by Isaac and jacob did enjoy Canaan, and Esau's lost it, but the eternal inheritance is neither won nor lost by the children, through the faith or unbelief of the parents: and besides if Adam's sin, though a remote parent, doth so damnify all infants, that the righteousness of Christ cannot save them, without the father's faith, me thinks he being their great grand father, Adam's faith should recover him and all his, at least from that guilt his sin brought upon them; by interessing them in Christ's righteousness, as well as his single unbelief at first destroyed them, if any fathers saith shall entitle his infants to salvation; or else God seems not to be so prone to mercy as severity, yea indeed he that says God is not more prone to severity then to mercy, and shows it no other way, as to his dealing with innocent infants, then by saying he saves no more dying of infants than those few, i. e. some of the dying infants of believers, and from the Mother's womb damns eternally all the rest, may say over that his creed in my hearing 500 times and ten, before I shall learn to believe it after him once.  
Thirdly, as to threatenings of damnation I find none at all to infants in their ininfancy, from one end of the book of God to the other, but all that ever is spoken as concerning eternal wrath, the second death, everlasting damnation, the Lake of fire, is declared as the portion of those only that do, and do not that, which was never at all, much less in order to salvation, and on pain of eternal fire enjoined by infants either to be done, or forborn: yea this is the condemnation, and nothing else that I know of, that light more or less comes to persons, and they love darkness more than light because their deeds are evil, those that Christ speaks nothing at all to, as he does to heathens themselves Rom. 1. Rom. 2. but not to infants, that yet know not the right hand from the left, much less either good or evil, they have not sin, for sin is the transgression of that law, that is lent us to live by, whether a law within only, or without also Rom. 2. but when he hath spoken and they obey not, when they know God, and glorify him not as God, than they are without excuse, and have no cloak at all for their sin: and the word he hath spoken to every one, being rejected that same word shall judge him at the last day.  
I find it said no whoremonger, fornicator etc. no actual impenitent sinner shall ●…ver enter, or hath any inheritance at all, but not no unbelievers dying infants in the kingdom of God or of Christ; and that the Lo●…d shall come in flaming fire taking vengeance on all them that know not God, and obey not the Gospel of Christ etc. and yet on no dying infants, though they neither know him, nor obey him, for if he should then believers infants should therefore to the pot as well as others, as who in infancy obey no more than their fellows; that the fearful and unbelieving, and dogs, and socerers, and murderers, and all liars etc. but not liars dying infants, shall have their portion in the lake of fire burning with brimstone, which is the second death; and that the unprofitable servant, that traded not with his talon, and not infants, that in infancy have no talon to trade with, shall be cast into utter darkness; that those on whom Christ called, and they would not hear, and to whom he stretched out his hands, and they regarded him not, and would none of Christ's council nor reproof, shall call on him at that day and not be heard, and not infants on whom he never called; that the Lord added to the Church daily such men and women Act. 2. not at all such infants, as should be saved; that he that believeth not the gospel shall be damned, but not infants to whom he never preached; that it shall be said to the wicked, go ye cursed into into everlasting fire, for I was hungry and you fed me not &c. among which, if there were any that died infants, they might justly reply indeed, as no wicked men at years can do, Lord when saw we thee in distress, and neglected thee, and did not come and minister unto thee?  
In a word the whole body of the new Testament or covenant in the promissory, praeceptory, and minatory parts of it (saving some two or three such gentle touches about infants, as those above named, whereby we may have hopes that none of them dying such, are for ever lost) was written and given to, and concerning men and women, and not infants, to declare unto them the way of everlasting salvation, and in what ways God would and would not accept of them, and he that with an unprejudiced spirit observes all this will trouble himself no more about his infants to inchurch and baptise them for remission of sins, which is the prime use of baptism to sinners, and utterly lost when di●…penst to infants that have not sins, not indeed to do more than instruct them as they grow up, and pray for them while they live infants, and hope well of them if they die in their minority: but it pities my heart for them to see what moil and toil the Priests create to themselves and the people, and what much ado they make about their poor infants, even much more than about themselves.  
As for Jacob's being Loud before he was born (he means in contradistinction to Esau) with is Mr. B●…. tenth ground of hope that believers infants are from the womb in a hopeful way, I suppose he takes it to be so declared, but is miserably mistaken, if he think the ninth of the Romans says so, for 'tis true the elder shall serve the younger, which relates to the posterity of those two, and not their persons (for Esau was mostly jacob's Lord) was said before they were born by God, who foreseeing it might easily foretell how it should be and did so too, but for the wo●…ds jacob have I loved, Esau have I hated, as they also were spoken of the two Nations, that came out of their loins viz. the Edomites and Israelites, and that not without respect to Edom's being the border of wickedness, so far was it from being spoken of them before they were born, that 'twas hundreds of years after they were dead and rotten, Mal. 1.  
But if it were just as Mr. B. understands it, that before they were born, and without any respect to their personal rebellion, and obedience in time it had been said jacob have I loved, Esau have I hated, would it prove that article in Mr. Bs. creed that God hath promised to be merciful to Godly men's seed in general, in contradistinction to the seed of the wicked? in no wise, I suppose; since as godly as Isaac was, even one of his Sons was hated from the womb; if Mr. B●…. con ceit were true, aswel as the other of them from the womb beloved: but surely had not Esa●… sinned and set so light by the heavenly blessing, ●…e had not lost it, much less if he had died from the womb.  
Fourthly as for the universality of redemption which is by Jesus Christ's dying, as Mr. Ba. says ttuely, for all, for every man, for the sins of the whole world, which he had meant to have drawn an Argument from, but did ●…ot, he might easily have drawn one that would have served my turn in this place, viz. to have proved that very age, even the whole species of infants to be saved by Christ from wrath and ruin, except they live to rej●…ct his grace a fr●…sh, as in infancy they do not, but it utterly overthrows his hopes by the halves of infants, for it is both a good ground, and as good a ground, whereon to hope the redemption from wrath to come of every dying infant, as of any one,  
And lastly to conclude my answer to this 22 Argument of Mr. B. which I have insisted the longer on, in much hope of helping him to a better hope of all dying infants, that neither are, nor are to be added to the visible church, whereas I was once set upon by a Gentleman with this objection, who if ever this book came to his hands, and this passage to his eye, will remember it, though I forbear to name him.  
Viz. Ob●…. If we may be assured of the salvation of all our dying infants, we may then in love to them knock them on the head in their infancy, and so be sure to prevent their per●…shing by condemnation.  
I entreat that Gentleman to beware o●… so much as saying, that we may do such gross ●…vil that so great good may come thereof, lest his damnation for it be just, and then what little benefit will accrue to him all men may judge, that to save his infant damns himself.  
There's but four Arguments of M. Bs. behind brought in proof of the right of membership to infants whereof two, viz. his ●…4th and 26th are the one from 1 Cor. 7. 14. the other from Mark. 10. 13. 14. 15. Two Scriptures that I have talked on so much in the book above, and given the genuine sense of, that I shall but tautologize to speak particularly to them again, seeing I see nothing new taken notice of in them by Mr B. but what is abundantly answered in effect above, where I have showed the abr●…gation in Christ of that birth holiness he means, and the uncleanness consequently opposite thereunto, so that there's no man however born, though a barbarian, can be called, in opposition to others, as by birth holy, by nature a sinner in that ceremonial sense, from Act 10. Gal. 2. yea M. B. confesses p. 8●…. the Commo●… s●…se of holiness was one and the same in all. i e. Priests and Levites under the Law etc. Temple, Altar, Sacrifices, children of believers, and believing yoke fellows viz. a separation to God, so than if that holiness of Priests, Temple, etc. was ceremonial, so this is, and if that holiness is abolished in all other things, why abiding only the seed?  
I have also proved that the other place, where it is not evident that the infants brought to Christ were ever baptised by his dis●…iples, or any other, doth more deeply disprove infan●…s-baptism and membership, than all the places ever brought by Mr. B. are capable to prove or make good ei●…her.  
Yea as good a man might have said, as send me to those two places for infant-baptism, you may find it if you l●…ok in the bible.  
I'll say no more therefore to them.  
His other two viz. the 23th and 25●…h are both as he con●…esses but probable, and and by and by will appear not to be so much;  
His fi●…st is this.  
If an Infant were head of the Church than infants may be members.  
But Christ an infant was head of the Church,  
Ergo.  
That cannot be half so much, as a probable Argument, whose premises are neither of them true, yet such is the syllogism here brought by Mr. B. both the propositions of which I deny, his consequence is true indeed, that infants may be members, if an infant were the head, i. e. are capable o●…t, supposing God's will that it should be so now in the Gospel, which a man may suppose if he will, but shall never find to be so in his word; nor does his curious crotchet out of Irenaeus, that Christ went through every age to sanc●…ify it unto us, prove the other to be a truth, for there's no truth at all in itself, yea 'tis falsum pe●… falsius, for Christ did not pass through every age of man, that he might sanct●…fy that age, for he lived not to any old age here, though now he that was dead is alive again for evermore, for his life was soon cut off from the earth.  
And as concerning his headship in his infancy, I admire a man of wisdom should assert it, for to say nothing how little this agrees with that above page 62. where he says ●…is disputable whether ever Christ was a Churchmember properly or no, (as if the head, because the principal that rules the rest, were no member at all of the body) 'tis evident to me that as man be had not any of his Preroga●…ives settled actually upon him, till after he had purchased them by his death; he was perfect first through sufferings Heb. 5. 9 and after his death and resurrection he was made Lord and Christ Acts. 2. And exalted highly above all Phil. 2. and set fa●… above all principality, and given to be head over all things to his Church which is his body Ephe. 1. ult.  
Moreover to me there is as much force in it, if Christ had been head of the Church in his infancy, and much more than in Mr. B●…. to argue thus, if Christ the head of the Church, that was circumcised in his infancy, yet was not baptised till he came to years, then, though under the Law the circumcised were circumcised in thei●… infancy, yet under the Gospel none are to be baptised till they come to years.  
His 25th runs thus.  
If the Scripture frequently, and plainly tell us of the ceasing of circumeision, but never at all of the Churchmembership of infants, then though circumcision be ceased, yet we are not to judge their membership to be ceased.  
but etc.  
Therefore.  
This is so far from a demonstration, that it's not a Topical but Sophistical Syllog●…, in which there is fallacia homonomiae, or ambiguity in the middle term viz. t●…e Scrip●…ure tells us, which may be taken for an express, or for an implicit telling, or having a word for a thing, yet one of his propositions will be false let him understand it how he will, for if by the Scripture telling us, and having a word for it, he means an express telling of the cessation of membership in totidem verbis, a Syllabical word given out of that particular by name, than his consequence is false, for it follows not because there is not an express particular prohibition in the New Testament for the cessation of things, that were under the old, therefore they are not ceased, for so we shall make most of the types and ceremonies, among which infant membership was one, as I have showed, to remain in force still as well as that, as the dedication of the first born, and many others, the cessation of which is not so syllabically spoken of.  
But if he mean an implicit prohibition, or word for the cessation of Churchmembersh●…p of infants, which is enough, then there is prohibition enough, yea the very command for the cessation of circumcision of infants any more Act. 21. 21. virtually is a command to cease inchurching of infants, for the very end and intent of circumcision was the inchurching of infants thereby, which thing was formally done then by circumcision, besides circumcision ceasing, the whole law ceased with it, the whole of which he was a debtor to keep that was circumcised also Heb. 2. 12. 'tis said summarily thus viz. that the priesthood i e. of that testament being changed, there must be of necessity a change also of the law.  
And so I have done with all his arguments for the church-membership of infants, which is the second medium, and next to that of discipleship, by which h●… would prove but cannot, infant baptism.  
His third medium which he only names, and handles not, therefore I shall do the like in speaking to it, is drawn from the duty of parents to engage their infants solemnly to God in Covenant, and runs thus viz. if it be the duty of christian parents solemnly to devote their children to God in covenant, than they ought to do it in baptism, but etc. therefore.  
He proves his Minor from the practice of the old Testament, from the duty of parentsthen, from which time, as to that particular of dedicating, and solemn engaging of their children, it will not follow to our doing the like in all respects now as they did, for than we must thus dedicate our first born, and that both of man and beast.  
His consequence is also false of his Major proposition, for I may devote my children in a gospel sense to God according to my duty, I mean engage myself to the Lord to bring them up in the nurture and a●…monition of the Lord, and also devote them to him in prayer, i. e. give them up to him as his right, and to him to teach by his word, and his spirit, when they come to years, and sundry other ways, and yet no necessity of doing any of this in baptism.  
But I shall make this as short as he does himself, and gather up the sum of what he hath said viz. infants are disciples, visible Church-members, and to be solemnly engaged to God in Covenant as a holy seed etc. therefore are to be baptised, denying now the consequence, as to him, as I did the antecedent before, which I have been all this while in disproving.  
For, Ad hominem, so long as he argues for baptism to be after the manner of circumcision, the consequence will not follow, if this were as true as 'tis false, that infants are now disciples, Church-members, and a holy seed, and in covenant, that therefore they must be baptised; for women under the Covenant whereof circumcision was a sign, were both disciples, and visible Church-members, and a holy people in the sense of the Covenant, and dedicated to God in Covenant as well as males, and yet not then circumcised, and why? viz. for want of a commission to do it, and the like I say now of infants if they were, as 'twill never be proved while the world stands, that they are disciples, in right to visible membership, and holy in his sense, and to be engaged etc. yet of necessity it follows not they must be baptised, unless there be some command or commission for it, which no man ever shall find in the word of Christ: all the rest of his arguments wherein he undertakes to disprove the practice of baptising naked, and baptising children of Christians of age, as I have showed above, are ignoratio elenchi a dispute besides our practice, for we do not so, therefore though I see some gross absurdity in them all, yet I'll meddle no more with them here.  
Thus I have done with both that subject of rantizing, which partly at the motion of you Ashford disputants I was engaged in at the end of your Review, and partly by that mere demi-reformation that is made in this point of baptism by a party of men in Lincolnshire, and elsewhere, (of whom I suppose there are several congregations) who having long since discovered the true way of baptism, as to the subject, viz. that professing believers only, and not any infants are to be baptised, but remaining ignorant of the true way and form of administration of that ordinance are fallen into a frivolous way of sprinkling believers, which to do is as much no baptism at all, as to dip infants in no baptism of Christ's ordaining: which people, for whose sakes as well as others I write this, will be persuaded I hope in time to be, as to the outward form, not almost only, but altogether Christians, and rest no longer in that mere midway mongril reformation. I have done also with this book of Mr. Baxs▪ for infant baptism, the weak arguments of which for it were enough, if I had no more, to convince me of the error of it, & to make me doubt ofit, & renounce it, even as M. B●…. himself says he had like to have done once, when he saw the weak arguments of others for it, which had he done, he had done no more than what is his duty to do now, and in order to God's glory though it were as much to his own shame, as it will be rather for his honour, to deny himself, and embrace the truth as 'tis in Jesus, I hope he may do yet in due time, if he do not shut his eyes against the Gospel, because I find him saying and unsaying again what he said before he had well studied itp. 113. and he is out in print for infant baptsm, and against the true baptism, for all his professions of so serious search after it, before he had well studied it to the bottom: if he do not recant his error, I am confident some of the people will, that have been deluded by him, and out of love to the Lord Jesus, that loved them as a Priest, and washed them from sin, in his own blood, and as a Prophet, and a King requires them so to do, arise and be baptised, as they ought, washing away their sins calling on the name of the Lord.  
Thus my friends and you my Ashford Antagonists, you have my mind amongst you in this matter,  
If any one of you answer, and I have satisfaction from him to the contrary, he shall hear of my recantation, if I have not, he shall see it by my silence, for I'll never lose so much time, as I have done by the bare writing of this, from preaching to poor ignorant creatures the free love and rich grace of God in Christ to all that obey him in truth, and as I see I must, if I meddle more at the press with this subject.    

ANTI-RANTERISM CHRISTNDOM NEW CHRISTND, OR Christ's ordinances continning till Christ's second coming In a small system, wherein are some few reasons rendered for the now raising ofwater baptism into its right way of administration, as to the form and subject, and for the remaining of both it, and other ordinances in their primitive right, till the return of Christ jesus.  
FOr as much as I have been several times solicited by several persons 
witness these words received in a late letter from two Gentlemen of Chichester viz. 
SIR,  
The occasion of these lines is the result of a late conference viz. ●…o desire your grounds & arguments (in wriing) for the continuance of water baptism, & what you conceive required to evidence a right administrator and subject thereof. Sir our end herein (if we know our own hearts) is to be assured of the mind of the Lord Christ touching that ordinance, and our duty therein, that we may walk conformably to his will etc.   both by word of mouth and otherwise●…, to give out unto them the grounds, ends and arguments in writing of my continuance in the practice of water baptism, and other ordinances of Christ, as laying on of hands, prayer, breaking of bread, church f●…llowship etc. according as the Churches of Christ in the primitive ages of the Gospel did, and for that I find it an easeless and well nigh an endless business to write the same things in private letters, about one particular subject, to every of those particular persons, that may successively desire it, I have therefore thought good (being called to the press by sundry challenges of the Priesthood, and more specially by not only the publication of that abusive pamphlet concerning the Ashford-disputation for infant-baptism, but also their professed expectation, that I should give some answer, or give the cause) to insert here this ensuing account of my own reasons, for the right of our remaining in the use of ordinances till the return of Christ, and animadversions of what little reason the Ranter hath to run from them, and redeem himself from that bondage, which he deems to be in the observation of them, before the time appointed, much more to run beyond the bounds of modesty and all good manners also, as not all, but many, if not most of those do first, or last, who despise any of the ordinances the Lord Jesus: and herein as I shall be plain, using no other form, method and order then what the Lord gives into me as I write, so I must be brief, the foregoing part of this volume having risen already unawares to a far greater magnitude than was meant to the whole, when I first cast the bulk of it in my mind, and there remaining also something yet to speak, and I know not well how much, to the Priests concerning themselves, in way of return to the last piece of that pedobaptistical pamphlet which was put forth by who knows? or rather by who knows not whom? in order to the plainer disquisition of the truth in this question viz. whether the ordinances of Christ, that were in use of old, are of right to be practised still? as there are fo●… services, then in use, the necessary use of which is now denied viz. baptism in water, laying on of hands, breaking of bread, ●…d church-fellowship, so I shall address myself to prove the practice of these four severally to stand, even de jure till the second coming of Christ, which is yet to come.  
And because baptism in water, though most strenuously denied by many to be so much as lawful to be either dispensed, or submitted to, and by many even of those that have submitted to it to be necessary, or any other than a matter of indifferency, is yet the first in order to be practised, and that without, or before which we are not once to meddle with the other, I therefore propound it as the first in order to be proved, and in order to the proof of at least the lawfulness thereof against such as say its si●…ful (for this will be included in the other) I shall by the help of God prove a necessity of it, against such as judge it needless or superfluous, and by several Scriptures show it to be such a service, the present performance of which is so far from being sinful, that it is no less than sin and rebellion against Christ himself to leave it unperformed.  
The Scripture which I shall most directly make use of to this purpose, and lay as the very basis, and foundation of this business, and make as a certain cardinal 〈◊〉 from whence to argue, and whether to reduce all the rest, which I shall more collaterally handle, is Mat. 28. 18. 16. 20. All power is given &c. in which place these things chiefly are observable as subservient to the proof of the point in hand.  
First, we find Christ pleading that absolute power, which was given him by the father to be the Sovereign Lord, and Supreme lawgiver to the whole world throughout all nations and generations of it from thenceforth even to the end; in these words viz. All power is given unto m●… both in heaven and in earth i. e I am he to whom this prerogative is granted to give out to all men what laws and rules they shall be guided, and governed by, what ways they must walk in in order to that eternal salvation, which as a Priest I have purchased them to by my own blood, if ever they mean to attain it, I am that Prophet, 
a Acts 3. 22.  which the Lord hath raised up unto all people now, instead of Moses, who was the faithful giver out of God's will, mind, or Testament to Israel of old, whose voice all must now hearken to in all things, what ever I say unto them, and whoever harkneth no●… to me, shall be cut off from among the people: 
b Is. 55. 4.  behold God hath given me for a wi●…nesse to the people, a leader and commander unto the people.  
Secondly, After he had thus showed his authority, and commission from God to be the only Lawgiver, whereby to summon the sons of men to so much the stricter attention to him, he next begins to act according thereunto, to act like himself, to make out his mind to his disciples concerning them and all men most expressly, and plainly about this matter of waterbaptism, and to give order to them both when, and to whom, both in what time and to what subjects they should dispense it, and likewise both how, and for how long he would have the nations (as by command from himself, commissionating his disciples so to teach them) to practise the same dispensation of water baptism; in the two following verses. Going out therefore teach all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, Son and holy spirit, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you, and lo I am with you always even to the end of the world.  
Where note first in general three things.  
First, That he gives order to his disciples to teach the nations, and baptise them in water in his name ver. 19 going out teach all nations baptising them in the name of the Father, son and holy spirit.  
Secondly, that whatever order is given out by Christ to his disciples, concerning this business of water baptism, as to the order of its administration, and the term of its continuance, the very same and no other doth christian join his disciples to give out to the disciples, that should be successively in all nations, to be observed as his will concerning them v. 20. teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.  
Thirdly, that what ever he gives out as his will concerning both them and the disciples in the nations that they should make, he gives out as his standing will and Testament to them, and their standing duty to him in all ages of the world as well as that, even to the very end thereof, in these words v. 20. and lo I am with you always i. e. in the observation of these things I command you, to the end of the world.  
Secondly more particularly yet, let it be observed what Arguments in particular do most naturaly arise hence in proof of the continuance of water baptism by comcommand from Christ to this very day, and that from several clauses and passages of this Scripture severally considered.  
First from these words Go ye out therefore and teach all nations baptising them in the name etc. it is very evident to the utter confutation not only of those who are for infant baptism, as is showed above, but also of those that are now for no water baptism at all, that our lord Christ expressly enjoines these two things, viz.  
1. That all those whom his disciples presume to baptise in his name shall be first taught by them or made disciples, i. e. preached to or instructed in the Gospel till they learn and believe it. 
* for so Mark records the commission whereby Matthewes meaning is much explaind Mar. 16. 15. 16. Go ye out into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature, he that believeth and is baptizd shall be saved etc.   
2. That all those whom his disciples do teach till they have learned the Gospel, or by preaching to them have converted to faith in his name shall in his name like wise be baptised, so inseparable hath Christ made these two viz. discipling and baptising, believing and baptising in his will and Testament to us, that as he would have no creature in the nations be baptised without precedent teaching and believing, so he would have no creature that is instructed till he believes to go unbaptised; whereupon in one and the same word of command he requires both, neither can any one abstract either from the other (without such violation to the will and Testament of Christ, confirmed by his blood, which woe be to that man, or angel that disannulleth in the least particular) so as to take upon him to give a toleration to persons either to be baptised before believing, or to content themselves with belief only without baptism.  
But first as express as 'tis the mind of Christ that one of these should be done so express it is that the other should be done, and each in its proper order.  
Secondly, as clear as it is that these are commanded to be done by the very persons he then spoke to viz. that they should teach and baptise, so clear it is that the very same is commanded to be done in all nations, and among all people by such persons as should be discipled by them in these words v. ●…0. Teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I have commanded you.  
Thirdly, and as long as 'twas his mind the one should be used viz. teaching and believing, so long 'twas his mind that the other should continue, viz. baptising and being baptised, and that was that they should all abide in force to the very end of the world.  
Whence more formally we may argue thus, viz.  
What Christ hath conjoined man must not separate. 
Argu. 1.   
But Christ hath conjoined our discipling of persons, and baptising them, as a standing course to the end of the world, as Matth. 28. 18, 19, 20. plainly shows,  
Ergo man must not separate these two.  
In this very manner and form of words, word for word (little heeding how while he declines the gulf of no-baptism, he runs against the rock, and makes shipwreck of his infant baptism by the shift, and at once breaks the neck of all his Arguments for it) doth Mr. Baxter argue against these new No-baptists in p. 341. of his Plain Scripturelesse proofs for infants Church-membership and baptism: whereby verily as he wounds both himself to death, and all those that together with him do plead for the baptising of such subjects, as they never teach viz. infants whom themselves must needs acknowledge to be uncapable of conversion by their instruction, so all those likewise that plead for the teaching of all nations still, and preaching of the Gosel to every creature, and yet plead against any more baptising of them in water, who are converted to the faith by preaching; who tear the Testament of the Lord Christ to pieces, and take what of it will serve their own easy turns, and reject what of it is more tedious to the flesh, as the way of outward ordinances is, specially that ordinance of water baptism, as a business long since abolished and out of date, as being ended almost as soon as instituted, as bondage, as mere bodily exercise, that profiteth little or nothing, as but indifferent at most, and so may be done, and yet as well be let alone, as a low weak thing, as a foolish matter to make such ado about, as needless for every one to submit to or make use of, as that which some can live as well without as with &c. as if Christ Jesus was a fool (for so all those do say in figures, though not in words at length) to invent such foolish instruments, to appoint such simple tools to be used in his house, such earthen vessels, such vessels as are not honourable enough, nor fit in their conceit for the master's use, or for any thing but to be thrown aside, as out of date, and not worthy to be now meddled with any more: to which high Notionists, who camaelion like live up aloft, and yet feed on nothing but the mere air of their own high flown fancies, I must needs say thus much here, before I come to the other argument viz. that as wise and strong as they reckon upon themselves to be, so that they can live to God and thrive toward salvation as well without baptism, or any other ordinance as those that use it, and as poor pieces of business as they deem these to be, and unworthy of their condescension to them, as small, despised, homely and earthen as they are in their eyes, 
d For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speak 〈◊〉 now and ●…ot to such 〈◊〉 ●…re shy of ●…he use of Christ's ordinances on an o●…her account viz a wretched conceit of such worth and weightiness in them, that no men in the world are now found fit to meddle with them, or are admitted by Christ to be administrators of them, for born these ways doth the devil deceive men by to err from the plain way of Christ's truth.  yet they are of such precious and heavenly consequence as may well challenge a right of continuance to the end, yea they are no less than the power of God 
e 1 Cor. 1. 18. Rom. 1. 16.  to salvation to every one that believeth, the wisdom of God in a mystery; 
f 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cor. 1.. 1. 25 Argu. 2.  yea this foolish thing of God is wiser than man, and this weak thing of God is stronger than man i. e. then all the gaudy forms, and new ways of man's tradition, whereby the Rantizer, or those nonentity, and new-nowayes of man's invention, whereby the Ranter hath made void the commands of King Jesus, and howbeit they count it their spirituality, yet I cannot but count it their naturallity, their carnality to call any of the ordinances of Christ, even that which may seem to them the most empty (for here's the mystery of Christ giving out heavenly treasure in earthen vessels) I say to call those lowness, weakness, unprofitableness, foolishness.  
As many as Christ commanded to be taught, preached to, and made disciples, are commanded when discipled to be baptised in water in the name of the father, Son and holy spirit,  
But Christ commanded all nations, even every creature therein, that is capable thereof, to be taught, preached to, and discipled.  
Ergo, all nations, even every creature, none excepted, so soon as discipled, are commanded to be baptised, etc.  
The first proposition is most undeniably evident, for teaching and baptising are both concluded here under one and the very same numerical command, and both instituted here de novo as parts of the will and Testament of Christ in one and the same word of institution, and both enjoined to be used to one and the same subject viz. all nations, every creature, therefore if every creature as far as capable to be preached to by us, and we are capable to preach to him, is to be taught, as is expressly asserted not only in the Minor but in the texts themselves, than it must needs follow that every creature, after he is preached to and converted to the faith by our instruction, is to be baptised, and that no creature is exempted or excused from being baptised, any more than he is from being taught and discipled, no not one, and consequently that baptism is not a mere matter of liberty, and indifferency that may ad placitum be done by us, or let alone, but a matter of absolute duty, of positive precept, and necessitate precepti (and therefore how far forth necessitate medit ad salutem is worth examining) a matter of necessity if not of equal necessity with that of repenting and believing, for if it be his voice and command equally with the other (and we see 'tis in one and the same place, and phrase given out as his will together with the other) than why it should not be equally obeyed, and that sub paena, sith he is that Prophet whom God hath now raised up unto us, whose voice whoever harkneth not to in all things whatsoever he saith, shall be cut off from among his people, no man is able to give a solid reason, nor yet why any should shun to declare it, it being a a part of that whole council of God, which the Apostle Paul durst not decline to declare the whole of, 
f Act. 20. 27  any more than to declare the doctrine of faith, repentance and obedience in other things; yea and such a weighty part of that council, and of such near concernment, and great consequence unto us is baptism, that as it is said, even that despised dispensation of water baptism, to be from heaven 
g Mat. 21. 25 , and not of men, so they that own it are said to justify God, and they that reject it and refuse to submit to it are said to reject the council of God against themselves. 
h Luk 7. 29. 30  And all the people that heard, and the Publicans justified God, being baptised with the baptism of John, but the Pharisees and Lawyers rejected the council of God against themselves being not baptised of him.  
And to prove it to be no matter of mere indifferency, but of duty to all believers, I argue yet further from the forenamed Scripture thus.  
That which is positively commanded to be done, and dispensed to all persons, 
Argum. 3.  when once discipled, without exception of any, and without the least intimation of a dispensation from Christ to any to omit it, is not a matter of mere indifferency, but of absolute duty among all those persons that are so discipled.  
But baptism is positively commanded to be dispensed to all persons when once discipled, without exception of any, and without the least intimation of a dispensation from Christ to any to omit it, yea I may say as positively commanded to be dispensed to disciples as persons are commanded to be taught, discipled or to repent and believe the Gospel, and that is so positively that he that knowing it to be Christ's will concerning him submits not to it, obeys not Christ in it, shall be damned. Ergo baptism is no matter of mere indifferency but of absolute duty to all believers, or disciples.  
The Major is most undeniable: the Minor also is most express and obvious to every eye in the text itself, where it's said (in one entire sentence by way of positive command concerning both these) teach all Nations baptising them, i. e. all them that are taught and made disciples: and not only in this Scripture but also in several other, which I may allege very subservient unto this as to the proof of the second proposition. The first whereof is Act. 22. 16. and now why tarriest thou? arise and be baptised, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord, where it is not a little worth our noting in this case, that Ananias doth not only in one and the same sentence command Paul to be baptised as strictly, as to call on the name of the Lord, but also checks him in a certain round reproof, and angry expostulation, for his lingering, and del●…ying in this business, which he could not rationally have done if it had been, no neglect of duty in Paul to be tardy to it, and a matter of no necessity, but of such indifferen●…y that 'twas, without danger of incurring divine dispeasure, at Paul's choice whether he would be baptised yea or no.  
The second is Acts 2. 38. the first place, wherein we read of any practising according to that commission that Christ gives out in M●…. 28. that being indeed the first time of its beginning to be put in execution, by Peter and the rest, who, being empowered so to do, in obedience thereunto went forth and preached repentance, faith, and baptism for remission of sins among all nations (pro suo modulo) beginning at jerusalem, as also they were required to do Luke 24. 47. in which Scripture (I mean Acts 2.) to a people enquiring what they should do we find Peter preaching positively thus v●…z. repent and be bap●…zed every one of you in the name of jesus Christ for remission of sins etc. where note that as he join●…s repentance and water baptism together, so in one and the same precept and word of command he enjoines them both together to be practised as the mind of C●…st, and that to every one then, and there present, that had not yet performed these services, without exempting any one of all those thousands he then spoke to one jot more from the practice of baptism, then of repentance itself, which phrase, viz. Repent, and be baptised every one of you etc. he could not warrantably have delivered himself in unto them in the name of Christ, if he had not had clear commission from him by way of precept to impose baptism on all men as the mind of Christ concerning them, and a duty to be practised by them all as well as repentance, without holding any one excused.  
The third is A●…t. 10. 47. 48. Can any man forbid water why these should not be baptised, which have received the holy spirit as well as we? and he commanded them to be baptised in the name of the Lord.  
In which words I appeal to the conscience of every considerate man whether Peter doth not, not only command all those persons, and that in Christ's name, who were then and there converted, to be baptised in water, but also assert it to be beyond the power of the persons themselves, or any other to forbid it to be dispensed to them, or to 〈◊〉 them a dispensation to forbear it? for when he queries who can? he means no man can forbid water why these should not be baptised, (for an Interrogation affirmative concludes negatively) whereupon (nemine prohibente) he commanded them (and what he commanded them was no less than their duty and the positive will of God concerning them (for it's said to Cornelius v. 6. that Peter should tell him what he ought to do) and also no less than what he was commissionated from Christ to impose upon them, or else Peter deluded them to whom he spoke, for v. 39 he calls it the word of God sent to Israel, and v. 33. they expected to hear not what he should please but what was commanded him of God) he commanded them I say nemine contradicente in the Lord's name to be baptised; which Peter had no power to have done had it been by the Lord himself left a d libitum unto them, yea had it been a thing so needless, of such liberty, and such no-necessity as many make it now adays, I would by Peter's leave, had I been there, and been one of those that were so flatly commanded, have interposed, and forbid their baptism, or at least my own, unless my flesh had had more mind to it than it had when I used it, and have pleaded, as our Gentee●… spiritualists do against us, in this wise against Peter, viz. you are much mistaken Peter in this matter, you go about to urge it as an absolute duty and matter of necessity for us to be baptised in water, but alas it's no such matter, 'tis but an external dispensation, that may be done indeed if any be not satisfied without it, but else may full as well be let alone; we have the most substantial baptism already, even that of the spirit, in which case the other is but mere superflu●…ty to be used afterward, you cannot make it such an absolute command from God to us as you seem to do, and therefore whereas you ask who can forbid? even I can forbid, why I should not be baptised as by positive precept from Christ, seeing I have received the holy sp●…it as well as you.  
Thus verily might one have cavilled against Peter's command then, as the Ra●…ter cavils against Peter's command now, which is not out of date, nor hath lost any of ●…s validity sure with lying so long unpractised, if baptism in water were such an indifferent thing as 'tis now made by the new Spirituallists, who little consider (but I assure them wise men will weigh it well though they do not) how little their Logic and Peter's are like one another (whereby it may be gathered what contrary spirits he, and they speak by) for whereas he reasons thus, viz. these men have received the spirit, and have the most substantial baptism already, as well as those that are baptised in water, therefore who can forbid water why, or give any good reason to the contrary why these should not be baptised? and accordingly commanded them so to be.  
They contrarywi●…e reason thus.  
Viz. These men have the spirit, the most substantial baptism already, as well as those that are baptised in water, Therefore who can command it as necessary or give any sound reason why these should be baptised in water? and accordingly forbid them so to be.  
But whether it be right in the sight of God to obey them foolishly forbidding it, as needless, at best but indifferency, or obey God by the mouth of Peter commanding it universally to all men as their duty judge ye.  
'tis clear therefore out of all these places that water baptism is so far from being sinful that 'tis more than lawful, more than indifferent, yea a matter of duty, and necessity, and such as it would become me●… to submit to as well as Christ, who needed it not, as we do, if there w●…re no other end, nor use of it then to fulfil all the righteousness of his law, the least of whose commandments whoever shall break, and teach men so, i. e. that they need not keep them, the same shall be least in the kingdom of heaven, but who so shall do▪ and teach, the same shall be great in the kingdom of heaven 
g Mat. 5. 19  and to whom he that is faithful, though but in a little, is faithful in much, and he that is unfaithful in but a little is unfaithful in too much 
h Luke 16. 10. , specially if that little be left us in way of command in his word as his positive will concerning us, and no●… as a matter of such indifferency as that it may, without sin on either side, be done or not door, which we please, for such things only and indeed are indifferent, of which we may by the word say as Paul says of meats and marriage viz. one believeth he may eat all things, another who is weak, eateth, herbs, one man esteemeth one day above another, another man esteemeth every day alike, let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind; 
h Rom. 14. 2. 5.  so seek not a wife, yet if thou marry thou hast not sinned; 
i 1 Cor. 7. 27 28.  but so we cannot say, nor do the Apostles speak concerning baptism, viz. one man believeth that, having the spirit he may, but needs not be baptised, another, who is weak, must needs be baptised, let every one do as they see good, or are satisfied in this case, if they be baptised they have not sinned, and if they never be baptised they have not sinned etc. nay both Christ and they speak here in way of peremptory determination of all persons to one point; for whereas if baptism were a matter thus left to our minds, Christ must have said to his disciples go teach all nations, every creature, baptising as many of those you make disciples only as judge it needful, as have a mind to it, not teaching them to observe that outward rite, any further than they please, and Ananias to Paul, and Peter to those he preached to Act. 2. Act. 10. must have said repent, and believe remission of sins, and call on the name of the Lord, and if any of you be so mindeed, you may be baptised in water in token of Christ's death, burial and resurrection, but those that seem to themselves to be as well without it, may forbear, we have no power either to forbid it, or force them to it; but they say clean otherwise viz. Go teach all Nations baptising them, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I command you, and now why 〈◊〉? arise and be baptised, 〈◊〉 away thy sins etc. repent and be baptised every one of you in the name of jesus, etc. who can forbid water why these i. e. all these should not be baptised etc. all which if it do not import and express water baptism to be every one's duty, and not any one's liberty only, than my understanding stands under a cloud of utter darkness.  
Yea verily 'tis very remarkable in my mind, and as well worth our heeding as any thing else in this case; that when Paul, in his trembling and astonished condition, enquired of the Lord what he would have him to do, the first thing and well nigh the only thing that the word expresses that Christ by the mouth of Ananias declared to him as his will at that time, which was immediately after his conversion, was this duty of baptism: see Act. 6. 9 and the trembling and astonished said Lord what 〈◊〉 thou have me to do? and the Lord said unto him arise and go into the City, and it shall be told thee what thou must do, which passage Paul relating of himself Act. 22. 10. expresses it thus viz. and I said what shall I do Lord? and the Lord said to me arise, and go into Damascus, and there it shall be told thee of all things, which are appointed for thee to do:  
Now when he was come into Damascus, Ananias speaks thus to him v. 14. the God of our fathers hath chosen thee that thou should know his will.  
But what part of Christ's will doth the word say Ananias there makes known to Paul in that place, as that which at that time he must do, and was appointed that he should do? no more than what is expressed in these words Act. 22. v. 15. 16. thou shalt be his witness unto all men of that thou hast seen and heard. And now why tarriest thou? arise and be baptised and wash away thy sins calling on the name of the Lord.  
And as Peter in his first preaching the praeceptory part of Christ's Gospel to the Jews, when they enquired what they should do? and to the company at Cornelius' house, and Ananias in his to Paul, when he quaeried what he should do? did preach baptism as the will of Christ concerning them as well as repentance, prayer and such like duties, so we shall find it was the constant course of all other primitive preachers in their preachings of Christ to any people, to hold forth baptism to them, as that which was to be submitted to by them out of hand, after faith and repentance professed, and also the constant course of persons converted to the faith without delay to submit to that dispensation accordingly, for howbeit the very form of words, wherein they spoke to them concerning baptism, and pressed it upon believers as their duty, is not set down syllabically in every place, where its evident, yet most manifestly evident, and past all doubt it is to any, but such as seeing will n●…t see, that in their doctrine, they delivered the mind of Christ to people in this point of baptism, and commanded it too, even in those places, where the Scripture doth not express what they said, or else how it came to pass that their converts were acquainted with it so as readily to embrace it, and some of them to demand it, as we find they did, I know not, unless we shall imagine they knew and owned it by some divine immediate instinct. Acts 16. 13. 14. 15. ●…s said that the Lord opening the heart of Lydia so that she attended unto the things which were spoken by Paul, she was baptised and her household, who undoubtedly attended to the things that Paul preached together with her, doth not this palpably presuppose that baptism was one of those things spoken by Paul, and pressed upon that Auditory, or else how came she to know it? and also to what purpose did she perform it? likewise Act. 16. 30. 31. 32. 33. to the Jailor ask Sirs what must I do to be saved? its said that Paul and Silas preached the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house: but what word of the Lord was it that they spoke to them? indeed the sum of their doctrine is not set down, but that the doctrine of baptism was some of it, as well as faith, which is expressly set down, as that which concerned them in the first place is clear, or else it's a mystery to me how he and all his, who are said v. 34. to believe in the Lord together with h●…m, should come to understand that they ought to be baptised, much more to submit to be baptised straightway: so Act. 18. 8. its said that Crispus the chief ruler of the Synagogue, and all his house and many of the Corinthians, hearing the word, believed and were baptised, which how or why they should suffer themselves to be, if the word they then heard (none of which is set down) did not hold forth baptism as well as faith I cannot possibly conjecture: in like manner we read Act. 8 4. that Philip went to Samaria and preached Christ to them, and v. 12. that when they believed the things spoken by Philip pertaining to the Kingdom of God, and the name of jesus Christ, they were baptised both men and women: yea and this not a service they submitted to on their own heads, in their own names, as that which, had they been so pleased, they might as well have forborn, but v. 16. they were baptised in the name of the Lord jesus, it's said also v. 35. of the Eunuch that Philip preached unto him jesus, not one jot of Philip's sermon unto him is set down, but the next news we hear is this v. 36. that coming to a certain water in the way, the Eunuch desired to be baptised, saying see here is water, what hinder, why I may not be baptised? doth not all this plainly import, howbeit what Philip preached to the Samaritans and the Eunuch is not extant expressly in any particulars thereof, yet he preached the ends and ●…uses of baptism to them, and pressed the practice thereof upon them? how else could they have known it? why else did they both do and desire it? we see then how the first preachers of the Gospel Ananias, Philip, Peter, Paul are said all along to preach Christ, and Jesus, 
l Act. 8 3●….  and the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name 
〈◊〉 Act. 8 4.  Jesus Christ, 
m Act. 8 12.  and the word of the Lord, 
n Act. 8 14. 10 36. 18. 11.  and peace by Jesus and things that we must do, 
o Act. 9 6  and that are appointed for us to do, 
p Act. 22. 10.  and what we ought to do, 
q Act. 10 6.  and the things that were commanded them of God, 
r Act. 10. 33. 48.  to command us in his name, and yet preached baptism still as well as faith, repentance and salvation: and so he seems to me to this day to preach Christ but by the halves, that preaches salvation by Christ, faith in Christ, and not baptism in the name of Christ for remission of sins.  
And as this doctrine of water baptism was thus universally preached in Christ's name, as his will concerning those that were converted and discipled, in obedience punctually to Christ's Commission in that kind M●…. 28. 18. 19 20 in those primitive ages of the Gospel, so was it as universally embraced, and obeyed by them that were made disciples in those days, not only before, but also after Christ crucified: for as in the days before john the baptist was beheaded, and before Christ crucified, all those multitudes of disciples, which by each of them were made by teaching, were universally baptised either by john, confessing their sins, or by Christ's disciples, who dispensed in Christ's name, for he dispensed not himself, in Enon, or jordan, or some other places that were convenient Mat. 3. 5. 6. john 3. 22. 13. 4. 1. 2. so even long after Christ crucified, raised, and ascended were the people, that were discipled and converted to the faith, before ever they joined in visible Church-fellowship in one body in breaking of bread and prayers, baptised all without exception: for as it's said Act. 2. 38. 40. 41. 42. of that first Church of the Jews, or Hebrews, to whom that Epistle was after written, they were bid to be baptised every one of them, so as many of them as did gladly receive the word of the Lord i e. as repented and embraced the Gospel, were baptised, and then continued in the Apostles doctrine (who surely taught them all the six first principles of the oracles or holy things of God at that time, Heb. 5. 12. 6. 1. 2. and what more they saw occasion for, for with many more other words then those that are recorded did Peter then exhort that people v. 40.) and in fellowship and in breaking of bread and prayers, so it's said 1. Cor. 12. 13. of the whole Church of Corinth in way of sacramental metonymy, whereby that is very familiarly spoken of the thing signified, which can be spoken properly only of the outward sign, et retro, by one spirit we are all baptised into one body, jews or Gentiles, bond or free, none excepted, and have been all made to drink into one spirit.  
Yea as these Churches in judea, jerusalem, and Corinth were all baptised before built up in a body, so which of all the Churches were not, to whom the Apostles directed afterward those several Epistles? All the Romans to whom Paul wrote were baptised, 
s Rome 6. 34.  all the Galatians were baptised, 
t Gal. 3. 26. 27  the Ephesians, which at first were but 12 disciples that embraced the truth, were baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus, the Colossians were baptised, 
x Col. ●…2. 12.  the Philippians were baptised, as we see by Lydia and the jailor 
y Act. 16. 15. 22. 23.  and all those that believed with them, which was the beginning of the Church at Philippi; and that the Thessalonians were not 
ᵛ Act. 12. 1, 2, 3. 4. etc.  baptised is more than brutish to imagine, for surely Paul and Silas that went immediately thither from Philippi where the jailor and Lydia and many more were baptised, had not got a new doctrine of no-baptism to preach before they came to Thessalonica; nay it is evident by the Jews accusation of them Act. 17 6. that what doings and disturbance they were occasion of through their preachings and baptizings at Philippi, the same they were by the same means, no causes, but occasions of at Thessalonica, therefore of them say they, these that have turned the world upside down are come hither also, yea Paul himself hints that to us, 1 Thess. 2. 2. that after they had suffered and were shamefully entreated at Philippi, they yet were bold to speak to the Thessalonians the Gospel of God (the same Gospel sure that they preached at Philippi, for what he did and ordained in one Church, the same he did, and ordained in all the Churches 1 Cor. 16. 1) with much contention.  
By all which foregoing considerations the Minor of the third main argument above is cleared, which assure baptism to be commanded to all without exception, therefore a duty from which we are not exempted.  
What Christ commanded to be taught and observed not only in and among 
Arg. 4.  all nations of the world, but also in all ages and generations thereof even to the very end, the same is not ad placitum, but de jure, not at men's own pleasure, but of right to be taught and observed as Christ's will, and their duty in all nations to this very day.  
But Christ commanded Baptism in water to be taught and observed not only in and among all Nations of the world, but also in all ages and generations thereof even to the end.  
Ergo Baptism in water is not at men's own pleasure, but of right to be taught and observed as Christ's will and their duty in all nations to this very day.  
The Minor, which only needs proving, needs none neither to him that will but observe how plain it is to every man's understanding in the text.  
For first if baptism be to be taught to, and observed as duty among all nations and by every creature therein that hears and believes, as 'tis clear it is both here (for teach them says Christ i. e. all nations to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you, and did he not command them in the very verse above the observation of that administration of baptism?) and also Mark 16. 15. 16. (where he bids that the Gospel of salvation be from thenceforth tendered on terms of faith and baptism to all the world, to every creature capable of being preach to) then of necessity in all nations and generations to the world's end, for all nations were not then extant, but many nations are risen since, that the world than knew not, all the world, every creature was not in actual being at that time, neither could possibly be all baptised unless baptism abide in its right in all ages unto the end, by all nations, every creature, all the world, Christ denoted all people of the earth that then were, or thereafter should be, whom, as they should successively arise, and grow into capacity for it, he would have to be in their several generations successively taught and baptised.  
Besides how plainly doth Christ express his meaning to be that this course of baptising in wa●…er should be kept a foot in all ages and generations v. 20. where after his precept to observe that dispensation he adds this promise of his presence, And lo I am with you always i. e. in your faithful observation of all these things (for if men be not found in this way he is disengaged) even to the end of the world Amen.  
Whence the argument in form may be thus.  
What way of outward administration Christ not only required to 
Arg. 5.  be observed to the end, but likewise promised his people to be present with them during their due observation of to the very end of the world that must stand of right to the very end of the world.  
But Christ hath not only required that outward administration of water baptism to be observed to the end of the world, but likewise hath promised his people to be present with them during their due observation of it to the very end of the world.  
Ergo that administration of water baptism is of right to stand even to the very end of the world.  
The objections that are usually made against what is asserted hitherto concerning the needfulness of water baptism to all, who will not be under a just account of rejecting the counsel of that Prophet and rebelling against the command of King Jesus, among which I shall set down none but such as to my own knowledge have been made, and among them I shall not fail to set down (if not all) yet at least ●…hose that by the opposite party in this point are called and counted the principal, for so is one parcel of the ensuing reasons styled in a certain copy of them, which was given to me lately while I was at the press, viz. The principal Reasons why believers need not be baptised (whereby you may guess how little worth answering the less principal are) are on this wise.  

Ranterist.  
The Baptism mentioned Mat. 28. 18, 19 20. was not water baptism, but the baptism of the spirit.   

Baptist.  
Your blind boldness, and buzzardly blindness in this I inwardly blush at, when I (as I hope yourself will also, when you) consider, 1. that it was a baptism enjoined, and commanded to be dispensed, and that 2. By mere men, Who never were yet since the world stood so highly prerogative from the Father, as to be made administrators of more than water baptism, or to be baptizers with the spirit, for that was ever yet, now is, and ever will be the peculiar prerogative royal of Christ's own royal person, never to be impar●…ed to any other; to give, i. e. to baptise persons with the holy spirit, the father by him, and he immediately by himself without imparting any of that power, which he only had to do it, to others to give it in his name, is the sole giver of every good and perfect gift jam. 1. 17. So Luke 9 13. Your heavenly Father will give the holy spirit to them that ask him: So Act. 5. 32. the holy spirit which God hath given to all them that obey him: 2 Cor. 5. 5. God who hath given us the earnest of his spirit: 1 Ephes. 13. 14. sealed with the holy spirit of promise which is the earnest etc. The Baptism with the spirit is the inward seal upon the heart, that only God sets, and not any mere man, mere man is commissionated and impowerd from God to dispense no more but the outward sign, i. e. water baptism, which is not the seal of the New Covenant, as the Priests call it, for that's the spirit, which God only gives throw Christ the Son, for him only hath God the Father sealed i e. authorized, honoured with that privilege, viz. to be under himself the sole dispenser of the spirit john 6. 26. which wherever it's given gives gifts in such wise as seems good unto him, 1 Cor. 12. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11. There are diversities of gifts, but the same spirit, all these worketh that one, and the self same spirit distributing to every one severally as he will, There are differences of administrations, diversities of operations, meaning internal administrations and operations upon the soul, for there be outward administrations and operations ad extra, as preaching, praying, water baptism, laying on of hands with prayer, breaking bread, in which men act to God ward in order to his acting toward us in the other, for men may promise us the spirit, and show us what to do, and baptise us in water in order to our having the spirit, and pray for us that we may receive the holy spirit etc. and minister to us outwardly in the ordinances of divine service, which this new Testament hath, which in respect to the old Testament is called the ministration of the Spirit, because God gives down to them that wait on him sincerely and believingly in these outward ways of the Gospel, which are (to see to) but foolish instruments, earthen vessels, in some measure here the heavenly treasure of his spirit, and hereupon as they hold forth the word of the gospel, in the hearing of which the spirit is received, as 'twas not in the hearing of the law (for the spirit was not the promise of that Covenant of Circumcision, but the old Canaan, for I will circumcise thy heart etc. was a Gospel promise though made in the time of the law) and in these respects, viz. as preaching, and dispensing gospel ordinances they may be styled (and in such a sense only are they so styled, 2 Cor. 3 6.) Ministers not of the Letter, i. e. the Law, but of the spirit, i. e. the Gospel; But thereiss but one and the same Lord, and 'tis one and the same God who worketh all in all. All in All is Christ's own glorious title, Paul and Apullos' and the Ministers by whom we believe may work, and do all that is to be done without to all men, they may baptise in water by commission from Christ (for so he himself baptised not but his disciples, viz. john Baptist and the rest) and wicked men may by his permission baptise, i. e. overwhelm us with suffering, shame etc.  
But himself only baptises us with that holy spirit of his, that must support us under suffering, he sends the comforter: he was the only baptizer of them upon whom the spirit fell in the Apostles ministration of baptism with water, in which case the spirit was promised Act. 2. and of laying on hands with prayer in which way, though not ever 
* for God, whose ways limit us, not himself was sometimes better than his word, and anticipated the disciples obedience in these things so as to give his spirit beyond even Peter's expectation to persons before baptised and prayed for, yet did not this disengage them from doing that outward service, but the more engage them to be baptised Act. 10. 45. 46. 47. 48. , yet ordinarily it was dispensed.  
I indeed baptise you in water (says john) i. e. we men can minister no further to you, being but messengers from him to do that, but he shall baptise you with the holy spirit and fire Mat. 3. 11. so see how john peculiarly indigitates him john 11. 33. as in sole right to that service, the same is he that baptizeth with the holy spirit, and as john did baptise only with water, so with no more than water did all the disciples and Apostles after Christ crucified baptise; not with the spirit, (for that Christ only did in their due dispensation of the other) they had no promise any where that I find of such a privilege: I find it promised to them Act. 1. 9 that they should be baptised with the holy spirit not many days thence, but never that they should baptise with the holy spirit, Christ keeps himself the right of pouring that out upon all men as they turn to him Proverbs 22. 23.  
I am ashamed therefore at the cloudy conceits of such as say that was not water baptism with which Christ commanded his disciples to baptise the Nations after teaching Mat. 28. 18 19 20.  
And the rather because,  
Secondly, it's as clear as if it were written with a beam of the sun, that what was done most immediately, and more remotely by the disciples in obedience to that commission, when once power was come on them to go forth (till when they were to stay, and forbear their testimony Luke 24. 47. 48. 49. Act. 1. 8. which was no more but teaching, and as to baptism the baptising in water: for Act. 2. 38. Peter promised them indeed that they should receive, or be baptised with the holy spirit in case they would repent and be baptised, but the baptism he pressed them to, and upon which he promises the other cannot be that of the spirit, but water, unless we'll feign Peter to have spoken such Tautological nonsense as this to them viz. repent and be baptised with the spirit, and then you shall receive the holy spirit, and as the beginning of their execution of Christ's commission was no other (save what they promised) as to their dispensation of baptism, then teaching and baptising in water, and after praying for the Spirit with laying on hands, so were all their proceedings suitable hereunto, for he is fast asleep with his eyes open, resolving to see and say nothing in favour of water baptism, but to cry it down against light, that shall say that those which are said to be baptised in the name of the Lord jesus, Act. 8. 12. 16. Act. 19 5. and to be commanded by Peter to be baptised in the name of the Lord Act. 10. 48. were baptised by Philip, Paul, Peter or any man else with any more than mere water baptism, for the baptism with the spirit is in all these places spoken of as received from God in way of laying on of hands in prayer, and preaching besides the other, as either preceding or succeeding it, as the Lord pleased in his own season to dispense it.   

Ranterist.  
If it were water baptism that was meant Mat. 28. and that was practised by Peter, Philip, Paul and the other primitive ministers, yet that water baptism was no other than the baptism of John only, and not of Christ, that was ere long to cease, and to vanish before the baptism of Christ i. e. that of the spirit, when that should come in, and not to continue as a standing dispensation to be used and practised to the end.  
John the Baptist Mat 3. 11. opposeth his baptism to the baptism of Christ, which could not have been done, if the baptism with water was an inseparable companion of Christ's doctrine: how could John say verily I baptise you with water, but he shall baptise you with the holy spirit, if Christ had been commanded to baptise with water as well as john? if so, the words of John would have run thus, verily I baptise you with only water, but he shall baptise you also with the holy spirit.   

Baptist.  
Here again I cannot but profess my to be ashamed at this curious conceit of yours, who distinguish the baptism of water, and that of the spirit into johns and Christ's, and oppose these two one to the other, as if the one of these were destructive to the other, as if that of johns were his own, and none of Christ's, when yet that is so undeniably evident as it is, that this of water, as well as that of the spirit, was given out by Christ himself so plainly as a part of his will and testament 
h for its most certain that this was the will of Christ, and tendered to all the world as so, & so to stand in all ages & generations of it to the end, yea a special part of his testament as well as preaching, saith repentance, prayer and the rest, and that since as well as be fore the Testators death, Mat. 28. 18. 19 30 Act. 2●… 39 8. 12. 16. 10. 47 48. 16. 15. 33. 18 8. 19 5. 22. 16. after which death of the Testator no man ever knew so much as a man's testament altered or disannulled in one tittle of it, without gross & palpable injury to the Testator.  to abide together with teaching, believing and repenting to the world's end.  
You talk as if the baptism with water was an ordinance of john, a baptism of which not Christ, but john was under God the main Moderator pro tempore while it stood in force, as if john had instituted, and ordained it, and Christ put an end to it, as if john were the Author of it, and Christ the finisher, to cause it to cease, whereas nothing is more clear than that Christ himself was both the Author and finisher of it in another sense, i. e. he that first ordained and appointed it to be administered even by john himself, and after john's decease, yea and after his own death and resurrection too, gave order to its continuance, and for the observation of it among all Nations now, as thitherto it had been observed only among the Jews: I say its clear that the baptism with water was Christ's baptism, and howbeit it be called john's, as john was the first minister, and messenger from Christ to begin it, (for behold I send my messenger and he shall prepare my way before me saith Christ of john Mal. 3. 1,) yet Christ himself was the chief Author of it, in whose name and not in john's it was begun and dispensed ever, even in that jnncture wherein john himself was living and versed about it, and before Christ had so specially commanded the continuance of it in all Nations to the world's end, in his own and the fathers and the spirits name as he does Mat. 28. 18. 19 20. and ever after that also as we may see, Act. 2. 29. where Peter preaching the same doctrine that john himself did viz. the baptism of repentance for remission of sins 
x Mar. 1. 4. , says repent and be baptised in the name of jesus Christ, for remission of sins, so Act. 8. 16. they were baptised with this water baptism in the name of the Lord jesus, so Act. 10. 47. he commanded them to be baptised in the name of the Lord, so Act. 19 3. 4. where after that to certain disciples who were baptised with john's baptism, Paul had said john veryly baptised with the baptism of repentance saying unto the people that they should believe on him that should come after that is on Christ Jesus, it is said, that when they heard this they were baptised i e. in water in the name of the Lord jesus.  
We see therefore that though its called the baptism of john as john began it, yet it is that which Christ, who was no minister, servant, or disciple of john (for john was his) so owned as his, as not only to honour it with his own submission to it, though in no such need of it as we, & more above it then any of us, to fulfil all righteousness of his own law i. e. the Gospel for example sake to us, but also in his own ministry to give order to his disciples to administer it to all the disciples they should make, and this not only before as john 3. 11. john 4. 1. 2. but likewise after his own death and resurrection, even when he was now ready to ascend, Mat. 28. Mark. 16. which, sure he would not have done, if there had been such opposition as you speak of between the baptism with water, that was called john's, and that bap●…sm of the spirit, which because he only baptises with that, is called Christ's, that they must not both abide together in the world to the end, but one vanish away presently before the other, and it had not been the mind of Christ that water baptism should be rather (as you deny it to be) an inseparable companion of his doctrine, nay surely instead of confirming the doctrine and practice of wate●… baptism, as Christ did in his ministry, before his death, practising it, i. e. by the hands of his disciples on all the disciples which he himself made as john 3. 22. 4. 1. 2. and after his resurrection, and immediately before hisascension g●…ving commandments to his disciples to observe it and teach all Nations 
y in which juncture of time he spoke nothing to his discipies by way of commandment or other wives but such thing, 〈◊〉 pertained 〈◊〉 the Kingdom of God, and to his Church and Gospel Act. 1. 2. 3.  to observe the same as Mat. 28. 18. 19 20. he would rather have confi●…cated it, instead of causing it to continue by giving new and fresh commission for it, he would have caused it to cease by some intimation or other, that when the holy spirit should be given, and men begin to be baptised therewith, then there should be no longer attendance given to the baptism with water, he would have said go teach all Nations (beginning at jerusalem) that there must be now no more bapzing with water, but that in the way of repentance and faith only without that baptism, they shall be baptised with the spirit, & Peter knowing his mind would have said to them Act 2 39 when they asked what they should do, repent you of all your sins and believe in Christ in order to the remission of them, but in the name of Jesus Christ be not baptised in water, as some while since every penitent was used to be, for that was a dispensation and baptism of john that had its time a while merely to prepare the way of Christ, but is now abolished and out of date, we must forsake john now and not be baptised nor walk after those customs, but expect a baptism with the spirit only, also Act. 10. 47. who can require these persons to be baptised in water that have received the spirit, and are baptised with the spirit as well as we?  
Thus I say they would have said and done, as Paul when circumcision, and the Law was to cease, as much as he condescended in the case of Timothy, yet never commanded it to continue, but taught all the Jews that were among the Gentiles to forsake Moses saying that they should not circumcise their children nor walk after the customs Acts 21. 21. if there had been such opposition, such inconsistency between the baptism in water, and that of the spirit that they must not stand together, if baptism in water must not have remained rather in a certain continual subserviency to the other, if it were not to be according to Christ's will an inseparable companion of his doctrine, but we find not the least hint or intimation of the mind of Christ, when expressed either by his own mouth or the mouth of his Apostles, that were to deliver and command nothing to people, but what they had received of the Lord Jesus, and what was commanded them of the Lord, as concerning the cessation of that service, or any toleration of any one person to omit it, but as we find it a part of Christ's Gospel and Testament even from the very beginning of it which was in John's baptising with water, 
* See Mar. 1. 1, 2, 3, 4. the beginning of the Gospel of Christ, joh. did baptise in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sin●….  So for aught I find it was as jure to continue as a part of his Testament among other things, not a tittle of which Testament is yet annihilated, till he, whose will and Testament the whole is, shall come to take account of all men how as to the preceptory part of it they have observed it.  
Whereas therefore you seem to be of this opinion that Christ was not commanded, i. e. not commissionated from the Father to baptise with water as well as john, because it's said by john I verily baptise you with water, but he shall baptise you with the holy spirit, as if Christ had had nothing to do to meddle with that water baptism as any ordinance of his, or to give any order about it, as if he had had no more power to dispense or enjoin that, than john had power to meddle in Christ's peculiarity, or to take on him to baptise with the spirit: I must tell you that Christ had command and commission from the Father to that service of water baptism, though, it being the external inferior matter, he committed the actual administration of it to his disciples and Ministers, among whom I look on john as the chief, or else, sith he commanded others to do it, and so baptised per alios at least, if not per se john 3. 22. 4. 12. his testimony of himself john 12. 49. 50. john 16. 31. is not true, which indeed were blasphemy to think, for 〈◊〉 there professes that he spoke nothing of himself, but the Father which sent him gave him commandment what he should say, and what he should speak, ●…nd that whatever he spoke even as the father gave him commandment so he spoke, and likewise that as the Father gave him commandment so he did: whereupon since he did by his disciples baptise with water in judaea while john and his disciples in Aenon joh. 3. 22. 23. and made and baptised more disciples than john (for all came and flocked to his dispensations of water baptism at last, and left John, in somuch as he in his Ministry, even of water baptism, increased and john decreased john 3. 26. 27. 28, 29, 30) those words of john, as much as you think it absurd to understand them so, must necessarily run so in any solid understanding, though the terms only and also be not expressed, viz. I verily baptise you with water only, i e. I can go no further then to that outward administration of water, but he shall baptise you also with the holy spirit, i. e. he is impowered to dispense higher matters to you then water only, with which he baptises too as well as I, i e. not himself but his disciples, viz. that baptism with the holy spirit: in which words you cannot say properly that john opposeth his baptism, to the baptism of Christ, as if that which is called his were none of Christ's but rather that John magnifies the person of Christ above himself, as who should say, I can dispense no more than the bare outward sign, but Christ, who though he came after me yet was preferred before me, in whose name, and not in my own I baptise, and whose the baptism is that I dispense, and not mine, he is able besides the sign to vouchsafe you the very thing signified thereby.  
This baptism then of water in the name of Christ together with repentance from dead works and faith in his name john Baptist was the first Minister to begin, in which respect it is sometimes styled his, but he left it after a while to Christ himself and his disciples to carry on, who all 〈◊〉 Christ was actually crucified preached and practised the self same things that john did, viz. repentance, and saith in a Christ yet to suffer for remission of sins, and baptism in water in token thereof, and saving some circumstantial difference the very same in substance even af●…er Christ was crucified too. For herein only the baptism with water which was Christ's, and of which john was but a Minister (as we are) differs since Christ crucified from what it was before he was crucified viz. that then it was the baptism of repentance and faith for remission of sins by a Christ that was ere long to suffer, for so john preached Act. 19 4. and baptised Matth. 3. 2. saying repeat, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand, and Christ himself preached the v●…ry same thing Mat. 4. 17. and baptised i. e. by his disciples with the same baptism john 3. 22, 23, 26 4. 1, 2. but now since the Son is lifted up and hath suffered and is risen, it is the baptism of repentance and faith for remission of sins by a Christ that is already dead for sin, and risen again for justification Rom. 4. 25. Act. 3. 18. 26. 10. 38, 39 40, 41 etc.  
So that the baptism of john (for so that was called that was dispensed before Christ had suffered, and was yet to come Act. 19 4.) and that of the disciples of Christ after Christ crucified differ not in substance, but only in this small circumstance in which also the●…r Gospel in point of faith did differ, viz. that one was a baptism into Christ to suffer, the other into a Christ that had suffered; and so they preached a different faith, a different Christ, and yet all one and the same▪ yea so Christ's own ministry differed from itself considered in this different time of before and after his death: for before both he and his disciples preached the same gospel, repentance, faith and baptism that john did, viz, of salvation by the son of God to suffer, but had john lived till Christ had suffered, he would then have preached the same repentance, faith, and baptism that Christ then did, and we now do, viz. of salvation by the son of God that hath suffered, and this is all the same substantially, though circumstantially thus diversified from the other; wherefore the word of the Gospel under john, and after Christ's death, is called the very same word, and the word that Peter preached to Cornelius' house, is said to begin from john's baptism, and as the word with which john came preaching, so the baptism with which john came baptising continued still, and was preached and practised by command from Christ by the mouth of Peter on disciples believing in that very place Act. 10. 36, 37, 38, 39, 40. etc. to the end, and this not, in honour of john (as in discourse with some it hath been frivolously answered me) but as a thing which ought to be done as in force a new from the Lord Christ in whose name (which Peter abused to them, if he had not warrant from Christ so to do) he commanded them all, and that in water, to be baptised.   

Ranterist.  
You have spoken much concerning Christ's commanding the observation of water baptism to the end of the world, and of Christ's promising his presence to his disciples, in the observation thereof, to the end of the world, but you are mightily mistaken in the meaning of Christ in that phrase to the end of the world Mat. 28. 20, for he means no more thereby, but to the end of that age, as Mr. Saltmarsh well observed, 
* in his book called. Some glimpse of that bright and morning star.  from the signfication of the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which properly signifies age.   

Baptist.  
That Mr. Saltmarsh hath such a passage there I very well remember, and how many have been stumbled thereby, and by sundry other fancies of his to the embracing of such notions and principles, as from whence they have at last commenced Atheists (he being in his time a man of such account among some, that his sayings were received as oracles) I cannot but with some sadness consider: and that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies age I dare not deny, but that it signifies age in that sense, in which Mr. Saltmarsh (I hope) only mistook it, and most of his admirers do yet miserably mistake it o●… do, I dare boldly and do utterly deny, for first, where as they restrain the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so as to say it sounds forth no more than seculum i. e. some one particular age, or generation, properly it rather signifies aevum age i. e. time taken together in the whole lump of it, all time, or all ages collectively considered from that particular age or time we speak of, even to the end of time itself, or at least of the time of this world; neither doth the spirit ever (for aught I find) much less usually, use the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when he means to express some one age or generation only, specially in the writings of the Evangelists, 
a Mat. 24. 34. Mar. 13. 30. Luk. 21. 32. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this generation o●… age (meaning wherein we see the signs of Christ's coming) will not pass or be ended before all be 〈◊〉 and▪ ●…e come.  and also elsewhere, 
b Eph. 3 2. speaking of ages divisim even all the several ages to the very end of time, and age itself to the end of all 〈◊〉 he says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to all ages of the world or to all ages of time of times, even for ever,  But  
Secondly, when he speaks of time or age in the whole bulk of it, of the world in all generations of it, i. e. all the time of the world together, from the time spoken of to the end of it, he uses the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that not only in that 28. of Mat. 20. but also in many other places, as john 9 32. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 3. 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the beginning of the world, or from the beginning of time 2 Cor. 4. 4 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the God of▪ this world, yea and of the very same Evangelist, yea I shall show you no less than three or four places in Matthew, in every of which I am confident your very selves shall say is not meant the end of that age, that then was, but absolutely the very end of this world itself, wherein we yet are, which yet draws very near to an end, in every of which places yet there's no other phrase but the same that is used Mat. 28. 20 to express it by viz. the end of the world, yea the very same greek phrase, which is surely enough (if very common sense and reason did not also preach it) to evince that, and no other to be the sense in Mat. 28. 20. those places are Mat. 13. 39 the harvest is the end of the world v. 40. as the tares are gathered into the fire, so shall it be at the end of the world, v. 49. so shall it be at the end of the world, Mat. 24. 3. Lord what shall be the signs of thy coming, and of the end of the world; I suppose no man that is well in his wits, will say of any of these four places that they signify the end of that age or generation only, or any other than the time of Christ's second coming, which is yet to come, and when it comes shall put a period to this old world, wherein unrighteousness yet dwells, and begin the new wherein dwelleth righteousness: (and as for them that say he is already come the second time, and with that coming that is enquired after, Mat. 24. 3. much more the rabble of that ruder sort of Ranters, and ungodly Scoffers of the last times spoken of 2 Pet. 4. 5. that are willingly ignorant, because of the tediousness of that thought 
c which how near kin 〈◊〉 ●…o to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that signifieth semper i. e. always, every smatterer in 〈◊〉 Greek may understand.  to them, that there is any more coming of Christ at all, some of which also deny that there was any Christ, or any first coming of such a one at all) I deem none of that deep dotage of the one, nor of those devilish dreams of the other worth disproving:) nevertheless there's no other Greek phrase used all along but the same that is Mat. 28. 20. which is rendered even to the end of the world: viz. 
m 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  whereas therefore some say if water baptism were commanded by Christ as his baptism, 'twas but for that age or generation, wherein the Apostles lived (and to say nothing of the whimsical uncertainties that are among them that deny water baptism, whose witness of it hangs not together, some saying 'twas johns only, and never commanded by Christ, and that 'twas to end in Christ crucified, some yielding that 'twas commanded by Christ, and practised after his resurrection only to do honour a little to john's ministry, and not disparage it by too sudden abolition, some that it was pressed by Christ, and preached by the Apostles as his, but to last only for that generation, and then of right to end, some that it lasted de jure till the treading down, which was more than one or two ages after that, and then it was never to be raised, as if men's might destroyed the right of it, whose folly I shall show more anon) I still chose assert, that 'twas of right to stand to the end, and though foretold that it should cease, and all other services, yet but for the term of 42 months only, and then to rise again Rev. 11. 1.   

Ranterist.  
You tell us much of Christ's sending, and commissionating his disciples to baptise all nations, but that seems not to me to be true, because the Apostle Paul the great Doctor of the Gentiles, who was sent topreach the Gospel, and throughly to convert men Act. 26. 17, 18. and whose endeavour was to present men perfect in Christ jesus Col. 1. 29. doth notwithstanding openly affirm, that he was not sent to baptise 1 Cor. 1. 17. making that the ground of his giving thanks to God for his baptising of none but Crispus, and Gaius, and the household of Stephanus: but had the Apostle been sent to baptise, though not chiefly, it would have been his duty so to do, and consequently he should give thanks to God for omitting a part of his duty which is absurd.   

Baptist.  
By that expression of Paul viz. Christ sent me not to baptise, but preach the Gospel the latter clause of which as having weight in it, I suppose you willingly leave out, he cannot rationally be understood to mean thus, viz. that the Gosspel he preached had not baptism enjoined to be preached, and practised as an inseparable companion of it (for 'tis undoub●…edly apparent by what is said above that baptism and teaching, baptism and faith, baptism and repentance were ever preached and practised both together) but that Christ did not enjoin him absolutely to the actual dispensing of the ordinance of waterbaptism always with his own hands, but to preach the Gospel (mark that) to preach the Gospel, i. e the baptism of faith and repentance for remission of sins, and to see that the thing were done either by himself or some other, when persons believed, but not to baptise necessarily in his own person, so but that the opus operatum, i. e. the work itself might be aswel done per alios, if not per se, even as well by the hands of any one, as his own: and so indeed it might, for whereas in these days there is such ado, and such stumbles in the hearts of many about a right administrator of baptism, i. e. that may actually with his own hand dispense it, as if he must be meliori luto some extraordinary kind of person, of better mould than other men, some strange man, or miracle worker or other, 
* John did no miracle yet what he spoke was true, nor were any held excused that believed not his baptism to be of heaven, but those are said to reject the council of God against themselves that were not baptised of him.  yet thereiss nothing more clear than this viz. that the bare administration of it, being something a more servile work then ordinary, might be done, and was of old (and why not now I know not) by the hands of any, at least any gifted he disciple: neither do I find, but that people are minded willing lie many times to puzzle and wind themselves off from submitting to the administration of that despised and to the flesh unpleasing service of baptism, though convinced that 'tis their duty, by pleading that they cannot find no fit administrator, 
* as if Christ had administrations in force but had made no provision of administrators whereby they might be at all dispensed.  that the word speaks one tittle about the quality of the administrator, but only of our submission, ex officio, to the administration: it's said by way of narration they were baptised in jordan Matth. 3. when they believed they were baptised Act. 8. 12. 10. 15. 33. 18. 8. and by way of precept repent and be baptised Act. 2. 39 arise and be baptised Act. 22. 16. and by way of promise he that believeth and is baptised, in the passive still, shall be saved: but never required by whom in particular the thing shall be done, so as to say repent and let such, or such a one baptise you, as if we should be better in having it from some hands rather than from others: neither doth the efficacy of baptism to us depend one straw upon the quality of the person administering be it Paul, Apollo's or Cephas, or any other disciple inferior to them in capacity or office, as Ananias or Philip, but upon the quality of the person or subject to whom it's administered, which if it be a person professing to repent and believe, and so doing also as he professes, it matters not so much who does it, so the thing be done: nay the validity of the baptism depends as not upon any other qualifications of the person baptising, so not on his being baptised, or not baptised himself, that does it, specially in such a case or juncture wherein at first, or after long neglect of it, there's none but unbaptized persons to begin it 
* which may serve to the satisfaction of such as think that after the long cessation of true baptism that hath been in the world there must be an utter omission, and no resurrection of it again for ever because none but unbaptized persons to begin it, for john himself the greatest administrator of water baptism that ever was, either was not baptised himself at all, or else by some that were never baptised, or else by some of those which himself had first baptised, which still makes the case the same, and evidences that unbaptized persons may possibly be right ad ministrators, and that the non baptization of the person that does it nulls not the does pensation of it to believers.  nor yet do I find, but that in the primitive times the simple act of baptising the believers when once converted was any other but an act so inferior, servile and subservient to that of preaching the gospel, of preaching repentance, faith, and baptism in Christ's name for remission of sins in order to conversion, which more specially belonged to the messenger-ship, that it was (unless any desired the Apostles to do it themselves, or when the multitudes to be baptised were so great that 'twas fit that every he disciple, that had two hands, as I may say, should be assistant) committed mostly to more inferior persons, common disciples, who as they might baptise, and preach too occasionally, so when any were converted by either themselves or the Apostles, did attend more to the bare act of dispensation than the Apostles did: we cannot think that Peter himself, nor the eleven did baptise all the three thousand without the hands of many other of the 120 to help at least, though in that case the Apostles baptised some also 'tis like.  
Moreover we see Philip baptised the Samaritans and the honourable Eunuch, yet, though an occasional preacher of the Gospel, he did it in the capacity of a disciple only, for his deaconship did not make him ere the fitter to baptise: and Ananias baptised Paul, who is styled but a certain disciple: and the rest of the disciples that together with Philip were scattered abroad by the persecution that arose about Steven went every where, even as far as Antioch preaching the Lord Jesus, and turned many unto the Lord Act. 11. 19 to the end, and baptised them surely as Philip did, for that business was the foundation of the famous Church at Antioch, before any such great administrators as Apostles came near them, for though Barnabas, who together with Paul was sent forth afterward from that Church with prayer and laying on of hands, from which time they both were visibly, and in foro Ecclesiae Apostles, and were so called and not before Act. 13. 3-14. 14. was sent to confirm and comfort them, and exhorted them to continue in that faith which they were baptised into before; yet he was but in the capacity of a teaching disciple only yet, and not an Apostle: nor do I believe that Peter baptised them with his own hands Acts 10. but by some of them that came with him from joppa, only he bid it should be done, as that which no body could forbid, and commanded them to be baptised in the name of the Lord, but by whom 'twas done we know not.  
The father sent Christ to baptise, i. e. to give order for the baptising of the disciples he should make, or else he could not be truly said both to baptise, and yet also to speak and do no more than the Father that sent him gave command for, as he is joh. 3. 22. 4 1. 12. 49. 40. and yet in another sense it may be said Christ was not sent to baptise i. e. personally to dispense the ordinance itself, for if he had been sent to baptise with his own hands he had not fulfilled his message, for howbeit it's said he baptised more than john, yet he himself dipenst baptism to none with his own hands, john 4. 1. 2. but by the hands of his disciples.  
When therefore Paul says he was not sent to baptise, he means not that baptism was none of those things he had in commission to meddle with (for had it been so, he had meddled beyond his commission in baptising those few he did baptise with his own hands, which were absurd to think) but that he had not such a positive command to dispense it after he had preached the Gospel to conversion so himself, but that others even inferior persons might baptise the disciples of his converting as well as himself: he means not that baptism, was no part of his message, which he received in charge from God to deliver and declare among men as his will (for he says God sent him to preach it, not to baptise but to preach the Gospel saith he, and what was that but the Gospel of repentance and baptism, the baptism of faith, and repentance for remission of sins among the nations) but that there was no necessity that himself should administer it, when it might be done by others, not that 'twas not needful to be done, but that 'twas needless he personally should dispense it, so it might be done by another.  
Neither doth Paul make that the ground of his giving of thanks to God that no more but Crispus and Gaius, and the household of Stephanus etc. were baptised (for then he had thanked God that the Corinthians had most of them neglected their duty in that point of baptism, which its evident he preached among them as well as faith, or else sure none of them at all would have submitted, Act. 18. 8. but that he himself had with his own hands baptised but some of them, lest (perceiving what a foolish dotage on his person was in the hearts of many of them) any of them, at least his party (for some doted too much on Paul, some on Apollo's, some on Cephas i e. Peter) should either think the better of their baptism as long as they lived, because he dispensed it, or else think the worse of him for it, i. e. that he had baptised in his own name: this is the clear sense in which Paul speaks and not the other, 1 Cor. 1. 14. 15. 16. 17. viz. that no more than such and such were baptised by his hands, not that no more than such and such of them (for they were all baptised by one or other) were baptised at all; for that many more than those he there names as baptised by him, were baptised by one or other (for all Crispus' house, and many more of the Corinthians besides Crispus' his own person, whom only with Gaius and Stephanus his house, he here names, believed and were baptised as well as he and they) is evident Act. 18. 8. yea verily and elsewhere that all the Corinthians were baptised, for 1 Cor. 1. 13. Paul speaking to the whole Church of Corinth (none excluded) saith thus were ye i. e. ye O Corinthians, that were all baptised, baptised in the name of Paul? and 1 Cor. 12. 13. speaking to and of the whole Church again, together with himself, he says, we are all baptised into one body, and have been all made i e. in the supper, to drink into one spirit: all the body of them therefore were baptised.   

Ranterist.  
It appears that some of the believing Romans, who were beloved of God and called to be Saints Rom. 1. 11. and who had from their hearts obeyed the form of doctrine delivered unto them Rom. 6. 3. were nevertheless unbaptised, as many of us as have been baptised into Christ, etc. which words plainly intimate, that some of them were not baptised, see joh. 1. 12, to as many as came to him gave he power, these words plainly intimate that some of these did not receive Christ, as appeareth by the words immediately foregoing, it's also evident that some of the Church of the Galatians were not baptised, for the same expression is used concerning them, Gal. 3. 27. from which two instances it is apparent, that baptism is neither necessary to make a Saint, or to render him capable of Church-fellowship.   

Baptist.  
[As many as] is a phrase that where it's used doth not always, nay doth never of itself necessarily express and imply [not all] or [but some only] of the things or persons spoken of in the words that border about it, but as it may happen pro re substrata, according to the nature of the matter in hand, and according as the sense thereof is manifest by the foregoing and following sentences expressing or implying it; so that sometimes you shall find it signifying, but some only or a part, exclusively of others or the rest of the body spoken to, or spoken of thereabout, and sometimes no less than the whole of it, neither is it apparent whether [a] or but [some only] is the sense of this term [as many as] where ere 'tis used, but as 'tis made appear by the context, or some circumstances in it, and not a jot less than this is said by yourself in that very objection of yours I am now answering to, for of john 1. 12. as many as received him, to them gave he power, these words plainly intimate (say you) that some of them, i. e. the Jews whom its said he came to, did not receive Christ, and for my part I grant they do so signify in that place: but why? or how doth it appear that they must needs signify there that but some of the Jews received him.  
It appeareth not by any usual or constant sense of the words as mazy as, as if they always sounded forth but some, and never all of such or such subjects as are spoken of, but it appeareth (say you) by the words immediately foregoing: in which verily you say right, for the words foregoing do plainly show what the sense of these words As many as is in this Scripture, for forasmuch as it's said plainly above, that he came to his own, and his own received him not i e. for the generality of them rejected him, therefore it's undeniably evident that here the words, as many as received him, do intimate that some did not receceive him; but if you should take these words, as many as received him abstract from what's said above viz. that his own, for the most part did not receive him, than they were not necessarily to be so understood, neither could they simply of themselves intimate so much: and as these words as many as, considered abstractively from the context or speeches adjacent, are not of themselves terms so necessarily exclusive of some, as they are conclusive of some, so considered in a right reference to the rest of the words preceding and succeeding among which they have their place, they will be found sometimes conclusive of no less than all those persons or things there spoken of, e. g. if I were speaking of the whole company of men in the great ship or Royal Sovereign (as Paul does to the whole Church at Galatia) and say, you are all in a pretty safe condition, for as many of you have been admitted into that strong ship cannot likely be sunk: does not the word as many of you signify all the men he speaks to, even the whole company of them that are in the ship, and not some of them only? so and no otherwise is it to be understood in these two Scriptures, viz. Rom. 6. 2. Gal. 3. 27. where you would needs have these words viz. as many of us, and as many of you as were, as have been baptised into Christ, necessarily to intimate no more but that only some of the believing Romans, and some of the Galatians were baptised, and to be conclusive of some in each of these two churches, and exclusive of the rest, even of them, as being not baptised, whereas there is nothing in the world more plain than this, that these words Rom. 6. as many of us Gal. 3. as many of you, as have been baptised etc. if considered with that due relation they bear, and stand in to the words foregoing or following, do intimate to us that the whole Church of the Romans, that were to reckon on themselves as dead to sin, and bound to live to it no longer, (and that certainly was no less than the whole) were baptised, and that all the Churches in Galatia, or all the believers among the Galatians were baptised.  
Yea if the scope of the Apostle Paul in both the places be observed, we shall find that he makes this no other than an argument, and uses it as a certain medium or motive whereby to persuade the Romans that they were all to die to sin, and now to live to it no longer, and to prove the Galatians, even all of them, to be, visibly to us at least, the sons of God by faith in Christ, because they were all of them baptised into Christ, and thereby had visibly put him on.  
First take notice that the business he would persuade the whole Church at Rome to, and prove to be the duty of them all is this, that they should now die to sin, have no more to do with sin, and live to God, now how does he prove that, and go about to persuade them to it? which is his business throwout that whole chapter Rom. 6. no otherway (as I find) but by imminding them of it, that by their being buried with Christ in baptism this not only was signified to them, but also became the duty of them all, and that so strictly that howbeit before not so obliged, yet from thenceforth they must crucify the old man, and utterly abolish the body of sin, and live to righteousness: what? shall we (saith he, for so his sense is) continue in sin, i. e. we that are dead to it, and have been all baptised into Christ in token of it? God forbid: know ye not that every one that's baptised into Christ, is baptised into his death? yea therefore 'tis that we, i. e. all we still, himself, and the whole Church to whom he writes, are buried with Christ in baptism into death &c. to show that as Christ died, and rose again, so we also should walk in newness of life, for if we, i. e. all we have been planted together i e. in baptism the lively resemblance of it, in to the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection, &c and so he goes on moving them all now to lead a new life, and to be servants to righteousness by the consideration of the great engagements to Godward that lay upon them all since such time as they were baptised: and forasmuch as you say they had all obeyed from the heart the form of doctrine delivered unto them you therein contradict yourself, and confess no less than we assert viz. that they were all baptised: for that form of doctrine that was at first delivered to them was the form of doctrine spoken of Heb. 6. 1, 2. even the six first principles of the oracles of God, of the doctrine of Christ, which as they are here called a form of doctrine so there are called the foundation or ABC of a Christian, and of the Church, as also Eph. 2. 20. the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles, i. e. the first doctrine of Christ, on which they built the Church, of which baptism is there said to be a part: yea and that very phrase of Paul Rom. 6. 17. viz. ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine, which was delivered to you, is no other than a further prosecution, and inculcation of the former argument upon the whole Church of the Romans still, and is as much as if the had said ye were once, i. e. before your baptism the Servants of sin, and then nothing but sin could be expected from you, but now the case is otherwise, you have all obeyed the form of doctrine delivered, i. e. have professed your repentance from dead works and faith, and been baptised into Christ, a●…d thereby listed yourselves visibly under him as his Soldiers, and are hereby become Servants to righteousness, therefore now you must not let sin have dominion over you: This verily is the very meaning of the Apostle in the whole chapter, yea and in those very words know you not that as many of us as have been baptised? viz. not to have us suppose that but some of them had been baptised, but to give them to understand that as all of them had been baptised, so as many as are baptised into Christ are baptised into his death, in token ofit, that they should now all become new creatures: if we speak his mind in a Syllogistical form it runs thus viz.  
As many of us as are baptised must know this that we are baptised into Christ's death, and therefore must die to sin and live holily.  
But we have been all baptised or buried with Christ in baptism into his death.  
Therefore we must all die to sin and live holily.  
If this were not his sense, but we must take the words as many of us as have been baptised to be conclusive of himself, and but some of that Church, and exclusive of the rest of them as to baptism, than I testify they are much more exclusive of many of them from that duty of dying to sin, which he there presses upon the whole Church, by the consideration of their being baptised: yea if that phrase as many of us as have been baptizd doth intimate to us that not all, but some only of the believing Ro●…s had been baptizd, than it must needs intimate to us that not all but some of the believing Roms were engaged by their baptism, and pressed by Paul in that chap. from the consideration of their death, and burial with Christ in baptism, to die to sin and live to righteousness, which no rational man can imagine, but rather as they were all urged by an Argument drawn from their baptism to live to God, so they had assuredly been all of them baptised.  
And the same may be said of that same phrase as 'tis used to the Galatians Gal. 3. to whom Paul's drift was to prove what he had said of them all in the verse above v. 26. viz. that they were all the children of God by faith in Christ: and how doth he prove it that they were so? no otherwise but by this Medium, viz. that they had been all baptised: you are all the children of God by faith in Christ, for as many of you as have been baptised into Christ have visibly put him on, and thereby declared you have faith in him, which having, you are the children of God: in form his Argument runs thus, viz.  
As many of you as have been baptised into Christ have put on Christ, and are thereby apparently declared to be the children of God by faith in him.  
But you have been all baptised into Christ etc.  
Ergo, etc.  
This must needs be his sense here too, or else if the term as many of you as have been baptised must not be taken as conclusive of all the Galatians to whom he writes, but exclusive of some of them from baptism, it must be exclusive of the same persons from being proved by Paul's Argument drawn from their baptism to to be the children of God: as many as received him to them gave he power to be come the Sons of God, is as much as to say, he gave power to become the sons of God to no more than such as received him: so as many of you as have been baptised into Christ have put on Christ, and are thereby visibly declared to be the children of God by faith in him, though it do not signify that all the Galatians had not been baptised, but some of them only, yet it signifies this however that no more than such as had been baptised into Christ, had put him on and were thereby declared to be God's children, and consequently that if but some of the Galatians were baptised, but some of them only appeared to be God's children: which were absurd to think and would render Paul as contradictory to himself in the verse above, where he says ye are all the children of God, so very ridiculous in his Argument; and render his proof as peddling as if he had said thus by way of position, viz. you are all, even every one of you, the children of God, and then by way of proof thus, viz. for some of you have been baptised, and by that baptism of yours are declared so to be, though the rest are not.   

Ranterist.  
You make baptism I perceive very needful but the Apostle Peter who very well understood the Commission given to him and the rest of his follow Apostles Matth. 28, 29, 20 Mark 16, 15. 16. when he speaketh of the baptism that saveth 1 Pet. 3. 21. le●…st any should think that he meant the baptism of water, whereof we speak, by which the filth of the body is put away, he excludeth the putting away the filth of the flesh, and places baptism wholly in the answer of a good conscience towards God, neither can any man truly say that by putting away of the filth of the flesh is here to be understood the putting away of the filthy works of the flesh for then could it neither be excluded from salvation, which is promised them which mortify the deed of the flesh, but walk after the spirit Rom. 8. 1. 17. nor opposed to the answer of a good conscience, which springs from the putting away of dead works, such as the works of the flesh are, for he only is truly said to have a good conscience, who is not conscious to himself of walking according to the flesh.   

Baptist.  
That by the words putting away the filth of the flesh, is meant that bare outward dispensation of water I freely do, and every one must grant, and therefore what is spoken by you in proof of that might well have been spared: also that the bare subm●…ssion to that outward dispensation of water is not that, which simply of itself, and abstract from the inward i. e. the answer of a good conscience doth save us, must needs be granted also: but what of this? will it therefore follow that it is to be omitted, and not made use of at all? in reason surely it cannot be so assertter: for as the bare outward hearing of the word without doing it, will do us no good but rather hurt, & yet that outward hearing is an ordinance at no hand to be neglected, but necessarily to be used in order to the doing of the word, without which we had beaver never heat, for we shall not save, but deceive our own souls jam. 1. 22. and shall perish in the end Mat. 7. 26. and as bare outward fellowship in breaking of bread is so far from saving, that we eat and d●…ink judgement to ourselves unless withal we d●…cern the Lords body, and be patt●…kers of the thing signified, and yet that outward service is needful to be performed: so though water baptism doth not save us ex opero opera●…, and unless it be answered wi●…h in by the answer of a good conscience, yet what consequence is there from hence that it need not be done at all? neither doth Peter altogether exclude the patting away the filth of the flesh, as not to be pract●…sed, and place the business of baptism wholly in the answer of a good conscience, as you here say he doth, but rather places the baptism that saves in both these 
* As Ch●…ist also doth Mar. 16. 16. saying he that believeth and is baptised shall be saved: for true, he that believeth not, whether he be baptised or no, shall be damned. , not in either without the other, yea in that he says thus, baptism doth also now save us, not the putting away the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience, he includes the baptism with water, as that, which is to be done, but not to be rested in as available to salvation, without the other.   

Ranterist.  
There is no man sent by Christ to baptise, so that were I never so willing to be baptised, yet there is none to baptise me: for though it should be granted, which nevertheless is false, and cannot be evinced out of the Scripture, that the Apostles were sent to baptise with water, yet this doth not wa●…rant others to do so likewi●…, unless they can prove that whatsoever was spoken to the Apostles was spoken to them, and by this account they must go into all Nations, and make them dis●…iples having first stayed at jerusalem ●…ill they have been ●…dued with power from on high, for both things are enjoined to the Apostles by Christ.   

Baptist.  
That the Apostles were not sent to baptise in water in such a sense as Paul sales 1 Cor. 1. Christ sent not him to baptise in i e. to dispense that ordinance necessarily with their own hands, so but that when they had preached and converted persons to the faith, others might help ●…o administer it, I granted above, but that they were not sent to preach the Gospel i e. the bapts●… of faith and repentance for remession of s●…s among all Nations, as far as they were capable, and that baptism in water was not a part of that Gospel ministration, which was committed to 〈◊〉, to command all Nations to observe, and to see dispensed, on all that should be discipled therein, this I utterly de●…y, and the contrary to it is so clearly ●…vinced in the word, that he that runs may read it, for either Christ commande●… them Mat. 28. to te●…ch bap●…izing, not with the spirit, but in water, or 〈◊〉 P●…ter miserably mistook his commission that in obedience thereto presses 1000▪ of people at once, enquiring what they should do, to be baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus, promising only, that so doing they should, not from him sorely, 〈◊〉 from Christ receive the holy spirit, Act. 2. 39 and also concerning a people that were already baptised with the spirit, asks who can forbid water why these may not be baptised? commanding them, who were ready to hear no more than what was commanded him of God to deliver to them, Act. 10. 23. to be baptiz●…d in the name of the Lord: and if by the Apostles you mean the eleven only, that were within hearing, when Christ spoke, as 'tis to him, that is not afraid of cold water, undoubtedly true, that these were, so as u●…deniable it is that others were sent to baptise in water as well as they viz. Philip that baptised the 〈◊〉, and Eu●…uch, Paul that baptised so many of the Corinthians as he did, and Ananias that baptised him, or else they made and preached a Gospel of their own heads, another Gospel, and not Christ's, which if they did, they made more haste then good speed to themselves, for such as teach for doctrines of Christ their own traditions, and run before they are sent, do both worship God in vain, and shall neither of them have any thank from him for their labour: and that what was spoken to those 11 Apostles themselves as to the point of baptism, was spoken also to us, even to such in all Nations, as being once discipled are after that enabled from God to preach the Gospel, is no less evident than all the rest Matth. 28. 19 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you, among which water baptism was one v. 18. and whereas you say upon this account we must go into all nations and make them disciples, who doubts but that 'tis our duty so to do to the utmost of our power (and they could do no more) for that's commanded, and baptism too, to be observed to the end; but for their staying at jerusalem till they were endued with power from on high and beginning first to preach there, that did concern them only as a special circumstance for that time, not pertaining to the substance of the service, nor required of all the Apostles themselves, and administrators of baptism then, (for if it had Ananias, Philip, Paul began at the wrong end of their business, when one of them began to preach the Gospel at Samaria, the other at Damascus, not going up to jerusalem first Gal. 1. 17.) and if not of them why it should be of us I know not: Nevertheless as to the substance of that command I grant that every one is to tar●…y till he be endued more or less with power, i. e. boldness, wisdom, knowledge, utterance, resolution, self denial etc. before he goes out as Christ's Messenger to preach to the nations: but being so endued, and furnished must out 
* 1 Pe●…. 4. 11.  (for aught I know) among all people, as he hath ability, and occasion beginning at the place where he is, and proceeding to spread the Gospel afar off, if he find not wo●…k enough nearer home.   

Ranterist:  
Could it be proved, as it cannot, that there are some sent to baptise yet even then will it not follow that I, and such as I am aught to be baptised by ●…hem, for we do not read that any of the Apostles, or Apostolic men did ever baptise any but such as are newly converted to the Christian Religion, but I and such as I am have from our infancy embraced the Christian Religion, and 〈◊〉 ●…er, now if our Adversaries did rightly infer that because there is neither p●…cept no●… example in Scripture, for baptising of infants therefore it is a needles●… thing, in like manner I may as tru●…y conclude, for as much as their is neither precept nor example in Scripture for baptising such as have been bred up in the Christian Religion and never professe●… any other, I and su●…h as I am have no need at all to be baptised.   

Baptist.  
That some are sent to baptise is proved above, and sure enough, if it be (as we see 'tis Act. 2. 39 10. 47, 48. men's duty to be baptizd, or else Christ hath required a service of every man, and that sub poena too 
* for he that 〈◊〉 not to his voice in all things whatever he saith shall be cut off from among his people Act. 3. 22, ●…3.  and yet though never so willing to be baptised, left them in no possible capacity to perform it for want of provision of administrators: but that you and such as you are, yea and that though some are sent to baptise, have such a Supersedeas from being baptised as you pretend to be vouchsafed you by Christ Jesus, because you have been lo●…g of it, and been bred up in the Christian Religion is such a strange piece of business as I know not in any wise what to make of, who, in forohominum, & ecclesiae, at least, take baptism to be the visible badge that so distinguishes between those that are of the Christian Religion, and other people, that who so shall say he is of the Christian religion, and yet never was, nor will be baptised, must excuse me if, according to the tenor of Christ's Testa meant, I own him not as yet to be a Christian.  
What you call the Christian Religion, in which you say you were bred up, I know not: if you mean the doctrines of faith, repentance, and good manners, alone as yet, and abstract from baptism, this (whether it be a great while, or but a little while since you began to put it in practice, the matter is much at one, for degrees, as to the length or shortness of the time since we were converted, do not vary the nature of the case) this I say is so far from exempting, that 'tis the only thing engaging you to baptism, and howbeit you say there is neither (as I am sure there is not for baptising infants) yet you cannot possibly, but see that there is both precedent, and precept for the baptising of all believers, and of all in any Nations that are discipled: so that if you have been converted not lately but long ago, and remained till now unbaptised, you have so much the more need to hasten to it, and instead of being held excused from now doing it at all, because you did it not when first you should, to be ex●…uscitated in the words of Ananias to Paul saying, and now why tarriest thou? arise and be baptised, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.  
But if by the Christian Religion, which you say you were bred up in, you mean either that Christian Religion of the Rantizer that teaches men to change the ordinances of Christ, that of baptism specially, as to its form and subject, and to make void his command through his tradition of a new baptism to all, or that Christian Religion of the Ranter that so rebels against that law of Christ that he will give way to have now no water baptism at all, these two Religions, as Christian as you count and call them, are both but Anti-christian with me.   

Ranterist.  
You make such a deal of do about water baptism as so needful, that there may be no Church-fellowship held without it, but for aught I see y●… 'tis a matter o●… no such weight, but that we may serve God as acceptably to the full without it, for in Christ jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but faith, which worketh by love Gal. 5. 9 circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping the commandaments of God 1 Cor. 7. 19   

Baptist.  
'tis true, that when Pau●… spoke this, which was when there was an abolition of circumcision, so far as was consistent with the Jews ability to bear it, and when it was now the jure to grow out of date, than circumcision was nothing, and uncircumcision nothing, so that 'twas altogether needless to be circumcised, but as nothing as it is now, yet so something was it once, when that testament it was the sign of stood, that every soul, of whom it was then required, that was not circumcised was to be cut off from having fellowship with that Church and people, and as nothing as this baptism or no baptism is with you now, yet no less than this at least must we say of the unbaptized, that every soul that shall refuse to be baptised, is to have no fellowship with Christ's Church, and people: Acts 2. 41. 42.  
Secondly, as nothing as circumcision, and uncircumcision, baptism or no baptism are with you, yet faith which worketh by love is something, as Paul himself also doth seem to hint, and the keeping of the commandments of God, which love to the Lord Jesus he that says he can express without keeping his commandments, among which baptism in water is not the lea●…, and without counting those commands of his not too grievous to submit to, makes either Christ a liar, or else himself, joh. 14. 23. 1 john 2. 4. 5. 1 john 5. 2. 3.  
Thus far concerning water baptism, to which in the primitive times there were, and in all times also, where in it is or shall be truly dispensed, and sincerely submitted to, there assuredly are, or will be two other baptism●… concomitant, viz.  
First, a baptism with sufferings.  
Secondly, a baptism with the holy spirit, to support under those sufferings. in order to the being baptised with the last of which baptisms, there was then an ordinance, or administration of Christ viz. prayer and laying on of hands, which was practised toward all believers after baptism in water, which as it was kept on foot from the Apostles days and downward among the Churches of Christ in after ages, and is, as to the substance of the service, kept on with far less corruption and alteration, then that which yet cleaves to their baptism, among all but the Presbyterian part of the national priesthood and people, so that it is of right to be used in order to the self same end, and in the self same manner now as then it was, because the present use, and practise thereof is so openly (not to say obstinately) denied not only by the Ranter, who races the whole foundation, and the Presbyrerian and Independent Rantizer, who race down that, or at least do not raise it, but also by several societies of persons baptised, who to the great grief of such congregations as own the whole truth, and are built upon the whole foundation or beginning doctrine of the Prophets and Apostles, do yet ignorantly withstand it, and some, even of these, bitterly band against it. I shall the Lord assisting in all possible meekness, brevity, and plainness make good unto them; and that in this one single long-winded syllogism only (lest the press which now presses on apace after me, and is at the very heels of me all along at my penning of this whole business called Anti-ranterism, should overtake me, and stand still for want of such supply as it expects hourly from me, lest also I out run too much (as I have almost done already) the bounds prefixed to this interposed Treatise) the Minor proposition of which argument being proved, and cleared from those clouds of objection wherewith some strive to darken it, will both evince and evidence the continuance of that service also in its right use to this day so sufficiently, that howbeit much more might be spoken, yet no more shall at this time at least by me.  
Whatsoever was in the primitive times taught, practised, dispensed or submitted to, owned or observed as a command of Christ, as one of the oracles or holy things of God, as a part of that foundation on which the true visible Church is 
Major.  built, as one of the very principles of the doctrine of Christ, as a practical part of the Law, Will, and Testament of Christ concerning them in order to their receiving the holy spirit of promise according to the promise, at their first beginning to be disciples, at or about the time of their baptism and before actual fellowship in the visible Church, in all the Churches, and among all baptiz●…d believers, even men and women without exception of any, without the least hint of any limitation of it to those times only, and without the least intimation to us in the word of Christ that 'twas his will it should then cease, and hath also plain injunction form Christ for its continuance, for its being taught to, and observed by the disciples, that should be successively in all the world through all nations and generations of it to the end, and hath also the same ends, grounds and reasons why it was to be used continuing still to this day as much as then, is certinly in the same manner, as then, to be observed to this very day.  
But on this wise is that service of prayer and laying on of hands, not only on officers, Deacons, Elders, messengers in order to their receiving of the holy spirit to empower them in a fuller measure for those several functions, but also on common disciples men and women in order to their receiving the holy spirit in such manner and measure as Christ jesus shall be pleased to impart it in, to comfort 
Minor.  them under sufferings, and make them sit for fellowship in the body or visible Church.  
Therefore that service of laying on of hands with prayer on common disciples, men and women, as well as that on officers in order to their offices, is now to be observed as in former days.  
The first proposition is so undoubtedly true, that if any should be so irrational as to deny it, (as I judge none will, but the Rakesham Ranter that regards neither God nor devil, and reckons on all Christ's commands as not worth a rush) I shall be more rational then to believe him to be a man fit to reason with, or that it can be to any purpose in never so reasonable a manner to bespeak him.  
As for the Minor wherein 'tis affirmed that the business of prayer and laying on of hands after baptism in water upon every disciple man or woman is such as was taught, practised, dispensed, submitted to, owned, and observed as an ordinance, and command of Christ etc. as it follows in the Major, that remains yet to be cleared, which by that time I shall have done in each of those particulars that are there asserted of it, either expressly, or by such plain and legitimate deduction●…, and inferences from the Scripture as may be justly satisfactory to any sincere souls that love truth, and allow others to draw inferences from the word (without which who can prove that he shall be saved? 
* for no man can of himself by name prove expressly that he shall be save (the Scripture promising life to neither Peter not Paul by name, save as they were believers) but only by an inference from the Scripture; and in the balance of right reason, comparing Scripture with Scripture, or by arguing in some such manner out of it viz. he th●… believeth and is bapt●…zed, continuing in that his faith and obedience till death, shall be saved, M●…k 16 16. Rom. 2. 7. H●…b. 10 35. 38. but I believe and am baptised, and continue in that faith, and G●…d essisting will never draw back, Ergo I shall be saved. 
No condemnation to them that walk not after the fl●…, but after the spirit, so dying, but I walk not after the flesh, but after the spirit.  
Ergo so doing, so dying, there's no condemnation to me, and so (consequently still) I shall be saved, Rom. 8. 1.  ) as well as themselves, and by discovering the weakness of such exceptions as are ordinarily made against the present use of this rite or service, 'twil be more than high time for me to quit this subject also: where is therefore contrary to what is asserted in the very front of the foregoing argument, viz. that laying on of hands was taught in the primitive times, I find it intimated to us by way of query, that some, who even therefore as well as for other reasons by them rendered cannot practise it, are in no wise satisfied that such a thing as laying on of hands on all baptised believers, was ever taught by either Christ or his Apostles; 
* witness a paper newly extant, subscribed with 15. hands, and sent to myself in particular by one of the subscribers, while I am just beginning this very treatise of Anti-ranterism (which occasions a more distinct handling of this point of laying on of hands than I otherwise intended) styled. 
Questions about laying on of hands (with the grounds why they are demanded) lovingly propounded to all those churches of jesus Christ in London or elsewhere, or to any one member of the body of our Lord, who pleadeth or preacheth for the necessity or usefulness of laying on of hands to be practised by all baptised believers.  
The ad▪ query of which is on this wise viz.  
We desire to be directed by them unto some place of Scripture (if they know of any) where our Lord jesus Christ or any of his Apostles or disciples preached this doctrine viz. that all baptised believers ought to practise or submit unto laying on of hands.   in proof of this that laying on of hands was taught, I send such as doubt of it first to the name of doctrine of Christ, by which in common together with the other five principles of it, it is denominated Heb. 6. 1. 2. leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith towards God, and of the doctrine of baptisms and of laying on of hands, which denomination of doctrine of Christ could not possibly belong to it properly, but that it was somewhere, or at sometime or other taught by either Christ or his Apostles or disciples, in the judgement of any that are but so far learned as to know whence the word doctrine is derived, which, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the greek is of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, so is of doceo to teach: but secondly, whereas 'tis desired that we should (if we know of any) direct to some place of Scripture, where ever Christ, or any of his Apostles or disciples did preach this doct●…ine that all baptised believers ought to practise or submit unto laying on of hands, for my own part I shall direct the enquirers to several Scriptures, in one of which as it is express enough, so in the rest its plain enough to such as are not more resolved ●…o proceed in propounding questions, then, when they are answered to be resolved, that some or other of th●… Apostles or disciples of Christ did teach and preach that doctrine: the first of these is Heb. 5. 12. where to that Church of the Hebrews or jews the very platform to all the rest, which, (as to its more complete outward form and order, and that denomination of the Church, to which God added daily such as should be saved,) had its first being, and beginning under Peter's teaching Act. 2. 'tis said thus viz. whereas for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need to be taught again, which be the first principles of the oracles of God.  
Where note first from the words taught again, that they were taught once before all the principles of the doctrine of Christ, whereof this laying on of hands is said to be one: and not only so, but secondly, from these words you ought to be teachers, that by this time they should have been of ability to teach these principles to others, which also shows that these principles ought all along still to be taught:  
Moreover if it be queried where or by whom these Hebrews were at first taught this A B C, these principles of the oracles of God there spoken of, is it not as clear as the sun to any serious, understanding, considerate spirit that it was by Peter at jerusalem in his first preaching there in obedience to Christ's commission, Mat. 28. after power was come upon him from on high, in Act. 2. which I direct to as a second place wherein we may find it preached? did not Peter there lay this foundation of the principles of the doctrine of Christ among them in preaching, as they did themselves in practising, Heb. 6. 2. and howbeit the whole form of the doctrine he there delivered is not set down, as none of the doctrine that Philip preached at Samaria is, nor of that Paul preached at Philippi Act. 16. 14. nor at Corinth Act. 18. 8. yet is it not by sundry passages as evident that he taught that principle of laying on of hands among all the rest, as it is (and how evident that is, is showed above) that they in those other places preached baptism? shall we think that Peter taught the principles of the doctrine of Christ, all which he was to lay as one foundation among them, by the halves? did he build them upon one part of the foundation, and not on the other part? did he constitute them partly upon it, and partly beside it? did he teach them all the rest of the principles (every of which its said Heb. 5. 12. they had been taught) viz. faith, repentance, baptism, resurrection, and judgement, and did he leave out that one only of laying on of hands, specially since it's said that with many other words he exhorted that people, who are said there also to continue in the Apostles doctrine? what man that devotes himself to the comparing of Scripture with Scripture can imagine it? and if not, why not be satisfied that it was preached by some at least of Christ's Apostles to all baptised believers? A third Scripture I direct the inquirers unto, is Act. 8. 5. 12. 14. 15. 16. 17. whence first its evident from the Apostles administering, and the Samaritans submission to it, that the doctrine in the purport and tendency of it, was first declared, (unless we shall judge the Saints at Samaria were such idiots as to act by implicit faith, as men were not to do, but by comparison of what they said with the Scriptures, under the ministry of the Apostles themselves Act. 17. 22. and to yield blind obedience to they knew not what, the Apostles also justifying them in it, which if they did, than you that profess yourselves to be yet ignorant in that service, and that you know not the meaning of it may submit to it as safely, though as senslessely, as they, from the hands of such as do; which yet when all is done I am sure you may not: but  
Secondly, more evident yet if you weigh some passages of that text itself, the words whereof are on this wise viz. than went Philip down unto Samaria and preached Christ to them, v. 5. and when they believed the things spoken by Philip pertaining to the Kingdom of God, they were baptised both men and women, when they at jerusalem heard that Samaria ha●… rec●…ved the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John, who when they were come, prayed for them that they might receive the holy spirit, for as yet he was fallen upon none of them, only they were baptised in the name of the Lord jesus, then laid they their hands on them, and they received the holy spirit.  
It's said that Philip preached Christ, and spoke of the things pertaining to the the Kingdom of God, and that they received the word of God, which they did not surely, so much as to believe what was to be done, till he had preached it, now can any rational man think, that he preached Christ and the things pertaining to his kingdom, and the word of God, and not preach so much as all the principles of the oracles of God, not so much as all the first Rudiments or whole beginning word of Christ? but left out imposition of hands only among all the rest, as none of the word of Christ, nor of the things pertaining to his kingdom as not to be preached, no not in that juncture wherein immediately after it was to be, and accordingly was, so universally submitted to by them, and dispensed unto them? or if you say they received not that word of laying on of hands from Philip▪ but from Peter and john.  
I answer, 'tis true practically from the hands of Peter and john dispensing it, but by faith, so as to believe it to be a practicable doctrine that was their duty to own, from the mouth of Philip dispensing the doctrine, of it, or suppose that Philip spoke nothing of it till Peter and john came, which is non supponendum, yet is it likely that the Apostles that were sent to them from jerusalem, though nothing is said of that they said, that therefore they said nothing to them at all? yea will right reason ever receive this for truth, that the Apostles were sent to Samaria upon the account of some service (whether solely that of prayer and laying on of hands it matters not so long as that was one part of it at least) and yet neither acquaint them (whether before acquainted with it or no) to what end and purpose they came, and what was the end and purport of that service they only or mainly came for? he that can receive this let him receive it, for my part I profess I cannot.  
A fourth place from whence it is easily gathered that the doctrine of laying on of hands in order to their receiving the holy spirit, was wont to be preached to all baptised believers is Act. 19 1, 2. 3. where Paul speaking to the whole company of disciples that he found at Ephesus, the number whereof were then but about twelve, among whom the doctrine of laying on of hands in order to the receiving the holy spirit had not been preached at the time of their baptism, seems to reprove and blame the neglect of it, enquiring whether they had not received the holy spirit, supposing surely at least that the promise of it had been to them, and prayer made for them in the usual way, with laying on of hands that they might receive it, but marvelling much that they, being baptised believers, had not been informed about these matters, nor had so much as heard of the holy spirit, have you received the holy pirit? (says he) no nor so much as heard of it, (say they) no? unto what then were you baptised, (says he) if at least you have not so much as heard of it? as who should say, who baptised you I wonder, and did not so much as instruct you about the spirit, nor, laying on their hands, pray for you that you might receive the spirit? this plainly shows that by right they should all about the time of their baptism in water have heard of the holy spirit, and in what way it was to have been expected by them, even that of laying on of hands, none of all which they having so much as heard of as yet, Paul therefore after some words of fuller information to them, and such other passages as fallen out thereupon laid his hands on them verse 6. in order to their receiving the holy spirit.  
These Scriptures (what they are to others I know not) are to me a clear, and safe conduct into the belief of this truth, that the doctrine of laying on of hands with prayer in order to receiving the holy spirit, both was in the primitive times, and was to be, preached to all baptised believers, as that which was no less than their duty to own and submit to have dispensed to them.  
And as it was so universally taught, and preached, so was it as universally in those times practised, dispensed, submitted to, owned and observed in all the churches, and among all baptised believers, even men and women without exception: This is evident out of the four forenamed places viz. 
* Heb. 5. 12. 6. 1, 2. Act. 19 6. Act. 8. 12. 15. 16, 17. Act. 2. 40, 42.  in the first of which it is not only express that they, i. e. all that Jewish Church had been taught this principle among the rest, but also that it had been practically owned and observed among them as well as all the rest: for as it's said there of all the principles together that these Jews had need to be taught them again, so that they should not now lay them again, but go on to perfection, which shows that as these principles had been all preached to them all, so all these Jews or Hebrews did once lay them all as a foundation at their first beginning to be a Church, and therefore this of laying on of hands among the rest.  
In the second we read that Paul laid his hands on all the baptised believers that he found at Ephesus, being then no more in number then about 12. speaking (as it were) by way of blame, and reproof of those by whom they were baptised, that this was not also done by them at their baptism, in order to their receiving the holy spirit, much more in that they were not so much as informed that there was a holy spirit to be expected by them ver. 32. 3. which may serve also as an Argument to them, that say, as some of the inquirers do, that the reproof of the omission of any service doth evince that that service ought to have been performed, and as an answer also to the fourth question of the abovenamed enquirers with the ground thereof which is this viz. 
* because many blame and reprove baptised believers because they do not practise, sub mit to, or come under laying on of hands. Therefore we desire to know of them, if they can tell of any of the servants of Christ, that ever did reprove or blame any sort of people, whether baptised or ●…ot, because laying on of hands was not practised, or submitted to by them.   
In the third place we find it most expressly asserted that Peter and john prayed for them that they might receive the holy spirit, and laid their hands on them i e. all those men and women (for that's the only substantive to this pronoun them in that place, of whom it's said before that they were baptised in the name of the Lord jesus: which word only they were baptised intimates to us thus much also, viz. that though they had submitted so far as to baptism, yet they had not practised all that was to be practised by them, but that some other service was yet behind, which ought to be performed towards them, viz. that of laying on of hands.  
In the fourth it's asserted also most plainly that all the three thousand believers that were baptised did gladly receive the word, i. e. the word that Peter preached to them, who exhorted them with many other words then those that are there specified, viz. repentance and baptism, and that they continued in the Apostles doctrine, of which word and doctrine, if we may judge the word or doctrine of Christ & the Apostles to be one and the same) laying on of hands was part as well as faith, repentance, baptism, resurrection, and judgement, Heb. 6. 1. 2. besides, if the word and doctrine of Christ that was preached and practised at Jerusalem was the self same word and doctrine, that was after preached and practised at Samaria, than we may safely gather that whatever was preached and practised by them at Samaria had been preached and practised by them at jerusalem before, from whence they came immediately to Samaria, where its easy to be discerned by any but such as will bend their brains to multiply impertinencies, and to make bluries to themselves, and others in businesses that are beyond doubt to impartial inquirers, that they laid hands, praying for them that they might receive the holy spirit, on all those believers there that were baptised, whether men or women without exception, if we may as warrantably understand the men and women, that are said to be baptised v. 12. to be the same persons that are said to be baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus v. 16. and the same persons that are denoted by that pronoun them v. 14. 15. 16. as I am sure we cannot warrantably, because not congruously, do otherwise? for who else can be meant all along but the very same (and not some of them only, but even all the s●…me, even the men and women, that are related above to be baptised?) for whereas its said ver. 12. when they believed, they were baptised both men and women, and v. 16. that the holy spirit was fallen upon none of them, only they were baptised, must not they and them there be taken for all those that are said to be baptised above? and so consequently when it is said ver. 15. that they prayed for them, and ver. 17. that they laid their hands on them, doth not them denote out the very same?  
Yet this cannot be digested for truth with some of the inquirers, for 'twas asserted as his opinion (the rest assenting to it by their silence) by one of those with whom we had some discourse at Ely house March 27. 1653. (whether the same be the sense of all those that sent him I know not) that Peter and john did not with prayer lay hands on all the baptised believers at Samaria, but on the men only, and not on the women. 
* As if women were not under the promise of the holy spirit, repenting believing, and being baptised, as well as men: when as Peter says Acts 〈◊〉. 39 to the whole multitude of women as well as men, repent and be baptised, and ye shall receive the holy spirit, for the promise is to you and to your children, and them that are a far off even as many as the Lord shall call: as if John Baptist also did not speak promiscuously to the multitudes of both men and women, and to the women as well as the men whom he baptised, when he said I indeed baptise you with water, but he shall baptise you with the holy spirit: and if baptised believing women be under a promise of being baptizd with the spirit as well as men pro. 1. 23. then why they should not have hands laid on them, and be prayed for that they may receive it as well as the other, according to the promise, he is a wiser man than I am that knows any reason.   
And whereas in proof of the contrary I asserted that the pronoun them in v. 14. 15. 16. 17. doth relate to not the men only, but the men and women, even all those that are said to be baptised, as the adequate substantive with which it did agree: 'twas answered by him to this purpose (a pretty put off I confess, but nothing to the purpose) viz. that the Scripture had expressions both particular, indefinite, and universal, that the word them here, as 'twas not a particular, so 'twas not an universal (for then it would have been said all them) but an indefinite expression, signifying some only not all, whereby he bewrayed his too little acquaintance with one received rule among the Rationallists, viz. that an indefinite proposition, or expression in a necessary matter is equivalent ever to an universal: howbeit my reply to him than was not so, but on this wise, viz. that if we must take them but indefinitely only, for some and not all the persons or things before spoken of, unless that particle all be added to it, than we had consequently no clear command from Matth. 28. 19, 20. to baptise all that are discipled, and converted to the faith, for by the pronoun them, that is there used also, we must not mean all them, but some of them only in the nations that are discipled, because it's not said all them, but merely them, but I entreated him from his conscience to tell me whether he did think, that when Christ says Go teach all nations baptising them, teaching them, he meant that they should baptise all them, or but some of them only in the nations that were discipled, his return was that if there were not other places that did more clearly prove it that Christ commanded that all should be baptised then Matth 28. he could not see it fully commanded there: and being desired to assign any place, wherein Christ did more universally command baptism then there, he directs us to Luke 7. 30. where its said the Pharisees rejected the Counsel of God against themselves in not being baptised: whence he gathered that baptism was the Council, and consequently the commandment of God to all men, because they are here reproved for rejecting it, which if it be a sound Argument to prove baptism to be the command of God to all men, because the pharisees in particular (for the Pharisees is but a particular expression indigitating one single sort of men among all the rest, and not so much as an indefinite, much less an universal) because I say the Pharisees in particular are reproved for refusing to obey it, how much better may we collect that both baptism, and laying on of hands with prayer for the spirit, are commanded by God to all men, because we find all those, save Simon, (witness his giving them his holy spirit) recorded as most highly approved of God, that at any time did reject neither, but silently submit themselves both?  
Those passages between that my beloved friend, and myself I could not conscientiously neglect to set down, lest I should seem to love any man more than the truth, for the sake of which principally, and partly for his also, and theirs he walks with, whom I love in truth, as far as they love the truth, I write this, that he, reviewing here his own empty evasions, may more evidently discern himself to be mistaken in many things, than he may be capable to do in a discourse by word of mouth, and that they remembering, how they in proof of baptism itself to be Christ's command to all believers, a●…e necessitated to use such cloudy inferences and deductions, as those above, may excuse us more than many, if not most, of that party do, if in proof of laying on of hands to be the duty of all baptised believers, we take the like liberty to ourselves in order to their satisfaction, to use more clear inferences and deductions, than those, out of Scripture, and out of Heb. 6. 2. itself, as 'twill appear that we do, to reason itself rightly acted in comparing of Scripture with Scripture, which I for my part refer the enquirers unto as the sur●…st rule to try the spirits by, and to try all inferences, or deductions by, because the best of men are liable to mistakes, and sure enough to fall into them, if ceasing to exercise their reason in deducing, inferring, and gathering one thing out of another, they will receive not●…ing for truth, though otherwise never so plain, even to common sense and reason, unless they find it in so many words in Scripture, as 'tis by us expressed in: and this is all that I shall trouble myself to say in reference to the seventh and eighth questions of the late Enquirers with the grounds thereof, which are laid down in these words. 
ˢ Viz. seeing that many draw inferences and deductions, as they call them, from Heb 6▪ 2. to maintain one laying on o●… hands only, and none of them upon the forementioned considerations, neither in the end, purpose or event: Therefore we desire to know whe●…her you judge it a command of our Lo●…d Christ, that any man's inference or deduction should be of a binding ●…orm in point of faith and obedience? and because we have▪ seen some 〈◊〉 our darly beloved brethren in the Lord, to the grief of our hearts much offended at us because we believe not the inferences or deductions, as they call them, from Heb. 6. 2 Therefore we d●…e ●…o know of them what they will re●…er us to as the sure rule to try in●…erences or deductions by, because the best of men are liable to mistakes?   
And now further to prove the Minor of the forecited syllogism in some other particulars of it that remain unproved, viz. that laying on of hands was not only taught, and practised, dis●…enst and submitted to, owned and observed among all baptised believers in the primitive times, but all this as by command from God.  
I argue thus viz. Either by command from God or without it; But neither without nor against command from God, Ergo by it: the consequence of the first proposition is most clear, for whatever Gospel administration was never commanded by God to be dispensed, is practised (if practised at all) as a tradition of men, and without, nay against God's command, whose command it is, 
* witness his reproving and threatening of lost labour to those that so do, Mat. 15. 9  that no man shall presume to teach for doctrines of his the traditions or commandments of men: the Minor is as clear that the Apostles did not teach for doctrines of Christ any traditions of their own, for as Paul who was one of them that practised laying on of hands, says of himself 1. Cor. 11. 23. that he received from Christ that which he delivered unto the Church at Corinth, so may we say on the behalf of all the rest, as concerning what doctrines they delivered, and dispensations they practised to the Churches: for surely as Christ the great, and immediate messenger from the father could do nothing of himself, was not to do his own will, but the will of his father which sent him, nor to speak or do any thing, but as the father gave him commandment, confessing that even his doctrine was not his own, but his that sent him, 
x John. 5. 30. 8. 16. 17. 12. 49. 50. 14. 31  so they that were the great, and immediate messengers from Christ might speak, and do nothing in things pertaining to him, but as God by him gave commandments unto them: 
* Act. 1. 1. 2 3. 10. 33.  neither were any doctrines they delivered among the Churches their own, nor any other than the doctrines of Christ, whereupon though as Christ's doctrine and commandments a●…e called his, because he preached and gave them from God, and yet were not his own but the fathers, so theirs are called the doctrine and commandments of the Apostles, as they had them immediately from him, yet are they not their own, but the doctrine and comman-of Christ, 
* Act. 2. 42. 1 Cor. 14. 37. Eph. 2. 20. Heb. 6. 1. 〈◊〉 Pet. 3. 2. Judas 17. 〈◊〉  and had they done any thing more than they had order for from him, who from him were to give order to the Churches, either in the point of laying on of hands or any thing else, they would surely have heard harshly from him for it, & been reproved by the spirit in the word, but as to this service of prayer and laying on of hands on all baptised believers, in many places he is recorded as approving of them in all they did.  
Moreover, that laying on of●…hands was taught, and practised not of their own heads, but (as 'tis asserted in the argument) as a practical part of the Law, will, and Testament of Christ concerning baptised believers, as one of the oracles or holy things of God, as one of the very principles of the doctrine of Christ, as a part of the foundation, or beginning word of Christ (as well as baptism) or of the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles, on which the true visible Church is built as upon a certain basis, and from which the whole building growth up an holy temple in the Lord toward perfection, an habitation of God through the spirit, being first fitly framed together by a joint, uniform, visible obedience unto that one whole form of doctrine 
* For there was a certain form of Christ's doctrine delivered by the Apostles to persons as from him, which they were to obey, and after obedience unto which (and not before) they were counted unto Christ, as now his servants, which till they had obeyed they were co●…ted none of his, but unto sin, as its servants, standing in several particulars, whereof its most evident that water baptism was one (for obedience in baptism, and obedience to that form of doctrine delivered are both urged as arguments and ●…gagements to the Romans now to reckon on themselves, or from thenceforth, i. e. their obedience thereunto as (in foro dei, ho●…inum, et ecclesiae) Christ's servants that had formally owned him) and whether the rest viz faith, repentance, laying on of hands, belief of a res●…ection and judgement, which are Heb. 6. all called the foundation which was at fi●…st to be laid altogether with baptism, called by the name of the form of doctrine Rom. 6. 17. which was at first to be obeyed by every beginner in Christ's school, is worth our serious consi●…erations.  whereof, I say this laying on of hands was a part, and was practised at their first beginning to be disciples at or about the time of their baptism, and before actual fellowship in the visible Church, this all is clear enough of itself to him that consults Heb. 5. 2. 6. 1. considerately comparing them with Eph. 2. 20. 21. 22. Rom. 6. 17. Act. 2. 42. 8. 12. 14. 15. 16. 17. 19 2. 6. out of all which places, at least collectively consulted with, we cannot but see that after baptism, and before fellowship in one body, or building in higher things there was this of laying on of hands, practised, owned, observed, as one of the first principles of God's oracles, of Christ's doctrine, Antecedent to fellowship, and laid as a part of that first form of doctrine that was delivered and obeyed (after obedience to the whole of which they were counted babes in Christ, new born, begotten to him, belonging to him, and in present capacity (as no fleshly babes are) to be added and admitted into his Church) and as one piece of that foundation or word of the beginning of Christ 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heb. 6. 1. , on which the Church itself is built, and therefore necessarily precedent among persons to their fellowship together in it, for the foundation must ever be wholly laid even in every part of it (and therefore why not in laying on of hands?) before there can be any firm, or any but a deformed or defective building: no more therefore as unto that:  
Again that it was dispensed together with prayer for it on all baptised believers in order to their receiving the holy spirit 'tis not denied by any, for aught I know, as indeed it is undeniable to all, Act. 8. 15. 16. 17. 19 2. 6.  
And further, there is not the least hi●… of any limitation of that doctrine of laying on of hands on all baptised believers to those times only, or intimation in the word of Christ that 'twas his mind there should then be a cessation of it, any more than there is of baptising all believers, or any other ordinance, or outward administration, or any other of the principles of Christ's doctrine, if there be, I desire of the Enquirers, who use inferences themselves, and yet allow not us to speak any thing, as to the continuance of this ordinance, but some express tex●… of Scripture, to show some Scripture (if they know of any) that speaks expressly (or if it be but consequentially, it shall serve my turn (though from us it will not theirs) so the consequence be legitimate, and truly rational) of the continuation of all other the principles of the doctrine of Christ, and the cessation of only this of laying on of hands on all baptised believers: for what we are sure was in use among all baptised believers in the primitive times, it concerns them that call for a cessation of it alone, among all the principles of God's oracles, to show us some plain word of Christ, for the right of such a cessation of that only, and no other before they blame us for calling on them for a continuance of that still: but for my part as I find none, so I suppose they may look till their eyes are weary before they can out of Christ's testament, not a ti●…le of which is yet disa●…ul'd, produce any text tending to such a purpose.  
And because I have inser●…ed and asserted no less in the Minor of the Argument I am yet in proving then this viz. that as there's no intimation of any ●…essation of laying on of hands on all baptised believers till such time as the work of baptising all believers itself shall cease, but also a plain injunction from Christ for the continuance of the one of these as long as the other, and for a continual teaching and observation of both as well as either among all the disciples that should be in all nations to the world's end, I'll direct the enquirers to a plain tex●… of Scripture for it, viz. Matth. 28. 20 whence suppositis supponendis taking it for granted, till I shall see more than ever I have yet seen from them, or I believe eve●… shall see from any to the contrary, that the dispensation, practice, use and observation of laying on of hands among the Apostles, and the primitive baptiz●…d believers, who expected that whatever the Apostles delivered to them was first commanded them of God, Act. 10. 33. was no other then what God commanded then to them all, it is as plain as the high way that the very same is commanded to be continued downwards, even to be taught to, and observed by all that ever should be discipled in the nations to the world's end▪ for on the very day in which Christ was taken up after that he through the holy spirit had given commandments to the Apostles, whom he had chosen, being seen of them four●…y days after his resurrection, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God (among which I query, of the Enquirers whether laying on of hands were not one?) he expressly charges them, that whatever he had taught and enjoined them to observe; they should teach all the nations, i. e. the disciples and baptised believers in all nations to observe the very same, promising his presence in the observation of the same among his disciples, not to the end of that generation, or age only, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as I have showed above, to the end of the very world itself.  
Going out teach all nations baptising them, i. e. that believe, teaching them i e. the now newly baptised believers, to observe all things, whatsoever I have commanded you, and therefore laying on of hands surely, it being one of the principles of his doctrine, and l●… I am with you, i. e. not your persons only but your party, not yourselves only whilst you live, but your successors also, in what age soever they shall live in the observation of what I have commanded you, and shall command them by you, always to the end of the world.  
Finally that laying on of hands on baptizd believers hath the same ends, grounds and reasons why it was to be used, continuing still to this very day, as much as as in the primitive times, is as evident as all the rest: for as the grounds and reasons why they observed such a service than were, and could be no other than the manifestation of it to them from Christ to be his holy command, mind and will concerning them, and to be a certain outward administration of his own choosing, which though as despicable a dispensation, and as weak, low, foolish, earthen, and empty a thing to see to as wash in jordan, yet was to be done, sith the Lord had bidden it to be done, as well, yea rather than if it had been some greater matter, if to no other end, then merely to testify their love to him, and themselves merely to be his disciples, servants, and friends by observing whatever he commanded john 14. 15. 21. 23. 15. 14 1 john 5. 3. how much more when it was a way, and order of his own appointment to be observed, and to wait upon him in, together with prayer and supplication, in order to such a glorious and profitable end, and purpose to themward, as this, viz. that they waiting on him in that his own way, might (as not only they did, but all others shall, that wait on him in the same in sincerity according to their faith, or else its possible that we may fail of it as they also might and did) in his measure manner and time receive his holy spirit.  
Now (I say) as these were the ends, grounds and reasons, why among baptised believers this of laying on of hands was observed then, so there are the same ends, grounds and reasons, why the same service should be observed now,  
For first we have it manifested as sufficiently to our Reason and understanding (unless we will darken the council of God to ourselves by a number of needless queries, superfluous scruples, and words without knowledge) either expressly or by infallible inferences, and undeceivable deductions in the word to be an urepealed, undisannulled dispensation and part, and principle of Christ's doctrine, will and Testament, as they had, and as baptism itself, which the Enquirers walk still in the practice of, is manifested so to be:  
Secondly, we are also as much required, and have as much reason as they to manifest ourselves to be lovers of Christ, to be his disciples, servants, and friends by our readiness to do whatsoever he hath commanded.  
Thirdly we are in as much liableness as they to be the least in the kingdom of heaven, if we break one of the least of Christ commandments, and teach men so i e. that they may do so too 
* & so the Enquirers seem to me to do while they teach men that as yet have not, that they need or ought not to submit to prayer and laying on of hands for the holy spirit, and un●…each such again as have been taught it, till they disown that first principle o●… the doctrine of Christ after they had once, even practically owned it. , and as much capableness of being greatest in the kingdom of heaven, if we do the least of Christ's commandments, and teach men so i e. that they must do so too.  
Fourthly, we have as much need of the holy spirit now as they had to perform the same good offices for us as he did for them viz. to comfort and support under sufferings, to lust against our flesh, to lead us into all truth, to bring to our remembrance the things that were spoken by Christ, which many men would fain have to be forgotten, to help to mortify the deeds of our bodies to seal us up to the day of redemption, to reveal unto us, that we may rejoice therein, the things which are freely given us of God, which are the same he gives to them, and to gift us likewise with such gifts as he, not as we shall please 
* who would fain be our own carvers, and either have such visible gifts, as some call them, as he was pleased to give them, or else we will be blind, and not see, nor believe, though we see it, that he gives any gifts of his spirit now at all;  (for beggars must not be choosers) for fellowship in the body, that we may be an habitation of God through the spirit, and to gift some also, even such as he pleases, for the work of the ministry, and the edifying of the body in the several offices he hath given to it for the service of it, and the truth viz. messengers, elders, deacons' &c. for all this he did for them. 
* John 14. 17 28. Gal. 5. 17. John 16 13. R m. 8. 13. 1 Cor. 2. 12 1 Cor. 12. 7. Eph. 4. 11. Eph. 4. 30. a Eph. 1. 13. b Act. 2. 39 40. c Prov. 1. 23. Joh. 7. 38, 39 Luke 11. 13. Act 5. 35.   
Fifthly, we are as much under the promise of the same holy spirit of promise a being baptised believers, as they were b for the promise of it was to them that were far off as well as to them that were nigh, whether in respect of time or place, and therefore to us, yea, and to all men on the same terms on which it was tendered to them. c all that repent and are baptised, all that turn at Christ's reproof, all that believe, all that ask the father for it, all that obey him to the world's end have on these terms a promise of the holy spirit as well as all the baptised believers of the primitive times, and why the baptised believers of these times should have all these ends, grounds and reasons why, and in order to which laying on of hands with prayer was dispensed on all baptised believers then, continuing till now, and yet that dispensation cease and not continue in its use; and that they should have the promise of the same spirit, and yet not be bound to wait on God, and seek it in the same way is a very riddle to me: I confess there may be through the unbelief of baptised believers, who will not take God's word in his word, but say show us a sign that we may see and believe, show us such visible gifts, show us miracles, the gift of healing, and in particular that gift of tongues 
* john did no miracle but all the the things which john spoke of this man are see true. Joh. 10. 41. john 7. 48 〈◊〉 ye see signs and wonders ye will not believe. john 20. 29. Thomas because thou hast seen thou hast believed, but blessed are they that have not seen and yet believed. Herod hoped to have seen some miracle done by Christ, but he would not so much as answer him, Luke 23. 8. 9 He did not many mighty work there, because of their unbelief Mat. 13. 5. Lord why could not we cast him out, jesus said because of your unbelief. ; which thou gavest too baptised believers in the primitive times, in this way of prayer and laying on of hands, and we will submit to it, and believe it to be thy will and command to us now, else not: I say for their unbeliefs sake that obey not, and their too too great defect in faith that do draw near to God in prayer and laying on of hands, there may be, and that justly, and I think is, a cessation of Gods giving out such measures and full manifestations of his spirit as else he would, yet some gifts he gives now, and that there is warrant to expect, by any promise thereof, some particular gifts that God, for signs of confirmation of the Gospel doctrine to be from heaven in the first giving of it out and removing the old testament, gave in the primitive times, as miracles, tongues, this I deny, but that he gives not the gift of the spirit, and the graces of it, which was the thing mainly promised, and not so much in plurali the gifts of it, as men count gifts distinct from the fruits of it Gal. 5. temperance, love, joy, peace, etc. as if these were not the spirits gifts, much more that the promise of the self same spirit itself (though it appear not in every individual gift that we out of curiosity desire to see) doth not cease to us, and that there is no cessation of that outward administration of laying on of hands with prayer on baptised believers, which Christ then was sought to in, for the fulfilling of his promise, this I dare, and do still affirm, and testify, neith●…r do I judge any man is capable by the word to give any sound reason why it should cease, it being a principle of the doctrine of Christ, till all the principles of the whole foundation spoken of Eph. 2. 20. Heb. 6. 1. 2. on which the visible Church is to be built, and all ordinances do cease also together with it at Christ's next appearing.  
Thus having sufficiently proved the Minor of the forenamed argument in each particular of it, in which as nearly as I could well crowd them together are couched as many, if not all such particulars as are needful to be proved to the evincing of the continuance of this doctrine and dispensation, of laying on of hands to the end,  
I shall hasten to an end both of this subject, and of this system also: but because I find some things put in by way of positive exception, and objection against this truth, from the mouths of some, as well as something by way of query from the pens of others, who also in that way have appeared against it so newly at the the press, viz. the late Enquirers abovenamed, a remnant of whose Questions remain yet unanswered here, though not so unanswerable as some do deem them, I shall add a word or two more toward the removal of these two sorts of blinding bushes, whereby I fear many may be infatuated so as to turn aside from the way of truth in this particular, and so leave both it, and them unto the Lord.  
First then whereas by word of mouth some tell me, That Laying on of hands was a way peculiar to that juncture, designed of god to the time then being only, wherein the Apostles (say some and othersome the Lord) gave the holy spirit in some visible eminent, and extraordinary gifts thereof, as tongues prophesy, miracles, healing &c. simply to this end that these might be a sign to confirm it visibly to the eyes of people, that the doctrine they taught and practised in the principles, and other parts of it was from above, and no other than the oracles of God.  
First, I grant that in the primitive times, there were, and that in the way of prayer, and laying on of hands, given (not by the Apostles, though, for (as is showed above) they were not baptizers with the spirit) but by the Lord only, whose only prerogative that is to baptise with the holy spirit, sundry gifts, as healing, etc. which may be called extraordinary, and rare respectively to these times, wherein they have been seldom or never seen, or heard of, as I know not that that of tongues now adays ever was, though as to that of healing, and that of discerning of spirits, and some other manifestations of the spirit given to profit withal, as a word of wisdom, and a word of knowledge, it is within a little of past doubt to some that such as these, as the Lord pleases, are some less, some more frequently given now among them that walk in truth (though what gifts some have seen and been sensible of in others or themselves, 'tis not so fit to boast of, as to be silent.)  
Secondly, I grant that many of this sort (and happily many more than either are, or need to be, or shall be given now) were given then ●…o confirm the New Testament doctrine in the first delivery of it to the world, in the room of the old one, to be of God, of some of which there may be a cessation, the end they had such special respect to then being sufficiently accomplished, and the word being now committed unto writing Mark 16. 17, 18, etc. Heb. 2. 3, 4.  
But thirdly, that either such gifts of the spirit as these were either the only or the chief kind of gifts of the spirit that were to be, and were expected, looked after or given in that way of prayer and laying on of hands, as a service destinated pro tempore only in order to the receiving of such, or that these gifts were so extraordinary in respect of the eminency or excellency of them (because more visible and ad extra) beyond such as may be warrantably by promise expected, and are in that way assuredly and ordinarily given at this day, these two I see no warrant to subscribe to: for as 'tis most sure that the promise was (so far as I find) in terminis nor only, nor so oft of these things (though I deny not but these were at that time, for ends that concern not these times promised too) but of the spirit to several other purposes (as above) the holy spirit, the spirit in the fruits, and graces, and comforts of it, the gift of the holy spirit we find it all along almost in no less than scores of Scriptures, whereof some few are more plain: so assuredly the holy spirit in that way of prayer and laying on of hands was given to baptised believers 
Job. 1. 16. ●…f his ful●…es we have ●…ll received grace for grace john 16. 7. 13. 2. Cor. 13. 14. the communion of the spirit be with you all: Gal. 5. 22. 2 Cor. 5. 5. God who hath given us the earnest of his spirit. Ephes. 1. 33. 14. in whom after ye believed ye were sealed with the holy spirit of promise, which is the earnest of our inheritance etc. whereby you are sealed to the day of redemption Ephes. 4. 30.  in other gifts than these viz. the graces, comforts and fruits of it love, joy, peace, assurance etc.  
In respect of which in case those outward gifts of the spirit should all have failed, or shall fail now, yet that dispensation is not therefore rendered empty, useless, and out of date, but remains rather more gloriously useful, then as to external gifts of tongues and such like, continually even unto the end: yea also if we speak of gifts merely external, and visible, as some call them (though for my part I judge the spirit is as visible to us and manifested to be in men by the fruits, and graces, as by those things that are more commonly, but not more properly, than those, called gifts) I suppose his senses as well as his reason doth not a little fail him, that descerns not, not only those most excellent ways of grace, as love, joy, etc. 1 Cor. 12. 31. but even the best and most excellent, and profitable outward gift of the spirit, even that of prophecy, or speaking to exhortation, edification, and comfort (for that is the gift of prophecy 
* if any doubt it (as some do, and say prophecy is a gift of speaking infallibly by revelation from God, as 'tis spoken of 1 Cor. 14. 1. the 2. 3. 4. 5. verses of the same chapter confute him, where prophecy, as it is determined to be a far more eminent and profitable gift, and greater and more desirable than tongues, which is so talked on, so it is defined to be no other than speaking to exhorration, edisication and comfort; and also v. 31. 32. 33. where its said, you may all prophecy one by one, and the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets, which shows 'twas no gift of speaking infallibly, but only preaching, because it's supposed that they may be out, and err in their prophecy, and must submit to correction, in case they do, from the other prophets: , and the best outward gift that we can covet or compass) given unto baptised believers, whom we pray for and lay hands on at this day, to whom nature, and University Nursery never gave it.  
And if any say, we see such a kind of gift as you call prophesy given also to others 
Obj.  aswel as such as submit to it.  
That's nothing to us what God does whose word binds us to such or such a way, 
Ans.  but not himself, we are querying what we are required to do by him, upon the account of which we may by promise expect the holy spirit, not what God does; God often anticipates his own promise, and is better than his word as Act. 10. 47. he gave the spirit before baptism which is promised only to baptised believers, Act. 2. 39 yet that does neither give us disingagement from God's outward way, nor warrant us to expect the spirit out of it, but engage us so much the more unto it ver. 48.  
If God will give any other men his holy spirit out of that way, I am glad (sith it pleases himself) he is so good to them: but as that assures me not that I (specially if enlightened about his way, yea then assuredly I shall not) shall have it so too, so sure I am that in his way I shall obtain it, and if any have been so highly favoured of god, as that he mercifully meets them out of his way, that does not exempt them from coming into it, but much more oblige them, if they had no further need of it (as Christ had none of baptism, save to fulfil all righteousness) even merely upon that account to meet him the more cheerfully in it: for thus it becometh us me thinks, as well as it did Christ himself to fulfil all the righteousness of his law.  
If any say, I deny not the dispensation of laying on of hands in its due seaso●…: 
Ob.  even in this age, on baptised believers for the spirit, but as they were bid to tarry at jerusalem till they were endued with power from on high Luke 24 50. Act. 1. 4. that they might have some men fit to go forth, and by laying on of hands give the holy spirit, being gifted and fitted by it, and filled with it first themselves; so we must wait in prayer only, for a first giving out of it as Act. 2. 1. till power come down on some to make them fit administrators of this dispensation to others, and then act in it.  
I say this only in short, first their expectation that some men shall, and thoughts 
Ans.  that of old some men did baptise with the spirit is a gross mistake, for the most they could do was but to pray for it, and barely lay on their hands, Christ did the one and they the other.  
Secondly, if we must wait, as they did till the day of Pentecost, than we must till that time forbear all baptising in water, and suspend all preaching to the world aswel as laying on of hands, but this though the Apostles did so in that juncture, and intertime between Christ's ascension, and the descension of the holy spirit, yet our Enquirers, among whom some of eminency object as abovesaid, 
* which I much marvel at sith this objection supposes a continuation, or resurrection of that same ordinance of laying on of hands in the last days, after a while waiting for administrators: but the questions subscribed to, are all or most of them such as suppose the Enquirers to be much in the dark and in doubt about it, what kind of laying on of hands that is, that's called a doctrine of Christ Heb. 6. 1. whether ever such a thing was, or is ever to be dispensed to all baptised believers etc. as if they could not tell almost whether there be, at least appointed by Christ, such a manner of administration.  do in this time (I suppose) baptise, and increase their number by preaching the Gospel to the world.  
Thus far as to the objections: now as to what further obstructive interposal is made in way of question by the Enquirers, some of whose queries viz. the second fourth, seventh and eighth, I have taken notice of above, I shall now remove it by saying a little to the residue viz. the first, third, fifth, and six.  
The first which with the ground thereof is on this wise 
* viz. Seeing we are denied communion by some of those Churches, or by some members thereof, who hold the necessity of all baptised believers to practise, submit to, or come under the laying on of hands. 
Therefore we desire them to acquaint us what we are commanded to say, or do, that we may be found faithful in that point; or otherwise, to be discovered disobedient unto a command by the Word of God, which is the only director here, and that which shall be our judge at the last day.   is rather a curious querk, than a solid question, so frivolous as is scarce fit to be answered with any thing, but not a word: yet a word nevertheless even unto that.  
First, whereas they ground it upon our denial of communion with them, we desire them to know that we may more justly put the business of our non-communion with them upon their score, and lay the denial of it at their own doors as their doing, not ours.  
I say not ours, who earnestly desire to have communion even in one body with them, and all men in a way of conformity to the word of Christ, which gives neither example, nor toleration, so far as I know, for any mixed communion in one Church of persons, whereof some own all the principles of the doctrine of Christ, and some not only own not, but deny either all, or any of them; if it doth show us where? but theirs who deny a part of that very beginning of the word of Christ, or first form of his doctrine, all the several parts whereof collectively taken make that very foundation, upon the whole of which, and not part of it only, every right visible Church is built, and constituted, and besides which there can be no orderly either Church or communion.  
Secondly, whereas 'tis asked what persons are to say or do, (at the administration of laying hands) that they may be found faithful in that point? I say that according to Act. 8. 15. 17. the administrators are to pray for the baptised believers that they may, according to the promise Act. 2. 39 receive the holy spirit, and after that to lay their hands upon them, which is easy enough (I wot) to be understood without expressing what part of the body hands are to be laid on, whether the head (the place of our imposition, which if hands be laid on 'tis laying on of hands is it not?) or any other part 
* 
which is the wise query of some also, and as learned a question as if one should ask, whether at the supper we must put the elements to our mouths with the right hand or the left? or in baptism ask, how the baptizer must handle the person baptised, and where he must take hold on him, when he dips him? and if he have not express Scripture concerning such niceties and trifles as these, suspend the dispensation of both the supper & baptism, because Christ is some what short in his word, not expressing punctually enough, how his ordinances shall be dispensed, nor what is to be said and done by persons at the doing of them, so distinctly as they would have him.  
But foolish and unlearned questions avoid knowing that they do gender strifes 2 Tim. 2. 23.  ? and (as at baptism the believer is without gainsaying it, to yield his body to be baptised so) at laying on of hands, the baptised believer is to say nothing against it, but to give way to have 〈◊〉 done accordingly.  
The 3d. question with the ground thereof, which runs thus, 
p V●…. Seeing there be ma ny that do desire bapti zed believers to require that hands should be laid on them. Therefore we desire of them to show us some place of Scripture (if they know of any) that doth express such a behaviour either of the administrator, or the person on whom hands were laid.  is even as superfluous, impertinent, vain and frivolous as the former; for (howbeit neither am I one of those many that have ever yet formally, and in terms desired baptised believers to require that hands should be laid on them yet) laying on of hands on baptised believers either is Christ's mind, or it is not, if it be not, and the Enquirers ever prove it is not, we will freely give them leave to require us to let it alone, but if it be, (as 'tis proved to be above out of Act. 8. 16. 17. 19 1. 2: 3. 6. where 'tis so pla●…n as to need no deduction) then as I shall desire them to have us excu●…ed 
* (for such a behaviour as to reprove their backwardness, and summon men to show their forwardness to own Christ's ways may become any administrator whatsoever Act. 23. 16.)  if henceforward we desire baptised believers to require it to be dispensed to them, so I give them to understand that, it being the mind of Christ, though (as baptism also is) one of his too too despised dispensations, as stout, and loath to stoop to it as some baptised believers seem to be, 'tis no disparagement to the best of them, that are yet (as those Act. 8. 16.) only baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus, but a behaviour that may well enough beseem them to require it.  
The fifth question is ushered in by an introduction, consisting of nothing but division and subdivision of laying on of hands into different kinds, according to the difference of the administrators, of the persons to whom, of the accounts or ends upon which, and in order whereunto administered, as it follows in their own words thus viz we do or may read of laying on of hands upon several occasions, differing one from the other,  
First, in the qualification of the administrator, as Luke 21. 12. compared with Mark 16, 18. the one being wicked, the other Godly.  
Secondly, differing qualifications in persons on whom hands were laid, sometimes before baptised, and sometimes after baptism, Act. 9 17. and Acts 8. 17.  
Thirdly, hands were imposed upon several accounts (or ends;) sometimes to be brought before Rulers, as Luke 21. 12. sometimes to heal the sick, Acts 28. 8. sometimes te cure the blind, Act. 9 17. sometimes to set men apart to administer temporal things Acts 6. 6. sometimes to set men apart to administer spiritual things Act. 13. 3. these were gifted, before hands were laid on them, Sometimes hands were imposed, that men might be gifted, 1 Tim. 4. 14. sometimes hands were laid on by men gifted, to give the holy ghost to them that were not set a part to Office, as many of themselves say from Acts 8. 17.  
After which their question with its ground comes in thus. 
* Viz. Seeing many plead ●…aying on of hands to be practised or submitted unto as a foundation, principle, or a beginning doctrine that by all baptised believers. Therefore we desire to know, if any of them can inform us, which of all these layings on of hands forementioned is calle●… by Christ, or his Apostles the foundation, principle, or beginning doctrine, by some text in Scripture.   
To all which viz. their introduction, ground, and question I answer as followeth.  
First, I deny not but that hands were laid on men then by several sorts of admini●…rators, godly and wicked 
* i●… it be not somewhat an improper phrase to style wicked men in their wrathful and cruel handle of the Saints Administrators o●… any doctrine of Christ that is styled imposition of hands, as to me it seems to be, unless we●…l allow the name of an Administrator also to the devil himself, when he tempts the Saints, and puts forth his hands against them to smi●…e them with any misch●…efs in either body o●… sp●…it, as by God's permission he did Job, Job 1. 12. Job 2. 6. 7.  in the several seasons of before and after baptism, to and upon several ends, purposes, and accounts, though all the several ends and cases you here distinguish by do not make so many several kinds of imposition of hands neither, so substantially distinct each from other as you would seem to make them; for imposition of hands on baptised believers before admission, and after that before ordination to office, were one and the same in kind, distinguished only by the different capacities of membership, and ministership, eldership, messengership, to each of which laying on of hands was Antecedent, yea these were one, and the same kind of imposition of hands, used all in order to one and the same end in general viz. receiving the holy spirit, or, as occasion was, more and more of the spirit, in a measure answerable to their places, diversified only by the different degrees or stations in the Church to which they were thereby visibly designed: but what if there were never so many kinds of laying on of hands, is it therefore so impossible to determine (as by your query you seem to imagine) which among all the rest is meant in such or such a place? shall we think the Apostles meant to deliver the mind and doctrine of Christ, and that in the very principles or first rudiments of it too, which ought to be the plainest, in such obstruse, dark and ae●…igmatical ways that men should scarcely be capable possibly to know what they meant? there's several sorts of baptism spoken of in the Scripture, is it therefore so difficult (if men be not willing (as some are) to puzzle themselves besides the practice of water baptism) to know when he speaks of water, when of sufferings, when of the spirit?  
But to the question●…ith some will needs, though needlessly, query which of all these layings on of lands the Scripture speaks of is called the foundation, principle or beginning doctrine?  
I answer that laying on of hands that 'twas dispensed with prayer on baptised believers, not as yet to be set apart to office, mentioned Act. 8. 15. 16. 17. not in order to gifted men's giving it (for though you will mistake us do whatwe can, and bring us in as confessing it here, yet we ever utterly deny that any men were ever so gifted as that they could give it) but in order to Gods giving, and our receiving the holy spirit from the Lord, that laying on of hands I say is it which in Heb. 6. 1. 2. is called a principle, a part of that foundation of Christ's doctrine on which the visible Church is built.  
In proof of which let this Argument be considered viz.  
It's none of all the other kinds of laying on of lands mentioned by you, that is meant Heb. 6. 2. therefore it must necessarily be that.  
Most undoub●…edly ●…s not that mentioned Luke 21. 12. where its said prophetically, as concerning the wickeds persecution of the Saints, th●…y shall lay their hands on you etc. which we read of also as fulfilled accordingly, and spoken of historically Act. 5. 18. they laid their hands on the Apostles, and put them in prison etc.  
F●…rst, because that is not simply a laying on of hands, but a laying on of violent hands; and so it should be ●…ead (if the word there used were rightly 〈◊〉, and translated into its true English out of the Greek) for 'tis not the same, but a word of a far different sense from that which is used every where else, where this 〈◊〉 of imposition of hands is spoken of, for one ●…ounds forth as much as a violent handling, the other a gentle putting, or laying our hands upon the persons. 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉▪   
Secondly, as for that violent laying on of hands in way of persecution whereby the saints suffer, that's included in the doct●…ine of baptisms immediately foregoing, it belonging to one of the three, viz. the bitter baptism of sufferings, as a branch thereof, so that it were but confusion, and tautology to express that o'er again, as if 'twere another doctrine which was but a part of the doctrine going before, by another name, and such a one too as is never given it in the original, viz. of impoi●…ion of hands.  
Thirdly, whatever doctrine is called a principle or part of the foundation of the doctrine of Christ Heb. 6. 2. the same is called Heb. 5. 12. one of the principles of the oracles or the holy things of God.  
But the laying on of violent hands on the saints in way of persecution, is one of the principles of the devil's doctrine, and a principal part of the very foundation of his kingdom, yea one of the most wicked things ●…hat the devil does or delivers, a●… Christ's doctrine, to his disciples.  
Nor was it a laying on of hands, (though such a one was used some times) in order to healing the sick or curing the blind, that was taught as a principle, and practically owned, and laid as a part of the foundation among all the Hebrews Heb. 5. 12. 6. 1, 2. for they were neither all sick surely, nor all blind, when they passed under this dispensation so as to have all need to have hands laid on them all upon such acco●…nts, as healing or curing.  
Nor was it in order to ordination of them to offices, that they might be gifted, and sitted by the spirit thereunto, for the laying on of hands there spoken of, was laid as a principle, as a part of the foundation on which the Church stood, but the laying on of hands to set apart men to administer either temporal things, or spiritual things in the Church is no principle, nor beginning thing, nor foundation an●…cedent to the Church▪ as every foundation must be to the building, for the visible Church ever since the first Apostles, whose doctrine was the found●…tion to it, was antecedent to its officers, and not they to it: the churches were first collected, and constituted upon the foundation or first form of doctrine delivered by the Apostles, and then offi●…ers were ordained in every Church; for the true visible Church may be without officers, though not without ordinances, but Church officers cannot be chosen, nor ordained in it till there be a Church: besides this imposition Heb. 6. 2. was learned, owned and laid by the whole body of the Church, whom he reproves, saying ye might have been teachers, but ye had need to be taught again, which be the first principles of the oracles of God, but they were not all at first surely by laying on of hands ordained to office.  
As to the sixth question of the Enquirers which is also the last that I am to speak to, having spoke to the seventh and 〈◊〉 above, which with the ground thereof runs thus 
* Viz Seeing that H●…b 6. 2. 〈◊〉 of the laying on of hands as pl●…al, as the d●…ctrine of 〈◊〉, and doth not speak of any one laying on of hands sore▪ mentioned particularly, nor of any othe●… by distinction, neither of any end, purpose, or eve●…. Therefore we desire to know what safety it is for any man t●… conclude that Heb. 6. 2. is meant bu●… of one of them only.  it is grounded upon such a gross and grievous mistake, that I am almost amazed that of the fifteen hands that subscribe to those Questions, not one of them did find occasion to subscribe his dissent to this, for whereas 'tis supposed, and proposed so publicly for truth by the Enquirers, that Heb. 6. 2. speaks not of any one layi●…g on of hands only, but plu●…ally, as of the doctrine of baptisms, its most palpably apparent to such as are not a sleep in their reading of that text, that it speaks in the singular number, of one laying on of hands alone, and not of layings on of hands, as it must have been expressed, for so you a●…e fain to express it yourselves, when you speak plurally of it in your fifth question, had he meant more kinds of imposition of hands then one; for though hands be the plural number, yet laying on, which is the phrase you speak to, or else you speak nihil ad Rhombum, is a substantive of the singular number, both in the English, and in the Greek, and suppose the spirit had spoken plurally of more imposio●…s of hands than one? must that that was Act. 8. 17-19. 6. on baptised believers be ever the more excluded, or the more incuded rather in all likelihood among the rest? and because the Apostle does not speak particularly enough, nor 
† See Mr Blackwoods' last book newly extant even whil●…st I am writing to you on this subj●…ct s●…iled 〈◊〉 soul searching catechism p. 58 in p. 54. 55 56. 57 58. 59 of which he treats totally of this 〈◊〉.  distinguish, nor express plainly enough what he means by showing the end, purpose and event of the imposition here spoken of, therefore belike he meant that no body should ever own this principle at all: but the truth is he speaks of no more impositions than one, Therefore, to conclude with the Enqui●…ers question propounded thus to themselves, we desire to know what safety it is for any man to conclude that question to be worthy of an answer, that is so falsely grounded as this of the Enquirers is, and to conclude that Heb. 6. 2. is meant of more layings on of hands, when it expressly speaks but of one?  
And so de●… Friends, whom I love too well to spare speaking plainly to you in a case, wh●…rein upon occasion of your putting on too too rashly in print little less than against it, a precious truth of Christ lies at stake between us, since you are pleased to urge and importu●…e us so earnestly at the close of your question●… by the opportunity that you have thereby put into our hands to justify our practice, viz. laying on of hands upon all baptised believers, as we love the glory of God, and the promoting of that, which we so highly esteem and hold to be truth, as we will declare our love to the truth by countenancing men, who diligently make search after i●…, as we tender the union and communion of the Churches etc. that we would discharge our duty, and try if we could make it appear by the word of God, which I confess with you is able to instruct us in all things (and therefore though much might be said from the constant practice of the Churches in, and bo●…dering upon the primitive times, to the further clearing up of the truth in this point, yea men far better studied that way than I am, who yet see sufficiently to my satisfaction, ●…ell us, that all Antiquity teacheth laying on of hands after baptism 
* Viz. Mr. Co●…on & Dr. Holms, who (as is showed above in the 139, 140, 141. pages of this very volu●…e I am yet in hand with) borrows Co●…ons and calvin's reading out of Antiquity concerning the practice of imposition of hands to all grown persons before admission to Church-●…ellowship where by to prove infant-baptism, which thereby he 〈◊〉 breaks the n●…ck of.  yea and some that never practised neither it nor true baptism yet I wave ●…ll such Arguments a●… of no weight without the word) Since also you promise us that if we so do, than you shall acknowledge the truth thereof to the glory of God, and your own shame in being ignorant so long, and speedily embrace it, if God so assist you by his word, professing you will to that purpose expect our faithful care to be expessed with cheerfulness, without making delays, in a matter of so great importance, which may unite and establish us in one mind, hereupon I could not in conscience but take so much notice of your questions (they meeting me also just in the mouth, whilst I was musing to say some little, but not a quarter so much as here is, to evince the noncessation of this service as well as that of baptism) as to give this transient answer as I travel along, being bound also as you hint to me, to give to every one that asketh it a reason of the hope that's in me with meekness and fear: so desiring the Lords blessing upon it towards you, and upon you in your examination of it, and (as you have light) your execution according to it, that such excaecation, as the Ranter who is run out of the reach of reason, hath by little and little queried himself into may never, overtake you, I remain both yours and every one's servant for Christ's sake.  
Thus much concerning the continuation of that practice of laying on of hands: now as to the present use of the ordinances of breaking of bread, and church-fellowship, I shall speak but briefly to that forasmuch as these are services the continuance of which to the end is denied doctrinally by none (for aught I know) but the Ranter, that is run up above all, saving that the Rigid Piesbyterians, though in words they own the supper, yet in works do deny it, for many if not most of them live in the neglect of that administration of the supper, in their parishes some four; some five, some six, seven, eight years without any use of it at all, as if there were no such matter as that now in being; for others, I mean a certain mixed sort of Independents that are rife in these days, they own and practise it and Church fellowship too more then enough, unless more orderly in respect of that Antecedency to these of all the principles of the doctrine of Christ, which ought to be now as it was in the primitive times, which times they pretend to reform by, taking in Omnium generum, an Omnigatherum of persons, men and women, whom they take to be believers, into fellowship in one visible body in breaking of bread and prayers, some whereof, having renounced their Rantism as null, are truly baptised; some as yet but merely Rantized, yet supposing themselves sufficiently baptised because of that, which can be of no use to them as a sign, for they remember it not; some hanging in the air between both, not satisfied, whether they were truly baptised in infancy yea or no; some doubting whether any water baptism at all be needful to be used in these times; some convinced that they ought to be baptised, but not yet finding any Administrator, that fits their fancies; some resolved to be baptised, but Christ, who expects it from them, must wait their leisure, none reproving their procrastination, nor saying to them, as Ananias, to Paul, and now why tarriest thou? arise and be baptised, and wash away thy sins calling on the name of the Lord, or as Peter to the jews repent and be baptised; Some resolving never to be baptised, but roundly renouncing all water baptism as nothing concerning them, yet leaving them at liberty to act according to their light, that have a mind to submit to it, and who see it their duty as if the plain word of Christ in this point of baptism were such a nose of wax, as might be moulded, and metamorphosed into any model according to every man's mind and temper, or quite cancelled, disanuld, melted into no word of Christ at all at every man's haughty humour, that is loath to debase himself so far as to submission to it, as if my Lord, and my Lady, and Sir such a one had more dispensation from Christ thenevery ordinary body, to show for their nonobedience to that despised dispensation; some of them, that are baptised, under prayer and imposition of hands in order to their obtaining the spirit of promise; some not having faith in the thing, whether that baptism with the spirit Peter speaks of Act. 2. 39 and john baptist Mat. 3. 11. doth belong to them or no, though there promised to all that are, and shall be (repenting and believing) baptised in water, even as many as the Lord shall call, whereupon the fourth principle of Christ's doctrine, will not down with them, but when they come to that lesson in Christ's A B C they must skip it, and take forth, and, because it likes them not, turn o'er a new leaf to the doctrine of the supper, and Church fellowship before they are prefecty past their primer: to all which confused pro and con congregations, and mongrill kind of ministry, and people, that speak half in the language of Canaan, and half of Ashdod, I'll here say no more but this viz. si eo quo caepistis pede perrexerit is &c. proceeding as you begin, and thriving to the height of your principle throw the nations, the body of Christendom, which was once an uniform, and more lately a triforme 
* consisting of 3 sorts of Christ'n creatures, under a 3soldCCClergy viz. papal, prelatical, presbyterian.  may in time become that, which I judge also it must become for some small season before the end, viz. a monstrous multiform, and at last an omniform beast indeed.  
But now as to the question, whether these two (for I must scarce speak of these severally, but very succinctly, and as it were together) are of right, and according to the mind, and word of Christ to continue to the end? in proof hereof viz. that they are, I shall refer the Ranter, and the rest (if any other besides him do deny it) but to two Scriptures, which prove each of these respectively, and remove some few more of such exceptions as are made against the present practice of both these two, and the other two parts of Christ's outward worship and service I have already spoke to, and so put a period to this discourse:  
The first is 1 Cor. 11. 26. for as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup ye show (or show ye, for the word may be read imperatively, as well as indicatively) the Lord's death till he come, in which words 'tis so clearly supposed, that the ordinance of the supper is not according to Christ's will to cease till the next appearing of Christ, that it were to suppose a man to be void of sense, and reason to undertake to make it more evident to him by framing any formal argument from the place.  
The Second is Heb. 10. 25. not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together as the manner of some is, but exhorting one another while it's called to day; and so much the more by how much you see the day approaching, where it is also most clear, and undeniable, that 'tis the mind of Christ, that the Saints should keep together in one body in assemblies, and fellowships one with another, and that his sheep should not live in such a straggling state and conditon, such single fellowship between God and themselves only, as is now pleaded for by many, that fall off from following or frequenting any societies at all, and forsake such truly constituted Churches as they were once added to, which argues apparently that (as we say of sheep when they keep not with the flock, but are found squotting up and down here and there by themselves alone and aloof from their fellows) that some ill disease and deadly distemper is growing upon them, but that they should keep together in flocks every sheep following the footsteps of the flock, which name of flock is that by which Christ often denominates his sheep, as Luke 12. 32. Act. 20. 28. 1 Pet. 5. 2. to show that he expects to find them in flocks and fellowships at his coming.   

Ranterist.  
Till he come is no other than till his coming into men by his spirit, or in such full measures and manifestations of his spirit into men's hearts, that they may be able to live up with him in spirit, so as no more to need such lower helps from outward administrations, such carnal ordinances, such visible representations of Christ to the bodily eyes such legal rites and mere bodily exercises as baptism and fellowship together in breaking of bread are.  
These things were used indeed, and ordained as milk for babes in that mere nonage and infancy of the Church, when Christ was known as a child as it were, but now we are to know Christ as a man grown in us, risen up in us, and to have fellowship with him more immediately and intimately in spirit, and not in such external, and mere fleshly forms; we are to live higher than on such low, weak, empty, elements, and beggarly rudiments as these, which were used, and imposed for a time to resemble Christ to us from without, but must be left when once Christ, the substance, that was set forth by those shadows, is come into us. Christ is now in the Saints the hope of glory, Col. 1. 27. So Heb. 6. 1. 2. leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ let us go on to perfection, not laying again etc. you see we must mind higher matters leaving these, which were as a dark glass, or shadowy dispensation, through which the Church once did see Christ, and knew him after the flesh, but now face to face, 1 Cor. 13. 12. and henceforth know we him so no more, 2 Cor. 5. 16. when I was a child, says Paul, I spoke as a child, and did as a child, and thought as a child, but when I became a man I put away child●…h things 1 Cor. 13. 11. every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness, for he is a babe, but strong meat belongeth to them that are full of growth, who have their senses exercised to discern between good and evil: Heb. 5. 14. that which is perfect is now come, and therefore what is imperfect, and in part only, as ordinances are, must be done away, and as for gathering of congregations, peoples assembling together in the Church bodies to preach, pray, break bread to build up one anoin the faith, search the Scripture etc. 'twas a way of God for men's edification till Christ the morning star shined, to which men did well to take heed, as unto a light that shined in a dark place, but now the day dawns, and the day star arises in men's hearts, yea the day breaks and the shadows fly away; and Christ comes as a swift Roe, and young heart upon the mountains of Bether; so that now we are to exercise ourselves rather unto Godliness for all bodily exercises as baptism, breaking bread and Church order etc. profit little: besides 'twas said there should be a falling away from all those forms of worship, and the way of ordinances, which was in the primitive times, 2 Thess. 2. 3. and a treading down of the holy City and Temple, Rev. 11. 1. 2. as to the form it then stood in, both which have fell out also accordingly, so that there hath been a taking of all that dispensation of ordinances in their primitive purity totally out of the way, therefore now we are to meddle no more with them at all; at least unless we had some extraordinary Prophets, as the jews had after the treading down of their temple and and worship, to satisfy and show us that its the mind of the Lord we should set up that old fabric and form again.   

Baptist.  
This is the old tune, which you, and your followers have been used to sing in any time this seven year, which yet I could never learn to this day distinctly to sing in after you, and I am persuaded never shall, unless I could hear more clearness and distinction in the sound then yet I do, to whom, while I sound how suitable your sense is to the sense of Scripture, you are Barbarians when you speak thus.  
That Christ now comes in the light and power of his spirit, as a swift Roe and hart upon these mountains of division, that now are between the priests among themselves, and between others and them; and that abundance of light comes dispelling that fog and smoke of men's traditions, which hath risen out of the bottomless pit, and of a long time darkened the Sun, and the air, and the hearts of people, all this I grant, but that this coming of his doth put an end, a ne plus ultra to any one of his own traditions or ordinances that were instituted by him, and in his name delivered to the Churches in the primitive times, as a part of his will and testament then, this is as hard a lesson for me to learn, as 'tis for some to learn that 'tis their duty to be baptised: for assuredly nothing but Christ's own personal coming shall put a period to any one tittle of his Gospel, will, and Testament, or of that outward dispensation, which by appointment from himself was then in force; and therefore to neither baptism, imposition of hands, or Churchfellowship in breaking bread, every of which most undoubtedly was a part of the preceptory part of Christ's Gospel in those days, and of that new Testament ratified in his blood, 1 Cor. 11. 25. which gospel, testament and holy will of his, that he as a great Prophet left in charge for all men to observe, when he went away Mat. 28. 20. Mark 13. 34. Luke 19 17. to the 28. (and not any new one delivered since) is the very same, according to which he will judge all men at his return, any part of which therefore in either promise or precept, suppose but the ordinances of it (for I am sure it was a testament, and Gospel that had ordinances then) woe be to that man or angel that shall once dare to declare as null: yea let no man slatter himself, and delude others with pretences of an Angelical, Seraphical life to be led now in an higher kind of way then the Saints, and Churches did in the primitive ages of the Gospel; for I tell that man that if he were not only appearing to himself to be wrapped up above Paul, but really an angel from heaven, and not Christ himself 
* yet some Ranters are not ashamed to say they are Christ, and God, and there is no other God than they, and what's in them, and such like blasphemies, when reby they declare themselves to be that generation, that are to rise in the latter days, and make the man of sin, even that wicked one that shall exalt himself above all that's called God, saying of himself he is God, given over to strong delusion to believe lies, that they may be damned, because not receiving the love of the truth, that they might be saved, whom the Lord shall destroy with the brightness of his coming 2 Thess. 2. denying the Lord that bought them, and bringing on themselves swift destruction. 2 Pet. 2. 2.  (who when he comes personally, shall say indeed unto his servants come up higher) he must be A●…hema, preaching, and holding forth other then what the Apostles at first delivered to the Churches of Galatia, who received the Gospel with the outward ordinances, and Church order thereof, Gal. 1. 6. 7. 8. 9 11. 12. compared with 1 Cor. 11. 23. 24. etc. in which Scriptures its evident that the whole entire Gospel, which was preached then by Paul, who received it together with the ordinances of baptism Gal. 3. 27. and the supper, not of man, but of the Lord, was strictly required to be kept, without harkening to any other things, than what were then delivered, and received in the Churches, though spoke by an angel from heaven, or their very selves, who at first preached them, who, if ever any such thing should have fallen out, as their falling off from that truth, and contradicting themselves, for so doing must have been held accursed; yea if Paul himself should have come some 100s of years after to the Churches of Galatia, and gainlaid what he had said before, saying you received the Gospel from me at first with ordinances, but now you may let the ordinances of it alone, it's enough for you to believe only, and live up to God in the spirit, he had condemned himself to cursing out of his own mouth: if then the Apostles, that at first gave out the Gospel to the world, were not, on pain of being accursed, to preach any other then what at first they preached, what cursing att●…ends thee (O wretched Ranter) that deifiest thyself, and takest upon thee not only to deny, but to defy the Gospel of Christ in the ordinances of it, and the holy oracles of the living God?  
Thou tellest us of a coming of Christ by his spirit into the hearts of men, after which, there need be no more use of ordinances, that when Paul says men must continue breaking bread till he come, he means till he comes in spirit, but I tell thee, if the right eye of reason were not utterly darkened in thee, thou could●…t not but understand, that till he come, 1 Cor. 11. speaks of the same time as Christ himself speaks of, when he says to his Church in Thyatira Rev. 2. 25. 26. which were then in a Church posture, and under the use of ordinances, that which ye hav●… already hold f●…st till I come, and that that time was no other than the end of this world, which he shall put a period to by his personal coming, is cleared by the verse following, he that over cometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations, where by the end, as he means the same period he pointed at before, i●… that phrase till I come, so he means the time of Christ's second coming to judgement, to reign at the end of this world, mentioned Mat. 24. 3. and in scores of Places more, and not the time of his coming by his spirit unto men, for so he was come, and hath come, more or less, well nigh as soon as, and even ever since he went away, yea according to his promise he soon sent his spirit to abide with his people, (in their observation of his commandments, and not otherwise) as a comforter in the absence of his person, john 14. 15, 16. one office also among the rest of which spirit when he should come (so far was he by his coming from disingaging men from obedience to any one thing, that Christ spoke while he was on earth) was because many would be very subject to to forget, and be willingly ignorant of Christ's laws, to teach all things, and bring all things to their remembrance, whatsoever Christ said unto his disciples, while he was with them, john 14. 26. yea so he was come to his disciples and the Churches, even unto Paul himself, and that very Church of Corinth, whom he praises for keeping some ordinances he delivered to them, and charges to keep that of breaking of bread till Christ come, long before he gave this charge, and that in such a high degree, that they had even all the gifts and manifestations of the spirit among them that might be 1 Cor. c. 12. c. 13. c. 14. so that they had abundance of Prophets, and spiritual men among them, 1 Cor. 14. 37. that were higher in the spirit, (or if they were not Paul, that was once in the third heaven was) then the spiritual men of this age, yea they were a people in every thing enriched with all utterance, and all knowledge, and the testimony of Christ was so confirmed in them by the coming of the spirit, that they came behind in no gift 1 Cor. 1. 5. 6. 7. 8. yet were they to wait (in the dispensation, and use of ordinances wherein they were) for another coming of the Lord Jesus in which way Paul's hope was that Christ would confirm them to the end, that they might be blameless (as else it seems they could not be) in the day i. e. the great, and notable day of the second personal coming of the Lord Jesus;  
Thou talkest to us (alluding to Heb. 9 10. where the ordinances of the divine service of the law, or old testament are so styled) of the ordinances of the Gospel, under the name of carnal ordinances, mere fleshly forms, but know oh vain man, that the outward rites, or ceremonies of the Law are there called carnal on such an account, as the ordinances of the Gospel cannot be so styled, viz. not at all because they were services performed by the outward man, but because the performance of them served, and sanctified no further than to the purifying of the flesh, v. 13. viz. to the purging of the practisers thereof, i. e. the Jews from such outward, fleshly impurities, as were contracted in the time of the Law by such things 
* Viz touching of dead bodies Num. 5. 2. eating●… or touching the carcases of any forbidden fishes, birds, or beast, Leu. 11. 24. 31. diseases as the leprosy, Leu. 13. 8. running of issues Levit. 15. 2. and such like.  and actions as did denominate persons unclean for the time then being, but neither do nor can so denominate them now, that law with all the ordinances of it being abolished.  
Thou callest Christ's ordinances, (being not a little deluded by some expressions of Mr. Saltmarsh, who speaks of them in his books, as matters pertaining only to john's ministry, whom together with his baptism, and all that was done ad extra in the primitive time, he puts upon the account of the law, as pertaining to it, rather than purely upon the account of the Gospel) but know (fond man) that as john was a minister of the Gospel of Christ, and not of the law, and his ministration of preaching, and water baptism the very beginning of the Gospel of Christ (as I have showed above) Mark 1. 1. 4. so if he, and his ministration of bap tism had related simply to the law, as they did not, yet that of laying on of hands, and Church-fellowship in breaking bread, were all given in charge by the new lawgiver Christ Jesus, and that of water baptism too, for (as if he had foreseen that some should delude themselves and others, so as to say it ended at his death) even that also was given a new after his death, as his express command concerning all people to the world's end.  
Thou speakest of living higher than on such low, weak, empty elements, and beggarly rudiments, but (to say nothing of thy abominable impudence, and the desperate 
* for if he that despised Moses law died without mercy, of how much sorer punishment shall he be thought worthy, that hath trodden under foot the son of God, Heb. 10. 29. therefore we had need to give the more earnest heed to the things which we have heard, least at any time we let them slip, for if the word spoken by angels was sure and steadfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompense of reward, how shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation, which at first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was after confirmed to us by them that heard him, Heb. 2. 1. 2. 3: whosoever shall be ashamed of me or my words, of him will I be ashamed when I come in the kingdom of my father with my holy angels, Mark. 8. 38.  despite herein done by thee to the son of God, whom thou treadest under foot, whilst thou despisest his day of small things, and settest light by the least of his commands, and hurlest at thy heels the least jota of his law and testament, or art ashamed of his words) to let pass that (I say) we give thee to understand, that we live not on these ordinances we use, but only on our Lord Christ in them, whose foolish, weak things, and earthen vessels they are, by which he hands heavenly treasure to believing souls.  
Thou tellest us that the use of outward ordinances was milk for babes in that infancy or nonage of ●…ue Church, (which is no more than what we say ourselves, of some ordinances at least viz. baptism and imposition of hands, which with the rest of the word of the beginning of Christ's doctrine are so styled, Heb. 5. 12. 13. 6. 1. 2.  
But what of this? is it not very fit therefore that they should still be used, the Church being yet under age? unless thou wilt run necessarily upon the utterance of one of the●…e two absurdities, viz. that babes are not to be fed with milk now, as heretofore, but are more fitly fed with stronger meat, or else (which is as gross) that there are no new born babes now in the Church (as before) at all, but that every beginner in Christ is now a strong man, a perfect man in Christ, so soon as ever spiritually born.  
Thou tellest us that to use ordinances is to know Christ after the flesh, who from thenceforth was to be known so no more: but herein oh spiritual man, thou bewrayest thy own fleshly, carnal, and most crude conception of that place, whereby the words of Paul, though we have known Christ after the flesh, he means not a knowing of him in the use of ordinances (for then when he says henceforth know we no man after the flesh, it must have the same sense too, and would suppose that till that time the Saints had known men in the use of ordinances; besides, that the Church at Corinth knew Christ in the use of ordinances long after this, is eminently evident in the Epistle of Clement the Pastor, and the Churchat Rome, written to the Corinthians, upon occasion of their disorder in church affairs, some 30 years after Paul wrote this) but he means that they, from thenceforth that Christ died, did take cognizance of no man as ere the better, upon the account of a mere fleshly descent, or birth of any men's bodies, no not of Abraham's, as they had before, nor count men in Christ, and Christians at such a rate as they were counted to God, as his, under the Law, but only as new born, spiritually born from above, as new creatures, as believing according to john 1. 12. 13. and Gal. 3. 26. 29. if Christ's by faith, than Abraham's seed and heirs etc.  
Thou tellest us that ordinances are as it were a dark glass, through which we are to behold Christ, till we come to see him face to face, a certain shadowy dispensation, till the substance itself comes; childish things that must be put away, when once we become men, things imperfect, and in part only, which when that which is perfect is come must vanish, and be done away and such like: and all this, as 'tis nor more, nor less than we say ourselves, so 'tis even as much as we need desire thee to say as to the evincing of what we contend for: for sith we yet see not face to face (1 Pet. 1. 8. in whom though now ye see him not, yet believing ye rejoice with joy unspeakable etc. when he shall appear, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is, 1 john 3. 2. i e. then, and not before) and since that which is perfect, i. e. the substance is not yet come (for as we that remain, and shall be alive at the coming of Christ, shall not prevent, or, as to perfection, be before hand with them that are asleep in jesus, 1 Thess. 4. 15, 16, 17. so they i e. that are long since dead both in and for the Lord, without us shall not be made perfect, Heb. 11. 40.) sith we are not all yet come to be men at age (to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ) therefore (ad hominem) till than we must look through the glass, till then the shadow, and that which is in part, and imperfect, (as being indeed most suitable to an imperfect state) must stand, till then the outward work of the ministry in point of offices, and ordinance, for the perfecting of the Saints, for the edifying of the body, must remain, Eph. 4. 11. 12, 13.  
Thou tellest us (mistaking the sense of Paul Phil, 3. 13. 14. Heb. 6. 1. 2.) that higher things, perfection are now to be minded, and pressed after, and these to be forgotten; that those are principles of Christ's doctrine, which were once eyed and laid as a foundarion, but must be left and not laid now any more: But (contrary to what David says of himself Ps. 131. 12.) thine eyes are so lofty, thy heart so haughtily exercised in minding the things thou callest high, some of which are too high, and others too low, and base for any Christian to be busied in, that thou mindest not the words of Paul to all Saints Rom. 12. 16. where he saith, not minding high things (for so the greekwords truly translated are 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. ) but together with high things, minding low things: 'tis confessed that in some sense we are to forget, or not to mind what is hehind, but to mind, to press after, to reach forth to things that are before, to leave the principles, the foundation of Christ's doctrine, & go on to perfection, but not in thy sense (o Ranter) who hereby takest upon thee to burial manner of observation of these things (even by any) under utter oblivion, to prohibit all present practice of principles by so much as babes, to raze the foundation so as to declare it not sit to be laid at first now, as of old it was, no not by very biginners in the School of Christ: but in the spirits sense, who in those places, means no other than thus viz. not that the babes in Christ must not use milk in these times, as well as in the primitive, not that the beginner in Christ's School is not now as well as then to learn his letters, and to begin first in his ABC, not that those, that will begin to build themselves an holy temple in the Lord, an habitation of God through the spirit, must not now lay any foundation at all, but that having laid the foundation they should not think that their building is at an end, but build up higher, grow up higher in Christ thereupon, that they should lay the foundation so sure at first that they should not have need in respect of their non proficiency or relapses into sin, to be laying these i. e. faith of remission, repentance etc. o'er and o'er again, but to proceed to perfection: that babes should not remain always babes, feeding on nothing but milk, but growing in grace, and in the knowledge of Christ, and in ability to bear stronger meats, higher doctrines: that the young Scholar should not remain always a novice, an ABC darian, no further learned then in his horn book, but according to the time he hath had, learn to read perfectly that he may be able to teach others, rather than need to be taught his letters again: this is the spirits sen●…, for otherwise it's ever necessary that babes have milk, and absurd that a Scholar should be bid to forget his letters, and how to spell, that builders should leave laying any foundation, when they begin: nay verily the most studied Scholar must first learn, and then remember his letters, or else he cannot possibly read: babes must be fed with milk at first, or else they will not thrive to be perfect men: builders must lay a foundation, and have an eye to it too all along in their building upward, even till they come to the very top, observing how all the whole fabric that they work after, doth square and keep touch with that, or else they may chance to make such a crooked fabric, as will fall to the ground at last: yea perveniri ad summum nisi ex principiis non potest.  
Thou tellest us (as concerning the outward ordinances of the Gospel) that bodily exercises profit little, but art wretchedly ignorant of it 
* as indeed I find thee to be of the whole Scripture, which though Paul bids Timothy give attendance to the reading of 1 Tim. 4. 13. 2 Tim. 3. 15. 16. 17. yet thou hast left off to read, dissuading others also from the reading of it, as unprofitable, as no other than the writings and inventions of men, to keep the world in awe, so that it cannot come to enjoy that liberty (alias licence for lewdness and fleshly lusts, which thou promisest, and pleadest for) and that makes thee to be such a weather cock, such a well without water, such a wand'ring star althou art, such a cloud tossed to and fro with a tempest, because thou hast no steady rule to steer by, no whither goest thou to talk with, or to take heed to, to recall, or to fix thee to any one point, but only the whistling, multifarious fancies, and foolish sigments of thy own airy brain, and unconstant spirit.  that by bodily exercises which profit little, Paul means not at all as thou dost, the ordinances of Christ, or any ou●…ward parts of his worship, and will revealed in his word, for that is, though not the greatest, yet a great part of godliness itself, which according to the true signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a right serving of God according to his own will in his word of truth, where he requires us to serve, worship, and glorify him in our body, as well as in our spirit 1 Cor. 6. 19 20. but such bodily exercises, and old wives fables, as abstinences from meats, lent'n, and good friday fasts, and such ordinances, as touch not, taste not &c. which men subject themselves to after the commandments, and doctrines of men, of Popish Priests, whose Religion stands mostly in such matters 1 Tim. 4. 3. 4. 7. 8. Col. 2. 20. 21. 22.  
Thou tellest us (as one of the main grounds, whereupon there must now be no more walking in ordinances, and that way of outward service that was at first) that it was foretold 2 Thess. 2. 3. that there should come a falling away from it, and a treading down of all that outward form, which then was: which (to say nothing how probable it is that that prophecy 2 Thess. 2. 3. and several more, do point more at that falling away that thou (oh false prophet) shalt cause in the very last days, then at that which by the proud P P Priesthood hath been made before thee) I declare to be such an absurd and senseless consequence, as is more worthy of a silent slighting, than a solid answer; for if that be of force to prove a disannulling of that administration, then it's of force much more against the acting of faith itself, for as it's not said there from what the falling away should be, so it's expressly said elsewhere there should be a departure from the faith, 1 Tim. 4. 1. 2. so that if the foretelling that there should be a falling away from the truth of ordinances, prove that therefore there must be no practising of them now at all, then there being a prophecy of a falling away from the right belief of the Gospel, will evince that there ought now to be no right believing, and so belike we do as ill in believing the Gospel now, as in practising the ordinances of it: but this will not not hold, and therefore certainly not the other.  
More over (that thou mayest see how contrary thou art to the Apostles, not in thy actings only, but in thy arguings also) consider that whereas thou admonishest men thereupon to be careless as concerning ordinances, they even from their own predictions of a falling away from the purity of the primitive way, stir the Saints up to so much the more diligent and strict attendance to it, jude ver. 3. 4. from the very consideration of a future falling away exhorts the Saints, not therefore to let go, but earnestly to contend for that faith, which was once delivered to the Saints; and I appeal to the understanding of any one, that hath not shut up his eyes from seeing and searching after the mind of God in the Scripture, whether Paul doth not charge Timothy 1 Tim. 4 16. 5. 21. 6. 13. 1 Tim. 3. 14. (to whom he had told it before in 1 Tim. 4. 1. that there should be a departure from the faith) even therefore (as he would answer it before God) to observe those things concerning outward discipline, and Church order, offices, and ordinance in point of laying on of hands, and other things, of that kind as well as other, that he in the name of the Lord had commanded him, and to keep them without spot and unrebukeable even to the appearing of Jesus Christ, and not only to continue himself in the doctrine, and things that he had learned from Paul, among which many were instructions for the right ordering of Churches 1 Tim. 3. 15. but also to take special order for the continuation thereof downwards to succeeding generations without the least hint of any term or period of time, wherein they of right should cease: the things which thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, that shall be able (i. e. after thy decease) to teach others also, 2 Tim. 2. 2. and not only so, but whether he doth not in that very place thou allegest viz. 2 Thess. 2. 15. even therefore enjoin the Saints to hold fast the traditions or ordinances (for so the same word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is used here, is truly enough rendered 1 Cor. 11. 2.) because he had told them above that there should come one, that should delude many with lies? whereas if Paul had argued as thou O Reasonless dost, he must have said thus viz. there shall come a falling away from the purity of ordinances, by a wicked one that shall tread them down, therefore be not too stuff in standing for them, but let go the ordinances which have been taught you whether by word or Epistle: Peter also foreseeing, and accordingly foreshowing, that there should come scoffers in the last days walking after their own lusts, not Christ's commands, wills the Saints that should be in those last times, as Malachi did the Jews, after a long deformation, to remember the Law of Moses with the statutes and judgements Mal. 4. 4. in which we now live, to look back to and be mindful of the words that were spoken before, by the holy prophets, and the commandments of the Apostles of the Lord and Saviour, 2 Pet. 3. 2. as jude also does in the self same words, and upon the self same account jude 17. And this I find to be the course of the Apostles all along, upon foresight of the dark and declining time, to refer the Saints of the last times to their primitive orders, and by Arguments drawn from the steadfastness of the word of the old Testament, in every tittle, to show much more a steadfastness in the new, and a liablenes to punishment for every transgression, and disobedience to this, as there was for that, Heb. 2. 2-10. 28. every jot of which was so steadfast, that even tith of Mint, Annis and Cummin, which the Pharisees did ill indeed in so doting upon, as to neglect the weightier matters of judgement, mercy etc. was nevertheless not to be neglected Matth. 23. 23. on pain of being accounted Robbers of God Mal. 3. 8. and howbeit the greater, and higher things of the Gospel, as faith, holiness of life etc. are not to be forgotten, while we attend to lesser and lower, yet how the law of Christ was so steadfast as that of Moses, if it lie in the power of man or Angel to disannul the least particle of it, till Christ himself, who is the only abolisher of old dispensations, and establisher of new, do, by his own next personal coming, put an end to this, as he did by his first coming unto that, I am not able to imagine.  
Thou tellest us, Suppose the Saints and churches ought to have held fast their administration of ordinances 〈◊〉 ●…his day, yet what of that? the Churches have lost, and let go that first outward form of service, and jezebel the whore hath got into the Temple, and filled all with Idolatry, and trod all the true way under foot, and instead thereof set up her own ordinances, and traditions, the Clergy hath corrupted and depraved all that first face of outward worsh●…p, therefore ●…s now no more to be meddled with for ever, there must be no more raising the holy City in that form and way, wherein it stood before, no more Churches, nor ordinances: but did every any rational spirit argue thus, viz. because the true appointed way of God's worship was lost, when it should have been, therefore it must not be found, recovered, nor returned to again when it may be? surely the same rule, reason, warrant and command by which the Church was bound to have stood in the way of truth without falling away, by the same is she now bound to rise from whence she is fallen, or else I know not what Christ means when he says to the Church at Ephesus Rev. 2. 4, 5. Remember from whence thou art fallen, and repent and do thy first works etc.  
Secondly, by the same reason and ground that the Jews returned from Babylon to jerusalem, and built the holy City and Temple that was the type, when by the enemy Typical of our Gospel Babylonians, the Priesthood and his people, that have led the Church captive from her own border for a time times and a half even 70 years it was trodden underfoot, and began again to practise the word, worship and ordinances of the old Testament, so long abolished, agreeably to Gods will, by the same I say, may the Gospel Church, having now both light and liberty so to do, return from under the power, and tyranny of mystery Babylon, and betake herself to her own border from whence she was driven, to her own City, Temple, form of worship, old Church order, ordinances, and service, which were all by violence trod down, and caused to cease for a time, times and an half, for 42. months or a 1260. years, as that which by the might of men suppressing it, hath lost not a jot of its right, as that which is required of us now, as the other was of them, till Christ by his first coming put an end to that administration, as he shall by his second unto this.  
Thou tellest us no, there is not the same reason, Because,  
First it was foretold that they should return again after a set period of time, and how long jerusalem should be trodden under foot, even for seventy years, and after that be built, and her old form of worship restored.  
Secondly, they had extraordinary prophets Haggai and Zachary to attend them, and dictate to them the mind of God in those things they did from God.  
But I tell thee (and thou wouldst see it thyself but that thou art minded to be blind) First, those Prophets spoke nothing as by command from God to them, than what they had a written word, and Testament for out of Moses and the other prophets, whom if they had in the least contradicted, they must have been rejected, as extraordinary as they were; neither were they inciters of them to any ●…ew thing, nor yet to any thing save what they stood bound to do before, and had done still, had those prophets never came near them, viz. to build the house of the Lord, and set up their old worship according to the Testament of Moses, those Prophets were sent because of their sluggishness, and backwardness to act in it, their preposterous care first to build, and ceil their own houses, and let the Temple lie waste the while, and to quicken them to that duty of buildi●…g Gods; for duty all the world may see it was, or else how could the neglect thereof have been punishable, and punished, as it was, with drought, and blasting of all their endeavorsto be rich, before those Prophets spoke to them? Hag. 1. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, those Prophets came but upon occasion of their frustrating God's expectation, who looked that they should have begun to build the Temple of themselves, but because he took them tardy in that work, was put to it further than they had thank for, even to send men of extraordinary spirits to stir them up, as he may do (if yet he do not) and that not without need, to us in these days, considering our untowardness and averseness to repair the breaches, to build the old wastes, and the Church desolations of many generations, and our subjection to slight the clear commands of his first Apostles: it had been more thnnkeworthy, and more accep●…able to God if the Jews had acted by the Law of Moses, and according to the written rule of the other Prophets, than it was to forbear, and to say that time was not a time, wherein to build the Lords house, and so it will be thankworthy in us, seeing (as they had Moses and the Prophets, so) we have Christ, and the Apostles, to hear them, and to act still according to their old commandments; but to sit down, under a written Testament, in mere speculation and contemplation, suspending all execution of Christ's Ancient known will, unless there be some strange, and unpromised manifestation of a new, or of that old a new, by some extraordinary messengers, or by some sent unto us from the dead, is that which God will con Christian men no more thanks for I think at the last, than he did the redeemed Jews, upon whom the like pretence was charged, and punished by him as iniquity Hag. 1. 4. Again, are there not promises, and prophecies of the like things to us in the New Testament, as there were, in the like case of treading down their worship, to them under the old, and as, if not more clear, than they had of a restitution? was it not as distinctly foretold, for how long our Gospel Babilonish captivity, and treading down of the holy City, Temple, and true worship should last, viz. for 42. months, or a 1260 years, as theirs was for 70 years? after which, it's most evident therefore it must rise agai●…, or else the spirit could not have determined the time of the treading down by a certain term of 42 months, but would surely have said thus, the holy City shall they tread down for ever, or to the end of all time: for if the old Jerusalem, the Jews, their Temple and worship, even the self same that was trodden down (for a resu●…rection, or restoration is of the self same thing still (and not another) that was trodden down or decayed) had never been in the mind of God to have been raised again, and restored, the time of its laying waist could not properly be prefixed by such a period, nor be styled a 70 years' devastation: also was is not foretold to us, that the little book of the New Testament, that was to be shut up by that smoke of traditions, and fog of errors, that should arise out of the bottomless pit, by means of the star, or Bishop of Rome, that opened the pit, should be opened again, and prophesyings be out of it, before the world? Rev. 9 1. 2. 3. 10. 1. 10. 11, yea is not the Gospel in that primitive purity, and plains from the simplicity of which all people have been bewitched by the whore's sorceries, begun again accordingly to be preached, though as yet by too few practised; is not that little book now open in the hand of the Angel Christ Jesus? and are there not prophets that, having eaten up that little book, as E●…ekiel did his role, and jeremy did the words of God when he found them Ezek 3. 1. 2. 3. jeremy 15. 16. are pain within to speak the word to Peoples, Nations, Tongues, and Kings, as they were, though for so doing they are like them also viz. men of strife and contention to the whole earth? who so far as they encourage us to no more than what there is a written word for, must be heeded by us in these days, as those Prophets were by them? and is there not now a written Testament, a sure word to give heed to, and be a rule to us in our raising of the A●…tient form, and order of Churches and Ordinances, even the Testament of Christ himself, who was as faithful to deliver his will punctually to his house, as Moses was to a tittle to deliver the old will of God to his? Heb. 3. 5. 6. in which word of his are we not bid (as they Zach. 2. 6. 7.) to come out of Babylon, and be separate? 2 Cor. 6. 14. 15. 16. 17. Rev. 14 18 9 10. 8. 4. 5. and is there not a reed given, and a command to rise and measure the City and Temple, and worshippers in order to building again of what was ruined, as the plummet was then in hand of Zorobabel? Zach. 4. 10. we have for aught I see, as plain promises, prophecies, warrants, and grounds, as they had to build, when they came from Babylon, if we have eyes to see them, unless nothing will serve to the satisfying of us as indeed it will not to the satisfying of some) that our acting in the old way of Christ is his mind, and will concerning us now, but miracles to confirm us in the belief of it: by whose leave I must rather call for miracles from them, to confirm it, that their leaving that old administration of ordinances and beginning to act in that new way of no ordinances is of God, for, as for the doctrine we practise, 'twas at first confirmed by miracles, as God's manner ever is at the remove of any old Testament, or will of his, and establishing a new one in its stead, but theirs, though a new one, nor yet committed to writing, was never yet confirmed by miracles at all; and suppose they had had more extraordinary Prophets, than we have, at the restoring of their ruins after the Babilonish wastings, yet le's know what extraordinary Prophets they had to build upon, for the re-edifying of their daily sacrifices and religion, when trod down for a time, times and an half also, by Antiochus, that most lively type of Christ's Church-wasting enemies under the Gospel? of whose violent ablation of all, and lawful restoration of all again by the Jews, according to the old pattern (excepting what corruptions, were afterward among them, which yet did not disannul the right of the remaining of any truth may) be read at large 1 Mac. 1. 2. Mac. 7. 2. Mac. 10. which all stood in force, notwithstanding that falling away, even till Christ himself, who also confirmed, and practised to a tittle according to Moses Testament, during his life, at last put an end to it by his death.  
All thy arguings therefore (〈◊〉 ●…ertine) from a falling away to no return, from a treading down of the true way of ordinances to no erecting it again, are but a sort of sorry sh●…s, whereby thou fencest off that part of Christ's Gospel, which I confess from some experience in my own crooked, deceitful, yet self-searching heart fl●…sh and blood takes no delight in: for if we consider things under the Gosp●…l with that relation, and propo●…tion they stand in to things under the Law, which were Types and shadows of them, than we must conclude th●…e is a certain space, or intertime between the last period of the 42 months, or of the time of treading down of the true Gospel worship by might, and Christ's coming to abolish, and take away their right (as there was after the Babilonish captivity a space of 70 weeks) in which the Saints according to the call, and warning g●…ven them to worship God aright, and decline the beasts worship, and come out of Babylon, Rev. 14. Rev. 18. are obedient, and continue in the word of Christ's patience, under all the malice of the beasts worshippers, and in the observation of the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus, and of all the works that Christ left in charge at his departure, to be kept in memorial of him in his absence viz. baptism, the supper etc. that so, when the Lord shall come as a snare, and as a thief on all that are disobedient to his voice, and contentious against any tittle of his truth, they may be found, as Noah, and Lot (till whose separation the d●…om determined could not fall upon the wicked Gen, 19 22.) out of Sodom Rev. 11. 8. in Zoar, in the ark i e. Christ, and his true ways, Ordinances and worship, which are to them, as those of old to the other, a little Sanctuary 
* Isa: 8. 13, 14. Eze. 11. 16. 1 Pet. 3. 20, 21 ; and being found so doing, as Christ required, keeping his commandments, may be blessed, and have right to the tree of life, and to enter in thorough the gates into the City Rev. 22 14. 15. and be entertained with well done good, and faithful servant, thou hast been faithful in a very little, and over a few things, have thou authority over much, over many ●…hings, enter thou into the joy of thy Lord, Mat. 25. 21. Luk. 19 17.  
Thou tellest us that the day star arises, and the day approaches, and therefore now there need be no such heed given to the edifying one another in Assemblies, by the use of Ordinances, but whether we shall believe thee (o perverter) who sayest we must give attendance to these things so much the less, or Paul, who says 
* Heb. 10. 25.  so much the more as we see the day approaching, let any judge, but thy besotted self, who speakest all allong, by a spirit most contradictory to, and yet canst not be persuaded, but that in all thou speakest answerably to the word.  
Thou tellest us that Christ is ●…ow in his Saints the hope of glory, but thou tellest us no news in this, for I know not when he was otherwise, while they walked not after the flesh, but after the spirit, in obedience to his voice, in holy confirmity to his will, and word, and in fellowship one with another, in the use of all his holy ordinances, but as for thyself (o spiritualist that separatest thyself sensual, not having the Spirit, though pretending to have it in a higher degree, than any that live in bondage unto Ordinances, I know not how to believe he is so much in thee as the hope of glory, for every one that hath this hope in him, purifieth himself, as Christ is pure 1 john 3. 3.  
Thou tellest of seeing face to face, of present perfection, and manhood, and that that which is perfect is come, and that thou livest already with God, in God, in full and actual enjoyment of heaven and all heavenly happiness, God dwelling already in thee, and thou in him, in the very substance, which was once shadowed out by the childish things called Ordinances, in the secret chambers of the most high, in the heights of God, in the very bosom and inmost embraces of the father, in a high degree of godliness, spirit, and glory; But (to let pass how thou contradictest, confutest, and givest thyself the lie, when thou expressest all this sometimes by no higher a term then Christ in thee the hope of glory, for hope that is seen is not hope, for what a man seeth why doth he yet hope for? but if we hope for that we see not, then do we (not say we have it, but) with patience wait for it, as not yet actually enjoyed Rom. 8. 24. 25.) we know well enough (forty own practice, and sometimes thy own speech bewrayeth thee)▪ what thy 〈◊〉, perfection, and godliness is, thy spiritualness is to fulfil the will of the flesh with out scruple, ●…o feed, and feast it without fear, to swaggar and swear, & revil & roar, and rant and whore, and in all this to have no more conscience of 〈◊〉 than a very bruit: thy perfection is a mere defection from the truth, thy fullness of age to discern between good and evil is a faculty to discern, that there's neither good nor evil, thy Godliness to be (as Paul paints thee out 2 Tim. 3. 1, 2. etc.) a lover of thyself, covetous, proud, a boaster, a blasphemer, disobedient to Gov●…rnours etc. incontinent, fierce, a despiser of those that are good, treacherous, heady, highminded, a lover of pleasures more than God, and to have a form, or pretence of godliness, whereby with the more advantage to creep into houses, and lead captive to thy lust silly women laden with lust, but to resist ●…he truth, and deny the power thereof, and instead of denying all ungodliness in such a sense as the grace of God teaches men to do, i. e. to have nothing to do with it, by a principle of grace turned into wantonness, to deny that there's any ungodliness at all.  
Nevertheless know this that the Lord com●…eth with 10000 of his Saints to convince all that are ungodly among them, of all their ungodly deeds, which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him, jude 14. 15. and though thou, being willingly ignorant of any such personal coming of Christ (Oh Ranter) and ungodly scoffer of these last times, that walkest after thy own lusts in sensual▪ las●…vious, and polluted ways, since thy forgetting the words of the Apostles of our Lord, and thy unlawful separation from the true Churches, jude 17. 18. 19 since their lawful separation from the false 2 Cor. 2. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. sayest where is the promise of his coming? and because all things continue as they were 2 Pet. 3. 2. 3. 4. 5. pleasest thyself in believing he will never so come; yet he will so come in like manner i. e. visibly, personally, bodily (but far m●…re gloriously) as he went away Act. 1. 11. and be revealed from heaven in flaming fire, taking vengeance on them that know not God (them specially that know no other God but themselves, and their belly Phil. 3 19) and on them that obey not the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ; 2 Thess. 1. 7. 8. 9 who shall be punished with everlasting destruction: yea while thou dreamest (oh filthy dreamer) despising government (even ecclesiastical and civil) defiling the flesh, having eyes full of adultery that cannot cease from sin, (and yet cannot commi●… sin, because with thee there is now no sin) promising men liberty whilst thou thyself art a servant of corruption, and a slave in chains to Satan, acting and ranting in every particular, even to the life (I should say rather to the death, for 'tis to thy own) according as thou art punctually painted out, and prophesied of all along by Peter 2 Peter 2. c. 3. and jude in both their Epistles, who speak both the same things, which either speaketh, and no other than the self same, which thou dost; yet thy judgement now of along time lingreth not, and thy damnation slumbreth not, 2 Pet. 2. 3. for thy Lord (O evil servant) that art not found so doing (as some few will be) as he left in charge when he went away▪ but sayest in thy heart, my Lord delays his coming, and thereupon beginnest to smite thy fellow servants, that keep close to the masters will, that they may be without spot as his appearing, and to eat and drink with the drunken, thy Lord I say will come, to thy cost, in a day when thou lookest not for him, in an hour that thou art not aware of, and cut thee a sunder, and appoint thee a portion with the hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth Mat. 24. 46. 47, 48, 49, 50, 51. yea, O thou unprofitable servant, thou shalt be cast into utter darkness, Mat. 25. 30. yea, thou fearless feaster, and feeder of thyself against the day of slaughter jam. 5. 5, 6, 7. thou fruitless, twice dead, brutish Creature, the very mist and blackness of darkness is, against that time of Christ's coming reserved for thee for ever 2 Pet 2. 17. jude 13.    

ANTI-SACERDOTISM.  
Sacerdotale delirium dilineatum, The dotage of the Priests discovered, OR Editio nova auctior, et emendatior.  
A new Edition, With no small Addition In way of Emendation, Amplification, and truer Application of the third part of that treble Treatise, which is extant about the Ashford Disputation, ENTITLED.  
A pathetical exhort●…on to the Pastors to oppose the growth of Anabaptism, or a short discourse concerning the means of opposing heretics in disputation and preaching.  
In which new Edition, as Christ's true Clergy, alias, the Churches that are commonly, but not properly, called ANABAPTISTS, are cleared not to be such, So (exceptis excipiendis) the Pope and his C C Clergy are cleared to be such themselves, (viz. self-loving and ambitious, vain-gloryous and covetous, illiterate and sottish, impure and carnal, cruel and bloody, lying and blasphemous, profane and sacrilegious, Heretical and Schismatical) as Dr. Featly in his remarkeables, and that fraternity, by whom he, though dead, yet speaketh, in their patheticals have proclaimed the said ANABAPTISTS to be.  
MAL. 2. 1, 2. 7, 8, 9 O ye priests this commandment is for you, etc.  
AND now O ye Disputers and Scribes of the Ashford Disputation, I might say not a little, and will say something (how much I know not) in discovery of your sacerdotal doings (not to say dote) in the third piece of your pedorantical paper, wherein the only truly baptism, Church and Ministers of it are both declaimed against under the hateful names of Heresy, Schism, Heretics, such as from no other principles than self conceit, Ambition, vainglory and covetousness design the propagation of errors, by certain hypocritical pretences, obstinate, impudent, and audacious deportments, Seducers, whose society is to be shuned etc. 
* all which will fall to the share of the silken snapsack to carry in the end.  for thus, and much worse, to the rendering of us odious among your Gentry and Vulgar, and the hardening of their hearts against the truth, are we, whom you style Auabaptists, bespattered by you Antibaptists in that Triobulary Treatise, entitled p. 20. A short discourse concerning the means of opposing Heretics both in Disputation and preaching, alias in your title page, whereby it is evident both what, and whom you mean by the words Heresy, Heriticks viz. us and the way we walk in) Apathetical Exhortation to the Pastors to oppose the growth of Anabaptism, the drift of it whether it be more to decline, or desire any more disputation with them, one can hardly discover, so doubtful is the sense of the Scribes that scraped it, sometimes as it were decrying disputation as dangerous, and that from which 'tis scarce possible to expect any good, and superscribing itself thus, viz. Why Heretics are not to be disputed withal: sometimes as it were disputing for disputation again, as if it meant to move the Ministers, though worsted, by no means to give out, and to make it good that much good may be expected from it, like Caesar at Rubicon with one foot out, saying yet I may go on, the other in, saying yet I may go back, bespeaking its patrons to be in a twitter, in a temper between Hawk and Buzzard, afraid to dispute too downrightly for disputation least that should engage them another time, ashamed too directly to dispute down disputation, lest it be thought they have no mind to it any more.  
But, to come to the thing itself, I confess you have spoken Bonum, but not Been, Rectum, but not Recte; it is a moddle of (for the most part) right, good, true, and honest matter, only made use of either very simply or very subtly, to a bad end, viz. the provoking of the Priesthood (no need to bid mad folks run) to preach up a false, and oppose the practice of the true baptism.  
Secondly, most miserably misapplied (if ●…cientiously and not cunningly it is the better) to an improper subject and perverted the wrong way viz. to the fastening of the name Heretics and Schismatics, for nonconformity to the Clergy, upon those true Churches of Christ, for nonconformity to whom in opinion and practice (if miscarriage about baptism may properly be so styled) the Clergy are in very deed the truest Heretics and Schismatics in the world.  
I shall therefore in a serious survey and examine of what▪ Heresy and Schism is, discover plainly,  
First that the people whom you call Anabaptists, upon account of mere dissent and separation from you in the point of baptism, are no Heretics nor Schismatics; but the truest visible Church that Christ hath upon the earth.  
Secondly, that you the P P Priesthood of the Nations, who descent from them in that point, are, as to that point at least, the veriest Heretics and Schismatics yourselves.  
Thirdly, after some pathetical expostulation with yourselves, address myself, by way of Peraphrase upon your own pathetical and paraenetical passages, pathetically to exhort the true Pastors, and paraenetically to persuade all people (as you do yours to beware of us) to beware of you, the spirituality, by whom the way of truth is despited, who though you disguise yourselves under the name of God's Clergy or Heritage for a while, yet will appear to be but cruel crushers of his true Clergy in the end.  
First, then let us see what Heresy and Schism is, and then who is a Schism●…tical Heretic in the doctrine of baptism, Heresy as to the Gospel is held (and that truly by all manner of men I think) the holding or maintaining any erroneous opinion in the faith and doctrine of the Gospel, contrary to that doctrine delivered by Christ and his Apostles in the primitive times, obstinately and pertinacously against all means that can be used towards conviction of the truth, Schism is division, or making of a rend fraction or faction in, or separation from the true Church, and from walking with them in the truth, by the holder's or maintainers of such false doctrine or opinion; and consequently Schismatical Heretics, who ere they be, are such as are bewitched from the simplicity of the truth as it is in Jesus, and from the doctrine that was once received by the Church from him and his immediate Apostles, so as both to believe and practise contrarily thereunto, against all manifestations of the truth, whereby to reduce and reclaim them, and do also rend from and make a head against the true Church, and true head thereof Christ Jesus, separating themselves so as to have no fellowship or communion i. e. nor union of action, nor unity of affection with them that walk in truth. 
* See how Mr. Baxter defines him out of Bullinger p. 259. Hereticum cum dico intelligosectarum Authorem qui ecclesiam scindis etc. when I talk of an Heretic, I mean an Author of Sects, who rendeth the Church, who pertinaciously proceedeth by false and erroneous doctrine to infrings & trouble the unity of the Church, and out of Viguerius, Hereticus est qui relicta side et ec clesiae doctrina alicujus temporalis commodi gratia, et maxime gloriae falsas et novas opiniones gigni●… vel sequitur, ut vel 〈◊〉 maneat ab ecclesia divisus.   
Now whether it be you O priests, who rantize infants or we, who baptise believers, that are thus gone off and divided from the primitive faith and practice, from the true head of that Church, from the true foundation i. e. the doctrine of the Apostles Eph. 2. 20. Heb. 6. 1. 2. and from fellowship with, and conformity to the true Church in baptism and otherwise, is evident to him that is not blind or blear-eyed; for verily the water baptism which we dispense is abundantly showed above to be that one baptism Eph. 4. which was used in the primitive times, than which there is no other water baptism, enjoined or exemplified in the word as Christ's ordinance to his disciples viz. the burying of new born babes i. e believers in water, and bringing them up again in token of Christ's death, burial and resurrection, and of their dying to sin, and rising to newness of life, this I say is that one only baptism the Churches then practised, and thus, and no otherwise do we at this day, for which the word is our warrant; yea it is that faith which was once delivered unto the Saints, that we now contend for, and the words which were spoken before by the Apostles of the Lord, as we are specially enjoined to do in these latter days by both Peter and jude, who foretold how they would be slighted, as we see they now are, by the two Spiritualties viz. the Rantizer and the Ranter, the one Hereticizing in the excess by adding a new thing, the other in the defect by owning nothing, both Schismatizing accordingly from the way of truth; and howbeit after that way which you call Heresy, Schism, separation from the Church, and such like, so worship we God yet, as sure as the coats upon your back, you shall first or last, to your weal●…er woe, find that, as to the point of baptism, Churchfellowship and the supper also, it is no other than the way of truth we walk in: yea so far are we from erring, and Schismatizing from the Church, that we of all men do stand for a full reformation in faith, practice, doctrine, discipline, worship, manners, government and baptism according to the word of God, and the example of the best reformed Churches i. e. those mentioned in the word according to which we are all sworn to endeavour to reform, as we will not be justly charged with Perjury, Perfidiousness, and Preva●…cation, the guilt of all which how little the Orthodox▪ protesting, covenanting Clergy are clear of in the sight of God and man, is good for them to consider: yea conformity in all things to the primitive practice is that we plead for, press after, and pursue, and howbeit (to the shame of his ignorance be it spoken) Orthodox Mr. Baxter is pleased, among other sectaries, to charge the Anabaptists (so he calls us that baptise aright) as the Authors, and approvers of the horrible wickedness of these times, and speaks of us as dispappointing, and destroying their hopes in point of reformation, to the grief of his heart, yet with grief of heart that the way of truth should be evil spoken of by him, by reason of such as do wickedly indeed, yet those lascivious ways, he lays to our score, are less approwd on in our Churches, then in the purest Parish Church in all Christ'ndom, Kederminster not excepted; yea I tell him (and God I hope will one day seal it home upon his heart to the grief of it another way) that the power and purity of Christ's ordinances are a 1000 fold more strictly stickled for, according to the Covenant, by us, then by all those Orthodox ones he talks of, who (the more shame for them) do so zealously, and constantly oppose us: we therefore cannot rationally be denominated Heretics and Sciasmaticks in separating from, and practising contrary to you in the point of baptism, so long as we keep close to the primitive truth, gladly both preaching and receiving the word as 'tis preached by Peter Act. 2. ●…aying repent and be baptised 
* suc●… words as none of you ●…ish PPPriest●… in CCChrist'ndome do, can or ever did preach in, for if your people Ask the Priest what they must do, you say repent, but be not baptised, yea take heed every one of you that at any hand you be not baptised.  every one of you, repenting, and being baptised accordingly, and after that continuing in the rest of the Apostles doctrine and fellowship in breaking of bread and prayers: and though we draw never so many disciples from you after us, yet the man is out of his Christian wits, that deputes and declares this to be Heresy and Schism, sith so far are we herein from rending from, and refusing to be reduced to the Church, that we indeed earnestly endeavour to reduce them to the true Church, to the true head Christ, the true constitution, the true Baptism and Gospel order, from which they are rend, and run astray, wondering after a false Church, a false head viz. a Lording Priesthood, and Parochial posture, both which derive all their being from D●…ephes, i. e. his prating Pre-eminence the Pope: But now as for yourselves, the priesthood of the Nations, who mostly deny not, but that the primitive baptism was of believers, and dispensed in Rivers, or places of much water, which was needless if sprinkling was then the way, you have a thing among you indeed, which you call Baptism, but 'tis not that one Baptism, that old Baptism then urged and used, but another, a new Baptism, and yet to say the truth, neither another nor A new Baptism, but A-no-Baptism, Rantism, Babism, a toy of your own taking up by tradition from your forefathers, but not the first fathers that were the founders of the Christian Church, for you find it not there, but fetch it further from thence, by such consequence as, besides the remotnesse of it, is too weak and rotten to carry it downwards to these times; you are they that dissent, and rend from the truth in this point of baptism, and draw all the world to Sectarize, and err after you by a law, by your subpaena directories; yea you pretendedly reforming Presbyters, who peculiarize the term of Orthodox to yourselves, even you, as to the right administration of the outward right of baptism, are not a whit less Erratical, Heretical, Schismatical and Heterodox than the Pope, for as he hath another baptism then that, which was in the primitive times viz. infant rantism, which, by the mouth of his cardinal Bellarmine, he confesses to be but a tradition of the Church, so you have no other than the same, yea you own that for good baptism, which is done at Rome, or else how to prove the Popish Bishops to be baptised themselves, that baptised, and ordained you Presbyters, you plainly know not; yet you falsely father it upon Christ, and fain it to be an ordinance of his, than which nothing is more clear than that it is not.  
And as in point of baptism you all err, not knowing, or at least not doing according to the Scriptures, all means used to reduce you thereunto notwithstanding, so in the supper, and many more matters pertaining to that visible Church order that was in those times, as namely impropriating to yourselves sole power of speaking in your Churches, i. e. steeple-houses, so that your members may well say men mutire nefass? it is not for them to open their mouths there, unless to answer when you catechise them; whereas then all the Church were to covet to prophesy i e. to speak mutually to the exhortation, edification, and comfort each of other, and being gifted, might all (women only excepted) prophesy one by one, and every one minister as of the ability God gave them, great or small, that God in all things might be glorified, and all judge of the doctrine delivered; but with you what doctrine ere ye deliver, men may try it if they will, but must take it whether they will or no, the mouths of all must be muzzled up, save such as (in your sense) are ministers i. e. have some Parchment Preachment orders to show from such, as can show their orders from his Highness the head of the Church, not Christ but his Holiness the Pope, who had his from the beast Rev. 17. who had his from the devil Rev. 13. yea verily, as to the external face, and fashion of the first Churches, you have altogether altered it, from what it was, and brought in a business of your own heads, being all gone aside, and altogether become vain in your ways, as to your administrations of Gospel ordinances, so that there is none of you that are in the right way of the primitive Churches, no not one: yea ye are separated from and make a head against the true head of the Church Christ Jesus, and take upon you to head the Church yourselves, for this is not the fault of P the Pope only; but of PP i. e. you Prelates and Presbyters too, who howbeit you seem to throw off that supremacy, or headship which the Pope had once, and lays claim to still in the protestant part of Christ'ndom, yet in your several Christ'ndoms you have been (not nominally but) really as supreme in Church work as he, and that not over the people only, but civil powers also, to whom in all cases Ecclesiastical and civil, though you say you grant the headship or Supreme Government under Christ, yet how doth that appear, sith they only Corrective, but you Directive, till of late, have done all? for the Bishops, and Sinods, and General Convocations of the Clergy, and assemblies of the Kirk, seeundum te; must determine what is to be done by Magistrates in Church affairs, and they do it accordingly; The Priests must give out the word and sentence what is the worship, the way, the faith, the truth, what Heresy, and Schism, who are Heretics and Schismatics, and then the Princes in all their Dominions establish the one, and root out the other, as Rogues, at their appointment, in which cases, saving the bare name of supremacy over the Churches, which hath been allowed, it is difficult to me to discern, whether Christian Kings have not been, as of old under the Popedom, so more lately under the very Protestant Clergy, as the Bosholder under the Constable, at his discretion & direction to whip the beggars: and though you may say, and so says the Pope too, that you claim to head and order the Church directive no otherwise then under Christ, yet in very deed as he, for all his saying, so you have presumed to set yourselves above Christ, the only head, Counsellor, Lord and Lawgiver to his Church, for as the Pope hath done no more then broken his laws, changed his ordinances, trampled his truth, made void his commandments, and subpaena damni Temporalis, et eternae damnationis, imposed men's Traditions arrogantly in their stead, so you in your several lines have done no less; yea you also make people to err with all your might, and whatever tender consciences find Christ piping to the contrary in his word, yet if they dance not after you pipe, when it sounds to the tune of Tithes, and put not into your months, you cry peace, but by't with your teeth, and prepare war against them: Mich. 3. 5. possessing the world with prejudice against them as a sort of seditious Sectaries, damnnble Heretics, and Schismatics; yea (exceptis excipiendis) saving some few scatter here and there of more sober and moderate minded Ministers, like so many grains of salt to keep the rest from stinking too much in these states, where you have, or would have reigned, who have not been so hot spur as their fellows, by the good will of P. the Presbyter, as well as of P. the Prelate and P the Pope, many an honest man's native country, for nonconformity to his Gangraenaticall domination, should ere this, have been made too hot to hold him: so far therefore as separa▪ from the true church and her orders may denominate a people Heretical Schismatics, and Divines themselves place the Nature of Heresy much in separation and Schism, the Denomination seems to be your due, O P P Priests, who are departed from the primitive church, and not ours, for departing from you, ye are are those Schismatical Teachers, that are rend all from the primitive plainness of the Gospel, and present pompousness of each others way, and have seduced the whole world into spiritual thraldom, idolatry, and superstition, and enticed them into a carnal liberty of calling all things according as your carnal ends, and interests impose the names of Heresy or truth upon them: you are S S She that having got the good liking of the Kings and Kingdoms of the earth to confide in you, do close the eyes of their judgements, as Dr. Featley feigns we do, with your birdlime of Schism from the true church, and head thereof Christ Jesus, and bewitched them into an implicic submission to Papism, Arch-bishopism, Occumaenical Synodism, Provincial Classism, and so lead them as you list into Anti-gospelism, Antiscripturism etc. making a prey of them, and though Featly had the faculty of feigning the Baptists ●…o be such, yet you are indeed devisers of new religions, and Spiritual Impostors, falsely pretending to Christ as the Patron, and Authorizer of your new doctrines, of which Paedo-baptism is one, which because there is not the least dram of evidence for it in the word of Christ, therefore when people begin to question it, you amuse the vulgar with the names of some divine Authors or other, not Peter, nor Paul etc. but St Austin, S ● Gregory, S chrysostom etc. at Rome his Holiness the Pope, the holy Mother, the Catholic Church, Ghostly Fathers etc. and in places where those subterfuges are not regarded, Reverend Sinods of grave Orthodox Divines, Ministers of Christ, Suffrages of all the learned Divines in the Reformed Churches, 
* Dr. Featley p. 161.  etc. and this you do to secure your Tenets from the hazards of disputes, and exempt your persons, and actions from the test of examination, as if there were such infallibility herein, that it is no less than blaspemy to doubt, or call in question the Dictates or Directories etc. of such and such: thus bearing yourselves up with bombasting terms of Fathers, Spiritual, Ius divinum etc. you gain to the captivating of the reason of men so far, that they resign up themselves, ●…urare in v v vostram sententiam, and will be as their Priests are, and never believe but that they believe the truth, when all this while there is nothing but humane authority (and humanum est errare) for most things you do. yea you are indeed the greatest Schismatics, or Rentmakers 
* For Tent makers such as Paul was to make the Gospel chargeless, you are most lie too proud to be.  in the seamlesse coat of Christ, that the Earth bears; you are they that have caused divisions, and offences contrary to that doctrine, which was at first received at Rome and in all Churches, and by good words and fair speeches, viz. decency, order etc. have deceived the hearts of the simple, so as to make more conscience of serving those belly gods the Priests, than the Lord Jesus according to his own will, therefore when you talk so much to us of the Church, and your Church, crying out (as the Pope does against the Bishops for theirs, and the Bishops against you Presbyters, for your departure from them) Heretics, Heretics, that disturb the peace of the Church, forsake the Church, infringe the unity of the Church, yet I say what Church, so long as there is no other Church constitution among you to this day then that of parishes, into which the Pope put all Christ'ndome? what Church, so long as 
† Sine qua Christianismus non constat, saith Calvin.  the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles, on which every true Church is built 
* Calvin inst. lib 4. c 2. s. 1. verbi et sacramentorum Mi nisterium nobis perpetua ●…ssera dignoscende ecclesiae.  is cut off, disclaimed, and exploded, and neither the word purely preached, nor the Sacraments duly administered, which by Calvin and Featley themselves are both made such true notes of the true visible Church, that wherever they are there is the true Church, and where not there's no true Church, what ever there may be in pretence: yea verily so far are you from due administration of the sacraments (giving the Supper to such as were never at all, much less truly, baptised, & many of you Presbyterians not administering it at all to your flocks, whom you contend were truly initiated into your Church by baptism) that indeed as you have substituted infant rantism instead of it, so you preach down that due administration of baptism and the Supper, which according to the primitive pattern Acts 2. is at this day to be found amongst us, withal the vehemency you can, proclaiming us Schismatical heretics for declining your disorderly administrations, and, according to our covenant, pressing on to that purity of administration of Gospel ordinances, which lies now in such plain English before men's eyes, that all your glosses will beguile them but little longer: there is no danger therefore of being rend from the Church of Christ, in departing from participation with you in your oppositions of the truth, therefore never glory so much in these vain lying words, the Church of God, the Church of God, which is indeed the Common tone of all you Romanists each to other, in your rendings each from other, for there is none of you all three have a true visible Church of Christ among you, nor yet right any administration of the things you call Sacraments, whether we speak of either baptism or the Supper.  
My answer then to the whole priesthood of Christ'ndom, even ye Protestant Clergy also, from all whom, as well as from the Pope, we who are fictitiously styled Anabaptists, and charged as Schismatical Heretics for so doing, and troublers of the unity of the Church, are departed, shall be the very same, that you Protestant Clergy do make in your own defence, when you are charged by your old father Caiphas, and his Catholics, as Heretics and Schismatics in your rending from them, and as infringers of the unity of their Church, yea in the very words of Calvin, to whom you my Ashford opponents are pleased to send us, who saith thus of them (as I do with him of you all) Inst. l. 4. c. 2. S. 2 Magnifice quidem etc.  
They do indeed gloriously set out their Church unto us, that there should seem to be no other Church in the world, and afterward, as though the victory were gotten, they decree that all be Schismatics that dare withdraw themselves from the obedience of that Church that they paint out, and that all be Heretics that da●…e once mutter against the doctrine thereof. But by what proofs do they confirm they have the true Church?  
S. 1. If the true Church be the pillar and stay of the truth, it is certain, that there is no Church, where lying and falsehood have usurped the dominion.  
S. 3. There is therefore no cause, why they should any longer go forward to deceive by pretending a false colour under the name of the Church, which we do reverently esteem, as becometh us; but when they come to the definition of it, not only water (as the common saying is) cleaveth unto them, but they stick fast in their own mire, because they put a stinking harlot in place of the holy spouse of Christ: that this putting in of a changeling should not deceive us, be side other admonitions, let us remember this also of Augustine, for, speaking of the Church, he saith: it is it that is sometime darkened and covered with multitude of offences, as with a cloud: sometime in calmness of time appeareth quiet and free: sometime is hidden and troubled with waves of tribulations and temptations. He bringeth forth examples, that oftentimes the strongest pillars either valiantly suffered banishment for the faith, or were hidden in the whole world.  
S. 4. In like manner the Romanists do vex us, and make afraid the ignorant with the name of the Church, whereas they be the deadly enemies of Christ. Therefore although they pretend the Temple, the Priesthood, and other such outward shows, this vain glistering, wherewith the eyes of the simple be dazzled ought nothing to move us to grant that there is a Church, where the Word of God doth not appear; for this is the perpetual mark wherewith God hath marked them to he his. He that is of the truth (saith he) heareth my voice. Again, I am the good shepherd, and I know my sheep, and am known of them, my sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me, And a little before he had said, that the sheep follow their shepherd, because they know his voice: but they follow not a stranger, but run away from him because they know not the voice of strangers. Why are we therefore wilfully mad in judging the Church, whereas Christ hath marked it with an undoubtful sign, which wheresoever it is seen cannot deceive, but that it certainly showeth the Church to be there, but where it is not, there remaineth nothing that can give a true signifition of the Church, for Paul rehearseth that the Church was builded, not upon the judgements of men, nor upon Priesthoods, but upon the doctrine of the Apostles and Prophets, but rather Jerusalem is to be severally known from Babylon, and the Church of Christ from the conspiracy of Satan, by that difference wherewith Christ hath made them different one from another. He that is of God (saith he) heareth the words of God, ye therefore hear not, because ye are not of God. In sum, forasmuch as the Church is the kingdom of Christ, and he reigneth not but by his word, can it be now doubtful to any man, but that those be the words of lying, by which Christ's kingdom is feigned to be without his sceptre, that is to say without his holy word?  
5 But now whereas they accuse us of Schism and Heresy, because we both teach a contrary doctrine to them, and obey not their laws, and have our assemblies to prayers, to baptism, to the ministration of the supper, and other holy doings, severally from them: it is indeed a very sore accusation, but such as needeth not a long or labour some defence: they are called Heretics and Schismatics, which making a division, do break in sunder the communion of the Church. And this communion is holden together with true bounds, that is to say, the agreement of true doctrine, and brotherly charity, whereupon Augustine putteth this difference betwixt Heretics and Schismatics, that Heretics indeed do with false doctrine corrupt the pureness of faith, but the Schismatics sometime even where there is like faith, do break the bond of fellowship. But this is also to be noted, that this conjoining of charity so hangeth upon the unity of Faith, that faith ought to be the beginning thereof, the end, and finally the only rule. Let us therefore remember that so oft as the unity of the Church is commended unto us, this is required, that while our minds agree in Christ; our wills also may be joined together with mutual well willing in Christ, Therefore Paul when he exhorteth us to that well willing, taketh for his foundation that there is one God, one Faith and one Baptism. Yea wheresoever he teacheth us to be of one mind, and of one will, he by and by addeth in Christ, or according to Christ, meaning, that it is a factions company of the wicked, and not agreement of the faithful which is without the word of the Lord.  
S. 6. Cyprian also following Paul deriveth the whole fountain of the agreement of the Church, from the only Bishopric of Christ, he afterward addeth the Church is but one, which spreadeth abroad more largely into a multitude with increase of fruitfulness, like as there be many sun beams, ●…ut one light; and many branches of a tree, but one body grounded upon a fast root, and when many streams do flow from one fountain, although the number see●… to be scattered abroad by largeensse of overflowing plenty, yet the unity abideth in the original, take away a beam of the sun from the body, the unity suffers no division, break a branch from the tree, the broken branch cannot spring, cut off the stream from the spring head, being cut off it drieth up, so also the Church being overspread with the light of the Lord, is extended over the whole world: yet there is but one light that is spread every where. Nothing could be said more fitly to express that undividual knitting together, which all the members of Christ have one with another; we see how he continually calleth us back to the very head. Whereupon he pronounceth that Heresies and Schisms do arise hereof, that men do not return to the original of truth, nor do seek that head, nor keep the doctrine of the heavenly master, Now let them go and cry that we be Heretics that have departed from their Church: sith there hath been no cause of our estranging from them but this one, that they can in no wise abide the pure professing of the truth: but I tell not how they have driven us out with cursings and cruel execrations, Which very self-doing doth abundantly enough acquit us, unless they will also condemn the Apostles for Schismatics, with whom we have all one cause. Christ I say did foresay to his Apostles, that the time should come when they should be cast out of the synagogues for his name sake. And those Synagogues of which he speaketh, were then accounted lawful Churches. Sith therefore it is evident that we be cast out, and we be ready to show that the same is done for the names sake of Christ; truly the cause ought first to be inquired of, before that any thing be determined upon us, either one way or other. Howbeit, if they will I am content to discharge them of this point. For it is enough for me, that it behoved that we should depart from them that we might come to Christ.  
S. 10. But we see h●…w each where they cry out, that their assemblies are unholy, to which it is no more lawful to consent than it is to deny God.  
Therefore it is needful to depart from the consent, of those assemblies, which were nothing else but a wicked conspiracy against God. In like manner if any man acknowledge the assemblies at these days being defiled with idolatry, superstition and wicked doctrine, to be such in whose full communion a Christian man ought to continue even to the consent of doctrine, he shall greatly err.  
S. 12. Whereas therefore we will not simply grant to the Papists the title of the Church, we do not therefore deny that there be Churches among them: but only we contend for the true and lawful ordering of the Church: which is required in the communion both of the Sacraments, which are the signs of profession, and also specially of doctrine.  
Hereby therefore appeareth, that we do not deny but that even under his tyranny remain Churches, but such as he hath profaned with ungodliness full of sacrilege, such as he hath afflicted with outrageous dominations, such as he hath corrupted and in a manner killed with evil and damnable doctrines, as with poisoned drinks: such wherein Christ lieth half buried, the Gospel overwhelmed, godliness banished, the worshipping of God in a manner abolished: such finally wherein all things are so troubled, that therein rather appeareth the face of Babylon then of the holy City of God. Therefore because these marks are blotted out, which in this discourse we ought principally to have respect unto, I say, that every one of their assemblies, and the whole body wanteth the lawful form of a Church.  
These very words of Calvin, which are your defence, and mine too against the Pope (O ye Protestant Priesthood) are mine also against you, when you clamour against us as Schismatics, for separating from your national Churches, and calling as many out with us as we can, viz. because you two P P as well as the Popish Priesthood, are not Zion, as you suppose, but two of those three parts of that great City, Mystery Babylon the great, the Mother of Harlotry and Heresy, that hath reigned over Kings and Kingdoms of the Earth: You hold not unity with the head, you return not to the fountain of the truth, reform not by the Primitive standard, but start aside like a broken bow; you hear not the voice of our Prophet in all things he says, but make void his laws; you walk not in those scorned, mean, base ways, which he hath chosen, but are they rather that count them base, and so we can no more join with you then deny Christ: & so far are we from being Heretics and Schismatics thereupon, that we rather truly declare you such as stand divided from the Root, the Sun, the Fountain, as well as all three one from another; yea what need we any further witness that you three Hierarchies are all Heretics, and Schismatics, since the whole World hears it aloud out of your own mouths? the Bishop saith the Presbyter, as to his Government, is a Schismatical Heretic, the Presbyter saith the Bishop is so, the Pope says they are both so, and they both say he is so, and therefore I say they are all three so, if we may credit what they say among themselves: you stand all divided from Christ, and the Apostles, and now God hath justly divided you into three parts, and divided you three miserably each against other among yourselves, yea and subdivided you; i. e. divided his people, and well nigh all other people from you, so that though you labour in the fire of wrath and rage, to bring them back to unity with you, and their old blind conformity to your ways; yet you weary yourselves for very vanity, for the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the Sea: even so O Lord divide their ●…or gues more and more, and let great BBBabel come down daily by the division of Languages, that the whole Earth, which was once of one Language, and one speech, even that of Babylon, may at l●…st after all, and by all this div●…sity, learn all that one pure Language of the Land of Canaan: yea come (my beloved) hast'n this blessed work, and be like a swift Roe, or young Hart upon these Mountains of Bether 
* diusion, .  
So having discovered what Heresy, and Schism, and who the Heretics and Schisma●…cks are, I come now to discourse o'er again, in a little plainer way, your owe discourse concerning them, and the means of opposing them; which (as I said above) is a parcel of pretty right matter, if spoken of the Pop●…, and his P P Priesthood, to whom of right and most properly it appertains; yea quid rides O S S Sacerdos? mutato nomine de ●…e fabula narra●…r Thy own tale is a fi●…rod for thy own tail, thou hast sharpened thine Arrows, and bert thy Bow, to shoot at a Pigeon, and killed a Crow: for verily thou art the man to whom all those properties of the Heretic, and Schismatic propounded by thyself, do much more aptly and exactly agree then to him thou talkest of; a little translating, a little trimming, a little turning of it towards the true subject, will make every tittle of that tattle of thine to be the truth, which is but a piece of feigned falsehood as thou tellest it of the Baptists: what thou hast reported lacks but to be retorted (O Priesthood) with a little amplification, and a right application of it to thyself, and then omne tulit punctum, it hi●…s the nail on the head, and tells 〈◊〉 but the truth indeed.  
Thus then distinguishing your Pathetical piece (O ye Ashford Opponents) which I mean shall be my Text, all along by a different character from my own peraphrasticall amplification, and genuine application thereof, so that both you and the World may read (as it were in text letters) your own abst●…act from that of mine, when you please; and signing the Titles of the clergy. whether true or surreptitious, with three letters in the front, as C. C. C. P P P etc. most commonly, when I speak of ●…hem in the lump, to denote the three P P Parts into which that great City B B Babylon, which they make, stands divided, I proceed as followeth.  
That Herestes must be the Apostle hath said, yet it makes no more for a toleration of them (in the true Church I mean, though others mean in the civil state) than that of our Saviour of offences, saying (foreseeing no question how by means of the Clergies crying out Heresy, Heresy, Schism against the way of truth, being once turned aside to Heresy themselves, the world would be offended at his little ones for walking in it) They must come, but woe to the man by whom they come: the Apostle reckons Herestes among the works of the flesh, Idolatry, Witchcraft etc. Gal. 5. 20. which alone to argument sufficient against the Patronag●…, and Invitation of them, unless withal licence in the true Church should be given to all other carnal sins, why should the Church of God upon Earth make much of those against whom the Kingdom of Heaven shall be ●…ut? her pale is not so strong to keep them out from breaking in upon her, like wild bores, and wolves to spoil, and waste her, but her good will should not be so great to them, as to welcome them in to her fellowship, till they repent from their dead works of superstition, bloody tenet of persecution for cause of conscience, worshipping God after men's traditions, blaspheming the name of God, and his Tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven, trampling the holy City, Heresy, Schism from the primitive truth &c Nevertheless, how beit to tolerate and harbour Heretics in communion with them whilst they oppose the true way of Christ, would be an error, and an evil too intolerable in a true Church of Christ, yet I hold that opinion of the C C Clergy not only intolerably Heretical in itself, but intolerably hurtful also to themselves that Heretics may not be tolerated in a civil state, for if Fines, Prisons, Banishments, Racks, W●…ips, Tortures, heading, hangings, burning●…, and such like punishments with the civil sword were the due of every Heretic, and Schismatic in the faith, as the C C Clergy have for ages and Generations born the world in hand that they are, to the causing of all these their national Church censures to be inflicted on the Saints, when they have once blindly sentenct them to be Schismatics to the civil power, if this I say were the due of every Heretic or Schismatic, and every true Heretic and Schismatic had his due too, good Lord how have the C C Clergy condemned themselves out of their own mouths to devastation, when the civil powers shall find them to be the Arch-heretics in the world, if taking them at their word, they shall do with them, as they say they ought to do in this case concerning others? but God forbid that with what judgement they judge, they should be judged, and with what measure they meet, it should be measured to them again at our suggestion, if their own Cheek-by-jole carriage to the Stern-men of the State do not pull it unavoidably upon themselves; yea verily though as far as those that oppose themselves against the truth of Christ, they may well challenge the name of Schismatical Heretics, and though Amen might justly be said by the Magistrate in this point to the opinion of Gangraena, and his Gang, and might Amen be said to his wise wishes as concerning us, who teach and practise baptism in its primitive fashion, we could expect to be suffered in the Commonwealth no more than Highway Murderers, yet dare we not desire their extirpation out of any of their native rights, in the several states, wherein they are, nor such uncivil suppression of them, merely for their erroneous Tenets, as they have solicited the higher powers to concerning us; we have not so learned Christ, nor would they if they had heard him, and had been taught by him as the truth is in Jesus: for howe'er it comes to pass that the C C Clergy (whose own the worst would he, if that were true, and execution done accordingly) are so besotted as to believe that Heretics and Schismatics from the faith, men of false ways, worships, religions, though elsewise never so peaceable and innocent must not only be dischurched, but discommunicated also from the patronage of the civil power, and cut off from the privileges of other Subjects, yet neither Christ nor any of his Apostles, as from him, gave any order for such rigid rejection, indeed the Apostle Paul wills in his Epistle to Titus cap. 3. who was a Church officer, that a Heretic after a second and third admonition be rejected, i. e. from the Church, and Gal. 5. 12. wishes that they were cut off from the Church, that did trouble the Church, and Rev. 2. 20. 21. the Church of Thyatira was reproved for suffering that woman jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess 
* which whether in the Antitype it be not that woman the clergy, by whom the Kings of the earth have been (as Ahab by the other) stirred up to a●…l mischief against the the truth, may be seen mo●…e clearly Rev. 17. , to teach and seduce his servants to fornication, i. e. false worships, etc. but it will no●… follow therefore that such may not have licence to live civilly in civil states; for the weapons of the Church's warfare, wherewith she is to fight against Heresies, and which she is ever to have in readiness to revenge all disobedience to Christ by, are no●… carnal 2 Cer. 10. 4, 5, 6. not such as are used by the officers of States, but only spiritual, as admonition reproof, and in case of obstinacy, putting out from among them, delivering up to Satan, and not delivering up to the secular power, as the Popish Priesthood used to do 
* witness the case of john Sawtrey, the first English Martyr, of whom we read thus, viz. that Arundel Archbishop of Canterbury 1399 first denouncing him an Heretic, 2 in the name of all his fellow brethren the Bishops, and of the whole Clergy condemning & digrading him from his priestly orders, from all his priestly honours, & in token thereof taking from him, as he was a Priest, the patent, and chalice, the authority of saying Mass, the casul and vestment, as a Deacon, the book of the New Testament; as a Subdeacon, the Albe, and Maniple; as an Acolite, the Candlestick and taper; as an Exorcist the book of Conjuration; as a Reader the book of the Church Legend [of lies] as Sexton the keys of Church door, and surplice; and then rasing his crown, and putting the cap of a lay prrson on his head, delivers him up to the secular power, saying pray be favourable to him, who after burns him (being called on by the Bishops) in the City of London. , when any of their creatures, specially of their Clerico-creatures turned Heretics, i. e. departed from their Heresies to the truth, saying pray take him into your power, and be merciful to him, meaning hang or burn him for a Heretic. The Church I say is neither to use the carnal weapons of the State, nor yet to stir up the State so to use them on 〈◊〉 and truth's behalf, as to imprison, sine, hang, burn or banish false worshippers, unbelievers, misbelievers, or Heretics, further than they are withal (as by mere unbelief they are not) offenders against the civil State; I find the Lord Christ foretelling by himself, and his Apostles, that for the most part (the more is the pity) the Rulers, Kings, Governors, and Princes of the world would be such enemies against his Gospel, that his Disciples should be hauled before them as evil doors for his name's sake Matth. 10 18. that not many mighty, and noble men would own his truth 1 Cor. 1. 26. that rich men would oppress the Church, and draw them before their Judgement seats, and blaspheme that worthy name, whereby the poor in this world, which commonly are the richest in faith, are called ja. 2. 6. that the Kings of the very Christian Nations would throw down their crowns, and give up their power, and strength unto the beast, & commit fornication wi●…h the W W Whore, and at her instigation make war with the Lamb, and at last be overcome by him, Rev. 17. 14. 17. and be put down together with all their rule, authority, and power, as very enemies, though once his ordinance, under his feet, 1 Cor. 15. ●…4 25 I find also Ephe. 4. that he hath sit in his Church Apostles, Pastors etc. for the work of the Ministry, and affairs of it but I no where find in his will and Testament, that Christ intended the Magistracy, as his Ordinance (though undoubtedly in other cases the supreme ordinance of God to men, whether in the Church or out of it, for civil good) to officiate so immediately in matters of Religion, saith church order, etc. as to execute Church-discipline, Church censure, for ●…er Church disorders, Church Divisions, Church offences, or so as to make all men within their jurisdiction (and yet, though their Churches be no true Churches neither, so the clergy would have it) to believe as the Church believes, worship as the Church worships, and be members of the Church, whether they will or no; if not to pray with them, yet at least to pay to them, or else to be excommunicated out of all they have, and, under the name of Heretics, dischurcht out of the world: for so verily they do (doctrinally at least) who teach such false doctrine, that men of false relegions, whether heathens, Jews, Turks, or Pagans, or men erring most grossly about the true, as Papists, or whatever else, though never so submissive in all civil things to the civil Powers, yet may not lawfully be licenced to live in civil States, or in any Commonwealth under the Sun: for by the same reason that jews, Turks, Heathens, Heretics may not without sin, be tolerated in one Nation, but must (ex officio) be rooted out of it, upon that mere account of denying and defying Christ, which is as high as ever any Heretic went, they may not without sin be permitted to be in another, and so either some nations must sin in allowing these to live in them, or else, though de facto they cannot by reason of their number, yet de jure they ought, as far as they well can, by Kings and Princes, among whom few or none are so well acquainted, as they should, with what is Heresy, and what truth, to be driven quite out of the world; and so the poor jews whose conversion the Priests pray for with much zeal and compassion, must in quiet live no where at all, that they may be converted, but must belike be turned altogether into the sea.  
Besides the notion of their being Christians adds nothing to men's power as Magistrates, so but that if such magistrates as are Christians, are Church officers, as Magistrates, than other Magistrates, as heathen Magistrates, must be Church officers as well as they, and then how well that Christian Church is likely to be served and governed, whose head Church-officers are Heathens, a fool may see.  
Yet whether the Magistracy be Heathens, or Christians it matters not to the Church, so long as they are the ministers of God and Christ to them, and others too for civil good, to punish evil doers, that are injurious against the common, or any man's proper weal, Church-member or other, in body, goods, or name, by stealing, lying, murder, defiling, defaming, defrauding &c. whereby any are prejudiced in point of their outward well being: mean while whether he be the minister of God only or Christ also, and that not only as God, but God man also it matters not, so long as he is an ordinance to us for civil good: 
* Whether the magistrate be the minister of Christ, as God only, or as Mediator also, I mean God man? is a question, about which I find some fill the world with a world of confusion; viz. Mr. Gelaspie and Mr. Rutherford, who are together by the ears about it; and Mr. Baxter also, who makes much more ado than needs p. 228. etc. to prove that Christ exerciseth some of his Government, as Mediator, by Ministers, and some by Magistrates, by which if he mean that Magistrates are officers in Christ's Church, of Christ's appointment, I pity his blindness, when I read Eph. 4. where its showed what officers Christ sets in his Church, for the edifying and establishing thereof: if he mean that the Magistrate is Christ's officer, and ordinance to the worldward, for the Government of it under him, and of the Church too (as 'tis a part of the world, so far as he doth yet administer in the world, and judge it) I will not greatly deny that, howbeit that he (as man) yet judgeth the world, and (as Mediator) governs it, as once he is to do, by appointment from the father, Acts 17. 31, at his appearing & his kingdom 2 Tim. 4. 1. when he shall put that power in full execution, for which he hath now but the commission, when he shall return personally to set up, and rule in that Kingdom, which he is now gone to heaven to receive, Luke 19 11. 12. 15. etc. when the Prince of this world, (for so Christ himself, who is Prince of the world to come, is pleased to call the devil now John 14. 30. who is dominus fac totum here by permission, and rules over Kings, Princes and People by the Beast, and whore that rides it, Rev. 17. to whom he hath given his seat, power, and great Authority Rev. 13. 2.) shall once be judged, and bound up in the bottomless pit from domineering over, and deceiving the Nations any more, that Christ I say yet judges the world as once he is to do, when the Kingdom appointed by the Father to him in reward of his for them, and by him to his disciples in reward of their sufferings for him Luke 22. 28. is come, this I utterly deny; nay rather he is yet in his Saints an underling to the civil powers; the miserable ignorance of which time wherein Christ shall take unto himself his great power and reign, and be de facto, as he was de jure before, King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, makes the Divines so dote as to Interpret that place Isa. 49. 23. of Kings being nursing fathers, and Queens nursing mothers, and bowing down, and licking the dust of the Chuches feet, and a hundred more as fulfilled now, in this his day of small things, in this his personal absence, which, when the devil is blind at least, and bolted up in the bottomless pit Rev. 20. they'll surely see are not in esse actuali till then; and to suppose Magistrates to be now Christ's chief Church officers Supremely under him to rule in it; when as, were they not already blind themselves, they could not but see it to be contrary unto truth, for women may be Magistrates, but not Church Ministers, and may be Supreme in authority in a State, as Queen Marry and Queen Elizabeth, but are bid to be under obedience, and fordid in Church matters so much as to speak, much more to usurp authority in the Church, 1 Tim. 2. 11. 12. 1 Cor. 14. 34. 35.  so that if any matter of Division of inheritances, or of wrong and wicked lewdness be brought before the Magistrates, committed whether by a church-member or any other it is all one, reason wills that the Magistrate should hear it, and (be they Heathens or be they Christians who stand before him) determine and destribute according to the equity of his civil Law, and as much as Mr. Baxter looks askew at this assertion p. 120. as if he thought the Magistrate were to do a Pagan no right against a Christian, without partiality, not favouring a Christian in a civil cause against a Heathen, a Turk, an Egyptian, a Pagan, so as to take the Christians part, further than the equity of his cause in hand may justly call for it, more than the others, though the Magistrate himself also be a christian, and a brother to the christian, whose cause depends before him, or a member of the self same congregation with him, not balking to do civil justice against Church-members, they deserving punishment, as if the church were exempted from his 
viz. in refusing to be judge, in matters of faith and religion.  jurisdiction in civil things, because he is no christian, but a heathen, nor yet denying to do right to church-members, if they be injured by others, for if he do any of this, I am sure he does no justice in his place, whereupon Gallio, the Depuputy Governor of Achaia, who was not a little to be commended in one thing? was no less to blame in another, Act. 18. 17. in that when the Greeks in a rude and barbarous manner took Sostenes the chief Ruler of the Synagogue, and beat him, for letting Paul preach in it, before his face, and before the very judgement Seat too, yet he cared for none of those things, for those were the things that fell duly and directly under his cognizance, as he was a magistrate, and so the minister of God to men for good, whether they be Christ's disciples or no, for the redress of such civil abuses; neither is Christ yet in his own person, Luke 12. 13. 14. nay nor yet by any Church-officers of his (qua sic) unless they be civil Magistrates also, and then as in that capacity they must do that right that concerns them as such, as mere church-officers to be judge in those outward cases, and as therein the outward man only is concerned, for then Paul, one of the chief Apostles, and officers of the Church, being then present, might have taken upon him in the behalf of Sostenes, and himself, as the Pope and the priesthood do for the most part in their religions, to have determined for themselves in that civil dissension, but Christ as man, and his church, as his Church, are yet no judgers, nor dividers over men, but the Magistrate by Gods, and if I say by Christ's appointment it hurts us not, is made as only in such, so the only judge and divider in such civil matters; but if it be a question, and a brabble about Heathenism, Turcism, judaism, Christianism, and about Religion, worship, and faith and jesus, and words, and names as Antinomists Arminians, Anabaptists, Pelagians, Socinians, Antichristians, Pedobap tists, Sectaries, etc. and about his law, and about Heresy, and spiritual Truth, and Schism in the Church, and Ministry, and such like, about which the ears of the civil powers have been d●…d by the usual addresses of the priesthood unto them for help against Heretics and Schismatics, and by their hideous outcries viz. of the Prelates against the Presbyters, saying, help O King, and the Presbyters against the Sectaries, help O Parliament, all will be overspread with a Gangrene of Heresy, Murder, Murder, etc. O ye Magistrates restrain dipping in cold water, as you will save the lives of your subjects, and such stuff, and folly as is poured out to the Magistrate by the Minister against men more true to Christ, and Magistracy than himself; I humbly conceive the Magistrate may lawfully, and more acceptably to God then otherwise, save himself so much labour, as to let these matters alone: yea he may do well to see, that whatever Religion men be of, that are under his civil power in each state, whether jewish, Turkish, Heathenish, Popish, Prelatical, Presbyterian, or Independent, may not be injurious each to other, without satisfaction, in civil matters, and to see that none commit any uncivil actions, that are contrary to that common honesly and righteousness among men, which men as magistrates, are set to vindicate 
* For Custo●…s et vindex ut ciusque tabulae under the Gospel, because it was sounder, that typical standing of the Law, is but a tale, and a trick of our Priests whereby to curry favour with their princes: the truth is that whole Jewish State (which was also a Church as no one whole nation under heaven now is) was a type and both the Kingly, Priestly and Prophe tical office that then headed that Church, were typical of that triple true head of the Gospel Israel, Christ Jesus, and are no more to be drawn in as an example so as to argue more warrantably from the Kings then to the civil Rulers now then from the High-Priest-Hood to the Popedom. , to see that none live (be they of this or that Religion) dishonestly without correction, to see that none usurp Dominion over each others faith, so as to make all men believe as some do, whether they see ground to believe so yea or no, by the civil sword, to see that, in order to their own eternal good, they find out, and walk in the way of truth themselves as it is in Jesus, and when they are once assured that they are in the truth themselves, to let that truth be verbally declared per se, or per alios, as much as they please, but not forced upon others, as their faith, further than the light of preachings and discourses may prevail to fasten it on others consciences; and to see that even enemies to the Gospel, and true Church may have no more than the weapons of the Church's warfare, which are not carnal, used towards them to make them friends, and as to those, who walk in truth, whoever they are, or shall but be supposed by the successive representatives, Princes or Powers, to walk in the way of truth, to see that they be countenanced, but not too much maintenanced, because Christ's disciples, nor cocked up to all the honour, and preferment, and places of trust, and advantage, above their fellow subjects, to the engendering of jealousies, and emulations in others, that may be happily, though not so near the truth of Christ, yet as trusty to the State as themselves; for that too often chokes the Church 
* my Petition to the power●… on behalf of the Church is that it may have as much peace, and as little preferment as they please, for ever Cum Ecclesia peperit divitias, silia devoravit matrem.  but only that with an indifferent, impartial hand, as men, whether in Church or out, being otherwise honest, and able, and of public spirits, not selfish selfish, nor covetous, nor cruel etc. may seem fit to be entrusted with such, and such places, so they may be chosen, and disposed of thereunto; in a word to see that such as make prayers, and supplications, and intercessions, and giving of thanks for all men, for Kings, and such as are in authority (living in all godliness and honesty) may as well as others, and others also as well as they (living soberly and honestly, though not Godly in Christ Jesus, nor worshipping in way of truth, but falsely) may live a quiet, and peaceable life without persecution as to confiscation, bonds, or death, for doing and denying according to the dictates of their own, though yet blinded, conscience, and that men of all Religions, may live without molestation one from another, any more than by mere manifestations of their light one to another at seasonable times, in ways of query, disputation, and preaching, and then to leave all men to worship God according to their several ways, even misbelievers, Heretics and jews themselves, and others that yet believe not in Christ, but deny him, till the Lord lend them light by the word of truth, and to stand or fall to their own master Christ Jesus, to whom every conscience shall give account of itself at last, who, if any man hear his words, and believe not, nor receives, but rejects them, judges him not here, either by himself, or the civil magistrate, or by his Church, any further than to non-communion with them, yet by the word that he hath spoken unto him will judge every man at the last day  
Thus it is most evident the magistrate whether Christian or Heathen is to do, and not otherwise viz. to give protection to men, as men, (living honestly, so berly and justly) without respect to their Religions, whether true or false: And as to Religions, to allow Toleration to all men to practise according to their principles, the practice of whose principles is not directly destructive to the true Religion, common honesty, civility, morality, righteousness, and the peace and safety of the Commonwealth, as some men's principles are, if put in practice, yet verily I know none, among Christians at least, save those of the two Spiritualties vix. the Rantizing PPPriest that in his precincts (which is the whole world, could he catch it) would have no toleration for any way of worship but his own, and the Ranting Prophet, who would have toleration of all and more too, not only all Religions, but all, as well uncivil, unnatural, lewd, abominable, as irreligious actions, which nature itself cries shame on among beasts, & magistracy finds itself an ordinance of God to give correction to, among heathens; for those men are now acting upon the stage, of whom jude speaks when he says jude 10. what they know naturally as bruit beasts in those things they corrupt themselves: the principles of that old PPPriest and this new Prophet, 
y Twospritualties, whereof (as bad as the first is) the latter will be more sensual than the former, having not the Spirit Judas 17. though pretending to it more supremely than the other, under which last the devil now acts, as under a new vizard, to the deceiving of people from the way of truth, perceiving his old vizard worn so thin, that all men begin now to see through it.  if practised in the height of them, are utterly inconsistent with the standing of truth in the world untrampled (viz. that of the Priest) and also with the standing of very manhood among men, of civility in civil states, of the common-health of the Commonwealth itself (viz. that of the Prophet) the one is so far from owning any power to be a terror to evil works and encouragement to good, that despising all Government and speaking evil of dignities he holds that there is at all neither good nor evil, nor better nor worse amongst works, but all alike, and then good Lord how fast must iniquity, dishonesty, unrighteousness, and incontinency thrive and abound upon earth to the ripening of i●… for the sickle when it shall be acted with allowance from such a principle as this viz. that there is now no iniquity at all? this man would have the civil power allow all Religions, and good Manners too, but allows of none, at least thinks he needs use none himself, and is for a Toleration of all truth in the world, thoughall truth is the intollerablest thing in the world to him, and though it hath leave from him to grow besides him, and will too among some, yet he hopes to loosen it by lending it so much scope, that it may come up the more easily by the roots, and seeks what he can to kill it by his kindness.  
The other viz. thou (P P Priest) though, that thou mayest seem to be totally for the truth, and all others to be enemies to it but thyself and thine, thou cravest (ay might say commandest, and challengest) such a large toleration for what thou callest truth, that nothing else must be tolerated besides it, yet the truth is, the truth as it is in Jesus, which is Heresy with thee, is less beholding to thee then to the other, for i●… hath not so much as leave from thee to live, if it can, nay it can take no root at all, at least not thrive above ground if it do, where thou livest at the length of thy Lordlines; for like Nimrod the mighty hanter before the Lord, thou hast built to thyself great B B Babel, a Triple Tower, a threefold Fort, or form of Tyrannical Churchlines, wherein thou seatest, and securest thyself, and whence (being jealous lest all that comes near thee under the name of truth, should undermine thee) thou fightest it afar off.  
Thou art (as it were) a wild man like Ishmael, having thy hand against every man, and every man's hand against thee, dwelling alone, as much as thou canst, in the midst of thy brethren, by thy sword, and thy bow, by cutting and fleshing, and shooting out thy sharp arrows, even bitter words, viz. Heretics, Heretics, against all that heed not what thou sayest, before thou hearest them: these are the rough hands of Esau, wherewith thou handlest thy brother jacob, that will obtain the blessing before thee; TTThou art the 3 heads of that Eagle, spoken of 2 Esdras cap. 11. cap. 12. and wheresoever thou lookest and spreadest thy black wings, thou lookest that all other birds should tremble under thee, and be subject to thee, so that none of old, durst so much as chirp against thee, no not one creature upon earth, but so soon as any began to appear any where within thy range, that was not Pullus Aquilae a chicken of thy own brood, thou hast rapaciously torn it with thy Talents, and made it a prey to thy youngones, and whersoever thy wont principle of persecution for conscience hath taken place, and thy gaudy, greedy, griping Government stood up in full force, the truth hath lain groaning, and groveling under thee upon the ground.  
Thus verily hath it been not only for ages and generations within the dominions of the old Brutish, but also more lately under the domination of our BBrittish Priesthood. Yea thou O P P Priest hast been such a thicket of thorns to the Lily that she could never flourish upwards without a thousand scratches from thee; such a tall crop of tares, as hath overtopped, starved, and strangled the wheat.  
TTThou knowest not what spirit TTThou art of, thou wouldst fain command fire to come down from heaven 
* Luk. 9 53. 54 55.  and consume them (as if it were Christ's mind) that receive not Christ Jesus in the ways of thy own invention: thou judgest them that are without, that are none of thy C C Church (whom, were thy Church the true Church, thou should leave to God to judge 1 Cor. 5. 13) if they be but in the same Nations wherein thy Church is, and that shrewdly too sometimes, when thou canst get the strength and power of states to stand to thee, and execute such censure as thou sayest is due to Heretics and Schismatics in the Church, yet I cannot much blame thee, whilst thou clap'st whole commonwealths at once under thee as thy Church, which ought as much to be corrected into an observance of the directories and decrees of Synodical power in matters spiritual, as of the Senatical in matters civil: thy chief way to cure Heretics (when they are in health) is to kill them: this Pa●…pharmacon is letting blood, thy present remedy against the remediless disease of Truth-telling Truth-spreading is Truth treading, and present smothering it from the vulgar, by stopping the passage of the press, and opening the Pipes in the Pulpit, and present tampering with the Truth-teller, who, if he unsee not what he sees, is ●…nse recid●…ndus, to be dispatched out of the way, ne pars sincera trahatur, lest sincere ones, that seek after truth should find it when it flies abroad, and be in-per-fected by it as well as he: thou massaciest men to the Mass, slayest men into thy service books, s●…st up thy religion by treason, 
* Witness the Jesuits, that 〈◊〉 kill Kings if Heretics, & the Northern presbytery, that may lawfully sight England, if it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ●…ctory: and the Episcopal war against the State:  when it can stand no more by reason, fightest with fire and sword when thou canst do little by the spirit and word, 
* So julius the second, who seeing himself vanquished, threw away Saint Peter's keys, into the River Tiber, protesting he would thence forth help himself with S Paul's sword:  makest thy pen knife keen enough to cut, when thy pen is not quick enough to countetfeit, thou stopst Stevens mouth with stones, and bearest him down with brickbats that he blasphemes, when thou canst not resist the Wisdom and the Spirit by which he speaks, like the wolf in the fable, thou accu●… the poor innocent lamb of troubling the waters, for nothing but drinking at the pure fountain, and when the lamb replies, my cause is better than thin●…, On but quoth the wolf, my teeth are better than thine, I must devour 〈◊〉.  
Now therefore as to the civil Magistracy, throwout all Nations, Tongues, k●…ds and people where thou (O proud P P Priesthood) ride them, I humbly beg of them in the name of Christ, and on behalf of his truth and people, which thou ha●… suppressed, that they would no longer set TTThee up as Lady of Kingdoms as 〈◊〉 over God's heritage, as Supreme dictator's to the whole nations where they live so in all Matters of Religion, faith, and Gospel, as that all people must fall down to thee, and worship God only according to thy more dim and divided, then divine directions; but that people may go forth from under thy Egyptian prohibition, to serve the Lord according to his own will and word, which thou hast hid from the vulgar by unknown tongues, and forcing thy own constructions on men in nations wherein its mostly truly translated, and believe no more at a venture as the P P Priests believe by any law, as from the Magistrate, whose duty it is not to force men to unity of faith and uniformity in Religion, further than they find freedom to fall into such unity among themselves; but to force men to live at unity and peace, in honesty and innocency, in all justice and civility one towards another, under what diversity of religion soever may be among them: and whilst any Religion puts its people in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey Magistrates, in civil things for conscience sake, and not to resist them in rebellious ways in such cases, under pain of resisting the ordinance of God, and receiving to themselves damnation according to Rom. 13. 1 2. Titus 3. 1. 1 Pet. 2. 13. 14. 15. to see that it have as mutual protection from them, as it yields subjection to them: for this is the good will of God concerning them, as such, and whether they be Heathens or Christians, they are Gods Ministers to attend continually upon this very thing, viz. to render unto all men their deuce, as men viz. a room in quiet in the world of what ways of religion soever, yea though Indians, and redress of any civil wrongs, as they expect to have all men, of what religions soever within their power, to render to them their deuce of tribute, honour, custom, fear, for for this cause pay they their tribute also, because Magistrates are Gods Ministers to the world ward, and to the Church as part of the world, and in no other sense then as to the rest of the world, to attend continually on this very thing: to dispense praise or punishments for civil good and evil among men, not spiritual, for than they may punish evil thoughts, proud looks, ignorance, non-profiting by the word, not Gods Church-ministers, to dispense good or evil, for good or evil done in the Church, but as the same actions may have reference to the state also, as theft, or the like civil abuse, which comes one way under the Church's censure, and another way under the Commonwealths: they are not I say Church Ministers, nor Ministers to the Church qua Church, as the Priest's principle seems to make them, for than they may claim not only Tribute, but tithe also as well as the Priest, but that he will be loath to part with, though in truth it belongs to him for his Church wasting work full as little as to the other.  
I humbly beg therefore (I say) of the Powers, that truth which hath been trod under foot may be tolerated among them in their several civil States, Commonwealths and Kingdoms, and to the end it may undoubtedly be so, let all that which the Powers in the several Nations do judge in their own consciences to be truth in point of Religion, have toleration and protection and no more countenance by them, as Magistrates, but bare protection from injury, as other ways also may have, and not such extraordinary supports from a power Heterogeneal to that of the Church, nor such extraordinary gratulations, gratuities, revenues, incomes, preferments, and portions out of the common State-stock (let their own private purses be as open to them, & such as profess it pay to its Ministry as much as they will) for besides the partiality of this thing of making other Religions, and ways that judge themselves to be the truth as well as that, pay and be tributaries to the true one, and the grumbles it will engender in men's minds, this proves the greatest mischief under heaven to the truth, when the Ministers, who should expect nothing but shame, and suffering with their Master, who was Beelzebub, are slusht with the outward pomps and vanities of this world till they forget themselves so, as scarce to know what ground they stand on; and howbeit Mag●…trates may mean honestly in their high honour of them (as that good man Constantine the great did) yet as his high embraces, and graces done to Christi in Bishops proved (besides his intent) the stirrup, whereby those Lord beggar's got up on horse back, and road to the devil (for so hath that Romish whore rid both herself, and the beast under her which is Christ'ndome) so though I hope it never will, yet it may possibly be so again, if care be not taken against it, witness the two other more seemingly modest and maidenly Minions, Episcopacy and Presbytery, which (qua Ministry) came out of her loins, w●… have not brought the world so far out of that old Babylon towards Zion as they pretended to do by reformation, as else they might have done, being slugged, & lulled asleep by benefits, and benefices in the way; for posit â eadem causà ponitur idem eff●…ctus sublat â tollitur, golden cups ever yet made wooden Priests, and ever will do; let truth have liberty, and peace, it will desire no more of the State if it be truth indeed And Secondly, let all other ways and religions besides that which the Magistrate judges to be truth, that judge themselves to be in the truth (save that of those whose very way (as abovesaid) is no way but dishonesty, and whose way isto root out all ways but their own by civil power) be also tolerated, practised and protected from outward violence, and oppression as well as that, for this besides the knitting of the hearts of men of all ways under one civil power, in entire love and strong affection to that Power that domineers not o'er their conscience 
* The contrary towhich where ere 'tis well may men submit out of fear till they can help themselves, but never out of love while the world stands, for conscience is a tender thing, and though but a wo●…m, yet if trod upon will turn again, , besides that I say this tolerating all practices in point of religion, save that practice of non toleration of any but itself in civil states, must needs tolerate the truth among the rest, whether it lie in this way or that, and so the Power shall be out of all danger and hazard of coming under the guilt of truth treading, which the P P Priesthood hath engaged the civil power in for 1260 years together, as else it cannot, for if toleration be of no way but one, then if that chance to be the wrong, (and themagistrates are no more sure than other men, that they are in the right, 
* Howbeit they shall never want flatterers to persuade them that they are.  yea 100 to 1 they are not if they use civil violence to others, First, because the false ways are many, and bread, and easy, and fine, and the true way but one, and that so strait and narrow, mean and base, that not many noble, and mighty, and men of power ever find it 1 Cor. 1. 26. Secondly, because (as King james said) persecution is a certain note of a false Church) than truth is unavoidably smothered by them, and will first or last pull vengeance upon that power, Rev. 6. 11. 12. though it be under the name of Heresy only that he suppresses it, and plucks it up under the name and notion of weeds and ta●…es that would else choke the wheat: besides therefore a most strict charge that Christ gives Mat. 13. that in the world i e. the civil States and Commonwealths of it the Tares should stand together among the wheat until the harvest, which alone is an Argument putting all out of doubt in this controversy, he gives this good reason viz. least in plucking up the Tares, the wheat also chance to be rooted up with them, 'tis for the wheats good therefore for the Tares to stand, and for the wheats sake that Christ wills they should, though not in the Church yet in the world to the very end thereof.  
And because the Divine cannot yet divine that to be Christ's meaning in that scripture, that false worshippers heretics etc. may lawfully (if not civil offenders) be licenced to live in civil States, let us consider how sinister his own conjectures are upon it, I have met with some and some of chiefest note in this County of Ke●…, who have shifted it of thus, saying that by the Field is meant the Church, not the World as we say, and Christ himself interprets it in that place. Secondly, that the servants, who ask whether they should pluck up the Tarts yea or no, and are bid to let them grow together with the Wheat, are not the Civil Magistrates, but Christ's Disciples, who had nothing to do to pluck them up, and ●…o the civil Magistrate may do it no withstanding: to this purpose I have been answered when I have asked in way of query the sense of that place. To which I say,  
First, that by the Field is most necessarily meant the World, and not the Church. First Christ so expounds it himself, the field (saith he) is the World: but, say they, the World is oft used to express the Church, and so may here. I reply, first, I deny that the word world in any one place of Scripture signifies the Church only; it signifies sometimes the fabric of the Universe. Secondly, it signifies all man kind good and bad collectively. Thirdly, sometimes the wicked only that lie in wickedness, 1 john 1. 13. john 17. abstract and in contradistinction to the godly, and the Church, but never at all the Church, the godly, the Elect alone abstract, and as in contradistinction to the wicked: and though I know how far forth to maintain their absurd doctrines in other cases some Divines divine such a matter, yet till they show more for it then they have ever showed to me, or I am sure can show out of the word (not denying but that there is a number electorum (i. e.) all that believe and obey Christ, exmundo electus) their Mundus electorum is haud mundus dialectus.  
Secondly, here it cannot be the Church however, because it is vox secundae intentionis, a speech that is expounded by Christ to be the sense of the other speech of fie●…d he used before, for if the word world were ever used for the Church, it must be by a figure synecdoche, whereby a small snip of it is signified by the whole, and then Christ speaks figuratively again in his Exposition of the other figurative word field, which were incertum per incertum, to open one paraboricall ex pression by another as paraboricall as that, which who can think Christ did to his Disciples, to whom his intent was to speak more plain, that they might understand him, but understand him they could not well, if while he spoke figuratively at first, he did not speak properly at last however; for whereas he had told them the field was the World, they had as much need to have asked again what the world was, if they could not think he meant plainly as he said.  
Thirdly, the Church is expressed usually by the name of Christ's Garden, Vineyard etc. which are places more peculiar, and sequestered as Cant. 4. 12. 16. Isaiah 5. 6. Ez. 15. and the world or part without, the Church, by the name of Field, Forrest etc. wherein Tares, wild bores, briers, thorns, as well as wheat, and Saints may live.  
Fourthly, if by Field and World here is meant the Church, than 'twill follow, that sith the Tares, i. e. false Worshippers, Heretics, Antichristians are bid to be let alone until the harvest, that such as these may be tolerated, not in the world or civil state only with the Church, but also in the very Church itself, which toleration cannot be, for God chides that Church that suffers jezebel to teach fornication in her; and if the P P Priesthood plead for such a Toleration as this (as he had need considering how his Church is filled with tares more than he is either able, or willing to root out) than he is for a toleration far more intolerable than that we plead for; for we would have Heretics and Schismatics, and Erroneous false worshippers, and nominal Christians, Antichristians no nearer the Church then in the world with them, i. e. the same States, Towns, houses, but not in one and the same Church-fellowship, or Congregation, but they would have them stand in the Church, for which sure Christ gives no permission, much less a strike Commission, as here is, that they should.  
But say you Christ does not here mean that they shall stand, as if none had to 
Abj.  do pluck them up, but only forbids these servants, who were his disciples, from meddling with them, to ev●…ry of whom he gives not Authority to pass c●…nsures, and punish, but some may have Authority for it for all that.  
Some who are those I trow? it must be then either the Ministry, or the 
Ans.  Magistracy: not the Ministry, for it is far more clear, that by the servants here, that took notice of the tares to the householder, is meant the servants of Christ in the office of Ministers, that would fain have been meddling (as the false Ministry ever does) to root 〈◊〉 all both out of Church, and world too, that is not of institution by Christ in their opinion, and such a spirit may too much show itself in the true too, see the like Spirit in his own disciples the first Ministers Luke 9 54. 55. Mat. 15. 12. 13 14. for which Christ gives them a check, and tells them they knew no●… what spirit they were of, and bids them let the false plants alone to the heavenly Father to pluck up in his time, saying let them alone they be blind leaders of the blind, and will both in due time fall into the ditch: 'tis far more clear I say that 'tis his Ministry he here forbids, then common disciples, for why should not their Ministry complain of them as well as they? yet he bids these let them alone, which shows too that 'tis the World, and not the Church they are to stand in, for it belongs properly enough, and primarily to the Ministers, with consent of the Church, executively to pass the censure of putting them out of the Church.  
Secondly not the Magistracy, for if it were the Church as they say it is, how miserably do they mope (and yet so the Priest does) that make him the highest officer in the Church to cast persons out of the Church, who is (though the highest officer over the Church, and World too, yet in truth) no Church officer, or Minister in the Church (qua Church) at all.  
Besides lastly, which puts all out of doubt, the prohibition is to all men as well as some, and sounds forth the mind of Christ to be, that the tares shall stand in the Field till the harvest, and not be plucked up by any at all, but stand till the harvest they cannot according to his will, if according to his will either Magistrate, or Minister might pluck them up, out of the field, what field ere 'tis that is here spoken of: his will is not only that such shall not pluck them up, but that they shall not be plucked up until the harvest, i. e. the end of the world, till he sends his Angels to gather the tares, all things that offend, every plant, that the heavenly father hath not planted, out of his Kingdom, which taken at large is the whole world, and to bundle them for the fire. To all these many more reasons may be added why the Magistrate may not force men at all in matters of faith, repentance, Religion, worship, see Barbers answer to the Essex watchmens watchword, p. 7 etc. the Magistrate receives no charge from God about Religion, neither is cura animarum, but cura corporum only committed to him. Luther himself was of this mind, that the Laws of the Magistrate extended no further than to the bodies and goods, that which is external, and that God would have none to rule in the soul, but himself, therefore where the Magistrate goes about to govern in the conscience, he usurps that jurisdiction, which God reserves to himself, certainly this is that great arrogany in the Whore or Woman of sin, which God will severely punish, in that SSShee gives laws to the conscience, and sits in the Temple and Church of God as a God.  
King james in Parliament 1609 said, That it is a sure rule in Divinity, that God never loves to plant his Church with violence and blood, and again in his Ap●…logy for the oath of Allegiance p 4 speaking of the Papists that took the said oath, That he gave a good proof of it that he never intended persecution for conscience, but only desired to be secured of them for civil abuses, that it was usually the condition of Christians to be persecuted, but not to persecute.  
Again, Faith and repentance to acknowledgement of the truth is God's gift (and if we'll believe our Clergy) no way in every man's power, no not by gift from God to perform, and so the Magistrate must punish m●…n belike, because God, who gives where he lists, does not give them to believe etc.  
Again Blasphemers, Persecutors, as Paul, Idolators, as the Corinthians, yea jews, Turks and Pagans may be converted in time by the word, therefore are not to be plucked up out of the Earth, for than they can never possibly repent.  
Again persecution was never taught by Christ nor practised by his Apostles, but arose among Heathens, and was continued by (the Roman) Antichrist, and his Ministers. 
* Vid. ● Tho. Beacon's Reliqu●…s of Rome, s●…t forth cum privilegio 1563. Pope Servitius ordained that Heretics should be banis●…t An. 588. fol. 214. Pope Pelagius the first, that all Heretics and Schismatics should be put to death by the secular power, provided that the Bishops in their spiritual courts do first prosecute, convict and condemn them for Heretics, and then commit them to the temporal Magistrate to dispa●…ch them out of the way by fire, sword or halter, for they say as the chief priests to Pilate, it is not l●…wful for us to put any to death. In the council of Lateran by Innocent the third, 2 Patria●…s 70 Aroh-bishops, 400 Bishops, twelve Abbots, 800 Priests, the Legates of the Greek and Roman Empire, the Ambassadors of Spain, Jerusalem, France, England, Cyprus, it was decreed that all Heretics and so many as should in any point resist the Catholic faith should be condemned, that the secular power of what degree soever should be compelled openly to swear for the defence of the Catholic faith, and to the utmost of their power to root out and destroy in their kingdoms, all such persons as the Catholic Church should condemn for Heretics, and if any King should be a Heretic, or defender of them, and not reform within a year, than his subjects should be absolved by the Pope from yielding any further subjection or obedience to him, or keeping any fidelity with him, and so 'twas in the case of John here in England, who resigned to the Pope's Legate his Crown, kissing his knee as he came into England (which John was after poisoned by a Monk, who having his pardon from the Pope, poisoned himself first, to poison the King) and also that the Pope may give that land to Catholics to possess peaceably and without contradiction, all Heretics being rooted out of it.   
Yet there's one way more, whereby they evade all this, and that is by denying that by the Tares here are meant Heretics, False Worshippers, and Antichristians, and asserting them to be Hypocrites in the Church; and this is the way of Mr. Cotton (whereby you may see again how Divines are divided among themselves in all things almost, as well as some) which Mr. Cotton, in a book, which the Bloody Tenet relates to gives ou●… (as I remember) that by tares is meant hypocrites in the Church, who are so like the wheat, that they cannot well be discovered, nor discetned from it, and so must be let alone in the Church, by the Ministers of the Church, lest they mistake and pluck up wheat instead of tares, and cast out men for hypocrites, who its possible may be sincere for aught we know.  
In answer to which I must confess men that cast out persons for Hypocrites, had need be pretty wary, and not overhasty, yea better an inconvenience than a mischief; bet●…er err in letting some Hypocrites stand in the Church, then for haste cast out one that seems to be so to us, and yet is not.  
But this is not the sense of our Saviour in this place, for as it cannot be the Church that the Tares are here bid to be let alone in (as I have showed above) so much less by the tares can be meant hypocrites, so near the wheat, i. e. true Saints in show, and likeness, and pretence, as to be hardly disc●…rned from them. For  
First, Though Hypocrites are like Saints, and appear so to be oft, it may be always, to the deceiving of us, yet the Tares are not at all like the wheat, nor at all to any, but such as are stark blind, appearing to be wheat.  
Secondly, an Hypocrite in the Church (who is one that app●…ars to be what he is not) must be supposed while he is in the Church, to be discovered, or not discovered so to be, when not discovered, he is no hypocrite to us, to whom things are, as they appear (what ere he may be to God) but as true a Saint as the rest; and when discovered (till when to us he is a Saint, and must stand under the notion of a Saint) than he must not stand in the Church, which is not to harbour any that are palpably wicked, and who is so palpable as he, whose simulata sanctit as is dulplex iniquitas.  
But now First, the tares he●…e spoken of are plainly said, and seen to be tares, and appear to be tares, and a distinct stuff from the Wheat; and yet for all that they are bid to be let alone in the Field, as Hypocrites must not be in the Church, when they appear to be such.  
But in the field, i. e: the world 'tis true enough that hypocrites may stand, even after they are cast out of the Church, unless they act any thing that civil justice will reach them for, and so also may Antichristians, and all false Worshippers.  
'tis evident then that in this place, as well as Matth. 15. 13. 14. that in the time of the Gospel Church, Tares that much hinder the wheat, that are mingled in the same Field, world, Civil States, Countries, Commonwealths, of Satan's sowing among the Wheat, Weeds, Nettles, Briers, Thorns, Plants that are not of the heavenly Fathers planting, Fa●…se worshippers, Heretics, men and their Ministryes of false Religions, doctrines, faiths, ways of serving God, may and aught by permission, and commission from Christ be let alone, and allowed to stand, by no means in the same Church, by all means in the same world, or part of the world locally considered, for the Church is not locally considered as a place measured by, and consistent of such or such a compass of ground, as the Pope's parish Churches did, whereupon they went on procession once a year, lest they should forget the bounds of their Church, but mystically, of such or such a company of men, however scattered locally here or there, yet in one fellowship, I say in the same part of the world, nation, City, Country, civil corporation, with the wheat, Saints, true Church, under the protective power of civil Magistracy free from molestation, merely for their religion, so be they live justly, soberly and peacably with all men, any thing said to the contrary in any wise notwithstanding by the Priest, who of all men hath least reason to be against toleration of tares in the world, and of plants which the heavenly father never planted; if he consider what he is himself, and unless he desire to be rooted out in haste by the civil power, before his time.  
See the parable, and read it, with the exposition of it Mat. 13. 37. etc. He that sowed good seed in the field is the son of man, i. e. Christ, the field is the world, therefore not the Church, the good seed or wheat are the children of the Kingdom, i. e. the Saints the true Church, and worshippers, the tares, which while men slept, and did not mind it, the enemy came and sowed among the wheat, i. e. in the same parts and places of the world, Towns, Countries, etc. locally considered, the children of the wicked one, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the same as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 2 Thes. 2. that wicked, false worshippers of God after their own inventions, men's precepts, not his will, people and priests grown up into a Church, worship, ministry, religion insensibly by little and little, from false principles, and foundations, custom, forefathers, prudential additions of orthodox men etc. not the pure naked word itself: a people born to their religion, yea their christian religion in the way of flesh, and blood, and the will of man, of the Pope and counsels constituting, and civil powers from them commanding; not of God by the word of truth.  
The Enemy that sowed them is the devil, for he indeed filled the whole world even the whole Christian world, with false worshippers, false principled Clergy men, and when he could not kill the wheat, the Christians in the ten persecutions in his open war against them by the mouth of th●… beast, or empire heathen, wherein he prosecuted them under their own names, because Constantine a Christian was come now to the crown, than he turned, Christian himself, and would have Christianity embraced by all means, by a law, and sowed the seed of false principles, of stablishing Christian religion, as the only religion, before which all other shall now down, promoting Christianity in the shell, that he might kill it in the substance, causing great honours, revenues, Peter's patrimonies to be given in favour of Christianity, from which principles, selfish, ambitious, lazy, luxurious Ministers, as the Pope, formal mere nominal Christians g●…w up, and overtopped the truth and true Saints, that kept close to the truth, in the midst of all this mock show, wherein the devil hath kept an apish imitaon of Christ's church all along, and ministry, ordinances, baptism, supper, church censure, but all corrupt, and trod the holy city to the ground Rev. 11. the same subtle one, now he sees his trade of forcing men from the truth by the p●…inciple of conformity to the false Christianity, and the old Spiritualty fail, is now shifting himself undoubtedly in to another Spiritualty, that will as much corrupt, & delude the world by the principle of liberty of conscience abused, and turned by the Ranter into licence, though we who plead for liberty of truth say in maxima libertate est minima licentia, in the greatest liberty of conscience to serve God, there's the least licence to serve the devil by our lusts, and corrupt ourselves in what we know naturally as bruit beasts; nor is that conscience that makes conscience of nothing.  
The harvest is the end of the world, the reapers the Angels, by whom at that time Christ will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into his barn and burn up all chaff, Tares, husks, weeds, briers, thorns, idolators, hypocrites, subtle seducers, and sinful subverters of the truth, whoever shall appear to have been such, and all other trash, with unquenchable fire Matth. 3. 12.  
Mean while I say still Tares may stand among wheat locally in one Country, yet not lawfully in one church society.  
Weeds and flowers, Roses and nettles, Lilies and thorns, Vines and brambles, Idolatours and true worshippers, Believers and infidels, the children of the Kingdom and of the wicked one, the Temple of God and idols, Christ's church and the Devil's chapel, discovered hypocrites and sincere Saints, Christians of all sorts, save such whose very principle prohibits toleration, and they make the case uncapable to be, which will win or lose all, stand alone or not at all as whether the P P Priesthoods do not, or at least did not, let all men judge Jews, Turks and Pagans may be lawfully allowed their religions, living in subjection under one civil power, if the whole world were but one Monarchy, in one World, in one Field, or Commonwealth, though not in one Garden, not in one Vineyard or Church; and may not be made to be of the true religion whether they will or no: yea I appeal to the conscience of any sober minded man, whether if Pontius P●…ue, whom the Scripture styles the Governor of judaea (and a lawful Governor over the church, a very heathen may be, but no heathen lawfully, a member, much less an officer or a Governor in the Church (whether I say if Pilate should have been converted by Christ at the bar, while he sat on the bench, and truly believed in him: it would have pleased Christ: that he should have improved his civil power to have established Christianity in judaea: and forced all men under penalty to believe in christ, and renounce all mere Jewish worships; or whether it had been as lawful a decree in Augustus' ●…aesar to have forced all men to be Christians under a penalty, as 'twas in him, to issue out a decree, that all the world should be taxed? I suppose not, but that he must have left all to their ways, and have practised it himself, and protected it from injury, and propounded it to all in way of preaching, but not prosecuting any by his civil power, if they would yet remain Jew's or heathens; and Christ might as easily have made Emperors his Disciples had he meant that the Gospel should be established by civil power.  
And this is for the further safeguard, and advantage to the wheat (as I said before) for Christ gives this reas●…n why he would have the tares to be le●… alone, least by rooting out the ta●…es, the wheat be ro●…ed out also: for if all religions may stand, than the true one may stand in quiet, without disturbance, if all pe●…ple may walk every one in the name of his God, Mich. 4. 5. then we may walk in the name of the Lord our God for ever and ever, but if all be beaten down in a state, and but one stand, ten thousand to nothing it is not the truth that is there established: for truth may be trodden down, but treads not down others in a violent way of persecution.  
Besides if true Religion establish itself alone in some States, by forcing men to subject to it, its giveth a bad example to false religions in other states, that think themselves in the right, to do the like, and force men that love the truth there, to submit to them, and ●…o there's qui●… for quo, and no end of disturbances, they saying that we are Tares, we that they are, and so there is nothing but pulling up by the roots, if toleration be not tolerated, as the most peacemaking principle, and so in these bussles if the wheat grow alone some where, it must fall elsewhere, even every where, where the tares are resolved to stand alone, and so Homo Homini Lupus, Christianus Chri●…i no Diabolus, men must be wolves and devils each to other throughout the world.  
Besides, if the power in any place be ignorant, and under an erring conscience that conscientia errans, will oblige him, seemingly to himself at least, to tread down truth, and set up false hood, and all this by a law, yea if the Magistrate take the part of any religion against all other, so as to establish it alone, and root out them, whether it be the true one or a false one that he sets up, not tolerating all others, but forcing them to submit to it, the mischief is in a manner intolerable, on either hand; for if false, have not we all felt the smart of being forc'●… to false ways, Smectimnus as well as others? if he hath not forgotten the groans, that for liberty of conscience came once out of his own mouth, while he was crushed under him, that was crushed under the Popedom, but in the Marian days above: but if true the forcing men to own it before they see ground freely to receive it, makes a world of formalists, of nominal Christians, who had as good be nothing at all, as no better than they are, & of hypocrites, which are worse than nought, the worst sinners in the world: for is it not better for me to remain a Jew under a blind conscience, till I see the truth, then to turn Christian against my (though blinded conscience) for fear of men, before convinc'●…, or before I yet see it to be the truth? a forced feigned profession for ●…ear of men, if it happen to be of the truth itself, is at best but splendidum peccatum a guilded sin. Besides us to wove the spider's web as Isa. 59 to make laws and penalties to bind conscience, which brawny conscienc'●… men can creep o'er, let them be what they will, as we see in Nebuchadnezars days, and in the Pope's time, and ever since, all people for fear fall down and worship the golden image the King and Clergy sets up, save such as fear God indeed.  
And if it be thought that if the civil power take not the part of truth 
Obj.  (as I wonder where and when ever it did, at least since Constantine's times, till of late) it will be lost more in the crowd of errors and Heresies, that will ens●…e a general toleration, than any other way it can:  
I say, let truth alone, and turn it loose to plead fully for itself, and it will work out its way and live, and thrive, maugre all the entanglements it can have 
Ans.  from tares: plain truth may be trusted to treat with the subtlest and proudest opposers it hath in the world, that (caeteris paribus) do make head against it: but if it be set against by the foreign power of a civil sword, premi (yet then too haud supprimi) potest: do but defend it only from injury equally with others by the civil, and●…then it will defend itself by the spiritual sword against them all.  
Wherefore I again humbly represent that grave Council of Gamaliel, whose reason is good, to all the civil Magistrates throughout the earth. by whose subjects 'tis sh●…rpely controverted, and zealously quaeried what is truth, viz. that they refrain from meddling more with men, though they seem mad men to the world, and besides themselves for the sake of truth in pretence, left happily they be found fighters against God, for if any way be not of God, 'twill in God's time come to nought of itself, and ye cannot establish it, if of God you cannot withstand it, but 'twill come on, in this juncture specially, wherein it dawns toward the great day, and God is about to pluck up every plant he hath not planted; And if men be in your apprehension blind leaders of the blind in things of God, yet let them alone, if they will not go to the right way when called to it, they will see, when they both fall into the ditch. And likewise I humbly beg that what is further and more clearly held forth concerning this subject of liberty of conscience by Mr. Blackwood, in the first part of his storming of Antichrist, may be well weighed by our Magistrates, together with the thirty queries presented to them lately by Mr. john Goodwin, and his vindication of them against the Apologist, neither of which ever will be answered solidly by their parish Ministers.  
And as for the priesthood itself (though I hope the night is too far spent for any (save such as will be ignorant, and if any man will be ignorant, let him be ignorant saith Paul, 1 Cor. 14. 28. and so say I) to doubt but that the day is dark over them and theirs) they are blind leaders of the blind in many things, which many others see, of whom yet they are ashamed to learn, and which is worse, such as stand not a little in their own light, by snuffing at it that the Russet Rabbis, and Clergy of La●…cks should presume to instruct them more perfectly in the way of God, which God in these days (wherein the last must be first, and the first last) will subject the proudest spirited Priests in Christ'ndom to take from some illiterate, and perhaps, nonsensical, yet honest hearted Saints stammerers in speech, babes (with them babblers) as of old eloquent Apollo's from Aquila and Priscilla, or else it may be hid from their eyes.  
And though what they would not that others do to them, when they were underlings each to other, they have done unto all other professions, that were underlings to them in the day of their reign, hasting what they could to the hunting of the Sectaries out of their synagogues (or their native rights and enjoyments therein) which they have subjugated to be their Synagogues, counting the compass of whole commonweals, and Kingdoms little enough for them to Lord it over, and set their several names of Papal, Prelatical, or Presbyterian there, confounding, and Babilonishly blending Church & State Power together, so that 'twas hard for any to ken clearly which was which, or to know where to set the sole of his foot almost upon European ground in any Nation, bu●… he and all (his conscience and all) must come under the command, and fall within the verge of some or other of their merciless Church Monarchies, yet nevertheless my humble desire to the powers on their behalf is that they may be tolerated and protected in the practice of what profession, Religion, way of worship, doctrine, discipline, or Church-government soever they see occasion among themselves, and such as shall see occasion to cleave to them, or any of them, to set up, so far as they shall desire to build their several BBBabels without that blood of souls and bodies of men, in which they have imbrued both their own, and the Prince's hands of the Christian Nations in former days: I heartily plead for a toleration for them, if ever the power shall (as not a few people already do) discern them to be as Heretical, and Schismatical from the truth, as they have judged all others to be, such toleration I mean, as may not be inconsistent with the toleration of all other people, and professions of Religion in the several nations in peace together with them, and in security from such searches as have been made by their Surregates Paritors and Proctors etc. after men as unsufferable Schismatics that side not with them: but a toleration of them in that wont Tyranny of treading all under their feet, and plucking up all plants by the roots that live beside them by the civil power, when they once have censured them for such seditious ones as are not fit to be suffered in a state b●…cause they submit not to their stateliness, and complained of them to Kings as H●…man to Ahasuerus of the Jews, the true Church's type, saying Esth. 3. 8. there is a certain people scattered abroad, and dispersed among the people in all the Provinces of thy Kingdom, and their laws are divers from all people, neither keep they the King's laws, therefore it is not for the Kings, (alias not the clergies) profit to suffer them, and made their modest request that if it pleas●… the King it may be written that they may be destroyed, which conscience of correcting Heretics, that conformed not to the clergies Christianity, carried Christian Kings to condescend to in old time, this toleration is too intolerable in all conscience.  
I wish well to the persons of the men called clergy (God is my witness) but I wish not so well to their way as to wish it up in the way wherein they would have had it: and yet I here wish they may have their way too, abating us no more of it then their unreasonable wont wishes, that the state would allow no ways but their own, let them pair off that knotty piec●… from off their principle, wherein they pray the Powers to beat all men into the belief of all they say by the sword, the belief of which they can never beat into them by the word, then let them and their party practise what they please: let their way be no way of civil violence to all other ways and then in civil peace let them walk in it till they are weary: and let it stand till by the word it fall before the true one, if it be such a noun Adjective that it cannot stand by itself in Scripture, sense and Reason, without such a Substantive as the civil sword to support it, 'tis a sign that there's far more show, than Substance in it: for verily that Gospel that will not stand not only without, but against the edge of Caesar's sword encountering with it, is Antichrists, but none of Christ's Gospel to me: yet such it seems is the clergies Gospel, which freedom to set it up by other ways leaves still as helpless, as hopeless, of ever standing, unless it may be established against all other ways, on the necks of all people by the carnal weapons of Caesar's civil State; it's very doubtful of entering the field with no other strength than its own Canons, unless the state lend it her ordinances to back them but if Baal be a God, me thinks he might speak for himself against them that throw down his Altars, without imploring all the Gods of the earth to speak for him; if the Multitude of his Priests cannot set up his worship, without the Magnitude of earthly Princes to relieve them, let it go, and a good riddance of it too, if Dagon 
* 1 Sam 5. 24  cannot stand on his own legs, but must fall before the Ark, unless the benevolence of others lift him up, his priests may set him up as much as they will for themselves, but they shall never set him up again for me. Nevertheless I am as freely willing, sith 'tis the will of Christ, and his Testament, that even Baalitish, Romish worshippers should have a Room, and being in the world by the civil Magistrates permission, they yielding civil subjection 
* which he hath more saith than I that believes they ever will for surely the clergies Win all or lose all will pull them down at last.  even to the end thereof, as I am willing there should be a Room and being in it for the truth, for though the Prophets of Baal were put to death in reforming Elijahs time, in the old Church of Israel, which was the type, yet that pointed out no more than that spiritual execution, which is to be done on jezebel, and her false worships in the true Church in these reforming times of the Gospel, not one of which may abide any more in the Gospel Israel; yea I here seriously supplicate the civil Powers for them, that their consciences no more than ours may be forced by any forinsecal power to act in Church worships contrary to their conviction, but if nought will content the priesthood at all (as of old it would not) but that all Heretics, as they call them, that harken not to their Traditions, must be clublawd into conformity to their parochial precepts, so far at least as to obey the Hue and Cry of their purses, without free leave from their own consciences so to do, than (protesting against the iniquity of their desires after the persecution of those, who desire the protection of them from persecution by the civil Power) my most humble suit to the supreme Powers is, that they will be pleased, as to let the priesthood preach as much as they please (a little of which work serves the turns of some of them) and to let such as are satisfied in their Souls and spirits, that they ought to do both, to own and pay them, so▪ to let such as seem to themselves on sufficient grounds to have clear cause to decline them, have the freedom of their consciences to be none of their flocks, and being none of their flocks, a freedom from being forcibly fleeced by them any more; and if the clergy shall he Angry at this without a cause, to let them be pleased without amends, sith 'tis most evident, that as men ought not to be constrained against their wills, to be of Christ's, much less of the clergies flock, so he that feedeth a flock may freely, and not by force, live of the milk of that flock he feeds, and may not of them that are foreigners to his flock, further than they are free to supply him: they went forth freely to preach the Gospel for his name's sake, taking nothing, much less by force, of the Gentiles, that were Ministers to the Church of old, john Ep. 3. v. 7. and many heathenish Parishes here have the Gospel preached freely to them when they accept on it by the messengers, that go forth of the true churches at this day, but many Parish Ministers will make all that live, or have to do within their line, buy their Sermons of them, and that at their own price too, whether they like them or no, and, which is worse, though they have sold them once, it may be often, o'er already (and a dear pennyworth too) yet as oft as they remove to other livings, they carry them away along with them in their papers from the people, that have already bought and paid for them, preach them o'er again, and so sell them for as much more in other places: but I hope the civil power throughout Europe, as well as they do in the tenth part of it already, will take cognizance ere long, that it can be no great ease to truly tender consciences, who with the clergy are ever styled Sectaries and Schismatics, to lie under the lash of these Lords over God's heritage, and in tender consideration thereof, and compassion to those righteous souls, who are vexed with their vanities, proclaim such a jubilee that the true spouse of Christ, whom they made a keeper of their vineyard, shall have leave to keep her own vine yard, & go forth from her Apprenticeship to these spiritual Taskmasters, that their consciences shall be no more yoked, nor captivated to their crude and carnal conceptions, and the wings of the clergy so clipped, that they shall not soar so high, as they have done, over the faith of all people; yea in the name of the blessed, and only Potentate King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, Christ jesus, I warn all the civil Powers, Princes and Potentates of the world, that have been bewitched by the sorceries of that whore, who corrupts the earth with her fornications, that they give up their power and strength no more to be improved to the forcing of the inhabiters of the earth, to drink of the golden cup, and wine of her fornications, but that they improve it rather henceforth to the freeing all men from from her conscience crushing principle of per secution by the civil sword, that submit not to her Sinodical constitutions, and if they refuse to obey the will of the Lord in this thing, and permit not all people to live peaceably in their several forms of worship, they behaving themselves civilly, and in all subjection to them in civil matters in their several States, I testify unto them that then the hand of the Lord will be so heavy upon them, and their priests and people, that he will plague them as c●…rtainly as he did Egypt, Pharaoh and his Magicians till they let his Israel go forth, and serve him as he required.  
Yea (O ye Powers) if ye shall yet persevere to Tyrannise over truth, and trample upon tender consciences, and force all men to that one faith which the men, or rather the woman Rev. 17. the CC●…lergy in their counsels make the standard through you several States, the Lord Christ will tread you and your people in his wrath, and trample you in his fury, and slain all his raiment with your blood, and strengthen your own Subjects against you and your priesthood, IIIezebel, that stirs you up, who●…e lovers you are, with invincible courage, and irresistible wrath against you, to supp●…esse your miserable misgovernment, and cast her into a bed, and you that commit adultery with her, into great tribulation except you repent of your deeds, yea he will endlessly imbrole you in wars one against another, about your false faiths, and Anti-christian Christianity's, and bring plagues upon you, the sword, famine, death, and destruction, that he may repay unto you the things that have been done unto his chosen, and will hold his tongue no longer as touching the wickedness of that kind, which hath been profanely committed, but as innocent and righteous blood crieth unto him, and the souls of the just complain continually; so the Lord will surely avenge them, and receive unto him all the righteous blood from among them 
* 〈◊〉 Es. 15. 5. to the 12. 49. to 57 Rev. 11. 〈◊〉. 6. 19 2.  behold his people hath been led as a flock to the slaughter, but he will not suffer them now to dwell any longer in the land of Egypt, i. e. under the Lordly tyranny of the priesthood, who is that threefold great City BBBabilon, which is also spiritually called Sodom, for her Spiritual whoredoms, and Egypt Rev. 11. 8. the land of Israel's captivity, in the streets, within the territories of which the carcases of Christ's witnesses lie dead, where also our Lord was crucified. 
* for howbeit it was the Roman civil power in Potius Pilate passing sentence, yet it was the Priestly malice that caused him to be crucified, or else Pilate had re leased him: & so its Princely power, but PPPriestly malice crying out crucify him, crucify him, that hath caused himunder the Gospel be crucified in his truth, and Saints, or else many of the civil Powers would release him.   
But he will bring them out with a mighty hand, and a stretched out arm, and will smite EEEgypt with plagues as before, and will destroy all the land thereof; EEEgypt shall mourn, and the foundation of it be smitten with the plague, and punishment that God shall bring upon it: like as they do yet this day unto his chosen, so will he also do, and recompense unto their bosom, and he will make the Princes of the earth to know, that 'tis Christ's right alone to rule over the consciences of the children of men, and that no mere man may sit as a judge there: and thou (O PPPriest) shall know that Christ alone is King in his Church, and in the conscience, and the true Ministers, but mere Ministers, or servants unto both, and not Masters over either, and that the civil state is the element, and the Orb, which the Magistrate only is to move in under him, and that only merely in matters civil, and that thyself, who art a creature not of Gods, but of thy own creating, and hast usurped a supreme jurisdiction, at least a jurisdiction over all these, hast nothing (but naught) to do in any of them at all, and as thou art no plant of the heavenly fathers planting, so shalt assuredly be plucked up by the very roots, from all thy pretences, privileges, provinces, parishes, and other profits and places, in which thy earthly father the Pope hath planted thee: yea thou shalt be weakened as a poor woman with stripes, and as one chastised with wounds, so that the mighty and lovers shall not be able to receive thee: would I with jealousy have so preceded against thee saith the Lord, if thou hadst not always slain my chosen, exalting the stroke of thine hands, and saying over their dead, when thou wast drunken, set forth the beauty of thy countenance? the reward of thy whoredom shall be in thy bosom, therefore shalt thou receive recompense, like as thou hast done unto my chosen (saith the Lord) spoiling and destroying them that fear the Lord, wasting and taking away their goods (tearing them with thy teeth for tithe) and casting them out of their houses, even so shall God do unto thee, and shall deliver thee unto mischief, thou shalt be cast down by them as stubble, and they shall be to thee a fire: look what thou hast they shall spoil it, and mar the beauty of thy face: and the glory of both thou O poor Princely priesthood, and of all those PPPriestly Princes that adhere to thee, shall be dried up, as a flower, when the heat shall arise that is sent over thee.  
Be wise now therefore O ye Kings, be instructed ye that are judges of the earth, see that you serve the Lord with fear in your own persons, according to his own will and way revealed in his word, and know, that howbeit you are the Gods of the earth, to judge all men that are under you, whether in the Church, or of the world, in earthly cases, and matters of mere secular concernment, that you are not the Gods of heaven, that is the Church, so far as to meddle at all (as earthly judges) to correct in those mere heavenly cases: and though the priests persuade you 'tis a piece of acceptable service to God, to let your whole Nations be by law from you compelled to be their Churches, that, as you [civilly] so they [uncivilly] may go hand in hand [Moses & Aron like] & share with you in subjecting violently all souls & yourselves too to their SSSacer dot all suggestion in soul cases, & that you may lawfully punish Heretics into the hearing of them, & banish them into a blind obedience to their directions, yet I am bold in the Lord to assure you, that as you should have little thank from him, should you force men to such a worship as (for the matter of it) is according to Christ's will, against their own, so will he once check you in wrath (if you repent not in time) for forcing all men to worship after the clergies will against Christ's; for as the first is at best but a piece of honest ignorance, so this last is at lest no less than a piece of devilish darknese Rev. 13. 7. 8.  
Harken no more therefore (O ye the Magistrates) as you respect the true good of your Republics, to the clamours of your clergy, when they cry out to you to hunt out Heretics, i. e. such as after the way they call heresy so worship God, where by they run you unavoidably, if you run after them, upon certain ruin, and on the hazard of fight against God, and then woe be you, & of rooting the wheat, his Saints, out of the Field, the world in which it ought to stand, and the tares too even till the harvest, and of infinite cumbrances, inconveniences, and brangles about Church matters, wherein, as Magistrates, you are not so immediately conc●…rned as they dictate to you, who are such a contentious sect of men, both with all others, and each with other about one Church business or other continually, that 'tis impossible (now specially since truth is returning home, which they have so long driven from her own border) but that the nations will be imbrued in their own, and one another's blood, in defence of their fopperies, if you engage as oft as they would egg you to it on their behalves: What animosities have ever been between the Temporalty, and these Lords Spiritual? What quarrels and jars between the Friars of several orders? what whole Country clashes, and consumptions have been made in Germany between the Calvinists and Lutherans? what inveteracy between the clergy of the several FFFormes of Government? which though they can agree all against the true Clergy or heritage of God, yet hate each other unto the death, yea oh the infinite wrang●…gs and little less than devilish dissensions, wherewith as with a sire they have wasted all corners of their CC●…Christendomes, that they have been more like the places of burying dead bodies, then like the houses of Christ's flock, yea they have consumed themselves in their miserable burning, whilst in their holy wars they have called 〈◊〉 ●…everally the civil sword to the ultimate determining of their spiritual controversi●…s, and made carnal weapons the instruments of their church's warfare, as if the best way to co●…vert the nations to Christ, were to convert them to dust and ashes: how have they s●…amed upon occasion of different opinions, so as to tear and rend people to pieces, and engage them, & their princes at swords point for their lusts and wills sake? how have they cast the people from one element to another, one falie way unto another, till they have made whole Countries, Cities, and their own Academies A●…aes, field, of blood, and like foaming and ●…aging waves of the Sea, sh●…ving together for the dictates of that kind of Clergy still that they are the S●…ries of; insomuch that some observant spirits have wished to die, and depart this life among other ends for this, that they might be delivered from the sight of the implacable hatred of Divines: all which thi●…gs also do take off the Magistracy from a tendance to their main business of relieving the oppressed, judging the fatherl●…sse, pleading for th●… wid●…w, and the works of justice, and mercy among their people, which God will have, and no●… sacrifice, and take be●…ter from them, than the improvement of themselves to set up either the P●…pe, the Prelate, or the Pr●…yier, or establish any form of Religion whatsoever by a law.  
On the e●…re that the Powers would consider it (though I fear me m●…st nations in Ch●…e will not till they pay dear for thei●… learning) and leave their people free to cl●…use what God they will serve, and which way they will serve the true God, by suffering all ways to stand before them in the world, and be objected fairly to their trial, then sh●…ll truth be sure to be told them as well as error, and leave them without excuse that shall reject●…: Mean while as to the civil interest 
●…om 13 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉 P●…. 2. 13. Magist●…es are called 〈◊〉 ●…dinance o●… God●… the m●… t●…it o●…●…he thing we 〈◊〉 go●…ern n●… is o●… him, the ordin●…ce of 〈◊〉 to ●…he 〈◊〉 form of governm●… viz. wh●…her it shall be by Kings, Parli●…. etc. and also the paticular persons that shall execu●…e that form is al●…ogether in choice of the people.  of the wh●…e, and each p●…re of heir Commonwea●…s, to see strictly to it that they at●…end conti●…lly on 〈◊〉 very thing, for which they are (when once the ord●…nence of men by their election) the ordinance and ministers of God; and to be ●…red to as both the ordinance of God and man, and that for both conscience s●…ke and the Lords, 
* Act. 18 12 13. 14  that they attend upon the protection of all people from being inj●…d one by ●…er in any cases pertaining to externals, and the maintaining ●…f outwa●… peace, civil●…ty, and good m●…ners in all men to the whole, and to each other by punish●…g ●…vil d●…s of such a nature, and rewarding of such as do well without par●…ality, or respect to any persons or parties, in which cases Regu●… est par●… sub●…is, ●…t de●…llare superbo●…: thus doing they must necessarily maintain true Relig●…n too (so far as they are called (as Magistrates) to maintain it) whilst when all states ●…ave trod it down under pretence of maintaining it, that suppressed all as Schism that suited not with the monarchial minds of the men called clergy, this state sets it up as far as men may, or can set it up, that suffers it to live, and thrive among the false:  
If there be any matter of wrong or wicked lewdness done by any, as well members of the true Church, as any other, reason wills, and therefore no Christians, but clergy man and their creatures, whose way is against reason, 
* ●…e supra p. 279.  will be against it, that such should suffer according to the law in that behalf, whether unto bonds, or unto banishment, or unto confiscation, or unto death without benefit of the Clergy, who have benedicted all benefits to themselves, and not be favoured because members, or because Ministers of such Churches; neither is it fit at any that any persons should be spared, or but so much as favoured in any measure in such a case for their religions sake, though it be the t●…e one, and they of never so high account, and eminent standing in it.  
For howbeit, the men who are commonly, but not properly called Clergy 
* For that name [Clergy] however by themselves improperly impropriated to themselves, as if they only were the [heritage] of God, for that's the plain English of that Anglico-greek word [Clergy] yet in plain truth pertains properly to all Christ's people, and that in contradistinction too from the Ministry, for the spirit speaking of the Elders and Pastors of the Church, charges them not to Lord it over the heritage, i. e. in other locution not to do●…ineer ov●…r the Clergy 1 Pet. 5. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. we see therefore God calls the flock, and not the Shepherds (muchless●… t●…e Sheeps●…ers) by the name of Clergy; but the Pope (as if he had projected purposely to betheeve God's people out of all their privileges, and rights, leaves them not so much as their own proper name to be known by, but bestows the name of [Clergy] upon the Creatures of his own creating, and leaves them the name of Laics in its stead, t●…lling them, when they begin ●…o charge his CC Clergy with impropriation of preaching, and pay to themselves, that they are but a Clergy of Laics, see Featleys' Epistle, but to say the truth excepting some few of his sons of the Episcopal and Presbyterian CClergy (that are come from him two ways, viz. by dissent, and descent) who may be honester, and wiser than the rest (and yet are not so wi●… as to know their own father) the rest are mostly A clergy of Lazicks, or lazy locust●…: In like manner hath he●…ingrost other titles to himself, and his clergy, all which the Scripture gives to all Christ's people, as namely that of Spiritual men, as if all the world were but Natural, at least but Temporal men besides them●…elves, thus the Bishops were called Lords Spiritu●…l, and other Lord●…, Lords Temporal: so th●… of Priests, see the book of Common-prayer, and of ordination of Priests and Deacons, whereas these are titles afforded by the spirit to all the S●…ints of God as well as some. 1 Cor. 2. 15. 1 Pet. 2. 9 Rev. 1. 6. 5. 10, ye●… I call them by t●…se ●…mes, because these are now the most common names, whereby they are known, or ●…lso properly I cannot call them by these, nor by any other names, whereby they commonly call thems●…lves: I cannot call them the Spiritualty, for not one of many of them hath any spiritualness in him: I cannot call them Divines, for they are rather Humans, if they have their due, whilst they te●…ch Gods fear after men's precepts, and for doctrines the Traditions of men: I cannot call them the Tribe of Levi, for Levi though he took tithe according to the Law, whereof he was the Priest, in the loins of Abraham paid Tithes to the person of that high Pri●…st that we are und●…r, viz. Melchizedeck, or the King of Righteousness Christ jesus, but these are so f●…r from paying Tithes to Christ, that they most grievously gripe his people, if they p●…y it not to them: I cannot call them Ministers, i. e. servants of Christ, & of the Church, for they are rather Lords and Masters over his heritage, unless Servus Servorum, and Dominus Dominorum may stand together: I cannot call them Pastors, or Shepherds, till I can own their Parishes for Christ's Sheep, for if we denominate them by the General temper of their people, they profess to stand Pastors too, they seem to be Swinheards rather by their people's wallowing in the mire: I cannot call them Presbyters, or Elders though some of them be Seniores annis, unless they were Saniores Animis than they are, for they are not yet sound, nor Orthodox in either their judgements, doctrine or practice, so long as they are against the truest baptism, and abide unbaptised: I cannot call them Preachers of the Gospel, for they preach down that Gospel, which was at first preached, concerning Christ's dying for the sins of the whole world▪ I cannot call them B●…shops or Overseers of Christ's flock in the spirits sense i. e. in respect of their care to take heed to, or feed it, but Overseers in another sense rather I may properly style them, for verily Christ's flock is so little and low, poor and plain, mean and base, hated and despised, and themselves so lofty and high minded, that as not many noble, and mighty, so few or none of these wise men after the flesh can stoop or look so low as it is, and so (for the most part) they oversee it: and lastly if those be the true Clergy and Priests of God, that are obedient to his word, (as the Scripture says they are) the clergy need not find fault (as they do) with the Mar-priests of these times, for in very deed the clergy, priests, and Presbyters have been the truest Priest-biters, Claw-clergies, and Mar-Priests themselves. , but specially the Clergy immediately under the Pope's supremacy, were privileged so far, as to stand exempted from the reach of the civil law, and to save themselves the trouble of being hanged, when they had deserved it as much as other men, by a business called the benefit of the Clergy, i. e. the immunity of the Clergy from the civil law, 
* Rem enim ndig nam esse putent etc. saith Calvin Inst. li. 4. c. 11. 5. 15. they deem it a disparagement that they should be made to answer in their own personal causes before any civil Magistrate, and suppose both the liberty and dignity of the Church i e. the Clergy, to lie in an exemption from the common seats of judicature, and their laws: but the Bishops of old, who were otherwise strict enough in pleading the privileges of the Church, did judge it no disgrace either to themselves or their function to subject themselves to civil powers.  some relics of which benefit the Clergy once had, and still hath in some places, seem to me to remain in our civil Courts, wherein we see in some capital crimes, the malefactor, si legate ut Clericus, if he can, but read like a Clerk or Clergy man 
* whose work 〈◊〉 mostly in reading service in old time, till the Gospel came again to be preached in these latter days. , he escapes execution, when else he should have died without remedy, which favour is also called the benefit of the Clergy, yet we desire that no manner of men may have exemption from the course of civil Justice, yea if we whom they call Anabaptists do any thing at any time worldly of death by the civil law rightly regulated we refuse not to die: but as we desire that others should, so are we willing ourselves in civil matters to stand at Caesar's i. e. the civil Magistrates judgement seat where we ought to be judged in such cases: and thus did Paul, when accused by the Priests as a Pestilent fellow, and a mover of sedition merely for preaching the Gospel: To the Jews, saith he, have I done no wrong, nor yet against Caesar have I offended etc. therefore no man may deliver me to them, I appeal unto Caesar Act. 24. 5. 12. 13 14. 20. 25 8. 11. where we see that in case of civil injury charged upon him as committed by him he appeals to C●…sar to judge, though Cesar was a heathen, and he a Christian, and not of Caesar's Religion, which he had been a mad man in doing, had the question been simply about the right Religion, yea when any question a aro●…e in the Church about Religion, as in the point of circumcision Act. 15. the Apostles, Elders and brethren considered of it among themselves, consulting the mind of the spirit in the word, and had they not agreed it, they would not have referred it, nor, had any not conformed to their determination in that point, would they have complained of them to C●…sar: and as Paul would not stand at Caesar's judgement seat in Religious, as he desired to do in civil, so Caesar's Deputies would not meddle at all, as Magistrates, in Religious cases: for when the Jews set Paul before the judgement seat of Gallio deputy of A●…haia, and complained saying, This fellow persuadeth men to worship God contrary to the law, Gallio said, if it were a matter of wrong, or wicked loudness; O ye jews, reason would that I should bear with you, but if it be a question of words, and names, & of your law, look ye to it, for I will be a jud●…e of no such matters, and he drove them from the judgement seat, as who should say, we are set to keep civil peace and right among you, but not at all to determine you in your worships: Oh therefore that the Magistracy would consider it that they are set not to force men to submit all to one worship, nor yet sorcibly to suppress either Heresy or truth, but to prevent tumultuoulness about either.  
If Demetrius, and the craftsmen of like occupation who make shrines for Diana have a matter of wrong against any, let the civil law be open, and let them plead each other there; but if the enquiry be concerning other matters (as namely setting at nought their craft, profaning the Temples of their Goddess and destroying their false worships by plain preaching of truth, what's Heredox, what Orthodox in worship, etc.) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let that be determined in a lawful Assembly, i. e. as the word is in the Greek insome lawful 
* Act. 19 24. to 39  Church, congregation, or select meeting for that purpose.  
Last of all though the Lord prohibit the standing of Idolators etc. in the Church 2 Cor. 6. Rev. 2. yet he himself, who could presently root them out, if 'twere his mind, permits not only true, but also falseworshippers, Heretics &c. to have a being in the world, and therefore me thinks God's Vicegerent should not be against it: It is according to the will of God himself permitting, not approving them, that heresies do arise, but its according to his good will approving, and in his word appointing that they shall stand in the world, when risen, further than they can be annihilated by the word.  
And as the Scripture shows how far he himself tolerates them, so the Divines themselves (as shy as they are of having them tolerated) do Give these good Reasons of Gods suffering of Heretics. 1 For the discovering of the sound, that Gold and Silver may be known from hay and stubule, that by the Devil's sitting of us the good corn may be discerned from cha●…: it is the Apostles Reason 1 Cor. 11. 19 that they which are approved may be known, for who they are that, with the weapons of the Church's warfare, are valiant for the truth, indurers of hardship as good Soldiers of Christ &c. would not appear, if there were no Heretics, False worshippers, Antichristians, Truth treaders etc. to try them; true love to Christ's truth can never be seen, if never tried, nor tried if truth never opposed, hated, hunted, and that to death too sometimes, by the fierce wrath, and cruel malice of its enemies.  
2. That truth may be discussed and fetched out as fire from the concussions of flint and steel. Truth had not been fetched half so far out of the dark, nor from under that Popish Smother of traditions at this time, as it is, had not the C C Clergy so hotly hunted it, and so fiercely clashed against all that came out to clear it. If there had not been an Heretical C C Clergy crying out Heresy against all truth, the world had never heard so much of it in these latter days as now it hath; and I verily persuade myself, that as the day breaks and the shadows fly away, the way of truth in the hearts of the Just, and in the eyes of the of the world (by how much the clergy calls Heresy upon it) shall shine more, and more still to the perfect day, 
* who saw some truth in their days, wherein 'twas twilight, but not all that is nowtobe seen, for though I reverence the men (as I do every man, that sees truth as far as i●… shines clearly in his time) yet Luther left much truth unseen to himself, be hind him, and some of calvin's Institutions too are none of Christ's.  if Luther and Calvin had not been, and that so fiercely, slung at by Popish Priests because they preached against indulgencies, and selling pardons for money, and against the Lordlines of the Popish Hirrachy, they had not heard so much against them, but that they might have sold more pardons, than they have done since: and the 2 latter litters of Spiritual lords (that qua clergy) came out of the Pope's ●…oins, the two P Priesthoods of the Protestant party might have lorded it longer like their father (who will never be dead as long as they are alive) had they not been as iron and steel against truth, and true worshippers whom God makes as hard as slint against their faces, that by their concussions against it, he may the more fully fetch it forth, the oppositions, and imprisonments, which Paul met with from the adverse party, whereby they intended to smother it in his days fell out rather to the furtherance of the Gospel; for it came to be the more manifest in all places by means of errors so earnest appearance against it 1 Phil. 12. to 19  
Thus truth hath gained ground not a little in these latter days by the ominous onsets wherewith falsehood fights it, and would fain fright and force it to hide its head: and wisdom works out itself not a little to light, by follies flying so furiously at the face of it.  
3. That the truth might be better loved, and more price set upon it, we prise light the more by our knowledge of darkness, health by our sense of sickness, error is a foil to a Diamond, truth looks more lovely being compared with it. The lily looks most lovely and beautiful, when it stands among black thorns 2 Cant. 2. the stars, though ever obvious to us would never shine if there were no night, contraria juxta se posita maxime elu●…scant, contraries set together discover each other more lively in their several loathsome or lovely forms: the light of the Sun shows brightest, seems sweetest when it breaks from under a dark cloud, so does the Sun of righteousness now arising appear the more lovely, by how much it hath been hid from the earth now of long time by that dismal darkness, and smoke of Heresies, erroneous false worships, and foolish figments with which the clergy hath filled all parishes throughout CCChristendome.  
4, For the punishment of hypocrites, nominal Christians, curious Minds, such as have itching ears, and heap unto themselves teachers, straggling sheep fall into the wolves clutches, such as will not keep the steps of the flock, but go after the flocks of the Companions ever fall into most dangers of seducement, all which is most plain by too woeful experience in all Nations of CCChristendome, for while Christianity, and the Gospel was professed sincerely, as it was (saving some remote beginnings of men's traditions to take place against the commands of Christ) in the first three hundred years, wherein 'twas evidenced by the ten bloody persecutions that Christians served Christ for love then, and not for loaves nor for lives sake neither, for they loved not their lives unto the death, there were not half so many Heretics, or Heresies as have been since: but when once after Constantine, Christianity coming into credit, and being not only owned by the Emperors themselves, but established by their edicts in all things according to the pattern showed them in the word, not of Christ, but of the Catholic Clergy convened in Counsels, as the Religion sub paena to be submitted to, men turned Christians upon such sleight grounds, and were born to that Name of Christianity without the Nature, no otherwise then of the will of man, and were no more than nomine tenus professors of it, the Lord in his just and 〈◊〉 judgement to these nominal Christians, permitted those Spiritual plagues, that we ●…e Rev. 8. Rev. 9 seconded the sounding of the trumpets, to fall thick and three fold upon the world: suffered the Clergy to fall to contentions, jars and janglings about their ambitious interests, viz. primacy and universality &c and to Apostatise more and more from the plain primitive truth, and to degenerate be degrees into darkness till they came at last to be totally blinded in things of God, and blind leaders of the blind Princes and people, that implicitly g●…ve up themselves to be guided by them, that both might drop together into the ditch: yea he suffered that great star the Bishop of Rome, that sometime shone very bright, to fall as wormwood upon the third part of the waters, the pure doctrine of the Gospel, i. e. to foist in his heresies to the poisoning and embittering of the doctrine, so that many died, even all that drank thereof, because it was bitter and unwholesome: and he suffered the third part of the Sun and Moon and Stars, all the means and ways of Christ's own institution and appointment to give light unto men by, to be smitten, and darkened corrupted, covered with false glosses, depraved with heaps of heresies, and traditions etc. crept in and authorized by the Pope and his Ecclesiastical D●…ctors, so that what with the damnable and horribly devilish heresies by means of Mahomet and his Alcoran infecting the Oriental Christians through all Asia, and these Papistical errors of those Arch-heretics, the Pope and clergy, and 
* For verily these Stars for their light of learning (as Dr. Featley confesses p. 165. 166.) have been the Authors, devisers and broachers of Heresies; yea peruse (saith he) if thou please all the ancient Heresies listed by Epiphanius, Austin, Philastrius, Alphonsus a castro, Ambrose de Rusconibus, and others, and therein thou shall find the Ring-seaders great Clerks, and acute Sophisters, whence is that true observation of Tertullian, Philosophi Hereticorum Patriarchae, Philosophers have been the great Grandfathers of Heretics.  Scholastic Rabbis, who with vain deceit seduced the Occidental part of the world, from the simplicity that is in Christ, the day shone not for a third part of it, & the might likewise i. e. the third part of that pure and precious truth of Christ which shined in the primitive Churches, was now exclipsed, and extinguished, neither had men by the third part so much, of that clear light of Christ's Gospel that they were wont to have in former days yea further in way of plague and punishment to hypocrites and mere nominal Christians, the Lord at last suffered that star, which fell before, or angel of the Church of Rome, when he was fallen from all his heavenliness, and love of truth, to earthliness and love of money, and honour from beneath, to open the bottomless pit, i. e. the way to the very depth of hellish darkness, and to raise up a smoke or thick fog of errors and heresies lies, & traditions, which as the smoke of some great furnace darkened the sun and air, i. e. totally put out the light of Scripture, and pure administrations, which were but 〈◊〉 part eclipsed before, so that now nothing could be seen, (as it were) but Popish legends, and such stuff, by the advantage of which smother the Locu●…s came out i. e. the Clergy that swarmed all over the earth, in every parish one at least stinging, hurting, wounding to eternal death by their poisonous doctrines; propounded under pretence of the word of Christ, all persons, save such as have the seal of God in their foreheads, even a few witnesses to the truth, that withstood their doctrines, which locusts are said to be scorpions i e. carrying a fair face, but stings in their tails, and to have crowns because of their great power, for under their great King Apollyon they rule all, and reign o'er the Kings of the earth: These are they 
* Nahum 3. thy crowned are as the locusts O King of Assyria, Apollyon in the Antitype.  that outwardly wear the sheep's clothing, i. e. cloth themselves with the denominations of Clergy, God's heritage, Spiritual men, Priests, men of God, which are the true titles of the sheep, but inwardly are ravening wolves, into whose clutches the straggling sheep that would not keep the steps of the flock of Christ, but turned aside after the flocks of the companions, going at a venture which way the most went, for companies sake right or wrong, did fall, and by whose Heretical principles men are in danger of perishing for ever.  
Thus when the world would be nominally, yet not really Christians, obeying the pure word of Christ, would not endure sound doctrine, but, having itching ears, that loved to be tickled not grated upon, grew weary of the plains of the Gospel, saying to the Seers see not, and to the Prophets prophesy not, prophesy not unto us right things, speak unto us smooth things, prophecy deceits, get ye out of the way, turn aside out of the path, cause the holy one of Israel to cease from before 〈◊〉, despising his word, and rufusing to hear the Law of the Lord as they of old. Isa. 30. then the Lord gave them their own hearts lusts, and sent leans withal into their souls, granted them heaps upon heaps of such Cater-pillars as should dwell at their own doors, and devoute their souls, and delude them with Heresy and false divinations, and as their pay for so doing should devour also the tenth of their labours, ●…ay the sixth in all parishes through the Nations; he removed the candlestick out of his place, and because they walked not in the light thereof whilst they had it, let darkness come upon them, he gave them Priests that should teach for hire, and Prophets that should divine for money, and say is not the Lord among us? none evil can come upon us, Mic. 2. 11. he gave them like people like Priest, a people not willing to be taught, and a Priesthood not able to teach, he removed their truth-teachers into a corner, so that their eyes should see no more such teachers, nor their ears hear any voice behind them, saying this is the way walk in it, and so opened the flood gates for all manner of horrible Heresies to flow in upon them, he poured upon them the spirit of deep sleep, and closed their eyes, the Prophets, their Rulers, their Seers he covered, so that the vision of all, became unto them as the words of a book sealed, which if delivered to their learned men saying read this I pray, they cannot for it is sealed, if to their ignorant people, saying read this, they cannot, for they are not learned, 'tis for their Orthodox Divines, and not for them to read and expound the Scripture, for as much as the people drew near to God with their mouth, and with their lips did honour him, with Gloria Patries &c bu●… removed their hearts far from him, and would have their fear towards him taught by the precepts of men, therefore the Lord proceeded to do a marvellous work in all Christ'ndome, yea a marvellous work, a wonder, for the wisdom of their wise men perished, and the understanding of their prudent men was hid, and the Lord left them to do their works in the dark, and to turn all things upside down, and to put a bridle upon the jaws of the people, and ride them from jerusalem unto Babylon, even to all manner of Heresy, blindness, and confusion for ages and generations together.  
Lastly to provoke the Pastors to diligence, and watchfulness, to prove them whether they be hirelings, or not, such as will fly when the wolf comes, or lay down their lives for the sheep: therefore the Apostle Paul speaking specially of that very time wherein the insolency, and obstinacy of Heretics, and Schismatics should increase to such a height as not to endure sound doctrine, but rather to turn from the truth, and turn to fables, and heap false teachers to themselves to tickle them up in their lusts, preach down, and act no patience, but rather persecution toward those that preach up the truth, in consideration thereof, charges Timothy to whom he left the oversight of the Church at Ephesus, in order to the making full proof of his ministry, to stand to it then with so much the more diligence, to preach the word, and be instant in season, and out of season, to reprove, rebuke and exhort with all long suffering and doctrine, to watch in all things, endure the afflictions that should befall him from the hands of wolv●…sh spirited men: 2 Tim. 4, 1. ad 8.  
And indeed this is that which should move the Pastors of the several congregations of Christ, and such whom the holy spirit hath made Overseers of that little flock of his in these days, to take good heed both to themselves, and all that flock; for throw the negligence of the Pastors turning Heretics, yea wolves themselves in former days, the sheep have been most miserably misled, and ruled over with force and cruelty; and this will be a proof of their love to Christ above their lives, if they shall give all diligence to the feeding of the sheep, and lambs of Christ, not flying for fear of men from that worthy work, not forbearing, nor shunning to deliver unto them the whole council of God at this day, though there be so many clergy men to croak against them for it: And here let it be well noted, that whether here, or wherever throughout this discourse, I dilate on the duty of the Pastors, and put them on to performance of it, I mean the Pastors of the Churches, which are commonly called Anabaptists, which are among the Nations as sheep among wolves, as the lily among thorns, rend and torn for their Testimony to the Truth, and not YYYou the P P Priesthood, Y Y You the P P Pastoralty of the Parishes, for verily he is blind that beholds you not to be no Pastors, but rather H●…relings, yea Wolves, Persecutors than Pastors of the sheep of Christ, yea even you Presbyterian Pastoralty as well as others.  
Indeed you have the boldness to style yourselves the Ministers of Christ, but you are wrapped up in a cloud of confusion and contradiction about the proof of your Pedigree as from him; yea when its closely quaeried whence you came (I mean as to your ministerial function, and capacity) seeing you cannot derive your ordination by a lineal 
* Of which chain of succession of Ministry, if but one link fail, or chance to be lost, so that it meets with interruption, you confess, all your Ministry lies on the ground too, and cannot at any hand be counted valid or raised again: and yet if there was not a breach of that line in the link of Pope Joan (aliâs Gilberta an English woman born at Lin, who was both literally and mystically the Whore of Rome, and therefore far (I wot) from being a true Presbyter, or Minister of Christ's Church, in which women are forbid to usurp authority) than my understanding fails me not a little.  succession from the Apostles otherwise, some of you (and I judge the most) do not deny, but that remotely you receive your orders from the Pope, who (as you say) not as Pope, but as Presbyier, ordained those Bishops which, not as Bishops, but as Presbyters ordained you Presbyters (though 'twill prove but Pri●…sts when all is done, if the Ancients among you consult the common-prayer book, and form of your ordination) a pretty series for the Ministers of Christ to descend in: why Sirs are you not ashamed of this to cry out against the Pope as Antichrist, and Rome as an Apostate strump●…t, and yet to hold all you have as a Ministry from, and through these, and that too since they Apostatised from the truth? shall we think that all Christ's ministers descend lineally from the loins of Antichrist? ye are witnesses then against yourselves that your Grandfather is the Pope, and so that you descended one, and the same way with those locusts, even popish Priests, Jesuits, Monks, and Friars and that you are no better born, as to your being men in holy orders, than the veriest Scoundrel among them, that depends together with you upon that Hierarchy: Mr. Rutherford says Diotrephes i. e. the Pope is the native Father of the Bishops, and therefore he must be at least the Grandfather of you Presbyters.  
Yet some of you are so ashamed to have it said that, as Ministers of Christ, you receive your orders, and standing, as such, from Antichrist, that you profess not to act in your ordinations to, and executions of the ministerial function as from Gregory the Great, 
* Who by Austin the Monk dispatched an Ordination hither (with resolution about infants viz. that in case of necessity they might be baptised) by which ordination men have ever since been authorized to ordain here and such as have been ordained to baptise.  but to renounce that, and to ordain now not as Presbyters that were in orders from such as were in orders from the Pope, but rather as persons deputed so to do by the ordinances of Parliament, extant to that purpose, and by the power, and appointment of the Civil Magistrate, who (say you) is he that only hath power to raise all again since the treading down in matter of both Ministry and Ordinances, and may as well do it with his own hands, if he please, as appoint you to do it, making him the chief officer that Christ hath set in his Church, to redress all that's amiss in it: such a Mish-mash as this was once more largely uttered by Mr. Glenden in a discourse at Swevenock in order to the proving the Ministry of the Church of England to be a true Ministry: But if the Magistrate were any Church officer (as at all he is not 
* For the civil Magistracy may reside in women (as is also showed above) who though by Pope joanes' example they may yet by Paul's rule they may not usurp authority in the Church. ) so as that men, that have their orders from his ordinances (as it seems the Junior Sophisters of this age have) are (as to the outward call or ordination) true Ministers of Christ, yet that makes nothing to the proving of you to be so, that stand Ministers of the old stamp, from the hands of the old Lord Bishops: besides some, yea it may be the most of you that hold your present authority to ordain from the Parliament, scarce held the Parliament while, it stood, 
* For now that's put down also, as to the present session, as every power will be, and that suddenly and with shame, that puts down others for tyranny, covetousness, unrighteousness, self settlement in greatness, and delay of justice to poor people that cry for it in these latter days, and yet succeeds them in the same sins, and in such security as to say, 
Populus me sibilet, at mihi plaudo  
Ipsa domi simulac nummos contempler in Arca.   of any authority at all since the last new modelling of it, so discontented were you that your Northern model was in no more request: yea though you held it such a lawful, and sufficient power, when they made an ordinance for tithe and Treble damages, that you held yourselves bound in conscience to God, or rather your own good, to obey it, and improved you selves to the utmost to see it executed on conscientious delinquents against it, yet when ordinances for double service came, as solemn fasts (witness that of jun. 13. 1652.) so strictly enjoined to be observed by the Ministers of every parish, how many of you drew your necks out of the collar, as not owning the then Parliament to be a power, that you might lawfully submit to: thus an ordinance that is charged topful of benefice you durst venture to let off, but when one came that had nothing but bare office in the mouth of it, than they, by whose orders you pretended to stand in both benefice and office, might give order to discharge it twice, before you would once discharge it.  
And as your mere Mongrel Caesarean; Magistratical, Pope-episcopall kind of Ordination, together with that unworthy un Pastorlike forcible Obtrusion of yourselves as Pastors on people without their free election; so your Popelike practices and unministerly management of yourselves in all other particulars, doth proclaim you plainly to be no true Ministers of Christ's Gospel, nor true Pastors of the flock, but rather to be Wolves, Thiefs, Robbers, Hirelings that come not in by the door Jesus Christ, but climb into the folds some otherways, to wit the recommendation of great men and sometimes buying the gift of the spirit i e. a spiritual living, yet modestly saying No thrice as the Bishops when they had given a thousand pound for the place, and improvement of your interest in your Patrons, and do come into spoil, steal, destroy and serve your own selves of them as well as you can, while you are with them, and so away again to make a prey of some other parishes, for verily if you can spy out any flocks that have better fleeces than other (leaving those you lived with before to shift for themselves) without their leave, & with the leave of such as pretend to the power of presentment, you'll be their Pastors whether they will or no: but if any of you be chosen for their churchmen by a poor people that want a great Benefice for their Cure, they must for you want the Benefit of a Curate.  
Yea what maintenance is in this or that vacant parish, which you are harping after, is one of the main Questions thats about it: yea Ye minister for maintenance, ye teach for reward, ye preach for hire, ye divine for money, ye turn the Gosspel into a mere trade, to the learning of which you put men out as Apprentices about some seven years to the universities, and then allow them (as free men thereof) to set up for themselves and get as good livings by it as they can: where you may be sure of sufficient wages, you will tell men a little of the truth, and truly 'tis not much of it that you know, but you care not how little you preach of that little you have to preach, where you can hope to have but little pay for your pains.  
woe to ye O ye National priesthood, 'tis too too eviden that you are not the Shepherds of the sheep, yea you are the idol-shepheards, that leave the flock to provide for yourselves, not regarding their welfare, when by slincking away from them you can provide but a little better for your own: you are (except is excipiendis) saving some few hundreds among many thousands, Hirelings ' that flee to prefer, better, secure, advance, or advantage yourselves, because you are Hirelings, and care not for the sheep: you are Pastore that are become brutish, you have not sought the Lord, but yourselves for the most part, therefore shall ye not prosper, but your sheep shall be scattered away from you jer. 10. yea verily you drive them from you daily more and more, not only by many pieces of your dry divinity but specially with your terrible doctrine of treble damages, in which you drive so furiouslly upon them, that you drive them both out of your doors, and their own also: you have an evil eye of covetousness, and greediness upon the tenth of every man's substance, and therefore you lose no time, while the law of man favours you in it, though not the man Christ Jesus, and spare no pains, but take, scrape, strive, streign, ride, run, rake, wrangle, weary out yourselves and neighbours, and all Courts and Committees, in City and Country to have something out of every thing, for doing worse than nothing, till you not only trebbly endamage, but totally undo many poor men's wives and children's bodies, and your own souls too (except ye repent, little considering that an inheritance gotten hastily in the beginning, shall not be blessed in the end; you devour widows houses, and for a pretence make long prayers, and therefore will receive greater damnation; you tithe 
* I mean take tith, for you pay none,  mint and rue, and all manner of herbs, corn 
* of which you have the fifth not the tenth, if the husbandman's charges be all considered. , lamb, wool, milk, eggs, calves, pigs, apples, pears, plums, flax, hay, hens, hops, hemp, wood, houses, cum mult is aliis, quae nunc praescribere longum est, either in kind, or pecunialiter, but you pass over judgement, mercy, faith, and the weighty matters of Christ's law▪ you eat the fat, and cloth yourselves with the wool, and kill them that are fed, but you feed not the flock; you even flay the very flesh from men's bones, for your un-dues, and that such men too sometimes, whom yourselves are, so far from teaching, that you have need to learn of them, which be the first principles of the oracles of God: you feed your people with words, but not with the word: you strengthen not the diseased, but strengthen them in their diseases; you strengthen the hands of the wicked, that they do not return from their wickedness, and discourage the hearts of the righteous: you run from place to place, parish to parish, parsonage to parsonage, pretending you have Christ's call from this to that, when the loadstone that leads you is the love of lucre: and when you are about to leave one living for the love of another, you often dance a while between both, serving them by turns, by the halves, till the half year be expired, that you may have your half years hire from both places, and when you take your leave of the flock, which you fleeced before, than what a deal of do there is to part, and such scrape sometimes, as if it went to the hearts of you, that you must forsake them; then there is farewell speeches, farewell Sermons, farewell all at once, once for all, the Lord be with you, and such like; but the devil may take them all, and be their minister if he will for you, if you can but get Christ's call to a bigger living, or some more emolumentall employment:  
And howbeit, you parish PPPastors can give yourselves a dispensation from Christ to run away (for selves sake) when you please from your flocks, yet if any of your flocks run away from you (for Christ's sake) to other Pastors, many of you take o●… heavily at this, saying 'tis a most miserable thing, that when you have converted them, and been a means of opening their eyes 
* If you were not blind yourselves, you would gather thus much from that, viz. that while men are blind they sat under your ministry, but when once they begin clearly to see, they can see no ground to sit under you any longer. , they should presently run away from your ministry: you may separate yourselves it seems without sin from them, for more tithe, but if they separate themselves from you for more Truth, this is such a high piece of Schism, and iniquity in the Church, as deserves to be sharply censured by the State, at least if they abide not in all conformity to the cry of your wide mouthed coffers? which if they do there's so much the more content: yea let them run to what Pastors they will, so they still stand Paymasters to you, for what said one even what many more of you proclaim is in your minds, by your mindlesseness of ministering to men in spiritual things, any farther than they minister to you in carnal viz let them run to the devil if they will quoth he) (for so you judge they do when they run from you to God) so they will but pay us our tithes. How justly may even England say as Isaiah said of Israel of old Isa. 56. 10. 11. 12. his watchmen are all blind, they are dumb dogs that cannot bark, (but bite they can bitterly if men put no into their mouths) sleeping, lying down, loving to slumber, greedy dogs that never have enough, all looking to their own way; every one to his gain from his quarter:  
And as you can shift and flee from flock to flock, and stand in several livings one after another, & some of you in two or three togetherin the same creeds, catechisms, forms of worship, Government etc. for your own earthly ends, and emoluments, so can you stand under several postures, practices, creeds, catechisms, forms of worship, government in the same livings rather than lose them, when time and tide turns so strongly upon you, as to turn you out of your places, if you turn not with it.  
Yea verily you are the most subtle, shifting, sinful, shameful, shuffling, self Saviour's (some few still excepted, for those that know their innocency in this, I speak not of them, but if any men's consciences tell them, I speak of them, I speak of them indeed) from suffering joyfully the spoiling of your goods, turning out of your houses, in the troublous turns of times, for your professed conscience scruples, that are to be found throughout the earth: hence it is that you are generally quiet under the absence of that which you strictly pleaded for as truth, while it stood, and under the establishment of that which you styled, and stickled against as error, till it was set up, when the remove was made by the hand of that authority, that was like to remove you out of your places if you sided not with it: you suspend the removal of known corruptions, and practise of known truths many times, unless the whole state will move all in a body with you, and unless all men may be made to march your way by Canons, Ordinaces and Acts, yea one order for this or that from the Rulers hath often given you a more clear sight of some things you seemed not to see before in an hour, then bare reason would have done in a year: from your Masters to you, as well as to your servants from you stat pro ratione voluntas.  
Hence it is that the same persons could ever serve the nations in the office of Priesthood under powers never so different, never so contradictory one to other in principles, postures, practices, government, discipline, liturgies, forms, Creeds, Catechisms, when there was no other remedy, though till the sword decided it there was nothing, but deadly implacability, irreconcileablenesse to each others ways, maugre all that the word could do among you: witness the case of Common prayer, which many of you saw to be a corruption, yet kept to it while 'twas dangerous to decline it, and till Authority took it away; what Authority had to do to take it away by force from them, whose conscience, being blinded, persuaded them they ought to use it, I leave to authority to examine, yet sure I am that Authority hath no Authority from God, if it be a corruption, to excuse, empower or authorise any one to practise it without sin, for so much as but an hour; and many of you, that could not see it to be any corruption at all, but rather such a thing as would pluck up all Religion by the roots, till such time as Authority did remove i●… u●…der that name, on pain of five and ten pounds' forfeiture to them that used it, did then see it a corruption, and embraced the Directory in its stead, and did not sleep, as before, but were changed in a moment; yea we cannot be ignorant (for who so blind as they that cannot see what they cannot but see) of the Protaean practices of you Priesthood, who since the new moulding of things here in E●…gland from the depth of Popish darkness, have been the most self preserving sect as is to be seen this day in the world, keeping together Catervatim in covents, Counsels, Classes, and as trooping, so trumpeting together for the most part in one tone according to the tempers of the Princes in whose times you happened to be trained up, or have a being in, against all that as Heresy which you saw the Higher Powers, or general Assemblies of the Kirk directing, and State correcting, would have so, and (saving some few still among as well the Popish, as Prelatic, and Presbyterian Priests (for its a hard case, if there be never a conscientious Priest at Rome) that would say otherwise then you all said) saying and unsaying, seeing and unseeing, turning and returning changing and unchanging. singing a new song, and unsinging it again, agreeing to speak with one mouth like the Prophets that Prophesied before Ahab 1 Kin. 22. 13. who all, save one Micaiah, said but one thing, and nothing still but good, good to please the King: so that whereas of old it was throughout all Christendom like Priest, like Prince, like People (the heart of all Kingly power being hammered to the will of the Whore, with whom it was enamoured, Ahab being not a little overwived by jezebel that stole the breeches from him while he lay in bed with her, and ran a whoring after her from the Lord) so now since the civil Powers in these parts are resolved to be suprem, and to be no more such underlings, as to crouch any further than Consultatiuè about religion to any of the three parts of the Triple Crown, you the Priesthood seeing all your Pomp depend upon your obedience to the Sic volo, Sic jubeo of King Henry and his Successors, it hath been here like Prince, like Priest, like People; me thinks I here you say, O ye time-serving, Prince Pleasing Priesthood, Tempora mutantur & nos mutamur in illis; let us have our fees, the fleece, and let the flock feed how they will. 
Kings, Popes, or People, which ere Supreme do sit,  
May let Religion be as you think fit:   
We cannot but be aware, unless we will wink, how the body of you the Priesthood have, for livings sake, like reeds in the tide leaned this way and that way, even which way soever the waters have turned, and stood under K. Henry Papists, under K. Edward Protestants, under Q. Marry Papists, under Q. Elizabeth, and K. james Protestants, and though you were ever eager for that form of Government and Worship still that was in present being, pleading the truth of it, as if you would have lost your lives rather than left it, crying out that Religion itself was taken away if that were not continued, as of old for Mass, and Pope's supremacy, and more lately for Common prayer and Episcopacy, and more lately yet for a Synodian Supremacy, and Scottish Directory, yet like children crying for the loss of some Gaudy Hornbook, or Gilded primer, a new Book, a new Psalter and Festraw, a New Testament or Will of the State straight stops your mouths, so that any form else, if it be an indifferent Independency may serve the turn, specially when you judge it may cost you a whipping, if you grumble and conform not.  
Thus whilst truly tender spirits like a few harmless flies are catcht in the Cobwebs of men's laws about Religion, the Spider creeps clear over all, and lives it out under Papacy, Prelacy, Piesbytery, under commands of King, Parliament, and Army, under the impositions of Mass, Liturgy, Directory, and should a law be made (as I desire of the powers there never may) for conformity to the true form indeed, may as well (for aught I know) begin again with the Baptists in the principles or A B C of Christ's doctrine Heb. 6. 1, 2. and primitive practice.  
You profess (you Protestant Priests) to be Reformers in these times, and places, and bringers back of God's people from Babylon to Zion, but verily you hold them back from Returning so fast, and so far homeward to the truth, as some do, & more would do, were it not for you, who rather rap them in, then help them on that run faster, than your coveteotis turns can afford them to do in this work of reforming bythe word, yea you are the greatest hinderers and retarders that are, of that perfect reformation of all things according to the plain pattern of the word, which yet upon several occasions since Protestanism came up you have protested for yourselves, and also pressed, not to say (what in you lies) forced, all people to protest for with you.  
How is it else that men, when they pass but a little from you Watchmen, find him who their souls love, and being first a shamed of your, and their abominations, while by implicit faith they dwelled under the shadow of your Ministry, see the form, and fashion, the comings in and goings out, and even all the ordinances and the laws of Christ's house, and keep and do them in some measure, and not tarrying for man, Mic. 5. 7. nor waiting for the Sons of men, are, if not fully reform, yet daily reforming according to their covenant, viz. the word of God and example of the best reformed Churches, viz. judaea, Rome in her first and true glory, Corinth, Galatia, Ephesus, Plilippi, Colosse, Thessalonica etc.  
Yet you, even you Watchmen are blind, and found beating; and abusing the spouse, for her inquiries, and sit like a company of Black Ravens or Rooks in a mist, gaping after what way the whole body will take their flight, before any Individual, though never so clear in discovery of the right, dare once move from his standing before his fellows: you wait one upon another Sperantes omnes in singulis, singuli in omnibus for light but behold obsurity, for brightness but you walk in darkness.  
You groap for the way like the blind, like them that have no eyes, call out help King, help Houses, help Counsels, help Neighbour Nations, help Brethren of Scotland, from all which because they are men, and not God, flesh, and not spirit, there comes no help at all, save help to God's people against you, and such help too, that he that helpeth you shall fall, and you that are holpen shall fall down, and you shall all fall together and none deliver. You are sworn as well as we in the sight of both God and men to reform according to the word, and that word is nigh enough, even in your mother tongue, bibles, hearts and mouths, viz. the word of faith which we preach:  
Neither is it far off you unless your shutting your eyes against it, and putting it away from you, hath engaged the Lord to shut up your eyes, and put it f●…rther, so that because seeing you would not see, thereupon seeing you shall not: You have also promise enough from Christ to know his will in his word if you look to him only and to it:  
Yet you say, who shall go up to heaven to bring Christ down to us again? who shall descend into the deep tobringChrist to us from the dead? who shall go beyond the Sea for us, viz. Holland, Germany, etc. and bring the word unto us, that we may hear it and do it? who shall go into Scotland and brings us a directory and platform of government from them? You swear to reform after the example of the best reformed Churches, but you mean of Europe, not of Asia sure, not the congregations you read of in the word, but the Nations you dote on in the world viz. Scotland, Holland, Denmark, Swethland, Germany etc. which all qua Nations (excepting such in them as truly fear God and worship him answerably to his will) are together with this, till they be converted to the faith by the spiritual and the civil sword, and then (not in nonage) baptised (not sprinkled) in ●…he name of Christ, with confession, and for remission of sins, and then walk in free (not forced) fellowship in breaking bread and prayers, are as far in sano sensu from the denomination of true Churches, and have as much need of reforming, as ourselves. Indeed you talk of Church, of Orthodoxnesses and reformation, as the thing much desired, making them the Heretics and Schismatics that side not with you: see Baxt. p. 151. We prayed for reformation, and the progressr of the Gospel, we fasted and mourned, and cried to God, we waited and long●…d for it more than for any worldly possession; indeed we overvalued it, and had too sweet thoughts of it, as if it had been our heaven, and rest, therefore 'tis just in God to suffer these men (meaning the Anabaptists) to destroy our hopes, and if they root the Gospel quite out of England its just in God, but yet we hope they shall be but our scourges, and that God is but teaching us the evil of their Schisms etc.  
But Sirs, what is that hoped for reformation of yours, the pure Gospel you Presbyters so much talk of, which those that hinder and hold not with you in, are all sentenced for Schismatics ipso facto: for my part I could never find what reformation more in ordinances, discipline, doctrine and government, you Presbyterian Priesthood aimed at, than establishment of the Scottish faith and the removal of the Bishops, and their superstitious Clergy as they removed the Popish before out of place, that themselves might reign as tyrannically in their steads; the pulling down of red glass windows, and placing of white, the knocking down of Fonts, and setting up Basins to Rantize in, the forcing the fathers to say the same at the Font, that the Godfathers did in old time, the observation of your own directory instead of the old liturgy, giving the supper to none at all (for most riged Presbyters have denied that to their whole parishes this seven year) instead of giving it promis●…uously to all, levelling the maintenance of the Nations ministry, so that every one may have a competency of an 100d per annum; and not some all, some none as in old'n time, and a few such trivial translations, in which the Gospel is no more promoted, reformation according to the primitive faith and baptism far less furthered, than it would be, if never a penny might more be paid to the Priests that preach for hire while the world stands, such a reformation indeed you have generally overvalued, therefore its justice in God to you, and mercy to the whole land, to suffer his people to prosper in their preachings of the truth to the utter destroying of your hopes, which if they were not more after worldly possessions in many of you that settled yourselves in 100ds per annum by the shift, then after that which is truth indeed, 'twill be the better for you another time, but I testify it to the faces of you that for all your prayings, and fastings, and mournings, and cry to God, and waitings, and longings for Reformation, you are the fiercest opposers of the primitive practice under heaven.  
'tis true you clergy are some more reform than some, you differ each from other as Papal, Prelatic, Presbyterian, facing each other a squint as the three corners in a Triangle falling out, and contending bitterly with one another about your own false ways, yet camna utentes facundia, concurring to ba●…k altogether against the true: yea even you Protestant Priests, yea you Presbyte●… that pretend more strictly and peculiarly to the title of Preachers, and Presb●… of the truth, and more serious searchers after it in prayer and supplication, are together with the flat Popish Priests gross hiders of the truth as it is in Jesus, for the revealing of which to yourselves, you seem (and that sometimes with fasting) earnestly to pray to God, and for the revealing of which to them in preaching you seem (and that sometimes jure divino) to take pay from men.  
You cry mightily indeed after knowledge, and lift up your voices for understand●…ng, saying, Lord direct us more and more into the way of truth, for we are blind and ignorant, and in the dark, neither know we what to do, but our eyes are to thee, give us pure ordinances, show us the right way etc. but if in any of your public places never so soon after your prayers the Lord stir up the spirits of any of the m●…ssengers of his Churches, that go forth in power, and plainness of speech, to make offer of any question or further information, you are so far from that candour, which the Rulers of the Jewish Synagogues used in this case A●…t. 13. and from saying men and brethren if you have any word of exhortation to the people say on, that you rather rate them as dogs out of doors, with what make you here to disturb us? we must have an order taken with you to make you hold your peace, and such like rough repulses, as 100ds of people know are used, by more than one of you Querists after truth, and yet you tell us of running into corners, as refusing, and unwilling to be be openly examined; and tell your people that veritas non quaerit A●…gulos see Featley p. 167 and that we creep into houses, as if we were ashamed to come out into your public assemblies, though we tell you o'er and o'er again, that as 'tis more for want of your leave, than our love so to do, that we do not tell the truth there before your faces, so our meetings, when in private houses, are more public than yours, when in public places, by how much where ere we are, and what ere we say, we submit not only to your access, but your exception also, as you, though in public, do not to ours.  
You profess yourselves desirous to have all things come to light before all, that all things may be proved by your people, and indeed, though he that doth evil hateth the light, neither ●…ometh to the light lest his deeds should be reproved, John 3. 21. 22, yet he that doth truth cometh to the light that his deeds might be made manifest, that they are wrought in God, yet the means and courses by which truth should be tried, which are plain and not puzzling discourses upon the Scripture, you smother by all the means and courses you can conveniently devise, as for any entire discourses of such as are contrary minded to you, though teachers of truth as 'tis in the word, these you cannot away with at any hand, not permit to be used in public before the people, while you have any powar to shut your pulpit doors upon them you bid your people now or then prove all things, that they may find out which is good, and shun the evil, but by your good-evil will they shall hear no more than what you tell them, and choose whether they'll take that for truth or nothing, you bid them cut where they like, and yet you'll be their carvers, and force them to feed upon what you offer them or fast, and welcome, for no more messes must be meddled with, though they have never such a mind to cut and try, than what is of your dressing, & that oft is no more than some sugar spot, sententious Academical, bespangled, hide bound, glass measured, spirit stinting stuff, which may challenge the name of duncery, baldness, babbling and prating, more than that sincere milk of the word you commonly call so, which hour of divinity when you have booked down and cond with no little care, is many times but Sed, and sometimes but Red ore when all's done neither: yet oft times you crow courageously upon your own dunghill, you pay it sound in your own pulpits with convincing, and opposing the approach of heresies, and argue so substantially against them that you carry the cause, and win all, but 'tis because you play there by yourselves; for if any chance to hear you, that hath never so much wherewith to undeceive your deluded people, yet they may not receive his interrupted reply to never so little: when you in the first place have pleaded your cause, the next thing to be done is for all them, that hear and have aught against you to hold their peace; they must not andere audire alteram partem lest they be infected, though wise men know there is no other way to be perfected in the knowledge of the truth, and freed from that hobnob implicit faith, which is wrongly acted, when rightly objected, then by hearing all that is to be said against it as well as for it; yea the heathen herein may be thy Tutor, O PPPriest, Qui statuit aliquid etc.  
You cry out they are not Orthodox that oppose you, and so forbid all audience of them to your people, whom you feed with a word and a blow, a bit and a knock, lest if they be not as well corrected into a refusal of all direction from others, as directed by your selves, they quickly discern difference between you and them: yet you would fain be counted free and forward, that all should have liberty according to their duty to try all but the niggard shall never be called liberal, nor the churl said to be ●…ountiful for me, for he deviseth not the liberal things, whereby the liberal shall stand, yea t●…e instruments of the churl are evil, and he deviseth wicked devices, to destry the poor with lying words, when the needy spoaketh right things: yea his heart works iniquity, to practise hypocrisy, and to utter error before the Lord, to make empty the soul of the hungry, and to cause the drink of the thirsty to fail, Isa. 32. 5. 6. 7. 8.  
As for pro and con discourse, or disputation, you smother that likewise with all your might, for as you desire no more of it then needs must, so you decline it what you can, and disclaim it too, as far as you dare for shame be seen in such a service as disputing against disputing is declaiming against it as a dismal thing of some dangerous consequence, poison, means of infection, contentionem, scabiem and such like: being sensible of your sores you come not to the stake to be questioned in your ways before your blind admirers, but when you cannot with credit (considering your over shooting your selves sometimes in hasty challenges) make a cleanly come off without it, though it be to meet with those that are inferior to your selves, save that the Lord is with them; for surely you see somewhat further than a mole into a millstone, that things are no better with you then they should be, why else should there be such loathness (like that of the Elephant, that's loath to drink in fair waters for fear of seeing a foul face) to come to the light, as we find there is in the most of you, as well as in Dr. Gouge, who would at no hand vouchsafe any public discussion of insant-sprinkling, whether it w●…re of God or man nec per se, ne per synodum, in his parish with Dr. Chamberlain: yet sometimes Euphoniae gratia for reports sake you make some pretty put offs in public, and put on tooth and nail for disputation, but alas you curtail it into so narrow a compass, as namely half a day, two hours, or some odd end of an afternoon, when two days is too little, two weeks scarce enough, two years not too much to discuss the truth in; witness not only jude, who bids the Saints of the last times (saving Tertullian, and Sir Henry Wotton's dislike out) contend for the faith once delivered to the Saints, and Paul, who for 2 years' space disputed daily in the School of one Tyrannus (not such a Tyrant to the truth as you are, it seems, for if he had he would have admitted not a word out) you confine it I say into such a corner of time, that as Pilate asked what's truth? and, when he had so said, went his way without an answer, so you hast to have an end, not hearing half the half quarter that is to be said, in opposition to your own opinions about that question: And during that little while the business lasts, you carry all as much as you can above the reach, and beyond the capacity of plain minded men and women that come together for resolution, in Scholastic terms, and conclave it from their cognizance under the lock and key of your Linsey wolsey Logic, which is neither fine enough for the University, from which you have a while discontinued, nor homespun enough for the Country; which muddy way of mood and figure, is neither suitable to the simplicity and plainess of speech in which the Gospel ought to be declared, and discussed, nor reasonable to reason in with Russet Rabbis, that are otherwise reasonable enough to give you such reasons of their faith and practice, as you can never rationally resist; nor is it much more profitable to our honest hearted people then if you spoke wild Irish.  
And when you have done than you smother and cloud over all, that was more plainly and punctually answered, and uttered to you on truth's behalf, in some true counterfeit Account or other, in many, if not most of which ways this Ashford D●…spute, as I have already showed before, both was, and was designed to be smothered.  
Thus like the fish Caepia, when you are like to be catcht with playing too near the mouth of plain truth, you cast a flood of ink behind you, and darken all that's done, and like the Lizard, making good prints with your feet, putting on as fair pretences as may be, of willingness to try, and have all things seen as they are, upon the forepart of your work, and then dashing all out with your tail, and blurring all ore again with with some after and hinder part practices, whereby to hinder the truth still from taking place in the spirits of the people.  
As your Fathers have done before you for ages and generations together, so do yourselves in this point, & more too not a few, Their delight was to hide their counsels, and to do their works in the dark, that they might say who seeth and who knoweth us?  
Yea the whole Creation of you out of the Chaos of Rome's Catholicon, have been a very race of Smotherers, that have cried down truth as Heresy, Saints as Schismatics, their tenderness as stubbornness, their serviceableness to Christ as selfishness, separation from your superstitions, and corrupt communions, as Sectarism, singularity; perseverance in Christ's way, without turning back to the flesh pots of Egypt, as obstinacy and will fullness, Church meetings as Conventicles, Church Messengers, who are Christ's true Ministers to the world even to the end of it, approving themselves as so, (as few of you do) in much patience, in tumults &c. reducing men to primitive pureness of faith, fellowship, worship, baptism, Supper, life, as Fools, Bedlams, Jugglers, Seducers, Seditious, Tumultuous, deservedly round and rough reprovings of you who, are more than any men hardened in your abominations, as Elias, john, Christ and others did them that were like you, disgracing, tailing, reviling, the one and only true baptism as Anabaptism, baseness, Enthusiasm, Scripture searching by the Laity, the only way of Christ's own appointment for all men to come to acquaintance with him by, as meddling more than needs, Scripture opening by the illiterate Weaver, Taylor, Shoemaker, Soldier, upon whom the spirit, that only makes a preacher, may as soon blow as upon a Scholar, a means to multiply errors.  
And thus what you Popish would smother in an unknown tongue, you English P Priesthood, who deliver it from that, would more subtly smother in a known, whilst how far soever men see into the word, yet they must see and say nothing, or presume to see no farther, nor practise any faster than the Priest.  
Yea to show how little you degenerate from him, you even fill up the measure of your Father the Pope, that wrath may come upon you all to the utmost, whilst in these last break forth of light from all that smother, wherewith Synodical constitution hath overcast it, even since your own separation from Rome, you damn it all by whole sale for darkness; ye are therefore of your Father Abadd●…n, and the works of that Father of yours ye do, he was a Smotherer from his beginning, and neither could abide in, nor can yet abide the truth, because there is no truth in him, he opened the bottomless pit, and raised up such a smoke of traditions, Ceremonies, Canons, Calumnies, lies, nicknames, misrepresentations of things to the world, as the smoke of a great furnace, to the darkening of the sun and the air, when he speaks a lie, he speaks of his own, for he is a liar, and next to the devil the Father of it, when he smothers that which should come to light, he acts most like himself, for he is a Smotherer also, and the father of that practice.  
Wherefore also as beloved that curse, even darkness, dryness, and smother so it is come unto him and his clergy, as he delighted not in the blessing of light, so it is far from him, as he clothed himself, and his with smoke, and smother like as with a garment so it is come into his very bowels, and like oil into his bones, it must be to him as the garment that covereth him, and for a girdle wherewith he must be girded; this is the Reward of that Adversary from the lord, and of all that speak evil with him against the truth.  
Thus God hath less you in his just severity to wander in by ways, and to be lost in the labyrinth of your learned Legands, till you be all moped, and s●…red even in the works of your own hands, and smothered to blindness by your own smoke, because when you should have Fathered and Mothered the Gospel, so as to have brought it out in its primitive, native, beauty, and brightness, you clergy men have been the generation in all ages of your reign, that have murdered and smothered it in the world.  
And instead of Patronising the truth, and its professors and promoters you have belied, blasphemed both by the terms of Heresy, Heretics, and worse; witness Featly specially, who from a few feats of some few mad men, or rather Monsters of Manster, and other place, (happily like to our English mad brained Ranters, whose rudeness is in reason no reproach to us, sith the way of baptism, and Church-membership we walk in (which these either never owned or abode not in) allows not, but is more at odds with open wickedness, than any other ways whatever) who I say from some particular pranks of one john of Leyden and his compeares, that is no more kin to us, than one joan of Lin is to the whole clergy, denominates all the Baptists, whom he yokes together with them under the nickname Anabaptists, an Impure and carnal sect, a cruel and bloody sect, a profane and sacrilegious sect, a lying and blasphemous sect, an illiterate and sottish sect, all how truly it agrees to those men of Munster and their Chi●…ftan john of Leyden, it matters not, but I am sure as much as you wipe your mouths and shift it of from yourselves to the people of God that walk in the truth of the Gospel, yet there's no generation of men upon earth whom it all lays more claim to then the PPPreisthood of the Nations.  
Forfirst though you style yourselves the Spirituality, and holy men of God, you are a race of men (exceptis excipiendis, still setting a side those few, even all such whose consciences do not check them of too little chastity) more corporally carnal than every body knows on: yea saving the holiness that you have in a black box, derived from his Holiness the Pope, whose holiness all your holiness of that kind hangs on, and from the date of which the name of Spiritualty also i spilt upon you throughout Christendom, from him who thinks he hath, by a promise to P●…ter, the fatherhood of the Clergy, as much as Abraham the fatherhood of the faithful, I believe it is not for nothing, nor without special respect, as well to the corporal, as spiritual whoredoms and filthiness residing within your Skirts that the great CCCity BBBabylon that reigneth over the kings of the earth, or WWWoman sitting upon the Beast, or many waters, i. e. tongues, nations, people of Christendom in three parts, is styled the great whore, and Mother of Harlots, and SSSodome, also as well as AeAeAegypt: neither doth she only seduce Christ's people to commit fornication, and eat things sacrificed to id●…ls, i. e. to run a whoring in worship, and do things that way abominable unto God, but she is an adulteress, in respect of her fleshly whoredoms also: as for the old Brothel or Italian joan, i. e. the Pope's Cardinals, and the Catholic Clergy that still retain their integrity to their Lord God the Pope, from whom you younger Brethren the P Protestant Clergy are rend in Twain, retaining yet that Clergyship and baptism, which you had from them, she is so base all over from top to toe, having no found part, that you two that have no other spiritual being (as to your holy orders) but what you have from her, do cry out of her yourselves for a whore in grain, as well you may, when, if we search the Series of the holy Chairmen, Spec. Rom. Pontisi. p. 91. to 111. Thirteen were adulterers, Three common Brothellers, Four Incestuous Whoremongers, Eleven impoisond with vile Sodomy, Seven erectors of Brothel houses, whereof every jillia was to pay weekly a julian (or ●…er a jillian) penny to the Pope, which came oft to four thousand Ducats per annu●…, One an arrant whore herself, viz. Pope joan, alias Gilberta an English woman born at Lyn, who being two years and a half Pope, at last died in childbed openly in the high-street of Rome, going on public procession by the way to the Church of St. john de Lateran so discovering her filthiness; in memory whereof they go not in procession that way where this most holy Father-Mother died, but round about another way.  
Besides how chaste the other Priests are of this Italian Sea, their laws, privily permitting them to have concubines, but not wives do declare 
* Nicholas the first was (I think) the first that prohibited the Clergy marriage saying that it was more honest to have to do with many women privately then openly to take one ●…fe: Insomuch that a Priest of Placentia being accused to have a wife and children, was deprived of his Benefice: but proving the said woman to be the wife of another m●…n, and his conebine only, he was again restored Helin p. 183. , by the indulgence of which law very likely it was that one of the Pope's Legates here in England 1129, john Cremernsis by name, when he had disputed all day at London for the Chastity of Priests ad ravim et sudorem, was found that very night in bed with a whore: and how pure the Nuns and Friars kept themselves from butchery and bawdry, the innumerable skulls of infants, that have been found in moted Abbeys since the demolishing of them here in Engla●…d sufficiently testify: so that u●…lesse the Ranter Rant it higher when he comes to the height of his spiritual sensuality, whose lascivious ways many will follow and fall off to from the true Churches of the Baptists, maugre all means to hold them in, yet the Churches themselves (to which therefore 'tis not to be imputed) are modesty in the abstract to that public Pander: as for you two mystical Mistresses the PProtestant PPr●…sts, who tumbled both together in the belly of that old Bawd or Mystery Babil●…n, and made one with her, till her time came to break in PPPieces, and are yet scarce wholly weaned from her breasts; 'tis true you are far more modest than she, for you neither permit stews, nor prohibit marriage of one as they do, that they may be free to more, nor set rates upon Venery as she doth, neither are so bad by as many degrees, as you are younger in years; yet are you so bad that way that neither all the white surplices, nor black superfluityes you use to cover your nakedness with, will either cleanse your consciences from the guilt, or your reputation from the stain of carnal impurity, so that it may be said of you as of Israel's Priesthood of old, Zoph, 3. 4. her Prophets are light and treacherous persons: Indeed you desire to walk in long Robes, and therefore made provision in one Canon that every Priest must wear a long gown, or canonical coat, unless he were one that was unable to go to the price out, & then your Wisdoms enacted (but necessity needs no law) a law of liberty to wear a short one, well knowing that, as short as the Curates coat was, it would be long enough ere his silken nonresident Rabbi would allow him money to buy a longer, yea you make broad shows in garments distinct from the vulgar, & all Laics, as if you were the only men that did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or keep the law, yea you love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and chiefest places in the synagogues, and to be called of men Rabbi, and therefore got a certain impropriation of the Black Garb to yourselves, that you might be known from Russet Rabbis, and reverenced above them, as men of God, spiritual men, holy fathers, when yet such hath been the rioting and drunkenness, chambering and wantonness, as well as strife and cavying of the most part of you Painted sepulchers, that few of you have b●…en either pure, or holy, or sober, or spiritual, or godly minded men indeed, as doth appear to all, by the several centuries of censured Clergy men, since this Parliament, put out at one place, and popped in at another, few of which could be much capable of Divine Irradiations, having such impure minds, and unchaste bodies, for the pure in heart only can see God's face M●…. 5. Heb. 12. and yet how bad you are, if all were known, as much as some than was, neither do I know, ●…or yet they, who began to cleanse the▪ A●…gaean stable here in England, but this I may safely say, that ●…fejection be the due of such, and if every Spiritual man that is a carnal, luxurious wanton had his due too, 1000s of the present Priesthood might go whistle for their T●…the;, and their people go sing for so fair a way, as would thereby be made, toward their having the truth taught them, as it is in Jesus, for little, o●… nothing but acceptance from the mess●…ngers of the Churches.  
Secondly, as for cruelty and blood, Dr. F●…at. himself more calls, then clears the Anabaptists to be guilty in that kind; for he brings nothing in proof out, but a tale or two of a tub with the bottom out, viz. of 40000 of them in Suevia and Franconia, that at their first risi●…g killed all the Nobles and Gentry there, that made head against them 
* That there should be 40000 dipped disciples, at the first beginning of them too, shall be no article of my faith, who find an increase but to a few 1000s of such here in England, und●…r no loss then seven years talking of this truth, and find men more refusing to be baptised at all in truth, then forward to be baptised o'er again: yea in this English Sectarian army of Anabaptists, as it's termed by you Priests, who have a habit of naming all men Anabaptists, whether baptised or no, that are up in lawful arms for the civil rights and liberties of the people, against those Priests and Princes that have destroyed them, 'tis to be feared there's not one of an 100 did ever own Christ so far yet, as to be baptised. ; also of one brother that killed another, and of one john Mathias that for an abuse caused a man to be condemned to death, and then executed him, and of one john a Leyden that accused a man of high treason, and cut off his head, and at another time one of his wives heads, these are his most remarkable observations of the bloodiness of the Anabaptists, for if he could have brought more, or more clear you should undoubtedly have had them.  
By these few instances (quoth he) as it were ●…x simbria de textu by the list and selvedg you may judge how deeply the cloth is died in blood: but alas what's all this to a sight of the cloth itself? what a small show of blood is here to that of the WWWoman, which john saw, and he is blind that sees not now sitting upon a Scarlet coloured beast, arrayed herself also in scarlet i. e. died red, red to drunk●…ness with the blood of the Saints, and the blood of the Martyrs of jesus, spiritually called BBBabilon and Egypt for cruelty to God's Israel, reigning in wrath and rigour in three parts or Tyrannical forms of governmet o'er Kings & people, deceiving all nations to drink so deep of the wine of the wrath of the her fornications, as to be drunk with wrath against the Saints, and in their drunkeness, at HHHer will to push and gore them with ten horns, to execute cruelty on them for truth's sake, and try them to the tiring of themselves with cruel mockings, scourge, bonds, imprisonments, stonings, sawing, burnings, hangings, heading, and with such gear as Feat. himself (as if by his own pen he would prove the priesthood, and their people to be men of blood) confesses that the Antibaptists have inflicted upon the Anabaptists p 68 182, 183. and for which they had no warrant from Christ, viz. drowning, racking, flaying, stabbing, tearing with hot pincers, and (to use his own phrase) the severest punishments they could devise?  
And finally in which WWWoman is found the blood not only of persecution, of Martyrs, and Prophets, but of war also, and of all them that are slain upon earth; for all this verily will be seen at last to lie hid in her Scholastic skirts, Rev. 18. 24.  
As for the Pope and his Clergy (fas est vel ab hoste doceri) both by Featley, and others 'tis asserted, and that truly, that the devil by him and his adherents, hath acted such bloody persecutions against the true servants of God, and maintainers of the Orthodox faith, as together with such other exploits of Satan, and his agents as he there names, hath been the ruin of Millions of men: all which is very true of them, yet not only the Italian Seminaries, but our British Seminaries also have been such stirrers up of strife between and within these nations about worships, Governments, Covenants for the same form, and faith, to the shedding of the blood of thousands in war, and such sowers, cum sanguine Martyrum, semine Ecclesiae, that though I know the wrath of the clergy hath wrought his praise and his people's peace, so far that be will restrain the remainder thereof, Yet I can more bewail then either you avoid; or I avert, that blood which the Lord, that is righteous in judging thus, will give you to drink, except you repent of your cruelty to consciences, and to the carcases of men for their conscience sakes, and your pitiless inexorableness towards others in the self same cases, wherein you cried quarter yourselves: for you cried out for liberty still when you were under the Tyrannical domination one over another's faith; the Bishops when they groaned under the Pope, and the Presbyters, when under the Prelates, but when you crept out of the Captivating clutches, and got quit from the Clerical cruelty of each other, you curbed the poor people still, and chaltered them up sub paena to your own new found postures, and Impenitent pnrses, as mercilessly almost as before, and have lent them but little better liberty than the horse hath, when his loadsome log is taken off his leg, that he may be rid to a Jade another way: for what great difference between Rome and Canterbury, save that of old our Pope lived further off us, and of late we were bejaded with one nearer home? I●…ludamus hunc in orbe nostro tanquam alterius Orbis Papam says Pope Urban the second of Anselmus Archbishop of Canterbury 1099. when he set him at his right foot in a general Council, i. e. we must count upon him in our world, as it were some distinct Pope of another world, and so it fell out to be too at last: a Pope is but a Pope at one place, and so he is as well at another, and what amendment of the matter to have one man that Lorded it, and Pater Nosterd over the faith, and conscience of God's people removed, and Classes or Assemblies of them established in his stead? yet thus, for aught I see, it should have been, if the Trojane Horse of the Scotch Presbytery had taken place here, which men were mad, being betwatled by subtle Sinon's Synodical pretences to hale in, till some more wise and quick of hearing then the rest, heard a noise of Arms more than Arguments clang in the belly of it, and so not believing it to be such a Donum divinum, such a ●…us divinum as was pretended, but a thing that stood jure Hominico, Daemonico rather then Dominico, could never since be charmed by any Sinonical or Sinodical solicitation whatsoever to admit it into English borders. Blessed be God that cursed creatures begin now to have short horns; that the Treble Terrible one, the Treble TTTribe is brought so low, that those that would have made a man an offender for a word, yea for THE WORD spoken against their word, and laid a snare for such as reproved them in the gate, and turned aside the just for a thing of nought, and were barbarously, bitterly, bloodily beat against the poor among men, that rejoice in the holy one of Israel, are disappointed, else we should have seen (it seems by Featley and Gangraena) hat not only Pope Boniface 
* Qui intravit ut vulpes, reg navit ut Leo, mo●…ieb atur ut Canis: came in a like a Fox, reigned like a Lion, & died like a Dog.  and B●…shop Bonner, but the bonny Bishops of the two latter brood's P and P are imbrued also not a little with the blood of Christ, whom they crucify throw the sides of his Saints, for Sectarizing after him from themselves: witness their bloody Tenet of persecution by prisons, fines, confiscations, banishments, etc. for cause of conscience; witness their constant crying out to Pilate, i. e. the Governors and Pilots of such States, where Christ would but live quietly beside them in his poor disciples, away with him, away with him crucify him, yea though the Governor strive with the chief Priests, as Pilate did, to rescue him, as finding no fault in him; but though they wash themselves with N●…re, and take them much soap, yet this iniquity, into which Smectimnuus degenerate●…, si●…ce groans for liberty of conscience came out of his own mouth, is marked before me saith the Lord: yea had you been sprinkled with holy water itself, yet except you repent, and be baptised every one of you, in the name of the Lord Jesus for remission of sins through his blood, which so doing saves even them that shed it, you are not only by eating and drinking unworthily, i. e. disorderly at the Supper, which baptism must precede in Gospel reformation, but also by your cruelty to his disciples, whom you would have crushed if you could tell how, become guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, however repent, or repent not, this I say unto you from the Lord, that your bloody principle of persecution for conscience, and forced conformity to your foolish forms, canons, creeds, chatechisms, dictates, directories, shall utterly perish from off the ear●…h.  
I wish the Independents for their turn's next look to it in time, and take heed of turning aside too much from that precious principle of depending upon no King, but Christ, in conscience cases, neither state Counsels, nor Church counsels, nor Classes, save only for conscience to Christ to be subject freely in all mere civil cases, to the one, and for cognizance sake to consult in mere church and conscience cases, with the other, and whom else they please, keeping Church and State as distinct as 'tis possible, which the clergy have confounded so together, that we have lost the true Peculiarities of either, and, as not suffering such saucy doings, as to have most general Assemblies of the Ki●…k, quâ Church Assemblies, to be tampering at all with state affairs, so not troubling any officers of state, qua State officers, no not the highest, nor Committees nor Sheriffs to weariness with representations of things pertaing purely to churches, and church orderes, expecting no more than a passive, permissive influence from them to the church-ward, i. e. to let all Churches, and all religions, Jew's themselves alone to their light, till they see the true one, so be they live faithfully under them, and quietly, peaceably, and civilly one by another: but me thinks I smell a mixed mongrel Independency too much on foot and creeping on, an Indepency by the halves, a Presbyterian Independency, Independency too dependant in church work, upon the state for state pay, enquiring after parish maintenance, telling some truth, and taking as much tith as they can lay their hands on, lending liberty to themselves to have no supper in the parishes, when they please, yet resolving to make the people pay for it so long as they preach, whether they eat a bit of it at all yea or no: A thing I cannot well tell what to call it that has a smack too much of Smectimnuus, and yet 'tis not so tyrannical neither, nor yet so tender towards a toleration of all consciences and Religions, though of all tender conscienced Christians, as that the poor Jew or natural Israelite can have any room or creep hole by it into the Commonwealth; in order to his conversion he must keep out, unless he be so converted before he come, as to resolve heel own Christ, and not speak against him, as not the Christ, which what power in any State under heaven can banish a Jew out of any nation for doing, I plainly know not; an Independency that is willing to let Israel go, but not to let another Israel come into the Land, so as to promulgate his principle which I'm sure is contrary to the principles of Christian Religion; o●… if the Jew may deny Christ, and yet live in the world in quiet, why not another, unless the word can gain him to the belief of it, as well as he?  
Independents a word or two with you by the way; no hurt I hope if you will have but patience, I find proposals presented F●…b. 11. 1651. that make me amaz●…d to think that they should come from Independents, for I took Independents till of late to be genuine Independents indeed, but I see there's nothing. but may have something like it, which is not the same, and such is your Semi-demiindependency to me.  
For supply of all parishes in England with Orthodox Ministers, it's propounded that the Sheriff of each County give account to the Committee what parish hath no Minister, ●…hat maintenance each such parish hath, what Ministers that reside in each County have no livings, and such of them as are Orthodox be placed there, as the Committee shall think sit.  
For settling right constituted Churches, that all Churches that are or shall be gathered, signify to the Committee of the Universities or elsewhere, whom they have or shall choose for their Pastors, and that such and such only shall be declared right constituted Churches, whose Pastor shall be approved by the Committee to be able, godly ●…nd orthodox.  
Fie! Fie! Sirs that you will still have such a minglement of Sheriffs, Committees, Ministers, Churches, in a kind of Omnigatherum about the Gospel, and your Churchwork: and that you will trouble the Sheriffs to find what pay is in parishes, what parishes want Ministers, and what Minist●…rs lack means; if your Ministers lack means cannot they look after it themselves, and bestow themselves in some honest calling or other to get a living out on? or if they cannot, cannot your Churches see to them a little what they lack? or do you lack to have the tithes and parish pay turned o'er to you now, as the Presbyters gaped after augmentations from the B●…shops, Deans, and chapters lands? if you do, I hope the State will save your longing, as they did theirs, and take them sheer away root, and branch, and let those Churches, that have Ministers, maintain them if they need, and let the Gospel be preached freely by Messengers from Churches to the Gentiles, to the world, without charging them with it till converted to it, for such you suppose the nation to be now, as well as we, and not a Church of Christ, why else do you gather Churches of Christ out of it? will you gather Churches of Christ out of Churches of Christ what rule have you for that? surely Churches must be gathered out of the world: and if so that the nation be no true constituted Church of Christ, it's no true Church of Christ (for Christ hath no falsely constituted true Churches that I know of) and so her Ministers no true Ministers of Christ●… for Christ's Ministers are not Ministers of no Church) but such as came remotely, as to their ordination and parish posture, baptism and all, from the Pope, whom if you also look upon with such favourable construction as to own him, and his ordinations, and his baptism and administrations, and what the Prelate and Presbyter sucks in a way of succession from thence as Apostolical, so as to stand Ministers and baptised by it, I shall think the world goes round then indeed, and that whoever chances to get on horseback, and sit in the Saddle here in England, whether Prelate, Presbyter or Independent they cannot choose, for custom's sake, but face about still, and ride back at least a little way toward Rome: or do you hold (as some Presbyters do) your ordination O Independents from the Magistrate? if so he was ordained a minister of God in other cases, but neither per se nor per alios to ordain and authorise Ministers for Christ Churches: yet me thinks I sent you coming somewhat near that, when you propose only that such shall be decl●…red right constituted Churches, whose Pastor shall be approved by the committee to be able, godly and Orthodox, which Independeht proposition I hardly know what to make of it is so odd: what Sirs does the denomination of a right constituted Church depend upon the Pastors being approved to be able, godly and Orthodox? a right constituted Church is that which is built upon the foundation or principles of the word of Christ, and the Apostles, Heb. 6. 1, 2. Ephes. 2. some of which you Independents yet want (but go on in your light for me, till you see it darkness, I can speak but obiter to you here, yet know that if you settle not upon all the foundation even your Church will be a come down castle too ere long) a right constituted church is that which hath right matter viz. baptised professors, ●…right ●…cim, i. e. free fellowship of such toget●…er in one body in breaking of bread and prayers, whether they have yet a Pastor over them yea or no, for the churches were rightly constituted first, and had elders after ordained among them as they were found gifted: yet with you the church that hath no Pastor, and he not approved Orthodox, is yet not to be declared a right constituted church: what if the Pastor prove Heterodox does the church loo●…e its true constitution? or I would I knew what you mean by constitution? for perhaps I do no●…: and why do you talk in singulari so much of the Pastor, and Pastor of a Church, as if you were of the mi●…d that a church might have no more Pastors and Overseers over it but one, whereas t●…s most evident that there may be more Elders, Pastors, Overseers (these are all one, 1 Pet. 5. 1.) in one Church, and that not without need neither when that one flock or congregation grows numerous, for than they oft grow out of the observation too much of one eye: see Act. 20. Paul sent for the Elders of the Church of Ephesus: whether any Church ever had but one Pastor or Overseer in it or no (if any at all) I know not, but I am sure the use was to ordain more than o●…e to one Church, Act. 14. 23. Tit. 1. 5. but one cannot Lord it so well, if others be i'th' traces with him but however why must all this business of declaring which be right constituted Churches, Orthodox Pastors, which not, hang upon the Committees approving, or not approving of the Pastors? what if the Committee should chance to be Heterodox itself? or the Major part of it? or the Major part sitting at that time, when this Pastor comes for approbation, what shall a true constituted Church lose or keep her name of a true constituted Church at a venture upon the vote of a Committee? and what need at all that the Committees be so cumbered with the care of such affairs? and what vanity to venture the determination of which be true Churches of Christ, which the Scripture declares plain enough, whether the Committee see it yea or no, upon the verdict of a Committee, to whom other affairs are most properly committed? let all the Churches come before the Committee, and all people declare their ways, and their God, and he whom the Committee says is God, let him be God, and not the rest; will you have it s●…? if you will, I will not, take truth upon trust from the vote of any Committee man under the Sun: and if you would not have it so, you were better never trouble Committees with such matters at all, than not commit them finally to them so as to agree to act at a venture as they determine in matters merely of Religion, and that the true Churches of Christ, who know no King but Jesus in church and conscience, will never do, but prove themselves to be true constituted churches of Christ, and preach the Gospel too as it is in jesus, where ere they 〈◊〉 people ignorant of it, whether they will hear or forbear, though all the Come mittees, yea and all the Kings, and Popes, and Priests, and People in the world should declar●… against them.  
Beloved Friends me thinks you look too like a national Ministry to be of the right stamp yet: I had hoped Independents would never have turned State Ministers, and have looked so much after State honour, State help, State approba●…, State preferment, State Maintenance, for ministering to either their Churches, or to the purblind nation, as I see they do: but Sirs if you be true constituted Churches of Christ indeed (I do not say you are, nor is it my busin●…sse here to prove you are not, though you are not, till you own his baptism) but if you be, as you imagine you are, know that Christ hath set in his Church A●…stles, or Messengers to be sent forth not by the State, but by the Church it 〈◊〉 ●…o preach his Gospel to the world, at the Churches, and not the world's charges, and 〈◊〉 preach the Gospel to the Parishes, without pilling the poor parish people & ●…king way for the Gosp●…l, and the truth by force and law, whether they be free to have it, to buy and receive it on such terms as you tender it on yea or no: therefore send forth and maintain your messengers among yourselves (you are rich enough) and let them preach the Gospel to them, & gather Churches; but alas now I think out, how can they preach the Gospel by the halves, and gather true constituted Churches, that yet own not (as ye O Independents yet do not) all the principles of the oracles of God, nor all the first doctrines of Christ as that of baptism●…, & laying on of hands, upon which together with the rest the true visible Church stands as on her foundation: and are yet not only unbaptised, but unwilling to be baptised, or to baptise with any other baptism than that Rantism that ran down hither through Rome? You propound that when any of the Pastors of right constituted Churches die or leave them to take up some other employment, they choose and present another Pastor within six months, and may have one settled among them within 12 months, by approbation from the said Commit, or to dissolve or disperse themselves into other Churches.  
Good Sirs, what mean you by this? shall the Parliament and their Committees never have their liberty to attend only, and perfectly the true liberties of the subject? nor be at quiet from this wearisome work of approving, and settling of ministers, that are men mostly so unsettled in their minds that they'll never (if they have such liberty to leave, as you here allow them) settle longer in one place, then till they have more means, or be more to their minds in another? had this piece been propounded by parish ministers and people it had become them, as ●…ounding somewhat suitable to their posture and principle, for 'tis the usual tone they talk in, when one Pastor having left them, to take up another call from Christ, or employment somewhere else to his advantage, they address to the Committee for the approbation or settlement of such or such a godly Orthodox Divine among them, as they have agreed with (if they can get the Committees good will, for till then all parties are not agreed it seems among either you or them) to be their minister: but to see them, whom I suppose to be Independents (for I am sure they are Independent men that propose the next parcel viz. Thomas Goodwin, Nye, Simpson whose propositions these approve of) to see I say Independents flocks depend, it may be half a year, on Committees to have their Pastors approved on, and settled by the Committees among them me thinks is something shameful: I reckoned that the Independent Churches had reckoned themselves to have had the sole power not only of choosing, and presenting, but of approving, settling and ordaining their own Pastors among themselves (but I see I am deceived) and why may not the Church only without the Committee approve of her own ministers, to be Orthodox, and be able to minister in their assemblies and meetings, as well as to approve of such of her members to be Orthodox, and allow them to speak as she shall judge fit to speak, for in the next proposal but one or two, it appears you judge she (without the Committee) may approve of such.  
And what mean you by your Pastors leaving you to take up some other call or employment? are your Pastors also such Idol shepherds, as it may be supposed now and then will leave their flocks for any other employment? what employment may they lawfully leave their flocks for, with whom they are in fellowship so as to stand Pastors no more among them? is their any worldly employment to which the Pastor's office must give way so to as to cease for its sake, when it comes in place? I know but one employment in honour, and excellency beyond that good work of a Bishop, or overseer among his flock, as namely that of Apostleship, or Messengership from the Church, to convert the world, if it be that you mean, I'll have you excused, in choosing you other Pastors to oversee you in the Lord, in your Messenger's absence from you to preach to the world, but other employment I know none more honourable than the Ministership, for which its worthy to be left by them that have food and raiment in it: neither count I it perferment, but degeneracy for a Minister to be removed from his Ministership, and Servantship in feeding the sheep of Christ, over which the holy spirit makes him overseer, though it be to a Lordship, a Mastership, a Presidentship, a Deanship o'er a college, whether that College be Christ's Church also, yea or no; specially if that fl●…ck he leaves be left so destitute of another Pastor, that it must wait perhaps 12 months for another, and at last, if at long running they cannot have one, must be fain to flee all to pieces, and dissolve their Church and disperse themselves up and down to other Churches.  
Smite the Shepherd with some better employment, and then all his sheep that were gathered may be scattered, and separate themselves together into several places: I like this but a little, and am confident Christ Jesus likes it less: if you can follow any manual employment for your livings, as Paul and others did, and preach the Gospel too to make it as much as may be without charge, I like it well but I am jealous you'll make a trade too much of the Gospel too.  
You propound that none presume under a penalty to speak in any Assemblies, or meetings but ministers of the word, members of Churches approved, except meetings purposely for disputing, and that where meetings be kept up likewise, persons speak ●…here that have Commission from some right constituted Church, or certificate from two or more able, godly, Orthodox ministers, of their sufficiency to speak, and soundness in the faith, except Masters to their families, Schoolmasters to their Scholars, or others to such, as by their callings fall under their government or charge.  
Then at least civil Magistrates may speak any where within their verge, without certificate of their sufficiency so to do, to the people, that by reason of their call fall under their Government and charge, but others may not, though the spirit moves them, unless they can obtain a certificate from some Ministers.  
Sirs, what mean you to muzzle men up in this manner under penalties, from opening their mouths to speak, unless they bring testimonials, and certificates from men? if any man speak from God, God will give testimony to him by assisting him to speak honestly at least, though weakly and plainly; if God do not testify to any man that speaks, so but that the hearers judge him insufficient, or that he speaks weakly, and sillily, and see that God leaves him to utter error, they may leave him too if they please, if it be free for men (as it never was under the P●…sthood) to refuse what they find not to be truth; and as they like it not to le●… i●… alon●…: them therefore that are weak in the faith receive, and entertain, though they have no pastport or orders from men to show, you may sometimes entertain angels unawares: and what if God stop that man's mouth (as he may do when he pleases (the spirit blowing where it lists) who has man's testimony of sufficiency, & from whom there's the greatest expectation, and does sometimes when men dote on men, yea and opens the mouths of them, that at other times, it may be sat as dumb, asses) to repr●…ve the madness of very prophets?  
'tis propounded by Mr. Owen, Mr. Thomas Goodwin, Mr. Nye Mr. Sympson, that such as do not receive, but oppose those principles of Christian Religion, without the acknowledgement whereof the Scriptures do clearly and plainly affirm that Salvation is to be obtained, may not be suffered to preach or promulgate any thing in opposition unto such principles:  
But in this verily I am not satisfied at any hand, for not to acknowledge jesus Christ to be the Christ, but to deny him to be the Son of God, when he is plainly preached is not to receive, but oppose those principles of Christian Religion, the non-acknowledgement of which, where Christ at least is made known, is utterly inconsistent with salvation; yet thus did the jews when Christ in person was among them, contradicting, blaspheming him, as also the Samaritans did not receive him, yet the civil powers of the world had no power from Christ to curb them, and not suffer them to say what they would against Christ simply and solely I say because of that: neither find I (as before) any warrant in the word for Caesar the civil powers of the world to prohibit, or sub paen●… any false Religions, from standing, growing, preaching, promulgating, practising their own principles, be they Jews, or Heathen Romans, or Dia●…tish Ephesians, in their several dominions under the Gospel any more than to prohibit the true Christian Religion itself: All Religions lived under Caesar in Christ's and the Apostles days, and were not by him persecuted, nor constrained, either to be of his Religion, nor to say nothing against it, nor against any other: in after times indeed when the Emperors grew bloody against the Christians, all Religions lived quietly under Caesar, but the Christian; that was worse than nought, and I think it not a little too bad, and not doing (as our duty is) to all men as we desire they should do to us, but the way back to Priestly blindness, if we put Cae●…r on now, because he is a Christian, to let the Christian Religion live quietly under him, and none else: for my part I dare not desire that the Jews may not, not only live, but till, they see better, serve, God in their ways of worship in the State as well as othe●…s, for a being they must have somewhere, and may no where without sin, if not here, for is it more sin for one Commonwealth to let false worshippers live in it, till t●…ey see the truth, then for another? yea and let them and others too preach and promulgate even all that ere they can for their way.  
Ob. I know men fear false Religions will seduce men from the true to themselve●….  
A●…. Let them gain what they can, whom can they gain? not the elect, which in your sense are a sort of individuals, without respect to any thing done in time▪ personally, 〈◊〉 positively, and not conditionally determined to faith and final perseverance in it to the death, and if they seduce others to damnation itself, they are no other than such with you as are as particularly, peremptorily, and not conditionally onel●… of their loving darkness more than light, afore of old ordained to that condemnation, therefore me thinks you of that principle of all others should ●…ee no danger of doing more hu●…t, than God decreed to have done, by suffering sed●…cers in the world before the foundation of it, and as for us who hold no such, though as much election and reprobation as yourselves in that sense in which the Scripture speaks out, which bids us know that God hath chosen the godly man to himself, and ordained ungodly men to condemnation, not determining the individuals to life or death before birth, but upon account of belief or non-●… of the truth that's told them, for he hath chosen men to life no otherwise then through 〈◊〉, and ordained men to be holy, i. e. that they shall be●…ve and l●…ve holily tha●… mean to live for ever, even we that know there is danger enough, and yet hope enough too of life for men, that neglect not their own salvation, ●…re venture truth among all false ways whatsoever, which when and where ere it lives uncurbd as it never yet did in England without molestation more or less, to these our days for a 1000 years and upwards, will shine through all the rest so clearly to m●…s souls, as either to save them, or else at least to convince them so as if they perish by following any false ways, that grow up by it, to leave them without excuse, because they either did, know, and did not what they knew, or might have known more than they did but would not: besides if any religion be (as I am sure the true one is not, though the R R Romish, Jewish, Turkish, and all others are) such a dead Sea of Divinity, as hath not life enough in it to live of itself, if it may have bare leave unless all others that would live beside it be sneaped by the civil sword, so that they must not show their heads by it for its sake, let that Religion be the Jews, and the Turks, and the Popes, and the Prelates, and the Presbyters, and the Independents too, if it will, for me, but while I live to Christ, surely 'twill be none of mine.  
So I have done with you my dear friends of the Independent way, and shall wait and pray that you may first laying, as your foundation, & then leaving, the principles of the doctrine of Christ, goo●… unto perfection.  
'tis time to return to talk on with the Pope and P P Priesthood, to whom I have almost forgo●…ten what more I was about to say, being put by it by one's presentment of these proposals to me inters●…ribendum, which drawed me on to this long Pe●…hesis, and off from my present purpose viz. the proving of the P P Priesthood to be that themselves which they most falsely father upon them, whom they as falsely call Anabaptists: I have showed how though they call us an 〈◊〉 and carnal sect, a cruel and bloody sect, yet themselves are both these much more than we, yea and much more ●…hats nought then either of these two also.  
For next whereas you style us a profane and Sacriledgious sect, yet that you are a more Profane and Sacril●…gious generation than those, whom Dr. Featly calls so, will appear very plainly if you consider either what Sacrilege, and Profaneness are indeed, or what Dr Featley, if he may be your spoksman, to whom you refer us, doth falsey suppose it, & hath defined it to be, for he state's profaneness or sacrilege (for these two with him are one) to be the extreme in the defect to Religion, to which the extreme in the excess (saith he) is superstition, which is the offering to God, what he claims not for his own, whilst the other i. e. profaneness, Sacrilegiously Robs God of that which is his own in a particular ma●…ner; which if so, than you C C Clergy men are more guilty in this behalf than any other under the Sun, for, besides that you err from the true religion in the excess, by superstitious attribution of such things to God, as his by institution, which are not his, but your own inventions viz. payment of Tithes to you, infant-sprinkling, and many other, which you plead for, (as if the Lord had required them) jure divino, or jure Apostolico, whereas it is no false Latin, because true English to say they stand jure humano, et Apostatico or rather Daemonico by the devil and the whore's appointment; you err from it also in the defect by Sacrilegious ablation. and abolition of the true Baptism and Ordinances from the Church, which Christ hath appointed; this though it be wonderful strange, yet is marvellous true, for though ordinary men miscarry from the mean, but by one extreme ordinarily, e. g if men err from the virtue liberality by prodigality, they are not covetous too, or if by covetousness they are not prodigal too, but so extraordinarily out of holy order are you, O ye that are in holy orders, that you content not yourselves to go beyond the word, but you'll be behind it too, you will make God own that he never commanded, neither (to use the phrase and figure in which he speaks of himself came it all into his mind, and disown his own precepts, which you make void by your traditions: 'tis bad to be in the extreme on either hand from the truth, but to be in both the extremes at once is to be extreme bad indeed, yet thus it is with you, O ye Priests, as whose not only superstition, but sacrilege also, hath exceeded, and by sundry degrees surpassed all that ever was, whether among Anabaptists or others: yea, if you look with a clear eye, all that of those whom your Doctor of Divinity makes such remarkable observations of, as suffering the h●…nd of God inflicting curses on them for this sin of Sacrilege.  
The first whereof is Xerxes, who attempted to pillage the Temple at Delphos. 
* O monstrous! is ●…age come upon our Doctors now in the height, that Apollo is the true God with them, and his Oracles, which by Christians were ever counted the Devils, Gods oracles, and the spoi●…ing of his Temple the spoiling and rifling God's church, and the ruin which (Machinatione Daemonis say Historians themselves that write it) fell on them that attempted it the curse of God for this sin of Sacrilege and Robbing God of his due? so it should seem, for defining Sacrilege to be a robbing of God, a rifling of his Churches, stripping Religion of her neces●…ary dress and decent rites and ceremonies, and asserting that God will curse with strange curses those that are guilty of it, his first instance is the revenging hand of God on Xerxes for meddling with the Temple of Apollo. Surely these men who have so high an esteem of the God Apollo, and his Temple, would have had the like of Apollo's Sister Diana the great Goddess of the Ephesians, and her Temple, whom all Asia, and the world worshipped Act. 19 27. and counted Paul a Sacrilegious fellow in despising her Magnificence, and turning away people from her worship, as Demetrius did, who got his wealth by her standing, had they been alive at that time: yet this is the Doctor we are sent to for furniture with knowledge of the truth by you Ashford Accountants.   
His second, Caepio the Consul, who spoilt the Famous Temple at Tolouse. 
* Alias, the Great gaudy building, that was there in as much veneration as Paul's Church in London is, (for that is the Church with some, whom a stone Church, and wooden Priesthood, pleases better than a spiritual house of living stones, and spiritual ministry in it.   
Thirdly Crassus,  
Fourthly Herod, both whose men of war were ruined for rifling the Sepulchre of David.  
Fiftly, Be●…hazzer who was frighted with an hand-writing for carousing in the vessels of the Temple.  
Sixtly Copronymus that had a Carbuncle arose in his forehead for taking a Crown out of a Christian Church (alias, Steeple house) which was set with Carbuncles.  
Seventhly julian together with Felix, who both had God's vengeance lighting on them for carrying away the Golden Vessels, and rich presents which the Devotion (he should have said the Superstition) of Constantine and Constantius dedicated to God in the new Temple at jerusalem. 
* Built by Queen Helena, who (if you consult the Story) in no less Superstitious Devotion, than they the Vessels of the Temple, did consecrate the Temple itself to the Honour of Christ, Pueri sacer est locus extra meiite.   
Eightly, Rotman with Cniperdolin, who seized on the Church, alias high place dedicated to Saint Mauritius, a Saint of the Pope's canonising.  
Ninethly Munster and P●…yser, who being it seems in war, made their magazines, and cast their ordnance in the covent of the Franciscans. 
* Alias the holy habitations of the most abominable holy Friars, who no question fried in the fire of holy wrath and rage, to see their holy Cloisters and Chapels sacrilegiously profaned to civil uses, which by them, and their Lady Abbesses were wont to be made use of (saving their holy Superstitions) to nothing but uncivil and unclean.   
Tenthly, john of Leyden, who sacrilegiously converted into apparel for himself, and others the holy things of God, (for so he must call them, or else he keeps not to his text, and his own interpretation of it, which is that the Anabaptists are a sacrilegious sect) viz. the holy Copes, holy Altar clothes, and holy vestments which the Priests were wont to wear, in their holy Masses, which john of Leyden I should have thought he had been lost, if he had not come in at the last, sith at first or last I find him serving every turn of Dr. Featley, insomuch that the whole six fold tale, he tells of the Anabaptists, would never handsomely have hung together, if john of Leyden the Tailor did not stitch it up, for john of Leyden serves to prove them an Illiterate and sottish sect, john of Leyden a blasphemous and lying sect, john of Leyden an impure and carnal sect, john of Leyden a cruel and bloody sect, john of Leyden a profane and sacrilegious sect, john of Leyden a sect whom God's vengeance follows,  
Who ere is another, john of Leyden is one,  
You may thank john of Leyden, else all were undone.  
These are the many instances, wherewith your Dr. patches up two or three pages of that fifth piece of his Remarkables, wherein he tell tales the Anabaptists to be a sacrilegious sect, in which, if ye were not bedoted as much as your ipse Dixit (O ye disciples of Dr. Featley) you might see of yourselves, first that if the actions instanced in were sacrilege, yet the men were no Anabaptists, for the last are more called then proved so, and the rest, which are well nigh two parts of three, were never so much as named so since the world stood, secondly that if the men had been all Anabaptists, yet all the actions were not sacrilege, for set aside what Belshazzar did, whose action of common drinking in the Temple vessels, was then sacrilege, as now it now it would not be (all that relative holiness of Temples, and Vess●…ls, Places and Things dedicated, the Doctor so much prates of, being ceased since Christ crucified john 4. I say set that aside and all the rest, viz. rifling of the things which he calls Churches, viz. the Temple of Apollo's at Delphos, and that of ●…olouse, that of St. Maurice at Munster, of Queen Hellina at jerusalem, and the Friar's Covent (whether they may be called Theft or no, I know not) were are as far from being sacrilege; as the places were from being holy places in truth, and that is as far as the Pope's holiness is from Gods: but to conclude this matter, it's much of a price to you (O Priests) whether the matters of fact that Featley feigns, to be sacrilege, and would fain fasten, and father as well upon the Anabaptists of this present age, as that above, be so yea or no; for this we are sure of however, that either the things he defines it by viz. the demolishing, alienating, or common using of hallowed Temples, Friars Covents, Tables, Altars, Altar clothes, Copes, Cups, and other rich Vestments, Vessels, utensils, Fonts, Pulpits, Profits, and Emoluments, Glebe's, Sentries, Tithes, first fruits, oblations, and other Obventions is no sacrilege, nor robbing of God, nor fingering of holy things (as I utterly deny it to be) or else if it be, that the Protestant Priesthood are more deeply guilty of it, if not in affection, yet at least in action then the Anabaptists of this age: for if we ask, who sacrilegiously sacrificed, and in their sacred zeal for King Charles against King Christ coined to his common use, and unholy war, the plate devoted to their College uses in the holy Benevolence of Benefactors? did not some of you Masters, Provosts, Fellows of Colleges and such like? who, towards a Reformation from Rome, demolished 645. holy Abbeys, and Monasteries, 90 holy Colleges, 110 Hospitals, 3314. holy Chanteries, and Chapels, and diverted the infinite riches, which was devoted by the freewill offering of devout persons, and assigned for the Maintenance of the ministry that then was, viz. the holy Priests, Monks, Nuns and Friars from the Ecclesiastical use of that Spiritualty to the Temporal Revenue of the Crown, didst not thou O Prelacy flatter King Henry the eighth into this, and the subversion of the Roman Supremacy that thou mayest have a Supremacy of thy own, under a colour of giving it to the King? who have confiscated the holy Palaces and devoted profits of two Archbishoprics, 20 Bishoprics, 26 Denaries, 60 Archdeaconries, 544 spiritual dignities, and Prebendari●…, to Auxiliations and Augmentations, hast not thou O Presbyterian? didst not thou alone uncover the sin and nakedness of thy old father Episcopacy out of a covetous and ambitious desire to steal away the birthright from the elder brethren the Deans, prebend's, and Canons; and now that heaven deceives thy longing expectation, so that thy Kingdom falls irrecoverably, and men will no more fall down before thee, nor do the worship, and double honour of observation and maintenance to thy Lording Eldership, but impropriate all that thou gapest for to themselves, together with all thy Vicarages, besides 5439 Parochial benefices, being no impropriations, so that neither thou nor the true Ministry neither shall have any of it, unless thou forsake thy errors for it, and they the truth, is it these Independents whom thou falsely callest Anabaptists, or those whom we truly call Antibaptists, that are now acting all this sacrilege? and more lately yet, who did a way, I mean directive, for indeed the civil power, whom yovin your pulpits sub penaed to it, did it corrective, who I say did a way most sacrilegiously the sacred crosses, viz. Coventry, Cheapside, Charing, & others? who counseled away the curious crucifixes? who spoiled the holy Cathedrals of their holy Organs, and Popish pipes and pictures? who profaned the holy Fonts in all the holy Churches and Chapels, because they found the people Idolising them? upon which account they ought as well to demolish the very churhces themselves: who profaned all the holy days, and feasts dedicated to the honour of Saints by the Pope (which were more than days in the year) and those that were in use under Prelacy viz. Easter, Christmas, Whitsunday, etc. didst not thou O Presbyter? who altered the holy Altars, and alienated to other use the holy Altar Clothes? who robbed the old Church robbers the Bishops, and the sons of that Hierarchy of their holy Robes, and Divested the Churchmen of the holy vestments, wherewith they were adorned, and wherewith also they adorned (much more than by their conversations) the doctrine of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ, viz. the 4 cornered cap, and holy hood, the sacred Sandals, and costly cassokes, lawn sleeves and consecrated copes, silken girdles, plush, velvet, and Sattanical gowns, and canceled that very Canons themselves that their Holinesses contrived, wherein they commanded the wearing of them? who pulled away the holy rails from before the sanctum sanctorum in every holy choir where they were stated? did not ye O Presbyterians? hear therefore ye deaf that ye may understand, and look ye blind that ye may see, for if this be sacrilege and Church-robbing, and holy theft, and robbing God etc. to cashier all the forenamed consecrated commodities, than thou O Priesthood art deeper in the guilt of it then any Baptists, yea we are not so much as accessary to that violent ablation of these things, as whose principle leads us to lend leave to those, not in the Church, but in the world, that will use these fooleries, to use them; yea if we wish the abolition of what your Divines call sacrilege to remove, yet our strength against them is to sit still, and save our pains, and see all this kind of Sacrilege committed on them to our hands; but in very deed as we are not the men, so this you call so is not the thing you wot of, but a mere scarecrow and bugbear to fright fools with indeed, and not a purloining of holy things 
* For then by my consent they shall be counted Sacrilegious too, that shall ever happen to be spoilers of the triple crown , for as for outward things (contradict it O ye classical Clergy if ye can) there is no holiness in them now as of old there was, neither in places, nor in Utensils, nor in Ornaments, nor in Monuments, nor Emoluments, nor in Altars, nor Glebes, for those things that are truly holy, are laid up in the soul, and, to answer your Doctor's question, though I have heard of a twofold holiness viz. inherent, and relative, in the subject, and in the object, yet as I may truly say this with the Dr. that inherent holiness no intelligent man ever attributed to inanimate things, so this against him that relative holiness, none but a superstitious Christian ever attributed to any thing under the Gospel, that is of man's invention, donation and dedication, as almost all Dr. Featleys' furniture, and rinkets are, but such only as are Relatively holy, as are in such special relation to Gods that he claims, and challenges, peculiar interest in, as his by donation, dedication, ordination, institution, etc. in which regard some Temples are holy, e. g. his people in Church-fellowship, living stones built up an habitation of God through the spirit, but not such Temples as Dr. Featley means of dead stones, as are by men hallowed to his name; some days as the feasts dedicated by himself, but not any dedicated by men to his honour; some persons as Priests and Levites under the law, Presbyters and Deacons called i e. gifted and qualified by him (not ungifted dumb dogs, drones, and drunkards, so denominated, dedicated, donated by mere men) under the Gospel; some lands, profits, and preferments, reserved, and assigned by God as the inheritance of his Saints and Ministers i. e. servants viz. not Glebes, Tithes, Sentries, but the heavenly Canaan, the holy City, the holy jerusalem that comes down from God out of heaven, incorruptible, indefiled that fadeth not away, some certain Utensils, instruments, Ordinances, and means of serving him, and of communion with him here for a time, till we come to the perfect, and immediate enjoyment of him, viz. the Table, the Font, not such as Dr. Featley means, but the Lords Table, and Baptism itself, the laver of regeneration; some Vessels, but not silver Chalices, nor the whores Golden cup full of trash, abomination and filthiness, but the Earthen Vessels i e. homely, and (to outward appearance) silly, empty, weak, plain d●…spensations, and administrations, which Christ hath chosen, whereby to save them that believe, and to bring to nought the gaudy forms, and ways of man's wisdom; some vestments, not the Cope, nor the Mitre, black coat nor surplice, stained with the filthiness of the whore's fornication, but fine linen white and clean, i. e. the righteousness of the Saints, employed in the immediate service and worship of God, for I will be sanctified of every one that comes near to me saith the Lord; any of which holy things to alienate, unjustly detain, deprave, profane, or p●…rloin from any of those places, or persons to whom (what ere the law of the Land doth) the law of God, and the Gospel hath appropriated, and apportionated them, is that (call you it what you will) which we call sacrilege, and is a sin that was never so much committed by any rank of men under the sun as it is by you clergy men, that yet of all men seem most to abominate it, and of all sins in the world cry out against it; for if as ask who Lords it over Christ's holy heritage? who hath trodden down the holy City? who slew the parsons of the witnesses? who hath broken the Laws, changed the ordinances, broken the everlasting Covenant, for which a curse now is devouring the earth? who hath made void Christ's commands by their own traditions? who hath taken away from the sacraments, the right subjects, and manner of administration? who have justified the wicked for reward, and taken away the righteousness of the righteous from him? who hath defiled the true Temple, and made the house of God a house of Merchandise, slaves and souls of men Rev. 18. a den of thiefs? have not you the clergy? yea your Dr. talks of the Font, and the communion Table, and the pulpit, but who stole away baptism and the supper, and preaching itself, so that there's nothing but sprinkling bells, babies, and confusion, and one moiety of a dinner, and more Pulpit, and Pew, and Belcony, and Canopy, and Cloth, and Cushion, then preaching, and plain publication of the Gospel as it is in Jesus? you talk off robbing God in matters of the law, and Tithes, offerings and things that came by Moses, and now are not at all; but who hathrobbed him in matters of grace, and truth, and ordinances, and things that came by Christ, one tittle of whose Testament shall not be contradicted by man nor angel under pain of cursing? you talk of golden cups and vessels, in which the whore fills out her abominations and filthiness of her fornication to the whole earth, but who hath taken away the key of the Kingdom of heaven, i. e. from the people and Church? in whom the power lies fundamentally, and primarily (for 'tis but derivatively from the church under God, secondarily, executively, and ministerially in the Officers: not only Papa but P P too; see rutherford's Presbytery, wherein he wrists the power of the Keys from the people: who hath taken away the key of knowledge, and shut up the Kingdom of heaven against men, as neither willing to go in themselves by the right way and baptism, nor to suffer them that would? who but ye O Priests have been in these things more sacrilegi church-robbers, then sacerdotes, or givers of holy things? yea what evil of this kind YYYou have wrought in the sanctuaries of God, how you have laid them waste throughout the whole earth, how you have defiled the pure waters thereof, and did so Claudere rivos shut down the floodgates, that the people could have none of these to drink, and caused all discourses, and all placesto overflow with muddy and brackish waters, if I should hold my peace, the stones out of the wall, even those living sto●…s out of the true Temple, that are living monuments of God's mercy at this day, in that they are alive from the dead, even the dead night of your errors, will proclaim to the everlasting infamy of that generation, that have been the nearer the church, the further from God.  
Thou makest thy boast of God (O P P Priesthood) and wouldst seem to approve of the things that are most excellent, and art confident thou thyself art a guide of the blind, and a light of them that sit in darknsse, an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, but indeed thou art a blind guide, a dark lantorn, a foolish instructor, and hast need thyself to be taught by those babes, which live upon the sincere milk of the word, which be the first principles of the oracles of God thou hast a form of knowledge, and of truth as it was in the Law, that was (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) long since abolished according to which thou Enthusiasts to thyself a judai all, Pontifical, Political, Pollitical, Religion of thy own; but thou art grossly ignorant of the truth of the Gospel, and that form of doctrine that Rome obeyed from the heart of old, before it came to be a mother of harlotry, and of such a crew of corrupt children as have since then come from her to the corrupting of the earth; thou teachest another, but thou teachest not thyself, thou preachest a man should not steal, but thou stealest, thou sayest a man should not commit adultery, but all the Kings, and their people in the christian earth have committed adultery with thee, thou seemest to abhor it, yet thou more than any committest sacrilege, yea thou o P P Priesthood art that holy harlot, that holy thief, that hast fingered the most holy things, yea even the holy Scripture itself, which is the store-house, and under Christ the treasury of truth, and hid it from the world under unknown tongues, and a heap of unsound senses, which thou hast put upon it, therefore thou art inexcusable O woman when thou judgest the now churches of sacrilege, for wherein thou judgest them thou condemnest thyself, for thou that judgest dost the same things, which thou sayest they do, but they do not, and therefore is he now killing thy children with death, and we are sure that the judgement of God is according to truth against them that do such things.  
Yea woe unto you O ye blind guides, ye strain at a gnat, and make it sacrilege, and church robbing, to take Fonts, and rails, and pipes, and pictures, and altars etc. out of your stone Temples, and keep a do about cleansing, and hallowing, and having these outside decencyes, and orders, and offerings, but swallow a camel and demolish the true temple of God, and the vessels of the sactuary, i. e. the ordinances thereof, which is holy indeed, which Temple the Saints are, that are built together a spiritual house unto him, and yourselves are full of ravening extortion and excess: you are as graves that appear not, and the men that walk over you are not aware of you, nor how they are rid over by you, nor how very well to be rid of you, wherefore the wisdom of God even Christ jesus now sends you prophets, and Apostles, and wisemen, and Scribes to warn you, yet these you kill and crucify, and scourge and persecute as your enemies, because they tell you the truth, that the blood of all the Prophets that have prophesied in Sack cloth, and tormented you and your forefathers, and your people that dwell on earth for 42 months, may come on this generation, and so your house be left unto you desolate for ever.  
And fourthly there needs no more to prove you to be what you say of us, that we are, viz. a lying and blasphemous sect, than all these forenamed falsities which are asserted o●… the Anabaptists, when of right they belong more properly to yourselves.  
Yea great need indeed and good reason, that you should be the Plaintiffs in this business of loading with disgraces, belying and blaspheming, who have been yourselves nex●… and immediately under Satan Supreme false accusers of the brethren to the world, and the powers, Courts, and consistories thereof civil, and ecclesiastical for Heretics, Schismatics, Sectaries, seditious deceivers, hypocrites, blasphemers, enemies to Caesar, trouble Towns, and what not, with which kind of nick names you the false kingdom of the Priests, have overwhelmed the true royal Priesthood as with a flood, the burden of whose scandals, blasphemies, tales, and disgraces, wherewi●…h you have loaded the saints per mille ducentos sexaginta annos, 1260. years, exceeds any (id genus) that the saints have loaded you with in number, weight, and measure, per millies mille ducentas sexaginta I●…s 1000000260 l.  
You have clothed the precious sons and daughters of Zion, as the persecuting Emperors did of old, with the skins of wild beasts, and so cast them to the dogs to be devoured, i. e. with the names of Monsters, and so exposed them to the hatred of the world, with the which kind of sport not only Dr. Featley, and Mr. Edward's, while they lived, made themselves merry, and their friends too, by bestowing Legends a piece towards the support of their several false ways, as one great Benefactor did a Legend of lies on the Papistrey, to the maintaining of that which they call the golden Legend, but others also, belly the nicknamed Anabaptists of this present age, and nation as denying 
So Mr. Bayly, and Mr. Baxt. Featly p. 161. 167. also Featley and Pagits title pages.  any obedience to civil Magistracy, any propriety in goods, as holding plurality, and community of wives, divorce for difference in religion, as dipping men and women stark naked, and such like.  
Yea just the same lying shifts, and inventions that the Popish Clergy did use to help their Religion by against the Protestants, when they began first to protest against them, and their abominations, do you the Protestant clergy, i. e. both Prelacy and Presbytery strengthen your cause by against the Anabaptists, especially of all sectaries.  
1. They detain the People from reading the Scripture alleging to them the perils they may incur through misinterpretation, 
* Helin p. 161  you likewise would not have the Scripture meddled with by this Clergy of Laics, Mechanic, fantastic Enthusiasts, profound watermen, Sublime Coachmen, Illuminated Tradesmen, etc. Apron Levites, Sectarian Preachers, as Dr. Featley and Mr. Baily call them, 
* See Ba●…. Ep to the Read. also Feat. in his Epist. to the Read and p. 161.  for they (say you) are dunces, and ignorant both of tongues and arts, and so must needs run into errors, and are insufficient for these things, let the smith keep him to his Anvil, and the Cobbler to his last.  
2. These bred Antipathy between the Papist and Protestant, and debar them all sound of the Protestant Religion as much as may be, by prohibiting books of the reformed writers, and Traffic with such Heretical Countries, or such places where those contagious sounds, and sights (as they term them) might make them return infected. You also forbid your good Protestants all society, and commerce (as much 'tis possible) with these pitchy persons, as those that they can't come near, but they must be defiled with them.  
3. Those by the severity of their inquisition, and so you by your high commission and spiritual (alias, spiteful) Courts, while they stood, and by complaints to the next Classis, Synod, etc. as in Scotland, and threats to have an order taken with such and such (as here in England) crush as far as you can in your people the very beginnings, and smallest suppositions of being this way addicted.  
4. They teach their people to Believe that the Protestants, and so do you that the Anabaptists are basphemers of God, and his Saints. Those that in 
* Sae Featleys Epist. to the Read.  England, Churches are turned into Stables, you that the Anabaptists preach in Tubs, that Stables are turned into Temples, stalls into Quires, Shopboards into Communion-tables: Those that the people, i. e. Protestants are barbarous, and eat young children, that Geneva is a professed sanctuary of Roguery 
* Helin p. 189  etc. you that the Anabaptists are filthy, and base in their Conventicles, and are for Murder, Adul●…eries, Butchery, Bawdry, the veriest villains in the world.  
You tell the world that the Anabaptists would have no rules, nor bonds of laws: because of their dissoluteness, which (though it be true enough of the Ranter that Peter and jude speaks of, that separate themselves from their churches sensual, presumptuous, self-willed, despising Government Peter the second Epist. chap. 2. yet is most false of our Churches that separate from you) that we would have no discipline in the Church, no learning nor universities. No coercive power in the civil Magistrates to restrain us because we walk inordinately, whereas though we cannot away with your Canons, yet we are the only men in the world for the rule, which Christ himself hath set for men to walk by, even the word, the Scriptures, which only, and not Synodical constitutions, nor holy chair we stand to have the standard for truth to be tried by to the world's end, and are for all laws in nations, save such as obedience to which makes us palpably rebellious against the law of Christ, viz. laws for tithes with treble damages, for Christ never appointed men's goods to be strained, and they sold out of what they have to pay his own Ministers for preaching his own Gospel, much less to pay the Pope's Ministers for preaching a Gospel of their own? also laws to come to mass in Latin, or Mass in English, or any service of man's making under penalty, we also stand for a true Church that hath right matter viz. professed believers baptised, and right form viz. free, not forced fellowship in breaking of bread and prayers: we are also for the true discipline i. e. Christ's (not the Clergies) in that Church, we hold also that Magistrates, though their persons should be wicked men and heathens (for the notion of Christian adds nothing to their power as Magistrates) are the ordinance of God, To maintain all civil justice and righteousness, between man and man, and to restrain abuses such as murder, treason, adultery, drunkenness, theft, false witness, though they have no coercive power to keep men from s●…ving God according to his own will, that power we deny, yet go not about by violence to withstand it but in quietness suffer under it, when it is put forth against us: we are also for learning, for 'tis a good talon, to use for God, and too good for the Devil, a good servant, but a bad master, and we wish that there were more of it then there is among you clergy (if it may be also well improved, as it seldom is by those of you that have it) for as those of you that are more singular scholars than the rest in humanity, and that mere Anthropo-Theology that is among you, which you call Divinity, are deep dunces for the most part in the school of Christ, and most opposite, through the wisdom of their flesh, which is enmity against God, to the follishnesse of the Gospel, so no less than legions of you are little learned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 either.  
Yea verily, and five, howbeit among other things you brand the Anabaptists with the names of an illiterate and sottish sect, cut as chips out of Nicolas Stock (whom Featly feigns to be the father of the Anabaptists, and styles a very blockhead, and such as know not how to teach, nor dispute for truth) because they know not the original, and cannot conclude, in m●…od and figure p. 113. 164. 163. nor make able ministers of the Gospel, because they understand not the Scripture in the Original languages, and cannot expound without Grammar, nor persuade without Rhetoric, nor divide without logic, nor found the depth of any controversy without Philosophy, and School divinity p. 118 yea Dr. Featley defeats 1000s of his fellow Clergy men utterly in so saying, from the name of able Ministers, yea as he says of us in another, so may we of them in this case, hos suo ingulamus gladio, we may wound them with their own dudgeon dagger, for if ignorant and unlearned men are not fit to make ministers; than not only, their La●…y (which are millions) are unlearned for the most part, and so by Dr. Featleys' own confession unfit to be teachers of truth, but even multitudes of their clergy too, for it is none of the least brands says Dr. Featley p. 164. of the Roman Antichrist that he filled the Church, with a number of ignorant Mass Priests, Monks and Friars, who blind guides (as they were) of the blinder people, fell with them into the ditch of Superstition, Heresy and Sensuality: and (say I) the English Antichrist i. e. the Archbishop of Canterbury, a chip of the old block, that was an Apprentice at Rome in old'n time, till he set up for himself here, and became indeed what the old Caiaphas, Pope Urbane the second, prophesied of him in a compliment about 1099 (little thinking then (God wot) that he would serve him such a trick as to set up his posts against his posts, and take away his custom, and trading here in England) Papatus alterius Orbis: this English Antichrist I say hath multiplied many teachers, and feeders, that are far better fed, then taught in matters of either God or man, and as few Scholars as are among the true Churches (if there were none, the truth would stand without them, and God delights in no man's legs) but if there were need of that to the making ministers of the Gospel, there is proportionably fewer among your churches, considering how little Christ's flocks is, and how voluminous the fold of the whore, and how few truly are so, that go under that name among the people, with whom haud tam cult us quam cucullus facit monachum? for though you talk of secular learning, yet if that were so necessary to a Minister, as the Ministry say it is, it would not only cut off Peter and john from that denomination, who were though better gifted, yet less learned in that sense then the least of you, but most of you clergy also, among whom through out your whole dominion of Christndome, there's few Country Curates are well studied Scholars indeed, in Logic, and other arts and sciences; and as for the tongues and original languages of the scripture (I speak it to the shame of the Ministry, who unminister themselves in saying it is so necessary) there is scarce five of 20. know the original in the old Testament, and not twenty to 5 so well as you should do in the new; and as for the only true learning and original of all wisdom, the fear of God, growth in grace, and the knowledge of Christ, and mysteries of his kingdom, and the spirit, that Christ promised to his people, to teach them all things, which it were better for you by all your learning that you had more of, unlearned P●…ter himself may truly term the most of you such unlearned ones, as wrest the Scripture to your own destruction 
* p●…va est vobis cura linguarum, minor Artium, mini▪ ma pietatis. were most of you as little learnt, as good, a pea●…cod shell might make you gown and hoo●….  Act. 4. 13. 2 Pet. 3. 16. yea so ungifted are the most of you so much as to pray, and then well may you be to preach, (and that is to be unlearned as to the ministers office) that unlettered, or at least unspirited Artificers, may be the proper name of some Clergy men, as well as of the teaching tradesmen Dr. Featly speaks of, for these receive the holy spirit, that gifts them to it, but not many of the Clergy are gifted to pray extempore without book: if I only said this you would not believe me, but sith your great Patron Dr. Featly, to whom you send us, is my Patron as to this, you must believe it whether you will or no (unless you would have us believe him, whom you will not believe yo●…r selves) who gives this good reason, p. 95. why its necessary to have set forms for the Ministers of the church of England to pray by, if they pray at all in public, for there is not one Minister (saith he) or Curate of an 100 specially in Country Villages, or Parochial churches, who hath any tolerable gift of conceived (as they term them) or extempore prayers; which if so, you have small reason to cry out of others, as illiterate; yea verily yourselves will appear to be (as the Anabaptists are styled by you) an illiterate and Sottish generation in things principally pertaining to Christ, and to Ministers of Christ to be skilled in, for that indeed is to be truly learned or unlearned in quoquo genere viz. to be raw or ready either in that which men supremely pretend to excel in, as the Divine doth to excel other men in the things of God, or else in that which is most excellent in itself, and most worthy our being learned in, as the highest and most excellent objects that are knowable being Christ and the mysteries of his kingdom, those consequently are the best Scholars in the world that are most deeply insighted thereinto though elsewise never so ignorant. 
Si Christum nescis nihil est si caetera noscis,  
Si Christum noscis, nihil est si caetera nescis.   
Now count which of these two ways you will, the greatest Clerks will appear to be the greatest Novices, the greatest Doctors the greatest Dunces, the greatest Schoolmen the least Scholars, the prime of the Priesthood the prime Ignor amus's that the Christian earth doth carry: for howbeit, O ye PPPrists, some of you (for the most of you will never be mad with much learning) even surfeit on inferior literature viz. arts, tongues etc. andare taller than other men by the head in the reading of History, Oratory pieces of pibald Poetry and such like, yet as to the mysterious plain Gospel, wher●…in are hid, and whence are handed out unto us the treasures of eternity, in earthen vessels i e. the homely, base, foolish, weak ways and dispensations which are of Christ's choosing, which it concerns Christ's Ministers of all men to be more clear in th●…n in any thing else, they are low, and therefore too high and wonderful for you high studied men to reach to; they are far about out of your sight.  
Yea I think thee (O father) Lord of heaven and earth that thou hidest these things (because seeing they will not see them) from the wise and prudent and revealest them unto babes: yea O Lord how great is the multitude of mere Humanists, that feed only upon the common Theory of that Theology they have framed to themselves, and relish nothing but what is of man? how are thy depths, even thy downright deliveries of soul saving truth in plainess of speech by the mouths of stammerers stark dunce●…y to them? how will not a poor, marred, mocked, misreputed Saviour, and gospel in any wise down with them? who did of old, and who do still stand out most stiffly against thy gospel (O Christ) but the proud self conceited Pharisees, Priests and Lawyers, who while the people believe and justify God, being baptised with the true baptism, do generally reject the council of God against themselves, being not baptised therewith? where had thy message by the mouth of Paul less acceptance then at the university of Athens? where hath the word now less than in the Academies, Christian Academies, seemingly reforming Academies? where, if thou didst not tell us that Christ crucified should be foolishness to the wise men after the flesh, and disputers of this world, who could believe that the Princes of Zoan should be such fools, such idiots as they are in the matters of thy Kingdom? where doth thy truth meet with more difficult entrance, more course entertainment, more malicious accusatious, more captious questions, secret undermine, open oppositions then among the CCChristian Ministry, which therefore is not thine, but Antichristian, because it is both for thee and against thee? yea who so blind as those that seem to themselves to be the only Seers both for themselves and others? ever seeking to thee for thy spirit, yet ever resisting thy holy spirit, speaking to them out of the mouths of babes, as a very babbler, ever teaching yet never learning which be the first principles of thy doctrine, ever serving thee, yet ever thinking they do thee service when they affront thy servants, O Lord let as many of them as do it ignorantly obtain thy mercy if it be thy will, and let thy truth shine into their souls that they may be saved: as for such as are more malevolently disposed, if it may not be otherwise but that the main body of the clergy shall evermore be adversaries to thee and thy Clergy, Amen sobeit.  
And now have showed the Reasons, why God suffers Heretics, and hath suffered the Arch-heretick, and Schismatic, and mother of Abominations of all Christndom i e. the clergy, that have been Wolves rather than Pastors to Christ's sheep, the last of which reasons was this, to provoke the true Pastors to diligence, and watchfulness, to prove them whether they be hirelings or not, such as will flee when the wolf comes, or lay down their lives for the sheep, and having discovered whom I mean by Pastors viz. not the Priests, but those of the truly gathered, and constituted churches; that have separated themselves from the Priest, and his parish popish posture, I proceed yet a little further. For  
This last Reason administers the matter of this ensuing discourse concerning the ways how Pastors of right constituted Churches, such as those of the Baptists only are, should oppose, or rather should have opposed the coming in of these wolves the clergy (for the Pastors of old, through their negligence did suffer them to come in) and drive them out being entered: What the Magistrates duty is in this case it presumes not to set down here, partly because the Magistrate's duty is discovered, and discoursed on above, and partly because it presumes the Magistrate will be wise enough in this age, to know what he is to do towards the freeing of himself from that infinite care and cumber that hath crushed him in former days, by the clergies constant clacking to him to correct Heretics, Schismatics, and Sectaries, and crying out to ●…m ●…o lend them his helping hand, and the edge of his civil sword about Church-work: yea and if God who did once put it into the hearts of the Kingdoms of the earth to fulfil his will, and to agree and with one mind to give their power, strength and Kingdom unto the beast, and to serve the whore that road them Rev. 17. 13. 17. and as ten horns to toss the Saints at her will, will now put it into the minds of these ten horns, even all the Kingdoms of Christndom to hate the whore, and make her desolate, and naked, and eat her flesh, and strip her of all 〈◊〉 ●…ith, and spiritual glory, revenue, dignity, and burn her with fire, and in the●…●…age to ruin great BBBabilon the City that in three parts or PPProud PPPriesthoods hath reigned over them, as I believe he will Rev. 16. 19, 17. 16. 18. throughout, as I can neither much help or hinder it, so I find no warrant to cry Alas, Alas for it, as the Kings, and Merchants that come down with her shall do, but rather All●…lujah with all the people, Rev. 18. 9 11. 16. 19 1. 2. 3. etc.  
There are two public ways, for private are suffering, fastings, and prayers, and tears etc. matters wherewith the clergy (for the most part of them) never yet killed themselves, nor approved themselves yet as the Ministers of Christ by, as his true Ministers did of old, which have been practised by Pastors in those primitive day's viz. Disputing, Preaching, concerning both which this discourse intends only a short su●…vey, leaving the proceedings in them to their judgements, whom God hath made faithful.  
Disputation (say our Ashford Disputants) hath ever been decried by most judicious and grave men; Tertullian is bitter (say they against it; Perdes in contentione vocem, nihil consequeris nisi vilem de blasphematione la●…dem, and I say so too, a man may very easily wrangle ad ravim, dispute himself hoarse, and lose his tongue in contention, and get nothing, but a base repute of blasphemation, specially when, as 'twas at Ashford, and somewhere else within a mile of an oak the contention is so sharp, that there's not only six tongues to one or two talking for it, tuning altogether against the truth, but six bells bawling out also to bear it down with:  
And another magni res est periculi veterem fidem quasi novellam otiosa disputatione discutere, and so indeed it is a matter of great disadvantage id●…ely to dispute the old faith, as if it were some new one whereupon, that truth may receive detriment by us in nothing, hence forward we do all men to wit, that howbeit the clergy and their creatures claim antiquity to be on their sides still, both in the point of baptism, and other differences between them, and the men called Anabaptists, and delude their people into a blind misbelief that all that truth●…, which now comes to light, is to be taken for granted to be heresy before 
Hang out your lights here, your new lights quoth he, scoffingly, who in pride prints himself Capape, Captain general of all the Presbyterian forces in England, etc. viz. Dr. B.  hand, new faith, new ways, a new Gospel (and this they do more easily and effectually, by how much 'tis true that the fog of their errors hath been so thick, that men can find but little of that, which now shines forth, in the days of our m●…e immediate forefathers, though there were many righteous men no question then disiring to see and hear what we now do and could not) howbeit I say they have prepostest people thus, yet in order to the dispossessing of them of that praejudication, by reason whereof the primitive truth, which (however God winked while it was a time of ignorance) must, now it comes to light again, be received in the love thereof, that they may be saved, and in the rejection of which they will be damned 2 Thes. 2. g●…ts little entertainment into their hearts; I here proclaim it again to all people upon earth (as that truth, which, as I have showed above, God will show the Clergy once to their shame) that the baptising or dipping believing men and women in that way, wherein we do it, is no new faith, practice, nor baptism, but that one only true baptism, which was instituted by Christ, and used in the primitive times of the Gospel, and that their sprinkling infants is a mere trifle, a toy, a new trick, and tradition of the church, in its beginning to degenerate into darkness and superstition; and also that 'tis a tradition (though more ancient, and reverend than some others: as Mr. Roger's said of it, and of which the church hath been pos●…est for 1500 years, as Mr. Martial (a little more than he could undoubtedly prove too, said of it) is confessed not only by the Italian Clergy, as Bellarmine, who said it could not be proved by Scripture, but (as simply as our Clergy wrists the Scripture into the proof out) by the Remonstrants also, who held it but as a very ancient Rite, that could scarcely be left off without great offence; yea and Dr. Gouge also, that would not be entreated to say ay or no to it at Dr. Chamberlains request, now he sees people begin to pry into it, did once acknowledge that it was a tradition of the church; see Dr. Chamb. to Mr Bakewel p. 3. where he says he hath under Mr. Barber's hand that he said so, and used it as an argument to persuade him to take the oath ex officio:  
And I desire all men to understand by these presents, before whom we may happen to dispute this point hereafter, that we declare against infant-sprinkling as a novelty in the faith, and when we plead the dipping of believers, as we are not in jest, intending otiosam disputationem such idle, dribbling demi disputes, and dainty dispatches, as the Priesthood put us off with, wherein he flams us i'th' mouth for an hour or two with the flap of a fox tail, and lends us two or three licks of Latin, and Logic and away again, but a more serious, earnest and constant course of conferring, till the truth be tried to the utmost, so what we are so careful to contend for, it is no new one, but that old faith and baptism, which was once delivered to the Saints, this course of continued discourse, though it suits not with such as seeing see not, whose ways and courses are so much the more suspicious to be naught, by how much the less they abide the light,  
And a Modern Author whose Learning and judgement lives in the Memories of many of our Kentish Clergy, 
* Sir Henry Wotton.  passed this sentence on it, Pruritus disputandi scabies Ecclesiae, yet I say is that, the very li●…e of the truth is so far concerned in, that there's very little of it comes to light in the CCClimate of the clergy, by reason of their subtle sneaping things as much as may be out of sight, that make against them; I know the perverse dispute against the truth of men of corrupt minds destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness, that 'tis reformation enough to mend the means of Presbyters out of the Bishop's superfluities, is the scab of the Church of England indeed, but I speak not of the pravity, but purity of the disputation, when plain minded men destitute of all self ends are minded to be serious and self denying, and single-hearted in this work in order to more than either money or mere dispute itself: nor is it Pruritus disputandi an itching simply after dispute (for who are we simple Cobblers, Cartars, smith's, Fishermen, Farmers, etc. to stand before the wise and the Scribe, and the disputer of this world in that work, if God had not rejected them, and made his wisdom foolishness) but it is pruritus disprobandi, a deep desiring of disproving your practices as Popish, dispelling your smoke of errors, and endeavouring to the utmost of our power according to what you have sworn us to in that kind, to root out, not by the civil sword, but the plainness of the word, your superstition, heresy, Schism, and whatsoever shall be found contrary to sound doctrine, that disposes us to desire it. Indeed The Heathen said it was a wicked custom to dispute about the Gods, for thereby 
Cice●…. 2. de na●… dear.  things certain are oft called into question, nor have they said thus without reason, considering what little strength of Reason they had wherewith to assertain it, that their Gods were Gods at all, but me thinks it should not be counted therefore a wicked custom among true Christians, that own the true God (unless to put forth such curious questions about God as the Sch●…olmen do, viz. A●… deus potius non suisse? whether God could have chosen, whether he would have been God or no? and such like fooleries) to dispute about their God, and about his worship for fear it should grow more doubtful by discussing; and howbeit considering the strong causes that commonly stiffen and harden the clergy in their Heresies, or the utmost of their ends in disputing, and some of those sor●…y effects that ensue, there is but little encouragement to that work of disputing with them, yet sith truth can likely be no loser by coming to the light nor, is diminished, but displayed the more by how much it is discussed, I see no reason why it should be declined, and why Heteticks are not to be disputed withal: and here it cannot be amiss.  
If we consider, 1 the Causes, 2 the de●…ign of Heretics, 3 the Common effects of disputation with them.  
Among the causes of the clergies Heresies may be reckoned, Amor 
1 Causes.  sui, a conceit of themselves, a fancied perfection and purity in them more than others: Amor sui primum aedificavit civitatem diaboli saith St. Austin) self love first set up the devil's Kingdom,  
Even that great City BBBabylon that in three parts reigns over the Kings and nations of the earth: for though there were many superstitions grown in upon the Christians before in the first three hundred years, yet the pompous Kingdom of Priests had no foundation whereupon to rise, so long as the Roman Empire remained Heathen, for then the very Bishops of the Church of Rome, whom the Devil hath since made his Vice-gerents in the world, were persecuted to the death by the devil himself, acting in the heathen Emperors in bloody butchery against Christians, yea the Ministers went under miserable martyrdom as w●…ll as others, and kept indiff●…rent close to the truth, but when once the Dragon who fought against Michael and his Angels with open rage before, and acted against them under the very name of Christians, by his Angels the heathen Emperors, and massacred Millions of Christians when he saw the Emperor himself Constantine the Great turned Christian, and resolved to vindicate Christ's cause, and rescue the Christians from their bloody sufferings, and finding that Michael and his Angels did now prevail against him, and his cruel Cutthroats, so that place must be no more found for them in heaven i. e. the high places of power in the Empire, and that he could execute his wrath now no longer by them against the saints, as Christians, a Christian being now come to the Crown, he had no other remedy now then to play his cards about another way and turn Christian also himself, that he might have the fairer advantage to crush the true Christians, that kept the commands of God, and the faith of Jesus, under the new nicknames of Heretics, Schismatics, etc. that would not obey the orders of the Church, insomuch that who but the devil? who so busy as he now to have Christian Bishops favoured, cherished, advanced, honoured with all the honours that might be, next to that of the very Crown Imperial itself? who so earnest as he to have all the world brought about by all means possible, and in all the haste to become Christians, and to become one holy Catholic Christian Church? and so within a while (Deo permittente non approbante) having set forth the beast, or Roman Empire in another shape, and christened it with the name of Christendom, he scrambles up his Kingdom to himself again, makes over his power, seat and great authority to this beast, thus transformed, and this beast gives it all up to the Whore, he sets him up a Vicar General, and names him the Vicar of Christ, the head of the Church, Bishop of the Universal See, and such like, and by him, and the Ministers (of Christ) that issued from him, fills all the earth with abomination; and reigns with as full force, though not so open face, but under a mask (having all things in a kind of apish imitation of Christ's kingdom) to the suppressing of the truth, as in former days he had done, and all this came to pass through this sin of self love in the Clergy, which as it grew great, so love to the truth grew smaller and smaller, till it came to be totally extinguished, and the light of it wholly eclipsed from the earth, for when the good man Constantine in his zeal, to the truth, gave them great Revenues, to which other princes added more still 
* After the o●…throw of the ex●…chate, 〈◊〉 Emp●…rs now neglecting Italy, the Roman, began now to be governed by the advice & power of the Popes: Pepin and his son Charles having overthrown the Lombard's give unto the Pope's the Ex archate, Urbine, Ancona, Spolero, and many other Towns and territories about Rome.  according to the voice that was then heard in the air, viz. 〈◊〉 vene●… insusum est ecclesiae so it sell out, for the Cle●…y fell to make much of themselves and things of the earth, to serve and seek their own interests, fell to wrangling and jangling about Primacy, Superiority, who should be universal Bishop, and such base, unworthy, abominable and self-pleasing practices, so that the truth took no more place in their hearts from then ceforth for ever.  
From thenceforth they began to grow in high esteem of themselves, and not only to fancy, but also to inveigle both Princes and people to fancy some perfection, holiness, choiceness, spiritualness and purity in them more than in all other men, and to distinguish themselves from the people by their garbs, and titles of Holy men of God, the Spiritualty, the Clergy, or Heritage of God, the Tribe of Levi, the lot of Gods own inheritance, the Priesthood, Ghostly fathers, Divines, shutting out the people from sharing with them in these terms of honour (which belong only to God's people, whom of all the rest in the mean time, they villyfyed with the names of Heretics) as if God himself had no ●…egard almost to any but themselves, and did behold all manner of men, but these Ministers, afar off, calling other princes, and lords (for the Clergy men were become lords and princes too now, i. e. spiritual ones) Temporal Princes, Lords Temporal, Secular men, and the people the Laity, Mechanics, that must not meddle with the Scripture, so much as tolook in it (for so it was in old time) not so much as to take upon them to be skilled in it, much less to speak out of it, or expound, or understand any otherwise then as these Divines say is the meaning of it; yea under the reign of these latter Lords, the Protestant CClergy, though they have it in such plain English before their eyes, yet what a horrible thing was it, but a few years behind fancied by Featley (and still is well nigh universally by the CClergy here in England, who appropriate all the wisdom about the Scripture to themselves, what a horrible thing I say, for the people to talk on, or have more to do with Scripture, then to take it as the Priesthood gives the sense of it: The Shoemaker goes not beyond his last, nor the Tailor beyond his measure (quoth he) only the trade (and well might he so call it, for by that craft they have their wealth, as handicrafts men theirs by other crafts) of expounding Scripture is a mystery, which every Artisan arrogateth to himself, the Physician here will be prescribing receipts, the Lawyer will be demurring upon Dubi a Evangelica, and every handicrafts man will be handling the pure word of God with impure and unwashed hands: this the prattling huswife, this the old dotard, this the wrangling Sophister, in a word this men of all profession, and men of no profession take upon them to have skill in: sic ille: & quid ni quaeso O Sacerdos? what was the Scripture given for thee only to look in? or wast thou set to keep people out from it under lock and key? or may the spirit blow no where, but where thou listest? must not all people search it? or must they search and find no more truth in it then thou findest? or must they not take it into their mouths, lest they defile it, as Bishop Wren thought, who prohibited the people to talk on it at their tables, for fear they should profane it?  
It should seem so by Dr. Featley who cried down the people as Asses, Apron Levites, Russet Ra●…bies, the Clergy of L●…cks etc. wondering that their doors, and posts and walls did not sweat, upon which any note was fixed to give notice of the exercises of men of any manual employment: yea 'tis a thousand pities, quoth he, that such owls and bats, and night bird●… (as if the Clergy only were the children of the day, and the people the children of the night, and darkness) should flutter in our Churches, and sil●… upon our fonts, Pulpits and Communion Tables.  
This was the cause of that great Schism of Corah, Dathan and Abiram Numb. 16. all the congregation is holy, But this is the cause of that schism of Pope, Prelate and Presbyter from the primitive freedom, that gifted Disciples, whether offi●…ers or no, had to speak to exhortation, edification & comfort, and that the congregation than had to admonish her Ministers upon occasion Co. 4. 17. viz. all the congregation are profane, only the Priesthood holy enough to draw near within the rails, and to preach to the people out of the Pulpit, they are afraid (I wot) lest the preaching of others there should sile and bewray it, what need else of causing the pulpit to be washed, as I have heard one of our Kentish Clergy men did his, after two tradesmen had preached there in his absence: they think they are men meliore luto, of some better mould, and taller by far in God's affections then the People are; This conceit makes them go apart, look upon themselves as sons of Anack, their Brethren as Grasshoppers, eat commerce and society with them, as with publicans and sinners; In detestation of whom, as not consecrated, they say Odi Profanum vulg●…s: and in a kind of proverbial spell, procul hinc, procul este profani: an●… as dislike of others, so 2. Dislike of their own places is another cause of the Heresies of the Clergy: the foot will be the hand, or not of the body, the hand will be the head or else will be no body at all: the Servant regarding neither the Council, nor the command, nor the Example of his Master, who came not to minister to, but to minister and gave in charge that there should be no dominion among his disdiples, and bade them that meant to be greatest to be last, and least, would needs be above his Master, and he that was sent greater than he that sent him, and by this he entered exceedingly into error: the Minister could not endure to be the foot, to have the whole body of the Church stand above himself, though sure, if he were, as a king is, Major singulis, yet he is Minor omnibus, and must stoop to the vote of the congregation: he could not bear it to be the hand only to execute what the head directed in, but he must be the head to give laws and ordinances of his own: Corah could not be content with his place, but sought the Priest's Office, the clergy could not be contented with such Shepheardship as the Gospel had at first, but they must need, be made Priests after that more pompous way of the law; nor to be Priests only in sensu diviso from all the Saints, but they must seek the High Priests office too, and have Arch-Patriachs, Arch-Bishops, Lord Bishops etc. they could not brook it to be amongst the Saints as them that serve, but they must be as they that sit at meat, having all others to serve them: and in no mean manner neither have some of their Holinesses been served, when Kings and Emperors have stood b●…e before them, bare foot at their doo●…s, (as Henry the fourth Emperor, and his wife, and son did at Pope Adrian's gate before they were admitted to the speech of him) and not only so, but held their stirrups also, and lay down to have their necks trod upon by him (as Frederick Barbarossa did to Pope Gregory, saying non tibi sed Petro, and was answered again by the proud Prelate, et 〈◊〉 et Petro) in a word have held it honour enough to kiss his feet.  
In the state Absoloms' ambition O that I were a judge! was the cause of his rebellion, and the same kind of aspiring mind after no less than all power both in heaven and earth, Church and State too, made the Clergy, when time best served their ambitious turn, to rebel so abominably against all civil power, as not only to exempt themselves fully from the jurisdiction of Temporal Princes, but most wickedly to subjugate all civil power to such depency on them and their Lord God the Pope, that when they have not been slaves to the Clergies Imperious will, and carnal concernments, he hath took upon him to act according to that power he claims, most blasphemously saying, by me Kings reign, to force them to surrender their crowns, and sacrifice their lives too to his lust (witness the case of King john here in England) and in scorn to kick off the crowns of Emperors with his feet, and in testimony of their taking all civil power as well as spiritual to themselves, Eugenius the second took on him within the Roman territory, the authority of creating Earls, Dukes, and Knights, as the Exarchate had done before him, Helin p. 182. also Innocent the third held a council in Rome in which it was enacted that the Pope should have the correction of all Christian Princes, and that no Emperor should be acknowledged till he had sworn obedience unto him Helin p. 184. upon the same ambitious account Pope Boniface the eight, by a general bull exempted the Clergy from all taxes, and subsidies to Temporal Princes, whereupon Edward the first, put the Cl●…gy out of the protection of him, and his laws, by which course the Pope's bull left r●…ring here in England, Herald G. p. 184. the same Boniface boasted one day in his pontisic●…l attire with the keys of the Kingdom of heaven in his hand, that all spiritual power was committed to him, and the next day in the Robes of an Emperor, with a naked sword born before him, that all civil power was committed to him also, ecce duo gladii hic: yea after the translation of the E●…pire from France to Germany the Popes began to make open protestation that the Pontifical dignity was rather to give laws to the Emperors then to receive any from them Helin G. p. 188. and as in the state ambition, so in the Church the des●…re of a change from Membership to Mastership, from Servantship to Lordship, over the true Clergy, is the true cause of the Clergies Heresy and Schism, for being raised by earthly power and greatness, they forgot the sal vation of souls, sanctity of life, and the commandments of God, propgation of Religion, charity toward men; and to raise arms, to make war against Christians, to invent new devises for getting money, to profane sacred things for their own end, to enrich their kindred and children was their only study, saith Helin out of Guiciardine Geog. p. 188..  
3. Gloriae secularis ●…ucupium, a desire to be somebody. judas, Thudas, Simon Magus are Instances of it, which Simon sinned and erred so grossly out of his vain glorious desire to be looked upon as some great one, as to offer to buy the gift of the holy spirit for money: of which sin and error of Simon, no men under heaven are more guilty than the clergy, for as they endeavour to to get gifts and endowments for the honour, & office of ministry in the Church by laying out money at Schools, and purchasing to themselves degrees, as if the spirit must undoubtedly gift men for the Ministry that mean to bestow themselves that way, when once they are trained up to be Masters of Arts in the university, so, to say nothing how they pay for their ordination, and actual admission into the function itself, when so fitted, though themselves call it Simony, or the sin of Simon to buy spiritual livings, (these with them we see are the gifts of the holy spirit) yet such is their unsatiable greediness after glory, and greatness in the world, that as hateful a sin as Simony seems to be among them, few of their spiritual gifts shall be lost for lack of buying, if a fee be looked for, yea how few are dispens●…t freely: and fairly from the spirit, and not rathet from the flesh i e. some base, corrupt, rotten, fleshly respect and selfish end or other in the spiritual patroness? how little or no spiritual preferment is there to bigger benefices, Bishoprics, or what ever ecclesiastical dignity in any almost of the three Hierachies, but it's either bruitishly bought for money, or basely begged for some trencher service, or bestowed on men, qu●… befriended, more than qua befitted with Gospel spirits, for Gospel service, or in some sinister way of legerdemain or other most paultrily purchased, but specially under the Papacy, where si nihil attuleris ibis Hemere foras.  
Calvin says vix cente simum quodque beneficium in papatu sine Simonia conferri etc. searcely every hundredth benefice is bestowed at this day in the Papacy without Simony, as the old writers defined Simony, I do not say that they all buy them with ready money, but show me one of twenty that cometh to a benefice without some by commendation, some either kindred or alliance promoteth, and some the authority of their parents, some by doing of pleasures do get themselves favour. Finally, benesices are given to this end, not to provide for the Churches, but for them that receive them, therefore they call them benefices, by which words they do sufficiently declare, that they make no other account of them, but as the beneficial gifts of Princes, whereby they either get the favour of their soldiers, or reward their services, I omit how these rewards are bestowed upon Barbers, Cooks, Moil-keepers, and such dreggish men. And how judaical Courts do ring of no matters more, then about benefices: so that a man may say that they are nothing else but a prey cast afore dogs to hunt after. Is this tolerable even to be heard of, that they should be called Pastors, which have broken into possession of a Church as into a farm of their enemy? that have have gotten it by brawling in the law? that have bought it for money? that have deserved it by filth services: which being children yet scantly able to speak, have received it as by inheritance from their uncles and kinsmen, and some bastards from their fathers?  
But this is more monstrous, that one man, (I will not say what manner of man, but truly such a one as cannot govern himself) is set to govern six or seven Churches. A man may see in these days in Prince's Courts, young men that have three Abbacies, two Bishopwricks, one Archbishopric, but there be commonly Canons laden with with five, six or seven benefices, whereof they have no care at all, but in receiving the rev news, Inst. lib. 4. cap. 5. Sect. 6. etc.  
Thus they: yea the Pope's studied nothing more saith, Helin Geog. p. 184. then to advance their Nephews, for by that name the Pope's use to call their bastards: hence came the saying of Alexander the third viz. the laws forbid us to get children, and the devil hath given us Nephews in their stead: and though L●…her add Calvin were themselves men of more moderate minds then to purchase pre●…eminencies, titles, dignities to themselves, yet, though somewhat better than at Rome, it hath been too bad among the Successors of both in Clerical capacity as to that corrupt kind of climbing to the chiefest punctillioes of earthly eminency they canattain to●…yea verily there's very few of them but they are Papalis Ambitionis homines of Popely aspiring minds, seeking superiority, gaping after glory (of this world, not that to come) liking to be looked upon with distinction, as men not like other men, as men of worth, when their worth lies more many times in what they have, than what they are, affecting to be applauded for their very Sermons, to be humbed when they come to a period, in order to which (I bl●…sh to think how they were wont to pause and look fo●…'t in university pulpits, and sometimes too when to their greater shame they went without it) and to be thanked for their great pains, when they have done: thus surfeiting upon self-conceit, and being drunk with affectation, they err in affection to the rule of faith (for how can y●… believe (saith Christ) when ye receive honour one of another, and seek not that honour that cometh from God only? john 5. this honour from beneath is the very element in which, and not in God, (save as they are his creatures) these Cha●…aelens the clergy live, move, and have their being.  
The a●…r of popularity is the breath, by which the Heretic lives, vain glory the stirroy by which he mounts into such magnitude, and towers so high as to overtop not only all other people, but all other Princes also of the earth, and to exalt himself above all that is worshipped and called God, he lack●… to make himself a name like to the name of the great men that are on the earth, for the name of Minister or Servant, to so plain and disrespected a Master too, as the Master Christ was, whose name was cast out as evil, who made himself of no reputation, and would have all hisServants specially the Servants of all his Servants to be of the same mind and follow him through scorn, shame, suffering, and not be above him here, if they mean to reign with him hereafter, this was too mean a name for him to be known by, he must be Dominus Dominorum here, & KKKing it over the Kings of the earth: Paschalis the first caused the Priests of certain parishes at Rome, by reason of the nearness of his person, their presence at his election, and to honour their Authority with a more venerable title, to be called Cardinals, they are now Mates for Kings, and numbered about 70 Helin Geog. p. 182.  
And howbeit Christ forbade his ministers the seeking of glory from men in this world, as not the time for them to come to the crown in, or to any thing but the cross; yet his desire was Possit hic est to be cried up by the people as Supreme Moderator in all the matters of Christ's Church, and civil State too, against the plain will of the old master in his word, and to be sought after as a new Master: Our Saviour saith of the Pharisees they loved the praises of men, and the present priesthood of the Protestant nations lay this to our charge, who are Christ's Messengers and Servants to his Churches, whom they call Anabaptists, calumniating us so far as we are zealous, and follow on (according to the many covenants, which both they and we have taken) to reform fully by the word, as if we sought nothing but glory and to be seen of men, and merely to make ourselves Masters of a sect, and such like, which if we do we shall dearly answer for the sin of seeking, and serving ourselves of Christ's service at the last as well as they, but me thinks (if blindness in this point had not happened to them) they should see of themselves, that men cannot seek secular honour to themselves by siding with such a sect as ever was (and ever will be whilst the world stands, such is its hatred to the truth) every spoken against; yea verily the name of these churches, that own and keep close to all the principles of Christ's doctrine, and own the whole truth, for Christ's sake, whose they are, both are, and yet will be cast out as evil by all other churches: yet grant these Churches should grow into more request, and favour among men (as they do at sometimes more than some Act. 9 31.) ye their Messengers to the world must expect to be continually under clouds and to be counted deceivers, disturbers, trouble towns, turners of the world upside down, where ere they come, and to be in tumults, and disho●…ors, and evil reports among most men 2 Cor. 6. 4. 10. yea woe un●…o those Ministers that desire all men should speak well of them, 'tis a shrewd sign they are none of Christ's, I think God hath set forth us Messengers last of all (saith Paul of the Messengers to the Church of Corinth, when it was at rest 1 Cor. 4. 9 13.) as men appointed to death, for we are made a spectacle to the world, and Angels and men, we are fools for Christ's sake, we are weak, the Church themselves may be honoured, but we must be despised, we hunger and thirst, and are naked, and are bussetted, and have no certain dwelling place, and labour working with our hands: being reviled we bless, being persecuted we suffer it, being defamed we entreat, we are made the filth of the world, and are the offscouring of alls things unto this day.  
So that I marvel men should think we seek to be cried up among men; yet thus are we censured by the Clergy (and all that ever were forward for the truth, and sought to vindicate it in any part thereof, since it began to return from under those clouds, wherewith the Clergy hath overcast it, were so censured by the Common Council of Clergy men, in their several climates) as drawing disciples after us, that they might be called after our name, and not Christ's, and so we, and not he be glotified: The papists calumuiated Luther with it, that he affected his disciples should be called Lutherans, but he denied it: non s●…o fatue, non s●…▪ oro ut meum nomen taceatur, avs●…t of mihi faetido●…ermium succo accederet, ut filii Christi meo vilissimo nomine d●… cerentur; in like manner say we to them, who are insatuated into the same faith concerning us, Non sic O sacerd●…s, non sic: Oramus non ut nostrum, sed ut Christi nomen nominetur, et ut quisquis nominat nomen Christi ab iniquitate ista abscedat 2 Tim. 2. 19 Imo absit a nobis gloriari, nisi in cruse jesu Christi, per quem mundus nobis cru●…isixus est, & nos mundo Gal. 6. 14. novit dominus qui sui junt: as for yourselves O Priests non vide●…is idmanticae quod in tergo est. 'tis the praise of men that most of you seek, much more than the praise of God, this makes you so err from the way of truth, this makes it more tedious to you, then 'tis ordinarily to other men▪ to be of that sect that is every where spoken against, and to see the Gospel, whose constant companions disgraces are, when it shines upon you: you are impatient of hearing so much ill as poor Christ in his disciples must, and so are for the most part capable but of little good.  
4. Covetousness Saint paul calls it the root of all evil, all in the church all in the commonwealth grows out of the root of Papal, Prelatical, Presbyterian, (I had almost said, and might say it, if they turn Tith-mongers too, whether per se or per alios) Independent covetousness: achan's lar●…iledge, Naboth's Murder, naaman's Idolatry, Iudas' treason, Demetrius' persecution. Demas' apostasy; even all the mischief of all these kinds, which have been acted by the clergy throughout all christendom, who, as is showed above, are in truth the most sacrilegious, cruel, false worshipping, Christ selling, truth treading, and Apostatical generation that age, from Apostolical purity, doth proceed from this rotten root of covetousness, which hath so corrupted the whole Mass of men called Ministers, for this 1260. years and upward, that vel duo vel nemo, few or none of them have ever preached the Gospel, nor freely, and fully held forth the truth in all points, as it is in Jesus, from thenceforth to this very day.  
And indeed how can any other be expected, then corrupt doctrines from men of corrupt minds, which hold gold to be godliness, 1 Tim. 6. 5. and pose liberal and bountiful maintenance, and rich Revenues to be the chief corner stone in their church work? yet thus the Clergy by their wont clamours for it not only at Rome but at Westminster also seem to me to suppose; yea the higest pitch that many of them seem to point at in reformation of religion is, the restoring of impropriations,, and crushing the pride of the swelling Poppies or Episcopal clergy, and conferring that large allowance on the Presbyterial: you cry out that a base Ministry can never do good upon the people, and that the poverty of the Ministry is enough to bring them into contempt, and that the church is robbed of a painful Ministry, because there is not honey enough in the hives to feed a drone.  
But I say you have made yourselves more base by far, and brought yourselves into more contempt by your covetousness, and greedy gaping after riches, than ever yet you came into by poverty, and that one Drone will devoute more maintenance if men put into his mouth as long as he will open it, as many honest, selfdenying ministers will make a good shift, not only to live, but to live to Christ on: they are not seducers that preach on cheaper terms, but the basest Ministers, if you count that baseness, to be destitute of liberal maintenance, were ever yet the best Ministers of the Gospel, and the most enriching Ministers to the people: Christ foresaw clearly enough that a rich ministry would make but poor work in his Vineyard, therefore in his wisdom chose not many rich, nor mighty, nor noble, but the foolish, weak, base, abject, despised ones in the eyes of the world, and earthen vessels to send his treasure by into the world 1 Cor. 1. 26 27. 28. 2 Cor. 4. 7. yea those Ministers of Christ that were in afflictions, necessities, distresses, hunger and thirst, cold and nakedness, poor and having nothing, that neither had, nor provided silver nor gold, nor brass in their purses (as Peter and Paul and the rest of the primitive preachers had not) were the most precious, plain, painful, profitable preachers of the Gospel that ever the earth bore, Matth. 10. 9 Act. 3 6. 1 Cor. 4. 11. 2 Cor. 6. 4. ad 11. 2 Cor. 11. 23. ad 28. and if mighty means were such a mighty means to make able Ministers of Christ, as is pretended by you Clergymen, that tell the State they may as well set Carpenters to build without tools, as send forth Ministars without liberal maintenance, I wonder there are no better Ministers at Rome, where they are maintained more like Monarches than Ministers of Christ: but 'tis a true proverb, that their golden cups made them become such wooden Priests: Cum ecclesia peperit divitias filia devoravit matrem: you tell the Magistrates that they'll discourage persons from meddling therewith, if they allow not large maintenance to the Ministry, But I pray God they may never meddle more with the Ministry, that are encouraged to enter on it with respect to maintenance, such ever more maimed then maintained the Gospel: such which loved the gold of the altar dearer than the altar, and Corban more than conscience, and minded the wages more than the work as (exceptis excepiendis some few only excepted) the national Ministry ever did since donations of dignities from Temporal Princes fell upon them, were ever more murderers than Ministers of the Gospel, nil tam sanctum, the Heathen said but gold would expugn it. You would be rich, and so fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, that drown men in destruction and perdition; your love of money was the mother of all mischief, which while you coveted after, you were seduced from the faith: yea in these days wherein you vow, and protest for the faith, as if you would fain follow on to find it fully, as 'twas once delivered to the Saints, you'll neither find it further, nor follow it faster than it keeps pace with your outward enjoyments, so that we may say truly Quantum quisque sua nummorum servat in arcâ, tantum habet et fidei: so much money as you can get by it, so much faith, religion, reformation you'll be for, and no more; yea like Lawyers, that look more at the greatness of the fee, than the goodness of the cause, nay being feed better, leave their old Clients and turn to the other side, so do many of you in these days (wherein many run to and fro that knowledge may be increased) turn to and fro that livings may still be established on you, from mass, to liturgy, and back again, and back again, and then to the directory, from all which, while you stood in the practice of them, there was no moving you by Scripture nor reason: but qui pecunia non movetur hunc dignum spectatu arbitramur. But you plead that the mouth of the Ox must not be muzzled that treadeth out the Corn, that 'tis the will of God that such as have sown in the Church spiritual things should reap their carnal things, that such as preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel.  
I answer 'tis most true there is a power, and liberty allowed, for such as serve the Church to eat and to drink, and to subsist (in case they cannot subsist otherwise) at the charges of the Church, when she sets them apart for her service, 1 Cor. 9 but it is most commendable, and thankworthy in the Ministry to serve the Church and preach the Gospel freely, and as far as 'tis possible not to be burdensome in this kind at all, as namely in case they have any estates of their own, or can improve themselves in any such outward employment, labour or lawful calling whereby to obtain a competent livelihood, and lay out themselves and the gifts, that Christ hath freely given them, in the service of Christ freely too, as men may do many times, if they be not idle, and loving their own ease more then to ease the church of Christ of unnecessary pressures in their purses.  
And thus the Apostle Paul, and the first Ministers of the Gospel did, and though they pleaded a power to live upon them, in case they could not live without them, that the Church might know it to be their duty freely to minister to their Ministers necessities, when they saw them willing freely to expose themselves to necessities, for the truth's sake, rather than seek supersluities to themselves, yet they did not use that power they had, much less abuse it too make a trade of it, but did rather suffer all things that they might make the Gospel as little chargeable as might me 1 Cor. 9 12. 18. yea they received wages sometimes when they went out to warfare, i. e. to preach the Gospel up and down, so as was utterly inconsistent with the total maintaining of themselves, which while they abode more settledly at one place, they did attend to with their own hands: for its evident that to this end they might not hinder the Gospel from taking place in men's hearts by seeming too much to make a trade of it, they laboured, working with their own hands, as oft as they could conveniently, and their own hands ministered to their own necessities, and they had some honest outward occupation (as also Christ himself had, and sollowed too, till he was wholly taken up in travel to preach the truth, therefore Mark. 6. 3. is not this the Carpenter?) wherein they wrought at all times, saving when they were actually employed in some service of preaching to the world, writing, disputing, visiting &c. as is plain to him that consults these Scriptures, in the last of which, lest any should think they did more than Ministers now need 
Act. 18. 3. 4. Act. 20. 33. 34. 35. 2 Cor. 11. 7. ad 12. so 12. 13. 18. 1 Cor. 4. 11, 12. 1 Thes. 2. 9 2. Thes. 4. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12.  to do, Paul says plainly they did not use their power, that they might be an ensample to others to follow them, so Act. 20. 35. and therefore howbeit he bids Timothy, that was a Minister of the Gospel, not entangle himself in the affairs of this life (for 'tis not good indeed that Ministers, mind the world so much as to cumber themselves with over much business in it, that they may be more free, than other men to please Christ, who calls them in a more special sense, than all Christians, to be his soldiers, yet I believe he is far from prohibiting him in that speech from following any civil calling at all, for in the very verse before 2 Tim. 2. 3. 4. he bids him endure hardness as a good Soldier of jesus Christ: yea Ministers of all men should be patient of all things for the Gospel sake, that they hinder it not by their delicacy viz. of hard work sometimes, and hard fare too, if occasion be, and hunger and thirst, and cold and nakedness, and extremities, and necessities, and distresses, rather than lie too heavy upon the flock of Christ, which is a little flock, and those few mostly poor folks too in this world, though rich in faith, that may have more mind than ability to Minister to their Ministers, and many of them more need to be ministered to by their Ministers, if at any time they have abundance, then to have their householdstuff strained, and sold, (as poor folk's kettles, pots, pans, and platters are by the Priests, and their publican tith-gatherers) to pay them.  
You tell us that the first Ministers were gifted from God to preach the Gospel extempore, and therefore well might they work, and yet easily preach the Gospel too, but the Ministers now must attain to it by much study, and hard pains, and therefore had need to be sequestered wholly from all earthly employments, that they may give themselves wholly to that work of preaching, and to have such sufficiency of means allowed them, as may free them from all thoughts of other things, and furnish them to buy abundance of books, without which tools you say in the trade of preaching, you cannot set up possibly to any good purpose: thus Featley p. 101. prophecy (quoth he) is an extraordinary gift of the holy spirit, preaching a special faculty acquired by many years study, and Mr. Evans, in his Sermon to the Lords my Lords (quoth he) we know you would have a learned Ministry, but it is impossible for learning ever to flourish without maintenance, you may as well set carpenters to build without tools, as send forth Ministers without their parchments: we plead not my Lords, for our backs, and for our bellies, but for good books; and furnished brains: there are some that will seduce upon cheaper terms, but there must be honest provision made that every Minister may have a good library, or else the Land is like to have but an ignorant Ministry, and a perishing people: again my Lords, we know you would have a gracious people, to fear God, honour the King, and obey your honours; but it is sufficiently known that a base Ministry can never do good upon the people: the general pride of man is such, that poverty is enough to bring a man into contempt, etc.  
As if because the pride of man specially of great men, is so great that the poor mean Ministers of Christ are subject to be despised by them, therefore they must have a kind of pompous Priesthood that may delight their daintiness, and fit their vain fancies, and haughty humours: what the Lords of the earth would have I know not so well as themselves, I believe they would have a learned Ministry to lean to, and live at ease on, and a people to fear God as far as themselves do, among whom the fear of God hath been taught still after the precepts of the men called clergy; and to honour the King, and obey their Honours: but this I know, and therefore 'tis but flattery (not to say foolery) to tickle them up with talk of their great zeal of the Gospel, as their fawning Chaplains do, that few or none of their Honours are effectually called to Christ, or have ever yet honoured him so far as to honour, own, and acknowledge his truth in that primitive purity, wherein 'twas at first given out, partly because the clergy claws them too much into odd conceits, and with untempred mortar dawbs them into a belief of an Omnia bene in that easy gaudy gospel they sow as a pillow under their elbows, and partly because not many of these mighty and nobles ones will stoop, when 'tis discovered to them, to that plainness, and simplicity that is in Christ 2 Cor. 11. 3. to that foolishness of mechanic preaching, that baseness of baptising, that straightway of selfdenying, that needless work of Scripture searching with their own eyes, that weak nothing of Christ's choosing, by which to confound, and bring to nought in the end, the prudence of the Scribes and wisemen of this world, whom they wonder after; so the great King of Kings and Lord of Lords Christ Jesus was not over-seen, and yet he chose such base things, and sent forth such a poor base Ministry of illiterate mechanics to preach his Gospel, at the first beginning of it too, which surely he would not have done if it were his own mind, that the contempt of his ministry, which by their poverty, illiteracy, and outward baseness is apt to arise in the hearts of the proud, should be prevented by putting the outward pomp of much earthly riches, and that low literature of this foolishly wise world upon them?  
Mean while I am not against a Ministers having learning, let a man have as much as he will on't, so he use it as a telent to serve the truth with, when once he he hath found, and owned it: but against that necessity of outward learning to the Ministry of Christ, so as to say (as the Priesthood doth) that ordinarily a man cannot be a Minister of Christ without it: for verily the spirit, which only makes a Minister, blows where it lists, and doth (for aught I see) bestow itself now, as of old it did, more frequently upon poor Mechanics and illiterate Artisans, then learned Scribes, and Schoolmen.  
Nor am I against a Ministers having a library, and looking into other books if he have a mind to it, and have money enough of his own to buy them, so be he do not lose himself therein (as the clergy in all ages have done) from his serious study, and sincere search of the plain Scripture itself: but I am far from desiring that poor people should be charged to fill, and furnish Ministers studies with books, and their brains with notions out of other Authors, that are no more to be heeded then themselves, further than they speak according to the word: nor shall I ever acknowledge such a necessity as you plead that men must needs busy their brains about abundance of other men's writings, or else cannot but be ignorant Ministers of the Gospel, sith the Scriptures themselves are of themselves (if the clergy could once consider it, or one could possibly beat it into their brains) profitable for all things, and able to make Ministers, and people wise enough to salvation, and to make a man of God perfect, and throughly furnished unto all good works, but that they do not store their hearts (as they should do) with study of them only, or at least mainly, as the primitive Ministers of the Gospel did, and the purest Ministers of it now do: 2 Tim. 3. 14. 15. 16. I wonder what our Clergy men would do to preach the Gospel if there were no other books extant but the very bible, they would surely either cease from being Ministers any more at all, or else make better Ministers than they are.  
I do not speak this to excite men to make such a bone fire of all books, but the bible, as Dr. Featley says john Mathias made p. 165. and yet (by the Clergies leave) I dare not say as Dr. Featly there says, that 'twere better all those who (in his sense) are obstinate Sectaries (for many such are precious Saints) were burnt at a stake, then that such a bone fire were made, for I know no absolute necessity to the salvation of men, of the being of any book in the world but the bible; which as it was once alsufficient to make men wise to salvation, without looking into any other, and before there were many other besides it, so I know not (sith we have them in such plainness as now we have (maugre all the malice of the Pope and Clergy, who would once have made a bone fire of the Scriptures) why it is not as alsufficient as heretofore, whilst yet there was no more Gospel Scripture then in self: but I speak it to excite the clergy (for whom I have great sorrow of heart to see their miserable neglect of, & wretched ignorance in the Scriptures) to give more attendance to the reading of them▪ as which are alsufficient, and only necessary to a Minister, if there were no other books at all besides them; & to fix them that have been erratical in the misty moon shine of men's inventions, under the sun shine of that unspeakably glorious Orb, I mean the Scripture, which many Clergy men in Christndom have been so far from being skilled in, that we may well conceive, that they never so much as look into it at all 
* Witness All bert Archbi. of Mentz, who being at the diet at Ausbourge An. 1530. & finding a bible on the the Table, & reading some leaves thereof where by chance he opened it, said, t●…uly I know not what book this is, but this I see it makes all against us: . Sure Timothy and Titus, and Clement and the Ministry that was Coetaneons, and immediately succedaneous unto them, were more precious Ministers than any are now adays, and yet they never read Saint Origen, nor Saint Austin, nor any of those millions of Rabbis, Schoolmen, and Scribes that have scribbled since, having learned no more Gospel than what the Scriptures learned them, for I do not think they had such libraries of books as are now pleaded for, which Scripture we have as free access to as they then had; and have time enough to read, and preach, and do somewhat else toward an honest livelihood too, as well as they, if we be not idle, and sith it's pleaded that their prophesying was an extraordinary gift, of the holy spirit, but preaching now is a special faculty attained not without many years study, and the constant course of it maintained by constant study: I say our prophesyings in the Church, and preachings to the world too, either are or aught to be all one with theirs, or else we are not as we should be: and as no man was a Minister then, but by a gift from above, so I know no man (though Dr. Featly knew so many, that not one among an 100 of the Country Clergy, had any tolerable gift of extempore prayer) that is a Minister of Christ, but the same way as they then were viz. by a gift in some fort to make out the mind of men to God in prayers, and the mind of God to men in preaching, whether to the Church in way of exhortation, edification, and comfort (for that was Prophecy 1 Cor. 14. 1.) or to the world in publishing the glad tidings of God's love to it, which is more properly preaching: I know no new way that Christ hath chosen to make Ministers in, since the primitive times, he did not make his Ministers then by gifts, and now by no gifts, nor yet by new gifts, he did not make Ministers then by gifts given, and now by gifts gotten, then from above, and now from beneath, then from heaven; and now from the universities, then from mere knowledge of the Scriptures, and now from a muddy minglement, and mixed mess of science falsely so called, or skill in his Scriptures, and men's Scriptures together; then by a simple spiritual Donation, and now by a simple fleshly Dronation in the Hive of such humane preparatives, as the Clergy conceive the spirit to be in a manner so concerned to blow upon, as if he could scarce have their free leave to breath besides them, but as he gave then, and poured out his spirit as he saw good, and more ordinarily upon men that were not learned, and wise with the wisdom of this world then on those that were, so he does now in these latter days, not tying himself to men, whose education is at universities, more than to others, but rather more frequently filling men illiterate, as to such science, and secular Artisans than such as those.  
I confess the clergies preaching is a faculty attained by many years study, and yet when they have been seven years, and oftentimes seven more, Apprentices in the Universities, they are fitter for a living then for preaching too 
* Magister art is ingenii que la●…tor venter docuit negatas artifex sequi voces. , but the preaching of the true Ministers is no such thing.  
Nor am I against any man's studying in order to the receiving of any good, or gift, from Christ, and his spirit, and in order to increase, ●…and growth in any spiritual gift, that Christ hath freely bestowed upon them 
* 2 Tim. 3. 15. 16. , so their study be that of Timothy, who from a child was versed in the holy Scriptures, yea I wish to the Lord our men in order to the Ministry would meddle more there then they do, for school students are too great strangers to the study thereof, whilst they surfeit on Logical and Theological systems so much, as to suffer themselves implicitly to be seasoned besides the true sense of Scripture thereby: but I hope the study of the Scripture which may fully fit a man for good a improvement of himself in the Gospel, need not claim so much honourable maintenance, but that a man may maintain himself by some other calling, and treasure them up in his spirit too in good time, by his daily commerce with them, so as out of that good treasury of his he art to bring forth good things without much a do, and such a do as Clergy men make about a text and sermon, dividing, devising, and inventing, more than freely venting the word from the richness of its dwelling in them, yea and so as to be like a good Scribe throughly instructed to the Kingdom of God, and bringing out of his treasury extempore upon all accasions, things new and old, and not be like a narrow mouthed bottle long in filling, and as long in flowing out again.  
Though therefore there is a power to take pay in some cases for the work of preaching, yet first its good that power be not used without necessity, but you O priests, through covetousness do much abuse that power, by using it to the utmost when yet you need not, yea though many of you have means enough of your own, and may live fully and preach freely too.  
2. It must be upon the Church only, upon the brethren, on believers, and not upon the world, nor the Gentiles or unbelievers, that the Church-ministers must lie, for that will hinder the receipt of the Gospel very much among them, if they find it a chargeable Gospel before they own it, therefore those that preached to unbelievers and infidels to convert them to the faith, went forth at first freely, for the name sake of Christ, taking nothing of the Gentiles 2. Ep. john 7. 8. But you OPPPriests receive pay from any men, all men of whom you any can way have it, as well infidels, or unbelievers, as such as are obedient to the faith, for in your national and parochial Churches, there are not half, nor a tenth part of them believers, by your own confession, yea your Ministry supposes them to be infidels as yet, why else do you preach to convert them to the faith, and cry out there is few of them have the knowledge of God, that they are in a damnable state, and such lik●…? or if you say these are not your Church, than it confirms what I am saying, viz. that you expect pay from men, whether in church or out, whether Gentiles or Church-members, contrary to the primitive times, wherein the ministers of Christ were not maintained by the nations.  
3. It must be every Minister upon the particular flock he Ministers too, and feeds, and not another flock, that are fed by other Pastors, and do not choose, nor own them to be their Ministers at all, for though the Messengers, whose ministry lay mostly in preaching to the world, and assisting all the Churches where they came, might and did as occasion was, not otherwise, take wages of more Churches than one, and sometimes of some churches (that might be richer and more free) to do other Church's service, that might happily be neither so full, nor forward, as see 2 Cor. 11. 8. yet the Scripture speaks thus, that such should eat of the flock that feed it 1 Cor. 9 much less did the Pastor of one Church ever take pay of the Pastor of another in the primitive times. But you parish Priests claim pay often of other flocks than your own; of the people of other parishes, that you never preach to, of the gathered Churches, and their Ministers too, as they happen to live, or to have or use houses or lands within such or such precincts, that never own you nor never will do to be their Pastors.  
Yea so it falls out sometimes, when one man occupies several pieces of land in so many several parishes, that if not seven, yet four or five Priests take hold on the sk●…t of one poor sheep of Christ, that belongs to some separated congregation or other, and owns never a one of them all to be his Pastor, saying we must have so much of thee for such land that lies in such a place; and so you shall have several shepherds at once at sharing time upon the back of one sheep, every one of them precending to have some right or other to share him, when none of them all have any interest in him at all as his sheep, whilst he stands in relation to some other pastor: yea the true church may say of the Clergy constreining her to pay to them, and so to serve their false church and Ministry, as the spouse saith Cant. 1. they made me keeper of their vineyard, paymaster to their Priests, but my own vineyard have I not kept nor paid to my own pastors, for indeed how can they pay to these and them too?  
4. This is to be done gratis willingly and freely to, by the church, but not wickedly to be forced from them by a foraneous power, and by other weapons than those of the Church's warfare, which are not guns, prisons; summons before Committees, strainings, treble damages, nor taxes from the civil Magistrates, in whose nations the churches live, for no minister of Christ's flock did ever run to beg of the civil Magistrate to force his flock to feed him, and to flay 〈◊〉 flock for him with his cutlash, if he could not constrain him by the considera●…n of his love, and service, and freeness, and forwardness of his own accord for their good, as freely again to consider the necessity of his condition, and that in no wise in the way of ●…es neither.  
But the parish Priest will not be contented with what is freely given him by them that own him, nor them that own him not, and are none of his neither, but he will have it whether they will or no, and be his own carver too, and have the tith, which Christ never allotted him to take, or rather the sixth, if it be of corn, considering the Husbandman's charges of ploughing, sowing, reaping, binding, and standing to all hazard; for the Parson takes no pains, but to take the clear tenth when its ready shockt to his hands, and is at no charges at all, save barely what it consts him to carry into his barn: and this he will have by fair means of foul, it matters not in what ravenous, hasty, treble dammaging, forcible, shameful, scraping, ridiculous way, so he have it. Populus me sibilet at mihi plando & 〈◊〉 I blush to see their baseness in this particular.  
5. 'tis the Minister's duty to preach constanly, to be instant in season and out of season, to do his work as an Evangelist, and fulfil his ministry, and that freely, whether the Church do their work, their duty to him, yea or no: yea; if from the world he be rewarded with naught but stripes, mocks, fcoss●…, and all the base usage that may be, yea the spoiling of his goods, yet must he preach, if he be a messenger to them: and if his flock be so poor that they cannot, or so hard hearted that they will not minister to his necessities, yet necessity lies on him, and woe to him if he preach not, and, if he be able, help not those that are poor among them too.  
But many of you Priests if ye have never so much means of your own beside, whereby you are called to relieve such poor people as you rather peel, if it be but twopences almost that you say is due from them, will have your pay, or else it may chance to cost them three times three pence, and a better penny before you have done with them, you know no more necessity lying on you to feed them, than lies upon the people to feed you, though they be far poorer than yourselves, and you better fed than they taught; no pay no preach is your principle, so far at least that if one people give better pay, and one flock better milk than another, you are not only under a liberty, but under a clear call also to leave one and cleave to the other.  
6. 'tis the Gospel he is to preach too, or else he can claim nothing at all by any order of Christ, the Church is not bound to maintain men, though in the name of ministers, that preach down, that preach against the Gospel.  
But the Lord will maintain a poor people in these latter days that shall maintain it to the faces of you priesthood of the Nations, that you have been, and still are, till you repent and be baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus for remission of sins, the most inveterate enemies the pure primitive Gospel hath, or ever had, since you reigned, to this very day, yet for all this you must be maintained, under the notion of the ministers of the Gospel, and that too in part by them that preach the Gospel freely, and a thousand fold more truly, purely, perfectly, and plainly then yourselves do; whether you do the work or no, yea though you work against the Gospel, yet you must have Gospel wages, thus run greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, though you have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray from the Gospel, and are found defying, and some of you cursing, rather than building up, and blessing the true Israel of God that do his will, yet following the way of Balaam the son of Bosor, you love, and look to have wages, and that of Israel too for this unrighteousness 2 Per. 15. jude 11. But the love of the wages of Balaam St. jude and St. Peter too makes the character of false teachers, cursed speakers: Thus though you do not what is your duty to the people, which if you did Christ's people at least (and from none else are his ministers to require and expect maintenance, how far they may accept it is good to query) would be free to theirs, yet you'll force the people to do that which is more than their duty to you, and if men put not into your mouths, which are more open to call in tith then give out truth, you prepare war: and if any say unto you or your Assassinated Assigns, which you send for your tith, as some said of old to the Priests servants, when they came to take the Priests due, or rather more than their due out of the sacrifice, before they had offered, or done their part of service, let them do their duty first, and then take for them as much as thy soul desires, but we desire them to stay, and forbear to take the wages before they have done their work, or preached the Gospel, which they pretend to take pay for, but for aught we find they preach against it, than these hasty hirelings, or the hirelings they hire to help them, like the rude servants of those wicked sons of Belial, the sons of Eli the Priests, who made themselves vile in this kind of fatting themselves, and many more (whose sin was therefore very great before the Lord, insomuch that the name of a Priest stunk, and was odious unto the people, and men abhorred the offering of the Lord for their sakes) make answer, nay but thou shalt give it me now, and if not I will take it by force, 1 Sam. 212. ad 30. 7. 'tis but a Ministration of mere necessaries, and merely to necessities of Ministers that the Church is bound to Minister, even of them that do preach the Gospel, and not to Minister such supersluities as shall sink themselves, and hoist their Minister up to be a son of Anack, and themselves grasshoppers, worth more than almost all the flock besides him, see Phil. 4. 10. 11. 12. 13: ad 17. so that he shall think himself too good to lay his hands to any labour.  
But you the Priesthood of the Nations have given yourselves such an universal Supersede as, and disingagement from all manner of manual occupation, and secular callings, that 'tis as great a wonder to the world to see you about any business of baseness as Dr. Feat. deems that, wherein Peter, Paul, and Christ jesus were exercised, who were (as to their outward profession) a fisherman, a tentmaker, a carpenter, as 'tis to see the true Clergy of Laics, whom you have Lorded it over, improving what God hath given them in the pulpit: and whereas Paul was of opinion that 'twould not hinder the Gospel, if the power to live on the Gospel were much used, you are not of this mind, but suppose it to be much hindered if it be not made use of to the very u●…most, and live at least at the length of that Christian liberty: and whereas he deemed it not a little honourable to the Gospel to keep it from being onerable, and without charge, you fear there is plus ouer is quam honoris in'●… to yourselves, and therefore do even abhor, detest and abominate to have it meddled with by Russet Rabbis Apron Levites, Mechanics, 
* Featly p. 113.  or to meddle at all yourselves with Mechanic matters, yea coachmen, weavers, felt makers, and other base Mechanics, quoth Dr. Feat. p. 120. exercise in public Churches, to the great dishonour of God, profanation of his ordinances, and scandal of the reformed Churches, as if Christ's, and Paul's, and Peter's being tradesmen before, and some of them after, and even while they were actually in the Ministry, were an unworthy unsuitable thing, because the Priesthood, who are too proud to preach, and take other pains too for their livings, are pleased to say so:  
Yea such is the covetousness, and greedy mind of you the Priesthood of the Nations for the most part of you, that you are ever crying give, give, and howbeit some of you have too little, yet those that have most, have never enough, but are most eager after more, Ier 6. 13, from the least even to the greatest of you, every one is given to covetousness: from the thread bare Curate to the silken Cassock, from the Paritor to the Proctor, from the Parochial Bishop to the Diocesan, to the Provincial Archbishop, from the Deacons to the Archdeacon's, Deans, and their Officials, Parsons, Vicars, Curates, and all spiritual persons hanging on that Hierarchy, from the Classis to the Aecumenical Council, from the Presbyter to the Pope, by whom he stands so (unless he say the Magistrate made him a Minister) from the Friar to the Prior of his Covent, to the Provincial, to the General of his order, from the Chorister to the Cardinal, from the meanest and most inferior fry to the whole fraternity of the spiritualty, from the parish Clark and Sexton to the whole Priesthood, every one is given more or less to look to his own gain from his quarter, Yea Oh thou BBBabilon or TTTripartite Tower, and CCCity, that sittest upon many waters, tongues, Nations, Kindred's, King●… and people (compare jer. 51. 13. with Rev. 16. 19, 17. 1. 15. 18. 18. per totum) abundant in Treasures, thine end is come, and the measure of thy covetousness, thine eyes, and thine heart are not but for thy covetousness, and for to shed innocent blood with them that are greedy of gain, Prov. 1. 13. and for violence to do it. Therefore as thou enterdst Christndom like a fox, & reig●…'dst like a lion, so wilt thou die at last like a dog, and be buried with the burial of an ass, and yet for all that they shall not lament for thee (except such as love, and lie in bed of adu●…ltery with thee, and shall perish with thee Rev. 2. 22.) saying alas alas, ah Lord, or a●… his glory, but celebrate thy funerals with the dirge of Hallelu●…ah: (compare jer. 22. with Rev. 18. per totum 19 1. ad 8. Oh the infinite capacious gullet, & concavity of the CCClerical coffer! how hath it swallowed down, and devoured for ages together (and yet is not choked, by cries out more maintenance, more maintenance) without streining, not only the g●…at of great and petty tithes (by which much more than every tenth year (happily every seventh they being at no charge but bare taking the tenth of corn) the profits of all Christ●…dom falls into the mouth of this Caterpillar) but also the camel of free gifts, glebes, first fruits, oblations, and other obventions, Archdeaconries, Deaneries, Prebendaries, Bishoprics, and Archbishoprics, and I know not how many kinds of spiritual livings, spiritual Lordships, and spiritual dignities, spiritual Patrimonies that are assigned for the maintenance of the CCClergie? among whom its catch as catch can too, so that some get all (the devil and all) and some none, and yet some of those poor wretches that get least, get as little of God, as those that lose him altogether, and sell him for the mess of pottage, of some fat parsonage, or, as sometimes men do, whom I am ashamed to call Ministers (unless I mean of the Pope) for two or three fat parsonages, or special benefices together: 'tis a shame that for all the night is so far spent here in England, yet even here there is such endeavouring for preferments still, such heaping up of more spiritual dignities, and Ecclesiastical emoluments than one, and plutalities of profitable places, engrossed by single persons, and such as would be singularly accounted of too, but never will be, by wise men, had in so little as single shame, whilst they harp so much after such double honour: the Pope and Archbishops in the Popish times were, till of late they grew more corrupt, complainers, and correctors of this greedy practice: Alexander the third, and 301 Bishops in a Lateran council says Mr. Den in a Sermon of his concerning john the Bap. p. 64. concluded no Priests should have 2benefices 1179. & 1231. Richard the costly Archbishop of Canterbury complained to the Pope that Priests in England held more livings than one: and though it hath been thought that many livings are a good step to a Bishopric, yet I have read of one John Bland saith he, elected Archbishop of Canterbury, but refused by the Pope chiefly for holding two livings without dispennsation 1233. and John Pecham Archbishop of Canterbury made aCanon that no Clergy man within his province should hold two livings 1304. what a stinking shame is it therefore that to this day there is such inhauncing, engrossing? for my part I am well assuted that though it be not yet, yet long it will not be before stick and stone of the whole fabric of the triple BBBabel, or National Ministry will fall, and all their several sorts of forced maintenances fall with them throughout Europe, but first here in England, for the tenth part of the City, i. e. the Clergy here falls first, yea as there have two woes to the Clergy fell on them here already, which have cast out the two corrupter sorts of these spiritual men, and all their spiritual maintenance and revenues, the first whereof fell upon the flat Popish false Ministry viz. Cardinals, Votaries, Friars, Abbots, Nuns and Abbeys, and with them all their maintenance, and the foolish forms of their false ministrations viz. their golden legend and book of false miracles, bulls, indulgences, Masses, dirges, trigintals, and other trumpery, the second upon the second part of the great City or Clergy viz, the Archbishops, Bishops, Chancellers, Comissaries, Deans, Deans and Chapters, Archdeacon's and their Officials, and with them fell all their land, means, and maintenance, together with all their false manner of ministration viz. the Common-prayer, liturgy, book of ordination of Priests and Deacons, Homilies, and all the Crutches of that lame and lazy Clergy: so the third is now nigh to come upon the Presbyterian Clergy (whether they see it or no) for the face of the skies, and Scriptures do both look and lour a like upon them, with whom will fall that their still pleaded for maintenance by 〈◊〉, Gl●…s; Parsonages, Vicarages, and all their Ecclesiastical Profits, and emoluments whatsoever, together with all their Church const●…tions, Synodical directories and forms of worship and government, Classes, creeds, Catechisms, parochial posture: yea their Euphrates too is daily drying up in the hot sunshine of the Gospel, though they for the most part, scorched with great beat, rather blaspheme the name of God that hath power of these plagues, then repent to give him glory, Rev. 16. 9 I say most certainly all these false national, parochial constitutions of Church and Ministry, Babi-baptism and maintenance must down in due time, but in the mean time though I wish its fall, yet I heartily wish that you Clergy were ●…o charitable as to share the maintenance that's yet allotted you as the National Ministry, a little more evenly among yourselves, and not be so basely covetous as to sherk one another without reproof, and to suffer some to have two or three livings, or if but one, yet that worth two, happily three, perhaps four, five, six, or 700 per annum, as some livings are, and some as honest and painful, and worthy in their way, and godly in suo genere as the other, to be pinched within the income of as few scores, as the rest have 100ds by the year, some having but seven, some six, others but five, others four, three, two and some scarce a score of pounds to bring the year about with, and yet have not a farthing worth of help from the high slown favourites of their times: Dr. Featley had two livings while he was alive (as it seems by himself in his Epistle to Mr. D●…nham to whom he complains that both his pulpits were taken from him) but though Episcopal Parasites did hold no more than they could get, yet we being six or seven years past the darkness of those times, me thinks now the Clergy should cry out upon each other when they see any clambering beyond a competency, and consider the incompetency of their fellows voluntarily, whether the Parliament augment one out of another yea or no: but no bubble stands higher than the rest of the water it rides on for a while, but 'twill break within a while and be levelled to the residue of its element, in the mean time they have enough among them if they can be contented to enjoy it in equal portions, and not fall out about the shifting it: so much is yet left, though so much already is confiscated, that moderate minded men that mean not to err from the faith by the love of money, more than of Christ, need not set up their Notes to the State to administer more. I'll tell thee what thou hast had, and yet haste oh HHHireling SSShepheard, within this Island of Britain, nay in England which is but the one half, the whole of which is but a poor patch of about a tenth part of the rest of Christndome, and this out of thy own mouth, I mean a man of thy own fraternity see Helin Geog. p. 464. 465, an Episcopal Clergy man vaunting of the greatness of thy maintetenance, which mouth of thine is still opening in some or other of the younger brothers of the present Presbytery to this day to call out for more.  
The Clergy saith he, meaning of England only, was once of infinite riches as appeareth by the Bill preferred to King Henry the fifth against the Temporal news of the Church: which were able to maintain 15. Earls, 1500 Knights, 6000 men of A●…m; more than a 1000 Almshouses, and the King also might clearly put up 20000 pounds: as they now are not so rich, so are they far more learned and of more sincere and Godly carriage, wherein they give place to no Clergy in the world, ●…nd for learning I dare say cannot be any where paralleled: neither are they so dest●…e of the external gifts of fortune, but that they are the the richest of any Ministers of the reformed Churches: For besides 5439 Parochial benefices, being no impropriations, and besides the Vicarages, most of which exceed the competency beyond Seas, here are in England 26. Deaneries 60 Archdeaconries and 544 dignities, and prebend's all of which are places of a fair revenue. And as for the maintenance of Priests, Monks and Friars before the reformation, Mr. Camden reckoneth 90 Colleges, besides those in the universivies, 110 Hospitals, 3374. Chanteries, and free Chapels, and 645 Abbeys and Monasteries, more than half of which had above the yearly imcome of 200 pounds in old ren●…s, in Many above 2000 and some 4000 almost. So studio●…s were our Ancestors both in those times of blindness, and those of a clearer light, to encourage men to learning, and then reward it: thus far he concerning the wealth of the English Clergy: so that here was no lack yet I think, but of a law that some should not sink, and the rest swim in supersluity, and hold two livings (as Democritus would weep says Mr. Den, to hear some pluralists plead they do) out of Charity: it may be o●… of it indeed, but 'tis in no charity to their brethren, but on the bottomless pit of the Priestly purse beyond sea, where poor Peter reigns in his posterity, who had neither silver nor gold in his own person Act. 3. 6. of the gettings of that one great man the Pope, to say nothing of the endlessenesse of his Priest's eagerness after money, there is no end; nor yet weight, number, nor measure of his treasures: 'twould make your eyes dazzle to see it, and will make your ears tingle to hear what a deal of this ministerial maintenance is at Rome, and her immediate Territories, where there are no less than a million of Officers, mendicants and others maintained at other men's cost, themselves disbursing not a penny.  
The ordinary Temporal revenue of the Papacy (saith Helia Geog. 192. 193.) Boterus makes to be better than two millions of Crowns: the extraordinary and spiritual to be wonderful. Plus Quintus, who ruled six years only, got from the Spanish Clergy fourteen Millions. Sixtus the sixth took from the Jesuits at one clap 20000 C●…oxns of yearly Revenue, because they were too rich for men that vowed poverty, and having s●…e but ●…ive years had coffered up five Millions, four of which his Successor Gregory the fourteenth spent in less than a year. Out of France they reap no less than a million of Crowns yearly, out of England, when it was the Pope's Puteus inexhaustus, they extracted no less than 60000 Marks, which in our present money is 120000 pounds, being at that time more than the King's certain Revenue. And this was in the time of Henry the third, before their Rapine was fully come to the height. Let other Countries be rated accordingly. Next add the moneys received from the particular pardons, for d●…spensing with unlawful Marriages, the profits arising from pilgrimage, from greats men's deaths and funerals, from the indulgencios granted unto Abbeys, and Convents, in all which the Popes have a share, and it would pass a good Arithmetician to pass his Entrado. Here take the saying of Sixtus the fourth that a Pope could never want money while he could hold a pen in his hand, yet is their Treasury seldom fall, for 1. the State they keep because of their height of honour above all Princes; 2. the large allowance they give unto their Legates, Nuncios and other Ministers; and 3. their greedy desires to enrich their Sons, or Kinsmen with the Church's Lands, or money (with which humour Pope Sixtus the fifth only was never touched) keep their cosfers, exceeding low. Add to this the exceeding Gorgeousness of the Papal vestmets, and especially that of the triple Crown, for when Clement the sister transferred his seat to Avignion, we read how with a fall from his horse he lost a Carbuncle (with which his Crown was thick set) worth 6000 Ducats at the least. Thus he.  
And saith Lord Napier on Rev. 9 21. and note (q) thereof, It is more nor notorious what Abbeys and Bishoprics from simple Princes, what lands and yearley Revenues from landed men, what money and goods from men of all estates hath been deceitfully stolen for indulgencies, pardons, remissions of sins, ●…rigentals, soul masses, dirges de profundis, and other superstitions, stealing thereby not only men's goods, but even their souls.  
If all this treasuring up of trash be not covetousness, excuse me if I know not what else to make of it: it would make me laugh (as sorry as I am, for all such hereticizing and Schismatizing among the Ministers from primitive plainness, as hath been) to see a Clergy man stand up and tell me now, that much maintenance is a necessary means, whereby to enable ministers of Christ to promote the Gospel, specially if they consider how this covetousness hath caused the clergy in all CCChristendome to err so miserably from the truth thereof after the traditions of one another, that s●…me of the great Ghostly Fathers that had the greatest maintenance, if that could have maintained them in, or had not rather bewitched them from it, did not only turn rank Heretics but stark Atheists by their sin of covetousness, when maintenance increased so much upon them: if either lucre or learning could prevent the corruption, or cure the ignorance of the Ministry, the Popes had not proved such incarnate devils as the richest, and the learnedst of them did.  
Leo the tenth was indeed a great favourer of learning, and layer up of wealth, but so little favoured he of Religion, that he was oft times heard to say Quantas nobis d●…vitias comparavit ista fa●…ula Christi, a speech, saith Holin so blasphemous, that Lucian, Po●…e, or julian the Apostate could never match it: in his time beg●…n the reformation by Luther, and 'twas but high time for thee Lord to begin, who wilt make an end also in thine own ti●…e, for men, yea thy ministers (for so they all call themselves) have throw covetousness utterly erred, and universally made void thy law.  
But enough if not too much saith H●…lin (and so say I) of these Ghostly Fathers and of their sanctities I will (as he does p. 185) end with the Painter, who being blamed by a Cardinal for colouring the villages of Peter and Paul too red, replied that he painted them so, as blushing at the lives of those men, who styled themselves their successors.  
I have done with the c●…uses of his heresies and come to his design.  
The design of the Heretic even this Heretic of Heretics the clergy 
2. Design.  is to propagate his Error, and as his grounds are wicked, so are his manners in managing of them, intrat ut vulpes regnat ●…tleo, he pretends verity, but intends only uctory, that he may reign over the kings, and people of the earth, and that they might all stoop to his commands, & directions, and under pretence of verity at first, he did get victory at last over the whole world, so that (Pape Oh strange) the whole world wondered after him. and doted upon him as their Lord God, and became slaves in chains to his Priestly will; yea as he loved to be supreme, and overcome, so the lord let him for a time, that he might manifest his own power the more in the overcoming him for ever in the end; yea power was given him to make war (by the beast that bears him, even all nations of Christendom which he overcame first) against the Saints, and to overcome them also, and so to be filled with his own inventions: he gives out when any disputes against him, that his desire is to be satisfied by disputing, and so perhaps he would, but 'tis with riches more than righteousness, with tith more than truth, for in truth he seems if he must meet with such as charge him with error in his doct●…ine of baptism, tith, forced maintenance, forcing conscience, as if he would renounce his opinions, and practices in these points, if any can prove them to be corrupt, but seeks only opportunities to spread his odd opinions, of what sc'●…ism, and sacrilege, and robbing of God it is, if submission be not acted, and tithes be not offered to him, among the vulgar, among whom his Ghostly pretences produce a kind of awful affrightment, and dread of doing any thing against what he says, being resolved before hand never to be convinced of the truth as 'tis in the word, for that overturns him in all his preferment projects, and plucks him up from all the profits of his present princely posture, which is such a right eye to him, that he hath not faith enough to believe that it can possibly be more profitable to him to part with (though Christ himself till him tis) then to preserve and perish with it. His disciples are for the most part not such as the noble Beraeans that would take nothing upon trust from the very Apostles mouths, but searched the Scripture daily whether the things were so or no, not only men, but honourable women too not a few, but rather mere idle, implicit, forefather faitht men, simple and weak women, who try nothing, but keep their Church, and believe as their Church believes, and as their good churchman says, led away with divers lusts and pleasures, leaning only on their Priests understandings, pinning all their Religion upon their sleeves, adoring all that their Orthodox divines deliver at a venture, ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth as 'tis in the word, whose honest ignorant devotions he hath won to himself by his cunning artifice of pretended piety, voluntary humility, seeming zeal to the truth, long prayers, or rather multitudes of short prayers, and praises, Pater Nosters, Miserere Me●…'s, Magnificats, Te deums, Gloria Patri's, per jesum Christum Dominum nostrums, and such like devoutries, and being once gained, are so carried on with the stream of corrupt custom, present fashion, foolish affection, that no reason in the world can reclaim them, he deterreth lay people as much as may be from reading, expounding, or too much prying into the Scripture, alleging unto them the perils they may incur by misinterpretations, he hath laid his foundations so firmly in the dark consciences of men & women by persuading them of his own infallibility, Ecclesiastical Authority, his Ius Divinum in the Government and guidance of the Church (as here in Britain) and even of his Temporal jurisdiction too (as at Rome) over both heaven and earth, hell and purgatory, of his power in the agony of men's souls, to forgive sin, that men and women are becharmed into belief of him: he hath woven himself so far into their credulity, that all his sayings are received as oracles, all his doings as divine, all his traditions as truth itself, all his Adminstrations as Apostolical, all his doctrines as Orthodox, all his Arguments (though confessed by himself to be weak) as unanswerable, and all others Administrations, Actions, Answers, Arguments, though never so consentaneous, to the true sense of Scripture, valued at that price which he sets upon them; as if the holy chair of Papal determination; Episcopal Convention, Synodical constitution, could not possibly be mistaken: yea the Scripture itself is but a nose of wax with him, of what shape soever the clergy casts it into, of no more authority than Aesop's Fables with the Papists, if the Pope say the word, so as to disdate, digrade it, or put any part of it out of commission: of no other sense then the Bishops, and Synod seem to say is the sense on't, with their good Protestants, so altogether Oraculous is the Pope among his, the Bishop among his, the Presbyter among his, and even all the three several clergies among their three several sorts of CCCreatures, that their different ipse dixits are ipso facto divine directory, and discharge enough too for these different doters on them insanire cum ratione to dote to and fro by Authority, so as to do, and undo, and do, and undo, and do by.  
In a word he is too bold to be born down, not so much from such things as mae the righteous witnesses to tru●…h as bold as Lio●…s before God, and men, viz. the goodness of his cause, for that is stark naugh, and rotten, nor the clearness of his call ●…ther to his Clerical function, or any actions he goes about by virtue, and in persuance thereof, for 'tis clear enough that his orders, emission, commission (as to the external etymology of them) are more from the Pope, than Christ and the true Church; nor any good answer of a good conscience, for either his conscience is so cloudy that he cannot, or so cowardly that he dares not, or so resolved that he will not see, or else so clear that he is condemned of himself w●…en t●…uth shines plainly upon his face: but rather from either his great interest in, or directive authority over the civil power, that hath long back as well as bellied him, as in England, or his having it all in his own hands and dispose as at Rome, where ●…e duo gladii both swords are in the Clergyes clutches, so that he can quickly correct those that con●…radict him: he is too clamorous to be silenced, calling out with such a heavy noise, and divine ditty against the truth, and cond●…ing it with such an outcry of Schism, Schism. Sedition blasphemy, Heresy, Heresy, before he hath half heard it, and so soon as ever its opening its mouths to speak, that all the parish pulpits in a whole Country (and now and then their steeples) ring out in such combustion, to the tune of Gre●…t is D●…ana of the Ephesians Act. 19 28. 34. that truth hath no way whereby to silence him, but to be silent herself, for when she begins to declare, he with his Heresy, Heresi●… soon stops men ears: he is too arrogant to be convinced, he hath controlled whole nations, cut of the spirit of Princes, been terrible to the kings of the Earth, and devinced invincible Emperors in his time, therefore may well sc●…rn to be convinced, abominate, detest, disdain to be dire●…ed by Russet R●…s, Apron ●…os, Minis●…n Mechanics, illiter●…●…ns, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tradesmen, Christ the Carpenter, Peter the Fis●…rman, Paul the Tentm●…ker, Aquilla, and his wise Priscilla, from which kind of poor folks and babes, to whom it seems good in gods sight to preach the plain G●…spel, and reveal by his word and spirit what he hides from wise men, when they will not see, this prudent priesthood, if he were not proud, might learn more truth and Gospel purity, than ever was taught him by his Grandfather the Pope, or any of those Clerical Counsels, or Ghostly fathers, which he consults more with then with Christ and Scriptures.  
The Reason of all his obstinacy against tradesmens teachings is this, he knows that his trade of teaching for hire, and divining for money Must fall, if tradesmen begin once to turn divines and to teach truth for nothing, ye know that by this craft (quoth ●…e Act. 19 25. etc.) we have our wealth, moreover ye see and hear etc. he is well aware and so are we that if he lose the lives of persecution for conscience, and sprinkling of infants, jachin & Boaz the two main pillars, & grand Supporters of his kingdom, his Temple will quickly re●…d in to more pieces than 3 PPPs from the top to the very bottom, and all his matchless magnitude, and numberless priestly Prerogatives drop directly to the ground, viz. his Lieutenantship to the prince of this World, his Lordship over the heritage, his headship over the Church, his dominion over the faith, his title to the tenth of every man's estate, his merchandise of slaves bodies, and souls of men, his leave to trample the holy city, and slay at pleasure the truth tellers that torment him, his rich revenues, dignity, glory, power, seat and great Authority, together with all the privileges, profits, liberties, immunities, thereunto belonging.  
All this his royalty must fail if he give ground but a little, and would have failed ere this ti●…e, If he had a face could blush, at his own abominable blindness, or ingenuity to confess himself hurt, or own the plain truth while his lungs will serve him in reply, or Amor sui constrain him to cry heresy against the truth: therefore this Diotrophes, that loves to have the pre-eminence over all for ever, because he hath had it for a while, receiveth not truth, but prates against it in the pulpit, and elsewhere with malicious words, and though he contradict himself ever and anon, in his own Sermons, and discourses, ye●… if he say any thing at all, he thinks it much, when wisemen, weighing it, find it little to the purpose: Tertulliau thus describes Hermogenes, Loquacitatem facundiam existimaret, Impudentiam constantiam deputaret etc. so he, when he bombasts the pulpit, and slashes the Saint Schismatics (in their absence) before his people, supposes he hath spoken with no small grace, when 'tis for want of grace that he did it, and that when he is most audacious against all reformation, a●… at Rome, and even that he hath sometimes sworn himself, and others to, as here in England, when he finds it more cross to his credit than he thought of when he undertook for't, he counts them fickle unconstant, that change their minds, and mend their manners, and himself only stable and constant to the CCChristian Religion.  
Hence it is that the effects of Disputation with him have been not only f●…strate but dangerous, dangerous I say to him no otherwise then as it 
3 Effects.  overturned his Kingdom, that the truth of Christ might take place, but to them that disputed with him in this respect, as it hath been no less than their precious lives were worth once to oppose, or open their mouths against him, witness Wickliff, Hus, Jerome of Prague, and all the executions done in Queen Mary's days upon such as d●…rst dispute against the Pope, or meddle against the mass, and those done in Queen Elizabeth's upon Barrow, Greenwood and Penry, who were hanged by Episcopal malice for professing against them, and the Common-prayer, which now well high all England hath renounced as a corruption, and what should have been done upon such as disputed against, or depraved the Presbyterian directory, is well known, for that Clergy hath showed themselves so much in their Father's colours, that ere long all England will renounce both it, and them: and in this respect it hath been also frustrate as to people's conviction, for truth's witnesses to dispute never so clearly against him, for as much as he hath still stopped their mouths with the stake, prison, or gallows, and kept his own wide open against them in the pulpit, when he hath-secured them from all capacity of storming him there: for The common sort are apt to think those have the victory that live to speast last: and that their CClergies cause is never wracked by the cause of Christ as long as one is left alive that can speak a word in that against the other:  
And by how much error takes with our corrupt nature more than truth, by so much there is more danger of its spreading, where the Roots i e. the self love, vain glory, ambition, covetousness, pride, Lordlines universally and cruelty of the clergy, who are plants that our heavenly father never planted, Stocks from whom stems out a stench, from whom abomination branches itself out to the corrupting thereof in all quarters of the Earth, Rev. 11. 18. 1●… 5. 19 2. are not plucked up, and rooted out: for from the Priest and the Prophet profanness, & heresy hath gone out into all the world, and spread itself like a leprosy, or some raging canker; and for the most part such is the resolvedness of the clergy to bind the people still to a blind obedience to their blind guidance of them beside the word; that Disputations with them if not carefully, I mean clearly, and also coolly proceedad in with love to their persons, and almost without zeal against their evils (which yet we must not abate them an ace of for all their anger, pacem cum hominibus cum vitits bellum) they Raise more evil spirits of wrath and devilishness in them then we can lay, because they see them raise more good spirits of doubts and earnest inquiries after truth in the people, who before were wont to take their ware on trust without trial, than then they can lay again while they live by all the shifts and subtleties they can devise; for when once people are resolved to believe things to be heresy by heatsay no more, but to fancy them according as they find them in the word, and to see into the plainness of speech that is in the Scripture with their own eyes, they see so much disproportion between the national Church ways, and those of the primitive Churches of the Gospel, that they commonly resolve not to see at all adventures through the unclear eyes of clergy men any more:  
This makes them fie●… and fume, and fain, and fiddle hither and thither, which way to fasten their Heretical opinions further, if it be possible, on them in whom they they stick, and into whose hearts they have eaten fowl, healthless holes already, and to d●…ive them deeper even with hammer and nails, if they can tell how, or else to cleave whole Countries asunder with beetle and wedges: Heresy is said by the Apostle to fret like a canker so that it is not the clearness, nor yet the coolness, nor yet the heat of a disputation can correct it in some men's hearts; the tongue may heal any poisoned wound with licking of it sooner than that which the Heretic, the Pope and the Priesthood hath made, so deeply hath he found his heresies in the dark cells of some men's implicit consciences, Athavastus his disputation with Arrius, and Augustine's with Manichaeus are sufficient Instances.  
Indeed it is not possible to expect any good fruit from those former grounds, as to the CCClergie themselves, and such of their CCCreatures, as stand bend to believe all they say, and never doubt it, though otherwise much good may come to others, that are inquisitive, by disputation with them, or that he which is possessed with self love, and hunts so greedily after glory or gain as the CCClergie does, should be persuaded to hearken to any reason, which contradicts his principles, or to disclaim that wase which must advance his design.  
What is the result of this discourse, to forbid all disputation with HHHim? no by no means, it is necessary to stop the clamours of the adversary to the truth, who will cry out victoria, if his challenge be not answered and make our silence be a confession of the truth on his side, if he be not stoutly encountered with. Saint Austin who was in his time called Malleus hereticorum, of whom it is said that he never went so willingly to a feast as to a conference when Pascentins the Arrian bragged that he had worsted him in his dispute, and those believed it, which desired it, yet gave not out from disputing, but was only careful to set down his disputations in writing for the future, that the truth might appear vindicated from thofe false reports, with which commonly it is blasted, either by word, or else by some such true counterfeit Accounts in print, as that which is at this day extant of the disputation held at Ashford.  
A Disputation orderly carried, soberly proceeded with, without heats, and distempered passions, not suffered to go out of its due bounds nor to follow every new sent, that is taken up by the way, nor to degenerate into quarrelings, and hasty falls chargings of the Anabaptists as this, and that, & they know not what, without proving them such, or disproving their doctrines (as, if others do not, I do know more than one place where, and where more than once too, it hath been so) will contribute much to the clearing of truth the begetting of doubts (in them that yet never doubted) but blindly believed the contrary, The removing of doubts in them that are already in doubts about it, and putting it out of all doubt to them all in the end, that all is not so well yet as it ought to be, with the very reforming Clergy, and that their parochial posture is popish, and their constitution, ordination, administrations, baptism and the supper, is all disorderly and out of joint, to the conf●…rming of the strong, that stand fast in the true faith, the recovery of the lapsed world that hath departed from the faith, Gospel, Baptism, Church order, which was once delivered to the Saints, and been seduced from Christ by the Scholastical encroachments of the clergy: and (as it may chance in time, if the civil powers that have preferred them, would come once to favour the truth) the convincing the SSSeducer: it is rare so to manage one among an unskilful multitude where the auditors take themselves no less engaged than their champions, and will be ready, on all hands too much, but an 100 fold more (for aught I find) among the parochial party than the other, disorderly to break the lists which hath made so many able Scholars not in man's only, but in Christ's School also, almost averse from undertaking it; but unless their be sufficient caution against such exorbitatances, as jangling with bells to drowned all audience of truth, and counter speeches of nonsense, rather than nothing, to interrupt him that is about to speak the truth, and noise of shouting, if it were possible, to shame the truth, and such like gear as I have met with in my days, better be no disputation at all, nor preaching of truth among such, it being (if not a giving of that which is holy to dogs, and casting of pearls before swine, which will turn again and rend you, yet) at least impossible any thing should come of it that good is (and yet even that shall be no hurt to the Ministers of Christ, that are approved in tumults, yet cannot help it) but blasphemy to the truth, stumbling to the weak parishioners, that stumble enough already poor souls (the Lord help them) to see their preachers violently oppose preaching, and proving the truth out of the Scriptures; a kind of shameful Glory to the adversaries of the truth, the priesthood from some, a glorious shame to the undertakers for it.  
There is therefore a better way for the true Pastors of the true Churches, and specially the Church's messengers to the world, in which to oppose the approach of heresies, which the parish Pastors make much use of to oppose the truth by under the names of Anabaptism, at least in their Respective flocks 
* see the last clause of the first part of the Ashford pamphlet p. 11.  and that is by preaching. To argue substantially against them, to convince them sound, is the best in the pulpit, if they can freely get in, a place wherein one might have hid ones self for a month together or more, and sometimes a year from some parish Priests, nonresident Parsons, divinity Doctors, but specially the lazy Lord Bishops not very long since, but now, to keep out the Anabaptists, more frequented by some Priests then else it would be, a place, which is secured much, and yet not always neither when plain truth tellers are in it, from those incursions to which disputations are subject. It is worth observation that neither Transubstantion, nor consubstantion have so much as appeared in these days, wherein so many old Heresies, as infant sprinkling for one, which as, a mad bull having its deaths blow on the forehead, struggles more than ever, are in a sort revived, and stickled for, and plied, with new and fresh assaults, and unheard of arguments, for 'twas pleaded for but as a tradition mostly in times above us, as well as new ones broached.  
And the reason is because all Ministers in these parts good and bad, true, & false even the Priests themselves in their Sermons provided for the sacrament have every where oppugned them, as having indeed no clear colour in them of either Scripture, common sense or reason, as neither hath infantsprinkling, if the National Ministers would once wisely consider it. The learned Hooker observes that in Poland so many Arrians sprung up because the Nicence faith was neglected there, and had we Baptists in our Ministry of old been careful to preach for the true way of baptising believers only, when the baptism of infants first began to come up, and creep upon superstitious grounds into the Church, It would certainly have hindered the propagation of that reasonless Rantism, and freed the Churches, that now return to the only true baptism again, which they let go, from that simple censure of Anabaptism, which now they pass under from men that take rantism to be baptism: at least our flocks in those days, that followed the truth, had been so well provided, as that they would not so easily have departed (as they did) from that plain way of the word in point of baptism: Felix quem faciunt aliena pericula cautum.  
The Pastors are appointed by God for watchmen, their office is to to see dangers, and to give warning; they are the dogs of the flock, such as the wolf would have ●…lent, woe be to them if they bark not: Narianzen was such an one, (as some say) his mother dreamt that she had brought forth a white whelp, and such (they say, for I knew him not) he proved that the wol●… 〈◊〉 heretic durst not enter but he spied him, nor stay but he hunted him out: if he did thus, not mistaking heresy, and instead thereof hunting out truth (as the Priests do, but I hope he did not) 'twas the better for the Churches, he was the Pastor of: but woe be to the Church the CCCatholick aecumenical visible Church called CCChrist●…dome, whose faithful Pastors are gone from the truth, and turned wolves themselves, that weary the very truth itself: Saint Paul tells those of Ephesus, Act. 22. 29, I know that after my departure many grievous wolves shall enter into the flock, and as he said so verily it it came to pass, for the three sorts of National Church PPPastors, Pope, Prelate, Presbyter are in sheep's clothing, but indeed ravening wolves, that have devoured the truest flock of sheep that Christ hath upon this earth: they are the dogs of the flock indeed, but many of them dumb dogs that cannot bark, and others barking at the sheep themselves, and others biting them with their teeth because they put not into their mouths, and tearing them, though they never teach them: yea they are greedy dogs that never have enough, looking each to his gain from his quarter●…  
The rest of this discourse shall be partly Paraenetical, to the people, partly Apologetical to the Priests, and so end. As to the Paraenetical part,  
It concerns the advice of the Pastors of the true Churches to their flocks. and all people, that they would endeavour to preserve and recover themslelves from all infection of Heresy and Schism from the primitive times, by which the whole world is gone astray, and in order thereunto they commend unto them this serious exhortation.  
1. To endeavour to be thoroughly inst●…cted in the principles of Christian Religion, to be houses with foundation, that every wind o●… doctrine may not shake them: Dui hu●… et illuc fluctuat, quovis momentur impellitur. He that is not settled upon the true foundation, yea and that house, or Church that is not built upon a right foundation, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the primitive Prophets and Apostles, heard and obeyed, is driven to and fro to this, and to that, and back again almost with every storm that rises, and hath a time wherein 'twill fall, and the fall thereof will be very great Matth. 7. 21. ad. 28. Ephes. 2. 20. 21. 21. we have experience plain enough of this in the national, and PPParish Churches, and people, who because they are houses without foundation, or else constituted upon nothing but the sandy foundations of men's inventions, traditions, doctrines, and the prudential precepts of the priesthood, and not upon the primitive doctrines of the Prophets and Apostles, neither were everperfectly, but at best in part only instructed in the ABC, and first principles, or beginning word and doctrines of Christ (as they lie plainly before us in sixth of the Heb. 1. 2.) because●… say they never knew no●… owned all these, nor laid them as the foundation of ●…eir building, and Church posture, but are brought into that mongrel Church way they are in, by principles of birth, breeding, abode in such a Town, custom, fashion, laws of men,. Statutes, Spiritual orders, Popes, Bishops, Synods, Canons, implicit faith, more than by clear knowledge of, acquaintance with, conversion by the light of Scripture, therefore they are wavering like a wave of the Sea, tosled to and fro with every wind, and turn of tide, and driven to any thing that chances to please the Princes, or that civil power best, under which they happen to be bred and born: yea as 'twas of old in Babylon, where Nebuchadnezzer reigned, all the Lords, People, Tongues, and Nations within his jurisdiction (saving two or three honest souls who saw God's will and served him according to it) fell down strait at his command, and threatenings of the furnace if they did not, so hath it been in BBBabylon the new, under the three PPPriesthoods, wherever they have born sway, all the people (exceptis excipiendis, a very few that keep their standing in every turn, being built upon the rock Christ, and his doctrine) fall down, and do as they and the Princes that have committed adultery with them have enjoined, yea they have reeled to and fro like a drunkard, being drunk with the whore's wine, and fell forwards and backwards, and forwards and backwards, and forwards again in the lump, and been by turns of what religion, or way soever hath pleased the powers to impose under penalty, Papists, Protestants, Papists, Protestants, Popish, Presbyterian, or as it happens.  
2 To love the truth and embrace it, those that yet scorn it, and let their affections be ravished in the embrace of it, such as have or shall yet atany time embrace it; so shall they be stable in it, and not soon moved from the truth.  
3. To take heed of itching ears such as love to be gently touched, but not plainly talked to, that say to the S●…ers see not, prophecy to us smooth things, that will not endure sound doctrine, nor any troublesome truth, that say of the words of Christ, the doctrine of his baptism, that calls for self-denial, the practice of which exposes to the cross, censure, scorn, shame, suffering, loss of credit, custom, offence of friends, fathers, mothers, husbands, wives, etc. which whoever loves above Christ, is not worthy of him, these are hard sayings who can bear them: take heed I say of such ears as love to hear some truth, but not all, that stand open gladly to any thing, but the loss of Herodias, the darling lust, what ever 'tis, whether the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eye, or the pride of life, God in his Just judgement su●…ers such to fall. Learn to be doers of the word not hearers only, and doers of all that you know, and not some things only, as some do; and patient both hearers, and doers of what God, and not what man says: Temptation hardly provails against that soul that is built upon the practice of God's commandments; but (as is showed above and exemplifyed in the parish people that are so built and no otherwise, and whose fear toward God is taught after the precepts of men) the soul that is built on the practice of men's commandments in his religion, faith, worship, is easily prevailed with to be of any Religion the State pleases, as well a false as a true, as well Popish, as Episcopal or Presbyterial.  
4. To beware of the ordinary converse, and needless society of these Schismatical Seducers, the priests, that have drawn the whole world into a deep dotage after themselves, and desperate departure from the plain doctrine of the primitive Churches, and Apostles, not to frequent groundlessely their popish parochial, Antichristian Assemblies, that say they are Jew's i. e. the Churches of Christ, and are not, but do lie, and are the Synagogue of Satan: and if any of the disciples or others, think themselves strong enough to encounter with them, or if they be so indeed, yet to take heed of being foiled, and spoilt throw their philosophy, and vain deceit, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ 2 Col. 8. and however of offending weak ones by their example, The Arguments of some, nay of all these HHHierarchian Heretics have not prevailed half so much to the perverting of the saith of so many millions of men and women, as in all ages of their reign have been perverted from the truth, as it is in Jesus, as the examples of some (shall I say) nay of wellny all the Great ones in all nations, the gentry, the mighty, the wi●…e, the noble, not many of which can submit to own the Carpenter's son in the homely ordinances, mean ways, foolish and base things he hath chosen 1 Cor. 1. yea the Kings of the earth that falling ●…uto folly, and committing fornication with this cunning women the clergy, were besotted to sacrifice all their Crowns, and the wealth, and power and strength of their whole kingdoms to her will and to set up her ways, Rev. 17. 2. 17. Who perhaps only for novelty or curiosity at first, but at last after some few ages and generations, out of principles of foolish custom, and pretended antiquity have been present themselves, and not by their own example only, but extremity of Laws, and Statutes, which the Saints only in each age have smarted for the breach of, enforced others to be present at their will worships, superstitious services, extravagant dispensations, and erroneous exercises: and yet the bare example of great ones in a false faith, without other enforcement, is enforcement, great enough amongst Parochiallists, and the carnal commonalty, who commonly live and believe much more by example then sound reason; the faith of he Rulers right or wrong is usually the rule of their faith, and Rex sum such a convincing reason with them, as seldom receives other reply than nil ultra quaero plebeius.  
5. Not to be too rash to believe every Spirit: nor to receive any more implicitly the spirit of the spiritualty the priesthood, no though it come in never so ghostly shapes, and gorgeous pretences of piety, humility, zeal, prayers, tears, &c, for she is a mystery, and this is the very mystery of the Whore's iniquity that she hides all her guile with a godly garb.  
In nomine domine incipit omne malum, saith the old Proverb, and I wish that in homine domini occidat omne malum, may be a new one, if it prove a true one, i e. that in thy fall O man of God, there may be an end of all mischief: yet surely a worse mischief to the true Church sharp and, short, will arise out of thy ashes yet before the end; false prophets must come in the name of the Lord as well as true ones. Now gloriously did Balaam profess.  
As Austin faith of Pelagius, whose doctrine he counted devilish, that his life was like a Saints, so I say the Sancti Sanctorum of all Christendom in pretence, have been in doctrine the veriest devils: Alexander of ●…ales writes (say some) of Bonaventure that Adam did not sin in him, and yet of all the Papists none lest more blasphemy behind him: the Crocodile weeps till he hath got his prey, the Priesthood won the world to itself with the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, and then set up the trade of being Lords, and Lawgivers themselves, and rooted out his from off the earth.  
6. having once found out and fallen into fellowship with the true Church, that is rightly constituted upon the true foundation of the Prophets and Apostles, or principles of the doctrine of Christ, to be steadfast and unmoveable in the way of truth, not suffering themselves to be swayed aside in any wise, by any deep devises, or perverse pretences Satan of whatsoever, and in order to their standing to avoid aweak and querrulous conscience, misliking. finding fault, complaining, taking offence at every thing, where there is no cause, streining at a gnat, giving over the company of the flock for every rub, forsaking the assembling of themselves together as the manner of some is, separating from the Congregation, not so much for a ceremony as through a crooked and carnal conceit that 'tis but a mere ceremony to assemble and meet, or meddle with any outward ordinances at all, a matter in force only for that small moment of the primitive age of the Gospel, and now of no moment to us, weak worships, low things, carnal ordinances, unprofitable dispensations; 'em p●…y elements, bodily exercises, beggarly rudiments etc. like bruit beasts depraving the precious precepts of Christ even those holy matters of his which they understand not the weight and worth of: these and such like have made such as of old Judas speaks of, and we see so doing at this very day, to depart, and separate themselves from Saintship to sensuality, from Church-fellowship in the faith to fellowship in filthiness: thus the Seeker seeks to subvert himself and others, and all that holy law of Christ's own giving as foolishness, to overturn all that is of Christ, whilst Christ is overturning all that is of man, he scruples every thing, till he is satisfied to own just nothing, as if because there is some ways of error, therefore there can be no way of truth: he is weak in the faith, believing nothing to be good till he believes every thing to be so, and nothing to be bad or naught at all.  
And wheresoever his weakness is at first, it thrives into wickedness at last, so that how ere he seems modest against the truth a while, yet after there will be ra●… censures, arrogant and bold speeches, and judgements, condemning, or at least contemning both of good persons and holy things.  
Thus this man runs up to ranting by little and little, circumcising away all flesh for so he now styles the ways of the word and spirit) crucifying all that flesh of Christ, till he becomes wel●…igh as spiritual as the devil.  
7 To endeavour after the true temper of a son of the Church, which consists especially in these two qualifications.  
1 Humility or self denial.  
2. Charity or love: humility is a being low in your own eyes, Christ bids you learn it of him. Nothing hath broached Heresse and ●…chism so much as self conceit, and self love, as is showed above in the case of the priesthood, who conceive themselves to be those unerring orracles, from whom the law for Religion and faith is to go forth to the people throughout the several Nations, this makes men, these spiritual men especially to stand out in their own odd opinions, as if all were heresy ipso facto that jumps not with them, obstinately defend them, utterly untractable to any argument, though never so clearly urged out of the word itself, that shall be brought against them; resolved never to yield to any judgement, nor willingly be in much less embrace any company that ●…olds contrary to them proudly prohibiting any (but such as are approved of by themselves) disdaining to be discipled by any but men in orders, as if that poor people, and those babes, to whom God delights to reveal the Gospel, rather than such prudent ones, as they are in their own sight, were all as they said of old of such, a people that know not the law, and are accursed; for which things sake the Lord suffers blindness to happen to them, & leaves them to live in error as men lee (ing to their own understanding but true humility as she is ever conscious of her own weakness and darkness, so when she is most sure that in the Lord's power and light she sees light, and is most diffusive of it, and desirous that all others should see it also, and very zealous of promoting it, yet is she far from glorying over others, or boasting as if she had not received what she hath, much less is she so impositive as by compulsion, or otherwise then by plain proposal, round reproof, or earnest entreaty to enforce her faith as a rule for all people to believe by: and howbeit it submits not, as some say she does, to the judgements of others sooner than its own (for that verily is no other than that humble ignorance, and implicit knowledge into which the PPPriestood hath beguiled the earth, who as much as they persuade men to express their humbleness by a voluntary submission of themselves to others judgements, yet are as far from that expression of their own humility as men can be, that would have all men see with their eyes, swear into their faith, and resign up themselves to their judgement against their own) yet she submits her judgement (as proud Papacy, Prelacy, and Presbytery never did) to such free examination by others judgements, as to lend free leave to such as judge it wrong, and are not satisfied to close therewith, to decline and reject it, and both to believe and worship as they find occasion: and howbeit she must contend sometimes she dares not contend with any, much less her superiors (as the Priest does with his whole parish now and then about some trifle or remnant of tithes) for so small a matter as a small matter, of means, or maintenance, but for matters of much more moment, and of eternal consequence viz. that faith and Gospel, which was once delivered unto the Saints, for here indeed she gives place by subjection neither to ghostly father, nor holy mother, no not for an hour that the truth of the Gospel may continue, and as 'tis Christ's things she seeks and strives for, and not her own, so she assaults not without strong and evident, and convincing reason from Scripture for her assertion, not such butterflies and brown paper reasons as man's tradition, 1500 vears profession, nor mere internal imagination, and spiritual persuasion, which the Rantizer and the Ranter render: and even then too she prosecutes her cause with such candour and docibleness as to be ready to receive what ever is made manifest in the conscience to the contrary, without such arrogauty as appears in some Divines when they dispute, who are more ready to call them faw●…y fellows that dares affront their false assertions, then to clear what they hold to be the truth, and without the Spirit of contradiction, that is wont to show itself in every haughty heart, which is more ashamed to seem ignorant then to be so, most specially in the Priesthood, when the truth tendered is such, as if it be acknowledged will not only crack his credit, but certainly pair his profit also.  
As for Charity alias love it is the very cognizance of a Christian the property of it is to blow out the coals of contention not kindle them in the true Church of Christ, though it contend sharply with the false Churches for the truth, to seek, what in it lies, to prevent, not foment rents, Schisms, divisions and offences therein, contrary to the doctrine at first delivered, the love of which occasions offences in the world, it is the very rafters that hold all the house of Christ (whose house they only are that are built upon the foundation or form of doctrine delivered by the first Apostles, the principles of which are set down Heb. 6. 1. 2.) together in most comely frame and order: Oh that the Saints and faithful brethren in Christ of those Churches, that walk in truth, would among all, yea and above all those precious things commended Col 3. 12. ad 16. to be put on, would put on this, which is the very bond of perfectness; this is that which will make them endeavour in all lowliness and meekness and forbearance, and forgiveness of each other, to keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace Eph. 4. 2. 3. the love of the Brotherhood within itself, which is hinted to us by Peter, Pet. 2. 17. and harped upon more than any other string by that beloved Disciple, john 1 joh. 2. 9 10. 11. 3. 10. 11. 12. 13. etc. ad finum 4. 7. ad 13. 20. 21. 5. 1. 2. Ep. 5. 3. Ep. 1. is that more excellent way which the Apostle Paul so magnifies to the Church of Corinth, as that without which all other gifts, tongues of men and angels, prophecy, understanding of mysteries, knowledge, faith of miracles, liberality to the poor, exposing the body to be burned, can make a man no better then as sounding brass and a tinkling cymbal; yea knowledge puffs up, and so plucks down the true Church, but love edifieth, buildeth it, and pulls down nothing but BBBabylon, 1 Cor. 8. 1. love sufereth long, and is kind, love envieth not, love & aunteth not itself rashly, is not puffed up, doth not behave itself unseeemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh none evil, rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth, beareth all things, believe all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things, 1 Cor. 13. strengtheneth all things, beautifieth all things, composeth all things, the contrary to which weakeneth, marreth, ruinateth, consumeth Gal. 5. confoundeth all in the Church jam. 3. it is not apt to see things amiss more than she must needs, and if it cannot but see them, she will hide, and cover them what she may, with a safe conscience, especially the nakedness of her father and the shame of her mother, unless they both prove so abominably impudent and shameless, as like to the false, National, and Parochial Churches, and their ghostly fathers palpably to play the harlot under pretence of holiness to the Lord, and then she may not hold her peace, but cry out upon't, as she will not be held accessary to their sins, and guilty of the loss of love to the Lord herself: ●…he ●…xtenuates faults in very enemies, so far as they are enemies to us only, and not God, for she hates them that hate him, and can show but little favour to their faults, however she will not aggravate them in brethren, it is not a light matter will work dislike in her of the brotherhood, much less departnre and divorce: she covers a multitude of offences and will not upon such trivial ones, such mere molehills, as the sensualists of these times stumble at in the true Churches, break forth into diffemper and rage: oh where is the charity of the true Church in these times? Where in the Cherub that covereth? certainly if this of love had been the temper of all Christians and disciples in the true Churches (as 'tis pretended to be theirs in the highest by such as are gone out from them mistaking lust for love) the breach, the rent of the Ranters from the true Church had not been so great, nor the wound, or separation of that Schismatic so grievous: it must be a great and unsufferable crime, and that evidently proved must make charity break the bonds of peace, even that of perverting the primitive Gospel, changing Christ's laws, and falsifying his ordinances in their forms and subjects, depraving his Divine institutions, defiling, corrupting, violating, adulterating his holy will and testament, worshipping God in vain, teaching for doctrine the traditions of men: and she will not then depart by separation till she despairs of Redress, which was the Protestants case with their once holy mother the Church of Rome, when she proved a strumpet, the Presbyterian with their Ghostly fathers, the Prelatic Priests, the Independents with the Presbyters, the Baptists with the Independents, and all the rest, but not the Seekers' case with the Baptists, for they act in all things according to the primitive pattern showed in the word: as for all the rest, viz. the Po-Prela-Presbyter-Independent Pastoralty and people, they are altogether out of the way, and more or less corrupt and traditional in their constitutions, and dispensations to this day.  
8. If doubts arise about the true form and right subjects of baptism go not to Seducers, or parish priests for resolution, for they are not very well resolved about it, some saying 'tis of God, some of men, some that 'tis to be done to this end and purpose, some to that, some upon one kind of account, some upon another, as is discovered above in the Re-Review, they pretend at least to be seekers themselves, and pray for more light for both themselves, and their people, yet smother it still as it rises upon them, yea many of them are so taken up with minding means and money, that they mean not to find truth, nor follow it faster, than it goes along with tith: go not therefore I say to them, That is dubius ad dubios, caecus ad caecos (saith Tertullian in another case) for the blind to be lead by the blind yea these are the blind guides of their blinder people, whom (having themselves forgotten Christ's Law) they cause to err: these are the staff to which people trust and lean, that declare their own falsehoods instead of Christ's truth, these are the stocks of which they ask council, that would have all men hang up on their mouths, and take things for truth as they come out by common consent from them; and tell us that God's advice is, Ask the Priest, and so it was concerning the Law, Hag. 2. 12, for the Priests lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the Law at his mouth, but verily as 'twas said of the Priests of old, Mal. 2. 1. ad 10. so may it much more truly be said now, the Priests will not hear the Lords comm●…ndements, and will not lay it to heart to give glory to his name, therefore God sends a curse upon them, and blasts their understandings, and blinds their eyes, and curses their blessings, because they lay it not to heart. Indeed they bid us Ask the Priest; as if they were very forward to resolve men, but alas, as many of them are not much minded to be resolved themselves in that point, which intrenches too much upon their interest, so much less are they minded (for the most part) in order to the resolution of others to render any reason of their way of baptism at all before their people, I have been more than either an eye or an ear witness of not only the rigid refusals to answer, but also, the rough repulses that have been given by some of chiefest note in our County of Kent, to such as have never so modestly propounded questions to them, or demanded an account of the truth of their practice in their 


Mr. Wilson.  
Mr. Williamson.    public places.  
And how no answer, but no answer, Dr. Chamberlain had from Dr. Gouge to this question, Whether the sprinkling of Infants were of God or man? is known sufficiently to all, though it was pressed on him in three or four letters by all the rational and Christian considerations that could be possible, yea though he entreated him to return him an answer for his own sake, to return him an answer for Dr. Gouges own sake, to return him an answer for the people's sake, to return him an answer for God's sake, yet how did he put him off with delays (as if the business were now dubious to himself, when as formerly he had acknowledged, that it was a tradition of the Church) and would give answer nec per se, nec per se Synodum.  
When therefore they shall say unto you ask the Priest, seek unto us, I say seek not unto them, that say they seek, but are loath to find themselves, or at least are afraid that men should find, and see all that, which they cannot clearly deny to be the truth: seek not to them that peep, and that mutter, and speak not out, as if the matter were not momentary to be mentioned, as if they were in a quandary whether it be safe or no to seek too seriously after the truth out, should not a people seek unto their God? for the living to the dead? to the law, and to the testimony yourselves oh ye people, if they speak not plainly according to the word, it is because there is no light in them, Isa. 8 19, 20.  
Ask therefore the High Priest Christ Jesus and if you cannot be resolved so speedily as you desire to your satisfaction and content, be content to stay till God shall reveal: in the mean time, while you doubt, suspend the practice, and do nothing doubtingly, but exercise yourselves the while in searching the Scripture and prayer, to which precious practice God hath made many precious promises in his word as namely, That they shall be undefiled in the way that seek the Lord, with their whole heart: Psalm 119. 1, 2. That if thou wilt turn at his reproof, though thou hast been a simple one, and hast loved simplicity, a scorner that delightest in scorning, and jea●…ing at the truth, and a fool that hath hated knowledge, which all are high degrees of sin, yet he will pour out his spirit upon thee, which happily hath been thy laughing stock, and make known his words unto thee, Prov. 1. 22. 23. that if thou wilt receive his words and hide his commaddements within thee, If thou incline thine ear unto wisdom and apply thy heart unto understanding, yea if thou criest after knowledge, and liftest up thy voice for understanding, if thou seekest her as silver, and searchest for her as for hid treasure, than thou shalt understand the fear of the Lord, and find the knowledge of God Prov. 2. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.  
Yet be assured of this, humble ignorance in many questions debated in these days by Divines, and also in old timebefore us by learned Schoolmen and Casuists, and by the Popish priests, that reason about the unreasonable fopperries, and refusely scum that arises out of the dead sea of their divinity, is more acceptable to God then contentious curiousity: yet not such humble ignorance about the ordinances of Christ as our Priesthood would hold men in, as if the Law and Oracles of Christ, which are all plain to him that understandeth, were in things necessary to salvation so difficult, and obstruse that poor mechanics must meddle no more in't then they have leave from them; in facili et aperto postta est salus, the way of salvation is plain to be found in the book of God, he that believeth and is baptised shall be saved: Repent and be baptised every one of you in the name of the Lord for remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the holy spirit: but the priesthood hath led men the next way round about to salvation, and framed a new Gospel for their followers, which Scripture makes no mention of at all: but as those Israelites that were led up and down the wilderness so long God had sworn should not enter into his xest, so neither shall those Christians, that, when the truth lies plain before them, delight rather to trace to and fro in the thicket of traditions received from their after forefathers, then in the way of the first fathers of the Church, and love more to wander, then to walk in the narrow way of truth, in the vast forest, wondrous wood, and wide wilderness of the priests inventions.  
9 Consider sadly in heresy the sin, the punishment, the sin St. Paul places it among the works of the flesh, Murder, Idolatry, Witchcraft, Drunkenness etc. and well may, for 'tis only in favour of the flesh, and for some base fleshly ends, or other that men depart from the way of truth, and not of the spirit, for that leadeth those that are resolved to be led by it, as it speaks in the Scriptures, into all truth, as it is in the mind of Christ Jesus, john 14.  
The lea●… hear cannot be excused, the nature of it is to gather as it grows, it is to run downhil, and that's the cause why so many follow it and so few the truth, for its an uphill, a narrow way that leads to life, therefore few find it, but facilis descensus averni the way to the bottomless pit is an easy, and broad descent, therefore many there be that go in thereat, even whole towns Counties, Kingdoms, yea the whole world 1 joh 5. 19 Rev. 13. 3. a few only excepted, that obey the truth, whose names therefore are written in the book of life, the heretic that hath begun it cannot stop when he will, but when once he ceases to receive and retain God in his knowledge, and the love of the truth that he may be saved, through some base love of the world, and the lucre and lust thereof, that he may be pleased, profited, preferred, a 100 to one, but he is hardened for ever in blindness, God also giving him over, as well as he himself to deeper, and deeper delusion, and at last to the love of lies, more than truth: jeroboams rend turned into idolatry, and the rent of such as run from the primitive doctrine of Christ is come to no less; the Rantizer and the Ranter also are both sad examples to us, how fearsul a thing it is to run away from the plain path of the word of Christ, the one whereof, when he ran down once, but so far as to take upon him to mend Christ's ordinances, and teach for doctrine his own traditions, never left adding more and more of his own odd constitutions, till he sunk o'er head and ears in a gulf of golden legends, and a lake of lies; the other when he had once declined the Scripture, and denied all ordinances, never left advancinxg himself into the clouds of his own airy conceits, till his waxen wings melted with his soaring so near the sun, and so he fell headlong into a sink of forbid sensuality.  
The punishment is either temporal, the Donatists of old (as some say) the Anabaptists as they are commonly called, of Germany, who, if ever they owned the truth, abode notvery long in it, are examples of God's judgements in that kind: spiritual blindness of understanding, hardness of heart, seeing and not perceiving, hearing and not understanding, and last of all eternal the worm that n●…ver dies: Christ shows all men's labour in their religion is lost by reason of it, in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrine the traditions of men; the Apostle shuts heaven against it, 5. Gal. and twice over denounces cursing to any, yea angels from heaven, that preach any other then what they preached, and I am sure they never preached infant sprinkling, yea whoever is an heretic vel dandi vel auferendi sa●… in either excess or defect, by adding or taking away from the word, God will add the plagues upon him, that are written in that book, and take away his name out of the book of life.  
Saint Austin saith of Arrius (how true that saying is I say not, but 'tis an argument, (Adhominem) a good item however for every one that is any other way Antichristianus) that his pains are increased in hell as oft as any one through his here●…e is seduces from the faith, therefore va vobis Scribae, Sacerdotes etc.  
〈◊〉 of all to mourn for the calamities of the true Church, which hath for this 1600 years, been spoiled, and under clouds and partly by the Roman Empire Heathen, partly by the Roman Empire Christian been trod under the feet of tyrannical truth treaders, the loss of souls, the Scandal of true Religion, which is, and hath been every where spoken against: houses and lands, wives and children, goods and liberties, when lost, consumed, destroyed, are lamented by us, should not Ch●…ists los●…s be more dear? and how much more the loss of Christ himself? who, as he told of that eclipse of that primitive intercourse, which he had with his people then, by the interposition, and coming of the prince of this world between him and them, so hath now of a long time been a great stranger in all Christendom: Oh What comfort had it been to have had the Son of God walki●…g with us, may the Christian world say, in the midst of the flames that have devoured, and wasted in all corners of it, but specially the third part of Christian men, which hath been killed by the fire, and by the smoke, and by the brimstone, which issued out of the mouths of the four Angels, that were bound before in the great River Euphrates, i. e. the four cruel Territories of the Turkish Empire, united all under one head, viz. Ottoman the Great, some 390 years ago, and from thenceforth getting ground on this side Euphrates, to no less than a third part of Christendom, as being indeed prepared for an hour, a day, a month, a year, i. e. 391. years to slay the third part of nominal Christians, with most inhuman mercilessenesse and cruelty, Rev. 9 12. ad finem. I say what comfort would it have been to have had not only the name, but the spiritual presence of Christ preserving, for those that were consumed in that devilish devastation? but alas the Herestes, Blasphemyes, and abominable idolatries of the Christian nations have made him depart, and leave the men, that merely by name are Christians, to utter distress and darkness, without either succour or support under such bloody sufferings: those sins where not so much suffered in civil States (for that may be) as set up and established as the only Christianity to be allowed of (as they have been by the national, Antichristian, Christian Churches) so that true Christianity is suppressed and suffers for the sake out, and for nonconformity thereunto, are ever, and ever will be the forerunners of the removal of his Candlestick, and of the destruction of the very denomination of Church at last, among that people, that have a name to live and are dead.  
However let us (O ye that are the true Christian Churches) Mourn for our own sins, those sins, which have provoked God so much to wrath against his true Churches in former times, are beginning to be too rise among us, therefore why may he not justly, if we lay it not to heart in time, deal so with us as of old with them, so as to dischurch us, so as to lay open our sence●…, tread down our hedge, break down our ●…ower, and expose his vine to every beast of the Forest, let us be zealous and repent, and in secret let our souls weep for the abominations done in the midst of Zion, let horror take hold on us, and rivers of tears run down our eyes because men keep not Christ's law; le's mend what we can, and mourn for what we cannot mend: and whilst, as the Ranter and his Rout laughs our weak works to scorn on the one hand, so the clergy and their Clients on the other, puff at our Mechanic buildings, as Sanballat scoffed at the jews Neh. 4. 1, 2, 3, saying in malice and mockage, What do these feeble folk? will they fortify themselves against our Orthodox D●…vines? will they sacrifice without a Priest among them? will they make ●…n end in a day to reform, which is many a years work for a learned Synod? will they revive the stones, even the dead bones of old Heretics, out of the heaps of ●…bish that are burnt? that which they build if a fox go up, he shall even break down their stone wall; le's not be discouraged, nor afraid to proceed in the way and work of the Lord: let them laugh, but let us weep for them, as well as not spare to reprove them, so far as we have any hope to reform them, let them curse, but let us bless; yea let us fast and pray, not with Wednesday, and good Friday fasts, and Lent'n Litanies: nor with the Pharisees twice a week fasts, who paid ●…th, and refused to submit to Christ's baptism: nor yet with Jezebells' fasts, who set honest Naboath on high, and accused him of blasphemy on that day with so much the greater advantage and finer pretence, as, if the Clergy did not when they obtained fasts against heretics, 'twill not repent them so much another time, as some think it may yet, of those repentances: nor yet with the Jew's fasts, that fasted for strife and debate, and to smite with the fist of wickedness, that hung down their heads for a day, like a bulrush; and thought God was half beholding to them for it, because they spread sackcloth and ashes under them, though they neither loosed the bands of wickedness, nor let the oppressed go free, nor undid heavy burdens, nor broke every yoke, nor dealt their bread to the hungry, nor brought the poor that were cast to their houses, nor coveted the naked when they saw them, but rather hid themselves from their own flesh, and hardened their hearts against the poor, and heaped up riches for themselves, and oppressed full as much, and it may be much more than before; shall we call these fasts, and acceptable days to the Lord Isa. 58 they are all abominable rather thenacceptable. Therefore let us fast as well from as for iniquity, and what ever others do let us serve the Lord: let us call for justice and plead for truth, let us not defile our hands with blood, nor out fingers wiith iniquity, let our lips speak no lies, nor our tongue mutter perverseness, let us not hatch cockatrice eggs, nor wove such spider's webs, as have been woven in the Nations to entangle tender consciences in, and make the poor harmless flies a very prey to their malevolent intentions; so shall we cause our voice to be heard on high, let us thus fast and pray, and with fasting and prayer, endeavour the casting out of every blind, and deaf, and dumb devil, and beseech the Lord that the eyes of the Priesthood, and their People may be opened to see, their ears unstopped that they may hear the truth, & their tongues unloosed, that they may be preachers of it indeed, as now they are in pretence, and in word only and no more.  
Christian Reader, that ownest the truth, if thou be'st proffesd, so as to discern between Christ's way, and the clergies more clearly than ever, give God the glory, for nought but shame belongs to man; and pray for those that desire, as the conversion of others to it, so thy preservation in the truth, which oh how hard is it to abide by in these evil times of temptation from the falls Churches & the non-chuches, which both seek what they can to unchurch the true, which (thou continuing faithfully in it to the death) shall only lead thee unto everlasting life: but if any man will be ignorant let him be ignorant.  
Now as to the Apologetical part I saythus to you O ye Priests, you are of all men the generation whose great and general displeasure I expect to fall under, and for this present works sake, to become your enemy more universally than ever yet, because I here tell you the truth: but (as little hope as I have to be heeded by you in what I say) I must tell you (and the Lord judge between you and me whether I speak the truth or not) I am so far from desiring the temporal, much more the eternal destruction of any one of you, that as far as 'tis possible I would prevent both: yea if by the publication of all this I seek any thing next to God's glory, more than the salvation as well of your own souls, as of such as are seduceed and ensnared by your spiritual sorceries in ways of false worship, heresy, and Schism from the primitive truth will not the Lord at last find me out? nay verily I love the persons of you all as well as other men's; indeed I love you too well to spare sharpness toward you, or in silence suffer you to perish, as I verily believe (and therefore speak the more plainly to you, that by any means I may save some of you) without remedy you will do, persisting in your wont obstinacy against the Gospel: this being the faith which God hath begotten me to, by a serious search and observation of the word and world together, the saith which he hath for some years made me to live in, and will (I trust if he call me to it) strengthen me to die in, rather than deny one ●…ot of it to please men, good or bad, friend, or foe, unless it be discovered to me to be a false one, I must not be ashamed to profess it for fear of them that kill the body, for then woe unto me from him that is able to destroy both soul and body in hell, and should I be altogether silent, as my fearful flesh would fain be, lest I should prove an intolerable offence to my friends, and seem to be (as O my God thou knowest how far I am not) a self avenger on my foes, and expose myself (as at no hand I desire to do, might it be avoided) to the ha●…ed and hard censure of you all, the light of this truth would arise many other ways, yea the Lord pleadeth it before you day by day by the tongues and pens of others besides myself, but I nevertheless might be destroyed: I had at first illumination, and strong impulsions of spirit, not perceiving (like Samuel, who thought it had been Eli that called him, and not the Lord) whether it were the suggestion of God's spirit or my own, and when at last I understood clearly that 'twas the Lord himself, that told me he would do such a thing to the house of Eli i. e. the Generation of the Priesthood as should cause the ears of all that hear it to tingle, I feared likewise to show Eli the vision, and was as loath to declare, as you OPPPriests are to hear the things concerning you here declared; I was ready to say to the Lord, send this message by the hand of him by whom thou wilt send, but necessity was upon me, yea woe unto me, my God had been a terrible one to me had I refused it, yea I may say as jeremy jer. 20. 7 9 O Lord thou hast deceived me, and art stronger than I and hast prevailed, for I said I will not make mention of this, nor speak it in thy name, but his word was within me as fire in my bones, and I was weary with forbearing, and I could not stay; he whose face only I seek, that I may not be deceived, the light or louring of whose countenance is more to me then the favours or frowns of all faces, hath pressed me in spirit to tell that on the house tops which he hath told me in the ear in a close●…: what shall befall me in so doing I know not, save that the spirit witnesseth that afflictions do every where abide me, and all those that will live godly in Christ Jesus, yet none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto me, that I may finish my race, and the ministry I have received of the Lord Jesus, s to testify the Gospel of the grace of God Act. 20. 24. if your Ministry, Gospel, doctrine, Baptism be right, then ours is wrong, and if ever it appear we shall come back to you, if ours be right than yours is wrong, and must be declared that you may return to the truth. I know there are many things you will question (not to say quarrel with) me about,  
First, you'll ask me why I do not for the peace sake of the Church forbear, and keep my opinions in these points to myself, rather than publish them so plainly in print, as well as by word and pen, to the disturbance thereof?  
To which I say, if it be the truth I hold, and matter of weight withal, it will excuse the promoting of itself, if it were to the distraction of the Church (which is to be subject to the truth, and not the truth to her) & also to the destruction of the world, fiat just●…, aut pereat mundus,  
Secondly, the matters held forth here by me, which are mainly the falseness of your Ministry and baptism, are, as truth, so of such consequence as to be well worth discovering, if either ●…uther did well to declare against the Pope and Clergy of Rome, or yourselves O Presbyters against Prelates, Deans and Chapters etc. without regard to the several disturbances that were like to be consecutive thereto: yea the true subject and manner of administration of baptism, which (when it serves your turn so to do) you call a circumstantial matter, a ceremony for which (if you should err therein) none but weak & querulous consciences will complain and separate, an indifferent thing for which why should we make so much ado? a g●…at, not to be streind at and such like, is so necessary a matter, one of the most necessary points of Religion, which those that err in do most fearfully err, and are totally deserted by the spirit of God, these are your own words.  
Thirdly, you talk much (and 'tis the language of the Pope to yourselves since you reat from his Church) of the Church, and our holy mother the Church, and Ghostly fathers of the Church, and good and true tempered sons of the Church, and the peace of the Church, and Schismatics in the Church, etc. wherewith you astonish the vulgar, but I protest this day before God; and men, not only against him, against whom you are Protestants also, but against yourselves also his Schismatical sons, who own his ordinations, and still walk in some of his ordinances, viz. Rantism, Parochial posture etc. as those that are little less ignorant than he, and his good sons, of both the true Church, and true peace thereof, whilst the truth, to which she should submit, is not regarded by you, and the very things that make a true visible Church, and are de esse and constitutive of it, so that abstract them, and you null it viz. true matter i. e. believers baptised, and true form i. e. free and not forced fellowship, both which are so in the Churches of England, Scotland, Italy, France and Spain, are not only wanting, but also trodden under your feet.  
Fourthly, the peaceable way wherein we propagate these opinions, were you as sure they are erroneous, as I am tha tyou'l once find them to be truth, will yetexcuse, and acquit us from all guilt of disturbing the peace of either the world, or your Church, which is the world in reference to the true one; and unless you can say the Gospel of peace, which where ere it comes, occasions dissensions, is the cause of them, as in no wise it is, but men's lusts rather that rage, and take on against it, you cannot say our Gospel is; for it propounds them to the world in no other way than that, and that way was no other than bore propounding them: and as Christ and his disciples did not judge them here, though they will judge them most severely hereafter, who reject their words, by the power of the Magistrate, by the civil sword, by nailing to pillories, cutting off ears, slitting noses, whip, fines, confiscations, prisons, bonds, banishments, fightings, fire, and faggot, the bloody ways whereby BBBabilon hath edified itself to that height of abomination, the Arguments whereby the clergy were wont to convert Heretics quickly from all error to dust, and ashes; so if any man hear our words and reject them, well may we rebuke him sharply, as they also did, but we judge him not, in that way whereby the Tribe of Levi, that hath levied war for his lust's sake against the whole earth, hath bereft all men of peace: nevertheless the words that we speak to him, being those that Christ and his disciples have spoken in the world, the same will judge him at the last day.  
Secondly, why (sith it must needs be supposed there be many Godly men among the Ministers of the Nations, though the most of them be wicked yet) I do not except, and exempt them, when I inveigh so heavily against the clergy? or why I do not rather forbear, and spare to speak so broad at all, and so generally as I do against that generation as an evil one, for the sake of those good ones, that are among them?  
To which I say,  
First, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 godly men properly are those only that worship God aright, i. e. according to his own will and institution, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which well weighed might possibly 
* Mat. 15. 9  put the best men among you to your trumps to make good your title to that title, and denomination of godly by Scripture record, sith while you stand among the rest, even you as well as the worst do preach, and practise for doctrines of Christ some traditions of man, if you had no more enjoined you by them, on whom you wait for your instructions, then barely the sprinkling of infants, by which you make void, what in you is, the true baptism of Christ.  
Yet not denying but that there is a sprinkling of honest hearts quorum meliori luto sinxit praecordia Titan, whom the sun of righteousness, as he lightens every man that cometh into the world, hath hatched up into a higher predicament of Godliness than their fellowees, who are drawn up into some higher strains of devotion than the rest, I add further.  
Secondly, what are these littles to the lump? what is the gleaning to the vintage? here and there one good man to the whole corrupt crew of them, that like Locusts, and Caterpillars have spread themselves together with the smoke of errors over the earth in three several swarms or armies? can some scores of well meaning Priests give the denomination of an holy PPriesthood, godly Ministry to those legions of them that lie in wickedness? you may as well say there's a million of Saints among the men of the world, therefore reprove not the world for their sakes: such as these, who out of mere simple honesty, rather than sinful sophistry and mystical iniquity do stand, and act, and argue against the true way as they do, are Rarae aves, very few to the multitude of humanists, and sensual ones, and subtle subverters of the Gospel (which yet they would seem to be Ministers of) for their own ends; by whom they are commonly so hated too so far as they have any more strictness and sincerity then ordinary, that they are among the other of their brethren (as I was for querying after truth while I stood among them) as owls and bats baired by other birds: which few good grapes were they better than they are, cannot denominate the whole vintage, as una ●…irundo non facit ver: BBBabilon is BBBabilon still, and SSSodom is SSSodom, and must be called so, though Lot live in it, and he called out of it too, unless he mean mean to perish with it.  
Thirdly, those good men that are there (the moors the pity that they are so) ought not to be suffered nor spared, but spoke to the rather themselves, and that very roundly too, for being and abiding in a bad way, and not the way itself, and those many bad men that are in it scape declaring against, as bad, because of them: there must be downright dealing with upright men, when they are in a wrong way, and that indeed is the most upright dealing with them of all: yea Sirs, you that are upon the Account of these times for godly Ministers, let me say this to you, for verily I have sorrow of heart for some of you of my old acquaintance, my own flesh and blood, for whose sakes flesh in me would fain be silent, as knowing flesh in you would fain be let alone, but I must urge you to be serious in seeing how unsafely you satisfy yourselves in your present fellowship with a carnal Clergy: what make you among the profane Ministry of the Nations, that hath in all ages sat with such weight upon them, as to sink them into a gulf of error, so that all truth almost is heresy with them now, and under hazard of being smothered as soon as it peeps out from under that veil of traditions, that hath covered it? what make you keeping a Court of guard among the Babylonians to help to hold them in captivity still, at least in the Suburbs, and by the borders of Babylon, where you yet linger and loiter for all your pretences and protestations to go quite home with them, that are resolved fo●… Zion? what mean you to stand so near in affinity as to make one spiritualty, one spiritual fraternity with such fl●…shly minded men, as the main body of the national ministry consists of in all Europe? for 'tis evident you'll enter into the lists, and make head with the worst of them, even with the Pope himself, against any further discoveries of truth, then will stand with your standing among them, though the Lord makes out the truth more clear, and you seem in your prayers to desire him so to do●… 〈◊〉 yea I am almost ashamed to utter what I see, I see preciseness and profaneness go hand in hand to keep out the true Righteousness indeed.  
So that if I speak to the whole body of the clergy throughout the earth, as very often I do, yet I bespeak you no otherwise then I find you viz. whether for this or for that in particular, yet all banded in one general body against the truth; for as Herod and Pilate though at enmity could yet agree as friends against Jesus, so you though of never so different complexions, and constitutions, lives, and conversations, doctrines, and disciplines, forms and fashions, and goverments and Gospels, yet are all friends to Christ's crucifying in his disciples: yea how implacably are you at odds among yourselves, one sort of you being for the supremacy of the Pope, another for the Super-intendeny of the Bishop, a third for the superstitions of the Synods, others for they scarce know which, and they care not what, but as the temper of the times doth dispose them; some Rantizing infants from one ground viz. because its a tradition, some denying that, and disclaiming it as both a rotten, and false one, yet Romanizing still from some other, some, and those the most, more loose, a few more strict in their manners, notwithstanding all which variety, you are at unity still, i. e. at enmity against the Gospel of Christ.  
But should you help the ungodly, and love them that hate the Lord? surely wrath will be upon you with them from the Lord: If you jehosophats i e. the honest Presbyters in whom good things are found, who have taken away the groves, and much more of that Romish rubbish than your father Asa i. e. the good old, Bishops did before you, if you good jehosaphats I say, will after all this join with the wicked Ahabs that trouble Israel, in imprisoning the Michaiahs, at least by a silent assent, and with the Ahaziahs that do wickedly, so as to lay your heads together for ship-loads of Gold, 2 Chron. 3. 31. 19 2. 20. 35. 26. 38. for more means and maintenance, saying to them, we are in this point as you are, our people as your people, our parishes as your parishes, our Articles of faith herein as your Articles of faith, our way of maintenance as yours, and we will be with you in the war to reduce the Giliadites, the sectaries, that should be subject to us, to our obedience: your ships and all your projects, works and counsels will be broken, and disappointed as the others, what ever may become of your persons: true men in a false way are out of God's protection, as well as hypocrites in a true.  
Therefore depart ye from the tents of those ungodly men, yea arise and depart from that Papistical posture of parish Churches, and Pastoral relation to such as are not sheep, which not Christ jesus, but the Pope stated men in at first, for this is not your rest because it is polluted, it will destroy you with a sore destruction; whereupon come out from them and be ye separate, yea come out of her come out of her, ye that are Christ's people (for Christ's Ministers you are not, though never so good men, by Antichrists orders) and partake no longer with her in her sins, lest ye partake also of her plagues.  
Fourthly, the Godliness and honesty of men's persons doth not prove the goodness and truth of the outward form and way of Church-order they are in, nor must hinder the overturning it if false, who will say many of these under the Episcopacy were not good men? if good men stand in a bad place, soil, or posture, they have so much the more need to be removed as trees, and transplanted into a better: for many of you Presbyters that go for godly were as godly every jo●…, while you st●…d in that false Episcopal form as now, and some of you somewhat more (for it's much to be feared that the settling of you in the same Hierarchy over the faith, and chair of infallibility here in England, out of which you justled the Bishops, and they but an age above removed the Pope, and the enjoyment of so much of their means, hath been a means of abating much of your godliness, and righteousness too (if ever you had any) or else the Priest surely would not so have so soon forgot that ere he was Clerk as to have gone about (so high Presbytery did but that God prevented him of his purpose) so soon as ever he was gotten out of his own groaning condition, and kept from the clutches of those that crushed him, to crush those that groaned under him for the same liberty of conscience, out of Smectimnus his own mouth.) There were therefore (if not as many good men) yet many as good men and (to their then light sincere souls owning Prelacy, and some (its like) owning the Papacy itself 
* H●…tness Luther himself, who, though he wrote bitterly against indulgences, yet durst not 〈◊〉 ought from the 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 most holy Father Leo, See an Epistle of his to Pope Leo the 10●… , as may seem to be among you that now disown both, yet did not this forbid you, nor stop your mouths from using sharp invectives against their Authority as usurped, their Government as ill, their spiritual Courts, consistories, and seveveral sessions as spiteful to the truth, their ways as violent against tender consciences, that could not close with them, their Liturgies, Ordinations, administrations of Ordinances, Baptism and Supper, Discipline, directories for worship and Catechism etc. as altogether superfluous, superstitious, unlawful, and abominably corrupt, their revenues too great (though little enough for yourselves if you could catch it) their power too absolute (till it came into your own hands) their Synods too supercilious, arrogant, arbitrary, and impositive upon the state both powers and people (till you had a Synod of your own) their pluralty of benefices too much of all conscience for one man (till conscience in some of you was made wide enough to have and to hold as many cures as ever you can compass) and themselves an untoward and perverse generation, the Whore of Babylon, (so Rutherford) and the very best among them, too bad, and much more to blame then others, for not seeing your model to be better, and for once effering to set their shoulders to the upholding of so rotten a fabric: why therefore since your domination is the same, and your government as Tyrannical as the other, the extent of your dominions the same, for they rule but over all, and you over no more than you can subject, the subject matter of your churches the same viz. whole England, whole Scotland, whole Commonwealths, the whole world at once, if it would as catholicly submit to your directory, as it did once to the Popes, in point of worships, and payments, at least, whether godly in their conversations or no, your parish form the same, your Ministry a Ministry by the same orders, and mostly of the same men, new moulded, not so much in mind and manners, as in manner of ministration according to the laws for alteration, in a word your whole Hierarchy, though new suited, so far the same, that you are no less Cousin German to them, than they two are one unto another, why may it not, I say, be proportionably reproved, notwithstanding a number of honest and godly men among those, that are not more numberless, then so godless, that they may well say of themselves, Nos numeri sumus fruges consumere nati?  
5. Specially since the best men are by so much unworthy to be justified, & favoured in the false form they are found in, by how much, in some respects, they do more wrong to the truth, than the very worst that are in that wrong way with them.  
For though the wicked Ministers are the worst, both to themselves and to all others otherwise, whether Popes, Prelates, Presbyters, or Popish Priests of of any kind, yet herein the best are worst, and even more injurious than any viz. as they are greater stumbling blocks to some, and, by standing still in a superstitious way, stand more in the way of such as (living more at a venture by their example in all things than the word) would else escape it, then profane ones are capable to do: thus pious Priests, that are adored as Popes in their several parishes, more dazzle their people's eyes from discovering the whole mystery both iniquity and godliness, then dissolute, rude, proud, paltry ones possibly can, when once the Gospel comes among them: yea, Pope Caelestinus, Pope Clemens, Pope Innocentius, Pope Pius, Pope Formosus, Pope Urbanus, do more captivate their cures to continuance in crooked customs, then either Leo, or Helbrandus. When men in a false Ministry are any better than ordinary in their persons, though never so Antichristian in their performances, yet how many are hardened to the heeding of these, as Christian enough for their sakes: but when they are not only traditionary in their services, but impious and impenitent in their lives, this renders not only their deformation more discernible, but also reformation more desirable than else it would be; so as corruptio optimi est pessima, the pervertures of good men are most prejuditious, if not pernicious to the truth, ex malis moribus bonae nascuntur leges, the parish Ministers immodest manners makes modest men look out for some better laws and Gospel.  
There's one thing more I know you will charge me with (for you Ashford Disputants did once before thousands, when there was (seemingly) less occasion than now, viz. that I am too sharp and Satirical, that I rail at and revile you, in styling you an Adulterous generation, Antichristian, Heretical, Schismatical  
To which I say, first that, though some of you would have muzzled me up then, by an Article, from that which you call reviling, least happily I should have unmasked you too much, yet, in your sense, that Article shall not bind me at this time (with your leave) for you call that reviling that is not so: would you set yourselves soberly once to reason things out, i. e. to discern them properly as they are, you would find, that no man is reviled that is seasonably and soberly declared, and denominated to be but what he is: for be the titles we note men by never so gross, yet are they but their proper names, if in all things suitable to the subject: hence (though I can excuse your ignorance in terming me Anabaptist, for that's impropriation indeed) yet I'll more than pardon you, print me out how you will, so you print me no worse than you prove me: and as for me whatever stile I put upon you, as I do it in a serious and not lusory way, so I make it out to be your due: as also what you Presbyters put upon the Prelates, and you Prelates upon the Popedom, viz. the denomination of Antichristian, Strumpet, Babylon, and such like, you make plainly enough appear to be their due, and therefore I cannot possibly be said properly to revile you, forasmuch as upon the self same Account as you cry out upon each other and use these disgraceful and opprobious terms (as you term them) towards one another, I (as justly) cry out in the same language against you all; unless you will yield to it, as I know you will not, that you are Revilers yourselves.  
If what I say of you be indeed more than the truth, I'll not only expect your contradiction, but accept thankfully your correction of me from the word; but if you cannot from thence deny but that I call you what you are, then as you will not be guilty of overcharging yourselves as well as me, you must acquit me from the guilt of reviling, for as I lend you no worse language than you lend one another in the like cases, so as I plead my innocency in it, must you plead your own else can you be held guiltless no more than I, but we must all be revilers togegether.  
When the Pope challenges the Prelatical party for styling him the Roman Antichrist, 
* See Dr. Featleys' dippers dipped See Dr. Helins' Geography, where speaking of Pope Joan, he calls her both the literal and the mystical Wh●…re of Babylon.  and the mystical Whore of Babylon 
* See rutherford's Presbytery, in the Epistles Dedicatory & to the Reader. , and the Prelates likewise come upon Presbytery, for making them as much Babylon as the other (for so doth Mr. Rutherford the Scotchman calling the two Governments of Italy and England, the Popes and Prelates lawless Church Monarchy, saying of the Prelate that he could not find his Father, and was ashamed of his native Father Diotrephes, i. e. the Pope, and that the Pope was his Godfather, and Rome his Godmother, and th●… Antichristian Prelacy was but spilt Popery, half died Papistry, terming them also children of Babel 
* One of the three parts, Rev. 16. 19 of the great City BBBabylon, viz. the Pope and his carnal crew of Clergymen, the Prelate found out, but (in nostris talpae in alienis linces sumus) was so pitifully purblind at home that he could never find out a second: the second part of that Babylonish whore, which are the Prelate and his Priesthood, the Presbyter found out, and began to cry out upon them also as an harlot, but, standing so much in his own light that he cannot see himself for himself, and cannot see wood for trees, to this day he cant hit upon the third, but even that also, which is the Presbyterian Clergy, is in Tyranny so like the rest, that the name Babylon will appear upon their foreheads too within a while.  when also (I say) you of the Presbytery are challenged by the Bishops, and the Prelacy by the Popes for revilers, in the words, wherein you challenge us, and wherein Paul was questioned for his term Thou w●…ited wall, viz revilest thou God's high Priest? you can excuse yourselves no otherwise then he did, i. e. we wist not that you are Gods high Priests, but are assured you are rather what we call you; even so, if you shall say to myself revilest thou the Ministers of Christ? I say (Sirs) I wist not that you are Ministers of Christ any more than the Pope himself, i. e. as much as just nothing, for as quod 〈◊〉 tale must be magis tale (virtually at least if not formally) so n●…l 〈◊〉 quod in se non habet, so that the Roman Antichrist being no true one himself, and in no commission from Christ to make his Ministers, could not (secundum te O Presbyter) make those true Ministers, that made those, that made them, that made these that make you, and so what ere you are (as from him) yet (as from Christ) you are no Ministry at all, but in very deed the very same that I call you, v. z. of the Beast, and of the D●…agon, as also the three fold CCChristendome (of whom you say that they are Jews, i e. Christians, when they are not) are no other than the Synogogue of Satan.  
In all which so far am I from reviling, that I speak the words of soberness, and truth, which whoever does may not unlikely be reviled as a reviler, by you, but is a faithful reprover indeed: for it is not simply vile terms spoken that make a reviler (if spoken both seriously and in season) but their non agreeableness to them they are spoken of: for else undoubtedly not only yourselves (who spoke as v●…lely of the Pope as I of you, but john Baptist, Peter, Paul, yea, and Christ jesus himself (none of which reviled at all, though upon occasion of their enmity against God they called men (whom else they respected well enough too) by the name of Satan 
* The term Christ used to Peter for his subtle selfishness, immediately after he had honoured him with the name of Peter Mat. 16. where the actions are Satanical, the reproof cannot be too Satyri call to whom soever. , evil and adulterous generation, Generation of Vipers, children of the devil, enemies of all righteousness, bruit beasts, Foxes, Dogs, Swine, etc.) must all be revilers with you too.  
This take therefore from me (and let it satisfy) viz. that I'll never fasten any terms upon you, which by your works you first fasten not on yourselves, yet know that persisting as you have done under the notion of Christ's Ministers) in pride and perverseness against his Gospel, though I should never call you Deceivers, Antichristian and the whore of BBBabylon, yet you'll prove yourselves to be so in the end.  
Now therefore Oh HHHarlot hear, and fear, for I have heard from the Lord of Hosts a consumption determined upon thee throw out the whole earth, thou hast, being well mounted, harnased, and attired upon the back of thy beast, made war against the Lamb in his Saints (thy Heretics) for forty two months, a time, times and a half, or 1260 years, and power hath been given thee, and the beast, which thou spurrest, to overcome them, and over kindreds, tongues, and nations, so that all that dwell upon earth have worshipped him, and thee on him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world: yea thou hast opened thy mouth in blasphemies, and caused thy beast under thee to blaspheme the name of God and his Tabernacle and them that dwell in heaven, yea thou hast spoken great words against the most High, and worn out the Saints of the most high, and thought to change times a●…●…wes and they have been given into thy hand, so that who was like to thee and thy beast, who was able to encounter and make war with him? but now behold thy proud times are ended, and the Lamb will overcome thee, for he is King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, and they that are with him are called and chosen and faithful, and thou that hast led into captivity shalt go into captivity, and thou that hast killed with the sword must be killed by the sword, here is the patience and faith of the Saints: And the very ten horns themselves, even all the kingdoms of Christendom, into whose hearts it hath been put to give thee all their power and strength, ●…s well as the tith of all their glory, and riches and carnal things, upon thy prete●…ce of ministering to them in spiritual (all which thou hast swom upon, been born up, and fortified by, as Babylon of old by the River Euphrates, and with all which thou hast as with so many horns of a savage beast, tossed, bruised, gored the sides of Saints under the name of Sinners) even these shall now turn upon thee, and unhorsed thee, yea they shall hate thee O Whore, and make thee desolate and naked, and burn thy flesh with fire, so that all thy lovers great and small, and thy Merchants that have been rich by trading, as in other things, so especially in bodies, and souls of men shall bewail and lament, when they see the smoke of thy burning, saying Alas, Alas for thee, whilst God's people that are first come out of thee, yea whole heaven, and all the holy Apostles and Prophets, who now suff●…r under thee for telling thee the truth, and shall be avenged of thee, shall rejoice over thee at thy downfall. You will hardly give audience O ye Priests to this word, but some of you rather cry out against me, as multitudes of your Churches good children did some few days since in Smithfield, when by one of the City Marshals, merely for preaching the Gospel to thousands there assembled to hear it, I was betrayed into their hands to be a bused, saying away with him, away with him, hang him, 'tis pity but he should be ●…oned, and such like 〈◊〉 and cries as were heard of old: others of you Seers may be ready to call to me scoffingly out of your mount Sire, watchman what of the night? watchman what of the night? but whether you will hear, or whether you will forbear, I tell you Sirs the morning cometh, and also your dead night, therefore if you will inquire, inquire quickly, return, and come to the truth, before the fierce anger of the Lord come upon you: or, if it may not be said, as of old it was that many of the Priests were obedient unto the faith, yet Oh that many of your people would know in their day the things that make for their peace, before they be hid from their eyes, and partake no more of your sins, lest they partake of your plagues: but if IIIezeb and her lovers will lie in bed together, and not repent, when God gives th●… space to repent of their fornications; then me thinks I hear a noise among them, as of those that are in hellish tribulation yelling out from beneath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Alas, Alas, whilst from above a voice of much people in heaven saying, Hallelujah.  

Hallelujah! for now our Lord will reign,  
And judge that Scarlet whore, who still doth fain  
Herself to be Christ's Spouse, and so maintain  
Herself a Qeen, the world her slaves in chain.  
Though, like a Quean, she doth the whole earth slain  
With Whoredoms, and Saints blood, whom she hath slain:  
Three parts, three CCCrowns, three HHHeads of subtle brain,  
A TTTripple TTTribe Rides Christndom, 'tis plain:  
And, like Hell's three mouthed Monster, stands to strain  
Souls that scape thence, and bark them back again:  
Yet, when 'tis told, this Minx, this whore in grain  
Frowns, Frets, Hates, Tears, Fumes, Threats, Storms, Fom●…s a●…ain:  
But (IIIezebel) woe to thy house, refrain  
Thy pride, thy lies, thy wrath, like that of Cain,  
Thy filth, thyself, thy greediness of gain,  
Else, as thy mirth hath been, shall be thy pain:  
This is told to, and by me and john Brain,  
Both being once of thine one children twain: 
See Brain's Babel's fall.   
Thou seest, yet wilt not see this, but remain  
Silent, least friends turn foes, and thee disdain;  
But some must show't (or else they see't in vain)  
Through England, Scotland, Italy, France, and Spain.  
Amen Hallelujah.   


* Nos Rustīci haud cū●…ănus quan●…ītătem Syllābŏrum.  TTTripartita Tribus, Tribulaes', Tribulusque Triunus;  
Discipulis Christi, Triplexque Tricepsque Tyrannus;  
Trico Tricornis; Trifurcif●… atque T●…;  
Tristisicus Sanctis, toti 〈…〉  
Ter decimas sapiens, capi●… 〈…〉  
Reges ipsa regens ipsos, super 〈…〉,  
Te credent (〈◊〉 vana fides!) genus esse deorum;  
RRRoma▪ O RRRoma, Tibi mulier formosa videris,  
At tame●… MMMeretrix, vix (heu) pendenda Triuncis;  
Viri●…u●… ipsa ●…uis te perdis, quo peritura es  
T●… 〈…〉st, aderitque brevi tibi Terminus ipse.   
D 〈…〉 d magis malus Piscator ac tu, ac tui (O SSSacerdos) estis Pessimi Pis●… qui, nisi resipiscamini, Reiiciemini in ete●…m Mat. 13 48. In Domino viz. via Domini Salveto●…e.  
FINIS.