AN ADDITION TO THE APOLOGY For the two Treatises concerning infant-baptism, Published December 15. 1645. In which the Author is Vindicated from 21. unjust Criminations in the 92. page of the Book of Mr. ROBERT bailie Minister of Glasgow, entitled Anabaptism.  
And sundry material points concerning the Covenant, Infants-interest in it, and baptism by it, Baptism by an unbaptised person, Dipping, Erastianism and Church-Government, are argued, in a letter (now enlarged) sent in September 1647. to him, by  
JOHN tombs. B. D.  
London, Printed by Hen. Hills for Hen. Crips, and Lodowick Lloid, in Popes-head Alley, T. Brewster, and G. Moule at the three Bibles at the west end of Paul's 1652.   

ERRATA.  
EPist. Dedic. Edius read Edingh. page 2. line 23. visible r. invisible, p. 3. l. penul. needlessly r. heedlessly, p. 4 l. 18. obhorrency r. abhorrency, p. 5. l. 7. we r. he l. 8 know r. knew, p. 6▪ l. 11 Examination r. Crimination, p. 9 l. 20. divert r. derive, p. 10. in margin all in r. Allin, p. 11. l. 10. baptizeter r. baptizetur, p. 12. l. 22 considerately r. considerate, p. 13. l. 4. desire r. device, p. 18. l. 6. credible r. incredible. l 26. it sufficient r. insufficient, l. 33. right r. rite, p. 25. l. 3. r. nor Mr. p. 28. margin design. r. de Syn. p. 29. l. 32. all r. ill, p. 32. l 23. a r. no, p. 33. l. 4. refers r. reserves, p. 34 l. 19 scoffical r. scoptical, p. 36. l. 8. no type. r. no less   

To the Right Honourable Bulstrode Whitlock sergeant at Law, John Lisle Esq Richard Keble sergeant at Law, Lords Commissioners of the Great Seal of England; Major general Thomas Harrison; Edmund Prideaux Esq attorney General for the State.  
OUt of a love to truth, and respect to my Engagement by Solemn Covenant I framed, and out of desire to prevent (if possible) the oppression of men, for holding a truth, I printed (some years since) Two Treatises and an Append●x to them, and after that an Apology for them, with a Postscript; which were presented to some of your hands by me. Finding that great hatred is against such as dissent from the Assemblies determinations, specially in the two points of Baptism, & Discipline, (which this writing treats of;) and those that shelter them from violence; and that a great part of the quarrel between England and Scotland is, for not establishing Presbyterial Government, with rigour, which is thus expressed in the Scottish Assemblies Reply to the 〈◊〉 Declaration, Edius. 22. Julii 1650. Sess. 17. That Jesus Christ be Lord over his own house, and that his Ministers keep Courts and exercise Jurisdiction and discipline, and all the censures of the Kirk from the lowest to the highest, in his name only, against all that depart from and do oppose the truth; or that walk loosely as doth not become the gospel: and hoping this writing to one of the Chief Presbyterians in Scotland▪ may contribute something to discover the unreasonableness of their violent proceedings in their way; and some Truths, not commonly discerned; I have yielded to the publishing thereof, in this sad time of a bloody war, raised much from the forementioned hatred.  
Such as it is, I humbly present to your Honours, in testimony of my thankfulness for the favour and pity to me, vouchsafed by some of your honours in conferring on me, & others in being eminently instrumental in the quiet settling of me in this place; in which, after plunderings, and many tossings up and down, I have had some abiding: wherein I still endeavour to be serviceable to the public, and to acquit myself  
Your honour's humble and devoted Servant, JOHN tombs. ledbury-hospital in Herefordshire Sept. 4. 1650.   

To the Reverend the Moderator and Commissioners in the next national Assembly of the Church of Scotland, or the next Provincial Assembly unto which Glasgow in the kingdom of Scotland belongs; the Complaint of John tombs Presbyter,  
Humbly showeth,  
THat in pursuance of the solemn COVENANT taken by me to endeavour reformation in God's worship, according●● the word of God; I published Two Treatises about infant-baptism at London December 15. 1645. and an APOLOGY for them in August 1646. ●●d that in the year 1647. a book entitled Anabaptism was published at London, by ROBERT Baily Minister of Glasgow: wherein I was wronged by many grievous false accusations: concerning which I have (as near as I could,) followed the rule of Christ Ma●. 18. 15, 16, 17. as may be perceived by the close of the letter to Mr. Baily himself: For after I had advertised him by Mr. Henry S●●dd●r, of the injury he had done me, I wrote to him July 22. 1647. which letter was delivered to Mr. Samuel Rutherford Sept. 17. 1647. with Directions how to send back. And in the year 1649. I wrote a letter to Mr. Rutherford, to certify me what became of my writing delivered to him? with desire to know what Mr. Baily would do to right me; yet after so long waiting, I find no remorse or righting of me made by the said Mr. ROBERT Baily: And therefore I do devolve the matter into your hands, being taken for the Church, to which such complaints should be made, according to the rule Mat. 18. 17. and do expect to have right done by you to him and me, as to a Fellow-Christian,— Presbyter,— and Covenanter with you, as is meet in such a cause concerning the truth of God, and innocency of your Brother. And forasmuch as the charge against him and proof may be evidently seen in this letter to him, and his and my writings, (which [if you please to take notice of,] you may easily come by;) I presume you will not expect my personal appearance before you to pursue this Complaint: but of yourselves examine the matter, as I conceive the rule of Christ binds you; besides the engagements towards a Fellow-Covenanter in the sixth article of the Sol●mne League and Covenant: and permit your fellow-servant to attend the work of Christ, in the place where he is seated; who shall pray for your welfare; and continue  
Your brother and Fellow-Servant in Christ, JOHN tombs. London Sept. 24. 1650.   

To the Reverend, Mr. Samuel Rutherfurd Professor at St. Andrews in Scotland.  
SIR,  
ANno 1647. was delivered to you a letter of mine to Mr. Robert Bailie of Glasgow your fellow-Commissioner, which you undertook as I am told to send to him, and not hearing any thing from Mr. Bayly in answer to it, Anno 1649. I sent a letter to you to i●treate a word from you, what became of that letter with directions to what place in London your letter might be sent for me; of which likewise I have heard nothing. Forasmuch as without publishing something a blot indelible may lie on me and (which is more) on the truth I assert for my sake, and that in after ages when Mr. Bayly's book shall be read, and those false criminations found therein without any Vindication of mine, and I perceive by experience that such false reports as have been vented in Mr. Edward's his Gangr●n● (upon whose credit Honorius Reggius hath blazed them in a Latin writing) and in Mr. Bayly's Disswasives have made many men undeservedly odious, and such reports vented in pulpits upon their credit have been the bellows that did blow the fire of war, which hath to the rejoicing of Malignants and grief of godly persons wasted your and our country, and Mr. Cotton of N. E. thought meet to print an Apology for himself and the Churches there to vindecate himself from Mr. Bayly's aspersions in one part of his dissuasive, I have thought it necessary to vindicate myself in this, and have sent it to you, being one that I conceive cordially affected with the breaches that are among the Godly & studious of truth and peace, that you may impart this as you may opportunely to some Synod in your country, and endeavour, as conscience and Covenant I think bind you, in the most prudent way you can to take of the injury of Mr Baily; and which is the chief thing I aim at and humbly desire, that there may be some Course taken effectually to prevent such injurious misrepresentations of men's tenants, and practices in pulpits and presses, that so (if the Lord shall vouchsafe such a mercy) dissenters at last may in a calm and amicable way debate differences to the healing of our breaches: which is the prayer and aim of  
Lemster in Herefordshire Decem. 4. 1651. Your Fellow-Servant and Brother in Christ, JOHN tombs.   

The Contents.  

Sect. 1. OF the first Crimination, That I spoil all infants of all interest in the Covenant of Grace.  
Sect. 2. Of the second Crimination, That I make Circumcision to the Jews a seal only of earthly and temporal privileges.  
Sect. 3. Of the third Crimination, That I 〈◊〉 the Jewish infants all right to the New Covenant, 〈◊〉 they become ●●●tuall believers, from whence occasion is taken to show the insufficiency of Mr. Gerees shift in expounding the words of the Directory [the promise is made to believers and their seed,] and the insufficiency of Mr. marshal's proof, of Connexion between the seal and the Covenant, from God's institution; and Mr. Bailies from the nature of the terms.  
Sect. 4. Of the fourth Crimination, That I give a power to unbaptised persons to baptize others.  
Sect. 5. Of the fifth Crimination, That I make Apologies for the worst of the Anabaptiss.  
Sect. 6. Of the sixth Crimination, Inveighing against the first Reformers.  
Sect. 7. Of the seventh Crimination, Inveighing against the Assembly at Westminster.  
Sect. 8. Of the eighth Crimination, Inveighing against the Church of Scotland.  
Sect. 9 Of the ninth Crimination, Inveighing against Mr. Martial.  
Sect. 10. Of the tenth Crimination, Of inveighing against Mr. Thomas Goodwin.  
Sect. 11. Of the eleventh Crimination, Of Invectives against others.  
Sect. 12. Of the twelfth Crimination, That I esteem baptism an unnessary rite.  
Sect. 13. Of the thirteenth Crimination, That I am carel●sse of my own baptism.  
Sect. 14. Of the fourteenth Crimination, That I am unwilling to join with any of the Anabaptiss Churches, and they unwilling to baptize non-members.  
Sect. 15. Of the fifteenth Crimination, My allowing frequent rebaptisation.  
Sect. 16. Of the sixteenth Crimination, That I make it lawful for persons unbaptised to partake of the Lord's Supper.  
Sect. 17. Of the seventeenth Crimination, That I am a complete Erastian, wherein reason is given of my doub●, that in Scripture no such juridical Excommunication is appointed as is now contended for.  
Sect. 18. Of the eighteenth Crimination, That I avow, no scand●-lous professor ought to be kept from the Lord's Table.  
Sect. 19 Of the nineteenth Crimination of me, That I hold no censure of excommunication.  
Sect. 20. Of the twentieth Crimination, That I hold Christ hath not appointed any particular government for his Church.  
Sect. 21. Of the one and twentieth Crimination, That I hold that the Government of the Church belongs to the Magistrate only.  
Sect. 22. Of my new way, and boldness.  
Sect. 23. Of my silence concerning DIPPING, and of the novelty and insufficiency of SPRINKLING, instead of baptising.  
Sect. 24. The Conclusion, requiring reparation of the wrong done to me by Mr. Baily.    

To the reverend and worthy Master ROBERT bailiff, Minister at GLASGOW in SCOTLAND.  
SIR,  
IN your Book entitled ANABAPTISMI, you charge me falsely in these following Accusations chap. 4. page 92. you say, in these following things he flies as high, as any civil and discreet Anabaptist I have met with.  
1. In spoiling Christian infants not only of baptism, but of all interest in the Covenant of Grace. And in the margin, and Table in the end of your book, you say, He spoils all infants of all interest in the Covenant of Grace.  
2. In making Circumcision a seal to the Jews only of earthly and temporal privileges.  
3. In denying to Jewish infants all right to the new Covenant, till in their riper years they become actual believers.  

SECT I.  
Of the first Crimination, that I spoil all Infants of all interest in the Covenant of Grace.  
To prove these accusations which you so expressly charge me with, and tend to make your adversary odious, (which it seems you made your business, and not to clear truth;) you refer the Reader to the letters A A page 110. where you cite one passage of my Apology page 64. which doth directly deny the first accusation, and where the passage of Mr. marshal you allege for proof of it, (a most unreasonable way to prove a man's position by his Antagonists conceit of it, as, that Calvin made God the author of sin, because Bellarmin accused him of it,) is sufficiently answered: yea in my Post script to Mr. Blake in the end of my Apology Sect. 22. I charge Master Blake of unjust crimination of me in this, and challenge Mr. Martial, Mr. Vines, Mr. Calamy, and now yourself to make good that charge if you can. And yet you are not asham●d to say, pag. 113. All our adversaries deny to all infants all right in God, all interests in his promises, and Covenant, as much as they do to Turks, and Pagans. And chap. 4. page 89, 90. after you had charged this accusation on others; in the close you say, This makes them uncertain what to say of infants dying before conversion. Some save them all, (which is contrary to what you say page 133;) others incline to the damnation of them all; others profess the uncertainty of the thing, whether infants before their conversion be within the kingdom of Satan, or that of God. And for proof of this last you refer the Reader to the letter K; and there you allege my words in my Apology page 64, 66. which speak not at all of the uncertainty of the thing you were speaking of, to wit, the salvation or damnation of infants dying before conversion, but the contrary, saying expressly, That every infant is either in the visible kingdom of God, or of Satan, that is, elect, or reprobate. And for the certainty of the subject, I conceive neither you nor I, nor any on earth are certain what child of a Believer is elect, or reprobate. Sure I am Mr. Martial in his Sermon page 48▪ saith, Charity is not tied to conclude certainly of any of them, although in the beginning of his Sermon page 7. he would ground the salvation of all the infants of believers dying in their infancy, on God's promise, to be the God of Believers, and of their seed. Besides, my words in my Apology page 64, 66. which you allege, speak only of infants belonging visibly to the kingdom of the Devil or God; and I still deny that they belong to either visibly, until they make their profession, according to the constitution of the visible Church of Christians, which it behooved you to disprove, and not to misreport my words as you do.   

SECT. II.  
Of the second Crimination, that I make Circumcision to the Jews, a Seal only of earthly and temporal privileges.  
AS for your second accusation, you bring only Mr. marshal's words which only declare his suspicion; yet so unreasonable and groundless, as one might wonder any man should have the face to draw me into a suspicion of that, the contrary whereof is delivered in my Exercitation page 2. and very often in my Exercitation and Examen of his Sermon; in which I still make the Covenant made with Abraham Gen. 17. which Circumcision confirmed, to be a mixed Covenant, containing both spiritual and temporal promises. And yet you expressly accuse me of the contrary; & against my plain words prove your charge, only by Master marshal's suspicion expressed in this manner; What your meaning is in this expression, I cannot tell; it hath an untoward look, as if the meaning were, &c. which was unreasonable in him to raise such a jealousy of me for citing only a passage in that so approved Treatise of Cameron that learned Scot, de triplici foedere, th. 78. (which was also much approved at Heidelberg) by the publisher of his works according to an order in a Synod of the French Churches; as to be styled in Cameron's Icon, accurratissimae theses; and they are now translated into English by Mr. Samuel Bolton, and printed at the end of his treatise, of the true bounds of Christian freedom with this commendation (too precious to be any longer concealed, or hid under the shell of an unknown tongue.) And yet these words were cited by me so warily page 4. of my Exercitation as that I say, and if we may believe Mr. Cameron; yet Mr. Martial had so much ingenuity, as to say of me in that place page. 98. of his Defence, It is too gross a thing to imagine of God, and so expressly contrary to the word, that until you own it, I will not impute it to you: which words you leave out in your allegation against me from Mr. Martial, whether needlessly or fraudulently, I leave it to your own conscience to consider.   

SECT. III.  
Of the third crimination, That I deny to the Jewish infants all right to the new Covenant till they become actual believers, from whence occasion is taken to show the insufficiency of Mr. Gerees shift in expounding the words of the Directory [the promise is made to believers and their seed] And the insufficiency of Mr. Marshal's proof of Connexion between the seal and Covenant from God's institution, and Mr. Baylies from the nature of the terms.  
AS for the third accusatio●, you bring not a word to prove it, yet you often charge sometimes all your adversaries, as in chap. 5. pag. 133. sometimes the principal of them (among whom I assure myself, you reckon me) with it, as when you say, pag. 151. ch. 5. The ground of this reason is granted by the Principal of our adversaries, who avow their exclusion of infants from baptism upon this ground mainly, that they believe they are excluded from the Covenant of Grace, remission of sins, the saving grace of the Spirit, till in the years of d●scretion they be brought actually to believe, which thing I do expressly deny in my Exercitation pa. 24. with obhorrency from it, and Examen page 150. and page 109. I say, it were a madness to go about to put them out of the Covenant of Grace. You are often told in my Examen as page 29, 38, 110, 154. and many more places, that I avow exclusion of infants from baptism upon this ground mainly, that there is no Institution of it gathered by precept or Apostolical example, and therefore it is will-worship: As for a command of Circumcision I conceive it is a brogated, and so can be no rule now about Baptism; and the maintaining that a command of Circumcision sti●l binds us (as Mr. Martial doth in his Sermon page 35, 36, 37.) is the most manifest heresy of any, as being condemned in the first council by the Apostles, Acts 15. 28. & 21. 25. Indeed to show the weakness of Mr. marshal's argument thus framed, The infants of believing parents are within the Covenant of Grace, therefore they are to partake of the seal of the Covenant, which in Mr. marshal's language is all one with baptism: I did say that I did conceive the antecedent of his Enthymeme not true, Examen Part 3. Sect. 1. page 39 conceiving that as your practice is, so Mr. Martial intended to defend this conclusion; All the infants born of a believer by profession are to be baptised according to ordinary rule, and so I expressed myself in my Examen Part 3. Sect. 15. Exercit. page 1. and elsewhere, and then his antecedent must be thus, All the infants born of a believer are within the Covenant of grace, or else his argument is manifestly inconcludent; if we would prove, all infants of believers are to be baptised, because some only are in the Covenant of grace. Now I know not how to conceive that Mr. Martial meant any other, than the Covenant of saving grace (of which I have given reasons not yet answered by Mr. Martial, in my Examen page 45. and could add more if it were needful) and that the believers infants were in the covenant of saving grace in that God hath made that promise to them. And in this sense I denied this proposition, All the infants of a believer are within the Covenant of Grace, and disproved it so fully in my Examen part 3. Sect. 4. that Mr. Martial renounceth that proposition in that sense page 116. of his Defence, and then betakes himself to this shift, to understand it of the outward covenant as he calls it, in which sense I have proved in my Apology Sect. 10. his first argument to be mere trifling, and his speeches to be full of equivocation, or ambiguity, which I have also further proved in my Postscript in answer to Mr. Bl●ke Sect. 6. Mr. Geree being enforced to deny that proposition in that sense, and being pressed by me with the words of the Directory, [that the promise is made to believers and their seed] he shifted it off in his Vindiciae paedobaptismi page 13. by interpreting the words of the Directory thus, This is to be presumed by men out of charity, till they discover the contrary, that all the infants of believers have the inward graces of the Covenant, which I proved could not be the sense of the words of the Directory in my Apol●gy Sect. 9 especially from the term [made] which imports God's act, not man's charitable presumption. Now what doth Mr. Geree reply hereto? In his Vindiciae Vindic●arum chap. 4. page 16. he altars the words of the Directory thus, That the promise is to believers and their seed, leaving out the word [made] upon which my argument rested, and then page 18. tells me, the query is in what sense and in what respect children of believers are said to be in the Covenant of Grace, whereas the query is in what sense the Directory meant these words [the promise is made to believers and their seed] not in what sense either in Gen. 17. 7. or Rom. 9 4. or Acts 3. 25. Children of Believers are said to be in the Covenant of grace. And whereas Mr. Geree in the same book cha. 10. page 41. complains of my words in the Epistle Dedicatory of my Apology, that the doctrine of the Directory is disavowed by two of my most eminent Antagonists, meaning himself and Mr. Martial, I have, and am further ready to justify that speech, and if many of the Assembly have assured him in private, that they intended the expressions questioned by me in no other sense than he expounded them, I would have them know, that either they must alter the words as Mr. Geree doth, not reading them as they are printed, and as Mr. Martial in his Defence page 116. Mr. Geree Vindic. Paedobap. page 13. reads them, or else those Assembly men must make a new Dictionary for us to understand their language by afore any man that understands common English will understand them so. And whereas he would have by this one Examination men judge of all the rest, I am contented with it, provided that men by his superficial and shifting dealing in this judge of all the rest. But to return, as I denied the antecedent in Mr. Marshal's Enthymeme, so I denied the consequence page 36. and did more than make some v●litatio●, I proved by a just dispute that the proposition is not true, All that are in the Covenant of Grace must be sealed, and though Mr. Marshall page 92. of his Defence, say somewhat to prove it from God's will Gen. 17. 7, 9, 10, 14. yet what is said there is only of circumcision, nothing of baptism, and the word [therefore] upon which Mr. marshal's proof rests is in the Hebrew {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} which may be and is translated otherwise, as by the Tig●r●●es Et tu by Parreus Tu autem, by Piscator Tu vere, &c. and the proposition is manifestly false in Mr. marshal's sense, yea he granted page 92, 182. that the formal reason of their being circumcised was the command of God, which I truly observed and proved in my Apology in the Epistle Dedicatory and in the Apology itself page 90. overthrows his argument from the Covenant to the seal, which rests on this, that such as received the initial seal, received it because they were in the Covenant, which are Mr. marshal's words in his Defence page 92. you in your Anabaptism chap. 5. page 132. say, your proposition is grounded on the nature of the terms, which you never go about to prove but dictate thus: The Major, [Whoever have right to the chief promises of the New Testament, they have right to the first Sacrament of the New Testament, if the Lord have not put some impediment to their participation of that Sacrament] is grounded on the nature of the terms of the preposition the chief promises of the New Testament, and the first Sacrament, this is the sign and seal, that the thing signified. The reason proceeds not from every thing signified to every sign but from the chief thing signified to the first sign.  
Give me leave to tell you that I seldom meet with a passage that hath more absurdity than this of yours. 1. You set not down right the terms of your own proposition, which are not [the chief promises of the New Testament, and the First Sacrament] but [having right to the chief promises of the New Testament, and having right to the First Sacrament, if the Lord have not put some impediment to their participation of that Sacrament] as if you had forgotten so soon or could not analyse your own proposition. 2. You tell us [this is the sign and seal, that the thing signified] as if this were the nature of the terms. But what an illogical conceit is this? Logicians call a reason from the nature of the terms, when the terms are included, the one in Conceptu quidditativo alterius, so as that the one cannot be conceived without the other. Now may not the chief promises of the New Testament be conceived without the first sign and seal? Did not God make the chief promises of the New and Old Testament before ever any sign or seal was appointed, much more before baptism? Did not God make the chief promise {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Tit. 1. 2. which we translate before the world began, most rig●tly as I conceive Dr. ●wisse Vind●. great. lib. 1. par. 1. dig. 2. cap. 5. refers to that in paradise Gen 3. 15. your own Mr. Dicksor, either to that or to God's promise to Christ afore the world was made, all I meet with make it antecede any first sign or seal of the Old or New Testament? Now how is there a connexion between terms from the nature of them, whereof one may not only be conceived, but be also existent both de facto and d●iure without the other? If the terms were [having the chief promises of the New Testament, and having the First Sacrament] yet there is no such connexion from the nature of the terms. Innumerable may have, and have the chief promises of the New Testament, that have not the first Sacrament, et vice versa. Else you must hold worse positions than the Papists that none but baptised persons have or can have the chief promises of the New Testament, and that every baptised person hath the chief promises of the New Testament. There is less connexion from the nature of the terms between the having right to the chief promises of the New Testament, & having right to the First Sacrament of the New Testament. For if you mean it of right before God, thousands may have right in God's election and covenant with Christ, that are not in being, that are in their mother's womb, that are yet among infidels uncalled: have these right to the First Sacrament? If you mean it of right in fancy Ecclesiae only, than I grant the proposition is true: but your Minor hath clean another sense then your words and proofs import you conceived of it: however this right comes merely from God's institution, which is to be the rule of the Churches judging and administrators action, and that is not from the right to the chief promises, but from profession of faith arising from God's will not the nature of the terms. There is no essential connexion between them constitutive or consecutive, neither is one of the definition or essential property to the other: and God hath much more plainly put a bar against infant-baptism than infant-communion, not only in that there is neither express precept nor example for it in Scripture, but also the very in●titution excludes them, appointing it only to disciples Mat. 28. 19 putting believing before baptism Mark 16. 16. & in practice requiring it Act. 8. 37. besides the image of it in all ages of the Church requiring profession of faith of some for them even in the baptism of infants. But you show the nature of the terms in these words, This is the sign and seal, that the thing signified. By your logic then if the chief promises of the New Testament be to be defined you would define them to be the thing signified by the first Sacrament of the New Testament: which were to define ignotum per ignotius, and by that which is merely extrinsical to it. A promise is an action: the thing signified by the first Sacrament is not only something to come but also something past as the death, burial, resurrection of Christ in baptism Rom. 6. 3, 4. Col. 2. 12. the thing promised is something we are to have, the promise is God's act, the first Sacrament the administrators act. How inept a definition is such a definition in which the genus doth not praedic●●i in quid on the definitum, ●or the whole definition is reciprocal with the definitum, besides other defects? But it maybe you meant that it is of the nature of the first Sacrament to be a sign and s●ale of the chief promises of the New Testament. Were this so, you should not rightly argue: for then the right to the promises should be derived from the seal, not to the seal from the promise, if the promise be of the nature of the seal, and not e●contra: wher●as you say that your reason proceeds from the chief thing signified to the first sign. But how can you or any make this good that it is the nature of the first Sacrament only (for you exclude the second expressly after in these words, nor do we 〈◊〉 but of the 〈…〉) to be a sign and seal of the chief promises of the New Testament? Is not the second sign as well a sign and seal of them as the first? Besides what is the term [seal] there but a Metaphor? And is it not absurd to make a Metaph●r of the nature of a term, which doth not show what a thing is but what it is like, contrary to the rule of Logicians? Scheibler. ●op. ●a. 30. num. 126. Definitio non sit ex verbis Metaphoricis. Ita Aristot. Top. Lib. 2. cap. 2. Sect 4 K● ker●● Syst. Logi●. Lib. 1. Sect. 2. cap. 2. &c. Yet how absurdly is a seal of the Covenant made the Genus in the definition of a sacrament being but a Metaphor, and books and Sermons stuffed with collections of duties and privileges about the Sacraments from a mere Metaphor? A thing I am assured worthy Lamentation when I consider the trouble it hath brought to many consciences, and disquiet in the Church. But were it granted that the term, sign or seal were of the nature of the first Sacrament, how doth it appear that it is the nature of the Sacrament to signify God's promise to us rather than our promise to God? Though I deny not but baptism signifies and in a sense seals God's promises to us, as may be seen in my former writings, yet so far as I am able to discern the chief and primary use is to signify our profession and promise to God, and therefore it is required as our act and duty, and therein we are said to put on Christ. And why then should we not rather say, that it is the nature of baptism to be a sign or seal of our profession, and then we have a better argument from the nature as you speak, from the use, as I would speak, of the first Sacrament to prove that infants are not to be baptised, then that they are. The truth is Sacraments are not signs natural but positive, and so have no nature to sign or seal but by institution, and therefore there's no connexion, or right between the Covenant and seal, as they speak, from the nature of the tens, but by God's institution. And therefore Mr. Martial did more considerately ascribe it to God's will, than you do to 〈◊〉 it from the nature of the terms, you miscarry as much in that which follows when you say, The reason proceeds not from every thing signified to every sign, but from the chief thing signified to the first sign: yet before you expressed the nature of the terms thus, The one is the sign, the other the thing signified, and you give no reason why there should be more connexion between the chief things signified, and the first sign, than the not chief things signified, and the second, nor do I know by what rule you proceed in making some promises of the New Testament chief, and some not: It follows, Some of the blessings which Circumcision diaseal belonged to Melchizedeck, to Lo● to Job, and others who were not so far as we read circumcised, but the main promise sealed by Circumcision, In thy seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, The Messiah coming of the posterity of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the Covenant of Grace as it was administered under the figure of the ceremonial Law did belong to the people of Israel alone, ●nd to the proselytes who joined themselves to their body. You intimate truly that the reason of circumcising infants was not taken from the common right of believers to the Covenant of Grace, but from the end God had in signifying Christ to come of Abraham, which is a good evidence that baptising infants now hath not the same reason that circumcising of infants had then, and so all your argument from the analogy between infant-baptism and Infant-Circumcision from the like reason of both falls to the g●ound: But sure the main promise of the New Testament did belong to 〈◊〉, Lot and Job as much as to believers now, and if righteousness by faith be sealed by circumcision, as you expressly teach page 141. from Rom. 4. 11. than the main promise sealed by Circumcision belonged to Melchizeck, Lot and Job, and so if there be such a connexion between the chief promise and the first seal they should have been circumcised as well as the Jews: and it is as strange to me how you can make the promise of the Messiah coming from Abraham belonging to proselytes more than to them. But this is enough to give a taste of your manner of disputing. But I must follow you, you go on.   

SECT. IV.  
Of the fourth Crimination, that I give a power to unbaptised persons to baptize others.  
IN giving a power to unbaptised persons to baptize others. For proof of this you refer the Reader to the letters BB page 111. and there I find one passage of Mr. Marshall●, which only declares his own conceit, and one passage of mine from my Apology page 54. which speaks not at all of that point, but of another, whether in any case an unbaptised person may receive the Lord's Supper. As for that you charge me with, I remember not where I have spoken to it in my printed writings. But for the thing itself. If no continuance of adult-baptism can be proved, and baptism by such baptised persons is wanting, yet I conceive, what ma●y Protestant writers do yield, when they are pressed by the Papists to show the calling of the first reformers, That after an universal corruption the necessity of the thing doth justify the persons that reform though wanting an ordinary, 
Vide Ans. of the Elders of New Ergl ro 32 que. q 21. p 72, 13, 74. all in deaf of answ. 109 〈◊〉 sit. page 156.  regular calling (which thing I find fully avouched by the Ministers sent to Oxford in their Account given to the Parliament page 28, 29.) will justify in such a case both the lawfulness of a Ministers baptising, that hath not been rightly baptised himself, and the sufficiency of that baptism to the person so baptised. And this very thing, that in a case where a baptised Minister cannot be had, it is lawful for an unbaptised person to baptize, and his baptism is valid, is both the resolution of Aquinas part 3. q. 67. art. 5. and Lanchius an eminent Protestant Comment. in Ephes. 5. 26. Loc. 2. part. 2. cap. 4. num. 21. quaeritu● an is possit baptizare eos quos ad Christum convert●, cum ipse nunquam fuerit baptizatus baptismo aquae? non dubito quin possit, & vicissim curare, ut ipse ab alio ex illis a se conversis baptizetur. Ratio est: quia minister est verb:, à Christo extra ordinem excitatus: eoque ut talis minister, potest cum illius Eccles●olae consens●, symm●stam constituere, & ab eo ut baptizerer curare. Whereby you may perceive that this is no new truth, that an unbaptised person ●ay in some case baptize another, and he baptize him being baptised of him. And if you hold it so heinous a positier, you might do well to answer Mr. Spil●●ry his reasons in his book entitled the Sa●nt interest, chiefly page 10. which book you cite in the third and fourth chapters of your Anabaptism, though in your third chapter you mistake, in alleging words as Mr. Spilsberie's, which are in the preface to the book made by Mr. Cox.   

SECT. V.  
Of the fifth Crimination, that I make Apologies for the worst of the Anabaptiss.  
IN making Apologies for the worst of the Anabaptists even those of Munster. And in the margin and the table in the end of your book, you say of me, He is a friend to the worst Anabaptists, and injurious to all who oppose them. And for proof of this you refer the reader to the letters CC, where is one passage cited out of my Apology page 31. which hath not a word of Apology or friendship for, or towards any of the evil practices of the Anabaptists; but you might have read in the next page before, a professed abhorring of their wicked practices, and judging them worse in them, than they would be in others not so baptised. As for the words you allege, they contain only a declaration of my suspension of my judgement concerning some things related of them for reasons there alleged. In which suspension I am the more confirmed by your palpably ●●righteous, if not malicious dealing with me in these accusations. And I conceive your, Mr. Marshal's, and other Paedobaptists dealing in misreporting of me and others will better serve for their Apology, than my words. 'Tis true, I endeavour to remove that prejudice against the truth of antipaedobaptism, which your, and other men's bitter writings and preachings create to it in your charging the miscarriages of Muncer, and at Munster and some others upon the doctrine itself, never considering that now for a long time no such miscarriages are charged upon them justly, they live as peaceably as other men, their doctrine disclaims them, the like miscarriages have been in removing other evils that are confessed to be such, as in the Iconoclasts, Antiprelatists, &c. which you would think it to be unrighteous to charge on those that have sought the removing of Images, prelacy and ceremonies. Why then do you deal so unjustly with others, forgetting that golden rule of Christ Mat. 7. 12. Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do you even so to them: for this is the Law and the Prophets?  
Whereto let me add that reading lately in Grimstones General History of the Netherlands lib. 9 pag. 442. that the inquistion of Spain advised the King of Spain in these words art. 7. They shall hire at our charge thieves and spoilers of Churches and images, whose offences shall be by all the world imputed to the rebels, by some subtle means, and so we shall vanquish them. I conceived my speech in my Apology page 31. (which you interpret as very heinous) considerately, when I said, I do count the story of the Anabaptists to contain in it many things, the true reasons of which, and the true knowledge of the circumstances concerning them will not appear till the day of the revelation of the righteous judgement of God. And I confess it makes me somewhat suspicious that in these days by Jesuitical Emissaries horrid opinions, and unruly practices are vented; and attempted to make the party that are for reformation, and truth at this day odious to the world.   

SECT. VI.  
Of the sixth Crimination inveighing against the first reformers.  
ANd invectives against the best that oppose them; the first reformers. For proof hereof you refer the Reader to the letters DD page 111. where is alleged one passage of my Apology in page 32. which hath not a word of invectiveness against the first reformers, much less any invective against the best that opposed the Anabaptists at Munster, but only in as mild an expression as I could desire, a declaration of my opinion, that the reformed Churches have been to blame that they never yielded to reform paedobaptism in a regular way. Will not you say the Saxon Churches have been to blame in not taking away of Images out of Churches, the English Churches in not removing Prelacy and ceremonies? yet you would think he wronged you, that should say, that in that speech you made an invective against those Churches. Yet this is your dealing with me.   

SECT. VII.  
Of the seventh Crimination inveighing against the Assembly at Westminster.  
THe Assembly at Westminister. For proof hereof you refer the Reader to the letters E E page 111. where is cited one passage out of my Apology page 106. which hath not a word of exception against any man, much less of invectiveness against the Assembly at Westminster: only it contains the expression of my belief that the ablest of the Assembly contrived Mr. marshal's book, and my wish, that it were declared whether the Paedobaptists would stick to it or any other work: which I conceive a reasonable wish, finding the Proteus-like inconstancy of Paedobaptists in many points of the dispute between us, particularly in the chief argument from circumcision and the covenant Gen. 17. to infant-baptism, one forming the argument one way, another another way, one deriving the connexion between the Covenant and initial seal from the nature of the terms, another from God's will, one ascribing an interest in the outward Covenant only to all infants of believers, another ascribing an interest to them in the inward Covenant also according to charitable presumption, another conditionally, another asserting the Covenant of Grace to belong to them for the most part, one grounding infant-baptism on the judgement of charity, another denying that sufficient: and requiring a judgement of faith, one stating the question concerning all infants of believers, another concerning some only, one interpreting 1 Cor. 7. 14. of federal holiness, another of real holiness, one waving the argument from succession of baptism to circumcision, another avouching it, with many other differences, which tend to the wearying of a disputant and the e●ud●●g of a Reader that desires to find truth, and to spend time in examining what is fixed, not to lose it in disputing against that which one will own, but it m●y be most will disclaim. What the Assembly have done in this matter doth not yet answer this wish. What is said in the Direstory, it may be well doubted whether Assembly-men now hold, by that which hath pa●●ed between me and Mr. Marshal and Mr. Geree, about the proposition, [the promise is made to believers and their seed,] what is said in their ●dvice concerning a confession of faith Ch. 28. Art. 4. is so far from satisfying, that it is yet a riddle to me how infant-baptism can be drawn from Ge●. 17. 7, 9 with Gal. 3. 9, 14. which I remember not alleged by any Paedobaptists since I entered on the dispute, save what I heard from Mr. Herl● now the Prolo●utor; (which I mention in my Apology page 41.) which he did with so little evidence for his purpose, as I supposed it had been his own peculiar conceit, not the Assemblies argument. And for the rest of the texts, if the Assembly can say any more the● Mr. Marsh●ll and others have said for deducing of paedobaptism out of them, it were fit it should be known, if not, I for my part count myself as much unsatisfied by the Assemblies alleging impertinent texts, as by a private mart doing the same. This I declare to give the reason of that speech of mine in my Apology. As for the Assembly though I have expressed my jealousy of some defects in them, and perhaps shall not agree with them in all their determinations, yet I have cast no filth in their faces, as Mr. 〈◊〉 injuriously accused me, even for my good will to them; but have 〈◊〉 and spoken respectively of them, as Ex●men page 1. studying what I could to prevent those blemishes in their proceedings and determinations, which will in time more appear then yet they do, and am induced to believe that there are so many of them therein that know me so well, as that they would be loath to disclaim me, whatever they do of my opinion. And though Mr. 〈◊〉 in his Suspension suspend page 21. saith, Mr. 〈…〉 is approved by the Ass●mbly, and so takes his book to be approved by them; and you count my words of that book to be an invective against the Asse●●ly: yet I do not take it to be approved by the Ass●m●ly till they declare it to be so, though I have reason to conceive, that divers of the ablest of the Assembly, especially in some part of learning, had their hand in it.   

SECT. VIII.  
Of the eighth Crimination inveighing against the Church of Scotland.  
THe Church of Scotland. For proof of this you refene the Reader to the letters F F page 112. in which you cite one passage of my Apology page 93. which doth not so much as mention any Church, much less the Church of Scotland, but only the managers of the censure of juridical excommunication, whom however the Pap●st: & Prelates use to speak, I think you use not to call the Church of Scotland, nor do I. Nor is there a word of invectiveness against any in those words, but only a declaration, what I question upon my best intelligence which had less reference to Scotland, then to other parts of the world.   

SECT. ix..  
Of the ninth Crimination, inveighing against Mr. Marshal.  
MAster MARSHAL. For proof hereof you refer your Reader to the letters G G page 112. and there you cite two passages out of my APOLOGY: one of which page 57 is this. I find the words of an intelligent man true concerning Mr. Marshal, that he was apt to mistake, and in the other page 69. I say, that I find him still a confused disputer: which indeed contains some complaint of Mr. Marshal, much less than I had cause: but not any invective, which I take to be an oration against a man to make him odious, such as T●llies philippics against Antonius, and Demosthenes against Philip, and Nazia●zen against Julian.   

SECT. X.  
Of the tenth Crimination, of inveighing against Mr. Tho. Goodwin.  
MAster Goodwin. For proof hereof you refer the Reader to the letters H H page 112. And there you cite two shreds of a large passage concerning an accusation of Mr. Marshal, in which he chargeth me as vilifying Mr. Thomas Goodwin, which charge I there answer, and then use some words which are not invective, but a declaration, what I conceived of his discourse, which if it may not be allowed in dispute the best writers among us will be condemned Dr. Twisse, Mr. Gataker, and your brethren Mr. Rutherfurd, Mr. Gillespy, your self, and who not? your own words in the first part of your Dissuasive page 119. do come nearer to an invective against Mr. Thomas Goodwin, than any words in my Apology or Examen; the former of which the licenser although Mr. Goodwins tender friend, yet judged mil●.   

SECT. XI.  
Of the eleventh Crimination, of invectives against others.  
ANd others. For proof of this you refer the Reader to H H 2. page 112. where you cite two passages of my Apology, the one containing no accusation, no nor so much as a complaint against any one, but only a mention of my experiment, which I wish the case of Doctor Twisse (that I instance in no other) had not verified; the other passage is no invective against any but merely an applying of Mr. Ley's words to my Treatise, which he had avowed of my Antagonists writings.  
Sir, I suppose it would better have suited with charity, I living the last summer at the Temple not far from you, if you had in a brotherly way minded me of my flying h●gh, of my in●ivility, or in●is●retion, that I might have seen your love in your reproof, afore I saw your accusation to my disgrace in print.  
But you add more accusations of me, and say. But in those thing he goes far beyond all the Anabaptists I have met with.   

SECT. XII.  
Of the twelfth Crimination, that I esteem baptism an unnecessary rite.  
FIrst he esteems baptism so unnecessary a rite that men who are meet to receive it may very well be without it, as Constantine, Ambrose and others did delay to their old age that Sacrament. And in the margin, and table at the end of your book. He makes baptism a rite needless either to young or old, and for proof whereof you refer the Reader to the letters II page 112. and those letters refer to B B suprà, where two passages are cited, one of Mr. Marshals, which only declares his own conceit about another point, that supposing infant-baptism a nullity he cannot understand how any in the world should this day be lawfully baptised, and another passage out of my Apology page 54. which is cited by you maimedly as Psalm 91. 11. was cited Math. 4. 6. leaving out five lines that come between [perplexities] and [for besides] without any &c. perverting thereby the sense, as if the words [for besides, &c.] were a reason of that you cite before, whereas they are a reason of that which I express; but you leave out, that I do not think an unbaptised person receiving the Lord's Supper is either such a new opinion or practice, as Mr. Martial made it. And yet in the words as you cite them, there is no proof of that you charge me with. There is no mention at all of Ambrose, and that which I mention of Constantine is done without any approbation. Nor will it follow from my determination, that because I say, if it be stood upon in point of conscience, so as in no case an unbaptised person is to be permitted to partake of the Lord's Supper, it will of necessity make many superstitious perplexities in Ministers, and infer many an unnecessary schism; therefore I esteem baptism a needless rite, that men who are meet to receive it may very well be without it. This argument (and such I take your proof to be) I would say, if I may use that school expression any more, is a baculo ad angulum. And yet a man would think you had need of a strong proof to make men believe that I hold baptism a needless rite, who have suffered and still suffer very much for my opposing infant-baptism. But my words truly understood do infer the contrary to that you charge me with, sith they assert baptism afore the Lord's supper necessary to be stood upon in point of prudence for right order, and intimate the like in point of conscience except in some cases. When I consider this dealing with me I cannot guess why you should thus abuse me in this so credible a thing, unless you would slily insinuate as if I were of the Socainians mind in this, and thereby help to load me with the most unbrotherly charge of Socinianizing begun by Mr. Marshal in the beginning of his Defence, for which the Lord forgive him and you.   

SECT. XIII.  
Of the thirteenth Crimination, that I am careless of my own baptism.  
ANd it seems himself is careless to be baptised to this day. For his infant-baptism according to his arguments must be null, & another baptism as yet it seems he hath not received. Here you accuse me of carelessness of my own baptism. But, Sir, let me tell you, that unless you knew it by my own confession (which I am sure you did not) you go beyond your line to judge my secret practices, yea my very thoughts, for carelessness is a privation of cares which are thoughts. You say, I am a very bold man, but you nowhere find in me such boldness as this to judge a man's thoughts. You might do well to remember what is said Mat. 7. 1. James 3. 1. But for the thing you say, my infant-baptism according to my arguments must be null, and as yet it seems I have not received another baptism. Let it be granted that my infant-baptism according to my arguments must be null, that is as I understand insufficient for the doing of the duty of being baptised according to Christ's appointment (which yet you have not so much as attempted to prove) and that I have not yet received another baptism, how doth this prove my carelessness of mine own baptism? For if it were true indeed that according to my arguments my infant-baptism were null, yet if it did not so appear to me (as I confess I was once doubtful, as my words Exercit. pag. 22. show, conceiving the main use of baptism being a confirming of my profession of Christ, by that right an after profession might ratify a former baptism though not every way right, though I dare not rest upon that conceit) and therefore I did not receive another baptism, that would prove I was not altogether careless of my own baptism. But what? if I did conceive my infant-baptism a nullity, and yet doubted whether any could now be rightly baptised, because no unbaptised person can give baptism, as Mr. Martial professeth in his Defence page 245. or because none can now give the spirit, and therefore received not baptism yet, this might free me from your charge of carelessness of my own baptism. Again if I were resolved that right baptism might be had notwithstanding these doubts, and were resolved to receive it, but either waited to see what the Assembly would do about examining the point of paedobaptism, or the Churches of New England, or how I might do my duty to Christ with least offence to the State, or to my brethren in the ministry, and with most satisfaction to my own conscience concerning the administrator, administration and other circumstances about it, I might be rather over-careful than careless of my own baptism for aught you knew to the contrary, and consequently your accusation of me might be (as it was) both rash and false. Will you say the Ministers about London, that have differred adminstring the Lord's Supper for many years for want of settled discipline are careless of the Lord's Supper? and yet were not you partial I were more excusable in my action about this thing. But I hope your accusation of me shall do me so much good, as to quicken me to a more sp●edy resolution what to do in this great business, though I confess my over-tenderness to give● offence to my brethren in the ministry who have showed little or no tender regard of me, but rather have set themselves to make me odious, to keep me under in my credit and estate, and (which is excessive impiety) to hinder me in the work of my ministry of the Gospel, hath made me somewhat the slacker in resolving and accomplishing what is my duty in this thing.   

SECT. XIV.  
Of the fourteenth Crimination, That I am unwilling to join with any of the Anabaptiss Churches, and they unwilling to baptize non-members.  
FOr he professeth an unwillingness to ●oine himself as a member to any of the Anobaptists Churches, and I suppose they are unwilling to baptize any, who will not join in Communion with them. And for proof of the former you refer the Reader to the letters K K page 112. at which you cite (not as they are in my book) some words of my Apology page 10. which neither as they are in mine, or your book do prove my unwillingness to join myself as a member to any of the Anabaptiss Churches. For a man may be willing to join himself as a Member to any of the Anabaptiss Churches, and yet not dare to ga●her a separated Church, not every one who joins as a member with a separated Church being guilty of a schism, which a gatherer of a separated Church may be guilty of. Besides a man may not know how to justify at one time the practice of gathering a separated Church or joining with it, who may know how to justify it at another time, when there is no hope of reformation, and men are judged heretics, and excommunicated for holding truth and doing their duty. The seven dissenting brethren in the Assembly had subscribed with fourteen more of the ablest of the Assembly to certain considerations to dissuade from further gathering of Churches in that present juncture of time, to which my words you cite had reference, who it may be now would not dissuade from gathering Churches. But the truth is my not daring to gather a separated Church then was my willingness to join with any Churches of Christ (and I think as much ill will as you bear to them, yet you will not dare to say, that none of the Anabaptiss Churches are Churches of Christ) though I was not willing to be a separating member in any Church but willing to be a conjoined member with all the Churches of Christ in general, and each in particular: So far is your allegation from proving what you charge me with that it proves the contrary. And for that you say, that you suppose the Anabaptiss Churches are unwilling to baptize any who will not join in communion with them, if you mean thus, they will not baptize any who will not join in Communion with them as fixed members entering into the Covenant called Church-Covenant, and professing the way of discipline called the Congregational way as the only way, and separaring from any Church of Christ that is in any other way of discipline (for not doing which it seems you conceive them unwilling to admit me to baptism) I have cause to think you are mistaken. For having upon occasion of these your words written to an Elder of one of their Churches entreating him to consult with some others, and to give me resolution in these questions.  
1. What joining in Communion do you require without which you will not b●ptize any?  
2. Whether on my profession of my repentance and ●aith in the Lord Jesue, and readiness to hold communion with all the Churches of Christ in the things of Christ, though I do not promise to be a fixed member in any of their Congregations, you would admit me to baptism? I received this following answer subscribed by three graduates in schools, godly and learned men in these words:  
That which we require and without which we will not baptize any is a persons manifestation of himself to be a believer in Jesus Christ, and to desire baptism according to the revealed will of Christ, and in obedience thereunto, we do not baptize any into this or that particular congregation: but only into that one body in general spoken of 1 Cor. 12. 13. As touching joining in communion, we in this case require no more, than a manifest readiness to hold communion with all the Churches of Christ in the things of Christ, and accordingly to show a real willingness to have communion with any particular Church of Christ according as the hand of God shall give opportunity, and true seasonableness of and for the same. Thus we judge and practise accordingly.  
Benjamen Cox. Henry Jesse. Hanserd Knollys.  
I do testify the substance hereof to be the professed judgement of that congregation whereto I am joined, and also that congregation, where Mr. Kiffin, Patient, and Spilsbery are joined, who did affirm so much to be their own judgement also. The Scripture upon which we so practice is that Acts 8. 37, 38.  
Hanserd Knollys.   

SECT. XV.  
Of the fifteenth Crimination, of my allowing frequent rebaptisation.  
SEcondly when a man is baptised according to his own mind, he allows him to be oft thereafter rebaptised, even so oft as he repents for sin, which by the godly is done (as the least ought to be done) oftener than once. And in the margin and the table at the end of your book, He allows a frequent rebaptising: and for proof you refer your Reader to the letters L L page 112. and there you send your Reader back to the letter C supr●. Now after you had said: but to put the equity of this reproof out of doubt, their great Patrons now are come to defend the lawfulness of baptism not only twice, but if ye will ten times; yea so oft as you repent for sin, which ought to be oftener, than once a day. So of Anabaptists they become Hemerobaptists, and more, for proof of this you refer the Reader to the letter C, and there you allege one passage in my Examen page 23. and another passage in my Apology page 53. and a relation of unnamed Eminent Divines.  
It is true, that to show the unreasonable dealing of those that made rebaptisation an heresy, I did entreat one good argument to prove it unlawful in se for a man that hath been baptised rightly to be baptised again, and to show the weakness of the arguments brought to prove it unlawful in se to rebaptize, I breiefly answered the two chief, the latter whereof seems to be that upon which the Assembly rested, in that they allege, to prove this proposition, The Sacrament of baptism is but once to be administered to any person, only the text Tit. 3. 5. where God is said to save us by the washing of regeneration. Advice for confession of faith, chap. 28, art. 7. And then I added, that if there were as good example for paedobaptism, as that of Acts 19 5, 6. for rebaptising, the controversy concerning paedobaptism were at an end with me. In which passage I did not assert the proof to be good for rebaptising; but compared with the proof for paedobaptism to be better, that is more probable than the other, and such as if I had had but the like for paedobaptism I had not moved any more about it. Which I wrote, because I knew that very many writers both ancient and latter do very probably from express words in that place conceive, that Paul did rebaptize, whereas there is not any probability, that any infa●t was baptised by the Apostles; nor have the ancients (that I know) ever gone about to prove it from any example in the Acts of the Apostles but by tradition. But in all this I did not at all set down my judgement of the thing, whether rebaptising were lawful or not, but only questioned the proofs alleged to make it unlawful, whether they yielded good arguments. I know there was another argument from circumcision but once: but I did not think that argument worth answering, nor do I yet, notwithstanding Mr. Mar●hals esteem of it, nor it may seem would the Assembly build on it by their omitting it in the place before quoted. I still profess, that I reject all arguments drawn since the Apostles from analogy of rites or customs of the Jews in mere positive things so as to conclude thence any thing to bind us as uredivino by God's appoinntment. And I conceive they serve for no better purpose, then to cause much wrangling, to fill people with superstitions, and to weary scholars, and that they better fit Papists and Prelates turns, than Independents or Presbyterians. And I was sorry to read in your brother Gillespy his Aaron's rod blossoming book 1 cha. 3. page 15. that from 2 Chr. 19 8, 10, 11. the reverend and learned Assembly of Divines have drawn an argument for ruling Elders, hoping they would have discarded all such arguments. But I said also Examen page 84. I conceive it true, that there is no necessity of administering either circumcision or baptism above once: but a demonstrative argument to prove it an heresy or unlawful in itself to rebaptize I yet expect. These passages Mr. Martial page 67. of his Defence says, do clearly discover my itch after new opinions. But this was inconsiderately & uncharitably said, sith my words lead him 〈◊〉 another reason of those passages, though it were but intimated, which is the misery and mischief which comes by men's magisterial determinations of heresies and errors, and binding men's consciences with a pretended jure divino upon topical reasons, it being the cause of many schisms, and much hatred between Christians, and is the true cause of 〈◊〉 confusions and wars between Christians, that arise upon difference of opinion in matters of religion. I said indeed, that Mr. marshal's reasons were not convincing to me, nor is the holding of rebaptisation such a new opinion as he would make it. But how do any passages of my Examen page 23. or my Apology page 53. prove that which you charge me with, that when a man is baptised according to my own mind I allow him to be oft thereafter rebaptised, even so oft as he repents for sin, which by the oddly is done, at least ought to be done every day oftener than once, that I allow of a frequent rebap●ization, that to put the equity of the reproach of rebaptising out of doubt, I (whom you dub the Anabaptists great Patron, though indeed a Patron of nothing, but truth, and right) am now come to defend the lawfulness of baptism not only twice, but if ye will ten times, yea so oft as you repent for sin, which ought to be oftener than once a day, so of Anabaptists they become Hem●robaptists and more.  
But you have a tale of some eminent Divines to help you out, that in my sermon before the House of Commons (for to whom else [his] can refene I see not, there being no other but Mr. Marshal and myself mentioned in that paragraph) I did avow in terminis, that it is no fault to baptize ten times. Now sure those Eminent Divines, and yourself by harkening to them, and reporting this in print without ever speaking or writing to me about it, though I lived not far from you or them, do show that to be true, which is everywhere complained of, that rigid Presbyterians are very apt to receive false reports, and to publish them of any that dissent from them, that they rake into every dunghill to find some filth to throw into the faces of their brethren, and therefore godly persons are very unwilling to come under their yoke. But that you may know the plain truth, I never yet preached a sermon before the House of Commons, nor in such sermon did avow in terminis, that it is no fault to baptize ten times. I have inquired about this tale, and it is conjectured by some, that this tale was hatched out of a passage of a Sermon of Mr. Wal●er Cradock before the House of Commons July 21. 1646. on 1 John 1. 3, 4. page 28. which was this, When I have communion with a Saint I must not look whether he be of such an opinior, or whether he have taken the Covenant, or have been baptised ●nce or twice or ten times, but see if he have fellowship with the Father, and with Jesus Christ, which it's likely was misreported; and made him in the margin put these words: I speak not this as if my opinion were for rebaptisation, &c. This forwardness to misreport things done now, as it discovers much ill affection in men's spirits, and that the Presbyterian spirit, when persons grow factious, will run into undue courses as well as the Anabaptistick spirit; so it gives much cause to considerate men to doubt whether many things reported of the Anabaptists heretofore, and all taken up in your drag-net whether true or false (which are the best pillar you have to uphold the great corruption of Paedobaptism or Paedorantism as now it deserves to be styled) were true as they were reported.   

SECT. XVI.  
Of the sixteenth Crimination, That I make it lawful for persons unbaptised to partake of the Lord's Supper.  
AS for that you charge me with when you say, Thirdly he makes it lawful for persons before they be baptised to partake of the Lord's Supper, and refer your Reader to MM and thence to BB and chapter 3. pag. 53. when you say, And some of their greatest Doctors hold it in no wise incongruous to admit persons to the Lord's Table before they be baptised, and for this you cite my words page 54. of my Apology, had you dealt candidly with me, you should have set down my opinion as I propound it, which was that in some case it might be permitted. But neither you nor Mr. Martial have dealt fairly with me in this matter. You set not down my opinion rightly, but leave out the limitation which did rightly state my opinion, and Mr. Martial pag. 167. of his Defence misreports me, That I confess I find no example of an unbaptised person receiving the Lord's Supper, and neither youn or Mr. Martial do take upon you to answer my reasons, which are either in my Examen pag. 85. or in my Apology pag. 53, 54. but only censure me for freaks and outleaps, and a spice of itch after new opinions for propounding my opinion with reasons about a case of conscience, which troubles many, and is of very frequent occurrence, in a place that lead me to speak of it. But it seems neither Mr. Martial nor yourself are willing to let any thing pass, that may make me odious, or ridiculous, though you do but show your own inconsiderateness, and uncharitableness, the like dealing you use towards me in the following charges.   

SECT. XVII.  
Of the seventeenth Crimination, That I am a complete Erastian, wherein reason is given of my doubt, that in Scripture no such juridical Excommunication is appointed as is now contended for.  
YOu say, Fourthly, to show how little inclinable he is to join with the Anabaptiss, he declares himself a complete ERASTIAN. Sir, what I said, and to what end, I expressed plainly enough in my Apology page 91. The occasion of printing what I conceived, was a passage in Mr. marshal's Defence, which he stuffed with all the exceptions he could thrust in against my person, but answered little or nothing punctually in the main points of the dispute, (which prevarication, I may perhaps in time discover also, in your dispute (chap. 5.) of your Anabaptism) The occasion of speaking in private conference, was, to show my sensibleness of the misery of the Land, by reason of the present differences, upon some speech that was moved by some friend of mine, (as I remember,) when the Assembly brought into the House of Commons, their Petitior, desiring power to suspend persons from the Lord's Supper for all scandals, without restriction; and asserted the Presbyterian Government, (unto which they advised the Parliament,) to be jure Divino, by the will and appointment of Jesus Christ. What I spoke then, and since printed; was to show my compassion of my native country like to be ruined, by the violent asserting things disputable, to be ure Divino; and thereby necessitating men to oppose, lest conscience be brought in bondage, according to the Apostles warning Col. 2. 20. It was not (as you say) to show how little inclinable I am to ●oine with the Anabaptiss. Nor did I declare myself a complete ERASTIAN in the words you allege at the letters NN out of my Apology, as you charge me; but only express my doubts; much less did I declare myself a complete ERASTIAN, that is in your sense one that holds with ERASTUS in all things, wherein he differs from BEZA in the disputes between them. For whereas there are two main points in difference between them, Excommunication, and the mixed Presbytery; Concerning this latter, my words in my Apology speak nothing against it, but rather for it, when I say, And if any Assembly of Ministers and Rulers be set up, for the better discovery of such as live viciously, or do contrary to the Christian faith, or worship, that a person be not charged with those evils upon uncertain reports, I think it agreeable to God's will 1 Tim. 5. 19 And whereas Mr Gillespy in his Aaron's rod blossoming, page 249. hath these words, Eras●us pag. 175. hath not spared to say, that the Magistrate may in the New Testament (though he might not in the Old,) exercise the ministerial functior, of he can have so much leisure from his other employments, and pag. 315. in very truth the erastian's▪ do oppose not only the institution, but the lawfulness and agreeableness to the word of God of a Church-government distinct from the civil; yet you cannot show that I hold either of these positions. I confess I have read ERASTUS his Theses & Confirmatio thesium; but I could not do it so exactly, as I would have done it, if I had had Beza's book to compare with it. I have read that which Mr. Rutherford disputes against Erastus but it doth not satisfy me, in that he dictates many things without proof, which are most necessary to be proved; and proves something by the sayings of Authors, that deserve to be examined; and many times omits in reciting his Antagonists words, that which is either most or very material; and makes not his own answers punctual; which things Mr. Mather also chargeth him with, about another point; besides many incoherent, and imperfect speeches, and inserting things impertinent. Besides in this dispute▪ I conceive, Mr. Rutherford doth yield that, which overthroweth that which he concludeth for. As when in his Divine right of Church-government chap. 4. q. 1. page 223. he hath these words, It is evident from the text Mat. 18. 15. that Christ speaks of such sins in a special manner committed against me or a particular brother, which are within the verge of my power or his to pardon, as not being yet publicly scandalous. which if true, than it can be meant only of personal injuries, which alone a private person hath power to pardon, and so is not an institution how to correct scandals under that notion, which Mr. Gillespy contends so much for, in his Aaron's rod blossoming, book 2. chap. 9 page 295. and book 3. chap. 2. As for his a●gument from proportior, Christ did appoint this to be done in case of civil in●uries, much more in scandals: it hath no strength to impose a thing as by Divine institution upon men's consciences; yea it is no better than a human invention when only gathered by such reasoning; such arguments from proportions being weak probations, as rightly Mr. Rutherford Due right of Presbyteries chap. 2. sect. 2. page 37. and all Logicians acknowledge that an argument à comparatis is but Topical, yea easily overthrown if any disparity be assigned. And this is enough (though much more may be said) to show that Mat. 18. 15, 16, 17. is impertinently alleged, though it be one of the chief tex●s urged importunately for Church-government by Prelates, Independents, Presbyterians, even the Assembly itself advise concerning a Confession of faith chap. 30. art. 2, 4. to prove a power of excommunicating for sins as scandalous, and so all scandals. And for the power of the keys Mat. 16. 19 Mr. Rutherford chap. 3. q. 1. pag. 236. makes the power of the keys to belong to Church-Rulers, that are the Stewards of the house, and the dis[pensers of the heavenly mysteries, but this may be only preaching the Gospel, of which the Apostle speaks 1 Cor. 4. 1. which place is impertinently alleged in the Assemblies confession of faith chap. 27. art. 4. to prove, neither Sacrament may be dispensed by any, but a Minister of the word lawful ordained, the Scripture nowhere calling the Sacraments mysteries, but the doctrine of the Gospel; however the Greek Fathers oft call them so. As for binding, and losing though I conceive Dr. Hammond hath more exactly disputed this matter in his book of the power of keys, chap. 4. than others, yet I conceive it more agreeable to other places in Matthew (leaving Mr. Selden to justify his explication in his preface to his book of the calendar of the Jews out of the Talmudists as he conceives fit) as Mat. 23. 4. & 11. 28. besides Acts 15. 28. Revel. 2. 24. Luke 11. 46. to draw the Metaphor from binding and losing burdens, rather than prisoners; which is confirmed in that the phrase is not [whomsoever] but [what things soever ye shall bind on earth] Mat. 18. 18. and this may very well stand with the coherence, signifying God's ratifying in heaven the Commands of the Apostles, and the Church on earth in the matters wherein they are to be obeyed v. 17. and so the binding and losing belongs not to vindicative judicature as by Excommunication, but to Stewardly declarative authority what is to be done or not to be done; and consequently proves not juridical Excommunication. I add that Mr. Gillespy in his Aaron's rod blossoming book 3. c. p. 412, 413. will not have binding and losing by a dogmatical authoritative declaration of the will of Christ here excluded, but proves this sense from Mat. 28. 20. Acts 15. 28. and from the coherence with the 17. v. As for 1 Cor. 5. 5. Mr. Rutherfurd cha. 9 4, 5. page 329. denieth not many learned Protestants to conceive, that delivering to Satan might be a bodily punishment or conjoined therewith, &c. yea he addeth, and the learned Molineus denyeth delivering to Satan to be expounded of Excommunication, and will have the destruction of the flesh to be some bodily tormenting of his Body by Satar, and so do sundry of the Fathers, especially Ambrose, Hieronymus, Augustinus, and Chrysostom, though Augustin be doubtful; which if true it will be hard to prove juridical Excommunication now contended for from thence. And for the 13. v. if it be read as it may, And ye shall put away, not, therefore put away & {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, not {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, the evil thing, not the evil person, as it's said to be in a Manuscript copy at Saint James, and is the more likely, because it seems to many learned men, that the Apostle took these phrases {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, v. 2. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, v. 3. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} or {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, from the Greek version, Deut. 17. 5, 7. and 22. 21, 22; 24. it will note, not a command, but an event; and so it may be either expounded impersonally, as Deut. 17. 7. ye shall put away the evil, 
Selden. l. 1. design. c 8. p 18. codices prisci, optim●que habent {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}.  that is, the evil shall be put away from you, or if it be referred to their action, they may be said to do it, because they mourned that he might be taken away, ver. 2. and it was to be done when they were gathered together, ver. 4. now the phrase of taking away from them, compared with those places in Deuteronomy, with the Apostles speech ver. 5. is more likely to be meant of killing then Excommunicating. And the putting it, ver. 13. in such an abrupt manner like to that, Deut. 17. 7. doth give great cause to imagine it hath the same sense. But if it be a command, and be referred to Excommunication with the judging them that are withir, ver. 12. yet it cannot be gathered from the text that this was the juridical Excommunication contended for, invested in some Officers, or the people with the Officers as superior judges: but rather by verses 9, 10, 11, 12. precedent, this judging and putting away belongs to every private Christian jointly in a constituted Church, or severally by themselves. I have read Mr. Gillespies Aaron's rod blossoming, and I think the strength of all is in the 9 chapter of his 2. book: in which I doubt whether any of his 21. arguments will prove such a forensical ecclesiastic government, as he contends for. The argument from two distinct governments, and judicatories to censure vicious manners (in which Mr. Gillespy in his first book seems to be most elaberate) in the Jewish policy to prove the like to be among Christians is many ways faulty. It will hardly be proved the Priests had peculiar cognizance of scandalous manners, or that any was kept from the sacrifices for moral uncleanness, much less that the reason is good, men were kept away for legal uncleanness from the sacrifices, Ergo much more for moral, or exclusion for legal pollution typifies exclusion for moral in the Christian Church. You say truly in answer to Mr. Cotton first part of your Dissuasive chap. 7. pag, 172. There is no argumenting from symbolic types except where the spirit of God in Scripture appl●es a type to such a signification and use. Nor is the Jewish policy a pattern for us. If it were we must have a Bishop answering to an High Priest, a Parliament consisting of Bishops and Nobles, as they had their Synedrium at Jerusalem of Priests and Elders of the People. These arguments cannot stand without asserting that the Jewish judicial laws bind still. I have been the larger in this, because in some writings especially of your Nation, to be an Erastian is now counted an high crime, and if the advice of the Assembly concerning a confession of faith chap. 30. should be established as a law, assertion of a Church-government corrective of manners by censures in a juridical way would be pressed on us as of Divine institution distinct from the Civil Magistrate, which I conceive it concerns the Assertors better to prove, than yet appears they have done, or else they will in pressing it on others usurp dominion over other men's fiath. But sure in many particulars I am not of Erastus his mind, and therefore you do ill to term me a complete Erastian. And though I find not by Bullinger's and Gualther's letters to him, Beza's preface to his answer to his theses, Philip Pareus his Relation of his father's life, and other ways, but that Erastus had the repute of a werthy man, yet I take it all at your hands to be named by any name, but Christ's, as you, and your fellow-Commissioners did take exception at the Apologetical narration of the five brethren for calling some Churches Calvinian. But how do you prove me to be a complete Erastian?   

SECT. XVIII.  
Of the eighteenth Crimination, that I avow no scandalous professor ought to be kept from the Lord's Table.  
YOu say, that I avow that no scandalous professor ought to be kept from the Lord's Table, and for proof, you refer your Reader to the letters N N, where some words of mine are recited out of my Apology page 92. which avow not any thing but my doubt, nor that of the thing itself, but of the proof, and that not out of any Scripture whatsoever, but only the fact of delivering to Satan the incestuous Corinthian, 1 Cor. 5. 5. Nor do I express my doubt to be how from that it may be concluded, that any scandalous professor ought to be kept from the Lord's Table: but how hence may be concluded any power of suspension from the Lord's Su●per for every emergent scandal so judged by a Congregation or Congregational Presbytery. Yea to show how ready you are to misreport me, in the very next page of my Apology I have these words, And if it happen that any such facts be perpe●rated as are like to that of the incestuous person, I doubt not but the whole Church may and aught to disclaim the person so offending, and to exclude him from all brotherly Communion, because I conceive so much was done to the incestuous person; as I gather from 2 Cor. 2. 6, 7. So that my doubt was not of suspension for any, but for every emergent scandal, for which the Assembly were so earnest with the Parliament. Many scandals there are in abuse of liberty in things indifferent, in sins of evil council, and example which may happen through strength of temptation by infirmity in men not habitually vicio●s, which are not of that heinous nature, as to deserve keeping from the Lord's Table; Nor doth the Scripture either prescribe such a thing to be done, or give power to do it. I like not Doctor Ames his determination lib. 4. de conscientiac. 29. num. 7. Proprium & adaequatum ob●e●●um hu●●s censurae est scandalum datum ●fratre, which I imagine was the cause of the Assembly's mistake upon which they petitioned.   

SECT. XIX.  
Of the nineteenth Crimination of me, that I hold no censure of Fexcommunication.  
YOu further charge me, as avowing also that there is no such thing as any censure of Excommunicatior, and for proof you refer your Reader to the letters O O, where is cited one or two passages of my Apology, page 91. in neither of which do I avow any thing but my doubt, which is of 5. things, whereof one is, whether ever Excommunication a sacris, that is (as I after express myself) ●uridical, forensica, ●●horitative, Excommunication by some officers, or the whole congregation as superiou●s that have jurisdiction without special gift as the Apostles had, would be proved to be ●ure divino by Christ's appointment. And I confess I have still the same doubt, notwithstanding what I have read in Mr. Rutherford, Mr. Gillespy or any other. And I should be willing to be resolved, how citing to appear by power of office, keeping Courts or Assemblies, requiring persons, yea of all sorts and qualities to answer as before Judges, examining witnesses, hearing causes, passing sentence, inflicting so great a punishment as Excommunication without liberty of appeal (if by a national Assembly of Elders) on ministers and people, even the chiefest, not as Arbitrators to whom the parties refer the matter, but as Ecclesiastical Officers to whose judgement they must stand whether they will or no, will be acquitted from that dominion condemned Lu. 22. 25, 26. Mat. 20. 26. Mar. 10. 42, 43, 1 Pet. 5. 2, 3. as the Assertors of the Presbyterian discipline expound the texts against the Prelates; & what dominion more like the heathen the Prelates take upon them, than such an Assembly, and whether the Prelates against whom you plead may not acquit their Prelacy which they claim from the dominion you charge them with, out of these texts of Scripture as well as you. But in this I do not avow, there is no such thing as any censure of Excommunitation, as you accuse me: yea I do expressly grant a social medicinal Excommunication by the whole Church from all brotherly communion with the whole, and by each member from arbitrary communion with himself, 
Allin defence of Ans. to 9 posit. p. 171. in case the fraternity without officers should cast out any, yet it is not altogether the same with that which may be dispensed by the officers thereof it being no official act.  provided they do not rashly or unjustly exclude. And this I gather from 1 Cor. 5. 9, 10, 11. 2 Thess. 3. 6, 14, 15. and other places, as in my Apology page 93. may be seen. And I think the Congregational way in this nearer to the use of Excommunication in Scripture then the Presbyterian, though I think they miss in two things. 1. That they make it an act of superiority and jurisdiction, or, as they speak, of the power of the keys in the whole Church over the person censured. 2. They ascribe this power only to that particular congregation of which the offender is a fixed member, which I conceive common to any other Church or brother in another Congregation, and is in effect nothing else but the non-communion, which they ascribe to one Church towards another. Nor do I conceive what other Excommunication Christians could in the primitive times exercise or did exercise one towards another, when Victor Bishop of Rome would have excommunicated Polycrates Bishop of Ephesus, or the Western the Eastern Church about Easter, or Stephanus of Rome Firmilianus Bishop of Caesarca in Cappadocia holding with Cyprian about rebaptisation of persons baptised by heretics, than this non-communion. And for the texts Mat. 16. 19 Mat. 18. 16, 17, 18. I am not yet moved from the interpretation I gave in my Apology page 91. but rather conceive that I can prove it true, notwithstanding what I have read hitherto to the contrary.   

SECT. XX.  
Of the twentieth Crimination, that I hold Christ hath not appointed any particular government for his Church.  
YOu say further, That Christ hath not appointed any particular government for his Church, and for proof hereof you refer the Reader to the letters P P, at which you cite two passages of my Apology page 91. 93. of which neither says the thing you charge me with, the former only making two things, according to my conceit, prudencial, to wit, the Independency or Dependency, and the fixedness or moveableness of Pastors, and Congregations. In the other I acknowledged a discipline proper to the Church, and showed what it was. And therefore you do manifestly wrong me in saying I avow a particular governmen●, when my words expressly yield the contrary, only I said, I suppose the manner of doing the thing is left to prudence, that is by whom, when, in what order evils committed should be examined, the persons charged, admonished, avoided, which I think you will not deny. Surely you will be hard put to it, to prove out of Scripture, the particularities of your, or any other discipline. To tell you my mind yet more plainly, the word government comes from the Greek {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, now {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, saith Suidas, he that guides ●●ship by steering it. Being applied to men I conceive government is either by counsel, directing, admonishing, reproving in words or actions (as by showing favour or dislike, in looks, embracing or shunning company, &c. giving example, &c. or by giving laws, and inflicting punishments or giving rewards. I conceive Christ hath not left a particular government for his Church the latter way, but refers that unto himself, but in the former way he hath in the hands of some Officers, whom he hath made as Stewards in his house, whose government consists chiefly in declaring the will of Christ, convincing gainsayers, ordaining Pastors to teach, and declaring ●alse teachers to be shunned, and such like offices: but for the juridical government mentioned before I find it not appointed them by Christ. I like H●●romes expression on Tit. 1. That the Churches co●muni presbyt●r●●●● consilie, cura, solicitudine (not imperio) guvernabantur, and I like Salmasi●● his observation in his Apparatus de primatu Papae pag. 148. 〈◊〉 primatu Papae part. 1. cap. 1. that the government of the Church is {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} ●urati●, oversight, not potestas, magistracy, empire. And this methinks best suits with the Scriptures, 1 Thess. 5. 12. 1 Tim. 3. 5. Heb. 13. 7, 17. 1 Peter 5. 2, 3.   

SECT. XXI.  
Of the one & twentieth Crimination, that I hold that the government of the Church belongs to the Magistrate only.  
YOu add further, that I say, that the governing of the Church belongs to the Magistrate only, and to such whom he appoints to that service by virtue of a Commission flowing from himself. And for proof hereof you refer the Reader to the letters q q page 113. where you cite a passage out of my Apology page 93, which hath not a word of that you charge me with, but only a declaration of my opinion in point of prudence, that the not devolving so much jurisdiction (as some desire) on a Presbytery doth not so much disadvantage the Church, as some conceive, for reformation of manners, but only for suppressing the dissenters in opinion, who are for the most part the most conscientious, and right-hearted; For usually the ruling Elders are Magistrates, or both teaching and ruling Elders are chosen and act according to their mind, and serve their ends. And therefore if the Christian Magistrate be good, there's no great loss to the Church concerning the reforming of vicious manners, though he Presbytery have not such power as some desire: if bad, little is done by the Presbytery. And for errors in opinion they are scarce ever amended by bare Excommunication, for that (if there be any number of dissenters) doth but usually produce a schism, but by teaching and clearing truth with meekness and forbearance one towards another, and a freedom to debate things in Synods, which is, I suppose, the proper use of them, and not to determine things and impose laws the persons censured being never heard. This I said to allay the heat of men in engaging a kingdom to war upon such a cause. But because this is only a point of prudence from experience I leave this to be considered by those that are better acquainted with human affairs than I am. The thing you charge me with is nowhere asserted by me and therefore in this you also charge me falsely.   

SECT. XXII.  
Of my new way and boldness.  
THere are some other things in your book wherein you abuse me, as pag. 91. in your margin and table when you put Mr. ●ombes new way, and when you say, that at this time when so many new ways are in hand, I have thought meet to make a hotchpotch of many of them together; which is a mere reproachful or scoffical calumny, as if what I wrote, I did it out of a design to make a new way of mine own. Whereas what I have said, I was necessitated to it, as I show in my Apology, and was done in pursuance of the Covenant, and should have been taken with the right hand by men that are desirous to find out truth especially from one that you term learned, and with all his strength and greater diligence than any before him hath sifted a point. As for my boldness, I confess God hath in mercy to me put more boldness and courage into me in this matter, then either agrees with my natural complexion, or the state of my affairs. But if you mean by saying that I am a very bold man, that I am one that is of an audacious disposition to be a ringleader in a faction or an attempter of a desperate design, or in any other bad sense (which it's likely you mean) you are deceived, it being truth which makes me bold, which I am the more bold to avouch to be so, because having tried your strength with my other Antagonists, I find, that you defend that which I impugn by mere sleights.   

SECT. XXIII.  
Of my silence concerning DIPPING, and of the novelty and insufficiency of SPRINKLING instead of baptising.  
YOu say, that you have marked nothing to fall from my pen for the rite of dipping, or against the custom of sprinkling. And in the margin and the able at the end of your book you say, He is a rigid Antipaed●baptist, but not against sprinkling. But this is more than you could infer from this, that I meddle not with this controversy in my writings. But though I say nothing, there's enough to be found of that innovation of sprinkling, in all sorts of authors. Mede in his Diatribe, or discourse on Tit. 3. 5. I ●dd●, because perhaps some men's fancies are corrupted therewith, that there was no such thing as sprinkling or {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} used in baptism in the Apostles times, nor many ages after them; and therefore it is no way probable that {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} in St. Peter should have any reference to the Laver of bapt●sm. Salmasius Appar. ad librum de primatu Papae pag. 192. Non enim id {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} est quo hodie infantes initiant, non mersio, non t●●ctio, non lot●, non lava●rum, nec {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} ut etiam Graeci vocant, & vox Baptismi Graece significat, sed {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} aspersio vel infu●●o aquae. The like is in his Epistle ad Colvium pag. 669. Ancient and later writers do generally avouch John Baptists and the Apostles and Ancients use for many hundreds of years to have been by dipping or 〈◊〉 under water: Salmasius Apparat. ad librum de primatu Papae pag. 193. Tempore Hieronymi omnes Ecclesiae hunc morem observ●bant in baptismo ut ter Caput sub aqua mergerent quibus id sacramentum dabatur▪ Aquinas 3. part. 〈◊〉. 66. art. 7. Tutius est baptizare per modom immer●●onis, quia hoc habet communior usus. Chanier, panstrat. Cathol. tom. 4 lib. 5. c. 2. sect. 6. Caeterùm in usu●lementi abinitio immersionem fuisse totius corporis: quae vis est {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}: unde Joannes baptizabat in flumine: deinde tamen mutatam in asse● sionem: incertum quando; aut unde●f●cto init●o, &c. The manner of dipping, plunging, or immersion under water is agreeable to the relations, M●●. 3. 16. John 3. 23. Acts 8. 38, 39 It is acknowledged to be alluded to by Paul, Rom. 6. 3, 4. by the new Annot. there; By Calvin in John 3. 22, 23. A Joanne et Christo celebratum Baptismum fuisse totius corporis submersione. Calv. in Act. 8. 38. To tum corpus in aquam mergebart. Mr. Daniel Rog●r●in Treatise of two Sacraments part. 1. chap. 5. 2. Edit. page 77. saith, The Greek Tongue wants not words to express any o●●er act, as well as Dipping, if the i●stitution could bear it. And sur.— the Lord meant not that the infant should be sprinkled only;— but baptizea: which word signifieth the true act of the ministry, to Di●, or Do●the Body, or some part of it into the water. And the 〈◊〉 of baptism in t●e symbolicalnes of it, urgeth no.— What resemblance of our burial or resurrection with Christ is there in sprinkling?— So that— they loo● more at themselves, then at God therein. And a little before he saith, To dip the infant— I so ave●, as thinking it exceeding material to the Ordinance, and no sleigh: thing: Yea, which both Antiquity (—) constantly, and without exception of countries, hot or cold, witnesseth unto, and especially the constant word of the Holy Ghost, first and last approveth, as a learned critic (Causanbon) in Mat. 3. hath noted. P●s●at. Schol. on Rom▪ 6. 4. Diodati anno●. in Rom. 6. 4. Grot. annot. in Rom. 6. 4. &c. and Coloss. 2. 11, 12. acknowledged by Beza annot. in Col. 2. 11. and Gal. 3. 27. Davenan. in C●l. 2. 12. &c. by the new Annot. on Mat. 20. 22. to have been the manner in Christ's time; so that Keckerman. syst. Theolog. lib. 3. c. 8. says, Non possumus diffiteri primam institutionem baptismi immersion, non ver● adspersione constitisse, quod disertè patet ex cap 6. Roman. ver. 3. and 4. Casaubon. ●nnot. ad Mat. 3. 6. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}; hic enim fuit baptizandi ritu●, ut in aquas immergerentur: quod vel ipsa vox {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} dclarat satis: quae ut non significat {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} quod est sundum petere cum sua pernicie: it à profecto non est {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. Differunt enim haec tri; {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. unde intelligimus, non esse abs re quod ●ampridem nonnulli disputacunt de toto corpore immerg●ndo in ceremonia baptismi; vocem enim {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} urgebant. Sed horum sententia merito est jampr●dem explosa: x non in eo posita est mysterii hujus vis et {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. Tertullian, who lived within less than a hundred years of some of the Apostles, frequently calls baptism, Dipping; and saith the parties were Dip●, Tincti: (never sprickled, a●●ers, &c.) The like phrase hath Musculus on Mat. 3. &c. The Dut●l Bibles have it thus Mat. 3. 1. Johannes de Dooper. John the Dip●er, ghedoopt inden Jordaen ver. 6. he dipped them in Jordan. Mat. 28. 19 Doopende ●nden Nam●-Dipping them in the Name. So in Mar. 1. 5, 9 Act. 8. 38, &c. So Mr. Thomas Goodwin holds out this manner of baptising fully, in his Treatise of Christ se●forth in his Death, Burial— Section 3. chap. 7. It was questioned in the third century whether the {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} or sprinkling or pouring about of the element, that is, those who when they were sick on their beds and ready to die, were baptised, were true baptism? Cyprian lib. 4. Epis. ad Ma●num. After it was questioned, whether a threefold immersion were necessary, or one would suffice? 〈◊〉 s●ntent. lib. 4. distinct. 3. sect. 9 Aqu●n. 3. part. q. 66. art. 8. The Jews, (from whom this rite is conceived to come,) took the baptism wherein the whole body was not baptised, to be void, Selden de jure nature. & gent. ●uxta dis●i●. Hebr. l. 2. c. 2. The force of the word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} is so manifest to signify dipping, plunging, drowning, that Pi●●rus in his Pythia ode. 2. calls Cork swimming {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, upon the face of the waters unbaptised, and Plucerch a ship floating on the waters {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, unbaptised. Insomuch that I marvel greatly, that those who hold breaking of bread necessary, if not essential to the Lord's Supper, having but example, use of the word, and allusion for it in Scripture; yea that are so stiff for a table gesture; should upon such pretences as these [that {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} sometimes signifies washing, that our countries are in a cold climate, or the like, alter so confirmed a 〈◊〉, and determine that baptising for the manner of doing 〈◊〉, is not only 〈◊〉, but sufficient, and most expedient to be by pouring or spri●klin● on the face of the child, in the Directory; and that dipping of the person into the water is not necessary: but baptism is rightly administered by pouring or sprinkling water upon the person. Advice 〈◊〉 confession of faith chap. 28. 〈◊〉 3. and that so small a vessel should, according to their minds be set up, as that the Primitiv● 〈◊〉 cannot be continued by those that would, and perhaps do make conscience of it.   

SECT. XXIII.  
The Conclusion requiring reparation of the wrong done to me by Mr. Baillee.  
NOw Sir, I refer it to yourself to judge whether any Author, Papist or Protestant, have in so small a compass as one page of a leaf in 4. and some few lines in another so wronged his adversary, as you have done me in so many false accusations tending to beget prejudice against my writing, and hatred against my person. Which I take the worse from you as being done not only to a fellow-Christian, and a fellow-Protestant, but also to a fellow-Minister of the Gospel, whose life and labours are not very obscure; yea to a fellow-Covenanter, and one with whom you ate bread at his and others invitation, out of the desire I had to hold amity with you, and the Churches from whence you came: nor do I know that I have done or spoken any thing that might tend to the contrary since: and this have you done in print, whereby it's likely to spread to many, and to remain upon record to posterity, without any provocation by me, and without any conference with me by word or writing, which might have satisfied you; though living not far from you while you were framing your book; as I conceive you could not be ignorant from sundry passages in my Apolegy. The sin of false accusing is one of the sins, that makes times perilous, 2 Tim. 3. 3. from whence the enemy of mankind hath his name, and from whence much of our disunion, and misery comes. I do now write this letter to you being remote from you, 
Mr. Henry Scudder.  as I did write to a near friend before, to acquaint you with these exceptions against you; having an eye on the rule of Christ, Mat. 18. 15. that I may show my desires of peace, and you may see truth, and confess your wronging of me, and may fully right me. If this do not take, I shall some other way endeavour to wash away the dirt cast in my face by you, and remain  
Your brother and fellow-servant in Christ Jesus JOHN tombs Bewdley in Worcestershire. July 22. 1647.    

June 2. 1650.  
Imprimatur  
John Bachiler.