Doctor Chamberlain VISITED WITH A Bunch of his own Grapes, Gathered out of His own Packet of Letters: To know whether my Answer to his Question gave satisfaction, and that by his Reply to partake of those rare Gifts of the Spirit, which he proffered to publish in Blackfriars Church.  
Also an Answer to Dr Chamberlains Reply, concerning Sprinkling the Baptised.  
By THOMAS BAKEWEL.  DEUT. 32.32. 
Their vine is of the vine of Sodom: and their grapes are grapes of gall, their clusters are bitter.  
London, Printed for John Dallam, and are to be sold at his shop in Blackfriars near Carter-lane, 1650.   

A Visit to Doctor Chamberlain, to make Reply, if he be not satisfied, that the censure of his Dream fall not on himself, to be left hardened in blindness.  
SIR,  
SInce I wrote my Answer to your Question, concerning Sprinkling the Baptised, you have published all your Letters, which you sent to Doctor Gouge about it; and also a scurrilous Libel, full of railing language, you have Printed with them.  
This railing Rabshakeh saith, That this reverend Minister of Jesus Christ knows not of what spirit he is, and that he hath not the Spirit of Christ, nor of a private Christian; he is none of Christ's Minister, but a Worldling; he is dumb, and dare not speak; he is not fit to have the charge of Souls: he is devilish minded, and aught to be cast out, or healed: Christ will not have such spirits to be Ministers of his Kingdom: He is more for the world, and his own ease, then for Christ, and your good: He chooseth to keep his people in darkness, lest a stronger than he should come in, and dispossess him, by bringing in the glorious Light of the Gospel. Thus terming our Ministers to evil spirits, and himself and his Faction to Jesus Christ, who only is able to cast them out, and to take possession of the Soul, being the Redeemer of it.  
But what is the offence given by Doctor Gouge, for this man thus to rail on him?  
Answ. Nothing but this, Christ, saith he, answered all question, and so should he. But Sir, why did not you come to him for an Answer? How can you endure to hear this man to rail thus, before you have tried the Doctor's faithfulness? when he so lovingly invited you to come unto him, and if you pleased, to bring a Friend with you: But your motion was rather for his Pulpit, then for his Answer, more for division then for satisfaction: rather presuming to teach the Doctor, then to be taught by him. Now Christ would not answer those that came to cavil at his Doctrine, Joh. 18.19, 20. nor those that questioned his Authority, Mat. 21.27. nor his accusers before Pilate, Mat. 27, 12, 14. Also his Ministers are forbidden to cast pearls before swine, or to give holy things to dogs, Mat. 7.6. or to reprove scorners, Prov. 8.7, 8.  
But this railer goes on, not only against him, but against all other Ministers that are faithful to Jesus Christ, saying, They are all his fellow spirits, they are all agreed, and they must all be cast out, and enter in no more, but into a swinish generation, who dig their way to Hell, with whom they shall run violently headlong to the deep: Therefore, saith he, they are deaf to hear the Word of God, and dumb to speak the truth thereof, though upon it they will speak till they foam again: But, saith he, see that they do not deceive you, for they are evil spirits, seeking to devour you: And so he concludes, saying, Receive this, as from Christ.  
Now whom this Railer is, I know not, yet some think him to be one Evins, that was in Newgate for professing himself to be Jesus Christ; and not unlikely, for saith he, Receive this as from Christ: And also, that stronger man, who alone is able to call out evil spirits, he applies to himself, or some of his Faction: But then he seems to recant of all the evil that he hath spoken against the Doctor, saying, Not that I hate him, for I have many Reasons to love him in truth. But I say, if all were true here spoken by this Railer, what Reasons can he have to love him in truth? or if false, what a horrible wretch is he thus to reproach him? But God hath made his own Conscience to check his railing tongue, confessing to have Reasons to love him in truth, and yet they must not be made known.  
Now I shall show that you are led by the same spirit, for these Reasons: First, You say, That this Raler is a Messenger come from Christ, and that no man can deny it: which shows, that the same spirit rules in both. Secondly, This Railer saith to you, Set these things in order, and send them to Black friars: and this also you have done, although with some difficulty, because as you say of the illiterateness of his composure, which he left for you to perfect; which shows, that you are led by the same spirit. Thirdly, This Railer saith to you, Writ, and print, and send them; and this also you have done. Fourthly, This Railer saith to you, See that you use not my name; and accordingly you have concealed it, although it is very likely you know it. Fifthly, He rails upon this reverend Minister, notwithstanding be hath many Reasons to love him in truth: so you argue the Doctor's friendship, his age his learning, his exemplary retiredness and strictness of living; yea, and expressly you say that you love him; and yet one Dream, suggested by the Devil, will make you to leave him, as you say hardened in blindness, which comprehends all that the Railer hath spoken. Sixthly, You have given such way to this foul spirit, as to defuse what he hath suggested; for the Doctor answered to your question, concerning Sprinkling the Baptised, that you might come to him, and also bring a Friend with you, if you pleased: But to the other question, whether it should be disputed in his Church, he would be better advised, and well he might; for what Shepherd would suffer the Wolf to dispute among the Sheep? But you, like a false witness, apply his Answer to the wrong question, and from that false ground take an occasion to insult over him, and dare him to take advice with several Divines, and also with the whole Synod, and make it as pulique as he would: Thus you have published your pride and vanity with less discretion than your approved Friend, this railing Libeler, who is sensible that his name is contemptible among the people.  
Sir, Having no Reply to my Answer, I shall make bold to speak unto you in your own words, and language, expressed in your Letters, thus, Was your question to Doctor Gouge a matter of Salvation, or was it not? If not, why did you so often reiterate your Letters, with such vehemency for an Answer? and that he would deal clearly in this business, as he valued the Souls of men? On the other side, If it was a matter of Salvation, why did you not come to him, when he so lovingly envited you to come, and if you pleased, to bring a Friend with you also? Again, either you were ignorant of that point, or not: If not, why did you propound that question! Is it not your own inference to say, He that asketh advice, is ignorant of the thing he asketh advice in? So that if you were not blind, you would not ask whether it be day. Do not you also say, That all doubts are for want of Faith or Knowledge? Or did you only propound this to try the Doctor, whether he was willing to give you an Answer? and the mean time you remain unwilling to come unto him for it? Will not this be a greater shame to you, then if you had never propounded that question to him who formerly was your Shepherd?  
Sir, The Railing Libeler, whom you say comes in the name of Christ, saith, That this is a profound question, and most necessary to be cleared, and put forth, by one who seethe the Axe laid to the root of Religion, and the Watchmen asleep, at this time of distress and distraction amongst the flock of Christ; some denying this Fundamental Ordinance, to be of any effect, and others deny it to Infants as lawful, and others deny sprinkling to be of God: Now a full Answer, saith he, to this question will clear all, and heal all doubts and distractions: Therefore remember your Charge; he hath showed that you have set your hand to the Plough, and if you look back, he saith, You are unfit for the Kingdom of God.  
Sir, I long to see those excellent virtues and operations of the Spirit, which you boast to have received, since you turned Anabaptist: Let not those transcendent gifts be put under a Bushel, but set those New-Lights on a Candlestick, to give Light to all that are in the House. Sir, You promised and proffered to show those gifts to Doctor Gouge, to teach him knowledge; let me request the same favour also, I hope you will be no respecter of persons in the things of God: I have waited long for your Answer, therefore rather teach Babes than Doctors, rather Sheep than Shepherds. Now if you should claim the Pope's title, to be a Shepherd of Shepherds, to teach the Shepherd, and not the Sheep, I should much doubt that those admirable gifts are but the depths of Satan, as they speak, Rev. 2 24. whereby he frequently deludes Anabaptists.  
Sir, You say, that you wrote to the late King, and I see that you have written to a Doctor of Divinity: But I hope you do not think it to be a disparagement to write to them of meaner quality: Is your matter so excellent that no other men may partake of it? Suppose you were a King, or a Doctor not cast out of the College, I hope sometimes other men may hear some of your admirable matters, which only becomes Kings and Doctors to hear.  
Sir, I hope your transcendent gifts are not of that quality to perish in the using: If they be divine gifts, they will increase by using. Now if yours be such, what hurt is it to impart with them for advantage? If you keep your Talon in a napkin, you will offend the Lord, who gave it to be improved for the good of yourself & others; but it seems you know this already, and have told your loving Neighbours of Blackfriars, how that you, being converted, aught in duty to strengthen your Brethren. Now I hope you will not make such construction of the word Brethren, as to shut me out of that Brotherhood. Sir, the Messenger of Christ, as you call that railing Libeler, I hope, hath made a better construction of your Dream, then to leave me also with Doctor Gouge hardened in blindness; therefore let me hear from you, whether my Answer gave satisfaction, or not; and if it did, give God the praise: and if it did not, I desire to know wherein it was wanting, because I desire to have more charity of you, then to leave you hardened in blindness.  
BY Thomas Bakewel.   

An ANSWER to Doctor Chamberlains Reply, concerning Sprinkling of the Baptised.  
UPon the 24. of March I sent my first P●per to Doctor Chamberlain, that now is published, and he that received it, promised an Answer in two days; and now upon the seventh of April his Reply came to me so stuffed with Sophistry and falsity, that it is enough to terrify a gracious heart even in he Repetition of it.  
His first page is a bundle of falsities: He saith, That he sent four times to my house, to return me an Answer, and that I either was not, or would not be at home: These are all false, he sent but twice; The first time I was at Church, the second time the Messenger spoke with me, not to return me an Answer, but to ask me these questions, Why did you not come to hear your Letter read? and why did you not come to justify it? and did you write it yourself, or did some other help you? Then he saith, That I call the seventh of April, being the Lord's day, Palmsunday, which he never heard me; and the Sabbath, which it seems he will not: and that I tell my friends that I have defied Israel; and that I should say, none durst answer me; which are both false: And that I should say, He promised to answer; which also is false, although there was a promise made by another that it should be done. Then he saith, He had no copy of what I printed, when as there was a whole choir sent him, besides the manuscript that I sent him; yet he saith, He had not known of it, had not another given him one. But to what purpose are all those falsities, if he were not given over to the Father of lies? They concern not the point in Controversy. But Mr Doctor, are these the gifts of the Spirit you boast so much of, to have showed publicly in Doctor Gouges Church? It is true, they are the gifts of those lying spirits in the mouths of Ahabs' Prophets, 2 Chron. 18 21. But Sir, Be ware of the liars portion, Revel. 21.8.  
Then you say, That I am the Cat's paw, dabbling in Greek: I suppose you speak comparatively, which having no resemblance, shows your weakness of learning; for a Cat to dabble in Greek cannot, and in water will not, or at least as seldom as you dabble in the truth: but I must leave dabbling.  
Then you trouble yourself that Mr Downame should give me his Imprimatur, and that our Ministers should suffer a Layman to take upon him their Function: How now Mr Doctor! what do you reprove another, and do the same things? Thou that sayest, another should not steal, dost thou steal? Thou that judgest another, condemnest thyself for doing the same things: See Rom. 2.1, 21. But yet Mr Doctor I do not take upon me the Ministers Function: Was I ever the mouth of God to the Congregation, by preaching unto them? or their mouth unto God by prayer? or did I ever administer the Sacraments to the people? If not, these are falsely spoken of me, although yourself, and other Laymen amongst Anabaptists, frequently do them: But cavilling Anabaptists have always something to say against those that are truly orthodox. If our learned Ministers writ any Tract, than they say they have nothing but Humane Learning, they have not the Spirit; and if any illiterate man shall write against them, than he wants Learning: but if for them, then say you in your first Letter, God gives poor Fishermen the Spirit, which he doth not to learned Clarks.  
Then you would make the world believe that you are of a very humble spirit, and you deserve not the title of Tyrus: But Pride breaks out, and spoils all, saying that which you falsely charged me withal, That our Ministers durst not answer you, there was none so bold; yet still you would have me bear the name, and keep the vice yourself, saying, I presume to answer for Doctor Gouge, supposing myself the abler man, which will not follow, although it may be more willing, because it is like he knows the temper of your spirit better than I.  
Then you say that I except against you for ask Dr Gouge a question, because he is ancient, when as multitude of years should teach wisdom, job 32.7. and of whom should we inquire, but of them that take upon them the Office? should not the Priests lips keep Knowledge? Mal. 2.7. But here, like Corah, you say, he takes the Office upon him; but beware of Corahs' Judgement: See Numb. 16.3.35.40. You charge him, but condemn yourself, doing the same thing: But why did not you come to learn at his mouth? which is your duty from that Text, Mal. 2.7. Neither do I except against ask the Doctor a question, because he is ancient, but because you more required his Pulpit then his Answer; to make division rather than to seek for satisfaction: Neither is it fit, I say, that ancient Ministers should be daily troubled with all the vain queries that Anabaptists may put unto them.  
But than you are troubled that I should not give you leave to state your own question, which was so stated, that the answering of it, as it was, would start up more questions, which would be endless: Therefore it was my desire to confine the question only to Sprinkling the Baptised, and leave Infants for another question: at this you cavil, ask, Whether they must first be baptised, and then sprinkled, which shows of what spirit you are: as if I should say, Such a man hath married a wife, for which you should accuse me, for saying, he married her that was a wife at that time to another man. Then you say, That Doctor Gouge doth acknowledge, That Sprinkling and Baptising Infants is but a Tradition of the Church: I question the truth of it: But I say they are such Traditions of the Church as that they are not man's Inventions, nor by man to be abolished.  
Then you come to my first Argument in these words, The Lord foretold, that in the times of the Gospel his People should be sprinkled with clean water, Ezek. 36.25. To this you propound many queries, thus; Whether Sprinkling here be meant Baptism; or, by clean water, the elementary water; and you be meant Infants, and the time then be meant the time of the Gospel with the Gentiles, or the time of the glorious Calling of the Jews: or whether Sprinkling do not allude to that Sprinkling under the Law, they not knowing john's nor Christ's Baptism, and whether pure water be not meant the Holy Ghost in the language of Christ?  
To this I answer; Let them be jews or Gentiles, in respect of Country, bond or free, male or female, Infants or of full age; all in the Christian Church have right to Baptism: Neither can this Text look back to the Jewish Sprinklings under the Law, because it is a Prophecy or Promise to come hereafter: neither can this be meant of the Essence of the Holy Ghost, to be sprinkled, which is uncommunicable; and for the graces or operations of the Holy Ghost, promised to be bestowed in the latter days, they are not where promised to be by sprinkling a few drops: But, saith the Lord, it shall come to pass, that I will pour out my Spirit, joel 2.28. I will pour water upon him that is thirsty, and floods upon the dry ground, I will pour my Spirit upon thy seed, and my blessing upon thy offspring, Isa. 44.3. Now see the Apostles Exposition of these Texts; It shall come to pass saith God, that I will pour out my spirit, Act. 2.17. And, saith Christ himself, Out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water; but this spoke he of the Spirit, joh. 7.38, 39 Neither is it likely that the Promise of Grace, in the fullness of Christ's Kingdom, should be no more but a few drops sprinkled, which they had when these Promises were made; so that it remains, that this Sprinkling here foretell to be with clean water, is the Elementary water sprinkled upon the Baptised as the outward form, which may signify all that abundance of grace promised to be then bestowed upon the Christian Church. And Mr Doctor, these things I am confident shall be accomplished, although you tax me with Lay-ignorance, and to be talketive; and you believe that these mistakes will make them to keep the staff in their own hands, and not to suffer such, though never so zealous and devout, to betray their cause: To this, I know not whom you mean, but God forbidden, that for any private cause, any Power on Earth should suppress the Truth, although they have the staff of power in their hand. But than you conclude, All that can be said upon this place is only a Promise what God will do, and not a Command what man must do. Ans. It may be the outward form of Baptism by sprinkling of water, for all that; for God may do it by Instruments: The Pharisees heard that Jesus made and baptised more Disciples than john, though Jesus himself baptised not, but his Disciples, joh. 4.1, 2. And they came to john, saying, He that was with thee beyond jordan, baptizeth, joh. 3.26. but not himself. But admit it was Christ himself that baptizeth, yet it is with the Holy Ghost, when john baptizeth with water, Mat. 3.11. Thus Christ makes the outward Form by Sprinkling effectual, by sanctifying and cleansing his Church with the washing of water by the Word, Eph. 5.26. And thus Christ, when he washed his Disciples feet, washed and cleansed their Souls from sin, or else they had had no part with him, joh. 13.8. and yet not without that outward Form.  
But than you are troubled that I should say, That water in the Sacrament signifies the Blood of Christ, saying, Where doth the Scripture say so? But I say if you take away the thing signified from the Element, you destroy the Sacrament much like the Papist, who will have the Element of Bread turned into the very Body of Christ: But in so doing you spoil the Ordinance, as well by plunging as sprinkling; and yet at the end of this Section, you confess, That sprinkling the Conscience with the blood of Christ, and washing the body with water, from the same Text that I quote, Heb. 10.22. comprehends the two complete parts of baptism; and yet you would drown the sense by the jewish washings, saying, They had sprinkling with water, Leu. 14.7. Num. 8.7. distinct from sprinkling with blood, Exod. 12.22.29.21. and both distinct from baths and washings, Levit. 15.5. to 27. in divers other places: And we have under the Gospel Baptism distinct from the Lords Supper, and the Holy Ghost is punctual, joh. 19.34. But that text only proves, that Christ is our Sanctification and Justification, signified by that water and blood: see other Texts parallel, 1 joh. 5.6. This is he that came by water and blood to be Righteousness, Sanctification, and Redemption, 1 Cor. 1.30. but not punctual to distinguish the two Sacraments, for one of them to Justify, and the other to Sanctify; and least of all punctual to distinguish the outward Forms of the two Sacraments; for suppose you say, here is water, the outward Form of Baptism, yet Mr Doctor, here is no bread and wine, the Form of the other Sacrament: Then you say, If the jews had confounded the sprinkling of water with that of blood, they would have been negligent: in those things they were to be exact; and if we should do so, we should soon arrive at spiritual Babel, which is rife with many who think themselves spiritual. But Mr Doctor, our difference is between sprinkling and plunging, and we shall distinguish the two Sacraments, as well as you: And you confess, that the Jews did keep them distinct, that of water and that of blood, although both were administered by sprinkling: How much easier is it for us to distinguish between drinking wine, and sprinkling with water, at our two Sacraments? and yet although the outward parts of the Sacraments differ, yet thethings signified do not so differ; for saith Mr Perkins on Galat pag. 214. line 32. Water resembleth Christ crucified with all his merits: The blood of Christ cleanseth from all sin, 1 joh. 1.7. And also faith he, The water resembleth the inward washing by the Spirit, and both by justification and Sanctification, 1 Cor. 6.11. Tit. 3.5. and other signs, as death, and burial of sin, and resurrection to newness of life: And this is all that can be gathered both from the Jewish and Christian Sacramental washings and cleansings, under the Law, and under the Gospel, which doth not at all take away sprinkling the baptised, but rather confirms it to be of God, and not of man.  
Also, you have confessed, That the outward Form and the thing signified should go together, from many Texts, Matt. 3.11. Mark 1. Luke 3. Act. 1.5. & 2.58. & 10. Yea, God will not do the one without the other; the outward washing, and the inward sanctification, aught to go together; not the outward washing alone, but the inward answer of a good Conscience towards God, through jesus Christ, 1 Pet. 3.21. And yet I smell a design you have in those expressions drawn from that Text, Mat. 3.7. The Pharisees and Sadduces without fruits of Repentance were not admitted to the Baptism of water: Hence it may be you will gather, That fruits must appear on all, before they shall have the outward Form of Baptism, that you may exclude Infants: it is true, these Sectaries john refused, as unworthy of admittance till Reformation; but all other that were willing, were admitted: And besides, the case of Infants, whose Parents are admitted, is not the same with those that are converted from Judaisme, or Heathenism, to the Christian Faith; the Parents and their seed are set apart for holy uses, as members of the visible Church; although they want real infused Holiness, they have a right to the Ordinances: yea, if but one of the Parents be admitted, the children are holy, faith Paul, 1 Cor. 7.14. But this point hath been so sufficiently cleared by others, that I shall wave it.  
You come to my second Argument: The sign must be visible, to put us in mind of the thing signified: The token of the Covenant shall be seen, Gen. 9.11, 14. The People being sprinkled, must behold the blood of the Covenant, Exod. 24.8. The senses must be exercised, Hebr. 5.14. but he that is plunged under water, can neither hear the words of institution, nor see the sign, therefore unfit to use that Ordinance.  
To this you say, Sprinkling is but lately allowed of by the Directory, but not by the book of Common Prayer: But what of that? Doth antiquity of error make it ever the better?  
But you ask, whether by our Rule we do not make a face Christian, yea a speckled faced Christian, by sprinkling here and there a drop? as if the water in Baptism were of a staining, and not of a cleansing nature: moreover, saith he, if we allow Baptism, to signify the washing away of sin, as all Catechisms imply, would you wash the face and outward appearance of sin, and so make an outside Pharisee-Christian? But I say, would you have the Elementary water go any further than the outside, you that plunge all over, yet all is but the outside; and the more of outside in any duty, the more you are Pharisee-like: and that the outward Form of Baptism by water signifies the cleansing from sin, I grant; but yet one drop applied to the body in that Ordinance, may signify the greatest cleansing from sin: and if you stand so much upon your measure of water in this Ordinance, let me in your next know your quantity, and by what measure you try the fullness of that quantity, or else I shall suspect that you hold him most worthy to come to the Lords Table that will drink most wine, as well as to hold, he is best baptised that is plunged in most water: The mean time I shall hold, a drop on the face may signify more grace in the Soul then ever any Anabaptists attained unto. Again, Circumcision on one part signified mortification of sin in all parts: or else, by your Argument, when they circumcised one part, they should have flayed the skin off all over, and where it was not so flayed, the sin was not mortified. These are your excellent gifts, it seems, you would have published in Doctor Gouges Pulpit.  
But you get you back to the Common-Prayer Book, made by the Pope and Prelates, and to them it seems you will stick: And then you say, It was the practice of Christ and His Apostles, and those that we call Fathers: But Mr Doctor, we must have some Proofs; Old Birds will not be catched with Chaff. But than you ask, Would we have our faces buried with Christ in Baptism, and baptised into his Death, and have our face only rise with him? or would you have only an outside death to sin, and resurrection to life in Christ? Col. 2.12. Rom. 6.3, 4. Or would you make Christ only a vizard for your face? But Mr Doctor, although the Death of Christ and his Burial be called Baptisms, Luk. 12.50. and washing the body when dead be called Baptism, 1 Cor. 15.29. This cup, saith Christ, ye shall drink of: we shall be baptised with those Baptisms, Mat. 20.23. But I hope Mr Doctor you will not kill your Disciples, and wash their bodies, and bury them, this is something harsh; it is well it is but one Doctor's Opinion: I thought I had cleared this upon Page 7, & 8. of the Dippers Plunged.  
But you ask, If Infants can behold the sign, and make that use of it; will they not rather shut their eyes?  
Ans. First, All are not Infants, some may be converted from the Turks and jews to the Christian Faith that are of full age, and these having their senses, they ought to use them: although Infants, through the defect of nature, cannot make use of the sign, nor of the words of Institution; yet it is damnable for them of full age to stop their ears like the deaf Adder at the Word of God: see Prov. 28.9. Psa. 58.4. Mat. 13.15. Revel. 2.7.  
Again, the words of institution are to be spoken in the act of baptising; Baptising them in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, Mat 28.19. Now for a man or woman to be under water all that while, it may drown them, and he that shall place these words either before or after, it is his own invention, and none of Christ's institution: But you harp upon this string, to exclude Infants, saying, Those that are baptised according to the Scriptures, do both hear and know them, before they are plunged, although pronouncing the words do not the work, but the obedience of being baptised in the Name of the Lord. It seems by these words, that you hold a baptising in the Name of the Lord before the outward Form of baptising by water, flat against the Scripture: see Act. 10.48. & 19.3, 5. And john saith, I baptise with water, and he that comes after me baptizeth with the Holy Ghost, Mat. 3.11. And saith he, I baptise with water unto Repentance, that is, in order to Repentance, in the same Text: And all that were baptised with water, were not before baptised with the Holy Ghost, as Simon Magus, Demas, and others: This design is but to exclude Infants, but I wave it.  
You come to my third Argument, for Sprinkling the baptised, because that many were baptised in their Houses, where Plunging could not be, as Paul and Cornelius, and others, Act. 9.17.18.10.22.27.48. To this you say, that I do ill to Father so many untruths in print upon the Scriptures; the Scriptures say not, that Paul was baptised in the house, but that Ananias entered into the house, and putting his hands on Him, and immediately he arose and was baptised; But are you a Teacher in Israel, and know not this? Can you teach others, and not teach yourself? Did Ananias enter into the house where Paul was, and lay His Hand upon him, and immediately he was baptised? What say you to this word, Mr Doctor, immediately? or at the twinkling of an eye, or at the very same instant of time, he was baptised? I think the subtlest Plunger amongst you cannot find time, out of that word immediately, for Paul to go out to be plunged in some Pond or River: and besides, Paul was fallen upon the earth, and was three days without sight, and did neither eat nor drink, Act. 9.4, 9 Now Mr Doctor, what do you think of this man? was he able to go out? You show yourself a very unskilful Doctor, if you say, Yea; deserving to be cast out of the College for a Novice: What, neither eat nor drink for three days together? and in this condition you would have him plunged into a river. Well, it is a mercy that we have other Doctors of better Judgement, that we may not depend upon such Novices. But you say, Paul was not to sit still to be sprinkled, but, saith the Text, rise up, why tarryest thou? arise, and be baptised, Act. 22.16. But where is your Syllogism Mr Doctor? because he being fallen on the earth, and Ananias hastens him to arise and be baptised, therefore he went out to some River with his Hands upon him? and all this in the twinkling of an eye. Well Sir, consider, and lay to heart, who it is that father's untruths upon the Scriptures.  
And for Cornelius and others, the Text misquoted, which should be, Act. 10.22, 23, 27, 48. where it is said, That Cornelius being warned of God by an Angel, to send for thee, meaning Peter, to come into his house, and to hear words of thee: Then called he them in, and he went in and found many that were come together, and he commanded them to be baptised. Now Mr Doctor what will you do to evade this truth? I have proved, that they came into the house of Cornelius: but a Conclave of plunging Doctors cannot show me that they went out to be plunged: but you say Peter reasoned the business, and then said, Who can forbid water? he commanded them to be baptised: but it is not said, where, or when: so than you grant that here is a Command to baptise, being in the house, and no Command to go out: than which is the way to fulfil the Command, but to baptise them where they were? and that is in the house of Cornelius: but than you say, If this was done with water, as is expressed, the Apostles must carry it with them in Aquavitae bottles, or Rose-water-bottles, to dash them in the face as soon as they had been taken confessing of Christ: But Sir, how will you make it out, that Cornelius had no vessels in his house for water till Peter came with his Aquavitae bottle, or Strong-water-bottle? we look for proof, Mr Doctor, else you had as good say nothing: But all your hopes is of the Jailor, whom you suppose is the most likely to be plunged; for you suppose that I have not read the 30 verse of the 16 Chapter of the Acts, for there it is said, And brought them out; but I demand to know out of what, for it is said, vers. 32. They spoke unto him the Word of the Lord: And in the same hour of the night he took them, and washed their stripes, and was baptised he and all his, straightway, vers. 33. And when he had brought them into his House, he set meat before them, vers, 34. And the Magistrates sent to the keeper of the prison to let them go, and they refused: Therefore that first out of ver. 30. was but out of one room into another, and the keeper's house was in the prison; so that from first to last the Apostles were not out of the prison, till the last verse, than indeed they went out of the prison, and entered into the house of Lydia. Now, Mr Doctor, who speaks contrary to the Text? then you say, the blood of Paul and Silas: Absurdities must not be put upon the Scriptures: Here you would say something, although you see an error in the printing, naming the 48 verse, when as there is but 40 in the Chapter, yet from this you say, that my partiality appears in not ask the same questions about washing Paul and Silas, as about the Baptism of the Jailor and his household, as what vessel had they? and who fetched the water? and how often emptied? Did Paul stand in the vessel? How many times went he in? or was he in at all? But here I see that you may mistake, or the Printer, for you mentioning Paul, when I speak of Peter: only this I say, Who fetched all that water the same hour of the nigh for the Jailor and his household, they being still in prison, and at midnight, and all that speaking the Word of the Lord, and washing their stripes, was done the same hour, being impossible, if they had gone out to be plunged with Lanterns and Torches, and all little enough to escape drownding: but I say, all the rest is spoken of Peter baptising 3000 persons together after his Sermon, Acts 2.41. Now you do wisely to wave this Text, being no ways able to evade it: in your next, I pray you, speak your mind on that Text, and you shall hear further from me; also you should have made Answers to those Queries, but it seems you could not.  
Then you come to my fourth Argument, which is this, The Sacraments must be administered where the Word is preached, because preach and baptise are put together, Mat. 28.19. And many were baptised in their houses immediately after Jesus Christ was preached unto them, as Cornelius, and others, Acts 10. and 2.41. To this you say, the Word is Discipline, or make Disciples baptising them: But I say, the same Commission by Mark is, Go ye 〈◊〉 to all the world, and preach the Gospel, Mark 16.15. He ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might fend them forth to preach, Mark 3.14. Now set these Scriptures together, and the result will be, to make Disciples, by preaching; this one truth, if well observed, would confound all the Sectaries Convincticles, who admit members on other terms then by preaching the Gospel, by a private Confederacy among themselves, to admit the rich on easy terms, and hold the poor to hard terms, yea to admit for great sums of money, so did not the Apostles: But you go on, denying my Argument, saying, Both john the Baptist, and Christ, and his Disciples, went up and down preaching in the Wilderness, and about Galilee, and in a Mountain, and in a Chariot, but they baptised in Jordan in Aenon, etc. To this I answer, All those were travelling, as you say; now their case and ours is not the same: as for example, the Lord saith, He that is eight days old let him be circumcised, Gen. 17.12. But the case was not so when they were travelling in the Wilderness, yea it was laid aside all that time, Iosh. 5.7. but they must not do so in Canaan: Now I am speaking of Canaan, and not of the Wilderness, and also of those Ministers who are confined to a place, and charged with one Flock; and if you can show me that such do preach in one place, and baptise in another, you say something, if not, you must not imitate our fixed Ministers for a subsistence only, when your judgement is for those universal Ministers; but rather a way to other parts, having but one coat, no chrip, nor money in your purse, and eat what is set before you, and in this condition carry no Aquavitae bottles, nor Rose-water-bottles with you. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in the thing that he alloweth: He that doubteth, is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith; for whatsoever is not of faith is sin, Rom. 14.22, 23. Do not trouble the fixed Churches of Canaan to bring them back again into the Wilderness, such Ministers are not for the welfare of Zion.  
I come to my fifth Argument, showing the inconveniences of Plunging: If a man stand on the bank to plunge the baptised under water, in so doing he may break his neck, if the water be shallow, and drowned him if it be deep; and if one stand in the water to save him, there must be two to baptise one man, flat against all examples in the Scriptures. To all this you say, that I sprinkle myself with holy water, and rest in a contented ignorance: Now for your censure I way it not, it is but one Doctor's opinion; but yet I will show you my ground for this Argument: You will grant, that the Ministers of the Gospel have only a right to administer the Sacrament of Baptism, which you will confine to plunging, and not sprinkling, therefore you say, they must plunge them into the water, they may not go into the water themselves, but the Minister must plunge them in, or else he doth but half his duty and God will not accept any work that is done by partiality, 1 Tim. 5.21. God will make those Priests contemptible which are partial in his Law, Mal. 2.9. Are you not partial in yourselves, and are become Judges of evil thoughts, jam. 2.4. Therefore either leave pleading for plunging, or else do as you plead for shame, and stand on the bank and plunge them in, as they fling a dog into a ducking Pond, he must not wade in, the Minister must plunge him in.  
But I follow you to the sixth Argument, against plunging the baptised, if naked, it is against modesty, 1 Cor. 14.4. The Spouse of Christ must be comely as jerusalem, Cant. 1.5. And it is a temptation; David was tempted by seeing a naked woman washing herself, 2 Sam. 1.2, 4. And Christ hath taught us to say, Led us not into temptation, Mat. 6. Neither may they have garments for that use consecrated as Aaron's breeches, Exod. 28.42, 43. This would be as bad as the Prelates Surpless, and for women to wear them, being man's apparel, it were an abomination to the Lord, Deut. 22.5. Nor in their wearing clothes: The Jailor feasted the Apostles straightway, Act. 16.34. Neither do we read, that they shifted themselves before, nor after, nor that they sat dung wet at meat with them: therefore to avoid all these Absurdities it must be granted, that they in Scripture were all sprinkled with water, and not plunged under water. To this you say, What will I think of Circumcision? but what you mean by it I know not, unless you mean that they were circumcised naked; if this be your meaning, where is your proof? All is not gold that glisters with him that hath his touch stone always by him: but suppose you think that they circumcised them naked, yet the case is far different between the Jews and Christians. First, They circumcised only males, but females are also baptised, Acts 8.12. Secondly, They circumcised privately, but we baptise publicly. Thirdly, The father of the child did circumcise, but the Minister must baptise; so that you see this will not help you at all: And it seems you are sensible of it, and therefore you fall to your prayer for me, but your prayer is to pervert me, and my prayer shall be, That God would be pleased to convince you of your error.  
I come to the seventh Argument, wherein I have showed you the mistake of the word baptise with water, not in water, Mat. 3.11. Joh. 1.33. Ephes. 5.26. Heb. 10.22. yea, to read in water, when it is said with water, is as great an error, as to bow at the Name of Jesus, in stead of in the Name of Jesus: for mark the Scriptures well; Paul saith, When thou comest, bring my cloak with thee, not in thee, 2 Tim. 3.16. Abraham said to the young men, Abide here with the Ass, Gen. 22.5. not in the Ass; so baptise with water, not in the water: So on the other side, Levi paid tithes in Abraham, not with Abraham; He was in the loins of his father, when Melchizedec met him, Heb 7.9, 10. not with his loins, when Melchizedec met him, and Christ saith, You believe in God, believe also in me, Joh. 14.1. not believe with God, and believe with me: and so to baptise in the Name of Father, Son and Holy Ghost, not baptise with the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; Christ never gave such power to men: John saith, He, that is, Christ, baptizeth with the Holy Ghost: So where it is said, Sprinkle the door posts with the blood, not take the door posts and plunge them in blood.  
To this you say that I affirm another untruth, for want of the knowledge of the Tongues, owning the error of the Translator, where John is made to say, I baptise with water; and you bid me ask my Teachers, who know the Tongues, and they will tell me, that the Greek word signifieth in water, and not with water, yea, you will show me two Texts for it, Ephes. 5.26. and Heb. 10.22. with the washing of water in the Word; but this is counterfeit coin by my touchstone: I must search the Scripture, and see whether these things be so, as the noble Bereans did, Act. 17.11. I must take nothing upon trust without trial, and by my trial I find it thus, that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the Word, Eph. 5.26. not in the Word: And the other Text is, with pure water, Heb. 10.22. not in pure water. Then you say, it were well if those errors which are caused, for want of more exact Translation, were taken away by a new Translation; and till you are able to be an Interpreter, it is good to be sober in making your own conclusion upon matters of Interpretation, but yield to those that are better able: To this I shall submit, but I doubt you will not do so yourself; if you did, you would never turn preacher, nor gather a Church out of a Church, like sheepstealers, to make up your own flock, and think yourself worthy of a better Calling then God hath appointed for you; certainly the end of such will be miserable.  
I come to the eighth Argument, Anabaptists who plead for plunging, condemn themselves by their own practice, while they suffer the baptised to wade in half way, or to the middle, without their Teacher's help, and then they plunge in the other half: Now either they must acknowledge, that the party doth and may baptise half himself, or else grant that the lower half was not at all baptizd, for their Minister did not put that under water; but our Minister, holding the water over the baptised, doth put the baptised under water. To this you are most troubled at the word Anabaptist, and would have me to understand better what that word means, before I undertake to condemn any under that notion.  
And you say, when I understand the true signification of Baptism, than I will not exact brick, and allow no straw, nor bid a man cut meat without a knife, nor expect that men should be baptised, and not suffer them to come into the water. Sir, if I keep sentinel, show me your warrant from Jesus Christ for your going into the water, or you pass not here; for we have many now adays that run from their Rulers upon designs of their own, and it may be you are one of them, I may not let you pass into the water, neither is it meat that I keep from you, but poison; neither do I exact any more from you then I allow you power and means to do; use those few drops according to the custom of all Christian Churches, and it is sufficient; and he that shall advise you further, tell him we have no such custom, nor any of the Churches of God, although some will be contentious, 1 Cor. 11.16. Then you compare sprinkling with Hocus Pocus, and call it ridiculous, but without proof, and that our Ministers would not plead that as an Argument, when as you see your reverend friend Mr Downame to own it; therefore I pass by these also as counterfeit coin.  
And so I come to the last Argument, showing, That sprinkling one part is sufficient, because one drop is as truly water, as the whole Ocean Sea, and that no measure is prescribed, only it must be water, and the baptised may be under one drop, as well as under a tun; yet not as if there were any necessity to be under it, only it must be applied to the body, that our Faith may act upon the thing signified by it: But here you demand, For what is one drop sufficient to feed Whales, to bear great ships, or to water the earth? Ans. One drop is sufficient to show unto us that it is water; yea, that Element which Christ did appoint for the outward Form of Baptism, when set apart and consecrated for that use by prayer: and it is our work to observe the properties of water, and compare them with the thing signified, thus, As water cooleth the heat, quencheth thirst, cleanseth away filth, maketh the Earth fruitful by watering of it; so the Spirit of Christ cooleth, satisfieth, cleanseth, softeneth, maketh us fruitful in good works. But Sir, if you will have that water into which you will be planged, to do all this, it were good you would plunge your Disciples in the Ocean Sea; for it cannot be that a River or Pond, which some plunge in, should water the Earth, etc. But you think to carry all away with Sophistry, thus; As one drop of water is water, therefore one part of the body is the body, and a hand is a foot: I am ashamed of your Logic; yea, you deserve to be cast out of the College for a Novice.  
But you go on; If one drop be sufficient to show that it is water, as well it is sufficient to make dow: But are these your rare gifts, which should have been published in Blackfriars Church? Surely you would have been hissed out with shame enough; and you are much bound to them that prevented it. But you say, John was in Aenon baptising, because there was much water there: Hence it seems you would infer, that he plunged them into that water: But where is your Syllogism Mr Doctor? Will it follow, because that John was baptising in that Country where was much water, that therefore they were plunged into the water he was baptising in Aenon, not in the water that was there.  
But you say, That I to little purpose say, the baptised may be under a drop, as well as under a tun: But I say the thing is a truth; yet, as I said before, there is no necessity to be under the water, only it must be applied to the body, for faith to be acted on the thing signified. But you say, If the dead were covered but with one grain of earth, each mostrial would soon complain there were not sufficient: It is true, if you speak of that Baptism, but I hope you will not bury folks alive, if you do, you are no Doctor for me, nor any friend of mine.  
I come to the Conference Christ had with Peter, about washing of his feet, Joh. 23. Peter saith, Thou shalt never my feet, Vers. 8. But, saith Christ, if I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me: which shows that this washing was Sacramental: then he would be plunged all over, Vers. 9 But, saith Christ, that needeth not, because he is clean every whit, Vers. 10. Hence I gather, that to neglect the duty is abominable, and to plunge all over is more than sufficient: Here you find a word mistaken by the Printer, saying, Thou hast no part in me, which should be with me; which could be no design of mine in it: but for this you say, almost all the Scriptures that I quote, I mistake something, which shows the rancour of your spirit, but I pass it not. But then because I say, that washing was Sacramental, you say, Why then do not your Ministers wash the feet of Infants, rather than sprinkle the face, which Christ never did? Ans. Although it was Sacramental, to show the signification of Baptism, yet to wash the feet was not given in charge as a Rule for the Church, but on what part the Church should see most convenient. Now the face is most convenient to be sprinkled; First, because it is always bate, there needs no stripping, nor shifting for it. Secondly, It is the most honourable part, therefore the fit for so honourable a service. Thirdly, The face doth as it were represent all the man. Fourthly, On the face, to show that we are not ashamed of the covenant, bearing as it were the seal upon our face as an ornament or as frontlets between our eyes, as Job speaketh. And besides, this Sacrament was only for the present occasion, as the red sea, the Cloud and the Rock was to Israel, 1 Cor. 10.2, 3.  
Object. Now whereas Anabaptists will say, when jesus was baptised, it is said, he went out of the water, and Philip and the Eunuch went both into the water, therefore they were plunged under water: My Answer was, that every pit or River in those hot Countries was not always full to the brim, but sometimes a man might go down into the pit or River to the water: But suppose they did wade into the water, yet that is not plunging under the water: and to wade in till they came where it was clear, and then to sprinkle them in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, may very well stand with the Text.  
Then you fall to your prayer, to be delivered from the pit where no water is, namely, jeremiahs' pit, although not rightly quoted, which is, jer. 38.6. as well you might have added josephs' pit without water, Gen. 37.24. for these prisoners of hope, with the rest of God's People in Egypt and Babylon, were brought forth, and double rendered unto them, Zach. 9.11, 12. for they as prisoners are gathered in the pit, and shut up in the prison, yet after many days they were visited, Isai. 24.22. Thus God afflicts for our profit, to make us partakers of his holiness, and to show that he loves us, and that we are his children: Then why pray you so earnestly to be kept from the pit of affliction, I doubt you had rather have the bastard's portion; see Heb. 12.6. to 11. I fear you have chosen iniquity, rather than affliction, job 36.21. But if you cause the righteous to go astray in an evil way, you shall fall into your own pit, Prov. 28.10. And I doubt it is the same with that of Oats, in Essex, out of which there was no deliverance, but present death, by drowning, for which at Chelmsford Sizes he had been hanged, if he had not made the better friends; therefore the pit of affliction is rather to be chosen, than the Anabaptists plunging pits, from which we shall ever pray, The Lord deliver us.  
2. But they will say, That many came and were baptised of john in jordan, Mat. 3.6. and the Greek word shows that was by plunging.  
Answ. As before they might wade in, and yet be sprinkled, and the Greek word as well signifies to sprinkle as to plunge; but in regard plunging is accompanied with so many absurdities, sprinkling is rather to be chosen then plunging.  
To this you say, That all the Scholars in Europe cannot find it so in any Greek Author, nor others: Here is a bold challenge, such another as you made to Doctor Gouge, when you dared him and all the Synod, to answer you: Now it were something a hard task to seek for the judgement of all the Scholars in Europe, yet I have one at hand, Mr Perkins in his Commentary on Galat. saith, That baptising signifies not only washing the body by diving, but also by sprinkling, pag. 214.26, 27. and I hold his judgement not inferior to Dr Chamberlains: But you say, If it were granted, here would follow absurdities, such as these, In those days came john the Sprinkler, and sprinkled in jordan, and john was sprinkling in Aenon, and as many as have been plunged into Christ have put on Christ: But Sir, I hope you would be contented, if your Bible were thus translated, john the Plunger came preaching, and they were plunged of him in jordan, and john was plunging in Aenon, and as many at have been plunged into Christ, have put on Christ. This is your new Light that should have been published in blackfriars Church.  
Then you say that I am not contented with these Absurdities about plunging in water, but that I could add more, thus: Either this Ordinance must be laid aside all the Winter, when as Christ never said, Baptise in Summer and cease in Winter, which would be a great prejudice to the Church; or else if observed, it would endanger the lines of those that should be so plunged. But you betake yourself to your old refuge, the Common-prayer book, and there you find a present Remedy for those dangers, which is to baptise at Easter and Whitsuntide: But I say, than you would have many to be plunged together, and it may be some of them may have issues, or running sores, or other loathsome diseases, frequent with Anabaptists, who hold all things common, and it may be some of them are not very cleanly, and so not fit to plunge the faces of some where the talls of others were newly washed in; this is not decently, nor in order, Mr Doctor.  
3. But we are said to be buried with Christ by Baptism, Rom. 6.4. therefore the baptised is to be plunged under water.  
Answ. In this Text is no mention made of baptising with water, which is the outward form of Baptism, only we are said to be baptised into the death of Christ, and after death buried with him by Baptism: Now Jesus Christ a long time after he was baptised of john in jordan, saith, I have a Baptism to be baptised with, Luk. 12.50. which was his death and burial; and he saith to the sons of Zebedee, Ye shall drink of my Cup, and be baptised with my Baptism, Mat. 20.23. that is, they shall die, and be buried, and rise again at the last day; and also in this life they shall receive the things signified, that is, the body of sin shall die by the death of Christ, and their sin shall be buried or covered by the burial of Christ, and they shall rise to newness of life by the Resurrection of Christ; and these are all expressed in that text, Rom. 6.2, 4. This is the doctrine of Baptisms, spoken Heb. 6.2. but I say here is no mention of the Form of Baptism, therefore no warrant from this Text to plunge the baptised under water. Now if we should bring all those Texts that speak of Baptism, to prove the outward Form, we should run into such a labyrinth, that we should not be able to get out: as for example, Paul speaks of baptising the dead, saying, If the dead rise not at all, why are they then baptised for the dead, 1 Cor. 15.25. Now although here be more in this Text to prove the Form of Baptism, then in that Rom. 6. yet we may not at all ground any Form of Baptism from it: first, because the party is dead, and so unfit to make a member of the Church by that solemn admittance. Secondly, Any woman may wash the body when it is dead, but none may baptise any Christian with that Form of Baptism given to the Church, but the Ministers of the Gospel, which are sent to preach and baptise, Mat. 28.19. Thirdly, This washing the dead carcase was done without any words of institution, therefore not the Form of Baptism given to the Church: Therefore from such Texts as these we have no warrant to plunge the baptised in or under the water.  
To all this you say, when I bid my man wash a cup or glass, doth it signify nothing, unless I bid him do it with water? Let him that is diligent so read and satisfy himself with the Texts, Rom. 6.4. Col. 2.12. 1 Cor. 1.6. Answ. Baptism doth not always signify washing, but Death and Burial, and sometimes Doctrines, Act. 18.25. neither doth washing always signify baptising, for than if you should say to your man, wash my cup, it were all one as to say, baptise my cup: and so your wife might say to her maid, baptise my dishes, when they are foul. But these New-Lights are nothing but palpable darkness from the Prince of Darkness.  
Then you tell me, that you will not be at the charges of printing a Satisfaction to every one that scribles, having spent and lost so much for the Public, and repaid with so much Injustice and Ingratitude; nor will you meddle at present with the lawfulness or unlawfulness of your Ministry, not His it seems: Now if your losses be so great, why did you print at all? and who do you blame for your losses, and that requital of Injustice and Ingratitude? And then you beg a praise of your patience, and excuse your pride, and pray to win me to the Truth's of God in Christ: To this Prayer I shall join with you in that word Amen, and then I am sure, if the Lord hear and grant it, I shall never turn Anabaptist.  
May 2. 1650.   

Imprimatur,  
I. D.  
FINIS.