OF BAPTISM.  
Your Quaeres about Baptism are three: and these, 

1. What warrant you have from the words of Christ for your baptising of Infants before they do actually believe.  
2. Whether Baptism maketh a Man or Woman a Christian, without Faith and following of Christ in all his Commands and steps left upon Record for our Imitation.  
3. Whether the baptising of Believers, is not the Command of Christ, practised by the Apostles, yea or no, and left upon Record for us to follow and Imitate till his second coming.    
I Will begin with this your Last Quaere. For I perceive, that the baptising of Believers, doth keep such a buzzing in your ears, that till it be granted you, nothing will be heard: Sir, for quietness and brevity sake I grant it, and this is all my answer to this your Quaere. Yea I granted as much to you, in the beginning, if you remember: and so thus also briefly, and quietly I have answered almost a side of your second sheet, wherein are four Considerations brought, to prove the lawfulness, the usefulness, the necessity of this practice, of Baptising Believers, with these solemn words, at the end of every consideration, four times repeated, Judge ye, and Judge Righteous Judgement, for God will.  

Section I. Of Baptism of Infants.  
I hope you will think me to judge Righteous Judgement, if I Judge according to your Judgement, That the Word of God doth allow and authorise, baptising of Believers; but then I must differ from your judgement in another, That the Baptising of Believers doth not disallow, or exauthorate, the Baptising the Infants of Believers, and that the one leadeth in the other, as it were by the Hand; if you had no more to say and dispute against the Baptising of Infants of believing Parents, than against the baptising of believers, the difference betwixt us had never begun.  
If I speak Parables unto you, it is because you know not the Scriptures, not the very Scriptures yourself doth here quote, Matth, 28.19. Acts 238. Acts 8.38. Acts 10 47. Acts 22.16. etc. What do they all import, but that, Those Jews or Heathens, who were grown persons, aliens from the Covenant, had embraced the Gospel and became believers, were presently baptised, or became baptiseable: And now that this is no bar, or contradiction to the Baptising of Infants, appears, for that the Infants of those believers baptised and entered into Covenant, if they had any, had likewise a right unto baptism, being in the same Covenant with their believing Parents, and either were in present baptised, or were of right baptiseable: So that the baptism of believers, makes way and gives ground for the baptism of their Infants, whence in other texts, such and such believers were baptised, they and all their House; which is according to the Tenor of the Cov nane, in which God is, the God of the believer and his seed, so that the one hath as good right to the Seal thereof as the other by virtue of the Covenant, God having Covenanted with both together.  
I have formerly suggested unto you the only word, that must help you here, to make the baptism of believers strong against the baptism of Infants; and it is, the Word only; for if there were such a precept or practice to be found in Scripture, of Baptising Believers only, than you would write something near the matter (but yet should not so carry it away, to the overthrowing of the baptising of the Infants of believers, the Scripture no where calling them unbelievers): But none of the Scriptures you cite, none of your considerations you mention, do so much as mention, much less infer the baptising of Believers only; Therefore now, Judge you, but Judge Righteous Judgement, even as Good doth, you see, in your own Texts.  
Or do you mean another matter, as I guess it, That Infants of believers born within the Church and Covenant, and baptised in their minority, when afterwards they attain to some ripeness of knowledge and profession of faith of Christ, should then, as believers themselves, be baptised again, Then I must tell you, that which you call the first and great Ordinance of the New Testament, is neither great, nor first, nor Ordinance, namely such Baptising of Believers; Nay then I must tell you, such baptising of believers, is not only to be neglected and omitted, but slighted and rejected, yea preached against and confuted, as now in present it shall be. For what is this your baptising of believers, but a rebaptising of them who were baptised before rightly, and (for any thing you know) believers also?  
For first, God having given the Infants of believing Parents, Right unto the Sacrament of Baptism, by special privilege of their Birth within the bosom of the holy Church, and the Minister having administered the Sacrament of Baptism unto such in the true Element of Water, with the Evangelical words, In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, according to Christ's institution, Containing in them the matter & form, and so the very essence of outward baptism, such baptism is good, sufficient, effectual and available to God's Children, and they ought not to be rebaptised: especially there being the devout invocation made to God for his blessing, also a serious application of both, the Element, and Word unto the party who receiveth both, and that secret reference which this action hath to life and remision of sins by virtue of Christ's own compact made solemnly with his Church, there is not any thing more required to the mystical perfection of baptism outwardly within the Church of God, constituted and planted.  
Now that such Baptism is not to be reiterated, that Infants thus baptised, are not to be rebaptised, I shall prove unto you, both by the Word of God, and some reasons thence deduced: Eph. 4.5. There is one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism, one Baptism, not only, 1. Because it hath every where one and the same substance, consisting in one and the same matter; one and the same form; for we are not to use any other Elemental matter, but Water, if it may be had, nor any other verbal form but this, I baptise thee in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; not only, 2. Because it offereth unto all men one and the same grace, even one saith of one Lord into which we are baptised, but One also, for that it ought not to be received of any one man above once, even as we serve that Lord, which is but one, because no other can be joined with him, & embrace that faithwhich is but one, because it admiteth no inovation; so we receive haptism which is but one, because it cannot, and must not be received often. Thus all the Pious, & Learned, and Primitive Professors have interpreted this Text, and conceived of this matter, the Iteration of Baptism once given, to be a manifest contempt and violation of this Apostolical axiom and Aphorism, insomuch, that though the baptising minister were a Schismatic or Heretic, or a wicked one, they held their baptism good and valid, and would not repeat it being performed in the true Essentials, the form of Words, and matter of Water (as before) yea and when such were converted and returned into the Church, they did note rebaptise them, but received them and held them in that baptism which they had in their Schism and Heresy, knowing the same to have been according to the form prescribed.  
I have no reason I confess, to put a weapon of an objection into your hands, out of 19 Acts 5. but if I do, it is to take it out of your hands again, both to give you a blow in present, and prevent an after-blow. It is indeed there thus said, When they heard this, they were baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus; and it's said before Verse 3. that they were baptised unto John's Baptism: This Text hath been much and mightily urged, and pressed, even to the Vexation of the Spirit, by your torturing Anabaptists, and truly the words lie doubtfully and ambiguously at the first hearing, as if Paul baptised the Disciples of Ephesus with the Baptism of Christ, who had before received the Baptism of John, and were never full and well cleared and explicated, until Beza took them in hand, who ingeniously confesseth that he received the same interpretation, from that Noble, Pious, Virtuous, and Industrious Divine Philippus Marnixius, that singular ornament of the Belgic Church; who was born in 1538. and died in 1598. and lies in body buried at Leyden. I say this, because his name ought to be precious in the Churches even for this interpretation, (though he wrote Commentaries upon divers other books of the Bible:) and so ought the name of Theodorus Beza, to be venerable with us, as that singular ornament of the  Church, for the like Piety, Industey, Learning, and Virtue, as by whose means this interpretation, came to our hands of this Church.  
I remember I have read it or heard it, written and spoken, and I may (I think) writ it & speak it again, that as when God found David, he sound a Man after his own heart: So when David found Mollerus, he found an expounder, according to his heart, and I may apply it thus here also, That when Christ found Paul, he found a chosen vessel and beloved Apostle, after Christ own heart, and when he found Luke, he found a choice Historiographer of the Acts of the Apostles, after his heart, and a beloved Physician, besides; so when Luke found Beza, (and Beza Marnixius,) he found interpreters of them, after his own heart, and Beloved Divines moreover. But what need such a Trumpet afore hand? The Alms given, the interpretations given by these woe thighs, will deserve it, and I do not blow this for your sake, Sir, but others that may (perhaps) read it.  
The sum of the Interpretation is this, that in the 5th. Verse above cited, Luke speaks not of any Baptism done by Saint Paul, But Saint Paul speaks on still of John's Baptism, and so you and all Anabaptists are blown away from this Text, as to any Anabaptism or Rebaptisations hence to be had: This is a short and sweet interpretation, if it can be proved; Yes learned Beza proves it, and that from the two Greek Conjunctive Particles, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (I pray Sir, stand aloof, if you be afraid; but you shall not need, I do not Conjure; It is no Heathen Greek, no humane learning, be content, that for this once, or twice (If I did it before) that I may write or speak a little Greek, it being, the Christian Greek, and Divine Learning.) These two particles, ever have relation one to the other, knitting together the parts of the Verse or Verses, and make them answer fitly one to the other. Therefore the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the 5. Verse, must necessarily answer to the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the 4th. Verse, and so in no wise doth or will suffer, that the series of the speech be broken of, as if the former in the 4th. Verse were to be attributed to Paul the speaker, and the latter part in the 5th. Verse, to Luke the Writer: So than the words in the 5th. Verse, are the words of Paul, who (having before related and approved of John's Doctrine and Baptism, as true and Evangelicall, doth here also relate and approve of the people's hearing his Doctrine and receiving his Baptism; and so laying his hands upon the 12. Disciples here present (baptised after John's baptism, but not by John, as who deceased long before, 30. or 40. years; In Judea, a place also far distant from this City of Ephesus, where these twelve Disciples dwelled, baptised (in all likelihood) of some of John's Disciples.) And the gifts following thereupon, which before Paul signified by the name of the Spirit, and of which he had questioned them, He confirmed and established the Ephesine Church: And so (to show yet farther) that Beza and the other above named are intepreters after Luke's heart (as I said) see again Luke himself in Acts 1.6. and 7. verses, where both are joined together in like manner by the same Particles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
Yea moreover, if Paul had here baptised these 12. Disciples of Ephesus, sure he would have made mention of it in the 1 Cor. 1.13, 14, etc. where of set purpose he reckoned up such as were baptised by him, not only at Corinth, but else where; Yea and writing from Ephesus to Corinth, he doth not mention them amongst the rest, whom if he had baptised, he surely would and should  
I wish indeed, that those of our excellently Learned Translators, who took this part of the Acts of the Apostles in hand, had expressed the meaning thereof in some plainer and more perspicuous English, and had made it plain upon the Tables (Verse or Margin) that he might have run that readeth it, and he that readeth it might have seen and understood, that, they who heard (John, when living, and believed his Doctrine) were here spoken of to have been Baptised of him, and not the 12. Disciples of Ephesus hearing Paul to have been baptised of him as the words now read seem to show, which occasioned (though through their ignorance and wilfulness) this error of Rebaptising. But I will not be so presumptuous, as to proscribe or prescribe any thing here.  
But, it may be, you, and the Anabaptists, who comply with the Papists in divers other of their Tenets, do also hold with them in this also, that John's baptism was much different from Christ's baptism, and not a like effectual, (like as you say the same of our baptising of Children, that it is invalid and contrary to Christ's baptism) and to therefore dream stlll of Paul's rebaptising these 12. Disciples, baptised of John, that so you may ground your dipping again, of grown persons, baptised before of us. I must in a word tell you, That John his, and Christ his baptism differ not in the nature and substance, which is one and the same in both, and both but one and the same baptism; as to the Essence, (they differ indeed in Circumstance, John baptising into Christ, as to come and to suffer, and Christ's Apostles baptising into Christ, as come and suffered.) If you allege the words of John, against this, Matth. 3.11. I baptise you with Water, but be that cometh after me, shall baptise you with the Holy Ghost and with Fire, it is but a poor shift, to shift off that to the baptism of John and Christ, which is put upon the persons of John and Christ, for the words carry only a difference of the Ministers of one and the same baptism. John dispencing it outwardly in Water by the hand of Man, & Christ dispencing it inwardly by the Finger of his Spirit, which is as Fire It's but Popish sophistry to compare John's baptism with water, and Christ's baptism with Fire: John's baptism with water, is only to be compared to Christ's baptism, with water, and then both the baptism of John and of Christ are but one, both in Authority, for Christ, Authorised and Appointed it, John 3 3. H● that sent me to baptise with water, &c wa● God: as also in Essence (as I hinted) for John used the right Element and matter, and baptised with Water; and the right Words or form, invocating the sacred Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, (is appears, both because it was the form known to John, and the Apostles who certainly baptised many before the death of Christ, and before that form was solemnly and publicly declared, Math. 28.19 after Christ's Death, and Resurrection: besides, that in the 19 of the Acts, Saint Paul testifieth that John baptised into faith, on Christ to come, and so knowing Christ, he could not be ignorant of the Father and the Spirit, yea John 1.33. there is a manifest Testimony of the Father, sending to him, and telling him of the Spirits descending like a Dove upon him, who was the Son of God. So thirdly, they were the same in effect and efficacy. For John preached (and practised) the baptism of Repentance, for, or unto, the Remission of Sins, Mark 1.4. the same which the Apostles did in and by their administration of baptism.  
And Christ himself testifieth, that the baptism of John pertained to the fulfilling of righteousness, Matth. 3.15. and that the Publicans and People being baptised of John, Justified God; But the Phariseet despising the Counsel of God, were not baptised, Luke 7.29. Whereby it appears, that John's baptism, was a part of that All Righteousness; a piece of the whole Counsel of God, which they that partaked of, Justified and declared God to be good and righteous.  
Were it not so, the Apostles themselves might be questioned, whether truly baptised, as who were no doubt baptised of John, some of them being first his Disciples: for where else should they be baptised, seeing Christ with his own hands baptised none, unless one of them should baptise another, which is not probable? And Lastly, If John's baptism were not one and the same with ours, that we have of Christ's, how do we enjoy the same common baptism with Christ, who was baptised of John? It will follow, That Christ was baptised with another baptism than we are, and so that our baptism was not sanctified in the person and flesh of Christ, (like as the Jews circumcision was) and so it will abate much of our Comfort that we have Christian Baptism, the members one and the same Baptism with our head.  
Thus I have driven you off this shore of Jordan John Baptists Wharf, where you see you cannot land or ground your dipping of Christians, or your Rebaptising of Christened people (as we speak.) Though I must withal prompt you here, that our Quaere is in these terms twixt Anabaptists and us. Whether the baptism of Christ, (which is given to and received by infant Caristians or Christian infants) may be iterated, and you and they bring a Text to show that the baptism of john was iterated, which as it is not to the scope and purpose, so neither can you show the same was iterated ever in the twelve Disciples, or any other baptised of john. I say, so long as you hold the baptism of john and Christ, to be two different and repagnant baptisms, you cannot enforce upon us from john's baptisms iterated, (suppose so;) Christ's baptism to be iterated: It will be best for you therefore (see how still and ever I am ready to give the best counsel I can) to yield to the identity of both johns and Christ's baptism as to the nature and substance of them, and so indeed you may argue from the one to the other. Hale in therefore again, your Flyboat, to john Baptists shore, and see if you can land there, any thing to your purpose, cast on this right side your net again into jordan, & catch a frog: Whatsoever you get, you then and thus will lose your new and true friends, the Papists and Jesuits; for they row hard against you, and these throw their nets on the other side, holding that john and Christ's baptism are very far asunder and different in the very Essentials; and do and will accurse you with Tridentine Book, Bell, and Candle, and Lantern too of their ship, (none of which, I know, you can abide, especially not the Book and Bell) and Anathematise all, who say that john and Christ's baptism are the same for substance, and of the same force.  
It is like to be a hot sea-fight, (as most an end, the hottest fights are upon the water, and there is most fire spit out) or rather a cold River skirmish twixt you; which, I for my part, do not intent to stand looking on, though I have set you together by the ears, but will thus leave you to fight it out to the last man; and will pass away, and on to another Text, pressed and squeezed by some of your party for the Rebaptising of baptised ones.  
It is Heb. 6.2. Where there is mention made, amongst other Principles of the Doctrine of Christ, The Doctrine of Baptisms: Lo, say they, Here are Baptisms, in the plural, as well as one Baptism in the singular, and if your reason were good, why the Apostle called it, one Baptism, because it is to be but once given and received, may not we say (say they) our reason is good why the same Apostle calleth, Many Baptisms, two at least: and so, baptise you your Infants in their Infancy, and we will baptise ours in their growth, when they can make profession of Faith: And so here are baptisms. Truly this is somewhat like the discourse the Saducees had with Christ, about one Woman, who had seven Husbands, whose Wife she shall be of the seven in the Resurrection. I say and answer in General as Christ did; Are ye not therefore deceived, and do err, because you know not the Scripture? I could tell you here, of the baptisms, that of john, and the other of Christ, to be here meant, and (you may remember, if you have done fight with the Papists) that we are agreed about them two, to be but one and the same baptism: I could tell you, that the Apostle here writing to the Hebrews, alluded to their old Legal Washings, Ablutions, and Baptisms, minding them of thence, but wishing them withal to lay them by, and mind the one Evangelical baptism, and the sprinkling of Christ's blood, the which they did but typify or look at: So still but one baptism. I could tell you, that the baptisms here meant, are those (I must speak three words more of Human Latin, for the words sake, because of the elegancy of them) Fluminis, Flaminis, Songuinis: But I will turn them into divine English words for yoru sake, of Water, Fire, Blood: For there, as I said before, is an outward baptism, which is the washing of the flesh with Water by the Minister: and there is an inward baptism, which is washing of the Soul with the blood of Christ by the Holy Ghost, these are baptisms indeed, and here meant, but in all Gods true Children, they meet in one baptism, and they come from God, as one baptism, entirely made up of these two sorts, the outward and inward: for that baptism, which is of blood, mentioned by Christ, and mentioned to his two Disciples, (are ye able to be baptised with the baptism I am baptised with) and resolved for them (ye shall indeed be baptised with such baptism) Matth. 20.22. It is nothing but a constant suffering and conflicting in Christ's cause, even unto Blood, and the suffering of Martyrdom for his sake.  
But I will call in again for Beza, whom as before I styled an interpreter of Luke, and that Text Acts 19.5. according to his heart, (Though he confessed, he learned the interpretation of Marnixius,) so here also I may style him an interpreter of Luke again, and of this Text, Heb. 6.2. according to his heart, the which interpretation also he learned of Calvin, who saith to this purpose, an interpreter of those Apostles and Prophets he commented upon, according to their hearts, (though here Beza doth not acknowledge so much) There was a right and Custom in the Church Primitive of administering many baptisms, upon certain set days; which set days were after apppointed, to be Easterday and Whitsunday especially, when many Catehumen and New Converts were wont to meet together for baptism; These therefore were called, Days of Baptisms, as appears out of the writings of the Ancient both Greeks and Latins, so still it was but one, and the same baptism was conferred upon every one, though called baptisms, because so many received baptism together upon one day, like as sometime in London, six seven, and more Children partake of baptism together at one time.  
And now, Sirs, are you Masters in Israel and know not these things? are you Dippers, and know not these Baptisms? and whereas for the time ye ought not to be Teachers, for that ye have need that one Teach you which be the first Principles of the doctrine of Christ, learn, that this doctrine of Baptisms, is the third of them the principles, and that it containeth nothing of two Baptisms, our baptising Christians born in their infancy and your baptising Christians born in their grown age, and least of all, for your rebaptising our baptised Infants, when you have made them your Proselytes upon a confession of Faith. What though our Children be baptised in ignorance of God, they are yet baptised in Covenant with God; if that be a reason with you, they must be dipped again, and rebaptised when they come to knowledge, why were not the Apostles so, when better instructed, who were ignorant of the Messiah, and his kingdom, the death, the resurrection of Christ? will you put yourself Sir, or your learned Dippers themselves upon the trial, and if you be found ignorant of divers principles of the doctrine of Christ, and even fundamental points, will you be instructed, and Redipped? Alas, Sirs, if as often as God shall show you the errors of your Minds, and the enormities of your lives, you must be dipping & redipping, dripping & redripping, every Year, Month, and Day. No, there is another baptism to be used in these cases, eyes the washing the soul with the tears of repentance, dip & re-dip, drip & re-drip in these, and renew your repentance daily. With what a bold face, & high hand dare you, Sir, be either dipped yourself now twice, as I hear, or be a dipper of others, again, (as you intent) of those whom you have inveigled & seduced away into your Scism, & Heresy, being before rightly & validly baptised? is not this a multiplying & so a vilifying of that one baptism?  
What example have you in all the Word of God, of any Infant Jew recircumcised, when he came to an ability of professing Faith? and will you tempt God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the Disciples of Christ, which neither our Fathers, nor we were able to bear? Telling us, it is needful to baptise baptised christians again, when they come to be believers, when it was not needful, yea sinful, to circumcise Jew's circumcised, when they came to be the like? Even when Ziphorah a Woman had circumcised her child, 
Exod. 4.  Moses himself allowed it for good and lawful, and never did he or any other iterate that circumcision in present, or afterwards, upon the profession of its faith; and when any went over from being Samaritans, who worshipped they knew not what (as who knew not Jesus Christ) to become Jews, 
John 4.  or came over to Christ, and to the faith of him, none of them were ever baptised again, as Believers. Your duplicate of baptism, doth not only oppose the one and single baptism of the Apostle, but brings Christans under a Tax, and layeth a new yoke upon their necks, as I said before.  
Besides, To be baptised, is to be born anew, into the Church, & no man naturally can be twice or often born, every Nicodemus can say, Can he enter the second time into his Mother's Womb and be born? john 3. Why then twice baptised, being once baptised sufficiently and truly?  
By baptism, Children are admitted into the heavenly society of Saints; and no man civilly can be adopted often into any one's stock or family; 
Genesis 48.  Ephraim and Manasses were but once adopted and assumed by jacob, into his stock for his Children; and why then twice baptised?  
When of Married Persons, one forsakes another, & returns again into Love, & both are reconciled, they do not enter into a new conjugal Covenant, by any solemn Celebration of new espousals, because the first conjunction stands firm, the reconciliation made; The baptism of Christians, is, as the celebration of the Contract betwixt them and Christ the Bridegroom; when such a one, through open abnegation, or other heinous sins departing away from Christ, returns again, with and by a serious repentance, there will be no need of being baptised again, and so a new sealing of that Covenant, which being once entered into, is still in force and vigour, and by a pious recordation thereof, the Penitent may confirm his Faith, as Peter did: and by virtue of the same, once established Covenant, God receiveth such to mercy and grace; otherwise the infidelity and impiety of man would frustrate the goodness and good will of God, the matter testified in baptism, which it cannot, because it is constant, and changeth not, and therefore it is a horrible profanation of it, to reiterate baptism.  
In a word, Second baptism was ever abhorred in the Orthodox Church, as a kind of incestuous Birth, and if you iterate it, and baptise your believers again upon their profession of faith, you must be able to make their former baptism void, and no baptism, which you can never do, as having all things therein which God requireth unto Infant baptism, Though Faith, a positive and actual Faith, as you call for, should not be there, which is not required of God, and therefore is denied of us to be a necessary condition requisite to be found & manifest in every one that is to be baptised: indeed in an Aethiopian Eunuch, an elder Gentile it is, and therefore when he said, see here is water, what doth hinder me to be baptised, Philip answered, If thou believest, with all thine heart, thou mayst, who answering, I believe that Jesus Christ, is the Son of God, and so Philip baptised him, Acts 8 36, 37.  
The only Argument the Anabaptists triumph in, I shall here give a short answer to: Infants of Gentiles, are not of Abraham's seed, either according to the flesh, because not jowes; or according to the promise, because not believers; therefore not to be baptised, whilst Infants, or if they be, to be baptised again, when beleevere. But I answer, First, The consequent is denied, for Simon Magus, and thousands more, even of them that you baptise, are neither. 2. Nor is it true that only jews, are Abraham's seed according to the flesh; for that part of the Gentile- Galatians, who pleaded for Justification by the works of the Law, and thereby lay under the bondage and curse of the Law, are called the children of Hagar, and said to be born of the Bondwoman, Sinai, and Jerusalem upon earth, as it is to be seen, Gal. 3. & 4. The Apostle applying that part of the distinction to them, like as the other part, the Children of Sarah, to those Gentile- Galathians, who were justified by faith. Nor 3. Is it true that only believers, actually believers (as you speak) are the Children of the promise, for thus they do not only at this one blow, beat down all Christian infant from all interest in Christ, and title to heaven, and make them like as the Heathens, and Pagans (who yet are not wont to strike so hard) yea, and which is more, all Jewish Infants, Isaac, jacob, and joseph; these must not be, with them, nor were by this reason, Children of the promise in their Childhood, but only according to the flesh, until they did actually believe, and so became Children of the promise: And more absurdity yet doth follow hence, that those Patriarches whom I named (Abraham is to be here excepted) by their infant-circumcision, had no promise of grace sealed unto them, but were under a Covenant of works, and until the years of discretion and actual fiath, were incapable of any interest in the Covenant of grace: If only true believers and the Elect persons be under the covenant of grace, & have right to the Sacraments, why is the same Covenant of grace inthe outward administration thereof, both in preaching the promises, and applying the Seals of the Sacraments, to be propounded by God's appointment to all the outward visible members of the Church? And why was Simon Magus baptised, as I said? 'Tis true, the inward saving grace of the Covenant in both Administrations is by the Holy Ghost conferred only upon the invisible members of Christ's mystical body, which are the true believers and elect: But we not able to discern of these, give the outward baptism to all those, I mean all outward members of the visible Church; You must do so, for the Text before alleged out of the Acts, showeth, that all they who have any degrees of Faith, may and aught to be baptised.  
But Sir, will you stand to your own Tackling, The baptising of believers? hereby you think and intent to exclude Infants of Christians; What then will you make of them, Infidels, or Believers? can you show any Text of Scripture old or new, where any Infant of jew or Gentile in Covenant with God, is so styled? or can you give any reason of it? That which makes an Unbeliever, must be a positive habit of unbeleef; to justify this in an Infant, will be a task too hard for you, and to say that Infants do not believe in act, or have not the habit of faith only negatively, will not in the Language of the Scripture denominate an Unbeliever.  
Indeed those that are made Christians of heathens, they must give some positive and actual expressions of their faith, before they be baptised, (so Philip required of the Eunuch) and not till then are they to be accounted believers: but for such as are born Christians of Christians, as our infants are, being entered into and under a gratuitall Covenant with God, we admit them unto the Initial Seal of that Covenant, which is baptism, without any such Testimonial Act of Fath, as you require: for they are not Infidels or Unbelievers; but believers, and within the compass of your words (though not your sense) the baptism of believers.  
Seeing you can produce no scripture against their Faith, I will see what I can do for their Faith, Matth. 18.5, 6. (Turn to the Chapter and Verses, and read them, and look to your Neck, in that Verse, it is a Neck verse) Whose shall offend one of these little ones which believe on me, it were better for him that a Mistone were hanged about his neck, and he were drowned in the depth of the Sea. (Lord what shall become of those, that offend all thy little ones, by dobarring and excluding them from their birth-privilege, and their Right-baptism?) But that I aim at, as to you, Sir, is, that you would take notice that our Saviour Christ, who best knew, knowing the very secrets of the heart, pronounceth of some little ones, little Children, such as he took out one of them & set down in the midst of the Apostles, for a pattern of Humility and Harmlesseness, That they did believe in him; its apparent, that (howsoever sometimes and elsewhere, spiritual Children are meant by little Children, such as are of a meek spirit, little in their own eyes,) here and at this time, very natural Children in age, and little in growth, or statute, are spoken of, as the very context and Antithesis do show.  
They who do so interpret this place, do make this not the same story with that which followeth, in Matth. 19.13. Where little Children are said tob e brought to Christ, it may be, in their Mother's arms, and so might be lesser Children than these. But the word in the original, for little Children, is the same in both Chapters (the like also in Mark 10.13. (and its acknow, ledged by all, that both in Matthew 19 and Mark 10. Little Children in age and stature are meant) and besides, such little Children in age and stature, were fittest to be examples of Humility and Innocency (the thing intended) to the Apostles, than either greater Children or grown men, who many times, are stubborn and harmful: And though in Verse 6. where they are said (To believe in me) little ones be mentioned without little Children, it is to me an exegesis or further explication of the word, Children, that they were little ones, and small ouer, (though such as could come to Christ upon his calling of them, which maketh no difference in point of the one or the others believing in him.) Lastly, when Christ saith, Who so shall receives one such little Child in my name, receiveth me; But who so shall offend one of these little ones, etc. The very Antithesis or opposition showeth, that he speaketh not of divers sorts of little Children, but one and the same. And so forewarneth, in this 18th. Chapter, his Disciples, that they should not be, as he foresaw they would be, in the 19th. Chapter, offensive unto suchdd little Children, who were so notwithstanding. But if this be not a Text evident enough for their Faith (as I will not be contentious, but subject my Spirit to the Spirit of the Prophets,) let another witness speak, Acts 18.8. Crispus believed on the Lord with all his house. If there was any Infant there or youngling (as most likely) it is said to believe. Yet our Saviour Christ's singling out of Children, to be examples of Humility and Innocency, his accepting of savour showed to them as done to himself, his prohibiting any offence to be done to them, all in this 18th. of Saint Matthew, together with his checking and rebuking of his Disciples, for forbidding them to be brought to him, or to come to him, his taking them up in his Arms, laying his hands upon the● and blessing them, Do not all these show a great deal of Complacency that Christ had, and took in them, and that these little Children pleased him very well; and therefore sure were not unbelievers; For without faith it is impossible to please God. Heb. 11.6. Besides that he pronounceth that of such also (little Infants in age and stature) is the Kingdom of God: but the Kingdom of God is not of unbelievers. Sure some of these little Children, nay more, some of our little Infants, dying before they are baptised, are saved, and received of God into his Kingdom, whither no unbeliever, nor unclean, can come or enter.  
Lastly, I read of two Examples, one in the old Testament of Jeremy 1.5. Of whom the Lord saith, Before thou camest out of the Womb, I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet.  
Another in the new, of John the Baptist, who being but a Babe in the Womb of Elizabeth, leapt for joy of the approach of Christ then also in the Womb of the Virgin (which joy thereof, was an act of the Spirit in him) Add hereto, jacob's holding of Esau by the heel, which the Prophet Hos. 12.3. interpreteth to be a kind of striving with him for the Grace and Blessing. We cannot think these in the Womb, were in Christ and so sanctified one way, and when they came to years of understanding by another way. If Chidlren of Believers may thus have the Spirit of Grace and Faith, and that before the Seal of the Covenant, than they are not unbelievers, but believers: Howsoever there are some things extraordinary in these two examples, yet I have showed, that the Spirit of God is an internal ordinary Agent and means in the Church of God, and as to the Infantile nature and condition, (which from the two former examples appears to be capable of it) doth where it pleaseth infuse Faith and other Graces, as before, Humility, Meekness, Innocency, Patience, (whereof little Chnildrens were also set for examples by our Saviour Christ) I do not say that any Infants now have the Spirit and Graces of the same, in so ample and large a measure, as those above named, as who were sanctified and consecrated in a more special degree, for a more special work: nor do I say that all Infants, now under Covenant, have the Spirit, and this Grace of Faith, and other, but that they who are the Elect of God, and ordained to eternal life (of which there are many) have Faith and the Spirit, so far forth, as is sufficient for their Salvation, Acts 13.48.  
But I will fall upon this point more closely; and if (as I have in part already, out of the Texts all ged) I can evince this, of Infants-Faith (I mean, and so must you, of Infants in speciality, or in kind some of them, such as he purposeth to save, and not of Infants individually, and in particular every one) Infants Baptism must needs be also evinced. As Paul saith to Agrippa, about the Resurrection of the dead, so may I to you. Why should it be thought a thing Incredulous with you, that God should give Faith unto Christian Infants? They have knowledge and other Faculties of the Mind, and the Soul, and why may not they have supernatural Grace, and so some seeds of the habit of Faith, according to their model and measure, for the apprehending of Christ, and so Faith itself in a kind, and in a like kind, unto that is in grown persons? (Faith wheresoever, is alike, and but one in kind, the which how small soever, sufficeth to Salvation.) What, doth the weakness of the Organ of Body or Soul, make it impossible for God to work supernaturally even in the little Children, at least so much illumination of the Mind, (more than is ordinary for that age) as may be fit to receive the Grace of Christ? I shall tell you more Sir, than I believe you know, and I know you will believe. Such Infants whom deceasing, God taketh up into heaven, (for of such also is the Kingdom of Heaven, as Christ said) he filleth in a moment, and at an instant, with an inundation of knowledge and understanding of Christ (for they come to sight and vision of him) more than you and I have, nay more than all the Prophets and Apostles had, whilst they lived upon earth. And now cannot the same God immediately before, sprinkle their Souls with one jot of the knowledge of Christ, or one grain of Faith (though but as Mustardseed) and make them to touch Christ, though but with the Tip, or Fingers and of that hand of the soul, which is Faith, whom they shall immediately have the full fruition of, like as many as touched the Hem of his Garment, were made perfectly whole? But I remember me, you must have plain direct Scriptures for this point, one you have had; and so you shall have more Scriptures, out of which, it may be plainly, and directly evinced, Infant's Faith and Salvation by it, which is all one.  
Doth not David say and testify, Psal. 8.2. out of the mouths of Babes and Sucklings, hast thou ordained, or founded strength, or perfected praise? and doth he not, Psal. 148.12. call upon and exhort old men and children, to praise the name of the Lord? the which you cannot expound of spiritual children only, (as sometimes it may, and somewhere) for Mat. 21.15, 16. they are real, and bodily children, that cried Hosanna to the Son of David, and fulfilled David's Speech: now if these had no Grace, Knowledge, or Faith in Christ, how could they so glorify and praise Christ, and rejoice, and even Triumph in Christ?  
I ask again, are any Infants in Christ? or engrafted into Christ? or the Children of God? if so, as you cannot deny it, for we are all one in Christ Jesus, whether bond or free, male or semale, old or young, Father or Children. And God the Father hath given to Christ, Infants and Children, as well as Parents and Fathers: and to those that Christ hath received his Father, he gives eternal life.  
But now they are all the Children of God, by Faith in Christ Jesus; and if they be Christ, then are they Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise, Galat. 3.26, 28 if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his, Rom. 8.9. and he that is none of his, Christ Baptizeth not. But Christ Baptizeth, with the inward Baptism also, unto Remision of Sins, many Infants, & these are some of his, as who hath taken them into Covenant, to be the God of them, and them to be the Children of God. And surely if Christ should not impart unto some Infants, Knowledge, and Faith, according to their measure Competent to Salvation, but only to the Adule and grown persons, he might seem to be an Acceptor both of Ages, and personages, which he is not, Deut. 10.17. Rom. 2.11.  
See John 6.35. and 37. He that cometh to me shall not hunger, and he that believeth in me shall not thirst, immediately Christ addeth, whatsoever the Father giveth me, shall come unto me, or believe in me; I ask you now, and Quaere you, hath not the Father in his everlasting Counsel and Bounty given to Christ, all his Elect Infants, and appointed them to be Christ's, when Psal. 2.8. the Lord said unto him, thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee, ask of me, and I shall give thee the Heathen for thine Inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession? if so, why then, they also, Infants, being somewhat of that whatsoever given unto Christ, shall come, and do come continually unto him, or believe in him, whatsoever you say, or write to the Contrary, that they neither shall, or do believe.  
See Galat. 3.22. The Scripture hath shut up all things under sin, that the promise by Faith, in Jesus Christ, might be given to those that believe; you hear the disease, of sin, in Adam is spread over all things, that is all men, and whatsoever is of and in man, even Infants; therefore the Remedy of Faith in Christ, must be spread over them too, that this may be as general and large as that, so Infants, who are saved, must and do believe in Christ.  
See 17. John 3. This is life everlasting to know thee, the only true God, and him whom thou hast sent, Jesus Christ. Here is a General and universal Rule given by Christ himself, the Author of Salvation, without any inkling, or tinkling of exception, for everlasting life to be atteined, namely by knowing and believing (for that is also included in it) as is specified and more enlarged in the 1 John 5.10, 11, 12 He that hath the Son, hath life, this life is in the Son, and he that believeth, hath this witness in himself, etc. Now I Quaere you again, Have any of the Elect Infants, the Son of God, have they eternal life? you cannot deny it, and therefore you cannot deny them some spark of Knowledge and Faith.  
See 2 Cor. 5.7. We walk by Faith, and not by sight, and 1 Cor. 13.12. now we see through a glass darkly, but then face to face, whence it appeareth, there is but one way of joining us all to Christ, and of our enjoying of Christ, which is, Sight of him in Heaven, or Faith in him upon earth, to which Sight, our Faith now is answerable, being of the same nature and quality, only differing in the measure; for Faith is nothing else but a sight of him, John 12.44 and 4. Now I Quaere you again, do not you think, but the same way which serveth for all the rest of God's Elect, doth serve for Children also, to join them to Christ? and that there is but one life begun here, which is perfected in heaven, according to that, He that believeth in me hath eternal life, John 6.47. Then also must Infants have some light of the mind, to see and behold Christ now here, as in a looking glass, so hereafter face to face.  
See Rom. 4 6. To all Abraham's seed the promise is firm by Faith, and his Title is, the Father of the Faithful, the Scripture maketh him the Father of us all, and all the Children of the promise. (i.e.) The whole number of God's Elect (for of that Primary cause of our Salvation, God's holy Election, Saint Paul there disputeth, Rom. 9, 8. which is observable against the Anabaptists, who impute the Salvation of Infants solely to God's Election, which is acknowledged of us to be the Primary cause) whereas in that very place, he mentioneth a secondary cause of their Salvation, that they are the Children of the promise, and so reckoned in Abraham's seed, because of that Interest they have in that blessed Seed, in whom Abraham, and all his posterity are partakers of the holy inheritance.)  
Now I Quaere you again here, do you, or dare you exclude Infants from being Abraham's Seed, you must then also bar them from having interest and part in Christ; if not, why do you, or dare you to deny them Faith? seeing that in the same manner as Abraham obtained the Blessing (which was by Faith) so must all Nations of the world, Jews & Gentiles, and every particular person, all and as many as lay under the curse before, even Infants therefore, obtain the Blessing by Faith, according as it is, Gal. 3.8.13, 14.  
What should I run on thus: yourself will prove as much for me anon, and agaiost yourself, for in your confutation or rather consideration following upon Acts 2.39. there you say, That nothing but Faith answereth the promise; and I shall tell you that Faith answereth it, as the condition: If then there be no other way or means for Infants to come by Righteousness, or Salvation, but by Faith or believing, (the condition of the Covenant of Grace, and the Gospel, as works and doing was of the Covenant of Nature and the Law;) you must either grant some Infants to believe and have Faith, or else leave them destitute of the ordinary way and means, or show from Scripture some other, of their Righteousness and Salvation. Yea if Infants be saved without Faith, they must then be saved without Christ: for as there is none other name or person under Heaven given amongst ●●en, whereby we must be saved, than the Lord Jesus, Act. 4.12. So there is none other means or grace under Heaven, given amongst men, whereby we may apprehend the Lord Jesus, save Faith, Matth. 3.16. and Heb. 11.6. Remember your own words, nothing but Faith answereth the Promise: If Infants have no Faith to answer the promise, nor works to answer the precept, how shall they do for the answer of a good conscience towards God, or a saving Baptism, 1 Pet. 3.21? Or what shall they do when God riseth up? and when he visiteth, what shall they answer him? Job 31.14. If he will contend with them, they cannot answer him one of a thousand, Job. 9.3 unless in Christ by Faith they be, and then all is answered. I could wish some others of a more vigorous body and brain, would prosecute these and many other Scriptures to the proof of Faith in Infants, Elect and saved, the which (as I take it) would best stop the mouths of the gainsayers of Infant-Baptism; who now, not satisfied with their being in Covenant with God also, or his giving of spiritual grace to them, never leave calling for Faith, Faith in Infants; so would it set opener and wider, the way of Infants to their Baptism, even in the opinion of the adversaries thereof.  
If you question how such could believe in Christ? Christ who tells you so, gave them to do so, and so may give to others. Is thine eye evil, because he is good? may he not do with his own as him pleaseth? Take that thine is and go thy way, it may be he will give unto this least, even as to thee. Though Intants want the outward Means of Faith, which they are not capable of, as the Hearing of the Word, by which Faith ordinarily is gotten, yet there are other besides; what, you will say, extraordinary? and so, you will fly now yourself to extraordinaries, who have taxed us of extraordinaries? no such matter; for besides the ordinary outward Menas of Faith in the Church, which an Infant wanteth, and is not capable of, there are ordinary inward Means of the same Faith, which it may find, and of which it is capable, namely Christ, the Author of Faith, and the Spirit of Faith, both these are internal but ordinary Means of Faith in the Church, and available, when the outward are wanting, and the outward unavay leable, where those inward are wanting. But you can discern no such matter of Faith in Infants, these show no such thing as Faith, what then? what evidence of expression do you see, or they show of a reasonable soul in them? by this reason you may conclude them, unreasonable, as well as unbelievers: Even children's souls are equal, and like as yours and mine are in the essentials, which are as large and ample to all intents and purposes (though penned up for want of room) as our souls are, and are capable of Grace. They are Rational Creatures, Seminally, and in the inward Principle of human Nature, which is a reasonable Nature, though through defect of age, they are not Rational, Productively, and in the fruits, or external proceed, or operations of reason; and so they may be Believers, as to the Root and Fountain of Faith, the Spirit of God, in the first act; though they may want the second act thereof, which is the increase of it in themselves, and the deriving the knowledge of it to others.  
So then Infants in the Church, may have Faith, and all the Elect of them have (for it is called the Faith of God's Elect, Tit. 1.1.) and you as you cannot descry it in them, so you cannot decry it. Therefore by your own Tenet and Rule, they going for Believers and Elect, may be Baptised; yea, all aught to go so, out of a charitable persuasion, and opinion that ought to be in us and you, (howsoever it goeth with them, as to the Truth and Reality) and therefore all should be Baptised: for by the same reason you Baptise any, of those you call Believers, we Baptise all Infants of Believers; and unless it were so, none at all were to be Baptised: Those that come to you, one by one, in a profession of Faith, you have but a good and charitable opinion of his Faith and Election; you can have no sure and certain knowledge of the same; (For this and that Person, may be an Hypocrite and Reprobate) yet you Baptise him and him. Now therefore, may not we do the like? there comes presented to us, this and that Child, one and another, in the evidence of God's Covenant engraven (as it were) upon them by their birth of Parents in Covenant; we have also a charitable persuasion of their Faith and Election, and can have no more, (for there are also Infants born in the Church that are Reprobates) and so we Baptise them: But if only the true Believers and Elect were to be Baptised, than you and we must have a certain knowledge of every Infants and every man's Faith and Election, as the ground of our and your Baptising them; the which because neither we, nor you, can have in any ordinary way, neither of us by this Rule must Baptise any at all; You hope the best of all, and so do we; your old Limitation may do well here, so far as man can judge (which in this case is just nothing) and that's all can be said on both sides; but still, I must prompt you, that it is not knowledge of the Infants, being in Election, and the signs of it, or being in the Faith, and the procession of it, but the being in the Covenant and a relation to it, that is and aught to be the ground of Baptism, in the Church of God; now because we find and know all Infants born of Christian Parents, within this Covenant Relation (& know not which of them is Elect or not, for if we knew who were Reprobates, we neither would nor ought to Baptise them,) we do therefore Baptise all of them, lest otherwise we should, and might deny the Seal of the Covenant to some of the Elect Children of God.  
Me thinks you, who assume so much of the Spirit to yourselves, (Take heed, you do not presume too much of yourselves therein) there be they who separate themselves, having not the Spirit, Judas 19) should not be so Covetous or Envious, (and it may be, refistous, and then, it is, blasphemous) as to deny some degrees of the Spirit and the graces thereof to Infants, when as the Spirit bloweth where it listeth, and thou canst not tell whither it goeth: when as also the Dovelike Spirit of God, hath a near compliance with, and a great complacency in Childlike meekness, mildness, humility, patience (of which graces he is pleased to style himself the Spirit,) more, than with your manly, or rather unmanly pride, envy, uncharitableness, roughness, and presumption, whereout it is, that you so despise and offend the little ones, withholding them from their due of Baprism, & rail and revilethe Churches of God, and the Ministers of Jesus Christ. These things (I tell you) grieve the good, and mild Spirit of God, and send it away sad from such hearts, and at last, if presevered in, will quench its holy fervours.  
And I wonder very much, that any people should run after you, as they do, who leave their Infants and Children under no better a condition, or denomination, than of Infidels and unbelievers: for so you tell them, that their condition by nature, and their seed, is the same which Pagan-Gentiles, and till they know God and believe in him, open and professed enemies of God; whereas upon their and our nature, that is, natural Generation or Procreation of Seed, there is the Covenant of Grace established, and set up, which you see at large, Ephes. 2.3. and 4, etc. That we were by Nature the Children of wrath as well as others, when out of Covenant, You profess much Scripture, Learn to speak in that Holy Language, and to call Children of Christians, Christians by Nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles or Pagans; for so Saint Paul speaketh, Gal. 2.15. We who are Jews by Nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles: (How Jewer by Nature?) because they were the Children of the Prophets and of the Covenant, born under it, Act. 3.25. So are our Children, Christians by Nature (how not sinners of the Gentiles?) because born Jew's had not their sins imputed to them, (though born in original sin, as the Gentiles,) the Covenant being a remedy appointed against it, and a means to bring them into God's favour again; and so are our Children, not sinners of the Gentiles.  
You that are Parents, and are careful enough to keep sure your inheritances, and jointures of earthly things to you and your Children, suffer not your Children to be wrangled out of their birthright, and joint inheritance they have with yourselves in the Covenant of Grace, under the name and notion of unbelievers, when as the Scriptures never calleth them so, but a holy Seed; and God hath made you, and you Children joynt-partakers of the Covenant and the Seals thereof.  
I have been the longer in this, for that I would lay therein some groundwork, for something to follow. I will be very short in your next Quaere.   

Section II. Of Baptism making Christians, and how.  
YOu ask whether Baptism maketh a man or woman a Christian without Faith, and following of Christ in all his Commands and Steps, left upon Record for our imitation?  
This is a short Quaere, and therefore shall be soon answered, as not seeing to what purpose it is for you or against me, I shall therefore briefly answer something to it out of, Rom. 2.28. and 29. distinguishing of the sorts of Christians, and the parts of Baprism, as he doth of the sorts of Jews, and parts of Circumcision. As Circumcision which was outward in the flesh made (though I do not here approve of this your word; and therefore I will use another) shown or declared the Jew outwardly, or the outward Jew; so Baptism which is outward in the flesh, showeth or declareth the Christian outwardly, or the outward Christian; And both may be, without Faith and following of Christ in all his Commands, etc. as in Esau; and Simon Magus, the one Circumcised, the other Baptised.  
Again, As Circumcision which is of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the Letter, made (for here your word may go) a Jew inwardly, or the inward Jew; So Baptism which is of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the water only, maketh a Christian inwardly, or the inward Christian; neither of these can be without Faith which parifieth the heart, or the fruits of Faith in following of Christ, etc. Now as the Apostle saith surther, He is not a Jew, and that is not Circumcision, so may I, He is not a Christian, and that is not Baptism, namely approved of God, and available to Salvation, which are outward only and literal; and therefore every true Jew or Christian, must endeavour after Faith and Following Christ (to speak as you do) and to find, and get the inward and spiritual substance and nature of these Sacraments, which is, to worship God in Spirit, to believe and rejoice in Christ Jesus, having no confidence in the flesh, Phil. 3.3. to put off the sinful body of the flesh, Col. 2.11. That we may draw near with a true heart in full affurance of Faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil Conscience, and our bodies washed in pure water, Heb. 10.22. and may have the washing of Regeneration, and the Sprinkling of the Blood of our Lord Jesus within us, as Tit. 3.5. and 1 Pet. 1.2.  
Again, There are Made Christians, and there are Born Christians, or a Proselytical or Parental Christianity. As for such who are of the Pagan and Heathen world by Nature, They can not otherwise be made Christians, or Members of the Church, but by a lawful Baptism, upon their accession unto the Church and expression of their Faith, so the Proselutes of old were and did: whom Baptism made Christians and outward members of the visible Church upon their Confession of Faith, like as their Faith, if true, made them Saints and inward members of the Invisible Church. But for them Infants, who are in the Church and within the Covenant, descended of Parents and in Covenant; these are Born Christians and Church-members visible. I mean not as born of Christian Parents, but as born in and under the Christian Covenant; so that their Baptism doth not so much make them to be Christians, but only show and declare them to be such (as I said) and seal them as Covenanters. And howsoever a Positive expression of Faith explicitly be necessary unto a Heathen Born, for his Admission unto his Christianity or Church-membership, yet it is not so unto a Christian Born; for their Christanity, or Church-membership, is their Birth-Privilege; and Baptism is but their Instalment or inrolment, and is but as the Inauguration or unction unto a Prince Born.  
Faith I confess, and I mean saving and justifying Faith (and so must you, seeing you join thereto, the following of Christ in all his Commands and Steps left upon Record for our Imitation) is absolutely requisite unto Born Christians, as a Condition to their partaking and enjoyment of the Benefits and Fruits of Baptism, but not absolutely required, as the condition to their coming and engaging to the Covenant, to the which they have a good Title and Right, without present actual Faith; unless you will affirm that all the Jews, who came to Circumcision, had the like, and all the whole Congregation of Israel, man, woman, and child, who Deut. 29. entered into Covenant with God, had a saving and a justifying Faith.  
In a word; Baptism without Faith may declare a visible Christian, but incompleatly, as without Faith. Faith without Baptism, may make an invisible Christian but incompleatly, as without Baptism: Faith and Baptism together, both make a Christian completely, and that both Visible and Invisible.  
Are not Children of the Heathens born Heathens? and why then are not Children of Christians, born Christians? I mean, it is theiri Birthright to be so esteemed; or they are to be esteemed such, by their Birthright, to be reputed within the Covenant of Grace, or members of the visible Church. Is the condition of a Christians Child worse now under the Gospel, than a Jews Child was under the Law? the Children of the Jews were born Jews, and it was their Birthright to be Israelites, visible members of the Church of Israel; whereupon the Apostle calleth them, Jews by Nature, Gal. 5.15. As before I have said, and Rom. 11.24. He calls the whole Nation of the Jews, the Natural branches of the Olive-tree, in that they were the vifible Church of God; so the 1 Cor. 7. Those that are born of holy Parents are called holy, yet sinners but in divers respects; by Nature, and as generated of their Parents, so sinners, for Parents do not generate by Grace but Nature: but by Grace, and as received by God into Covenant, so Holy, for God said, I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed, and if the root be holy, then are the brancher, no repugnancy here; like as the Circumcised generateth an Infant with a foreskin; and as wheat dressed and clean bringeth forh wheat with chaff upon it; so a Christian bringeth forth one, that is not a Christian, who is therefore Baptised that he may be made Christian, which is when he is Engrafted into the body of Christ.  
And whereas the Apostle saith, Eph. 2.3. That we were by Nature the Children of wrath, as well as others: it doth not contradict, we may be such, and yet born Christians too, and Holy in an external Covenant, being born of believing Parents; if you would but remember the ordinary distinctions that are given, they would disperse this mist before your eyes, and clear them matter to you I will give them you; as thus, as there is a Jew, so there is a Christian without and in open view, of the Church and as Jew, so a Christian within and in secret, & before the face of God; as none were born Jews, so none are born Christians in this second and later senss, thus we must be made Christians, neither could or can we claim it by Birthright: but in the first sens, which is that whereof the Assertion is, we may; even all that have a visible Birth and standing under the Covenant of Grace, are Christians, and Holy in the face of the visible Church, though (perhaps) not so in the face of God, but many, for all this, may be Children of wrath. Your mind, as your words, runneth only upon the Internal part of the Covenant, which are inward saving graces, which belong only to the Elect; and because we know not, what these Infants are born with, we say not, that thus they are born Christians; where you should take notice of an external part of the Covenant, which is a true visible membership, and Birth-Holiness, which known to us and appearing to all, we call them born Christians as who from their Birth, are to be accounted and reputed visible members and patts of the Church.  
For the Covenant of Grace is largely to be understood and; Taken for the whole dispensation of it in-outward Ordinances and under the Notion of its external Privileges, as well as in inward Graces, and under the notion of its internal powers. You most an end, and in this Quaere especially, use the Covenant, as Hanun did the servants of David, sent to comfort Hanun, and to honour his deceased Father, who shaved off the one half of their Beards, and cut off the half of their Garments, and so sent them away, 2 Sam. 10.4. So do you, and yours; you leave out in your writing and discourses, the one half of the Covenant, and still restrain it to the inward and spiritual part thereof, whereas it was sent whole and entire of God, with an outward and external part also, for the further Honour and Comfort of the believing Parents and their Children.  
But I come to the last, your first Queare of the three about Baptism as you propound them; but my last of the three, as I handle your matters; and this it is.   

Sect. III. Of Baptising of Infants.  
WHat warrant you have from the words of Christ for your Baptising of Infants before they do actually believe? What warrant? I thank you for this word, a gentle and general word, I looked for no less, than what command or precept have you, such a severe and special word, as a command, to be demanded of me. Did you keep such a blustering in seven whole Quaeres together, about the commands and precepts of Christ & his Apostles, and their examples, (which I took as your preparative and Preface, unto this your particular Quaere of Infant-Baptism) and doth the wind go down, in this soft and still voice, What warrant have you for it? After all your former Thundrings out the Commands of God against us, as if we of the Church of England had broken them all, and had pieced them up with our Human Inventions and additions, as Infant-Baptism and the rest, is this your only Thunderbolt you have to strike us down with? what warrant have you for it, out of the word? Your friends and fellows, allows, will give you no thanks for this word (if it were not they that gave it you, word and work and all) who as the Jews cried, The Temple of the Lord, the Temple of the Lord, so they go up and down, and cry, a Precept of the word, a Precept of the word for your Infant-Baptism; and do you come after them and behind, and so softly speak, for fear they should hear you, a Warrant out of the word, a Warrant out of the word for the same?  
This made me look back over your other Quaeres about our Ministry, our maintenance; and I find upon such Review, that this word, Warrant, is used and prefixed before them all, and not a word of a Precept or Command. I see I have been much mistaken, who, when I might have put off you and all your Quaeres, with a Warrant, according to your demand, have put myself to such trouble, as to search the Scriptures, and send you Precepts and Commands out of the same for every particular. You are beholding to me, for I have gratified you herein, in giving you more than you required, and in spending more upon you than you desired, I will not say deserved. I hope you will make good use of my Indulgence herein; and not expect for time to come, that I shall do the like still. No, you will now give me Leave to take and make my advantage of the word, which I have lost hitherto, and you have gained hereby.  
For (I take it) there is a great deal of distance and difference twixt a Warrant out of God's word, and a Command or Precept out of the same; I shall (I hope) bring you forth some warrants out of the word for our Baptising Infants; but for a Precept or Command for the same, I am not engaged, no nor required to give by this your Quaere. Warrants enough, and those from the word, I shall serve upon you; for though a Warrant from a Justice, be a Precept Missive, yet a Permissive will of God, which is no Precept for it, may be a Warrant of an Action; and such are and may be, any solid Reason, or good Consequence or like example drawn there from, which though it will not be admitted for a Precept, may serve for a Warrant.  
A. first Warrant, shall be this Reason, which is but a recollection, or recapitulation of somewhat immediately said before. If Infants of Christians are all of them capable, and some of them partakers of the Spirit, and Faith, and other inward Graces, Then they may and aught to be Baptised; This is warranted out of the word and those Texts, Act. 8.36. Act. 10.47. The one warranting Baptism, to a believer; the other to him, who hath received the Holy Ghost, whether young or old, Infant or grown person: If Thou believest (saith Philip) thou mayest be Baptised; when the Eunuch asked, what doth hinder me? so Faith it was that made him capable, and removed the hindrance, though upon his confession of his Faith, it being not otherwise discernible, he having no other right pleadable, he being one o'the Gentiles, He was actually Baptised. So can any man forbidden water, that these should not be Baptised, who have received the Holy Ghost as we? and so he Commanded them to be Baptised.  
That particular Hypothetical, (if thou believest, etc. thou may'st be Baptised) may and must be resolved into this general Categorical, whosoever Believeth, may be Baptised, Man or Child, Young or Old; and howsoever, Cornelius and the rest, their receiving of the Spirit, was in the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, then manifesting itself that way, yet any other manifestation of the Spirit, any word or act of God declaring, that Persons do belong to God's Covenant, (as some or other way, the Spirit doth manifest itself in all that do belong to God's Covenant) is to us and aught to be to you, a sufficient Warrant without any danger of will-worship to account them such, and therefore to Baptise them, be it this pouring out of extraordinary gists, as here upon Cornelius and others; or the Confession of Faith, as in Philip; or Repentance, as in those that came to John the Baptist; or be it a promise to believing Parents-and their Seed, to be their God, or Gods owning them as Persons belonging to the Church, or any other ordinary Gifts and Graces of the Spirit, or the Spirits supplying, their infirmities: in these cases can any man forbidden water, that these should not be Baptised? This Interrogative, and quaestionipropounding Speech, may and must be resolved into a Nagative-Answer, absolutely: No man can forbid water, rightly (for that's done, that is rightly done, or done of Right) anless he will forbid that, which God hath Commanded? and some of these we have abundantly for the Infants of believing Parents; where no man can forbid, there God Commands; that they, who have received the Holy Gholst, should be Baptised; The resule also out of this, is this general Proposition, whoseever (whether Infant or grown Person,) hath received the Holy Ghost (whether apparently or secretly, ordinarily or miraculously, whether in sight or Faith) hath a right to Baptism, no man can forbid it; and in one of the particulars, Peter here Commands it. See, how I have gratified you, beyond a Warrant, with a little less than a Command for the Baptising of Infants, if having Faith and the Spirit, as many, yea, all the Elect of them have, whom, we not able to know one from the other particularly, do therefore Baptise all under the Covenant with God.  
More briefly and syllogistically thus take it, as I recollect it.  
All Persons who have received the Holy Spirit, or have Faith, are Commanded by God in Scripture to be Baptised; as appears by the two Texts here cited.  
But some Infants of Christians have received the Holy Spirit, or have Faith; as appears by many Texts formerly cited.  
Therefore some Infants are Commanded by God in Scripture to be Baptised.  
A Second Warrant, is This Reason. It Infants of Christian Parents, be in the Holy Covenant of God, and have the same engraven upon them, and established with them, Than they are to be Baptised, and to receive Baptism as the initial seal thereof: This Reason is warranted, or this warrant may be reasoned out of the word, Gen. 17.9. etc. and Rom. 4.11. for it's there apparent (and the light there shining dazzles all Antipaedobaptists, they cannot abide to look thereon) that as Abraham and his Proselytes, grown men, upon their profession of their Faith, were Circumcised, so the seed or Children of Abraham and those Proselytes, were Circumcised as Children of Parents in Covenant, and joined together with them in covenant; and both these are there expressly Commanded; and so this also, that the seed of Abraham, and his Proselytes should be Circumcised, by virtue and reason of God's Covenant with them, which was to be sealed unto them by Circumcision. Now as the Being of Infants in Covenant under the Law, made them capable of, and gave them a due Right to Circumcision, the Initial seal of that Covenant under the Law; so the being of Infants in Covenant under the Gospel, makes them capable of, and gives them a due or Right to Baptism, the Initial seal of the Covenant under the Gospel; The Covenant being the same, for substance, and in relation to the eternal well are of the Soul (as in the n●x I shall show:) which being so, if Anabaptists passing by this reason from the Covenant, will insist still upon the mere and sole Commandment of God, I must tell them, the Text saith not, Thou shalt keep my Command, but thou shalt keep my Covenant; implying, that this Command of Circumcision had reference to the Covenant, and was part of it. For here God is to be considered, not in his absolute Prerogative commanding, but as God in respective mercy Covenanting with his people, and all his Commands, are to be taken as branches of his Covenant, and all prounded upon his Freegrace in Jesus Christ, therefore Gen. 17.10. and 13. God calls expressly Circumcision by the name of his Covenant, to teach you and all others that will learn, that the Covenant made Infants capable of the Seal, and not God's mere Commandment, as you and your notional, and metaphysical Masters do abstract, who love to play with your own Fancies and Imaginations, whereas the Seal is nothing but the confirmation of the Covenant, and appointed and commanded so to be of God. But the Covenant, in order of Nature going before the Seal thereof, their being in Covenant, must needs be the ground of Gods commanding the Seal of Circumision.  
It is acknowledged there was a special Commandment for circumcising in the time of Infancy; but do not you blame God for his such Command, by the same reason you blame us for our practice? Infants of Jews were as much in the state of Nature, as ignorance, blindness, and under the same defects, that Infants of Christians are; and why do ye not charge the wisdom of God with folly, for Commanding the Infants of Jews to be circumcised? or excuse us who being under the same Covenant, do Baptise the Infants of Christians, In imitation of God, Commanding Circumcision, and also in obedience of God and that Command, which was in part also Evangelical. For  
That Commandment was for the Circumcising of such Infants in their Infancy, whose Parents were under God's seal, but there is no such command for Infants, whose Parents were not; for these, Profession of Faith was needful, Abraham (in whom the Church of the Jews began) therefore had Faith, before he took the Seal, but no such thing was afterward required of Abraham's Seed, but the contrary Commanded, namely that their Seed should be circumcised in their Infancy.  
And so I deny not, but God Commanded Circumcision; but this, that by virtue of God's Commandment only, they were Circumcised, I deny, for it was also and chief, because of the foregoing Covenant in the 7. and 8. verses, to which the words refer, saying, Thou shalt keep my Covenant. Therefore (what Covenant? vers. 10. Circumcision, is so named) He doth not barely Command it, but with an Inference or reference therefore, to show that, they being in Covenant, were therefore to have the Seal thereof, Circumcision, which did but put the Covenant under Seal, in which Covenant those Children were before by Birth, being born of Parents with whom God had stricken Covenant. But I shall go near to make use of it anon for the Baptising of our Children, like as they and you do now, for the circumcising of the Jews Chrildrens, Though (the Truth is) that was nothing but God's word of Institution, whose incommunicable property it is to appoint Sacramental Signs. The Covenant then especially was the ground of Circumcising the Seed of the Jews, and the same is the ground of Baptising the Infants of Christians: and so Christian Parents, being in Covenant, their infants are in Covenant with God, and therefore Baptizable; for God's Covenant written upon Children of Parents in Covenant, is no Blank to seal too, but a just Title (or writ, as I may so say) for the Seal, and a very Commission given out by the Holy Spirit, for the Baptising Infants of Christians in their lofarcy; and so these things appearing to the Churches of God, That Infants of Christians are entered in Covenant with God, They ought to put the same under the Seal of Baptism, as the Infants Due, and the Church's Duty.  
More briefly and Syllogistically thus take it, as I recollect it.  
All persons within and under the Covenant of God's Grace, are Commanded of God, to have the Seal of Covenant put upon them, which in the Gospel-administration thereof is Baptism.  
But all Infants of Christians, are within the Covenant of God's grace.  
Therefore all Infants of Christians, are Commanded of God to have the Seal of the Covenant put upon them, which in the Gospel-Administration thereof is Baptism.  
The first Proposition is clear from Gen. 17. and God Commanding all Jews in Covenant to be Circumcised; and from Matth. 28. and Christ Commanding all Gentiles, or Nations in Covenant to be Baptised.  
The second Proposition, is the very Tenor of the Covenant, I will be thy God, and the God of thy Seed; and so I have reasoned the Baptism of Infants and Terms, into a Command of God, before I intended it.  
A third Warrant is this Reason; If the Infants of Jewish Parents, were capable of Circumcision, the initial Seal of the Covenant, which was Circumcision, and were Circumcised, though they could show no Right they had unto it, but their Birth of Parents in Covenant. Then also may, and must, the Infants of Christian Parents, be Baptised and receive Baptism, the initial Seal, though they can show no other Right to it, but their Birth of Parents in Covenant: This Warrant is Reasoned out, or this Reason is warranted out of, Heb. 13.9. Jesus Christ the same yesterday, to day and for ever. Jesus Christ ministered is the Covenant, which is (as I said) the same for ever in sabstance, and in relation to theeternal welfare of souls; Though the ministrations of him be different, of him as to be exhibited and to come, unto the Jews, and of him, as come and exhibited, unto Christians; And though some Ceremonial and Circumstantial matters be changed, yet the substantial, and that which was purely a Covenantall or Sacramental Part, abides, as being an everlasting Covenant made with Abraham's Seed, all true believers: they differ not, the Two Sacraments, in any substantial thing, or in any spiritual effect necessary to salvation, or in any use to confirm the Covenant of Grace, and further a man in the way to Heaven, and so, as an Initial Seal of the Covenant, they differ not, nor as a Sacrament of entrance, into the Church; and so Circumcision was a Seal of the same Righteousness by Faith, as Baptism is to us, Rom. 4.11. and Circumcision signified the mortification of the flesh, and the renewing of the mind, and did bind over the Jews unto the obedience of God's will, Rom. 2.28. etc. Gal. 3.21. and so doth Baptism the same to us now, as Rom. 6.3. and 11. 1 Pet. 3.21. Insomuch that Baptised Christians are called circumcised Christians; and Baptism is called by the name of Circumcision, Col. 2 11. and 14  
4. Though we Christians are not to follow the Jews in things peculiar to his own dispensation, which was Legal and Ceremonial; yet those actions that were done by them upon such grounds that are of moral, perpetual and common concernment to one person, as well as another, in one Church, as well as another, for one age as well as another; none can deny such actions to be binding and obligatory to all, as a standing Rule for after Generations; by which may be answered that which is usually objected by those that except to our Analogy of Baptism with Circumcision, as why do ye not plead a Baptism of Males only; and that, particular of the eight day, and so carry on the whole Analogy together and in order? why, because, these were but circumstantial things, the two Sacraments may be one in substance for all these; besides they were not of common, but peculiar use to the Jews, that Church, those ages; as for the eighth day, it was both a Ceremonial and Physical reason, as to life and health of the infant that therefore skin was not cut off till then; and for the Females not Circumcised, it is enough against you and your opinion, if the proportion betwixt Circumcision and Baptism holds but in the Males, for that will infer the state of infancy capable of the Initial Seal of the Covenant of Grace under the Gospel; and again, under the Law, because of the inconveniency and unfimesses of the thing itself to be done upon them, the Females were Circumcised in the Males, as the Church is circumcised in Christ, the Males bearing the Type of Christ upon their flesh; and the Males and Females in Matrimonial conjunction representing Christ and his Church, to which the Apostle alludes, Eph. 5 22 and 33. but now such a typical discrimination of Sexes being removed, Christ exhibited puts no difference in Baptism between Males and Females, Gal. 3 27 and 28.  
Nor yet do we Argue for Infant-Baptism, from the bare Analogy of Infantcircumcision, but from the force of the reason, that lieth in the performance, which holds not in the circumstances of the eighth day and the Females, as it doth in this, of Infancy. Namely, that as Infants of the Jews were circumcised, though they declared no right they had unto it, but their birth; so may the Infants of the Christians be Baptised, though they make no manifestation of their Faith, etc. but show their birth, as Children of Parents in Covenant with God.  
Yea the Foundation and occasion of both, Circumcision and Baptism, were one & the same, of common concernment to all; (to add somewhat left out before, wherein they differ not;) namely Gods free eternal Love to his Elect, and man's misery by his fall in the loins of Adam, and his birth in pollution from the loins of his immediate Parents derived to them from the loins of Adam, whence also I may argue, the original sin, and the cleansing of Nature by the Spirit of Christ, are of Common concernment to Jewish and to Christian Infants: Therefore Christian Infants ought to the made partakers of the Seal of Regeneration in their Infancy, as the Jewish Infants were; and so there lieth as much necessity in substance, yea morality in the duty for believing Christians to Baptise their Infants, as for believing Jews to circumcise theirs; but of this particular, I shall say more presently.  
5. If now for all this, you shall deny and withhold Baptism from the Infants of covenant-Christians, in their Infancy, notwithstanding that God granted, yea commanded Circumcision to the Infants of covenant Jews in their Infancy, (but by reason of the covenant, which God made with the Parents and their Seed,) You must of necessity do one of these absurdities yea Impieties, i.e. either you must deny God's covenant of Grace under the Law and the Gospel, to be one and the same for substance, and these, circumcision and Baptism to be the Initial Seals of it according to the diversities of the administeations of the same, which is unreasonable and unwarrantable, as is showed.  
2. Or you must charge God with want of wisdom and discretion in managing his affairs, for choosing such unfit and uncapabie parties as Infants to make a covenant with and to Seal too; which is, Irreligious and Impious to do.  
3. Or you must prefer the Typical Administration before the Evangelical, and so advance Moses above Christ, and the shadow before the Sun-light, by denying the Infants of Gods covenanted people under the Gospel, and since Christ's coming the Initial Seal of the Covenant, and so making the Grace of less extent, than that which Moses allowed the Infants under the Law, and before the coming of Christ, which is unchristian and un-Gospel-like to do.  
4. Or you must put our Children born in the bright day of the Gospel, and of more abundant Grace, into a worse estate and Condition, as to the means of their Salvation; if they be passed by the Seal and not baptised, than the Children were, who were born in the Twilight of the Law, who were admitted to the Seal & Circumcised; which is envious and malicious to do:  
5. Or you must show, that a manifestation of Faith, and some personal Righteousness, is now more requisite. (Which was only required of such, whose Parents were not under the Faederal Seal) unto the baptism of our Infants, than it was unto the Circumcision of their Children; or that their Children gave at their Circumcision, such Testimony of their Faith and Righteousness more than ours. Which is even foolish and childish to think.  
This Warrant of our Infant-baptism, from its Analogy with this Infant-Circumcision, lieth as such a Block in your way, as neither you, nor any of yours, could ever get over, as Christ crucified on the Cross, was unto the Jews a stumbling Block. So Christ ministered in Circumcision, unto the Jews in Covenant and their Infants, is to you and all Antipaedobatists, a very stumbling Block, which whilst they have endeavoured to lift at, and leap over, they have strained and stretched and wrested Scriptures more than their Arms, and have broken their shins, I mean, their first Faith and a good Conscience, making shipwreck of both, whilst they slit upon this Rock, or stumble upon this Block.  
But, Sir, I hope better things of you, and I have better things for you, as my Friend and Neighbour: I will not leave you in the maze of the five-went way of the Anabaptists that they must walk in; I have a single path and a plain way for you, if you please to take it, and it is this, or none.  
6. You must yield in Modesty and Humility, at it becomes you, to believe such parties, Infants of both Testaments to be enabled by God, with some proportionable Grace, for the Covenant and Seals, in a way acceptable to himself. Though you cannot see it, nor have Capacity, (I will not say Inpenuity) to acknowledge it, and to clear off all Clouds of Doubts and Quaeres, which you or others have raised up and gathered together, about the manner and manifestation thereof, and for this purpose read, Esay 40.13, & 14. Esay 55.8, and 9 Rom. 11.34, & 35. Ro. 12.3, & 16 And of this I have largely before discoursed, more briefly and Syllogistically thus take it, as I recollect it.  
If all Infants of Jews are commanded in Scripture to be circumcised, and their Parents thereupon bound to bring them to Circumcision, Then also all Infants of Christians are commanded to be baptised, and their Parents bound to bring them to baptism.  
But all Infants of Jews are commanded in Scripture to be circumcised, and their Parents bound to bring then to Circumcision, Therefore all Infants, of christians are commanded to be baptised, and their Parents bound to bring them to baptism.  
The first Proposition is clear from the cited Texts of Hebrews 13.9. and Colossians 2.11. and from the Analogy of Circumcision and baptism, and the sameness or identity of the Covenant of both Administrations, in the substantials, as to the good of Souls.  
The second Proposition, is the very Letter of the Text, in the seventeenth of Genesis, and elsewhere as hath been showed: and so I have reasoned Infant-baptism into a command, before I intended it.  
A fourth Warrant is this Reason; If Baptism be a means and Remedy to free Christian-Infants from original sin, as to guilt and punishment, and the dominion thereof in them, that are E●ect and Believers, Then such are and aught to be baptised, The Church or Minister of it, knowing nothing of this and that particular Infant, but he or she may be such. This Warrant is reasoned out of God's Word, or this Reason is Warranted out of God's Word, Romans 6.3.4, 5, 6. verses. We as many of us, as were baptised into Christ, were baptised into his death; therefore we are buried with him by baptism into his death, that like as Christ was raised up from the dead, so we should walk in newness of life, etc. Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.  
I must here add a little explication, lest there may be a misconstruction construction of some Popery: The Popery in this point is this, That baptism taketh away original sin, that it ceaseth after baptism to be a sin properly, and is nothing but a defect or weakness which maketh the heart fit and ready to conceive sin, like Tinder which is not Fire, but is apt to conceive Fire: This I abandon, as Popery and an Error. But this I aver, as Truth and Protestancy.  

1. That after baptism, in the Elect Infants, original sin is taken away, as to the punishment of it, for there is no condemnation to them that are in Christ, Rom. 8.1.  
2. As to the guiltiness of the person, there being nothing to bind them to punishment, if no such condemnation.  
3. As to the dominion of it, it shall not reign in their mortal bodies, nor they serve it.  
4. As to the Imputation of it, it shall not be imputed to them, but be pardoned, and in that respect, be as if not.   
But for all this, original sin or concupiscence, remains in the Elect Infants, even after baptism, and ever after, and is still sin and properly sin, some limbs and portions, of the old man, and the body of sin remain, even where he is said to be crucified and destroyed, in the manner above, and there are and will be defilements in them that are washed: I must enlarge no farether here.  
However this may be a comfort to Believers, that in Christ the promised seed (who should and did break the Serpent's head, which in some good sense, I may call original sin,) there is pardon of this sin, to their natural seed; and therefore Christ was also born, not in the ordinary way, as others of Mankind, but of a Virgin, as conceived by the Holy Ghost, that so being free himself from original & all sin, He might procure the pardon of the same, and be a plea against it. Yea, though Infants in present have no actual sins, yet their baptism extends its virtue to the taking away also of the guilt, punishment, dominion, and imputation of sins to come, so the party baptised stand to the order & terms of Baptism, which is to turn to God, believe actually in Christ, and continually renew repentance, as the place above mentioned imports, Romans 6.4. and thus baptism saveth, 1 Peter 3.21. (So doth baptism seal the Pardon, as of original, so also of actual sin, Acts 22.16. Ananias said to Paul, Arise and be baptised, and wash away thy sins, calling upon the name of the Lord. Oh but we commit sins daily after baptism, & that after justification, & will the Lord continue to pardon such sins? yes if we continue to repent of, and purge away sich sins. So 1 John 1.7, 8. If we confess our sins he is faithful and just to forgive us, how faithful and just to forgive sin? it implieth that he hath somewhere bound himself by promise to do it, and where and when but in baptism, and to whom but the party baptised, so far as sin is repent of? when the Conscience makes any question, whether God will continue to pardon sin, the washing of Baptism doth seal the assurance thereof; the person baptised may say, I am assured of it, I have it sealed to me, so many years ago, at the time of my Baptism.  
It is also a popish device, who tell you that Baptism only serveth for Remission of sins done before, and therefore for sins does after they must have a Sacrament of Penance, distinct from Baptism, appointed for a remedy: For the Sacramental force of Baptism doth extend itself to the whole life, that is, to be a Seal unto them of Remission of sin in the blood of Christ: And the confession of sin is but a more effectual application of the force of Baptism, like as the people who were baptised of John, confessed also their sins; And therefore there needs no Sacrament of Repentance, or Penance, to be set up for this purpose after Baptism, to be a second Table, for Refuge after sins actually committed, like as they say, making Baptism but the first Table for Refuge after original sin contracted: For Baptism itself, is the Baptism of Repentance for the Remission of sins, Mark 1.4. (Christ's baptism being not different from John's Baptism, as is showed) as which teacheth and engageth us to die unto sin, and rise unto newness of lie, Romans 6.4. Which is nothing but Repentance, which is called, Repentance from dead works, and so a rising from them, Heb. 6.1.  
It would therefore much promote the good cause of Infant-Baptism, if the Doctrine of original sin especially, (& also actual) were pressed and urged upon People and Parents, especially a little more, and they heard oftener, how all Men, and Women, and Children, born in the ordinary way, sin Adam's fall, are born in the guilt of original sin, and have a sinful and polluted being, whosoever have any being, and may and must every one confess with David, I was born in sin, and in iniquity hath my Mother conceived me, (it is plain that he confesseth not his Parents but his own sin, this being the scope of the whole Psalm,) & so with Job, Who can bring that which is clean not of that which is unclean? & that which is born of the flesh is felesh, & flesh and blood cannot inherit eternal life, and that by Nature we are the Children of wrath, and all Infants, as that in Ezekiel 16. polluted in their bloods, their Fathers are Adamites, their Mothers are Hevites, etc.  
This if preached and pressed, would show to Parents what great need there is of a New-Birth for their Children, and so would lead and drive them to procure for them the outward washing in Baptism, as a Seal of the inward washing away of that natural pollution of sin by the Spirit: Thus our Saviour Christ enforces it unto Nicodemus, John 3.5. and that not so immediately in reference to actual sin, as original or Birth sin, the natural pollution in which Infants are born, and I can see, no good reason to the contrary, but that the outward Elementary Baptism of Water is here intended as a Seal of the inward washing by his Spirit, which is also called the washing or Laver of Regeneration, Titus 3.5. Because the inward washing of the Spirit in Regeneration, is sealed with the outward washing in Baptism.  
Therefore I find it, in the Ecclesiastic Histories, That in those ages and places, where and when the vileness of original pollution was best understood of Parents of Children, as most preached of by the Fathers of the Church, as in Augustins' days, what running there was odd Parents with their Children in their arms, to Baptism; and why not? there being no other visible ordinance appointed of God in the Church, but Baptism, for the washing away the guilt and filth of that Birthfin and pollution; And was it not so of old? wherefore did God command the Infants of the Jews to be circumcised, and wherefore were they so circumcised in the fore skin of their flesh? but to show  the very nature was defiled, which they received by carnal generation from their Parents, and which they were like to traduce and convey to their Children, and to testify what need they had to have such original Corruption, and uncircumcision of the flesh, to be done away by the cleansing and Regeneration Spirit of Christ, sealed in their outward Circumcision: And that Circumcision in the former, as Baptism in the latter dispensation, do both point at this one and the same thing, the Cleming away of the pollution of the natural birth, by the Spirit of Christ, there is a clear Text, Colossians 2.11, 12, 13.  
We now are fallen into those days, wherein there have been not only shaken but razed many foundations and principles of the Doctrines of Christ, especially two of those six in Hebrews 6.2. Which are Repentance from dead works, (a chief of which is original sin,) and the doctrine of Baptism; and wherein a Spirit of Pelagianism hath entered into many, and goeth about preaching unto Parents a freedom from original sin & pollution in their Infants, as derived from Adam, and so proclaiming a liberty from baptifing of them (just as the impostors foretold of by Saint Peter) whilst they promise them liberty, they themselves are the Servants of Corruption, 2 Pet. 2.19. It concerneth us therefore so much the more, who are Master-builders in the House of God, or but Repairers of the breaches, to uphold and maintain these two foundations of the Christians Faith, and to teach the people first, that as themselves were, so their Children are defiled with original sin and pollution by their natural birth, and then next, that there is no other ordinary way of cleansing and washing them, but by the regenerating and purifying Spirit and Grace of Christ Signified, Sealed, and Exhibited in andby the outward washing of Water in Baptism, as pleaseth God.  
Again, I say not that Baptism doth all this, from or by the deed done, or work wrought, which is their Popish phrase, but (as our Protestants say) either as it is a means to give & exhibit Christ with his benefits, the which it doth by signification, as a particular Certificate assuring forgiveness of sins; or as a token or pledge of the Grace of God, confirming it. Or as an instrument, because in and with the right use of Baptism, God confers Grace where and when he pleaseth (for it is no Physical but a Moral Instrument) and sets his image or mark of Regeneration upon the party, whence Baptism is called the Laver of Regeneration: God is at liberty, and may, when and how he pleaseth, let his Grace accompany his ordinance of Baptism, Which way soever God doth work these great things, by or in Baptism, Methinks, it is, a potent and invincible reason and warrant for the bringing Infants upon Baptism, the only outward ministerial remedy in the Church, for the abating and abolishing the malady of original sin, of which even Infants stand guilty, born, and conceived in it, unless you would involve Parents in another guilt, of neglecting the means and cure of that disease, which they were instrumental to the bringing their Children into; or else that you are of the opinion of the Pelagian Heretics, who held no original sin at all in Infants, but actual, which they also contracted by Imitation of other wicked; whereupon all the Ancient and Orthodox Divines, urged and pressed them, with the Baptism of Infants, and made it a foundation and proof, of original sin in Infants; like as I now go the other way, and urge and press original sin in Infants, as a proof and plea, or warrant (as you call it) for the Baptism of Infants, as being the only outward ordinary way to begin their cure and Rogeneration; more briefly and syllogistically thus take it as I recollect it.  
If Baptism be commanded of God in the Gospel for the washing away the guilt and filth of original and birth sin, than all Infants, who are Partakers of these, are commanded Baptism.  
But Baptism is commanded of God in the Gospel for the washing away the guilt and filth of original and birth-sin.  
Therefore Infants who are Partakers of these, are commanded Baptism.  
The first proposition is not questionable; the light of Nature and Reason, commandeth the use of means and medicines, to the end and for maladies: the sick need the Physician, etc. Come unto me all ye that are weary and heavy laden, etc.  
The second proposition, is the matter of the Texts, Rom. 6.3, and 4. and Acts 22.16. as hath been declared, and so I have reasoned baptism of Infants into a command before I intended it.  
Sirs, (I speak to you Parents) are you willing, your little pretty babes should be saved? you should be very willing and desirous of it; and the rather, in that you have been means of conveying into them, a corrupt seed, you should labour, they might be born again of the incorruptible seed, by the Word of God, and the Seals thereof, one whereof which is fit for them in their Infantile Estate, is this Baptism, I am speaking of and for.  
If you would have them saved, it must be either without, or with Regeneration; without Regeneration they cannot be saved, For Flesh and Blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God. That which is born of the Flesh is Flesh, a degenerate sinful corrupt thing; neither can corruption iherit incorruption: Therefore they must be saved with Regeneration, for except a man be born again of Water and the Spirit, 
John 3.3.6.  He cannot enter into the Kingdom of God. That which is born of the Spirit is Spirit, a Regenerate sanctified and clean thing. If so, the, Sirs, bring forth your Infants and Babes unto the Laver and means of Regeneration, present them to the Water of Baptism, and wati and pray for the Spirit of God, that it would move upon the face of the Waters, (as it did in the first Generation) and so form a spiritual Light out of or in a natural darkness, That the Baptismal Water may be effectual (by and through that Spirit of God) as Waters of Jordan were, to the washing the leprosy of original sin, and as the Waters of Bethesda, to the healing of other diseases whatsoever, even their actual sins also, when afterwards committed.  
It is true, that your Children dying without Baptism may be saved, by the Coverant and Promise of God and his Grace, many are so, all are so, that are of the Number of God's Elect.  
Yea, I confess the hope of salvation doth no lie so much in the Seal, as in the Covenant and Promise to which the Seal is annexed. Indeed the Lord having made a promse to you believing Parents, concerning your Children born in original sin, (That he will be your God and the God of your seed) in this case you must believe this his Word and Promise: But where he hath ordained a Seal for the confirmation of your Faith, you must take heed how you neglect to apply it; you must not (as more than too many do in these days) think it a superfluous and idle figure, and some also hold it a superftitious and Idol-service, That which I may and do plead with you for, is this, that you would so account of it, as it is, that there is a necessity lying upon you to baptise your Children born in original sin, I mean a necessity not absolute but conditional; in case your Children be prevented of Baptism by death, you may well hope of the salvation of them, by the Promise and Covenant only, as I said, of God and his Grace: and if after Baptism they be taken away from you by death, you may better hope of their salvation, from both, Covenant and Seal also: But if you be careless and negligent, and do also (it may be) purposely and profanely omit your duty, to put your Children in Covenant with your selves, under the initial Seal thereof, you will very hardly answer such your course either to God himself, or his Church, yea, or to your Children, and (I think at haft) to your own Consciences. But in the mean time what blindness and presumption is this in you, Parents, to tempt God, and to cast your Children, only upon the hands of his Spirit, when he hath also appointed Water, for their Washing and Regenerating? this is as if you should throw up your Children unto the top of the Pinnacle of the Temple, when as you have a Ladder standing and reaching up thither to carry them up by or upon; upon this glosie, God shall give his. Angel's charge over them, so his Spirit order over them, and in their hands shall they bear them up, and on his finger shall he hold them, lest at any time they perish, and come to destruction bodily or ghostly.  
What profaneness and impiety is this, in you Parents, to slight and refuse the outward ordinary means of your children's spiritual and eternal good, as it may be the freeing of them from the Gild, Dominion, and Condemnation of original pollution, etc. and to refer them over wholly to the inward ordinary means, Christ Jesus and his Spirit, when as these have appointed and dedicated the former, to be used and applied also?  
What carelessness, yea cruelty is this in you Parents, to leave and let your Children lie in the pit, and under the bondage of original and natural pollution, into the which yourselves have been accessary to their falling, and not to suffer a hand of God's ordinance to be reached out unto them, which is Baptism, for their raising up unto newness of Birth and Life?  
And whereas, God hath made a Covenant with you, for yourselves and your Children, yea a joint Covenant with you both, to be your God, and the God of your seed, what ingratitude is this, and ungodsiness to God, what inhumanity or apparent imparentnesse is this, to withhold your Children from the Seal of that Covenant, and so in a manner, to disinherit them (as much as in you lieth) of their just and due Jointure and inheritance spiritual and eternal?  
Well, be it so, your infants dying without Baptism may be saved, (and I pray God, they may be saved) through the Riches of his Grace, but you have not delivered your own souls, because you gave no warning to have them baptised, as you ought to do, seeing the evil come, and more a coming upon them. But, suppose, you withholding them from their means of Baptism, blow no Trumpet, give no warning to have them baptised, God should also withhold his Spirit of Grace from your Children (which God forbidden) and your Children be taken away in their infancy and minority, They shall die in their iniquity, or original sin, But their-blood will he require at your hands, for your negligence & contempt, you have broken his Covenant, Gen. 17.14. & Ezek. 33.  
A fifth warrant or reason is this; If Baptism now under the Gospel doth succeed Circumcision under the Law, Then are the Infants of covenanted believing Parents, to be baptised, like as Infants of the covenanted professing Jew's were circumcised; this warrant is reasoned out, or this reason warranted out of Collossians 2.11, and 12. Where the Apostle plainly showeth, that there is no need of their being circumcised, who were baptised, Jews or Gentiles, because such baptised ones had received the Circumcision made without hands, namely Baptism, the better and great Circumcision, as the Ancients call it.  
If you deny this, you must affirm, that the Churches of the Gospel and all the Gentiles converted to the faith of Christ (of whom especially they consist) are left without a Sacrament of Inititiaon or admission thereinto for their infants, and so without one Seal of the Covenant of Grace, which ought not to be, nor is indeed, For the Condition of Christians and their Infants is better, at leastwise as good under the New Testament as the Old; & the Grace of God, by the coning of Christ into the world, is more ample and clear, as ample & clear at leastwise, to us living under the Gospel, as to the Jews living under the Law: To deny these things, were to cast foul dirt into the bright Sun, and to shoot Arrows of Contumely & Reproach into heaven against our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom came Truth and Grace, 1 John 17. as the Law was given by Moses: and to grant these things, is to yield Infant Baptism, under the New Testament.  
And whereas it is, or may be replied, that in that Text above, and others where Biptism is conjoined to Circumcision as its substitute and successor, there also are conjoined with Baptism, Mortification of the Flesh, Newness of Life, Faith and other Graces mentioned: it's easily taken off, though one of your most difficult Replies, as thus.  
1. They are no more conjoined with Baptism than Circumcision: and therefore as their Infants were commanded to be circumcised; So ours are commanded to be baptised, notwithstanding their ivoability and incapacity of doing such acts, or having such Graces, which is equal and alike in both.  
2. In such Conjunctions, if the Texts speak of Actual Faith & Actual indeavoring after Mortification, etc. And require these in persons baptised, they must be limited to such as were Adults, grown in years, converts from Heathenism, such as Cornelius and the Eunuch; for therefore doth the Scripture name them, to show the same, when it mentioneth their Baptism, and the conjoined duties as required in such; which is nothing against Baptism.  
3. Or if Infants should be meant, it sufficeth, that these have them; Mortification, etc. not in the Act, exercising and manifesting themselves in any deed, or word professing the same, but only in Habit included and lying in the principle of Grace, the Holy Spirit: and why, because infants are sinners, not by any proper Act of their own, but only by an Hereditary Habit. Now who amongst you can or will say, that infants have not thus the Spirit of God, which bloweth where it listeth, and hath listed to blow in some of them we know of, and thousands more, where it listeth, that we know not of, effecting and producing in them this habitual principle of Grace. Of this see more before.  
4. Nor is it necessary that Baptism, in that very moment it is received, should effect all things it figureth out and doth signify: (no more was it, that Circumcision should do the like) but it may fall to working them afterwards, wherein present there is an impediment and hindrance, that letteth actual fact, mortification, Repentance, etc. as in infants, the want of reason doth: Those Actuals are not for the present required in infants to be baptised, who yet are required to be in present actualy baptised, for they are required to be partakers of the death and burial of Christ, that is, the merit and power thereof, to the kill and burying of sin and natural corruption, of which Baptism is the sign and means.  
More briefly and syllogistically thus take it, as I recollect it.  
If Baptism do succeed, and is substituted of Christ now, instead of Circumcision, in the Church of the Gentiles, then, as infants were commanded to be circumcised then in the Church of the Jews, so are Infants commanded to be baptised in the Church of the Gentiles.  
But the Antecedent is true, being the very matter and substance of the Text above.  
Therefore also the Consequent is such; and so I have reasoned Infant-Baptism into another Command, before I intended this, as reserved for the latter argument.  
But I serve too large warrants upon you, Sir, to whom I now return, I have another or two brief ones, yet to serve.  
A sixth warrant therefore is this Reason, If infants of Christian Parents be capable of all the good ends, effects and benefis, that Baptism bringeth with it, and worketh or offereth them, then surely they are both capable of Baptism, and their Baptism is warrantable and justificable. This warrant may be reasoned out of the Word, or this reason warranted out of the Word, 1 Gor. 4.15. 1 Cor. 9.1. The Apostle warrants and reasons his Apostleship and the Gospel he preached, to be true and right, from the good ends, effects and benefits that came thereby to the Gorinthians, and they received, That he had begotten them through his Gospel, they were his work in the Lord, and the Seal of his Apostleship, were they in the Lord. So may I hence warrant and justify our ministry, and even the Baptism which we minister, to the infants of Christian Parents, to be good had true, from the many good ends effects and benefits thereof, of which Infants are capable and receptive, and which are wrought and sealed in them thereby: Our Ministry of the Seal of Baptism, with such effects and success, may be also the Seal of our Ministry.  
Now the ends, effects, and benefits of Baptism are these, for which it was appointed.  
1. To be a means of entrance and admission into the visible Church, and a kind of engrafting the party baptised into the body of Christ, and an enrolling of him amongst the household of God, as Members and Servants of Christ, Acts 2.37.  
2. To be, instead of Circumcision, an annexed Seal and assurance, yea conveyance of the good and grace of Christ's word and promise covenanted, the sum whereof is this, of being the Parents God, and God of their seed, Rom. 4.11.  
3. To be a representation and Collation of the washing and cleansing of the Blood and Spirit of Christ, and of the Regeneration and New Birth, Titus 3.5. 1 Peter 3.21.  
4. To be a Tie or Obligation of the baptised to stricter Obedience of God and his Truth, to make the parties more diligent to serve God, and careful to abandon sin, Rom. 6.1. to the 9 1 Cor. 1.13  
5. To be a means of Union with Christ, and of Unity amongst themselves, knitting them faster, and bringing them nearer unto Christ, 1 Cor. 12.13. Eph. 4.5.  
6. To be a badge of Christianity, and for distinction of Christians from Unbelieving Jews and Gentiles, as the stamp and Character whereby they are known to belong to Christ, being a kind of partition-wall betwixt Christians and Jews and Heathens, Ephes. 2.14.  
Now Sir, tell me, which of all these our infants are incapable of, that you should thereupon deny them Baptism; in the mean time, I tell you, they are capable to them all, and therefore are not to be denied. The promises of the Covenant, the washing away of sin by Christ's Blood and Spirit, the admittance into the body of Christ, etc. may be sealed unto them, as wherein they are but Passive; and if you say, so are they capable of the Graces, signed in the Lord's Supper, and therefore may communicate, I say, how know you that? you have no rule for that, no glimpse of light from the Word for that, whereas I have given you evidence enough of light for the other, if you will see there is a Scriptural light, that infants are capable of the Graces signed and sealed in Baptism, we may be sure of it, and therefore may admit them to Baptism; there is but your supposal light (which is below Traditional, you so much write against) that they are capable of the Grace signed and sealed in the Lord's Supper; are you sure of it, and will you thereupon admit them thereto?  
The Lord's Supper is no initial Seal, and for Reception into Covenant, which I only plead for, for infants, yet this Seal which is Baptism it servesto confirm all the benefits of the Covenant, as the baptised grow capable of them, and are made partakers of them, and so is a good preparative, unto the Christians Passeover, or the Lord's Supper afterwards, in due time and order; The Lord's Supper is a Seal of Augmentation, appointed for the nourishment and growth of those Graces which the Covenant promiseth, and requireth particularly and expressly of all partakers of it, That they must discern the Lords Body, and try and examine themselves, and therefore Infants are not capable of the Graces of the Lords Supper, like as they are of them of Baptism, for that they must be Active in that, whereas they may be but Passive in this.  
Those that are capable of all the good ends, effects, & benefits, of an Ordinance, they are not to be forbidden to come, or to be kept back from it, as being a good and valid Ordiance to such.  
But Infants and little Children are capable of all the good ends, effects, and benefits of the Ordinance of Baptism.  
Therefore Infants and little Children are not to be forbidden to come, or to be kept back from it, it being a good and valid Baptism, and beneficial to them.  
The first proposition is clear, from the 1 Cor. 4 15. 1 Cor. 9.1. already cited, to which I add, Matth. 19.14 which clears it as to this particular.  
The second proposition is not questionalbe, that they are capable, as having reasonable souls, belonging (it may be) to election; and so having the Spirit, and Grace (as before) and the Letter of the Text showeth it, For theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven, etc. Except ye become as one of these little ones, ye shall not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.  
To shut up this reason, the sum and result is this; That Infants of baptised parents, are in capacity to partake of the ends, effects, and benefits of Baptism, and of the inward Graces of the same, and many of them are actually and really partakers of them (as well as grown persons, who are visible professors) and there being in us no infallible ground of certainty, but of Charity, that either the one or the other have those inward Graces, yet they may be accordingly baptised; And the visible right to the Covenant, and the many promises made to the seed of the faithfu, added to their Capability of the Graces of it, are as good evidences to ground a baptism of Infants, as the external professions of grown men can give, yea, and to ground a judgement of their partaking of the invisible Graces, like as the others.  
And Experience hath, and doth show it, that of those that have been baptised in their infancy (our Ministry of the Word, afterwards following upon our Ministry of Baptism, sweetly winning upon them, and drawing them, to grow in Grace, and to bring forth other fruits and duties of the Covenant, to which they were bound by Baptism, as the Jews were by their Circumcision, to be obedience of the Law, Gal. 5.3.) there have been; as humble and meek, as mortified and sanctified Christians, both Men and Women, as any amongst you, (to say no more, not to say, more) sound in the faith, sorrowful for sin, zealous in love, fervent in prayer, religious in their houses, and devout in the house of God, sincere in their deal, grave in their behaviour, modest in their attire, exemplary in their lives, mourniful in Spirit and vexed in Soul, for to see the unclean conversations, and the erroneous courses of others, as well as you, nay far better than any of you, in many of these are, or do.  
Now though it be so, that God sometimes doth bring good out of evil, as light out of darkness at first, yet usually and ordinarily God doth it not, and therefore in a visible constituted Church, (where he proceeds ordinarily) he doth not from a false Ministry and an unlawful Baptism, produce such good effects, and lightful converses. (I do not mean your new light, so full of darkness) the which let it be, to the stopping of the mouths of all gainsayers, with whom nothing is more rife and frequent, than to revile our Ministry and Baptism, as false and Antichristian, evil and unlawful.  
A word more, from hence, to you Parents; That, if you regard the , good ends, effects and benefits, and now know your Children capable of them, and desire indeed, they should be partakers of them, bring them to Baptism, a means to those ends, a work to that effect, an office to such a benefit. (So whom God destinates to an end, he destinates to the means, whom 〈◊〉 appoints to an effect, he appoints to a work, whom he designs to a benefit, he designs to office.) What? (moreover and above) are you not willing, your Children should have the privilege to be accounted as belonging to the family and household of God upon earth? That they should have an obligation upon them to bind them to the duties of the Covenant of God as they grow of capacity to perform them? that they have a good Title afterwards to that other Seal of growth and nourishment in spiritual Graces? Why then do you withhold them from Baptism? are you not desirous, they should, as members of the visible Church, have a place in the Communion of Saints, and a share in those prayers that are put up to the throne of Grace, for the welfare of the Church, and (particularly) for a blessing upon the Ordinances thereof? and that they should have a Seal to plead, not only in the persent day of their initiation, but throughout all their life time, as to the Covenant, for all those good things whereof it is a Seal, so to the Condition, for fulfilling the good duties, and so gaining the answer of a good Conscience, and in which case it is said, to save? Why then bring them forth & present them unto Baptism. Be not like unto the Ostrich in Job. 39 16. She is bardened against her young ones, as though they were not hers; her labour is in vain, without fear, because God hath deprived her of Wisdom, neither hath he imparted to her Understanding, which leaveth her eggs in the earth, and warmeth them in dust, and forgetteth that the foot may crush them, and that the wild beast may break them: it needs no application, but this; Be not so hard hearted to your Children, as to leave them in the earth and dust of their natural Generation (so every foot they may be crushed, & your seed not only bru●sed of the Serpent, but broken) but bring them out to the water and (it may be) the fire of Baptismal Regeneration. The Apostie tells you, (and you are (I believe) very expert in that Lesson, and experienced in that matter) that if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house and kindred, he hath denied the faith and is worse than an infidel: but if you provide not for your own Flesh, and Children, and their Spirits: (not only giving them bedily provision, but not giving them also such provisions as God hath made ready for their Souls) you leave them as bad as infidels in a manner unbaptised, denying them a means of faith, and the Seal of the Covenant.  
I say no more, but what Man is there of you, whom if his Son ask Bread, will be give him a Stone, or if he ask a Fish, will be give him a Serpent, as Psalm 147.9. The young Ravens cry to God for their food to be given them, So your young infants (methinks) cry to you, and in their crying and weeping, seem to call to you for their Water of Baptism, as their milk of the Breasts, to be, the one, the relief unto their Souls against original guilt and misery, as the other against natural hunger and infirmity.  
But if you regard not your Children, do you look to yourselves and your ends and benefits, and amongst these, your Honour first? Is it not a great honour to you, to have a Child, counted to some great house, and of the Household, and under the Protection of some Nobleman? and is it not a great deal more honour to have a Child, counted to the House of God, the Church, and of the Family, and under the safeguard of Jesus Christ? why then, baptise your Child. If you stand not so much upon your Honour, or theirs, yet, I am sure, you are willing to have comfort of your Child, and good hope (here is not substance and evidence enough for Faith) of its well being, whilst it liveth spiritually, and after death, eternally? the way is, enter him into the Church of God by Baptism. So you hope, your Child is preferred and made for ever (as you speak) when once you had gotten him into some great House and noble Family, which are but Cottages to the Church, and ignoble to the Family of God: Whereas if you withhold him from Baptism, you do leave him to have his visible actual standing & abode in the House of darkness, and continue him in an outward case and condition, as an alien from the Covenant, and a stranger from the Common wealth of Christians, (what in you lieth) which must needs be both dishonorble and uncomfortable to you the while. True indeed, you may have comfort from the Covenant only, if by some invincible, and unvoydable act of Providence intervening, your child be prevented and deprived of the Seal thereof which is Baptism, full against your will and purpose; but if through your default and wilful detaining of him, and Contempt of this Ordinance, it so fall out, that your Child die unbaptised, He may be saved without the Seal of the Covenant, I believe; but I dare not promise you herein Salvation, or Comfort, without Repentance of this your fault and sin against God in his Ordinance.  
And so this shall be my last reason to you Parents, for the bringing of your Children to Baptism, for that thereby you shall not only get honour to yourselves (as I said) but give honour to God, by your submission unto the Seal also for them, to God, I say, who took order for your children's honouring you, yea, honoured you both by entering into Covenant with both, and annexing the Seal of Baptism thereto for your further Comfort and Confirmation. When our Saviour offered himself to be Baptised, John forbade him, saying, I have need to be baptised of thee, and comest thou to me? but Christ took him off, saying, suffer it to be so now, for thus it becometh us to fulfil all Righteousness, Matt. 3.13, 14, 15. as John the Baptist thought Christ above the Ordinance of Baptism, by reason of his great perfection (and there be also others as say, they are above ordinances, in a high conceit of themselves:) So some of you Anabaptists think Infants of Christians, below the ordinance of Baptism, by reason of their great Imperfections: Me things our Saviour Christ in this place answereth, and resuteth both them and you; them by his example, who being the Highest in perfection, yet stooped down, and condescended to the Ordinance of Baptism, Therefore none sure, not the highest and perfectest amongst men in the Church upon earth, are above Ordinances; and you by his Doctrine, and Exhortation, suffer it to be so now for thus it becometh you to fulfil all Righteousness; a part, and act whereof is, the Seal of the Righteousness of Faith, which Baptism is now under the Gospel, as Circumcision was under the Law; Rom. 4.11. and therefore as the Jewish Parents were diligent to fulfil that Righteousness, by putting their Children in Covenant under that Seal of Righteousness, Circumcision, so ought ye Christian Parents to be careful to fulfil this Righteonsness, ousness, and to put your Children in Covenant also under this Seal of Righteousness, Baptism: Suffer it to be so now, suffer little Children to come unto Christ, and forbidden them not, for they have need to come to him, and now in his absence, to his Ministers to be Baptised; For thus it becometh you as them, to fulfil all Righteousness. Make not a Nullity of the Seal of Righteousness, lest you come at length to make Righteousness itself a Nullity too.  
and now that I am fallen upon this matter of Righteousness, I shall turn to you again Sir, my Quaerist, and ask you, if you do not deny Baptism to Infants, upon this ground, that you think, the efficacy of Baptism is seated and founded upon the practical Righteousness of a Professor, or Member of the Church, manifested in words and deeds, Confession and Conversation? which if you do, (as indeed you do, and all that stand out against Infant Baptism:) it is a groundless ground. For the Text I just now cited, showeth that it is not so grounded, but only upon Covenantal Righteousness, and the free grace of God in Christ; for so Rom. 4.11. He received the sign of Circumcision, à Seal of the Righteousness of Faith, which he had being yet uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all them that believe, etc. that Righteousness might be imputed unto them also: where you see it, or hear it in the very Terms, Righteousness of Faith, not Life or Works, Imputedrighteousness (not inherent or practised, which both Abraham had, and his Children must have.) Now though our Christian Infants, have no inherent Righteousness, or practical manifested unto us by their words or deeds (as you require in those you Baptise; and therefore put off your Christian Infants until years of discretion to profess true Faith, and years of action to practise good works) yet we present and dedicate them in their Infancy by Baptism, to God's mercy and fatherly love in Christ, their and our Ruighteousness and Atonement, for that we know, God hath Righteousness to be imputed unto them, by virtue of his Covenant of Grace.  
I come to my seventh and last Warrant, which (I foresse) will bring you to no Justice, yet I will serve this also upon you, for though now and then in your letter, you let fall such a word, as Primitive Practice, and the good old way, yet I know, you cannot in your heart abide Antiquity, and the Primitive practices of the Church of old, for that they are point blank against your blank point, of Baptising only such believers, as can and do make Profession of their Faith in Christ, which is but a novel New Light of those Blazing, Comets, and Meteors, that sprung out in Germany some while ago, but yesterday, in comparison of the Baptisin of the Infants of believers, which hath brightly shined out throughout all the Churches, in good and full Lustre Sunlike, until the Man in the Moon Muncer his Lunatics, or Moon-Sirs, interposed, and made some Eclipse thereof in the Churches: This therefore is my sixth and last Reason.  
If it hath been an ancient practice, and constant custom of the Primitive, and the succeeding Churches, throughout the several ages to Baptise the Children of believing Parents, in their Infancy; than it ought to be so still continued, accustomed and practised: This Warrant may be Reasoned out of the word, or the Reason warranted out of Matth. 19.4.9 where Christ in case of a point of difference about divorce, himself argueth and reasoneth, from the Ancient times, and the beginning of the Church of God. So out of 1 Cor. 11.16. if any man seem to be Contentious, we have no such Custom, neither the Churches of God: Where you and I may see, the case there and here to be much alike: The Corinthians had got up a fashion of their men's praying covered, & in their long Hair, and their women praying uncovered, & in their shorn Hair; you likewise have taken up a practice, of baptising only believers, when grown persons they make profession, and have shut out Infants from their right to the Seal of Baptism, being Covenanters with their Parents. Saint Paul refuteth that their fashion by divers arguments drawn from the headship of man over the woman, from the dishonouring of the head, from the shamesulness and the uncomeliness of it, from the Presence of the Angels, from the light of nature, five good and sound arguments; and when he perceived for all those, that they were contentious and quarrelsome with him about and for their fashion, He clappeth upon them as his last argument, this taken from the Churches of God that have been before us. In like manner I have refelled your Practice by sundry Warrants and Reasons raised out of the word, from such Infants, some of them having the spirit and faith in some degrees; from their being in the same Holy Covenant of Grace with their Parents, from the proportion and succession of Baptism unto Circumcision; from Baptisme's being a remedy against Original sin especially; from Infant's capableness of the ends, effects and benefits of Baptism, five good and warrantable reasons out of the word: and supposing for all this you will not be conquered though overcome, but will still strive and contend, contrary to 2 Tim. 2.24.  
Now I urge upon you, in the last place, this Reason, which is the Custom of the Church, both Modern, (we have such a Custom of Baptising Infants of Believing Patents, and we have no Custom (approved, or General) of Baptising only Grown Believers:) As also Ancient, (Neither the Churches of God have had any such.) For so though Saint Paul argue N gatively, only; the Reason is of as much force and weight affirmatively, and the Custom of the Ancient and Modern Church's  good and pleadable, both against the New Lights of late scismatical Innovators, as also for the old Light of former and present Orthodex Professors.  
As for the Negative, the Not, or No Custom Primitive, and practice Apostolieal of Baptising again at their growth, upon Confession of Faith, such as had been Baptised before in their Infancy, I do reserve it for at other Place, your Dipping Pond, of which I shall speak at last: only here I shall bring in the Affirmative, That the Ancient Prinritive Churchès succeeding the Apostles (what the Apostles themselves did do and practied shall hereafter soon follow) did hold and practise the Baptising of Infants; And though I think, it will but disturb your Brain, and cause you to stop your Nostrils and Mouth, who small no sweet Savour or Odour of Antiquity, as being one of the New Sent, or unsent rather, yet notwichstanding I shall, and relate the Dictates of some of the Ancient Apostles succeeding Pastors and Fathers of the Church of old; and I will do it, for others sake, who are Lovers of Antiquity, but I will do it in English for your sake (whom I am Instructing) who are no lover of Languages, more than you can speak.  
I know, you will not take this General Custom and Practice of the Church upon my bare word and present Assertion, nor do I desire you should; Therefore Remember the days of old, consider the years of many Generations; ask thy Father and he will show thee, thy Elders, and they will tell thee; ask now of the days that are past, which were before, whe●●er there hath been any such thing, as the Baptising of Infants of Believers. You shall readily find the same, attested by the Reverend Fathers of the Church, the Bishops and Doctors of the days of old, and years of former Generations, to have been so, to be the Custom and Practice.  
In a matter of Fact or Practice, one Good and Creditable witness is sufficient: and that I am sure I have Saint Augustine, I mean not only for the General Practice of Infant Baptism in his days, and those present time's wherein he lived; as might easily be showed our of his Books of Original Sin, Chap. 40. Third Book of the Merit of Sin and Remission Chap. 9 Third Book against Julian, fourth Book of Baprism against the Donatists, etc. But also for the former and preceding Churches, up to the Primitive days.  
For so Augustine who lived in the year after the Nativity of Christ, 39●. and was Presbyter first, and after Bishop of Hippo, saith thus in his third Epistle to Volusian. The Custom of the Mother Church in Baptising little ones is in no wise to be despised, not to be thought needless, and were not to be believed, but that it was as Apostolical Tradition. This is a very full and clear evidence, of an Ecclesiastical Custom, an Apostolical Tradition, (whether written or unwritten, that infringeth it not, according to that of the Apostle, 2 Thest. 2.15. hold the Traditons which ye have been taught, whether by word or Epistle;) not to be despised, but believed.  
Nor did Augustine utter this suddenly, but advisedly, and therefore upon second thoughts, saith it over again, and the more Resolutely; in his 15. Sermon, of the words of the Apostle. Let no man (saith he) buzz or whisper into our ears, any Doctrine to the Contrary; This Practice of Baptising Ghildrens, The Church always had, this it hath, this it always held, this it hath received from the Faith or fidelity of our Ancestors, and this it keeps Constantly to the end.  
Therefore doth the same Father so often and so much press this Argument, The Church's Practice of Baptizing-Infants upon Pelagius and his followers (who were Contemporary with Augustine) holding Infants were not taken, or tainted with original Corruption and Sin, by propagation, but only contracted the same by Imitation; as in his 150 Epistle unto Sixtus; in his second Book of Marriage and Concup. 18. Chap. in his first Book against Crescon. the Grammarian, cap 30. in his fourth Book against the Donat. c. 23. in his sixth Book against Julian, one of Pelagius his Scholars, or his opinions.  
Now if this had not been truly and undeniably. The Custom and Practice of the Church, even up to the first and Primitive times, as Augustine affitmed, Pelagius and his Disciples would soon have fallen foul upon him, as the Pharisees did upon our Saviour, and have said, thou bearest witness of thyself, (& for thyself) thy witness is not true, they would have given a check or denial, to such a Custom, accused it of Novelty, or but of Yesterday, and so have turned off easily that Argument (which of all other lay most heavily upon them) the Ancient Church's Custom and Practice in Baptising Infants. But they never did that, as who could not deny this.  
And so that other exception against Augustine, as if he should utter and urge this in Heat and Passion against Pelagius his Adversary in point of Baptising of Infants, and speak more of the Custom and Practice of the Church, than was true, falleth of itself. For they differed not in that point of Infant-Baptism: no nor in the matter of the Custom of the Church herein. For so Augustine affirmeth both in his first Book of the Merit and Remission of Sin. The Peloagians themselves do grant, that little Children are to be Baptised, as who cannot come in (or stand up) against the Authority of the Universal Church, delivered without doubt (or Traditioned) by our Lord and his Apostles.  
And again in the eleventh Book against Caelestius and Pelagius, He affirms and citys, that Caelestius in a Book of his written at Rome acknowledged, that Infants in a Book of his wirtten at of sin, according to the Rule of the universul Church, and according to the sense and meaning of the Gospel: and Therefore Pelagius not daring to deny (though otherwise impudent enough) the General Practice of the Ancient Church in Baptising Infants, as who then, and that way, might have slipped his neck out of the Collaror Yoke, Augustine held him to, was feign to shist off that Father's Argument as well as he could, but very poorly and pitifully, That the Church Baptised indeed Infants, but not for the washing away of original fin (which he denied in Infants) but for the better bringing them to the Kingdom of Heaven, which Christ said, was of such, as theirs.  
And truly, this makes a great Addition to the Truth of this, The Custom and Practice of the Universal Ancient Church in Baptising lnsants, that Pelagius so great a Scholar and Traveller, who had seen the Customas and Practices, the manners and fasthions of the African and Asiatiqne, yea and European Churches, being also himself a British born, should not, as indeed he could not make any denial, or take any exception thereto as who by his own eyes and experience, saw & found it to be most true and uniform; and so I may say, our Baptism of Infants, is a true Baptism; and the Ancient Churches Practise hereof, is a true Practice, even our enemies themselves being Judges; as Deut. 32.31.  
〈◊〉 why then was not, Augustine himself Baptised in his In … y? who was such as strong Advocate for the Baptism of Infants? the Reason is plain, and makes nothing against our Infant Baptism, or the General Practice of the Church; for neither his Father nor Mother were Christians or Believers when himself was born and they continued so, until a little before their death; Augustine himself was not converted from his Manichean Heresies and other vices until the 31. year of his age, who two years continuing a Catechumen, and in the mean time writing somethings, to give proof and testimony of the truth of his conversion, or of his conversion to the Truth, was Baptised himself, and his Son Adeodate together, like as Ahraham was circumcised with Ismeal his Son, on the selfsame day: These things may be seen, in His Confessions.  
I shall need to add no more, for the showing Infant-Baptism, to have been the Custom and Practice of all the former Ancient Churches: Augustine's Testimony of the same, is to me instead of all, and as Goliahs' Sword to David, there is none like that, Give it me. 1 Sam 21.9 I have taken it, and I give it thee, not as a single Testimony of one Father for it, but as a Quadruple witness of the Universal Church, and its Custom and Practice for the point of Paedobaptism, being four times expressly deliveced, though by one and the same Father, Saint Austin: Yet I may, for more perspicuity sake, follow up this General Testimony by one Father unto its Particulars, I mean, the Covattestations of other particular Fathers in their several ages.  
You have heard what Augustine hath said and written as for that Century, 
For the year, 390. 384.  and those years wherein he lived.  
Hierom, In his Epistle ad Laetam, having told her, that the good and the evil of little once, are imtured much to their Parents; he addeth in the middle of that Epistle: unless (perhaps) you think, the Sons of Christians, is they receive not Baptism, They only are guilty of sin, and that the wickedness also thereof is not to be referred or to redound to the Parents, who would not give it, especially at or in such a time, wherein they could not contradict, who were to receive it. In his Book against the Pelagians towards the end, he is for Infant-Baptism, and confirms it by allerdging the Authority of Cyprian, and his Colleagues: In the same third Book against Pelag: it is thus Crito (i.e.) Pelagian, saith grant me thus much, at lest, that they are without sin, who cannot sin, speaking of Infants: To whom Atticus (i.e.) Hieronimus, Answereth; I will Grant it, if they have been Baptised in Christ; and again, They are without any Sin, through the Grace of God, which they have received in Baptism.  
Chrysostom Archbishop of Constantinople, 
For the year, 382.  in his Homil. to the Neophytes, is for the Baptism of Children; and in his 40. Homil: upon Genes. calls Baptism our Circumcision, His being not Baptised until he was 21. years of age, doth not prejudice here, as whose Father and Mother were not Christians, at his birth; and who himself was brought up under Libanius, an enemy to, and a scoffer at Religion: but after he was instructed in the Divinity knowledge by Miletus a Bishop, and Baptised of him.  
In his Homil: ad Neoph: having spoken of the Honours and Benefits of Baptism, he saith a little from the beginning, For this cause we Baptise the little Infants, that they may not be defiled with sin, that to them may be added, Sanctity, Righteousness, Adoption, Inheritance, Fraternity of Christ, That they may be all his Members, and the Habitation of the Spirit.  
In his 40. Homil: upon Genes. having spoken of Circumcision appointed to the Children of the Jews, and the pain of the Incision, he addeth, but our Circumcision, or the grace of our Baptism, brings the medicine without without such dolour, and Innumerable benefits with it. It hath indeed no definite time set down for it, as that hath; but it is lawful to receive both in the first, and in the middle, and in the last age, this, not made with hands Circumcision: in which there is sustained no great pain, but the weight of sins are put off, and Remission of them is found, even of all which are done throughout the whole life.  
Ambrose, the Bishop of Milan, by whom Augustine was Converted and Baptised; in his Book of Abraham the Patriarch, lib. 
For the year, 381.  2. Chap. 11. writing upon those words, unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit: See (saith he) Christ excepts none, not the Infant, not the prevented by some necessity, etc. Every age is obnoxious to sin, therefore every age is fit for the Sacrament.  
So also in his Epistle ad Demetriadem Virginem, he mention, eth the Baptism of Children, Epist, 84. lib. 10. speaking in that Epistle against Pride, and Boasting of some especially Hearetiques, and showing the evil effects thereof, to the defending false opinions, extenuating of evil and sin, and the evacuating of some good, gives these two Instances, amongst others: Hence the sin of Adam is affirmed to hurt his Posterity, by example, not by passage, or transition into them: Hence is that Evacuation of the Baptism of little Children, as if they should be said, to have Adoption given there, but not to be absolved from their guilt: and again, Though little ones not Baptised, may or should be saved, yet great is the negligence of those that hindeed their Baptising.  
In his Book de vocat. lib. 2. cap. 8. he mentioneth Baptism of Children three or four times; and once thus, They speak very ill and unjurly of little Children who say, Grace hath there what it may Adopt but the water hath not there what it may wash away, speaking of such as deoyed sin in little Children.  
Paulinus Bishop of Nola in Camqania, 
For the year, 379.  a man famous for Poetry and Eloquence, Piety and munificence, a good acquaintance of Augustine, and Hierom, betwixt whom and Him there passed sundry Epistles, a great favourite and familiar of Ambrose whose life he wrote, as also of Sulpitius Severus, to whom he wrote 14. Epistles: As the Beginning of the twelfe Epistle, to the same Sulpitius Severus hath these two verses, whhich for your sake, I must be fain to tranflate into English.  
Thence from the Sacred Font the Priest did lead it  
The Infant white in body, heart, and habit.  
Epiphanius, 
For the year, 376.  In his first Book Haer. 8. The Figures were in the Law, the Truth in the Gospel. Circumcision, which served for a time, gave place to the Great Circumcision, which is Baptism, which Circumciseth us from sin, and Sealeth us into the Name of God; In His Book against the Cerinthians. Circumcision had its time, until the Great Circumcision came, that is, the washing of the New-birth, as is manifest to every one. Surely he meant that which the Apostle calls so, that is Baptism, the washing or Laver of Regeneration; and by calling Baptism the Great Circumcision, he must intent, Infant Baptism, as Infant-Circumcision; and speaks of them as of things manifest and wel-known, the Carnal or fleshly Baptism as Circumcision: In the end of his work, calls Baptism and other mysteries observed in the Church, which are brought out of the Gospel, and settled by Apostolic Authority, Traditions; and then, in his Time, Baptism was ministered to Infants, and observed.  
Gregory Nazianzene, 
For the year, 375.  In his 40. Oration of Holy Baptism, largely speaketh of it; the brief is, in the Question and Answer, What say ye of those who are of tender Age, and perceive neither damage or Grace, shall we Baptise those? Yes surely, if any danger be; it is better to be Sanctified without sense and feeling, then to departed without the Seal, and Initiation: Circumcision bearing in a manner the figure of Baptism, was offered to them, who were void of Reason, etc. calleth also Baptism, the Seal or Signet to such as enter into the Race of Life.  
Basil the Great, 
For the year, 372.  Bishop of Caesarea, 1 Tom. Exhortation to Baptism; wherein though the Baptism of Infants is not named, yet I find these words. There is a proper and peculiar time for this and that, as for sleep, for watching, for warring, the Time for Baptism, is the whole life of man; which he proves at large; and again, without Baptism there is no light to the Soul; and then adds, the Jew was compelled or forced to Circumcision, because every soul which was not Circumcised the eighth day, was to be cut off; & wilt thou defer the Circumcision, not made with hands, which is performed by Baptism, in the putting of the flesh; When wilt thou be a Christian?  
Athanasius Q. 91. 
For the year, 325.  Of the Say and Interpretation of Scripture, We dip or put the Infant thrice into the water, and thrice bring it out, insignification of the death and resurrection of Christ upon the third day. I shall also here set down an answer of his Quest. 2. to Antiochus, because it confirms what I have writ before, of Infants having the Holy Spirit; How shall we know, that the Infant was truly Baptised, and received the Holy Ghost in Holy Baptism when it was a Child? but the answer is long, and shall not need, because I would be short, The Question is enough to the purpose, and showeth both, that Athanasius held both Infant-Baptism, and therein affirmed them to receive the Holy Spirit; the very question, makes it unquestionable as to him.  
Again in his Treatise of the Sabbath and Circumcision, He calls Circumcision, a type of Baptism.  
Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, and a Martyr. 
For the year, 247.  The higher we go, the clearer the light shines for the Baptism of Infants; for now here, Cyprian, with 66 Colleagues, all Bishops, do in a Council at Carthage decree for it; and so Certifieth his Friend Fidus, in an Epistle to him, third Book of Epistles, Ep. 8. Yea that whole Epistle, written by Cyprian and his 66 Colleagues sitting in Council with him, The Title of it is, of Infants to be Baptised: and the subject of the whole Epistle is to justify the Baptising of them, and answereth the objections of Fidus. As to the Cause, (the Baptism of Infants) we all have judged that the mercy and Grace of God is not to be denied to any Child born of man, etc. and that there is the same equality of grace for the young Infant, as the Elder. God is no respecter of personages nor ages, Yea he gives divers reasons, why Infants, and the rather and the sooner, because Infants should be Baptised, which for brevity sake, I leave out here, as who am only upon the showing (having proved the Baptism of Infants before) the Custom and Practice of Antiquity herein.  
This Epistle also, is owned and avouched both by Hierome Au-Augustine, to be the true Epistle of Cyprian: by Hierom as above is said; and by Augustine Epistle 28. unto Hierome saying, Cyprian did not here devise a New decree, but kept and observed the true Faith, or the faithful Practice and Custom of the Church. Yea this Epistle of Cyprian was a very strong ground for them both to stand upon, and they very much relied upon it for the strengthening themselves in their own opinion of Infant-Baptism.  
Origen, the Scholar and Disciple of Clemens Alexandrinus, 
For the year, 204.  so forward a Scholar, that at eighteen years of his age, he set up a School and taught others; in his fift Book to the Rom. 6. c. the Church hath received the Tradition from the Apostles, even, or also to little Children, to give Baptism, because in them, as in all, are the Genuine; (or ingenerated) filths of sin, the which ought to be washed with water and the Spirit.  
Somewhat more of this, there is in his eighth Book upon Levit. 8. Homil. and upon Luke Homil. 14.  
Tertullain whom Cyprian read so diligently and esteemed so highly, 
For the year, 195.  that in all matters of doubt, he would have recourse to him, saying, Give me my Master, meaning Tertullian, in his Book of Baptism, chap. 18. According to the Condition, disposition, and also age of every person, the delaying of Baptism is more profitable, especially in and about Infants: for what necescessity is there, (if it be not so necessary,) to bring the sureties into danger, of not performing their promise, and whether this be meant of the Children, which were not born of Christian Parents, as some will; or of the Children of believing Parents, as others say, its evident, that Baptism was administered in all ages, and he intimates the Custom, and practice of the Church in his age to Baptise them, even Children as well as others; Though he seems not to be so well pleased with it; and yet again, the words import no other, then, that he denied the Necessity only of Baptism, to them, being out of danger of death, not simply the Baptising of them rather (as in another place) he doth imply, they ought to be Baptised, if there be danger or fear, that afterwards they may not or cannot be Baptised, in his Book of the Soul, Chap. 39 and 40. where he saith, that Infants of believing Parents or one Parent, have such a Sanctity, and that from the Privilege of their Birth (not the discipline of their bringing up) as gives them a Right to Baptism; Therefore Tertullain calleth the Children of Believers, The designees, or destinates of Holiness, or as elsewhere, the Candidates of Holiness; and so here is an evidence for that Birth, Holiness, or foederal Holiness, of which I shall speak anon out of the 2 of Acts.  
Irenaeus 2 Book, 
For the year, 170.  Chap. 39 He came to save all by himself, I say all, who are born again by him, into God, Infants and little ones and Children, and young men and old men, etc. The intention of the words is of Christ Jesus, who (as it followeth there, went through every age, to Infants made an Infant, Sanctifying Infants, to little ones made a little one sanctifying those of that age: but you see there is an expression of Infants, of whom he saith, they are born again into or unto God, that is, Baptised; for so Baptism is usually styled by the Ancients, especially the Greeks, a Renascence or New Birth, or Palingensy, as might be showed out of Athanasius and Basil, who took it, from the Apostolic manner also of speaking, Tit. 3.5. as before I mentioned.  
I can go no higher: for Irenaeus was the Scholar and Disciple of Polycarpus; and Polycarpus was the Scholar or Disciple of John the Evangelists; and to you see, I am come up to the very skirts and thresholds of the Apostolic Churches, and Primitive Times, with the Custom and Practice of Baptising Infants. Some go yet higher, to Justin Martyr quaest & resp ad orthod. qu. 
For the year, 130 90 60  56. and so to Clemens the Roman Bishop in his Apostolical constit lib. 6. cap. 15. and to Dyonisius Areopagita in his Eccles. Hietarchy. Ch. last. And indeed there are pregnant places in them for Baptising Infants, if the Authors, were Legitimate: they are so good and sufficient against the Papists, who own them and maintain them for true and Genuine: but with us they are held to be suppositions and spurious, and though many good and true things are in them, as Infant-Baptism, etc. Yet they are not belonging to such venerable Names as those I have rchearsed, and therefore not of that Antiquity with them, and so impertinent to my purpose.  
Only one thing I must add, to satisfy the Reader, why, on this side of Augustine towards the Apostles, I have mentioned no more of the Fathers, and Doctors of the Church, seeing there were many more, or what! were they discrepant in their opinion about the Baptism of Infants? no sure; the reason must needs be this they all lived long before Pelagius came out from the British Seat, and gathered to himself a Sect of Locusts which spread over the world, and troubled the Churches with this matter for one they denying the Traduction of original sin in Infants. Therefore those Ancient Fathers of the Church, having no occasion to intermeddle with any such matters about Infant-Baptism, kept close only to such controversies and questions as were on foot in their days (save only that Cyprian, as I touched before, was questioned hereabouts:) the silence of those Fathers, that touched not upon it gives consent to the Practice as unquestioned by them; but God would put words of it it to the mouths of some of them, to be witnesses unto posterity, of the Antiquity of Infant-Baptism, and the Church's Practice.  
The like answer may be given, why in those two General Counsels, the Nicene and the Constantinopolitan, and some other Provincial ones, which were before Augustine, nothing is touched upon in their Canons, about Baptism of Infants (except that of Cyprian and his 66 Colleagues before mentioned) because it was at a thing never in question amongst them, never opposed by any; and yet that was a very sruitful age of haeretical weeds springing up, in those purer times; witness the Munichees, Arrians, Donatists Macedonians, Aaerians, Eunomians Luciferians, etc. amongst all which, not an Antipaedobaptist, not any that so much as made scruple at it, which sure some or other, in malice or envy to the Church, would have done, if they could have found, how to have shaken that, as they did all other Foundations of Christinaity.  
But after Augustine's time, when Pelagius arose, Then the Councils came in against him, thick and threefold; as the Milevitane or Council of Carthage in the year, 402. 418. Canon 11. and the Gerundense Council held in Spain, 518. Can. 5. and the Bracarense Council the 2. 572. Can. 7. And so the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, are ever and anon storming of Pelagius and his adherents.  
And now Sir, I know all this Labour is lost, as to you, who are and desire to be but a man of to day, and for ever; but for yesterday, or Antiquity, there you will leave even Christ, and his Church, and go no farther; you are none of the old Martiald Soldiery, but the New Modelled Militia: and yet you may remember, how you began in your first Leaf, with the good and old way of the Baptism of believers; stand now therefore in the way, and see, ask for the old paths where is the good way, and walk therein (such a one, I have showed you, without your ask, even this, the Baptism also of Infants,) walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your Soul, as there it followeth: but if ye say still, as there it followeth also, we will not walk therein, than I shall look upon you as Saint Augustine's miracle and wonder (that I may end with him with whom I began this,) who believed not when the world believed, Practise not, when the world Practiseth.  
Seeing then you care not for looking behind you to Antiquity, look before you, and see the Reformed Churches, in France, Dutchland, Scotland (why not England? if Infant-Baptism be not now in present the practice and Custom (and so hath been of old, of these and other Reformed Churches, what then is your Church (if you have any) but a deformed one, but a New upstart one, who oppose this so General Custom both Ancient and Modern, and have quite cast it out of your doors, introducing, instead thereof, and setting up, the Man-Baptism, and Infant Rebaptism, crying out daily for these your Great (little Nothings Diana's of the Ephesian, first love and first Baptism forsaking Anabaptists.  
Let the advise you to lay your hand upon your mouth, and cease declaiming and clamouring against this infant-Baptism, (for therein you reproach God and his Church, God for appointing, Infant-Circumcision, and his Church, for using Infant-Baptism:) yea to lay your hand upon your heart, and in love to the Truth, to return unto your First Love, and Truth, to enter again into Communion, and fellowship with your Mother-Church of England, and those other her Sister-Churches of the Protestants, giving unto us the Right of Fellowship, who are ready to reach forth the same to you, and also to embrace you.  
And if this be any Blook you stumble at in the way to our Churches, that there are Rents and Divisions still amongst us, (whom may we thank for them? even about this infant-Baptism; I answer you in a word, that our differences are not about Baptising Infants, but about Infants to be Baptised, and so, in the Point of Paedobaptism, or Infant-Baptism, we are all agreed, and aggrieved only at your Schism and Division, which you have made in our Churches, which are all against you, therefore our care must be, if we cannot hold fellowship with you, to keep our Communion notwiststanding with all Christian Churches; and if you will separate and departed, from us and them, we must let you departed, a Brother, or a Sister is not under Boadage in such Cases, But God hath called us to peace, peace, as Christ's Legacy left to his Church, we are willing to have with all man, so we may withal retain Truth. And seeing whilst we speak of peace, you are still for dissension, whilst we propound truth, you will still hold errors, our care must be, (and shall be, I hope, in our particulars) to maintain and preserve our peace and Truth, and our Communion in both, withal the Reformed Churches abroad, in this point of Infant-Baptism, which Churches, (as ours at home) God hath blessed in this way, with great increase of heavenly gifts, and infinite numbers of renowned professors, and Saints of those that have been baptised in their Infancy, And that knowing the time that now it is high time for you to awake out of sleep, Ro. 13.11. & to repent of those sinful Schisms, and Rents, and Separations you have made between yourselves and us, and other true Churches, to give over your charging us, and them with iniquity, wherein we show piety, and your putting a divine restraint upon Infant, Baptism, wherein God hath given them, and us liberty, and in excluding Christian poor Infants, those privileges, and helps to heaven which Christ hath indulged them.  
And thus I have answered your last Quaere, showing unto you, what warrants we have out of the word, for our Baptising of Infants, namely the six warrants reasoned out of the word, which are six Reasons, warranted out of the word. Now join all these reasons together, with the Scripture out of which they are deduced, and will they not make that Analogy, or proiportion of Faith, as to this point of Infant Baptism, according to which we are to proceed; nay, may they not all arise to a Tantamount Command, or a virtual or implicit Command, or a consequential Command of the same, yea I have made two or three of them to be such in their particulars, I have been so used to give you Commands out of the word, for our former practices, being called ever upon by you, for such Commands, which so ring still in my ears, that, though, the word, warrant, do not put me upon such a hot service as a Command: (which I believe notwithstanding you meant, your Tongue either out-running, or short-running your wit,) I shall interpret your challenge, or Quaere to aim at, what Command out of the word have you for Baptising Infants? And first, what Command have you out of the word, against Baptising Infants of Baptised Parents, if none, Than you deny Baptism to those, to whom Christ denied it not, and so, in a manner you deny Christ, to be your Master, and if you deny him, you deny also him that sent him; if none, than you have no authority to infringe or Countercommand the liberty of the Church herein: ye take too much upon you Sun of Muncer.  
Secondly, What Command would you have out of the word for our Baptising Infants of Baptised Parents? do you mean an express: and praticular Command? in calling for this, you grant an explicit Command for it and a general one; I am glad of this, and will make much of it, as to my purposes: for as general propositions are enough to infer their particular, all Children of the Church and in Covenant, are to be baptised, and therefore the Infants of Baptised Parents are to be baptised: So implicit Commands, which are but folded up and wrapped in good reasons or good consequences, are sufficient for all true Subjects and Disciples of Christ, to do a work, and this, of Baptising the infants of baptised Parents, as if it had been more expressed; The words intimation, or a deduction from the Word, is to me and aught to be to you, the Words, Expression, and an injunction from the Word. For if you be so strait girdled, and queasie-stomacht, or narrow throated, that nothing will down with you, or can be digested, but only express Commands, in so many Words, Letters, and Syllables, as Infant-baptism doth consist of, Then I pray, produce such an express Command out of the Word, for Children of Believers, when they are grown, to be instructed and baptised upon the Confession of Faith, or for Baptism of Believers only, in Christian Churches (to use your own words)? or for Woman's eating the Passeover, and receiving the Lords Supper, or, for the first day of the week to be the Christian Sabbath, or for divers other such things that I name not.  
And yet I have something more to show you, than a Rational and Consequential Command for Infant-Baptism, There is also an Analogical (I had almost added, Typical) Command for the same, our Infant Baptism, For Go a Command to Abraham and the Jews to circumcise their Infants (the Seal then in force, and for that time of the Law) The same Command binds us christian's, to baptise our Infants, (the Seal now in force, and for this time of the Gospel) binds us I say by the just Analogy and Proportion, that is between the two Sacraments and Seals of one and the same Covenant, especially, the one, Baptism, succeeding the other, Circumcision. Suppose a Jesuit, (who is of late in many points Anabaptised, like as you Anabaptis are in as many Jesuited) should oppose you, and deny your Baptism of Believers only, to be a Seal (as indeed he doth so, denies both your and our Baptisms and the Lords Supper, to be Seals or Signs) will you not look back to Circumcision in the Old Testament, where it is called a Seal and Sign (for in the New Testament they are not where called, either) and thence fetch an Analogical proof, that ours are also Seals, our Baptism and their Circumcifion agreeing in the General-Nature of a Sacrament. By the like Analogy, being questioned by you for a Command of Infant Baptism in the New Testament, if there be none there, I may go over to the Command of Infant Circumcision in the Old Testament, and thence prove ours, also our Infant-Baptism to be commanded, and us therein bound and obliged to put the Initial Seal of the New Testament upon our Children.  
Once more, Do you think that Gods Command to Abraham, and the Jews to train up their Children in manner of worship which was then in force: doth also command and bind us Christians to train up our Children in conformity to such Ordinances as are now in force: I believe you think so; and therefore I think you will believe at last, that Gods Command to Abraham and the Jews to Circumcise their Children, and to give them the Seal of Circumcision, then in force, is also a Command upon us Christians, binding us to baptise our Infants, and to minister unto them, the Seal of Baptism now in source.  
And so now this is the use I told you before I was like to make of your answering, That the Jewish Children were circumcised, only by virtue of a particular Commandent of God for the same, I say this use I may, and shall make of it, that by Virtue or Vice of such you answer, I infer also there from, yea therein, a particular Command for baptising Christian's Children, there being such an Analogy and proportion between the two Sacraments of one and the same Covenant, in the Essentials, of it, and the Rationals of it unto the eternal good of Souls. This might be good enough against you, because it answers you in your kind, and meets with you in your own way, howsoever myself still hold, that the Jewish Infants were circumcised, Circumcision being the Seal thereof, and so both enforced by a Commandment or Word of Institution, as I have said before. But romember this also, that God's Commandment being out for Circumcising Infants, whose Parents were under the Seal, and no farther, by the same reasons you blame our practice of baptising Infants, you blame God for such a Command, which you plead for the Circumcising Infants: because Infants of Jews were as much under state of Nature, as Infants of Christians are, and Infants of Christians are as much under the state of Grace, as the Infants of Jews. If God were wise and good in commanding circumcising of Infants, than we cannot be evil and foolish in practising Baptism of Infants commanded also here.  
But because you New-light men, regard not much the Old Testament, for that it holds forth the Old-light of the command for circumcising of Infants, by the which walking, there may be proportioned out, or Analogised a command for Baptising of Infants; I will set upon a Text or two of the New Testament; and that famous one first, wherein you much delighted of old, and from whence you would seem to have your New light; it is Matthew 28.19, and 20. Methinks I hear you saying already with Nathaniel, Can there come any good thing out of 2 Nazareth? John 1.46. & 7. Chap. any command out of these words, for Infant Baptisms, Come and see, and hear, and whilst I am as Philip, bringing forth some good thing hence for poor Infanrs, be you as Nathaniel, An Israelite indeed, in whom there is no guile, and not an Ishmaelite indeed, in whom there is nought but mocking at young isaack's devotions, and young children's Baptisms, Gen. 21.9.  
1. I may safely say, here in this command of Christ, is nothing meant or minded by him, about your taking Children of Believers already baptised in our Church, where the Gospel is planted, and your rebaptising them again after your teaching them and their professing: For the Baptism here commanded and to be executed, was only of Nations, where the Gospel was not yet planted, to be taught and baprised once.  
2. I may as safely say, That the state of those Pagan Gentiles, being not the same in point of Religion, as is the state of us Christian Gentiles, (as is said above) how can their, as yet, untaught and ungospelised, their uncovenanted & unbaptised condition, and be a rule and precedent to a Taught, Guspelised, Covenanted baptised Nation already? So Christ's command here, doth not infringe or counter command our Infant-Baptism, yes you may say, for doth not Christ command all Nations to be taught before they be baptised? He doth so, all pagan Nations, who were without Christ, being aliens from the Commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the Covenant of promise, Ep. 2.12. Without God in the world, being carried away to dnmb Idols, 1 Cor. 12. What is this to us? but yet,  
3. I must tell you; That this Commandment of Christ, placing teaching before baptising, doth not pronounce Christian Infants, unbaptisealbe, because unteachable: if there be any such force of Argument from the order and placing of words, I pray argue so out of Mark 1.1. Where Repentance is placed before faith; and out of John 3.5. Where the Water is set before the Spirit: Saint Peter will tell you, that the Spirit goeth before the Water, Acts 10.47. and you can tell yourself, that Repentance followeth after Faith, as the fruit thereof; again it is not to be read here, first teach, then baptise. Christ doth not show here, which ought to go first, and which last, but leaves both to be done according to the condition of the Church; for if it ba a Church planted, and Christian, as ours it, than they are to be baptised, and after instructed: if a Church to be planted & Heathenish, than they are to be first taught, & then baptised.  
Now the condition of the Church of God, which the family of Christ chief was in the Apostles times, at the beginning of their preaching the Gospel to and throughout the world, was much after the manner, of the Family of Abraham (which was then the only Church representative:) As therefore Abraham in his family, had both adult, and Infants, himself being circumcised at 100 years old, Ishmael at 14. years, the Proselytes at other several ages, Isaac at 8. days, and so taught Ishmael and the Proselytes of his house of this covenant and the Sacrament thereof, before he circumcised them, but forthwith baptised Isaac before & without any foregoing instruction: just so doth our Saviour Christ appoint to be done in his family the Church, which was now to be raised in the greater part, and gathered out of the Nations; So as the adult Heathens, aliens from the Covenant, void knowledge, were first to be taught before they were baptised, but the Children of such taught and baptised Heathens, were forthwith to be initiated by the Sacrament of Baptism, before they were taught in the heads of Religion Now the condition of our Churches, is a constituted and planted Church, already form, and therefore according to the intention of this Text, the baptising of Infants is to precede, and the teaching them to follow, when by reason of years and capacity, they can hear the word.  
4. Christ indeed gave Command, that whom his Disciples had taught, they should be baptised; but that none should be baptised but suchf as were first taught, that is your Addition or Tradition, wherein you resemble the old Separates of the Jews, the Pharisees (as I have told you, the name of a Pharisee, is in English a Separate) For as they transgressed the Commandments of God, by their Traditions of the Elders, Matthew 15. So do you corrupt this Commandment of Christ, by your Additions, and the inventions of your Youngsters. But in vain did they worship God; Teaching for doctrines, the Commandments of men; and in vain do you worry us, bringing in for proofs, the glosses and expositions of Children.  
But look again upon the Text in Matthew, and see, if Teaching do not also follow close after Baptising, and Baptising so goeth before Teaching; thus with your own Argument retorted, I have slain you, as Goliath with his own Sword.  
But, sure, our Saviour Christ, being the God of Order, and the Wisdom of God, did not thus place the words, and order them up and down, to no purpose. Yea, I conceive, that in so doing, he purposed to give a full and universal Precept or Command for Baptism, both to the Apostles and others, the Pastors of the Church, unto the world's end, that so, when they ceased, committing their converted Churches unto these, succeeding them, these might proceed, where they left to build, upon their foundations, To Baptism and Teach where they had taught and Baptised: And thus the words are very orderly placed and ranked, the first file (as I may so speak) being, of Teaching and Baptising where the Apostles w●●●, as Amb●ssidours in Extraordinary, Teaching the Cown Men and Women of the Nations and Pagans, the Gratuital Covenant of God, and baptising them, or giving them, the initial Seal thereof.  
The next file, or order, is, of Baptising and Teaching, where went, either they also, as Pastors in Ordinary, or other Ordinary Pastors, Baptising the Children and Infants of such converted, Nations and Pagans, being in Covenant with their Parents, and teaching them afterwards to observe, whatsoever Christ commanded, etc. So that here seems to be Christ's Commandment in this Text, both for Adult-Baptism, and also Infant-Baptism, or (if you will) for Parental-Baptism, upon their being taught the Covenant and their embracing and professing Christ, and also for Filial Baptism, upon their being in Covenant, as being Children of baptised Professors, after which is to follow teaching and instructing of them, as they are able: which is punctually observed by us, who do, or should, having baptised them (by order) Catechise them afterwards, that so they may be fitted in due time for that other Sacrament, the Lords Supper, according to that of Hebrews 6 2. Where the Apostle speaks of Baptisms (The Baptisms I mentioned which are plural or Two, in respect of the subjects capable, the grown men of the Nations converted, and their Infants or Children, but yet but one and the same Baptism, as formerly I have showed) Baptisms I say, and imposition of hands, and alludeth to the practice then and since in use with the Church, That such Children as were baptised in their Infancy, should afterwards openly in their own persons and with their own mouth, own the Covenant, confirm an ratify the promise and condition, make Profession of their Faith, and so be, by imposition of Hands, farther confirmed and admitted to the Lords Supper.  
Now you, Sir, quite contrary to the order of these prinicples of the doctrine of Christ, as they are called in the 1. verse of Heb. 6. You begin at imposition or laying on of Hands, before Baptism, or the laying on of Water, and so do but impose upon us, as the Children, (Impostor-like) requiring first Confession of Faith from them, before they have from you Administration of Baptism, as if your Children born Christians, had no more privilege, were in no better condition, than the Pagans and Nations, Christ sent his Apostles unto.  
5. I shall tell you, that the word translated, Teach, all Nations, (in which lieth all the force of your arguing against children's Baptism) it signifieth (see your want of skill in, and your folly in declaiming and clamoring against University and human learning in the divine languages, for so are the original ones) signifieth in the original, not only to Teach, but to make Disciples of the Nations, to admit them to be Scholars, to be taught, This is the end wherefore the Apostles were sent out, namely to make Disciples, and the Actions, whereby they were to attain this end, were Baptising and Teaching, and if it were not thus, there would be found a Tautology in Christ's words, and you must read them thus, Go teach all Nations, baptising them, Teaching them. Such an Exposition as this would put you to your shifts, Go ye, make Disciples to me out of all Nations by Baptising and Teaching; and such a one, may do well enough, very well against you, who when you come to this or any Text, do but shift up and down for yourself, but sift not at all for the sense. And therefore (to puzzle you a little, for there is no farther hopes of any of you I fear,) I will tell somewhat more that our Divines have added to justify this Exposition; Christ saith not, go make Disciples and baptise them, but make disciples baptising them, implying, that by baptising them they made them Disciples; Like as it is said, that John did baptise in the Wilderness and preach, as though he did baptise first, and then preach: So all Israel is said to be baptised into Moses, not as already taught, but to be taught by him, for the future, 1 Cor. 10.2.  
But I will not stand upon this Discipling the Nations, by baptising them and their Children. Though the word (disciple them) be a general word, comprehending in it both kinds of conversion, both by the preaching of the word, and the initiation of baptism. This is that though, which I can press hence, That all Disciples of Christ are to be baptised, there is a Command for this, Go, Disciple the Nations and baptise them.  
And that this discipling the Nations, was a making them Scholars and Disciples of Christ, not as taught, but to be taught of him as before, the force and energy of the word in the original importeth as much, as may farther be declared in Matthew 27.57 Where Joseph of Arimathea, discipled himself (the same word is there that here is) entered himself to be of Christ's school: and out of John 9.27 Where the blind man saith to th' Pharises, Will ye be also his Disciples, and be initiated to learn of him? and may be farther instanced from the manner of the Jews, amongst whom, to become a Disciple was to be initiated into a Master, to be taught of him, and therefore the very day any one initiated themselves to learn, they were called Disciples, as Christ's were, and so called his Disciples, from the first day he called them and said, Come follow me; And like as men are called the Soldiers under such a Captain, from the time of their listing them, though they be not as then taught the skill of Arms.  
Now then Sir, are not Children, may they not be called Disciples? 
Acts 11.26.  you may as well deny 〈…〉 be Christians, as to be Disciples. For (I take 〈…〉 and Christians are Synonymas, that is, (lest you 〈…〉 simony in that word) words of the same name and 〈◊〉 fixation; so that all Christians are Disciples of Christ, and ano … Disciples of Christ they are Christians: and howsoever Disciples were called Christians first in Antioch, they may be so called after in any place; and Christians wheresoever may be called and are Disciples of Christ. In the mouth of two witnesses this word may stand, to bear you down for Acts 15.10. Children, upon whose necks those false Teachers would have put the yoke of circumcision, are called Disciples, I say, they would have put it upon the Infants of believers, as well as the believing Parents, for they would have done it after the manner of Moses Law, pressing it still to be of force. And why not Disciples, I pray? do they not visibly belong to the family and school of Christ, yea and his Kingdom, and so why not subjects also? are not the little Children of a kingdom, subjects thereof, though they know not the Laws of the same? is not the promise made unto our Children, and the Covenant of God upon them, and do not we Parents offer them to God, giving up our Names to God, both for ourselves and all our Families, and undertake for them, and their instruction and education in christianity, and will this work nothing to the declaring them Disciples? I will shut up all these interrogatories with this Assertory, that because if children of Christian discipled parents be also discipled, why then they are within this commandment of Christ, and may and aught to be baptised; and so you have a commandment for their baptising out of that word, Go disciple the Nations; our children are as capable of being Disciples.  
Or (if you will not go from your English) of being taught, as the children of the Jewish Parents were; which if you yield unto, as you cannot do otherwise, then show me some reason why our children are not as capable of Baptism without such teaching, as the Jews children were of Circumcision without the same. Besides that. I will mind you of this, that though they be not capable of receiving actual teaching from men, they are not uncapable of Gods own teaching, even in their infancy, no more than children of the Jews were, that hereupon you should debar ours from Baptism, when as theirs were not kept from Circumcision upon any such account.  
6. The same, or rather another, Commandment for our Infant Baptism, may be fetched out of those words, Baptising them, for whom doth our Saviour design here for the Subject of Baptism, or persons to be baptised? why, the Discipled, or taught Nations, Parents and Children, they have a right to the Gospel preached, as Nations, but a right to Baptism, Parents and Children, as discipled, taught, and brought into Covenant. So that when Christ commanded the Apostles to baptise the Nations so discipled and taught, he did not look only to the time then being, but to the continuation of a Christian Progeny and Posterity of Believers upon earth. So that as S. Paul saith, 1 Tim. 1 16. For this cause I obtained mercy, that in me, first Jesus Christ might show forth all long suffering, for a pattern to them who should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting: so these Nations obtained mercy, that in them first, Jesus Christ might show forth Baptism, for a pattern to them who should hereafter be discipled and taught of him in the everlasting Covenant; namely, that Baptism belongeth to them, all other Nations, so far forth as they consist of discipled Parents and Children, Parents professing Christ in their own persons, and their Children under their Christian Education; both together make up a discipled Nation, commanded here to be baptised, as the proper and adequate Subject of Baptism, So that if I can show that the Children are contained in the word Nations, the work is done, a commandment here is for their baptising. I shall do it briefly, yea it is done to my hand already.  
1. It is a general rule in Scripture, That children are always included in every administration, whether of promises or threaten, mercies or judgements, privileges or burdens, unless they be excepted; and in the very constitution of it, children make a great part of a Nation.  
2. In this particular, of these, all Nations here, some think it to be spoken emphatically, in opposition to the one Nation of the Jews (and so it is in a sense, this was the only taught and discipled Nation, but now, go and teach and disciple all Nations?) I should rather, or as well, think it to be spoken in apposition and relation unto the one Nation of the Jews, that like as the Nation of the Jews hath been a long time discipled and taught in the Covenant, and circumcised, the parents with their children: so now all Nations are commanded to be likewise discipled and taught in the same Covenant, and baptised, the parents with their children, the which S. Paul showeth clearly, Gal. 3.8. & 9 namely, that the Doctrine of the Gospel delivered to Abraham in the nature of a Covenant, was preached now to all Nations, and so the blessing of Abraham's family was here conveyed to the believing families of the Nations, and so the Promise and the Seal Baptism were here applied to the same families, father and children, as the promise and seal Circumcision were to the particular families of Abraham, father and children, and so here came the Nations to be blessed in Abraham, and Abraham here began to be the father of many Nations.  
The which may be yet made more to appear, if the time be looked upon, when the Apostles were sent to teach or disciple these Nations, just when Circumcision lay a dying (as I may so say) and expiring, or ceasing to be a seal of administration unto the Jewish Church, a very fit time, the very time for the Lord to appoint Baptism, and to enlive it for the seal, to come in place of the other, and perform the same office in the Churches of the Gentiles, as the other did in the Churches of the Jews, namely, to let in the believing parents with their children.  
Look again into Rom. 11.23. & 24. these Gentile and Pagan Nations were to be taken into the place of the Nation of the Jews; now upon this their cutting off and casting out, and these wild olives were to have the same engraffing into the good Olive, as the natural branches had: but they and their children were graffed in, and now they and their children are cut off; so these and their children, of the Nations here, were in the like manner here engrafted and implanted into Christ, and therefore baptised, Rom. 6.5. like as the other circumcised.  
Lastly, what a great change would there have been else in the heart and love of Christ, if now he, who rebuked the Apostles for hindering the little children of the Jews to come unto him, yea who embraced them in his arms, laid his hands upon them, and blessed them, should now himself in this commandment unto his Apostles, to teach, disciple, and baptise the Nations, not mind them the children of these Nations in the like manner as to Baptism, as he did the children of Abraham as to Circumcision, but leave them out, or forbidden them to come, or be brought unto him, as if he had now no delight, or took no pleasure in the Infantry of the Gentiles, whereas himself long before spoke of this very time, Isa. 49.22. Behold, I will lift up my hands to the Gentiles, and set up my standard unto the people, and they shall bring thy sons in their arms or bosoms, and thy daughters shall be carried upon their shoulders. But why did not Christ here put in, baptise the Nations and their seed, as he did in the first administration, Circumcise the Jews and their seed? The Answer is made in the very Question, Because he did it in the first administration of Circumcision, there was no need of doing it again; and besides, children having once a right to be accounted as belonging to Christ's Church, and to be reputed visible Members thereof, and no forfeiture made thereof on their part, or bar put In by Christ or any other person of authority, they are always so to be reckoned of, yea they are here put in again and mentioned, in the discipled Nation, and comprehensively included in Them, baptise them, the Nations discipled, which consist of parents and their children, which make them up.  
Again, if the children had not been included here, in these Nations, what a great change had here been made in the latitude and extent of the Covenant, as to the subject thereof, I mean this particular of children, and that without warning given, whereby some other provisions or course might have been sought for and supplicated at God's hands, for the good of their souls? for by this your rule of shutting out children from Baptism, by the power of this commandment, according to your interpretation, if a Jew should convert to Christ, and become a Christian, and believe in Christ come in the flesh, he should be in a worse condition as to his child than before, as who may not be baptised, whereas before he might be circumcised, and the parents faith in Christ will be a loss and prejudice to his child; and both parent and child may think it to be a worse Covenant than the former, whereas it is but one and the same, and therefore when he was a Jew, his child was circumcised, so when he becomes a Christian, his child is to be baptised.  
And thus I have, out of this Text of Matthew 28.19. wherein your party glorieth so much, (though I forgot to tell you, that herein is not described the primary Institution of Baptism, but only an enlargement of the Apostles Commission) I have evinced a commandment for baptising of Infants of Believers: you (perhaps) looked for a command, expressed in so many letters and syllables, Go, baptise the children of Believers; but is it not good and effectual (it ought to be) if included in the sense and meaning of the words? are not Magistrates and Ministers too (by your leave) meant in that commandment, Honour thy Father? are not envy and hatred likewise comprised in that command, Thou shalt do no murder? yet neither those nor these are expressly literally or verbally commanded; where is the Bishop of Rome mentioned in the Revelations? yet he meant, and his universal headship, by the Beast there and his mark. I could give you many more instances. And why not Infants also comprised in this command, Disciple the Nations and baptise them, though not set down there by name, amongst the Nations and Disciples to be baptised. But I have writ enough of this Point before.  
I will only (as formerly, now also for a conclusion of this Point,) leave with you another Syllogism, supposing that now, having been used to them, (Syllogisms I mean) you will not be much afraid of them, though you think them the bug bears of the Universities, and limbs of humane Arts and Sciences: fear not, for unless you come nigh them, which (I believe) you will not, or dare not, they will not by't you: otherwise, they have teeth in their mouths.  
The sixth Syllogism is this:  
The discipled or taught Nations, and so brought into Covenant, are commanded by Christ to be baptised, Mat. 28.19.  
But the Parents and their children are the discipled or taught Nations, and so brought into Covenant.  
Therefore the Parents and their children are commanded to be baptised.  
The first Proposition is the letter of the Text, as is said.  
The second is largely proved before, and who need doubt but that children are included in the word Nations? being a part, and a great part of them, and comprehended in every administration of grace and mercy especially.  
And now leaving the commandment of Christ for Infant Baptism, I proceed to the second kind of Warrants you call for; namely, the example of Christ and his Apostles; for so these two you yoke together in your Quaeres, and impose upon my neck to bear up and carry out in this and all points, Commands and Examples, when yourself, as a Bullock unaccustomed to the yoke, neither do, nor can show either of the two, for your wild, untamed, and untaught opinion.  
As for the example of Christ, it is a vain thing to demand it, as who baptised none, as I have told you formerly out of the Evangelist.  
And for the Apostles, they baptised but a few, as whose business and work was especially, and lay for planting Churches, and raising of foundations out of grown persons converted by them out of Judaisme and Gentilism, as is expressly set down, 1 Cor. 1.13 & 17. And therefore if Christ sent them not to baptise, but to preach the Gospel, (not to baptise, either especially in reference to preaching and converting, or generally, all whom they preached unto or converted:) it was not part of their commission to do so, nor any violation of Christ's command, for them not to do so; for then S. Paul would, and should rather have asked God pardon, than given him thanks, as here he doth, for that he baptised none of the Corinthians (whom notwithstanding in Christ Jesus he begat through the Gospel, 1 Cor. 4.15.) save some few here also named and mentioned by him.  
This I acquaint you with at first, to let you understand the reason of so frequent mention of the Baptism of believing Converts, and of so much silence in Scripture of Infant-Baptism, and to show you further the irrationality of your demand, who, as your friends and father Jesuits were wont to call upon us, for Names, Names of Protestants before Luther's days, now clamour me for Examples, Examples of baptised Infants in the Apostles time: Yea, to present to you the invalidity of your reason, so frequently urged, the Apostles did not practise constantly the baptising Infants, and therefore it is not to be so done. For (besides, that for you to reason negatively from the Scripture in a matter of fact, as here from the not-practice of the Apostles, to the unlawfulness of our practice, and fact, showeth you are indeed averse, not only to humane, but even Divine Arts and Sciences, there being no Divinity, little humanity, in such arguments, fit for children than men, for the scales of a Higler, than the Schools of a Disputer.) I have showed you good reason why the Apostles (yea the Apostles own reason, which (I suppose) you will not deny to be good) did not baptise all, either grown persons whom they converted, or their Infants by name, and sometimes did not baptise at all, when they had converted people. And may not I now turn the same Argument upon and against yourself, and put the same yoke upon your neck? There is no practice of any Apostle to be seen or read of in the whole Gospel, or Acts of the Apostles, of their baptising any Christians child, when he was grown up to years, and therefore your practice in doing so is unlawful and unwarrantable, you (I believe) would think this but mad arguing, but you know the man and his communication. 1 Kings 9.11.  
From the Acts of the Apostles there may be, but from the non-Acts of the Apostles there may not be made or drawn a good reason to enforce or unforce a practice. There is recorded no practice of any Apostle, admitting women to the Lords Supper, or example of any woman receiving the Lord's Supper (more than of Infants receiving Baptism, and the Apostles admitting them thereto) will you therefore hence conclude, the practice of women's receiving the Lords supper is to be omitted? yes will say there is, for doth not Christ say; Drink ye all of this; And I say, Christ also said, Teach baptise all Nations; (therefore Infants) will as well follow here; As therefore women will follow, there you will say again, was not the Lord's supper, administered, to the whole Church of Corinth, and therefore to the Women therein? and so (say I) was not Baptism administered to the whole Church of Corinth's, and to whole families there, and therefore to the children therein? You will say again, that in Christ Jesus there is neither Male nor Female, Gal. 3.28. And may not I say, that in Christ Jesus there is neither Old, nor Young, Father or Child? Thence indeed you may prove and deduct that Women are not to be kept back from the Lords supper, but there is nothing expressly set down or mentioned of their receiving the Lords supper, or the Apostles giving them it. And so may I prove hence (and have proved many ways) that Christian-Infants are not to be kept back from the Lords Baptism, Though there should be nothing mentioned explicitly of the Apostles practise of baptising children, or children's examples of receiving baptism, in the Gospel.  
For your fuller Understanding in this point, look back to what I have discoursed formerly about our imtation of the examples of th' Apostles and their practices; To which I add, that their practice and example is and aught to be, in all Moral and material acts of Religion, an affirmative and Positive Rule to the Churches of God, as thus and herein, they baptised such, and such, and therefore we may do the like. But it is no negative or exclusive rule. They baptised not such and such. That therefore we may not baptise such, for the reason is plain, that they possibly might not meet with all persons and occasions, and their practice is not a full rule, though a good rule; but the reason I gave before, is a plainer one, for that they were altogether, in a manner, or chief taken up with the preaching to the Nations converting people and planting Churches, that they could not, nor did attend so much upon Baptising, and therefore their Practice and example in not baptising such or such, is no rule for the Churches to walk by now.  
But yet (Sir) notwithstanding all this, there are fair footsteps and prints of the Apostles feet to be seen, walking in this, though not so much beaten, way of baptising believers and their infant, which the scriptures have traced and tracked out for us to take after them. As in the Acts of the Apostles, chap. 16 15. Lydia she and her household was baptised, and verse 33. The Gaoler, He and all his household was baptised; Acts 18. chapter verse 8. Crispus with all his house, and many of the Corinthians with their households (for so it is meant) were baptised. So in the Acts of Paul the Apostle, 1 Cor. 11.4, 5.6. Where is repeated again, the baptising of Crispus, and Gaius, and the household of Stephanas.  
And I know nothing to the contrary, or contrary to the Analogy and proportion of faith, but rather it may be agreeable to the Harmony of the scripture, and these scriptures, If I should say that those persons who are mentioned but single, are meant to be baptised, them, and their households; as Gaius here by Paul. So Cornelius by Peter, yea the Eunuch, baptised alone by Philip, might procure his children, if he had any, to be baptised by some or other Evangelical minister coming into those coasts, and so where the household of Aristobulus, and the household of Narcissus are mentioned, as Romans 16.10. And the household of Onesiphorus, 2 Tim. 4.19. Baptised households are there meant.  
Now when it is said, such and such were baptised and all their households, such a one, and All his, by the Apostles, is your imagination so strong, and wide, as to shut out the children first out of doors of those households, that so next you may exclude them, from the Apostles Baptism? You must do so, if there were any within doors, or tell us, that the Apostles passed by them, in their baptisings; or you must show us, that all the Women in those households, were barren, not a Mother of a Child, or a young one amongst them all (For though there should not have been in them, Infants or Sucklings, yet, if but a youngling and a Child of some years, all would have been but as one, as to their Understanding and confessing.) Or you must thus divide the households, (as you are good at dividing houses and households, setting the Husband against the Wife, and alienating the Children from Father & Mother, which is a very bad practice,) and say, that not all the Household was baptised, whereas the Text saith expressly, He and all his household were baptised, but some major part, or the most considerable part of the house, and when it is said, the house of Israel was circumcised, its meant not of a part, either major or most considerable, but of the whole house, as to the Parents and Children, and Servants also or Proselytes under their education and instruction.  
I do not wonder, you cannot abide our University, Arts, and Sciences, These cannot abide you and such reasonings and interpretations; the Apostles baptised such and all their households, that is, the greater part, the people of Growth: for though sometimes such a word may be so taken, where all are not capable of the thing done or spoken of, you must prove it to be so here meant in all the places, where the Apostles baptised such and all their households, which you can never do, the express Letter (which you are so for,) is expressly against you, such and all their households, of which many times also children are not only some of all, and a part of the whole, but (in your Terms, one of them at least) the major part (I say not the most considerable) but I say a capable part too, but if in all or any of these households, there was but one infant, or any one young stripling, you are gone, as to the Apostles practice who baptised the believer, and all his household: and incapacity here is none to hinder either our interpretation or the Apostles ministration; for if there had been any in the household uncapable, The Apostle would not have baptised the whole household, or the believer, and all his household: and I have abundantly showed before from the Apostle, that Infants of Believers are capable of baptism, Verse 32. Now if be said, that the Apostle preached and spoke the word to the Gaoler, All that were in the Gaolers house, so all might believe and be baptised; it is true, the Apostle did so speak the word to all capable of it, but yet at the 31. Verse, he speaks of the salvation of all the house upon the terms of the Gaolers believing, for that the promise and Covenant being so made at first, held still to believers, parents and their children and here also servants, because it is said, he and all his, were baptised in the 33. verse. So it appears to me, that the Gaoler himself only believed, and had an inward work of Faith wrought in the heart upon some special evidence he received of Christ come in the flesh, whereupon he and his, (of whom, the other Pagans of his family there is nothing said as to their faith, whether servants of growth or children under age the whole household, were baptised immediately, in relation to the Fathers and Masters, undertaking and engaging for themselves and their households.  
And indeed (to keep to my particular) if such in these, or our households, as did, or do actually believe and profess, were and are to be baptised only, why was the household, as of the Gaoler before, who only there believed (as I have showed) so: the household of Lydia, (of whom only, it is said that the Lord opened her heart to believe in Christ) baptised?  
Surely the Apostles would not bring in a different Administration, now in the households of believing Christians, whether out of Jews or Pagans, from that which ever was in use and practice amongst the households of believing Jews at first, and therefore went here according the common custom formerly used in time of circumcision, and where they baptised any believing Father of a Family, there they did baptise, or others for them, the children of the same household, or might have done. Otherwise, how could they, the Apostes when they preached the Gospel to all Nations and so to their households, how could they bring the blessing of Abraham into all Nations and their households (according to the prophecy and promise thereof by God) if they did not apply the Covenant and the Seal generally to them and theirs, in the same manner as it was to him and his, so, that the children of believers might now be baptised, as formerly they were circumcised?  
And lastly I may add this, That when men in those days were converted from Judaisme or Pagainism, they did (probably) at their admittance into the Church by baptism, make an open and solemn League and Covenant with God, before some people present to profess the Faith of Christ, they and their households, which Saint Paul may seem to put some of them in mind of, Ephesians 6.4. Father's bring up your Children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord: And therefore when the Apostles did baptise households of believers, they did it in relation on to the Parents, or others in their stead, undertaking and engaging for themselves and the children therein.  
And thus now at last, and at length too (as all other point) I have asserted unto you this Point also, of Apostolical Practice and Examples, for the baptising of the children and Infants of believing Parents.  
I have answered all your Quaeres, and (I hope) have informed and settled your judgement better by my answers, than you could do it by our Quaeres (for I cannot yet forget, how that at the end of them you say, these your Quaeres are your judgement.) I proceed now to what you have more in your Letter of two sheets, but do not mean to proceed, as I have begun, either to transcribe all your words of the second sheet, all have done your words of the first, or to bestow twenty and five sheets closely written, in answering of your second sheet, but loosely written, as I have done upon your first sheet (for I have dispatched hitherto but the one first sheet of your Letter) and there is good reason for it.  
For the first sheet, for the most part, put Quaeres to me, in your number twenty one, and they contained in them some material and substantial things to be answered, of a large extent, and great depth; and therefore I thought good to give unto them a full and proportionable answer, what pains and time soever it should cost me. But that which you propound in your second sheet to me, is nothing but certain Considerations of your own, against baptism of Infants, and about some Texts of Scripture, the very froth and barming of your own head; the which if I should let alone unreplied to, as once I was resolved, would of themselves sink, disperse, and fall to nothing. But, lost you should swell and be puffed up in any conceit of these your considerations, as the Bladder is with its own wind, I will as briefly as I can, with my short breath, by reason of my old age, blow away your froth, and let out your wind, that so the hollowness and shallowness of them may appear to the Reader.  
The Title you set over your first Consideration, is this, More particularly about the Doctrine of Babtism (Baptism) consider these Arguments proved by clear and plain Scripture. Sir, this is a false Title to your Tractate; for if you would have done here more particularly, it should have been, and you should have said, about the Doctrine of Infant-Baptism: for if you bring not Arguments, not only about Baptism, as you say, but against Infant baptism, and these proved by clear and plain Scripture, I shall not consider them, neither have you considered well of our difference. 1. You bid me Consider that the Doctrine of Infant's Babtism overthrows the nature of the Covenant of grace, and the who (whole) Gospel of Christ; why so? because the Covenant of grace and Gospel of Christ stands upon the account of faith actual in there one (heir own) persons, as uppears in John 3.36. and John 5.24. But Infant's Babtism stand upon the account of the faith in there (their) Parents or Surtie, (Sureties,) (although they have none for themselves) and so makes faith void and unnesesery (unnecessary) to the participation (participation) of the Covenant, Rom. 4.13. Gal. 3.17, 8.  
But what do I? did I not say I would not transcribe your words of your second sheet? but I see I must do it, for there is so much false-written English in them, that I must of necessity do it, lest if inscribed to my Answer, that may be thought mine. But to the matter. Baptism of Infants of Believers, doth not overthrow, but establish the Covenant and Gospel of Grace, because it sealeth and executeth it. Neither doth the Covenant of Grace, and the Gospel, stand upon the account of actual Faith in all men's own persons, but only such as being grown in years, are converted from Paganism, these must make profession of faith, before they can come into the Covenant, and be sealed. But actual faith is not a Condition required, as to the Covenant or Seal in Infants. Your Text therefore of John 3.36. is not to the purpose, as which only sets everlasting life upon (to use your phrase) the account of actual faith, which I grant, and so doth the next Text, John 5.24. as appears, for that he gins with, and speaks of such as do hear the Word of God, and believe in Christ, which is not appliable to Infants but grown men: And as to your Inference, The baptism of Infants stands upon the account of their being in Covenant together with their Parents, and not upon the account of the Faith in their Parents or Sureties, but only so far, as the Faith of the Parents serves to show them a seed of the faithful; and the Faith of the Sureties, undertakes for their education in, and profession of Faith afterwards: How strangely also do you pervert that Text, Romans 4.13? For it is there said, the promise was made to Abraham, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham and his seed through the Law, but through the Righteousness of Faith; Which he had yet being uncircumcised, to whom God upon this account of this faith, made the Promise both to himself and his Seed; you would have the faith there spoken of to be the faith of the Seed or Infant, as holding it necessary to the participation of the Covenant, and so falsify both Covenant and Text, which both, together with your last, Gal. 3.17. do quite overthrow your first overthrowing Consideration (for Argumentation here is none.) More of this you shall have hereafter.  
Your second Consideration, because it hath a Narration, yea a repetition of what you set down in your first Page, about the nature of the state (so you speak, whereas rather you should say, the state of the Nature) of Christ's true visible Church under the Gospel, to the showing of which you here only describe Christ's true invisible Church, and therefore cite the Texts you did before, and add some more, that speak only of invisible Members, such as you call Saints, made so by the immortal Seed, new Creatures by the benefit of Regeneration. I shall therefore say nothing to that here, but refer you, and especially the Reader, to what I have largely before discoursed, about the state and nature (for I will correct myself too) of the Church both visible and invisible; for though you may (perhaps) have no such care of me, I must and will be careful, that I dead not the Reader, by any tedious and vain repetitions and Tautologies.  
Yet this I say in anser to it, That Infant-Baptism in the Church, is so far from overthrowing (as you argue) the nature and state of Christ's true visible Church, that it is rather much confirmed and established, increased and enlarged thereby, because thereby more are admitted in present, members visible, and are engaged to be for the future, visible professors and confessors of Christ; yea, and the invisible Church also is not overthrown, but upheld and augmented by our Baptism of Infants, as whereby many Infants are not only dedicated and consecrated unto Christ, but are also by Baptism, as a Seal and Means (as I have showed) regenerated, and so fitted and prepared the better for Heaven and happiness. And whereas you add, That Infant's Baptism is grounded upon the Relation they have to the Church, by generation only, or by the mere pro ession of faith and repentance in the Parents and Sureties, I see you are corrupted in your Principles, and grounds of Divinity.  
Once more I tell you (I pray learn it now, for I will teach you it no more) for the Readers sake, that Infant's Baptism is grounded and foundationed upon the Covenant of God made with the believing Parents, for himself and Infants, and that which you call Generation, doth but raise up the ground and foundation-Covenant to bring it into some act of visibility in relation to the Church, for the Seal thereof. And so also Infants have not their relation unto the Church by generation (rather by this they have relation to the world) nor by the mere faith and repentance of the Parents and Sureties, but by the Covenant and the Seal thereof, in both which Infants are interessed together with their Parents, have they their relation unto the Church. For which you may see Acts 2.39, & 41. (because you give me no Text here, which I wonder at) of which I have your consideration in particular to peruse anon.  
Only I shall add a word or two about Sureties in the Baptism of Infants, because I do not remember that hitherto, before now, you have made any mention of them; and for that I see you are here in an error about them; and you would put a slur upon us, and a kind of slander upon our Church, as if Infant-Baptism stood upon account of faith in the Parents and Sureties, although (say you;) they have none for themselves. I will add somewhat, although they have more than yourself. I may say the one, as well as you say the other.  
Know then Sir, that the costom of having Sureties at the baptising of Infants, hath been very ancient in the Church, when Truth was in its prime light, and Primitive purity, though thereupon it is the less liked, because the more unlike to the new upstart and out-staring novelisms of these later Ages, and last declining times; and their office was, as to bear witness of the birth of Infants of Christian Parents, and therefore were called Attesters or Witnesses (as at this day) so to answer for the faith, and take upon them the education of the baptised Infants, and for this they were called Sponsors or Susceptors. Hereupon the Infant to be baptised, although he did not profess himself to be Believer with his own mouth, nor could, yet being asked and interrogated (as the manner was) Dost thou believe? he answered in the mouth and tongue of his Sponsors or Sureties, or the very Parents, or they (which is all one) answered in stead and place of the Infant, I believe. And without such profession of faith, Infants publicly were not baptised in the Church. Thus in and by the judgement of charity, the Ancients held and judged the Infant to believe, and that if it could speak with its mouth, it would answer, that it believed; and because it could not, they appointed (as before) Sponsors and Sureties in the name and place of the Infant, to answer, I believe.  
And in this sense also (besides others I have given) were Infants of Christians called of old, Believers, because they did in some manner profess faith, in and by the mouth and words of their Sponsors, Sureties and Parents. True, its uncertain and unknown to the Church, or man, whether the Infant doth believe or not; but unless the Church had so judged by the judgement of charity (which, saith the Apostle, believeth all things, hopeth all things) the Infant to believe, she would not have appointed Sureties and Sponsors in the name and place of the Infant, so to asnwer; and unless the Infant itself had so answered, in the words and mouth of its Sponsors and Sureties she, i.e. the Church, would have forbid it to be baptised.  
Thus I have told you of the ancient manner of the Primitive Baptisms with Sureties and Sponsors; you must not now here call upon me for proof hereof out of the plain and direct Scripture: for I acknowledge this ancient Custom, and many a one in use amongst the first Christian Churches, is not expressly prescribed in Scripture (for then it might be concluded absolutely necessary for all ages and persons to follow) so neither is it forbidden explicitly in Scripture, and therefore not utterly to be rejected, as unlawful to be used, as which was for the good of the Infant (and hurs of none, as having neither impiety nor iniquity in it) so also it was for the provision and better education of the Infant, the edification of the Church, and the demonstration and exercise of Charity to, and charitable judging of others. Insomuch, that as those venerable Names and Lights of the Ancient Church, Tertullian and Augu●tine, have related and delivered that Custom of baptising with Sureties and Sponsors: so other Reverend Names and Lights of these Modern reformed Churches, as Luther, Zanchy, Beza, have allowed, approved, and commended the aforesaid Custom, as fit to be retained still.  
From all which it now appears, that you (Sir) are much out, when as you talk and tattle of the Churches baptising Infants upon account of faith in the Sureties, although they have none of their own; for (you see) it was not upon the account of the faith of the Sureties, which the Sureties had of their own, that Infants ever were baptised, but upon the account of the faith of the Infant, which the Infant had of its own, testified and professed in their name, by the Sureties (appointed by the Church, which judged charitably of the Infant, to believe) that the Infant was baptised.  
But now, before I proceed to the next, I will call upon you to consider, That your Doctrine of baptising actual Believers only, and thereupon not baptising the Infants of Believers until they have actual faith, and can and do make confession of it, doth rather overthrow, as much as in you lieth, the nature of the Covenant of Grace, and the whole Gospel of Christ, at leastwise to the Seal thereof, all the while from their birth, that such Infants are kept by you from the same Seal of Baptism (for you cannot keep them from their Covenant, though you do shamefully, ingratefully, ungraciously, yea and unnaturally keep them from the Seal.) The thing is evident enough, if you do but remember, this is the nature of the Covenant and Gospel of Christ, the Promise of God, to be the God of the believing Parent and his Seed jointly, therefore also of his child as soon as it's born; yea before, when it is his Seed; and soon after its birth, Gods will is declared to have this Covenant executed and confirmed by an initial Seal of Circumcision upon Infants, in the Old, and of Baptism upon Infants in the New Testament; now, who overthroweth this Covenant, we, who put our Infants under the Seal of the Covenant, soon after their birth, (it being their birthright) or you, that withhold it from your Infants, until they come to be of years to make profession, let God himself be judge, and that his Word, Genesis 17.14. He hath broken my Covenant; who? the child, whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised: so also he, whose flesh is not washed with the water of Baptism; which latter, if not done, or ordered to be done by you, who are Parents to the Child, the breach and overthrowing the Covenant lieth upon you, and not upon the child, to answer for. You have broken the Lords Covenant, and the Lord may break in upon you, as he did upon Moses for neglect of circumcising his Seed, Exodus 4.24. Consider of it, it's the Lords mercy you are not broken and consumed; let the riches of his goodness, and forbearance, and long suffering, lead you to repentance; the Covenant Gospel, Christ being the same under both Administrations, God will look (and justly may and must) that his Covenanters or covenanted with, even Instants, shall be now partakers of Baptism in a proportionable time (if there be no intercoming excusable impediment) like as the same were of Circumcision.  
And now also, before I set upon your next Consideration, consider with yourself, whether your Doctrine of baptising Believers only, and thereupon your not baptising of Infants of Believers, until they come to have actual Faith, and to a confession of it, doth not rather overthrow the state and nature of Christ's visible Church under the Gospel? I have largely proved before, and that out of Texts you here cite to the contrary, Romans 1.7. 1 Cor. 1.2, etc. That Christ's visible Church under the Gospel consisteth and is made up of visible and outward members and professors, (some of which, though unknown unto us, are members also of the invisible Church under the Gospel) and I have also clearly shown you, that Baptism is a means of entrance and admission into the visible Church; whereby Infants (who by virtue of God's Covenant may also belong to the invisible Church as members) are reckoned & enroled, & even made members of the visible Church. N●w then, whether of us do overthrow the State and Nature of Christ's visible Church under the Gospel, we, who help to uphold and increase it, by our ad nitting and initiating of our Infants to be visible members thereof through our baptising of them in their Infancy, or you, who, by your not baptising of them for the space of 15. or 16. years and more, and sometimes as much more, do all that while withhold visible members from the Church, yea and do all that while leave them to a visible standing and being under the kingdom of darkness, (though invisibly it may be otherwise) which is most opposite to the Church of Christ, Let the next Reader judge, for you are neither fit nor able to judge herein, as who are already prejudiced, prejudicated, and prepossessed with a Spirit of delusion as to the Nature and State of Christ's visible Church under the Gospel.  
3 You bid me, Consider, That Infant's babtism, it overthrows the end for which true babtism was appointed, For the Chief one of Christ's true babtism of believers, was to distinguish the true Church from the World: Col. 2.12. Compared with Verse 20 Gal. 3.26. and 27 Act. 2.41. But Infant baptism overthroweth this distinction, because all are admitted in by it, and no distinction made.  
Sir, I not think of it until just now, or else I should have asked you, a Quaere, Why you always write it Bahatism, when as you are so great an enemy to Babe-baptism? I shall be bold, to answer it, thus, because you do so babble about baptism. For is not this in present, (as there hath been much of it before) profane and vain babbling, which the Apostle bids you shun, to talk of The end for which baptism is appointed, and then to call it, a Chief one; And then to instance, in the distinguishing of the true Church from the world, as a chief one, which is the inferior one; and lastly to cite holy Scriptures which are too no such purpose, is not this profane and vain babbling? But I answer to the matter.  
1. It is an unsound and lame assertion or proposition, to say, that Infant's baptism is to be rejected for ever, (as you conclude your Considerations with, and therefore mean so in every one) if it should overthrow one chief end, for which true baptism was appointed, when as in the mean, it upholds five other ends, as chief, if not chiefer, which I have reckoned up to you in my fift warrantable Reason for baptism, to which I refer you.  
2. How will you prove Infant's baptism to overthrow the end why true baptism was appointed? because it overthroweth the chief one, which was to distinguish the true Church from this; but how if there be the ends, as well as the end why true baptism was appointed? how, if amongst the ends, there be chiefer ones, than that chief one you mention? how, if Infants-baptism do not overthrow those five chiefer ones, though (supposed only) it should overthrow one chief one? Here be now some Quaeres for you.  
But now, how prove you also, The chief one end of true baptism to be, to distinguish the true Church, from the world? you cite, Col. 2 12. and 20. There is mention made of baptism and the world, and a spiritual end and effect of baptism, that therein the Colossians were buried in Christ and risen with him, (alluding to the ancient manner of baptising by immersion and emersion, to signify them both,) & they were freed from the Rudiments and Ordinances of the World, that is of the Legal oeconomy of the Jews, and what's all this to the purpose of baptisms being a chief end, to distinguish the true Church from the Heathen World, which is also but an external end? And though the Text speak of grown persons, and Heathens converted, yet it is true also of all elect and regenerate Infant (of which there are many you cannot deny it) that they are buried with Christ in baptism, and risen with him, etc. So that you get nothing by this Text, against Infants-baptism, They rather gain by you hence for their baptism; But there's nothing at all gained for the distinguishing the true Church from the World by baptism, as the chief end thereof.  
So that other Text, Galathians 3.26. Is nothing to your purpose, yea against your purpose, for it speaks only of the inward and spiritual effects of Baptism, and of baptism into Christ, that thereby the Galathians had put on Christ, and were so incorporated, as they were one in Christ, so that there was neither Jew, nor Gentile, bond, or free, & So far is this Text from showing the distinction of the true Church from the World, to be the chief end of baptism, that it rather and only shows, the spiritual Union of true Christians with Christ, to be one end and a chief one, which also all Infants regenerate and baptised into Christ do attain unto, as well as these grown Galathians and converted Heathens.  
I profess I never read in all my life time, Texts of Scripture, more impertinently cited, and I had once thought to have let your Citations of the word alone, and only have replied to your words; But that I honour the word, and you do dishonour it, by citing it for that which is not in it, even as Christ said, he honoured the Father, but the Jews dishonoured him, by saying, he came not from the Father. Your last place, though it comes some what nearer that the former, as to an external addition of the 3000. Souls unto the Church, by baptism, yet it as far from mentioning any distinction of the true Church from the world, and making it the chief end of baptism, as the other before.  
3. Infant baptism doth not overthrow but support that end, the distinguishing of the true Church from the World: that is, from the World out of the Church, which is the Pagan and Heathenish World, (you must mean this, or else you say nothing, seeing there is a Christian World, or a World of Christians, even all that profess the Gospel, and embrace Jesus Christ) for if you mean by Church, the elect true believers; and by the World, the Reprobate and false Believers, within the same, neither our Infant-baptism, nor your baptism of believers, (as you call it) confessing Faith, when grown in years, can make such a distinction; for as amongst our Infants, so amongst the grown Believers baptised, there may be and are undoubtedly many Reprobates, & Hypocrites, and Falsehearted Professors; such of both sorts come to Baptism, without any distinguishing by us; and go from baptism without any distinction of such by it.  
And therefore 4. Is a pitiful reason you add, and I pity you for it, that Infant-baptism doth not distinguish the true Church from the World, because all are admitted in by it; True, all of the Church are admitted in by it, (What need a distinction in the Seal, where there is a conjunction in the Covenant) and this very admitting all of the Church professing Christ, or born of those that profess Christ (upon both which terms, the Covenant runneth) doth evidently prove, that we hold strictly, and uphold strongly, the distnction of the Church from the World of Pagans and Heathens, whom we exclude-and keep off from baptism, until they learn and believe the Gospel and make profession.  
And now 5. Consider, that your Non-baptism of your Infants until they be grown to great years able to profess faith, &c doth overthrow the end of bapttism and a chief one, the distinguishing of the true Church from the World, for that none of them are admitted into the true visible Church, by it: for tell me, what's the distinction and difference betwixo the World-Infants, I mean the Infants of Pagans and Heathens, and the Church-Infants, the Infants of Christians and Professors, but this only of baptism, admitting these into the visible participation of the Covenant, and Communion with the Church of God, for want of which, the others are kept out as aliens and strangers, until they by faith and confession come to claim the same Seal of admittance.  
I say again consider this, and lay it closely and seriously to your heart, that during the years you detain vyour Infants and Children from baptism, which is their birth-privilege and their Covenant-Seal and their distinction-mark, you leave them in a Heathenish and Gentile state, as Aliens and strangers from the XCommom wealth of ChrisTians, and Covenants of Promise, Them, I say you leave without Hope, as being without the Seal of the Promise, and yourselves in doubt, about them. The revealed things belong to you and your Children; The Promise, and the Promise to be sealed, belongs to you and your Children, to your Children, upon their birth, as their Privilege and due, Let them have it, and leave the secret things to God, to whom they belong, their Salvation by Election; for he that elected them to such an end, hath elected them to the means.  
And thus you have been thrice overthrowing of Infant: Baptism, yet have you not given is any fall: For though in words you seem to make is the great overthrower, as if it overthrew the Covenant and Gospel, the visible Church, the ends of true baptism, yet Infant-baptism, and all these stand ver, well together, each upholding the other, and though you would indeed seem as the great Goliath and overth over to little David, and so have given these three retches and girds at Infan shaptism, it's rather to your own overthrow, and of your own baptism, and yet (I perceive) you have another stroke to come, in the 21 of Ezekiel 27. God said of Jerusalem, purposeing to destroy it, I will overturn, overturn, overturn, and it shall be no more; but in your design for the ruin of Infant-baptism, you exceed the wrath and indignation and have gone beyond that threefold Ingemination, saying, I will overthrow, overthrow, overthrow, overthrew the doctrine of Infant-baptism. But as cursed Cows have short horns, so strong words have (most an end) weak hands, you have done but little yet by your three highly and strongly conceited considerations, and I (believe) the fourth will be like the . Which, because there are so many, In and outs and round abouts in it, I will reduce it to a short form.  
The baptising of Believers or Deciples, is only expressly commanded in Scripture, as in Matthew 28.19. Mark 16 15. John 4.12 Acts 2.38. and 41. Acts 8.37. and 38. But Infant's baptism overthroweth and prevents that babtism which is only expressly commanded in Scripture? Therefore what? you infer nothing, lest it should be a Syllogism, a Limm of the profane University human Learning, but I know your meaning, only mend in your copy at home, (Deciples and Babtism) as you writ here, and make it, Disciples and Baptism, lest your friends think you call the baptism of believers only, a babism: and derive your Disciples from Deciples, decipients or deceivers.  
You must pardon me, for not turning to your Texts, & some of them I have already handled, & shown they were nothing to your purpose, and others, I shall meet within in a fit place, I know them without book, that none of them all do expressly command the baptising believers only; Which they must do, if you cite them for your purpose: For who ever denied the baptising of believers, as I have formerly written? Again as these Texts, do command, some of them, expressly the baptising of believers, as Acts 2.38. So some other doth but condition for, and propound Faith unto baptism of grown persons, as Acts 8.37. And another mentions faith and baptism as a joint requisite to Salvation, as Mark 16.16. And another hath nothing at all in it either of faith, or baptism, or command as John 4 12. And for the last place (in your paper, the first,) look back, where it's largely handled, and you shall see (you might have seen it in the Text itself) there is no express command for baptism of believers, but of Disciples, and therefore you did well to add, to believers, (or Deciples) and are not Children of believing Parents, Disciples too, if not believers? you shall find (if upon your first reading you did not) Them also to be commanded there, under the Notion of Disciples or a discipled Nation, (of which they are a portion) to be baptised, and much more to that purpose.  
And lastly your Texts that do speak of Baptism of Believers, mean it of Believers, being grown persons and Heathens converted newly, not of Believers born and living within the Precincts of the Church.  
But how (I pray) doth the Baptism of Infants within the Church, overthrew the Baptism of believing Heathens and Pagans, grown persons? they stood up together, both in Apostles General and National Commission, by which the children of believing and baptised Heathens were to be also baptised; and in Apostles domestical and special Dispensation, when they baptised whole Households of believing Parents and their children. It is true, this Doctrine of thus baptising Infants, overthrows your practice of baptising only Children grown, though born of baptised Christian Parents, when they can give a reason of their Faith. I say Infant-Baptism overthrows this your Man Baptism in a settled & planted Church; and you have not one Text to raise or lift it up, or hold up yourselves, But I remember you joined with Infant-Baptism overthrowing, its preventing also the Baptism expressly commanded in those Scriptures alleged by you. What mean you, Sir, by such a conjuntion of overthrowing and preventing? for if that overthroweth this, than it doth more than prevent; and if that doth but prevent this, it doth not so much as overthrow it. For my part, I think the one doth not prevent the other, but both were; joined together, both in the Precept, Baptism the discipled Nations, the believing Parents and their children; as also in the practice, The Apostles having converted Pagan Nations and Houses, I mean, the grown Parents, unto the Faith, baptised them and their children at the same time, or left them baptizeable, and to be baptised of others, if they were in haste of their preaching the Word; like as Abraham the Believer, and Ishmael his Son, were both circumcised upon one and the same day. Sure if any one prevented the other, it was the old Administration (as you call it in this place) the Baptism of Believers, that prevented the other, the Baptism of Infants; and not the other back way, as you affirm; for the Believers both of the Jewish and Heathenish Nations, were first baptised, and then their Infants were afterwards baptised, as Abraham was first circumcised, and then the selfsame day was Ishmael circumcised.  
But let me hear and read your Reason. You say likewise, Insant-Baptism prevents the old ministration of this expressly commanded baptising of Believers, because most of persons look upon themselves as baptised in their infancy, and so never look after the command of Christ to be baptised when they believe. What a Reason is here given of Infant-Baptism preventing, another Baptison expressly commanded? namely the baptised persons, imagination of himself, or looking upon himself as baptised in his infancy, and so never look after the command of Christ to be baptised when they believe. To let go the irrationality of this Reason, I must say again, that there is no such old or new ministration of an expressly commanded Baptism of Believers grown, after they have been once baptised in their Infancy; Your cannot wring or wrest it out of the mouth of any one of your cited Texts; so far are you from deducing, and leading it fairly by the hand (as I may so say) out of them or any one of them. This of yours, savours too rankly of the old Heresy, and new Schism of Rabaptization, ever condemned in the Churches of God, both of old, and of late, as I have formerly proved, from the Apostles casting up this account, and bringing all Baptisms to this, as the total sum, that there is but one Baptism, and therefore once baptised, are not to be baptised any more. And therefore not only most of the persons, but all of the persons baptised, are to look upon themselves as baptised sufficiently, and never to look after any other Baptism, commanded them of Christ when they believe, for there is none commanded.  
Do you, Sir, express it as if it were a fault or a fancy, that most of persons look upon themselves as baptised in their infamcy, and never look after to be baptised when they believe? Stop your ears (Oye baptised men, women, and children) at the voice of the chaarmers, for they charm neither wisely, nor fondly, nor sweetly, as to you and your good and benefit; not wisely for you, but subtly for themselves and their party, who having forsaxen their first love, and renounced their first Baptism, now compass about to make your their proselytes, and so twofold more the children of Hell than themselves, if ye after so many strong Reasons, and so fair a warning, will also renounce your Baptism, wherein ye renounced the Devil and all his works, A chief one of the DXevils works is, to draw people to renounce their Baptism, the mark and Seal of their Covenane with God, & Gods with them, as he useth to do with Wirches and Sorcerers, before he entereth into Coutract with them, and give them a mark and Seal of their Langue with him, and his with them.  
Not sound or truly for you, but hypocritically and falsely for themselves, do they thus charm, as who only do pretend the Word and Commandment, but can show you none, nor example for any Christian once baptised, who ever was baptised again. The desire to have you baptised again, as the Impostors would have had the baptised Galathians circumcised, That they may glory in your flesh, 
Galat. 6.13.  (a most vain and shameful glory) and make you tread under foot the Son of God, and to count the blood of the Covenant, wherewith ye were sanctified, an unholy thing, and do despite unto the Spirit of grace; 
Heb. 10.19.  at least to grieve the holy Spirit of God, wherewith ye were sealed unto the day of redemption, if ye belong to the Election of God. Such a grievous, heinous, and unsound thing tit is to renounce your Christian Baptisms: Look therefre diligently to yourselves, as the Author to the Hebrews hath it, lest any man among you fall from the Grace of God, (even that Grace offered in the Sea crament of Baptism ot you, and (it may be) received by you therein) lest any root of bitterness springing up in you, trouble you, lest there be any profane person amongst you, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright; 
Heb. 12.15, 16  thus Esau despised his birthright, Genesis 25 34. Is not Baptism your birthright also? is not your renouncing of your Infant-Baptism, a despising of your Infant Birthright, and a breaking or pulling off, or a trostrating or evacuaring the Seal either way, a despising it, and a profaning of the Covenant of Grace? and will ye thus part with your Birthright, first Baptism and sell it (as it were) to these supplanting jacob's, and all for a mess of twice sod pottage? such is second Baptism, or rebaptisation, Will you leave your Manna that came down first from Heaven, loathing it, to lust after, and hunt after these Quails, and listen to their Quail piper, who say. What is this Manna? nothing before over eyes but this Manna. Remember, that whilst the flesh of the Quails eaten in cintempt of Manna; was yet between their teeth ere the Quails were chewed, the wrath of God was kindled amongst the people, to the smiting of them with a great plague (besides that the flesh afterwards came out at their nostrils, and was loathsome unto them:) and so fear ye, left while the water of the new Dippers or second Baptism, received in contempt of your first Baptism, is ye upon your heads, and ears, and faces, the wrath of God (which ever attends upon the contemners and despisers of his Sacraments) fall heavily upon you, and some or other curse of God pursue you; so also, that such water may be loathsome and noisome to you afterwards. Remember Esau again, For ye know how that afterwards, when he would have inherited the blessing, 
Heb. 12.16, 17  he was rejected, for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it with tears. Are they not ritghtly called Jacobs, Supplanters? (one of the first planters of them was called Jacob, and that rightly;) for they that take away your Birthright, Baptism, will also take away your Blessing, the Blessing of God in Covenant with you, as well as with your Parents. Yea, remember one of the Separation, by name Hodsou, of the City of Glecester, and by an Epithet called Hodson-peevish, who since he was new baptised, grew as light in the head, as before he was light in heart; the which I find recorded by Master Thomas Wynell in print, a Minister of Cranham, nigh unto that City. Yea, remember the sad and desatrous ends of those first Ringleaders of re-baptising, Muncer, Cnipperdoling, etc.  
And now, thirdly, Can they charm sweetly and delightfully to any of you, who have the root of bitterness in them (from which I dehorted you) and whose mouths are full of cursing and bitterness; like as they have bitter envying and sirife in their hearts against your Mother-Church, and your Baptism especially wherein ye were (if regenerate at all) born again of water and the Spirit. My Brethren, these things ought not to be; doth a Fountain send forth at the same place or hole (of heart or mouth) sweet water and bitter? Hear now ye Benjamites, (ye lefthanded Protestants) will the Son of Jesse Muncer (who I mentioned but now) give every one of you, the Field Benefits, 
1 Sam. 22: 2, 5  and Vine-eard Privileges of Christ and his Church, by their new dipping of you, and make you Captains of thousands, and Captains of hundreds, against your sins, that they shall not reign, or have dominion over your mortal bodies, or immortal Souls; that all of you have conspired against your Mother-Church, and brethren Ministers? O foolish Galathians, who hath bewitched you, that you should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified amongst you, even in your Baptism, 
Gal. 3.1.  (as the word and other Sacrament) wherein you were sprinkled with the blood of Christ, unto the washing away of sin, being also crucified in the old man with him, and buried with him by Baptism, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that thenceforth ye should not serve sin? I marvel that you are so soon removed away from your Baptism, and your calling into the Grace of Christ, and his Covenant of Grace, unto another Baptism; which is not another, but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the Baptism of Christ: 
Gal. 1.6, 7  But though they or an Angel from Heaven preach any other Baptism unto you, then that which we have preached and reached unto you, let him be accursed; and as I said before, so say I now again, if any man preach or reach any other Baptism unto you, than that ye have received of us, let him be accursed: or let him show where ever the Lord Blessed for ever, at any time blessed or consecrated, instituted, or appointed a Baptism of Baptised ones, Parents or Children, or any other Baptism, than once of Believing Parents and their Children once.  
They say, if a man put away his wife, and she go from him, and become another man's, shall be return again to her? shall not that Land be greatly polluted? But thou hast played the Harlot with many Baptisms, and many Dippers, yet return again to me saith the Lord: I say return again to the Lord, 
Jer. 3.1.  and to the Lords Baptism, if thou hast put it away from thee and renounced it, if thou be gone from him, and with the strange woman, hast forsaken the guide of thy youth (yea Childhood) and forgotten the Covenant of thy God, 
Prov. 2.17.  and the Seal thereof, & art become another man's, and betaken thyself to another Baptism, (for which the Land is also defiled as thyself) I say, return again to the Lord, and his and thy first Baptism.  
The Lord look upon thee, and remember thy first Baptism, and the words of the Covenant of Christ, and go out from amongst them who, by their Quaeres and intricate questioning of thee, caused thee to deny thy first Baptism, and therein thy Lord and Master go out and weep bitterly for the same. Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do thy first works, 
Rev. 2.5.  and leave not thy first Love; hold fast that which thou hast already, (even thy first Baptism) till Christ come, I say, Repent, and be still as you were in your Infancy, baptised every one of you, in the Name of Jesus Christ, and you shall have the Remission of your sins, (even of this sin, of being Baptised again, if so you have committed it.) For the promise is made to you and to your Children; & with many other words I would have testified and exhorted you, saying, save yourself from this untoward Generation. But that I hasten; and will tell you to the contrary, Look often back to your first Baptism in your Infancy, and think not upon any other Baptism afterwards) as to a Storehouse of comfort in all time of your need: if you be tempted by the devil, and assaulted about your sins, in your youth, or old age, think not now of nigh new or second Baptism, but recall thy first and old Baptism, oppose it against him, say and know, that therein God hath promised and sealed unto thee the pardon of thy sins, and the purchase of everlasting life by Christ.  
If thou be'st troubled with doubtings, and weakness of Faith, Fetch from thy first Baptism, such a strengthening consideration and meditation (for the doing of which, to introduce another Baptism, is but a Fetch) that God hath given thee there, an earnest and pledge of his loving kindness to thee, in the water sprinkled upon thee, representing the blood of Christ applied to thee, and so (as when Thomas saw the Holes in Christs-side; and the print of the nails, he strengthened his Faith against doubtings) be not thou faithless, but faithful, when thou reflectest upon thy Baptism, and remember'st the pouring out of the blood of Christ for thee, and the earnest thereof, the pouring out of water upon thee.  
If thou liest under any kind of Cross or Calamity whatsoever, have recourse to thy Baptism, in which God hath promised to be thy God, of which promise he will not fail thee, nor canst thou be miserable, having this promise, yea if God be with thee, who shall be against thee?  
Thou dost often look upon the wills and Testaments of thy Father and Grandfather, when you are in a doubt of hour Estate, or in some trouble about it, or in want, to be resolved in all matters thereabout: do the same here, look often back to thy Baptism, wherein the will of thy heavenly Father (which is this, I will be thy God) is delivered and sealed, and thou wilt be well resolved, comforted and cleared, in all Estates and Conditions.  
Only look back also to, and remember as often, the obligation of Homage, and stipulation of obedience wherewith thou hast bound thyself to God, (by thy sureties, or prelenters of thee to Baptism;) now thou knowest and understandest it, thou must stand to it, and make it good, thy part of the Indentures, perform the Order of Baptism on thy side, which is to turn to God, and believe in Christ, and be continually renewing of thy Faith and repentance: and then there shall be no need of any second Baptism, or washing in water, having the benefit and efficacy of, and from the same Baptism at first.  
For this also I will tell thee for thy farther comfort, that the benefit and efficacy of Baptism extendeth itself to all actual sins (like as original) & to the whole course of the life of man whensovever he shall believe and repent, and is not to be restrained to the time of the Birth and Infancy, & so after the administration of it, Baptism hath the same force, it hath before, or in the time of its administering: for Baptism is of force, so long as the Covenant is of force, and that is everlasting, Esay 54.10. Hos. 2.19. The Papists indeed will tell you, as I have mentioned already, that your Baptism will serve you only for Remission of sins, done before it, meaning your original sin, and so call your Baptism the first Table for Refuge as from it; and for sins done after Baptism, you must have their Sacrament of Penance or Repentance, which they call, a second Table for Refuge; (like as the Anabaptists tell you, you must have their Sacrament of Confession, as I may call their second Baptism, which they Minister upon Confession, of Faith,) But I tell you both, are needless and superfluous, for your one, first, single Baptism supplieth all, (you need no New Sacraments for the matter) as whose force and efficacy (though the rite and Ceremony were gone in an instant) doth extend itself, to your whole life time and to all sins, to be a seal unto you of the Remission of all, original and actual, past and to come, so you will still have recourse unto it, and make application of the grace thereof offered and sealed to you on God's part.  
For I do not mean, nor must you think, that the bare and empty Review or Remembrance of your Baptism, that such an outward Act was done will be unto you, at all times, a Remission of your sins, but it must be an effectual application of the blood of Christ, which is the virtue and power of it, that will do it; and this may be and is done, in the confession of your sins, and the profession so your faith; I may rather speak more properly, (than they do) and say that your Baptism is not so only the first Table for Refuge after Shipwreck, and Repentance the second; but that Baptism is the first and one long drawing Table, that may and must be drawn out at length into the Two Leaves of it, namely into and unto Repentance of sin, and confession of Faith: at or upon which, rightly used and applied, you and all true believers, and penitent sinners may sit down, and find plenty and provision of grace and mercy, or which, not so much as a Table or Plank, but as the Ark and Ship itself, will save you; as Saint Peter saith.  
So then, let the effects and fruits of your first Baptism be acted and exercised by you, and let the force and efficacy thereof be seen in the reformation of your whole life: (for Baptism is a seal of a dying to sin, and a rising unto Newness of Life, Rom. 6.4. as well as a Seal of the Remission of sin, Mark. 1.4.) and then you shall need no second Baptism; and if not, your first will be frustrated, (and yet you can have no second;) and I may say unto you Christians, ye stiffnecked, and unbaptised in heart and ears, as Stephen doth the Jews, ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised, in heart & ears, when as you do not express the force and virtue of your first Baptism, (as they did not of their first Circumcision) in the renovation and reformation of your hearts and ears, i.e. life and actions. Therefore, when the Jews fell away from God, at any time, and were called to Confession of sin or profession of Faith, the Prophets did not propound unto them a new or second Circumcision (as if the former were voided or vacated) but only mind them of their first and only Circumcision, and their Obligation, in their Infancy, bidding them to Circumcise the foreskin of their hearts, and to practise the inward Circumcision, in conversion to God, the spiritual and inward part of that Sacrament. And so the Apostles used to call them that had sinned after Baptism, as the Galathians by name, who had fallen from the Grace of the Gospel, to confession of sin and repentance to believe in Christ, telling them of their Baptism into Christ, & so bringing and reducing them to that foretaken by them, and the order set down there, which is already mentioned, nor do we read either in Prophet or Apostle of any other new order, required afterwards, of the Baptising them again, but only a renewing of their Faith and Repentance, the Order and Obligation of their first and once Baptism, by the Ministry of the word, and that other Sacrament, the Supper of the Lord.  
In a word, learn now to practise thy Baptism, the inward part of it, to which appertains Repentance and Faith; and so look not only back to it, but into it, an find out there thy engagement and restipulation, and perform that now, that thou art come to knowledge thereof, and walk before God, in true obedience, and in good resistance; and abrenuntiation of the Devil and all his works: For I would not such a looking back to thy Baptism, as may put a vain confidence in the cutward element received by thee, such a Respect or Contemplation of Baptism, as to trust in the Elements, is a misapplication of it, through corruption, and may well indeed, occasion sin, and encourage thee to a certain libertinisin, & licentiousnest in life; there are some who being reproved for their swearing, drunkenness, and whoredom take Sanctuary at their Baptism, as if it assured men wilfully trading in sin, of the remission of it without Repentance, and Faith; but rest not thou in the outward Letter or Element of the water; but study the Spirit, and walk in the Holiness of the same Repent of every breach of Covenant, and this Repentance will be, as a second plank or board, after such Shipwreck, to carry thee to the Haven of Happiness, like as thy Baptism was a first step and stair of thy entrance into the visible Church, and set thee, as it were, a Shipboard, or into the Ark sealing Christ with his benefits unto thee, which shall not be pulled off and made Null, and therefore need not to be iterated. and set to again, the first being still of force and efficacy, to all true believers in Christ, and repenters of sin.  
Thus I have showed you (Sir) how most men, yea all men who have been Baptised in their Infancy, may, and aught to look upon themselves, as Baptised in their Infancy (which you seem to condemn,) and that to very good purpose and benefit; and whereas you add, as the other part of your condemning them, for their not looking after the Command of Christ to be baptised when they believe, will you have them look after that, is not to be seen or found; nay have you seen or found out such a Commandment? I pray Si lend, or sell no some of your eyesalve to anoint our eyes, for by and from that eyesalve in the 3. of Rev. 18. (wherewith we have anointed our eyes, according to Christ's Council there given) we cannot see from the one end of the New Testament to the other, any such Commandment for persons baptised in their Infancy, to be baptised when they believe.  
And yet as if you had revealed and brought to light some rare matter of Salvation, you have a very scrious and devout epilogue, that it & your considerations, should be considered without a selfiish prejudicial Spirit, a Spirit willing to he guided by the Spirit of the Lord according to his word of truth, and the Scriptures truly red and interpreted by the Spirit of the Lord, which are quoted to prove the Assertions, It will appear to every honest and  Spirit that Infant-Baptism is a great and dangerous error for ever to be rejected of every Soul that expects Salvation by Christ Jesus: What a Cackling is here made upon the laying of an addle egg, or rather what a Crowing is here, upon the Treading out, of a few idle considerations? you have the faculty of entitling upon the Spirit, and the Scriptures that which they being the Spirit and Scriptures of Truth, own not, your considerations, and interpretations, (though very seldom you give interpretations (them you leave for me to make) quotatious, and considerations enough you bring, and those to no purpose or proof, as I have particularly demonstrated, where you cite them, I leave it to the Honest and  Spirits, to judge and determine, whether the Texts you have cited, were pertinent to your Consideration, or according to your meaning, or interpreting (if you have given any:) whether Infant-Baptism be a great and dangerous error, for evewr to be rejected, because now opposed of you, which ever was, a good and Religion's Truth, ever practised amongst the Saintt, because recommended of Christ and the Apostles; whether youts or mine be a selfish and prejudicial Spirit (I confess, my Spirit is prejudicial to yours, & your opinions, as your Spirit is prejudicated to mine, and thoughts. Lastly whether your considerations, be not as inconsiderate in the writer, so inconsiderable to the Reader.  
However you think so well of them, that you go on, to more of them, (when its time to have done with such selfish things) and in the next place, offer to me, some of your considerations upon Act. 2.39.  
The which if I thought, they were no more considerate, nor considerable, than your former, I would consider a while upon it, whether or no I should take them into consideration at all, or pass by them, as inconsiderable.  
And such indeed they seem to be, and upon the General view, I find them so: for in them all, there are nothing but answers and solutions made to objections not set down; Refutations and denials, of a sense before it be any where mentioned; is not this Cart before the Horse, which a Carter (methinks should not do:) & a consideration, without consideration, which a Consideratour (I am sure,) should not do; we had before, your judgement settled out of Quaeres; this is as bad, your answers to no objections, & your refuting, no Exposition of ours.  
Well, as all the way hitherto, I have ordered your matters for you, so (I see) I must do so still, or else we shall make no work of it, at least, have no orderly proceeding in it.  
First therefore, let the sense of that Text be given, and the argument drawn out of it for Infant Baptism (which I will do for you:) and then after, let the refutation of that sense, and the Answers to that Argument be added or subjoined; the which you shall do for me.  
Peter having preached here unto the Jess, and laid to their charge the death and crucifying of Jesus Christ, and brought them to some apprehension of their horrid sins, at the 38 Verse exhorteth them to repent and be baptised into the Name of the same Jesus Christ, and to accept him for their Messiah; the which he doth upon this reason and ground, mentioned in the 39 Vers. and drawn from the benefit that should redound not to the mselves only, but to their Children, by their believing in Christ. The which he proves from the Promise made to them and their Children. In plainer and larger words, thus it is.  
God hath remembered his Covenant, in sending that blessed Seed, in whom he promised to be the God of Abraham, and his Seed; know ye therefore, that (as God made the Promise of Grace in Christ (to come and to be exhibited) unto Abraham upon his believing, and took also his Children and Posterity into Covenant with him, not only the natural Jews, but even amongst all Nations whoever became followers of Abraham's Faith, should by virtue of the same inherit Abraham's Promise, That he would be their God, and the God of their Seed also, which should also be taken into the same Covenant) so now this blessed Seed in whom the Promise was founded being now come and exhibited, would make it good to you all, Jews and Gentiles, who would believe in him; and (notwithstanding your cruel practices against him, and your crucifying of him) if you will believe in this Lord of life, and your Messiah, you shall thereby be in as good, or better condition, under this last Administration, for yourselves and your children, as in the former; therefore deprive rot yourselves by your impenitency and infidelity, of so great a benefit, as may come to yourselves and Posterity; for the Promise is made to you and your Children, etc. what Promise, or the Promise of what? for so I will clear the Text of some exceptions; the Promise of the extraordinary Gifts of the Holy Ghost? so say some of you, that you may the better turn this off from Infants of Believers baptised. It is true, they are promised also in the Verse before, and I acknowledge, they were Appendants to the Primitive Baptisms of the adult, and peculiar to the first times, for the more abundant confirmation of their Faith, as Act: 10 & 11. who were converted to it from Paganism and Judaisme. But (no doubt) Peter here aimed, and even pointed at that grand and fundamental Covenant of Grace made to Abraham, In thy seed shall all families of the Earth be blessed. Such a Promise as this, of Grace, and the free remission of their sins, by that blood of Christ (though shed by some of them) sealed in the Sacrament of Baptism, comes seasonably to them, to pacify their troubled consciences, and cheer up their drooping spirits; whereas the other Promise, of receiving the Gifts of the Spirit, that is, the extraordinary ones of speaking divers Languages, etc. would nothing so properly and effectually have done it, as that was the thing then in hand to be done. And besides, the Promise here spoken of, being a Gospel Promise, was to extend to all also that were afar off, as many as the Lord shall call; and so it did pass on in the general Tenders, Privileges and Effects, to the Believers of the Gentiles and their children, from that time, and so shall unto the end of the World. But you will not say (I dare say) That according to this Promise, the believers of the Gentiles and their Children have received, and shall receive, those Gifts of speaking divers and strange Languages, throughout all Ages and Generations. Such a Promise was never made, and ought not to be challenged of God.  
But (it may be) the Promise made to Abraham was but a personal and peculiar one, to him and his seed, to be taken Into Covenant, and to become a visible Church (I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed) i.e. Isaac, Jacob, and their children. No, it extended, we see, to the Proselytes of other Nations also, and to all followers of Abraham's faith, both Jews and Gentiles; and therefore the same Promise was frequently renewed in Scripture, many hundred years after those Patriarches deceased, both to Jews and Gentiles, as Isa. 30.6. Isa. 44.2, 3. and so shall continue unto the end of the World, Isa. 59.21. to as many as the Lord our God shall call, until the very last calling in of the Jews; it being, as I said, a Gospel-Promise.  
Yea, say you, it is granted, when any of the Children of Believers come to be called, and do believe, this Promise shall be made good to them. But thus saying, you make the Promise to hold forth no more comfort or benefit to the children of Believers, than the children of Pagans; and thus even Isaac and Jacob should have no external privilege by this Promise, until they actually believed; yea thus all the Jews (but such as were Elect, and truly faithful) were cut off, as well as the Gentiles, from having any visible communion in external privileges thereof. The Call here is either inward or outward; if inward, can none partake of the outward privileges, as Baptism, but such as have that? We know those are common to the Elect and Reprobate. If of an outward Call, why the Infants of Believers enjoy this Call with their Parents, and so partake of the Promise.  
And what if Peter here required repentance of such as were in Covenant before baptism, are therefore Infants not to be baptised? so Ahraham was in Covenant, and an actual Believer, and justified in Uncircumcision, and received Circumcift. on as a seal of righteousness of Faith; and Proselytes turned to the Jews, were first to make profession of faith; were therefore none but such to be circumcised?  
But if being under the Covenant besufficient, to give a proper right to the seals of it, and the privileges of it, (as I said) why-doth Peter keep such a do with these Jess, being already in Covenant, to repent and believe before they were baptised? and why were none of them being in Covenant, baptised, but such as gladly received the Word and believed? It is not where so said, that none but such were baptised amongst the three thousand souls. And as for the Jews, who receiving the Word gladly, were baptised, you must know, they were not now before it in Covenant, so as to acknowledge Jesus Christ the Son of Mary, to be the Messiah and Saviour of the World, as who denied that holy One, and killed the Prince of life. True, they were born Jews, under the Covenant, in the first Ministration of it, and were circumcised, and had the seal of their faith in Christ to come. But this being now antiqunted and out of date by the coming of Christ in the flesh, and these Jews having renounced Christ, and deposed themselves and their children from the Title they had to Christ, as Matthew 27.25. they so renounced the Covenant they had Title to by birth, and were now in a condition little better than Pagans, Christians to be made; and therefore they were not to have the new appointed seals of entrance, which was Baptism, to assure them that Jesus was Lord and Christ, until they embraced him by faith, confessing that he was come, and that Jesus was he, and repent of their crucifying him.  
And thus having cleared the interpretation of the Text, I will give you a Consideration of mine upon it, before I come to your Considerations, without any interpretation given of you.  
My Consideration upon it is this, That here is a good warrant for me, and for Infant Baptism, against you; and so as Solomon said of Adonijah, 
1 Kings 2.33  That be had spoken a word against his own life: I may say, you have brought in this Word and Text against yourself, and the life of your Cause; said I a warrant? yea a very Command.  
The words, Be baptised every one of you, you will not deny (I suppose) to be a word of command from Peter in Christ's stead, and so from Christ by Peter. But the Command is, To baptiae Father and Child, I prove thus; Because the Promise is to the Father and Child. The Promise is made to you and your Children, and therefore the Command is, Be baptised every one of you, and your Children. For if the Children of Believers have a right to be baptised by the word of Promise, they must have a right to be baptised by the word of Command, and so the other way also, these two being convertible Terms, the word of Promise, and the word of Command, having mutual relation each to other. So it's in the general nature of Covenants, there must be a convertibility betwixt the two parts that do contract, as the mutual Indentures show, and so also it must be in the Sacramental Covenant betwixt God and man, and betwixt the word of Promise, which is God's part, and the word of Command, that contains the duty of man, in the Sacramental Action. And so particularly it was in Circumcision, in which Institution there was a mutual near relation and convertibility between the word of Promise (I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed) and the word of Command (Every manchild among you shall be circumcised) so that as many of them that had a right to be circumcised by the word of Promise, had a right to be circumcised by the word of Command; and so also the other way, turn it, and it's as true.  
Sir, my hand is now in, and I will give you another Syllogism.  
Whosoever are expressed in the Promise, Verse 39 are contained in the Precept before, Verse 38. Be baptised every one of you.  
But believing Parents and their Children are expressed in the Promise, Verse 39 The Promise is made to you and your Children.  
Therefore believing Parents and their Children are contained in the Precept; and so both are commanded to be baptised.  
There is no difficulty but in the first Proposition; and in it there is none, by reason of the mutual relation, and reciprocal convertibility that is betwixt a Promise and a Precept in Covenantal, and Sacramental matters, as hath been showed.  
And whereas it may be said, That a Promise may be without a seal, and this here doth not infer Baptism. It is true; but when men have once put their seal, than there needs must be a correspondence and relation between that Seal and the Covenant. So here, though it was not absolutely necessary, the word of Promise, or Covenant of Grace, should be set forth by outward seals, appearing to the senses; yet God having once anpointed them to signify the inward grace, it is now necessary there should be such a mutual relation between the word of Promise and the word of Command, and the Seal also. But I come now to your Consideration, upon the Text of Acts 2. verse 39  
Consider, that such a being in the Covenant, as maketh Faith void, is no true being; But that being in the Covenant which is concluded from the Faith of the Parents, is such a being, as maketh Faith void, therefore no true being. That this is so, I prove.  
That Title whereby any person hath once a being in the Covenant, by the same he may remain in it for ever; now than if any one hath such a Title as to be within the Covenant, by being the seed of the faithful, he may remain in it for ever, and so needs no faith of his own; and so by the same reason one may, all may; and seeing all be the children of Abraham or Noah, which were faithful, all are in the Covenant, and so Faith needless in the wordl.  
2. Consider that such on Expositionas overthroweth the Promise, that cannot be a true Exposition of the Text, but such as expound a being in the Covenant from faithful Parents overthrow the Promise. Therefore this Exposition is no true Exposition, for the Promise is upon account of faith in our own persons, and not in our Parents; as appears in Hab. 2.4. compared with John 3.36. And that it doth overthrow the Promise, I farther prove, because nothing answereth the Promise but faith; and if faith be needless, than the Promise is needless.  
Sir, I can write no farther, being sorry I writ out so much of your needless stuff; for to what purpose is all this? are these Considerations upon Acts 2.39? they might have been upon any other Text as well, which makes any mention of Promise, Faith, Children. And what is it, but such an Exposition as overthroweth the Promise? Why did you not set it down the Exposition at first, and then consider upon it? you alwaiet love to shuffle with shadows, and fight with fancies, and strange Chimeras.  
Your purpose is, to except to the children of Believers being in Covenant, with their Parents: (for so I must still be working upon your earth, which is without form, and void, and darkness upon the face of it, like a Chaos) and you say it is a false being, as concluded from the faith of Parents, and so maketh faith void.  
First I must tell you, that the being of children in the Covenant of Grace with their Parents, was concluded by God jointly and together (in that Promise, I will be thy God, and the God of thy Seed) both were in the Promises, and concluded together, not one from another: both in the Promise, and confederate together, not one from another. Your expressions are uncouth, unheard in the Church; yet we may conclude thus, That if the Parent be in Covenant with God, then also his seed and children are in Covenant, not so much from, as for the faith of the Parents, God accepting of it, so as to Covenant with them and their Seed.  
But grant your Conclusion in your own terms, what then? Such a being in Covenant as is concluded from the faith of the Parents, maketh Faith void, say you; and say I, what Faith, or whose Faith do you mean? Not the Faith of the Parents, I suppose; for the Baptising of the Child, or the being of it in Covenant, from the Faith of the Parents (as you speak) doth rather confirm, establish, and bring it into effect, than make it void: nor can you mean the Faith of the Children; for you holding them to have no Faith of their own, as here you expressly say, how can you say it is here made void, any way, which was or is not where extant at all? nor is Faith required of them as to any manifestation of it, for their being in Covenant, or taking the Seal; though these do require it of them afterwards: But the Proof that you bring, it being of, I know not what, nothing asserted before of you, or denied of me, deserveth to be answered in its kind, that is, by a Reproof; for thus you prove. That Title whereby a person hath once a being in the Covenant, by the same he may remain in it for ever, (I must cast in a grain of Salt here, without which it is too fresh, yea, unsavoury: that is, (so long as he lives, and renounce not before,) whether he be one of our Infants, or one of your grown Baptised ones;) Now then if any one hath such a Title, as to be within the Covenant, by being the seed of the faithful, he may remain in it for ever, and so needs no Faith of his own: Here's a rope of Sand, for my grain of Salt. I grant he may with the former limitation: and he that hath such a Title, as to be within the Covenant, by being converted from Paganism, may do so too, and as one, so all may.  
And he needs no Faith of his own, I hope you remember yourself, no Actual Faith expressed, as elsewhere you writ it, as to this purpose to give him Title unto the Covenant or Seal, which his being the seed of the faithful doth; yet he needs Faith, to give him Title to the benefits of the Covenant, Justification and Salvation; and he must be also, a faithful seed himself. And so by the same reason one may, all may, and seeing all be the Children of Abraham and Noah which were faithful, all are in the Covenant, and so Faith needles in the world. Sir, you rise apace, but to no preferment of a Proof: before it was but, He needs no Faith of his own, and now, it should but have been, they need no Faith of their own, because by the same reason, one may, all may as you say: but instead of such, you fly high and far, and say, And so, Faith needles in the World, because all the children of Abraham and Noah which were faithful, are in Covenant. I never met with a man that made or called Faith, a Cost needless in the world, that is and may rather be called, that one needful thing in the world: for though actual Faith be not needful in all, to entitle them unto their external part of the Covenant and the Seal, as in the Baptism of Infants of believers (for whom it is sufficient, that they are born in and under the Covenant of grace) yet it is needful for the partaking of the inward part and benefits of the same, and their being in Covenant, is an obligation unto them to believe afterwards, etc. as a part of their Astipulation.  
Now than if I should reckon up, the Company of your, And so, and so, and so, (which are the Formals of your proofs) I shall not need to go out into Lanes or Streets, and fetch in, the Blind, and the Halt, and the Maimed, to fill up the Room, so long as your Reasons, Proofs, and And foes are in presence, for they supply us fully, as thus; The Children of John and Thomas who were Loyal, are joined in the same Copy of Court-roll, and so Fealty is needless in the Manor: or thus, your Plough lieth in the Field, with its whipple-trees, and so rain is needless in the County.  
And a man may see, you understand very well the Covenant God made with Abraham and his seed, to be a Gospel Covenant of Grace, for the Remission of Sins, and Salvation of Souls in and through Christ promised, who join thereto together, Noab and his Covenant, without any distinction, or difference made, whereas the Covenant God made with Noah, was but a Covenant of Nature (as I call it for distinction sake) for the Continuation of the world, and preservation of the Creatures, and fruits of the Earth, to which he also annexed as his sign, his Bow in the Clouds, That Rain bow: Are you of the mind of those, some of your Cut and Size, who when they are put to it, and penned up by our Reasons for Infant Baptism, from Infant-Circumcision, stick not to say, that God meant no farther in his Covenant with Abraham, and his seed, than that he would give him and them a visible standing in the promised Land of Canaan, and Circumcision should be the seal of it? if Therefore, you joined Abraham and Noah together in your proof and discourse, you thereby showed, that you are not of Abraham, your Father, nor as Noah, a Preacher of Righteousness.  
But you call of me to Consider, that such an Exposition as overthroweth the promise, that cannot be the True Exposition of the Text, it is granted, but where, what is that Exposition? such as expound, a being in the Covenant from faithful Parents, overthrows the promise: it seems you are got up again, and come to overthrowing again: But how do you prove, that Exposition overthroweth the promise. First, By reason taken out of a Text out of Habakkuk, because the promise is upon the Account of Faith in our own persons, and not in our Parents: And secondly, because nothing answereth the promise but Faith, and if Faith be needless, than the promise is needless; and this I must take upon your bare word without any Text. Most of this is answered already, if you will read back. You bid me here compare Habakkuk with John; I pray compare your Exposition, and the Promise together.  
The Text saith, the Promise is made to you, and your Children, and to all a far off; (I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed) where you see, Children are Covenanted jointly, and together with the Parents: you frame an Exposition, and would put it upon us, children's being in the Covenant, is from faithful Parents, as if severally, and a part faithful Parents were taken into Covenant, and then from them their Children should, because born of them, and when born of them, come into Covenant; for Abraham, believed whilst he was in uncircumcision, but that Faith of his, gave no being in that special Covenant, either to himself or children, whereof Circumcision was the Seal: but yet God so well accepted of Abraham's Faith, that for its sake, he was pleased to enter into Covenant with him, and with his children at one and the same time, and to assume them together into Covenant with himself: So there the children's being in Covenant, is not from faithful Parents, simply and absolutely, as I have showed, but from faithful Parents in Covenant: or rather (to speak properly and fully) from the Covenant God made unto both, Parents and Children, so that not so much their being in Covenant, as their being born in Covenant, is from their Faithful Parents in Covenant.  
But neither way doth it overthrow this Promise; for the children's being in Covenant, by virtue of the promise made, supporteth and supposeth the promise; and their being in the Covenant, from faithful Parents, as you speak, doth not overthrow the promise, seeing even their being so is, from them, by reason of the promise made to them for their Children also, which rather establisheth and confirmeth, than overthroweth and evacuateth the promise. You had need add another Exposition to your Exposition, and put better light to your New light, and into your dark Lantern, or else none will see to walk by it but yourself; and so you have done. For it overthroweth the promise, you say, because the promise is upon account of Faith in our own Persons, and not in our Parents. See how you forget yourself, in forgetting the Children, of whose being in the promise, you are discoursing; you let them alone, and put yourself (and would join me with you, but that I will not) in their place, saying, the Promise is upon account of Faith in your own person, and not in your Parents. True, now you are a grown man, the promise will be, and must be accounted to you, upon the Faith in your person, as to the virtue, efficacy and effects of the promise. Now you are become a man, you must put away Childish things, as the Apostle saith, 1 Cor. 13.11. to which purpose only your Texts are, out of Habakkuk and John, where Justification, and everlasting life, are set upon the account of Faith in a man's own person, speaking of such only, as are grown to be tall proper men like yourself, able to account, and give a reason of them.  
But why did you single out John 3.36. where the words of the Prophet Habakkuk, are not repeated, and bauk those other Texts in the Margin, Rom. 1.17. Gal. 3.11. and Heb. 10.38. in all which the very words of the Prophet, The just shall live by his own Faith, are repeated and applied? is it to show in your own person, that light is come into the world, and men love darkness more than light? you turned only to John, for Name sake, out of self-love; (yet I tell you, the Evangelist John, is against the the Anabaptist John, even herein, in that very thing for which you cited him, as I have showed you) but if for Truth sake, out of love to the Truth, you would have compared Habakkuk with Paul, in any of the three Texts, the Margin directed you to, (yea, the whole Books and Epistles to the Romans and Galathians) they would have given you a clear Elucidation, if you would lay aside your own Spectacles, and look with theirs, that your Justification, and everlasting life is there, in the Prophet, set upon the account of Faith in your own person, applying to yourself the Righteousness of Jesus Christ: which contains rather the Execution of the Promise.  
But what's all this to the Promise itself here mentioned, and of old made to the believing Parents, and their Children in their Infancy? Sure when you were a Child, you spoke as a Child, you understood as a Child, you thought, or reasoned as a Child, you reckoned and accounted as a Child: I pray now give me some account, (because you make an instance in yourself,) passing by the Faith in your Parents, of the Faith was in your own person, when you was a Child, and went to Baptism, by which you lived; or instance now again, in the Children of faithful Parents amongst the Jews, what account of their Faith, did any of them make in their own persons, when they were Circumcised in their Childhood; or here in the 2. of Acts, which you have taken upon you to expound, what word, or syllable, or the least intimation is there, of any account of faith to be made of Children in their own persons? And yet the Promise and Covenant is both here said to belong to the Children, and the Children before, and so likewise to yourself, Sir, all the while before you could, or did give an account of Faith in your own person; you would be loath to be accounted all that while to be without Christ, and an alien or stranger from the Covenants of Promise, having no hope, and without God in the world; and if you should think or say so of yourself, yet I will not so account of you, and you would be very ungrateful unto God, Covenanting, and Promising, and ungracious to your Parents bringing you into the world, and to Baptism, in so thinking or saying: It is as clear as the light at noon day, that Feter, to persuade those enemies, and Crucifiers of Christ to Repent, Believe, and so to be Baptised, and to come under the New administration of the Covenant of Christ exhibited in the Gospel, whom they had renounced, useth this as a main argument, the Benefit also that should redound to their Children, that they should also be accepted into Covenant, and be made partakers of the external Privileges of the Church, as to be Baptised and Counted God's people, like as before they were Circumcised, and so reckoned; which he proveth, for the Promise is made to you and your Children, as to them and their Children: to you indeed, upon account of your actual Faith in your own persons, but unto them, upon account as I have given before, of their being taken of God, into the same Covenant with you, their believing Parents.  
But for all this, Though Children without account of Faith in their own persons, by their Birth of believing Parents in Covenant and Promise, have Right and Title to Baptism, by virtue of the Promise and Covenant made to them both, (Thy God, and thy Seed,) yet Children, when they come to enjoy the Benefits of the Covenant in their Justification and Salvation, they must have these upon the account of Faith, in their own persons, or some grace of the Spirit answerable applying Jesus Christ, and his Righteousness unto them.  
Your other Reason is, Because nothing answereth the Promise, but Faith, and if Faith be needless, than the Promise is needless. You did well to add no Text here, having abused enough already: but let us look upward, and see what it's you prove, And that it doth overthrow the Promise, what is it? the Exposition of the Text, Act 2.39. of children's being in Covenant from Faithful Parents, that it overthroweth the promise, I prove farther, because nothing answereth the promise but Faith; thus than it must be reasoned; if nothing answer the promise but Faith, than children's being in Covenant from Faithful Parents, overthroweth this promise; I am sure, This is a needless consequence; because the promise stands up still, and is of so ce, notwithwanding though there were no Faith in some to uphold it; and much more, though no Faith in some to answer it. I will give you a Text here, though you give me none, Rom. 3.3, and 4. What if some did not believe? shall their urbelief make the Faith of God (the Faith made and given of God) i.e. this promise, without effect? God forbidden: yea, let God be true, and every man a liar; Let Gods promise stand, though some men's faith fall: yea, though none in the world had believed, yet God would have fulfilled his promise, in sending and exhibiting the Messiah, a Christ; and therefore much less is the promise overthrown, because there may want Faith in some, for some while, to answer it: If indeed there were no Faith at all extant or to come any where to answer the Covenant, and promise, this might seem to endanger the overthrowing of it, as to the taking effect and benefit in men; and then your reason would be of some seeming consequence, or your consequence carry some show of Reason. But it is not so here; for here is Faith in the faithful Parents (as you acknowledge) embracing and holding up the promise; and here are Children in Covenant, upholding also and enjoying the promise, by birth of Faithful Parents, by grace, and indulgence of God, and (for any thing you know) by Faith or other influence of the Spirit: Look again into the Text of Act. 2.39. See if the promise there be not standing fast and firm to the believing Parents and their Children, though there is no mention made of Faith to answer the promises, but only called for of those grown men that were to be, and were Converted.  
But which way do you mean, Faith answereth the Promise? For one thing may be said to answer another, many ways, as the Antitype doth the Type, the thing signified the Sign, a thing regulated the Rule, the consideration a bargain, performance a contract, or a Condition a Covenant. I suppose it is this later way, that Faith answereth the Promise; For as the old Covenant with Adam stood all in Precepts, Do this & Live, and so works as the Condition were to answer that Precept; so the new Covenant stood all in Promiser, I will be thy God, if thou wilt trust to me, and Faith, as the Condition, is to answer the promise, else no proportion or agreement betwixt them.  
For nothing but Faith it is, that answers the promise, it being impossible to have made the Sons of men partakers of the Covenant, that other way, by obedience to the Law; if it could, it should have been done that way: Adam (though made perfectly Righteous, and able) did not answer it; and if God had tried Adam the second time, he would not have answered, in obedience to it; but would have broken it again, and so should we; Therefore it must needs be by Faith embracing the promises and so amswering them, that the Covenant of Grace must be made sure unto us, which otherwise could never have been done.  
But all this maketh nothing against the exposition of the Text above of Infants being in Covenant with their faithful Parents, and included (yea they are expressed) in the promise; for God looked upon the Faith of Abraham, when he entered into Covenant with him and his Children, and made the promise to be the God of him and his seed; and hereupon himself was Circumcised and his seed: And where God pleaseth, and when he pleaseth, as he doth give sanctity, & the Spirit, and other Graces to Infants, as to the Innocents', Jeremy, & John the Bap. so the habit of Faith infused, (it being the Condition on man's part, yet wrought in every Elect Infant by God,) whereby they answer the promise, as to the good and benefit of the Covenant, if they die before, or soon after the Sealing thereof by Baptism, besides that Infants being born of Parents in Covenant, and themselves also in Covenant with God, and others, as sureties and sponsors, in the name of the Infants answering for their Faith, and promising for their education in the Faith, and the Churches charitable opinion, or judging them to have Faith, are sufficient to answer the promise, as for the outward visible seal which is Baptism, to be conferred upon them.  
But you make an answer to an objection, which will make also an answer to the promise; If any will say, (say you) that the Parents may believe for their Children, and so their Faith will answer the promise, I answer; 1. That the Text doth not say, the promise is made to you, in the behalf of your Children, but to you, and to your Children; and therefore you must believe for yourselves, and they for themselves, or else neither you, nor they do answer the promise. Somewhat of this before.  
Sir, whilst you are about this promise, I wish you would observe the precept, of using no vain repetitions, as here you do, so that I must either wholly omit, or repeat vainly with you.  
1. Though the Text saith not so much in so many words, yet it meaneth so much; The Promise is made to you, in the behalf of your Children (also) that word added, it is the same with, The Promise is made to you and your Children, both together and jointly, the one being in promise as well and as soon as the other; and thus the Text neither saith, or denyeth your objection, nor your answer. For the promise may be truly made, and is to believing Parents and their Children, whether the Parents do believe for their Children also, or the Children for themselves.  
2. Whereas you say, Parents must believe for themselves, and children for themselves, or neither answer the promise it is truly meant according to the inward and spiritual part thereof, so as to partake of Remission of sin, Justification and Salvation: But yet the Faith of Parents in Covenant may be, and is so far beneficial to their born Children, that thereby they are declared to be also in Covenant with themselves, and to have a Right and Title unto the Seal of the Promise, and the external Ordinances, and outward Privileges of the Church, and in respect of these may be said to answer the promise. For the promise is, the whole Covenant and the dispensations of it in outward Ordinances, as well as saving Graces; and it's your constant error and mistake, never to speak distinctly of this promise, but usually, and only strictly of the saving Graces thereof, belonging to the Elect, whereas there is an answering of this promise also, by visible profession, and external Church-membership and privileges, which is done both by the Parents and Children, whether the inward Graces thereof be known or not.  
Concerning Infants Faith, and their inward Graces, whereby you will have them also, and they may be answerable to the inward promise, I refer you to what I have said before.  
3. You Sir must own the Child above, and it must be laid at your doors. I mean the objection there made, That Parents may believe for their Children, and so answer the Promise. I do not believe you can find out a Father for it, nor did I ever read the words, as I remember, it is true, as I have related before, that Parents did answer for the Faith of their Children presented to Baptism, when the Child was asked, dost thou believe, the Parent, in the Name and place of his Child, answered, I believe; but this is far off from your Parents believing for their Children, for it was only Parents professing of their children's Faith; or the children's professing their Faith by or in the mouth of their Parents, as I have largely showed.  
And as for those Divines, who, though contesting for Infant-Baptism, because they could not be persuaded of Infants-Faith, made their refuge to Parents-Faith, yet they did it not in such words, as Parents believing for their Children, nor to such purpose, that their Faith might answer the promise, but to show, that the Parents Faith gave unto their Children a proof of being born under the Christian Covenant, and a Plea for the Seal of Baptism, notwithstanding the supposed privation of Faith in Children.  
Though therefore Infants, as to their inward state before God, of Justification and Salvation, are not relieved and helped forward either by profession of Sponsors and Parents, or by the acts and habits of their Faith, because as I said, the just shall live by his Faith, and as you say, the Parents must believe for themselves; and as the Errors and Heresies of the Parents do not hurt the Children, no more do their Faith and Truth help them, as giving nothing from themselves unto their inward and eternal condition. Yet are they beneficial to their Children otherways. 1. It's from their Faith, that the Children are brought out to Christ, and offered and dedicated to him in Baptism, 
Psal. 206.37.  whereas the Infidels offered their Sons and Daughters unto Devils. 2. And as in their dedication, so by their supplication, the Faith of the Parent is helpful, towards the obtaining of their children's regeneration, and many graces of the Spirit, God being ready to hear, and do accordingly. 3. If original sin did hurt Infants, which without any fault of theirs, they drew according to the flesh from their Parents, why may not the Faith of the Parents profit the Children so, as that sin be not imputed to them, for Christ's sake, to whom they are offered and dedicated purposely and willingly, by their Parents, seeing grace is more abundant than Condemnation, and the gift greater than the fault? 4. 
Rom. 5. 1 Cor. 7.14. Rom. 11.16.  It is from the Faith of the Parents in Covenant with God, that their Children born of them, are not unclean but Holy, and if the Root be Holy, so are the Branches.  
So also for the obtaining of Temporal blessings, upon their Children, the Faith of Parents is available: How often is God said to bestow such, and such good Temporal things, for abraham's and for David's sake? Jesus seeing their Faith, 
Matth. 9.2.  who brought him lying on a bed, Healed the sick man of the Palsy. So Christ said unto the Centurion, Go thy way, and as thou hast believed, be it unto thee, 
●●t. 8.13.  and his servant was healed the same hour that he believed: will Christ do so much for a sick servant, because of his Master's Faith, who brought him, to a sick man, because of his friend's Faith that brought him? and will he not do the like, or more for Children, because of their Parent's Faith, who bring them and offer them to him in Baptism? 
Matth. 15.28. John 4.50.  Yes he healed the daughter that was grievously vexed with a Devil, for the Mother's great Faith, the woman of Canaan; and healed a Son that was at the point of death, for the Father's Faith, a ruler in Capernaum.  
In a word; one man's Faith may profit another, as the Parents, the Children, towards both Temporal, Spiritual, and Eternal Salvation, by way of entreaty and impetration, but not by way of conveyance and application: For this, the Application of Christ and his Benefits, is not another man's work of Faith, but it is every man's Faith to work it: and now, Sir, you that have thus slighted the Faith of Parents, as to the good and benefit of their Children, Go you and learn, what this meaneth, Believe in the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be saved, and thy House, Act. 16.31.  
And so you suppose it ware (were) so, that the promises ware (were) made unto the faithful, in the behalf of their Children, and they concluded to be in the Covenant thereby: Then either God doth perform his promise, in saving all the Children of faithful Parents according to his Covenant: or else he breaks his Covenant made to those Parents, and doth not perform it his promise; either of which particulars, no man which is in his right wits will dare to affirm; and therefore this Exposition, that Children have any right to the Covenant by virtue of the Faith of their Parents, or to any privilege of the Covenant, by virtue of the same, is a false (false) Exposition of the Text; and a wresting of it; Jesus saith, ye do err not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God, Matth. 22.29. I am the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob; God is not the God of the dead, but of the living, vers. 32.  
I thought it it would come to this at last: that, after your Railing upon the Church of God in England, for worse than naught, even no Church, and after your baiting the Ministers of God there, and, by your goodwill, ill-will, your querying and tearing God's portion of Maintenance from them, your Quarrelling at their Ministrations of the Sacraments of God, this especially of Infant-Baptism, besides abundance more of God's institutions and allowances, that you have been Quaerulous at, you would at last ascend above the height of the Clouds, and fall to Questioning of God himself, about the performing and breaking his promise, about his saving all, or not saving all the Children of faithful Parents.  
Either of which particulars, if you had been in your right wits, you would not have dared (yet what is it, you will not dare, in matter of Interpretation of Scripture, or argumentation of reason?) to have drawn and enforced, so inconsequently and inconsiderately, from that, though but supposed proposition.  
For suppose it again, that the promise was made to the saithful in the behalf of the Children, and they concluded to be in Covenant thereby, yet neither of the particulars, you mention,) doth follow, that all their Children must be saved according to that Covenant, that so God may perform his promise; or if not, God must be a breaker of his promise: and seeing you have not proved the consiquence, I will prove the Inconsequence of it; by the reason I have touched before, the Promise and Covenant made to the faithful, in the behalf of the Children, and concluding these in the same, (I must here use your words) containeth not only the inward saving graces, and the spiritual benefits of the same, such as are, Justification, Regeneration, perseverance, and glorification freely promised in Christ: (if so taken only, then indeed all in Covenant must be saved, or else God be a breaker of Covenant.)  
But it containeth in it also the outward administrations, in visible Ordinances and Church Privileges, which are many, as to be God's people, and the Children of God's invisible League, to have the Oracles of God, etc. and thus taken, God is no breaker of promise, if all in Covenant with him, be not saved by him; for God made no such Covenant with all faithful Parents, to save all their Children, but to put them under the way and means of Salvation, by taking them also to be the God of, and owning them for children in Covenant, and appointing them a Seal thereof. This may be called the Covenant of Administration, or rather that part of it which stands in administrations of external Ordinances and Privileges; the which hath belonging to it all visible and external professors, as also a visible Seal, which all that are in this Covenant, ought therefore to be partakers of; you (as it appears) allow none to be under the Covenant of Grace, but only such as are inwardly believers Justified, Sanctified, and partakers of the saving Graces of the Covenant; The which error and mistake, as I told you before, I tell you again, hath seduced you into these inconsequent consequences, and misled you into your Anabaprismal Baptisms: for as many are called but few chosen, so many are to be reputed to belong to the Covenant of grace, and to be Covenanters, though they have not inwardly and effectually the saving graces of the Covenant. Besides, I could prompt you, that the Covenant is but conditional, not absolute.  
And now, for a conclusion, because you have made mention of such a thing, the Salvation of Infants, born in the precincts of the Church, I will leave with you a few Propositions to consider off.  
1. That the Church of God determineth nothing positively and peremptorily about the Salvation of Infants dying either with, or without Baptism, for she knoweth that secret things belong to God, and only revealed things belong to her and her children.  
2. She judgeth that Infants in the general, Baptised or unbaptised are saved, that is some, but not all; for this she hath a judgement of certainty an charity both, both the charity and certainty of such a judgement.  
3. That this and that particular Infant, baptised, or unbaptised is saved, she hath no judgement of certainty, but only of charity, and this may have, though there should be none of those particulars saved  
4. That inward saving grace, doth not always attend the Covenant (largely and comprehensively taken, of which before) nor the Seal, but only in such as belong to the election of grace. Yet the Church may in charity think so; as to particulars in Covenant and under Seal, (till the contrary appear) though she have no certain knowledge of it.  
5. Elect Infants Baptised, and dying in their Infancy, have no outward means of Salvation but their Baptism, the Seal of the Covenant, but there is an inward invisible grace, which the Holy Spirit, before, in, at, or by Baptism, doth truly, really, and actually impute or impart to them, applying Christ in his Justifying, and Sanctifying virtue, unto the souls of such Infants. This the Church holdeth not only as of Charity, but as of certainty.  
6. Such Elect Infants Baptised, and so dying, are capable of, and do attain to such saving inward graces, not by the usual and ordinary way of Believing upon hearing and conceiving (for such actual Faith, is not of absolute nececessity to all God's Elect, but only to those to whom God affords the means of it.) it is the application of Christ's Righteousness, that justifieth them; which is done to them, either by some habits of Faith infused of God into their hearts, or by God's Spirit in a secret and unknown way to us, supplying all defects in them, and doing all things on their parts; and this he holdeth, most in charity, with some though not, full of certainty, because it is secret.  
7. Such Elect Infants Baptised, and living to the Use of Reason and Understanding, the seeds of Grace and Faith infused before, or in Baptism, do grow up, by the ordinanry means, unto an actual apprehension of Christ and his Righteousness, yea areall possession and comfortable fruition of Christ and all his benefits, which were in Baptism truly and effectually sealed before unto them, whensoever they should be capable to make use of them: and this she affirmeth both out of certainty, and charity.  
8. Because the Church (and all this while, I speak of the Church of old England) hath no certain knowledge of particulars, who are Elect Infants, and who not; but only a charitable opinion of this and that, and so every particular one, born in the bosom of the Church; & for that she not only charitably holdeth, but certainly knoweth, that all Infants born of Christian Parents, are also inexternal and professional Covenant of God, together with their Christian Parents, Therefore she is careful, as she ought, that all such in convenient time and with the soon, may be Baptised, and receive the Initial Seal of the Covenant, so as none, as much as may be, depart out of this life, without Baptism, not as if she certainly thought Infants, having been true partakers of Baptism, must needs without doubt be saved; but because she will not be wanting in her charity, and duty to God and such Infants, which being once baptised, and dying soon after, she thinks them saved in her judgement of charity (in which she thinketh the inward grace may accompany the outward Ministration) but for any judgement of certainty and verity herein, she disclaimeth, and referreth the same to the God Omniscient.  
Now to what end you add these last words, Jesus saith, Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God, Mat. 22.29. I am the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and Jacob; God is not the God of the dead, but of the living, Verse 32. unless it be to show a kind of fatality of error falling upon you, and following you wheresoever you go, not knowing, but pretending ever the Scriptures; which still you cite, as heretofore, and speak words against your own life (the life of your Cause) and cut your own throat with your own knife, or run yourself thorough with your own Sword, even the Sword of the Spirit, the Texts of Scripture, as you cite and apply them, as here: For by virtue of Abraham's saith, which God so well accepted of, did not God enter into, and make a Covenant, both with Abraham, and his Seed, Isaac and Jacob, and all other, both Jews and Gentiles, who should be followers of Abraham's faith? and God being the God, not of the dead, but of the living, Abraham liveth still in the children of Abraham, who are of the same saith with him; and so the Covenant made with Abraham, lives still in all believing Parents, for themselves and their children, In that saidst thou truly, John 4.18.  
And for your last words hereabouts, Consider these things with a single eye, aiming at God's glory, and thy Neighbours good; and answer these Considerations by plain and direct Scriptures, if you can; or else leave off wresting the Scriptures to your own ends (if not your destruction,) I have done it, you see, considered your Considerations, (which I wish you had better considered of, that so they might have been truly Considerations) and that not only with a single eye, as you speak, but with a twofold eye; so I must, if aiming at both, God's glory, and my Neighbours good, even your good also, as well as Parents and their children; whereas your Considerations did neither, but rahter obscured God's glory in his Covenant, and diminishing your Neighbours good, the good of Infants especially, which God hath enlarged to them. And God hath enabled me (for I can do nothing of myself) to answer your Considerations by plain and direct Scriptures, and Reasons drawn from them; yea, and such Scriptures, as you have wrung, wrested, and wronged, I have vindcaged by explaining them, and directing of them to their right end and construction. And so I shall not need to leave off that I never began. But (truly) it is time for you to give over that which you have practised all along your Letter to me, the wresting of Scriptures, and that to your own ends (if not destruction;) yea, I must tell you, (though you may wrest the Scriptures to your own destruction, unless you see your error and repent) you do not wrest them to your own ends, I am sure, for they do not come up, or attain, either to your own end, the destruction of our Infant-Baptism, or to your other end (for both these are your own ends) the justification of your Adult Baptism of persons before baptised. I will not be my own judge herein, but refer it to the indifferent Reader; if any shall peruse this my Answer.  
I proceed to that which followeth of yours.  
An Exposition according to the mind of the Holy Ghost in that Scripture, 1 Cor. 7.14. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the believing wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the believing husband; else were your children unclean; but now they are holly (holy) (or clean) which is opposite to uncleanness.  
What a Mountebank are you, always thus to mount up your low bank, and to elevate your mean drugs of Exposition, with such high and extreme Praises and Titles, as if it were according to the mind of the Holy Ghost; is not this to sound a loud trumpet before a poor alins given, as the hypocrites do, Matth. 6.3? Is not this one kind of boasting of things without your measure, 2 Cor. 10.15. and this one thing, The mind of the Holy Ghost in this and that Scripture, and peremptorily saying your Exposition to be according to the same? this is that the Spirit indeed speaketh expressly, that in the Latter days some shall be lovers of themselves, proud, boasters, 2 Tim. 3 & 1 Tim. 4. and boasters of the Spirit, having not the Spirit; these be they who separate themselves, as Judas telleth you now again, verse 19 O the depth of the riches both of the knowledge and wisdom of God, for who hath known the mind of the Lord? Rom. 11.34. Behold the man, who expounds according to the mind of the Holy Ghost, in that Scripture at leastwise: No Sir, you do not, you are confounded already, who presume to be of the Council of the most High, and of the mind of the Holy Ghost; see how you falter and stagger at the first step and setting out to your Exposition? (for the meek will he guide in judgement, and the meek will he teach his way, Psal. 25.9. God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble, James 4.6.) for you chop and change the words of the Holy Ghost, whose own words do best express its own mind, turning (holy, as you should write it, but that you are so holly, or hollow) into clean, as if you would teach the Spirit of God, the words it should use; and then (indeed) you may the sooner know the mind of the Spirit, speaking in your own words.  
Sir, are you like to expound this Text according to the mind of the Holy Spirit, who refuse the words of the Spirit, by which it signified its mind? and bring and add another word, which expresseth your mind better; besides that in the ciring the words of the Spirit, you twice add (Believing, believing) as if you would teach the Spirit to express its mind, more fully and plainly than of himself he doth, putting words into his mouth, which he left out; though I acknowledge, the words aee twice necessarily implied. But I would you could once teach yourself to write English, and speak sense yourself (so far are you from expounding according to the mind or words of the Holy Ghost) Look agian upon what followeth of yours. This Scripture is own (one) of the main props that Mr. Wsinell buildeth his Infant Baptism upon, gounding rome hence, That children are holy, because there (their) father, and there (their) mother are lawfully married; for that is the Apostles meaning in this Text; namely, the holiness of the child, or uncleanness of it, according to the lawfulness or unlawfulness of the marage (marriage) of the Parents; and so the the unbelieving husband or wife is sanctified by the believing husband or wife, being lawfully marid, (married) as the holy Ghost saith, Unto the pure all things are pure, Titus 1.15. Rom. 14.20. and so an inpure (impure) or unbelieving wife or child is sanctified or pure to the pure or believing husband; and so likewise the husband to the wife, being lawfully married (married) or joined together, according to God's Ordinace (Ordinance) or may of marriage, Heb. 13.4. and so their children are holy or clean, otherwise they beware (were) unholy or unthan, or bastards, and they themselves made whoremongers and adulterers, whom God will judge.  
First, I pray Sir, poine your two first lines, and make your flops; for the whole two Verses seem to relate Mr. Wyness opinion, and grounding children's holiness upon their father and mother's being lawfully married; as if that were the Apostles meaning. The which Mr. Wynell disclaimeth, as his grounding, or the Apostles meaning. Seeing then it is your gounding and expounding, put it into such words, or dress it in such clothes, that I may know it, and you own it, for your Child, or child is opinion, whether it prove a legitimate or bastard; for so (I see) you intent to make of the Apostles holy children, only legitimates; and of the unclean, only bastards. And I am farther glad to see you are willing to look into any of our Writers and Books, that treat of Infant-Baptism, as here Mr. Wynell (whose Treatise, as I remember, I sent either to you, or to a friend to show you) and the rather, because your Provincial Anabaptists (like as the Provincial Jesuits, do forbidden unto their new Converts, and old Catholics, as they call them, the reading of our Protestant Books) are cautious that our Oathodox Teactates come not into the hands and view of their Catechumen Proselytes. It appears to me, you have not so much as read Mr. Wynell about this Text (so far are you from reading over his Book) or not read so much as he wrote about it, because you pass by his Exposition of it, and his Reasons, and your Answers to them, and spend your time in drawing out of yourself and your own bowels, as a Spider, those Cobweb-Consideration of your own, spread out to catch Flies, that will come into them.  
Well, suppose it one of Mr. Wynell's main props or pillars, he hath more besides; and I thought that such a Samson as you are, would have laid hold on both, or all the pillars of the house, and pulled them down: but instead of pulling down his, you set up first a prop and pillar of your own by his; and do interpret the Aposltes meaning, of children being holy, to be only from a Matrimonial holiness, as born in lawful wedlock; and so to be nothing else in a manner, but a legitimation of birth: And here you cite Rom. 4 20. which speaks of lawfulness and purity of meats to Believers; and Titns 1.15. which speaks of faith purifying the heart, and all things after to the pure; and Heb. 13.4. which showeth Marriage is honourable, and the bed undefiled, all to what purpose? forsooth to prove, that the holiness spoken of children by the Apostle, was meant of a legitimation of birth; and the sanctification there mentioned, of a Matrimonial sanctification? were they not rather to this purpose, to show that a good memory, and a good wit, have not met in your head; who show your good memory, to cite many Texts of Scripture, but no good wit to apply them, or to prove that out of them, for which you bring them?  
Next you infer it from the scope of the words; For (say you) the words are part of an Answer (Answer) to a Question put by the believing Corimhians, Whether that they which were converted by the preaching of the Gospel, might live with there (their) husbands or wives, which were not converted? Now the Apostle answer thus, If the unbelieving husband or wife will dwell with the believing husband or wife is sanctified to or by the unbelieving husband or wife; else beware your children unclean, or unholy. But now (saith he) by your dwelling tegether, and owning your former marriage (which was lawful) they are holy and clean. This in short is the genuen (genuine) meaning of the Holy Ghost in this Scripture.  
This, neither in short, nor at length, is the meaning of the Holy Ghost in this Scripture; for according to this meaning, all the children of Heathens and Pagan-Parents, lawfully married, as they may be, and many of them be, may be said to be holy, and each of the Parents sanctified to the other, by their dwelling together, and owning their Marriage, which was lawful: Which things are nothing pertinent to the Corinthians Question, or the Apostles Answer, and quite wide, and fardistant, if not wholly repugnant, to the scope of the words and meaning of the Holy Ghost in this Scripture.  
To let pass the nonsense of some part of your Relation, and the confusions thereof, as to the Question and Answer, and your shortening, or rather curtailing of them, I will set it down to the full, because upon this depends, as upon a prop or pillar, the Frame and Fabric of all Reasons and Arguments.  
These Corinthians, before they received the Gospel, and their conversion, were of the civil Heathens and Pagans, amongst whom the men had their wives, and wives their husbands, joined together in lawful Matrimony, according to the Customs and Laws amongst them. Now when amongst these married couplet, sometimes the husband was converted to Christ, and became a believer, the wife abiding in her unbelief, and sometimes the wife was converted to Christ and became a believer, the husband rentaining in his Idolatry, (the Spirit blowing where it listed, and grace being free,) the believing party began to have some scruple of Conscience, (occasioned, it may be, upon their knowledge of the Law in Hug. 2.12, and 13. or remembering the fact of Ezra 9, and 10. Chapters, or considering its faith, and the others infidelity, how ill they would comply together,) and thereupon sent to the Apostle to have his resolution and answer, whether they might retain, dwell and live with their unbelieving consorts: to which the Apostle answereth, that if the unbelieving party, be pleased and willing to live and dwell with the believing parcy, the believing party should not departed and leave the other; and giveth them this reason, for that the unbelieving party is sanctified by the believing party: the which he asserts, by this reason, Else were your children unclean, but now they are holy.  
Or else this may go for a second doubt and scruple, of the Corinthians, resolved here by the Apostle, for so sure, when they scrupled whether their married society, as husband & wife were lawful in this respect, because one party was an Infidel and unclean, they doubted next concerning their children, whether they should be holy with the believing Parent, which was within, or unclean with the unbelieved who was without the Church, and its Privileges, and therefore the Apostle, in his answer speaketh to the Case of children also so born, (as well as he had done to the other, concerning the Parents,) that their children also were holy, and not unclean.  
Now (it seems) the Corinthians rested well satisfied in their Consciences, with this Apostolical resolution of this double doubtful Case; for he spoke as unto wise men, able to judge what he said and meant, as himself testifieth of them, 1 Cor. 10.15. But we have sought out many inventions, and though they might be plain Cases with us, being thus determined aforchand long ago by an Apostle, we have folded them, and perplexed them with many intricacies, about the senses and meaning of the Canons of that Apostle.  
As, what is that sanctification, and how the unbelieving wise is sanctified by the believing husband: and what is this holiness, and how the children of such Parents are said to be holy and not unclean.  
You have already and soon shot your bolts at both at once, and thus give the Genuine sense and meaning, as you boast, of the Holy Ghost in this Scripture, that the former resolution, Apostolical, is to be taken of Matrimonial sanctification, as thus; the unbelieving Wife is sanctified by the believing Husband, so that they are lawfully Husband and Wife: And the latter resolution Apostolical, is to be taken, of Natural holiness (as you call it in your third Consideration) so as the children of such Parents were not unclean but holy; that is, not bastards but Legitimates.  
And now I must skip over to that third Consideration mentioned, to find out either some Text of Scripture, or some sound of reason (there being none betwixt this and that.) There indeed I find cited by you, 1 Thess. 4.3, 4. Wherein thus you proceed; in the 3. verse the Apostle saith, For this is the will of God, even your sanctificaion (or holiness: What is this sanctification or holiness? it is laid down in the latter part of the verse in those words, that you should abstam from Fornication; so that from hence it appears, what holiness the Apostle meant before, even a Natural holiness or clean e●, (cleanness) that is, not born of Fornication; and the reason is in the 4. verse, that every one of you should know how to posese (possess) his vesel (vessel) in sanctification and honour: speaking of Natural holiness and cleanness, of keeping their body, etc. and so their children come to be clean and holy, else were they unclean and unholy.  
First, What a Reasoner are you, yourself may see by making the 4 verse a reason of the 3. verse, which is only an explication of it as to the persons to whom he prescribed the duty of abstaining from Fornication, and to the means thereof, that every one should keep his vessel or body in sanctification, etc. which is the same thing in substance with the former. Secondly, You mis-name the thing, as well as mistake the reason: For it is not a natural holiness or cleanness, that the Apostle speaks of or for, but a conjugal, or civil, or moral one; nor is Fornication or uncleanness, here, any natural, but a moral, civil, or conjugal thing, or otherwise an unconjugal, uncivil, and immoral, as all other vices and sins are.  
Thirdly, If this Text must prove the former Text, of the Corinthians to be meant only of Matrimonial sanctification, (for I hope now you will leave off your Natural holiness:) Why than this text (of the Thessalonians, I mean) and the uncleanness and holiness there, must be restrained to Fornication and chastity: but this cannot be, because other sans are named and mentioned in that place besides it, as, that no man go beyond & defraud his brother in any matter, at the 6. verse; and then the Apostle at the 7. verse, gives this as a reason common to both and all particulars, because God hath not called us to uncleanness but to holiness, so that by holiness there is meant not only chastity, but justice also and integrity; and by uncleanness, in justice also & fraudulency. For the will of God is first generally set down, at the 3. verse, and specified in two particulars, the one of chastity, along to the 6. verse, in which verse is another particular, of justice, and at the 7 verse, the reason of both is yielded; For God hath not called us to uncleanness, but holiness; which if understood only of Matrimonial uncleanness which is Fornication, and holiness which is chastity, than the Argument must run thus; let no man go beyond his brother in bargining, for God hath not called us to fornication but to chastity, and so you alone shall run with it for me, and follow the consequence thereof, which I hold to be of no consquence.  
And fourthly, Such another consequence is this; uncleanness and holiness, or sanctification is put by St. Paul. to the Thessalonians, for fornication and chastity, (suppose it so, though I grant it not so) and therefore the same is meant by St. Paul to the Corinthian, when he saith, the husband is sanctified by, or in, or to the wife, else the children were unclean, but now they are holy; as if the same words may not bear divers senses, in scveral Text of Scriptures, according to the diversity of the matter and scope; and how will you show, that chastity among the Heathens and unbelievers, is ever called sanctification in Scripture, the spirit only being the Spirit of sanctification, and the bodies of Heathens and unbelievers, being not the Temples of the Holy Spirit: and yet (you see) the Heathen or unbelieving husband or wife, is said to be sanctified in or by the believing wife or husband.  
And Fiftly and lastly, The Apostle speaketh to the Thessalonians, grown persons, converted to Christ, and tells them for the present and time to come, that it is the will of God, they should abstain from uncleanness and fornication, from fraud and injustice, (for the one of which you cite Heb. 13.4. also, the only t●xt you ci●e, according the sense of it,) and what's all this to the unbelievers being sanctified by the believers, or their children's being holy? Here was no such mixed conjugal societies of Christians and Gentiles or Heathens, and children born of them, as appears in that the Apostles saith, Let every one of you possess his vessel in sanctification, and not in the lust of Concupiscence, even as the Gentiles, which know not God: I am sure the Apostle neither speaks nor means a natural holiness or cleanness, that is, not born of Fornication, as you strangely and inconsiderately blurt out; which words I leave to you to put into some Genitive Case, for the birth of I know not whom, the fathers or children of these Thessalonians; for you make no Genuine sense here, either of fathers or children's Natural holiness or cleanness.  
There is a parcel of your third Consideration, clapped in by you, not belonging to the matter in hand there, which, according to my custom of right ordering, and methodising of your confused stuff, I reserve until anon, to come in its due and proper place.  
I proceed, now that I have answered your Allegation for a Natural (you would say, if you were acquainted with the best spoken of your Sect, Matrimonial) sanctification, Holiness and cleanness: to give you my Reasons to the contrary of your Opinion.  
1. When the Apostle saith, the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, etc. and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: this cannot be meant of Matrimonial sanctity and holiness, that their Marriage was good and lawful, and chaste, for both parties knew that of themselves before, nor needed they, nor did they here propound any such Quaere unto the Apostle, Whether they were at first or still rightly man and wife, or were joined, in lawful way of Wedlock whilst they were Heathens. And that case was also determined before by the Apostle, as the 9, and 10. verses, let not the wife depart from the husband, and let not the husband put away his wife: But the Quaere here was, whether the believing party might departed and separate from the unbelieving party, a Brother or a Sister, as its more explicated at the 12, and 13. verses; so that it seems, this Quaere arose from something in difference of Religion, that troubled the Conscience of the believing party after his or her conversion, as whether it would not be defiled in remaining joined to Idolaters and Infidels: Now suppose the Quaere had been sent to you for answer (for I will see how good you are at answers, who are so much in Quaeres) what will you answer to these Corinthians? why thus you do: Be content, Sirs, you have a natural holiness & cleanness, or your Matrimony is lawful, notwithstanding the difference in faith, you may live together for all that, you are no Adulterers and Adulteresses, increase and multiply, your children are no bastards but Legitimates.  
But, Sir, do you think this would have answered their Quaere, satisfied their scruple, or pacified their Conscience? would they not have replied to you, in the words of Job to his Friends, We have heard many such things, miseralbe Comforters are ye all. Job. 16.2? Tell us that we know not; answer us to that we Quaere you; speak that we have not heard; we have heard many such things, we know all this, that we are lawfully man and wife, and our children are no Bastards but Legitimater; if this be all you can say, as good hold your peace, for you speak no peace to Conscience: Miserable comforters of Conscience are ye all, or as in the margin, troublesome comforters of conscience are ye all, and by this your resolution, make our Consciences more troublesome and miserable than before they were. Our doubts are, whether we that are converts and believers, may put away or go from our husbands or wives, which are Infidels and unconverted, and also his or her children, as not belonging to God for part of his people, or seed, and being as a grief and vexation, if not pollutionto us: what do you tell us of lawfulness of our Marriages, or Legitimacy of our children? Can you show us, there is any sanctification, betwixt us and our unbelieving consorts, whereby we may be induced to live and dewell together? any holiness, of our offspring and children, that we may own them, as members of the Church of God? do this and do something, else it's nothing you say.  
But I will take off these Corinthians from you, Sir, and from baiting of you; (for which you may thank me) and will direct them to a more happy and peaceable Comforter, ever their own Apostle St. Paul, who here fully answereth their doubts, and quiets their Consciences, telling them, that the unbelieving husband is sanctified by or in (the word in the Original beareth all) the wife; and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by or in the husband, meaning (though not expressed) the believing husband and the believing wife. (I blamed you Sir, before for expressing it in the text (where the word, believing, is not for mentioning it as the fence and scope, which myself now do) for the question is, what the believing wife or husband is to do with the unbelieving husband and wife. Now this goeth and speaketh to the heart (as the Hebrews say) of these Corinthians, and bringeth a calm upon their troubled spirits, now if the unbelieving husband bepleased to dwell with his believing wife, she is well coutented, for the unbelieving husband is sanctified by or in the wife: and if the unbelieving wife be content to keep with her believing husband he is as well pleased, for the unbelieving wife is sanctified in and by the husband; and now also their children are not unclean, but holy. This of sanctification, is such a privilege, as is not common to all married folks, but peculiar to believing persons, so that these may reap such comfort and benefit hereby, that their unbelieving consorts are sanctified to or by themselves; and they may have not only a lawful enjoyment, but also a holy use of their unbelieving yoke-fellows, for that God esteems the seed of such to be a holy seed, as truly as if both were believers. Thus the Apostle, his resolution removes that scruple of Conscience, telling them, the believing husband or wife, they were not defiled by remaining joined with the unbelieving consort, but rather that the unbelieving consort was sanctified in or by the believing husband & wife: he which your sense, of natural or Matrimonial chastity, or sarctification, (if you will have the word also) is nothing so satisfactory to, or answerable for.  
For (again) if so it should be meant and understood, the Reason would have been as good, The unbelieving wife or husband is sanctified by or in the unbelieving husband and wife; or the believing Consort is sanctified in and by an unbelieving Consort; or the husband is sanctified by the wife, and the wife by the husband, Let them be what they will, believers or unbelievers, according to your sense, as betwixt whom there is your matrimonial Chastity, or lawful Marriage. But than it would not have been so true every way (as now it is according to my sense) for to the pure all things are pure, but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving, is nothing pure, but even their mind and conscience is defiled, Titus 1.15.  
Nay more, whereas the believing Consort sanctifieth the unbelieving Consort, and not the other way, the unbelieving Consort sanctifieth the believing one, if matrimonial Chastity, or your natural Sanctity, were here understood, both Consorts would here be sanctified; yea both the believing one, and also the unbelieving one would be, and were hereby sanctified in themselves, not by, or in, one the other, for Marriage is honourable amongst all, and the bed undefiled, Heb. 13.4. And then you may alter the Text of Titus, and say, to the impure, and unbelieving husband or wife also, all things are pure 3. they are sanctified even in themselves, by their matrimonial Sanctity, and natural Chastity, and even their mind and conscience is undefiled.  
Besides, what an incongruity and inconsistency is there in such a reddition and interpretation, the unbelieving: wife is sanctified by or in the believing husband; that is, chastified or matrimonially holy? Said I not but even now, That chastity amongst the Heathen, or spoken of them, as here you will have it, of the unbelieving, is never called Sanctification, or Sanctity, in Scripture? Turn down to yourself the one Text, and then turn it over to me. I gave you also reason for it, because their bodies are not the Temples of the Spirit of God, which is the Spirit of Sanctification and Sanctity. But, I pray, show me also, that one Consort or yoke-fellow doth chastifie or make chaste the other, like as the Apostle showeth you, that one doth sanctify and make holy the other; and if so be both Consorts be not chaste, how are they made chaste or chastified, each by, or in other; or if but one be unchaste, how is he or she chastified or made chaste, by or in the other chaste one, be it he or she?  
Truly, Sir, this opinion of yours, and your sense here, deserves a little to be chastised, till it be more sensible, yea and chastified too, as which doth adulterate and corrupt the purity of the Word, and the sanctification of this Text. It may something recreate the Reader (if any come to read these sheet●, besides yourself, who do concreate i●) to intersert what a great Champion of Infant-Baptism hath related of as great an opposer of it, about the interpretation of this Text; which he holding, as you do, it to be meant of matrimonial chastity, and holiness, bringeth forth as a parallel Text, the 34 Verse of this Chapter. I pray look the Verse, it is too longton me to write out twice; and he thus rendereth and meaneth it: The unmarried cares for the things of God, that she may be holy in body and Spirit, i.e. That she may be chaste: but she that is married, cares for the things of the world, that she may please her husband. The Relator saith of it only this, That in truth it is a pretty odd sense, thus invented; and that which I only shall add, is, That if thus invented, it is (hardly) in truth; and though pretty, it is not chaste, but holy, that the Apostle aimeth at, That she being unmarried, and free from worldly cares, careth the more for the things of God, that she may be godly and holy; and whether the sense be even or odd, I pass not; it is odd indeed, that the unmarried careth for the things of God, that she may be chaste. I will make it even, and say with the Apostle, The unmarried careth for the things of God, how she may be holy.  
If you ask me now for my sense and interpretation of S. Paul here to the Corinthians, saying, The unbelieving Consort is sanctified by or to the believing Consort, I gave it you but a little before, to be this plainly, You believing Consorts may have, and have, if you dwell together, not only a lawful enjoyment, but a holy use of your unbelieving Consort. This I shall elucidate, by comparing it with 1 Tim. 4.5. where the creature is said to be sanctified by the word and prayer, unto the pure and Believer. You may as well limit and restrain the Sanctification here, only to a lawful use of the Creatures to Believers and unbelievers, as you do the other former sanctification, only to the lawful marriage of the unbelievers and Believers: But as I have showed you the one, so I shall now prove that the other holdeth out more to your eyes, if you will open them and look on, because the Heathens and unbelievers had a lawful use of the Creatures; but S. Paul here to Timothy, speaks of such an use of the Creatures, as they had not, and is appliable only to Believers, and therefore is a holy and sanctified use also (not lawful only) as appears by that which followeth, for it is sanctified by the Word and Prayer, they have the Word to Warrant the use of them, and Prayer to work down God's blessing upon them; and then also (in the fourth verse) Thanksgiving, to send up glory to God for them; all which the Heathen and unbeliever were not capable of, or able to, and this Sanctification is not their lawful use of the Creature, but a peculiar holy use of them, which the Believers and Saints have.  
And so this Exposition of Paul to Timothy, makes the other of Paul to the Corinthians, clear and stronger; for some of your Sect hold, That the Sanctification of the unbeliever here in the Corinthians, is such a Sanctification as is parallel with that there in Timothy; and therefore I may infer, that as the sanctification in Timothy, is peculiar only to Believers, and more than a lawful use of the Creatures, which Heathens are also capable of: so the Sanctification in the Corinthians, is a holy use of the unbelieving Consort unto the Believer, and more than a lawful or Matrimonial Chastity, which the unbelievers may and do enjoy amongst themselves.  
This that I have set down, is the same in effect, with that which our latter Divines call Instrumental Sanctification; they mean, and so would have the Apostle to mean, when he saith that the unbelieving Consort is sanctified by or to the believing Consort, that is sanctified instrumentally, to the precreating of issue or children, which the believing Consort doth sanctifi●●; and so both together, the unbeliever sanctified by or in the Believer, do make a holy root, to produce a holy branch. For its evident, that this sanctifying by the believing party here mentioned, respects the issue, as the Apostles reason showeth; else were your children unclean, but now they are holy. And you and your Sect acknowledge as much, by your grounding and building a legitimation of issue thereupon. Briefly, the Infidel party is sanctified by and in the other, both for a holy Conjugal Society, and for raising up of a holy Seed unto God: so it is but relatively, for absolutely all are sanctified only in Christ Jesus.  
And so I should and would have come to the Corinthians second Scruple, or Case of Conscience, about their children; but that I remember a parcel or Clause of your third and last Consideration, reserved hither, because it was clapped in there disorderly and impertinently; and it is this, as you deliver it.  
Again, if it beware meant (were meant) otherwise, then might the unbelieving wife be saved, and enjoy any Church-privilege by the faith of the husband, or the husband by the faith of the wife, as well as the child by the faith of the Parents, and that by the Apostles rule in this Verse.  
If it were meant otherwise; you mean (I suppose) if the being sanctified of the unbelieving Consort, by or to the Believing one, were not meant of your natural holiness or cleanness, or others Matrimonial Chastity and Sanctity (for I will give you in this, as an overplus) but of our, either the Believers holy use of his unbelieving Consort, or his unbelieving Consorts being instrumentaly sanctified to the procreation of children, together with the Believer. What then? then might the unbelieving wife be saved, and enjoy any Church-privilege by the faith of the husband, and the husband by the faith of the wife, as well as the child by the faith of the Parents. For the General, it's a non-sequence, and then a nonsense. Once more I must tell you of your nonsense, of natural holiness or cleanness; you did well to join them together, otherwise, were it not for your cleanness, you were clean gone as to your holiness, and must go off uncleanly from your natural holiness; for the Apostle never intended any of your natural holiness or cleanness (nor the others Matrimonial) but either a Moral, or Ceremonial, or rather Instrumental, or Sacred-usual (if I may so speak.) And another nonsense of yours is, your putting of Salvation, and enjoying of Church-privileges together, when as many are saved that enjoy none of them, and some enjoy many of them, and yet are not saved; yea, and putting Salvation before enjoying of Church-privileges, when as ordinarily Church-privileges, and the enjoying them, go before saving and Salvation. These things carry not sense in them, besides they are not according to the sense of the Apostle and his Text, which speak only a word of sanctifying, and not of saving a syllable.  
And now again, from being sanctified, especially the unbelieving husband or wife's being sanctified to their being saved, whilst unbelieved is one of your greatest non-sequences you have made in your two sheets, though you understand it of any of the sanctifyings mentioned, mine or yours.  
Once more, and lastly, The unbelieving husband or wife, though sanctified by and in the believing Consort any of the ways, yet may not be saved and enjoy Church-privileges, as well as the born child of a believing Parent, because this child hath present capable Right, and real Title to a Church-privilege, which is Baptism, and all other Privileges of the Covenant, as he shall grow up to them, yea and to salvation itself: whereas the unbelieving husband or wife hath not just plea in present to any of these, until forsaking their unbelief, they embrace Christ, and make preofession of their faith, and so come into Covenant with the believing Consort, and its child or children. Therefore I say, not so well as a Christian child, may an unbelieving husband or wife be saved, or enjoy Church-privileges, by the faith of the believing Consort; and you did not as well as you might to say so; especially seeing children born of Christian Parents, are not unbelievers or Infidels, but Believers rather, as I have formerly showed; as also how, and in what way and sense, such children may be said to enjoy Church-Privileges, and to be saved by the faith of their Parents; to which I refer the Reader, and yourself.  
You writ something of the Apostles rule in this Verse, by which it would follow, which you presume of; but whilst you apply it ill here, it gins to be your rule, and you being the Author of the misapplying, are also the Master of misrule. I know no rule here, but the Proposition and Resolution of the Apostle, that the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband, and the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife. The Apostle saith not, as you, is saved, or enjoyeth Church-privileges, by or in the believing Consort, whilst he is an unbeliever; and yet so it may fall out, that the unbelieving Consort may be brought off from its infidelity by the believing Consort, and so may enjoy all Church privileges, and in the end be saved; for so Verse 16. What knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? (he speaks to the believing wife of her unbelieving husband,) Or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife? (so he speaks also to the believing husband, of his unbelieving wife.) The which Text may be a satisfying reason for the comfortable and hopeful continuance of marriage-society and cohabitation, as which doth fully remove those jealousies that might arise in their minds from another Text, perhaps they knew of, Deut. 7.4. & 3. ver.  
I shut up the Point with this, That howsoever the just and righteous man shall live by his faith, yet as the Apostle saith, the unbelieving husband is sanctified by his wife, and the unbelieving wife by her husband (though it may be, not to life or salvation) this sanctifying which the Apostle mentions of the unbelieving party, is a result of the faith of the believing Consort; so the unbeliever is twice said to be sanctified, but not the Believer; and the Believer doth sanctify the unbeliever, or else I can make no sense of the Apostles Argument.  
And so now by a kind of back skip, I shall return from your third Consideration, where you ended about the unbelieving Consorts sanctification by the believing one, unto your first Consideration; where you begin about their children's being unclean or holy. Do you not see what a great deal of trouble your want of good order and method, your ignorance of our University Arts and Learning, doth create to me? Truly you might pity me as much for the one, as I do you for the other.  
For so the next Quaere or scruple of Conscience in the Corinthian Believers unto the Apostle, was, what they should do about their children they had, or should have begotten of their Infidel husbands or wives, whilst they lived and remained in wedlock with these? and whether they should look upon them their children, as any part of God's people belonging to the Church, and so what he thought of them? To which the Apostle answereth, they were not unclean, but holy. But the words are not barely propounded as his Resolution of the Corinthians second Doubt or Quaere, but as an addition or proof unto their first Quaere or doubt, as the form and manner of the speech showeth, Else were they unclean, but now they are holy. The like is, 1 Cor. 15.29 Else what shall they do who are baptised for the dead, if the dead rise not? So here, The unbelieving husband is sanctified by his wife, etc. else were your children unclean, but now they are holy. As who should say, This farther proves that Sanctification, because your children are holy, which else would be unclean. Thus the Apostle here, one of these Doubts or Quaeres necessarily flowing from another, as one sore breaking out by another, by the resolution of the second, as it were a Plaster laid upon it, both salveth that, and also spreads and dilateth the same, to the more perfect cure of the first.  
But I will give you the precedency of speech, as who love to hear you speak first; and it is (indeed) my place to be but an Answerer, and so to take into consideration what you put to me. Say on therefore, and speak out.  
Consider farther first, if this holiness here spoken of, be a holiness of sanctification; such as is the way to heaven and salvation, as some will affirm? then I pray let me ask you this question, from whence this holiness cometh?  
What some will affirm, I know not, do you? then you know the future opinions of some as well (and indeed, as well) as the present mind of the Spirit in this Text. But it's not material to my answering of you, what some men will affirm; let me hear what either they or you do affirm; or tell me the names of those some, and then I shall tell whether they do affirm; but what they will affirm, I leave it to you to foretell, and from henceforth to begin to be a Prognosticator or foreteller of weather; which you may be better, than of the wills of men.  
Again, holiness of sanctification! Manhu, what is this? I do not think any will affirm it, besides yourself, either to speak such words, being both one, not distinct things, holiness being the quality or habit, and sanctification being but the act and operation of the same; so that rather both you and they should have said, if you would speak right English, or sense, The sanctification of holiness, than The holiness of sactification. But now farther, neither is holiness of sanctification here spoken of, as to the children in question, and under doubt; for, because you do not specisie whom you speak of, and of whom you affirm or deny this your holiness of sanctification, let me, I pray, ask you this question, Of whom, Parents or their children? sure of the children, and their holiness (for of the unbelieving Parents and their sanctification, you have done speaking; and your ask me whence this holiness of sanctification cometh? and your answering yourself, Either from the lawfulness of the marriage of their Parents, or from the faith of the Parents, or from the Covenant; these do make clear what you held in obscurity, that the holiness here spoken of to be a holiness of sanctification, such as is the way to Heaven and Salvation, as some will affirm, no matter who, is intended by you to be, or at least questioned, if not refuted, as to the being of it in the children of Parents, whereof one is an unbeliever.  
And now I have another question to ask you, Why you join together in the children only (sanctification of holiness) when as the Apostle divided them betwixt the Parents and their children, giving sanctification to the Parents, the unbelieving wife or husband, is sanctified by the believing Consort, and leaving holiness to their children; Else were they unclean, but now they are holy? And lastly, (for I cannot forget how when time and place was, you wearied and tired me with your quaeres, I ask you another question, If your conjunction (holiness of sanctification) be not a tautology, or vain repetition? whether your limitation following (such as is the way to Heaven and Salvation) be not a battology, or needless restriction? For is there any holiness or sanctification, which is not the way, or tending to Heaven and Salvation?  
And now Sir, to your question you ask me, From whence this holiness (that is, of children) cometh? and as soon as you asked this question, and before I could open my mouth to make you answer, from whence, away you are gone, to your suppositions, If it come from the marriage of the Parents, or if from their faith, or if from the Covenant: and who are you like to herein? I will not give you neither time or scope to answer; but without all supposition, shall say, you are like to Pilate, who asked Christ this question, What is Truth? and as soon as he had said it, went out unto the Jews, as not having the patience to stay for the Answer, John 8.38. Whether Pilate were able to answer that question himself, What is Truth, I know not, it seems you are, and therefore made such haste away from me, to take my breath (as it were) out of my mouth, or rather to stop it, and to undertake the answer yourself; for presently you follow on.  
If it cometh from the lawfulness of the marriage of the Parents, then why was not (were not) all the sons and daughters of Solomon, Rehoboam, Jeroboam, Nadab, and others of the kings of Israel and Judah saved; seeing they were all lawfully married according to there (their) Laws and Customs? and why are not drunkard, (drunkards) swarers, (swearers) and other profane persons saved, while (while) they so lived and so died; seeing they are in our experience of times (times) the children of lawful married people, according to the laws of the land? and why was Jeptah (Jephthah) saved, seeing he was a bastard?  
How now, Sir? is all the ado for this? I looked for Grapes from your mouth, and you bring forth wild grapes; I looked for judgement, and behold oppression, or a scab; and for righteousness, and behold a cry, or a lie. In a word, I looked for an answer, and behold more questions, and nothing but questions, and those nothing to the purpose; for 1. whereas you said before, Some will affirm, that sanctification of holiness in children, such as is the way to heaven and salvation, is here spoken of, do you affirm if you can, of some that say, or ever said, that it came from the lawfulness of the marriage of the Parents. Here you are like Don Quixot, who imagined windmills in the air before him, and ran a tilt at them: so you set up images and imaginations in your way, to question them, thereby to keep yourself in breath, and your pen on paper. 2. Suppose some had affirmed it, that children's sanctification of holiness (for as long as I am about your work, I shall use your words, and when I have done that, I shall leave there, for I like them not) cometh from the lawfulness of the marriage of their Parents, doth or may then rationally or religiously follow thereupon such a question, as, Why then were not all the children of all married Parents in the Church? (for I pass by your great reading in the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel and Judah, and their Genealogies, so impertinent here;) and why not drunkards and swearers, which are in your experience of times the children of lawful married people? (you seem to be a man of great experience of times, and a diligent observer of children's births, and their Parents marriages, and are a fit man to be the Register of your Parish, and to keep the Book;) why, (say you) were they not all saved? and why was Jephthah saved, seeing he was a bastard, and not the child of lawfully married Parents? what a consequence, or rather, as I said before, a non-sequence of a question is here from a supposition? like unto this, the qualification of coldness in the water, cometh from the confluence of showers into the pond, why then are not all the drops and handfuls fetched thence, sweet and distilled? Sanctification of holiness in the children, cometh from the lawful marriage of their Parents, why then are not all their children and issues saved? Sirs, can you forbear smiling? They say, when one Almanac-maker looketh upon another, they smile both, to think how they delude simple people with their vain and false Prognostications; certes, when you Sectaries see one another, you cannot but laugh out, to remember how you deceive silly people with your irrational and inconsequent argumentations: offer it now unto thy Governor, thy God, will he be pleased with thee, and thy Question, Why not all saved? he will tell thee, that thy and their destruction is from themselves; but thy and their help or salvation is in me, saith God; not in or from any other, Parent or not Parent, married or not married, lawfully or not lawfully, you and they are saved by the free grace of God, and not by the sanctification of holiness in the one or other.  
Yea, do you not answer yourself, why drunkards and swearers, who were children of lawful married Parents, are not saved? Why they so lived, and so died drunkards and swearers, how could they?  
But what is all this to our business, which is not of salvation, but sanctification? Here is another of your absurd and inconsequent questions; sanctification of holiness in children, if it come from the lawful marriage of the Parents, why then are not all sanctified, so you should have said, & would, if you could have told how to keep to the Question: & than you might have answered yourself, or needed not have made such a question, seeing even the wicked children born of lawful married Parents in the Church, are in a way, which I shall anon show you, sanctified, and this their sanctification is a way also, unto Heaven and Salvation, and all those whom you name, were in this way, and I suppose you know, I shall not need to tell you, what fell out in the way, that they were not all or any of them saved. It is one of your gross mistakes and Reasonings, from every kind of sanctification of holiness, to conclude, the salvation of souls, when as (to go no farther) the unbeliever is here said to be sanctified in and by the believing, and their children are said to be holy, from whence who can infer their salvation? these arguings, are rattles for boys to play with, not Reasons for men to bring forth.  
But what's the business, why Jephthah is here named? It is confessed, He was saved, because the Scripture beareth witness of it, in Heb. 11.32. and also that he was a bastard, Judges 11.1. But seeing he was a bastard, you ask, why he was saved? why? to teach you, that base birth is no obstacle to free Grace, nor hindereth the salvation of any believer: no more than lawful marriage of Parents, so much talked of, or rather, as you should have spoken, the legitimate birth of children, doth further the salvation of an unbeliever.  
But in the mean time, this Example named by you and produced, doth accuse you of inconsiderateness in your Consideration; for we are both considering (as you will have it) of the sanctification of holiness in children, whose Parents are one of them an Infidel or unbeliever, and you come in with your Jephthah neither of whose Parents were unbelievers, (though sinful in that act,) and so its impertinent, as not coming within the compass of the Corinthians doubt and Quaere, or the Apostles answer and Argument; and so you are besides the Matter, and out of the Cause and Case here questioned in, all your Questions, being nothing to the purpose.  
But now lastly, tell me one thing, did you not once, but a while ago hold, the Apostles meaning here, of children's being holy, to be noching else, but a legitimation of their birth, from Parents in lawful Wedlock, or Matrimonial holiness or chastity, (which you also, or yours make to be the very sanctification of the unbeliever to or by the believer?) How then can you, and with what constancy can you now here argue against the sanctification of holiness in children, as coming from the lawfulness of the marriage of the Parents, who before make legitimation of their birth, and nothing else to be their Birth-holiness? and lawful marriage to be the unbelieving Parent his sanctification? Thus usual it is with God to confound the opposers of his truth, so as to contradict their own Tenets: for as they heard only, that he which persecuted the Church in times past, now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed, Paul by name, Gal. 1.15. So we may see now, that he which revileth the Church in times present, now destroyeth the errors, his own errors, which once he preached and wrote; but I will not name him: and as they glorified God in Paul, so we may glorify God in this, and say, Great is Truth and will preval; vile is error, and will fall.  
2. If it come from the faith of the Parrents, (Parents) or at least from the faith of one of them, thenn (then) I pray tell me why Cain (Cain) Esau, Absalon and others were not saved, seeing their Parent's ware (were) all faithful and believers (believers) and why was Rahab the Harlot saved, seeing her parents aware Heathens or unbelevers; neither ware the Parents of all those who were converted at the first preaching of the Gospel, believers.  
Here it the same song again of the sanctification of holiness in children, only to another tune; the former was to the tune of the lawful marriage of their Parents, and this is to the tune of faith of the Parents, or at least one of them. I have found or put the first song, out of tune, and I believe I shall do so to the second song, especially in reference to the consort or consequence thereof.  
Sanctification of holiness in children, cometh not from the saith of Parents, neither of them, by way of conveyance causality or application, as I have said before: that is, the faith of the Parent apprehending Christ and his righteousness, and holiness, doth not cause, convey or apply the same unto his or their child, thereby to justify and sanctify it: so it must, if you will argue from it, the faith of the Parents or one of them, to the salvation of their child, and therefore all that follows, even your consquences, are thus blasted and blown away.  
But yet there is a sanctification of holiness in children, that comes from the faith of the Parent, or either of them, by way of declaration, relation or impetration; that is, the faith of the parents, Covenanted with God and baptised into Christ, doth relatively, and declaratively sanctify their child, even unto the same holy seal of the Covenant with themselves; and may impetrate holiness, and salvation for him, though not impart or derive the same to it, unless it be in a foederal way, which is a way also to salvation, like as if the root be holy, so are the branches. But all this may be, but without any necessary or infallible consequence of salvation hereupon, though it is in the way, and a way thereto, as I said.  
I must here tell you again of the same fault, as I did before, that our Discourse and Dispute, is about children's sanctification of holiness, and you still run out, to children's salvation of happiness, whereas this doth not always or necessarily, either Logically, or Theologically follow upon that. There needs no more or farther Consideration of this Paragraph, but only of this, that instead of proceeding in Dispute like an Academic and Scholar, you conclude here like an Epidemic and vulgar, Taking away the subject of the question, the holiness of children from the faith of the Parents: for you give instances of Rahab a Heathen, whose Parents were Infidels; she was saved from the Grace of God, what is that, to her being sanctified from the faith of Parents: the like is to be thought and said of those first converts.  
Besides, you are out of the text, you undertook to expound according to the mind of the Holy Ghost: for here the Corinthians second Quaere, and the Apostles second answer (which you are upon) is about the living children of believers, at least one of them, and their children's holiness, you instance in Rahab, a grown person, as were also these first converts (whose Parents were unbelievers, it is likely, both of them as to Rahab,) and you tell me of their happiness and salvation being now dead: Well Sir, if you were a young man, or youth, I would persuade you to go to one of the Universities for all this. But I go to another, even the last now of your Considerations, and glad I am, that I am come to the last end of your Considerations, that so having gone through them, I may return again to my Considerations of my latter and last end, Deut. 32.29. and make ready to answer my last Enemy and Adversary, which is Death, 1 Cor. 15.  
3. If it be a foederal holiness that the Apostle here speaketh of, as Mr. Weinell afirmeth (affirmeth) and others likewise, I would desire to know, whether ever any of the seed of Abraham or David did enjoy any privilege (privilege) of the Church upon any such account, without or before they had a command for it? ware (were) they Circumcised, or did they eat the paskall, (paschal) before they had a command for it? And I pray, show me if you can, any command in the Gospel for the Parrents (Parents) to admit any of there (their) children to any Ordinance of the Gospel without faith in there own persons, or any command in the Gospel for any Minister of the Gospel to admit persons to any privilege of the Church without faith in there own persons, or at least so far as the Ministers of the Gospel can judge.  
Sir, I thank you for your four last lines; which being nothing but what you have Quaered before, and I have answered before, (as you self, or any Reader may see, if you will review or remember) I may save so much labour and pass by them with silence, or only bid them, farewell: I see you begin to be weary as well as myself, or to want new matter, which makes you now here retrace and retract the old, to requaere and require, what formerly you have done: I look upon them, as a piece of Recapitulation, as its usual, at the period of a Discourse, and I shall need to look no farther after them, having made a long look before, upon the matter of them.  
As for the three first lines, you are come now indeed to the Point: your former, its or suppositions, were but circumferences, or round-abouts.  
It is now the second time you have named Mr. Weynell, but not a Sentence or Argument of his do you mention, much l●sse Argue against, from first to last of this your Consideration upon 1 Cor. 7. The shortest and sweetest, the finest and prettiest way of answering and confuting, you have gotten that ever I met withal, in any man: I would you could or would teach it me, I am not too old yet to learn any good thing of you; your words in the beginning would have put upon him a false opinion even your own, about the Matrimonial holiness of the unbeliever, as if that were this sanctification of the believing consort, which I put off again, from him to you: now you ascribe unto him and others, and that rightly, a foederal holiness to be held of them, as meant by the Apostle; and if you can and will show me (who hold with him the same foederal holiness) that it is not meant, but only a legitimal holiness, I will be your lawful Attorney to follow this matter in your name, and moreover your confederate friends.  
But if I can and shall show you, (who with the others of your Sect, hold only a Legitimal holiness) that it is not here meant, but only a foederal holiness, than you shall be my confederate friend, and moreover my lawful Attorney to prosecute this business in my name: it is agreed; begin you first, so you have already, but not to prove any thing, either for your holiness of legitimation, or against our holiness of federality, and thus you say.  
If it be a federal holiness, you desire to know whether any of the seed of Abraham or David did enjoy any privilege of the Church upon any such account, without or before they had a command for it, beware they Circumcised or did they eat the paschal Lamb before they had a command for it?  
What! still more rattling without reasoning, and prattling without pressing? I would you were as desirous to know, as here you pretend, you would then soon know, that your desire to know, is not a refuting of what others know, nor is your putting forth a Quaere, a putting down of our Answer, of the foederal holiness of children. But what do you desire to know, whether any of the seed of Abraham or David did enjoy any privilege of the Church, upon any such account, (of the Covenant you must mean) without, or before they had a command for it? yes, Sir, all the seed of Abraham did enjoy this holiness, they were a holy seed, and people unto God, because of the Covenant of God made with them, and so were a peculiar people and privileged Church, before and without a command; as for your instance, which you bring for proof, were they Circumcised, or did they eat the paschal Lamb, be fore they had a Command for it? it is as pitiful a proof, as the instance is impertinent; for our discourse is about holiness from or under the Covenant, and your return upon it, is about Circumcission and the paschal Lamb, the Seals of the Covenant, from and under command; so according, to the proverb, whilst we ask the question of Onione, you make answer of Garlic, other impertinent instances: And the proof is as pitiful, for though we should grant it, that none were Cir. cumcised or did eat the Paschal without or before a Commandment, yet were they holy, by virtue of God's Covenant, without and before that Commandment, yea before and without their being Circumcised, all the seven days before they came under the Seal, they enjoyed that Church-privilege of holiness, and were holy from the very Womb and birth; (and some also sanctified in the Womb, yea, why not all there, saederally holy, being the seed of faithful Parents!) and so the seed of David, (because you mention it) the child that died the seventh day (and so a day before Circumeifion) enjoyed the same Church-privilege of holiness, (from the Covenant) otherwise David could not nor would have said, I shall go to it, declaring his hopeful assurance of its happiness and being with God, from its birth-Covenant holiness, knowing that no unclean, or unholy thing can enter into Heaven, 2 Sam. 12.23.  
I deny not, but children of the Jews were holy also by Circumcision, the Seal of the Covenant, which was commanded them; but they were holy too, before that, by the Covenant of Grace, which was promised them, and to argue from their signal or Sacramental holiness, to the denial of their foederal or Covenantal holiness, when as children have both holinesse●, is to strain or wind up one bowstring, to the snapping asunder of the other bowstring, when a man hath two strings to his bow.  
But (it seems) you would have a command also for children's holiness by Covenant: do you make so little account of God's holy Covenant, as it children upon that account of their entrance, and being in Covenant with God, could not or should not be accounted holy? is God's Commandment only able to joy them of a Church-privilege, and to make them enjoy it, and not God's Covenant, and Promise? when as the Commandment of God, for the holy Seal to be annexed, is but a branch of the Promise or Covenant of God, and the Covenant goeth before the command, and is as a first step or forerunner precedent of holiness (as I may so say) unto children; The first holy Church-privilege, is the Promise and Covenant itself, and the next, is the Seals of the Covenant; Holiness is more intrinsical to the Covenant, and more extrinsical to the Seal, as manifesting a discrimination, and difference of holy people from profane and heathenish; so that children of believers, may be both ways holy, in their order and times, but primarily and principally holy by Covenant. I will be thy God and the God of thy seed, are the words and tenor of the Covenant and Promise, and they are eof force, and efficacy to pronounce, and make holy, both father and children, that are taken thereinto: yea more (because I am willing to give you full satisfaction in all your queres and quirks) there is a Commandment also for children's holiness, in those words (though they belong to a part of the Covenant interwoven with them) Thou shalt be my people, thou shalt be a holy Nation, a holy seed: whereupon the Apostle Rom. 9.4. being to prove the holy privileges of the Church, and Nation of the Israelites, saith, that to them pertaineth the Adoption, the Covenants or Testament, the giving of the Law, the service of God, and the Promises, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came: all which and especially the Covenant and Promises, were sanctifying Ordinances to the Parents and their seed.  
But I hasten to an end, and will give over spending my precious time about your nifles and trifles; only I cannot but observe you, speaking of children and their holiness, how you join together, their being Circumcised, and their eating the paschal Lamb, and both by a Commandment. Take heed what you say, children of the Jews did they eat of the paschal Lamb, by Commandment of God? I shall be ready to give you a fir caution, lest you give occasion to a foul notion. First, therefore be sure of your Commandment, to have it in a readiness to show; show it now, and then it willb e in more readiness: I have read over the whole institution of the Passeover, and cannot find a syllable of such a command, for, nor a footstep of such an example of, children eating of the paschal Lamb: It may be you may find some tuch thing au-ongst the Rabbins, and Doctors of the Synagogues, (but you, I suppofe, regard them as little, as you do our Students, and the learned of our Universities:) but is there any such to be seen in the chair of Moses, or to be read in the Pentateuch of his books? all that I can meet with is this, that (when their children should ask their Parents the meaning of the Pesseover) the Parents were to instruct or Catechiz: them therein, and so prepare them for a Passeover, against the time should come, that they under, stood the service thereof; in the mean, the memorial of the Angels passing over them in Egypt, and their passing over the Red Sea into the Wilderness, was so held up, even amongst their children, Exod. 13.14.  
What's now become of your old Quaere now, what express command have you for such and such, (I retort it upon yourself,) for children's eating the paschal Lamb? Every Male-child shall be Circumcised, a command is express for the Circumsing of children: Deus. 16.16. and sure if chidlrens had been to eat of the paschal Lamb, there would have been as express a command for this; and whereas Exod. 34 23. Thrice in the year, shall all your men children appear before the Lord God, the place which he shall choose, whereof one time was, the feast of the Passeover; it's granted, as a Commandment, that such children, who could hold the father by the hand, and walk with him up to the Temple, went along with him; but wherefore? namely to be instructed, Catechised and blessed of the Priest, but not to eat of the paschal Lamb, unless: they were of that groweth in years, and in understanding of the mystery: if otherwise, they had other food than the paschal Lamb, for them of lesser age and knowledge, as also for the unclean (as some might happen to be) and uncircyncumcised, both at home, (when they did eat the Passeover,) and also at the Temple; as for the unleavened bread, I suppose the children did eat of that, because for seven days together all leavened bread was to be put quite and utterly out of the house, and burnt, insomuch as they must not look upon any, yea, it was under God's curse, if any did eat any leavened bread, during those seven days (which at other times, ordinarily they did:) but for the paschal Lamb, which was to be eaten up all in that one night, and what remained of it, to be burnt with fire in the morning. I take it, the children of the Jews did eat nothing of it at all, who were there, fore had to bed, and laid to sleep, whilst the Parents were celebrating their evening, and night-service of the Passeover. At other Sacrifices and Offerings, which were not Sacramental, it's expressed, it shall be for Aaron and his sons, for the Priest and his children, as being a part of their maintenance.  
Now this I the rather enlarge upon, to persuade you from your opinion that you have taken up, I know not where, (yes, I believe I know where you have taken it up, even where it lay, entombed) that so you may be no occasion of reviving and raising up and old bruied error, that hath lain quiet in its grave these thousand years and upwards; and that is, The administraing the Lord's Supper unto Infants and children of Chriftians, as necessary and decent.  
This opinion was of force in the Roman Church in the days of Pope Innocent the first (I will not name some others of ancient and reverend remembrance in that Age, who held the same thing and practice; and did thereby show, that men standing too much upon their own conceited interpretations of Scriptures, may fall from the truth, and err from the faith in some particulars; as you, Sir, have generally done throughout your whole Letter;) for then He, and the rest of the Roman Church under him, believed that Infants baptised could not be saved, except they should participate of the Eucharist; taking their ground from that Scripture, John 6 53. Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you; and therefore they held it the Lords Supper, wherein the flash of the Son of man is eaten, and his blood drunk, necessary to the life and salvation of Infants. But this was not the right interpretation of that Text, as which is not meant of that Eucharistical or Sacramental feasting upon Christ's Body and Blood, but of a Spiritual Faith, and believing in Christ's Death and Passion. And hereupon this opinion of Pope innocent the first, and the Roman Church under him, is since retracted and rejected by Pope Pius the fourth, and the Roman Church under him, in that Council of Trent (whose Decrees are all held and canonised, to b●●●lieved upon necessity of salvation) as who have determined against administration and participation of the Eucharist. as neither necessary nor decent for Infants.  
[How say you to this, you Great Patrons and Imitators of the Church of Rome, who say she cannot err, at leastwise hath not erred? Did the Church of Rome not err in the days of Pope Innocent? then is she now in an error; doth she not now err herein? then did she formerly err, and conseq tently may err hereafter.]  
But now, if those above named had light upon your Tenet or error (as I think it) and could have made it hold up, which you only raise and startle (having the Gift, as any gisted Brother that ever I read, to prove nothing, and affirm any thing) That the Infants of the Jews did eat of the Paschal Lamb and Supper, they would have had a far fairer pretext, and faster ground, for the Infants of Christians to participate of the Eucharistical Cup and Bread of the Lords Supper; for than they would have pleaded hard for a Commandment of Christian Infants to partake of the Eucharistical Supper, even in or out of that Commandment you mention, but show not, of the Jewish Infants to partake of the Paschal Supper; and pressed it the rather, for that the Eucharistical Supper succeeds in place under the Gospel, unto the Paschal Supper under the Law; and rather more, for that the Grace of Christ now exhibited, is of larger extent, and greater latitude, than when he was to come and be revealed. And I tell you, these reasons would have troubled much these Tridentine Fathers to have answered and refelled, more than that Text of John above cited.  
But I believe, that you never had any such notion or dream in your head, either sleeping or waking; nay upon a review of your words, I see I may answer to your Question, and say as you mean, and you never the nearer to what you aimed at; for you say thus, Did they eat the Paschal Lamb before they had a Commandent? I answer, They did not eat the Paschal Lamb before they had a Commandment; you mean so, do you not? and so do I, and what then? therefore the Jewish children had a Commandment to eat the Paschal Lamb. But this followeth not well, nor will, before you follow this better.  
But some others, whose opinion I rather think you follow, than they yours, they drive it on to another design, as thus, Because the Infants of the Jews did eat the Passeover, as well as they were circumcised, Therefore the Infants of Christians should eat and drink the Lords Supper as well as be baptised. This structure is soon pulled down, standing upon a false foundation, even as the house fell, built upon the slippery sand; and therefore I shall but touch it, and it sinks or slides. Because the Infants of the Jews did not eat the Passeover, but were only circumcised, Therefore the Infants of Christians are not to eat and drink the Lords Supper, but only be baptised.  
So taking off the Argument against Infant-Baptism, from its false and ruinous foundation, of the Jewish children eating the Paschal Lamb, you were best set it upon its own proper Basis and build Baptism upon the Lord's Supper thus, or rather pul● it down by the Lord's Supper, thus: If Infants of Christians may be partakers of Baptism, than also they may be partakers of the Lords Supper; for why of one Seal of the Covenant, more than another? and if Infants may not be partakers of the Lords Supper, why then not of Baptism, no more of one Seal than the other; besides they are capable of the spiritual part of the one Sacrament, as well as the other. So I have made the Argument as strong for you as I can; if you can for't fie it yet more, do it quickly, for I am in haste to answer, as desirous to make an end of these wearisome skirmishes, as to myself, and tedious discourses, as to the Reader.  
What! will you become of Antipaedobaptists, now Propaedocoenists, and grant Infants sometimes, and sometimes deny them in Argument the Lords Supper, that you may deprive the of the Lords Baptism? You shall never do it by such ambidextrous inconsequences, to which the Answer and Reason is very obvious.  
1. Your own Reason and Answer will do it, that from the one Seal ordered and appointed for Infants, to another Seal not enjoined or instituted for Infants, the Consequence is vain and invalid; the former I have largely proved, and disproved the latter clearly; let but the Argument rest till can can disquiet or disturb it, and I desire no more.  
2. From Baptism, which is the Seal Initial, and of Admission due to Infants, to infer the Lords Supper, which is the Seal Progressional, and of nourishment, to be also due in present, and partaked of in infancy (like as the other) is as inconsequent an absurdity, as to infer time to come from present, or perfection from beginning, or a man from a child, and to join them in one moment, state and age. Can a man enter into his mother's womb, and be born a babe again? or as soon as he is born a babe, can he run over the ages, and become a man presently? When I a child, saith the Apostle, I spoke as a child, and understood as a child, I thought as a child, but when I became a man, I put away childish things. I mean, Infants may be initiated by the Seal of Baptism into the Church, and are fitted to have the Graces and Benefies of the Covenant sealed unto them, but that they are presently perfitted to have the nourishment and growth of the same Graces sealed and confirmed unto them, by the Lord's Supper, passeth mine, and your, as much as their capacity.  
It is true, that both Baptism and the Lords Supper do seal the same, and the whole Covenant and the Graces of the same, but both in their place, order, and time, so as the prime and main use of Baptism is to be the Seal of Initiation and Reception into Covenant, and the Lords Supper is the Seal of Augmentation and Confirmation of the same, as to the main and prime use of it: so as that Baptism seals the Infant's entrance and admission thereinto, which the Lords Supper doth not properly and principally, but only by way of supposition and testification of a spiritual life and entrance, (such doth the spiritual food of the Lords Supper imply and require aforehand:) So also, as that the Lords Supper seals the growth and nourishment of the same Graces of the Covenant, which Baptism doth not properly and primarily, but only by way of infusion of a seed, or laying a foundation of such growth and nourishment (such doth the spiritual life of Baptism tend and proceed to afterwards.)  
Lastly, Though Infanrs may and aught to be partakers of Baptism, yet may they not, nor aught to be partakers of the Lords Supper in their infancy, because the Lord's Supper belongs only to such, as can spiritually examine themselves, and discern the Lords Body, as the Apostle expressly and directly saith, 1 Cor. 11.27, 28, 29. whereas Baptism belongs unto Infants of Christians by right of their being in the holy Covenant of God, and birth of baptised Parents; for more is required to the Lords Supper, than unto Baptism, of Church-members by nature and birth: whereas of Aliens and Strangers, more is required of them unto Baptism, than of Church-members unto the Lord's Supper; a public profession of faith is necessary for the admitting of a Heathen into the visible Catholic Church by Baptism, and his entering into the Gospel-Covenant for himself and his Seed, and he may presently after be partaker of the Lords Supper, upon the examination of his faith, for the confirmation of the same.  
But Infants, being in Church-Covenant by birth, have a just Title and Right to all the external Privileges in the Church (as being freeborn to them all) in due time and order, as to Baptism in their infancy, because born members of the Church, so to the Lords Supper, when by reason of full age and use they have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil; and this their Covenant-right remains until it be forfeited by a renunciation of Baptism on their part, or by excommunication from the other, the Lords Supper, by the Church's power, when they are either wilful violaters of the Conditions of the Covenant, or hate to be reform by wholesome Censures.  
If any farther reply (He must be a better replyer than you) That the Infant baptised can no more discern the Lords Body and Blood in Baptism, than in the Supper, nor the sign itself in the act of Administration of either Sacrament, and therefore Baptism is as vainly given it as the Lord's Supper. I rejoin, That our Infants can and do as well discern the Sacramental Sign, and the thing signified in Baptism, as well as the Jewish Infants did discern the same in Circumcision. So that if our Baptism be in vain to ours, their Circumcision was also in vain to their Children; and the Replyer doth but open his mouth against Heaven, and chargeth God himself with vanity and folly, for appointing Circumcision of Infants (and also Baptism of Infants) whereas the Axiom is, God and Nature doth nothing in vain, or foolishly. As therefore the Jewish Infants were to have the initial Seal of Circumcision, the old Ministration imprinted upon them in their infancy, to seal up the Covenant unto them, under which they were born, though they had no such discerning, as is now required of the Replier to be in the present act of our new Ministration: so our Christian Infants are to have the initial Seal of Baptism, the new Ministration, sprinkled upon them In their infancy, to seal up the same Covenant unto them, under which they are born, though they have no more discerning, than was mentioned to be in the Jewish Infants then at the past act of their old Ministration.  
And yet neither of these Ordinances vain or ineffectual to either of the Infant parties. For the efficacy of Baptism (as Circumcision) depends not upon the act of the Creature discerning and working, (this is but a rank Romance, or a Roman prank of the Replier,) but upon the free Grace and mercy of God conveying and operating; yea Baptism is not only a transient act, as to sprinkling of water and outward washing, but a permanent and continued act of the same grace and mercy, as to the inward washing, and application of christ's merits unto all God's children.  
But Jewish infants discerned somewhat, as who had a bodily ceiling of the cutting of their the foreskin of their flesh; and so have our Christian infants, a bodily feeling of the water laid upon their forehead or faces; but what's either to the purpose of the spiritual discerning of either action, or sign as Sacramental to them? they discern somewhat, and this somewhat is nothing, nothing to the purpose, being but a natural feeling of the coldness of the water, or sharpness of the knife.  
But there is mroe reason, there should be demanded, discerning of the sign when Baptism is ministered, than there was when Circumcision was given, for this left a mark or print of itself behind it, so that the Circumcised person, bare in his body the mark of the Lord Jesus, (to use the Apostles phrase,) and he did daily discern that visible sign to assure him, that he was sealed into Covenant with God; but the water leaves no impression upon Baptised infants, but is either presently wiped off with a Handkerchief by the Midwife, or other woman (though I think they should not do so, and the Ministers ought to rebuke them for it,) or shortly after it is dried up of itself, so that the body is as if it were not washed or wetted at all, and and no mark to be seen outwardly to put the party in mind of his being sealed into God his peculiar Servant.  
But what, and if there be a mark and character, of Baptism, like as of Circumcision then there is no more reason of discerning in the one party, than the other.  
I do not mean, that mark which Papists hold, is form in the soul of every Baptised infant, and inscribed thereby the external action of Baptism, Simply and barely in itself considered, which they call an Indelible character: For such is not to be found in Scriptures nor Orthodox writers; such a character, as may be imprinted and consist without grace, in a soul damned; and besides its absurd, if not impious to ascribe to an external action of a creature, that which is the proper act of God, an internal characterising, or indelible marking in the soul; and they may as well say, the bare and naked external preaching of the Gospel or remission of sins, doth imprint eternal salvation upon the soul without perceiving any force, or using any faith.  
But I mean that mark and character, which the Ancient Orthodox held to be imprinted in Baptism, which was either that gracious act, or gift never to he reiterated, and therefore called an indelible character: for a man rightly baptised, becoming a Turk or Jew, and afterwards returning to the faith and Church of Christ, is in no case to be rebaptized, the virtue of his former Baptism is not spunged out, but still remainech a available: (of which matter I have spoke largely before) or else the very grace and gife of the holy spirit, of which the Apostle speaketh, 2 Cor. 1.22. Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the spirit in our hearts, and Eph. 1.13. In whom, after ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy spirit of promise; which also may very truly be called, an indelible seal and character, wheresoever it is inscribed and imprinted, as it is in the hearts, and souls of many Baptised infants, even all belonging to the eternal election, and inheritance mentioned, and spoken of in the Texts above alleged.  
Or thirdly, the character of Baptism is that passive power, whereby the party Baptised is made fit and capable, in due time and order to receive the other Sacrament, the Lords Supper; whereof without Baptism he were uncapable, as without Circumcision the Jew was of the Passeover.  
So then there is in both the initial seal, marks or characters; and as much mark, left upon the face and forehead of the infant Baptised, as there was upon your head and face, when you were 'dopt, or dipped over both, in the Pond or River you wot off; and though the outward mark were more permanent in Circumcision, being done and engraven upon, and into the flesh by incision, yet there was an outward mark in Baptism (though more transient.) done, and laid upon the face, and flesh by aspersion or infusion, as anciently by immersion,  
But neither was the one character or mark more discernible to the one, the Circumcised infant, than the other to the Baptised infant: neither if it was, was it more available to the participation of the Passeover, than the other to the partaking of the Lords Supper; or more acceptable to God, who though he set sometimes an outward mark upon them that mourned, Ezek. 9 and so and outward mark upon the houses of the Egyptians, for good ends and purposes, and so appointed the external elements and actions both of Circumcision, and Baptism to be holy, and profitable signs and seals, yet are not the outward marks in the flesh, or the sensitive discern of the sings, the excellencies of Circumsion, or the eminencies of Baptism; nor is God taken only, or chief delighted with beholding such external services and administrations; who required these at your hands, these only or chief? when therefore the Jewish infants came to years of discretion and discerning; God looked for and called for, not the Circumcision of the flesh, but for the Circumcision of the heart; this was the mark he looked for, and upon in his sheep, the Israelites: and and so likewise, when Christian infants shall attain to the age of discerning and understanding, God will look for and upon, not so much the water in or upon the face, which was the mark of flesh, as the blood of Christ in the heart, which is the mark of the Spirit.  
And this is that I conclude with; As one of your Baptised, and rebaptized adult proselytes, may have the sign of water, and discern the sign in the very act with the eye of his flesh, and yet be a gross heretic, and a vile hypocrite, yea a very reprobate; So an infant may be, and but once Baptised, and that in its infancy, and want your discerning of the sign, and yet when he comes to years of discretion, prove a holy, pious, honest, orthodox and worthy Christian.  
But now that, according to our agreement, you and others have spoken first, all you had, and have to say for your legitimal holiness to be here meant, against the federal holiness of children of Christians Baptised: (which all, is but very little, very nothing,) it is my turn now to say something for our federal holiness to be 〈◊〉 a meant, and against your legitimal holiness; which 〈…〉 also little, yet something, only a small addition to whom have already enlarged upon, in my answer to you hereabouts, to be as a conclusion to the premises, and a performance of my promises.  
I say then, that the Apostle speaking of the children of Parents, of whom one is a believer the other an infidel, and saying that they are not unclean but holy, doth not mean, holiness by legitimation, as thus, your children are not bastards, but lawfully begotten and born, as you, and other of the separation do expound it, insisting in the steps of the Jesuits, and in the way of Rome, from which and whom, notwithstanding you pretend a separation as much, yea have taken a solemn Covenant for the extirpating of Popery. It is true such a holiness is here spoken of, and meant as is opposite to uncleanness, but to what uncleanness? the uncleanness of Idolatry, and Paganism, (for so these are called in Scripture phrase, uncleanness and even spiritual Adultery and Fornication, and all Idolaters and Heathens are called harlots, and said to go a Whoring after other gods) but you and your genuine Expositors, oppose that holiness, to another's uncleanness, only which is bodily adultery, fornication and uncleanness, and so give us, as the genuine sense of those words, else were your children unclean, that is bastards, but now they are holy, lawfully born, and no bastards; a genuine sense indeed as you call, and according to the lust of the fl●sh, more than the mind of the Spirit, as you boasted in the beginning of your exposition of this verse.  
If this had been all the matter, the Corinthian couples, know this particular better than the Apostle himself, who knew more than they all, of this matter of holiness; they needed not to have sent to him for his opinion and resolution, to know whether their children were bastards or no, who knew themselves, being of the civil Heathens, to be lawfully married according to the Laws and Customs of their Nations, and so their issue to be legitimate; they were so fully assured of that and this, that they could have made evidence, and given satisfaction to the Apostle, rather, then needed to have the one, or take the other from him.  
And whereas it's held of you, and all of us, that the Apostle here answereth a scruple or case of Conscience, which the believing party, joined with an unbelieving yoke-fellow propounded unto him, (as before about their conjugal society, so) about their natal or natural issue, whether it was to be counted to the people of God, after the believing party, or as alien from God, after the unbelieving party; he answereth it clearly and pertinently, their children were not unclean, but holy, by which if he had meant, they are not bastards, but legitimates; the incomparably learned and Logical Disputer, St. Paul had not answered to the business, and question propounded (for they made no question of the legitimacy of their issue, but of the holiness of their state) and the tightly prudent, and Theological discerner, had very meanly resolved their doubt, and but very cloudily elucidated their scruple, and afforded no peace as all to their Consciences in this, but rather involved them in farther troubles. For the whole City of Corinth, and all the Heathen Regions, and conjugal couples amongst them, would have been disturbed, and disquieted in their Consciences, at this case of Conscience so resolved by the Apostle, and would have been filled with confusion, ready to have laid hands on Paul, where they could meet him, and to say of him, This is he that hath turned the world up-side-down, and is come hither also to be a setter forth of strange resolves and doctrines; yea to take and apprehnd him, and bring him unto Areopagus, the greatest Court of the Heathens, for calling them all Whores and Adulterers, and their children bastards and illegitimates, by this his resolution, if it were according to your interpretation.  
Look to it, Sir, for you are in danger to be called in question for this day's uproar, and this trouble of Conscience amongst the poor Heathen, there being no cause whereby you can give an account of this con-course and rugged interpretation. For, (observe it I pray) if the Apostle saying, the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband, and the unbelieving husband be sanctified by the wise, else were their children unclean, did mean, else were they bastards, according to your interpretation; doth not he, or rather do not you make him, call all those children bastards, whose both Parents were or are unbelievers? it is palpable, you do; for if the unbelieving party were not sanctified by the believing, than were they unclean, that is, bastards you say; and in so saying, you say thus much, That all children of those Parents, whereof the one is not sanctified by the other, are unclean, that is, bastards; for the former proposition being conditional and hypothetical, were not true, if this proposition, which is pofitive, and categorical were not true: or more plainly, I will resolve the truth of the Apostles sequel, (the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, etc. else were your children unclean:) into this proposition, from which it floweth, namely, All the children of an unbeliever are unclean, unless the unbelieving husband be sanctified by a believing wife, or the unbelieving wife be sanctified by a believing husband, for generation and coition, as I have said: Now give you the sense, and bring in your interpretation of it. All the children of an unbeliever are bastards, unless the unbelieving husband be sanctified by a believing wife, or an unbelieving wife be sanctified by a believing husband, for generation and coition: and then tell me whether you do not make the Apostle say, or rather say yourself, that all the children of the Heathen and unbelieving Parents, of which the one is not sanctified by the other believing are bastards, notwithstanding born of both Parents in lawful wedlock according to the Laws and Customs of Nations.  
If the Apostle Paul had preached this doctrine, that you by your Exposition would seem to make him, he would have been in many more perils and hazards, whilst he passed through the Pagan and Heathen Nations, than he was, and would not have converted so many of them as he did; and I would wish you to be very wary, when you go over to the Savages in New England, and the Pagans in our West Indeses, that you broach not this either doctrine or interpretation, amongst them, lest the Parents there and husbands, and especially the mothers and wives fly in your face, and all to scratch you and scald you, for calling and making their children bastards; and left the children 〈◊〉 come forth out of the Cities, and mock you, and throw stones at you, or words as hard; Go up thou baldhead, (he interpretation is bald indeed, and hath not one hair of a rational Writer, whatsoever the head is or hath under the cap, I know not) and the she Bears come out of the Wood, and tear the false Prophet and interpreter, instead of the true children and no bastards.  
What a man are you, Sir, that thus fill the world with bastards, by such your interpretation, I mean the world of Pagans and Heathens, where man and wife being neither of them believers, and so neither sanctified by the other, their children must be unclean bastards; according to your doctrine and Exposition, thus instead of satisfying and pacifying the doubtful and scrupulous consciences of some converted yoke fellows, the other remaining unconverted you will trouble, and disquiet a world of consciences, or the conscience of the greater part of the world, which being unconverted, and lying in infidelity, must sadly look upon their issue as bastardly and illegitimate, because unclean. Yea this will make such mutinies, & insurrections in those Kingdoms, that there will be no Conscience of peace made (as no peace of conscience,) successions in them, and all inheritances may be hereby questioned and overthrown, by this your Divinity, although it be not good Humanity: Yea, & those worthy Primitive Christians converted by the Apostles, who were born in Paganism, of both Infidel Parents, must lie under your censure and sense of bastardy, until you release them; and the very father of the faithful, Abraham himself, cannot escape you, but by your exposition must be a bastard too, as whose Parents were Idolaters both, and servers of other gods, than the true one, Jos. 24.2.  
I pray you, Sir, you that pretend so much to the language of the Spirit (as if it were your Mother-Tongue, the cloven Tongue of the Spirit,) as also to exposition according to the mind of the Spirit, as you said of yourself, even now, (as if you were the Spirits Secretary or Clerk of its Closet) show me such a language of the Spirit, such a mind of the Spirit, in any one Text throughout the whole Bible (for this in hand, fails of it,) where a child, or children of two unbelieving or Infidel Parents, lawfully married together, are called, or but intimated bastards; and will you have the face and impudence, without any exemplary Text or parallel Scripture, or miraculous gift of Prophecy (it would be miraculous indeed, if you were so gifted, but indeed miraculous gifts are ceased, and they were for confirmation of Truths, not for confusion of them, as are your prophesyings) to affirm such children bastards, as you cannot avoid it, whilst you interpret, the children (in St. Paul) whereof but one of the Parents in lawful wedlock is an Infidel or unbeliever, are therefore caleld holy, because they are legitimates, or lawfully born, and not bastards; and when you have done it, or before you do it, to call it the genuine sense, and meaning of the Text, and to father it, (as it were) upon the Spirit, to be an exposition according to the mind thereof: And so now having gone thus far, against your interpretation of bastardly uncleanness, and legitimal holiness; I shall now come back to mine, (which is also the Exposition generally of all Orthodox Baptist Protestants, and I may add more truly, an Exposition according to the mind of the Spirit, and the very genuine sense of the Text.  
For I suppose you will not deny, but the mind of the Spirit was in Paul; Now Paul was of this mind, you must confess it, That children of, though but one Christian Parent, were holy, in the Scripture phrase, in the Spirits language, in the Churchs' relation: and if they be judged and reputed such esteemed, and spoken of as such by Paul, I shall not hereafter much mind or regard, what they are in your or others minds and meanings, expositions and interpretations. For if the Apostle reputeth them so, then God reputeth them so: in some things the Apostle said, I, but not the Lord, 1 Cor. 7.10. in other, not I, but the Lord, 12 ver. but in this, I, and the Lord, for not I, (saith he) i.e.) I, only, but the Lord also, verse 14. the believing wife is sanctified by the husband, etc. else were your children unclean, but now they are holy: I said before, that such holiness is here meant and spoken of, as is opposite to uncleanness, as appears in the very words, placed and set in opposition, one to the other, (else they were unclean, but now they are holy:) but to what uncelanness? not to the uncleanness of bastardy, as you will have it, to make up a holiness only of legitimation, both which I have refelled: but the uncleanness of infidelity, or a state out of Covenant, as our Divines will have it, to make up the holiness of these children, a holiness of federation, or federal holiness.  
For so this state out of Covenant, as Infidelity and Paganism and Idolatry, is very often styled and called uncleanness, as I touched before, and such Infidel and Idolatrous Parents or people, are even named Adulterers and Fornicators, and said to go a Whoring after strange gods or Idols, and so it's the condition, and denomination of their children to be called unclean, all after a Spiritual or Ecclesiastical sense.  
But you cannot show me, where by unclean are meant bastards, though bastards may be called unclean; for where the unclean persons are reckoned up, bastards are not mentioned: But if this must go for an Exposition of the Text, and that according to the mind of the Spirit, as thus, unclean, (i.e.) Bastards, than the terms or words must go or run true, both ways, backward and forward, that bastards are unclean, and the unclean are bastards. And whereas bastards amongst the Jews might not, by their Laws bear any Office in Magistracy ordinarily: (for Jephthah was extraordinarily chosen, by God and the people for this valour) nor sit in the Sanctuary, nor execute any Priestly Office, as over the Congregation of the Lord, Deut. 13.7. (like as by the Civil Laws, they could not enjoy Inheritances,) yet they were Circumcised, and might eat the Passeover, and had free access to the Temple, and Tabernacle, to perform worship and hear the Law, and were federally holy, as any legitimates.  
But for the particular of infant's holiness, I say, 1. in general, Any person, or family (for so it was at first, in Abraham) or Nation (as afterwards it was with the Jews, and is now with the Gentiles) that are in Covenant with God, and enjoy the Ordinances of his grace and mercy, do also, by virtue of God's Promise, I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed, convey to their issue and posterity, a state and privilege, (and so rather, it is the joint Covenant made by God with both together, the Parent, and his issue and posterity,) to be reputed of a holy, and clean society and Congregation before God, from the other Pagan and heathenish world, and so the child or children born of such Parents in Covenant, to be truly holy, like as the Parent, because of the Covenant.  
Not that infants have any real personal qualitative holiness in them, (which is and must be in all true believers, whither Parents or children, to make them acceptable to God, as to justification and Salvation) whom I confess, though born within the Church, and of believing Parents, to be born in sin, naturally, and be unclean, children of wrath by nature, as well as others, the children of Pagans, without the Church. But I say, they have a federal and parental, (so it may be called by a savoury mouth) and relative or imputative holiness, put upon them by the Covenant of God, and brought forth or executed on them, by, or at their birth of believing Parents, which is sufficient and enough to make them pass in the eyes of God, and in the face of the visible Church, for clean and holy; or if not, their professions of the faith of Christ (for you will not deny them to be professors of Christ, and members of the Church in part and in kind, at leastwise) by the mouth of their Sureties presenting them, and speaking for them, this will bear them out, to be holy likewise.  
And what if, I should tell you in your ear, that Christian infants in Covenant with God, are holy too, by an inward holiness also, (are not all inward sanctifying graces, effects of God's Covenant, and who knoweth when God, as where, he effects them?) you, perhaps, would stop that ear, cry out. Then grace, which only maketh holy, cometh successively and is derived by nature, and Parents shall be the authors, and conveighers of grace and holiness to their children. No such matter, Sir, For the children are primitively holy with the Parents by the Covenant, as copartners and confederates with them therein; (I will be thy God and the God of thy seed) not derivatively holy from the Parents, as solely or first partners and prefederates without these: Christian Parents and children are both, joint confederates, I say, and do both draw and derive together their holiness, as other privileges, from the Covenant and Tenor of grace therein, and not successively from one another, children from Parents derivatively, as you fond fancy to yourself, and erroneously imagine. The which truth may also serve much, to clear off those cloudy difficulties, so much pressed by the Anabaptistical party, from the Jesuitical side, about infants being Baptised, sanctified saved by the faith of their Parents, as they use to blate and b●●e abroad.  
You, like enough before you will believe any holiness in them, would have them show some such thing, either in words before they can speak, and whilst they are infants, that is, nonfants; or indeed, before they have any idoneity of instruments and ability to act. (Have patience a while, and you may hear them speak the words, and see them do some acts of holiness.) What! are you so sensual, all for sense, and so altogether lead by sense, that nothing, but a sensative or sensible manifestation of holiness in children will be believed by you? I had thought, you had walked by faith, and not by sight; you believe a holiness, in other things, in Faith, in the Word, in the Sacraments, in the Church of God, and in all things, which the holy Scriptures, the oracles of holiness, have pronounced holy, though you have not a visible and sensible demonstration of holiness in them (you walk by faith there and not by fight) and why cannot you believe a holiness, in children of Christian Parents in Covernant with God, though they show forth no sensible effects of such holiness, seeing also the same holy Scripture, doth call them holy, and not unclean, and so supplying their defect of speech and action, giveth you what you ask, even a sensible manifestation of their holiness, and speaks them holy unto your ears, not declares them holy to your eyes, (so you may now walk by sight, and hear say, not by faith and hope, limping and halting therein, for except you shall see in their hands, and tongues, the prints of holiness in works, and words, and (perhaps) thrust your fingers into their fides, to feel the holiness of their hearts too, in affections and thoughts, you will not believe.  
What and if our Saviour Christ should now, as once, take one of our little children in Covenant with him, and set it before you, and say, whosoever humbleth himself as a little child, the same is greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven, for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven? would it not be strange for you, to tell him, you see no such (yet you hear of such) humility, lowliness, meakness, mildness, innocency, in children: and is it not a like, to tell him, you see no such holiness here, when you hear of it, from the mouth of Christ, his and this Apostle Paul here saying, They are holy; But that I have said it before and already, I would say, that even children show themselves more bumble, lowly, meek, mild, and innocent, and so more holy, than a great many of your grown Professors, and grand Pretenders unto holiness and all those graces; let their holiness and other grace's rest but a while, as seed hidden up in their hearts, or wrapped up in God's Covenant with them, and see, if afterwards they do not show it, and their holiness break not forth as the light at noon day, that was within the cloud, or as the seed in harvest, that was within the clod; and in the mean time, show me thy faith by thy works, and thy holiness, by thy words; and learn to speak better of children's holiness, and to do better with children for their holiness, even so well, as to let them be Baptised.  
But besides this in hand, there are two eminent Texts, that hold out infants of Christians, their holiness by Covenant: the one is, Rom. 11.16. If the first fruit be holy, the lump also is holy, and if the root be holy, so are the branches. I know the stream of our Divine Advocates for Infant-Baptism run altogether, and out of this Text, upon a derivative holiness from the Parents or Ancestors, to their children, which notwithstanding they call and make a federal holiness; I am not willing, in my old and infirm days, to strive or swim against a stream, only I will be bold to venture, and wade so far, as to hint again, and mention unto those akilful steersmen, now especially that the waters of strife about Infant-Baptism are risen high, what great difficulties, and intricate Objections are laid upon the Point, as pleaded and held to be derived from the faith or holiness of Parents and Ancestors, the which, for my part, I have not found so easy to extricate and shake off; though I have said something for it, and enough against my Antipoedo baptist hare. I do therefore refer this to better Consideration, whether our Plea for Infant Baptism would not be stronger, clearer, and more consonant to the Truth, (not that I any way do implead the other, as weak, dark, or dissonant) if it be made directly and primitively from the Covenant itself, and the saith (of which before much is said) and the holiness of children themselves thereby.  
I see indeed, our worthy Divines do interpret, and call the derivative holiness, from Parents to their children, a federal holiness too; and so we all agree together in our general meanings: but would it not be more properly, and rightly called, a federal holiness, if it were said to be derived from the Covenant of God, as to Parents, so to children, to both jointly, equally and indifferently made? And methinks the Text above cited speaks clear for it, somewhat clearer in the Original than in the Translation, as to the former part, but if the first fruit (be) holy, And, or so, the lump is; if the root (be) holy, And, or so, the branches are. And thus we shall not need to fly to Parental holiness, as sometimes we are driven (or faith, of which before,) for the upholding of holiness in children, seeing we may have federal holiness for them; the which I know not, but that it may be called a personal holiness, (sure it is not an abstract Metaphysical, Metaphorical, or an aerial imaginary notion) I say a personal holiness, being in or upon the persons of children, as the Covenant is, and as other relative privileges, and the imputative righteousness of Christ are. If I err in any thing here, I will not be either Heretic or Scismatique, for I am ready to retract, if convinced, no● willing to divide from the differing: Either way, it will be still a federal holiness, and good either way against you, Sir. And therefore also, some of those our Divines do Expound the holy Root, and first fruit, in St. Paul, to be the Covenant, (and in a good sense and sounding to that I have said, it may be so) upon which Abraham and his seed, and so along, all believing Parents and their, children, do grow together as holy lumps and branches; and it is by virtue of such Covenant, that Abraham and every believing Parent, is called and meant, the holy root and first fruits, and their children or posterity, the holy branches or lump.  
For the holy Covenant stayed not, and determined in Abraham, and his seed, Isaac and Jacob, (as some say) because the Covenant runs in their names only, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, as if that were meant, when God Covenanted, I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed; God often renewed this his Covenant with that people, even after those Patriarches were deceased, and the Covenant entered into with Abraham, was an everlasting Covenant, and comprehended under it all Nations, as the Jews, even the Gentiles, as many as the Lord our God should call to the saith of Abraham, had a share therein, and in the eternal privileges thereof, both Parents and children, and were both holy thereby before the Lord, as in others and the Church's account. For not only the Jewish children the natural branches of their father Abraham, (if he be the holy root, as he is, but by virtue and in respect of the Covenant) are holy and partakers of holiness, and the other privileges thereof; but even so Gentilish children, the natural branches of their converted Parents or Parent, being also a holy root, as it's said, the root of Jesse, Esa. 11. still by virtue and in respect of the Covenant, are holy, and partakers of holiness and other privileges thereof: But, (to derive the Pedigree, as I may so call it, of holiness of children to its first original and root,) I think, I may safely say, that all Parents and their children, both Gentilish and Jewish, even up to Abraham and his seed Isaac, were holy branches, and partakers of holiness, and other privileges, from the Covenant itself, as the first original and root of their holiness.  
Another Text there is, that doth eminently hold out the holiness of Christian infants by Covenant, which is Gal. 2.25. We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles: (of which because I have had a former occasion to say something, I shall need to add but a little,) there Jews by nature or birth, are put in opposition to sinners of the Gentiles, just as he●e the holy children, are to the unclean; And these two Texts seem to be parallel. As therefore Jews by nature or born Jews, in contradistinction to sinners of the Gentiles, were holy federally, by being born in and under Covenant, and of Parents in and under Covenant; so Christians by natures or born Christians, in contradiction to born Heathens, are holy federally, by being born in Covenant, and of Parents in Covenant; our children must be one of the two, holy or unclean, Christians by nature, or birth, or sinners of the Gentiles; but unclean they are not, or sinners of the Gentiles or Pagans, therefore t●●y are born Christians and holy, with the holiness external of the Covenant, and also the holiness particular of the Parents, and the chosen Nation in Covenant.  
Besides that, they are dedicated and consecrated to God, and designed to holiness, as Candidates thereof (as some of the Fathers were wont to call the infants of Christians,) and therefore are holy, as the Temple is holy, the Sabbath is holy, the Priests were holy.  
Again, Moses and the Prophets every where call the Jews, a holy Nation, and holy people, in respect, and by virtue of the Covenant; and shall not the children of that Nation and people, being also in Covenant, be holy federally too? yea, in therefore called, a holy seed, Ezra 9.3. in Ezek. 36.38. a holy flock is the flock of Jerusalem, and shall not the little Lambs, a great part of the flock, be holy too? The visible Catholic Church is holy, and so are particular visible Churches, and all the members of the same are federally holy, and therefore also little children are so, who are members of the same, even as the little finger is a member of the body, and partaker of the bodily external cleanness.  
Lastly, is not the external Covenant itself holy? why then, sure, all who are taken and assumed into it, are Covenantly holy, and they are, Parents and their children.  
And so now lastly, I will shut up this Point, (as I have done often before, even all along before,) with this Syllogism, to bring you still into more love, and liking of our University Arts and Sciences, one whereof is, Logical syllogising; and it shall be this.  
All persons in the Church, holy, and so reputed by the Apostle to be, by their being in, and under the holy Covenant of God, or by being children of a believing Parent or Parents in Covenant, may and aught to have the holy Initial Seal of that Covenant, which in the Gospel is, Baptism.  
But all infants in the Church of believing Parents, are such persons, holy, and so reputed by the Apostle, to be by their being in and under the holy Covenant, or by being children of a believing Parent or Parents in Covenant.  
Therefore all infants in the Church, may and aught to have the holy initial Seal of the Covenant, which in the Gospel is, Baptism.  
You will now, Sir, of yourself (I shall not need to urge or advise you,) being experienced and practised often before therein, now the eighth time, with much facility, deny the conclusion.  
For the first Proposition you cannot deny, it being grounded out of that Text, Act. 10.47. where Peter saith, Can any man forbidden water, that those should not be Baptised, who have received the holy Spirit? and, as is largely explained and proved before; as also upon this Reason deducible hence, that where holiness is, the Spirit is, and where the Spirit is, Christ is, and where Christ is, the Covenant is, and where the Covenant is, the Seal initial, namely, Baptism, may and aught to be.  
For the second Proposition, you cannot deny it, being the express affertion of Paul here; But now they are holy, namely, their children.  
And whereas I have put in my whole Discourse, all these my eight or nine Arguments into the form of a Syllogism, I have done is the better to inform you, (to which you pretend to be willing, in the close of your Letter.) I hope you will taste it now at last the better though savouring much of our University Arts, and Humane learning, as consonant and agreeing, subservient and conducing, to the Divine wisdom, and of good use for the understanding, and Expounding of the Scriptures written in the learned Tongues and Languages, and often referring to Moral and Philosophical matters; of which I have spoken largely before, and should not have mentioned again, but that you have another fling at the same, in the close of your Letter, saying, that it appears, that the most learned by Humane learning, want the learning of the Spirit to interperate (interpret) Scripture.  
It is true, that some of the learned by Humane learning, may and do want the learning of the Spirit to interpret Scripture; but do not more of the ignorant, by their Humane ignorance much more want the same? yet none of the learned, and much less of the most learned, do by humane learning (as you must mean, though you point not your words, with any Comae's or Colons, for want of Humane learning) by Humane learning, I say, want the learning of the Spirit, seeing the Spirit of God hath both taught it at first, as the Author of it, and made much use of it, practising some of it in the Scripture, and as Hagar and Sarah, may dwell together in the same house; humane learning, as you call it, and the learning of the Spirit, may keep together in the same head-house, so long as Hagar is an obedient handmaid to her Mistress Sarah, and Humane learning humbly submits, and is servant, or subservient unto the learning of the Spirit, and the Mysteries of it. But of this matter there is enough written before; and how it should now at the last appear to you, that the most learned by Humane learning, do want the learning of the Spirit, to interpret Scripture, (if you mean it of those who interpret the Scriptures for Infant-Baptism, against you) it is marvellous to me; for I will instance but in this one, and last interpretation of 1 Cor. 7.14. But now they are holy: We interpret it, holy federally, as who are born in Covenant with God, and of a believing Parent or Parents in Covenant with God, and so are not unclean, as the Gentiles out of Covenant; but you interpret it, holy legitimally, as who are lawfully born of Parents in wedlock according to the Law, and so are not unclean, as bastards born out of wedlock: now do you remember your words, four times repeated in one of your pages, I will repeat them once more for you, but to you, Judge you, but judge you righteous judgement, for God will: judge you, I say, whether of the interpretations savours most of Humane learning, or the learning of the Spirit, yours or ours? doth it not clearly appear to your eyes, that your interpretation is a mere Humane, natural, carnal, political interpretation, and such as you can bring no word or example for, from the learning of the Spirit, the Scriptures, where holy are called or meant, legitimates; and unclean, bastards; and therefore it is a mere Humane learning, and not agreeable to the learning of the Spirit, nay repugnant to it, for by the learning of the Spirit, all bastards are not unclean, nor all legitimates, holy.  
But our interpretation is a very Divine, gracious, spiritual, Ecclesiastical interpretation, and such as I have brought both word and example for, from the Scriptures, the learning of the Scriptures, where all in Covenant with God, or born of Christians, or one Christian Parent, are styled holy, and all childerens born out of Covenant, or of Parents both Heathens, are called unclean; and therefore ours is the very learning of the Spirit, (to take your words now out of your mouth, and put them into ours, as justly I may) according to the mind of the Spirit, as who declared unto us, in the Scriptures, and we from it, to you, that all Covenanters, born of Covenanters with God, are holy, and all out of Covenant, and born of such as are out of Covenant, are unclean.  
And so now by this (as indeed by all, or most of the Scriptures, that you have made use of throughout your whole Letter, which rather you have made an abuse of) it will appear, yea doth, that yourself is one of them, the most learned by Humane learning, (certainly, Sir, for all your talk against it, you have been at the University, and gotten up some Humane learning, and are a great Practitioner therein, as appears by this, and your other interpretations) yea, I take you to be a man, if not a Master of Arts and Humane learning, more than of the learning of the Spirit (though pretending to this more) a better Humanist than Divine, or rather an Alchemist, who can extract out of the Spirits holy, in Scripture, the spirit and flesh to a child lawfully born, and out of spirits unclean, the quintessence of a bastard.  
Do you call this, the learning of the Spirit, to Interperate Scriptures with all? (for so you writ, and show yourself to be good at expounding, as you are at spelling, your Orthography and Orthodoxy being both alike,) do you interpret the Scripture by your learning of the Spirit? no sure, you Interperate (interpret) Scripture rather, by the ignorance and illiterature of your flesh; Interperate, (what's that?) is it not Intemperate, or interpret? sure it is not, to interpret Scripture: No marvel indeed if you would have me, To consider of these things you have written, with an  spirit, and a selfdenying humble spirit such as those spirits are that are guided by the spirit of the Lord: For surely, than your spirit hath not been guided by the Spirit of the Lord, as which is, or hath been in your Letter, a biased spirit, and an all other, besides yourself, denying, proud spirit; and therefore without any just ground, you arrogate those words of the Apostle, to your own practice, saying as he, 2 Cor. 2.17. We are not as many, which corrupt, or deal deceitfully with the Word, but as of sene●rity (sincerity) but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ: What you speak, when you are teaching, and expounding, or praying, I know not; this I know, by the experience you have given of your self to me, that in your writing and citing Scriptures in your Letter, you are the most corrupter, and the most deceitful dealer, and wrester also of Scripture, that ever I read; I do not know many, scarce any, that go beyond you, except your Masters and Tutors, you know whom I mean; and your sincerity is as false spoken, as written of you; if as of sincerity, as of God, in the sight of God, you shall speak in Christ, it will be acceptable, as to God, so to man and myself, if renouncing the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, not handling the Word of God deceitfully, but by manifestation of the truth, you commend yourself to every man's conscience in the sight of God, as you add of yourself, 2 Cor. 4.2. Comparing spiritual things with spiritual; but so you did not, when you compared the holy and legitimates together, and the unclean with bastards (to go no farther backward,) And Scripture with Scripture, for Scripture is the best Interpreter of Scripture, (neither did you so, when you could find no Scripture to compare with 1 Cor. 7.14. that either did interpret or intimate, bastards to be unclean, and much less signified by this word there, or legitimates to be holy, and much less meant by this word there.  
For that in the close of your Letter, which concerneth myself in particular, as That you should gladly see better fruits from me, If I knew what fruits you mean, I should soon tell you whether or no, I should ever glad you so much as to see them; but if they relate to which immediately goeth before them, the wresting of Scriptures by Humane learning, I must tell you, that the root that I am graffed into, and which beareth me, shall ever (I hope) bring forth better fruits, though I question your gladness in seeing them, as being opposite to your fruits; who throughout your whole Letter have been gathering, yea, pulling and enforcing, thorns of grapes, and thistles of figs, divers errorneous Tenets from Texts that will not, nor can, bear them, the which I am sorry to see from you.  
And for your entreating me to lay aside all selfe-ends and by-respects, you must pardon me herein, for I took up the defence of myself, and my Ministry and Infant-Baptism, as well as of others, making both my end, next unto God's glory, and the truth (without any other by respects) which I must not upon your request lay aside: but for that which followeth; I have seriously considered the things and words of God spoken by the Spirit of God in the Scriptures, which were all written for our learning and imitation, yea moreover have informed you in particular, how far forth all which were written for our learning, were written for our imitation, some of them, and some of them not, which you indistinctly and confusedly jumble together; yea, and according to your farther entreaty, I have turned to and looked into all those Scriptures you have but quoted and named and not written out for want of time as you say, and have writ out all the words of most of them, (as who never want time to search out the Truth of the Scriptures, if I want not health:)  
Yourself best know, whether it was for want of time, or for want of truth, you did not transcribe the words, as making, most an end, nothing to the purpose or Point, for which you set down and multiplied Chapters and Verses by their figures only, and whether this was, Not walking in craftiness, nor handling the Word of God deceitfully, but by a manifestation of the Truth, a commending yourself to every man's Conscience, whether this was of sincerity, as of God, as in the sight of God spoken or written, judge you, but judge righteous judgement, for God will, who trieth the heart, etc.  
For that in the close still of your Letter, which concerneth yourself, it is your desire, that wherein you have erred I would inform you by plain Scripture, It is done to your hand, but, I fear it is not gone to your heart, whose heart was and is, (I surmise) resolved before hand, as your hand laid upon your heart to that purpose, of not acknowledging any error, or submitting to information; for what hope or likelihood is there hereof, when as presently you add, You are confident hair (here) is nothing aserted (asserted) nor queared but will now appear a truth proved by Scriptures, and likewise will appear at the great day? Wherefore then do you entreat me, to weigh things seriously, and if you have erred in any thing, to inform you, when as you are confident here is nothing asserted or quaered, but will now appear a truth? just as the man in the Gospel professed to follow our Saviour Christ, and went away presently about other matters of no such consequence; you likewise say, you will be informed by me, wherein you have erred, and in the next words you are confident of nothing asserted or quaered by you here, but the very Truth. I am persuaded the work will be much alike, the informing you, to the laying down of any error of yours, and the washing of a Leopard, to the putting off any of its spots; But I should gladly see better fruits from you, than such a non resolution and brasse-forehead, (which for the most part is in most of the Revolters from our Church and the Truth) as not to be conformed and converted, when informed, confuted, notwithstanding, Though I have laboured in vain, and spent my strength for nought, and in vain, yet surely my judgement is with the Lord, and my work with my God, Isa, 49.4.  
But, Sir, are you confident that there is nothing asserted or quaered, but will appear a Truth? what that which is asserted by you may appear, let pass, bu● sure, that which is quaered by you here, will not now appear a Truth; neither now, nor never will it be a Truth, no not at the great day, that which is quaered only; your Quaeres were your judgement, as you affirmed before, now you affirm, they are a Truth, proved by Scriptures, and yet but propounded in Quaeres; and what will they be at the last? your Quaeres will appea (you say) a Truth also, at the last and great day; you will be deceived, then, as now; for your Quaeres, are not Resolutions, Decrees, Axioms, but Quaeres; it doth not yet appear what is Truth in them, to yourself or any others, put them out of Question, into Propositions, come out of your Quaeres, into your Resolves, and then I will tell you, whether now in the later little days they do, or in that last great day, they will appear a Truth or Truths.  
In particular, (to pass by your Questions and Quaeres,) your Sacrilegious Usurpation to Preach, Baptise, and distribute the Sacramental Bread and Wine, your injurious Detension of Christian Infants from Baptism, the Seal of the Covenant God made with them also; your ridiculous dopping and plunging of grown persons, over head and ears back ward in a Pond, who were before Baptised in their infancy in the face of the Congregation; your Scrismatical separation from your Parochial and National fellow members, professing truth and holiness; your Scurrilous railing upon the true visible Church of England, and the Ministers thereof, as Baalitish, Devilish, and Antichristian, professing and worshipping Christ Jesus, and God in spirit and truth, with a world more, of fraudulent misinterpreting, and misapplying of sacred writ, virulent Caluminations of holy Truth, violent oppositions of lawful order, uncharitable imaginations, and contempts of higher Powers, and all persons who are not of your S ct and Set: can I think, or any man else, whose brains and heads have not been intoxicated by a superfluous rebaptisation, that these will appear a Truth, or truths at that great and last day, which in all the former days, the Word of God hath judged, and condemned for errors and untruths? it hath been the fashion of some Heretics and schismatic, when they have been confuted, and confounded with the evidence and light of Truth, which hath been flashed in their faces here from the Word and Scriptures, to make their appeals to the great, and last day for trial, and to Jesus for the Judge of truth or untruth: but we have it already, as a ruled Case from himself, in the 12. of John 48. ver. The word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him (and you, and all,) at the last day: and the Apostle Paul speaketh of the same day, When God shall judge the secrets of men, according to his Gospel, Rom. 2.16.  
Flap not me off therefore with this put off, of your Tenets (if you have done with Quaeres, as its high time) that they will appear Truths at that great and last day: for if you cannot now in this your little present day, make them to appear Truths, according to Christ's word. and Paul's Gospel, (better than you or others have done as yet, and yet I think you, and they have done your best) they will never appear Truths in the great and last day, but the Word and Gospel will then, as now they do, appear against them, for errors and untruths, and by that Word and Gospel, Christ and his Apostles, and all the Saints shall judge, and condemn them for such; so that you and they, who held up your heads in these waters of strife, and contention here on Earth, with the puft and blown bladders of your selfconceipted fancies, will be fain to hang them down in shame, and confusion of face, 
Revel 3. ●●.  Calling upon the Hills to fall upon you, and to the Mountains to cover you, from the face of him that siteth upon the Throne, and from that shine and lustre of Truth, that then will appear at that great and last day.  
I will therefore give you the good counsel of the Apostle; Let every man (for the counsel is good for all of us) take heed how he buildeth upon the Foundation, Jesus Christ; every man's work shall be made manifest; for the day shall declare it. (Especially the great and last day, you speak off) Because it shall be revealed by fire, and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is, whether Gold, Silver, precious Stones, or whether Wood, Hay, Stubble; if any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward; if any man's work shall be burnt, he shall suffer loss, 1 Cor. 3.10, and 12.  
And whereas in your next close, you bid me lie down before it and stoop to it, it is spoken like an imperious School Master, or imperial Master of the Field, (which as yet, you are neither;) as for all the Truths of Christ, set forth in his Word and Gospel, I do here stoop to them, and lie down before them, prostrating, and casting down all my imaginations, and every thing (of my Reason) that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, & bringing into captivity every thought (or affection of mine) to the obedience of Christ, and his Truth and pleasure, laying my hand upon my mouth, and putting my mouth in the dust, and laying dust upon my head, I do here bow down my head, incline my heart, throw down all within me and without me, and wholly, and totally yield myself unto Truths of the Word of God, as to the Victorious and Conquering, the powerful and Triumphant Rod and Sceptre of Christ: Speak Lord for thy servant heareth: 
1 Sam. 3.10. 1 Kings 18.39. Numb. 23.18. Deut. 32.4.  The Lord, he is the God, The Lord, he is the God; God is not as man that he should lie; a God of Truth and without iniquity, just and right is he; yea God is truth itself: and Christ is the Way and the Truth: and the Spirit is truth, 1 John 5 6. And thy Law is truth, and all thy Commandments are truth, John 14.6. Psalm 119.142, and 151. Thy Word is true from the beginning: Psal. 119.160. and so to the end thy Word endureth, Heaven and Earth shall pass away, but one jot and tittle of the Word shall not pass away till all be fulfilled, Matth. 5.18. But, Sir, to lie down before, or stoop to your Quaeres, and Considerations and Interpretations, so void and empty of the Divine Truth of God and his Word, so full and even swollen with the Humane sanfie of man and his will, though you masterly expect it, I shall Scholarly defeat you: I am now too strong and well trussed, and truthed, to untruss or untruth to such a dip-dop pedant (or rather Anti-pedant) as you are, such a one as you are, I could have disciplined that way and discipled any other way, fifty years ago: and I have too much of Mordecai the Benjamite in me, and of his zeal to the Church of God, than to bow or stoop to such a Haman, a man, the Agagite, the separate that speaks so ill and vilely of the people of God, and seeks to destroy it and them utterly.  
Nay rather let your Dagon fall upon his face to the earth before the Ark of the Lord, and your Quaerulous errors lie down before the Truth, and stoop to it, now that that I have brought it unto your house, and set it before your face and eyes: and if you would but rise up betimes in the morning, and admit in of the light of Christ, that true morning Star, you might see your Dagon fallen down before the Ark, and the truth standing up over your errors: I doubt not, but there will be those (for, Sir, if you will be reled by your friend, never meddle more with any controversy of Divinity, I had almost said Text of Scripture) that will take up Dagon again, and set him in his place again; but I may foretell them, it will be labour lost; for when they rise up the next morning, they will behold D●gon fallen again upon his face to the ground, before the Ark of the Lord, and in worse case than before, with his head and both the palms of his hands cut off upon the threshold, and only the stump of Dagon to be left him.  
But why should I lie down before and stoop to your Quaeres, Considerations, and Interpretations, and the Truth of them that will appear at that great day, and now appeareth proved by Scriptures? For that now I am informed (informed) and so cannot plead ignorance before the Lord at his appearing, when he will reward every own according to his work. I am now informed you write, and must mean, by yourself & your Letter: and I am glad to find you here in form, though now you are out of matter; for when you had matter to Quaere and Propound, than (I am sure) you had no form to proceed or order it in: I was then fain to inform you, that is, to put your matters in form, which are so deformed and disordered, that so I might inform you in the matters which were material and of moment: for if otherwise you mean of the matter, I pray let me know, wherein I am now informed by you; (not by your Quaeres) these rather put doubts than bring any matters of Informations from you or themselves: (nor by your Considerations;) for they were so inconsiderable in themselves, and so inconsiderately delivered by you, that I never considered them farther than to refutation of them, they never got within me, and took any place in me, to form or inform, or conform or transform into or unto any thing in them: (nor by your interpretations of any Texts of Scripture;) for you never had the spirit, you have so talked of, to give a right interpretation of the Text, but still as you broached it for my information, it seemeth the Text of the Spirit informed me to the contrary, that it was not the meaning of the Text, nor mind of the Spirit.  
I acknowledge, I am not too old to learn, nor so much a Scholar, but I may be informed; but I think I am too old a Bird, to be caught with such your chaff, and too long a Scholar and a Minister, to be taught by such your stuff; What is the chaff to the wheat, saith the Lord by Jeremiah? Jer. 23.28. If, Sir, you spread out any more shrapnets', and send out any more Let of Information to me, let them be more literate, and better baited with wheat, else I shall not come down to them, as who care not for pecking amongst such light and chaffy Quaeres and Considerations, though I like well of sound, solid, and wheaty Reasons and Argumentations. Again, what are the resuse fish, to Soles and Salmon? now that you have toiled all this night, (for I see you fished in the dark night) and have caught nothing of worth; if you launch out into the deep again (of controversies) and let down your Net again (of another Letter) for a draught (of Objections or Answers) I pray be careful to enclose a multitude of good fish, Salmous and Soles (of solid Objections and Reasons, salving Answers and Distinctions) or else I shall not be beckoned to, to come in, as who cannot (though I love Fish well, such as are sound and whole as a fish should be, as I have mentioned) feed upon poor John, and fresh Herrings, Minna-Quaeres, and Sprat-Considerations, and such other refuse fish; you will never fatten me, or inform, or immatter me, with such; but I shall still be lank, lean, and ignorant, and may plead ignorance before the Lord, at his appearing (for any thing of knowledge I have found in you,) and when he will reward every one according to his work, you are not like to be rewarded, for your informing me, or for your interpreting Scripture, or for your denying Baptism to Infants, or for your dipping again the baptised, or for your reviling the Church of Christ, and his Ministers, or for presuming to preach in Pulpits, without Ordination and Authority; for there shall be no reward to the evil man, Prov. 24.20. Therefore take heed of having an evil eye, or evil tongue, against little Infants and their baptising, or against the great God, and his Church and Ministers, and bringing and evil report or interpretation upon the good Word of God, and the Scriptures, lest God reward you according to your work, and your evil work be rewarded with an evil wages of punishment; for David's prayer is still with God, Psal. 94.2. Lift up thyself, thou judge of the earth, render a reward to the proud.  
But now again, Sir, why do you follow, And if you can answer these Quaeres and Considerations by plain Scripture, I pray do, or else hold your peace, and leave your unwarrantable practices? Did you not tell me but even now, that I was informed now by your Quaeres and Considerations, so that I could not plead ignorance? and what, will you have me answer them, when as I am fully informed by them, and have gotten full knowledge by them? shall I answer against my information, and dispute against my knowledge of your truths? you even here contradict yourself, and your own spirit and speech; as it often falls out to them that have such speeches, and such a spirit of contradiction of others.  
But if I can answer them, and that by Scripture (it is possible, it seems, or otherwise why do you pray me to do it) then sure you have not rightly informed, but rather misinformed me, and misinterpreted the Scriptures; and therefore I may more justly set upon the answoring them, to inform you better in the knowledge of the truth, and to infirm in you the grounds of your errors; which I have done by plain Scriptures, and by Arguments also proved by direct and plain Scriptures, rightly interpreted. And now that it is done, I will command myself to hold my peace, and enjoin myself silence. You (boldly enough) prayed me to do it, or else hold my peace; and I (kindly enough) have done it, and do hold my peace, Isa. 62.1. It was for Zions' sake, that I held not my peave, and for Hierusalems' sake, that I did not rest, until the reighteousness thereof went forth as brightness, or rather some little glimpse brighter by my enlightening, some small step farther, by my upholding, or rather by Gods enlightening of it, and Gods upholding of it; For not I, 
1 Cor. 15.10.  but the grace of God it is, by which I am what I am, and have done what I have done; to the God of which Grace I do here give up the Glory, in the words of that heavenly Host, praising God, and saying, Glory be to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will towards men, Luke 2.14. And now return unto thy rest, O my soul, for the Lord hath dealt bountifully with thee, etc. Psal. 116.17.  
But I must not thus make an end; you, Sir, will not let me return to my rest, or give me a Writ of ease, until I have considered some certain Texts of Scriptures, which you have written out to the full of the words, and left with me, for the conclufion of your Letter. There is not reason the Reader should be deprived of them, they are so excellent for the purpose, and so pertinent to the cause; they come like after-drops, when a storm of rain is over.  
The first is, Job 6.24, 25. Teach me, and I will hold my tongue, cause me to understand wherein I have erred: how, orceable (forcible) are right words? but what doth your arguinges (arguing) (or Arguments) reprove? do ye imagie (imagine) to reprove words (Why do you leave out that which followeth? with your leave, I will add it, as belonging to the former) and the speeches of one that is desperate, which are as wind. This is kindly spoken of you to me, as of Job to Eliphaz his friend, if as truly meant; and I think I may say in justification of the truth more than myself (for wisdom is justified of her children) that the thing is really done, you are taught the truth here, and caused to understand wherein you have erred, and may hold, if willing to learn; therefore hold your peace, as a friend answered, and therein satisfied, without reply, as another friend only questioned, and thereby convinced, was speechless, without answer, Luke 22.12. But I suspect you have not told me all your heart, and do but mock, as Delilah told Samson. I fear I shall never teach you, who have learned as much as you desire to know; I may (perhaps) cause some other, an indifferent Reader or so, to understand wherein you have erred; but yourself, the principal party, I shall not, I foresee, according to that Text, Prov. 27.22. the words whereof, for want of time, I have not written out. Nor will you hold your peace, for all your saying so, you must or may, as to any material or substantial replication, you can make against the truth herein asserted and proved; but you neither will, nor can hold your peace, as to frivolous multiplication of words, impertinent citations, and misinterpretations and misapplications of Texts, slanderous calumniations of Ministers, and the Answerer especially, no more than the dog in the dark night, can or will leave barking and bawling at the bright Moon.  
But how feeble and impotent are crooked and impertinent words, appears by Job, saying, How forcible are right words? the other words, What doth your arguings or arguments reprove, as unfitting and unseasonable for you to use unto me, before you had heard or read any word or syllable of any arguing or argument from me; You might rather have left them out for me to have said them to you, as now I shall, after that I have read over and heard your arguings and arguments, or rather Quaeres, Gonsiderations, Interpretations, without any arguings or arguments in them; What do they reprove? Indeed they reprove something, every thing, those things that deserve no reproof, but they prove nothing, no not those things that most needed proof, and which you undertook to prove (which indeed moved and occasioned me to be thus large in setting down the things in controversy betwixt us, by proving, and disproving, and reproving sometimes, lest all the time should be as lost and misspent betwixt us, and no body, nor ourselves the better by this discourse.)  
The last words are right words for us both, and very forcible to inform me, and reform my imagination, which hath been, to reprove words and speeches of one that is desperate; (you were very loath to write out these words, and good cause why) which are as wind; so are both the words and speeches of one that is desperate, and so are the reprooss of such words and speeches of one that is desperate; you, out of hope of learning, I, out of hope of teaching; according to that Text, Jer. 17.9. & Jerem. 13.23. The words whereof I have not written out for want of time.  
The other Texts that you have heaped up together, and at large transcribed, are nothing but very Quakerisms in the end of your Letter, to which Anabaptisms will come in the end; you have here begun, though you are not the first. For as it is the fashion of Quakers, to get up into their memories and mouths, all the Texts of old and new Testament, where any false and vicious Prophets are spoken of, and against, or any covetous and superstitious Pharisee is taxed and reproved, and to flap them in the face of every Minister they meet withal, though never so impertinently and inconsiderately; insomuch that one of them very lately being at Church, after the Minister had ended his Sermon, as who preacheth constantly every Sunday twice; Yea, said he, this is just as the Prophet saith, Isa. 56.10. They are all dumb dogs, that cannot bark, sleeping, lying down, etc. And just even so do you, Sir, first you tell me of Jerem. 5.4. and have now time enough to write out the words at length, and not in figures, Surely these are poor, they are foolish, for they know not the way of the Lord, nor the judgement of there (their) God. The which is spoken of the ignorant and perverse people amongst the Jews, the Prophet complains of, like as we Ministers may of many such amongst us, yourself not excepted; and I commend you for your fit and pertinent, and even Quaker-like application of it, to us the Ministers of England, whom you know to know the way of the Lord, etc. and therefore apply it against your own science and conscience, to Ministers, which is spoken only to the People by the Prophet.  
The next is, Micah 3.5, 11, 12. Neither here is there to you any want of time, to write out all the words: Thus saith the Lord, concerning the prophets that make my people to err, that bite (bite) with their teeth, and cry, Peace; and he that putteth not into there (their) mouth, they even prepare war against them. The Heads thereof judge for reward, and the Priest thereof teach for byre (hire) and the Prophets thereof divine (divine) for money, yet will they lean upon the Lord, and say, Is not the Lord amongst us? none evil can come unto us. Therefore shall Zyon (Zion) for your sakes be ploughed as a field, etc.  
What if there were in the State of Israel both Civil and Ecclesiastical, such corruptions as are mentioned in those Texts, at that time, what reason or Religion, prudence or conscience, is there in this, to make use, and your application of them to our State, both of Magistracy or Ministry, until you had cleared the Doctrine and proof of the same sins to reign amongst both? What Prophet do you know makes the People to err, by't with the teeth, and cry peace, to teach for hire, and if their mouths be not filled, to prepare for war? do you not remember who it was that said, And how like unto him you are herein, doth Job serve God for nought? and who said, Ye are of your father the devil? he is the accuser of the Brethren, and a false accuser; we Ministers teach not for hire, and yet we labourers are worthy of our hire; and if it be detained, and taken out of our mouths, the Law is open, they may implead one another, (as I have largely showed before) we may fly into the arms of the Law, which is no Law of Arms, or War. But farther, the word of Micah was that which he said concerning Samaria and Jerusalem, and (for any thing appears) the word in the Text might be concerning Samaria, and not Jerusalem, and then it concerns you more than us, you more and your Prophets, for Samaria was the head City of the separate Jeroboam and his company, the ten Tribes who divided from the House of David, and departed away from Jerusalem and the Temple, and set up their Calves in some private stalls and houses; and so ever after continued separates, so that the Samaritans had no dealing with the Jews ordinarily, when Christ came and lived with them, but kept aloof and apart from the public Services of the Temple, 1 Kings 12. & John 4.  
The third is, Isa. 3.12, & 15. O my people, they which lead the (thee) cause the (thee) to err, and desroy (destroy) the way of thy paths. What mean you to beat my people to pieces (pieces) and grind the face of the poor, saith the Lord? Neither here wanted you any time to write out all the words. Besides, here's excellent good order in your proceed, from Esay to Micah, from Micah to Esay, by a new retrograde method, or rather your old crab-order, backward and forward, forward and backward. But these words are wholly and solely directed by the Prophet, to the secular Powers and Civil Rulers of the People of Israel; the which if you by-your bold and prophetical spirit, shall, as you do here, (or else you are quite out of your Texts) revile the Temporal Rulers of our Nation, with beating God's people to pieces, and grinding the face of the poor, I must refer you over to their Temporal Authority and Justice, to chastise your insolency and rebellion, according to those Texts, Exod. 22.28. Rom. 13.4 the which for want of time, I have not writ out in all the words.  
The next is, Jer. 5.30. & 31. A wonderful and horrible (thing) is committed in the land, the prophet's proplesie falsely (talsly) and the priest (priests) bore (bear) rule by there (their) means, and my people love to have it so; and what will ye do in the end thereof? Falsely written, and falsely applied is all this Text. In what, and which of our Prophets, (for so and such you make us, and must grant us, or all your Applications of the Prophets to us, out of prophets, is vain, impertinent, and inconsistent) I say, which of our Prophets, and wherein do they prophesy falsely? we neither foretell or reveal hidden particular things to come; some of your Prophets do, as Christ's coming to reign temporally and gloriously upon earth for a thousand years, together with the very year of the beginning of his Reign; and have herein prophesied falsely, for the year is passed of late wherein some of them said it should begin.  
Or if you mean by prophesying, expounding and interpreting of Scripture, I will go no farther than yourself, for a false prophet, at the next door, (because I am weary with travelling thus far,) than whom, if there be a more false Expounder and Interpreter of Scripture, as I have abundantly declared throughout this whole Tractate, I will forfeit all my Commentaries upon the Bible, into his hands, if he will read them, and take them so into his head, thereby, by such help, to make himself a true Expounder and Interpreter of the Scriptures afterwards. As for our Priests bearing rule, by their means; your own eyes, looking about you, may serve to give your tongue (I will not say, the lie) an answer to the contrary. And for our People love to have it so; I thought you had been better acquainted with the People than so, or to say so of them, for the People love to have it otherwise than so, that Priests should bear rule by any means. And if you love the People no better than so, to say they love to have it so, they may (likely) begin not to love you so as they have done, to make you a Father or Son of the People, and Vox Populi, (I think you understand that word) a Preacher of the People's making, and a voice of a Crier in the Wilderness, against John the Baptist, though your namesake, and their children's Baptism. And for the last Clause, And what will ye do in the end? Here's a Quaere indeed; I who have answered so many of your Quaeres before, will not stand out for this one at last; but will tell you what I will do in the end (let others tell you what they will do in the end.)  
I will now in the end, pray to God, (and I do so) that he would give unto you a better understanding of his Word into your head, and a greater love of his Ministers into your heart. For (to end with that you began the Text with) a wonderful and horrible thing is committed in the Land, and by you, for one and a chief one, some prophets (but they are only so called by some) expound the Word of God falsely, and revile the Ministers of God falsely, and the Priests and Jesuits bear rule by their means, and some people love to have it so; and what will you do in the end? I hope you will have done in the end, and hold your peace at last, as you promised even now by your Sarety Job, in your first Text; which you have cause to do, lest Job mind you of it, and say, as he doth, Job 18.2. How long will it be ere you make an end of words? (words indeed, and little else besides.) I hope you will do so anon, for I perceive the next Text is your last you end with.  
Matth. 23.4. Forth (for) they bind heavy burdens, and grievous to be bourn (born) and lay them on men's shoulders, but they themselves will not move them with one of there (their) fingers; in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men, Matth. 15.19. And if ye love me, keep my commandments, John 14.15. For so I have put your three last Texts together into one, as being all much as one, that so I might bring your words the sooner to an end. Neither here wanted you time to write out all the words, even of three Texts together: yet I see you are as far off from an end, as when you began; for you here fall back again upon your old matter you began withal, to quaere me about Commandments of God, and men's Traditions and Prescriptions; say once more out of your former Text, What will ye do in the end? I must answer you from these Texts, That I must now do in the end, the same I did in the beginning, discourse again of the Commands of God, and Prescriptions of men. But I am resolved otherwise, having gotten up the stone to the top of the hill, not to let it roll back, or tumble down again, this would make my labour endless, and my pains infernal, and Hell-like, which are supernal now, and Heaven-like; nor will I suffer you to begin the Suit again, but will force you to join issue, and to come to trial, and so to an end. In vain, Sir, you will tell me, that we worship God in vain, teaching for Doctrines the Commandments of men; when as you do not here (as not heretofore) teach me, and tell me what Commandment of man we make, or teach, for a part of Divine Doctrine or Worship. We teach and embrace the Political and Ecclesiastical Commands of the Supreme Rulers over us, as prescriptive Orders, and directive Rules, about the external carriage, and outward celebration of the public Divine Service and Worship, to make it the more comely and in order (and have not you the same Collinical and domestical Orders and Rules about your private Congregations and Administrations, and so teach for Doctrincs the Commands of men, and worship God in vain, by your Text?) What a vanity is this in you, to write thus in vain; and in fine, to show nothing of ours in vain, but only words in vain of your own? So likewise, why do ye not name some one of those heavy burdens, grievous to be born, that we either lay upon the people's shoulders, or if lasd by others, we ourselves are not ready to move them with one of our fingers. As for the old legal burdens and yokes, of keeping the Law in all its Morals and Ceremonials, as to justification and salvation thereby, we were, and are so far from laying them on men's shoulders, no not with one of our fingers, that with both our hands, and not ours only, but with the hands of the Apostlet, Acts 15. we do pull them off, knowing that neither our Fathers, nor we, (for our shoulders yet are underlayed by them, as well as others) were able to bear them, and to lay no greater burden upon men, than things necessary as to salvation, than the yoke and burden of Christ, of which the one is easy, and the other light, as Christ himself said of it, who also maketh it so unto all that undergo the same, Matth. 11.29, 30. This is no other than the Gospel, the Doctrine and Commands of Christ, the which, as his yoke, draweth in all; and as his burden, beareth out all Evangelical Graces and Duties, which we Ministers in the Name of Christ impose upon our People, or rather call upon them, to take this yoke and burden of Christ upon them, and to learn of him, and to practise as he did (things learnable, practicable, and imitable.) And these burdens and yokes we also, as yoke-fellows, and burden-fellows with our people, we are even with both our hands, and all our hearts, ready to move, stir, and lift at, and lift up, as upon our own, so their shoulders, bearing our parts, and helping them to bear their parts, in repenting, believing, praying, etc. so bearing one another's burdens, as the Apostle adviseth, Gal 62. yea with heart and mouth, praying for them, and preaching to them, we strengthen the weak hands, and confirm the feeble knees, as the Prophet bids us, Isa. 35.6. by saying to them that are of a fearful heart, Be strong fear not, if any faint under their burden, or hold it not fast, or stand not sure under it, or grow weary of well-doing, Coloss. 6.9. and as the Apostle again exhorteth, 1 Thessal. 5.14. we are always ready to comfort the feeble-minded, and to support the weak, and to be patiented towards all men, (as active towards some) for we that are strong (or stronger than some others of our people; I may say) ought (and some of us, I say do, or desire to do as we ought) to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves, Rom. 15.1. nay we cannot please ourselves, if we be such as we ought to be, better, I think, I am sure, we cannot please God better, than by bearing the infirmities of the weak, and helping them to bear their burdens.  
What would you, Sir, have more of us? do you so much yourselves? are not you rather of those bad Scribes and Pharisees, and in their coat and seat, whom you quote and cite against us?  
For a Scribe, I think you are none, or a very bad one, who not only cannot write true English of your own, without a Copy, but even when you have a Copy before you, and write out of the Bible, cannot write the true English out of that Copy, witness my Corrections of your Transscipts of these last Texts.  
Nor are you a true Scribe; for whereas at the beginning of your Letter, and so all along, when you had time enough before, than you did not write out the many Texts you quote and cite, about matters in question and proof, but only name the Chapter, and Verse, now, at the end of your Letter, when you have less time, and are in more haste to make an end (excusing the former, for want of time,) you writ out to the full length, all the words of ten or eleven verses, without any mention made of, or excuse for want of time: They were not the Pharisees only, but the Scribes also, that were the Hypocrites, in our Saviour's time: so the words run together, Scribes, Pharisees, Hypocrites,  
And was there not an Hypocrisy in your Scribism, or the Scribe here showed himself an Hypocrite? I have said it, and shown it, it was not want of time or leisure; what then? even want of truth and sincerity, (which you so much assume to yourself, or rather presume of in yourself too much.)  
For, Sir, of fifty Texts of Scripture at least alleged by you in the former part of your Letter, of which all had one verse, many two, and some three verses, and some more; To write out the words of few or none of them, (whereby the Reader, and especially Popular sort might see how they accorded to the matter in hand, for which they were cited) when time enough was before you, and at your own will and pleasure to take, and then towards the end of your Letter to entreat me to look them, and seriously to weigh them, excusing the matter, that for want of time you had not written out all the words of all the Scriptures, you might have added, scarce of any at all; when in the end and last clauses your Letter, when time must needs therefore be more wanting to you, by reason your Letter coming, was noised abroad, and long expected, to take so much time as to stand, and stay the writing out all the words to the full (a thing different from your fashion, when you had more time) of six or seven Texts, without the least intimation of want of time, let the next honest Clerk or Scribe judge, whether there were not some Legerdemain and Handicrast, if not heart deceit in such hand-writing, and a piece of hypocritical Scribism, (as also Anabaptism) or of scribbling and Anabaptizing hypocrisy in it.  
And there was another piece of the same stuff in it besides: for the former part of your Letter being of matters, and points of Divinity in Question betwixt us, it was your policy and hypocrisy, to set down to your Tene's and Assertions, Texts of Scripture, named and figured by Chapter and Verse, so to put a fair gloss and justre of Truth, for the amusing of the vulgar people, and deluding them with such shows and paints of proof, you knowing they neither have skill nor will, nor leisure, nor pleasure to turn to the words themselves and weigh them, of which you might have saved them the labour and me also; (but that you meant not, but rather to put me to the pains, wherein you lost your labour and purposes, for that it is a pleasure to me to search the Scriptures) if you had written out the words into your sheets, and folded up them with your Arguments or Expositions together into the same.  
But then there was another fear or Quakery in it, (for Hypocrites are ever a afraid of discovery, and Quake for fear of it, as the Devils believe, but tremble for the same fear of being discovered in their false faith.) For you feared and might well enough, that if you had written out the words of your Texts, and set them down together, or by your Opinions and Expositions; people must needs see and read both together, and so comparing the one with the other, the words of the Texts cited, with the words of your Tenees asserted, they might espy and discern (as an ordinary understanding may do) the impertinency of the one to the other, yea the contrariety of the matters in them.  
And truly this was, and it a notable piece of Popery and Jesuitism, to keep the people as much as may be, from the words of the Scripture; for the words of the Scripture are pure, enlightening the eyes, but people's darkness best for their devotion, they know and say: Therefore indeed was I the willinger to look into every Text cited by you, that so I might present unto the Reader whomsoever, the Texts of Scriptures in words at length, and not in figures, (as I said before, if I remember well) and so giving him a plain outsight of the words, He may come to a clearer infight of the sense, and better discern what it proveth or proveth not: A good way to disfigure an only Text scribe, and to reverse and decapitate, a verse and Chapter Hypocrite.  
But there is more of the same cloth, your Linsey Woolsie hypocrisy here, at the end of your Letter; for usually he that plays the Hypocrite in the beginning, works the Hypocrite in the end, and turns to be of a merry, a very one; when you were engaged to prove and fortify your Tenets, as hitherto, you only set down Chapter and verse, but not the words, why so? you could not stand about writing them down for want of time, no no, that was not the cause, for being but newly begun, it was free to you to have taken as much time as you would: was it not rather for want of truch, and out of abundance of subtlety and policy, lest the Reader finding Gods words, and your words in the same place together, might the easier at one view see the distance, and diffonancy of the one from the other, and so perceive the weakness of proof in your allegation?  
But now that you are resolved in the end, (for a friendly farewell) to reprove, yea to revile, and reproach the true Church of England, and the true Ministers thereof, and now in the foot of your Letter, without any foot, or ground, unless the foot of Pride, (like as you did the same in the front of your Letter, without any front or brow, but that of Brass) to trample under your unclean, and stinking feet, the sweet, and precious Sons of Zion, (like as you dossed them before with your brazen, and impudent forehead) it seems now at the latter end of your Letter, you can find time enough (though it be high time you should have done two hours, and two sheets ago) to write out fully the words of six or seven Texts, spoken of some false, and erroneous Prophets, yea, and of some corrupt Judges, and Magistrates, yea, and some ignorant, and sottish people, some thousands of years fithence, and to apply them to the learned, pious, and laborious Ministers of England, very foolishly, impertinently, inconfiderately, yea very wickedly, maliciously, devilishly.  
Oh here you are very exact, and diligent to write out all, and the very words, that your proselytes reading here, may learn the Scripture phrases and words, and get them by heart, and have them ready in their mouths, as Shimei had the stones in his hand, to cast them at David, a man after Gods own heart, and to asperse, slander, and bequaker the Ministers of God, who are such according to Gods will, as they pass by them, or meet with them; Remember (Lord) the reproach of thy servants, how we do bear in our besoms the reproaches of the mighty people: Wherewith thine enemies have reproached, O Lord, wherewith they have reproached the footsteps of thine Anointed, Psal. 89.56.  
Why did you not write out a thousand Texts more, word for word, even all in the Bible, that mention any sin or vice, of any Nation, any erroneous or profane person, of any place there recorded, and make application of them all to the Church of England, and the Ministers there of? This would have made the heap of your stones the bigger, and so would have heaped up more wrath for you, against the day of wrath, for your speaking evil of Dignities, and reviling Orders; and especially for your teaching vulgar people, errors, confusions, as to renounce their first Baptism, and reproach their Preaching, and Baptising Ministers, and that in Scripture Language, and Phrases which they learn of you, and such as you, who writ: out the Texts, and the words too, when you wrest Scripture to the vilifying of Ministers, and you want no time, nor malice for the doing of it, to put such words into your people's eyes, and ears, and mouth: but when you are to wrest Scriptures, for the justifying of your errors, than you cite the Text only, but writ not the words, for want of time, and truth too, and so feed their senses only with figures, and numbers only, sending them away to search out the words, for their satisfying their understandings, as the Egyptians did the Isaelites to find out straw, for their burning the Brick.  
But I remember your last Text you cited, wherewith you think, you have hit us home, was that off the Scribes and Pharisees, laying heavy burdens upon men's, or the people's shoulders, and not moving them, with one of their fingers. I have put by the blow, as of all the other your Texts alleged against us, so of this, and the Scribism of the same, and have made them to recoil-back & fly in your own face, because you overcharged, and had not kill to charge aright: you hold as great, if not a greater correspondency with the Pharisees, than the Scribes; Few of you are Scribes, more are Pharisees: for you are like unto them in your name, the word Pharisee signifying Separate, (as formerly I said,) so in your corrupting, and false interpreting of Scripture (this I have showed throughout this Discourse) so in your high conceit, of your own righteousness and holiness, (this you manifest in your scornful, and supercilious loo●s and speeches,) so in your compassing the Land to make you Proselytes, and ambitious seeking the people, and their applause (this all men see, and you will not deny) I add lastly, (which makes the wonder, that people run after you) in your laying heavy burdens, and grievous to be borne upon the shoulders of men and women.  
This latter, is the thing, I will show out off, Act. 15. where ver. 5. There arose up certain of the Sect of the Pharisees which believed, or professed Jesus to be the Messia, saying it was needful to Circumcise the newly converted Brethren, etc. the matter is decided in the 10. ver. 28. ver. Now therefore, why tempt you God? who put a yoke upon the neck of the Disciples, which neither our Fathers, nor we were able to bear: And it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and us, to lay upon you, no greater burden, than these necessary thing, etc. Out of which I gather, and deduct this one General Proposition (leaving out the particular of Circumcision.)  
Things laid upon Christians or Disciples, more than necessary, are a burden and yoke, and seemeth not good to the Holy Ghost, but is a tempting of God. Join we issue now in brief. Here the Pharisees of the old separation said, it was needful to Circumcise the new converted christians or Disciples; and you of the newer separation say, it is needful to re-Baptize grown, and professing Christians or Disciples, upon a particular confession of their Faith; are not you now agreeable to the Pharisees, in laying on a burden, and a yoke, upon the necks, and shoulders off the Disciples and Christians?  
But, how do I show this latter, to be a burden or yoke? why, from the Proposition here, because the rebaptising of Christians or Disciples, who were Baptised formerly in their Infancy, is more than needful or necessary; andthat it is so, my whole last part of this Discourse, which now I am finishing, hath amply Demonstrated; yea, your own Rule given to me at first, doth jointly attest the same, the which is this, of all things necessary to Salvation, the Scripture hath either a Command or an Example, or both. Now show me for that your practice, any Command of God, Express, or Implicit, or by Consequence, for such your rebaptising; Or any Example of any grown person or Christians, formerly Baptised so rebaptized; if you cannot, hold you your peace (they are your own words,) I will speak you a Pharisee, laying upon men's necks, and shoulders, a yoke, and a burden; and moreover by doing so, a tempter of God, and doer of that, which seemed not good unto the Holy Ghost, and the Apostles.  
Again, for you to require of Infants born in Covenant with God, and of Parents in Covenant with God, an external confession, or profession of Faith, before you will put them under the initial Seal of that Covenant, and in the mean while to with hold this from them, until they shall do that, is a putting a yoke, and burden upon their necks and shoulders, to hinder them in their Christian progress; it is to tempt the Lord, and to put him upon other means for Infant's Salvation than Baptism, and its a doing of that, which seemeth not good to the Spirit, and the Apostles assembled, and determining the case in a holy Synod, for, that it is a requiring more of Infants, than is necessary to needful for their Baptism.  
Yet once more: The leading of grown Christians, Baptised before, into some deep Pond, and therein rebaptising them, plunging, and holding them some while there under water overhead and ears, body and  too, is a yoke upon the neck, and a burden put, and laid upon the head and shoulders, heavy and grievous to be borne, especially of the aged, infirm, and sickly, and a doing of more than is necessary unto the administration of Baptisin, unseemly, and superfluous if not ridiculous, and so more than seemeth good un to the Holy Ghost, and the Apostles met in Counsel yea it is an tempting of God, (and some, as I have heard, have sickened and died soon after thereupon,) of which I shall discourse at large, in my Narration, & censure of a late dipping which followeth.  
Now see, Sir, by this, whether we Ministers of the Church of England, or you Separates from the same, be like to the Pharisees.  
And so I have retorted, all your Texts, and returned them to you again, to apply them to yourselves, or to apply yourselves to them.  
I shall therefore only give you the like friendly farewell at the end of my Letter, as you gave me in yours, namely, a few Texts of Scripture to consider of, and seriously to weigh, some for yourself, and others, that take upon you to be Preachers of the Separation, to consider of, and that not slightly as you use: Numb. 16.11. and 12. 2 Chron. 26.18. Jer. 23.21, 31, 32. 2 Corinh. 11.13, 14, 15. 2 Tim. 3.5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Tit. 1.10, and 11. Heb. 5.4, and 5, 2 Pet. 2.18, 19 2 Pet. 3.16  
Some for your followers, and others that hear you, and (if any of my people be amongst them) for them also to consider of, and that not lightly 2 Chron. 36.15, 16. Jerem. 2.13. Matth. 24, 23, 24, 25, 26. Mark 12. 38, 39, 40. Luke 21.1. with Mat. 16.6, and 12. Rom. 16.17, 18, Gal. 4.16, 17, 18. Gal. 5.7, 8, 9, 10. 2 Tim. 4.3, and 4. Heb. 10.23. and 24, Heb. 13.9. 2 Pet. 2.12. Judas 17, 18, 19 20. And this one, for all, and every one of you, 1 Tim. 6.3, 4. 5.  
You see, Sir, I do not as you did, for whereas in the matter of Proof, I have written out the words of every Text to the full, here in point of Reproof, I only name the Texts, and no more; so the Reader cannot know the particular here of them, until he take the Bible, and look farther, so ready I am, not to blazen abroad, but rather to go backward and cover your nakedness, as Cham.  
But, What have I done? I thought indeed I had done, and replied to all your Letter: But I perceive, that it is undone, as who have omitted one of your Texts, which is in your last line of all, John 14.15. and in these words of Christ Jesut, If you love me, keep my Commandments. What a bad-sighted man am I, that I should take no sooner notice of these last words, of your last Text, in your last line? words, like Apples of Gold, with pictures of Silver, as spoken in season; a Text, like a bundle of Mirth, worthy to be laid betwixt the breasts. A line, Sir, I speak seriously, worth all your Letter besides, and had it not been for this last line, it had been so far from being any Love-Letter, or Message of Jonathans' to David, that rather it would have been, as David's Letter against Vriah, or a Johnathan's Maranatha Letter, writing bitter things, as Marah, and breathing out not only excommunication, but even damnation, whose mouth I have stopped notwithstanding, If you love me, keep my Commandments, John 14.15. saith Christ to his Disciples; This is a text to purpose, which few or none of the former were, brcathing love at last, the best thing to end a Letter with, and to make some recompense for all your hateful, horrid, hellish, and malicious, calumniations, of your Mother, and Brethren, in the beginning thereof; Above all things, and so in the beginning, and after things (and so in the end) Put on love, which is the Bond of perfectness; The Law maketh nothing perfect, but love doth: for the end, and so the perfection, and fulfilling of the Commandment, is Love, out of a pure heart, and a good Conscience, and Faith unfeigned; at leastwise Christ Jesus, whom we love, (as who loved us first) is the end of the Law for righteousness, to every one that believeth; if Christ Jesus be the end of the Law, and the Commandment, and love the end of the Law, and Commandment, Then the love which is of Christ, sure, or Christ who is love, (for God is love) must needs be the end of the Law, and Commandment; and therefore is ye love me keep my Commandments, saith Christ, John 14.15. (a Text worthy to be thrice mentioned, and repeated.)  
This is the one only Text, that you, and I shall not differ in I hope, and which you have rightly applied, and both myself, and all of us, do take to belong unto us, to love the Lord Jesus Christ, and to keep his Commandments: yea I add, if any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, Let him be Anathema Maranatha, 1 Cor. 16.22. And in testimony of our love, we walk in obedience of his Commandments; but I will say to you, asit is, Jam. 2.8, 9 If ye fulfil the royal Law, according to the Scripture, That shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well; but if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convincedof sin, as transgressors. For he that said, If y love me, keep my commandments, said also, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, or Brother; and keep that Commandment also of his, amongst others; and this Commandment have we from him, that he who loveth God, loveth his brother also, 1 John 4.21. If a man say, as it proceedeth vers. 20. If a man say, I love God, and Jesus Christ, and hateth his brother, he is a liar, (whosoever the man be) for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen? And again, Love worketh no ill to his neighbour, therefore love is the fulfilling of the law also, Rom. 13.10. I confess, I could now much refresh myself in this sweet & rosy Discourse of this point of our love of Christ, and our Brethren, after my wearisome travelling through other sharp and thorny Disputes; but I resolve this Page now in hand shall be the last, and determine both.  
Only I shall mind you, that amongst these your Neighbours and Brethren, we the Ministers of Jesus Christ are to be accounted and taken in, by your leave, Sir; for by his leave, Sir, we are so accepted of, to be his Neighbours and Brethren; his Neighbours, as whom the Lord hath brought nigh unto himself, to do the service of the Tabernacle, (and Temple) Number 16.9. and also his Brethren, For both he that sanctifieth, and they who are sanctified, are all of one; for which cause he is not ashamed tocall them brethren, Hebrews 2.11. whether sanctified by Grace from him, or by Office under him; and if he called and owned the Hearers and Doers of his Word, his Brethren, sure he owneth for such also, the Preachers and Doers of the same. Yea, see how Christ Jesus not only owneth them for such, but oneth them also as himself (if I may so speak) saying, He that heareth you, heareth me; he that receiveth you, receiveth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me, Matthew 10.4. Luke 10.17. And truly I must tell you, that when our People were let alone, and left to themselves, and our Ministers, and before they were befooled and bewitched by you separation from us, as the Galathians were by creepers in amongst them, they did, as the same Galathians Paul, receive their learned, pious, and industrious Ministers, as Angels of God, even as Christ Jesus; Galath. 4.14. And will do so again, (I believe, or hope) by that time they have had a little more trial and experience of your courses, and seen the difference betwixt the new light, or flashings of your blazing Comets, and the old light and lustre of their own fixed Stars.  
But I give over proving against you, or reproving, seeing you have given over accusing of us, and reviling, and are fallen upon love in your last line; love, I say, and that of Christ Jesus, the most lovely Object for a fair conclusion, from those foul Principles of malice in your former lines; malice I say, and that against the Church of England and her Ministers; the least deserving hatred from you, because serving you by love, showed, if not saving you by faith, Preached to you.  
My advice, I know, will seem strange and irrational to you in the form of my words and expression; Forsake your Principles, and leave them, hold fast your conclusion, and keep it; but it is good and religious, in the matter of sense, and my intention, which is this, Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice, Ephes. 4.31. this was your Original sin, and bad Principles: And again, Be kindly affectioned one to another in brotherly love, love as Brethren, be pitiful, courteous, of one mind, having compassion, putting on the bowels of mercies, Rom. 12.19. & 1 Peter 3.8. Goloss. 3.12. And thus your latter end hath been better than your beginning, and your conclusion, your last line, lovely and amiable, though the first leaf was hateful and detestable.  
I embrace you in your last line, so also in your Subscription, speak it again, and write or subscribe again yourself (that in the hand of two witnesses, or the double witness of your hand, this word may stand and be more confirmed,) To be the Lord Jesus' devoted Servant, as also mine (and the rest, the meanest of Christ's Servants and Ministers) Servants for Jesus sake; which I take only according to the Apostles limitation, Galath. 5.13. in or by love, for which also I thank you, being ready also to serve you, in and by love, for Jesus sake, but with another of the same Apostles limitations, 2 Thess. 2.10. by an in love of the truth, the which because some have not received, God hath sent them strong delusions, that they should believe a lie, as it followeth in the Apostle, ver. 10, 11. But we are bound to give God thanks for you, Brethren, and Neighbour's, and Parishioners, (and yourselves are boundmuch more to do the same to God) for that he hath called you unto the belief of the truth by our Gospel, (and something also, by this my Answer to you) 2 Thessalonians 2. verse 14. Therefore Brethren, and Neighbours, stand fast, and hold the Traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our Epistle, verse 15. Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God even our Father, which hath loved us, and hath given us everlasting consolation and good hope through grace, comfort and establish you in every good word and work, verses 16, & 17 And now also Brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, Acts 20.32. Consider what I say, (and have said) and the Lord give you understanding in all things, 2 Tim. 2.7. Let every soul, that is understanding, be subject to the higher powers of the word, and captivate every thought to the obedience of the truth; Let every Saul who is ignorant admit of the light of the Word and Truth, to shine round about him, that the scales, by the Ministry of Ananias, may fall away from their eyes, that in seeing they may see, and understand the truth of all the matters and mysteries of Salvation, Acts 9.15. But if any man be ignorant (and will be ignorant) let him be ignorant, and still be ignorant, 1 Cor. 14.38. Or, Let them hear and say, (read and see) It is truth, Isa. 43. verse 9  
And so Sir, because I will be answerable to you in all things, I do now subscribe myself, as in relation to my Master and Lord Jesus Christ, His, the least of his Servants and Ministers, not worthy to be called a Servant and Minister of Christ; so in reference unto you my Antagonist and Opponent, Your, the greatest of your friends, worthy to be called a friend of yours, (for, am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth? Gal. 4.16.) When you have tried all your Brethren and Friends, Truth will be your best Friend; and your best Brother will be  
Jeffry Watts. From Muchleighs Parsonage, July the 1. 1656.  
Now I proceed from a Scribe and his Letter answered, and a Pharisce or Separate churched, to a hypocrite or Dipper sprinkled: but first of all to be questioned and catechised; and so to the Narration of a dipping, to be censured, according to my Promise in the Title and Frontispiece of this Treatise. Only first,    

Courteous Reader;  
I Must desire of thee, that, in the reading over (if so thou art intended) this Narration of a Dippping, with a Censure thereupon, which followeth now, Thou wouldst not mind a Passage, or Paragraph of the Former Epistle to thee, which goeth before the Answer and Instruction of a Scribe, and his Letter; as wherein I apologized for my omitting to cite and call into the several Points I handled, the venerable Testimonies of the ancient Doctors and Fathers of the Church in their own learned Languages: This I excused unto thee, partly because I was confined and tied up by the Scribe and his queres, only to Scripture Commands and Examples, for my Answer; and partly for that I intended my Answer should go no farther, then in a reciprocal and interchangeable Letter returned unto him, who first occasioned and provoked it. Though afterwards by reason of the larger extent of my Answer than I expected, The Desk refusing a transcription of it, to which I had offered it, I was even compelled to make my refuge unto the Press, for an Impression of the same; otherwise all the labour must be lost on both sides, the Queres and Letter unanswered, the Scribe uninstructed, the Pharisee uncharged, and Truth unvindicated, as to, and by myself.  
This beingdone, the Answer finished, dismissed, and sent away for the aforesaid prupose, There fell out, and was practised in my Parish, and (it may be for the more affront to me) at a house of mine there, This Dipping of two new Sisters in a Pond of the Yard: The which being in public, upon the Lordsday, and betwixt the Morning and Evening Worships, drew away much people thither, and was discoursed of by many mouths, and so famed about in these parts, that I resolved (and could do no less) to get a full Narration of the business, and to pass my censure upon the same. And so having first preach it down in my Pulpit to my own Parish, as a New business of ill consequence, I next have written it down in my Study, to thee the Reader, and have sent up also, this my censure, after the former, my Answer, to be Impressed or Imprinted together, into the same Tractate, as handling both of them, matters very agreeable and consonant.  
So then here intending the Press, and having now no confinements or restraints upon me, I have taken my full Liberty to produce and bring in much of the Learned Antiquity, and to write out, and transcribe their weighty Words and Speeches, in their own Languages, as many of them as I had by me, for the fuller Confirmation and firmer Attestation of this my censure upon that Dipping; that it was, and is, as I have said, a New business, and a very Novelty.  
Yea this I have done, as for the convincing the Anabaptists their Dipping, and Immerging Baptism (so called) to be of Novelty; so for the Confirming the Orthodox, their Sprinkling, and Aspersing Baptism (as it is) to be of Antiquity, by the evidences of the ancient Fathers and Doctors, brought forth and showed on both sides: and farther I have ascended up to the Highest Antiquity of all, even to the Ancient of days, and the Primogenit of every Creature, and have (probably at least) shown, that Christ Jesus himself manifested in the flesh was but Aspersed or Superfused with water, and not Dipped and Immerged under the water (certainly not in their way and manner) at his Baptism, by S. John the Prime baptist, nor other Christians, after him, by S. Peter and the other Primitive Baptizers. And as to ra●fi these things, so (learned Reader) I have done thus much, to gratify thee, and to refresh thee with the rare deticays of these Ancients, after that I have well nigh wearted thee, if not cloyed thee with the course Ordinary of my Moderness.  
Only, I wonder at the Iron-brow, and Brazen-face of novel Impudence, and New light, that whereas it is every Seventh day at least, in its Chimney-house Conventicles, prating against the Old, Laudable, and Ancient Practices of this our, and other reformed Churches, it dares pretend to Antiquity, (so contradicting itself) and glory of it in this point, of their Immerging and Dipping, (calling it the Good old way) who scorn it, and scoff at the same, and all Old Light, in their other Tenets and Opinions.  
I say no more to thee than what Job saith, 32.7. Day's should speak, and multidude of years should teach wisdom. And so 12.12. With the Ancient is wisdom, and in length of days understanding. And lastly, what Solomon saith, Remove not the Ancient Landmark which thy Fathers have set, Prov. 22.28. So farewell, and Fear ill.   

The Narration of their Dipping in a Pond of Much-leighes.  
AFter Supplication within a House near the Pond, for God's Presence and Blessing, the two Women, or Sisters, gave an account of their Faith, and others, a testimony of their Life; and after suplicating again, the two Women, or Sisters, did privately strip themselves in a Chamber, and put on other , that so they might have their own dry to put on again. And so they came to the Pond, wherein the Brother, who is set apart by Fasting and Prayer of the Church, to administer the Ordinances stood in the water; the Women, or Sisters, going into the water also, so above the knees, (but the one afore the other about a minute) He took them one after another, fast by the  about the shoulders, and spoke the words according to the Institution, severally to each of them, at the instant time, immediately before the Dipping, and so dipped them severally all over head and ears, body and , (having first tied their  together with a string, about and above their knees) He dipped either of them but once, and then raised them up again, and so they went again to the House and shifted themselves in a Chamber by themselves, with the help of some women; and they supplicated again, That God would encourage their Souls, and increase their Faith, and the rest of the day was spent in prayer, preaching, and participating the Lords Supper.  
The Narrator hereof (to whom, being an Actor and Abettor in the business, I wrote for a true and full information, because I would not take it upon report, from Spectators and Looker's on only) added these words to me.  
I am sorry to hear you call it a New business, for it is older than your Sprinkling of Infants, though indeed that hath been so long practised generally, that this Old Good Way seems now a new Thing: And no wonder, for we read that the Song the Saints sing for their deliverance out of Antichristianism, is termed to be, as it were, a new song, Rev. 14.3. And no wonder though the old Practices of the Saints be, as it were, a new Thing to the World, and unto their Leaders.  
I am glad to hear you acknowledge that Baptising is Dipping, then Sprinkling is not Baptising; we confess that every Dipping is not Baptising, for I may Dip my Dog, but not Baptise or Dip him in the Name of the Father, Son, and holy Ghost.  
Reader, Thou hast heard the Narration and the Addition, now read on, and hear the Censure, and its Reasons; but having to deal with Crabbed Fellows, especially here in this Point, (for they go backward here (which they do not elsewhere) to antiquity, and the Good Old Way) I must, and therefore will begin at the last and lower Words, and so go backward also (though upwards) that so I may follow them and overtake them, which else I cannot do.   

THE DIPPER SPRINKLED.  
All Baptising is not Dipping.  
SIR,  
YOu have no cause the be glad at my acknowledging that Baptising is Dipping, (unless with Democritus you can laugh at any thing you hear) for then I must have said, All Baptising is Dipping, which I did not, as who know that but some Baptising is Dipping and some Baptising is a sprinkling: Baptism being both in the true nature of the thing, and native signification of the word, but an ablution and washing with water, which may be done either way, by dipping the party in the water, or by sprinkling water upon the party.  
And you have as little cause to be sorry at my calling your Dipping a new Business, (unless with Heraclitus you can weep at every thing you hear) I called it so indeed, and shall here now make the Calling true, as in word, so in deed; so far is it from being older than our sprinkling of Infants, that yourself helpeth it forward, saying, that this hath been so long practised generally, that your good old way (of Dipping) seems now a new thing: It seems so to you, it is so to me.  
You make me in the mean time no whit sorry but glad, to see you moved somewhat upon the charge of a new thing or business: Are not all your things now new? and your whole Business, is it not new, a new nothing?  
This will do well indeed (if real) and will be a credit to you (if creditable) to come out of your new Lights into our old Light; to forsake the Novelties of your Scribe, and embrace the Antiquity of the Scripture: so you would be thought to do, by alleging of that Scripture, Rev. 14.3. Though very impertinently and improperly; For the song the Saints sing there for their deliverance out of Antichristianism, (be it so) is not termed there to be as it were a new song, by the world and their leaders, by way of reproach or scandalising imputation: but by the Church and its Saints, the victory of the Lamb and its followers; and the song which they sung for it, is termed a new song, by way of Renown, or magnifying Reputation; as elsewhere the Scripture speaketh and meaneth by the same phrase of a new song, Psalm 33.3. and Psalm 44.4. You apply it (as if the Lamb and his company, or their victory and deliverance, were wronged and mistermed by some, as it were a new song) to me for vilifying or miscalling your Dipping, a new Business Thus, instead of a Leader of the world, (as you writ and would make me) against your emaning and will, you make me a follower of the Lamb; who though I bear a part in the singing of that glorious new song, yet still may and shall sing my old song and saying of your inglorious new Thing and Business, namely your late Dipping amongst us.  
See how soon you have profitted much in the school of one Tyrannus, Acts. 19.9. (so but the other day, you said and thought you were under the spirit of Bondage) and what is the virtue and efficacy of this your new Dipping, how quickly it hath made you a right and perfect Scribe, and taught you the art and skill and practice too of your master, which is to pervert Scripture, wresting it to your own ill intents and purposes, and worsting it against its own good meaning and sense.  
For all this that you have cited here, The accusation of a new thing may justly and manifestly still lie against you, for your dipping, whilst there goeth along with them and their conquering, the Revelation of a new song, or that new song of the Revelation. But I must remember, that I have entitled this, to be a word and work of Catechising the Dipper, as I have Instructed the Scribe: And instead of many Quaeres which I received, I shall give but these four Questions.  

1. Was not the person dipping a new thing?  
2. Persons dipped, a new thing.  
3. Place where, a new thing.  
4. And the very Dipping itself for the 

1. Action  
2. Manner   a new thing? If either of them be such, then let this be my first Catechistical Quaere to you, of the person Dipping, and tell me, or show me,   
Quaere 1. What warrant you have from any precept, or example in facred Scripture, or succeeding Primitive Antiquity, for one Lay-Breother (not Minister called or ordained) to be the Dipper or Bapitzer of another, or any?  
Paul indeed Baptised Crispus, and Gaius, and the household of Stephanas, 1 Cor. 1.14, 16.  
The same Paul baptised the jailor, and all his, and a certain woman named Lydia, Acts 16.14, 33.  
Peter baptised Cornelius and his household, Acts 10.48. So Ananias baptised Saul, Acts 9.18.  
Philip baptised the people of Samaria, and Simon the sercerer, Acts 8.12, 13. And the three thousand souls which were added unto the Church, were baptised by the twelve Apostles, with the assistance of the seventy two Disciples, Acts 2.38, 41. And so the Commission was given by Christ to the Apostles, as of Preaching, so of Baptising, Mat. 28.19, 20.  
And so it was from the beginning: The first Baptist was John, who baptised all them of Judea and Jerusalem, and Christ himself, and his Disciples.  
Now John I know, and Philip I know, and Ananias I know, and Paul I know, and Peter I know, and the twelve Apostles I know, and the seventy two Disciples I know, and the seven Deacons I know, that they were servants of the most High, sent and appointed of God, to show unto us the way of salvation, and to minister the holy Ordinances, Acts 16.17. Acts 10.15. But who are ye? Ye that go for Dippers?  
And whereas it is said, that Peter commanded them tob e baptised, it seems, that together with Peter, some other Brethren also present there, either assisted in bringing water, or (it may be) in pouring on water, or aspersing therewith, the household of Cernelius: but at the command and call of Peter, and God chief, who had baptised them before with the holy Spirit. Besides, they, the Brethren, were some such of the Disciples, who had before an ordinary calling to such like work; if not, here they had extraordinary to this in present.  
Thus John 1.25. the Pharisees (I wonder how the Scribes hypocrites kept off, for if, as usually they had been here joined, than you and yours had been here fetched in) in their scrupling at John, resolved the point, saying unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, nor that Prophet. And at the 33. verse John showeth his Authority, namely his Mission; He that sent me to baptise with water: The Baptist was of Gods sending; nay, when John's disciples came and told him, saying, Rabbi, He that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou barest witness, behold, the same baptizeth, and all men come to him. John answered and said, A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven, John 3.26, 27. So giving us a rule in general first: No man can (lawfully) baptise, except he be authorized from above, that is, sent of God. So at 34. ver. he applieth and expoundeth, in the particular of himself, as before, so here of Christ, He whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God. And thus the Author to the hebrews, Chap 5. ver. 4. giveth both the same Rule in general; No man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron: Also maketh the application in particular to Christ, ver. 5. So also Christ glirified not himself, to be made an high priest, but he that said, Thou art my son; he said also, Thou art a priest, etc. To circumcise was a ward of the Legal, and to baptise, of the Evangelical Keys; and they belonged only to the Priests and Apostles, and their successors in both admiministrations.  
So then, still I ask the Question, Who are ye, who take upon you (I hope not) to call over them which have evil spirits, the name of the Lord, (saying, We adjure you by Jesus, yet) to call over them whom ye think to have the holy Spirit, The name of the Father, the Son, and the holy Ghost, saying, We baptise you in the name of these.  
§. 1. Your answer is, They are Brethren set apart by fasting and prayer of the Church, to administer holy Ordinances. But if this would do it, that they are Brethren, and that they are set apart; why do ye not all, at times, become Dippers? for ye are all spearate Brethren, there is but one letter less (and as little literature) in a brother separate then, or as in a brother sot apart.  
And if truly set apart to administer holy Ordinances, why do they not give over, as in ordinary, their secular Trades and Laical Callings, and wholly or chief tend upon such Administrations unto which they are set apart: for so is both the precept and example of the word you so much pretend to. Separate me Barnabas and Sakl for the work whereunto I have called them, Acts 13.2. Give thyself wholly unto them, i.e. Reading, Doctrine, Exhortation, and the Gifts given thee, 1 Tim. 4.15. It is not meet we should leave the Word of God and serve Tables, Acts 6.2. and much less Stalls.  
§. 2. If set apart, by, or of whom I pray? by, and of the Church you say: and what Church do you mean? sure your own small private company of Believers; or be you a great public multitude of them. And now are you not again out of the good old way? yes sure; for Christ never gave unto such a Church, no not to the whole community of people Believers, as Believers, any such power and authority, to set apart a Brother or Brothers, to admi-ister the Ordinances of Christ, as Preaching, Baptising; but only to such as himself chose out of the Church and believers, to be Guides and Pastors of the same. So of old, Ephes. 4.11. He gave some Apostles, and seem Prophets, and some Evangelists, and some Pastors and Teachers, and it followeth, for the Church its perfecting and edifying, etc. (not to the Church to ordain and set apart) the Authority is Christ's to give, not the Believers. And Christ (of old too) gave the Keys and the power of them (one part whereof is this setting apart of persons to the administering of holy Ordinances) to Peter and the Apostles, as bearing the persons of the Pastors and Guides of the Church, Mat. 16.19. and not as representing the Church of Believers, (for then these also must have power to bind and lose in earth and heaven by Censures, John 20.23. as well as the Apostles and Pastors, and so women and children may come in for it, as Believers.)  
I could never see yet, that the Ministry of the separation, had any separation to the Ministry, just and right according to the good old way; only a kind of popular Democratical designation they have, but no authoritative or official Ordination, which is Aristocratical. But why do you not speak out to the full? Was he your brother set apart of the Church? i.e. yourselves the Brethren to administer the Ordinances of Christ and was he not also authorized to give Orders? (or do you mean these also orders by them Ordinances) how else will you be given to preaching, or be a gifted Preacher ere long, if not already? Nay, when your Church and the Brethren did set him apart to the Ministry, did not your Church and Brethren give him Orders and Ordination to the purpose, that so he might give back again to your Church, and any of the Brethren, Orders and Ordination; and so make yours a very orderly Church indeed, in running round in a ring until you be turnsick and giddyheaded. But enough of this, having spoken largely of it in the Instruction of the Scribe.  
§. 3. Set apart of the Church, but how I ask? You say by fasting and prayer, and this was all it seems. And why not also, by Laying on of Hands, according to the good old way, laid open and plain in the Text before cited, Acts 13.3. and tracked or traced by St. Paul, 1 Tim. 4.14, and 2 Tim. 1.6.  
Thus of old they, the holy Spirit, and the Apostles did set apart Brethren to the administering of the Ordinances, and this of old, namely the Laying on of Hands also, was a note of conferring ministerial power and authority, as a means also of procuring spiritual gifts and abilities. Now the things which god hath joined together (in the constitution and sending out of a Minister in holy Ordinances) let no man put asunder, or set apart Fasting, Prayer, and Laying on of hands: none do or will, but such as have a spirit of Division and Separation, an humour of Novelty and Innovation, and therefore I do not wonder at it in you. Besides, you had no hands to impose in such a business, they are too short to reach up, and to lay upon the head of a Brother, as to Commission or Ordain him, or set him apart, as from God, for the sacred administration of Baptism: you mouths shut up by fasting, and your hearts enlarged by prayer, may do well, as to commend and present him to God, for his blessing and confirmation of his graces, when such are rightly and duly set apart.  
§. 4. You have done now with your set apart Brother, but there is another matter yet to be done according to the old way; for they also in the 13. Acts 4. sent away Paul and Barnabas. And so Rom. 10.15. How shall or can they preach, or baptise, except they be sent. True St. Paul saith, Christ sent me not to baptise, 1 Cor. 1.17. (chief and primarily) but to preach; yet he baptised as well as preached and intimateth that Christ sent him to do both, as being conjunct parts of the Ministry, Mat. 28.19, 20. though distinct offices in themselves, and the one preeminent to the other, at leastwise in St. Paul.  
But now you were not in a capacity as to this sending out of a Brother to administer this or other public holy Ordinances; as he would not take this honour to himself, to be an Ambassador of Chri●●, so you and your Brethren could not give it unto him, and send him forth, for that you must be sent yourselves, before you can send others to go forth into the nations, Teaching and Baptising. So Christ himself, John 20.21. As my Father sent me, so send I you. In a word, was, or is your Brother's separation to administer Baptism, and other Ordinances, ordinary or extraordinary? If extraordinary, than your Church did nothing here, for that is neither of man nor by man; you did not then set apart: If ordinary, than your Church had nothing here to do, as which itself was never set apart, or sent out from Christ and his Authority to such purpose. This being not done as yet to you, or him, you may think what you will of your Creature, and admire your Feature; your Brother set apart Dipper, is still in the estate and condition as yourselves, and as before; he was for any thing you have done, a Brother, but no Minister; a Separate, no Set apart; a Dipper, but no Baptizer; a Lay Teacher, but no lawful Preacher.  
And I will tell you what Austin saith of such, and I will tell it you in Latin, because you understand it, Si Laicus Baptismum dederit, null â cogente necessitate, alieni muncris est usurpatio, lib. 2. contra Parmen. cap. 13. This I desire you to English to your Brother. And because perhaps you were enjoined before your dipping to renounce your Latin also as a profane thing, or else since your dipping, you may have drowned much of your Latin, or drained it from you, I will give you another saying of Tertullian in English, in his book of Baptism: To give Baptism, is in truth the Bishop's right, after him it belongeth to Priests and Deacons; but not to them without Authority from him received; for so the honour of the Church, which being kept, preserveth peace: were it not in this respect, the Laity might do the same all sorts might give, even as all sorts receive: But because emultation is the mother of Schisms, Let it content thee (which art of the order of Lay men) to do it in necessity, when the state of time, or place, or person thereunto compelleth; for them is their boldness privileged that help, when the circumstance of other men's dangers craveth it.  
Both these learned and pious Fathers yield, even to a Lay man, such a one as your Brother or yourself, to baptise, in a case or state of necessity; and one of them enlargeth it, To time, place, or persons: I shall but guests at the particular meanings of them, if I miss, let who can and will rectify me, I will thank him, for you (I know) cannot if you would  
1. The case of necessity in state of Time, is when the Christian party unbaptised is in present danger of death, and no lawful Minister at hand, or to be suddenly procured.  
2. The case of necessity in state of Place, is when Pagans are converted, and a Church there to be planted, and no ordained Minister amongst the Converters.  
3. The case of necessity in state of Person, I scarce understand, unless it be this, When as he or she earnestly desireth and imploreth for the same, whether by its speech, or its need, and there is no Minister to give it Baptism; here the Lord will have mercy and not sacrifice, and men are not to stand upon this ordination, but the persons salvation.  
Let but your Brother, or yourself, stay and expect such cases of necessity, before you, or he, dip any more, or baptise again, and then though you be not, nor he, set a part for the administering that Ordinance, but are mere Lay men, you shall hear nothing from me against the same. I assure you. But if in a well ordered, and already planted and constituted Church, and that when there are no such cases or states of necessity, but that lawfully ordained Ministers may easily be procured, you and your Brethren will go on still to dip and baptise, and that publicly, being no better ordered or set a part, than you have related, I shall say though again, Ye take too much upon you ye sons of Gad (for I shall not hold you of the Tribe of Levi, Num. 16.7.) or Issachar rather, couching down between two burdens, Genes. 49.14. your Laical and Ministerial Callings. And it shall come to pass as Zacharias saith, Zach. 13.4, 5. that such Prophets shall be ashamed every one of his vision, which he hath prophesied: (and every one of his Division that he hath made, and set a partition; yea, of his Dipping also that he hath ministered, and Baptisin) and he shall say (and confess at last) I am no Prophet, I am an Husbandman: for man taught me to keep  from my youth. God never ordained me to dip Christians from my birth.  
Distinctly, Take this a Presbyter or Priest, in respect of his Ministerial Character, and Order, I mean only a sacerdotal gift, power, and commission) is primarily and principlally the public and ordinary minister of Baptism: A Deacon may baptise also, and that publicly, so it be at the appointment of the Bishop or Priest, but a Priest by his own right may baptise ex officio, as we say, by virtue of his sacerdotal office, even in the presence of a Bishop.  
But a Layman, may not baptise publicly but only privately; neither privately in the presence of a Priest or Deacon, but only in their absence; neither always in their absence, but only in case of necessity. Then it hath been permitted (according to the good old way, and new way also of true Churches) some such times to Laymen to baptise, so he intent to do that, which the Catholic Church doth, in that kind of administration.  

The second Catechistical Quaere, is concerning the Persons Dipped.  
Quaere, 2. What warrant, of precept, or example have you, from the Sacred Word, or Prim tive Antiquity, for your Dipping and Anabaptizing Christians washed before; or members of the visible Church, baptised once in their Infancy by lawful Ministers; so as the two Women and Sisters were, whom your Brother Dipped?  
Ask now of the days that are past, which were before, since the day that God created man and woman upon Earth, and commanded circumcision in the eldest Church of the Jews, and appointed Baptism in the younger Church of the Gentiles: ask from the beginning to the end of both, whether there hath been any such thing as this, that a person circumcised or baptised in their infancy, were ever recircumcised or rebaptised, at growth, or yeras after, when they could render a Reason, or make confession of their Faith, etc. Instance in one if you can, and be instant upon it as you will, and is not then your dipping the formerly dipped, a new business?  
As for that example of Joshua, upon God's command (Circumcise again the children of Israel the second time) Jos. 5.2. This doth not intimate any Repetition or Reiteration of that Sacrament, in, or to the same particular Israelitish person circumcised, as if he should be now circumcised again; but only relates the Restauration and Renovation of that Sacrament unto the people of Israel in general, amongst whom Circumcision was a long while intermitted and discontinued, by reason of their frequeut, yea, continual journals and remove up and down, as the 4, 5, 6 Verses do evidence the same.  
As for that Acts 19.5. of St. Paul's practice, & the example of the Ephesian Disciples in the Acts, it is abundantly answered in my Instruction of your Scribe, to which I refer you, and I add this for a plainer and shorter Resolution for you, 1. That it maketh nothing for your Redipping, and Rebaptising.  
1. Because St. John's Baptism being there spoken of, and you or your Sect being Popish in your opinion of Rebaptising, and so holding from hence that the Baptism of John and Christ, are two different Baptisms, and that in the substance, and not only in the Degree of their signification and efficacy, Here was no iterat on of one and the same, but the ministration of a divers Baptism, and so is not to your or my purpose.  
2 For that there is no Baptism of water spoken of, much less there laid to be reiterated; (that the Ephesian Disciples had long before received from some of John's Disciples) but only the Baptism of Fire, i.e. of the Spirit and the miraculous gifts of the same, is there mentioned, which they confess they had not so much as heard of, namely, that they unsually as then, accompanied the other Baptism of water. And so that the former was that they were baptised with, and was poured upon them there, in the Name of Jesus, namely, the gifts of the holy Spirit which were miraculous.  
If you shall produce (as somewhat you must say for yourselves) the example of Saul, Cornelius and the Eunuch, baptised in their elder years upon their conversion to, and cofession of Christ: and the commands of God to Ananias, Peter and Philip, etc. to baptise them thereupon: All this, and as much more which you might have alleged of the same sort brings no advantage to your practice, no age, to your new business of Rebaptising the second time: for, that the mentioned above, were their first and only baptizings, they being some of them Pagans born, others, aliens from the Covenant of Christ, adverse and opposite to ignorant, at leastwise, of the Christian Faith, were then frist of all baptised, upon their embracing of it, and never after baptised again. No, not the Black Aethiopian amongst them, was ever dipped the second time, And what is all this, to your Redipping of two Women baptised before in their infancy, as being born Christians and within the Covenant of Grace and Christ? Yea more, if the Pope of Rome should come over into England and turn Protestant, or become one of your Sect, a separate; nor we would, nor should you (of right) baptise him again, having been baptised before rightly, as to the Element and Words of Institution.  
Therefore the Ancient Orthodox Church, never rebaptized Heretics themselves, upon their return and reversion to the Faith, (who were before baptised; nor the children of Professors, though baptised by Heretics, or heretical Ministers, if rightly according to the Ordinance) but rather condemned it, and pronounced it a Heresy to hold it, or to practise so, a Rebaptisation.  
For the Sacrament of the Eucharist, there is a Quotiescunque, & it should be received as oft of the same Person as may be conveniently, for that our growth and augmentation in grace, aught to be daily and continually, whereof the Eucharist is the Sacrament: But I never read of above a semel, of the Sacrament of Baptism, that it should be received above once, of the same person, because our Spiritual Birth and incision into Christ is but once, whereof Baptism is the Sacrament. The thing is acted but once, and therefore is signified but once.  
I acknowledge indeed that it is not where expressly written, that baptism should not be irerated and received the second time, so it's no where said, there are three Persons of the Deity, though the word (of persons) is no in sacred Writ, yet the will of God about the things signified by the Word, is revealed and expressed in the same. So, the Will of God, that baptism should not be iterated, and once baptised should not be rebaptized, or baptised the second time, appears partly out of what I have alleged.  
1. That Circumision was never iterated, none ever circumcised twice, and Baptism succeeds Circumcision.  
2. That there is mention made of an Iteration or often Receiving, the Lords Supper, but not a syllable of Intimation there or elsewhere, of the like of Baptism.  
3. That in the very Place and Scripture, where Christ instituted Baptism (which yet had been the very proper place for it) there is no order at all, for rebaptising, or iterating baptism.  
4. That among all the many examples of persons baptised, There is not one recorded to have been rebaptized, no not Simon the Sorcerer, nor Demas the Revolter, not one of the Cormthians; nor of the Galathians relapsed, but only were called upon to Return to the Grace of the Covenant (sealed in their first Baptism) by Repentance and Faith.  
I suppose the grand reason of your redipping and rebaptising in elder age is this, for that you hold your first dipping and baptising to be vain, Invalide, & frustrate, which was transacted in your infancy (for so one of your Sect told me the other day, that when he was a Child he was Christened, but he was then also but cozened.) As I warned him, so I wish you, to take heed unto your ways that you offend not in your tongue or thought, so, as in either of them to reproach the Living God, or blaspheme his holy and effectual Baptism, by thinking and calling this a Cozenage, and him a Mocker.  
Did God cousin the whole Church and People of Israel when he appointed and commanded their children even but of eitht days old to be circumcised? how then doth he cousin the Church and people of the Gentiles in our Infants baptised, seeing baptism is the Circumcision made without hands, Col. 2.11. Nay, seeing both Circumcision and Baptism are the signs, and seals of that one and the same Everlasting Covenant of Grace; they neither are, nor can be any cozenage or frustrate things, to the right Partakers of them (until they be frustrated by themselves, the Partakers, as by Esau was his birthright, and also his circumcision, and them God is rather mocked and cozened, than a Mocker and Cozener;) but they are valide and of force to the spiritual good ends and purposes of either; and therefore being rightly once imprinted, are of vigour and virtue, of frait and efficacy during life, and so long as the Covenant lasteth, which is everlasting; (as I said) and so need not to be repeated and reiterated, but are often to be revolved, and revived in our minds, memories and meditation and the Tenor of the Covenant daily to be studied and practised, and the Conditions thereof on our part to be observed and performed accordingly.  
Rather yourself, Sir, and your two Sisters were cozeded and cheated (and never so much in all your lives as) when you renounced that your first Christian Infant baptism, and received this your second novel youthful Dippism.  
Nor can that be any good reason of your redipping or rebaptising, your defect of Faith in the time of your Infancy, or since days of age, your Eccess of sins, such as have vacated the gracious Covenant and vitiated a good Conscience. For you must consider, that the Covenant is sealed in Baptism, or Baptism is added to the Covenant on God's part as well as man's: God promising there Grace and Eternal life, and man stipulating for Faith and new Obedience; Though therefore you might or did fly from the performance of your Promise, by Hypocrisy or Apostasy, and upon such default on your part lost your right and claim of eternal life; God notwithstanding stood and standeth still firm to his Promise on his part, as who never breaketh Covenant with any, nor ever loseth his right to any party baptised by any default made on his side.  
These things if they be true, as they are most true, God being not as man that be should change and alter, to what purpose was it, that you should or did ent●r anew, into a Covenant with God, and reiterate the seal thereof, Baptism, and so be rebaptised and redipped, which was but will-worship of yours, fruitless; and a tradit on of men, needless; no where commanded you of God, no where exemplified to you by the men of God, the Saints.  
This rather you should have done as that one and only necessary thing, you should have repent of your evil ways and works, and so have returned unto God, in Covenant already and still with you, sealed in your Infant-Baptism; (though forfeited on your part, yet not released on God's part) This you should have earnestly pleaded with God, confessing your sins, and by Faith firmly embracing it, through Christ your Advocate and Mediator; Thus you would have set your former Baptism on work, and yourself too in performing the conditions thereof, and so you should have recovered and received all the fruits and benefits of the Covenant of Grace, sealed to you by Baptism in your Infancy.  
This every where in Scripture do the Prophets call upon Covenant-breakers on their part, and his revolting and relapsed people, to repent and to return to their first Covenant with God, sealed in their Circumcision, not to any re-circumcision as you may see Jeremy 3.1, 12. Hos. 2.7. and 6.1.  
And so the Apostle calls to the Corinthians, and the Galathians who were far gone from God, yea fain from Grace, not to put off their old baptism and to put on a new; but to put off the old man, and to put on the new, to Repent of sin and to return to the Grace of the Covenant, & to perform the condition of their baptism, and to grow up in the fruits of the Spirit, minding them of their first baptism, that as many of them as were baptised into Christ have put on Christ, Galat. 3.27. 1 Cor. 6.11. such were some of you, but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, etc. see also Rom. 6.3, etc.  
The Husband who hath kept the marriage contract inviloable and undefiled in his part, and is willing to receive into bed and board a fornicating wife, requires, no new marriage or the solemnities thereof again, but her humiliation only and submission, with promise of better carriage after. God, who keepeth Covenant for ever, fast and indissoluble on his part, is also ever ready to admit into his Grace and Favor, all who have gone a whoring from him, only upon their repentance and sorrow, with resolves of reformation for time to come, and expects no new solemn Re-baptizings and Re-dippings into the Covenant: but I have spoken somewhat of this, in the Scribe instructed.  
I shall add to this point, but, a few words of the good old Fathers of the Church; and shall show by them that this your second baptism, or rebaptising, was & is none of their good old way.  
Some of them built their judgements against Rebaptisation, upon those Texts, Rom. 6.9. Heb. 9.28. wherein it's said, Christ died once for all, but once offered for sin: Hence Basil de Spirit usancto, Cap. 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. I English it for your sake, We know there is but one saving Baptism, for that there is but one Death for the world, and one Resurrection from the dead, of which Baptism is the Figure, Damasc. lib. 4. Orthod. sid. Cap. 10. hath almost the same words, as to the one Death.  
Augustine also de vera & falsa poens. Cap. 3. (if that be his Book) hath the same also, Semel Christus crucifixus est, & una morte suâ nos omnes redemit, quod videns Ecclesia, intellexit, non iterandum esse Baptisma. (Let the English before serve for this also.) Yea, Damascen calleth the Reiteration of Baptisin rightly collated, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as if rebaptisation, were a kind of Recrucifixion of Christ, others of them concluded against rebaptisation from John 13.10. He that is washed needeth not, save to wash his feet; but is clean every whit. Thus Augustine, lib. 11. de Baptismo contra Donat. cap. 14. Quid sit perniciosius, non baptizari an rebaptizari, judicare difficile est; Invenio de utraque Domini sententiam; nam & Petro dixit, qui lotus est non habet necessitatem iterum lavandi; & Nicodemo, nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aquâ & Spiritu, non intrabit in regnum coelorum: It is hard to judge whether of the two is more pernicious, not to be baptised at all, or to be again baptised. I find the Lords say of both, for he said to Peter, He that is washed needeth not, save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit. And to Nicodemus, unless a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of heaven, John 3.5. It seems St. Austin could not well tell, or would not, which of the two are the worst, an Abaptist or an Anabaptist.  
Ambrose also, lib. de iis qui initiantur mist. cap. 6. and Fulgentius de Fide ad Petrum, cap. 36. agree to the same interpretation of, and argumentation out of that place of John against Rebaptization; especially Fulgentius, whose words are, Ideò Baptisma, et si ab Haeretieis fuerit administratum, modò in nomine Patris, Filii, & Spiritus sancti fuerit factum, venerabiliter agnoscendum, & ab hoc, nullatenus iterandum esse, juxta dictum Christi semel lot us non indiget, nisi ut pedes lavet. I shall english this the rather to you, because it confirms a passage of mine before, which (perhaps) seemed strange, if not false to you: Therefore Baptism, although it were administered of Heretics, as long as it was done in the name of the Father, Son, and holy Spirit, is venerably to be acknowledged, and even for this, not to be repeated or reiterated, according to the saying of Christ, once washed, hath no need, save to wash his feet. Others of them concluded against Rebaptising from Ephes. 4.5. One Lord, one Faith, one Baptism. Thus Leo Papa, cited by Gratian decret, de censec. dist. 4. Canon non licet. And so Thom. Aquinas in 4. Sent. Distinct. 3. I shall only cite what the learned Hugo saith, Hac authoritate universi utuntur, All the Ancients make use of this Text and Authority, against second or double Baptism: quod enim unum est, geminari non potest: that which is but one, cannot be doubled and iterated, whether a man be baptised of a Catholic, or of a Heretic, as he also addeth; but no more of this, because there is somewhat of this unity of Baptism, in my Instruction or a Scribe.  
I know there be some of our Divines do not allow of these ancient Deductions and Argumentations from those Texts cited by them; which I believe they would have made good and firm, if they had been questioned in their times; and now others might do the same in their behalf. But this in present is only my business, to show their Judgements (not to maintain all their Arguments, by which they grounded them) I say, to show what their judgements about this your Redipping and Rebaptising, namely, that they are quite against it, and would not own it, as any of their good old ways; its evident, this was their strong and unanimons judgement, and therefore the (and very probably) confirmed it from the Scripture Dictates, mentioned and produced above.   

The third Catechistic. I Quoere, aebout the manner of this Dipping.  
Quaere 3. What warrant or command, or example, have you from the sacred Scriptures, or the succeeding Primitive Antiquity, for your dipping of persons in their clothes and vestments at your baptising them; so your two Sisters stripping themselves in a chamber, and putting on other, and others clothes, that so they might have their own dry against they came to the House again from the Pond; went into the Pond in their clothes, and there were dipped in their body, and clothes, (as you relate to me, and as you, or others instructed them) All this speaketh novelty, and nothing else but a new business, unheard in Scripture, unseen in Antiquity, and the Ancient Churches.  
For do your think that thd Eunuch, or Lydia, were thus, and in this manner baptised of Philip and Paul in the waters clothed, and with their garments upon them; and that to this purpose they went aside in private to shift themfelves of the suits they had on, and to put on others that they might have dry clothes ready, against they came out of the water with their wet ones: say not so, no, not in your thought, for the Scripture saith no such matter, no, nor suggesteth any such thing to thought. This being then silent here, succeeding Antiquity must be heard what they say, and you cannot refuse to do so, seeing in your dipping you plead it for the good old way, and reject my appeaching it for a new business.  
Now there, and then, when Baptism was performed by immersion or dipping, (yet I make some difference 'twixt the words as I shall show) they stripped their bodies of all their clothes, and went into the water stark naked, and were baptised naked, even as Adam and Eve created naked were in Paradise; as naked as ever they themselves were born into the world; as Christ was crucified on the cross, and as the bodies shall go to heaven or hell: (for by these patterns, the Ancients expressed the manner of it, and if you see any vail, or such like, about, or over the bodies of any of these at the time of baptising, it is the Painter's fancy, it was not theirs, the Ancients fashion.)  
I know you look for a proof of this old way, this naked truth, which I shall give you to the proof and reproof of your new business, of clothed or cloaked novelty.  
Cyril of Hier. Catech. Mystag. 11. saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. When ye went into the water, you put off your garments, as a token of the old man put off, etc. and so being naked, you were like Christ; who being naked, spoiled the powers and principalities: and it was a wonderful thing ye were naked, and were not ashamed as Adam. And so other Ancients of the Greek Church do testify the same, whom I forbear to cite; only I add Chrysostom Homil. 6. upon Col. 2. because he addeth the mystical of this putting off the garment at baptism, to be the putting off the old man: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And Elias Cretensis upon the 4. Oration of Nazianzen, because he makes an addition of certain officers and helpers appointed to undress them, and take off the garments of those that were to be immerged or baptised, & to dress them, and to put them on again afterwards. Ad sacerdotem quidem is adducitur, qui spirituali regeneratione donandus est, ipse autem, & pedes ejus adhibita ministrorum eorum qui ad hoc constituti sunt operâ, calceis nudat, & corpus universum detegit. And for the ancient Latin Church, Ambrose testifieth the Custom, and urgeth from it against the covetous persons, saying, Thy mother brought thee forth naked, when thou camest into the world; the Church (thy mother too) received thee naked when thou camest to the Laver, and wouldst. thou go clothed and rich to Heaven? I will transcribe the very words of Ambrose in his own eloquent language, Ideò nudi in saeculo nascimur, nudi etiam accedimus ad lavachrum, ut nudi qucque & expediti ad coeli januam properemus: quam autem incongruum & absurdum est, ut quem nudum mater genuit, nudum suscipit Ecclesia, dives intrare velit in coelum, etc. And because I may have occasion anon, and again, to make use of it, I will also set down Anselmus his witness and words upon the third Chapter of Matthew, where twice he saith it; amongst the reasons he giveth of Christ being baptised, this was one, and another this, That none should disdain to be baptised of his inferior, (as he was of John) That none should be ashamed to be naked or denudated in the sight of men, (as he was before John, and the rest of the company there baptised.) Plures causae quare Christus ad baptismum accessit, primò ut exemplo nos invitaret, nequis fortè in conspectu hominum denud●●i erubescerit, etc. It seems by this testimony of Anselm, that Christ himself, as all those baptised of John, were baptised naked.  
If you think all this to make nothing against your new business, because they speak of men's dipping, and yours was of women's dipping, I shall therefore (because I see you mind not that of St. Paul, that in Christ Jesus now there is neither male nor female, no discrimination of sexes, as to the Gospel ordinances) show you the same old way, in use for women also; so Chrysostom in his Epistle to Pope Innocent relateth, that women also were baptised and immerged naked: for there he relateth unto that Pope, how, when Theophilus a Bishop of Alexandria had raised a tumult for the ejecting of himself out of the Church, this, amongst other things, fell out, That the women who were there in the Church, and had stripped themselves naked, as prepared for Baptism, upon the noise, and for fear of this sudden and cruel commotion, ran away naked out of the Church; and through fear, had no time and leisure to provide for the shamefacedness and modesty of that sex, by putting on their clothes again. I add somewhat to the words, but nothing to the sense of Chrysostom. And he also relateth, that there were women appointed of purpose by the Church (not to shift off the better clothes in a chamber, and put on worse to be dipped in, as your course is) to accompany them to the water, and there to take off their clothes, and so also for the more decency, and that nothing of immodesty might appear or be occasioned, the women were baptised naked by themselves apart from men, (as the men apart by themselves naked.) To which also Epiphanius attesteth, Haeres. 79. and Augustine 22. Book of the city of God, 8. Chap. for Augustine there speaks the part foeminarum ad Baptisterium, a certain part and place about the Fonts, or where the women stood apart from the men ready to be baptised: like as Epiphanius doth of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. an order of Deaconesses appointed for the safeguarding of the women's modesty and shamefacedness, to undress them at Baptism. And Cyril also in the place aforesaid. The which Custom held on until Beruards time, who was made a Monk in the year 1110. in whose days that old way was put by, because of some scandal and offences were given or taken, through haughtiness and wickedness on the one or other side, which the innocency and honesty of the former Ages kept off and prevented.  
By this time, Sir, I hope you see, that your dipping of women in their clothes, is a new business in the Church, and hath no print or footsteps to be seen in the old way, or amongst the ancient Writers and Fathers of the former Churches. Yea, this your clothes-dipping also, is so new a thing, that not much above fourteen or fifteen years ago, your predecessors, and primer Anabiptists, the Virgins of Zion, and the precious Sons of the same, the Proselytes of those days, did in the Evening resort and run together, and went naked into the Rivers, their Jordan, and were there dipped and plunged in their naked bodies (without clothes on them) by their John-Dippers, or Dipper- john's.  
I cannot deny, but that Infants also, as well as grown persons, were, according to the old way, undressed, or taken out of their clothes, and were baptised and dipped naked, and presently clothed again, and so carried to the Bishop to be confirmed, as Gregory the Great acknowledgeth in his Sacramentary, in which is set down the order of baptising Infants: To which I shall add the Testimony of another, one Alcuine or Albine, by name, who lived in the Year 780. and so 220. years after the aforesaid Gregory; and the rather I do, because he was an English man, born in Yorkshire, (and, it may be, thereupon called the other name Albine, of Albion) he was the scholar of our venerable Bede, and the schoolmaster also (as friend and familiar) to Charles the Great; by whose advice, Charles the Great founded the University of Paris, and appointed four principal Heads and Precedents thereof, Rabanus, Alcuinus, Claudius, Johannes Scotus, all the Scholars of our Beda: (so much is France beholding to England for their Learning and learned men) but to the purpose, the words of Alcuine are Postquam vestiti fuerint Infants (he is speaking of Infants after they had been baptised naked) deportantur ante Pontificem ad confirmand●m; who sat in a seat fixed somewhere in the Church, or in Sacrario, the Chancel or Vestry, for the same purpose; whereby I conceive, it was at the solemn times of Baptism, twice in the year, Easter and Whitsuntide, an evideut Testimony, both for Infant-baptism, and also for Infants baptised naked. And it is true also that the old and late Liturgy of our Church of England mentioneth the Ministers taking the child to be baptised, into his arms, & naming it, shall (as the Rubric hath it) dip it in the water, so it be discreetly and warily done, but whether in the , or out of the , it is not expressed. In present I think, and so shall, until I be better informed, that our Church meant a dipping of the Infant out of the , and therein owned the Antiquity of the practice; but yet shown her authority in things of such nature, for that she addeth, if the child be weak, it shall suffice to pour water upon it, so indulging the health and welfare thereof: (and what child is not weak, in these our Northern cold Climates?) though not contradicting Antiquity which did so dip children naked in those Eastern warmer Countries, where they might more safely do it; I am sure she meant not your new way of dipping in the  over head and ears, and the whole body. What if she meant the dipping of the naked face only, or the naked forehead, and head also in the water, by such as hold still to the dipping there mentioned? so doing, as it crosseth not the Antiquity for the reason I gave but now, so it favoureth not your novelty for the reasons I have given against the same all this while.  
By this time you may see and hear how your dipping and baptising bodies in their , in a new business, and none of the old way. I remember Justin Martyr in dial. ad Tryph. gives the Pharisees, that peculiar term and epithet, of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, because of their washing so many things, as cups, pots, vessels and tables, us are mentioned Mark 7.4. But these are civil or superstitious washings, or ceremonial. Your Scribes surpass these Pharisees, in dipping of  and all, in their baptising and washings, which are Eclesiastical, religious, and even moral with them, and therefore may more justly be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, dippers or washers, and in this sense, John's the Baptists. I do look when you shall fall from this novelty in this Sacrament of Baptism, to such another novelty in the other Sacrament, and when you break bread, give it into your proselytes hands with their gloves on. I omit to open unto the Reader, the packet of these other frivolous if not scurrilous Rites and Ceremonies which were used at this your dipping, some whereof you relate, and others, (for modesty I suppose) you silence, but are talked of by the spectators, as ridiculous and infamous. I question them not at all, for they were all such, questionless, only this I question, How men of such sincerity only, should be thus full of ceremony also, and wonder also how you, who hate in others, innocent and significant ceremonies in ministerial celebrations, and abominate them, as the abomination of desolation, throwing them away as the rags, and patches of Popery, and rending them off, as the fringes and laces of the whore, should now be so far in love of them as to cloth and adorn your Dippal administrations in such offensive and senseless Rites, and Ritual dresses, so that your brother may be better called a master of Ceremonies than a Minister of Ordinances.  
This one thing I shall question here, why your brother was so quick of his words, and so slow at his work? for so it seems by the narration (which is your relation) that he spoke the words according to the institution; I baptise thee in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the holy Ghost, before he dipped them in the water, though but immediately before, The which I take to be another novelty, if not more, some vanity be not in it.  
For our English Liturgy, consonant to the ancient Liturgies of the Churches, doth otherwise and better practise & direct: where (as the Rubric hath it) the Minister naming the child, shall dip it in the water, saying, I baptise thee, etc. And I conceive there is good reason for it, that the dipping into, or sprinkling with water, and the pronouncing the words of administration I baptise, etc. should be done in one and the same instant of time, as two conjunct Acts, (and not one before the other) because the sign and the thing signified are two correlate parts, and go together, not one before the other. If either may go immediately & instantly before the other, It is the dipping, before the words, as our Liturgy hath it, (Dip it in the water, saying) and not the words before the dipping as your Tympany doth it, (he spoke the words, before he dipped) nay, there is not verity or truth in it to say the words, I baptise, etc. before the party be in the water, or the water upon the party.  
But your Dippers' tongue, dipped and tipped (it may be) aforehand for the better keeping out of the cold of water, did run so fast, in the pronouncing the words of institutution (too fast indeed, as which did run before it was sent, and spoke before the Lord opened the mouth of the man, Numb. 22.28.) that his hands, having taken such fast hold of the sisters by their clothes about the shoulders and loath to let it go, or put them out of his sight, till needs must, he forgot the work & action of dipping them, & putting them under the water at the same time, or before the speaking of the words of Institution: And so I may say, as the Comedian doth, in a like dipping and tripping, Neque lingua neque manus suum faciebant officium, I may put in neque pedes (as the Comedian doth) for his feet ran too fast to the Pond, aswel as his tongue ran too fast in the Pond.   

The Fourth Catechistical Quaere, is about the place where the Dipping was done.  
Q. 4. What warrant have you of precept, or example of sacred Scripture, or succeeding primitive Antiquity, for your dipping of your Sisters & other your Proselytes, in Ponds at your Baptising. This to be done, I understand from all present there. It was your modesty and humility not to make any Relation or mention of it, for that it was your own Pond of your yard, and so not to glory of it, that the Dipper should make choice of your Pond, your common & ordinary pond, where your Ducks and Geese do wash themselves daily, to honour, it with a solemn dipping of two special Sisters therein at their Baptism.  
I speak not this, as if I took exception to common and ordinary water, used in Baptism; yea, I acknowledge that God therefore also made choice of the vulgar and common Elementary water to set forth, as the purifying and cleansing of souls from sin, by the blood of Christ (which water that washeth doth well represent) so the general offer and benefit of the grace of Christ thereby to all, rich and poor, even the meanest and vulgars' (which the commonness and copiousness of water, every where to be had, doth also intimate.) And therefore that question about the necessity of water unto baptism, so that in decay and defect thereof, there can be no Baptism in wine, or milk, or other liquor, needed not either to have been first raised, or after so hotly pursued by Hunnius and his party, for that water is so common a liquor as every where to be had, and at all times, as there will be no need (nor hath been that ever I read) of running out for wine, or other liquor to minister the same in Baptism. Yea, and so long as water may be had, wine or other liquor is not to be used out of a luxury of pride, or pride of luxury, lest they be called Vinarii, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of us, winy and windy men too, like as some, who used water instead of wine in the Lord's Supper, when this might also be had under a pretence of abstinence, but not abstinence of pretence, were called by the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Aquarii, watery and washy Heretics, as Augustine witnesseth, Haeres. 64.  
But yet this I add, that if there be such an invincible want and unavoidable scarcity and privation of water for Baptism, and wine for the Lords Supper, so as to water can be procured, but only wine may be had, where baptism cannot with edification, and ought not in duty, to be delayed; so also no wine can be gotten, but only water, where the Lords Supper cannot with edification, and ought not in duty to be delayed, there the one may be supplied by the other in each Sacrament; the water by wine in baptism, and the wine by water in the Lord's Supper. And if there be no affectation of novelty in either, no contempt of either of the elements, no neglect of inquisition or acquisition of the proper element to either, I suppose, there can be no charge of Heresy, or breach of institution, in such administrations, where the peculiar and proper common elements (as I may so call them) of wine and water, proper to the Lords Supper, and commonly in use, proper to Baptism, and commonly in use, cannot be had and procured, where such administrations ought to be done and performed.  
If any shall here ask what need all this, seeing water is every where to be had for baptism, and also wine for the Lords Supper, I answer, either, is not so every where to be had, and therefore it is not a needless discourse; for there is no use of wine in America, where there where brethren that wrote to Calvin hereabouts, as Beza in his 25 epistle relateth; and there are besides a sort who were, & are, & so called, Abstemious, who cannot endure the very smell or least taste of wine, but they will swoon away, as we speak, and fall down for dead; what shall these be done to? They must either not receive the Lords Supper at all, which they cannot well answer, if they ask not for it, nor we, if we deny it them; or else we must give it, and they receive it but in one kind, (for neither can they away with it, if diluted and mixed with water) and then we shall do as the Papists would have us, and Bellarmine propoundeth, as the wise way of the Roman Church, to heal up this inconvenience, namely, the withholding of the Cup from such people, (lib. 4. de Sacr. cap. 24.) And how and if the Priest also should be so Abstemious? its readily replied, none of these are ever taken with such a disease.  
What remains then, but that they must and may take this Sacrament in water, or other drink, usual and familiar unto them; like as Philip Malancthon tells the Ruthins, that they may do well to take the same in their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or ordinary Mede, for the scarcity of wine amongst them, lib. de usu integri sacramenti.  
And if there had been no water in that Desert where the Eunuch was converted, and earnestly desired Baptism, (as in many deserts there is none) and he had said, See here is wine in my chariot (in stead of) See here is water, what doth hinder me to be baptised, I doubt not but Philip would have baptised him therein, and the absence of water would not have hindered it, but the providence of God disposed it otherwise, and better too, there.  
Lastly, I should not have touched upon this discourse, but that I find Hunnius, and Bellarmine, and another Jesuit, Jacobus Gualterius, coarsely handling Calvin, Beza, Melancthon hereabouts, whom I ought to defend in the way of truth, as being three great Lights of the Protestant Religion. To let the first of these alone, Hunnius; the third I named Gualterius, calleth this a Diabolical mutation of the Eucharistical matter, lib. 1. Tabulae Chronol. The second, Bellarmine, roundly asketh, Quis dedit Philippo authoritatem mutandi sacramentorum materiam? somewhat like my Scribe and Pharisee; By what authority dost thou these things, and who gave thee this authority? (he speaketh of Philip Melancthon) I answer, Christ gave it unto him, and the other two, (in the cases mentioned) and that upon good reason. For a good reason hereof may be given, that this being the mind and meaning of our Saviour Christ, by setting forth the signs of those things by which our bodies are washed and cherished (as the water and wine) thereby to present our spiritual ablution and augmentation by his blood, we do no way swerve or go from that his mind and meaning, if without any wantonness of innovating in the want of the one, we substitute another, as wine for water in baptism, or water for wine in the Lord's Supper, or any other common and ordinary liquor that may have, though not an equal, yet alike analogy, of washing and nourishing spiritually.  
By which may be put back what the aforesaid Hunnius objecteth, (as that we have no word of institution, none for substitution, and whatsoever is not of faith is sin) all which are blunted, by our keeping still to the mind and meaning, purpose and intention of Christ, as to the end and use of the elements in general, though the particular elements themselves cannot be procured. And whereas he puts a man so baptised under some perplexity of conscience and under the temptation of Satan (for I will instance but in that) (see you are not baptised with water, but with some other liquor which was neither sanctified by any Word of God, to this use of washing away sin, neither hath it any such promise in Scripture adjoined thereto) he may be taken out of the same tentation, by this answer of a good conscience; That water was sought out for, and none could be gotten, and he was in danger and extremity of life, and in distress and want of Christ, and his blood to wash his sins away. There being some wine in a vessel in the house, a Minister affecting no innovation, but his good and salvation, and the sacramental application of Christ's washing blood for his further confirmation and consignation which he so earnestly desired, took wine (when he could have no water) and poured of it upon him, using the words I baptise thee in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the holy Ghost, and so he may hope, ye doubt not, but God hath accepted of him as rightly baptised and interressed in Christ. If it be said, what analogy in the Lord's Supper is there of water to wine, seeing this is made up of many bunches of grapes; or in baptism, of wine to water, seeing this hath a virtue to wash and cleanse: I reply, such particular analogies (though they may be profitably thought of where the proper Elements to each Sacrament may be possibly gotten, which are not negligently to be omitted, yet are they not so precisely to be urged, and strictly pressed the one against the other, in the times of the scarcity of each (Though if so, I can say, That the water also is made up of many drops of Rain, and the wine hath also a washing and cleansing virtue) It is sufficient that there is here a general analogy for the testifying of our mutual Communion and spiritual ablution, as here is, in that we use the same kind of symbols, as drink (and meat also) and washing, which are common and usual amongst us, in defect of the proper and special, and specially in that we hold one and the same faith in, conjunction with, and sanctification by one Christ and Saviour. If indeed, though in a case of exigency and scarcity of water, any should substitute or use such a matter as hath no power at all in itself to wash or cleanse off the filth of the body, & so not to signify the blood of Christ which cleanseth from the guilt of sin, it were to be disallowed, as that Baptismus Arenarius spoken of by Nicephorus, lib. 3. cap. ult. how that a young man of the Hebrews being desperately sick and calling for baptism, in want of water was superfused with sand, and miraculously recovered immediately; whom notwithstanding the Bishop of Ascalonia being consulted with thereabouts, sent away unto Jordan to be truly baptised; the former baptism, being indeed as the house in the Gospel, built upon the sand and could not stand. I know no History of a sandy Supper of the Lord, as I may so speak, to parallel with that sandy baptism, as it was called, unless it be that sucacoena, that dry Communion and Supper the Popish Priests do give to their people; for they also as to the one material part of this sacrament, give them not that which doth and should represent the blood of Christ, and satisfy their thirst, as who give them no wine, nothing at all instead of it; and is it not all one, to give them nothing, and to give them that which doth not, nor can signify the blood, and satisfy the thirst; I am sure nothing doth neither  
But why do I thus enlarge I return to you and your Pond water. And here again I must tell you, it was a new business, for the ancient manner of the Church in the purest times was to baptise, as out of the Church, so in Wells and Rivers, Floods and Fountains, so Walafridus Strabo saith in the 26 Chapter of Ecclesiastical things; For thus Christ and all the other multitudes of people were baptised of John in the river Jordan, as is expressly said by the Evangelists, two of them, Matth. 3.13. and 6. Mark 1.5, 9 and where it is said, John baptised in water, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Beza noteth that Jordan is meant in that Story, wheresoever it's mentioned in the singular number, as there Matth. 3.11. And whereas John 3.32. John was also baptising in Aenon, near to Salim, because there was much water there, either Jordan overflowed hither also, and these were other rivers about Aroer, and and by the river Arnon mentioned in the Books of Moses oft, and meant here by the many waters, like as Acts 8.36. they came to a certain water, and the Eunuch said, See here is water, thereby is meant the river Eleutheras, lying without the borders of Egypt, where Philip overtook or found the Eunuch, and baptised him, saith our learned Beza, Yea, and that Text, Acts 16.13, and 15. that Lydia and her household were baptised by a River's side, of the Apostle St. Paul.  
Now tell me who of old, as old the Gospel & as the Acts of the Apostles was ever baptised, or (as you speak) dipped in a Pond? True in the 5 of John there is mention made of a Pond or Pool (Stagnum, a standing or penned up water) whereinto whosoever, after the moving or troubling the water by an Angel descending, stepped in first, was made whole of whatsoever disease he had; but this being a special Pond of water, extraordinarily assisted of God, and miraculously, for medicinal cures of bodily diseases, maketh nothing for Ponds generally and ordinarily appointed, and mysteriously used for baptismal washing of spiritual sins of the soul: Where is now your zeal for Scripture examples, and patterns, that you so much pretend to make show of? How are you still taken tardy in those defaults (as you make them in us) of humane inventions? is this your conformity to the Word, is it not rather your difformity from it, and its precedents? and so indeed this people have committed two evils, you have forsaken the clear Fontains and Rivers, and Well-springs, and have sought out muddy Ponds, Pools, and Well-springs, and have sought out muddy Ponds, Pools, and standing waters to dip your proselytes in, and so leaving the Scripture examples, embrace your own inventions: we ourselves do not therefore baptise, no not in Rivers or Fountains, nor do we press the same  
For such examples are not (we know) left upon the record of Scriptures for our imitation; but for our learning, Rom. 15.14. Yea, we find the custom of baptising in Rivers and Springs, used by John the Baptist, and practised also by Philip, to have been altered and left by other the Disciples and Apostles. Peter therefore baptised, or if not Peter himself, those that accompanied Peter thither, or some Disciples he met there, (because it's said, Peter commanded them of Cornelius house to be baptised, and no man is said properly to command himself) Baptised them within the doors, and did not remove thence, they and all the company to the next Rivers or Fountains. Yea, and Paul (though he had but lately, Acts 16.13, and 15. baptised Lydia and her household at a River's side, a place where prayer was wont to be made, as also preaching, and whither women resorted, and whither came Lydia with her household, who, the Lord opening her heart, attending to what Paul said, was converted, and so, being at this time by the River's side, was baptised there occasionally) in the same Chapter 33, 34. Verses baptised the Jailor and all his, in the prisonhouse, occasionally also, because he was there, and in that place converted to the faith: the words themselves do evince the same. The Jailor took Paul and Silas, the same hour (it was midnight) and washed their stripes, and was baptised, he, and all his straightway, and therefore the Disciplse lead them not out to the next Rivers & Fountains, it was no time & season to do it at midnight, and his being baptised straightway, the same hour, showeth that there was no stay made until next morning, to have it done in any such place; and the like is to be thought of all those other persons and their households whom St. Paul is said to have baptised, namely, in their houses, and not in Rivers and Fountains. Likewise (which I should have mentioned first) Ananias baptised Saul in the house where he found him, sitting in sorrow for his persecution, and in amazement about his vision in the way, though now blind: so the series of the Text showeth it, Ananias went his way, entered into the house where Saul was, put his hands upon him, and immediately the scales fell from his eyes, and he received his sight forthwith, arose and was baptised, namely, in the place and house where he was, Acts 9.19. Afterwards in process of time, the Church of God, left off going to Rivers as for baptism, and ordained large vessels for the same purpose, called Baptisteria with the Latins, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with the Greeks, and with us, as with them also, Ambrose and others, Fonts, or Founts; though at first these were placed without the Church or Temple, but with a house also over the same, and that for the honour of the Christian Religion, and the more decent celebration of that mystery thereof, so Cyril in his first Catech. and Paulinus in his 12 Epistle to Severas, and Nazianzen in his 40. Oration. And there was at first but one of these in a City placed nigh unto the Basilica or greatest Church, wherein all, rich and poor were baptised; like as it is still observed and to be seen in Florence, Parma, Bononia, and other Cities of Italy. And one thing more of Antiquity I will acquaint you, and some others with, that both Constantine the Great, Emperor, and Professor too, in the year 300 after Christ, or thereabouts, made one himself, a costly Font for baptising, and willed others to do the like, whose outside was of Marble, or Porphyry, and the inside of pure silver, which I repeat to tax the nigardise or prophanenesses of these latter ages, wherein men who yet are great professors, put off the same Sacrament of baptism, with an earthen Basin, or a pewter one atthe best, in most places.  
And so a little after for good causes, they remmoved their Fonts or Baptisteries, into the very Churches, and placed them (as they were with us) next the porch or entrance of the same as Gregor. Turonensis witnesseth, lib. 2. hist. cap. 21. so called, because he was Bishop of Turon in France in the year 573. who testifieth this amongst the Histories of France, which he wrote, and so also doth the Decretal distinct. 4. cap. 106. For good causes saith Turonensis, best known to themselves, which because he could not, or would not relate, being in a history (and that removal of the Fonts was of mystery) this may be one, that the word, and the first seal of entrance, which is baptism, as well as the second seal, of continuance, and perseverance, which is the Eucharist, might be both administered within the Church, for more order, decency, and conveniency sake.  
Now all this I have added to show how your Pond-baptism, is a new business, not only as to Apostolic customs, but to the Primitive fashions, and all successive practices; yea, as to your own original Authors and Scismarches, of whom I told you before, who ran not to Ponds but to Rivers to be dipped.  
Not that I make any difference of waters, as to the material of baptism, or the effectual thereof, whether it be Pond-water, or Rivere-water, or Well-water, as who hold with Tert. in his book of Baptism, ca 1.12. Nulla est distinctio, mari quis aut stagno, flumine aut fonte, lacu aut alueo diluatur, & I give you this reason, because in the water of all those places, there is, and rests the Analogy, which each of them being true, natural, and elementary water, hath with the blood and Spirit of Christ, purging and cleansing from sin. And because Christ by his Example (as Chrysostom homil. 25. in John.) by his Mandate, Word, and Authority, hath sanctified all water as well as Jordan. But it is that which I have said of your Pond-dipping only to these purposes.  
First to convince you of a new business, who talk so much of your good old way, of which, that is none, but the River-dipping, and other, was that.  
Secondly to take you tardy in following Scripture and primitive Examples, which you pretend so much to, as who do forsake the River-dipping, and go to the Pond.  
Thirdly, to tell you that as there is no discrimination in waters to choose of, for baptismal-uses and benefits, so there was (hark you, Sir, in your ear) little or no discretion in you and yours to make choice, of a commond Pond or Weyr to dip your two new converted holy Sisters in, wherein Horses, Cowes, Swine, Geese, Ducks, do daily duck and pick themselves, wallow and drench themselves, and do somewhat else besides: Though they (as you thought it seems, and shown indeed) deserved no better a pond of water to be dipped in; wherein you were like to those in James, who had their faith in respect of persons, who sa●d but to the poor in vile raiment, stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool, dip thou here in my horse-pond: yet you being about a work of the Lords appointing, as you pretended, namely, a dipping, & naming it baptism (this indeed is the work of the Lord) it merited one of your best, clearest, and purest water-ponds, to do the Lords work in, otherwise you make the baptism of the Lord despicable, by your choosing a foul, muddy, horse-cow-hog-pond for dipping, as they in Malachy, who made the Table of the Lord contemptible, by their offering to him the blind, and the lame, and the sick for sacrifice, Mal. 1.7, 8. If you think of no better than pond-water, and such water-ponds, instead of Riverwater or Fountain, for their dipping in at the first Sacrament, your poor proselytes may be afraid, that you will set forth the brown-loaf to them instead of white-bread for their feeding, at the next Sacrament: for this people who knoweth not the Law, are cursed, in comparison of themselves (say the blessed Scribes and Pharisees.   

The fift Chatechistical Quaere, is about the Action itself, of the Dipping.  
Quaere 5. What warrant have you of precept, or example from sacred Scripture, or the succeeding primitive Antiquity, for your dipping or immerging the bodies, over head and ears of these Sisters and others, whom you presume to baptise as your proselytes.  
If I would be a critic upon words I could tell you, that your word of Dipping falls short and cometh not home to the word of Immerging: for all dipping is not immerging, though all immerging be dipping. That all dipping is not immerging, See Mat. 26.23. He that dippeth (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) his hand with me in the dish, shall betray me I think you will not say, that he immerged his hand, and thrust it, or put it into, and under the sauce there, over back and palm, up to the wrist: besides, Dipping may be of a part of the body, whereas usually immerging is spoken of the whole body: That dipping may be of a part, you see by the former Text of the hand, yea, of a part of the hand, so you may see Luke 16.24. That he may dip (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue.  
It is true, there is something of baptism in them both, in Dipping and immerging, because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth both; yet both together (if so be you can make them agree together) are at odds with baptism, and go not even with it in the language of the Scripture or latitude of the Word, for some things are said there to be baptised, which were neither dipped nor immerged, as the children of Israel were baptised unto Moses in the cloud, and in the sea, 1 Cor. 10.2. but neither dipped or immerged in them, of which more anon, and some things are said to be dipped and immerged, which are not baptised: This you confess in your Letter, and give me a very homely instance, that you may dip your dog, but not baptise him.  
Yea, some Schoolmen, as Hallensis and Gabriel deny it to be the Sacrament or Baptism, if it be said, Ego te mergo, I dip or immerge; and they give this reason, because those words are not Synonimal with the word I Baptise thee; baptism not signifying every dipping or immersion, but only that sacred one: but in reverence of Antiquity, and in respect had to the Ancient Fathers of the Church, who in the point of baptism so speak of them, as one and the same, I yield tinction or dipping, and immersion to be one and the same likewise in this matter: for so Tertul. lib. de Coro. militis translateth and readeth these words, Ite, docete omnes nationes Tingentes eas; and so likewise do others of the Latin Fathers, which showeth that with them Tingo, as also Immergo, doth both signify the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
But yet I shall not yield it to the exclusion of our sprinkling, and aspersion or perfusion, but that this also is included in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, if not also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for which (letting Lexicons and Grammarians rest) I will produce Nicephorus, Narrat. Lib. Cap. 3. where speaking of Novatus, how that after, or upon great sickness, converted, he desired to be baptised; Aquam petiit, quâ in lecto ipso, ita uti decumbebat, perfusus, baptizat●s scilicet est; siquidem Tinctionem hujusmodi Baptismum vocari licet; where you see that the three words, Tinction, Perfusion and Baptism are all one, and both perfusion and tinction are called Baptism. This Nicephorus lived in the year 1330. above 300. years since.  
But I have undertaken to be rather a censurer of your work, than a Critic of words. And yet before I pass from this, I must not so much Criticise as Catechise you about the word of baptising, which some of your Learned in the Greek tongue (though most of you are professing and professed against both learning and languages) do urge for your dipping and immerging Baptism, for so they derive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which signifieth to dip and immerge, and hence conclude, that the dipping and immerging Baptism is the true and only Baptism, as derived from dipping.  
1. But first, How if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth also (as it doth also) signify to Wash, then doth it not fetch in with it, our sprinkling and aspeising Baptism, or rather the pouring on, or laying on of water with the hand, and gently rubbing the face or forehead therewith?  
Yea, and the word signifieth also to Dye, (as well as to dip or wash) and intimateth that changing of the Hue or Colour (as I may so call it) which is in Baptism, and which is alluded to, in Isay 1.16. Wash ye, make ye clean, put away the evil of your doing, and then at the 18. v. Though your sins be as scarlet, and red as Crimson, they shall be as wool, and white as snow: For whereas in our natural estate, we are deep Died, in sins and transgressions, as scarlet and crimson, and as the Aethiopian, have contracted a black skin upon our souls, which we cannot change, and are as full of black spots as the Leopard, which we cannot put off by any of the powers of nature, Jer. 13.23. when we are baptised into Christ, we do put on Christ, that pure and immaculate Lamb, who spreadeth over us the white Fleece of his innocency and righteousness; and therewith, as with a white garment, covereth all our black deformities, and so (which is strange) being dipped in his blood, we are died white i.e. innocent as in the sight and acceptation of God; which was signified of old, by putting presently a white garment upon the party baptised, of which Ambrose speaketh, Lib. de iis qui initiantur mist. Cap, 7. Accepisti post haec vestimenta candida, ut esset indicium, quod exueris involucrum peccatorum, & indueris innocentiae c. sta velamina, de quibus dixit propheta, Asperges me, Domine, Hyssop, & mundabor, lavabis me, & super nivem de●lbalor. And so the same Gregory Turonensis (whom I cited before) Lib. 5. Hist. Cap, 11. Renatusque Deo per Baptismi Sacramentum cum Albatis reliquis & ipse procedit; and a little after, Albicabat tota civitas de Grege candido. I add also the testimony of our Countryman Rabanus Maurus, one of Beda, his Scholars, who, Lib. 1. de Instit. cler. Cap. 29. P●st Baptismum traditur Christiano vestis Candida, designans innocentiam & puritatem Christianam, quam p●st ablutas veteres maculas studio sanctae conversationis immaculatam servare debet ad presentandum ante Tribunal Christi. I think I may as well heap to myself Testimonies, and have herein an itching hand, writing for the good of others (you being indocible herein) as there be some that heap to themselves Teachers, having itching ears, hearing too little good of themselves. Lactantius de Resur. Dominicae die; speaking to Christ, 
Rex sacer, ecce tui, radiat pars magna Trophaei  
Cum puras Animas Sacra lavachra beant  
Candidus egreditur nitidis exercitus undis  
Atque vetus vitium purgat in amne novo.   
1. This testimony I the rather add, because of its antiquity; for Lactantius lived in the 310 year from the Nativity of Christ, and speaketh of the clear and white waters of the Rivers used in Baptism, to confirm what I said before hereof; like as another doth of Fountain or Fonts, Paulinus by name.  
Ind parens sacro ducit de Fonte sacerdos  
Infants niveos, corpore, cord, habitu.  
So Paulus Diaconus, who wrote in the year 790. Lib. 6. Hist. Longobard. Cap. 15. maketh mention (for which cause I also make mention of him and his testimony) of one Codratus, King of the Anglosaxons, who was baptised at Rome, of Sergius the first, Pope there, in the year 690. and by him named Peter, and that he died, being in his white Garments; and that was within the seven days or weeks after he was baptised: For of old they were baptised at Easter (a solemn time appointed for the Catechumen to be baptised in, after their instructions and preparations certain days before) and so arrayed in the same white garments, for seven or eight days, they appeared all upon the Sunday following Easter-day, which thereupon was called with them Dominica in Albis, as both Rabanus in his 2 Lib. de Instit. Cle●. Cap. 30. and Augustine in Serm. ad competentes, a very white Sunday, though in our English called Low-Sunday, It might be a second Palm-Sunday, being both Ensigns, as of Innocency, so victory. The which Feast of Easter lasted with them, until Pentecost, therefore called with us Whit-sunday or White-Sunday also, because they then also appeared together in their white ; after which, namely, the Lords day after, their white garments were taken off, for which purpose it was called Pascha clausum, or the Feast of Easter finished or shut up, as Alcuinus in Epistolaad Carolum Magnum & in Hebdomada Pentecostes.  
In imitation of this, the Papists do even yet continue to put a white handkerchief, or other white linen vestment upon, or about the head of the baptised and anointed Infant, by which they signify both the glory of the Resurrection, as also the splendour and whiteness, or brightness of the soul, the black and foul spots of sins being washed off; and lastly, that the baptised must so long as he liveth, keep and preserve its purity and innocency; and so in a manner, and upon the matter, I have given you in English, the substance of all the Latin before, lest thou should traduce me also for a Papist, for writing thus to you in an unknown tongue.  
But I leave now this digression, occasioned from the third signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is (as I have said) to Die, even to die white as wool and snow, the crimson and scarlet sins of such as being born therein, come to be baptised. And so I conclude my first answer to your, or rather others, objection, the which answer is briefly this, That your dipping or immerging cannot be the true and only baptism, because (as they say) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is derived from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which signifieth to dip or immerge: for that I say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth also to Wash, and also to Die, and where there are three significations as three branches of a Primogenial or Radical word, it followeth not, but is a great nonsequitur or inconsequence, that the word derived, as Baptism here, should be confined to, and concluded in the one, namely dipping; when as it may be, and must be, enlarged and extended to the other also, washing and dying.  
Secondly, in words, when from them arguments are drawn, you must consider to what use and purpose the words are brought, and not so much, or only from what root and original they are fetched: for howsoever most an end, I acknowledge the Primitive and Radical word is of a greater latitude, and larger extent, then that which is branched and derived from it; yet it is often otherwise, or sometimes at least, as in some trees, whose branches do exceed the root in extension; and as in man, who is Arbor inversa, whose arms and legs do spread wider and farther than the head and hair.  
Our Divines do instance in two Derivative words, Catechising and Prophesying whereof the first, namely Catechising, according to the use of the Scripture, spreads now as far as to the teaching of men of riper years by any way of writing, or preaching, or conference, as is to be seen, Luk. 1.4. Acts 18.25. Acts 21.24. 1 Cor. 14.19. yet is derived from a word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a sound, or such a sound as an Echo yieldeth, and properly and originally is but such an instruction as is of children or Novices in the Elements and Rudiments of Religion, by a lively voice of Question and Answer, sounding and resounding like the Echo.  
So the second, namely, Prophesying, according to the use of the Scriptures, spreadeth now farther than the root or word whence it is derived; for whereas this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, signifieth properly and radically, but to foretell things to come, and reveal matters to be hereafter fulfilled; that now is extended to the declaring of things also past, done, and already fulfilled, as in those well known places of Saint Paul, 1 Cor. 11.4. and 1 Cor. 14.13, 31.  
So thirdly (to come to our business in hand) Baptising, though it may be, and is derived from the radical word before mentioned, which signifieth dipping and immerging into, and under water; yet, it is of a larger signification than so, and is extended in general to many kinds of washings and lavering, rinsings and cleansings, even where there is no dipping or immerging at all; and this also according to the use and language of the Scriptures.  
I shall give you some particular instances and inductions, as I have in part already, and so shall a little exercise your patience, and mine own too, according to the rule given me, being apt to teach you, patiented, in meekness instructing you, if peradventure God will give repentance to the acknowledging of the truth, 2 Tim. 2.24, 25.  
1. The children of Israel are said to be all baptised unto Moses in the cloud, and in the sea, 1 Cor. 10.2. (the Red sea being an antitype of the Waters of Baptism, and the cloudy pillar an antitype of the Spirit) yet were they not dipped in the cloud; dashed they might be, and wetted with the cloud, and some showers or drops falling from it, as they passed under it, going before them and behind them at times, as Exod. 14.22. but dipped or immerged in, or into it, you will not say, I suppose, nor can you say (I think) that the Israelites were dipped in or under the waters of the Red Sea, as which were a wall unto them, both on the right hand and on the left, so that they walked dry foot, and dry shod through the same; sprinkled they might be, and washed a little with some droppings, and aspersions from the walls, but dipped and immerged they were not in them, and yet baptised.  
I the rather and at first instance in this, because the Apostle doth himself call this a figure or example of our Baptism, at the 6. and 10. verses; for as in that passage of the Israelites through the Red Sea, they were preserved, and their enemies the Egyptians drowned; so by our undergoing and partaking of Baptism, the water whereof representeth the blood of Christ to us; our fouls are saved, and our enemies, sin and our natural corruption, are enfeebled and overthrown; so, as remitted unto us thereby, it cannot have dominion, or bring damnation.  
2. Our Saviour asketh the two ambitious Suitors, Can ye be baptised with the baptism that I am baptised with? and foretelleth them, With the Baptism that I am baptised with, shall ye be baptised, Mark 10.38, 39 What did he mean, that either himself or those two Apostles should be dipped all over in blood and immerged therein? no, rather, but that they should be sprinkled with the drops thereof, and besmeared with the same; so himself, Though blood trickled down his head, by the pricking of the Thorns, and blood ran down his back, by the cuttings of the scourge, and blood issued out with water out of his side, by the piercings of the spear, and blood fell out of his hands and feet, by the wounding of the spikes and nails; sprinkled he might be, and aspersed in body, and so was with blood, but dipped and immerged he was not, and yet baptised with the baptism thereof: and as for the two Brothers, James, was killed of Herod with the sword, Act. 12.2. and so he was baptised in blood, but not dipped in it; and John was banished by Domitian into the Isle of Patmos, in the 90 year of the Nativity of Christ (which was, as every persecution is, a kind of such baptism as is here meant by our Saviour) where he endured Exile nine or ten years, and there wrote the Revelation to the Churches, but being after released by Trajanus, he returned to Ephesus, and there wrote his Gospel, and there died in the 100 year after the Nativity, he only amongst all the Apostles (being the Survivor of them all) siccâ morte & sine sanguine as some say, though Augustine; Libro Soliloq. Cap. 29. Tom. 9 hath these words, Veneni poculum Johanues intrepidus potavit. He was forced to drink a cup of poison, but he saith not that he died thereof; so if he were not baptised with the baptism that Christ was, he drank of the cup which Christ did, and foretold he should die also, in the same Text.  
3. John the Baptist told the people that He who came after him, meaning Christ, should baptise them with the Holy Ghost and with fire, Mat. 3.11. and Christ himself foretold the Apostles, they should be baptised with the Holy Ghost not many days hence, Acts 1.5. and so they were on the day of Pentecost following, when there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and sat upon each of them, and they were all filled with the holy Ghost, Acts 2.3, 4. thus were they baptised with fire and the holy Ghost; but not dipped or immerged in that fire, but rather aspersed or superfused, according to the phrase of Scripture, I will pour out my spirit, Joel 2.28. and the spirit was shed abundantly, Titus 3.6.  
I could tell you of more baptizings (for so the word is in the original) of Cups, Tables, and Beds, as they are mentioned in the Evangelist, Mark 7.4. The which howsoever they may fit you well, as being Pharisaical and Hypocritical; and me also, as wherein there was no dipping or immerging, but only washing and rubbing, I pass by for brevity sake, as also that which the Fathers call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 called since the Baptism of Repentance, in which they were not merged or drowned in tears; that's but a metaphorical phrase to show an abundance of their weeping, but only sprinkled and perfused with tears, by which they did seek and desire the remission of their sins, and also found and obtained the same.  
4. I will add but one more, 1 Cor. 15.29. Else what shall they do which are baptised for the dead? whether it be taken passively, according to the translation, for those who were baptised with water, for dead, i.e. given over for dead, or ready to die, or whether Actively and Passively, for those who did baptise, and also were baptised, over the dead, (i) upon the graves of the dead, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being oft, as here put for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as learned Beza observeth upon Mat. 17.27. and Mark 10.48. or whether it be meant, who are washed for dead, their dead bodies are washed, according to the custom of the Patriarches, as yet then retained in the Church, and mentioned to be done unto Dorcas, Acts 9.37. who being dead they washed and laid in an upper chamber; which way soever that Baptising with water be meant, it cannot imply any dipping or immerging, as being unto dying persons, or unto persons baptised over graves, or unto dead bodies.  
And thus I have showed you, that there may be baptizings, where there are no dippings and immerging, and that this derivative 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is of a larger signification than its original 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as to the general, and therefore that it can be no Argument to prove your dipping to be the baptising, because baptism is a derivative word from the root 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, signifying to dip. And so I come now to the very particular work in hand, and shall take it not only in the Grammatical and Theological sense, but in the very Sacramental and Mystical meaning, the properly baptising with water, In the Name of the Father, and the Son, and the holy Ghost, so as John the Baptist, Peter, and Paul, and Philip, and the Deacons, and the 72 Disciples gave and ministered its; so as Jerusalem and all Judea round about Jordan, Christ and the Apostles, the 3000. the 5000. the Eunuch, Lydia, the Jailor, and the several households gave it, and received, and partaked of it.  
It is confessed on both sides, that the former baptised, and the later were baptised, both according to the good old way, and in the right and true manner. The which, whether it was by Dipping and Immerging the body into, and under the water, or only sprinkling and asperling, or laying on, and pouring the water upon some part, that is the question: for whereas the two mothers strove about the living child, whose of the two the child should be; here the two children, dipping and sprinkling, which I may call the twins of Rebecca, or the Churches two manners of baptising strive whose of the two the mother, Baptism, shall be.  
The Church of England hath been now of a long time, time out of mind, mind of any man living, in firm possession of baptism, and practice of it, by sprinkling, or 〈◊〉 on of water upon the face and forehead, and gently washing and rubbing the same therewith, and pronouncing the word of Institution, In the name, etc. it is your part to bring the Writ of Ejection, a word, or the Examples of the word sufficient to dispossess and eject us out of our baptism, and to invest yourself into the same, by showing your better title and plea of dipping and immerging the whole body in or under the water.  
All that you can, and therefore do produce for your dipping and immerging, that ever I could read of, are (besides that derivation of the word, baptism, from an original word, that so signifieth) the three examples of John the Baptist, Philip, and Paul baptising, our Saviour Christ, the Ethiopian Eunuch, and Lydia.  
But for that argument, drawn from the derivation of the word Baptism, you have heard enough already, and I pray let me hear no more of it, as not being of force, or to the purpose, unless you can show, that so it is always used in the Gospel, and that wheresoever baptism was ministered, there was dipping and immerging into, and under the water, otherwise, words are of value, as money is, according to the esteem of men, and the use of the time Nummus à 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and as the Poet hath it— 
— Si volet usus .. i.e.) consuetudo loquendi,  
Quem penes arbitrium est & jus & norma loquendi.   
Both of which derivation, and use or value of the word, are for the aspersion and perfusion of water upon a part, to be understood by baptism, aswel (if not better) in sacred Writ, then for immmersion or dipping of the whole body; yea, the word in its proper and genuine signification (as well as in its derivation, as I have showed) importeth but an ablution and washing with water, which is ordinarily practised and performed in our good and old way of baptising, and which doth not necessarily infer or enforce your new business of dipping and immerging in, and under the water, the whole body  and all. But for your examples of Scripture, (for precept there is none in the Word, Go and Baptism, for the dipping.)  
I will set down what the Texts have, and in order as the Evangelists report of John's baptising Christ, Matth. 3.16. and straightway coming up out of the water, He (i.e.) John, saw the Heavens opened, and the Spirit like a Dove descending upon him, Luke 3.21, saith only, that he being baptised and praying, the Heavens were opened; so of Philip's baptising the Eunuch, Acts 8.38. They went down both into the water, both Philip and the Eunuch, and he baptised him.  
So of Paul's baptising Lydia, Acts 16.13, and 15. On the Sabbath he went out of the City, by a River's side where prayer was wont to be made, there Lydia hearing Paul preaching, and attending, was baptised.  
All this that I hear, is Text, but where is that that is for your Tenet of dipping and immerging? why do you not press it, and argue from hence, any of, or all of the three Texts? nay where is any intimation that any of these persons were dipped and immerged in any of these Rivers?  
If you say, there, where it is said, that Christ descended into the water, I must tell you, that's no where expressly set down, but only by consequence, because it is said, He went up straightway out of the water (I pray hereafter, you and your brethren, love good consequences better, and stand not always upon verbal expressions of the Scriptures for every thing.) It is indeed said of the Eunuch expressly, That he went down into the water at his baptising; but of Lydia neither of both is said, but only that she was amongst the rest, and that she was baptised by the River's side.  
But what of Christ's descending down into the waters? If I shall argue for you, and conclude hence it is only this, that therefore it was not now Harvest time, when John Baptised Christ and others, for Jordan overfloweth all his banks in the time of Harvest, Jos. 3.15. than they could not have either gone down into, or have come up out of Jordan: But you shall argue for yourself, and conclude hence, if you will or can (for I neither will nor can.) Therefore Christ's body was all over dipped and immerged in Jordan, under water, over head and ears as you say, that followeth not thence; Therefore also in his  tied about him as you do, nor that.  
More probably, if he was so dipped, it was in his naked body, and out of , as before I alleged the opinion and saying of Anselme; but most likely, John did but either dip the head of Christ, bending it downward and forward into the water (not backward as you do the whole body) or else with one or both his hands did pour water upon his head (as he stood in Jordan) which ran down and wetted his body; and so for any thing I can see to the contrary, John did baptise in the like manner and way, all those other that came unto him. And thus also Philip baptised the Eunuch in the River or Water; and thus Paul baptised Lydia by the River's side. And so this cometh up near to our manner and way, and so it will prove at last, the good old way at first. But did not John baptise in Aenon, near to Salim, because there was much water John 3.23. water enough as you think, to dip and immerge all the bodies over head and ears; this is but your vain collection: look about the Text, and you may see the drift and purpose of that, How that there went out to him Jerusalem and all Judea, and all the Region round about Jordan, and were baptised of him. Much water was requisite for such multitudes, though but to lay and pour some upon every one, or to sprinkle and asperse them all therewith.  
Again, if he dipped and immerged them over head and ears, in their whole bodies, clothed as you do, or unclothed, it must have been a tedious, toilsome, and over-burthensome work for one John Baptist, to have taken them fast by the  or shoulders, and to have laid them down backward in the waters, and to have lifted them up again out of the waters, being now more heavy in their drenched garments, and to have set them upon their feet again, surely John the Baptist would soon have been spent that way, or had needed many other Baptists under him, half a score of such dippers as your Brother is, to have assisted him daily and continually, to have dispatched such multitudes as daily and continually resorted to him. Amongst which great multitudes, that came continually unto him from all quarters of Jerusalem, and Judea, and other Regions about, I cannot but think that many sickly, and weakly, and diseased persons hearing of the great fame of such a Prophet as John the Baptist was, who not only preached the doctrine of Repentance, and of the Messiah come, or shortly to come, but baptised into Remission of sin through the same, came flocking to him, or were led or brought by others, as desirous to partake of so great a blessing and mercy before they departed the world, like as Mat. 4.24, 25. And now can you think or imagine that Joh● when he baptised such, would dip or immerge them under water, over head and ears, thereby to endanger their lives, and in the curing their souls of sin, to destroy their bodies of life; when as with more safety to them, and to as much efficacy he might only asperse or sprinkle them with water, or lay it on with his hand upon some part of their body, or head rather. If farther you add, that it is said in the original, that John baptised, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in water, which he could not do unless he stood and dipped them in water; Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of him? I am sure you could not say it of yourself, who know nothing of the original but your sin; (if that); and therefore for those others that told you so of him, tell them from me, that it is right enough translated and rendered to their hand if they can take it, with water, that Greek particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 very often signifieth, and is put for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, with or by, and that in the Gospel, as Mat. 26.52. they that take the sword shall perish 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by or with the sword, and so Luke 22.49. Lord shall we smite, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by or with the sword, etc.  
But to draw up, if John the Baptist was in the River of Jordan with the people that came to him, how was it possible for him to stand there in the cold water, all the day, and every day dipping and immerging their whole bodies in and under the water? and if he was out of the water upon the brink or bank of Jordan, how was it possible for him, to dip and immerge with his hands, the whole bodies of those and so many as came to be baptised? For whereas it may be replied, that John came straightway up also out of the water; and therefore he stood in the water and baptised there, Mark 1.10. if the words of straightway coming up out of the waters, refer not to Christ, but to John, then it's spoken of John, that he did so after the baptising of Christ only. At the baptising of others as they came and went away, John stirred not from them, but discoursing many things of Repentance, and Faith in the Messiah to come, both whilst he was baptising them, & afterwards; and so before they departed out from him, he inculcated to them of the Faith & of the Fruits of Baptism, as Mat. 3.8, 9, 10 there is the sum of his instructions to the people set down, which because (as he knew) Christ had no need of, therefore as soon as he had baptised him, he straightway came forth with Christ out of the water, and the rather to see the Heavens opening, and the Spirit descending upon him like a dove; and so further to instruct the people thereupon.  
Again, if the people baptised, were dipped and immerged with their  on their bodies, it was the more heavy, too heavy a work to be done by one; if with their  off, the multitudes coming consisting of men and women, & some (doubtless) weak and sickly, it was too dangerous a work to be done & too immodest a spectacle to be caused, or endured, by that holy and reverend Prophet of God. Hereupon my opinion is clear to myself (but with a Salvo to the naked immersions of the whole body by the Ancients, cited only by me, to disprove the clothed dippings of Anabaptists to be the old way) yet not so stiff, but that it is ready to bend & yield to the spirit of the Prophets upon better evidence given, that Christ & the people baptised of Joh. came indeed to the River Jordan, and into it some little way, it may be, or abode in the brink thereof, the people confessing their sins, & so John the Baptist from his hands taking up water, poured it upon their heads, or sprinkled and aspersed it upon their heads or faces.  
The which manner of baptising by aspersing or infusing of water, doth yet plainer appear unto me out of the 2 Acts 41. Then they that gladly received his word were baptised, and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. What do you think of these three thousand baptised in one day? were they dipped and immerged so many bodies, in one day, by Peter and the Apostles? how could they, if they had been together in, or at a River? but where they were, gathered together in the City and in one place thereof, there was neither River nor Fontain, nor Wells, nor Ponds, to be dipped and immerged in, in their whole bodies, neither is there any fyllable of their removing or going out of the City to Rivers or Ponds, and how then could they be so many baptised there, but as I said, by aspersing water upon them, or pouring water upon their heads: the very place, and the persons, the multitude of those who were to be baptised, and the paucity of those who did baptise, do plainly evidence, that the 3000 were not dipped, but aspersed only, at that great and first baptising after Christ's Ascension.  
No, nor Lydia, and her household though by a River side abroad, when she was converted and baptised, was dipped and immerged in her , or out of her cloath●; and so much less those other households, of grown persons and professors, baptised in private by the Apostles, as of Cornelius, Stephanas, etc. these, or any of these cannot be said or thought to be dipped and merged under water, in their whole bodies, clothed or naked, without great inconveniences, difficulties, improbabilities, if not impossibilities, all which are, and may be avoided by the other way of baptising.  
And thus, Sir, you may see and feel too, unless you will run into darkness in the day time, & grope in the noonday, as in the night, that there is no footing or bottom in any River or Pond in Scripture for your dipping and immerging baptism. How dare you then cry this up as the only good old way of baptising, and determine that, and decree it so to be, even the very practice of John the Baptist, and the very Acts of the Apostles, and the mind of the Spirit, when as it never seemed good to the holy Ghost, and to them, to lay upon us no greater burden than the necessary things. of which, your immersion and dipping is none, I am sure, a burden indeed, but not necessary thing, sure if there had been, or were any such necessity, or but conveniency thereof, to the perfecting and completing baptism, as that without it, baptism should not be true and right as of old, the wind that bloweth where it listeth, and the spirit that breatheth where it pleaseth, would in some place or other of the Gospel have blown and breathed out unto us something of it; nay rather, hereof is a very great silence of your dipping and immerging, though much speech and practice of baptising. Christ saith as elsewhere to the wind, peace and be still, and the spirit rather holds in its breath, no words here are made, no circumstances are given, no consequences are to be drawn out for this dipping & diving, putting off or on of , laying or lying down in the waters of ponds as is used by you at your baptising. But I shall now tell you, that the wind bloweth fair, and the spirit breatheth strongly and sweetly, and that of old too, for our sprinkling and aspersing Baptism; and I perceive this sound from heaven will come suddenly upon you, (before you looked for it) as of a mighty rushing wind, and I wish it may fill all the house where you and your Brethren are sitting, and that you would take them, the Texts I mean, into your considerations, (unless they be all spent and sent away to me in your Brother's Letter, wherein he gave me so many considerations.)  

1. Now of these Texts, 1. Some are Typical, as all those in the Pentateuch, especially, which speaks of the sprinkling of the blood of the sacrifices, as Levit. 16.14. The Priest shall take the blood of the Bullock, and shall sprinkle it before the Mercy-Seat.  
2. Some are Prophetical, and allude unto Baptism, as that of Ezek. 36.25. Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean from all your filthiness; by the which, I mean the thing signified, in and by the Baptismal-water, even the cleansing blood of Christ, the which David aimed at, when he said also, Wash me from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin, and I shall be whiter than snow, Psal. 51.2, 7.  
3. Some other Texts are Mystical and represent it, as Heb. 10.22. & 12.24. ye are come to Jesus the Mediator of the New Covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things then that of Abel; and again, Let us draw nigh with a true heart in full assurance, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water. Here is mention of sprinkling, and washing, with a reflection upon the pure water, or baptism; the which another Text showeth, 1 Pet. 3.21. where he nameth Baptism, where having spoken of the eight souls saved by water in the Ark, He saith, The like Figure whereunto, even Baptism doth now also save us, by the resurrection of Christ; so then, like as the Ark saved Noah and his family by water, so doth Baptism save us by water, by being washed and sprinkled therewith, as they were in the Ark; for so the Apostle specifieth, and hath no words of dipping or immerging, as not conducing to the salvation of them, or of the Ark itself, which may be a fifth Text or instance, where that is said to be baptised, which was not dipped or immerged.  
Again 4ly. 1 Pet. 1.2. the Apostle there mentioneth the sanctification of the spirit unto obedience, and the sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ, as the inward grace, and thing signified, of the outward sign and water in Baptism. Now wherefore in all these, or the most of these places, doth the Spirit of God set forth the manner of application of Christ's blood, and the spiritual grace by the sprinkling it upon us, but to intimate the way and manner of ministration of the Baptismal-water, the sign and seal thereof to be by the springling and aspersing it upon us.   
Had you Sir, but such a Quaternion of Soldiers, as it is called, Acts 12.4. four such militant Texts to stand up and fight for your dipping and immerging, yea, or but an Union, one such Text, I mean, in all the Bible, that did but carry the colours, or bear up an Ensign, a sign, or but the name of dipping (as they do of sprinkling) how would you glory and triumph as the Philistines did when they had gotten Samson into their hands; how would you call your friends and neighbours, your Brethren and Sisters together, especially the two last dipped, saying, Come rejoice with me, for I have found the piece that was lost, a Text for our dipping that was at a loss. But it is so still, and you are at a loss for it, and may be at alas also for it! you may go light up a candle, and sweep or sweat too, and seek diligently, and yet not find a piece of Scripture, one Text for your dipping and immerging into, and under the water, like as I have found out fair texts and pieces of Scripture for our sprinkling and perfusion of water in the time and act of baptising.  
For as for that Text and piece of Scripture, Rom. 6.3, 4. & Col. 2.12. (which are both one) that we are buried with Christ in Baptism, wherein also we are risen with him; I know some, do descant and discourse hereout, of Immersion into, Immoration under, and Emersion out of the water of baptism, but the Plain Song in this (as in other) Scripture is this only, that through baptism, being truly engrafted into Christ, and made one with him, we are made partakers of the merit and efficacy of his death, and burial, and resurrection (for these are included in that) to kill and mortify, bury and abolish sin and natural corruption in us.  
Though I add also this, that such representation and operation of the death, burial, and Resurrection of Christ, and of us sinners after his example, is not then at baptism required of us, as which is accidental to baptism, or secondarily essential; neither is it primarily nor properly, the inward grace signified by baptism; but the ablution and washing of the soul, and cleansing it from the guilt and filth of sin in that Laver of Regeneration, is principally intended, and primarily essential to baptism; like as the putting away the filthiness of the flesh, by cutting off the foreskin, was to circumcision.  
And lastly, if it were so, the burial and Resurrection of Christ, the main thing in baptism, yet shall we not need to infer hence, or to introduce hither the Rite of immerging and emerging, which is your total dipping, as which is resembled as well and better in our manner of aspersion and effusion of water upon the party, though but upon a part, for when water is poured upon, or is laid upon the head of the adult standing on his feet, or kneeling on his knees, as likewise upon the face of the child, lying in the Arms of the Minister, or the Parent or other presenting it, are they not the while, as it were, buried in, or do they not lie under the water, as the buried doth under the earth? and so the party may be said to arise as it were, when it comes or goeth from the water, as the body doth from the earth, or the Ministers dipping his hand into the water, and plucking it out when he layeth it on, may it not have the same signification with immerging and emerging, and so of the Burial and Resurrection of Christ? And I think I may say, our Church, in giving liberty of dipping or immerging and emerging of Infants (if not weak) did it not so much from authority of this or any other Scripture, as in conformity to some of the Ancient Christians and Fathers of the Church, in this custom, as in other lawful Rites they practised, to which and whom I now come.  
Only I shall give but a tender and gentle touch of one thing that floweth more naturally, or rather more mystically from the afore-alledged Texts. That if the baptised, his being buried with Christ in baptism, be represented and signified by the lying and abiding of the water upon the face or forehead, as a part of the body, and so the body in that part thereof, its lying and abiding under the water, even sprinkled and poured upon it: Then sure it is not advisedly and conveniently done by Gentlewomen and tender Midwives, to wipe off the water from the part, and absterge it with a handkerchief as soon as it is laid on by a Minister, or by turning the head of the Infant (whom I speak for, that cannot speak for itself) presently downward, to cause the water to fall off it, upon the ground. In all the History of Baptism, from the beginning of it in Jordan and Rivers to the present being of it in Fonts or Vessels; I do not read of such a word spoken, or such a work done, as absterging or wiping off water in Baptism; no not then, when there seemed more occasion for it, as when the adult, and likewise Infants were immerged all over their naked bodies in the water at Baptism: nor then, when presently after it, they went or were carried to be anointed (as they were) either all over their bodies, as in the Greek Churches (so Cyril. Catech. Mystag. 11. & chrysost Homil. 6. in Col. witness) or in their foreheads and breasts, and between the shoulders; (so Epiphanius, Haeres. 79. Rabanus de Instit. Cler. l. 1. c. 23. affirm.) Therefore learned Vossius, doth justly censure the Translator of the Apostolical Constitutions of Clemens (as they are called) for rendering those words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lib. 3. Cap. 15. Thus, deinde Diaconissa eas abstergit, for the word is, and signifieth anointeth, not abstergeth; and the work was, the Deaconess anointed them, not absterged them after baptism. The truth is, they neither absterged or wiped off water after their Baptism, or oil after their unction, and so such a custom hath no ground either in Equity or Antiquity.  
True it is also, that this our Westernly Northern Climate is colder much than those Easternly Southern, and our waters therefore are colder, and our Infants tenderer, and our Mothers more indulgent, and our Midwives are more adventurous; but our Ministers are descreet, not to pour on much water, and that they do, to hold it some while in their hand to the warming of it, and gently to rub and wash the face of the Infant with such warm hand and warmed water: and God is ever merciful, at his Ordinances and Sacraments especially, so that I never heard of any child that ever sickened, much less died, upon a cold taken at Baptism: In a word (and a word also is enough to a wise woman) The wiping of the Baptismal-water from the child's face, as soon as it is laid or poured on, is (so far as lieth in her) the taking off and avoiding (I will not say a frustrating and evacuating) of the sign and seal as soon as it is laid on, as to that signification, and sigillation, of the parties being buried with Christ in baptism, as which only the abiding and remaining of the water upon the body or bodily part (and it's lying and centinuing under the water) doth resemble and represent. But I return to you Sir, and shall now proceed to farther discussing of your dipping and our sprinkling, by Antiquity to show which is the good old way.  
I or it may be when you wrote me word, that your dipping was older than our sprinkling or pouring on of water, and that it was the good old way, you had some squint-eye upon Antiquity of the second hand, (for the Scripture is the Antiquity of the first hand, the very good old way itself) for that your right or direct eye, could see little or nothing in the Scripture, for your dipping and immerging.  
And I am glad to meet you here again, in this your good old way, hoping that by your looking upward to Antiquity, and the ancient Customs of the Churches of God, you may ere long, lay down your Novelties, and the yesterday fashions of your new Brotherhood. And to say the truth, whither else can you now go, being beaten out of your holds you thought you had, and those firm ones (as you had thought) in Scripture for your dipping and immerging, and finding (at leastwise now) no ground or footing in any Pond there, no not River for your Dippers and Immergers to stand in and baptise; whither I say can you go; but (need of it, more than zeal to it, driving you) to the next Antiquity, which succeeding, and some of them seeing the Canon of Scripture consummated and consigned by St. John the Revelationist, as Evangelist, and so living and dwelling next to those starry times of the Apostles, and those Sunshining days of Christ Jesus, can best discover, relate, and traject their light, they being the next neighbours to the same, borrowed and participated from them. But to the point.  
I acknowledge that some of the Ancients, (yea many of them) did use to dip and immerge at, and in their baptizings, and because it lieth upon your hand to prove it, let the learned of your side take it in hand to transcribe and produce such ancient Authors and their Testimonies: I had as live they should spend the time, and lose their labour when they have done, as myself; for so they will, neither will it be of any advantage to you and your dipping and immerging, being far different as to the Ancients, their dipping and immerging, as I have before touched in part, and now shall fully handle. For  
1. I have showed how the Ancients dipped and immerged in Rivers and Fountains, and Wells, and Fonts, or Baptisteries (made so wide and big of purpose) but you, especially of the later brood of the Separation, run out into Ponds to do the same.  
2. They, the Ancients dipped, the whole bodies of those who were baptised, naked and out of the , such was the Candid Innocency & honesty of the old times, and for other reasons I have given: but you do dip your converts and proselytes, covered and in their , for no reasons given by you, that I hear of, unless it be fear, lest Satan tempt you to incontinency, as these last ages are very naught indeed and wicked. And yet I know, some of the Ancients dipped & immerged but a part of the body in the water, this is not yet touched upon, and it will make somewhat for what I have said before, of sprinkling and pouring the water upon the head of the baptised. Augustine in his 4. Homil saith (and so he is cited of Gratian. decret. de consec. distinc. 4. cap. 66. Postquam vos credere promisistis, tertiò capita vestra in sacro fonte demersimus, and this in the words following, he calls Ordo baptismatis, it was the very order and manner of baptism, after their confession, to dip and immerge their heads in the sacred Font. And before him Hierom. Dial. adversus Luciferianos hath these words: Multa quae per traditionem in Ecclesia observantur, authoritatem sibi scriptae legis usurpaverunt, velut in lavachro ter caput mergitare, To dip and immerge the head thrice in the laver of baptism, he makes it a tradition of the Church, and as Authentic as if it were a Law written. And before Hierom, a little, a matter of two years, Chrysostom upon these words of John 3. Unless a man be born of Water and the Spirit, saith he, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. To those who dip and immerge their head in the water, as in a sepulchre, the old man is buried and overwhelmed, etc. Yea, & before him Eunomius and his followers, (as ever the Heretics like Apes, will be following some Ancient Customs of the Church) who started up in the year 360 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, when they baptise, they wet them down to the breast, and no lower, (the word is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dip and immerge strictly, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i.e. dew or wet them, (it may be our English dew, may be derived thence) (and so here by the way, may be a proof of the Antiquity of our aspersing or sprinkling, or bedewing the baptised) for which cause, when they the Eunomians baptised 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is labrum quasi lavabrum, in a large and ample vessel, such as they used in baths or bucks, the party to be baptised standing on the outside or brim thereof, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, they bowed down his head unto his breast into the water, all this is reported by Theodoret. lib. 4. haeret. fabularum. Lastly, before these, it is recorded of B. Laurentius that he baptised one Lucillus, and the manner this, as the words in the Acts are, & cum expoliasset eum, fudit super caput ejus, when he had stripped him of his  he poured (the water) on his head, these lived about Cyprians time, in the year 260 recorded by Surius, tom. 4. in the Hist. of the Martyrdom of the B. Laurentius.  
But you, as you differed from some of the Ancients, in dipping, and immerging clothed bodies, whereas they did them so naked; so do you differ from some other of them in dipping their whole bodies, down even to their feet, whereas these did but their heads down to their breasts.  
3. The Ancients, dipped those thrice, whom they baptised; you had but even now the Testimony of Hierom and Augustine, a part of whose words I reserved for hither; Qui ordo baptismatis duplici mysterii significatione celebratur; The order of baptising, with thrice dipping and immerging, is famous in the Churches for these two mysterious significations, 1. Of three Persons of the Deity. 2. Of the three day's death and resurrection, (some others add a 3. of the three sorts of sin cleansed by baptism, offence in thought, word and deed (To which may fitly come in next Te●tullian advers. Praxeam cap. 26. Nam nec semel sed Ter, ad singula nomina, in personas singulas mergimur: as also Athanasius in dict. & interp scr. qu. 91. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. To dip the child thrice in the Baptistery or Font, is to signify, as above Augustine saith. I might add to these Chrysostom homil. De fide in Deum Patrem, Filium, & Spiritum sanctum. Ambros. lib. de Sac. 2. cap. 7. Gregor. Mag. in Epistela ad Leandrum.  
And it appears that as this custom was very general, so very Ancient, for that Arrius also, who lived in 314. some ten years before Athanasius, (but yet a great while after Tertullian, who lived in 190. and therefore best showeth to be ancient) He, I say, Arrius, had got up also this manner of baptising, by thrice immerging, who did it for an ill purpose and proof of three natures in the Trinity, and not three persons and one God, as the Catholics then spoke, and therefore according to Christ's form, baptised in the Name, and not in the names, (for there is but one Name, and so but one Divinity) which when the Fathers of the Church perceived, they saw good reason to change that custom and order of thrice dipping, and instead thereof, to use but once dipping; and thereupon Gregory the Great and the 4 Tolletan Council are very earnest about it, the leaving of that Trine immersion, and taking up the simple or once immersion, for the avoiding of the scandaling the weak, and encouraging the heretics, and lest they should seem to countenance their error, when they complied in their customs.  
But you herein also differ from the Ancients, and your practice is to dip but once, for so you tell me in your Letter, and that with an emphatical reduplication. If he had dipped them more than once, I would have expressed so in my first Letter, but he did dip them but once; and so in your saying twice, once, and again that he dipped them but once, you gainsay the greater and higher Antiquity, and yourself too; for once dipping though it was also, a good old way, yet it was not, The good old way, as you say, that is, it is not the best and the oldest way amongst the orthodox Ancients.  
Not but that I acknowledge, once dipping to be as efficacious to the ends and fruits of baptism, and as mysterious to the signifying of the one Deity, of the three holy Persons, and the one Death of Christ Jesus, besides that in the unity of the same faith, a divers or different custom of the Churches cannot be hurtful, neither is it prejudicial to the baptised party, whether it be once or thrice dipped and immerged: but so much I have said, to show the vanity of your boast, of the good old way of your dipping, insomuch as you have thrice digressed from Antiquity therein, as is hitherto proved.  
Yea, you are gone from the present way of your Mother, and not only Brother-church of Rome, which hath lately sided with you, & gone cheek by joyl with you; sided, said I, nay, rather headed you and the other Sects amongst us, for so, she hath given over her old way of the Trine-immersion, and is upon the new path, of Trine-aspersion: and you have left her also in both, both in the number of Trine or thrice, as also in the matter of aspersion or sprinkling in this your once dipping and immerging; and thus you forsaking your friends, & walking alone by yourselves, (yet going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it, yea, compassing sea and land to get proselytes) your friends may perhaps at last forsake you, and leave you to yourselves, and your bad new way, to walk alone and wilder yourselves. But I come to a fourth and last difference.  
4. The Ancients dipped and immerged, and though they made it mysterious and significant, yet they, the learnedest of them, thought it not absolutely necessary, but adiaphorous, and therefore held it but as an Ecclesiastical custom and tradition, as Hierom. dial. adver. Lucif. (whom I cited but even now) expressly calls it such, morem & traditionem Ecclesiae; and so Basil. lib. de Spiritu sancto, cap. 27. by way of Question, demands this of the thrice dipping, how came it to us, and that other of renouncing the devil and his angels, from what Scripture have we it? and than answereth it by an affirmative in a negative interrogation, have we it not rather from an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, from a private and secret instruction or tradition; for the word is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (as to the liberty of it, and no necessity hereof, being a consequence hereupon, I shall say more afterwards.  
As for those that owned and held this dipping, and especially the thrice dipping, to be either a Divine precept, or an Apostolical tradition unwritten and nonscript, they were either minoris, vel nulliusfidei, as the Canons of the Apostles (as they are called) Can. 50. and Basilius is cited by the Papists in the Book before alleged by me, for making the thrice dipping an Apostolical and necessary tradition: but it's answered by Whitakers desc. count 1 quest. 6. and so also by Rivet in his Criticus cap. 20. (who both acknowledge they had it from Erasmus in Epist. aa Johannem, Episc. Culmensem) that that Book de Spiritu sancto, is not any true and genuine work of the great Basil, but a spurious and supposititious one, especially in the later half thereof, by some one that would be great in Basil, and therefore though I cited a testimony a little before out of the 27 Cap. of that Book de Spiritu sancto, bearing the name of the great Basil, like as Vessius and others do, yet I will not stand upon it (as I need not having another Authentic one standing by him, which is that of Hierom) for that I hear of it by those learned above mentioned, and read also myself in that 27 Chapter, for though the words that I have cited thereout may bear a good sense by themselves, yet finding the drift of that 27 Chapter, being to equal, or to adjoin Traditions (of which a great many are there named, and this amongst the rest) unto the written word of the holy Spirit, as Apostolical and necessary, I do suspect those words before (of private, and secret or hidden doctrine, as I rendered them) to bend and incline that way.  
Others, less credible, Ancient Authors there are, who make this Trine immersion, and Apostolical tradition, yea precept, as Pelagius Papa, Anno 510. who is cited by Gratian de consec. didst 4. can. 10. makes it a precept in those words (because of the three Persons named in the Precept) Go baptise all Nations in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the holy Ghost: and Theodoretus, l. 4. haeret. Fabular. Which book is thought to be none of his, by reason of some fabulous things in it: and so this way generally the opinion of the later Roman Church, whilst they held to the Trine-immersion, that it was a necessary Apostolical tradition: and the like (I believe) they are as ready to say, now, they have left that, of their Trine aspersion to which they have be taken themselves now at last.  
And you also, and yours, are of the same opinion, for your once dipping and immerging; that it is of Divine prescription and Apostolical tradition, who adhere so peremptorily to it, disallowing and condemning all of us and other Churches, who practice aspersion and sprinkling, for heretical and antichristian and our baptism, for unlawful and invalid.  
And therefore I shall now also give you a little of Antiquity to 〈◊〉, for our sprinkling and aspersing of water with the hand, upon the party baptised, or our pouring or laying on of water upon some part, head or face of the same, whereby it shall be made to appear to be also, a good and old way of baptising.  
But shall I need to add any more of this? I have given you already the Testimonies of some of the Ancients for the same, in the third difference I made 'twixt your and the Ancients dipping and immerging: and the Example of Laurentius so baptising Lucillus, by pouring water upon his head; and so also he baptised one of the Soldiers, who brought Vrceum cum aqua, and took his time, and offered it to St. Laurence, that so he might be that Soldier baptised of him; which could be no otherwise, then by taking water out of the Pitcher, or Pail, or Kettle, with his hands, and pouring it upon him, even his head: and this was much about Cyprians time, in year 250. And therefore sure it was the practice in Cyprians time; yea, and it was his very judgement given hereupon, to one by name Magnus, Epist. 76. who propounded the Question to him, whether the weak and sick, who could not be dipped, but were only perfusi, sprinkled or aspersed with water, were truly Christians, and obtained grace? He answered, Let it not move any, quod aspergi vel perfundi videantur aegri, that the sick are aspersed or poured upon with water at their Baptism, for that also they partake of the Lords grace, seeing the holy Scripture by the Prophet Ezekiel saith, I will sprinkle upon you pure water, and you shall be cleansed from all your filthiness; of which Text I have made use before to the same purpose.  
So likewise I have showed the Antiquity thereof from Eunomius, and the Eunomians, who living about the year, 360. did wet the head down to the breast, in their baptising; and I have pressed it out of the Greek word which Theodoret useth, who relateth it, that they did it by pouring or sprinkling of water upon their head (those Heretics imitating therein as their manner is, in those things there is no difference) the Custom of the Orthodox.  
And yet before these, Athanasius who lived about 325. Orat. 3. Contra Arianos, hath another more express testimony, where having showed, that the Arians could not give a true and perfect baptism, because they erred in the foundation and essence of it, as who (though they pronounced the words, I baptise thee in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost) believed not in the sacred Trinity, as who deny the Son, he hath these words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, so that those who are sprinkled and aspersed of them (that is baptised) are rather polluted and defiled with ungodliness, (then washed) for so I think the word ought rather to be rendered, as having reference to baptism, according to the sense and purpose of Athanasius in this place, then as Petras Nannius doth (Redeemed:) for though the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, signify also to be redeemed, yet he shown himself a true Translator indeed of the word in General, but not so good an Interpreter of the sense, nor word here in this particular, which also signifieth, and here must, to be washed, for the reason above I have given: and so Vossius saith elegantly as pertinently, polluere ait non abluere, rather polluted then washed, as I rendered it, but that which comes hence to my purpose, that Athanasius calleth and maketh 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the sprinkling and aspersion of water in the right form, to be baptism, and that it is good and true baptism which is given in that way and manner.  
But I can bring forth a testimony far beyond these, for the Antiquity of aspersing or perfusion in baptism, and that is of Tertullian, living about the year 190 lib. de poenit. cap. 6. I deny not (saith he) but that the Divine benefit, Ablutio delictorum, the washing of sin, should be ready and safe to all that come to the water, and then he addeth, but they must labour also to come thither, for otherwise (saith he) Quis tibi tam infidae paenitentiae viro, asperginem unam cujustibet aquae commodabit; if thou be'st a man untrue to thy repentance thou makest, who will let thee have one sprinkling of water; (in opposition or allusion to the Trine immersion, as I suppose) and meaning that if he would not come to the waters being in health, to be dipped thrice, he deserved not to be come unto in sickness, to be once aspersed and sprinkled: so speaking plain enough, for sprinkling and aspersing the sick and weak especially, the which also Cornelius a Bishop of Rome in Cyprians time maketh mention of, in an Epistle to Fab. Antioch. which is in Euseb. lib. 6. cap. 43. where he likewise relates of Novatus the Heretic, that when he was freed from the evil spirit, and fell into a grievous disease, upon his bed desired baptism, and so was in his bed baptised, i. e. perfusus aqua, by water poured & sprinkled upon him; This was so customary amongst the Ancient, to sprinkle and asperse the sick in bed (if there they came to their first conversion) that it was called Baptismus Clinicorum, the baptism of the bedrid, though they did not so highly esteem of such as were so baptised in bed & upon sickness, yea, they debarred such from being of the Clergy, because they thought they become Christians rather of necessity then good will.  
And because I have mentioned such a thing, as the Baptism of the Clinics, or such as were converted and baptised in their sickness and death beds, I will put you a Quaere upon a supposition which often falleth out, knowing you will presently run to your master of quaeres for answer and resolution.  
Suppose one of your children, or his, or any your other brethren, who by virtue, or vice rather of your opinion, hath been kept and detained from its baptism during its infancy and minority, should be at 13 or 14 years of age, visited of God with sickness, and so schooled, and enlightened by him therein and thereby (for schola crucis est schola lucis) that he should come to a good measure of knowledge of himself and God, of his sins, traduced at his birth, and committed in his life, of God's mercies promised in his word, and covenanted in Christ; and so lying in bed, under great distempers, even foregoing death; should upon and after confession of his sins, and profession of his faith in Christ earnestly desire and require baptism, as the Seal of Gods Covenanted Mercy, and as a confirmation of his faith therein and a strengthening of him against the fears of death before and at his departure out of this world. What would you now do here?  
Dare you deny still and withhold baptism from him in this condition, when as it may be and aught to be ministered unto him? then will you be, and are you guilty before God of a plain and palpable contempt, of the ordinance of baptism, which is and will be damnable to whomsoever, Gen. 17.24. Exod. 4.24, 25. And if you think it now needful for him to have baptism, for that he is now capable of it, according to your own tenet, and the thing is now feizable, and possible to be had, I ask how and which way shall baptism be given and conferred unto him?  
Will you remove him out of his bed in his clothes, or in his bed and its  to your Pond? or cause to be brought to the bedside some big Vessel or Tub of water (which later, is more than I need grant unto you, in the point betwixt us,) and so, either the one or the other way. 〈◊〉 immerge his whole body in the  or out of the  (which is still more than I need yield?) Then in all probability may and will you be guilty both before God and man of the death and destruction of the party, the which is and will be as damnable to whomsoever.  
Now advise and see what answer I shall return to him that sent me; You cannot but see and say as David once) you are in a great strait, 2 Sam. 24.13, 14. For according to your opinion and practice, you must either let your child departed the world without baptism, when it might have it; if you would, which will be prejudicial to your soul and your salvation, or you must give it your dipping baptism, which will be prejudicial to its body and its preservation, as causing it to departed the world sooner than otherwise it would.  
The only way to come out of your straits, is straightway to fall now into the hands of the Lord God (with David,) and (laying down your imaginations, and every high thing of yours that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God,) 2 Cor. 10.5. to call for and suffer some lawful Minister of God, to come, and after such confession and profession heard by him, or testified by others, to Asperse or sprinkle (In the Name of the Father, of the Son, and of the holy Ghost,) a little water upon the face & forehead of your child in the bed, gently washing therewith, by the moving of his hands, with prayer and supplication before and after; Thus doing, both dangers may be prevented; and this was that, I with the Ancients even now called Baptismus Clinicorum. How long halt ye betwixt two opinions and thoughts, if the sprinkling or aspersion be baptism, follow it, but if dipping and immersion, then follow it. And the people (with their Dipper) answered me not a word.  
I will but add one Testimony more, and that is, of Walafridus Strabo, de rebus Ecl. cap 26. Notandum non solùm mergendo, sed etiàm de super fundendo multos baptizato fuisse, & adhuc p●sse baptizari, It is a thing to be noted, as it is notable, that many have been formerly, and may still be baptised, not only bydipping and immerging, but also by sprinkling and pouring water upon them, and so he also maketh mention of the baptising of St. Laurence out of a Pitcher or Pot of water, which was by aspersion or perfusion, and 〈◊〉 was often (as he saith) when as the bigness of the bodies of grown persons converted, would not suffer them to be immerged and dipped in the Vessel, their Baptisteries and Fonts being too little for them.  
And so I have done my Task which was to be a Taskmaster unto some of the Egyptians, who have been and would be still Taskmasters over the Israel and churches of God, and give out their commands for the dipping and immerging of our children in Ponds or Rivers, when, (and then only) they shall be of years of discretion and confession, as to their faith: and I have drawn up this my censure of it as an Ark, (you will presently say I know, of Bulrushes; and therefore I say so in present myself aforehand to prevent you) The which, how weak and mean a thing soever you may think it, through God's providence, may be a means, to preserve a Moses and more children of Israel from your immerging and plun gings of them, (for the time, little else then drown,) especially the Ark being daubed with slime and pitch, cemented and closed together, with Scriptures, Reasons, and Antiquity moreover.  
More plainly, I have passed my censure upon your late dipping and immerging in my Parish, for a new business, as I called it once, and ever shall; and if I could stand so long about it, and the Reader would stay the while, as to gather them up together or take a review of the evidences I have brought in against it, for a new business, I do think there would be a full Jury, and a grand Jury of them, the which propounded and given up to any indifferent Judge besides yourself, he would not only pass a censure of novelty upon it, as I have done, but might cry once and again Novitas novitatum omnia novitas; Yea, and he would give out a Sentence of vanity also upon the same, and say, vanitas vanitatum, omnia vanitas. The Person dipping and baptising, an ordinary man, no ordained Minister: the Persons dipped and baptised, Christians born, and baptised before; The manner, the dipping and baptising them in their ; (the circumstances or ceremonies, I omitted, because they were not only new and vain, but foolish and immodest) and the action of dipping the whole body over head and ears in the , and lastly the place, a common Horse-pond and weyr; Novelty of novelties, all is novelty; yea, Vanity of vanities, all is vanity; I will say no more of it; (though more might be said of it) then that it was a new, and a vain business, yea, a taking of the Name of God, Father, Son and holy Ghost in vain.  
I will now only add a Corollary or two, touching the whole business betwixt us, and so I shall give a Vale or Farewell to it, and to your Letter and my answer, or censure rather: for so I must call it to the end, who so styled it in the beginning.  

Coral. 1. §.  
1 Immersion and dipping in baptism (especially thrice) as also Aspersion and sprinkling), or rather perfusion and pouring on of water, though but once, were both the good old way; in the manner as they were done and administered by the primitive Doctors and ancient Fathers of the Church.  
And to do the cause and the truth, right, their immersion was the older way, I say not the better way, and is some years older than their aspersion, as many years, as Tertullian lived before Cyprian which by computation is not above two or three and fifty years' difference or distance betwixt their times.  
Yea, but I will recall that Verdict, and do reverse that saying, as whereby I do immersion, and dipping too much right, and aspersion, and sprinkling too much wrong, as to their Births, Right and Originals: for I do remember a testimony before cited by me out of Tertullian lib, de poenit. cap. 6. in these words (which may be repeated here again without any Tautollogy, being to several and different purposes and proofs) Neque ego renuo divinum beneficium (i. e.) abolitionem peccatorum, inituris aquam, omnimodo salvum esse; sed ut eò pervenire contingat, elaborandum est: Quis enim tibi tam infidae poenitentiae viro, asperginem unam cujuslibet aquae commodabit? where you read and see in plain and evident words, that aspersion of the adult and grown persons was in Tertullia's days also, and I might also now pass the Verdict, the other way, and say, that immersion and dipping is the younger way, some years younger than aspersion and sprinkling, as many years as Cyprian is younger than Tertullian, about fifty two or three.  
The truth than is, They were both of them, as twins (as Esau and Jacob in the womb of Rebecca, Gen. 25.24.) as two manners of baptising in the Church of God, born much about the same time, and, (as also Esau and Jacob did) they lived and walked together a while, and sometimes lived apart, and asunder; and the one was used in one place, and the other practised in another place, according to the diversities of the Churches, and difference of the ages, and variety of customs, in, and amongst them, and so it continued for an eight or nine hundred years. But what and if (as it may be) immersion, like Esau, being indeed the more hairy, rougher, and harder manner, and way of baptising, might get out first and come forth into the Church's practice, it was but a very little while before, for aspersion like Jacob being indeed, the plainer and smother, and easier way and manner of baptising, soon followed after and at the heels; Yea, as jacob's hand took hold on Esâus heel, and after supplanted him of the blessing of his Birthright, so aspersion (if behind) overtook immersion, and wholly supplanted it of its primogeniture, and so got away the blessing from it, to be the only approved and practised way of bantizing in the Centuries succeeding.  
For by reason of some scandals in process of time given or taken at their maked immersions, clothed aspersions (as I may so speak) or perfusions of water, got in, & took place of it, and so the elder served the younger: I mean the elder gave place, and both the Trine immersion, and the immersion itself was laid aside; and the younger now, as being the more worthy guest bidden, is set down in that uppermost place, I mean aspersion and pouring on of water, is now altogether in request and practise; especially amongst all the Western Churches (of which ours is a part and branch) in which the Gospel most flouriseth, and the Ordinances of Christ, the Word and Sacraments, are most reverently and religiously, and orderly observed and administered.  
And so thus (as I said) in our purest and perfectest Western Churches, for these five or six hundred years last passed (I think, I am rather within, then without my Compass) there have been none dipped or immerged, no not in the old, once good way of the former times, publicly, authoritatively, nay, scarce presumptuously; until those African (I will not say Monsters, yet were they cruel but) new men: for (Africa semper aliquid apportat novi) who were your Progenitors and Predecessors, the first dippers and immergers in the West (the very place whence they and you arose, is another argument to prove their and your business of dipping, a novelty and new thing, as coming from Africa originally) I say until those African new men, those Egyptian frogs, that love to be paddling and dipping in Rivers and Ponds, began to spread themselves and skip up and down, and to bring forth Rivers and Ponds (as the Rivers and Ponds brought forth them) or rather to bring their Perverts to Ponds and Rivers to be baptised. The which bold and presumptuous attempt, against the constant and uniform custom of the Western Church, began in the year 1524, and so is not above an hundred and two and thirty years since; which is time enough, and little enough to make it Novelty in comparison of Antiquity.  
Nay, your Brothers dipping and immerging is not so old as theirs, for your Ancient Fathers Nicholas Stork or Stock, and Thomas Muncer, did not dip in your manner; nor is it as old as your elder Brothers, who about 13 or 14 year ago, ran about the Country; for they did not dip in your manner, in their , but naked, nor in Ponds, but Rivers; nor do I think it is elder than yourselves were, in the day that you and they practised it, and begot it in the Parish of Much Leighs, upon the bodies of the two Sisters you dipped and immerged in June last passed, and so is but a brat or brood of yours and theirs, not a twelve month old yet by a good deal.   

Coral. 2. §.  
2. When they were both in use, immersion and aspersion, the Ancient Fathers & their children had not any opinion of the necessity of either, as if the one or the other, were the only lawful way of baptising established by Christ or his Apostles, but they ancounted of them as things & customs indifferent in themselves and Adiaphorous; and therefore to be left unto the liberty of the Church to use, or not, upon just cause and occasion, as may appear by some of their speeches and practices, which I shall here set down, (though the proof both of this in part, and chief of the former Corrolary in the whole, hath been touched upon, and even handled before.  
Gregor, lib. 1. Epist. Ep. 41. ad Leandrum Episcopum Hispalensem; Reprehensible esse nullatenus potest, Infantem in baptismate vel ter, vel semel immergere. It is no way to be found fault worthy, to dip and immerge the Infant in baptism, either thrice, or once; Yea, he giveth the reasons of both, and sheweth cause, why he thinketh fitting to have thrice dipping changed into once, by reason certain Heretics made an evil construction of the first custom of thrice dipping, for that they divided the Deity into three Gods upon their thrice dipping, i. e. in the Name of the Father, 2. in the Name of the Son, 3. in the Name of the holy Ghost; for which cause, Haeretici dogmatis usum, as also vitandi scisma, is scandalum, which the Churches of Spain were distracted with, some stiffly holding with the Trine immersion, and some standing as stoutly for the once, or siple immersion, the fourth Council Toletan, or of Toledo, Can. 5. grounding themselves upon the aforecited words of Gregory, decreed for simple immersion, and against the Trine immersion, for the two reasons answerable to the two abuses.  
1. Ne videantur qui apud nos tertiò immergunt, haeretciorum probare assertionem dum sequuntur & morem: Lest those that dip thrice, should seem to approve the opinion, whilst they imitate the fashion of the Heretics.  
2. Ne dumb parts diversae in baptizandis aliquo cont●ario modo agunt, alii alios non baptizatos esse contendunt: lest whilst parties divided in baptising several ways, some thrice dipping, and others but once, they should say the one of the other, they are not rightly baptised, and so esteem each other schismatics.  
And that this liberty was kept and observed about this matter, as also about immersion and aspersion in Augustine's time, is to be seen in his 74 Chapter de Eccles. dogm. Baptizandus (saith he) post confessionem vel aspergitur aqua, vel intingitur, The party to be baptised, after confession, is either aspersed and sprinkled with, or dipped and immerged in the water, and so long before him Cyprian, lib. 4. Epist. Epistola 7. ad Magnum, (whose words I have set down before) showeth his indifferency for either, and rather his defenceof aspersion in baptism, yet so as that he leaveth it in the Church's liberty and freedom.  
What need I go farther than the Church of Rome, whose Ancient practice was to dip thrice in baptism, so their Gregory saith in the Epistle above cited: Nos autem tertiò mergimus, and that for reasons given before; but now it is their manner in baptising, thrice to sprinkle or asperse, for what reason they did before; (for none other they have given us) so by their later practice reversing their former, though their opinion be still the same, that the Trine immersion, is a nonscript Tradition of the Apostles, having alike force of Piety with the Scriptures and necessary to be observed, which if it were so, why did they alter from it? their own practice in changing of it, and using their liberty, doth refute their opinion of its necessity, or being an Apostolical Tradition.  
Seeing then there is no express precept for the one or the other, nor Apostolical Tradition for the one more than the other, (He is not Basil the great, and the true, but Basil the little and the false or forged who speaks and writes of such a thing) seeing also the true Ancient Fathers and Pastors of the Churches, some used the one in their Dioceses, & some the other manner of baptising in their Divisions, and both sorts with an opinion of indifferences of the thing in itself, and with liberty of practice left each unto other (as the affairs and the occasions of the Church required) of changing and altering. Who can justly challenge, or rebuke our Church of England, and the guides thereof, for holding and retaining either the one or the other, or both, (as she doth in some way and case) but betaking her chief, and most usually to aspersion and pouring on-water, and that but once, so leaving both the Ancient Fathers of old, some of them, and the younger Fathers of Rome, all of them in the number of the Trin or thrice, for that the Trinity is sufficiently enough, set out in the very form of our baptising, In the name of the Father, the Son, and the holy Ghost? why should any impose upon us, or require of us either the Trine immersion at all, or immersion at all constantly and continually, considering we are not of the Eastern Churches, where the Climate being hot, parties to be baptised might the better undergo the waters, and be dipped; but we are of the Church Western, and our Church of the more Northerly side, were the air, waters, climate, being cold, the tenderer bodies of our infants cannot be immerged or dipped, without evident danger to their healths and lives. Have we not power to lay down and old custom as well as Gregory, and Augustine, and Cyprian, or I only, and Barnabas, the Ministers of the Church of England, have we not power to forbear dipping and immerging, especially where it may be sodangerous & prejudicial? What though some ancient Churches had such a custom of old, we have no such custom, neither the Churches of God, now a days, 1 Cor. 11.16. and when they had it, it was but for a time, Temporary; it was but for an use upon an occasion, Arbitrary; it was not under a necessity for, but with a liberty to other Churches.  
It is a part of the former Gregory his words (in the same Epistle) worthy notice taking, In eadem fide nihil officit sanctae Ecclesiae consuetudo diversa, where there is the same faith and an unity in it, a different custom in things indifferent, nothing burteth or prejudiceth the Church of God, as which hath power, and authority to enact and to abrogate such things, to be observed or omitted to all her Church children and members.  
And therefore, Sir, I have not, nor do censure and condemn you absolutely for the one and simple immersion, nor for immersion simply and only, but for your immersion your simple one, an immersion that hath almost nothing of Antiquity, being such as is every way distant and different from the ancient immersion in all things, but in this, that your dipping was but once and simple; and also, for that it was a rash and presumptuous undertaking of a few private Plebeians, and vulgar people, without any Law, or Licence, or order of Church or State; so far is it from any precept, or prescript, or Precedent of the Word and Scripture.  
I will be briefer in the next Corrollary, for it is time to have done about this matter.   

Coral. 3. §.  
3 The nature of baptism is but this, the cleansing and washing away the guilt and filth of sin, by the application of waters, according to the appointment of Christ, signifying and exhibiting the blood of Christ, that purgeth and purifieth that way; and all the outward Sacramental actions thereof are but only to represent and set out more lively the inward grace of baptism, which is still but the ablution of sin. This indeed, ablution and washing of sin, is necessary, as being of the nature (as I said) and Essence of Baptism; for this is called therefore the very washing of regeneration, by which we are saved, through the mercy of God, Tit. 3.5. and so the washing of water by the Word, with which Christ doth sanctify and cleanse his Church, Ephes. 5.26. and so St. Paul tells the Corinthians, 1 Cor. 6.11, Such were some of you (soul sinners) but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, etc. in the Name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.  
But the manner and way of washing and ablution of sin, either that way by dipping and immerging the whole body into, and under the water, or by aspersion, or perfusion, or rather superfusion of water upon some part of the body, this is not necessary, but as I said Indifferent, and Adiaphorous, and Arbitrary, and so not of the essence and form, but of the accidence and formality rather, or solemnity of Baptism: so than if the ablution of sin, washing off the guilt and filth thereof, may be as well (if not better) represented by aspersion and sprinkling, and pouring on of water upon some part of the body, and gently rubbing on the same, by the moving of the hand thereupon, as by the dipping, immerging, and plunging of the whole body, into, and under the waters, and holding it some while thereunder (as it must be.) I add also, if it, the aforesaid aspersion, or perfusion, be as effectual to the good spiritual ends and purposes of baptism, as the aforesaid immersion, I see no reason to the contrary, but that both the ancient and modern, or present aspersion and perfusion, or superfusion of water, is as warrantable, and allowable in baptism (if not still more) as the somewhat ancienter immersion, dipping and diving in and under water: for, as for any such modern or present immersion, dipping or diving under water, as yours is, I acknowledge it not; we have no such custom, nor the Churches of God, as I said but now.  
It is true, the body must be washed and wetted with water in baptism, either one way or another, and that's enough for the truth and nature of baptism; now this may be, and is done, when we baptise with sprinkling and pouring water upon it, or part of it, and gently rubbing the flesh therewith, as well as by dipping and immerging: And therefore we do not speak falsely, when but sprinkling and pouring on water we say we do baptise, and do not dip (that's your false speech, for though we dip not into the water, we lay on water and wash, and therefore do baptise.  
Oh but were it not far better, more agreeable to Antiquity, and the benefit from baptism more ample and large, if the whole body were dipped and immerged, then only some part thereof, the face, forehead, or head aspersed and washed?  
This is answered already; that our way of superfusion, or aspersion with water, is as significant, as effectual as the other, and as ancient within a sew years, (if any) as the other way, yea, was in force and life, amongst the Ancients, when the other was dead and gone; and besides we are freed from it, where we will plead our freedom, because we live out of the Hot Countries, where it was bred and born, and was to be kept and maintained: in these Northern parts of the world, where the Churches of God, cannot practise or use it (I speak of dipping and immerging) with safety to our Infant's healths and lives. But to the other part of the objection or doubt, I answer, and that from Antiquity.  
First, I gave you but even now four several Testimonies out of four Ancient Fathers and Writers of the Church, how in their times they poured water upon the heads of those who were baptised; so I gave you good probabilities, and more than so, of John the Baptists manner of baptising of Christ, and Christ's Apostles (most of them if not all) and the great multitudes that resorted to his baptism, by pouring water upon their heads: were not all those as amply and sufficiently baptised, as those who had their whole bodies dipped and immerged under water? and were they not as fully partakers of all the benefits and effects of Baptism?  
In the Ark were the eight souls (the Epilogue of the World, and the Epitome of the Church) saved by water; The like figure whereunto even baptism, doth now also save us, 1 Pet. 3.20, 21. Now then, as the Ark being washed with water but in a part of it, whether that which was immerged under the water, or that which was aspersed with the rain that fell, saved the Church then: so baptism doth the Church now, though but a part of the body, as the head, or face; or forehead be either immerged and dipped, or aspersed and sprinkled with the water in baptism.  
And good reason for it, because by and from the Divine Institution, the Baptismal-water, is blessed, sanctified, and empowered of God and his grace, to be the ablution and washing of the whole man, body and soul, though it be applied in the out ward Element, but to a part only of the body, and so received but of a part; it being so in this mystical, as it is in some physical sovereign Doses and Receipts, which being taken only at the mouth, and into the stomach, diffuseth its healing vigour and virtue unto the whole body; though not here in baptism by any natural and self-operation in this, but a gracious, and the spirits dispensation: so than though the water, which in baptism is poured only upon the forehead or face, doth reach to, or flow down to all the whole body, in the external liqucur, to wash and wet it: yet in the internal virtue and efficacy, which the same hath from the Institution and Benediction of God, it extendeth to a total ablution of the party baptised, so that it goeth over all, body and soul too, even to an internal ablution of the soul chief, as being principal in sin, and all this still by the force and virtue of the Divine Ordination of the water hereunto. See it also from the Analogy that Baptism hath with Circumcision; I know you are never willing to hear of that Circumcision, but you shall hear of that, whether willing or not. In Circumcision, there was but one part of the flesh, the foreskin was touched and cut off with the Knife, yet it was, and is so called, the putting away the filth of the flesh, the whole body and soul, for that the virtue and efficacy of that which was done but to a part, redounded also, by God's appointment, to the whole, even to the Circumcision in heart, and ears, and lips, as the Scripture every where speaketh. Now in Christ Jesus also we are circumcised with the Circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, Coll. 2 11. that is, we are baptised, with the baptism of Christ, to the washing away the sins of the body and soul; and therefore though but some one part, and the fittest part the head, or forehead, or face be only externally sprinkled & washed with the water thereof; yet the baptism is valid and effectual to the ablution internally of the soul also, and all the body also, virtually some way according to his ordination.  
Lastly I think not the meaner of our Baptism, by reason of our but handful of water, and our but sprinkling or pouring on of it upon the face and forehead; or the better of yours, by reason of your Pond-full of water, and your immerging and dipping of the whole body therein: No Ordinance of God is to be esteemed more or less effectual, for either the more or the less of the Instrument or Element; for God usually, and more usually saveth with a few then many, 1 Sam. 14 6. with little, then with great; that so all power might be known to be of him, so all glory might be to him, Rom. 11.36. as who is the God of the Valleys as well as of the Mountains, 1 Kings 20.28.  
This is true, especially in mystical and spiritual Ordinances and proceed, which have his Inslitution and Benediction upon them; as I have showed in Circumcision, and may do the like in the Lord's Supper, where a small portion of bread, and a little pittance of wine, a morsel of the one and a spoonful of the other, are as s●gni●cant, & as effectual to a spiritual and internal refection of the Communicant, as if a whole loaf of the one, and a full Cup of the other should be given and taken.  
So also in baptism a few drops of water, or a little handful of it sprinkled and poured on the face or forehead of an Infant or other, is as representing of, and as working to a spiritual and internal ablution of the baptised, as if a whole pailfull of water should be poured on, or the whole body of the Infant dipped and immerged into a River full of water, after the custom of the Eastern Churches.  
I will only add to this point a Testimony or two of Antiquity: Chrysostom writing in his 6 Homil. upon the 2 Chapter of the Coloss. and those words in the 11 Verse, In whom ye are circumcised with the Circumcision made without hands, in putting off the sins of the body, etc. buried also with him in Baptism. He hath these words: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. I shall not stand to English all, the effect of all is this, that both in Circumcision and Baptism, though the hand in the one doth but cut off a part of the flesh, as the foreskin, with a small knife; and in the other, pour on a little water but upon some part of the body, as the forehead, the whole body of sin may be, and in the Elect is cut off (put off in the Apostles phrase) and washed away in both Sacraments, by a spiritual operation of Christ,  
So also for the other Sacraent the Lords Supper, it being one of the Popish evasions for their not giving the wine unto the people, by reason of the great quantity of wine would be spent, upon the numerous multitudes of them, that would then the rather come and drink great draughts (which should not have been thought upon here by them, seeing at other ordinary seasts and banquets they stand not upon such charge, nor are so sparing of their wine) our Divines tell them (and they should teach their people) that a sup of wine (as a morsel of bread) may do well enough, & as well (if not better) then greater quantities of each, at the Sacramental Communication, according as anciently they did, as Gelasius Lyzicenus in Act is Concil. Nicaeni, cap. 30. reporteth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. For this cause we take not much but little (of the Bread and Wine) for that we know, we take them not to or for satiety; but sanctity. The like whereof is, that of Eucherius Serm. 5. de Pascha, Eucharistiae sacrae perceptio non in quantitate sed in virtute consistit, quòd corpus sacerdote dispensante, tantum est in exiguo, quantum esse constat in toto. The participation of the holy Eucharist, stands not in the quantity but efficacy, for that the body (of Christ) when the Priest dispenseth (the same holy Eucharist) is as much in a little part (of the Wine and Bread) as in the whole together.  
I have indeed said the more of this, as being (in my opinion) very needful and necessary, to strengthen, and arm ourselves and our people, against the dangerous tentations of the Devil, wherewith he and his instruments (which are many in these days) do mainly assault the minds, and scruple the consciences, and pervert the faith of the weaker amongst us; (as indeed, they have done to yourself, Sir, by your leave) He as he goeth about the earth roaring, and they hissing, as they creep into houses, that their and your sprinkled baptism was no true baptism, as being but a little water poured upon your face, but only one part outwardly; and telling you, if you will be baptised indeed, and to purpose, you must be dipped and immerged in your whole body, and in every part outwardly; that your whole spirit, and soul and body, may be preserved blameless against the coming of the Lord, 1. Thess. 5.23. Thus they together have cast a snare upon you, they have snared you into their nets, and caught you with some other silly Fry, (as the Spider hath the simple Fly) and have dipped and doused you in your  under water, you being in their nets, (the devil in a corner laughing, snearing and dancing the while over you, even as the Spider doth wind up, and truss up the Fly, being come into its Cobweb, and then skips, leaps, and runs about it and (which I may mark) sucks and seeds upon the poor Fly. Well Sir, if you be willing to come to the acknowledging of the truth (as I am zealous to bring you to it) and to recover yourself out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him, and others, at his will and theirs, 2 Tim. 2.25, 26 read, consider, believe the Truth I have set before you; but read with impartiality, without prejudicateness. Consider with indifferency, without precipitancy; and believe the Truth with submission without resistance: and with many other words have I testified the Truth (in the answer of your Brother before, as well as in this answer to you) and have exhorted, and do exhort, saying, Save yourselves, especially save yourself, from this untoward (and froward) Generation, Acts 2.40.  
And if this be not enough that I have said, read on still; for I have somewhat more to say unto you, as willing that you should not perish, but come to the knowledge of the Truth, and the acknowledgement of your Errors: for so also there is somewhat more that you say to me in your Letter; thus you writ, further, Sir, I wonder how you dare to say that you do embrace the Truth as it is laid out by Jesus; did Jesus ever lay down, that a man should learn the Latin and Greek Tongue, and so to a University to read Philosophy, and commence Bachelor and Master of Arts, and Bachelor and Doctor of Divinity, and so come to a Parish, there to take a Living from them, to the value of 100 l. per annum, more or less, they nilling willing, and there style himself the Minister of Jesus Christ? Did ever Christ lay down, that you should take a little water and sprinkle it on the face of an Infant, and say you dip them in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost? did ever Christ lay down, that his Ministers should be his people's Masters, as Lords over God's Heritage? Did Christ lay down, that you should take a Parish, a Church, and to them cast the holy things of the body and blood of Christ, as unto a company, many of them (if not the most of them) no better than dogs? I myself having been one, who was not so good as a god, till the grace of God appeared, plucking me out of my wicked ways to the knowledge of the Truth (which you fear I have not owned.) But the day will discover, and God will judge between you and us.  
Here is stuff indeed, enough to make an only Englishman to speak Greek and Latin of purpose, to declare the vanity of such words against Languages, like as the Sedentary Philosopher did presently arise and walk about, to show the folly of him, who before him denied motion; Quis expedivit Psittaco suum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Picasque docuit nostra verba conari? I wonder Sir, where you learned to speak these our words, to spy out our Liberties, yea, to Pie and Parrot out our Tongues, Degrees, and Learning of the University, yourself never living there, and now conversing with the Antipodes to the same?  
Auditum, spectatum admissi risum teneatis amici! Truly friends and Readers (so I would join you, for that I know, all Readers of me, will not be friends with me) I had not written out this passage, but that I would at the closure of my answer, present you with this spectacle of ridiculous stuff to move some mirth in you (for there is nothing of Oracle or solid matter in it, to take up any of your serious eyes, ears, or thoughts.) These indeed having been carried now a long time, even unto wearisomeness and tediousness I fear, through the washes, deeps and dippings of Ponds and Rivers; it is time to bring you now to a fire to warm and dry you, and in good time be it spoken, as done: Here's an ignis fatuus, a smoking firebrand, a sparkling squib, a blazing Comet, a crackling thornbush (enough to smutch a whole University) but fear nothing, deest ignis, there's no fire under the words, nothing but a little flash, and fume, and new light, a noise, vox preterea nihil, if you cannot warm your hands at it, yet clap your hands at it, and shout, and laugh at it till you have warmed and refreshed yourself sufficiently, whilst I go on with my answer to such words, for there is nothing of matter in them, and show the vanity of vanity in them also, and all to be but vanity here.  
Sir, How dare you say you embrace the truth laid out by Jesus? did ever Jesus lay down, that a man should go to School, and learn his Accidence and Grammar, and so to a Scrivener to write a good hand, to cipher and cast account, commence a shopkeeper, or Grocer, and set up shop, and sell by the pound Figs and Currens (being never brought up to the trade) in the parish, they nilling, willing, to make a living to the value of he knows what, more or less, and there style himself a Brother and Teacher of Jesus Christ? but this is nothing.  
Look about you all Apprentices, How dare you say, you embrace the truth as it is laid out in Jesus? did ever Jesus lay down, that a man should go up to London, bind himself to such a Trade for seven or eight years, and after a Trade learned, and his years of Apprenticeship served out, to get himself made a Free man, and then to Commence Merchant or Trade's master; after that, to come to be Warden of his Company, and so Deputy of a Ward, at last to rise to be an Alderman, and Lord Major of the City, and get a great estate there amongst the Citizens to a value of 1000 l. per annum, more or less, they nilling, willing, and then style himself a Citizen of London?  
Once more, look about you Lawyers, How dare you say, you embrace the truth as it is laid out in Jesus? did ever Jesus lay down, that a man should go to the Inns of Court, learn the Latin and French tongue, and there read Magna Charta, the Reports and Cases, and so Commence Barrister and Councillor, and so Sergeant of the Coif, and lastly, a Judge of Assize, and so take Fees from the Clients for Causes, to the value of divers 100 l. per annum, more or less, they nilling willing, and there style himself a Counsellor at the Law.  
But why do I intermeddle here? The Narrator or Relator meaneth not me sure, for that he speaketh of some Doctor of Divinity; who might therefore do well to doctrine a little better, yea, and discipline the Indoct youngman. But if he be not indocible also, me thinks myself, but a Bachelor of Divinity, and but an ordinary Pastor or Minister could do the one, doctrine him sufficiently (to go to no higher degrees for this, and leave the other of disciplining him to the higher Powers.)  
Nay, even a Bachelor of Art (to go so low;) nay, I believe some Sophisters of a College (not to trouble any of the degrees at all of the University, in so mean a work) can tell you, and will tell you, in answer to your Audacious, bold faced, daring interrogations.  
1. That as there are in Scriptures laid out by Jesus Christ, orders and degrees of Truth, so also a Truth of orders and degrees, even such as are in our Church and Universities: See for your learning, Eph. 4.8. & 11, 12. When he, Jesus, ascended up on high, he gave gifts unto men, (diversities of gifts) and therefore he gave some Apostles, and some Prophets, and some Evangelists, and some Pastors and Teachers, or Doctors, (diversities of degrees) for the perfecting of the Saints, for the work of the Ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, till we all come unto a perfect man, etc. Are all Apostles? are all Prophets? are all Teachers or Doctors, & c? There is that whole Chapter, 1 Cor. 12, to this purpose, to show the diversity of gifts, and degrees of Officers in the Church, from the foot, hand, eye, head of the natural body, and the diversity of the parts thereof; insomuch that the same Apostle saith, 1 Tim. 3.13. They that used the office of a Deacon well, purchased to themselves a good degree, that is, a Presbytership: and howsoever you think otherwise of it, Jesus himself, as he was present at the marriage in Cana of Galilee, John 2.1. to countenance that estate and degree of Matrimony, so he sat in the midst of the Doctors, Luke 2.46. both hearing them, and ask them questions, whereby he also Authorised that degree also, and all other inferior and subordinate degrees tending thereunto.  
So it is laid out by Jesus, both in Nature and Grace also, as that one Text showeth, Mark 4.28. The earth bringeth forth fruit of herself, first the blade, than the ear, after that the full corn in the car, and then when the fruit is ripe, he putteth in the sickle, because the Harvest is come.  
Are there not mentioned in the Psalm 62.9. Men of high degree, and men of low degree? and doth not James bid the brother of low degree rejoice in that he is exalted? Jam. 1.9. Will not you do the like, who are now but a Brother of low degree, rejoice when you are exalted, to be a Preacher, and then a Dipper, who is with you; a Brother of bighest degree? You have been a Surveyour in your own Parish, and then Overseer, and now having a little better regulated your house, may hope to be a Constable to rule the Town, and also you may rise to be a Churchwarden, but that you have forsaken your Church, and the Church, if that will exempt you, and now then, why are you so against our being Bachelor of Art, and then Master, and so Bachelor of Divinity; and then Doctor; which are our degrees of the University, like as the other are your degrees of the Country.  
2. He can tell you, that Jesus indeed hath laid down expressly and absolutely in particular Texts & words, That a man must serve and worship God, only in Spirit and Truth, and place his faith & confidence in his promises, and repent of all sinful habits and acts, and what are his duties to God and man, in the place and calling that he is of, with all other particular and general matters necessary to salvation, and of Moral concernment. But for other things that are of an inferior alloy, and but of Ceremonial, or Temporal Circumstantial nature, he hath laid them down only inclusively and respectively, in some general rules and dictates, of good order and comeliness, upon a just occasion or need, unto edification and for good; and so left them to common Christian reason, and humane prudence to undertake and prosecute according to the same: amongst which things, are those that you except too, education in the University, study of the Greek and Latin, reading Philosophy, taking Degrees, Titles of discrimination, getting Preferments, diversity of Orders, etc. of which you may read more particularly and largely in my book before, if you desire to be a Scribe instructed to the Kingdom of heaven, in such particulars.  
Only I will either add here, or repeat here (fearing you will scarce be at the pains (for so it will be to you pains) to read it) that the learning of the Latin and Greek tongues (you might have put in the Hebrew too, if you had been a true Israelite) and the studying of Philosophy, and other Arts and Sciences, and the taking of the several Degrees (which are the honours and garlands of the Universities, which they give to Proficients accordingly, to make them first Students, than Graduates) all these are very useful and beneficial, not only as the present aliments and encouragements of those Arts and Sciences, but those Arts, and Sciences, and Languages, are good fortifications of the understanding, and the enabling of Reason, yea, and of Faith too, to encounter with Atheists, Heretics and Schismatics, strong preparatives to the expounding of the Text of Scripture, being written in two of those Languages, and a fuller qualification unto the work of the Ministry, to do it so as not to be ashamed through ignorance, and say the book is sealed and he cannot read.   

Sect. 3.  
But particularly for the learning of the Greek and Hebrew Tongue, did not Jesus lay down, that a man, I mean an interpreter and dispenser of the Scripture, should learn them? he laid it down in the whole Scripture, for that he caused the whole Scriptures to be written in those original Languages: besides that, the Title and Superscription which Pilate wrote, and put on the Cross (Jesus of Nazareth the King of the Jews) was written in Hebrew, and in Greek, and in Latin, John 19.19, 20. guided therein, even by Jesus, and confirmed in it, that what he had written, he had written, and would not alter.  
And again, for the learning of Philosophy and the Arts, and going to the Universities to do so, and that in order to the Ministry, did not Jesus lay it down in Scripture, when as Saul (for so he was then) is called by Jesus, a chosen vessel, to bear his name before the Gentiles, and to the children of Israel, and in praevison of, and provision for that calling, was by the same Divine mercy ordered to be trained up from his childhood, in the famous City and University too of Tarsus, where he learned both Languages, fitting him to bear the name of Christ, to both Nations, the Jews and Gentiles; and likewise the Arts, as Philosophy, and the rest enabling him to disputation with, and confutation of all the learned Philosophers of the Stoics and Epicureans, of another famous University of Athens. Yea, and Paul himself maketh it as an honourable mention of himself, that he was beth born in Tarsus, a City in Cilicia, where (there being also a University) he learned the grounds and principles of Arts, as also brought up in the City of Jerusalem, at the feet of Gamaliel, a Doctor of the Law, and taught according to the perfect manner of the Law of the Fathers, Acts 22.3.  
I shall desire the learned Readers patience a while (not much caring for your, or any others impatient ignorance) that I may here also bring in a short Historical proof of University-learning, from the persons and practice of the ancient Fathers and Divines in their times and successions, as I have done before, produced their practice and custom for Infant-baptism in their days and ages; I will select out of them but some, the most remarkable, and that briefly.  
Fulgentius, an African by birth, was brought up first by his mother in the knowledge of the Greek and Latin Tongue, wherein he was excellent, and after (though but young) got to be admitted into a Cloister or Monastery, of which, Faustus a French Bishop had the oversight, and there lead a Students life a good while; and being driven thence by the Vandals persecuting the Christians, he got into another Cell, where one Felix governed; and driven thence by the Barbarians, he went to Rome, and into Sardinia, where he settled himself, and taught and instructed Christians resorting to his Cell in great store. But Faustus the Bishop called him from that his privater life, and made him Priest, and not long after, Bishop of Ruspa, a great and populous City. Once for all I shall say, that Monasteries and Cloisters were such as our Universities and Colleges are, for use I mean, where many Bishops had their Seats, and the oversight of them, for the training up of Students in the Arts, and Sciences, and so also Divinity and Theology.  
Augustine an African also by birth, was singularly well learned in the liberal Arts, so that he taught Grammar in his own City of Thagasta, and Rhetoric in the head City Carthage; after going to Milan, he was appointed to instruct the Emperor Valentinian, (being the fifth of that name) and being somewhat tainted with the Heresies of the Manachees, he by the wisdom of Ambrose, Bishop there, and by his Sermons and Disputations in public, of which he was a diligent hearer, was converted from it, and Baptised by the said Bishop; and after he was ordained a Priest by Valerius, Bishop of Hippo, and so after a while, with the consent and desire of Valerius, being old, was in the life of Valerius, created Bishop of the same Hippo.  
Chrysostom a Grecian, born at Antioch, was brought up in humane learning, under Libanius the Sophister, or Philosopher, spent some time in secular affairs, and after entered into the Priesthood at Antioch, was made Governor of the Church there, and upon the death of Nectarius was made Governor or Bishop of Constantinople. The Historians say of him, that Holiness and Scholarship were joined in him, that he was excellent, and powerful, and judicious in Morals, or moral learning.  
Gregory Nyssen, a Grecian, brother to the other Gregory Nazianzen, addicted himself much to the study of Rhetoric, and was eminent therein above all of his time; who for the furthering of himself in the study of the Arts, and all learning, embraced a Monastical life, (highly respected in the Ancient times, for the cause above mentioned) that he might also join Theology to his other knowledge: and after he was made Bishop of Nyssa (of which City he took his name) and even after that also, addicted himself much to his former study of the Arts, especially Rhetoric, until his brother Gregory Nazianzen in an Epistle to him, reprehended him for so long sticking upon the same.  
Ambrose, a Frenchman by birth, was brought up at Rome (than a Nursery of the Arts and learning) where he gained wonderful knowledge in the liberal Arts, (that place being then as the Academy of the world) giving himself to that study. Probus, than Praetor, taking notice of him, and the same of his learning, made him Governor of Insubria, Liguria, and Emilia; after going to Milan, and Auxentius an Arrian Bishop deceased, He was cried up both of the Arrian faction as well as the Orthodox, to be, and was created or made Bishop there.  
Epiphanius, a Phoenician born, learned the Hebrew Tongue of one Tryphon a Jew, and was put to School to Hilarion, to learn the Arts, proved acerrimus haereticorum oppugnator, and was made Bishop of Salamine.  
Gregorius Nazianzen, a Greaecian born, was bred up in Humane literature, at the University of Athens, and spent thirty years in those Studies, proved a great Philosopher, and the most eloquent Orator of his time, and was surnamed also of the Grecians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Theologus, or the Divine; He was Bishop first of Sasima, then of Nazianzen, both in Cappadocia, and lastly of Constantinople.  
Basilius, born also a Grecian, and contemporary with Gregory, was also brought up in humane literature at Caesarea first, and then at the University of Athens, under Eubulus his Master, a Heathen, whom he afterwards converted to the faith; and coming to Libanius the Sophister, and a Schoolmaster, who thought to have posed him with some hard and difficult verses of Homer, he expounded them with such readiness and wit, that he astonished Libanius, and when he could not convert him from Idolatry to Christianity, he gave directions to the youngmen his Scholars, concerning their deportment in their Studies. He was surnamed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Basil the Great, and came to be Bishop of Caesarea and Cappadocia.  
Athanasius, a Grecian born, was brought up by his Parents in learning, and excelled in all sorts thereof; was ordained Deacon, and received the order of Priesthood about what time Arrius began to broach his heresies, to whom Athanasius was the greatest opponent in the Nicene Council. Was after chosen Bishop of Alexandria, by the general suffrages of all the Churches there, and by the last Will of his Predecessor there.  
Irenaeus, a Grecian, was a general Scholar in all Humane learning, as himself showeth by his refuting the Heretics in all their Sophisticated arguments, showing them to be fetched only out of the Fables of Poets and Philosophers, and therefore himself must needs be well versed in them, as who wittily useth their Proverbs. Exhortations, and Examples to the confutation of them and their errors: whom therefore Tertullian styles omnium doctrinarum curiosissimum exploratorem He was after Bishop of Lions.  
And as I have showed this truth in the famous Bishops, some of whom I have made choice; I will do the like in three or four of famous Divines only, and not Bishops, who were qualified at first with Humane learning. And I will go downward as I went upward before.  
Justinus Martyr, was a Palestine born, and was a most acute Philosopher, Ad Philosopiae tum nostrae tum posissimum prophanae summum evectus fastigium, saith Photius. He mostly lived in Rome, as the place of his abode; where, both in life, speech, and habit, he professed himself a Philosopher, saying, he found great profit by these Studies, yet made them subservient to his Diviner ones. He was the first Champion that appeared against those Heretics, Martion and Valentinian.  
Tertullian, an African born, he was indeed well read in Poets, Grammarians, Histories, Laws, well seen in Physics and Philosophy, of whom Hierom testifieth, that his works cunctam saeculi continent disciplinam. And what a great Divine he was, the world knoweth, and especially Cyprian, who in all his Theological doubts, still said, Da mihi Magistrum, intelligens Tertullianum.  
Clemens Alexandrinus, a Grecian, and born at Athens, a great Student of History, Poetry and Philosophy, and excellent therein, even in all the Heathens, Sciences and Arts: and what a great Divine proved he, and a learned Priest also, who having been an Auditor to Pantaenus, supplying the place in the City of Alexandria, (next after the Apostle) and he dying, was chosen Master of the Catechists; in which place, he maintained mightily the mysteries of the Religion.  
Origen, a Grecian, born at Alexandria, and Scholar or Auditor of Clemens Alexandrinus, where he studied and learned Logic, Arithmetic, Rhetoric, History, Poetry, Cosmography; and was experienced in all Arts and Sciences. Where also in that City and University too of Alexandria, as some make it, he taught a School, and professed the same Arts. Soon after he read the grounds of Religion, and sound instructed the Christians, and strengthened them against the storms of persecution; so that Demetrius, the Bishop of Alexandria, thought him a fit instrument to be placed in the Church, and so called him to be Catechista, or Reader of Divinity in that City, in the place and room of Clemens Alexandrinus deceased. They, the Disciples of Christ were from these two last named, Origen and Clemens, first called Catechumenists, being about the year, 226.  
Lactantius Firmianus, of whose Country I read nothing, a Roman, or Italian (most likely;) He was the Scholar and Disciple of Arnobius, and publicly taught Rhetoric in Nicomedia; quasi quidam fluvius eloquentiae Tullianae; and in his old age was called to Court, to teach and Tutor Chrispus the Son of Constantine, the Latin tongue. This made him the better able to set forth his skill in the diviner mysteries, so that by the help of his humane learning, he wrote the more strongly against the Gentiles and Heathens in defence of the Christians.  
Hieronymus, an Italian, born at Histeria, was brought up at Rome, the best Academy for learning then, (though there were Schools for learning also elsewhere in France, Africa, Spain as I have hinted.) His Master for Grammar, there was Donatus, (who is thought to be the same who hath made-such learned Commentaries, on Terence and Virgil) and for Rhetoric, Victorinus. He read Porphyrius Isagoge, or Introduction to Logic, and the Philosophy of Plato and the Stoics. He looked into Cosmography History and Antiquities, intending to study Divinity, and to set it forth with all the lustre that might, being now sufficiently furnished with the Arts; He was also excellently learned in the Hebrew, and Chaldee, and Syriack, and ordained a Priest at Antioch by Paulinus, the Bishop there, and was a great planter of the truth, a rooter out of heresies, & in saecularibus valde eruditus & in Divinis Scripturis eruditissimus.  
I have forborn to set down the Names and Books of the Authors, who report thus of these learned Bishops and Divines, for that they are so many, and well known, and for that the same Historiographers do speak of every one of these, which to write out, would be too oft to repeat the same; as Socrates, Sozomen, Photius, Hyeronimus, Paulina's, Trithemius, Sixtus Senensis, Baronius, and others who have set forth the lives and studies, the arts and sciences of these worthies in the Churches of God.  
And now, Sir, have I not showed you the good old way here also, wherein the Ancient learned Fathers and Pastors and Doctors of the Church of old walked prosperously in their ministry, and which Jesus Christ laid out of old for them to walk, as who ordereth the steps and ways of these Righteous good men and his Ministers, Psalm 37.23? Yea, I have compassed you about with a cloud of witnesses, Heb. 12.1. and those not obscure, Tenebrios, but of the illustrious lights and luminaries of the world, who were first Humanely, then after Divinely learned, brought up at Universities and other Schools, in the knowledge of the Arts and Languages, before they went forth, or were called into the Church and Pulpits for the preaching of the Word and Gospel.  
Into which cloud, if you will enter and come under it, (as you cannot avoid it) and will be (to use the Apostles phrase) dipped or baptised into me, 1 Cor. 10.2. or rather unto the Worthies I have mentioned in the cloud; it will be also unto you, as that cloud was, a Pillar of fire and light, to let you see if you be not wilfully blind, that education of men at Schools and Universities, in the knowledge of the Arts and Sciences, as also Tongues and Languages, is so far from being a way shut up by Christ, as an Impertinency, or Impediment to his Ministry, that it hath been (and is still) a way laid open by him, even in the times of his best and purest Ministry, as a great furtherance and promotion thereof; and that his Humane learning which you so vilify, is instrumental and subservient (so it ought to be as Hagar to Sarah) to the better propagation and profection of the Divine truth.  
But Sir, what is the reason you and yours are so much out of charity with Scholars and University Learning? Sure it is because you are too much in love with yourselves and the Country ignorance, and like not those who are not like you in ignorance, or whom you cannot be like unto in knowledge. Like as it is said, that Hierom wrote somewhat against Bishops, and the Episcopal order, because he could not be made a Bishop himself?  
And yet I have heard, and partly know it, that you had natural wit enough to have been a Scholar, (though God never gave you the gracious will thereto) and I have heard you discourse a great deal more rationally than now you do, which makes me think you were dipped in some shallow Pond, and not over head and ears, otherwise you would not, after such declaiming & writing against the learning of Latin, have within a line or two spoken and written Latin yourself, as you sililly do in those words of my taking a Living from them, to the value of 100 l. per annum; yea, and have spoken false English too (like a bad English Scholar also) for I never took a Living from them the people, neither from them as the owners, nor from them as the Doners, and so no way from them. I hope that hereafter you will love Latin the better, now yourself begin to speak it.  
But I have done with that which concerneth myself solely in your Letter; for as to those other Queries or Interrogatories, Did ever Jesus lay down (my sprinkling of water in Baptism upon the child's face, it is answered as being the subject of this my last piece written to you) my being Master and Lord over God's Heritage, my taking a Parish Church, my giving the Lords Supper to no better than dogs. These have been answered, as being a part of the Subject of that my former piece written to your brother.  
Thus, When the Jews had married wives, of Ashdod, their children spoke half in the speech of Ashdod, and could not speak in the Jews Language, Neh. 13.23, 24. so you having made a separation and divorce from your Mother Church of Jerusalem, and entered into a Communion and match with Ashdod, or Samaria, this your Letter, as your child and offspring, speaks wholly, I may say, and not half the speech of the Separation, or Ashdod; for in all these particulars which you have mentioned, you ploughed with your Samsons Heifer, and there is no more difference betwixt that he first vented, and you now have added, then betwixt Ephraim his Shibboleths, and Gilead his Shibboleths.  
You tell me of some no better than dogs that I give the Sacrament to, and of yourself having been not so good as a dog, yet I see you are good at gathering up the scraps, and eating the crumbs which fall from your Master's Table, your Master Brother's Table, to whom you have committed your soul, and in whom you have put your trust for your soul, (as I have heard you should say to him) and so like a Parrot, or Pie, as I said, you speak no other but the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Language of your Master and Teacher brother.  
In answering therefore him first, I have answered you also, who are but his second, nay but the very first again; now also I will answer my own question before, of Quis expedivit Psittaco suum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 namely, Magister artis ingeniique largitor venture. When he began to be in want, he went and joined himself to one of the Citizens or Farmers in that Country, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (as now, so then, Citizens had their Farms in the Country, and were Farmers also as well as Citizens) and so he filled his belly with the very same Husks, the Swains or Swine's do eat, Luke 15.15.  
And so I come to that in your Letter which you speak first, Of my Parishioners to be no better than dogs; and secondly, of yourself to have been one, not so good as a dog, till the grace of God appeared, plucking you out of your wicked ways, to the knowledge of the Truth, which you say, I fear, you have not owned, but the day will discover, and God will judge betwixt you and us.  
Sir, it is true, I wrote so, that I feared it, and do still fear, as I wrote, that you owned not the Truth, for you own not the Scriptures in the right sense, which are the Word of Truth, but wrist the Letter to prove your own Errors; nor do you own the Church, but have forsaken it, which is the Pillar of Truth, and betaken yourself to a Synagogue of your own; and not only this National Church of England, but the Universal Church in the world, as who have withdrawn yourself from the public Ministry of the Truth in the Word and Sacraments. Yea, and have renounced one of its true Sacraments, your Infant-baptism, (these things have been clearly and largely set forth already in my answer to your Brother, and I must not tire my Reader, or trifle away paper with needless repetitions.  
And therefore though I yield you, that the grace of God hath appeared, plucking you out of your wicked ways, (which I am glad to see, as it appeareth) yet I cannot say, as you follow on, that it hath plucked you, to, or into the knowledge of the Truth; for I find you not there, but rather (which both your Letter and life make to appear) in the ignorance, and that wilful ignorance of the Truth, which makes me doubt somewhat of the truth also of the grace of God, you so boast of; for where true grace appeareth, it not only sanctifieth and plucketh out of wicked ways, but it illuminateth, and setteth in the knowledge and path of Truth.  
Yea, and usually the grace of God doth first enlighten the soul, and teacheth it the knowledge of the Truth, before it pluck him from his wicked ways; as in the Prodigal, and Saul more apparently. There shined round about him a light from heaven, and a voice thereout taught him the knowledge of the Truth, even Jesus, whom he persecuted in ignorance and so there fell from his eyes immediately, as it had been scales, and he received forthwith his sight; and so after arose and was baptised, Acts 9.3, 18. and became a new creature and was plucked out of his evil and wicked way, of persecuting Christ in his members, and became a member of Christ himself; but whether it be the sanctifying grace of God, or but the restraining grace of God, the Evangelical tidings, or legal terrors, and faith Saint James speaks of, James 3.17, 22. or the fear Jamaica put you in, I rejoice to see you plucked out of your wicked ways, and shall much more exceedingly be gladded when I shall see you also brought to the knowledge of the Truth, 2 Tim. 2.25. and because I cannot in meekness instruct you, opposing yourself, for withal you absent yourself, yet I will pray that God would give you repentance to the acknowledging of the Truth. Yea, moreover, as for me, God forbidden that I should sin against the Lord, in ceasing to pray for you, but I will teach you the good and the right way, 1 Sam. 12.23. Yea, I have done it, and if you refuse to hear it and walk therein, but reject it, it being the Word of the Lord. Take heed lest he reject you as he did Saul, for refusing to do after the Word of God by Samuel; and so Samuel went to Ramah, and Saul went up to his house to Gibeah. And Samuel came no more to see Saul, until the day of his death, (like as Saul came no more to see Samuel unto the day of his death;) nevertheless Samuel mourned for Saul, 1 Sam. 15.34.  
§. 1.  
I had done, but my zeal to you, and your knowledge of the Truth, wherein I may be (or desire to be) helpful unto you, doth carry me on a little further; as first, to let you know, that though David called his Persecutors Dogs, Ps. 22.17, 21. and Peter called Apostates Dogs, 2 Pet. 2.22. and Paul called Impostors Dogs, Phil. 3.6. yet will it not become you, neither is it consonant to the knowledge of the Truth, or the Truth of your knowledge, to call a whole Parish, a company, many of them, if not the most of them, no better than Dogs. Like enough than they will be barking and bawling at you, if not biting and tearing of you; but I will keep them off as much as I can, and bid them peace and be still, saying to them as Peter, If ye be reproached for the name of Christ, happy are ye, for the Spirit of Glory and God resteth on you, 1 Pet. 4.14. whilst I shall say to you, Sir, you know not (another part of your ignorance of the Truth) what manner spirit they are of, who for any thing you know, may be true sheep of Christ: nay, you know not what manner spirit yourself is of; sure the spirit of Grace which is given to the meek and humble, resteth not upon you, for the Grace of God you said even now, appeared, plucking you out of your wicked ways and works; had it been the sanctifying Grace, it would also have appeared, plucking you out of your wicked words, and uncharitable, and untrue calumniations. Sir, till you be endued with such manner of spirit, as David, Peter, and Paul were, so Prophetical, and Apostelical, so discerning, so authorized, forbear I pray such rash speech, and judge not, that you be not judged with the same judgement; for with what measure you meet, it shall be measured to you again, Mat. 7.1, 2. They will be (as too likely) dogged, and dogging also of you and your company, and then what coupling, and kenneling of Christians will there be; you will so make the whole Island, the Isle of Dogs, otherwise famous for sheep.  
If this will not do, take knowledge of another Truth, (seeing the Grace of God hath appeared, plucking you to the knowledge of the Truth) that whosoever shall say unto his Brother, Racha, shall be in danger of the Counsel; but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of Hell fire: and what shall he be in danger of, that saith, Thou Dog, nay, all of you are no better than Dogs, I pray tell you me that, out of the knowledge of the Truth, that the Grace of God appearing, hath plucked you unto.  
§. 2.  
To let you know, that though David styled himself a dead dog and a fleat, 1 Sam. 24.14. and Mephibosheth also called himself a dead Dog, 2 Sam. 9.8. and both out of a true humbled spirit, in and under Glory; yet there may be a vain glory in your humility, and if so, then will it not become you, neither is it consonant to the knowledge of the Truth, or to the Truth of your knowledge, to speak of yourself, as one not so good as a dog; so Co●. 2.18. The Apostle discovers a guile, or a beguiling in the voluntary humility of some, who were voluntaries in humility; and so Col. 2.23, etc. St. Paul espies a vain show of wisdom, even in the humility of the Impostors of his time, and in their not sparing, but neglecting their bodies; for they would scourge their bodies, macerate their flesh with fastings, and drinking only water, to make a show of wisdom, and to get a repute of Religious humility, and savouring heavenly things. This was but Friar-like, with the Flagellants; and is but Quaker-like, with Parnellites; and may be Dipper like, with yourself; to make a show of wisdom, in this your will worship and humilty, to the beguiling of silly souls, that you are ready to go through fire and water, neglecting the body: so also that you mind not worldly repute, nelecting your name, or not sparing yourself in it, but calling yourself not so good as a Dog in your former condition; you might advance your new business, and yourself therein, to be as good as a Lion or a Lamb.  
I think it was said either of Diogenes by another, or by Diogenes of another, going but barely and thinly in , that a man might see Pride as well in a Philosopher's threadbare cloak, as an Emperors rich furred Pall: so that Ecebolius, who laid himself flat on the ground, in the Temple Porch, bidding people to go over him, and tread upon him as unsavoury salt, (Calcate me insipidum salem) made therein but a show of wisdom or policy rather, and savoured even of pride, in that his effected, and therefore ju lie suspected humility: and I think Abigail did but Compliment, in those words of her, being sent for to be wife to David, Let thine handmaid be a servant to wash the feet of the servants of my Lord, 1 Sam. 25.42.  
But enough of this, and take it, I pray, not as my supposition in you, that it is so, but rather my admonition to you, that it be not so, For I must now tell you, my opinion is, it was not so with you then, nor so with those others, either then or now, of whom you speak the same.  
§. 3. You may be bold with yourself, you will say, and I say so too, bolder with yourself in calling or miscalling what you please, than you may be with others upon that ground, that no man knoweth the things of a man save the spirit of a man which is in him, 1 Cor 2.11. and a man's own heart will tell him more of himself, than seven Watchmen that sit in a high Tower; yet I say, as though the Grace of God given to me, to every man that is among you, (and you especially) not to think or speak of himself more highly than he ought to think, or speak, Rom. 12.3. (as to think or speak of himself as an Angel, or Lion (as I said,) giving out that himself was, or is, some great one, or the great power of God, Acts 8.9, 10. so not to think, or speak of himself more lowly than he ought to think or speak (as to think or speak of himself) as a worm, or a dog, (as you say,) unless you be of the same spirit assuredly that they were, who extraordinarily thought and spoke so of themselves: For the Apostle saith of the first, they do not think or speak soberly of themselves, or unto sobriety; and I may of the second, they do not think or speak sincerely of themselves, or unto sincerity; (there is an excess in the one, and a defect of Truth in the other) and your anger and rage against another who should call you so, would soon discover the truth and the sincerity yea or not.  
There is a saying amongst the Moralists, that Nemo sibi injuriam infert, no man can do an injury to himself: No man ever yet hated his own flesh; the Divine adds, Eph. 4.29. Surely, either you are gone out of yourself, or if you be come to yourself with him, Luke 25.17. you have injured yourself, in thinking and speaking yourself a dog, (and not so good as a dog) from your birth hitherto, until this year; When the Grace of God appeared, plucking you out from your wicked ways, unto the knowledge of the Truth: For the Grace of God which plucked you (as you writ) to the knowledge of the Truth, is the same Grace, which brought St. Peter to the knowledge of the Truth in this matter; and appeared to him, Acts 10.15. & 28. God hath showed me, saith Peter, that I should not call any man common or nuclean: and besides the vision, there was a voice spoke to him also, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common; and so the same voice forbids you; (though you see not the vision) hear it, and call not any man hereafter, call not yourself dog, or any other, common or unclean, creature or name.  
Indeed before the Election and calling of the Gentiles was make known to the Apostles by our Saviour Christ, the Apostles and others had some such thoughts and speeches of the Gentiles, as dogs, and as unclean, as appears by Peter here at first, and Apostles and Brethren that were in Judea, who contended with Peter for going unto them, and eating with them; Acts 11.3. Yea, and Christ himself told the woman of Canaan, a Gentile; It was not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs, when she supplicated him for to cast a Devil out of her daughter, Mat. 15.26. Dogs, because they were out of a visible admission and reception into the Church-visible, For without are dogs, Rev. 22.15. but even she (as they, other Gentiles) when she shown the faith she had in the mercy of God, and made profession of her Master, Christ, in that reply (Truth Lord, yet the dogs do eat of the crumbs that fall from their Master's Table.) Mutavit vocabulum, quia mutatum vidit affectum, saith Augustine upon the place, he changeth his word and appellation, because he saw in her a change of state and condition: now he saith, O woman, great is thy Faith; no longer now a dog, but a woman, yea and useth her, not like a dog, but as one of the lost Sheep of Canaan, or the Gentiles.  
But for yourself, and those other of my Parish, who are born Christians, of Christian Parents, and so within and under the Covenant of Grace, and also put under the Initial seal of the Covenant of Baptism. (I myself baptised you, thirty six years since,) and thriving under my Ministry of the Word, (your self have often heard me preaching answered me, and well to my questions of Catechising; your Mother Eunice also bringing you up like a Timothy, in the nurtriture and knowledge of the Scriptures, from a very child) and growing up a Faith, by my administration of the Lords Supper. (If I remember well, I have also taken examination of you, as of the young men, and found you, or made you fitting and capable of the same, and exhibited the fame unto you) And what! were all my people, the most of them, no better than dogs, and yoiur self not so good as a dog, all this while, and no Grace of God appearing, and plucking you to the knowledge of the Truth? A Christian dog is a word for a Jew, or a Turk to speak; to look upon Christians as dogs, and to use Christians like dogs, is an act for a Barbarian and Scythian to do.  
§. Nay Sir, you not only wrong yourself a Christian, and my Christian Parishioners, but you injury Christ himself, and the Grace of Christ, appearing both in them, and yourself, to the plucking of yourself and them, from their wicked ways, to the knowledge of the Truth, (I can be a better witness for them, then yoiu, who are but herein, the accuser of the Brethren) for the Seal of my Ministry are they, many of them, in the Lord, I can truly say with the Apostle, 1 Cor. 9.2. I say again, you wrong Christ himself, and the Grace of Christ, and the Covenant of his Grace, and the Seals of his Covenant, Baptism, and the Lords Supper, and the fruits and effects of his Seals, and the Spirit of God that daily wrought and brought forth such fruits and effects in their lives. And lastly, you wrong your own eyes and conscience, that will not see and acknowledge this, by your styling yourself not so good, and my people no better than dogs, till you and they came out of your, and their wicked ways, to the knowledge of the Truth.  
What say you then to the children of Israel, and their children? by your speech and reason, they must go for dogs too, as not yet plucked out of their evil ways, to the knowledge of the Truth? but in the phrase, and language of Scripture, they were a holy people, and their children not unclean, but holy; The Root holy, and the Branches likewise Rom. 11.16. and that by reason of the Covenant of the holy God, and the Seals upon them, with the other Ordinances; and even Saul in the Acts of the Apostles, was no dog, but a chosen vessel of Christ, before the Grace of God appeared, plucking him out of his wicked way, to the knowledge of the Truth. Yea, thus you wrong all the Elect of God, for God's Elect, as Saul and your self (it may be) may live in wicked ways, and be ignorant of the Truth, a long while, as Saul did, (and you say of yourself that you did) yea, the Elect Ephesians, are said to be children of wrath by nature, as well as others, Eph. 2.3. and Eph. 1.4. and yet were not, nor could be called dogs, notwithstanding impure or hateful before God, because they were in and under the love of God, which is called Amor Benevolentiae, the love of his eternal good Will and Benevolency in electing of them, although before their Conversion, and before they have Faith, they do not stand actually reconciled unto God, which is called Amosr Complacentiae, the love of his special delight and complacency in accepting of them, by the coming of Christ into the world, and purchasing it for them: so that their persons are never hateful or detestable, but beloved and accepted from all eternity, and therefore cannot be as bad as dogs; though their state wherein they are in, may be odious and detestable, as was saul's when he persecuted the Church, and as was yours when you walked in wicked ways, and both of you were ignorant of the Truth: but this some similar act or quality of a dog, as impurity and ignorance for a while, is not enough or sufficient to impute the Title and denomination of a dog to such, whose persons belong to God's Election, and are under gracious favour of God in a Christ, and are parties covenanted with, and partakers of the Seal or Seals: Doth God take care for Oxen? 1 Cor. 9.9. what Dogs, who are Gods? what a transposition of letters is this? what an Anagram? which none but an Ingram and Agrammatical man, who is himself transported with a zeal without knowledge, can or will affirm or make. The field that is intended for Wheat, fallowed for Wheat, and Sown with Wheat, is not called, or to be called, a barren Wilderness, and desert Land, though weeds come up in it every where, and before the good husbandry hath appeared, plucking them up, but it is called Tilth-land, and a Wheat-field.  
The ground of your error lieth in this, that you thought of no other Grace, but that of sanctification, when you spoke those words, of yourself and others, to be dogs, until the Grace of God appearing, plucking you out of your wicked ways, to the knowledge of the Truth, so the words themselves do show, and thereby show also your ignorance of the Grace of God, both that of Election, and that of Justification, which is not any inherent Righteousness and quality, as Papists also hold with you, which in matter of Justification or Election, is but dung, as the Apostle calleth it, for the Grace of God is one of his Attributes, out of us, in God, and according to the use of Scripture, is either metonymically, the special gift of Grace, or properly, the gracious favour of God in Christ, by which Grace, we are elected, called, justified, sanctified, and shall be glorified; and in this order they go one before another, as several acts and degrees of Grace, sanctification being the end or effect, as of our Election, Eph. 1.4. and of our Justificaiton, Luke 1.75. so of our Vocation, 1 Thes. 4.7. It's a strange error of yours, to account yourself and others a sheep only in and under the Grace of sanctification; so you say, you were no better than a dog, till the Grace of God plucked you out of your evil ways; were you then a dog and no sheep in and under the Grace of Election, and Vocation, and Justification? I am sure others are not. But what is your drift and scope I pray Sir, in writing thus to me now at this time, that yourself hath not been so good as a dog, till the Grace of God appeared, plucking you out of your wicked way, unto the knowledge of the Truth.  
Is it to advance the power and efficacy of your separate and dipping Ministry, above mine and the Sacerdotal function? it must be so, and no marvel; for you committed soul and body unto but one of them; myself and others could seldom get your body unto our Churches and Ministry; I prepared my dinner, and killed my Oxen and fatlings, and had all things in a readiness, Mat. 22.4. but you made light of it, and went another way, or would stay at home, or when you came, if the good seed I sowed in you, did not fall into good ground, Mat. 13.4. to bring forth fruit; but you suffered the fowls, the wicked one, to devour and catch it away, or the thorns of the care of this world, to spring up and choke it, you must blame neither Seed nor Sour, neither Ministry nor Minister, but even say of yourself, I was a Highway side Hearer, a Thorny-ground Auditor, like as you say you was no better than a dog that while, and so I gave that which was holy to dogs.  
But I do not say so, that you were that while any such for you did neither trample the holy things under your feet (though they fell upon thorns, or by the way side) neither did you turn again and rend me. Again, Let no one of you be puffed for one against another, 1 Cor. 4.6. I acknowledge there is a difference of Ministry; but who maketh thee to differ from another? who is Paul, and who is Apollo's, but the Ministers by whom you believed? for neither is Paul that planteth, nor Apollo's that watereth any thing, but God that giveth the increase, 1 Cor. 3.5, 7. you do well and wisely to say, The Grace of God appearing, plucked you out, and so to ascribe the glory of your plucking out of wicked ways to the Grace of God: The Grace of God is free, as the Spirit of God, to blow where it listeth, John 3.8. and upon whom, so by whom, and when it listeth.  
Yet thirdly, I add, that According to the Grace of God which is given to me, I have laid the foundation, 1 Cor. 3.10. of your coming out of your wicked way to the knowledge of the Truth, for many years together, and another doth but build thereon; and the foundation I have laid in you, was none other then Jesus Christ, and him crucified. The Covenant of the Grace of God in Christ, (I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed,) made therefore with your believing Parents, and yourself, with the Seals thereof which have been given you, and the conditions, which are to be performed by you; yea, I have built upon this foundation, Gold, Silver, and precious stones, preach in Faith, and Repentance, and Obedience, (in your own words,) coming out of wicked ways, unto the knowledge and practice of the Truth: and just then, when the building should have been raised up; unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, you fell a pulling down, as fast as I had built up; yea, you suffered others to come in upon you by their sleights and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive, to build upon my foundation, Wood, Hay, and Stubble, and such combustible things, and to set in many of their weak, and impotent, and beggarly rudiments upon it, especially those three; your separation from your Church, your evil affection to the ordained Ministry, your new Dipping and Rebaptising, with arenouncing of your old.  
If you, or any of you, shall question farther, why the Grace of God by my Ministry, did not pluck you out before, and sooner, divers years ago, before this last fatal one, out of your wicked ways, etc. it is answered, Because there was the Grace of God in it, which is free to work, (as I said) and as where, and by whom, so when it pleaseth; for Paul plants only, and Apollo's only watereth, but God giveth the increase; some increase I have showed you, God gave, but the full increase, which is the Harvest, doth not presently come up after sowing: For so is the Kingdom of God, as if a man should cast seed into the ground, and the seed should spring and grow up, he knoweth not how, (saith St. Mark) For the Earth bringeth forth the fruit of herself, first the blade, than the ear, after that the full corn in the ear, Mark 4.26, 27, 28. Conversion in some, cometh as lightning from Heaven, and is done suddenly, in a moment, at once; so to Saul and Zacheus; but to others, as the seed before mentioned, it comes up slowly, and by degrees, in time, as to Nicodemus and the Prodigal, and this is your case. Now, it is not the last stroke with the Axe. that must baer the name of cutting down the great Oak from the stump and root, but all the blows, from the first to the last; nor is it the sowing of the last handful of seed, must go away with the title of bringing forth the whole (rop Hosea 6.5. Mat. 3.10. God hath been hewing you these many years, by the Axe of my Ministry, which hath been sharpened at times, in reproofs and admonitions to you, both in the matter fitted for you, and in my thoughts fixed upon you in the public, and so laid to the Roots of the Trees, to your evil ways, saying, Bring forth fruits worthy, or meet for Repentance, else you must be hewn down and cast into the fire. So for the same purpose, God and his Grace, by my Ministry, hath been seeding you with the good and principal Wheat, the pure and precious Word of God, for these many years; and now shall the men of yesterday, your new Seeds-men and Heads-men, your last Teachers and Dippers, who have wrought but one hour, be made equal to me, Mat. 20.12. yea, be preferred before me, who have born the burden and heat of the day; if God will have it so, let it be so: It is lawful for him to do whatsoever he will with his own; and mineeye shall not be evi., because God is good. Herein also is and will be that saying true, One soweth, another reapeth, John 4.37, 38. They in the mean time reap that, they bestowed no labour upon: I laboured with you, and they entered into my labours, and have gotten you out of my hands, though to no good praise and commendation for themselves, and it may so fail out, they may find no great Crop or purchase of you, and neither may repay their craft more than their charge; especially it you will do as you ought, Return and own the first Grace of God appearing to you, and plucking you out from your wicked ways to the knowledge of the Truth.  
But fourthly, Is this all, Sir, that you new Teachers and Converters have done for you, and is this all the Grace that hath appeared to you, for to pluck you out of your wicked ways, to the knowledge of the Truth? Nay, they have not done all this, for they have not brought you to the knowledge of the Truth, but of their Errors: they have pulled you from knowledge to ignorance, and from the truth to falsities, and lies, as the Scripture phraseth such, and I will tell you presently the particulars; but suppose it a while, they have plucked you to the knowledge of the Truth, that's enough to prove you a true Convert by them, for Judas was pulled up so far as to the knowledge of the Truth, yet proved an Apostate at last for all that, and was an Hypocrite in the mean time; if you be not plucked up farther yet, namely, to the love of the Truth, God may send you (as in present he doth) strong delusions, that you shall believe a lie and be damned, 2 Thess 2.11, 12. Yea, and yet farther, to the obedience and practice of the Truth, else you may miss to be blessed in the end: for, If ye know these things, blessed are ye if ye do them, John 13.17. Many shall say unto me (saith Christ) in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy Name? yea, and in thy Name cast out devils? to whom he will profess, even to such Professors, I never knew you; depart from me ye workers of iniquities, Mat. 7.22, 23. Oh, but you are also plucked out of your wicked ways too, Oh, but Grace of God hath appeared in that also. But neither is that sufficint to show your Conversion by them, for, Ahab humbled himself, and went softly, and abstained selling himself unto sin a while, at the rebukes of Elias, 1 King. 21.29. and Herod reform somewhat, and did many things at the preaching of John. and heard him gladly, Mark 6.20. and Esau mourned for his loss and sale of his birthright, and sought the blessing again, and that carefully with tears, Heb. 12.17. If you ask what more would I require, what lacketh yet? I answer to you as our Saviour Christ did to the youngman, Mat. 19.20. (for neither are you too old, if you be not too cold to learn) saying much as you do, (All these things do I now keep, though not from my youth up; the Grace of God hath now in my elder years appeared, plucking me from my wicked ways.)  
One thing is lacking, and if you will't be a perfect Convert, find the way to change your mind (as the Author to the Hebrews addeth) and not only to alter your course, and turn to the Lord with all your heart, and so order that your soul and spirit may be washed from evil lusts, and not only the body and  dipped from wicked works.  
But you add, The day will discover, and God will judge between us and you, whether you own the Truth, to which and whom therefore I leave you.  
§. I proceed to a sit thing, which is this, That whatsoever good thing is wrought in you (seriously and unfeignedly, I concongratulate it, whatsoever it be, and would be instrumental unto the growth and increase thereof, in the way of the Word of Truth:) let the Grace of God that hath appeared to you, have the glory of it, not unto them; not unto them, your (new Land Teachers) and new Pond Dippers, but unto the name and Grace of God, give the glory, of whatsoever Conversion is wrought in you. If you do not, then with David I will say, Not unto us O Lord, not unto us, but unto thy Name give glory, for thy Mercy and Truth's sake, Psal. 115.1. They have plucked you only from the good old Way, into a new, by, and bad path: from the public Ministry or Steeple-houses, (be it so) to private mysteries or smokeries, rather of their Chimney-houses, from your first true Baptism at a Font. to a second vain Dippism in a Pond. They have been rather instrumental to your Confusion then your Conversion. Yea, I say further, God doth not use them, the Anabaptists, as Anabaptists, andtheir doctrine as any ordinary means or instruments of his, to the Converting fouls to the Faith and Truth.  
I promised to give you a Particular of them, and their Doctrines, and this it is, wherein they differ from us, and have forsaken the Truth of our Church, and the Word of God, and which doth denominate and constitute an Anabaptist.  
They reject all Infant-baptism, renouncing their own Baptism they took in Infancy, and therefore Re-baptize themselves and others, and keep their children from Baptism, till years of discretion, and ability of profession, and so in a manner deny the Seal of the Covenant of Grace to Infants; with whom also God hath entered into it, saying, I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed. They hold all stinted, and set forms of prayer, unlawful to be used in Church or House, and even so also, the Lords prayer.  
That there is no distinction betwixt Clergy and Laity.  
That the taking of Oaths before, or by the Authority of a Magistrate, is unlawful.  
That the office of a Magistrate is neither lawful nor necessary: with abundance more (for why should I stir the whole dunghill to infect the Air) of coherent and coincident Errors and Lies, as the Prophetical Scriptures call them.  
Are such Teachers and Tenets, like to pluck you out of your wicked ways, and to bring you to the knowledge of the Truth, whether private or public, who hang so fast in the Bushes and Thickets of Errors, and stick so deep in the Bushes and Thickets of Erros, and stick so deep in the mire of Vices, dipped in both up to the chin and mouth, yea, over head and ears, especially, seeing such were never called or sent about the work of Converting souls to either.  
For my part, I am of Paul, and I am of Jeremiah, and so should you be of both too, the Apostle and the Prophet. But first, I am of Paul the Apostle, who saith, indeed Faith cometh by hearing, for how shall they believe in whom they have not heard? But it is hearing of a Preacher; for how shall they hear without a Preacher? And it is of a Preacher sent, for how shall they preach except they be sent?  
The Apostle is clear of the opinion, that only sent Preachers, who have Mission and Commission from God, can bring hearers to the Faith, and seems to wonder at those in his vehement and frequent Interrogatories, who say or think otherwise.  
This Text I may call Faith's Clymax, or Ladder, with its steps and gradations, which none of your Lay-brothers could ever yet climb up to, or come down by; if they begin at the lower end, as they ought, being the ground and foundation of the work, and so offer to go and climb up, they m●ss of their first step and footing, because they are not sent, and so must climb no farther or higher; for want of Mission they cannot go up the Ladder in the Right way of preaching and begetting faith in the Hearers, or yourself. And if they begin at the upper end, and top of this Ladder (as indeed presumptuously they use to do, and heap to themselves at first a multitude of Hearers) and so come down along to their preaching, yet they fall off the Ladder at the lower staff or step again, because still they be not sent, and so can do no missive or ministerial good upon their Hearers, nor yourself, as to Faith.  
It is Gods great mercy to them and you, that they cast not themselves down headlong, or that they are not cast down by him that took them up into the Pulpit, and set them on that Pinnacle of the Temple, to the breaking of their necks, as well as making shipwreck of Faith, for they tempt the Lord their God, and are not in their ways (which words must not be left out by you, as they are left out by the devils citing of that Text) and therefore God hath given his Angels no charge over them, (being out of their ways) to bear them in their arms or hands, that they dash not their foot against the stones. Yea, they do dash not only their fear, but their tongues also against the stone, the Headstone of the corner, which these bvilders refuse, in ascending Pulpits, or stepping into chairs, and preaching without his sending or Commissioning them, according to his Prerogative given unto him, of which this is a part, All power is given me in Heaven and in Earth, as my Father hath sent me, so send I you, Mat. 28.18, 19 John 20.2. So also I am of Jeremiah; who is so frequent and fervent in the point, that I shall only name the Texts, and make the proofs out of all together, Jer. 14.14. & 23.32, 21. & 27.14. & 28.8, 9 where I observe, that six or seven times, the Lord by the Prophet saith, that he sent them not, and thereupon it's said, thrice they prophesied lies (once) otherwise then the word is, (once) deceits and dreams, (once) their Errors and lightness, false visions and divinations, things of naught, and the deceits of their own hearts, (enough one would think to keep off people from hearing of them) and yet in plain terms, therefore they are forbidden (thrice) to hearken to them or their words. And if for all this they will be hearing of them, (as they have now very itching ears, and give themselves much to hearing new men, as news-men) the Prophet tells and foretells them more plainly, They shall do no good on it, at the 32. verse of the 23. Chapter, I sent them not, nor commanded them, Therefore they shall not profit this people at all, saith the Lord.  
Hear you this Sir, and hearken to this all ye separate people of England, those of God unsent, uncommanded Preachers, false Teachers, of the Anabaptistical separation (for are they not so that teach you the Doctrines and Practices I have particularised but even now, and now may assimilate unto the lies, dreams, deceits, vain visions of those false Prophets) those false Teachers of the anabaptistical separation: I say, nay, saith the Lord, shall not profit you at all; therefore they have not, nor any Grace of God appearing in, by, or from them; (for God doth not give Converting ministerial Grace to them whom he doth not send, nor Commission them) plucked you, or any of our people, nor shall pluck them or you from your wicked ways, to the knowledge of the Truth; (for this is and will be, a great deal of profit) they have not turned and converted you, or any of our people, nor shall unto the Faith, and unto God, (for this is and will be, the greatest profit of all that can be.) You say they have converted you, (and so say some others, I am sure) and done you much good to your sou●, which you have said you would commit to them, and trust them with: (a very foolish, almost blasphemous speech, if you said it) And God faith here, they shall not profit you at all, and therefore do you no good, either in soul and body, (as to Conversion and Salvation;) whom shall I believe, God or you? whom do you believe, God or yourself? God's true prediction, or your own false suggestion? Come, come Sir, Let God be true, and every man a liar, Rom. 3.4. as it is written also; for so yourself, and every other man that saith he hath profited in soul unto Salvation or Conversion, by these unsent, and unordained Preachers of the separation, when as God saith, such shall not profit the people at all, by their Anabaptistical Doctrines and Preach. Mistake me not, I am not against the profit, that may come even from them to you or others, by mutual and fraternal conferences, exhortations, admonitions, supplications, so long as their words be seasoned with the fault of Truth and Grace, and be good to the use of edifying, and yourselves have your senses exercised, to discern both good and evil, and be able to try and prove all things, and hold to that which is good; for so God hath allowed and approved of it, and profit may come upon it, Col. 3.16. 1 Thes. 5.11.  
But this from God's Word I hold, That an usurped public taking upon them the cure of souls, without Commission, (as teaching Anabaptists do in a manner, yea, upon the matter, of the fraternity and sorority within their limits) and also their dispensing and dividing the mysteries of the Word and Seals of the Sacraments, without a lawful sending, ordination, and separation thereto, and that in a rightly constituted and planted Church, where there is a power of order and degrees, and a settled or fixed Ministry, will be of no profit and benefit to you or the people, as to Faith and Conversion, that wait and attend only upon such a service or Ministry (if I may so call it.)  
For now lift up your eyes, and look on the fields; are they white unto the Harvest, since people left praying that God would send Husbandmen into his work, and Laborers into his Vineyard, and since people have left coming to, and attending upon their own painful preaching Ministers, and have betaken themselves to the hearing of self-intruding peakers, which were none of God's calling or sending? are they not rather smutched and smitten with blasting and mildew, with pride, haughtiness, malice, variance, rancour, envy, fraudulency covetousness, lying, defamation, hypocrisies, impurities, more than ever they were, and compassed about of late, with such a dark cloud of Satan's witnesses, and his Emissaries, every where transforming themselves into Angels of New light, no better than darkness?  
Besides the Schisms in the Churches of God, and distractions of men's minds, the contempts of God's Ordinances, the broaching of Errors and Heresies, the Rapines, Sacrileges, and Massacres that have been committed, the slighting of Laws and Civil Magistrates, the uprising of bloody Wars, and throwing down of Order and Proprieties, Insurrection and Rebellion.  
And now Sir, I return to you again, to whom I have a sixth thing to acquaint you with, and then I shall take my leave, and subscribe a friendly farewell to you.  
§. Sixthly, What shall I say more to you of these men? for that indeed a notable change and alteration hath been wrought in you, is manifest to all them that dwell here abouts, and we cannot deny it; myself, (as I have said) rejoice at it, yea, and the Angels in Heaven rejoice over one sinner that repenteth and converteth truly and sincerely.  
This therefore I will say, even the same still that you do, That the Grace of God appeared, plucking you out of your wicked ways, to the knowledge of the Truth; But I ask as St. Paul doth, Gal. 2.3. This only would I hear and know of you, Received you the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by the hearing of the Faith; so received you this Grace, or your Conversion of being plucked out of yoru evil ways, to the knowledge of the Truth, from the Word preached by your Brethren of the separation, or from the Word preached by myself, or other ordained Ministers? I have proved before, that unsent Teachers and Preachers shall not, and cannot profit you with their Doctrines, especially being not of God and his Word, and therefore they have not wrought any such thing in you by their Doctrines, and that you could not, cannot attain, and therefore have not attained to Faith, but by hearing of a sent and ordained Preacher, and the Word of God by him.  
Again, received you this Grace of God, or your Conversion and plucking out of your evil ways, from the Spirit of God, in and by your last Dippism, or your first Baptism? not in and by your last dipping at Laver, for this requireth Conversion, and Faith, and Profession of it, before you can be partaker of it; you must bring these with you, already wrought to your dipping, your dipping doth not work them at that time, but presupposeth them: so, I cannot call your dipping a Laver of Regeneration, but a Generation of I know not what, at Laver, or a degeneration. Besides, I have showed this your dipping, which is but a Rebaptising at the best, to be a humane device, yea, Heretical practice; so esteemed, and for such condemned, of the Churches of God, throughout all Ages; and therefore it can be no means or instrument of God and his Grace, to pluck you from your wicked ways, to the knowledge of the Truth.  
Whither now Sir, will you go? as Hos. 2.7. so is yur case; She shall follow after her Lovers, but she shall not overtake them, and she shall seek them, but shall not find them; then shall she say, I will go and return to my first Husband, for than was it better with me then now. Fellow not therefore after those your Suitors, and Solicitors, rather your inveiglers and beguilers, that rather have tempted your spiritual chastity, and attempted also, somewhat upon your body, but come and return to your first Husband, Christ Jesus, and your first Covenant of Grace, sealed unto you in your first Baptism, from which, as from the Fountain, hath issued out all other Grace of God appearing to you since; and even that, plucking you out from your wicked ways, and bringing you to the knowledge of the Truth, through his dispensing his word, and your hearing the same of God's Ministers sent to that purpose; and through the operation of his Spirit, stirring up the Grace of God in you, and the Grace of the same, sanctifying your afflictions, and last sickness, and fears, and other things that have befallen you. She did not know that her first Husband gave her Corn, and Wine, and Oil, and multiplied her silver and gold, which they prepared for Baal, Hos. 2.8. or (as in the margin) wherewith they made Baal. And so you do not, or did not know, that God's first Covenant of Grace in Christ (I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed,) sealed unto you in your Infant-baptism, your first Infant-baptism sealing unto you the Covenant of the Grace of God in Christ, gave you your knowledge of the Truth, your Conversion from your evil ways, your Repentance, your Faith, and increased these and other Graces in you, which you and they prepare for, and ascribe to their and your Anabaptism, and wherewith they and you would make Anabaptism, leaping upon the Altar that they have made, and dousing in the Ponds that you go to, crying, O Baal hear us, or, Great is Diana of the Ephesians, the dipping of the Anabaptists.  
Why halt ye, or how long, O ye people, halt ye between two opinions, or two Baptisms? 1 Kings 18.21. if your first Infant-baptism, be the Seal of God's Covenant of Grace to you, follow it; but if the Anabaptists second Dippism, be the Seal, then follow it. Therefore I say farther to them, the people and you; not I, even I only, but we, even we also, thousands of us, remain the Ministers of the Lord, and your Prophets are a great many more; (for every one that will with you, may consecrate himself, and be a Prophet) we, as we do, will still bring our children and Infants of believing Parents, unto Baptism in our Churches, pouring on, or sprinkling water, In the name of the Father, the Son, and the holy Ghost, with invocation or calling on the Name of the Lord; and do you, as you use, go out with your grown, but born Christians, men and women, whom you have withheld from their Baptism in their Infancy, or with other grown persons formerly baptised, whom you have seduced into your byways, and carry them to your dippings, and diving them over head and ears, body & , in your Ponds of the field; the Baptism or washing, that answereth by fire, I mean the Spirit, 1 Kings 18.24. and spiritual Graces, bringing after to Repentance from evil ways, and unto the knowledge of the Truth, let that be the right washing and Baptism indeed: All the people (I know) will, and yur selves also must needs answer, The word is good, and it is well spoken.  
Now than I propose, and it's my major proposition most true, That washing with water, or Baptism, which answereth by fire, (cavil not at the phrase, God, in or by Baptism I mean) and hath the Graces of God's Spirit, Faith, Repentance, Conversion, answerable and following thereupon, is that, and that only, which is mentioned in the Scriptures, as of God's Institution, so conjunction, Mat. 3.11. Mark 1.8. Acts 2.38. John 3.6. and in a great many other places, which formerly I have brought, showing the correspondence or accompanying the one of, or to, and after the other, the Baptism and the Spirit.  
But I assume, and it is my minor proposition, yet no less true, That neither of your two dippings, (I call them two, in respect of the Subjects, which are of two sorts, some formerly baptised, and some not) are to be found in any part of Scripture throughout the whole Bible, either instituted of God, or conjoined with fire, or the Spirit, as my whole Book, and this annexed Treatise or Censure, hath cleared demonstrated.  
And therefore I may conclude Negatively, against your diping by Anabaptists, that it answereth not by fire, and so you have received from them and it, nothing but water; no fire, no Spirit, no Grace, no Regeneration, no Conversion, no plucking out of your evil ways into the knowledge of the Truth. What you have of these Goods or Graces in present, you have and received as sparks, at your first Baptism in your Infancy, which being according to the Scriptures, and to God's Ordinance and Institution, answereth by Fire in all Gods elect children, as who are inwardly also baptised of the Spirit, which is the fire I mean and speak of; which answering also by fire in them afterwards, showeth their Baptism in Infancy, to have been according to the Scripture, God's Ordinance and Institution.  
To come up yet closer to you.  
If you, Sir, be one of those that belong unto the Election and Covenant of Grace, as I in charity judged of you, as I ought to do, when I baptised you, and gave you Baptism, as the seal of the Covenant, than were you baptised with fire, i. e. the Spirit, as well as water; the inward Grace being united to the outward Sign unto such, and the Spirit as truly, and really, and actualy applying the merits and blood of Christ, in the justifying and sanctifying virtue, unto your soul, as I did the water to your body, or bodily part of your face or forehead; and the invisible Grace of the Sacrament was conveyed to you by such visible means; so that if you had died in your Infancy, this your Baptism had been to you (supposing you still an Elect Infant) as a seal of the Righteousness of Christ, extraordinarily applied by the holy Ghost, to your Justification and Salvation.  
God hath now suffered you to live to years of discretion, I must therefore put you in remembrance that you stir up the gift or Grace of God, which is in you, as Paul speaketh to Timothy, 2 Tim. 1.6. (I cannot say by the putting on of my hands, but I may) by the pouring on of that water with my hands. The word in the original is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to stir up that fire of the Spirit I spoke of, and to quicken up the grace of Baptism that hath lain under the ashes throughout your youthful and sinful days of ignorance, that so now it may kindle and burn brighter in you. You are now to bestir yourself in reading the Word, and hearing it preached by such Ministers as God sendeth into the Church; and amongst them, him especially who baptised you at first, that so you may come to Faith by such means, and by Faith now, actually lay hold on the promises of the Covenant of Grace, touching, Justification, Remission, and Adoption, and enjoy them to your use and comfort, which were but made and sealed in your Baptism, as to every Elect Child of God, and estated upon you on God's part as to your Right and Title; I do not say, that your Baptism properly did give you, or primarily, the Right and Interest you have unto God and Christ, (Gods free Covenant and promise did it) but it sealed up only, and mainly confirmeth that Right and Interest which you had already, even then in God's Covenant and Promise: God's Word is as good as his Bond, and his Promise as effectual as his Seal: your Baptism (as the other Sacrament) was not for the strengthening or effectualizing of God's Covenant, but to the confirming and supporting your faith in apprehending it.  
I would make this very plain to you, hoping it may be for some good to you. Suppose an Estate made over unto you in your Infancy, by a Will and Testament under Seal, you have not indeed during your minority, any sensible use and benefit thereof, because of your incapability, but yet the Right and Title is not vain, but true and real, and stands firmly secured unto you to be claimed, and enjoyed to your use, good and benefit, what time soever you come to be capable of it; so that you shall not need to look after a new Will, or sealed Conveyance thereof, the first being in force and effectual: Even so, God by Will and Covenant hath made over, as it were, Christ with all his Merits, Righteousness, and all Graces accompanying Salvation to you, as still supposed an Elect child, born of believing Parents, in those words, (I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed) and sealed the same in Baptism unto you, and you have made little or nothing of it for a long while, as to your comfort and benefit thereby, by reason of your uncapableness of them, by your ignorance and want of knowledge, faith, etc. yet your Right and Title to Christ and all his Merits, was and is, good and real, and stood, and stands firmly secured unto you, and sealed in your Baptism, and whensoever you come to understand what grant God hath sealed to you in Baptism, and do actually lay hold upon by Faith, and resolve to come out of your sins, as it seems lately; and you say, (The Grace of God appeared, bringing you to the knowledge of the Truth, and plucking you from your evil ways) than you may lay claim to them all, and shall have the comfortable benefit, and find, and feel the effectual fruit of your Baptism, so that you needed not have looked out after another new Will or Covenant, or another new Seal of the same Covenant (the old being still in force and in effect) to the slighting of God in his own Ordinance, and to the introducing of a new Business; and so in a manner, setting your posts to God's post, Ezek. 43.8. and setting altar against altar, yea, Baal before God.  
Is it not, because there is not a God in Israel, that thou sendest to inquire of Baalzebub the God of Ekron? 2 Kings 1.6. so was it not because there was no Baptism in our Church, or your baptising of our Church was not (as you thought) in force and efficacy, that you ran out to the Anabaptist to be dipped and lavered in a Pond, or to be ponded and plunged at Laver?  
This indeed was occasioned through great ignorance and profaneness in part, that you had so mean and base opinion of the outward Sign and Seal of your Infant-baptism, and the virtue and efficacy thereof, as if it were a mere mysterial Ceremony and sacramental Compliment for the present time, to give the Child a Name, and there an end, and no farther matter or benefit for the future.  
Know then, and I pray mark it seriously, that you may know it, and I may not beat only the air and your ear, but also the heart and the fire in you, (if you be of God's Elect) that your Infant-baptism was of virtue, and effectual to the taking away of the guilt of sin, and to the furtherance of your salvation, not only in that hour it was taken and received by you from me in your Infancy, but it is, and may be, and will be (if you be not the hindrance thereunto, and to yourself) of force, and powerful to the same good ends for the time future, and to come; yea, throughout your whole life time, as also in all other such, as are elect children of God, truly and inwardly baptised or regenerate.  
The which truth, as being of great moment in and against this new business of yours, I will prove both by Scripture and Reason, and both briefly; (for I confess I am too tedious and long, but it is that I might do you the more good, and Baptism the more right) St. Mark 16.16. saith, He that believeth and is baptised, shall be saved; is baptised, in present for the act and some present benefit; but it extendeth its virtue farther to time future, for he shall be saved.  
Col. 2.12. They are buried with Christ in baptism, and are risen with him. They are so, now a long time after, finding the virtue and effects thereof, who were long before baptised as to the act, and some initial fruits thereof, 1 Pet. 3.21. Even Baptism doth now also save us; now in our latter days it saveth us, though in former times received by us.  
So in reason it must be so, for Baptism is, and was to you, the Sacrament of your insition and engrafting into Christ, sealing up your setting into Christ, the which you needed but once, and never after to be done again; for the force thereof goeth on and continueth for all times, as a grafted Crab-stock holdeth on and continueth, bearing also fruit, if it be not broken off; Once engrafting, though often nourishing, once regenerating, and always increasing, is the Grace of Christ, and the life of a Christian: and if it were not so, that the force of our once being baptised did continue and reach to the washing off all the sins of our whole time, why then, you would have upon every sin, which is a separation of you from God, a new engrafting, and so a new seal of it, Baptism, or somewhat else.  
Secondly, because as long as the Covenant itself is of force and effectual, so long is Baptism of force and effectual; that being the foundation and substance of this, (as every promise or covenant is of the seal) in which God promiseth and covenanteth to, and with the party, baptised inwardly, to be their God, and the God of their seed. But this covenant of the Grace of God to you, and all his Elect children, is eternal, and so effectual at all times; so Esay 54.10. The mountains shall remove, and the hills shall fall down, but my mercy shall not departed away from thee, neither shall the covenant of my peace fall away, saith the Lord, who hath compassion on thee. And so Jeremy 32.40. I will make (saith the Lord) an everlastingcovenant with them, that I will never turn away from them to do them good, but I will put my fear in their hearts that they shall not departed from me. So hence may fairly be inferred and concluded, That he Covenant of God's grace with you being eternal, the Seal of this Covenant, which is Baptism, is also eternal for the efficacy thereof; not limited to any time, much less the time it is in taking: and therefore being imprinted upon you in your Infancy, according to God's Covenant with you in your Infancy, (the God of thy seed) it is of force and virtue to you, throughout all your life time, yea, to all eternity.  
Now then, Sir, did you not very evil to obscure the Grace of God appearing to you, and to plunge yourself into such an evil way, and show such ignorance of the word, as to renounce and lay aside an effectual and powerful Christian Baptism, ready and present at all times, in the fruits and effects thereof, to comfort and support you upon your faith and repentance, and all this for impotent, element, and beggarly rudiment, as the Apostle speaketh, Col. 2.22. (for I may add your Affirmative of Dip again, to their Negatives, Touch not, taste not, which all are to perish with using) ordinances after the commandments of men, having indeed a show of wisdom in Will-worship and Humility, and neglecting of the body, not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh, or sanctifying either flesh or spirit, or which is neither seal of any Covenant by God's institution, neither leaves any benefit behind it in the present act, nor carrieth any good before it to the future life; as you will see when the scales fall off from your eyes which now hang upon them.  
In this you did but run along with the Papists, if you did not outrun them: they teach that Baptism of Infants taketh away all sin that goeth before it, (as Original sin) but for sins committed after (as actual ones) they must be taken away by their devised Sacrament of Penance, or Repentance. And your masters have taught and told you, that they must be taken away, and that after Repentance hath taken them away, by their forged Sacrament of Redipping; and so both of you do, though in several ways, destroy the true nature and use of Baptism, which is the Laver for all sins, past, present, and to come, to be washed in, and away, as to the guilt and filth of them.  
True, that Repentance is also another good way to take off sins committed, and to procure the remission of them, according to Gods Promise and Covenant; but it must not thrust out Baptism, to bring in itself to be a Sacrament of Penance, as the Papists would have it; nor lay aside your Infant-baptism, to carry you out to a Man-dippism, as the Anabaptists have served you: For that your Infant-baptism being the Seal of the eternal Covenant, is ever effectual and of force; and upon the repentance of your actual sins, at any time whatsoever, will, & doth comfortably assure and seal unto both, the pardon and remission of them; so that there will need no new Sacrament to be set up by them, of penance, nor any second dipping to be practised by you, as a Sacrament of profession, as I may call it.  
Nay more, Repentance, Faith, etc. Conversion, Sanctification, are all but as the fruits and effects of the Covenant of Grace, offered and sealed to, on God's part, by his Spirit of Grace; and also, but the parts and conditions of the same Covenant of Grace entered into, and sealed to on your part to do and perform by the operation of the same Spirit, in the use of the means of Grace: so that therefore those, and all other such like, do continue and demonstrate both to Papists and Anabaptists, the efficacy of the first Infant-baptism, which runneth along, and even liveth in them.  
And, Sir, as to yourself, take it from me, and be no longer mistaken from those who make but merchandise of your soul, as they do of the Word. Whatsoever things are true, in you, to use the words of St. Paul, Phil. 4.8. Whatsoever things are honest, in you, whatsoever things are just, in you, whatsoever things are pure, in you, whatsoever things are lovely, in you, whatsoever things are of good report, in you, if there be any virtue, in you, and if there be any Grace of God appearing in you, plucking you out from your wicked ways, unto the knowledge of the Truth, they sprang all, and are derived to you from that first Covenant of Grace, with your believing Parents and yourself (I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed) and from the initial Seal of that Covenant, your Baptism, which was imprinted upon you in your Infancy, and which still remaineth in the force and efficacy thereof, if you will mind it, and embrace it, and practise it; and none of all these Goods or Graces have been wrought in you, or communicated to you by the Spirit of God, in or by your late dipping, as being none of the Signs or Seals of Grace appointed of God: Do men gather Grapes of thorns, or Figs of thistles? Mat. 7.16. you are not, nor will be, any whit the better thereby, as to the salvation of your soul; and I perceive you have been somewhat worse thereby, as to the health of your Body.  
The which I somewhat wonder at, seeing your two Sisters, who were dipped at your House, said (as I am rightly informed) in your chamber, as they were shifting off their wet clothes, and putting on dry, The one of them, I have been these many years in a Consumption, and now by this I find myself even cured now; yea, and I indeed Sister, (replied the other) do find and feel much comfort in this. Why Sir, how came this about, that you went farther, and fared worse? had it not been better for you to have been dipped in your own Pond at home, then to ride out, and be dipped in a strange Pond abroad? Are not Adgors and Kettring's Ponds of Much-leighes, better than all the waters of either of the Lavers? 2 Kings 5.12. might you not have washed in those, and have been clean? sure your own Pond and water would as well have cured you of a Consumption, and comforted your heart, as it it did your two Sisters: But the reason was, The virtue and operation of Kettring waters was not then known, when you were to be dipped, as now they are, and are famous, even as the Laver waters, whither you went and were dipped, only now there is this difference; The Laver, Pond, and Waters are for the dipping of the Brothers, and they do sometimes well and sometimes ill upon it, witness yourself; but Kettring Pond and waters are for the dipping of the Sisters, and they do always well upon it, and are cured of Consumptions, and cheered up with comfort after, which may redound to your credit and glory, and the reputation of your waters. Nay, this hath fallen out very happily to your profit and advantage also, and may be very helpful to the paying of your Rent, more than either the returns of your Crop; or the Retail of your Shop: if you would know how, I shall tell you: First, make it to be more publicly known abroad in this County; and Secondly, give notice hereof to Mercurius Politicus, to Print it in his weekly Intelligences, to be communicated to all other Counties, and the whole Commonwealth, that at Kettring's House in Much-leighes, of Essex, there is a Pond, wherein, upon once dipping, two Sisters have been instantly, the one cured of a Consumption, the other much filledwith Comfort; And you will have, out of hand, all the sorrowful souls, and Consumptious bodies in the Nation, at leastwise this County, come flocking to your House; as the blind and the halt did to the Pool of Bethesda, Joh. 5.2, 3, 4. and then, I hope you know how to deal with them, and to make your gain of your Pond; namely none to step in, until the Angel go down first and move the water, & so make way for him or her; (for I believe the water is as good for a him as a her, the man as the woman) And to encourage you the more hereunto, I shall not take any occasion or advantage to raise your Rent hereupon, one penny in the year, so that you will keep the Pond in good Repair, and in its virtue and efficacy, by scouring and fencing about, so as it may continue therein, unto my Heirs and Executors; only I pity the loss and damage (if not undoing) that will hereby come to Tunbridge waters in Kent, and Barnet water in Hartford-shire, and the Bath waters of Sommersetshire, and the waters of the Spa beyond Sea may be somewhat endamaged hereby, and Ebesham waters in Surrey: I, but here's comfort, You and this Town may be benefited hereby.  
But I will only tell you at this time, how much worse you are, and will be in your soul salvation, and the peace of your conscience, but this your new business of being Redipped, unless you repent of it timely and truly, and turn again to God and his Covenant, and the Seal thereof, your Infant-baptism, and renew them to your benefit and comfort, by faith laying claim and hold of them, and never let your first Right and Title to them, and the grace of them go, and so they will never let their hold and tenure go of you and your soul.  
I know not whether I said it before, or no, for my papers are now out of my sight, and so out of my mind, but if I did, I will say it again, after the example, of the Apostle Gal. 1.6, 7, 8, 9 I marvelled you were so soon moved away from him, (my self) who called you unto the Seal of Grace, Baptism, and to the hearing of the Gospel, unto another Baptism and Gospel, which is not another, (there being but one Gospel and Baptism) Gospel-Covenant, and Gospel-Baptism of Christ, But though we (I think we shall not) or they, (they do it indeed) or an Angel from Heaven (neither will any Angel) preach any other Gospel unto you (or any other Gospel-Baptism, preach it, or practise it) then that which we have preached (and practised) unto you, let him be accursed: And now here, as the Apostle addeth, As I said before, so say I now again; If any man (from Earth transforming himself into an Angel of light) preach any other Gospel unto you (preach or practise any other Gospel, Covenant, or Baptism) then that ye have received, let him be accursed. Let him be only of me accused; he may be both of you and yours, both accused and accursed.  
Sir, I have been the bolder with you, and the larger in my discourse, for that I fear you have not been sufficiently taught (and yet even in this point of Baptism, I have also formerly catechised you, with the other young men of my Parish, when for three years together I made it my Afternoons business on the Lord's day) by your Parents, or those who did as Sponsors or Sureties, undertake for you, the meaning and Doctrine of your Infant-baptism; when you came to years of understanding, unfolding unto you Gods precious Promises therein, made to you, and your strict Engagements stipultated to God by them: and if so it be, than also you ought so much the more, now you know their default, and understand yourself, to be more earnest, serious, and laborious in learning it out, and teaching yourself the same. For thou which teachest another, (as myself you assayed to do in your Letter) teaches thou not thyself? Rom. 2.21.  
But if also you are not either able or willing of yourself to do either, then be content, another, and amongst others, myself, who being your Minister and Pastor, notwithstanding your separation, have as much right and authority to do both for your good, as any other; yea, and have showed the more love and integrity towards you in so doing, by this piece, and my whole Book, than any other. I add but a few words, and I also shall have done teaching you, and I hope at leastwise learning of you, if not learning you.  
I will not say to you, He that is ignorant, let him be ignorant still; but if you have been ignorant, learn now to know; and if you have been slighting of your Infant-baptism, have hereafter a high esteem of it; not as of humane Custom and Formality of the Church, but an honourable Ordinance, and appointment of God, who never imposed upon his people any Service or Order in vain, wherein the covenanted Blood of Christ was, and is still mysterially and ministerially sealed up unto you, for the purging away of that pollution you brought with you into the world; by which Grace of God's Covenant, and the Seal thereof in your Baptism, you have stood hitherto in your relation to God, as a member of Christ, under God's protection and favour; and in discrimination from the Heathen world, as a Christian of the Church, under the fruition and use of all its saving and sanctifying Ordinances: And is this a matter to be vilified, difesteemed, rejected, and renounced.  
If the uncircumcised, through a wilful and voluntary refusing of that Seal, was to be cut off from God's people, and was called and accounted a breaker of the Covenant; surely you can be no less than the same Covenant breaker, or more, a Covenant despiser, (and may fear some heavy visitation, if not an utter rejection from God's people, which is in part already fallen upon you in your separation from a visible Church) by this your voluntary, peremptory, rash, and resolute slighting and renouncing of your Infant-baptism as a Seal thereof, conferred and imprinted upon you.  
He that despised Moses law (and even that of circumcision, which was also God's law) died for it, Heb. 10.28, 29. Of how much sorer punishment suppose you, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden underfoot the Son of God, and hath counted the Blood of the Covenant wherewith he was sanctified an unholy thing, and hath done despite to the Spirit and Covenant of Grace, in slighting the Seal thereof, your Infant-baptism.  
Sir, do not the words sound unto you as a Thunderclap with Lightning in it, and make your ears to tingle and your heart to tremble, and your conscience to trouble you? 1 Sam. 12.19, 20, 21. For you have added to all your other sins, this evil to renounce your Baptism: yet I say fear not (you have done all this wickedness, yet turn not aside from following the Lord, but serve the Lord with all your heart, and turn not aside, for than should you go after vain things which cannot profit, nor deliver, for they are vain. And so you have done in turning aside from your Infant-baptism, and going after that vain thing of your Anabaptist Dipping, which cannot profit you, nor deliver you from any one sin, the guilt or filth, for it is a vain and needless thing; yet I say, fear not) for the Lord will not forsake his people for his great names sake, because it hath pleased the Lord to make you his people: nor will the Lord forget you his servant, for his gracious Covenant sake, which he hath also sealed to you, in your Baptism, because it hath pleased him to make you his servant, Moreover, as for me, God forbidden that I should sin against the Lord in ceasing to pray for you: but I will teach you the good and right way. Only fear the Lord and serve him in truth with all your heart, Ver. 23, 24. And, Let my counsel be acceptable to you; break off your sins (by repentance and) by righteousness, and your iniquities (by turning unto the Lord, and calling for mercy upon your poor soul, and) by showing mercy unto the poor (people) if it may be a lengthening of your tranquillity, Dan. 4.27.  
Sir, without any ifs or and's, do you so seriously and uprightly, and it will be a lengthening of your tranquillity, and a stablishing of you in peace of your conscience, notwithstanding your former breach of it, and of the Covenant of Grace, in your despising your Birthright, your Infant-baptism: For, Behold, God's hand is not shortened that it cannot save, neither his ear heavy, that it cannot hear, though your iniquities might have made a perpetual separation 'twixt you and your God, Esay 59.1, 2. (especially those iniquities of separation from God's Church and Baptism) His Covenant of Grace is an Everlasting Covenant, the seal of it, your Baptism, though but once administered, loseth not its strength and force, and is yet of virtue and benefit for you, if you will make use of it; yea, it will be of continual use and benefit to you, if you will return to it, and reflect upon it by your faith, and lay hold upon the precious things and promises thereof. In a word,  
Though you have departed away from your Covenant by breaking of the Seal thereof, and slighting your Baptism, yet God is not gone from either, but what he hath Covenanted and Sealed, is and will be ever ready to make good, Come therefore and return unto the Lord, for you have torn, and he will heal, you have broken, and he will bind up; yea, and he hath torn, and he will heal, he hath broken, and he will bind up; in all your sins and transgressions, which are your breaches of the Law, and the tearings of God's Covenant, in all his afflictions and chastisements, which are his breaches upon you, and his tearings of you in your estate, nay, in all your fears and doubts, return unto the Lord, and his Covenant of Grace and Mercy; look back to your Seal of it, your Baptism, and lay hold on it by Faith, even but now renew your Faith, in the Promises thereof & renew also your Repentance for breach of Covenant and Promise on your part) you shall find the effect of that you never saw, and feel actual comfort, & even present benefit thereof. Once more, Have now recourse, and go with all speed to your first Infant-baptism, and remember and believe that God hath therein. sealed up unto you his love, and favour to you in Christ, and that his everlasting Covenant of Grace, and Peace and Reconciliation, to be your God in Christ for ever, and will never fail you seeking and having recourse to him, his Covenant and Seal. This will fill you full of heavenly comfort in the midst of sorrow, and upon Repentance, give you good assurance of the pardon of all your sins whatsoever, even of this, none of your least sins, your causeless Revolt and Separation from the Church, Ministry, and Baptism appointed and approved of God.  
A Communion with which, if you will truly re-enter into, and seriously return unto, pleading (as you may even yet) your Right and Interest in the Covenant of Grace, sealed unto you in your first Infant-baptism, once for ever, (you doing the Condition thereof) God also will then remember his Covenant entered into with you, than once for ever, and will have compassion on you, and run out and meet you, fall on your neck and kiss you, Luke 15.20, 21. so that you shall not only have a clear and full Remission of this, and all other your sins washed away in the blood of Christ, (the substance of the Covenant) but also enjoy the sweet and comfortable fruits and benefits of that your Baptism, the Seal of such Covenant, even an assurance of God his being ●our God, and the God of your seed, and that for ever; and of your being one of his people, and a member of Christ Jesus, and that also for ever: So that you may say as the Spouse of Christ, (for so the ●oul is contracted unto Christ, by the Covenant, and it is espoused, or the espousals are solemnised and ratified in Baptism) I am my Beloved's, and my Beloved is mine, Cant. 6.3.  
And now, Sir, am I become your enemy, because I have told you, and others, the Truth, and shown unto you the good, even the good old Way? If so, than the God of Truth, who set me a work, be my friend, as abraham's, and deliver me out of your hands, and the hands of all mine enemies; and if God and the Truth be on my side, I care not much who be against me, nor do I fear what man and error on the contrary side can do. Magis amica veritas, maximè amicus Christus, qui est ipsa veritas & vita.  
But Sir, by that time you have sadly thought upon, and considered what I have said, & fully digested & ruminated that over which I have written, you and they, (but you especially I aim at) will see me a real, cordial, soul-friend of yours, as who have endeavoured to come unto you as a Pillar of fire, rather than a cloud, not to darken you with obscure discourses, but to enlighten you with clear evidences, & so to lead you out of your byways of Errors, into the plain Path of Truth, and rather to Convert you, then confound you. I say your soul-friend; for seeing once your soul also belonged to my Curam Animarum, and you were formerly one of the sheep of my Pastor-fold, one of the souls that were numbered into my Pastoral charge, you see I count you so still, though you have broke lose, and separated yourself from my flock and feed, yet, I have not let you so go, nor have I released to you, though you have remised to me; nor have I discharged you, though you have dismissed me; yea, you may see me your soul-friend yet farther, in that I have (not run away, or lain hid in a corner, as the Hireling) but as a loving Pastor, have followed after the Wolf and the Fox running away with you, like as also David did go after the Lion and the Bear, taking a Lamb out of his fold; yea, and when the Wolf also turned head against me, and came upon me, as the Lion did arise and ramp upon David, I caught him by the Beard, and mouth, and slew him, for all his roaring quirks and howling queries; and so have delivered you (if you will be delivered) from the spirit of bondage, and love not your chain and fetters of their Errors, more than the Freedom and Liberty of Truth, for if the Truth, or the Son of God, who is the Truth, have made, or shall make you free, than you are free indeed. Now then, and lastly, Sir, show yourself a true Israelite, come and hear the Truth, and know your friends, the soul-truth, which is the sole-truth, and your soul-friends; which are your sole-friends, and come away from those Taskmasters that lay heavy burdens upon your bodies, and dip them under water over head and ears, for their own gain more than yours, and for their advantage to an evil cause. Forego your bondage, and darkness of Egypt, which goeth under the name of New-light and Liberty; forget your garlic, Onions and fleshpots, which they call, The Spirit, and the fruits of the Spirit; run from their hot furnaces, and rash fires, which they term Zeal; keep away from their Ponds & cold waters, which they call Dipping & Baptising; depart from the Tents of those that practice Rebellion under pretence of Religion & Holiness; shake off your fellowship with their unfruitful works and words, and (as you have heard) unprofitable Preach and Teachings presumed upon, under the Title of a gifted Brotherhood and Fraternity; leave the Citizens or Farmer's field, and the Husks there, and arise and go to your Father's house, the Church of God, where is bread enough, and to spare, for the servants, and much more for the Sons. Get lose from those Bushes and Brambles where you are are entangled, before you lose all the wool off your back, and be fleeced by them. Come now then, and let us reason together, saith the Lord, though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be white as snow, though they be red like crimsom, they shall be as wool. If you be willing and obedient, you shall eat the good of the Land; but if you refuse and rebel, you shall be devoured with the sword, for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it, Esay 1.18, 19, 20. Yea, come and return, as to the Lord, so to your Pastor. Here's the right hand of fellowship and true Brotherhood, I offer unto you, to set you free, and to help you out, and to defend you against them; yea, and now that I have been long going after you as a lost sheep; and one of my hundred fold, and have found your at last, I will lay you on my shoulders, to bring you home again, and will undergo any labour and pains for your Reversion & Reduction; bearing also with your former defects or defaults, with patience and meekness, as the Apostle bids we should bear one another's burdens, Gal. 6.2. yea, and I shall call together our friends and neighbours, to a public rejoicing and thanksgiving, bearing also the Burden of the Song or Psalm myself, and saying, Rejoice with me, for I have found my sheep which was lost; yea, and the blessed Angels above will be of the Choir; and there will be joy in Heaven over one sinner that repenteth, as yourself; yea, and Christ Jesus, the Great shepherd of all the sheep, and of all souls, will embrace your returning, delight in you, Who his own self bore your sins in his own body on the Tree. 1 Pet. 2.24. For you was as a sheep going astray, but if you shall return unto this Shepherd and Bishop of your soul, When the chief Shepherd shall appear, you shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away, whereby you will be glorified in heaven; and in the mean time he will put a Crown of Righteousness upon your head that falleth not off, whereby you shall be both justified and sanctified also. Nay, yourself will thus become a Crown of rejoicing to us all, myself especially; For what is our hope, or joy, or crown of rejoicing? Are not even you in the presence of our Lord Jesus at his coming? Yea, you are our glory and joy, 1 Thes. 2.19. Therefore, my brother, dearly beloved and longed for, my joy and crown, Phil. 4.1. return unto the Lord, (the Lord's Church and Flock, the Lords Ministry and Pasturage, the Lords Covenant with Parents and their Children, the Lords Baptism and Sheep-mark) and so stand fast in the Lord my dearly beloved. Now the God of peace that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of the sheep, through the Blood of the everlasting Covenant, make you perfect in every good work (of righteousness and word of truth) working in you that which is wellpleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ, to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen. Heb. 13.20, 21.  
If yet, notwithstanding all this friendly invitation and fair warning, you will not hear and hearken to come in, but will go still astray, My soul shall weep in secret places for your pride; and mine eyes shall run down with tears, because the Lord's flock (and yourself for one amongst them) is carried away captive, Jer. 13.17.  
Wherefore I take you to record this day (in which you have read over what I have written to you) that I am pure from, the blood of you all; (you and all, for what I say unto you, I say unto all) for I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God, Acts 20.26, 27. in these particulars that he hath out of his Word revealed unto me.  
And so I have delivered my soul, as to you and them, by foretelling and forewarning you of the truth, as a Watchman set over you, Ezek. 33.9. if you will not deliver your soul, by obeying the truth, and submit thereunto, when it is held out to you, by him who hath the rule, or guide and oversight of you, and watcheth for your soul, and must give account, and would do it with joy and not with grief (for that is unprofitable for you, Heb. 13.17.) Then, you will die in your iniquity and obstinacy, your blood will be required at your own hands, and will lie upon your own head; who can help it, unless God forbidden it, the which also God forbidden, I pray God. Yea, once more also.  
I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, Deut. 30.19. (or for you) that I have set before you life and death, Blessing and Cursing; therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live, and that thou mayest love the Lord thy God, and that his Covenant that he made (to be thy God, and the God of thy seed) and that thou mayest obey his voice, and that command for the baptising of the Parent and his Seed: That thou mayest cleave unto him, and not forsake your God in Covenant with you, sealed in your Infancy, by renouncing your Baptism then, and now running after other unprofitable Dipping: for he is thy life, and the length of thy days, that thou mayest dwell here on earth a while, and also be in Heaven for ever.  
And now to him that is of power to establish you, according to the Gospel and preaching of Jesus Christ, and the Revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, but now is made manifest, and by the Scriptures of the Prophets, according to the Commandment of the Everlasting God, made known to all Nations, for the obedience of Faith; To God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ, for ever, Amen. Rom. 16 25, 26, 27.  
To which only wise God and his Providence, committing myself, and what I have written here; as likewise to the same only good God, and his blessing commending you, and what you shall read here, even to the Word of his Grace, which is able to build you up, who are fallen from that of Baptism, and to establish all that stand therein, I take my leave, and give you farewel, resting your affectionate, and inseparate Pastor and Friend,  
Jeffry Watts.  
FINIS.     

ERRATA.  
EPistle to the Reader, page 2. l. 8. read Printer, p. 11. l. 22. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, p 19 l. 16. r. word, p. 24. l. 27. r. even, p. 25. l 13. r. Hypocriticab, p. 27. l. 18. r own p 32. Margin blot out, too, p. 43. l. 6. r. of, p. 44 l. 13. blot out, that, p. 45 l. 4. r. ch●, p. 56. l. 17. r. then, p. 63 l. 18. r rusticity, p 65. l. 14. r. intentional, p. 79. l. 7. blot out, save, p. 82. l. 12. b●ot out, and not observe the 13. year, seeing Christ was baptised at 30. years old, p 94. l. last. r. your, p. 99 l. 16. r. account, p. 101. l. 26. for our, r. the p. 102 l. 2. r. offspring, p. 104. l. 12. r. useful, p. 105. l. 37. r. ordinary, p. 122. l. 38. r. Presbyter, p 123. l. 8 blot out, to, l. 13. r. Profession, p. 128. l. 33. r. must not, p. 155 l. 30. blot out, And do hope that by reason, etc. l. 39 r. we bless, p. 169. l. 8. r moderate, p. 171. l. 12. r. injuring, p. 185 l. 13. add, gather, l. 34, add, it, p. 198. l. 2. r. that, p. 226. l. 18. blot out, to our most agreeable, p 240. l 38 for as, r●a, p. 250. l. 3. blot out, so, p. 252. Running title. for honour, r. beware, p. 256. l. 31. r. devising, p. 273. l. 28. r. brethren, p. 274 l. 31. r. comb, p. 276. l. 37. r. so, p. 278. l. 2. r. have made, p. 290. l. 1. add, you.  
Of Baptism.  
Page 24 line 31 read with, p, 56 running Title, r, not practical. p, 61 l, 3 r, or p, 72 l, 33 r, your. p, 73 l, 24 for Chap: r, Verse, p, 74 l, 3 blot out, and, p, 87 l, 30 add, i●, p 100 l, 28 blot out, in. p 103 l, 21 r, they. p, 117 l, 19 r, always p, 131 l, 16, r, she. l, 17 blot out, of. p 140 l, 16 r, Apostle. p, 142 l, 38 r, the p. 145 l, 35 r, procreating, p, 151 l, 37 r, these. p. 157 l, 11 r, friend. p, 163 l, 35 for can, r, you. p, 164 l, 7 add, was p, 198 l, 32 r, Apostles, l, 34 for yet are, r, were, l, 35, for to, r, do.  
The Dipper Sprinkled.  
Page 13 line 6 read fruit. p, 19 l, 39 r, naughtiness. p, 27 l, 26 r, sicca. p, 28 l, 18 add, as: p, 30 l, 2 r, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p, 37 l, 8 blot out, die: p, 48 l, 14 r. four, p, 81 l, 18 r, potissimum.