MR. BLAKE, in his Preface to the Reader, and all along his whole Treatise, having many hard speeches; compounded of revilings, and scoffs, as Pag. 20. 21. &c. Which the Lord in mercy forgive: To which once for all I answer; I have not so learned Christ, and shall therefore in this whole Trea­tise, passe by his revilings, and answer his Reply.

First, Mr. BLAKE is offended at the Title of my former Book, because I stiled it; The storming of Antichrist in his two Garisons, viz. Compul­sion of Conscience, and Infants baptisme: Now that compulsion of Con­science is one of Antichrists Garisons, see Apoc. 13.15. The Beast causeth, that as many as would not worship the Image of the Beast, should be killed. As Nebuchadnezz [...]r did Dan. 3.6. Also, vers. 16.17. And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to r [...]ceive a Mark in their right hands, or in their fore-heads, and that no man might buy or s [...]ll, save hee that had the Mark, or the Name of the Beast, or the number of his names. See whether this be not the Garison of Antichrist. For when the power of Antichrist (signified by the Beast that came out of the Sea) began to be slighted, the second Beast that came out of the Earth, had power to give [Page 2] life to the image of the Beast, by this compulsion.

Now why I called Infants Baptisme another Garison of Antichrist? Was, because I conceive it an in-let of Antichristian doctrines, as a false matter of a Church, &c. And because its point-blank against the Commission of Christ, Matth. 28. And because it hath been stablished by so many decrees of Anti­christ; and because it enters persons into Church-state, after the way of An­tichrist. Now these doctrines of compulsion of Conscience and Infants Bap­tisme, being set upon on all sides by so many powerfull Scriptures, might be said properly to be stormed by the same; as a Garison is said to be stormed, when it is assailed on all sides, though it be not taken.

The second thing Mr. BLAKE excepts against is; That I make a compul­sion of Conscience by Magistrates, which must be Antichrists bane, to be Antichrists last refuge.

Answ. I suppose Antichrist had never any harm by a forced uniformity, for your places for compulsion; as Esa. 49.23. and Apoc. 17.12.16. Let the Reader peruse an answer, Storm. of Antichrist, pag. 31.33. part. 1.

But to answer further to Apoc. 17. Whereas Mr. BLAKE charges me for this Assertion, viz. That the compulsion of the Whore by eating her flesh, and burning her with fire, was not done by penall Lawes, but onely by force of armes. I bring these reasons, why the Whore shall be destroyed in that manner; that is, by force of Armes.

1 Because she shall be utterly burnt with fire: Now Magistrates execu­ting Civill and not military power, use to punish the Offenders, but not to burn places where the Offenders are: See this Apoc. 18.8. She shall be utterly burnt with fire.

2. Because in one hour, so great riches as was in Babylon is come to naught. Apoc. 18.17. Which can be no otherwise, but by the souldiers burning and plundering.

3. Because Apoc. 18.21. Babylon fals like a stone thrown into the Sea, which can be found no more; so the Roman Babylon shall be thrown down and found no more: which can be no otherwise (the circumstances of this Chapter, and the two former considered) then by Warre.

4. Because there shall be such a desolation in her; As appeares, Apoc. 18.22. That there shall no more be heard the voice of Musitians in her: Nor any Crafts-man, of whatsoever craft he be, nor the sound of a Mil-stone shall be heard any more at all in her, nor the light of a candle shall shine no more in her, nor the voice of the Bridegroom or of the Bride, shall be heard no more in her: Now this totall desolation cannot come in any show of likeli­hood, from the command of the Magistrate in his judiciall sentencing of Ba­bylon, but from the Military force of armes.

Obj. But you will say, how can this war with Babilon come, if it be unlawfull to compell persons in point of religion?

Ans. These armies that shall destroy Rome, shall be only defendants, Babilon and her Champions shall give the first blow; so that though it be not lawfull for us to invade the Religion of others, yet is it law­full to defend our own against those that would rob us of it, and now that Babilons armyes strikes the first blow, appeares Apoc. 17.14. These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them; the Romish party opposing the Protestant partye, I suppose the Protes­tante may defend themselves. This same warr I suppose is begun and will not come to an end, till the ruine of Babilon come to passe, in which all the Roman Princes will be ingaged on one side, and all the Protestant Princes on the other. Now that this fall of Babilon shall not be by the judiciall sentence of any Prince or Magistrate, but by the power of our armies ap­peares Apoc. 17.16. Because her desolation comes not from any one Prince, but from ten princes together, which can be no otherwise then from the mixture of armies. See vers. 16. And the ten hornes which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her de­solate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burne her with fire.

But lest any man should say, what shall become of their popish Cityes and territories, you may see Apoc. 16.19. In the powring out of the 7th. viol, where its said: The great City was divided into three parts and the Cities of the Nations fell, and great Babylon came in remembrance before God, to give unto her the cup of the wine of the fiercenesse of his wrath.

Now whereas Mr. Blake demands, whether this force of Armes a­gainst the whore of Babylon be an act of Iustice, or cruelty, and infers; if it be just where Kings and states have a power military, they may not be denyed a power civill. Ans. The just execution of military, power so of civill, which Magistrates have against this whore as a spirituall strumpet, is not because of her spirituall whordome, or because the Magistrate hath power to compell any person to any kind of Religion; but because the whore gave the first onset, to take away the religion of those that have mi­litary power in their hands. For,

Quer. Whether every person be not freely born to the choyse of what religion seemeth true to him, and may defend himselfe against invaders thereof, as he may do against the invasion of his estate, liberties, &c. though it be not lawfull for him to invade another mans religion?

To conclude, Is it not highest cruelty to force mens consciences or pra­ctices in point of religion (for the distinction now is, the conscience can­not be compelled, but the practise may, or else the person punished by [Page 4] banishment,Helw. Mistery Iniquity. imprisonmēt, &c.) I say is it not highest cruelty to force mens consciences in their religion, seeing it they erre, they must pay the price of their transgression with the losse of their soules.

Is it not most equall saith one, that men should chuse their religion themselves, seeing they only must stand themselves before the Iudgment seat of God, to answer for themselves; when it will bee no excuse for them to say we were compelled or commanded to bee of this religion by the King, or by them that had authority.

Mr. Fox having spoken of the convertion of Ethelbert King of Kent, by Austin and his company, who was converted to God, and baptized in the 36. year of his reign, the words of the history are these, viz. After the King was thus converted, innumerable others dayly came in and were adjoyn­ed to the Church of Christ, whom the King did specially embrace, but did com­pell none, for so he had learned, that the faith and service of Christ, ought to be voluntary and not co-acted. Haec ille, Acts and monuments, vol. 1. Pag. 150. 7. Edition.

Neither was this doctrine unheard of in the ancient Church, seeing Lactantius lib. 5.Vide Sculpt. Analis. Pater. de justitia, speaks fully, chap. 19. The persecutors of the Church commit an unexpiable evill, both that they kill themselves by serving devills, and also suffer not God to be worshipped of others, these soule-killers falsely pretend, that they provide for Christians, and that they would call them back to a right mind, for they ought not to do it by violence and torments, but by reason and exhortations. For religion cannot be compelled, Christians are ready to hear; religion is not to be defended by killing but by dy­ing, not by cruelty but by patience, not by wickednesse but by faith; also in the 20. chap. he saith, the Pagans destroy their Gods, by compelling the unwilling to sacrifice, for they distrust the power of their Gods: lastly, these Pagans do nei­ther do a benefit to the Gods to which they compelled Christians to sacrifice, nor to them whom they compell: not to them whom they compell, because it is not a benefit which is brought into one that refuseth; not to the Gods, because it is not a sacrifice, which is offered unwillingly.

Lastly, whereas divers learned men in books and pulpits, render us odi­ous, and so incense the magistrates against us: I shall desire all men, but specially Magistrates, to consider this as a former method of satans; wit­nesse these instructions given by Pope Adrian to Cheregatus his legate, touching his proceedings in the dyet of Norinberg, how and by what perswasions, to incense the Princes against Luther.

1. You shall declare the greefe of our heart for the prospering of Lu­thers sect, to see so many souls, redeemed with Christs blood, to be turned from the true religion.

2. The infamy of the Nation, viz. of the Germans.

[Page 5]3. Their own honour, which will be stained if they be not like their progenitours, some whereof led Iohn Hus to the fire.

4. That Luther condemns to hell, all their progenitors that died in the Romish faith.

5. To consider the end whereto the Lutherans tend, which is, under pretence of repressing the usurped Ecclesiasticall power as tirannicall, to infring and breake in peeces the secular state.

6. To consider the fruits which follow of that sect; as slanders, sediti­ons, dissentions, blasphemies, murthers, scoffings, &c.

7. That the Princes should consider, that Luther useth the same way of seducing, that Mahomet did; who permitted liberty of those things which flesh desired, as to have many wives, and to put away those they had if they listed; so Luther to draw away Nuns, Monkes, and Priests that are lascivious, permits unto them that they may marry.

I list not to provoke by making too close applications, onely I shall desire, (that whereas these and such like waies are taken, to render odi­ous those that are no lesse the servants of God then Luther was, and that by aspersing of them and their doctrines, as Luther here was charged,) that the Magistrates imitate the Lord, Gen. 18.21. Because the cry of Sodome is great, I will go down and see, whether they have done altogether ac­cording to the cry which is some unto me. It will be well, if Magistrates enquire whether the Antipaedobaptists, so cryed out of, be such persons as they are defamed; if it be enough to accuse, who can be innocent? It was in time of Pagan Emperors, that the name of Christian, was crime e­nough. Tert. Apol. usque ad gentes. Let it not be so amongst those that seem to professe the name of Christ; if sundry pamphletters that accuse, can prove us guilty of what they accuse, currat lex fiat justitia But if they cause­lesly irritate Magistrates against us, because we will not prostitute our consciences to creatures, nor practise against our own principles, I trust God will consider the cause of the poorer

For Mr. Blakes exception at this passage in my former book, Part 1. Pag. 32. Little did the Holy-Ghost (using such a similitude of love and kindnesse) think, that men would pervert it to violence or constraint.

And to this I answer, the fault for any thing I know, was the printers not knowing their was such a word in the originall Copie.

2. It might have past by an anthropopathy, as God is said to grieve re­pent; But had it been a reall oversight, the book going hastily to the Presse, necessity then compelling, ingenuity might have taught you what my meaning was, and that I had no thoughts to limit Gods omniscience.

For your conclusion in your Preface, that your care hath been to render [Page 6] my arguments to the Reader in the full strength; I appeal not to you, who are a party, and therefore not fit to be a judge; but to the understanding and consciences of those, who have read my former booke; whether you have so done, let the Reader compare the bookes, and he will easily see the contrary. Having spoken to your Preface, I proceed to your Treatise.

Against my first Argument, viz.

The baptisme of Christ is dipping;

The baptisme of Infants, is not dipping; therefore, the baptisme of Infants is not the baptisme of Christ.

To the Major now: Except, viz. That the baptisme of Christ is dipping, you being to prove [...] to signifie to wash, from my own acknow­ledgement out of the Greeke Lexicon.

Ans. I cite the Lexicographer, only to show his partiality; in that he brings so many authorityes from the Greekes, that knew the true use of the word, that it signifies to dipp; but brings so little authority that it sig­nifies to wash; and none at all that it signifies to sprinkle.

And I do marvell, Pag. 3. That you alledge from the Septuagint on 2. Reg 5. As if they did use the word dipping and washing promiscusly; no plainer place can be brought against you.

Farther, Pag. 3, 4, 5. Whereas I say they were baptized of Iohn into Iordan, [...], Mark 19. You bring Mr. Cookes Search, Pag. 5. to show, that this signifies in, as well as into; and so there was no necessi­ty of the application of the person to the water.

Ans. In those places, all or most by you cited, and also with words sig­nifying motion (as this doth) it signifies, to, or into, as your own authori­tyes, Mat 13.33. Shee hid it into 3. Pecks of meale; there was no apply­cation of the meale to the leven, but of the leven to the meale: so Mat. 10.9. Possesse not money in, or into your purses; their was no application of the purse to the money, but of the mony into the purse.

For your answer to Iohn 3.33. Iohn was baptizing in Aenon near to Sa­lim, because there were many waters there; you answer, that many wa­ters were requisite, not in respect of dipping, but that Iohns disciples might be imployed in baptizing, as well as Iohn himselfe.

Ans. We must take your bare word for this, for you cannot pro­duce any place that Iohns disciple baptized at all, much lesse that they bap­tized at Aenon, or had any Commission so to do. Nay, Iohn 3.26. Iohns Disciples thought it a strange presumption, to think that any one should baptize, save Iohn himselfe; therefore sure they did not baptize.

For that which you call a criticisme of ascending and descending, from Acts 8.38.39.

Answ. The light is not more cleerer, then that the proposition signifies (into) that Philip and the Eunuch went into the water; and therefore vers. 39. Its said, they came out of the water.

Next Mr. Blake Pag. 6. Goes about to nullifie the proportion, which the Holy-Ghost makes, as if it were made by me; when I say, dipping sig­nifies death and buriall with Christ, and rising up above the water, resur­rection with Christ.

Answ. Peruse Rom. 6.3.4. & Coll. 2.12. And see whether the Holy-Ghost set not before your eyes the same proportion; and read ex positors upon the same, as Paraeus, &c. Must we allow your proportions from cir­cumcising of Infants to prove baptisme of Infants, without any propor­tion so made by God; and will you not allow this proportion, so cleerly made by the Apostle, as appeares in the word, [...], Rom. 6.5.

And whereas you seeme to retort the argument drawn from proporti­on, making a proportion betwixt sprinkliag in water, and the blood of sprinkling; that speakes better things then that of Abell, Pag. 6.

Answ. Your selfe confesse herein, you attempt only a humane propor­tion, without divine institution, Pag. 6. But had you not said so much, it would have appeared; because the Apostle alludes only to the sprinklings in the Law, and against which and not baptismall water, he opposes the blood of sprinklings, and the sprinkling from an evill conscience, as the Antitype thereof. Pag. 7.

Next Mr. Blake seemes to nullifie my Answers, to Mark. 7.8. Where the Pharisees held the baptisme of Pots, which washing, I affirmed was by dipping, yea totall dippings; for persons use to wash them all over. Mr. Blake saith, its no satisfaction of the objection, unlesse I could prove we ne­ver wash otherwise then by dipping.

Answ. Its the intrution of all manner of persons, when they wash any vessell, one way or other, to dipp it, or should they power any water up­on it, it were vertually the same.

Further, whereas you desire me P. 7. sincerely to speake my thoughts, whether I beleeve that the Pharisees, as oft as they came from market, plunged themselves over head and eares, before they eat any meat.

Answ. I marvell you should desire me so vehemently, to declare my selfe in so triviall a matter, but to answer; I beleeve so oft as they came from market, they plunged or dipt their hands, though not themselves o­ver head and eares; which if they did, that is all I would deduce from that Scripture.

And whereas you charge me, P. 7. As if I should necessarily imply the word to baptize, to signify to dipp over head and eares: I never main­tain'd [Page 8] any such thing; but the ground of totall dipping which I bring is. 1. Because the Holy-Ghost speakes of much water. Iohn 3.23. Whereas a little water is enough for sprinkling, 2. Because we read of Iohns and Philips applying of the subject to the water, not of the water to the sub­ject, Mark. 1.9. Acts. 8.38.39.3. Because Paul tels us of burying with Christ in baptisme. Rom. 6.4. Col. 2.12. Now the word baptisme signifying dipping, (no adversary being able to deny this) how can there be a buriall therein, unlesse we be under the water, as Persons dying are said to be buried, not when they lye dead in their winding-sheet; but when they are covered over with earth.

After p. 8. Mr. Bl [...]k [...] comes to bring arguments, against the necessity of dipping: As first, Pharisaicall washings were not always dippings, but Pharisaicall washings are baptismes. Ergo, Baptisme is not always dip­ping.

Answ. We may deny the proposition; as it doth not appeare but all their washings were dippings, or that which did amount to the s [...]me, what doth hinder but that they might dippe their beds? which Mr. Blake brings to oppose it; He knoweth not the forme and manner of the Jewish beds; it may be they might use hammocks, as they use in hot Countryes, which might soon be taken down and dipt, and hung up a­gain. The thing having no weight ile passe it over.

2. Arg. Legall purifications are not alwayes dipping, but legall purifi­cations are baptismes. Ergo, baptisme is not alwayes dipping.

Answ. I deny the assumption, legall purifications are not called bap­tismes, neither bring you any place to prove it; but were they, it fol­lowes not but baptisme might be dipping.

3. Arg. If the way of baptisme were only dipping, then the baptizer must put the baptized over bead into the water, and after a space receive them up againe; but we find no such thing in Iohn to Christ, or in Philip to the Eunuch.

Answ. We find them both going into the water, with the administra­tors; and we find the Apostle speaking of a buriall, not onely in the death of Christ, but a buriall with him in baptisme, and arising againe, Rom. 6.4. Col. 2.12. which is equivalent with putting the baptized over the head into the water.

Arg. If Scripture way of baptizing were thus to dipp, then the bapti­zer and ba­tized must both put off their garments, but among all mul­titudes baptized, there is not one word of unclothing, nor yet the putting on of garments after baptisme.

Answ. What hurt can follow, If both change garments either be­fore [Page 9] or after, may they not do it so that there be not the least appearance of evill?

2. Though there be nothing spoken directly of their changing garments, yet without doubt they did. Had it not been a kinde of tempting his Fa­ther, for Christ when he came out of Jordan, not to have chang'd his clothes? Or the Eunuch, when he came out of the waters? Its not likely a man of that quality that he was of, would go along the way with wet clothes; as he came out of the water.

But for your speech, Pag. 8. viz Therefore those that have put a kinde of necessitie upon Dipping, have spoken much of being received naked into Bap­tisme. I suppose it would trouble you much to name one such in the world: Search your heart, whether this and such like speeches, come not from, you to breed an hatred in people towards us, rather then out of conscience of for­tifying your Argument, where you alledge it? for our parts, we abhor those things in our worship, which are not so much as named among the Hea­then.

4. Arg. It was the Apostles way, to baptize Disciples as soon as they were become converts; the same day, yea the same hour; as in the Jaylour, Lydia, &c. But conversion of Disciples sometimes must necessarily happen, when there was no season for dipping; the element of water being over cold.

Answ. 1. Suppose the coldest time that can come, yet know I not the same would prove destructive to any persons for so little time as they are in the water.

2. In case of weaknesse of body, when its truly, and not pretended; such persons, if they did scruple of receiving it, otherwise then in Rivers and Ponds, they might put off their baptisme till the season were more mode­rate; because God will have mercy, before any other sacrifice.

5. Arg. The number of Converts was so numerous, 3000, 5000, in one day, that there was no possibility of baptisme in that manner.

Answ. Why not as well as by sprinkling? The Dipping is as soon done (in a manner) as the sprinkling.

2. As the Disciples converted were many, so it's probable the Administrators were many; seeing that besides the Apostles, we read of others that baptized; as Philip the Deacon that baptized the Eunuch, & Ananias who baptized Paul.

Arg. Sometimes the baptizers were in that condition, that they were unable for the work of baptizing; as Paul and Silas, when they had been af­flicted with such stripes, that their convert was sain forthwith to wash them: And sometimes the baptized have not been in case to be dipt; as Paul when he was led into Damascus.

Answ. Paul and Silas notwithstanding their stripes, might baptize the Jaylour; especially, having washed their stripes. Besides, it was not neces­sary that either of them should go so deep into the water, that the water should come as high as their wounds; or should it come so high, I suppose it would rather have been beneficiall, then hurtfull, to such an inflamation as usually arises from stripes.

2. If a person be in such a condition that he is not fit to be baptized, with­out hazard of health; he may lawfully put it off, till he be able; And I sup­pose, if Paul had felt his naturall strength to have been so impaired, that he could not have been safely baptized, he would have alledged the same to Ana­nias, when he asked him why he taried from Baptisme? Acts 22.16. But finding sufficiencie of strength, he submitted.

Now whereas Mr. Blake, Pag. 10. Accuseth us to joyn in Garison with Antichrist, in being so zealous for Dipping, as he saith the Papists are.

Answ. I fear me, he and others that maintain Infants Baptisme, come nea­rer the Popish party: Seeing by Infants Baptisme, there is one and the same admission of Membership into the Romish Church, and into sundry Prote­stant Churches hereby.

And whereas, Pag. 10. You conclude the Answer to my first Argument thus:

Every Baptisme, which for the outward Rite is Dipping, Washing, or Sprinkling, is in that respect the Baptisme of Christ:

But the baptisme of Infants, is either Dipping, Washing, or Sprinkling; Therefore the baptisme of Infants, is in that respect the Baptisme of Christ.

To your Proposition: I acknowledge Dipping, and deny sprinkling; nei­ther hath there been any thing alledged by you, to confirm it; and for Wash­ing, such a washing as is by dipping, or application of the subject to the wa­ter, I acknowledge to be baptisme: Otherwise, I doubt hereof.

On the contrary, I argue thus; for the cleering of my former assumption, denied by you: viv. That the baptisme of Infants is dipping.

The Baptisme of Christ, is Dipping and buriall therein; Rom. 6.4. Col. 2.12.

The Baptisme of Infants is not Dipping, (or though it were) yet not bu­riall therein:

Therefore the Baptisme of Infants, is not the Baptisme of Christ.

If any shall alledge against the assumption, that some Infants are buried; or that it would be very hazardous?

Answ. I grant it hazardous, therefore it appeares they are not the subjects of baptisme; and though they be so dipt and buried, yet is their dipping and buriall nothing, became the persons that are to be buried, are such as have [Page 11] saith of the operation of God, Col. 2.12. Which Infants have not, as Mr. Blake seemeth to confesse, by asserting the rationality of the 9. Page of my former book; wherein is proved, Infants have no faith; and no where in all his book asserting them to have faith, so far as I remember: see him, Pag. 23.

2. Suppose baptisme signifie dipping, washing, and sprinkling, the last whereof is denyed, the middlemost much questioned, and the first con­fessed by both sides; now which of these significations would an impar­tiall unprejudiced Reader, give to baptism, when he reades this phrase? Rom. 6.4. Therefore we are buried with him by baptisme, &c. And that phrase, Col. 2.12. Buried with him in baptisme, wherein also you are risen with him; would he reade it any otherwise then thus? buried with him in dipping, wherein also you are risen againe; yet for so reading and conceiving thereof, is there so much of the reproach and fury of man vented against divers of Gods Saints, especially when they shall practise accordingly.

3. Admit the word baptisme were a word of diverse significations, and should signify washing as well as dipping (for I affirme it never to signifie sprinkling) yet surely there is no doubtfulnesse in the signification of the words, Buried and risen. If the word baptisme do signifie washing as well as dipping (which yet could never plainely appeare to me) yet must there be a buriall in that washing, and ariseing againe therein? as ap­peares, Rom. 6 4. Therefore we are buried with him by baptisme into death, also Col. 2.12. Buried with him in baptisme, wherein also you are risen againe, which buriall and riseing againe with him in washing, can be no other wayes then by dipping, yea by to tall dipping; which is enough to overthrow the practise of infants baptisme, commonly used.

Obj. But we are said to be buried with Christ spiritually, therefore spirituall baptisme and not corporall is there meant.

Answ. Outward or corporall baptisme is in both those places meant, in which corporall baptisme or washing, we are said to be buried and ri­sen againe; appeares by these reasons.

1. That which is the likenesse of a spirituall baptisme, cannot be only a spirituall baptisme, but must be also a bodily: but the baptisme expres­sed Rom. 6.4. Is a liknesse of a spirituall baptisme. Therefore a bodily al­so, and not a spirituall baptisme only is meant.

The proposition appeares from a received axiome; which is, no like is the same.

The assumption appeares, Rom. 6.5. As we have been planted (viz. by baptisme) in the likenesse of his death, so shall we be also in the likenesse of his resurrection.

[Page 12]2. Where the signe baptisme or washing, and the thing signified, death and resurrection with Christ, are both exprest, there an outward baptisme must be meant as well as an inward. But so it is here, Rom. 6.4. We are buried with him by baptisme. The thing signified, or spirituall baptisme in these words, viz. Buried with him, the outward signe viz. by baptisme. Therefore bodily baptisme is here meant.

3. That which agrees with the Apostles scope, must needs be meant, but an outward baptisme as well as an inward, agrees with the Apostles scope, for the Apostle, vers 2. Had said they were dead to sin. How shall we that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? now he proves it, vers. 3. That they were dead to sin, because they were baptized, which is a signe of death to sin; which they could not have been, had they not been deemed dead to sin, therefore a corporall baptisme as well as a spirituall, or washing with the blood of Christ, is here meant.

4. If the paralel place, Colos. 2.12. Buried with him in baptisme, wherin also you are risen again, doth set forth an outward baptism as well as an inward, then bodily baptism is meant, as well as a spirituall washing in Christs blood. But the former is true, viz. Buried with him &c. [...], in baptism, [...], in which baptism or washing, you are risen a­gaine; therefore corporall washing, as well as washing in Christs blood, is here meant. Now because this doctrine of dipping, savors so of Novel­lisme; not to instance in histories, not without difficulty attainable; Peruse the book of Martyrs Edition. 7.

Mr. Fox saith, Augustine and Paulinus baptized them in rivers, not in hallowed Fonts, as witnesseth Fabianus, Cap. 119.120. Acts and Mo­numents, Part. 1. pag. 138. After speaking of Austin, he saith, he departed after he had baptized ten thousand Saxons or Angles, in the West river that is called Swale, besides Yorke, on a Christmas day. Where note by the way, Christian Reader, saith Mr. Fox, that whereas Austine bap­tized then in rivers, it followed then there was no use of Fonts, for this story Mr. Fox cites Fabian. Acts and Monuments, Part 1. Pag. 154.

After in the story of King Edwin, he hath this story; Paulinus having convicted Edwin the King, to the faith of Christ, and having baptized him; during the life of the said Edwin, which was six yeares more, Pauli­nus christned continually in the rivers of Gwenye and Swala, in both pro­vinces of Deira and Bernitia. Acts and Monuments, Part. 1. Pag. 156.

Onely I cannot but cleere a place in Mr. Blake, Pag. 4. His words are; compare Revel. 19.13. with Esa. 63.3. And you will find there no such difference, but the word be [...], rendred in our translation dipped, Revel 19. To be no other in Esa. 63. Then be sprinkled. But [Page 13] what ever the difference bee betweene them, though sprinkling be not at all baptizing, it makes little to your purpose; seeing those that dipp not Infants, do not yet use to sprinkle them; there is a middle way betwixt these two.

Reply. The Reader may observe, Mr. Blake hath a defence for what he is going to say, whether it be true or false, his words are, there is no such difference. Why, if there be any difference betwixt these two sayings, and the Persons of whom they are spoken, is it not enough to disprove that you would prove by them, you bring these two places to prove dipping and sprinkling to be one, yet you your selfe acknowledge a dif­ference betwixt them, in the thing for which you alledge them. Yea, as despairing of the proof, your own words conclude; but what ever the difference be, though sprinkling be not at all baptizing, &c.

2. But had you not confessed the same, we can easily prove it, Esa. 63.3. The words are there, Blood shall be besprinkled upon my garments; where the Prophet speakes of the victory, Christ gets against his enemies, after the manner of conquerors, who when they kill their enemies, the blood of the slaine is wont to besprinkle the conqueror. Hence Iunius reades it, inspersus est Sanguis cujusque robustissimi illorum vestamentis meis, but Revel. 19. Iohu speakes of Christ clothed with a vesture dipt in blood, which was no other then Christs own satisfaction, the righteous­nesse of Saints; therefore there can be no parrellellisme betwixt these two places; not to show the difference of the learned tongues herein, the dif­ference of the scope is enough to nullify what is said, to prove the word besprinkled, Esa. 63. And the word dipped, Apoc. 19. To be the same, it must be spoken of the same occasion, of the same time, of the same ac­tion, of the same subject, in the same language.

Now 1. The occasion was different, or Esa. 63.1.2.3. There are 2. questions propounded by the Church of the Iews, 1. The Church of the Iews seeing Christ revenging his enemies, askes who he is? verse. 1. 2. Why he was red in his apparell? to which the answer is given, vers. 3. 4, 5, 6. That the cause was the slaughter of his enemies. Now the occa­sion Apoc. 19. Is of the victory Christ got over the beast and the false Prophet, from vers. 10. to the end of the Chapter.

2. The time is different, one was in the Prophet Esays time, the other was neare to the end of the world; as appeares by the order of the Apo­calyptycall historye. Neither let any man say, this place of Esay, might be a Prophesy of the other in the Revelations; for in Esay 63. Theres no mention of Babilon, or any thing that can accord with this historie, in any seeming type.

[Page 14]3. Yea though it were the same occasion, and the same time, yet if in both Scriptures the same action were not mentioned, the argument of [...], dipped, in Revel. 19. And the word sprinkled, Isay 63. Would not follow to be the same, now that the action is not the same, appeares because there are no such questions propounded, Apoc. 19. As are propounded Isay 63. Nor no victory against the beast and false Pro­phet, mentioned, Isay 63. As is mentioned Apoc. 19. With many other differences of the actions, which any man that looks both texts may see. If so beare allusion of a word in the new Testament, to a word or phrase in the old Testament, will serve to prove points; we may make every thing of any thing, and make Christian religion more doubtfull, then the oracles of Delphus.

4. Theres difference in the subject; Though the occasion, time, and action were the same, yet if the subject, viz. The enemies over which Christ triumphs be not the same, then it followes that sprinkled, Isa. 63.3. And dipped, Apoc. 19.13. Are not the same; but so it is that the enemies over which Christ triumphs, are far different; for when Christ triumphed over his enemyes, Isa. 63. He came out of Edom, and with dyed garments from Bosrah, vers 1. Which Bosrah was the Metropolit of Edom, Isa. 34.6. 1 Machab. 5.26. So that his victory was there (in the true history) got over the Edomites and Bofraites; but this victory Christ gets, Apo. 19.13. Was over the beast and [...]alse Prophets in another part of the world, together with a many of Kings, & Princes, their confederates.

Which being so cleere, not to trouble the reader in so plaine a case with more differences, it followes that sprinkled, Isa. 63.3. And dipped, Apoc. 19.13. Are not the same; but the allegation is a meer flourish, to deceive supeficiall understandings. If any aske why I have been so long upon so weake an argument. It is to undeceive those, who have been by diverse learned men (some whereof are of great note) been deceived in this particular, by the counterfeit Parrellellisme of these two places.

Arg. 2. Mr. Blake, instead of taking away my answers to exceptions against Christs Commission, takes a long discourse out of his Book called, Birth priviledge; which is nothing, but [...], only instead of answering one [...], he inserts this long discourse, P. 11. 12. 13. out of which, all that I can deduce, is only 2. arguments against infants baptism.

1. Esay 49.22. Behold, I will lift [...]y my hand to the Gentiles, and set up my Standard to the people; and they shall bring thy sons in their arms, and thy daughters shall be carried upon their shoulders: Therefore, Infants may be baptized.

Answ. For the opening of this place at large, I refer the Reader to my for­mer book, part. 1. pag. 31.

In a word, God promised the Jews, that though now in Captivitie their Land were desart, and their desolations great; yet the Inhabitants should be so many, that the land should be too strait for them, vers. 19.20. Hence, vers. 21. They fall to enquiry who hath begotten these? Seeing themselves were desolate and sorry Captives: To which the Lord answers, vers. 22. Thus saith the Lord, I will lift up my hand to the Gentiles: As if he should say, it shall be my Work. There shall sundry of the Gentiles come in to them as Prose­lites, and not onely themselves, but they shall also bring their children in their armes, and upon their shoulders, with them; and so by multiplication of Proselytes, the Land in a short time became too strait for them. But what is this to the baptizing of Infants?

But that the Prophet should speak of the rejection of the Jews, and the call of the Gentiles in their stead, as Mr. Blake would have it; it's both con­trary to the tenor of Scriptures which affirm, that the Jews at their last con­version, shall be taken into the Gentiles, not the Gentiles into the Jews. See Rom. 11.12.15. and contrary to the tenor of that place, which speakes of a bringing in many Gentiles to the godly Jewes. And what if the godly Gen­tiles be so zealous, that rather then they will lose the benefit of Ordinances, by tarrying at home and looking to their infants, will take so much paines as carry them in their armes and shoulders unto them, what can hence be deduced for the sprinkling of Infants? And that this is the meaning of it, if there be any litterall sence therein, appears because the Prophet saith, I will set up my standard to the people, and they shall bring their sons, &c. which standard, is nothing but the preaching of the Gospell. Howbeit, I rather lean to Iu [...]ius, who acknowledges all these things to be spoken Allegorically, of the enlarge­ment of the spirituall Kingdome of Christ; as the Prophets are wont to speake.

Mr. Blake's next intermixed Argument is;

2. A [...]g. To belong to Christ, and be a Disciple of Christ, are both one; Matth. 10.42. compared with Mark. 9.42. Infants belong to Christ, there­fore they are Disciples, p. 13. 16.

Answ. To your proposition, I answer; First, its true of such Disciples as Christ spoke of, which were converted to the Faith, but not of others; nei­ther Infants who are not yet enlightened, nor of Elect persons unborn, who belong to God in respect of Gods decree, yet cannot properly be called Disci­ples; as not having any being: these to belong to Christ, and to be Disciples of Christ, are two severall things; the one, that is their belonging to Christ, is in present; the other, that is, their being Disciples, is in future: To this Mr. Blake gives a scoffe, instead of an answer, p. 16.

2. Children cannot be Disciples,See Mr. Den An [...] to D. Fea [...] P. 10. because they cannot take up Christ his crosse, Luk. 14.26. Now what Infant hath an habituall intention to take up Christ his crosse?

[Page 16]3. Disciples of Christ, they have a call into that state, either extraordinary, or ordinary.

But what call have Infants in that state?

4. Infants cannot be Disciples, because they are not capable of learning rea­son, much lesse deep things of Religion: Now Disciple in English is a scholler.

5. I will not speak of sundry badges of Disciples, whereby all men may know them; as Joh. 12.35. By this shall all men know ye are my Disciples, if ye love one another; and fruitfulnesse, Joh. 15.8. Herein is my father glo­rified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my Disciples. So Joh. 8.31. If ye continue in my word, then are ye my Disciples indeed. Now how can love, fruitfulnesse, or continuance in Christs word, be ascribed to Infants? which they must be, if Infants were Disciples: As Mr. Blake would make us believe.

But still Mr. Blake, lest he should seem to have said nothing, distinguishes— p. 18. that a Disciple is taken two wayes;

1. Strictly, for one that actually learnes.

2. Largely, for those that are taken into the number of those that do actu­ally learn, though themselves do not; and in this order he would make us be­lieve Infants to be Disciples, p. 18, 19, 20.

Answ. 1. There are none are Schollers in Christs School, but do learn; and therefore the similitude from little ones being called Schollers, though they do not learn, is of no weight.

2. Christ cuts off that distinction of two sorts of Disciples, in requiring one sort of qualifications in all his Disciples, as was shown before; Luk. 14.26.27. Joh. 8.31.12.35. Whosoever will be Christs Disciple, must hate father and mother.

Further, Mr. Blake goes about to weaken my answer to Mr. Marshals Ar­gument, out of Acts 15.10. which was this; p. 17. All they upon whose necks the false Teachers would have put the yoke of Circumcision, are called Disciples: But they would have put this yoke upon Infants, therefore Infants are Disciples.

Answ. Not to repeat my former answers, assailed by Mr. Blake, but not overcome, I answer:

We deny the Proposition; All that can be deduced from this Text is, that they would have put a yoke upon the neck of all the Disciples; Not that all were Disciples upon whom they would have put this yoke, or that they would have put the yoke onely upon the Disciples. See this answere with cleer demonstrations for it, in Mr. Dens Answ. to Dr. Fearley, pag. 11. 12. Who hath spoken so fully to it, that I need not adde thereto.

There are some other small exceptions, which Mr. BLAKE hath against my vindications of Christs Commission, which because they are not ma­teriall, as p. 14. and p. 20. I will not insist upon, he having past over so many mat­ters [Page 17] of moment, alledged concerning Christs Commission, as the Reader may easily observe.

Only the 5. exception he punisheth with very grievous stroakes, to make it an example to all the rest.

The exception, word for word by me a [...]ledged, is thus. viz.

Obj. Christ saith, baptize all nations, but Children are part of the nation, therefore they may be baptized.

Answ. In the proposition, there is a fallacy of division, whereby one con­joyned proposition, is divided into two pieces. As a certaine Athiest, that would prove out of Scripture, there was no God; for which he alledged, the 14. Psalme, vers 1. Where it is said, there is no God; but he left out the fore­going words, the foole hath said in his heart. So here Christ saith, baptize all nations, but he conjoynes with it, make disciples all nations; which the ob­jector here left out.

First, Mr. BLAKE makes a digressions, and contends from a small occasion to make a long discourse, to prove an universall visible Church: (and be­ing offended with me, that I explode it as a Monster) he goes about to prove it by reasons. As first, the confession of the Churches called Anabaptists. Se­condly, that many p [...]rticulars make up a generall; many particular men make up a multitude of men. Thirdly, in that God sets forth in the Church, first Apostles, secondarily Prophets, 1 Cor 12.28. This is not each particular Church, but the Church universall. Fourthly, 1 Cor. 15.9. from the Apo­stles speech, when he saith, He persecuted the Church of God: his spleen was not carried against one particular Church, but the whole Church. Fifthly, from 1 Cor. 10.32. Give no offence to the Church of God: no one particular Church is there deciphered, but under the notion of Church, universally all Churches.

Reply. First, to your first: Its a wonder you will confirm your Posi­tion, from the confession of Churches, or persons; elsewhere in your Book so stigmatized. But I suppose, the confession speakes of that spirituall Kingdome and Church Synechdochichally, onely as it is part of the body of Christ.

2. To your second, viz. That many particulars make up a generall, many particular men make up a multitude of men; therefore many visible Churches make up one visible Church. You may as well reason, many women make up one woman; and with more probability, many Ministers make up one Bi­shop.

To your third, 1 Cor. 12.28. God hath set forth in the Church, first A­postles; that is, not in each particular Church, but the Church univer­sall.

Reply. Its a Sinechdoche of the species, the singular for the plurall, in the [Page 38] Church, for in the Churches; So Eph. 3.21. Unto him be glory, in the Church. i. e. in the Churches. So Jam. 5.14. Let him send for the Elders of the Church.

To your fourth, 1 Cor. 15.9. I persecuted the Church; which was not one particular Church, but the whole.

Reply. PAUL meanes that part of the church, or of the body of Christ, which was here on earth, which is called [...], church, or a company cal­led out, in opposition to them that were yet in the state of nature, weltring in sin. He speakes not of churches, as visible; of which the question is.

To your fifth, 1 Cor. 10.32. Give no offence to the Church of God. The answer to the third and fourth may serve here: though there be some hypo­crites, yet may they be said to be of the church, as a glasse eye, a woodden leg, or wen on the face, may be said to be the body.

These things being so, and you declaring pag. 65. that you enter not upon the controversie concerning an universall church politicall, and yet maintain­ing, that there is a church abstracted from all consideration of single congrega­tions, that receives Ministeriall gifts, and such an universall church; into the priviledges of which, Believers are received. You disclaiming an universall church politicall, and no other church being possibly assigneable, save the company of Believers, from Adam to the end of the world; your church is a meer Chymera, or Monster, concerning which the Word is silent.

Concerning Presbyters being called, the Church, if any such thing be (though divers of the learned oppose) it is only as they have a power from the Church, delegated to them, or representatively, as the Parliament are called the King­dome, because they have the power of the kingdom cōmitted into their hands.

THe first Argument. As the infants of the Jews were circumcised, so the infants of Christians are to be baptized. I denyed the conse­quence, because then the Lords supper should be given to infants, because they par [...]ooke of Manna, and the paschall lambe.

Mr. Blake to this saith, Manna and the Rock are considered two wayes. 1 As common food and meanes of livelihood, so infants partooke of it. 2. As a visible pledge of Gods abode among them, so it was a Sa­crament; this use infants could not make of it.

Rejoynd. If infants could not make use of Manna and the passeover as a Sacrament, then not of the Lords supper, and consequently, not to be admitted to baptisme, because they cannot make use of it Sacramentally, if nothing be to infants a Sacrament, of which they cannot for present make use of, then infants baptisme cannot be a Sacrament to them, and so ought not to be administred.

The second reason of my denying the concequence, was; Circumcision was commanded to reprobate as well as Elect, Gen. 17.10. Every man­child shall be circumcised, so was Esau, after God had said the elder shall serve the younger, Gen. 25.23. And Ishmael, after God had rejected him, Gen. 17.20. Compared with v. 23. But baptisme is to be administred only to those that repent and believe.

To this Mr. Blake sayth, P. 95. Where is that command of circumcision of reprobates, or restraining baptisme to elect ones.

Reply. The command of circumcising all males, is Gen. 17.10. There­fore for the circumciseing reprobates, for restraining baptisme to elect ones, I never so restrained; it, but said it was to be administred to them that repent and believe.

There many other reasons of my denying the consequence, as the difference betwixt circumcision and baptisme, 1. In the matter, cutting in the flesh, being the matter which left sensible signe in the flesh, but sprinkling with water, the matter of infants baptisme, leaves no sensible signe in faith, and therefore in respect of them cannot be Sacrament, so other differences taken from the change of the visible Church, from what it was in the time of the Jews, &c. See storme Antichrist, P. 32. 32. And compare Mr. BLAKES answers therewith.

Ile only add this to what I delivered, that if the command which bound the Jews to circumcision, bind us to baptisme then.

First) we must be of Abrahams loynes, as all circumcised Iews were.

Secondly, then we must be obliged to the 8. day, and that only for our males. Where is that Scripture that points you to let baptisme suc­ceed circumcision as far as you please, and on whom you please, that it must succeed circumcision in point of infancy, and not in point of obliga­tion to keeps the law of cerimonies, succeed for time of infancy, but not for the time of the 8. day, succeed it for males, and yet not for all the males, but only for the males of believers? and Female infants to bee bap­tized, without any president at all, of Female infants circumcised.

To maka the institution of circumcision to be the institution of bap­tisme, that from the command of circumcising the Males, the 8. day we must baptize, Male and Female is to call us back againe to Iudasme, and to set up againe the partition wall of cerimonies, which the death of Christ hath puled down. I know no more reason why circumcision should bind us by the analogye and proportion, (if there were a proportion betwixt circumcision and baptisme) then the rest of the Jewish cerimonyes, the proportion of the passeover may as well tye whole familyes to eat of the supper. I dar say, we may bring in most of the points of popery, if out un­derstandings without command from God, may under the new Testa­ment make proportions from the old. From hence, pope Gregory as D.N. places in his booke of the Masse, Lib. 2. Cap. 7. undertooke to reduce all the old Testament into the new, changing the elders into the sacraficing Preists of the law, the Tables into Altars, the Sacraments into Sacrifices, the Deacons into Levites, and there entred an endlesse peece of worke.

Christ being the end of circumcision and passeover, as of all orher cere­monies, to whom they have reference, as the shadow to the body, Colos. 2.17. Christ being come in the flesh, we have nothing to do with them not with any command annexed to them.

Obi. But circumcision was a signe of the covenant of grace, and bap­tisme [Page 59] baptisme is the same; therefore basptisme succeeding circumcision in the same office of signing the covenant, it succeeds also in the same sub­ject.

Sol. Though it will very hardly be granted, that circumcision was the seale of the righteousnesse of faith to any other then Abram, and we have answered, Rom. 4.11. (See Storme of Antichrist) where there are 6. an­swers thereto; yet grant it that circumcision signified circumcision of heart, and was a signe of the righteousnesse of faith; yet was it a signe of these things to be in Christ to come: but baptisme signifies them in Christ already come, who dyed for our sins, and rose for our Justificati­on; did not divers other things under the law signifie the same covenant: as the cloudy Sea, water out of the Rock, 1 Cor. 10.1.2.3 4.5. Did not Manna, Iohn 6. Signifie the same. Did not the Ark, 1 Peter. 3.21. Signifie our salvation by Christ from the flood of Gods wrath? Did not the sacrifices, Heb. 9 19. The blood of Goates and Calves, and scarlet woll and bysop, signifie the same things, viz. That all cleansing was in Christs blood; And to use the words of a learned man, why may we not say, baptisme succeeds the floud Ark Manna, dayes of attonement, clow-by Sea, and that the Lords supper, succeeds circumcision as well as bap­tisme, and so all Males Were to eat the supper as all were baptized.

2. For the consequence; that because baptisme signes the same cove­nant, therefore there must be the same subject.

A. Then by the same reason, the Lords supper signifying the same cove­nant, there must be the same subject; and so infants must receive the supper.

2. Circumcision cannot possibly be asserted to be a signe of the cove­nant of grace, to all he posterity of Abra [...], but only to the believing Jew grant baptisme to be also a signe of the covenant of grace, yet will it then follow that baptisme signifies the same, onely to the believing Gentile.

Obj. But this covenant, I will the the God of thee and of thy seed; Gen. 17.7. Was made with the faithfull and their seed.

Sol. No it was made with Abram and his seed, not with believers and their seed, (for no where in Scripture is any such thing spoken) but with believers, as his seed; the children of the flesh are not the seed, but the children of the promise are counted for the seed, Rom. 9.8.

This doctrine of christians begetting christians, or persons in covenant with God is very pleasing for a moment, I wish it may not destroy us for ever, especially, seeing under the pretence of baptizing the children of the faithfull, the infants of all or most of the unbelievers of a parish are baptized.

Againe, those with whom God makes the new covenant under the [Page 60] Gospel, are Heb. 8. They in whose hearts he writes his law, how then dare we say, that now under the Gospe [...], believers and their seed are confedde­rates in the Covenant of Grace; seeing we have no knowledge of Gods writing his law in their hearts, and many of them prove wicked.

[...]ry [...]of iniqui­ [...] P. 184. [...]. 167.I will shut up this, with the words of Mr. HELWYS.

Obj. As the seed of the faithfull were circumcised, so the seed of the faithfull must be baptized.

Answ. The proportion is deceitfull, thus ought the consequence to be drawne: As Abram believing was circumcised, and all the males of his houshold, both men, and children of 8. dayes old, bond and free, so now any man believing, must be baptized with all his houshold, both men, and children of 8. dayes old, bond and free.

2. It is not a necess [...]ry consequence, nothing must be proved by consequence, but that which must of necessity follow; but this doth not of necessity follow, that because infants were circumcised with circumci­sion of the flesh under the law, therefore infants must of necessity be bap­tized with the baptisme of repentance, for remission of sins under the gospel.

But a true consequence is this; none were circumcised, but those that were expresly commanded, by rule or example, so under the Gospel none may be baptized, but those that are expresly commanded by rule or example.

To conclude, whereas God saith, I will make a new covenant, not ac­cording to the old; persons will have it according to the old, that as in­fants were circumcised under the old covenant, so they will have infants baptized under the new: and is not this to change the covenant which Christ hath sealed with his blood,

Next Mr. Blake P. 97. Comes to cite over the answers to Colos. 2.12. Which i [...] generally brought to prove baptisme to succeed circumcision, as an initiating signe, for see the arguments and reasons. Storme of Anti-Christ P. 2. P. 36.

Next Mr. Blak [...], P. 97. Replyes to the answer of this argument. If in­fants may not now be baptized, then they are deprived of some grace cir­cumcision did confer.

Answ. No, circumcision did not bring any grace to the Jews, but was rather a yoke, Acts 15.10.11. Gal. 5.3.

Reply. Circumcision is to be considered as a Sacrament, as given to A­braham as a signe and seale of Christ, so it was no yok but a priviledge; thus considered, it was no obligation to the law, or as a law Cerimony enjoyn­ed by Moses.

Rejoynd. Consider circumcision which way you will, yet was it bur­thensome to the flesh, burthensome to the conscience, to be bound over [Page 61] to such ceremonious observation as circumcision bound to; I do not reade of any such thing that it was a signe or seal of Christ to the believing Jews; one­ly to Abraham it was a seal of the righteousnesse of faith, in respect of his common fatherhood; but that it was so to other believing Jews, it must have many syllogisticall labyrinths to winde it in, for the Scripture no where saith any such thing.

But to answer more fully to the fore-named Argument;

First, you understanding by the grace, circumcision did confer not inherent grace, but externall priviledge: I answer, that is only a priviledge which God makes to be a priviledge, if circumcision was a priviledge, then it was because God had so established it, and being he hath not so established Infants bap­tisme for a priviledge under the Gospell, it is no priviledge.

2. There was an answer Mr. Blake left, because it weighed too heavie for him, viz. It is not a benefit, but a misery for children to be baptized; for here­by they are apt to think themselves Christians, when they are strangers from Christ.

3. We have no ground to reason the Jews had such a priviledge, therefore we Gentiles must have the same, unlesse the Word say so; in some things the Jews had priviledges above us, see Rom. 9.4. In other things we have privi­ledges above them, Matth. 13.16, 17.

Obj. Unlesse Infants be baptized, they are excluded from the new Cove­nant; But they are not excluded.

Answ. The Canaanitish woman without baptisme, was in covenant with Christ. Secondly, you think your Infants not baptized, are saved. Thirdly, the Scripture no where sets down baptisme as a Gate to let in, or a condition, without which we cannot pertake of Gods Covenant.

Reply. You use to put your objection in such termes, that you may answer it with most advantage to your self; you might have put it, That the visible Church is made up of them, and therefore the ordinary gate of entrance into it, is not to be shut against them.

Rejoynd. Though this answer be far from an answer, yet suppose it had been so put, it had damnified your cause. Those of whom the visible Church is made up, to them the ordinary gate of entrance is not to be shut; But the vi­sible Church is made up of Infants.

I deny your assumption, the visible Churches are not made up of Infants, but of men and women, Acts 8.12. of visible Saints, 1 Cor. 14.33. of such as are born again of water and of the spirit.

Answ. 2. For the assumption, it followes not because Christ bade suffer these little children, therefore he would suffer all such; from a particular, to an universall, is no consequence. It once rained Manna, and once water came [Page 62] out of the Rock; therefore it shall be so alwayes.

Reply. To this Mr. Blake saith, p. 99. Did Christ bid suffer these little children to come, pointing at these individuall children? Or whether are his words, suffer little children (giving license to all within the coasts of Israell to whom he was sent) in generall?

Rejoynd. Here is a smooth discourse, were it but truth; If all the children in Israel, had such admission to Christ, and the Kingdome of God belonged to them, how came they to be so wicked shortly after, to crucifie the Sonne of God? which was done according to the voice of the multitude: And forty yeares after, at Jerusalems destruction they were so wicked, that if God had not shortned them, there would no flesh been saved, Matth. 24.22. Mr. Blake may as well collect, that Christ bade all Infants come, as them Infants of Is­rael, seeing all sorts of persons came to see his myracles.

So that Christ speaks only of those that were so qualified as these present children which were now brought, and whose pertinency to Gods Kingdome, Christ did sufficiently know. But however they were, or whatsoever you meane by the Kingdome, yet did not Christ baptize them, for Jesus baptised not, Joh. 4.2. And if he did not baptize these who were so qualified, surely he would not baptize others. Had Christ used to baptize Infants, the Disciples would not have kept them back: It appears Christ laid his hands on them, but it appears not that either Christ or his Apostles baptized them. To infer Christ baptised not, therefore we may, is absurd; these words (the Kingdome of God) having so many acceptions: As taken for the Kingdome of Grace, the King­dome of Glory, and the visible Church, it is hard to bring any such proof, that the visible Church should be here meant; and farre more hard (yea impossi­ble) to prove, that though the visible Church were meant, yet that those little children that were then bid come thereinto were baptized: But to make it more unlikely that a visible Church should be meant, this Kingdome is not called the Kingdome of God, but the Kingdome of heaven, Matth. 19.14. To them that were so qualified as these Infants were [...], of such is the Kingdome of heaven: But what is this to baptizing Infants? The consequence is true of none but those Christ blest.

For Mr. Blakes saying, p. 101. The text is not, suffer humble children, but little children; which refers to quantity not quality.

Answ. The ground that we suppose a quality meant, is not in the word little, but in the word [such] [...], yet do we finde godly persons, called little children, in respect of the quality of humility, Matth. 18.3, 4, 5, 6.

The seventh Objection being very little different from the former, and barely recited by Mr. Blake, p. 101, 102. and no answer of any right given thereto, I will passe it over, and leave the Reader to peruse it, Storm. of Antich. [Page 63] pag. 38, 39, 40. Having spoken so fully thereto, that I think it superfluous to adde any thing.

Arg. 8. When Peter exhorted his hearers to repent and be baptized, he useth an argument from the benefit that should come to their posterity; for the promise is to you and your children.

Answ. That is not the scope; but Peter answers a question, which trou­bled consciences pricked for killing the Lord of life made, viz. What shall we do? Besides, the mountains and millions of our sins, we have the blood of the Son of God upon us, what shall we do? To whom Peter saith, Repent and be baptized; they further scrupled, what grounds for this? To whom Peter propounded the universality of the promise. It is to you and your chil­dren, even as many as God shall please effectually to call; they further scrupled, we have contracted guilt on our children, his bloud be on us and our children; to this Peter saith, the promise is to you and your children.

Reply. Mr. Blake, p. 105. And in the answer of this question, he prescribes the use of this Ordinance of baptisme; and to perswade to the use of it, he produceth the promise, in the same latitude as it was by God delivered.

Rejoynd. If the question were so, and the answer so as I have laid it down, and your self confesse, then down fals the whole fabrick of the Argument; men that were startled under such great guilt of conscience, stood need of a plaister of remission of sins to be preached; It would little have eased them, to have exhorted them to be godly, from the benefit that should come to their chil­dren by baptisme.

Whereas I said this place is not a promise but a proffer of a promise, to per­sons not actually converted, but in a way of conversion.

Mr. Blake saith, he cannot reach this distinction. To which I answer, had these persons been actually converted, as sundry of the Paedobaptists argue (in saying, as it is to a godly man, so is it to his children, but the promise is to a godly man; which argument I heard pressed in a very great auditory) then had been a promise in being to them; but being unconverted, it was onely a promise in proffer, not to persons converted, but onely in a way of conver­sion. Yea not onely proffered to these, but to all whom God should call effe­ctually; and that an inward calling is here meant, because some have questio­ned it; Appears first, because Remission of sins is promised to this calling, but remission of sins is onely promised to effectuall calling. Secondly, be­cause these persons that have these promises, are bid to repent▪ Verse 38. Therefore PETER speakes of effectuall inward calling. Thirdly, the LORD is said to call them; As many as the LORD our GOD shall call, therefore inward calling is meant; Acts 16.14. Whose heart the LORD opened.

[Page 64]9. Obj. The parents faith is sufficient to receive baptisme for the In­fant.

Answ. The just must live by his owne faith, Heb. 2.4. Ezek. 18.11. What did Isacks faith profit Esau, or Iohosaphats faith Iehoram.

Reply. Mr. BLAKE saith to this, he that lives by his own faith, may by that faith entitl [...] his p [...]sterity to the ordinances; in the old Testament they had benefit by their fathers faith, to be circumcised the 8. day, Isacks faith did so much profit Esau, as to intitle him to circumcision.

Rejoynd. You spoke heretofore, as if the charter granted to Abraham, had been the formall cause of enrightment to circumcision, and to baptisme, now have we a new formall cause assigned, viz. the parents faith; and that not only his professionall faith, but his justifying faith, or such [...] faith as a just man lives by, which being a thing invisible there is no admini­strator can have a sufficient ground to administer baptisme to any per­son, because he knowes not whether his father lives by faith.

2. It was God [...] command, and not the fathers faith; no nor yet A­brahams faith, that inrighted to circumcision; for Abraham had saith long before, yea also had issue, yet did he not circumcise them, till God com­manded.

3. It is not said to the Samaritans, Acts 8.12. That they believing, they and their children were baptized, but they that believed only: So, Acts 2.41. They that gladly received the word were baptized, not they and their children.

10. Obj. Baptisme and circumcision are essentially the seales of faith, Rom. 4.11. Therefore baptisme succeeding in the roome of circumcision, ought not to be denyed to infants, [...]lthough it be the baptisme of faith and repentance.

Answ. Then none should be baptized but grown persons, and such as have the righteousnesse of faith, as Abraham had at this time when he was circumcised, neither of which are competible to infants of dayes; Its ab­surd to thinke t [...]t baptisme should succeed circumcision, in respect of in­fancy, not mentioned in the text, and not in grownenesse of stature, which now was the age of Abraham, nor in qualification of the righteousnesse of faith, which now was the qualification of Abram, both which are men­tioned in this text.

Reply. None but they and there seed, as it was with Abraham.

Rejoynd. The text speaks of Abram alone, and Mr. BLAKE puts it in the plurall number, they and their seed, which is a meer fallacy, to bring in the children of believers, had not the text been thus sophisticated, truth would have appeared; we are not Abrahams seed, as from Abrams loyne [...] but only as having his faith.

[Page 65]2. To all former answers, some of the principall whereof are no named by Mr. BLAK [...], see Storme of Antichrist P. 42. Ile add, that in­fants cannot hence be baptized, because though they may have a righte­ousnesse, yet they cannot have the righteousnesse of faith, because they have no power to believe, during their infancy circumcision was the seale of the righteousnesse of faith, which Abraham had being uncircumcised, so if there were any such succession of baptisme to circumcision, as the Paedobaptists would beare us in hand with, then baptisme should be the seale of the righteousnesse of faith, which the person unbaptized hath; but we know infants have no faith, neither can we know they have any righte­ousnesse, till they grow up and make it appeare, therefore are not to be baptized, neither can we see baptisme to be a seale.

For the first and 2. Answers, Mr. BLAKE would seeme to take away, P. 106. Let them be compared with the text, Rom. 4.11. And the Storm. of Antichrist, P. 41. 42. It will appeare he hath said nothing in effect.

Obj. 11. Holy persons are to be baptized, but infants are holy per­sons; Ergo.

Answ. 1. Holy persons endued with an holinesse known to the Church, ought to be baptized, but the Apostle speaks of an outward holinesse com­mon to reprobates.

2. If the child be holy with a covenant holinesse, then is the wife, though an Heathen, holy with covenant sanctification, so the wife though an Hea­then belongs to the covenant of grace.

3. If there should be any covenant holinesse conveyed to Gentiles, it must be by our being Abrams seed, Gal. 3.29.

4. Covenant holinesse doth not agree with the context, for the question was not after what way, man, woman or child, become holy; but whether a believer or an unbeliever might live one with another in mar­riage to which the Apostle answers, affirmatively they might, and gives a reason, in v. 14.

Mr. BLAK [...] replyes to the first, that which can bepickt out is, that ou [...]ward holinesse cannot be knowne to the Church.

To the Second, the contrary in the text is evident; the wife is sanctifi­ed as to the bringing forth holy issue and the issue and not the wife, is stiled holy.

To the Third, this faith (as the text showes) carries the covenant holi­nesse to posterity.

To the Fourth, they had a further scruple, viz. What might be thought of their infants, whether they were to be counted holy, with the believing parent, or uncleane with the unbelieving one; these are Mr. BLA [...]S replyes.

Rejoynd. To the first, when we speak of an outward holinesse that makes capable of baptisme, we mean not such an holinesse as was in the Law, Heb. 9. But the outward expression in word and deed, of that inward inherent holi­nesse in the heart, that it may be made visible to the judgement of charity.

To the second, whereas Mr. Blake saith, the issue and not the wife is stiled holy; the contrary appears, in the Text the unbelieving wife is sanctified; 1 Cor. 7.14. Neither saith he, to the bringing forth an holy issue, but saith, is sanctified in or to the husband; that is, is sanctified to his use, and enjoyment, and cohabitation. He saith not, the unbeliever is sanctified to the believing hus­band, but barely to the husband; to show, that the holinesse consisted in the relation of matrimoniall institution.

To the third, I deny that faith carries any covenant holinesse to posterity; for faith onely purifies the heart where it is, Acts 15.19. So that the just live by their own faith onely, Rom. 1.17. How a grace that inheres in the soul can externally redound to any sanctifying of another, is a mistery to me.

To the fourth, if you look in the Text, you shall see there was no scruple whether their infants were to be counted holy with their believing parent, or unholy with their unbelieving; as any one may see, vers. 12, 13. If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away; and the woman which hath an husband that belie­veth, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him: In these two verses any one may see what the question was, viz. Whether a believer and an unbeliever may live together, and not the least scruple about the holi­nesse or unholinesse of children? Now lest he should barely speak the thing, he gives three reasons.

First, because the unbeliever is sanctified in the believer; that is, the unbelie­ver is not defiled in any such bond, and much lesse the believer, vers. 14.

Secondly, because there's no defilement in your children, as there must needs be, if the believer must put away the unbeliever, as in the time of the Law; then must your children by such yoke-fellowes be put away, else were your children unclean, now are they holy.

The third reason, because you may one of you, be the meanes of saving an­other, vers. 16.

[4. From their Christian calling, vers. 17.]

Ile adde one reason more, viz. The Corinthians knew, that as their chil­dren were not capable of prophanation by one of the parents, viz. the unbe­liever; so could they not be capable of holinesse by the other parent, viz. the believer; therefore did they not scruple, whether their children were to be counted holy, with the believing parent, or unholy with the unbeliever.

Ile conclude this Argument: Whereas an holinesse of legitimation, in oppo­sition [Page 67] to illegitimation, though not to bastardy, is meant; (for those that were put away in Ezra's time, were not put away as bastards, but as unho­ly; because they violated these holy rules God set down concerning mariage) What ground is this for any hereditary covenant holinesse? But what if legi­timation had been opposed to Bastardy? Perhaps you will say, their chil­dren had been born in lawfull Wedlock, though neither of their Parents had been a Believer: True, but a childe of GOD may scruple for want of light, things that are cleer enough, and so might these Corin­thians do. And the Apostle doth charitably in answering their scruple, and I will not say but they scrupled legitimation of their children, not one­ly in opposition to illegitimation, but to bastardy.

For the twelfth Objection, it was answered in the second Part.

For the thirteenth Objection, from 1 Cor. 10.1. you give no answer, be­cause you never supposed any great validity in it, to the question in hand; as your self acknowledge.

Obj. 14. Lydia and all her family was baptized, but it is not said her fa­mily believed; therefore its lawfull for persons to be baptized, although they do not believe.

Answ. Lydia and her family were baptized as Christ commanded, else Paul had contemned an Ordinance of Christ. It's absurd to baptize any one in the faith of their Master or Mistresse; I ask those that hold Infants bap­tisme, whether they would baptize all the servants of a Turk, if he should believe, and not his servants?

Reply. To this Mr. Blake saith, these are of capacity to believe, and their unbelief is privative and damning; neither have they any other title then faith to baptisme.

Rejoynd. This doth not answer the question, whether an unbelieving ser­vant may be baptized by the faith of his master? And for title to baptisme, I know no title to baptisme but by believing.

Obj. 15. For your exceptions against my answers to the families, I cleer thus. First, for Lydia, its probable she had no husband, because she was so earnest with persons so hated and persecuted, to come to her house, had she had an husband she durst not.

Mr. Blake. This conjecture is weak, for Ioanna did as much, Luk. 8.3.

Rejoynd. Its denied, she ministred of her goods, but did not urge Christ at all to come to her house.

Besides, Lydia might be an ancient Widow, and all her children grown up, no necessity of infants.

For Stephanas its beyond your exception; That there were no infants, see [Page 68] 1 Cor. 16.15. For your reason from Luk. 19.9. if you can prove the house received salvation, as the house of Stephanas ministred to the Saints, you might make a little shadow but small substance.

For Cornelius his family (though there was some mistake) in my alledging him, yet he feared God with all his house, Acts 10.2. and after was bap­tized.

For your exception against Acts 18.8. The Corinthians hearing, believed and were baptized, because ABRAHAM hearing, believed and was circum­cised. Answ. Do Infants do so?

Obj. 16. As the childe is born free by the fathers freedome, so if God take the the father into covenant, he takes in the children with them: As the Son of a Priest or Levite, or the Son of a State Officer hath right to his fathers Office.

Answ. If by covenant you mean the covenant of Grace, no believer is born in this; we being by nature children of wrath; but if you mean some outward covenant, that is inrightment in Church-proviledges, as baptisme, supper, &c. Shew some copie, that by the fathers inrightment herein, all the children come to be inrighted; as there are patents for the other, in divine or humane Ordinances.

Reply. Mr. Blake saith, a Nobleman begets a Son as a man, not as a person of honour; so a free-man, a State officer that holds a patent of inheritance, yet these beget sonnes vsted with their discendable immunities and privi­ledges.

Rejoynd. So do Christian men as well as other men, but this doth not prove Christianity or baptisme to be a discendable immunity; you taxe me for char­ging the traduction of Christianity on these times, but if these comparisons tend not hereto, I know not what doth; onely you lye hid, in not making your reddition in expresse words, but leave it so, that any one may know your meaning; The course of all disputation, should begin from the definition of a thing; I have defined baptisme, Storm. of Antichrist, p. 58. and elsewhere, I would you had done so.

But this comparison doth in some good measure expresse your meaning, what you think it to be; which how it can in any way agree with Rom. 6.3, 4, 5. Col. 2.12. 1 Pet. 3.20. and many other Scriptures; I see not.

Mr. Blake addes for a conclusion of this Argument; That if I or any other can bring any considerable witnesses of credit, from the time of ABRAM to this hour, that will say, that no such thing was held in their age in which they lived, no such doctrine maintained, nor no practice bearing witnesse to it used, meaning unto this holinesse of birth-priviledge; then he will quit the the cause, and betake himself to our party, pag. 114.

Answ. First it lyes upon your part to prove it by the witnesses of the re­spective [Page 69] ages, to tell us that our Infants have a holinesse of birth-priviledge.

Secondly, it is not sufficient to conclude, that because we cannot bring wit­nesse, that holinesse of birth-priviledge was not held in the severall ages, from ABRAM to this age, that therefore it was held in all or any of those ages: Is it sufficient for the Papists to argue, that if the Protestants can bring any considerable witnesses of credit, from the times of the Apostles, for 700. yeares after Christ, that no transubstantiation was held in their ages wherein they lived, we will quit the controversie of transubstantion; yea the whole cause of Popery: Nay (say we to Papists) it lyes upon you to prove it in the Apostolicall times, and in following ages, or else we explode it as Idolatry and noveltie.

Onely we must take notice of the good opinion Mr. Blake in his sober mood hath of us poor Anabaptists; in that could we disprove his traduction of Christianity, or holinesse of birth-priviledge, he would quit the cause, and betake himself to our party, pag. 115. Which showes, he deems us not so he­reticall in cold blood, as he doth in a passion; well, if our heresie be no gre [...] ­ter then denying the holinesse of birth-priviledge, I hope we shall never have that Peccadillo charged on us.

Object. 17. As soon as Zacheus profest the faith, the covenant of salvation comes to his house, forasmuch as he is a sonne of ABRAM.

Answ. Salvation was Christ, Luk. 2.30.

Reply. Salvation was saving Ordinances, incorporating him and his to this Common-wealth, Joh. 4.22.

Rejoynd. It was Christ: For Ordinances might have come again and again, yet no salvation; we reade not that all the family became sonnes of ABRAHAM, by his receiving Christ joyfully; which must be the thing pro­ved, to prove your point; but onely himself was a son of ABRAHAM: For your comparing Zacheus and Stephanas his house, I have answered before.

Obj. 18. Though I have oft heard it urged, yet you passe it over without any reply, and so do I without any rejoynder.

Obj. 19. You say hath already been examined, and so it hath.

Obj. 20. Baptisme of infants is not forbid in Scripture, therefore its law­full, p. 117.

Answ. That worship is forbid, which is not commanded, Col. 2.23. Matth. 15.9. Deut. 12.32. 1 Reg. 12.23. Esa. 29.13. Jer. 7.31. Hos. 13.2.

Reply. Mr. Blake doth not take away my answer in any kinde, but chan­ges the termes, yea so far, that he puts a new argument, which is this. Infants Baptisme is commanded in Scripture, therefore its lawfull.

Rejoynd. You bring not not tittle of reason to prove it, yet will I not retort your Epithitē Magisteriall. Could you have brought any such com­mand, [Page 70] I doubt not but we should have heard of it very loudly, especially see­ing the producement of such a command would end the Controversie.

Obj. But here is no alteration of the worship, but of the subject, for the manner of baptizing is the same.

Answ. The change of the subject makes it will-worship, because here­in you goe from the will of that one Law-giver, who wils onely that Be­leevers should be baptized, whose sins in the judgement of charity are forgi­ven, Acts 22.16.

Reply. I pray tell us, saith Mr. Blake, where we may finde a text of Scri­pture that sets forth our charity for a judge in these things.

Rejoynd. I commend Mr. Blakes discretion, that after his usuall manner, that if there be an answer hath any infirmity in it, he is nibbling at that, and lets go the strong, for feare he should conjure up more spirits then he can lay downe. I answer, that those that defend Infants baptisme, would think it will-worship if any Ministers should baptize the children of Turks, and that upon this ground, because they are not fit subjects: the like conclude we for the bapti­zing of Infants, as being not fit subjects. But to answer your demand, where we may finde a Scripture that sets forth our charity for a judge?

Answ. Though this was no essentiall point in the Answer, which Answer wisely you left untouched in the least kinde, and fixt upon a Parenthesis set downe for exornation; yet, I answer, Acts 8.37. Philips charity was a judge that the Eunuch did beleeve, and had his sins pardoned; and so was Ananias charity, (Acts 9.) a judge that Paul beeleeved, compared with Acts 16.22. and so was Pauls charity to Lydia, Acts 16.14. and to the Jaylour, ver. 34. he could not looke into either of their hearts, whether their faith was un­fained; on what ground else was Magus baptized, Acts 13. but because Philip deemed him to beleeve, as well as the rest of the Samaritans. So Ana­nias, Saphira and Demas, and many others, both sinners and hypocrites, were baptized from the judgement of charity; yea, 3000. at one time, Acts 2.41. and 5000. at another time, Acts 4. are texts of Scripture beyond ex­ception, that sets forth our charity for a judge concerning persons baptizable, even such as repent, and consequently have their sins forgiven, for these two goe together, Acts 5.31. A Saviour to give repentance unto Israel, and for­givenesse of sins, Luke 24.47. repentance and remission must be preached to­gether.

And upon this ground of repentance, because Iohn in charity deemed per­sons to have repented who confessed their sins, he baptized them, Matth. 3.6. hence his Baptisme came to be called, the Baptisme of repentance.

2. Either conjecture, infallibility, or charity, must be judge what per­sons are baptizable; not bare conjecture, for there is nothing but uncertainty, [Page 71] in that, such as there is in Infants baptisme, who baptize in a manner all in Christian Kingdomes, (as they call them) because there are some Elect.

Or infallibility must be judge; but though Mr. Blake beare much upon this, as if he and such administrators did administer upon more certaine, grounds then others, not onely the certainty of charity, but of infallibili­ty: for, so he saith, page 24 so we should fall upon the absurdity of your party to maintaine, that this Sacrament is applyed upon the ground of charity, and not certainty, upon hopes that the person is of capacity, not assurance.

Yet, must he, in challenging a certainty of infallibility, if any such he challenge, exceed the Apostles, who were not infallible, in their judging per­sons to be baptized, as we see in Ananias, Saphira, Magus, &c.

Bare conjecture, nor infallibility being not the judges what persons are baptizable, what remaines, but that charity must be the judge, whose office it is to beleeve and hope the best of all things, much more to beleeve and hope well of those who make a good profession of life and words before many witnesses, 1 Tim. 6. no greater certainty being attaineable; and God onely being the searcher of hearts.

But of this enough,

The 22. Objection is formerly cleered, when Mr. Blake did conjoyne it with another.

Obj. There are three great mischefes goe along with denying Infants ba­ptisme; as,

1. Rejection of the Lords Day.

2. Taking their Proselites wholly from the ministery of the Word.

3. Putting of Infants of beleevers into the condition of Turks and In­dians.

Answ. To the first, for the Jewish Sabboth once commanded by God, its put to an end, Col. 2.16. else it stands in force yet, and that being put to an end, we observe the Lords Day from the Apostles example, and the mo­rality of the fourth Commandement, which requires one day in seven.

2. To the second, we take them not off, but your selves by preaching and praying against the things we practise.

3. To the third, why may not the Infants of Turks, being equally guil­ty of originall sin, with Infants of Christians, (for your selves confesse, ba­ptisme takes not away originall sinne) and equally free from actuall sinne, partake of the same benefits of free grace, why may we not have charitable thoughts concerning the salvation of Turkish Infants, being we know no­thing of their damnation?

Reply. To the first Mr. Blake saith, take heed of a reall refutation not from the pen, but from the practise.

Secondly to the second, look to the confession of the faith of your Chur­ches, and see what they leave to the Ministery: All who have guifts may and ought to prophesie, &c.

Thirdly, your third mischief is sufficiently spoken to. p. 73.

Rejoynd. To the first, I wish we may take your counsell.

2. To the second, though they leave not so much to the Ministery as per­haps you would have them, yet this proves them not to take off persons wholly from the Ministery; which is the charge you are to prove, else you say nothing.

Secondly, to the second; persons that are hearers, are either weak or strong, if weak they are in danger of being misled, if strong they are in danger not onely of partaking in the sins of a whole congregation, whiles false and scan­dalous doctrines go for truth, whiles the strong heares them and makes no replyes, and so all the congregation through his silence come to be misled; but also they are in danger of deniall of Christ, whiles things manifestly false in their conscience, goes for truth by their silence, they not testifying against them, nor justifying wisedome, as all the sonnes of wisedome are bound to do, Matth. 11.19. And what a sin it is to deny Christ habitually, as here strong persons are like to do, I leave to persons to consider; there is but one remedy for to prevent this that I can see, viz. To make reply after sermon is done, to any doubtfull point, in meeknesse and modesty, which if the severall Con­gregations would friendly permit, as the Lawes of the land (so far as I know) do suffer it; provided reply be not in sermon time, but after, not onely my self, but I am perswaded many hundreds more, would be glad to partake of the paines of many learned preachers, whose gifts we reverence in an high mea­sure; but till our scruples can be salved (it being in the power of your side to salve them) give leave to those that doubt thereof to forbear, because of the Apostles rule, Whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

Howbeit, in the Church wherein I am a Member, if any man be not mo­ved with the foregoing reasons, but thinks that with a good conscience (re­bus sic stantibus, things being as they are) that he may hear a Parish Minister in a Parish Church, though he have no habituall intention to professe against any untruth, or being weak, is not able to protest in words of weight, we leave these persons to themselves, without any threats of censure, not making our consciences or reasons in such new controversies, the rules of other mens practises.

Howbeit, in regard of doctrines usually preached, contrary to their practice, & petitions in praier powred out contrary to their principles, we greatly fear they [Page 73] do it out of compliance to temporall ends, which in-dwelling corruption keeps them from the sight of, and dance upon ropes, when they may go with­out fear upon the ground; that worship doth a man little good, wherein he hears and prayes, in fear of something that may be spoken contrary to his own principles.

Thirdly, Whereas you taxe the confession of faith made by some of our Churches (for to it I suppose some of the Churches never subscribed) for their holding, all who have gifts may and ought to prophesie: I wish you, or any man else would make it clear, that they have not power so to do, and convince them by your reasons, rather then by your exclamations: Following times will finde this to be a controversie of great moment; in which I must confesse my self to be very dark, though I heard the point once well sifted in new En­gland, at a great presence of learned Elders.

To the third, you say it hath been spoken to, but I cannot finde where.

Obj. 24. There is no expresse command of womens receiving the Lords Supper.

Answ. Yes, from example, Acts 1.14. Where the Virgin Mary and o­thers were gathered, there were divers women. These were together in one place, and they continued in the Apostles fellowship, and breaking of bread, chap, 2.42. and 44. all that believed were together. Therefore women recei­ved the supper.

2. It appears from command, 1 Cor. 11.28. Let a man or woman exa­mine, [...].

3. There's one and the same communion in baptisme, and in the supper; Now women were baptized, Acts 8.12. Therefore they received the Supper.

Reply. Both your examples and reasons, are by way of collection and infe­rence from Scriptures.

R [...]joynd. How should they be else; let the Reader judge, whether Mr. Blake hath in this answer given a full repulse, as his title page professeth.

Obj. 25. The denying of infants baptisme is contrary to the practice of the Churches, and casts an aspersion upon them.

Answ. We finde the history of the Acts of the Apostles, and the first 300. years, well nigh, if not altogether cleer for us.

Reply. For a full discovery of the notable untruth of this assertion, I refer your Reader no further then your 12th. Argument, with all your diligent search, we have not from you one piece of a witnesse, to deny the practice of infants baptisme in that time; but much to the contrary.

R [...]joynd. For the truth of it in the Acts of the Apostles, it is beyond all exception; in all that Book there is not one tittle for infants baptisme, but plentifull testimony for the baptisme of believers, Acts 8.12.13.37. Acts 10.47. Acts 16.14.33.18.8. &c.

For the well-nigh 300. year we finde cleer, that Believers were the sub­jects of baptisme. I prove it; First, because in Iustin Martyrs time, who li­ved 140. yeares after Christ, as Sculptetus saith, and the ancientest Father ex­tant; there is no mention in the least tittle, of Infants baptisme, but cleer mention of the baptisme of Believers, more then once: See his second Apo­logy to the Emperour Antoninus; And see, how Mr. Blake answers this au­thority, pag. 53. In which words, we see enough for baptisme of Converts, brought from Heathenisme to the Faith; but not a syllable against the bap­tisme of Infants: To which I answer, that he could not speak against the baptisme of Infants, except he had prophesied: Could any man speak against an errour, before the errour were in being; speaking so often as he doth of baptisme, in, many places, had Infants been baptized, we should have heard something thereof.

Next after him have we Irenaeus, who lived a hundred seventy eight years after Christ, and nothing at all have we from him of the baptisme of In­fants.

Next after Irenaeus followed Clemens Alexandrinus, in the year 196. af­ter Christ; as Sculptetus gathers out of Chronologers: Who, Paedagog. l. 1. c. 6. pag. 95. 96. tels us plainly; That Believers were the subject of Bap­tisme. See Iustins words, and Clemens his words, and authorities of other Fathers in their own words, Storm. of Antich. p. 27. an [...] 28.

To this Authority Mr. Blake saith, p. 54. We shall not finde Infants once mentioned; much lesse their baptisme denied.

To which I answer, if we in this Authour finde not Infants once mentio­ned, much lesse can we finde the baptisme of Infants. So we have here 196 yeares of the 300. compleat.

Amongst the Latin fathers, Tertullian is the ancientest, who lived in the yeare 183. after Christ, I appeale to the learned, whether his booke which he wrote concerning baptisme, be not only full for believers; and tels us, for every persons condition, disposition, and age, the delaying of bap­tisme is profitable. To sundry sayings which I produced from Tertullian, Storm. of Antichrist P. 29.

Mr. BLAKE P. 55. saith, we expect some direct Testimony from one father at the least, of the first ages, denying the practise of infants baptisme, and affirming the Church, knew no such custome.

Rejoynd. If any one please to read my quotations out of Tertullian, he shall see Mr. BLAKE hath his desire in good measure granted to him.

Origen is next, who as Sculptetus saith, was borne in the 189. yeare af­ter Christ, and dyed at Tyre in the 69. yeare of his age, doth he ever [Page 75] speake of infants baptisme, save that he calls it a tradition in some one place, and yet was it a good while above 200 yeares after Christ, before he began to teach, and how long it was before ever he named infants bap­tisme is uncertaine.

Mr. BLAKE P. 56. From Origens calling it a tradition, for want of a better authority, begins to triumph in these words: why is there not then a plain confession of the truth, that this peece of antiquity is against you?

Rejoynd. I never said the name of it was in the first 300 yeares. Is not Origens calling infants baptisme a tradition, above 200 yeares after Christ, a godly peece of antiquity, to prove infants baptisme from antiquity; and to make a full discovery of notable untruth in me, P. 120.

The next father is Cyprian, who lived 250. and odd yeares after Christ, he once in all his Workes names infants baptisme; divers reasons I brought to prove the spuriousnesse of that Epistle, but suppose that were true, which to my dying day I shall ever suspect, yet have we a great many yeares above 200. wherein we only find believers baptized; and if that E­pistle in Cyprian be false, I suppose, we have above 300. yeares compleate; now lay all this together, and the Reader may judge, whether there be a full discovery of a notable untruth, in my asserting; We find the history in the Acts of the Apostles, and the first 300. yeares, well nigh, if not altoge­ther for us.

Further, whereas I said, [...]ll the Churches err'd for many 100. yeares since the time of the Antichristian Apostacy, not only in smaller matters, but in point of the Masse, justification by workes, transubstantiation, Judge of the faith.

Yea they have I supposed errd, I meane the protestant Churches, since the reformation, in these particulars; As first, in retaining baptisme, which they had from the hands of Popish Priests, which they could never retaine, with­out acknowledging the Roman Church to be a true Church, and their Priest­hood to be true, and their Ministers to be the Ministers of Christ.

Reply. To this Mr. Blake P. 121. Saith;

First, the baptisme thus received, they could never wash off and maintaine the Pope to be Antichrist; who opposes not Christ openly, but in a mistery, being in the Temple of God.

Secondly, there are many truths in that Church, why must we then deny the truth of the Sacrament of bap [...]isme to be with them.

Thirdly, What do you finde out of antiquity to reject baptisme, received from the hands of Heriticks, where the essence is retained.

Fourthly, their priest-hood is wholly Antichristian: and whatsoever they do, Qua. Preists we justly condemne.

Fifthly, When you have condemned all ministerie & baptisme, and both ours and theirs, you will hardly finde a way to set up any ministery, re-establish a­ny baptisme, but leave us among the seekers, who deny any Church or ministe­ry at all upon earth: the gates of hell having prevailed contrary to Christs promise.

Rejoynd. It seemes you would not wash off your baptisme, because if you did, you could not maintaine the Pope to be Antichrist, else you would have done it; yes, you may better prove him to be Antichrist by washing it off, or if you had rather by wiping it off; for the more opposition there is against the truth of Christ (whereof I doubt not this to be one yea a great one) the grea­ter proofe there is of Antichrist; if you would prove your Church true, and baptisme true, by interpreting these words, sitting in the Temple of God; to be sitting in the Church of God; and therefore your Church is true, because Ant [...]ch [...]ist sits there: will not the Romanists come in with a share with you, and upon the same ground prove their Churches to be true, because Antichrist sits there? So that [...] he sets himselfe into the Temple of God: As God signifies not the place where he sits properly, but the persons over whom he tyrannizes, even the Saints of God, who are called Gods Temple, 1 Cor. 3.16. 2 Cor. 6.16. Not constituted Churches, who are never that I remember, called Gods Temple; and if they were, the Romanists, would come in for a share; he sits into the Temple of God, or multitudes of believers by his injuctions: and sometimes by his er­ronious tenents which they receive from him. But his sitting most properly is his chayr-power, which he pretends to have over all Christians in spiritualli­bus, to sit into the Temple of God, is an usuall phrase; as we say, sit into the Church, sit into the shaddow.

Secondly, to your Second, viz. Seeing there are many truthes in that Church, why must we deny the truth of the Sacrament of baptisme to be with them?

Rejoynd. Our question is no [...], whether they have some truthes among them? for so perhaps may the Turkish Alcoran have; but whether this point is truth? or rather, whether the power by which the Protestants in the be­ginning of the reformation, received baptisme from them be a true power? which I deny, and Mr. BLAKE hath not yet proved; and I deny it on this ground; because the succession of their Ministery, or rather Preisthood, was false, as discending from the Pope; also because they were visible Idolaters; sent to say Masse, and sacrifice, as well as to baptize, also because their Church was false, for whereas the true Church is the pillar and ground of truth, their Church was the pillar and ground of fa [...]shood.

Againe, they were none of Christs Ministers being for the far greatest [Page 77] number, unable to preach or to believe, and therefore had no power to baptize; upon all which grounds the baptisme which the Protestants in the reformation received from them, was a nullity had the subject been right, how much more a nullity, the subject being false?

Thirdly, to the 3d. viz. What do you find out of antiquity, to reject baptisme received from the hands of Heriticks?

Answ. Cypr. de baptizand. hareticis. P. 397, 398 399. 4 [...]0. &c. Edit Pamel, there you may. I suppose see, it was the judgment of 87. Bishops, that the baptisme of Heriticks was a nullity.

Fourthly, to the 4th. viz. Whatsoever they do, Qua [...] Preists you say, you wholly condemn.

Rejoynd. Then must you reject their sprinkling of babies; for as they say Masse by their power of Preisthood, so do they baptize by the same; and by that power were the Protestants in the beginning of the reforma­tion sprinkled.

Fifthly, to your 5. I answer, suppose all Ministery and baptisme were condemned, both theirs and yours, (to use your words) yet is there no difficulty in setting up a right ministery and baptisme, the way whereto is; 1. For believers to consider that they are the subjects to receive all or­dinances in time of an apostacy. 2. That these believers gather them­selves together, 3. That they make profession of their faith one to ano­ther. 4. That they consent and agree together, to worship God in all his wayes, that are or shall be revealed to them. 5. That they chuse out a Pastor (if he may be had) that may administer all ordinances to them.

For Christs promise, of the gate [...] of hell, not prevailing against the Church; I understand not that promise of any visible Church or Churches, against which in all ages the gates of hell have prevailed; but the body of Christ, or the invisible Church, who only makes the same believing con­fession that Peter did: Against these, the gates of hell cannot prevaile to make them renounce that confession, which with heart, or mouth, or both, they have made.

Secondly, the 2d. thing wherein the Churches were charged to err, was in that the elders of the Churches received all sorts of persons to bap­tism upon a supposed covenant holinesse, derived from the parents, which were Idolaters in the grossest Idolatry, for many 100. yeares.

Reply. To this Mr. BLAKE having evaded altogether the former part of the charge without any answer, answers the latter part, viz. For Idola­try which you charge upon our forefathers, we must distinguish it; 1. As worshipping of a false God, 2. As worshipping the true God in a false way; the former dis-churches a people, and wholly casts them out of cove­nant; [Page 78] of this our fore-fathers were not guilty, they worshipped the true God, yea they believed all things aright concerning the person of Christ, in both natures.

Rejoynd. You should have spoken to the latter too, and told us whether or no, the worshipping the true God in a false way, do not unchurch a people, see whether it doth; Hos. 1.9. Hos. 2.2. P [...]ead with your mother, plead, for she is not my wife, and I am not her husband, let her there­fore put away her whoredomes out of her sight, &c.

Secondly, Whether is it likely, our fore-fathers did believe all things a­right, concerning the nature of Christ; bu [...] if they did, whether is that e­nough? what thinke you of misbelief of the offices of Christ? as in point of satisfaction, to joyne workes with it, so in point of transubstantiation, and Masse, and Image worship, Saint worship, rellick worship, can these stand with your pretended covenant relatio [...]?

Thirdly, They have erred, in that Elders, Members, and the whole Church, did agree that the Church should be divided by Parishes, making cohabitation or dwelling together, a sufficient inrightment to Church pri­viledges.

Reply. Somewhat more is required, by protestant Churches for such in­rightment; so a Jew or Turke renting an house, should become a member of a christian congregation; it is not then bare cohabitation, but a cohabi­tation of christians, accepting of ordinances, that is inrightment.

Rejoynd. What more is required saving Paedobaptisme? All persons that have been sprinkled in their infancy, and live together, whether good or had, are members or may be so, in that parish where they live, and their children by vertue of their fathers Paedobaptisme and cohabitation, are baptized in that parish.

Further, it is not the cohabitation of Christians, but of persons baptized in their infancy; many whereof are desperatly wicked, and are so far from accepting, that they reject and persecute ordinances that gives inright­ment to Church priviledge. For your saying, all the christians within the compasse of such a place make up one only Church, we grant it; but what is this to your practise, that make all Church, and none to be the world, in this Kingdome, or not one of many?

Fourthly, the 4th. The churches have err'd in a wrong matter, in that they have taken the whole prophane world, and made strangers from God, to dreame of a communion with him: Till the other day, this abomination be­gan to be discovered.

Reply. This Fourth is the same with the Second of mischiefes, which you charge upon the baptisme of infants.

Rejoynd. This was such an app [...]rent error, that Mr. BLAKE hath said nothing at all to defend it.

Fifthly, the fifth thing the Churches have err'd in is, the continuation of Episcopacy for so many 100. yeares, though in some places the name be now changed into superintendency.

Reply. A [...]l the Church [...] have not been in this guilty; some never were under Episcopacy; not the French, nor Geneva Churches, none of them have been so long guilty, as to have err'd so many 100. yeares.

R [...]joynd. Will you deny all Churches till the reformation of Luther or Calvin, if you acknowledge them, then had they Episcopacy for many 100. yeares, yea, what if they had it before Paedobaptism [...]? I doubt not but they had; if you deny them to be Churches before that time, then must you ac­knowledge what you denyed, viz. That the Protestants in the reformation, received their bap [...]isme from an undue power, from persons that were of no Church, and so no Minist [...]rs; you instance in Genev [...], was there not a Bshop in Geneva before their reformation?

Sixthly, the sixth thing the Churches have err'd in is, the mutuall inve­ctives of the Lutheran, against the Calvinists, and these against them, yet I never read of any of the Ministers censured, for this violation of chari­ty.

Reply. To this and divers other branches in this 6th. error, Mr. Blake saith, nothing but this; I do not in [...]end any apology for them; and adds, you tell us of the banishment of Molerus from Wittenberge, and Zanchy, from Strasburg, of which you were it seemes an eye-witnesse, for it is not within the compasse of your reading.

Rejoynd. I like you the better for not apologizing for evill, wo to them that call evill good; but for the banishment of Molerus and Zan­chy, I assure you they are in the compasse of my reading: Molerus hath the story in one of his prefaces upon the Psalmes, and Zanchy sets it downe in one of his letters to Bishop Grindall, as I remember; but sure I am, it was in an Epistle to an English Bishop.

Obj. 26. There are many mischiefes go along with denying infants baptisme, and therefore we ought to abandon such doctrine. As first, There will be a wide doore set open to heathenisme, for a great part of the world will in time become Heathens.

Answ. This will be no damage but benefit to christianity: in that ma­ny that live the lives of Heathens, under the name of Christians, will be discovered.

Reply. That benefit may be over-ballanced with many unsufferable e­vils, and there may be other meanes of redresse then so desperate away of cure.

Rejoynd. I know no meanes to discover such, or to redresse this evill, so long as they are admitted to baptisme; it is not keeping such from the Lords supper will redresse such evils.

Secondly, this will overthrow Parishes, or Parochiall constituti­ons.

Answ. True, and I thinke it comes nearer the Apostolicall constituti­on.

Reply. Mr. BLAKE seemes to affirme, that Paedobaptisme and Parish constitution, have no dependence upon one another.

Rejoynd. They have this dependance collaterall, that he that will not baptize infants, shall not be a Parish Minister though otherwise well guifted; the truth is, there is great difference betwixt their comming in­to the Church, the Kingdome being divided into Parishes in England, when Henorious was Arch-Bishop of Canterbury, which was about 500. or 600. yeares agoe at the utmost, but now they have partly by custome, and partly by edicts of Princes, been so twisted together; that it will not be an easie thing to untwist them.

I added further, I feare me this parochiall constitution, and the large tithes that accompany it, are one of the greatest objections that hinder the passage of this truth.

Reply. To this Mr. BLAKE saith, and may I not as justly feare your high applause of your selves; as men resolved to bear banishment, persecution, and run the hazard of certaine ruin, for the truth, in which you among o­thers take not the least freedome; and your charge of others with selfe-seeking, is one of your chief Engines to hooke in this errour, — This of tithes, you willingly serve in, as a second abomination: Men will be your proselites to save charges.

Reioynd. It was far from me in judging all; I hope there are a number of faithfull ones, that would not sell themselves, but are there not a num­ber that will willingly embrace any way, that they may embrace their tithes? there being I feare no small number of these, cannot but retard any reformation according to the Word; much more this point, for do you thinke that those multitudes of carnall, civill, and prophane men, every where, would ever pay thithes, if they could not have their infants bap­tized? if they did, it should be violently haled from them.

For your fearing our high applause of our selves, in our resolution to suffer, to be an engine to draw in this error.

I answer, either his or our vaine glory is either invisible, or visible, if in­visible, then its knowne only to God; if visible, it being a sin visible, is not like to hooke in persons, but rather to put persons off from us, had we be­come [Page 81] fooles in glorying, as the Apostle saith, 2 Cor. 12.11. Ye have by your disparagements of us, compelled us thereto; in that both presse and pulpit ring of us, as if we were the Monsters of the earth. It was not vain-glory in Iob, when his freinds had accused him, for him to commend himselfe as he doth, Cap. 29. From v. 8. to v. 18. When the false teachers had undervalued Paul, it was not vaine-glory in him to spend almost two whole Chapters, 2 Cor. 11. From v. 4. To Cap. 12. v. 19. In his own commendations; which he did not, not out of any vaine-glorious, itch, but for to assert his Apostle-ship, against those that had depraved him. For your places which you alledged against me, to make your charge good, let the Reader peruse, Storm. of Antichrist, Part 1. P. 12. Part 2. P. 57. Which are the places you alledge; I hope he shall find nothing spoken but that which may stand with modesty: and moved from your aspersions, though with greife: I must acknowledge, that I carry a whole body of death about me.

For tithes I, meddle not with to dispute the point, only this I say, there being a change of the Preisthood, there must needs be a change of the maintenance, Heb. 7.12. That preisthood that had tithes by divine right affixt to it, did offer sacrifices of beasts, and other oblations, which had re­ference to Christ to come. I Quere, whether it be safe to recall any such thing as so trenches upon Iudaisme? but if you will have tithes as a civ ll tribute from the Magistrate, I suppose you must show us better ti [...]le that they have to do it, then, your place which you bring, viz. 1 Samuel. 8.15. wherein Samuel, shews not the power of a King, but the manner of the King that should rule over them, v. 11. And this King was Saul, wherein Sa­muel having spoken of many of his oppressions, v. 11, 12, 13, 14. he adds v. 15. And he will take the tenth of your seeds, and of your vine-yards, and give to his Officers, and to his servants: Every good mans heart should tremble, to have his maintenance by such a title.

Secondly, show us since the abolishment of the law of tithes in the Scripture, that any Prince in the new Testament; did either de jure, or de­facto reestablish them, and we shall yeeld thereto.

For your saying, men will be our proselites to save charges.

I answer, it hath been the mishap, that true teachers have still had the barest maintenance, see 2 Cor. 11.9. Yea they have been forced to pro­phesie in Sackcloth. 1260 dayes, Apoc. 11.3. When the Ministers of An­tichrist had for mirth and jollity, v. 10. Yea whereas the Churches ought to allow their Bishops or Pastors an honourable maintenance, even that they may keepe hospitality, 1 Tim. 3. (and not in away of charity, or arbitrarinesse, that they may give what they please, or when they please, which in my apprehension is a great point of disorder, where ever practi­sed) [Page 82] maintanance in this particular, being matter of duty, not of charity, yet not withstanding this duty so often inculcated, as Gal. 6.6. 1 Cor. 9.7.8 9. 1 Tim. 5.17. &c. Suppose some particular persons, or whole Churches, should be close fisted or penurious, yet dare not I thinke (what­soever you dare do) that any man is so Athesticall to be a Proslite with us to save charges; he hath a meane opinion of his religion, that embraces it on this ground, because of the cheapnesse.

Third mischiefe, that comes by denying Paedobaptisme is; That such persons as hold this, are going into deeper errours; and that this is but the entrance.

Answ. I know many that I have been acquainted with, that are as sound in the faith a sour accusers.

Reply. This were a new piece of jugling in Satan, if he could cast so thick a mist over the eyes of men, as not to see the errors which men of this opinion maintaine.

Rejoynd. You might do well to instance in perticulars, deceit lyes hid in generals; Whereas you come to instance in one particular, P. 127. In these words; what is vented I tremble to relate, even such things as (by Mr. BLACKWOODS approba [...]ion) the Magistrate ought to punish.

Answ. I suppose you have re [...]pect to the first, Storm. of Antichrist, Part. 1. P. 23. Where it was, objected; Magistrates are to be a terrour to evill workes, but heresie is an evill worke; I answered, evill workes are of 3. sorts.

First, Those that are committed against the light of nature.

Secondly, Against the light of faith; as deniall of Christs heresie, &c.

Thirdly, Against the light of Nations, where I used these words; There is no nation in the world, but in it the Magistrate will punish those that speake against the God they professe, and against that which they thinke his Scripture; so if any one rayle against Christ, or deny the Scriptures, to be his Word, or affirme the Epistles to be only letters written to par­ticular Churches, and no rule for us, and so unsettle our faith; this I take may be punished by the Magistrate, because all or most Nations in the world do it. For to cleere which, forasmuch as some besides Mr. BLAKE, have taken offence hereat; I in the faults that were escaped in the said booke, desired the Reader further to inquire thereof, as doubting of it my selfe upon second thoughts, the words in the escaped faults are these; for do it, Read, do it, but Quere, hereof P. 23. But though my soule ab­horre all such opinions, as I do hell, yet do I doubt, whether the Magistrate have any power to deale with any such offender, unlesse he or they break [Page 83] the publique peace; so that I retract the foresaid distinction, as suspecting it of errour, and distinguish sinnes, that they are either against the light of Na­ture, as tumults, whoredome, drunkennesse, theft; or against the light of faith, as pride, covetousnesse, unbeliefe, schisme, heresie, &c. the former belongs to the Magistrate to punish, the latter belongs to the respective Churches to censure, and not to the Magistrate to meddle with: and for sins against the light of Nations, I retract the same as being utterly uncertaine, that the Ma­gistrate hath any such power; yea, I do thinke the Magistrate hath no power, as he is a Magistrate, in or about matters of religious worship, but onely to preserve the peace, that no man be molested in or about his worship.

But the Mr. Blake should heare any such errours vented amongst us, as I suppose he would make the Reader beleeve, I could have wished he had named the persons, and places of such errours, that all Gods people might (after admonition) have avoided them as Hereticks.

The last mischiefe was, denying Paedo-baptisme was against charity, in making a schisme in the Church.

Answ. How is it possible to recover the souls of men out of this will-wor­ship, but by dividing them from the common practise: Christ and his Apostles were not Schismaticks, in keeping his Passeover two dayes different from the received practice of the Jewish Church; no more are we, keeping to the rule, though the generality of men practise otherwise.

Reply. What pains do you take to hooke in this example, that you and your followers may be parallel with Christ and his Disciples.

Rejoynd. To omit your intricate disputation about the Passeover, which is by the by, the places of John 18.28. and John 19.14. prove it sufficiently that Christ varied from the practice of the Jewish Passeover, at least one day, as your self confesse; yet was he no Schismatick, to parallel our selves with Christ, in departing from publique errours, we dare not do so; but we desire to fol­low him in the same steps, though we cannot take such long strides.

To conclude; whereas in this Treatise you have branded my self, and many others of Gods Saints in this Treatise, I will onely give you a seasonable counsell from a grave Author. Discant nostrae aetatis homines ne hac calumniae quosvis qui in omnibus punctis & sillabis cum illis non consentiunt, temere & petulanter prescindant, credibile namque est nos in extremo illo Christi judicio, multos à dextris judicis inter oves computatos visuros, quos in hac vita faedo illo & execratione digno nomine diffamavimus. Bach [...]sius in vita Philastrii; Let the men of our age learne, that they do not rashly and reproachfully de­fame any one that do not agree with them in all points and sillables; for it is credible, that we at the last judgement shall see many at the right hand of the Judge reckoned among the sheepe, whom we in this life have defamed with that filthy and execrable name, meaning Heresie.