Reply.
I came not thither, i. e. to Ashford so much to defend as to prove, could I have been licensed thereunto by your spiritual Court, the unlawfulness of Childrens Baptism, yet not of Childrens Baptism so much, which though it is easie, yet is needless to be disproved, because no where dispensed that I know of, but rather of Childrens sprinkling, which as it is doublie unlawful, so is universallie practised: of this end of my comming I gave evidence enough in debating the fourth Proposition, professing that I came to give account of my dissent, and de∣nial of the truth of your waie, but when you denied me to give my desired Ac∣count, wherein I would have been a Plantiff and a prover, I must then defend, or do nothing, neither did I saie of this evil and adulterous generation that they maintained it against me, but themselves, for whether they do, or do it not they cannot hurt me thereby, but if they do it the worst will be their own, for as they of old that rejected the true Baptism for none Luke 7.30. did reject the councel of God against themselves, so do they that reject it for a false one: as to the terms of evil and adulterous generation, concerning which you first charge me, and then