Baby-baptism meer babism, or, An answer to nobody in five words to every-body who finds himself concern'd in't by Samuel Fisher.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. ANTI-RANTISM, OR CHRISTNDOM UNCHRISTND, IN An Appendix added about sprinkling wherein the shallownesse of that dispensation is shewed to be such, that it can neither properly, nor possibly without perverture be called Baptism.

HAving razed the rotten Basis of your Babism, I come now to reckon with your Rantism, and to examine whether our man∣ner of baptizing, which is by dipping, or yours, which is on∣ly by sprinkling, is the baptism which was instituted by Christ, according to that small hint you give me, which is no other then a bare, single, simple denyal of your baptism to be null; for no lesse then that is the next fault wherewith we charge it: As for your selves, as if you were unwilling to have it sifted, as I verily believe, and have suffici∣ently experienced that you are, you slide so silently by this question, which is as requisite to be discussed, and duely understood as the other, that howbeit you are not a little concerned for the securing of your baptism, to back it in this particular also, specially since you confesse that you must give it up, if our plea against the form of it prove valid, yet you afford not so much as one wea-bit of an argument, whereby to disprove our form of baptizing, nor yet to prove the truth of your own, save only your homely reply to our plea, viz. we should renounce our bap∣tism too if we should yield them that plea: which words of yours in a Sillogistical form run thus, viz.

If we yield them their plea we must renounce our baptism.

But we are resolved we will not renounce our baptism.

Ergo we will not yield them their plea.

Thus you are resolved to hold the conclusion: neverthelesse such shamefull ter∣giversation, and utter loathness to put your selves upon tryal by the word I have e∣ver found amongst you in this point, that how justly Mr. Baxter complains of Mr. Tombs for refusing to dispute it publiquely p. 134. I know not, but I am sure not more justly then I have occasion to cry out of your unworthy waywardnesse in this case: for though at the Disputation at Ashford I did in my position (some, but not half the sum of which you set down in your Account) positively de∣clare my exception against two things in that, which you call your baptism, viz.-

First the false subject.

Secondly the false manner of administration, together with my ear•…•…est desires to have satisfaction from you concerning the latter also, as in respect of which I proclaimed it null, as well as in respect of the former, yet you drilled away all the time about the first without either giving out a warrant then, or granting us your presence another day, wherein to give your warrant for the second.

In like manner at the publike dispute, which was at Folstone before many hun∣dreds of people, where there was one, if not more, of my opponents at Ashford, the Opponents part being put upon me, much more against my expecta ion then desire, I told that C•…•…ssis of Clergy men, who were there, that twas most proper to direct my dispute to their practise, which sith it was the Rantizing, and not the bap•…•…izing of infants, I would prove that their sprinkling of infants was not law∣ful; but I could at no hand be permitted to proceed in such a way, or to come neer their copy hold in that p•…•…nt, viz. their false form of dispensing, though I promised to abide a whole week among them, rather than they should not have discourse enough about the subject; at last I obtained with much adoe a division of the question into two, viz.

1. Whether infants were the true subject?

2. Whether sprinkling were the true manner of baptizing?

And a solemn Engagement from them, that if so be I would begin upon the first, there should be a discourse after it upon the other.

But as I forewarned the people, and that before these mens own faces, that it would be at first, viz. that they would evade all controversie about that, if it were possible, even so it fell out indeed at last; for after some two hours, or little more, though it were well-nigh a winters day yet to night, it was on their parts so uncessantly urged, that the disputation might cease, and the people for that time be dismissed, that the divel is blind if he did not see that day, that those who sided with him, unseen, against the truth, did judge that there was discourse too much, though but a little, about the Subject of baptism, and enough, though none at all, about the form.

But I let passe this, and come to prove the point now in hand, which is this, that dipping or overwhelming in water, and not sprinkling, is the only true form, or manner wherein baptism is to be dispensed, and without which it is either pro∣perly no baptism, or at least none of that baptism which is required in the word and may be owned as the ordinance of Christ.

This is most plain, and •…•…n a most plain way I desire to prove it: and first from the signification of the Greek word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which is ever used in the originall, as that whereby this ordinance is expressed, and whence it derives that denomina∣tion of baptism, the proper plain English of which is to overwhelm, or cover with water, to plunge •…•…ver head and ears, to put under the water, to dipp, do•…•…ze or drown in the water.: and it is the derivative of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which is tinge, quod fit immergendo, to dipp in that manner, as they do that dy cloth and colours, which is by that total submersion of things in the liquor, as all men know they do that dy, and not by sprinkling here and there a drop of water on them.

Thus I say the word baptiz•…•… signifies, and not to sprinkle; and therefore that I may rouze all those people into a remembrance of this matter, whose Priests de∣ceive them, and draw them to dream that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies both to dipp, & to sprin∣kle, which some, whether it be of that ignorance of the truth that cleaves, and accrues to the common sort of Priests, through their taking things upon trust, and tradition one from another without tryal, or of meer malice making them willful∣ly to hide the truth after they have received the knowledge of it, I know not, God knowes, but some I say stick not still as much as they can to make their people be∣lieve it; But to awaken such to some attention to the Heterodoxness of their Priests, as well as all waies to the Orthodoxness of them, I here summon all the

priests in Christendome out of either Stephanus, or Scapula, the two Greek Lex∣icons that are in so great request, and of such ordinary use among you, and such friends to your selves, as you may see by the bitter invectives of both of them a∣gainst us as Anabaptists, as a Diobolicall sect, and therefore would favour your cause as far as in conscience they could, to shew the contrary to what I here have said, viz. that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 either doth not signify a totall dipping of the immediate sub∣ject that is denominated baptized, or dipped by it, or that it ever signified such a thing as sprinkling at all.

Yea the word that signifies to sprinkle is another word, viz. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which is ever used in Scripture by the spirit, when he speaks of such a thing as sprinkling: yea tis used three times in one chapter, viz. Heb. 9. 13. 19. 21. and is all along englished by sprinkling, neither is there any one place of Scripture wherein the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is rendered to baptize, or used to signify baptizing, neither is there one Scripture wherein the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is rendred sprinkling, or used to sig∣nify such a thing as sprinkling, nor is there any reason why it should be so rendred, specially if you consider

Secondly, The Non Identity, and deep diversity that is between these two actions, viz. Sprinkling, and Baptizing [Anglicè dipping] by which, as by a second Argument, its most plain that sprinkling is not only not the baptism of Christ, but in truth no baptism at all, and so consequently that he is properly no-Anabap•…•…ist, who baptizeth them that were but sprinkled, and he A no-Baptist that doth but sprinkle.

Rantist.

Our sprinkling is baptizing as well as your dipping, and these two are one say you what you will.

Baptist.

I tell you, and you will see it at last, that as Christ hath but one water bap∣tism, and as he hath by appointment but one subject for that one baptism, a•…•…d not two kinds of subjects, as you dream, viz. a believer only, and not both a believer and a believers seed, so he hath but one true way, and essential form, wherin that one Baptism is to be dispensed, and that is baptizing [Anglicè dip∣ping] and not two waies, forms or dispensations of it specifically, and essentially distinct from each other, so that they are not so much as in speciall kind the same but sprinkling and baptizing [alias dipping] are truly two waies, two forms, two actions, two kinds of actions, so really different in their essentials, so specifical∣ly diversified in their nature, as actions, that even homo and bru•…•…um, which he is a brute that will say are all one and the same, do not differ more essentially in Praedicamento Substantiae then sprinkling and baptizing [alias dipping] do differ in the Praedicament of action: and therefore they cannot be called one and the same.

Tis true, all things that are, are the same in general i. e. genere remoto, for Ens dividitur in omnia: so that all things that are, are equally denominated entia i. e. things that are, so a man and a beast in genere proximo they are both Animals, yet are they not so all one as that the one may be universally understood by the naming of the other, nor the one denominated by the other, so as to say a man is a beast, and a beast is a man, they are one in genere, two in specie; and the like may be said of dipping and sprinkling, which are two dividing members of one and the samegeneral (as Homo and Brutum also are) and as specifically distinct, they are in genere remoto both actions, yea they are in genere proximo both wettings with water, yet are they not one kind of action, or wetting in spe∣cie nor all one, so as the one may be universally used, and done instead of the o∣ther, and yet the business be as well done, or both done, and yet but one and the same thing done, but one and the same word of command obeyed in so doing; nor

so as that the one may be as well understood as the other, when ei•…•…her of them is exprest, nor so as to be denominated properly by each other, nor so as that the one is the other; but all actions that are so specifically the same as sprinkling and baptizing [aliàs dipping] are made to be with you are so, as that they may be in∣differently, promiscuously, universally used, and done one in the room of the o∣ther, and yet no other then the self same thing in specie is done still, as much as if we had used or performed the other; yea so as they may be properly denomi∣nated one by the other, so as that in specie one is the other, so as that in speech sense and signification, they are so alike, that it matters not which term you use, or which of the two you speak by, for the sense •…•…ill still remain the same, and stand perfect sound and entire, and the sentence have no non-sence at all in it not∣withstand: e. g. smiting and striking, or to smite and strike, to be smitten and stricken are all one, and may be denominated one of the other, so as that one is the other, and though here are two terms, yet but one thing is exprest thereby, and the sentence you place them in may be without non-sense, and as entirely the same as before, if you use one of them in the room of the other; as he mas stricken, or he was smitten are the same in sense: yea universally in all speech where you may use the word smite, you may use the word strike, and both the sense and matter signified thereby will still be the same:

But now so it is not between sprinkling and baptizing, tis so indeed be•…•…ween baptizing and dipping, baptizing and overwhelming with water, baptizing and putting under water, baptizing and dousing, or plunging ore head, these are all one they all denote the very same kind of action, the very same kind of wetting with wa∣ter, and though here be a difference in terms, yet tis in word onely not in deed, the distinction is onely nominall, not real, not specifical, not essentially formal, for take any sentence of Scripture that hath (speaking of water baptism) the word bap∣tized in it, and you shall find any of the other terms in sence coincident with it, and consistent properly in the room of it in speech and signification: as Mark. 3. 5, tis said of the people they were baptized of Iohn in Iordan confessing their sins, it may as properly be said they were overwhelmed, dipped, plunged ore head, put under water by Iohn in Iordan, but tis scarce propriety of speech to say they were sptinkled of Iohn in Iordan.

Rantist.

No? do we not in common loquution say the same, while we say sprinkled in a font, or in a Bason?

Baptist.

I confess in common loquution we speak so (as brevitatis gratiâ we do im∣properly many times in other cases) yet is it scarce so proper, as to say sprinkled with water out of a font or bason: but however Mark 1. 7. tis said of Christ that he was baptized of Iohn a 1.1 into Iordan, now I am sure you may say sensibly enough he was dipped, plunged of Iohn into Iordan, butit cannot be said with∣out most palpable non-sense, he was sprinkled of Iohn into Iordan: therefore cer∣tainly the form of Christs own baptism, then which we cannot have better presi∣dent for ours, was dipping (as ours is) and not such a simple sort of sprinkling as is still in use among your selves; in the doing of which you do not onely (as is evident by the premisses) another thing then that which was dispenst to Christ, and enjoined by Christ to be dispensed, but indeed, as toward the fulfilling his com∣mand in that ordinance, you do plainly nothing at all that you shall be accepted in for your labour, for in vain you practise another thing, as in obedience to him, neglecting what he hath required, which he never required at your hands: and such is that sprinkling, which by custome in the corrup•…•…ion of the times came su∣perstitiously to bear the name of baptizing, and then by little and little, till it had wholly worn it out of the world, to be practised, and passe for currant instead out, and this I will give you some account of too, sith I have given you the hint

ont, for in Cyprians time people being overgrown with such a superstition, as be∣cause baptism was the token to them of remission of their sinnes, therefore they would commonly after conversion delay their submission to that dispensation till toward their latter end, as neer as they could ghesse it approaching on them, that they might thereby have evidence of remission of all their sinnes at once, fearing, if they should be baptized before, least they should sinne again, and so spoil all the comfort they received by baptism, (so far were persons from posting (as they do now a daies) to dispense baptism in infancy to their infants, that they at years did too much delay their own) hereupon it came to passe not seldome, that the procrastinators of baptism were taken with sicknesse on a sudden, and confined to their beds unawares, before they could be baptized, in which case not know∣ing how to be baptized in that manner, wherein twas usually dispensed i. e. by dipping in places of much water, and yet unwilling withall to dye without it, they sent to Cyprian, who was the oracle of his time, to be resolved, whether in such a pressing case as this was, wherein they were as unwilling to die without Baptism, as uncapable to be baptized as they should be, it might not as well serve the turn, and be counted sufficient baptism to have a little water applied to them, or sp•…•…inkled upon them in their beds? to this the good man being loath to leave poor sick soules upon the wrack, whom he saw somewhat affraid to die un∣baptized, returnes his opinion to this purpose viz. that in this case, wherein without manifest hazzard of the sick persons life it could not be so well done as it should, it should be done as well as it could, and that they might have some application of the element to them in their beds, which if they died at that time should passe for currant, and be counted lawful baptism:

Neverthelesse (saith he himself) if they happen to be restored to health again, let them be had to the River, and there be dipped:

He that doubts of this may read it in Cyprians own Epistle to Fidus, who wrote to him about the case.

So that we see he judged it fit to be done ore again, to be done better, to be done indeed if they lived, but if they then died, he allowed it to be called Baptism (though it was none) in favour to the weak, rather then otherwise.

And here now comes in the first Rise of your Rantism, and no small occasion I believe (if it were before begun) of the growth of your Babism also, for when the needle was once so clearly entred, how easily would the thred follow after? when it had once past through the mouth of a man so reverend, and respected in his generation (as Cyprian was) that it was baptism enough to be sprinkled one∣ly in such a case, how easily might not onely every tender person that is loath to dipp the foot in cold water, but even every person also, that will do no more then needs must against the will of the flesh, mistake it so far as to make it serve the turn in every case? and when such an easie kind of baptism as that was, was grown into use, that could be no more dangerous to infants then to men, how willingly would all persons (specially those of that gang that grew apace a little after, (for Cyprian himself, and 66 Bishops more gave ground for it, when in a certain coun∣cel they gave this ground for infant baptism viz. because, so farre as lies in us, no soul is to be destroyed) who held baptism in such necessity as to say it saved ex opero operatio) how willingly I say would they imbrace such an easie, and such a necessary baptism, not onely for themselves, but for their infants also?

But to return (I pray pardon this digression) this sprinkling which you use is not baptism, or at least not the baptism of Christ (Cypriano Iudice) let Cyprian judge of it, for if it were, he would not have required persons to be baptized after it, in case conveniently they could.

Rantist.

Miscarriage in the manner of baptism doth not nullify the matter it self, nei∣ther

doth an error in meer circumstance annihillate the substance of the ordi∣nance, so but thats its baptism, and stands Christs ordinance still.

Baptist.

True miscarriage in the meer manner of doing any thing doth not null that thing, if that very thing be done indeed, which we wot of, though error in bare circumstance (and such it seems you confesse your retained Rantism to be) is too abominable to persist in, but miscarriage in the matter of a thing, and such grosse miscarriage as makes it another matter, or thing (and such is that, when not the same thats reckoned on, but another thing formally, specifically, essen∣tially distinct from it, is done instead of it) then thats another matter I trow, is it not?

And such as this, is your miscarriage in the matter we mean i. e. your Rantism wherein besides your foul faultering in materia circa quam i. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. the petty party a∣bout which you busie your selves in that dispensation, for that being not a be∣liever discipled by your teaching (as the subject of baptism ought to be according to Mat. 28. 18. 19.) but an untaught non-believing infant, doth clearly null it, in case you did baptize, from the name of the ordinance of Christ, that onely being his ordinance that is ordained by him, who never ordained baptism to be dispenst to other, then such as are disciples so made by mens teachings;

Besides (I say) your foul faultering in the subjects, you dispense to, tis another thing then baptism you dispense to them.

Rantist.

What then dipping belike is so necessary, and essential in baptism, that bap∣tism is no baptism if it be done in another form, or if it be done by sprink∣ling.

Baptist.

No not so, for baptism is baptism stil, let it be done in what form soever, neverthe∣lesse what is not baptism, is not; and such is that sprinkling, which you call baptism, for it is not thing you call it; for if it were baptizing that you used, whether it were thus or thus, it mattered not, because that thing thats properly stiled baptism is still dispensed, yea though your subject be so false, as to barre it, even then, from bearing the name of the baptism of Christ yet, even then, might it bear the name of baptism, but sith it is not that which Christ at first instituted, but which men have since invented in stead thereof, notwithstanding its being done of old among the Clergy, yet is it no other then an old nothing.

Rantist.

This practise hath born the name of baptism before you were born, among wiser men then your selves for ages and generations together, and must it now be dis-nominated, and digraded from that title it hath been denominated by so long, and cease to bear its own name?

Baptist.

Its own name? no, sprinkling is sprinkling still, and so it ever will be, where its used, but it must cease for ever from bearing the name of baptism, because bap∣tism it never was: if your administration hath indeed the form of baptism then baptism it is, but then it can be called spirinkling no more, but if it have the form of sprinkling then sprinkling it is, and can be called baptism no more, for these two, though the materia quâ et circa quam i. e. both the Element which you use, and the subject, to which you use that element, be never so the same, yet are two such specifically and formally different actions and dispensations, as do not ponere, but tollere se invicem, and can in no wise meet in the same subject at the same time, so as that by the dispensing of either of the two, it may be denomina∣ted indifferently (I mean properly) by either, for he that is baptized cannot be said thereby to be sprinkled, and likewise he that is but sprinkled cannot be said there upon onely to be baptized, for these two actions of sprinkling, and bapti∣tizing,

having two different formes, they cannot possibly be properly called the same.

Rantist.

Then it seems the different form wherein we do things, makes the thing so done so to differ, that they may not admit of one and the same denomination: and by this reason, sith there are several and various formes, wherein you dispence your dipping to persons, for happily you dipp them sometimes forward, somtimes backward, sometimes sidewaies, these various waies of dispensing cannot all be called by that one name of dipping.

Baptist.

By forms I mean not the accidentall but the essential formes of things, which whensoever they are two, those things, whose forms they are, cannot be one, for unius rei est unica tantum forma i. e. essentialis, of one thing there can be but one essentiaell form, there may be more accidentall, for the essential form is that quae dat esse rei, which gives every thing to be what it is, and distinguishes it so exactly from every thing else, that its uncapable thereby to be at that time ano∣ther thing, and another thing of another essential form uncapable utterly to be that: now tis the very essential form, wherein sprinkling and baptizing [alias dip∣ping] do differ for the essential form of that action of baptizing [Anglicè dipping] of persons is the putting of them under water, a covering them with water, or plunging them over head in water, but the essential form of your sprinkling is on∣ly the f•…•…ing of a litle water upon their foreheads, for it is not so much as a total sprinkling you use neither.

In a word Baptizing properly is the application of the whole subject to the whole element of water Collectim, here or there gatherd together, so as to over∣whelm him in it, but sprinkling properly is quite another thing, viz. the appli∣cation of a little water, or some liquid element to the subject guttatim, i. e: by dropps or small portions only, so that these two, viz. your sprinkling and true baptism are no more one thing, then the hurling of a man down some Praecipice, or steep place upon spikes, that let out his heart blood, and the pricking of him till be bleed only with a pin, which in general are both a shedding of blood, as ou•…•… two parrallels are both a wetting with water, but in special not the killing of a man, as neither are the other both baptizing: so that there may be many ways and meanes of doing a thing, and the thing be but one still if it have essential∣ly but one form, but where there be many essential forms, there are ever as many several things as those are.

A man may ride many waies, viz. East, West, &c. many manner of waies, viz. backward, forward, apace or slowly &c. and yet all this is riding still, while the man moves to and fro on horse back, because the very formality of that action of riding consists in being carried by another, but while he moves upon his own Legges up and down, you cannot at that time denominate him rid∣ing.

In like manner a man may be baptized [Anglice dipped] or put under the wa∣ter many manner of waies, viz. forward, backward, sideway, toward the right hand or left, quickly, slowly, and yet all this while he is baptized, if put under, because the essential form of baptism, viz. dipping in water is to be found in all these waies; but if he have two or three drops of water only flerted upon his face, he is no more truly baptized then if you sillip him with a wet finger, for here is Differentia essentialis, the very formallity of baptism is absent.

If accidentalls onely, and meer accessaries be wanting unto baptism, special∣ly such superfluities as were in use about the Popish Rantism, as Chris•…•…, salt, spittle, crossing, Gossips, Fonts, Basons, Cakes, and Wine, and other silly so∣lemni•…•…ies, there may be good baptism without these, but abstract the absolutely necessaries, i. e. two things, or but either of them, which yet are both wanting

among you, and as blind as the Priest-hood is now, yet my life for his he shall be∣hold it once, and own it too, that his businesse is not only not the baptism of Christ, but truly not any baptism at all.

These two are first the true Subject, to whom Christ appointed baptism to be dispensed, which who it is, and who it is not (and how it is but one, for there is but one baptism, and not two) viz. believing Abrahams spiritual seed, and not a believing, nor unbelieving Gentiles fleshly seed, i. e. all that quoad nos believe as Abraham did, and not all that ever shall to all generations, for such are the seed as well as the immediate, descend naturally from the loines of such as do be∣lieve with Abraham, I have abundantly shewed above, nor is it my businesse here.

Secondly, the true form in which Christ appointed baptism to be dispensed to believers discipled by us, which what it is you cannot be so ignorant as your pra∣ctise proclaimes you to be, for I dare say it is not rantism, and you da•…•…e not de∣ny, but that it is baptism: Both these are universally wanting, as I have proved, to your practise, yet if but either only were wanting it were null enough: For

First, it is most certain that a mistake in the subject, to whom any t•…•…ing is ap∣pointed to be done, doth so nullify that thing so appointed, that it can neither be said to be done as twas apponted, no nor yet that the thing appointed is done at all, e. g. The Parliament commanded men to take, or in ca•…•…e of their resistance to sl•…•…y those Rebells that were routed at Worcester, but should he have been ta∣ken by them as obeying their command, that should in persuance thereof have beaten and killed other men, who were never there, nor at all ingaged in the Kings cause? they ordered a thousand pound to him that should bring in Charles Stewart, should he have been rewarded as a doer of their will in that work that should have brought in another man in his stead? Christ hath ordained, and so consequently tis his ordinance that persons shal be first taught by us and then bap∣tized, is it therefore his ordinance to baptize them who were never taught? the Papists have a trick to baptize (as they call it, for they do but rantize as you do) bells as well as babes, but if they did truly baptize their bells, were it the ordi∣nance of Christ? you say no; because bells are a wrong subject, which Christ never appointed baptism to be dispensed to: the very same say we of your babies: a mistake therefore in the subject makes a nullity in the service, i. e. denies it to be any ordinance of Christ at all.

Secondly, tis most certain that mistake in the matter ordained, so as to make another matter of it, or do distinctly some other thing instead of it, makes all that is done of no effect: Quod fieri non debuit factum valet holds onely where the errour is in accidentals, and meerly circumstantialls, and not in the very sub∣stance of the thing it self: if men do one thing on their own heads instead of ano∣ther that God bidds, they may have pardon in case they crie him mercy, but ve∣ry little thank from him for their paines: neither is he accounted, much lesse ac∣cepted as doing the ordinance of God, that doth not so much the same things that he ordained otherwise, but other things then he hath ordained: when the Parlia∣ment ordained, and gave commission to have Canterburies head cut off, those Synodians, who also themselves waited to have his kingdome, would hardly have counted that ordinance performed had the Trustees cut off his little finger on∣ly, and let him go.

Nor would the law little lesse then hang that executioner, that having strict charge to hang one man, lets him escape, and in satisfaction falls a whipping of another: the case is yours, who being commanded to teach persons, and then baptize them, and to keep the commands of Christ without spot till his appearing, do in his absence let go the making and baptizing disciples, and in place thereof only rantize and rantize only little infants too: in doing which, sith ye do not the thing Christ appoints, ye had as good do nothing.

A certain man had two sonnes, and he said to them both, go work to day in my vineyard, one said flatly he would not, but afterwards repented him and went, the other said he would, yet did not, but found himself work of his own to do: the first did the will of his father; so I say that the Rebellious Ranter repenting and being baptized, for else indeed heu quam procul? how farre is he from it as now he stands, whilst he saies plainly he will have no baptism? shall enter into the kingdome of God, before the responding Rantizer resolving wilfully to persevere in his error, under a pretence of willingnesse to obey the truth, and refusing to re∣turn, when he is convinced of it.

Rantist.

But the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which you so much stand upon, signifies though not to sprinkle; yet not onely to dip and overwhelm in water, but also to wash, and so tis rendred in the Lexicons, where Lavo, abluo, are set down as at least the re∣mote signification of it, and therefore though sprinkling be not dipping, yet tis a kind of washing, or wetting, and so may be called baptizing, as well as that, and in aliquo sensu in some sense tis one and the same with that, for quae conve∣niunt in aliquo tertio sunt idem, dipping and sprinkling meet both in the word washing, whch is a secondary signification of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and so may well enough both be stiled baptizing.

Baptist.

No such matter Sirs, no not by any means in the world. For

First your Rule of two things being the same that agree in a third, holds first onely and properly quoad mensuram in matter of measure, as two pieces of cloth that square every way both with one ell are the same i. e. in length, breadth, &c. not necessarily any way else.

Secondly, quoad rem it holds in the things themselves in some case and sense, i. e. if the •…•…ight respect be had to that same third thing, in which they agree; which third is no other then that which stands the genus, in reference to them both, as Homo et Brutum agree both in the general name of Animal, but this serves not your turn here at all, where you are to prove sprinkling and baptizing [alias dipping] to be all one, not in general, for so many things may meet in one, that are as different as things can be, for omnia corpora sunt substantia, yea all things are one, for omnia sunt entia, but in special, so that the one is in specie the same with the other, but this cannot be said of dipping and sprinkling, for though they are both wettings with water, yet are they not both baptizings, for baptizing is not the genus in respect to them i. e. the generall of which dipping and sprinkling are the special dividing members, but baptizing it self, or dipping, for these two are adequate each to other, is the member opposite to sprinkling, and and specifically different from it, under the general word wetting with water: so that still these are not the same so as that sprinkling can possibly be called bapti∣zing.

Secondly if the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, do signifie to wash any other way then by dip∣ping, yet thats not the direct, immediate, primary signification of it, for that is to dip or plung, as you see in the Lexicon, but at the best it is but indirectly, col∣laterally, by the by, improperly and remotely that it so signifies; and I ask whe∣ther when we try any matter by the signification of the word, as •…•…is in the ori∣ginal, we shall go to the direct, original, prime and proper, onto the the occasi∣onal, remote, indirect, and improper signification to be tried by? your practise it seems is built onely upon the indirect, improper, remote acceptations of the word, and therefore is at best onely an uncouth, indirect, improper, and farre fetcht practise.

Thirdly, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies washing but it is a real total washing onely, such a washing as is by dipping plunging, and swilling the subject in water, and that signification is yet many miles off from sprinkling: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies L•…•…vo,

abluo i. e. to rinse, to wash away, to clense, which things are done onely, or at least most effectually immergendo, by putting things in water, and swilling them therein: So that still such a washing as baptism is, sprinkling is not, and so you are never the nearer for all this. Yea

Fourthly, neither do baptizing and sprinkling meet one another so much as in that third word washing, so that they may be both properly predicated by it, though in that more general word wetting they do: for howbeit baptism is truly called a washing Heb. 10. 22. and your bodies washed in pure water, yet ne in aliquo sensu can sprinkling be truely so called unlese it be in insano sensu alias, non-sensaliter, for in sano sensu it cannot: yea I appeal to all men to recollect to their remembrance, whether they ever saw any thing truly washt in the way of sprinkling, especially whether ever they saw any one wash things so well as they must do, who are said Lauare, abluere, to rinse, to clense, which are the senses, in which 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, signifies to wash, in such a sleight way of wetting them, as is made by such a sprinkling onely as you use?

Rantist.

The Pharises Mat. 7. 4. held the washing of hands, cups, pots, brazen vessels, beds and tables, and their washings are called baptisms, and yee can you * 1.2 conceive they did any more then sprinkle water upon them?

Baptist.

Yea surely Sirs, why not? they swilled, and rinsed, and clensed, and totally wetted them with water, or else I am sure they could never be said properly to bap∣tize; but by the spirit, whoever uses that word when he speaks of sprinkling, they would certainly be said to Rantize them:

Besides shew me any that use to wash, whether it be hands, face, dishes, spoones, trenchers, pots, cups, clothes, brazen vessels, or beds either, when they are by any ishue defiled, and Ile venter to vent this verdict on such that they are but sluts, and slovens if they do but sprinkle them.

Rantist.

There may he washings though, and dippings too, but what needs such a to∣tall dipping as you use? what command can you have in all the Word for such a madde manner of administration, that surely is more then needs: a man may love his house well enough, and yet not ride on top on't, and so many persons like the way of dipping, and washing in the dispensation, we now talk of, yea and practise it too, and yet judge it needlesse to run persons into rivers, and ponds, and there plunge them quite over head and ears.

Baptist.

To make good this doctrine of totall dipping against such as dippe onely se∣cundum partem, as well as those that (in part also) do but sprinkle, I argue as followes.

Secondly, from the practise of the primitive times, wherein it is most evident they were totally baptized, or dipped, and that they were so appears plainly.

First, by the Scripture formes of speech, and expressions used about that mat∣ter, which import and betoken no lesse, viz. 1. if there were no other evi∣dence the very denomination it self of baptized that is given shewes it, which in propriety of speech, and according to the prime and native signification of the word is as much as totally dipped, or wholly overwhelmed, and covered with water, put under water, which they could not possibly in common sense, and rea∣son be said properly to be, if they were but a little wet about the eye-browes on∣ly, as those are to whom you dispense, handling th•…•…m as if you were affraid too much to wet them: surely i•…•… would not have been said baptized, much lesse baptized in Iordan, least of all baptized into Iordan, (as twas said of people had they not been immersi, submersi, for so baptized is, i. e. put into, put whol∣ly under the water by Iohn.

Rantist.

But if you stand so much on the signification of the word, why do you not drown persons when you baptize them? for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies to drown, as well as douze or dip.

Baptist.

This interposition is so weak and silly, that some may suppose I frame such a simple businesse as this my self, on purpose to render the Rantists the more ridicu∣lous; but I prosesse, as ridiculous as it is, it was once put to me by a Coun∣trey Clergy man before a great Auditory of people, and was as well laught at by them.

To which I answer (if a little more yet much what) to the same tune as I then did, viz. besides the signication of the word, which justifies our practise of put∣ting under water, we have president, not only for that, but also for the bringing persons up alive again, not only for burying them in baptism, but for the ra•…•…ing them again therein before their bodies are dead, neither have we any president that they of old did use to drown them, and thereupon we let it alone; yea Sirs we leave that Diabolicall dispensation of Drowning the disciples of Christ to the Churches, of whom Dr. Featley boasts, who at the Rates, whereby you reckon us to be Anabaptists are An-Anabaptists, whilest they ordered as he sa•…•…es p. 68. That such as prophaned their first baptism by a second dipping, should rue it by a third immersion: as namely at Zeurick where after many disputations between Zwinglius, and the Anabaptists the Senate made an act, that if any pre∣sumed to rebaptize those that were baptised before, they should be drowned; and at Vienna, where many Anabaptists (so you call Christs true disciples) were so tyed together in chaines, that one drew the other after him into the river, where they were all suffocated: This president we leave to those Ministers, and their Churches, that list to prosecute according to it, as Dr. Featley, and not he only, whose patience was Praelatical, but even Presbyteriall Mr. Baxter also seem to do, whilest they incense the Magistrate against us what in them lies, meer∣ly for baptizing believers totally according to Christs will, as if we were even there∣fore only the veriest vipers unde•…•… heaven, and charge us downrightly (for so Mr. Baxter doth) p. 134. as wilful murderers, which in conscience can call for no lesse then cutting off by the civil sword, which rash charge of us the Lord never charge him with if it be his will to condemnation, but only to conviction; that he may see and confesse with confusion of face to his cons•…•…lation, that he hath wronged a people precious to God, and more privy to his will in many things then himself.

But if he or any still list to be contentious for such a baptizing of disciples as that was viz. a drowning of them in the deep waters of affliction, and over∣whelming of them in the proud billowes of persecution, the baptism wherewith Christ himself was and every disciple of his must be baptized, let that be the cu∣stome of them and their Churches to baptize the Saints so if they will, But I assure you we have no such custome, nor the Churches of God.

Rantist.

Now you talk of dipping and drowning and baptizing by afflictions, you put me in mind of one thing which seems to me to make against you in this, for the very sufferings of the Saints with Christ (as you hint above) are stiled a baptism, and therefore sure the word baptism may be used to expresse a smaller matter, then that totall dipping and drowning, which it signifies somtimes, for the Saints, though they have many sorrowes, yet are they not totally drowned, nor s•…•…nk un∣der them, for Christ both bears them up, and brings them out, if he should con∣tend for ever their spirits would faile before him, and those souls that he hath made; and yet these are said to be baptized: and also they are said to be baptized with the spirit, when yet its but powred upon them.

Baptist.

Totally drowned? no: who doub•…•…s of that? neither do we totally drown them we dip, but bear them up, and bring them out, and save them from dying, as else they would do, under the water, if they should ly there after a while, and this we do in token and resemblance of that salvation, which Christ shews to his Saints, both under and after some small sufferings for him. Neverthelesse the Saints sufferings are not so smal, but that they are oft times totally drenched ther∣by, and overwhelmed (as he that is baptized in water) with tribulation, tempta∣tion, scorn, ignominy, and covered therewith as with a Cloud: as we see the Saints complaints in this case Psal. 55. 5. horror hath overwhelmed me Psal. 61. 2. my heart is overwhelmed Psal. 77. 5. I am troubled, my spirit is overwhelmd Psal. 102 1. intituled a prayer of the afflicted, when he is overwhelmed, or co∣vered is the title of the Psalm, and this is with the waters of affliction, Psal. 124. 4. so 142. 3. -143. 4. -so see Psa. 69. 2. 16. where there is complaints of sinking as it were over head and ears, in deep mire, and in deep waters, where the flouds overflow, and prayer for deliverance from those swallowings up by them, in token among other things of which continual dying in the world, as well as to it, and universal passing under the waters of affliction, and overwhelming there∣with here in this life, we do baptize, i. e. sink persons over head and ears, as well as raise them again alive, in token of their resurrection from all troubles at the last daie: therefore o how much of that precious signification, and representation, that is in true baptism is lost in your sprinkling, and dribling dipping the face on∣ly, which some use? In respect also of which plungings and overwhelmings with sufferings their sufferings are Metaphorically stiled a baptism Mat. 20. 22. which Metaphor is very familiar in Scripture, which compares the calamities, and mi∣series the Saints suffer in this mortal life gurgitibus aquarum, quibus veluti mer∣guntur, to overflowing streames of water, wherein they are almost drownd, and therefore said to be baptized.

As for the baptism with the spirit, he that shall say it is not such a powring out, as seasons the whole man soul and body, and every faculty of one and member of the other (which if it be, it may well be called a baptism) where in part atleast all parts are purged, but of spiritualizing of some parts of the man onely, suppose his face and head, not his he art hands and feet also, but leaving other parts of him carnal and unsanctified, is not yet so well seasoned as he should be with understanding in the Grace of the Gospel. All this therefore speaks plainly to our purpose, and so it is evident still that the primitive Saints were totally dip∣ped, by the bare denomination of baptized, which in that particular is spoken of them.

Secondly it appears yet much more plainly by the subject so denominated in Scripture, and said to be baptized, which is their whole persons, for tis said they were baptized, i. e. men and women, and not their faces or their hands, or their feet onely; for if any member onely had been baptized, it could not be said properly but onely figuratively and improperly (and we are to take things in the most proper sense they will well bear) that men and women were baptized, or that their bodies were washed with water, as in baptism they are said to be Heb. 10. 22. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, when a denomination is made of any whole subject to be so or so, that is not wholly and totally so, that denomination is commonly made saltem ex majori, from the Major part of the subjects be∣ing so atleast, and then too it is but by the figure Synechdoche, whereby we must understand that by that whole some part onely is meant, but a denomination of a subject Ex minori parte, onely from some small part thereof being so, is a thing seldome or never used, and scarce cleared alwayes from absurdity, when it is by Synechdoche it self: for he that should denominate his horse white, and commonly call and distinguish him from all his other horses,

by the name of his white horse, onely from a starre he hath in his forehead, when all the rest of his body is black, would be counted as bruitish as the horse him∣self, specially if he should conceive himself speaking properly enough when he speaks so: yet little otherwise then thus do you speak, and think you speak proper∣ly enough too, whilst you commonly call them i. e those persons, baptized, that never had more then a little, baptism I cannot call it neither, but meer Rantism on their faces, from which though we are foold together with you by a custome of speech to afford persons that denomination of sprinkled at least, yet to say the truth, tis more then may be well challenged from us, if we should stand upon it, and plead for propriety to the utmost, or for denomination but ex majori, which reason would back us in if we should, so little of that little subject i. e. the infant, whose face onely you sprinkle, is sprinkled by you when all is done, but we let that passe:

Neverthelesse, know this that totall baptizing is the onely true baptizing, and a subject not baptized totally may not be said to be baptized properly, but onely figuratively and Synechdochecally, and surely the spirit speaks not all along by Senechdoche, and tis as improper almost if not altogether to say that man is bap∣tized, whose fingers, face, hands or feet onely have toucht the water, as tis to say the swan is black, because his feet are so, or the black-moor white, because his teeth are so: expresse not dentes et pedes, and then Ethiops albus, and Cygnus niger are two monstrous creatures indeed, and baptizatus merè rantizatus is no other, then rara avis in terris nigro{que} simillim•…•… Cygno.

We may not therefore, without abuse to our selves and them, conceive them that wrote the hystories of the new Testament, that we might know the certainty of those things, which were at first done Luke 1. 14. and to this very end too that we might do thereafter, to speak so improperly all along, as to declare and deno∣minate those to us to be baptized i. e. in true English washt, plunged in water submersi dipt under water, who if it were then as you say, or at least, as you do now, were onely wetted with a few drops, or if dipt, whose noses, foreheads or faces onely felt the water: the wisdome of the spirit in them would rather have u∣sed the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as he ever doth, when he would have us conceive no more then sprinkling, as Heb. 9. or else some more moderate phrase suitable to such a petty padling as face dripping is, had that been the onely way of those times, then the word baptize, or else have exprest that particular, or member of the body, which onely was baptized, if he would not have been understood as speaking of the whole, for thats the usuall way wherein the spirit speaks, when he speaks of the dipping of some members onely, as Luke 16. 24. when he speaks of the dip∣ping of a member onely, he expresses the member so dipt, and the particuler sub∣ject so denominated, he saies not send Lazarus that he may be dipt, or that he may dip himself, or that he may dip his body in water, but that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and coole my tongue, so Mat. 26. 23. •…•…e that dippeth his hand with me in the dish; he denominates not the man dipt from the dipping of so smal a member as the hand, or face, or feet, or what ever member of the body it was that you imagine was then baptized; for that wetting of the face onely came up surely in Cyprians daies, when they had got that trick of ease to be bap∣tized, I should say to have their faces, the onely member at that time extant, be∣sprinkled in ther beds.

Rantist.

But Mark 7. 4. Christ speaks thus of the Pharisees, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 i. e. unlesse they be baptized they eat not, and yet by that baptism is meant no more but the washing of their hands, and that appears plainly in the very verse above where its said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 i. e. unlesse they wash their hands, and then immediately after thus, and when they come from market, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, except they be washed i. e. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in their hands, suitable to whats

said before, they eat not, yea and surely he would have exprest so much as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 after 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but that twas exprest so •…•…ust before under 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that it was needlesse to repeat it, and therefore he rather leaves it to be understood, therefore sometimes you see Christ denominates men baptized, or washed, when no more then some members of them are dipped, or washed.

Baptist.

Thatby the baptism or washing spoken of v. 4. and exprest by the term 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is meant no other then the washing of the hands of the Pharisees I freely grant, and also that the 3. verse so clearly proves it, that no man living I think may rationally deny it: nor can I think that the Pharisees when ever they came from market were plunged ore head and ears before they sat down to dinner, or were washed or baptized any further then man•…•…um tenus, onely in that pa•…•… viz. their hands, but I beseech you be you as ingenuous in acknowledging what you must also necessarily grant, and what you have in a manner given and gran∣ted also viz. that the force and sense of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the verse before is carried to the 4 verse, so that it must be understood to the verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 al∣so, as following it, as well as it followes the verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, though it be exprest onely under the first of them, and then your recourse to the former verse for the finding out of the sense of this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 makes much for the proof of what I say viz. that Christ does not usually denominate the whole man to be dipt, or bap∣tized, when yet he meanes that some part of him onely is baptized or washt, with∣out expressing some way or other that part of the body, wherein he is washt, and according to which onely he denominates him so to be: for even here, by your own plea (and tis the truth) we must to the word [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] except they be baptized, subaudire 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 understand this word [their hands] which as you say, so I say also would undoubtedly have been set down under the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to shew that to be the plain sense and meaning out viz. washing the hands, but that it was so newly named before under 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that its more elegantly under∣stood then exprest.

So that the place runs as smooth for us as we would have it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (subauds 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Pharisees except ever and a non they wash or be washt (as to •…•…he hands atleast (for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is the first future of the middle voice, and is read either actively, or passively, but rather passively) they eat not, and when they come from the market unlesse they be washed (meaning manu•…•… •…•…enus as just be∣fore) they eat not.

Assuredly, therefore Sirs, sith the Apostles, and Evangelists all along in the new testament tell us of men and women that were baptized, or washt by dip∣ping into the water, without varying this word, or using any more words, where∣by to give us to take that in a more moderate sense then for total dipping, and all this too without any expression of any particular parts, or members of those men and women, nor any more particular subject of that baptism then the whole per∣sons, the bodies of those men and women, they meant to acquaint us thereby, that those men and women were totally dipped, that we might be so also after their example, or else their denominations of men and women baptized, dipped in Ior∣dan so often, so onely used are scare •…•…fair, free, plain, and proper, but rather (contrary to what Paul professes, when he saies we use all plainnesse of speech) forced, improper, figurative, dark, and delusive, which farre be it from us once to think.

Thirdly, as far as the thing well can, or atleast need to appear in the word by instance, and example it appears in Mat. 3. 16. Act. 8. 38. by the baptism of Christ, and the Eunuch that the form and manner of baptizing was then, and is now to be by a total dipping of the party.

Rantist.

There is no pooof of universals by particulars; besides it will hardly be make good that Christ and the Eunuch were dipped: mark and peruse what Doctor Featley saies to this, and some other passages, and places of Scripture p. 69. This •…•…aith he is a weak and childish fallacy, for ex particulari non est Syllogizari, no man in his right w•…•…s will conclude a general from a particular, viz. some men tha•…•… were baptized went into the River, therefore all that are baptized must do so; the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sometimes signifies to dip, Ergo it must alwaies signifie so, besides Act. 11. 16. Iohn 1. 26. the Preposition 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies not in but with (as the words immediately following 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 make it plain) notwithstanding I grant (saith he) that Christ and the Eunuch were baptized in the River, and that such baptism of men, especially in the hotter Clymates, hath been, is and may lawfully be used: yet theres no proof at all of dipping or plunging, but only of washing in the River, but the question is whether no o∣ther baptizing is lawful, or whether dipping in Rivers be so necessary to bap∣tism, that none are accounted baptized, but those, who are dipt after such a manner? This we say is false, neither do any of the texts alledged prove it, it is true dipping is a kind of baptizing, but all baptizing is not dipping, the A∣postles were baptized with fire not dipt into it, Tables and beds were baptized, i. e. washed, yet not dipped, Israel baptized with the cloud not dipped into it, Christ and Zebede•…•…s children baptized with blood, yet neither he nor they dipt •…•…to it. All this he writes in Answer to what you say as if he had foreseen it by way of preoccupation, and one thing more which I had like to have left out, The Fathers called Teares a Baptism, yet there is no dipping in that Bap∣tisme.

Baptist.

These are Dr. Featleys feat, feigned and frivolous interjections indeed, in An∣swer to A. R ^s. Argument from the same examples, to all which I reply as fol∣lowes.

First, from particulars universals will not follow is a rule that will not uni∣versally follow neither, but in some particular cases only, For first out of its parti∣culars coll•…•…im consideratis considered all together the knowledge and true under∣standing of the universall doth not onely consist, but exist also, i. e. appear by all its singulars severally observed.

Secondly, Though there are cases, wherein one or some few singulars singled out, and considered Sigillatim apart from the rest, do not prove all the rest uni∣versally so to be, as they are, as namely when that one, or these few particulars are extraordinarily, or (as I may •…•…v) singularly or choicely so or so, e. g. the par∣ticular cases of Iohn the Baptist being filled so timely with the holy spirit, and of Ieremiahs being seperated (for so the spirit meanes by that word sanctifyed Ier. 1. 5.) from the womb to be a prophet, and of Pauls being seperated from the womb to be an Apostle, Gal. 1. 15. these do not prove (as you sometimes very simply, falsly and fallaciously infer, at least from that of Iohn) that therefore infants of believers at least are in general filled with the holy spirit, and ordinari∣ly sanctifyed in their infancy: for it was only the measure of Iohn Baptists gifts (say you my Ashsord Antagonists p. 16.) that makes his Example extraordina∣ry as if it were ordinarily commonly, and generally so, that believ•…•…rs in fants are filled with the spirit, as well as he, though not so fully as he was: but these are childish consequences, and infantish inferences indeed, from these singulars, for the cases were singular cases, and notoriously known not to be incident to all.

Or else when the matters in such particulars, from which we would argue that tis generally or universally so, are meerly fortuito, accidentally adventitious, not necessary per se, de essentia, & natura thereunto, then there is no evincing a ge∣neral

by it, for it followes not that because one man, or a few men are blind, and lame or maimed, or sick, therefore all are so; or when a matter is meerly indifferent, ad placitum, and not ex necessitate praecepti, necessary by any po∣sitive command of the same thing unto all, as well as some, then tis silly Syllogi∣zing from some to all, as to say some men, who were weak did eat herbs, there∣fore all the disciples did, and we all must eat no other.

But again there are cases, wherein it followes from one to all, as when the matter spoken of that one doth agree to it, per se, and qua tale, then tis true de omni also, as one man quâ homo is a reasonable creature, Ergo all men are so; there are cases also, wherein the Example of what particular persons then did do prove what all then did, or should have done, & what all ejusdem capacitatis now should do in like manner; as namly when the matter done by those particulars is ne∣cessary & no other then what by duty they stood bound to, & that by vertue of a cleer command given out not to them only, but to all those that are in the same capa∣city in common with them; but specially when those particulars are recorded for our instruction, and to be patterns and examples for us to follow, then all ought to be in general, as that is, and so Paul followed Christ, and others ought to fol∣low him & be as he was: and of this sort is the case here in hand, and the examples of the baptism of Christ Jesus and the Eunuch, from which we shew how all men (if at all) ought of right to be baptized: for though your Doctor disciples you (not denying in the mean while but that baptizing in Rivers is lawful, and mark that I pray, for it sets our baptizing in rivers out of the reach of all your exceptions, who snarle at it) though I say he disciples you blindly into a belief, that there is another baptism lawful besides that which Christ & the Eunuch had, and that dipping in rivers is not so necessary to baptism, but that they may be ac∣counted baptized, who never were dipped after such a manner, yet I tell you, through whom he being dead yet speaketh, that if by Rivers he means as we mean viz. any places where there is so much water as will well serve to dipp persons (and some must mean, for else it might be but a pond for ought he knew, where the Eunuch was dipped, for it is called but a certain water in the way) and if by that other lawful baptizing, then that which is received in Rivers, and places of much water, he mean no other then rantizing at Fonts, or as you have now con∣tracted the businesse at Basons, where there is water enough to sprinkle an 100. but not half water enough to baptize one, you will find that at last to be so far off from being the same water baptism wherewith Christ and the Eunuch were baptized, that it doth not come so neer it as it would do, if it were (as the Doctor calls it) another baptism, sith it is not so much as any bap•…•…ism at all, for another baptism (such as Paedo-baptism would be if men did use it) would be some kind of kin to the baptism of Christ, they both meeting at least in the name of baptism, yet so little that Christ will never own it for his, but no baptism, and such Paedo∣rantism is, is not so much as nomine tenus in the bare name of baptism any kin to Christ, but that you falsly father it on him as his.

So that in truth our talk with you about another kind of baptizing then that of Christ, and the Eunuch will be but impertinent, unlesse, you practised ano∣ther, neverthelesse for discourse sake, and in resolution to the question as the Do∣ctor states it in reference (no question) to his own practise, viz. whether no other baptizing th•…•…n that which Christ and the Eunuch had is lawful? which is as much as to say, whether another water baptism may not serve the turn as well? or whether Christ hath not more water baptismes then one? I answer no there is, i. e. ought to be but one baptism Eph. 4. but one water baptisme, one kind of baptisme of that one kind, that must be the meaning, for else theres more i. e. more kinds of baptisme then one: Hebr. 6. 2. i. e. of Water, Spi∣rit, Sufferings.

Supposing therefore your Baby-rantism to be that other baptism (where note

that himself confesses yours, for that sure he means to be another baptizing then that Iohn and Philip dispensed) supposing it I say to be that other baptism he pleads the lawfulnesse of, yet sith Christ ownes but one, even that alienation were enough to discard it as unlawful, and none of Christs, as well as its being none at all, for new baptism and no baptism will speed both alike with him at last; or if he mean onely that another manner of baptizing in water is lawful then he hath no enemy of us in that point (save that we still shall differ about the sub∣ject) for let any administrator take profest believers onely, and baptize them, i. e. overwhelm them in water, and let him do it where he will, yea how he will for me viz. backwards or forwards, sidelong or headlong, so he do it, and they be not naked.

Rantist.

But still me thinks the main things the Dr. drives at remain unresolved, for he tells you first that if it could be made appear that Christ and the Eunuch went into the water, and were totally dipt, yet thereby it appears not that all others must be baptized in such a manner.

Secondly that it cannot be made appear, that either of them were dipt or plun∣ged, but onely washt in the River.

Baptist.

No? did I not shew you sufficiently above in what cases particular examples do prove, what the general primitive practise was, and may be argued from as from a general rule of what ever ought to be viz. when that, or those particu∣lar practises are enjoined to all as well as to some, in one and the same word of tighteousnesse, but specially when propounded as paterns, and written as rules for our instruction, and such are both these baptismes of Christ and the Eunuch, which had never been recorded, but for our learning and for examples sake unto us, in which respect, though he needed no baptism, as we do, to be a token to him of the remission of any sinnes committed by him, Christ himself submitted to baptism, for howbeit it was partly, and perhaps primarily, to fulfill all the righ∣teousnesse of his own law, as well as of Moses Law, in his own person, as he te∣stifies it became him to do in Mat. 3. for he exacts, and expects no more obedi∣ence to himself, and the father either active or passive from us, then he acted and yielded to the father first himself, yet was he baptized partly also to the same end, in order to which he did all things else, that he either did or endured, which was imitable, and remaining for us to do after him, as baptism is viz. that he might leave us, who are so often charged to follow him, an example that we should fol∣low his steps Mat. 16. 24. 1 Pet. 2. 21.

Rantist.

This is true the matter of his baptism is imitable by us, and we are to be bap∣tized as well as he, nor do I yet see reason (as the Ranter seems to himself to do) why Christ himself should be ingaged to baptism, or the Eunuch either, and our selves exempted from it: but whether it be so needfull to be done just in that manner as you would make it to be, I see no ground yet to believe that.

Baptist.

Can you be baptized in a better manner think you then that wherein Iohn bap∣tized Christ, and Philip the Eunuch? me thinks you should not derogate so much from the wisdome of those Primitive Administrators, as to imagine such a thing, and if you cannot are you not half wild in contending for a worse?

Or Secondly would you be baptized in, not so low, base, contemptible, ridiculous tedious a way to the flesh as they, but in a more honourable, more moderate, more easie, more tollerable, more world winning, more self pleasing, more flesh favo∣ring a manner? or what is it you would have? me thinks either that soure service

of going down into a River, or pond, and being dipt, or overwhelmed in water there, which served our Lord Iesus Christ, and that honourable Eunuch, might serve you, or else that easie sweet service of sprinkling which you content your selves with, might have served them, one of the two: for as they were required to be baptized no more then you, so surely in no more unwelcome a way of bap∣tism then your selves; and they would not have so farre supererrogated as to have been baptized at all, if it would have fulfilled righteousnesse in that point to have been sprinkled onely on the forehead.

Nay that would not, for saies Christ when he came to Iohn, and Iohn at first refused to baptize him, Thus it becometh us to fulfill righteous∣nesse:

Thus i. e. not onely in this matter, but in this manner, but if you will needs per∣form this service more easily then Christ and the Eunuch did, perform it onely (as in sprinkling you do not) and let be done in what manner, or accidental form you please, and if you like not to do it openly in Rivers or such like places, we stand not on those nicities (though many thousands of Primitive Saints as well as mo∣dern were, and are so baptized) let it be done in a Cistern, so it be totally and truly done, yea make one big enough for the disciple and the dispenser to go down in both together, so that the one may conveniently be overwhelmed in wa∣ter by the other, and then let it be done in a bason, if you please.

As for the other thing the Dr. saies viz. that there is no proof at all of the dip∣ping, or plunging Christ and the Eunuch, but onely of their washing in the River I wonder the Dr. did not look into his Lexicon, before he asserted such an absur∣dity as this, if he had, he might have fonnd cujus contrarium, that there is proof enough that they were dipped, or plunged in the alledged texts, but no proof at all that they were washed in any other way: for the very thing that is related of them both, is that they were dipt, plunged, or washed by dipping; tis said of Christ plainly Mat. 3. 15. c 1.3 that he came to Iohn to this very end that he might be baptized by him, and verse 16. d 1.4 being baptized he ascended presently from the water, and of Philip and the Eunuch Act. 8. 38, they descended down both in∣to the water, both Philip and the Eunuch, and he baptized him, and ver. 39. when they were come up or ascended out of the water:

Now I appeal to all rational and unprejudiced men in the world, that are skil∣led so farre in the greek word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as to have once seen the genuine sense, and signification of it in any Lexi•…•…on, which is to dip, plunge, put under water, o∣verwhelm * 1.5 with water primarily, and secondarily to wash or clense by dipping, or dousing, whether there be not in those Scriptures plain proof of their dipping * 1.6 and plunging, or washing by dipping, and not the least hint or evidence of any other washing at all.

The Dr. himself grants that they went into the River, I marvel to what pur∣pose if not to be dipt there, he confesses also that Christ and the Eunuch were bap∣tized, which in plain English is dipt, or overwhelmed in the River, mark his words [in the river] also that such baptism of men, especially in the hotter cli∣mates, both hath been, is and may be lawfully used, and yet for all that, de∣nies either of them to have been dipt, or plunged in the River, or that any one may now lawfully be served so: I marvell much what they did in the river, be∣fore they came out of it, o•…•… quoth he) they were washt in the river, and yet not so as by dipping neither, good Sirs let us examine this a little, for I cannot for my life ken what washing the Dr. means, besides this of dipping, or how any other washing was performed.

First to be sure it was not by sprinkling, which yet is all in all among you, and that for these reasons.

First, because its most certain that the greek word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hath no such signifi∣cation as to sprinkle, neither is it rendred any where Aspergo, in any Lexicon

or any translator of the testament whatsoever.

Secondly because sprinkling is no kind of washing at all, neither is there any thing in the world (save as I said before by sluts and slovens) so much as under∣taken to be washt onely by that act of sprinkling, much lesse by such a sparing sprinkling as yours is, who sprinkle not the 20th part pro toto: indeed a thing may in time be so totally wetted by a continued sprinkling, as it may be put ther∣by into some kind of capacity to be clensed by rubbing it while the water is on it, and that is farre from your practise too, but not half so well as when it is swil∣led in water; and in a long while a garment may be all covered colored, and as it were died by sprinkling, as Christ is said in the continued war he wages at the last, partly by the sprinkling of peoples blood upon him, and partly by his riding up and down in the wine press, where there are, as there are usually in wars, gar∣men•…•…s rould in blood, and blood up to the horse bridles, to have his raiment all stain∣ed and his vesture as it were died and dipt in blood, but all this is hyperbolicall locution, and not to be wrested to such purpose as Mr. Cook and Mr. Blake do, who because there is not enough neer hand, fetch a proof for sprinkling fourty miles off, which yet proves nothing when it comes, for they know Allegories do rather illustrate then evince, but this is not such a deep dying as is by dip∣ping.

Thirdly, it had been a most vain thing for them to have gone down into the River meerly to be sprinkled, if that were the onely businesse they might well have been dispenst with from descending into the water, but sith they were not, it shews that such a thing as sprinkling might excuse them, and if not them, I know not why it should excuse the best of us; though men do much in the service of God in vain, when they do things that man doth, but God never did require at their hands, yet we cannot think Christ did any thing in vain, yet so we must think if we think he went into a river to receive no more then sprinkling: and so we must think of the Eunuch also, of whom we have little reason so to think, for great folks and nobles, such as he was, love to do as little as may be in contradiction to the flesh, and no more then needs must be in this point of baptism, if at all they stoop to it: for he need not have hindred himself so long in his journey, nor diseased himself so much in his body, as to have descended out of his chariot, and after into the water, but might much rather have sent Philip, or his servant to have fetcht so much water in the hollow of his hand, as would have served very well to have sprinkled him, if no more then so had been required.

Fourthly it had been stark non-sense for Mark to have said of Christ as he doth Mark. 1. 9. he was baptized of Iohn in•…•… Iordan, if he were not dipt, or if by baptized we must understand sprinkled, for he was sprinkled into the River is * 1.7 as absurd and unelegant English, as to say he was dipt into the rain.

Secondly it was not by powring water upon them, that Christ and the Eunuch were washed: this is the baptism Mr. Baxter pretends to, as that, and that on∣ly which ever he saw dispensed in all his life, as it were disclaiming the way of sprinkling, which yet is your onely wonted way: I believe he saw good cause to be ashamed of owning that any longer for baptism, as many a one besides him is, who with him puts it off thus, that their baptism is not by the way of sprinkling, but powring of water upon the infans, for my part (saith he p. 134.) I may say as Mr. Blake, that I never saw a child sprinkled, but all that I have seen bap∣tized, had water powred on them and so were washed.

And Mr. Blake saies p. 4. of his answer to Mr. Blackwood, that he never saw nor heard of any sprinkled.

O the egregious shifts and shuffling evasions of these men, who perceiving the perverse practise of sprinkling infants summoned, and sub paena'd, to come to a trial by the word of God, do disguise it out of its old name, that it hath born with content, and without controul for ages and generations, and doth still among

many of their own party, till now they begin to see it more strictly then ever en∣quired after, and likely to come into trouble for its transgression from Christs command) and shroud it under another name, whereby to secure it, so that now they know not, nor ever saw or heard of any such manner of thing done in all the world.

No Sirs? what never? that is strange: what parts of Christendome have you lived, or do you live in? I profess for my part I have lived a Sprinkler of infants myself about some seven or eight years, not only in several parishes, but in seve∣ral parts of our English Christendome, far distant, yet so far as I remember, I did never see till I came acquainted with the people, whom you nick name Anabap∣tists, any thing done by any in that particular, that might well bear any other name then that of sprinkling, yea I know where a dispensation of baptism (as twas called) was done so slenderly once to the child of a noted Clergy man, that the father himself was so far in doubt, whether there was so much as sprinkling, or any water at all dropt from the fingers of the Dispenser, that he doubted a while after (whether he do still or no I know not) whether it were not his duty to have it done over again a little better; the Gentleman I speak of, if ever he read this, will surely remember both what, and what Child of his I mean.

Mean while what more then sprinkling was ever done by myself, or any other in that place, or any other wherever I have been, I cannot call to mind, neither do I know that ever (till of late, that men see advantage lost by it in this con∣troversy) the name of sprinkling was denyed to what was done in all places of England, save such where the manner was, and very newly is upon sight of the falsenesse of the way of sprinkling, to dippe a little more then the tippe of their Noses.

Besides though the Rubrick did prescribe dipping as the onely right form, wher∣in baptism is to be dispensed and in case of weakness declared it sufficient to pour water upon a child, yet what kind of powring was universally used by them who never used dipping, is evident by the Rubrick, if we will give it leave to expound itself, for in the Catechism thereof, which is not unknown to Mr Blake, and Mr. Baxter both to have been taught or commanded to be taught all children at any years in all parishes of England, this question, viz. what is the visible sign or form in baptism? is thus resolved viz. water wherein the person baptized is dipped or SPRINKLED with it, in the name &c.

So that how beit the Bishops were pleased to use the word pouring water (as you do) yet a great piece of pouring it was I promise you that their Priests practised to infants (and it is a chance whether Mr. Baxter and Mr. Blake have not in the infancy of their administration, which I suppose was in the bishops reign, done the like, though now happily they make a little better measure, or at least seen the like at some time or other, but me thinks they cannot chuse but have heard of the like in one place of the world or other) a poor piece of pouring, I say when their hands onely being put into water were after held up perpendiculariter over the infants face, that it might be wetted a little with what fell guttatius from their fingers ends.

And this hath been the most usual way that I have seen, in respect of which I may say the Priest that administred all commonly by book, and wi•…•…hin book, did act beside book, and without book in that service, for howbeit he was in joined to dip the child in the water, as the most expedient way at least, and not so much as to dispence by powring water, unlesse in case of weaknesse onely, yet he made bold, having an inch given him to take an ell, i. e. upon leave granted him to forbear dipping in time of weaknesse only, to forbear dipping altogether, and being authorized by the same Ghostly fathers the Bishops to make powring suffice instead of dipping at such time onely, wherein dipping might not be safely used, to make sprinkling serve instead of pouring also: and in this manner I am perswa∣ded

the world was gulled by the Clergy in Cyprians daies, and after, who having the verdict of so grave a Father as Cyprian was, that application of water in the bed might stand for baptism in time of sicknesse, in case the sicknesse proved un∣to death (for if they recovered even in his judgement they ought to be had to the River and dipt) for ease sake to the flesh, and such like self ends, made some slen∣der slabber to stand for baptism altogether.

And that sprinkling only hath been the general way of England its evident e∣nough to any, save such, as seeing see not, and have ears and hear not: yea as shy as Mr. Blake and Mr. Baxter are of that name sprinkling, as blind and deaf as they would make themselves in this case, as though they never saw nor heard of any sprinkled, yet there are Divines famous in their account, who own it, some of which seem to speak, as if they never heard of such a thing as powring of water in the dispensation of baptism, but only of dipping and sprinkling as the only forms that ever they had the hap to hear of: w•…•…tnesse (besides several other Ca∣tachistical composures, that I have seen) that specialy of Mr. Ball a man not on∣ly vindicated by Mr. Marshall, but much magnified by Mr. Baxter by the titles of Rutherfords second, excellent Mr. Ball, judicious Mr. Ball, no Dull Divine to be easily •…•…isled p. 131. 132 which Mr. Ball in his Catachise p. 24. speaking of the outward sign, element, action, speaks much what asit is in the Rubrick, viz. water, wherewith the person baptized is washed by dipping or sprinkling in the name &c. as if he had never seen water poured on a child, but all that ever he saw had been either dipped or sprinkled.

Nay more then all this, witnesse also the very man that manages this very cause together with them, viz. Mr. Cook, whom I dare say Mr. Baxter and Mr. Blake have read, and made no little use of, for he hath furnished them both with sundry of their Arguments against dipping, this man in opposition to A. R. which A. R. speaking of sprinkling, excludes it by this disjunction, viz. that the use of water must be either by infusion or dipping answers thus, not only to the clean contradicting of Mr. Blake and Mr. Bax•…•…er and to the proving of them but so so in their denyals, that ever they saw, or heard of any sprinkled, but also to the excluding of infusion or pouring, which yet in other places he pleads for, which Mr. Blake and Mr. Baxter say is the only way, vea all the way that they have seen save dipping, which yet one of them never saw at all, and to the e∣vincing of sprinkling to be one of the ordinary waies of baptizing: for page. 11. where is A. R. saies the use of water must be either by infusing or dipping, but not by infusing nor sprinkling, for he counts them much what one, therefore by dipping, Mr. Cook tells him, as if he had never seen or heard of such a thing as pouring, which is all that Mr. Baxter saies he saw in his daies, that the ordina∣ry use of the water is one of these two waies, viz. either by dipping or sprinkling yet Mr. Blake that hath read Mr. Cook, n•…•…ver heard of any sprinkled: So Calvin, Tylenus, Buchan, and all call it either Aspersion, or •…•…mersion: yet again some Divines seem to speak, as if they never saw nor heard of such a thing as dip∣ping, unlesse among the Heretical Anabaptists, which yet is the onely true and primitive form of Baptism, but onely of p•…•…ring on of water or sprinkling, wit∣nesse the whole Synod of Divines, who in their directory direct the world further out of the way of the word in point of baptism, then the Bishops in their Rubrick did, for they in their Liturgy appointed dipping to be done, as the most expedi∣ent form, and powring on water onely in case of necessity, but the other in theirs directly exclude dipping, as a thing no where appearing to be needful, and order that either of the other shall serve without it: for these are their words p. 45. of the Directory, viz. He is to baptize the child with water, which for the man∣ner of doing it, is not only lawful but sufficient, and most expedient to be by powring or sprinkling of the water on the face of the child: whether any thing that ever hath been done by any in obedience to this directory in that second way

of sprinkling, which Mr. Baxter denies that he ever saw done, and Mr. Blake that he ever heard of as done to any, did ever reach Mr. Baxters eye, or Mr. Blakes eare, I leave them seriously to examine; but this I am sure of that the bap∣tism of Christ and the Eunuch was dispensed neither by sprinkling as I have shew∣ed above, nor yet by bare pouring on of water which they so plead for: and this I shall now make appear as plainly as the other. For

First in vain did they descend into the River to have nothing but water poured on them with no greater spout or stream then what runs down contiguously from the hallow of ones hand; but Christ did nothing surely in vain, and Philip and the Eunuch might well have spared their paines in wetting themselves so much, as they must needs do by going down both into the water, and as sufficiently dischar∣ged such a service by standing only on the shore.

Secondly, if by powring you mean the powring of a farre greater quantity of water then what can he held in the hand, as namely out of some scoop, or vessel used to such a purpose upon the face or head, as that might have been done full as well by the water side, if they had not gon down into the water, so it must have been as tedious by running down into their necks and bosomes, and so necessari∣ly have occasioned the trouble of the shifting of themselves, as very dipping it self can be, or do.

Thirdly, twas not by washing them in any other way, excepting still that of dip∣ping, suppose by applying water to them with their hands or otherwise, and then rubbing it on their bodies, for if so, then this washing must be of their whole bo∣dies, or of some part or parts of them onely, if some part or parts onely, then of those parts which we commonly keep uncovered as the face and hands, or else let it be assigned what other parts, but it was not the face or hands onely that were thus washt, for this again were a very vain thing to go down into the water for, as its said of Philip and the Eunuch that they both did: frustra fit per plura quod potest fieri per pauciora: tis meer foolishnesse to fetch a beetle and wedges to cleave a stick no bigger then ones singer, & little wisdome to run so much as ore shoes meer∣ly to wash ones face or hands, which may be done as well at the waters side, as in it: if their whole bodies were thus washt, then it must be done either with their clothes on, and that is impossible, for though the whole body may be baptized i. e. washt by dipping or swilling it under the water as conveniently, and more comely with clothes on then otherwise, yet they surely have little else to do, and find themselves more work then becomes wise men, that go about to wash persons by rubbing water upon them through their garments, besides while you can totally wash one in that form of washing, Ile wash by dipping at least no less then a score: or else ex∣ut is vestimentis i. e. stark naked, & that were more immodest then naked dipping.

Fourthly, nor was it done by dipping some part of their bodies onely into wa∣ter, but the whole, for to dip a person but in part, besides that it is not properly to dipp that person, but onely to dip some part of him, is to the dispenser, and the disciple too, tantamount in difficulty if not surmounting a total dipping, yea to dip the whole body of a man at years (for we speak not now of infants, that may at ease be dandled any way in ones armes) is easie enough to the dispenser, when the disciple is once gon down with him into the water, and yields himself to be laid along in it by his hands, but conceive what part of a man you will, except the hands which you will not for shame say is the onely member to be baptized, and Ile say hic labor, hoc opus est, tis a matter of no smal difficulty to dip meerly that: for if you will dip a mans head and shoulders onely in the River, you must poise and posture him Archipodialiter with his heeles upwards, if his feet and legs onely, you must first at least lift him up wholly, and carry him in clearly from the ground, which kind of dipping men in Rivers, as tis more toilsome surely then that totall dipping, which Iohn and Philip used, so let him take it, who is minded to make himself more moil then needs, for our parts we have a way

wherein to do it with more ease, and to do it more sufficiently too, then by the halves.

As for the other of the Dr. quibbles viz.

First (for the rest of them are elsewhere removed) That the Israelites were bap∣tized in a cloud, not dipt into it.

Resp. nor sprinkled neither, but onely metaphorically baptized.

Secondly, that Zebedees children were baptized with blood, the baptism wher∣with Christ was baptized, and yet neither he nor they dipt into blood.

Resp. Both he and they were baptized with sufferings, shame and contempt, and affliction, and all misery in the world for truths sake i. e. penè, yea penitus submersi, sunk ore head and ears in deep waters of the proud, going over their souls, and overwhelmed with the waves of the wickeds wrath, prevailing against them for a time, and thats the bloody baptism he speaks of, not litteral∣ly the sprinkling of their own blood upon them, when they were slain, for Iohn suffered otherwise, but his blood was not shed at all.

Thirdly, that the fathers speak of the baptism of tears but no dipping in that baptism.

Resp. we mind not what your fathers spake hyperbolically, but what our fa∣thers spake in truth, and plain sobernesse in this case.

It was therefore a totall dipping certainly, which was then used, and by which Christ and the Eunuch were baptized in the water, and not any other kind of washing there, as the Dr. dreames, which is also evinced yet a little further by this, forasmuch as though the Eunuch was gone down with Philip into the wa∣ter, yet he was not said to be baptized till Philip had dipt him therein: for if the wetting or washing, or dipping of some parts of the body onely might passe for sufficient baptism, then as soon as Philip had conducted the Eunuch into the River, he might have led him out again as a person sufficiently baptized, for he was washt already and dipt so far as to the Ancles, but the businesse was not done though the Eunuch was in the River, till he had baptized him there∣into.

Rantist.

Give me leave though to put in one thing by the way, and that is this, tis a question to me for all your confidence, whether Philip and the Eunuch went down into the water at all or no, the praeposition 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, whereupon you ground it, doth not alwayes signifie into, but sometimes unto, and why may it not in this place be thus read viz. they went down both of them unto the water, both Philip and the Eunuch?

Baptist.

No it cannot, for they came unto the water before, and so its expressely spoken in the text ver. 36. where its said, and as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water, (tis probable some foord or brook that they were to pass through) and the Eunuch said see here is water, what hindereth me to be baptized, if they were come unto the water already (as the word saies they were) they could not be said properly (except they had gone from it first) to come unto the water again after they were come unto it, therefore the next motion was into it without que∣stion: yea the very Dr. himself, with whom we now deal, confesses no lesse then this, that Christ and the Eunuch were baptized in the river, and that such baptism of men hath been used, if then they were used to be baptized in the water, they went down first certainly into it, not unto it onely, for then they could not be well said to be baptized in it.

As therefore to that other quirk whereby the Dr. seeks to evade all baptizing in water, and pleads for a baptism with water onely viz. that the praeposition 〈◊〉〈◊〉 which commonly is put after the verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, signifies not in but with and is so translated) and this is one of Mr. Cooks Crotchets too p. 12. of his book)

the Drs own grant quite cashieres it, while he saies that Iohn and Philip baptized Christ and the Eunuch in the river, for though I deny not but that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 may be, and sometimes is truly enough translated with especially in Rev. 19. 21. the place quoted by Dr. Featley and Mr. Cook, who both strive to enervate A. Rs argu∣mentation from that praeposition, which is used Mat. 3. 7. Mark. 1. 8. where Iohn saies I indeed baptize you 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 i. e. in water (saith A. R.) with water •…•…saith the Dr. and Mr. Cook) yet if it be granted (as it is by the Dr) to be in the River, then it cannot be denied but that it is in water however, and so the Dr. thwarts himself in that.

Nei•…•…her is there such inconsistency in my conceit between baptizing in water, and with water, as that either this or that should be held exclusively of the other, for they rather necessarily stand both together, yet so as that the advantage stands still by it on our hand, for whoever baptizes at all, yea he that baptizeth in wa∣ter baptizeth with water also, and likewise he that will baptize wi•…•…h water must necessarily baptize in water too, i. e. obruere over whelm or plunge persons over head and ears therein, or else if we go to the truest signification of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in reality he baptizeth not at all.

Let it be rendred therefore baptize in water, or with water which you will, its all of a price to us, sith the one of these includes the other.

And whereas the Dr. and Mr. Cook both make such a matter of the words that follow viz. i 1.8

He shall baptize you with the holy spirit and fire, the Dr. pleading that the Apostles were baptized with fire not dipt in to it, and Mr. Cook that one may as well say Christ baptized in the holy spirit, and in fire, or put the party into the holy spirit and fire, as that John baptized in w•…•…ter, the praeposition 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 being there also.

I answer, we may as well say so indeed, for tis a truth as well as the other, they that are baptized with the spirit and fire, are also baptized in the spirit and in fire, and put into the spirit, and into fire i. e. wholly into a holy flame of zeal for God, and the Gospel, for thats the baptism with fire that is there mainly spoken of, and not as the Dr. divines that outward appearance of cloven tongues onely, like as of fire that sat upon them in the assembly Act. 2. 3. for that was but a special, accidentall, visible token of Gods presence extraordinarily appearing among t•…•…ose particular persons at that time, baptizing them inwardly with the o∣ther, which is no more necessarily incident to all persons that are baptized with fire, and to all those unto whom that baptism with fire is promised, which are in∣deed all the Saints, that repent and believe the Gospel, as well as those that were met on the day of Pentecost, (as we see Mat. 3. 11. where Iohn promises the baptism with fire, as well as with the spirit to all penitents, most of which never had that vision of cloven tongues) which appearance of cloven tongues I say, is no more incident to, nor to be expected by all that are baptized with fire, then the appearance of the spirit descending in shape of a dove, and lighting upon Christ at the time, when he was baptized or filled with the spirit, which was much vvhat such another special, casual and visible token of Gods presence as the other, is in∣cident to, or to be expected by all those that are baptized i. e. filled vvith the holy spirit: and albeit this phrase [in the spirit] may seem to found so non-sensi∣cally to Mr, Cook out of our mouthes, that are a people of no account vvith him, yet I hope it shall seem congruous enough out of the mouth of the holy spirit, and the holy Apostles themselves, for they use it more then once, or twice in the holy Scripture, and me thinks he should not be, unlesse he be willingly, ignorant of it; for not onely doth Iohn say twice viz. Rev. 1. 10. 17. 3. of himself in this manner viz. I was in the spirit, and he carried me away in the spirit, but like∣wise Paul saies plainly to all Saints Gal. 5. 6. walk in the spirit, and to himself and all Saints, v. 25. if we live in the spirit let us walk in the spirit, and testifies of the

also Rom. 8. 9. that they are not [in] the flesh, but [in] the spirit, if the spirit of God dwell in them, where by [in the flesh] he means all over, alltogether, or to∣tally fleshly, drenched, drowned in flesh, plunged over head and ears as it were, in flesh, filth, and corruption as the world is that lies in wickednesse, so that there is nothing but flesh to be seen upon them, as he is that is buried in water, whom that Element hath wholly covered, and by being [in the spirit] no other then that which is the baptism with the spirit, i. e. being indued with the spirit, wholly sanctified in every part though but in part, with the spirit, all over seaso∣ned, washed, clensed by the spirit, for thus he is, that is baptized with the spirit, i. e. he is in the spirit as well as the spirit in him.

More then this yet, though the word [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] may be rendred [with] as well as [in] for tis both [with] and [in] water that we are baptized, when we are baptized as we should be, when it stands between 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 so that we may read it as well I baptize you [with] water as [in] water, yet can it not be very proper∣ly read so when it stands between 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and yet so it stands Mat. 3. 6. Mark 1. 5. for though I can bear with him that saies thus, viz. Iohn baptized [with] water, yet he that shall say that Iohn baptized [with] Iordan or with the River Iord•…•…n, as if all Iordan was used to every ones baptizing rather then [in] Iordan and [in] the River Iordan, I shall think that his braines crow out nonsense which is intolerable.

Whereupon as to the word [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] all Translators do there English it [in] and not [with] and though I can read it [with] together with them, as well as [in] when the Greek is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, yet by their leave, and with non-submission to their judgements (as no way sleighting them) further then I find them not fallible, and saving both the Dr. and Mr. Cooks conceits to the contrary, I see no reason sith one of those places is a relation of the same thing with the other, but that as Mat. 3. 6. Mat. 5. 1. we must read thus, viz. they were baptized of Iohn [in] the River Iordan, so we may without such uncouth utterance of the thing, as seems to them to be in it, yea and as agreeably to Scripture language as otherwise read Mat 3. 11. Mar. 1. 8. thus viz. I indeed baptize you [in] water, but he shall baptize you [in] the holy spirit and fire.

But more then all this yet, though the word [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] that is used in those places, may without any advantage to you be read with as well as in yet the praeposition [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] which is used Mark 1. 9. where it is said that Christ was baptized of Iohn into Iordan, that cannot possibly be rendred with which yet in the intent of the * 1.9 spirit is doubtlesse the same in sense and signification as [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] is in the other, and more significant to our purpose, for howbeit, it be rendred in Iordan as [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] is elsewhere, yet into Iordan were more agreeable to that rendition of it, that is usuall in other places: but so to read it, viz. he was baptized of Iohn into Iordan doth render your sprinkling a plain piece of Nonsence, for it cannot be sensibly said, he was sprinkled into Iordan, therefore you will in no wise give way to that: the Doctor indeed leaves A. R. and bids him farewell in that point, as if he were affraid to have any noise of it, and saies not a word against it; but Mr. Cook and Mr Blake, who saves himself a labor, & uses not a jo•…•… more then what Mr. Cook fur∣nishes him with to that purpose, do both sternuously stand against the reading of the word [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] Mark 1. 9. by into Mr. Cook p. 14. and Mr, Blake p. 4. of their re∣spective returns to A. R. and Mr. Blackwood, who both make mention of that passage; yet the utmost that both these repugnants bring against it is of no more force then a very feather, for all that they say is this, that the word [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] doth of∣ten signify in or by and not into as Mat. 2. 23. Mark 4. 13. Mat. 5. 45. Mat 10. 9. 11. 13. 33. he dwelt in Nazareth, in Capernaum; neither by Ierusa∣lem &t. neither possesse mony in your purses; in the name of a prophet, she hid it in three measures of slour, in all which places the word [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] is Englished in or by.

Resp. As i•…•… because this word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hath other significations besides into, but spe∣cially the signification in in other places, where very common sense, and reason shew that it cannot there bear be Englished into, but only in, therefore it cannot by any meanes bear to be Englished into in this place where its as good sense, save that it shewes sprinkling to be nonsense, yea and more suitable to a genuine, and candid construction of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and undoubtedly to the spirits meaning in the place to English it into then to English it in, for though he was rantized [Anglice] sprinkled into Iordan be ridiculous, yet he was baptized [Anglice] dipped into Iordan is as proper to the full, as he was baptiz•…•…d in Jordan, yet they blush not to say, for so saies Mr. Cook, and there lies the very force of his reason, viz. that because 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies in, though he knowesi signifies into also, therefore it were absurd to render it into here at all; Mr. B•…•…ake also makes this his sole ground whereupon to say that the Scripture is against our Englishing 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 here by into, be∣cause elsewhere, viz. in the places they alledge, where the sense will not bear it to be read [into] •…•…s rendred all along in or by; I cannot but believe that those two gentlemen are Judicious enough to discern their own halting, and meer shuffling 〈◊〉〈◊〉 this case, for if I should argue upon them, as to but one of those places, where they will have 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to be Englished in on this wise viz the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 very frequently, and most properly signifies into as namely Luke 5. 3. he entered into one of the ships Rom. 11. 24. thou art graf•…•…ed into a good ol•…•…ve tree Ephes. 4. 9. He * 1.10 descended into the lower parts of the Earth, Mat. 6. 6. Enter into thy Clos•…•…, Mat. 6 13. lead us not into temptation Acts 8. 38. they went down both into the water both Philip and th•…•… Eunuch, therefore it is absurd for you to render it in in Mat. 4. 13. and the Scripture is against that interpretation, if I say I should urge so upon them (and so they argue to us ward) they would quickly spye out my nakednesse in that consequence, but O how abominable blind are they at home?

Neverthelesse I tell you plai•…•…ly that though right is right, and to be stood for to a tittle, and that if the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Mark 1. 9. were rightly rendred, it should be rather into then in yet the service the word in will do us in that place, is little lesse then what the word into will do, so that we need not stand contending for the sense of into having enough from your own professed sence of in without the other, wherefore waving our right in that at present, we w•…•…ll freely fall in with you as the sense is in, yea we grant that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies in and that in many more places, then those alledged by your selves, as namely to add to your store Act. 2. 27. thou wil•…•… * 1.11 not leave my soul in hell Luke 11. 7 my children are in bed with me.

But is it so that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies in and is so rendred in that place, and many more? then I am sure hat here it doth not signify out of for he that is in a City (put a Na∣zareth or Capernaum) is at that time when said to be in it, not out of it nor only by it but in it, money that is truly denominated to be in a purse is at that time truly in it and neither out of it nor beside it, leaven hid in three pecks of Meal, whilest hid is in it, overwhelmed, covered with it, and not on the outside with a few dusts of meal sprinkled on it only; He that is in hell i. e. the grave, in bed while he is truly said to be in it, he is in it, and not at it only, and so he that is truly denominated to be baptized in water or in Iordan in the River Jordan is not ou•…•… of it, not at it, not by the side of it, not neer it only as you fancy them to have bin that were baptized of John in Jordan.

He I say who is said truly (and the spirit lies not) to be baptized in Jordan must needs be, whilest he was in the Act of this baptizing, not out of Jordan, nor just by it only, but truely in it, and thats more then he needs to be in order to baptism, if he can be baptized as well standing by it only in that fiddling way of sprinkling.

Whereas therefore you contend against baptizing, i. e. dipping into Jordan into Rivers, and plead for a baptizing in water onely by the Example of Christs baptism

which you yield in Jordan, but not into it, I marvel what wide difference you see in these two, that you should grant it to be in, and yet be affraid to grant it to be into Jordan: you cry out not into, not into by any meanes, for that is no way consistent indeed with your dry washing, but by all meanes let it be in only, viz. in water, in the River, in Jordan: let it be in water then as [much as you will for me, so it be [in] water that you are baptized, and not out of it, and not well nigh without it, as most of y•…•…ur christened Crea∣tures are, whilest little or none, in comparison of such a measure of water as must necessarily be in order to a true baptizing of them, doth once come neer them.

Fourthly, it appears plainly that the way of baptizing in the primitive times was by totall dipping, not sprinkling, in that they chose to do it in places, where there was much water, or many waters, which they need not have done, if sprin∣kling might then have past for baptizing, Iohn baptized in the River Iordan, and was baptizing Iohn 3. 23. in Enon neer to Salem, and the reason is rendred thus, viz. because there was much water there, and there they came and were baptiz∣ed; and as the reason why they went to be baptized there, was because there was much water, or many waters (for the word is Plurall) so surely the reason, why they went to such a place was that they might be baptized i. e. dipped in water, as they could not conventently be elsewhere, at least not every were, for where might they not easily have bin sprinkled? and upon this account no doubt, as Iohn chose to preach about those River sides, viz. Iordan and Enon, that their conver•…•…s might conveniently be baptized, Paul and Silas being at Philippi, and abiding in that City certain daies to preach the Gospel, on the Sabbath, the most likely time of vacuity from other occasions for people to assemble to hear in, went out of the City by a Rivers side, and there sate down, and spake to as many as resorted thither to hear, viz. certain women, (for men for the most part were more shy of the Gospel as now they are) that they might conveniently dispense bap∣tism to them, as should imbrace the Gospel, as a certain woman named Li∣dya, and her houshold did, and thereupon out of hand were all baptized, Act. 16. 12. &c.

Rantist.

Their baptizing where there was much water for this reason, that they might do the work so effe•…•…ually to every person as by dipping, is a frivolous conjecture, as if there could be no reason, why Iohn should chose a place, where many wa∣ters were but that he might dipp the whole man in the water, the cause rather seems to be this, because waters in those hot Countryes were rare, and in some places could not be had in a great distance, and because there came multitudes to be baptized, for the dispatching of which they might well seek places of many waters, where John and his disciples might at once be imployed, one water of depth sufficient would have served for the use of dipping, for dipping sake he might have sought for a deep, but needed not to seek many waters.

Baptist.

So saies Mr. Cook indeed to A. R. p. 15. 16. and Mr. Blake to Mr. Black∣wood, who jumps as just with Mr. Cook, as one that never saw nor heard of any sprinkled, can likely do with another, who maintaines sprinkling to be the one∣ly way of baptizing, but both weary themselves to little purpose.

The question is not whether Iohn had no reason. but that which we alleadge of baptizing, where there was much water, but whether that which we alleadge viz. that he might dipt the whole man be not one reason: as for that you bring viz. because there came multitudes to be baptized, and that Iohn and his disci∣ples might at once be imployed in baptizing, that can be no reason at all of their running into rivers to baptize, nor of their dispensing in Iordan, In Enon, and in places of much water, or in many waters, and therefore (for ought I see yet) ours is the onely one: for verily were it not for the sake of totall dipping, they

need not for the multitudes sake that came to be baptized, nor yet for the multi∣tudes sake who did baptize (I mean Iohn and his disciples, who no doubt were all at once imployed in that work) have sought for a place of much water, or many waters: for as one bason of water may well serve to sprinkle a whole parish of many persons, or if not, its easily replenisht, so many persons imployed at once in sprinkling might easily put their hands into one, or if not, might they not easily have it in many basons? what a poor shift is this? Rivers, Iordan, Enon, ma∣ny waters, and why? because many were baptizing, and many to be baptized; one water of depth (quoth Mr. Blake) would have served for the use of dipping: for dippings sake they he might have sought for a deep, but needed not seek many waters: but would not one water of no great depth, as a bason, yea of no depth at all, as a cock or conduit have served for the use of sprinkling 1000s? for sprinkling sake, even of multitudes, they need have sought for neither deep wa∣ters, nor for many waters neither: or if they must needs have had as many waters as they had dispensers, they might quickly have made many waters out of one, by filling out of one well, one cock, one bucket, many ba∣sons.

Mr. Blake rejoices in Mr. Blackwoods rendring the word plurally viz. many waters, which the translators render in the singular viz. much water, supposing he hath such a prize in our yielding to read it so, as takes off the whole force of our reason: but I hope he understands himself better then to believe, that by many waters is meant several waters, waters in several sourses or channels divi∣sim, Sigillatim, seorsim sumptae, divided and a part one from another, for by many waters is meant a confluence of much water together, many waters meet∣ing in one, flowing, running contiguously, and contained jointly in one sourse, river, channel; otherwise in one River Enon it could not be said there were ma∣ny waters, for twas but one floud, as Iordan was, so that by Enon, or many waters he must needs understand much water, a sufficiency, a competency of wa∣ter for the occasion in hand, enough to baptize i. e. to dip, and overwhelm in, and not several waters, for several persons at once to sprinkle in, for this might be done easily without much water, and if not without several waters, yet at least in seve∣ral basons of water onely, but the other could not: many shallowes were sufficient for many to Rantize, and be Rantized in, but they sought some one deep, one Iordan, one Enon of depth sufficient, those being onely the most fit to baptize i.e. to dip in.

Fiftly, it appears plain that the Saints in the primitive time were totally dip∣ped, or overwhelmed in water by that denomination that is given to them after baptism Rom. 6. 3. 4. where the Romans are said to be baptized into the death of Christ, and buried with him in baptism into death: also Col. 2. 12. when the Collossians are said to be buried with Christ in baptism, and therein also rais∣ed with him, through the faith of the operation of God, who raised him from the dead:

Now we all know that he that is buried, is totally put under that element wherein he is buried, whatever it be, whether water or earth, and all over co∣vered with it, not sprinkled with a little onely. Non quaelibet aquae guttula, nec quaelibet terrae globula: tis not a little parcel of water, sprinkled on a man can denominate him baptized, as tis not a little clod of earth crumbled on a man can denominate him to be buried, for baptism is a burial, an ordinance, and visible sign, wherein every believer is to be visibly buried, and every one thats truly bu∣ried, is totally covered, subjected to that element that buries him, and for a time at least translated by it out of sight.

Rantist.

Buried? yea, but mistically and spiritually, invisibly and inwardly onely, in respect of the thing signified in baptism, and effected in them viz. death to sinne

by vertue of Christs death, in which respect also they are said to be raised i. e. to newness of life by the power of Christs resurrection; but this is not meant nor spoken with reference to the visible sign it self, as if there were to be a burying of the body under water, and bringing that up again: Its the inward grace, and not the outward sign it self, in respect of which baptism is called a burial, and a resurrection, the things signified being our dying to sin, and rising to righteous∣nesse, even as Christ did die and rose again.

Baptist.

I am glad to hear you grant so much truth as you do at the present, and I hope you will see the whole out in the end, for all will not own so much, some, per∣ceiving no doubt what a foundation it laies for us to build firmly upon all that in this point we contend for, do rather choose to deny this truth that baptism signifies, or at least that it resembles a death, and resurrection, then by owning it, be forc't to own the true way of baptism indeed.

Your Dr. Featley little better then denies both at first p. 70. saying thus,

As for the representation of the death and resurrection, that is not properly the inward grace signified by baptism, but the washing the soul in the laver of regeneration, and clensing us from our sinnes, but I can little lesse then admire that he above all men, who quotes the Rubrick with little lesse authority, then he doth the bible, and hath no question little lesse then an 100 times in his daies taught little children the catachism contained therein, should quite forget to learn it himself, for there its set down plainly, that the inward and spritual grace sig∣nified by the outward sign of baptism, is death unto sinne, and a new birth unto Righteousnesse; and besides he knew that in true regeneration, there is a death and resurrection.

Rantist.

However in the manner of baptism as it is administred in the Church of Eng∣land there is a resemblance of a death and resurrection, for though the child be not alwayes dipt in water, as the rubrick prescribeth, save onely in case of neces∣sitie, which would be dangerous in cold weather, especiall if the child be weak and sickly, yet the minister dippeth his hand in the water, and plucketh it out again when he baptizeth the infant: and these are the very words of Dr. Featly next following the words you quoted, and therefore whether he be right in those or no, I am sure he is in these, for there is a resemblance of death and re∣surrection in our baptism.

Baptist.

Whether the Drs mind misgave him or no after he had asserted that a death and resurrection is not the thing signified, and that which is to be resembled in baptism I know not, but me thinks he speaks as if he feared whether that would hold wa∣ter or no, and therefore least it should be found to leak, in the v•…•…ry next words, which you now speak in, as one supposing it the safest way to grant tha•…•… there ought to be a res•…•…mblance of a death and resurrection in right baptism, he rather goes another way to work viz. to patch up a proof of it that there is a re∣semblace of a death and resurrection in that administration of it, that is used in England; but tis in such a way me thinks as may well make all the seers asham∣ed, and Divines confounded, specially you that so dote on that Doctor as to give up your selves to be so blindly discipled by him (as you do and would have others to do so also) that ever such a piece of doctrine should be delivered (and yet behold you justifie and side with it) by Englands Doctors in Divinity.

It seems then you dare nor quite gainsay, but that a representation of a death and resurrection is fit to be made in the manner of baptizing, and that the Church of England hath prescribed that it shall be done in such a manner, as may be tanta mount thereto viz. by dipping, unlesse of necessity th•…•…ough the infants sicknesse it be done otherwise (yet notwithstanding that prescription of the Church,

which of you priests did ever do any other then sprinkle the healthiest infants?) but because the subject of your baptism in England, being an infant, is too tender at all times to be dipt or buried in water (where note that your false subject of ne∣cessity ingages you to forgo the true way of baptizing, which your selves prescribe unlesse necessity forbid it) because I say the child cannot conveniently be buried with Christ in baptism into death in his own person, therefore (ecce signum) this visible death, burial, and resurrection with Christ must be all transacted for him per altum i. e. by the ministers hand, that is dipped into water, and brought out again as it were instead of the child.

And this is even very suitable to all the rest, for all the rest of your service in the point of baptism is done by representatives, as little as it represents what is maln∣ly to be represented by it, and one part would mock the other is this should not be done so too: tis true all is done in the childs name, and in the childs stead, but no∣thing done that of right ought to be done either by, or to the child himself: The infant indeed is askt, dost thou believe in God? dost thou forsake tho divel? wil: thou be baptized &c? but others must answer, and promise, and professe, assent to, and vow all these for him, others mouthes must speak his mind, and theres the profession: again he is spoken to by the minister saying to him, I baptize thee i e. dip or bury thee with Christ in baptism into death, for so tis in a little plainer Eng∣lish, and true sense and intent of the service, but alas its nothing but the mini∣sters hand that is dipt, buried, raised again with the drips that hang upon which the infant is onely rantized, and there is the resemblance of the death, burial and resurrection: but I trust Sirs you will understand at last that when Paul saies to the Romans and Colossians that they were buried and raised in baptism, he doth not mean that the dispensers hands, but that their bodies were put under water, and brought out again, in respect of which they were said to be buried into death, and are raised again, i. e. not spiritually onely, and really in respect of the soules dying to sinne, and living to righreousnesse, but outwardly, visibly, bodily in water also, and this significatively, and representatively of the other, and this is my third argument for total dipping.

Rantist.

Significatively I grant if you will, but not representatively, I know no ne∣cessity that in every sign there is to be aresemblance of the thing signified there∣by.

Baptist.

If that be granted you will not easily withstand the other, yet that is granted by the most, and must be granted by all whether they will or no: as for Mr. Cook and Mr. Blake themselves they neither of them seem to me to deny, but that such a thing as a death and resurrection are signified in baptism, yea Mr. Cook affirms it, yea, who questions saith he p. 19. but our justification and sanctification, or remission of sins, together with mortification and vivification are signified by baptism? and he saies right, for none can, and I think none doth deny it, but Dr. Featley, of all Divines that I know of: yea Calvin and Zanchee both assert it in their several expositions upon these very places Rom. 6. 4. Coloss. 2. 12.

This participation in death saith Calvin, is principally to he respected in bap∣tism, for not onely purgation, but also mortification, and the dying of the old man is proposed there, &c.

And of spiritual circumcision Paul maketh two parts saith Zanchee, the first he calleth buriall with Christ, the other resurrection with him, and of both these he maketh baptism the sign &c.

Neverthelesse our above named opposers will at no hand give way. that there should be any representation or resemblance made in baptism of these two things, which are the prime significations of it, by putting under water and plucking out

again: yea they seem to chide with their several Ant agonists A. R. and C. B. for offering once to urge that the outward sign ought to hold analogy or proportion with the thing signified in that particular; A proportion between the sign, and these things signified, viz. a death, burial and resurrection Mr. Blake grants there is in our way of baptism by dipping, but that there need be, or should be so by institution, this he heares not of with patience, no, nor Mr. Cook nei∣ther.

But if it please you to have patience with me so long, sith those two are the maine men that (beside the Doctor whose repulse is not worth a rush) so mainly oppose our Argument from Rom. 6. Col. 2. He take the paines to transcribe their several replies, and then see what strength there is in all that they say to the contrary.

Mr. Cooks defence is as followes.

What you go about to gather saith he from Col. 2. 12. Rom. 6. 4. l know not, unlesse this, that as Christ was buried, ab•…•…de in the grave three daies, and then rose again, So your party baptized must be put under the water, abide there some considerable time, and then come up again, for if you presse a simi∣litude of Christs death in going down into the water, and of his resurrecti∣on, or comming up out of the water, why not also of his abode three daies by a∣biding three daies or some considerable time, under the water? which will make bad work, neither can any such thing be gathered from those Scrip∣tures.

I would demand two Questions (saith he) 1. How you gather from these pla∣ces a dipping of the whole man over head and under water? and that a simili∣tude of Christs death, burial and rising again, to be represented by dipping in water, is signified here? these Scriptures shew indeed that the end of our bap∣tism is to seal our communion with him in his death, and resurrection, by which we are dead to sin, and raised again to holinesse: but if you will presse hence a resurrection by our descending into, abiding in, and comming up out of the wa∣ter, take heed least you be one of those, which adde to Gods word, least he re∣prove you as a lyar, and adde unto you the plagues written in his book, for I know no word of God, wherein this representation is necessarily implyed, much lesse expressed.

Besides if you urge death and resurrection to be resembled by deseension into, and ascension out of the water you must urge also burial, which is principally there expressed by the biding of the whole ma•…•…, head and all under for a time, answerable to Christs three daies burial, which cannot be without danger, yea certainty of drowning.

2. If it should be granted that a representation and resemblance of Christs death, burial and resurrection is set before us in baptism, and so of our death to sin, and rising again to holinesse, yet I demand why this may not as well be by infu∣sion of water as dipping? can you give me an example of so many killed and bu∣ried by immersion, or dipping into the water, as I can give of them that have been put to death and buried by infusion of water? I am sure a whole world of men and other creatures (those few that were in the Ark only excepted) were buried in the universal deluge at once by infusion, not by dipping: so that infu∣sion or sprinkling may as well clearly signifie death and burial as dipping: and to the preservation of No•…•…h and those that were with him in the Ark (on which waters were poured) from drowning: the Apostle compares baptism as its Anti∣type. Thus far Mr. Cook p. 16, 17.

And then again p. 19, 20. 21. he undertakes further viz. to argue back again upon us at large, and to prove, that if there must needs be a resemblance and re∣presentation in baptism of the things, that are signified therby, then it may be as well, nay must be rather by washing, pouring sprinkling then by dipping and putting under

the water, sprinkling and infusion being as (if not more) agreeable to the nature and institution of baptism then dipping or immersion, for as the word used, i. e. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies washing, so the thing represented, sig•…•…yed and sealed (saith he in the wonted implicit phrase) in baptism is a washing 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Cor. 6. 11. ye are wast∣ed. &c. the washing of Regeneration 2 Tit. 5. having your bodies washed with pure water Heb. 10. 22. tis a cleansing and purging 1 John. 1. 7. blood of Christ clenseth us from all our sinnes Heb. 9. 14. blood of Christ shall purge your conscience, which things viz. washing, clonsing, purging are done as well by infusion of water saith he as dipping, and though it were granted saith he, that in those hot countreys they commonly washt by going down into the water, and be∣ing dipt therein, that will no more inforce a necessity on us of observing the same in baptism now, then the examples of Christ, and the Apostles gesture in the sup∣per ties us to the same which was leaning and partly lying, but it may be objected (saith he) that sprinkling a little water doth not so fitly represent the washing of sins away, as dipping or plunging, sith here the whole body is washed, there the face or head onely: I answer first saith he, the Scripture no where requires washing of the whole body in baptism.

Secondly, with as good reason one may plead thus, that tis most convenient that at the supper every communicant should receive his belly full of bread and wine, and take as long as his stomack and head will hold, to signifie the full re∣freshment of the soul with the body and blood of Christ; but who would endure saith he, such reasoning?

These outward elements of water, bread and wine are for spiritual use, and to signifie spiritual things, so that if there be the truth of things, the quantity is not to be respected further then is sufficient for its end, namely to represent the spiritual grace, and that it be neither so little as not clearly to represent it, nor so much as to take off the heart from the spiritual to the corporal thing: yea the spi∣rituall grace and visible act of God upon the soul signified, and represented by the outward act of baptism viz.

The application of Christs blood, and donation of the spirit is exprest in Scripture by the name of powring, spr•…•…kling, and that probably, if not certain∣ly, with allusion to the administration of baptism Isa. 44. 3. Joel 2. 28. I will powre out my spirit upon all flesh, Ezech. 36. 26. He sp•…•…inkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean, this clean water questionlesse is the blood and spirit of Christ represented in the water of baptism, so in the new testamet Act. 2. Heb. 10. 22. 1 Pet. 1. 2. Heb. 9. 13. and 14. verses compared together and Heb. 12. 24.

Now (saith he) let any one without prejudice consider these Scriptures, whe∣ther at least some of them speak not in allusion to baptism, and whether baptism be not a lively resemblance and representation of the things here spoken of, and withall let him consider whether the thing exhibited in this sacrament, be ever so fully set forth by dipping, and then I leave him to iudge whether sprinkling be not as, if not more, agreeable to the nature of this sacrament as dipping or im∣mersion.

In this manner Mr. Cook delivers his conceptions in his to A. R. we will onely see what his parallel saith, who argues as Mr. Cook doth, epitomizing as it were the labors of Mr. Cook, unto his own turn against C. B. weel first fully receive his charge also, and then fully return what in right reason remaines to be returned to both.

If by baptism saith he we are planted into the likenesse of Christs death, and also made partakes of his resurrection, will it follow therefore that there must be some ceremony in the application of the water to resemble it? if you may take this liberty of argument, give me leave saith he to attempt the like, and with as good reason to conclude, that baptism must be no other then sprinkling, that

there may be proportion between it, and that sprinkling of blood and water, that did foreshadow it: or baptism must be onely by powring of water, there be∣ing a lively representation between that and pouring out of the holy spirit; or that baptism must be by washing with water only, there being a lively proportion be∣tween that, and washing away of sins by Christs blood; you see (saith he) what you will gain from these disputes from Analogy and proportion.

To this purpose Mr. Blake p. 6. as if he had stopt all our mouthes, by this at once for ever, yet I hope he shall see that he hath left us room enough yet to breath in, and by which to breath out some reply.

Now to give the more plain, quick, cleer, and condign check to these two pal∣pable controulers, not to say contram•…•…lers of the present piecious and apparent Truth, reducing Mr. Blakes sharp and snap-short Syllogisticalls unto that long circumferaneous collation of Mr. Cook, out of which (for ouhgt I find) he fetch it, and in the answering of which Mr. Blake is answered as well as he, I most earnestly intreat both those two, and all other opposites to that one, and onely true way of baptizing we plead for, viz. of total dipping, seriously to advise what is granted and denyed, what is asserted and argued, and by what weak Mediums, and on what crazy grounds those things are, that are in contradicti∣on to us denyed, asserted or argued by them or either of them.

They are indeed Copar•…•…ners so that both seem to side with what either saith, which yet I marvel at the more, because Mr. Blake who quotes but contradicts not Mr. Cook in it at all, so far as I find occasion to guesse by some passages in the first and fourth pages of his Reply to Mr. Blackwood, is against sprinkling, so far at least as to judge the way of dipping Mr. Blackwood pleads for, which him∣self professes he hath been an eye witnesse of, and known to be the constant pra∣ctise of many Ministers for many yeares together, when yet he never saw nor heard of any sprinkled, to be more suitable to the word then sprinkling, but Mr. Cook is so earnest for the way of sprinkling, as the most excellent and pertinent way, that if we may judge his meaning by his words, he thinks dipping doth set forth the things signified but by the halves in comparison of it; why else doth he say sprink∣ling is as (if not more) agreeable to the nature of the Sacrament as dipping.

Mr. Blake grants not a necessity, but an expediency at least in dipping more then sprinkling, yet is silent towards them, & sides exceedingly against us with them, that are both againt us and himself too for sprinkling as more evpedient then dipping▪ what reason he hath so to do is worth his earnest examination, he grants that in baptism we are planted into the likenesse of Christs death, and made partakers of his resurrection, he grants, and Mr. Cook cannot deny it, that de facto there is a proportion and similitude of Christs death, bu•…•…al and resurrection, by which we are dead to sin and rise to righteousnesse, held in the way of dipping, and in that respect I am perswaded judges dipping in his conscience more expedient then that of sprinkling, yet will no more then Mr. Cook himself allow, but denyes us the liberty to argue that by duty, necessity or institution, there ought to be de ju∣re any ceremony to resemble it: what little reason he hath so to do will appear easily, and without further proof to himself, who grants so far, if he consider that tis duty, and necessary for us, necessitate praecepti) by command, commission and institution from Christ, to do that ever that is most commodious and expedient; and whether it be not most expedient, and more then expedient too, to resemble the death and resurrection of Christ, and ours with him in baptism, and whether dip∣ping be not more expedient then sprinkling, or any other way, and more per∣tinent to represent all those things, which are signifyed and are to be resembled in the ordinance of baptism, will fall under our examination by and by, when we come to consider what the things are that are specially signified in baptism, and how requisite it is that they be also represented in it.

In the mean time let it be considered what is granted and denyed by Mr.

Cook of whom I may truly say so little do I ken what the man means by it, that he both grants us full as much as we desire, and yet denies us too no lesse then e∣very thing we would have; denying indeed, to the contradiction of himself, the very self same things that yet he grants: the truth is I know not what to call it but confusion, nor find I a way how to reconcile some parts of it to the rest, so full of vatiance it is within it self: one while he grants, asserts and argues the same in general that we do, viz. that the spiritual grace, or thing signified in baptism is, and ought to be represented, or resembled in that outward sign, and that respect is to be had that the outward element of water, which is to signifie the spiritu∣al thing be used, as to the quantity of it, though not further, yet so far as may be sufficient to us end, which end (saith he mark his phrase in this passage p. 20) is to represent (which is as much as to say to resemble, or lively to set out to our eyes) that spiritual grace or thing signifyed, and that it be not so little as not clearly to represent it; yea and which is more, and as much as we say our selves he grants, and asserts it for undoubted truth that the spiritual grace, or thing sig∣nified by baptism is (among other things) a death and resurrection: for 〈◊〉〈◊〉 questions (saith he p. 19.) but our justification and san•…•…ication or remission of sins together with mortification and vivification (which is as much as to say those two parts of our sanctisication, viz. our spiritual death and resurrection) are sealed and signifyed by baptism, i. e. are the spiritual grace of it. Also p. 17. these Scripiures viz. Rom. 6. Coll. 2. shew indeed (saith he) that the end of our baptism is to seal our communion with Christ in his death and resurrection, by which vve are dead to sin and raised again to holinesse.

And in all this he sides so sourdly with us, and jumps so just into our opinioo, that if we did hire him to speak our mind for us to the world, we could scarce de∣sire him to propound it more plainly than he doth, bating only his stiling baptism by the name of a seal, instead of which I wish he would call it only a sign: yea he gives us all that in this case we contend for from those scriptures, viz. that the spiri∣tual grace or thing signified in baptism is to be therein also represented, and that our death and resurrection by vertue of Christs is that thing that is signified there, or that spiritual grace the signifying of which other things not excluded) is the chief end of our baptism.

Otherwhiles again he gain saies this grant, speaking of it suppositively onely as page 17.

If (saith he) it should be granted that a representation and resemblance of Christs death, burial and resurrection is set before us in baptism, and so of our death to sin and rising again to holinesse,

As if he were never the man that had granted, as you see he doth, or ever would grant, or give way to such a thing, and not only so, but as if he were loath, and half angry that any man should speak the truth but himself, or the same truth with himself, he charms A. R. and little lesse then charges him as a lyar, and in him consequently us all, for saying no other then what (if you put his sayings together) he saies himself, which is this, viz.

That our mortification and vivisi•…•…ation by vertue of Christs death and resur∣rection is the spiritual grace or thing signifyed, and that respect or care must be had in the administration of it, that the quantity of water be sufficient clearly to represent the spiritual grace [but how that can be without enough to be buried in water and raised again, what ere he thinks I know no:] but if you vvill, saith he, presse hence a necessity of Resemblance of Christs death, buriall and resurrecti∣by our descending into, abiding in, and comming up out of the water, take heed least you be of those that adde to Gods word; least he reprove you as a lyar, and adde unto you the plagues written in his book, for I know not any Word of God, wherein this representation is necessarily implyed, much lesse expres∣sed.

Thus whereas he saies elsewhere, as I have shewed above, that the end of bap∣tism was to represent the spiriual grace as well as signify it, and that the spiritual grace, or thing signified, and to be cleerly represented is mortification and vivi∣fication, or communion with Christs death and resurrection (which things tis strange he should say against the word of God, for he protests it to be against the word when we say it, and if there be any word expressing or implying a re∣presentation, which himself so much talks on, I am sure there is none like those two which we produce, viz. Rom. 6. Cot. 2. which most lively shew it, as I shall shew anon, and undeniably declare) yet here in the passage last cited, he that talks of this representation, and resemblance of Christs death and resurrection, and ours with him, as needful to be made in baptism, is a lyar with him and an adder to the word, which warrants no where to presse a resemblance of the thing signified in the dispensation of the outward sign, no not so much as in those Scriprures Rom 6. Col. 2. So this representation in baptism is with him it seems a matter that must be, and yet must not be, and yet must be.

And yet for all this (which is the wonder of me, and will be of many more, but specially of every wise man, that hath his wits about him, and would have bin of Mr Woodcock too, who without taking notice of any weaknesse in it, extoll'd the Book in the beginning of it, and put it forth to Sir Iohn Burgoines patronage, had he well weighed these passages of it) Mr. Cook wheeles about once again, and will needes have a representation and resemblance of the thing signified by baptism in the manner of administration of it, and argues stiffely for it to, but the repre∣sentation must be of what he pleases among the things signified, and not of the main thing signifyed in baptism, it must be of sanctification as tis called a washing a cleansing, a purging, a pouring of the spirit on us, a sprinkling of the blood of Christ on us, and so be done by sprinkling water: but not as it stands divided in∣to its two parts mortification and vivification, a death and resurrection: or else if there must be a resemblance of this death and resurrection in baptism, then by an As for example fetcht from the old world, that was drowned, dead, buried by an infusion of water, not an immersion, and from the Ark which was rained up∣on only, and not overwhelmed, this death and resurrection must needs, and may better be resembled by an infusion and sprinkling then by total immersion or dip∣ping in water, for if we urge to have the death and resurrection resembled by dipping, i. e. a descension into the water, and ascention out of the water, which we all know was the way of Christs and the Eunuchs baptism, we must urge also burial, which is principally expressed. Rom. 6. Col. 2. to be resembled too by biding of the whole man under the water for some time, answerable to Christs three daies biding in the bowels of the Earth, which cannot be without danger, quoth he, yea certainty of drowning: and if sprinkling should not so fitly resem∣ble as dipping and plunging, yet the Scripture no where requires the washing of the whole body, to all which I answer.

Resp. 1. which thing of his called sprinkling of water on the face, for all he saies it may as well or better (sith so many were of old killed and buried by sprinkling, or raining on them in the daies of Noah) serve to resemble our death, and burial then dipping does, yet in truth resembles a death, burial, and resurrecti∣on, little more then a knock o'th' pate.

Secondly, which drowning of the old world, as it would make not a jot for such a purpose as he pleads for, had it been by such a way as he dreames it was by viz. sprinkling, raining on them, by infusion and not immersion, yet in very deed (and so heel see, when he is awake, and his eyes are open) was by immersion immediately, and not infusion, for it might have rained long enough upon the earth, before the men that had houses to shelter themselves in from that, would have bin killed, and buried under water, if the waters had not prevailed by a flood so high over the earth, as to overwhelm the men under it, and plunge

them ore head and ears: and if he call that sprinkling and infusion, let him sprin∣kle or infuse water in such abundance, till the water sprinkled or infused, become of such depth about the parties he is about to sprinkle, as to swell ore their heads, and to swill them wholly under it, and I shall own such infusion for right baptism, yet none of Christs ordinance neither, unlesse dispenst to a right subject i. e. babes or beginners in the faith.

Thirdly, which elegant allusion of his to the ark, as that on which water was onely powred or sprinkled, whence he seemes to argue thus viz. that it rained onely on the Ark, or water was onely powred or sprinkled upon the Ark, which Ark was a type of baptism,

Ergo, baptism must be dispenst by sprinkling, is as simple a delusion as ever was devised, for if he intend that for an argument to prove that baptism is to be done by sprinkling (and if not what does it there?) it does rather conclude that bap∣tism must be sprinkled as the Ark was, for reduce his matter into the form of a syllogism, and see how sillily it concludes viz. thus

The Ark was a Type of baptism.

But the Ark was only sprinkled with the rain, not dipt.

Ergo, baptism its antitype, is to be dispenst by sprinkling.

He concludes more then he can possibly squeeze out from those premises, and another thing then what is asserted of the Ark in his minor: whereas in right form it should run thus.

The Ark typified baptism.

But the Ark was rained on, baptized or wetted by infusion onely.

Ergo baptism must be rained on, baptized or wetted by infusion onely.

But then what simple stuff were this? what a logical lump of artificial non-sense?

Besides, if it would follow that because the Ark which was a type of baptism was sprinkled, therefore the way of baptism is sprinkling, it would more truly follow that because the Ark was half dipt and half sprinkled, one part of it being under the water, another sprinkled with rain aboue the water, therefore the way of baptism is to dip one half of the person, and to sprinkle the other half: but alas the Ark was a type of baptism, as twas the way and outward meanes of salvati∣on, but not in this respect as it was rained on: nullum simile currit Qua∣tuor.

Fourthly, which washings, purgings, sprinklings of Christs blood, and clean water typified of old, and foreshadowed by the blood of calves and goats, with water and scarlet wool, and hysop, wherewith Moses and the high priests after him sprinkled the old Israel, so that they were typically and ceremonially count∣ed holy, and clean thereupon in a fleshly sense onely, are all expressions spoken not with such allusion to baptism (as Mr. Cook imagines) nor are so neer a kin to it as he laies claim to: for if they are all to be resembled and respected by us in our baptism, as things some way or other signified to us therein, yet are they not at all the main, or principall things, or such as are immediately, or prima∣rily, but onely remotely, and secondarily signified to us therein, and so not ne∣cessarily to be either all, or at all so much resembled as something else: But the death, burial and resurrection of Christ, which is the rise and root, the origi∣nall and meritorious cause of all the rest, being that which (though you would shut it out altogether from its interest and right of being represented in baptism of all the rest) is mainly and most immediately signified, and primarily to be eyed, and respected. and all the rest but consequently, and through that, therefore its necessary that this should be resembled most lively, that it may take the deeper impression upon us.

Yea these matters of Christs death, burial, and resurrection are such cardinall things to be considered, as quibus non mediantibus, without the mediati∣on

of which we cannot conceive clearly, nor lay claim to any of the other as ours.

For as in the supper remotely heaven it self, and all spirituall excellencies are signified to us to be ours, yet all the things signified cannot be represented to the eye, but onely such as are the more immediate significations of it, and are the rise and proper cause of all the rest, viz. Christ crucified, and our feeding on him by faith, theseare, and are to be lively set forth unto us, and resembled before our eyes in bread and wine broken, and powred out and received and applied to us, but not all the fruits of his death and our faith. even so it is likewise in baptism; and indeed the main signification in both is Christs person crucified, dead, bu∣ried, and raised, and that is to be resembled in both, and other things viz. the benefits of his death as remission of sins, and purging, &c. to be consequentially gathered from that, neither can, nor are, nor need all those to be resem∣bled:

But as for Mr. Co•…•…k he pleads stifly to have all these resembled viz. washing, purging, powring, sprinkling of the spirit and blood of Christ, but excludes the main thing altogether viz. Christs death and resurrection, which are the very rise and ground of all those: And yet if he will needs have all those to be resembled, are they not as much, and much more resembled by dipping and plunging a person in water, then by powring and sprinkling a little water upon him? and is not swilling under water a more effectuall way of washing and clensing then sprinkling? which though it be a Diminutive way of wetting, yet in truth is no way of wash∣ing at all: If therefore he will have washing, and such a washing as well deserves the name of clensing to be resembled in baptism, can he have even that done in a better way then by dipping, or dousing? for verily plunging, is a washing, and a more eminent way of washing, and purifying, and so more lively resembling ablutione•…•… peccatorum the purging away our sinnes by the blood of Christ, then aspersion, or bare infusion, either of which without some after rubbing is a way of washing and clensing seldome used by men or women, unlesse it be among slat∣ternes that are minded to leave things as foul well nigh as they find them: and I am sure theres no rubbing succedaneous to your sprinkling, which is any ingre∣dient to your dispensation, for what the priest drops on the midwife rubs indeed, not on, but off, and so as that is no washing, so (if it were) I hope you do not allow the midwife to give equal influence with the priest unto the dispensation of bap∣tism.

Besides, both sprinkling and powring are vertualy implied in plunging, and bu∣rying in water, but these are not at all supposed in the other, every lesser wetting being contained, and included in the greater, not so the greater in the lesse.

Fiftly, which quirk of his concerning a necessity of abiding 3. daies under water answerable to Christs 3 daies buriall, if we will needs urge an necessity of resembling him in his death, burial and resurrection, is so fond, that a fool may find enough wherewith to refel it, for Mr. Cook knows that nullum simile cur∣rit quatuor, no similitude answers in all things, besides tis the truth and sub∣stance of the thing, not the circumstance, or quantity of time of abode, which is to be respected here, for a burial is as true a burial, when a person abides but 3. minutes wholly under the element, wherein he is buried, as if he abode 3. daies, and a burial is as truly represented by being once under water, as if one continued under altogether, and the resurrection a little better by being brought up again alive, then if one lay till he were altogether dead.

Sixthly and lastly, which assertion of his, uttered in favour of his assertion viz. that the Scripture no where requires the washing of the whole body, is so much the more favouring of either ignorance, or forgetfulnesse in him, or both, by how much one of the very Scriptures, that are quoted by himself, as speaking in refe∣rence

to baptism, doth require it, for its said Heb. 10. 22. let us draw neer with a true heart &c. and having our bodies washed with pure water, which clause (if meant of baptism as undoubtedly it is) requires not a sprinkling, but a wash∣ing (and thats more then your sprinkling is) and this too not of the face only, which is the only part you sprinkle, but of our bodies; which word whether we shall take properly to signifie the whole body indeed, or run to figurative acceptations, when we need not, and take the body by a Synechdoche of the whole for a part to sig∣nifie so small a part as the face only, I need not wish a wise man to determine, for every unprejudiced man that hath but common sense will see cause enough to take it plainly as it lies.

Rantist.

But all this while me thinks you make it appear so plainly as you not must, before I believe or receive it, that it is so needful as you would make it that there should be a resemblance of the thing signified in that sign of baptism at all, thats the thing I wait to see proved; for let Mr. Cook make what suppositions and grants he will of a resemblance, yet I see no reason at all to urge a necessity of such a thing, nor will I speak so much as ex hypothesi, if there must be, for none need be for ought I know.

What I hope there are an hundred signes of things, which have not any analogy at all with those things they signifie.

Baptist.

Having thus blown away the strange mist, whereby Mr. Cook endeavoured to thicken the air, so that men might not discern clearly the true intent of those Scri∣ptures Rom. 6. Col. 2. nor the truth at all in this point of total dipping, I come now in answer to his and your, and Mr. Blakes flat denial of any word or warrant for any representation, and also to his demand p. 27. to shew how we gather from reason, and your own authors, and those very Sciptures you oppose, the dip∣ing of the whole man over the head, and under the water, and that a similitude of Christs death, burial and rising again to be represented by dipping into the wa∣ter is signified there.

But first I must tell you I observe you know not greatly what to say among you against our urgings of a resemblance of Christs death, and burial, and resurrection from these Scriptures: for some of you stand it out, as much as you well can, that there is not to be any representation of a death and resurrection, as Dr. Featley and Mr. Cook both do, the Dr. keeping at such a distance from it, that to fence it farr enough from him he denies any such thing to be so much as signified, Mr. Cook yielding that that very thing among others is signified, and that the spiritual grace or thing signified is to be represented too, only you must excuse him as to that piece of the spiritual grace, all the rest but that he will give way to have resembled, but fearing least it can hardly be so cleerly evaded, but that twil needs be proved a∣gainst them that a death, burial and resurrection must be represented, they fall a proving it that there may be, and is a death burial and resurrection reselmbled in their way of sprinkling, and infusion, as much (if not more then in our way of dipping) but either of them shift for themselves in severall wayes, the Drs way wherein he proves there is a resemblance of death and resurrection in the man∣ner of baptism, as it is administred in the Church of England is this, though the child be not dipped in water himself (saith he) yet the minister dippeth his hand in water und plucketh it out again when he baptizeth the in∣fant, where note, that the Doctor doth conceive that though sprinkling may serve to represent a death and resurrection, as well as our dipping, yet it is upon this absurd account viz. in that there is a certain dipping accompa∣nies their sprinkling, whereby that resemblance is made viz. the divping the hand of the Administrator: but Mr. Cook though he be not so gross as to ima∣gine with the Dr. that the burying of the ministers hand will serve instead

of burying the persons body, which is, if any burial be at all, to be buried in baptism, yet he is as grosse in his conception another way, while he goes about to prove sprinkling, or infusion it self to resemble a death burial and resurrection as sufficiently as dipping, and this too by such a coined Chymaera, such a crude and im mature imagination as is ridiculous, viz. of the old worlds being drown∣ed and buried by no more then sprinkling, and the fall of rain, for verily neither was the rain a resemblance of a death, burial and resurrection, or any thing like thereto: nor yet was it the rain but the overflowing of waters by reason of the rain that drowned them, and though that orewhelming was a lively emblem of death and burial, as baptism is to be, yet there was nothing that resembled a resur∣rection, as in baptisme there must be, sith they never rose from under it any more.

This crooked come off therefore of Mr. Cooks is farre more ridiculous then ra∣tional, and yet I know more men of his mind in this particular, I mean so far as to agree to it, with lesse ado then he doth, that a death, burial and resurrection is to be resembled in baptism, and yet to think that the sprinkling or casting water upon the party doth sufficiently make that resemblance, but I testify to him that this his way is his foily, and theirs also that apptove his sayings, and I advise both him and them that adhere to him to be heartily ashamed of two opinions of his, so equally odd and absurd that I can scarce tell well which of thetwo are more absurd then the other.

The one is his supposition that the spiritual grace to be represented and resem∣bled in the manner of administration of that ordinance of baptism is sprinkling, be∣sprinkling with the blood of Christ, whence in order thereto he as unworthily argues, that baptism must be dispensed by sprinkling, which indeed nullifies it from being baptism, if he consider the inconsistency that is proved to be between them.

The other is the thing in hand, viz. his supposition that sprinkling may well not only signify, but resemble a death, burial and resurrection as well as dipping, and is as well required, for so he hints p. 19. to be used in this Sacrament as the other.

If those, who own these things, and whose own they are, will not be asha∣med of them, for my part I am, for to think that the wisdome of the spirit, that in condescension to our dull capacities did leave visible signs to be not only true re∣membrances, but also lively resemblances of spiritual things, should order things so unsuitably to sense, as to require and appoint maters utterly unlike one another, and between which there is no Analogy at all to answer one the other by way of resemblance, viz. such a thing as ran•…•…sm to resemble a death, burial and resur∣rection, which are to be, and are truly resembled all in true baptism, i. e. in dipping, or appoint such an ordinance as baptism, which in plain English is dipping, to resemble rantism only, or sprinkling with Christs blood is no lesse the absurdity in the abstract.

But as for you your self, you are it seems of Mr. Blakes mind, i. e. resolved to own no necessity at all of any resemblance of any thing, not of any ceremony to be in the sign of baptism, representing the things signifyed in it, I shall therefore shew that as in true baptism, i. e. dipping, there is de•…•…to, and that Mr Bl•…•…ke con∣fesses, so there ought to be de•…•…re a proportion and resemblance of the death and resurrection of Christ, and of ours with him in that ordinance: whereas there∣fore you say that all signes do not represent the thing signified thereby, tis true who questions that? but twill not therefore follow, but that there are some signs that both do, and may and by institution must not only signify, but also resemble at least the main things that are signified, of which sort baptism is without question one.

We must here thefore distinguish concerning signes, among which some are na∣tural,

which by nature signify the things, whereof they are signs, as smoak signifies that there is fire, as we say there is no smoak but its a sign there is some fire, a red and •…•…ouring morning a sign of a foul day.

Others Praeter-natural and institutive, which by institution signify the things whereof they are signes, and this either by humane appointment, as the Ivy-bush is a sign among men that wine is to be sold, where it hangs; or divine, as the Rain∣bow is a sign by divine appointment to signify that the world shall never be whol∣ly drowned again by water: and these signes by divine institution are either such as are simpliciter signantia, meerly and simply significative of the things they sig∣nifie without any Analogy, or likenesse to them at all, as the Rainbow, which signifies, but resembles not the worlds deliverance from drowning, and the dew, and drought that were by turnes on Gideons fleece, which were signes to him of it, but not resemblances of his victory, and the shadowes going back upon the dial of Ahaz, which was a sign to Hezekiah, but not a resemblance of his recovery, and such like.

Or else such as are sign 〈◊〉〈◊〉 similantia si•…•…, having in them the significa∣tion and similitude of the things signified together: and of this sort are all those signs which you commonly, but not properly call seals also viz. the sacraments, whe∣ther those of the old, or those of the New Testament, viz. Circumcision, and the Passeover, baptism and the Supper, from the manner of the administration of the two first of which you use to argue to the manner of the administration of the two last, which so far, but no further then serves your turnes you say came in the room of the other; for though by way of Analagy with Circum∣cision, as comming in the room thereof, you would have baptisme dispensed to infants, yet neither Anallogically to males onely, nor on the 8th day onely, nor to male servants also, nor yet by way of analogy with the pass∣over, which admitted of every circumcisied soul, will you admit baptized infants to the supper, which came by institution more truly, and immediately in the room of the Passeover, even when it was moriturum, if not plane mortuum? for it was no more to be meddied with for ever, whereas circumcision was in use de ju∣re after baptism was begun,

But I pray Sirs be not pickers and chusers thus at your own pleasure, but if you will have an analogy to be held, let it be in such things, wherein it should be held between the old testament sacraments and the new.

An argument however ad hominem i. e. sufficient to confute you out of your own mouthes, who plead so for analogy between those two administrations of the old testament, and these two of the new arises naturally from your own opinions, for if a proportion must needs be kept between circumcision and baptism in point of administration otherwise, why not in the manner of the administration of these signes, as they stand in reference to the things thereby signified, so as that the one of these signes viz. baptism, may stand in some proportion to its signatum, as well as the other i. e. circumcision?

The Pascal lamb without blemish, a bone of which was not to be broken, did not onely signifie, but lively resemble also Agnum immaculatum exhibendum, that lamb Christ Iesus, which was once to be offered without spot to God, and not a bone of him to be broken, also the supper that came after it doth not onely signifie, but resemble also Agnum exhibitum, Christ crucified, that immaculate lamb now offered, whose body was broken and blood shed, by bread broken and wine powred forth.

Circumcision or cutting off the superfluous foreskin of the flesh did not only signify, but lively represent the signatum, the Circumcision of the heart, i. e. sanctification, the paring off, and putting away the fleshly superfluities of the heart, and can you give us think you, or give your selves either any good account, why baptism onely of all the rest should be exempted in this case, from bearing

with the rest an Analogy, proportion and similitude to its signatum, i. e. the thing mainly notifyed therein? which originally is the death, burial and resurre∣ction of Christ, and our communion therewith, and plantation into the likenesse thereof: is not the manner of administration of that to be such also, as may re∣semble (and so onely the way of dipping doth) a Death, Buriall, and Re∣surrection?

Rouse up and reckon but with your consciences a little, and see if they will tell you otherwise, if they do they give the ly (and that you who deify your Or∣thodox Divines will be loath to do) to all divines both antient and modern, who so far as I find (except onely Mr. Blake) do teach us that the end of all the insti∣tutions of the Old and New Testament, to which you allow the name of Sacra∣ments, are ex instituto, to resemble as well as signify their signifyed objects.

Kekerman referres all the Sacraments to the signes of that sort that do signi∣fie cum Analogia, i. e. that bear a likenesse to the things signifyed, System. log. p. 12. 13.

Calvin and Ursin, that are men of much note in your Account, are thus opini∣oned both, as you may see in the institutions of the one, and the Catechism of the other, whether we are directed by you for sufficient furniture for infants baptisme. Calvin saies thus of the Sacraments: Institutionum lib. 4. cap. 14. sect. 20.

a 1.12 The Sacraments of the old Testament, did tend to the very same end, and purpose, as ours now do, namely that they might direct and lead us, as it were, by the hand to Christ, or rather that they might represent him as certain ima∣ges or pictures, and set him forth to us to be known.

Ursins Catechism saies no lesse, but much more, and that much more plain∣ly to this purpose, and what is spoken there too is not spoken as the opinion of Pareus or Ursin onely, but as the mind of one, that may be more taking with you then any of these, viz. Saint Austin, who is stiled Malleus Hereticorum, one that ma•…•…ld the Hereticks in his daies, who also is sainted up in so many pages of your Ashford Pamphlet, that you cannot for shame unsaint him so far, as not to believe him, but to rehearse a little what is there said, in the 358. 359. pages of that book: after mention made of the promise of the Gospel you may find these words, viz.

b 1.13 That promise that is given us in the word God doth more plainly declare to us by the sacraments, namely by that likenesse which is between the signs and those things which are signified; as a picture or image declares that of which it is the image, for when the picture is understood, that even that of which it is the picture is made cleer, and verily farre more cleer then without a picture: and as a true picture is not well understood, if the likenesse or lively resemblance of the picture be not observed, so neither are the sacraments, unlesse the likenesse of the outward signes, and things thereby signified be understood: in this sense the Appollogy of the Augustinian confession, doth divers times call the sacraments by the name of pictures.

And again p. 363. shewing wherein the sacramental union between the sign and the thing signified consists, it stands (saith he) in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 vel similitudine sig∣norum cum rebus signatis, in the analogy and likenesse that is between the signes and things signified.

And then he goes on quoting Austin thus.

De qua Agustinus, Si inquit sacramenta quandam similitudinem earum rerum quarum sacramenta sunt, non haberent, omnino sacramenta non essent, and then again p. 365. speaking of those sacramental locutions (as you call them) whereby the sign is oft called by the name of the thing signified, and said to do, and be that, which onely the thing signified is, and doth in truth,

This (saith he) is by a sacramental metonimy, and the meaning of it is not that one is changed really into the other, but because the sign doth so lively re∣semble the thing signified:

Next to which he cites again the very same sentence out of Austin, which is rehearsed in latin just above, together with somewhat more, all which I English thus viz.

If the sacraments should not have in them some likenesse to the things, where∣of they are sacraments they could not be sacraments at all, but by reason of this likenesse, it comes often to passe that they bear the very names of the things they re∣semble.

By the way I cannot but take notice what an argument here is against infants baptism, as well as against the form of Rantism, fot if true baptism must resem∣ble, as well as signifie, to the very eyes, and so mediante oculo to the under∣standing and minds of persons, to whom its dispensed, is it possible for that bap∣tism that was dispenst in Infancy to represent lively and cleerly to my sense and rea∣son, when I am at years, the things therein signified? for to call that a sign, much more a lively resemblance of a thing before our eyes (so Buchau saies of baptism, ante oculos objicit) which we never saw at all, or if we did, twas when we could not apprehend it, and so long since that we necessarily, and universally forget it, and that so farre that our fancy can never possibly recollect that outward appearance of those inward things, is no better then meer childishnesse, and very vanity to me.

Rantist.

This shewes indeed that twas the opinion of these Reverend men, that there ought to be of necessity as cleer a resemblance as may be of the thing signified in the administration of the outward, and visible sign in all sacraments, or else they are no sacraments, but that is nothing binding to us without some good ground out of Scriptures to believe it, therefore lets see it appear from thence, and if you will from the Scriptures you began upon Rom. 6. Col. 2. in which I see nothing on which you can ground, that in baptism there must be visibly, and representatively a death, burial and resurrection, though I grant all these are signifyed thereby.

Baptist.

I rejoice much to see you renounce that implicit faith, whereby you have for∣merly lived, it may be more upon the mouth of Calvin, Ursin, Austin, and o∣ther Authors, then on the mouth of Peter and Paul, or the mouth of Christ him∣self in his word; neither do I urge any thing out of these Authors to be taken up∣on trust without trial, yet prove what they say however in this point, and hold it fast too, if by the word you find it to be good.

I come therefore to consider that which first occasioned all this discourse, and to see if such a matter as a death, burial and resurection of Christ, be not here expres∣sed, or at least implyed, neither of which yet is granted by Mr. Cook or Mr. Blake as things to which true baptism is to bear some resemblance, and here let me tell you though you and the rest are engaged to make the best of your rantism, now

you see it questioned, and have begun in the face of the world to defend it, will sooth men up, and tell them there is none but the Anabaptists gather that there must be a representation of death, burial and resurrection from those places, and such like, yet we are not alone in our assertions even from those places, that these are to be resembled: for some that wrote impartially upon the places, Rom. 6. Col. 2. even of your own way before the matter came so much in question, have shewed their sense therof to be the same with ours, as concerning the representation of all these; witnesse one Mr. Thomas Wilson, who in an exposition of his upon Rom. 6. declares from the 3 and 4 verses thereof in this manner.

That baptism is a pledge of our sanctification in all the parts of it thus, the death of sin (saith he) is effectually represented by the water cast on us at our bap∣tism (though by his favor, who was I perceive of Mr. Cooks conceit that infu∣sion might serve turn, not half so effectually as by the water overwhelming us) the burial of sin by our being under the water, and by our comming out of the water our arising out of our sins to a better life through the power of the holy spirit applying Christs death and burial for the b•…•…ating down of our corrupt na∣ture, and his Resurrection for our quickening to godlinesse of living.

Thus he, Neither is he alone in this sense upon these places, but most, if not all modern writers, that do purposely, or but occasionally touch upon these places, as Calvin, Ursin, Paraeus, Ti•…•…enus, Zanky, &c. do fully agree with him in this particular, viz. that the lively resemblance of Christs death, burial and re∣surrection, and of ours with him, that is to be held forth in the administration of Baptism, is among other things signified in those Scriptures, and do with him ex∣pound the words baptized in his death, buried with him in baptism into death, wherein yee are also risen with him &c. not of the things signified only, viz. our Mortification of sin and rising to holinesse in a way of likeness to Christs death and resurrection, but also of the outward right and form of administration of the sign it self, to be done in a way of likenesse to them both, so that we by that (as by an image or lively resemblance) may not only be kept in a lively remem∣brance of the matter of them, but may beat the manner of those matters also in our minds.

Thus Calvin l. 4. c. 15. s. 5. Alterum sructum affert baptisnius qui nostram in Christo Mortificationem ostendit, &c. id est, another fruit of baptism is this, it sets forth our death to sin in Christ and our new life in him, fitly, as the Gos∣spel saith Rom. 6. 3. we are baptized into his death, and buried with him in bap∣tism into death that we might walk in a new life.

By which words he doth exhort us to an imitation of him, as if he should say we are admonished by baptism, that by a resemblance of Christs death, we should dy to our lusts, and by the example of his resurrection, we should rise to righteousness &c.

Also l. 4. c. 16. s. 16. speaking against such as say (no more then truth though) Baptismum esse sepulturam, in quam nulli nisi jam mortui tradendi sunt, id est, That Baptism is a form or way of burial with which none, but such as are i. e. ap∣pear to be already dead to sin, or to have repented from their dead works are to be buried.

And that he might vindicate infants who yet in infancy cannot dy to sin, or re∣pent from dead works, tells us (but believe him who will in that.)

Nos jam ante Mortuos per baptismum sepeliri, id est, That persons are to be buried in baptism, before they be dead, before they repent, or appear to have died to sin, and to prove that, he cotes this very place Rom 6. 4. which the scripture (saith he) Deserte reclamet, nos ea conditione in mortem sepeli∣ri, ut emoriamur ac mortificationem istam exinde meditemur, i. e. very e∣legantly proclaims the contrary, namely, that we are buried in baptism in∣to death, on this very condition, that we may die to sin, and may even by

that outward visible burial we have in baptism be minded of the duty of morti∣fication.

Which Exposition is the truth, yet not the whole truth, nor yet so much as serves the turn Mr. Calvin brings it for: tis true we are baptized into death, or buried in baptism in token that we must, and on this condition that we shall dy to sin, yet not only so, but also in token, and on condition that we are dead in a measure, or have repented already; nor doth it follow because we are buried in baptism, that we may, and in token that we must die more, and more to sin, that therefore we are to be buried in baptism before we die to sin, for we are to re∣pent before baptism and after it also.

But however the truth that is in it is enough to serve our turn at present, i. e. to prove his Judgement and ours to jump together, as to the true intent and mean∣ing of those phrases in the text, viz. buried with him in baptism into death, which both hee and we take to expresse the outward ri•…•…e of baptism, and that that outward rite be performed answerably to the name here given it in manner and form of a burial, which cannot be without submersion, and this too in token, and as a resemblance of our death to sin and burial with Christ, the signatum or thing signifyed and resembled, which whether it go before or come with or after the sign is not material.

And though Mr. Calvin and we are twain and cannot agree whether we are to be baptized, i. e. buried in baptism before we are dead to sin or after, yet herein we meet in one with all other Expositors on this place so far as I find (Mr Cook and Mr. Blake only excepted) viz. that whether Mortui or Morituri we ought to be buried in baptism according to this place, not spiritually only, for that is the inward thing signifyed into which, i. e in token and resemblance of which we are outwardly buried, but visibly and representatively also in the cere∣mony.

Much what to the same purpose speaks Calvin again about three or four pages after, 'where coting both the places we are now in hand with, viz. Romans 6. 4. Col. 2. 12. He Expounds the words buried with Christ in baptism of the verity of the outward rite it self, representing and betokening the spiritual death to sinne that ought to follow it.

Paraeus also upon Vrsin p. 375. speaking how baptism is a token not only of remission of sin, but regeneration also, which he makes so synonimous with our death and burial with Christ that he cotes these these two places Rom. 6. 4, Col. 2. 12. to prove regeneration to be signifyed in it, (for we are said (saith he) to dy and to be buryed with Christ in baptism) gives this as one reason why we are said to be regenerated that is, in his sence, dead and buried with Christ in baptism, because of the likenesse that is between baptism and those things: so that he al∣so takes the phrase buried with Christ in that place to sound forth Sepelitionem externam internae simulacrum, that external act of being buried in water by bap∣tism, that is the lively embleme of the internal.

Zanchy also upon Col. 2. 12. writes thus viz. Regenerationis duae sunt par∣tes &c. of Regeneration there are two parts Mortification and vivisication, that is called burial with Christ, this resurrection with Christ, the sacrament of both these is baptism, in which we are overwhelmed or buried, and after that do come forth and rise again; it may be said truly but sacramentally of all that are bapti∣zed that they are buried with Christ and raised with him, yet really only of such as have true faith.

Now I appeal to all men whether he do not here expound Paul in the words buried with him in baptism and therein risen with him as speaking of the out∣ward rite of baptism whereby the spiritual death and resurrection is resembled, yea and so lively resembled that even such as have no more then the bare outward sign of water in baptism without the thing signifyed may be said, though Sacra∣mentally,

i. e. and analogically and in respect of neer resemblance yet truly to be buried and raised with Christ, this cannot be said of them that are but ran•…•…ized onely, for if in respect of any Mortification and vivisication they may be de∣nominated buried and raised with Christ, yet that outward rite and ceremony cannot of it self denominate them so much as Sacramentally buried and raised with Christ, for there is not so much as any likenesse of such things in it, but he that hath the true outward rite of baptism, i. e. dipping dispensed to him may be truly said to be buried and raised with Christ, though he have no more, for he hath the same visible overwhelming, and burying in water and raising again in baptism, which in the bare ordinance of baptism Christ himself had.

Bucan also that famous professor of Theology though he were so far benighted, by being no doubt accustomed to sprinkling, that he saw not the difference that is between it and dipping so far, but that he supposed one might serve as well as the other, yet co•…•…es this six•…•… of the Rom. 3. and 4. to prove the Analogy that is be∣tween the sign and the thing signifyed in baptism in his 24 question in page 668. quae est analogia & conventen•…•…a sig•…•… et rei signatae in Baptismo? optima, &c. saith he. What is that Analogy and Agreement which is between the sign and the thing signifyed in baptism? Most ap•…•…, forasmuch as in the same Manner as the water washes the body, and clenses it from bodily impurities, so the blood of Christ by its merits washes away our sins and spiritual impurities, and his spirit sanctifyes us. Moreover that immersion into water or aspersion doth most clearly denote Rantismon the sprinkling of the blood of Christ in order to re∣mission of Sins, and imputation of righteousnesse; but the abode (Quantumvis Momentanea, quantula cunque saith Tilenus) though never so small (so that both these confute Mr Cooks fancy of a necessity of 3 daies abode under water; if we will have Christs burial represented) lively denotes the death & burial of our corruption by vertue of the death & burial of Christ, that is, the mortification of the old man, but the rising out of the water doth most analogically as it were object unto our eyes •…•…he resurrection of the new man or our vivisication, and newnesse of life and al∣so our resurrection at the last day:

See how this man, saving that he shuffles in aspe•…•…sion and immersion as nothing differing, doth own immersion into water, abode under it, rising out of it as the most admirable way of analogy to signifie and resemble what ev•…•…r was to be re∣sembled in baptism; again in his 53 question p. 692. he quotes Rom. 6. 4. say∣ing with allusion to that Scripture that Predicatione sacramentali we are said in baptism to die, to be buried, to be raised with Christ, and that baptism con∣firmes our faith in these things, because it doth pingere mortem &c. plainly paint out the death, burial and resurrection of Christ, and therein is documentum &c. a certain lesson of our renovation, and resurrection.

Now the reason of all such sacramentall locutio•…•…▪ whereby the things signified are said to be done in the outward sign, is (saith Paraeus) analogia signi et re•…•… sig∣natae, tale enim quiddam est res significata in suo genere, quale quiddam est signum in suo genere &c.

The likenesse that is between the outward sign and the thing signified, for such as the thing signified is in its kind, just such a thing the sign is in its kind for as the water washes away the filth of the flesh, so Christs blood our sinnes, and in such a manner as the sign is outwardly dispensed, so inwardly the thing signifi∣ed, as the minister acts without, so God within &c.

As therefore God within by the power of Christs death and resurrection mor∣tifies, buries to sin, and raises us to righteousnesse, so must not the administrator without semblably bury the person in water in baptism unto death and raise him a∣gain unto life? or in token of his resurrection to a new life? if not where is then the analogie? and if no analogie why are we said sacramentally in baptism to be buri∣ed, and raised? sith the cause of all such sacramental locution is because the sacra∣ments

are (as Austin saies) pictures of the things signified in them? or is aspersion an action as answerable to a burial and resurrection, and painting it out as lively as submersion and emersion do? hic murus ahaeneus esto,

This I know (as sorry a shif•…•… as it is) must be your most inmost shelter, when all is done for it can never be with any colour of reason, nor is it by any reasonable men, that I know, save Mr. Cook and Mr. Blake, denied but that baptism must 〈◊〉〈◊〉, according to the word, yea that word Rom. 6, •…•…ol. 2. bear analo∣gy to, and the image of the thing signified, yea and that very thing of all the rest, which are represented therein viz. a death, burial and resurrection by being under water, and brought out of it again, though by all that sprinkle tis mo•…•… heedlessely thought, and therefore as senselessely taught that rantism, i. e. as∣persion sets forth those to the life, as much as baptism i. e. immersion or overwhel∣ming.

Among the rest that write of baptism with any allusion to those Scriptures we are yet in hand with, what learned Tilenus saith is worth your▪ animadversion, I confesse the man, though in his judgement he seem clear for our manner of bapti∣zing by immersion, submersion, and emersion, as that which was the onely primitive action, and institution, yet is so far benighted by the mist and black vail of implicit faith which hath covered all Christendom, as to suppose that as∣persion may now serve the turn, and that for sundry reasons some of which are appa∣rently fa•…•…se, and never a one of them worth a •…•…raw, which ile repeat and answer as I go; for saith he Ritus in baptismo est triplex, immersio in aquam, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 sub aquâ, et emersio ex aquâ, quam vis autem immersio us•…•…atior olim fuerit presertim in Judea, &c.

The outward ceremony to be used in baptism is threefold, dipping into the wa∣ter, abode under the water, and rising out of the water, but howbeit this im∣mersion was the usual way in former times, especially in Judea, and other warmer Countries, rather then aspersion [where note that he grants (and who does •…•…ot but Mr. Cook, Mr. Baxter, and Mr. Blake, that having once denied it do stre∣nuously resist it?) that the primitive way in Iudea, and those▪ Regions was totall dipping;] yet (saith he) the circumstance pertaines not to the substance of bap∣tism, [which is false, for I have proved that to be no baptism that is but sprink∣ling.]

Secondly, and sith the analogy of the Sacrament may be held out no lesse in aspersion, then immersion [which is as false and fond a fan•…•…asm as the other, for sprinkling hath no more likenesse in it to a death, a burial and a resurrection (which though Mr. Cook and Mr. Blake deny it, yet Tilenus himself abundant∣ly pleads, as I shall shew, and that ex instituto from these Scriptures Rom. 6. Col. 2. ought to be represented in baptism) then it hath likenesse to immersion, submersion, and emersion, and thats not so much, as is between an apple and a nut.]

Thirdly, and sith in legall purifications sufficieba•…•…t 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sprinklings did suffice [which if they did, it was because these sprinklings with blood of the sacra∣fices, which were as well on the mercy seat as on the people in token of onenesse or atonement between God and them, were instituted directly, and solely to point out the spiritual sprinkling of Christs blood on the mercy seat in heaven, and on us here on earth in token of atonement, which is not the thing onely, mainly, o∣riginally, or immediately signified, neither so as that it onely is to be remembred and resembled in baptism, but the truth of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ, as the root whence all the other flows, and therefore that reason, though true, yet is nothing to the purpose.]

Fourthly, sith immersion [quoth he] may indanger the health, specially of such tender infants as are wont to be baptized now a daie•…•…, [which shewes that of old such were not baptized, and that Christ never instituted this ordinance for infants, who cannot bear the dispensation of it to them, as it should be by right, without

danger of death, but must of necessity, and in charity, and in humane prudence taking upon it to correct the divine wisdome of Christ, and modle his ordinances more to their own ease, have another thing i. e. Rantism universally dispensed to them instead of it.]

Fiftly, sith both these rites viz. sprinkling and dipping are expressed by the name of baptism Mat. 3. 26. Luke •…•…1. 38. Mark the 7. 4. [then which nothing is more contrary to truth, for though tis true that dipping is stiled baptism in Mat. 3. 16. the place he brings to prove that (where note again that Christ himself was baptized by submersion) yet thats not true that Rantism is any where called by the name of baptism; yea in the very places he uses to prove that viz. Luke 11. Mark. 7. tis most evident that twas more then sprinkling, yea and no lesse then a dipping, that is there called baptism, for twas washing of hands, which if ever any body living saw any, but slovens, wash, when foul, by no more then sprinkling two or three drops of water on them, they have seen more then ever I saw to my remembrance since ever I were born and christned.]

For these for•…•…named reasons saith Tilenus we suppose the Church by the law of charity, an•…•… ne•…•…essity may use which of these rites she pleases.

By all which it appears that though speculatively he saw submersion to be the way by institution, unlesse out of necessity, and charity the Church forbid it, yet pra∣ctically he was as you are for aspersion, and this makes the more against you in this matter, in that a man that retained sprinkling as you do, sith tis the fashion in these colder climates, should yet be constrained to confesse so much institution as he does for that way of truth, I mean submersion, which we contend for; for seriously take away the wretched reasons, which flattered him in to speak favo∣rably of sprinkling, he was, as to the true way of total dipping, caetera orthodox∣•…•…s, as orthodox as we desire him to be.

I•…•…e bestow the paines of rehearsing what he writes so far as concerns our pur∣pose, in very elogan▪ Latine p. 884. 886. 889. 890. of his disputations in as plain English as I am able.

Baptism (saith he) is the first sacrament of the New Testament instituted by Christ, in which with a most pa•…•…, and exact Analogy between the sign and the thing signifyed, those that are in Covenant are by the Minister washed in water, the outward rite of baptism is three fold immersion into the water, abiding under the water, and resurrection out of the water: the form of bap∣tism, to wit, internal and essential, is no other then that Analogicall proportion which the signes keep with the things signifyed thereby, for as the properties of the water in washing away the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of the body do in a most suitable simili∣tude set forth the effi•…•…acy of Christs blood in blotting out of sins, so dipping in∣to the water doth in a most lively similitude •…•…et forth the mortification of the old man, and rising out of the water the vivification of the New: although that Levi∣tica•…•… rite of sprinkling of blood Exod. 24. 8. did more grossely resem•…•…e the blood of Christ, yet that was not so exact a similitude as is in the water of our bap∣tism. That same plunging into the water holds forth to us that horrible gulfe of of divine Justice, in which Christ for our sins sake, which he took upon him, was for a while in a manner swallowed up. Abode under the water how little a while soever

(yet saies Mr. Cook it must be three daies, answerable to Christ three daies burial, or else it answers it not as a true resemblance of it at all)

denotes his descent into hell, even the very deepest degree of lifelessenesse, while lying in the sealed and guarded sepulchre, he was accounted as one truly dead: rising out of water holds out to us a lively simitude of that conquest, which this dead man got over death,

which he vanquished in his own den, as it were, that is the grave, in like manner therefore it is meet, that we being baptized into his death, and buried with him, should rise also with him, and so go on in a new life Rom. 6. 3. 4. Col. 2. 12.

that these things are signifyed unto us in baptism the very

outward rites themselves do teach, for immersion shadowes out to us the pravity of our nature, dying in us, in which our old man dies and is buried with Christ, the progresse of which benefit, putting forth its power in us by a little abode un∣der the water points out, even as rising out of the water sers forth a new life, cor∣ruption being done away: hence it is that baptism is called the washing of Rege∣neration, and that whereby we are saved •…•…us 3. 5. 1 Pet. 3. 21. namely be∣cause what is done outwardly by the body in the sign, the same is truly perform∣ed, and confirmed to believers in the soul; and even therefore both the names, and properties of the sign and the thing signified are very often interchangeably at∣tributed to each other by a Sacramentally metonimy.

Thus saith Tilenus in the forecited pages, and some of this he repeats ore again page. 1078. whereby you may guesse that in this his thoughts were well digest∣ed.

Forma Baptismi est 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 saies he sive Relatio, &c. The Form of baptism is that Analogicall relation of the external and earthly, which are the signes, with the heavenly things, or things signifyed: this relation and most lively similitude, that is between them, is the cause why both the names, and the properties of the signes and things signifyed are frequently given to one another by a familiar me∣tonimy of the holy Scriptures, wherein baptism is called the washing of regene∣ration,

and is said to save us, saith he, and in this respect also (say I) we are said to be buryed and raised in baptism in those places, because of that lively resem∣blance of and likenesse to a burial and resurrection that ought by institution to be in the dispensation of baptism, and that is in that institution, if practised as ordained by Christ.

Now who would think by all this but that this man had been baptized indeed, i. e. dipped into, buried under, and brought out of the water in his baptism, in re∣membrance and resemblance of Christs death, resurrection and his own with him? for how does he speak, and that out of these Scriptures we are upon, that we ought thus to be baptized? and these things are exactly exemplified to us saith he, as if he had the lively Essigies of all that was done to him in his baptism dwelling indelably in his mind, as if he had been truly buried, and raised visibly in bap∣tism indeed? and yet behold I believe I may be so bold as to guesse by what he saies in favour of infants sprinkling, and by one thing or other, that he was not baptized all this while, but meerly a Rantist, and none of us in practice, though so much for the way of dipping in his discourses.

Rantist.

But quorsum haec? what mean you by all this quotation of Authors.

Baptist.

Because Damnati lingua vocem habet, vim non habet, the words and con∣structions of a condemned man, that is prejudged to be a heretick before he is heard, are like to sway but little among his Accusers, and therefore I rather chose to convince Mr. •…•…ook and Mr. Blake who deny these Scriptures either to expresse or imply a representation of death, burial and resurrection to be held forth in baptism by immersion, submersion, emersion by the judgments of their own approved orthodox Authors, then by my own, judging within my self that those words of Paul Act. the 17. 28. viz. as certain of your own poets have said, was ad homi∣nem an argument of more weight, then an Argument of ten times more weight then it self, and that if the joint harmony of Modern Divines, holding forth from Rom. 6. Col. 2. a necessity of resemblance of burial and resurrection to be made in baptism by immersion, submersion, emersion, be not considered, the never so well grounded Testimony of my single silly self must needs be sleigh∣ted.

Neverthelesse whether you will hear, or whether you will forbear I shall leave a word or two upon record, whereby either to inlighten you, that there is a resem∣blance

of a burial and resurrection necessarily to be held forth in baptism, and that no lesse is necessarily implyed at least in these two places, Romans 6. and Coloss. 2. or else to leave you without excuse in your disownings of it: For

First, this will appear plainly; if it be considered that by the word baptized in the texts is undoubtedly meant the outward rite, ceremony, sign and form of the administration of baptism.

Secondly, if it be considered that the phrase buried with him and risen with him, i. e. Christ, doth expressely relate immediately and specially (if not onely) in those texts to that outward sign it self, as that in which, taken distinctly from the mi∣stery and inward grace. we are said to be buried and risen, not onely in significati∣on, but in lively representation of the inward and spritual burial and resurrection with Christ, and not to the spiritual, internal death and resurrection it self, as that which is to be understood by those phrases at all, muchlesse onely, or alto∣gether, or abstractively, and apart from any outward and bodily burial and resur∣rection in baptism, as Mr. Cook and Mr. Blake, seeme too impishly to ima∣gine.

Thirdly, this appears yet further insomuch as there are other phrases in that 6 of the Rom. that do intimate, and expresse that spirituall death and resurrection that is signified by the an alogical, and representative burial of the body in water, and raising it again in baptism viz. dead to sin, alive to God, newnesse of life, &c.

Here is mention made of the things signified: And as for that that is spoken of und•…•… this expression buried in baptism tis delievered as a medium whereby, as a motive whereupon, as a reason wherefore, as an image and representative wherein we are both to read, and remember, and also to practise, and perform that other: for do but mark, how shall we (saith he) that are dead to sinne i. e. should be so, live any longer therein? know you not that as many of you as were bapti∣zed into Christ i. e. into or in token of an interest in him of a onenesse, and fel∣lowship with him by faith, are baptized into his death, i. e. in token of such a communion with the power of his death, as kills sin, and crucifies the old man, So that henceforth we should not serve sin? therefore, or hence it is, saith he, that in baptism i. e. the outward ordinance, we are buried with him i. e. outwardly, visibly bodily in water into death i. e. in token and resemblance of our dying to sin by vertue of his death, that we should be ever practically mindful of this, that like as Christ rose again after he was dead, so we should rise to a new life: for if we have bin planted together in the likenesse of his death i. e. signally in outward baptism, spiritually, and really in the inward work, and washing, per∣formed by the spirit upon the soul, we shall be also in the likenesse of his resurrecti∣on i. e. we should be de jure, and shall de facto as we believe.

Fourthly, this burial and resurrection that is immediately expressed by the words buried with him in baptism wherein you are also risen with him, is made a motive, argument, and incitement to the spiritual death, and resurrection, for there∣fore are we perswaded to die to sin, and live righteously, because in baptism we are buried in water; and raised again in token that we ought so to do, and on this cond•…•…on are we baptized and buried and raised therein, and so interessed into all the other benefits of Christs death, remission of sins and salvation viz. that we should die to sin, and live holily; and to this end also that we may be min∣ded thereby to do so.

Nos ea conditione in mortem sepeliri in baptismo Scriptura reclamet, ut emo∣riamur, ac mortificationem istam exinde meditemer, Saith Calvin l. 4. c. 16. S. 16.

Now if this death and burial, that we are buried with in baptism, be to this end to teach us, and shew us that, and how we must die to sin, then the buriall

in baptism there spoken of is not the death to sin it self, for the motive and things we are moved to are two, and so are the sign and thing signified. now

Fifthly tis not only such as is made a motive to the other, therefore is not the other, but such a death and resurrection as is performed, accomplisht, transacted 〈◊〉〈◊〉 baptism i. e. in the very time and juncture of our baptizing, therefore cannot be meant of our spiritual death and resurection immediatly, but o•…•… that burial and resurrection which the outward man in a figure, or resemblance passes through both at, & in the admini∣stration of the ordinance, for the spiritual death and resurection is that, which though it be signified and resembled in baptism, yet it is seldom, if ever, transacted in a person in that juncture of time wherein he is baptizing, but for the most part be∣fore or after, yea ever either before or after, and never in the very nick and act of baptism, no neither of your baptism nor of ours, for you who professe to bap∣tize infants have a subject, of whom you hope that he will die to sin, when he lives to years, but you look not on him as one that is mortu•…•…s, but moriturus, and that not in baptism but long after it, unlesse you suppose baptism confers the inward grace viz. death to sin ex opere operato still; but we baptiz•…•…ng believers baptize such as repent from dead works, and in fieri, though not insa•…•…o ess•…•…, are dead to sin before we baptize them, as well as oblige them to die more to sin after it, yet you say your subjects for all that are buried in baptism too, and so say we of ours, therefore the burial in baptism there meant is no other then that of the sign, for the thing signified viz. the death to sin is not done in baptism, whether it be before or after it, and one of the two it is, for Calvin saies truly that we hold baptis∣mum esse sepulturam in quam nulli nisi jam mortui already dead i. e. dying to sin are to be buried, but of himself and others that are baptized in infancy he •…•…aies quoting Rom. the 6. 4. nos jam ante mortuos per baptismum sepeliri i. e. before we are dead to sin, we are buried by baptism l. 4. c. 16. S. 16. the burial therefore is not the signatum, but the signum i. e. their putting under water in baptism, which sacramentally is called a burial, even therefore because of the analogy and like∣nesse it bears to such a thing, even to Christs burial, and ours with him, which are the things analogized and lively resembled thereby i. e. by immersion, for by aspersion they are not.

And so I have proved by three arguments hitherto that Christs ordinance of baptism is a totall dipping viz.

First by the prime signification of the word baptize which is to overwhelm or wash by swilling, or dipping, but never to sprinkle, as Rantize never to dipp•…•… wash.

Secondly by the practise of the primitive times, which was totally to dip, as I have made appear many wayes.

Thirdly by the name of a burial and resurrection, thats there given to the out∣ward sign by a sacramental Metonimy i. e. in this respect as in its dispensation it must bear analogy and likenesse, as spirinkling does not, to the death burial and resurrection of Christ, and ours in him, which are the things immediatly signified in baptism, and therefore mainly, and as lively as may be to exemplified there∣by. If there be yet any more to say against dipping, and for sprinkling, let us hear it, and as I find it true upon triall, or false and feigned, so accordingly I shall ei∣t er answer it, or yield, for I know that he, who is not as desirous to hear all that can be said against what he holds, as what is to be said for it can never be so solidly settled in it as he should be: for nil tam certum quam quod ex dubio certum est,

Nothing more sure to a man then that which he sees as well on what ground some doubt and disown it, as one what himself owns and imbraces it, and though I professe my self to be beyond all doubt that Rantism is no ordinance of Christ, but a meer figment of men meaning to serve Christ by the halves, nor infant bap∣tism neither, (howbeit I have disputed for them both, and thought I did God ser∣vice

in it too) yet he that knoweth my heart, knoweth that I have so unsatiable a thirst after the knowledge of truth, that if I could think those things to be the truth of God, as I once did, upon the same rotten, and reasonlesse principles you now think so on, I should re-entertain them with rejoicing in my flesh, which would find much ease, and honour by it, and in the spirit much more, which would have that ease, and honour, with peace of conscience, which I was once constrained to deny my self of, because it was once in∣consistent in me with such peace, but welcome that disgraced truth of dipping dis∣ciples, sith tis that truth, which I am certain (howbeit they have trampled it for a time) the gates of hell shall never prevail against, nor the ablest man on earth so as to disprove it by all that is to be said to the contrary from the word of Christ.

Rantist.

Theres more to be said yet to the contrary, and more then ever was answered yet, or ever will be to any purpose by you, or any one else of your gang, and that •…•…t onely in way of exception against much of that you have alleadged about the childishnesse, vanity, and insufficiency of infants sprinkling, but also against that dipping fancy you are fallen into, which is some new motion, or renewed notion at the best, having (for all you have said) neither good ground, nor example from the word, onely the old greek word may be so construed, and thats all the ground I could ever learn for that fluid practise, and I am confident that you and that party are wholly in the wrong, for I have seriously studied that controversie, and besought the Lord to guide me, and his good spirit by principles from his word of truth sealed upon my conscience doth assure me that way of dipping is ground∣lesse, irrational, and more uncivilly foolish, then infant baptism can be called childish, and I desire you to tell me what commission he had that baptized you, who may possibly be an unbaptized person, or if he was not yet if you look but some few removes backward, and inquire who baptized him? and who him? and who him? &c. you must come at least to unbaptized persons, I mean even in your own account, who deny sprinkling to be baptism, and such I hope you do not count fit administrators of baptism, and yet such must begin it, for your way was not in use very long agon, also what commission hath Christ given you to baptize, you being no minister of the Gospel? and also what commission he hath given you or any else to baptize in that manner, which is without Scripture, a∣gainst reason, and common sence and discretion? yea I may say against all prin∣ciples of modesty and common honesty, and charity to mens lives, and so against both the sixth and seventh commandement that many judicious men have judg∣ed it to be little lesse then murther, and adultery, and I could easily prove it to be as bad as I say of it, but that its super•…•…uous so to do, sith sundry of our worthy Mr. Baxter Divines viz. Dr. Featley, Mr. Blake, Mr. Cook, and especially have some of them in one perticular, and some of them in another, done it so suffi∣ciently already that ile rather refer you unto them.

Baptist.

I have been so much innured to such hot-shots since I owned the truth, that I can well walk in the middest of them now without amazemeut: much of this sort of matter I have under my hands in private letters to my self, and others, and what of it is not there is legible I confesse, as it were in text letters in the printed Polemicals of your Champions, whose sharp censures, and heavy charges of the way of truth, which we walk in, how judicious they are shall (God wil∣ling) be anon examined, sith you send us to them: at present you shall have a short word to your quaeries, and such other passages which may occure, and in∣tervene either from your self, or their writings in way of contradiction or obstru∣ction to any thing that hath been said before.

Your first is grounded upon a simple supposition, that an unbaptized person may in no case baptize, or make a fit administrator of baptism, whereas there is nothing in the world more clear then this, that when it is to be done, and cannot be well done otherwise it may be done (as well as by one that was) by one that never was baptized at all: yea why not in case of innitiation after intermission as well as at the innitiation of the Gospel it self? I wonder who baptized Iohn the Baptist, that was the greatest administrator that ever was? for either he was baptized surely, or else he was not, if he was ever baptized at all, who baptized him? but if he was never baptized the matter amounts still to be the same, i. e. to evince no lesse then we assert that at the innitiation of the dispensa∣tion, whether at first, or after a long unlawful cessation, an unbaptized person may baptize: for if Iohn the Baptist himself was not baptized himself, or if he was, either by one that was unbaptized, or else by one that was first baptized by him∣self, he talks in his sleep that saies an unbaptized person may not in such a pressing case baptize.

Your second querie is as unsolidly grounded as the other, and supposes your o∣pinion to be this, that no man, though baptized himself, unlesse he be a Mini∣ster, i. e. an ordained officer may baptize, for say you what commission have you to baptize you being no Minister of the Gospel? whereas if by Minister you mean one officiating as a pastor over a people, there is nothing more cleer in the world or in the word either, then that others besides the Ministers may baptize, viz. not any she, for which theres no president, but rather precept to the contrary 1 Cor. 14. 2 Tim. 2. but any prophet i. e. any he gifted disciple, especially who by the improvement of his gifts he proves, as not seldome such do, instrumentall of the parties convertion: Ananias baptized Paul himself, yet was he but a certain disciple Acts the 9. if you say that he was sent by God himself, to that service, it serves to shew this however, which we affirm that God limited not that dispensation to the Ministry, for if he had he would have sent Peter, or at least some other officer to that work.

Did not Philip baptize the Samaritans and the Eunuch? yet he did it in the capacity of a disciple, and howbeit tis true he was ordained to be a Deacon, and Deacons were by the Bishops babishly authorized to baptize, yet that was no part of his office as a Deacon, for his Deaconship designed him to no more then barely to have a care of the poor, and if you say he was an Evangelist also, so is every one that is gifted to preach the Gospel, and doth it, whether he be in any office or no, for Evangelist is nothing but a preacher of the Gospel, and such are they that occasionally preach it, as well as such as preach it constantly by way of office: therefore all the disciples that were scattered together with Philip its said went every where 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Act. 8. 5. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Act. 11. 20. and Philip that was one of those disciples 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Acts 8. 40. preached or did the work of an Evangelist, whence Philip was cal∣led Evangelista, that being the very thing made him an Evangelist, and not his Deaconship, besides which he had no other office, because he did Evangelizare: no man can give a reason why the scattered disciples that did Evangelizare, or preach the Gospel with him should not be denominated Evangelists as well as he, and indeed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 differ no more then a Prea∣cher and he that preaches, and though every Pastor be both an Evangelist and a Prophet; yet he that saie•…•… every Evangelist, and Prophet is a Pastor or an or∣dained officer qua sic, or that either of these are nomen off•…•…cii, or sounding forth more then a person thus or thus gifted viz. the Evangelist to preach the Gospel for the conversion of such as are yet without, the Prophet to speak to the exhortation, e∣dification and comfort of the Church, and people already converted, and both these occasionally only, and not as by vertue of an ordination to an office, may say it ten times over, before the Scripture, rightly understood, will furnish him to make proof of it once.

And as these ordinary disciples, for the Apostles abode still at Ierusalem Act. 8. 1. went every where as well as Philip, pro suo modulo Evangelizantes prea∣ching Christ according to their abilities, so the hand of the Lord was with those occasional preachers, that a great number believed, and turned to the Lord by their means, and were baptized also undoubtedly by their hands; yea the famous Church of Ant ioch had its foundation from this, and grew into a Church, which they could not do without baptism, before any actual officer came neer them: for though Paul and Barnabas walked with them for a year and improved their gifts for their edification, yet neither of these, were yet actually any more then Evangelists, and Prophets, though before by God intended, and not long after by the Church visibly ordained to their Apostleship, i. e. men of ex∣cellent gifts, and this will appear Act. 11. from verse 19. to the end, with Act. 13. v. 4. and backward to the beginning: you do therefore greatly err not know∣ing the Scriptures, which tell you also plainly that though Paul converted all the Corinthians, yet his own hands baptized but a few, committing that dis∣pensation, as an inferiour work to his preaching, to the hands of inferiour disciples, as Mr. Baxter himself also confesses to your confutation, asserting it from 1 Cor. 1 17. so though Peter converted the company in Cornelius house, yet surely he bap∣tized them not all, if any at all, with his own hands, but left the administration to the hands of others, some one or more of the brethren that came with him; And the manner of speech implies plainly no lesse, for he commanded that they should all be baptized in the name of the Lord: yea so far is the word from tying up the dispensation of baptism to an office, that we have much more president and proof after Christs ascension of comon disciples, then you have of officers baptizing.

You therefore make much more a do in this then needs, you strain indeed at a g•…•…at, and swallow a camel, and busy your self so about the truth of administra∣tors, that you have lost the truth, and substance of the administration it self; were your baptism true baptism indeed, there is no necessity that ordained Ministers must administer it, but unlesse it were •…•…ruer then 〈◊〉〈◊〉 it is, no matter if it were ne∣ve•…•… administred at all.

Know therefore Sirs I beseech you that the verity worth, weight and efficacy of baptism depends not upon the quality of the person administring, but upon the truth of the subject to whom, and the true form wherein tis administred; the Scripture prescribes plainly who they are that shall, and in what manner these shall, but not at all by whom they shall be baptized: tis the duty of them •…•…at believe to be baptized, and his duty that baptizes to baptize indeed, not rantize only, and to baptize such as, being taught the Gospel, do believe it, but who they must be that are to baptize those is neither here nor there to the baptism for ought I find in the word•…•…, so they be but Masculine disciples: nay though the person baptizing be not only no officer (but in the case above named as yet) unbaptized himself, yet if the person baptized be not only a believing disciple, but also baptized really, and indeed his baptism is never the worse for the other:

Experience tells me, and I believe many more, that have been baptized ac∣cording to truth, that twas drawing neer to Christ with true hearts in his true ordinance that made us accepted in his sight, not the qualifications of the baptizers, whose baptism and ministerial functions (were they invested with both) could add never the more validity nor verity to our baptism, as neither could the non-entity of either of those in them have possibly made the baptism so sincerely submitted to, be in any measure void, and of no effect; the placing so much in persons administring as to think our selves ere the better for that, was that fanta∣stical fopery of the Corinthians for a while, one saying I am of Paul, another I of Apollo, another I of Caep•…•…as i. e. I was baptized by such or such, which made the Apostle Paul, who with his own hands baptized but some of them, well •…•…igh wish he had baptized none of them at all, when he saw their carnall glo∣ries

in the persons administring, and blesse God that he baptizd no more, least they should have thougt the better of themselves, and of their baptism for its dis∣pensation of it by his hands.

The administrators therefore being baptized or not baptized, minister or no minister maketh the baptism, if elsewise warrantable, neither better nor worse of it self: all this I speak all this while, not as granting that our baptism is by unbapti∣zed persons, and that my self am no minister of the Gospel, for neither of these shall be yielded by any meanes, unlesse you were more able then you are to prove them, I speak it suppositively that if these were both so, yet both my baptizing and being baptized may be warrantable enough notwithstanding or else if we deemed it worth while to seek out what succession our baptism hath had from the Apostles, in a series without interruption, tis possible there were some disciples in all ages that owned the truth, though so few and despised, that their genera∣tion can scarcely be declared, for who can declare his generation, whose life in himself, and his was still cut off from the earth? but we go by the word that is a∣bove all Church and Ministry in our account of our baptism and ministry, and not by succession in either: and as for your selves, that hold so much on succes∣sion, and boast of a lineal descent of your ministry and Rantism from the Apostles, twill pussle you no lesse to prove that, if we put you to it, then twill if we put you to it to disprove a lineal succession of our baptism, for if we cannot name the par∣ticular persons that baptized one another in this way, wherein we do it, successive∣ly from the persons of the Apostles in answer to this question who baptized you? and who him? and who him? and so upwards till we come thither, are you able if we ask you who sprinkled you? and who him? and who him? and who him? &c. to particularize more punctually then we? are you able to assign who began our way of baptism first of all in the world, unlesse you begin as high as Iohn the baptist? nay verily though Dr. Featley would fain father it upon Stock, yet its most manifest unto you all that infants sprinkling was denied by some ever since it was known to have a being, for it was controverted in the daies of the fathers, and that it would not have been had there been none that had then denied it, and deni∣ed it could not be by any but such as pleaded the baptism of believers, in those times, and were the right way baptized themselves.

You have not one president of one infant sprinkled, nor proof that such a thing was so much as talked on, for at least an hundred years after Christ, but we are most certain, and your selves canno•…•… deny it, that the bapti•…•…m of believers be∣gan at Iohn the baptist, and the Apostles, and if we could prove a succession of it de facto no further downwards then so, yet it is enough to us that we find it then was so, whereby to prove that it ought to have been so in all ages since, and is to be de jure at this day.

One word more and then we have done with this, if none at all save such as are baptized themselves may in any case dispense baptism to others, save such also as are by ordination true ministers of the Gospel; then your selves, who pretend solely to the title of baptizing, are no right administrators, as being in truth nei∣ther baptized, nor ordained in such wise as the Scripture requires: that your bap∣tism is null I have cleared it enough already, and that your ministry is no lesse is apparent, sith whilst you indeavour to derive it from the Apostles, you can derive it thence no other wise then the Pope doth his, for if a line of succession be a proof of true ministry, you may indeed derive it as well, but not one jot better then he, he can shew you his line of succession, if not from Peter, yet at least from Li∣nus himself, that lived in the daies of the Apostles, and you can shew us the line, wherein you came from the Pope, and so through his loines from the other: there is no other way for your ministry to prove its pedigree from the Primitive times but this, no way for you to climb up to the Apostles as the fathers, and founders of your function but by a chain of many linkes, whereof if one happen

to prove unsound, and tis a chance but a flaw may be found in some of them, that have been trailed for many hundreds of years together through the hands of that Apostaticall harlot, the intaile is clear cut of, your pedigree and descent from the Apostles, as a ministry, perishes, is spilt upon the ground, and can never be tact on again any more for ever: you have hitherto owned your ordination as handed by an uninterrupted lineal succession from the Pope to the present Presbytery, and if we put the question to the veriest novice or youngling among you, who ordain∣ed you? and who ordained those that ordained you? and who them? and who them? and who them? you can find your function flowing in a continual stream from the Primitive fountain no other way, but through that stinking sink and cor∣rupt channel of the holy chaire; Pope Gregory the great gave power of ordination to Austin the Monk, when he sent him over into England about a thousand years since, he to the Popish Bishops, they to the Protestant Bishops, they to the Pres∣byters, and the Presbyters to their present Preachers: thus what Ministeriall power you have •…•…angs upon the Protestant Bishops, theirs upon Austin, Austins upon the Pope, the Popes upon Peter: you came i. e. descended from the Pope, the Pope came i. e. departed from the Apostles, and thus from the Apostles you came all, but thither you must go again, letting go your sweet succession, and from their words, which are the same now as then, begin your businesse again before you can be •…•…ight, or know any thing cleerly where you are, for if he whom your selves call Antichrist, made you a ministery of Christ, you may be the Ministry of the Church of England if you will, which if it be vere Ecclesia a true Church at all, y•…•…t is such a one as had its parochial posture from whence you had your power, and therefore fit enough each for the other, but of the Church in England, which is vera Ecclesia the true Church indeed, you shall never be the Ministry for me, till you repent and be baptized.

As for my self whom you deem to be no Minister of the Gospel, I must not lead you so far from the other work in hand as to stand upon the proof of that now, hav∣ing transgressed (as some will think) too far already, though else it were no im∣possible thing to prove it, and therefore I say this only in short that whether I am now a true Minister of the Gospel or no, tis now my utmost aim to preach and pro∣mote the truth of it as tis in Jesus, but as for the time in, which I was owned a Mini∣ster of the Gospel, I was at that time no true one at all, yea though I have ob∣tained mercy, and such mercy as to be made a Minister thereof since, because I did what I did ignorantly, yet so far was I then from a Minister of the Gospell that I rather rejected the counsell of God against my self, being not baptized of them that preached it, and disputed much against it as well as you.

And now as unto your third quaery, viz. what Commission have any to bap∣tize in that manner? that is, by dipping, which you stile such an irrational, and undiscreet way, tis that which I have resolved you in so satisfactorily before, that unlesse you have more to say against it then to miscal it, as you do, before you have proved it to be so base as you are pleased to stile it, I shall rejoice in Christ Jesus that hath chosen such foolish and base things as dipping in water is, in the account of men however excellent in it self, and in proof of its warrantableness, unles it be occasionally, add no more.

Rantist.

I have referred you already where you shall find exception against all you have said before, as concerning the truth of the way of baptism, and I desire that you would find your self work a little therewith, I mean the forenamed books that are extant, specially that of Mr. Baxter whom I know to be a very able and godly man, who hath in mine, and I think in all discerning mens Apprehensions so sol∣lidly disproved, and clearly confuted your way of dipping, that few or none of those, that see what he saies in that point, will be of your mind, and follow your fashion therein, for whereas you say that dipping was the custome in the

first times, and therefore go about to seduce men into the belief of it, because its said that the Eunuch went down into the water, and that John baptized in Aenon because there was much water there, he replies that is a thing never proved by any, and that the Jaylor was baptized in the night in his own house, and therefore not likely over head in that Countrey, where water was so scarce, and that the Eunuch might well be said to go down into the water, for the Country was mountanous, and the brooks in the bottoms, and that even the River Ae∣non it self where Iohn baptized because there was much water, is found by Travellers to be a small brook, which a man might almost step over, and much more, that gainsaies much of what you have said, is in the 135. page of his book, which I shall expect your answer to, but if you please lets see what you can say to this first.

Baptist.

I shall very freely speak to any thing which hath not yet been spoken to in par∣ticular, and to Mr. Baxters exceptions in that particular rather then any other, because he is most noted in those parts were he lives, and also in the examination of his Exceptions, I shall have the more hint to take notice of such reliques, and broken pieces as remain yet unspoken to, as the gainsayings of the rest in this point, for he seems to me to have gathered them up there, and to have epitomized those mens matter as i•…•… were into a fardel of fewer words: excepting the two last grand Arguments of Mr. Cook against dipping, one of which Doctor Featley affronts us with in the title page, and both of which are more sparingly spoke to yet, covert∣ly touched, and tacitly touched upon by Mr. Cook, and those Mr. Baxter ra∣ther comments on at large, and makes (I cannot say a fairer, but a fouler, a falser, and far more miserable improvement of then any of the rest do: This he professes to be the businesse of his book p. 13. viz.

To use the proofs that others make use of in some newer kind of way, confess∣ing that few have improved their Arguments as they might have done, nor man∣naged them in the most forcible way, and not to medle much with those arguments that others have fully mannaged.

Yet (by his leave) he meddles so much with the Arguments that others almost every one makes use of, that he makes some of them the worse again, he •…•…ars ma∣ny a one with his mendall Mannagement.

It is not to use many Arguments (saith he) but to drive home a few.

Yet he uses many more then any one else, viz. three capital ones to prove infants to be disciples, twenty cardinal ones, to prove them members, to which (Nos numeri •…•…umus) a number of others are subservient, and subordinate two more in proof of babisme, besides eight in proof of no body knows what, all these in his Disputative piece of book, so that for ought I find Etsinon prosint singula, multa juvant, his genius stood more to numerositie, than dextery in handling a few, unlesse by few he mean only the three main Mediums as Capital, and Cardinal to the rest, the first of which, but especially the second, in tot ramos, ra∣mulos & ramusculosse ipsum Rantizavit, hath stragled it self into so many small branches, that indeed it hangs not handsomly together within it self, and indeed the whole is but a certain three legged stool, which he hath made for people to sit at rest upon in their vain Worships, and servings of God, after the Precepts of men, which if they never be broken by any hand, writing responsibly to them, yet are so rotten, that they will wear out within a while of themselves: but be they few or many he might well say he would drive home a few, for verily above all the rest, those two I speak of, viz. wherein dipping is called Murther, and adul∣tery, he drives on beyond the bounds of modesty, truth, sense and reason, as far, I dare say to the full, as God would suffer the Devill to direct, and drive him.

For my part I never saw Mr. Baxters face that I know of, but I see too much

of his spirit in his latest labor, in which, if the spirit of God had been his leader, he would not have led him into that confident utterance of such utter untruths, not onely in point of doctrine, but matter of fact too now and then: let his parts, let his piety you talk on, be more then his parts if it will, God once left as honest as holy, as worthy a one as he can be, in punishment of a people whom he had a mind to plague for their dotage on him, to be stirred up by Satan to do things inconvenient, and unseemly 1 Chron. 21. 1. and so it seemes to me he hath left Mr. Baxter, as Godly as he is, or else there could never have issued from him such inconsiderate crudities, such rank venomous, viperous, ulcerous fluxes of folly, flesh, fierceness, fiction, falseness, firery invectives, to the madding of the very magistracy, if it would be any longer blinded by the baw∣lings of a mistaken ministry, against many a dear Saint of God, against a people precious to God, though base in his eyes, against thousands that are as intimate with God, and more privy to his will in point of baptism then himself, that thus he does shall appear by and by, at present see what little verity and less validity is in that first viz. that it is not yet proved by any that dipping was the primitive custome, when yet its proved, if not by many, yet at least by two of our way viz. A. R. and Mr. Blackwood, and that so sufficiently that if Dr. Featley, and Mr. Baxter, Mr. Cook, and Mr. Blake did not decline them, and if they had been minded to mark and seriously to search the Scriptures, and not to dazle mens eyes with all the fiddle-faddles they could find to fling before them, and to satisfie themselves at slender rates in the present custome, rather then cry out for a change, sith it is the present custome, the Scriptures they hint on are so plain, taking the words thereof, not in feigned, forced, figurative and forreign, but in their own prime, direct, native, ordinary, proper, and rational sense and signifi∣cation, that he who runs may read no lesse then this, that dipping, yea total, was the way wherein baptism was then dispensed: but if we had not such proof of it extant from our own party, yet tis so clear of it self that men famous, even of your own way that have not thrust their fingers too far into the fire of this controversie, concerning the primitive form of baptizing (as these men have done, and there∣fore will on in what they have once asserted, and get thorow by hook or crook, rather then recede with that shame (I should say honour) which is the right of every recantant, when he sees he hath misreckoned) do not onely confesse, but al∣so teach us the very same that we stand for.

Witnesse Tilenus, who tells us that Immersio usitatior olim fuerit praesert im in Iudea et aliis regionibus &c. p. 886. dipping, yea totall dipping (for in the very line before he defines the right of baptism to be tripple, Immersio in aquam, mora sub aqua, emersio ex aqua, plunging into the water, abode under it, resurrection out of it) was rather used heretofore specially in Judea, and other warmer countries then sprinkling.

Yea Dr. Featley, that is as •…•…were the fronteer or fileleader in doing all the disgrace he could to dipping, did yet find occasion to acknowledge little lesse p. 69. notwithstanding saith he, I grant that Christ and the Eunuch were bap∣tized in the River, and that such baptism of men, i. e. in rivers, specially in the hotter climates, hath been, is and may lawfully be used: though I confesse he gives this a pull in again, and very cleanly contradicts himself in the very next words, saying that there is no proof at all of dipping or plunging, but onely of washing in the River.

O grosse, First, as if the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 did signifie onely to wash in some other way, and not at all to wash by dipping.

Secondly, as if ever any things, or persons, that are washed in Rivers are wash∣ed ordinarily otherwise then by dipping or plunging.

Thirdly, as if he could properly be said to be washed in a river that was never in it, but was onely scrubd a little by the side of it.

Or Fourthly as if wise persons would go into a river for no more then a little fourbishing their faces.

Rantist.

You talk of in the river, and into the River, but you heed not what Mr. Bax∣ter saies in the present section that you are desired to speak to, he tells you the word into is not to be taken as if either John and Christ, or Philip and the Eunuch were at all in the water or descended into it, but unto it onely, it being below in the bottoms, and the countrey being montanous, in which respect they might well be said to go down into it: Mr. Cook also and Mr. Blake do both very elegantly answer your observation in that particular Mr. C. thus to A. R. viz. your collection from Philips going down into the water with the Eunuch, there∣fore they used dipping is as vain, must they not go down to the water where it was if they would use it? would the water have come up to them in the chariot any sooner for sprinkling then for dipping? of the same stamp is your inference from Mat. 3. 16. Mark 1. 10. from Christs ascending from the water, for as Christ was pleased to be baptized with water, so he was pleased to go where the water was viz. in the channel, where there was a descent, and from which there was an ascent, so that he must go down to, and come up from the wa∣ter.

Nay rather your conceit is here confuted, for if our blessed Saviour had been plunged of John into the water then it would rather have been said that John cast or plunged Christ into the water, and took him out of the water, but it is onely implyed that Christ went down to the water, and came up again from it.

Mr. Blake thus to Mr. Blackwood viz. for your criticism of the ascending and descending, if you compare Acts 24. 1. 25. 1. also with your places quoted, you will see it nothing for your purpose, those phrases are used when men go to a place, or from a place, when they neither ascend upwards, neither descend downwards, Bishop Usher will furnish you with ten severall Scriptures, where the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Acts of the Apostles is used for no descent from a high∣er place to a lower, but onely a removing from place to place, though in this place we may believe there was some ascent and descent, waters being lower places, and when they went to the place of waters the channell in which the waters had their current, they may be fitly said to go into the water, howsoever one or two examples serve not your purpose, but a General concurrence of all examples:

We have examples giving full evidence of a different practise, and nothing can be concluded from those examples.

Baptist.

O the wondrous wayes of wretchednesse, if not of wilful wilinesse that the wits of these men work in whereby to wave of the way of God from taking place a∣mong them! how do they strive to keep it off as •…•…were at staves end, not yielding it an inch lest it should get an ell, one brings one kind of furniture, wherewith to fight it, another another, yet altogether are but a bullrush, a flag, that shewes like sword and Rapier, but will scarce hold a push if put to it to the purpose: Mr. Blake he fetches furniture from Bishop Usher that saies there are ten Scriptures in the acts where the words ascend and descend expresse no more then removing from one place to another, of which if those he alledges be two of the ten, or supernu∣merary it matters not, for if there were 10000 it would do him no right, and truth no wrong in this place, where it is believed by every of the three both himself and his two Colleagues, that here was going up and down from higher places to lower, therefore he may set that cypher some where else, or send it home again to the book whence he had it, and where perhaps it was of use, for here it stands void and serves for nothing.

And as for their joint sneaping the words they went down into the water, and

came out of the water into such a short sense as may serve your own curtaild, and cloudy conceptions of the matter, and exclude our construction that is most clear, and congruous, perverting and mincing it thus, viz. that they went down to the water, i. e. the channel where the water was, to which there was a descent, and ascended from the water; or if it be allowed to be read (as tis most properly ren∣dred by the Translators) into the water, yet the meaning of that word into must be no other then unto, I admire how men of such professed piety can convince their consciences to content with such home-spun coverings, such greivous glos∣ses, pittiful put ofs, as they do in this case, I profess they might almost as good say that the heard of Swine, that Mat. 8. 32. are said to run down into the Sea, did but run down to the Sea, and no further, as to limit these Scriptures that relate the baptism of Christ and of the Eunuch, so as to force them to no further sig∣nification then this to, and unto, and from the water as if they went not into it at all.

Rantist.

Nay not so neither by your leave, for the words that follow, which relate that the Swine were choaked in the waters shew plain enough that the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, though we will not allow it the sense of into Mark 1 9. must needs be Englished into here, and that the English word into, though we allow it to signisie no more then to or unto, Acts the 8. verse 38. yet signifyes that the Swine were really not at onely but in the waters, for how else, could they be choaked there?

Baptist.

How? why man tis as possible a creature may be choaked with water powr∣ing down his throat, yea and a little more possible then tis for any Creature to be said truly, not Synechdochically, to be baptized by sprinkling, or powring wa∣ter only upon his face, and yet tis sure enough that this choaking of the Swine was otherwise then so, and no other then by an overwhelming in water, forasmuch as it is said they ran down INTO the Lake and were choaked Luke 8. 33. choak∣ed IN the Waters Matth. 8. 32. IN the Sea Mark 5. 13. and yet tis as sure to me, who dare not suppose the spirit to speak nonsence, as they do in my mind, who say that this baptizing Act. 8. 38, 39. Matth. 3. 16. Mark 1. 9, 10. was, though with water also as their choaking was, (and therefore Dr. Featley will get nothing by pleading for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to signify with) yet not as truly inthe water also, i. e. by an overwhelming therewith, forasmuch as tis said Act. 8, 38, 39. they went down both into the water both Philip and the Eunuch and he baptized [Angli•…•…e dippt or overwhelmed] or (if you will have washed) wash∣ed him by dipping, for as dipping and swilling is a true washing, so by washing, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is Englished by it, is meant neither infusing nor sprinkling, but that washing onely that is by the way of dipping, and I testify to their faces, that would fain make a baptizm of rantism, that tis more easy to choak then to bap∣tize a man without overwhelming

But Mr. Cook foreseeing no doubt what absurdity must needs be committed in granting the words to be read as they be translated, viz. they went down into the water and ascended out of the water, and yet denying that they were at all in the water, and being sensible also surely how it might be noted as a piece of paultry and partiallity, to allow the sense of into to the preposition 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Acts 8. 38. and yet so deeply to disown and deny that sence of into to the same prepo∣sition in Mark 1. 9. as he does, he is more wary then either Mr. Blake or Mr Baxter in that particular, and will not by any meanes read it as the other do viz. they went down into the water, nor yet as tis in the text they came up out of the water, but runs it over more smoothly in a phrase sutable to his own purpose, viz. they went down to the water, and came up from the water, but I hope he'el con∣descend freely to be corrected for the same fault, and with the same rod of reproof

with which himself hath corrected others, or else his partiallity will so appear as to deny him to have any of that wisdome, which is from above Iames 3 the last: wherefore as he checks A. R. most sharply for offering to alter, and vary from the wisdome of interpreters, so as to English the preposition 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by in, which they thought good to English with p. 12, in these words, viz.

I would demand of you whether you think that our Translators, and most or all others, who have englished it with knew not how to render the original in its proper signification as well as your self.

So I must take the boldnesse, sith our Translators, and most or all others, but himself, do read Act. 8. 38. thus they went down both into the water and as∣cended out of the water, to demand of him in his own words to A. R. whether he think that our Translators, and most or all others, who english those passages by into the water, knew not how to render the originall in its proper signification as well as himself?

As for the other two, viz. Mr. Blake and Mr. Baxter they foreseeing no doubt it would be no safe, handsome, acceptable, nor advantagious way to take upon them, as they saw Mr. Cook did, to correct the Translators, and mend their con∣structions, they are more wary then Mr. Cook in that particular, and so (thus in∣cidit in Scillam, qui vult, &c.) to decline the Rock of insolence, they drop into the gulf of nonsence, owning the original to be rightly rendred, and reading them according to that rendition, viz. into the water, and up out of the water, yet denying those phrases they descended into the water, and came up out of the wa∣ter,, to sound out any more then Mr. Cook saies the Greek words do viz. to and from the water.

But I must intreat those two Parallels in that opinion, to consider what impa∣ralleld improprietie it is to expresse no more then going to the water side, and com∣ming from it again by these phrases, viz. going down into the water, and com∣ming out of the water for they imply necessarily a being in the water, and not on∣ly at it: he descended into hell is more then being at the brinks of hell, he des∣cended into the lower parts of the Earth, is more then bare being on the superficies of the Earth, and so he descended into the water, is necessarily more then being at the side: the situation of the water below in the bottoms will not salve the absurdity of such expression, concerning being at the water only, and returning, for he descen∣ded to it, and ascended from it is enough for that, but to expresse that only by in∣to it and out of it, is superfluous and superlative simplicity: whatsoever element, or place in any element we are said to go down into, and come up out of we were once in or else we are fowlly belied: had it been said of Philip and the Eunuch they went down both to the water, or into the bottoms, they descended into the vallies, where the water was, as Mr. Cook prates by a Periphrasis, and when they came up out of the valley, or bottom from the water, then it had shewed som∣what like the sense these men like best and long to have it in, but into the water, and out of the water expresse not only a bare being in the bottomes, where the wa∣ter was but in the water also; for whatsoever place or element is put after the prepositions into and out of is a place or element that the persons denominated to go into and out of were once really and truly in.

Daniel was thrown into and taken up out of the Lyons den, does not that shew plainly enough that he was in it? the Swine ran into the sea, were they not then in it? I threw it into the fire (saies Aaron of the molten image he made) and there came out this calf, will any say that the mettals he made it of were only warmed at the fire side? they went down both into the water, both Philip and the Eunuch and came up out of the water, Iesus was baptized of Iohn into Iordan, Mark 1. 9. and when he was baptized went straitway out of the water, Math. 3. 16. can any man say that these two persons Iesus and the Eunuch, of whom also Dr. Featley grants that they were baptized in the River, were never in it at all, but only wetted at the water side?

But that Philip and the Eunuch went into and were in the water, and not un∣to it and at it only, is evident by what I have hinted once already, viz. in that it is said they were come unto the water before, and therefore this mustneeds be in∣to it, or else either the Spirit Tautologized, or they tautopoiized, and came unto the water twice over, but never into it at all.

Two more odd conceits, and emblemes of the emptinesse of their apprehensi∣on in this point, two a piece I mean in Mr. Cook and Mr. Blake, I shall take notice of briefly in their fore-cited shuffles, and so passe on to the rest.

First, how peartly doth Mr. Cook squitch up A. R. with a question or two as if he would catechise him in that which he hath yet need to be further chatechisd himself?

Must they not go down to the water (saith he) if they would use it? would the water come up to them in the Chariot any sooner for sprinkling then for dip∣ping?

In answer to which question, I intreat Mr. Cook to ask his conscience this que∣stion, whether if they had used the water only for sprinkling, there was such nece∣ssity of going down to it as he seemes to intimate, would not the water have come up to them in the Chariot sooner by far for sprinkling then for dipping? yea verily both Philip and the Eunuch might have sat still in the Chariot and comman∣ded water enough for sprinkling to be brought up to them thither in the hol∣low of the Chariot drivers hand, if there were no bigger a vessel to bear it in, but for dipping enough could never possibly be brought up into the Chariot at all.

Secondly, he must, saies he of Christ, go down and come up from the water, but here is not the least hint that John doused Christ over head, or under wa∣ter, nay rather that conceit of yours, saith he to A. R. is here confuted, for if our blessed Saviour had been plunged of John into the water, then it would rather have been said that John cast or plunged Christ into the water, and took him out of the water, but it is only implied that Christ went down unto the water and came up again from it.

O how egregiously, how shamefully doth this man forget, and utter himself as if his senses were sodden into Trapizuntius his temper! I would therfore ask him one or two questions viz.

First: whether 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 doth at all signifie to douse over head, or under wa∣ter, or to plunge into water yea or no? if not (but I suppose he will not deny it so to do, though he denies it to signifie onely plunging) then I would have him to go to school again to the Lexicons which will teach him that it mainly signifies mer∣go, immergo, submergo, and if lavo, a bluo it is such an ablu•…•…ion as is made immergendo, but if it doth signifie to plunge dip or douse under water, or over∣whelm at all, and I dare say he and every one else shall find it for all lavo, quod fit immergendo, to signifie a swilling in water altogether, then I advise him to be think himself, for I think he was asleep when he wrote this passage, that there is at least some little hint that Iohn plunged Christ into the water, when its said Christ was baptized alias, plunged, dipt of Iohn into Iordan, or washt in Ior∣dan, sith that pleases himself, unless he put a difference between the active and the passive and will not yield it to be all one, that Iohn baptized Christ, and Christ was baptized of John, but though it be said Christ was baptized i. e. plunged of Iohn into Iordan, overwhelmed in Iordan, and that he came out of the wa∣ter, which is a shrewd sign that Iohn did not keep him there, yet this is not plain and significant enough for him it seems unlesse he may have the framing of the spi∣rits speech another way, that is no whit plainer then the other neither, viz. that Iohn cast or plunged Christ into the water, and took him out of the water, unlesse it may be said just so all that is said, which yet is the same with that he would have to be said, implies no more then that Christ went down unto the water and

and came up again from it, without being baptized, so belike: how A. R•…•…. o∣pinion that Iohn doused Christ under water, which is also mine, and the very plain∣est expression the original can be read in, is confuted by those texts Mat. 3. 16. Mark. 1. 9. 10. I can no more conceive, then I can conceive that this expression viz. Philip and the Eunuch went down both into the water, and he baptized him, is a confutation of him that supposes the Eunuch to be baptized at all, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 are Mr. Cooks marginals wher∣by he would have us learn tis like from the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that their ascension was but from the water, but I muse why he would not set down the words of the other Scripture, Act. the 8. 39. which expounds this, and where tis 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is in latin ex, and englished most naturally out of.

The second thing more observable in Mr. Blakes businesse runs thus, First, saith he, howsoever one or two examples serve not your purpose, but a general con∣curren ce of all examples.

See how Mr. Bls. heart misgives him; and well nigh wavers within, whether he had not best yield us these two examples, for all his tugging for them before, in∣to our cause, and therefore now falls, for fear these two will side against him, to serve himself against them another way, i. e. by denying that the te•…•…mony of the spirit in these two examples, is of any validity to us without a concurrence of all examples:

To which I say, had Mr. Blake but one half inch of an example in the new testa∣ment of baby baptism how much he would make of it we may see by his cunning counterfeit examples for that thing out of scriptures, that in truth are not onely far from exemplifying such a thing, as the housholds he makes use of are, but also clear examples to the contrary, as the non-baptizing of those very infants that were brought to Christ, and the non-baptizing of those very infants with their parents Act. the 2. to whose parents, and their children to, on the same termes of repen∣tance when at years, the promise is there made: both which Scriptures he wrests into his turne, yea verily, and had he but one true single example of any one in∣fant baptized in all that word, we should lay down to him, and never open our mouthes more against infant baptism: yet if these two examples do prove for us, it seemes they shall not be heeded, whilst against them, unlesse there be a general concurrence of all examples.

Wherefore secondly, I tell him of a truth that though me thinks the single exam∣ple of the Lord Iesus might content him, and of the Eunuch, for can he shew a bet∣ter example then these? yet theres as general a concurrence of all examples in this particular, as there is of the example of any one thing, that is exemplified in the Scriptures: all Ierusalem, all Iudea, and the Region about Iordan were bap∣tized i. e. dipt of Iohn in Iordan confessing their sins, Christ dipt of Iohn into Iordan, the Eunuch going into the water and there baptized, baptizing in Aenon because much water, and indeed the very word baptize makes them all examples of our practise, while it signifies obruo, submergo.

Secondly saies he, we have examples giving full evidence of a different practise, and nothing can be concluded for you from these examples of yours.

Mr. Bls. examples it seems for his different practise must conclude for him, but our examples though never so clear must conclude nothing for us, ipse dixit Mr. Bl. hath forbidden them so to do, and therefore we must sign ne plus ul•…•…ra here, and urge our examples no more, wherefore ile cease.

Onely secondly, I hope he will give me leave to ask him what different practise it is he meanes, of which he hath examples giving full evidence against ours, and if it be either baptism of infants, o•…•… Rantism of infants, or powring water on in∣fants, or washing infants any other way, or dispensig Christs ordinance of baptism to men or women in any other way then in the way of dipping, or washing by

dipping, which baptizo signifies, ile promise him faithfully that upon his giving us any one example that gives full evidence of it, or any other kind of full evidence of it besides that of example, any of which he is far from giving in any thing that was ever pen'd by him yet, I shall yield and become his disciple, and follow him as far as I find him following Christ in that or any thing else, and that for ever: till then he must excuse me if in love to his soul I seriously beseech him to search and try his wayes and turn in truth to that truth of the Lord Iesus he yet tramples on.

Rantist.

There is example given you enough against your way by Mr. Blake, Mr. Baxter and Mr. Cook too of baptizing otherwise then by dipping, in the Iailor, whom they all instance in either expressely, or implicitly, First Mr. Baxter saies in that section of his which you have not yet fully spoke to, that the Iailor was baptized in the night in his house, and therefore not likely over head in that Countrey where water was so scarce, and to this agree some words of Mr. Blake and Mr. Cook concurrent in matter though different in form: we read saith Mr. Cook p. 16. of multitudes baptized •…•…ven 3000 in Ierusalem without men∣tion of going to the Rivers, and of whole families without mention of going to the waters, or fetching store of waters, it is like the waters they had within doors at midnight sufficed Acts 2. 41. Acts 16. 15. 33. and saith Mr. Blake p. 10. sometimes baptism was administred where water for dipping was not to be had, and though the Eunuch comming to a river saith here is water, what hindred that I should be dipped? yet there is little probabili•…•…y that Paul could say so in Judas's house in streight street in Damascus, nor the Iailor in his prison in Phi∣lippi: you say that baptism was ordinarily in rivers, where there were many waters, but sure there were neither many waters, nor rivers in these mens dwellings, and as sure they went not out in the night unto any such places, yet were they baptized.

Baptist.

Are these your Examples of baptizing otherwaies then by dipping? certainly unlesse these three men were every one of them either shamefully slighthy in their searches, or willingly ignorant, or smitten with blindnesse, and given up in some measure at least, for their not imbracing this plain easie truth of dipp•…•…ng, in the love thereof, to deep dotage and stronge delusion, they could never believe, much lesse print such palpable untruths, absolute absurdities, and cleer self confutations, as are unavoidably to be seen by him that reads with understanding these parcells they have published to the eye of all men.

See first how Mr. Cook contradicts himself in that clause, we read of great multitudes baptized even three thousand in Ierusalem without mention of going to the Rivers.

To say nothing of the invalidity of this piece to his purpose, nor needlessenesse of the Scriptures mentioning the particular place where every one was baptized, for what if that be not specified every where where baptism is talked on, least the vo∣lume should swell, is it not as much as to say they were dipped in that it is said they were baptized, i. e. submersi, obruti, abluti immergendo, for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signi∣fies mainly, I suppose I may safely say only such washing as is by dousing, dip∣ping or swilling, specially since in places enough it is said they were baptized in Rivers, and places of much water: but to say nothing I say of that, mark how this clause of Mr. Cook clashes with another of his within a matter of ten lines up∣wards from it, for there giving other reasons, then that of dipping, why Iohn chose to baptize in Rivers and running waters, among others he gives this as a speciall one, viz.

Because of the multitudes that were baptized, especially saith he, seeing there came such huge multitudes to him to be baptized, and yet here were great

multitudes baptized even no lesse then 3000 and yet sith there is no mention of the place where, which by Mr. Cooks own reason, if it be a reason, must be a place of running waters, and streams that many might be imploied at once in bap∣tizing along the river, for the more speedy dispatch, with so great multitudes, therefore these belike went not out to the rivers, though yet theres no more menti∣oned that they did not, then that they did.

There were thousands of converts Act. the 4. the 4. of the matter of whose baptism there is no more mentioned then of the manner of it, and yet there is ground enough to believe they were all baptized, as well as the rest, yea Mr. Blake believes it, and in the same way as the rest whose baptism with the manner of it is expressed, for why should others be baptized in rivers because they were multitudes, and yet these multitudes be exempted from that and be dispached with so small a matter as sprinkling? therefore the not mentioning twas done, is an argument as good as nothing; and whereas he saies there is no mentioning of fetching in great store of waters, tis true, that we never read at all of water fetcht to the persons, but of persons going to the water we do, though he saies we do not, for even Lydia her self and her family, which is no other then his own in∣stance, were gone out to a river side to hear Paul preach, where being converted they were baptized, that being the wonted place of preaching and praying no doubt in order to the conveniency of baptizing, before ever the Apostles were so much as invited to her house.

Secondly, of this stamp also is Mr. Blakes conceit concerning the baptism of Paul, who because the particular place or sourse of water wherein he was baptized is not expressed, imagins that he must needs be baptized within doors, and no where else, and so consequently not by dipping, but some other way, whereas there is neither necessity nor probability of his being so, but rather evidence if not from the very place, yet at least from what Mr. Blake saies that it was other∣wise; For

First, it seemes to me that Paul was not to be baptized within, but to go some where or other to the dispatching of that businesse, wherefore else should Ananias rub him up to it as he doth in such wise as this, and now why tariest thou? arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins &c. Which as it Argues it was a service Paul was tardy to, and I know no mans flesh forward to it further then by faith it is overpowred, specially in such a weak case as Paul it seemes was in at that pre∣sent, so it was as who should say, why art thou so undisposed to thy duty in that particular, make hast, and linger not longer about it, but come away and be bap∣tized: now had aspersion or infusion been only the work, Paul could not have bin so backward as to need such sharp exsuscitation, when once convinced, for theres no such great unpleasantness to the flesh, as to engender any aversenesse unto that, but that Paul was more tardy then he should have been (and why he should be so I know not if among the other impediments, at least he was not sensible of some tediousnesse in the service) was uttered in a publique exercise once from that very text Acts. 22. 16. by a friend of yours, and mine now deceased, at his sprin∣kling one of mine own children, in which Sermon the doctrine was this (and a good doctrine it was, and very truly grounded upon the Example of Pauls dulnesse in that Scripture, and further cleered by Lots loitering in Sodom) viz. That by reason partly of the remainder of corruption in the best, presenting evill when they should do Good, and partly the great grand enemy of our salvation Sa∣tan, opposing himself to all good, the best that have even renounced their vile life, have an indisposition to holy duties, and have need of excitation and stir∣ring up.

Again had he not either been to be baptized within by dipping or been to re∣ceive within an aspersion or infusion upon his face only he need not to have bin bid to arise, or stand up in order to either of these, so much as from the present posture

he was in, for if he were then sitting, face rantism might have been done as well, and if he were lying down (which in his then case is the more likely of the two) much better then in a standing posture, in which tis not so easie to dispence a pour∣ing upon the face, least pouring so little as you do it prove rather a Rantism then a baptism, or pouring so much as the baptizer should do on the disciple, if he will needs do it by pouring i. e. till he hath buried him in baptism, or wholly covered him with water, in resemblance of the spiritual, he make way for his bodily buriall in the earth also.

Whereas therefore Mr. Blake saies thus, viz. that though the Eunuch com∣ing to the River might saie heres wa•…•…er what hinders why I should not be dipped, yet there is little probability that Paul could say so in Iudas his house in straight street in Damascus, or the Iaylor at his Prison in Phillippi, I say it is very like∣ly it was so indeed, that they had not any Ponds or Rivers in their houses, to dip in, but will it follow therefore that they were baptized in the house without dip∣ping? no such matter by Mr. Bls. favour, but rather that sith there was not water enough for their dipping within doors, as there was for the Eunuchs dipping with∣out, therefore they went out to some water or other that they might be baptized, i. e. dipped conveniently, as the Eunuch was, and that may possibly not be farre, for many a one that hath not brooks nor ponds in their houses, yet have them oft not far from their doors, and that Iudas had not so who can tell? but whether he had or no, the matter is not great, sith he lived not far from much water however whilest he was living in Damascus, for were not Abana and Parphar Rivers of Da∣mascus though not for Namans disease, yet for dipping full as good as Iordan it self, and all other waters of Israel.

Thirdly, See how miserably Mr. Baxter is mistaken, he would make men be∣lieve, if they would be such Idiots, as to take his single word for it, against the expresse word of God, that in the Countrey of the Iaylor water was so scarce that he could not be dipped over head, whereas (oh that Mr. Baxter would see how the Lord hath left him to discover his too hasty galloping over the Sripture) it is related that a River ran just by the same City of Phillippi where he dwelt, even that, by the side of which Paul preached, and prayer was wont to be made, where also Lidya, and her houshold were converted and baptized, and all this no further off then in the very same chapter, where the Iaylors baptism is spoken of viz. Acts 16. 13, 14, 15.

I perceive this scarcity of water is made a mighty Argument among you against dipping, some saying that water for dipping was not to be had in the houses of the disciples that were baptized, therefore they received no more then some asper∣sion, or infusion within, some speaking as though water for dipping were not to be had in whole Cities and Countreys where the disciples dwelt, thus doth not onely Mr. Baxter, who denies a sufficiencie of water for dipping over head to be in that Country where the Jaylor dwelt, but also Senior Mr. Simpson one of you my Ash∣ford opposers, who in a letter under his hand to a neighbor of his (much of which is partim directe & verbatim partim oblique & collateraliter, out of Mr. Blake, so that it stands or falls in him, and of the rest that is not translated thence into his turn, some already is, and some that is not yet, is to be spoken to as I go along) tells us that there was not any water in Jerusalem wherein so many as were there baptized, in so short a time, at that time of the year when water was more scanty, could possibly have been dipped.

What a strange conceit is this? what not water enough in nor yet about all Ie∣rusalem to dipp a man over head in? for sith he saies not so many, the same water course I hope that one can be dipped in, may also serve to dipp a thousand; shall we think that in the greatest drought that could happen all those brooks the Scrip∣tures mentions viz. Cedron and Siloam, and the fountain of Gyhon, and the Conduit of the upper pool, which ran with several streams, and were at one place all coincident with Cedron, were dryed up so that not a place could be found of

any competent depth for men to dip in?

But perhaps what Mr. Baxter saies concerning Aenon upon the report of tra∣vellers viz. that even the River Aenon it self where Iohn baptized because there was much water, is found to be a small brook, that a man may almost step over, or as I find it expressed to me in a letter to a neer and deer friend of mine, upon the credit of eye witnesse historians, Aenon was but a small purl scarcely knee deep at the deepest, so Mr. Simpson may say, but it is on his own head if he do, concerning these brooks, that were about Ierusalem, to all which I shall for brevities sake dispatch this answer here now I am about it.

And first I intreat Mr. Simpson to consider that this serves not his turn howe∣ever, if Cedron and Siloam, and the rest that were without the City, and the stream also that ran through the City, from the fountain of the old pool into Ce∣dron, should be all such as Aenon is supposed to be, sith the fishpool Bethesda, at which lay a great multitude of impotents, and into which one amongst the rest desired to be put, or cast (for the word is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) but could not, was both deep∣er and broader then so, and convenient for many to dip in at once, for if we may credit Bethesda it self, the very name instructs us in no lesse 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 being in english no other then the house of flowing down, so called for the concurrence, and confluence of many waters thereinto, see Calvin upon the place, who tells you that it was a pool he thinks, into which water did flow down continually, through either channels or pipes, that the Priests (for it was neer the Temple) might as well be furnisht with water for their sacrifices, as the people were with sacrifices themselves in the sheep market wherein it was; others think, and as I take it Be∣za in his Anotations, that it was a pool at which cattel drank, and in which they used to be plunged; whereof saith he there could not but be great store in Ieru∣salem: so much may well serve without any more to salve the sore eyes of Mr. Simpson.

As for Mr. Baxter ile bate him his almost. and yet he will not get much by the matter, for as I have seen others baptized by totall dipping in the like, so was I seen to be baptized my self in a place of so little latitude, that an active man might make shift to step over, not almost but altogether, in which yet there is wa∣ter enough left behind to baptize a thousand, if not a million more in the same man∣ner, and so, not to say how possible it is, if not a thousand to one that Aenons eye witnesses never sounded Aenons depth in all places, nor secondly how possi∣bly a brook might be much swerved up since then, & somwhat shallowed in so ma∣ny Generations, nor thirdly how possible it is to deepen the shallowest stream that is very easily in order to such a purpose, for I have seen ancle deep streams so ordered as I speak of, more then once or twice for a need, though that Aenon had need to be made deeper in those places, where Iohn did baptize, may be twenty times told by some Travellers, that love to hear themselves talk, before I shall believe it once;

Not to say any thing I say of these, let Aenon be but knee deep if you will, ex¦perience hath so taught the expedience of knee deep to dip in to my self, and other Baptizers that I know, that as we have dipt persons oft where it hath not bin so deep, so, except in such a channel where we cannot well avoid it, we choose now not to go in much deeper.

See Fourthly how all your three Worthies Mr. Blake, Mr. Baxter and Mr. Cook do deceive you, as being indeed deceived themselves, and that in a manner so plain that none but Blind Seers can look beside it, for though each of the three were a∣lone in each of those other errors, which they severally utter in your last joint quo∣tation, and confident commendation of them, yet (wo is me may England say that my leaders are so misled) the whole Trinity of them is at unity, but against all veri∣ty in this, even in the very thing in which principally you would have us mind them, for whereas, as an instance that baptism was not by dipping, they all alledge that

the Iailor was baptized at midnight in his house, and therefore probably not in such a way as dipping, that he was baptized about midnight is true enough, but that he was baptized in his house, is so contrary to truth, that a very child may find the falsenesse of that assertion, for howbeit Mr. Cook saies plain-ly, its like the waters they had within doores at midnight sufficed, and Mr. Baxter more plain-ly, that the Iailor was baptized in the nightin his house, and Mr. Blake most plain-ly, tis sure there was not many waters nor rivers in the Iailors dwel∣ling, and it is as sure that they i. e. the Iailor and the Apostles went not out in the night to any such places as were fit to dip in, yet what saith the word in plain truth? no lesse then this, that the Iailor after he was baptized brought them in∣to his house and set meat before them, and rejoiced: for it is said first, that upon the earth-quake, and Pauls crying out to him, that he should do him∣self no harm, the Iailor hasted into Paul and Silas and brought them out, se∣condly that they upon his then inquiry told him what he should do to be saved, and preached the word to him and all his, whereupon in this intertime, i. e. between the time of the Iailors bringing them out, and his bringing them in again, he took them and washed their stripes, and was baptized he and all his straightway. Thirdly, that when he had brought them into his house, which words compared with verse the 30. where it is said he brought them out, shew clearly that he, and his were with them still without hearing the word, washing them, and sub∣mitting to be baptized i. e. immergendo washed of them, he made them eat, and rejoiced: now what man, but one minded to overlook what likes him not, can chuse but see this to the confutation of these three mens opinions? which I doubt because it is theirs more then any thing else, may be the opinion of 3000: that the Iailor first brought them out, and then washed their stripes, and was baptized, and then brought them in, and rejoiced with them is clear.

Rantist.

You have spoke long enough to little purpose to this, for I am not yet of your mind; pray let us see what you will say to those worthy mens writings, in dis∣proof of the proofs that you have brought.

Baptist.

I come then to consider what is said by either any, or all of these three repug∣nants in exception against what is said by us for the way of dipping, having spoken already to the first as you desire in its several parts:

The next exception I find Mr. Baxter makes against what we say is this, the word signifies saith he, to wash as well as to dip, and so is taken when applied to other things as Mar. the 7. 4. 8. and herein he sums up in short the whole mind of Mr. Cook and Mr. Blake also in this matter, who say viz. Mr. Blake p. the 4. 5. to Mr. Blackwood, that Scapula saies 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies to dip, to drown, and sometimes to wash, the Septuagint use the words baptizing, and washing promis∣cuously; Mr. Cook p. 11. to A. R. much what the very same viz. that baptism signifies washing, and p. 13. quoting the same Scripture Mark the 7. here you have saith he, the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to wash.

To all which I answer, but briefly, having toucht at this before, who doubts of this that the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies to wash? how is it possible that it should not signifie washing so long as it signifies dipping, dipping being no other then a kind of washing? what ever word signifies properly, and primarily (as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 doth) to dip, drown, plunge in, overwhelm with, put under water, must needs be sup∣posed secondarily, consequently, and even thereupon to signifie •…•…shing, nei∣ther does it signifie sometimes onely to wash, as Mr. Blake observes out of Scapula, but it alwayes signifies to wash, there being no dipping, but signifies a washing, dipping being not a dipping onely, but necessarily a washing also; wherefore very oft baptizing and washing are, and well may be; promiscuously used each for the other, but what will the men make of all this, that because baptism signifies a

kind of washing viz. the washing of its own kind, or such a washing as dipping, * 1.14 plunging, or swilling is, therefore it signifies all manner of washing: a kind of washing it ever did, but all kind of washing it never did yet signifie since the world stood: a washing by immersion and submersion is the sense out, a washing by infusion is not, but as for your washing by bare aspersion so far is it from being the true sense of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that it is no kind of washing at all, yea if you will go criti∣cally to work (as Mr. Blake would have us) about 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, between which yet there is no such difference, as he imagines, and keep close to the signifi∣cation of the words, both your petty powring, and your spoil-all sprinkling will be discarded so far from the name of baptizing, that they will not be found to meet it half way, nor on a true account to amount to so much as the name of washing, for that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies originally to dip, plunge or overwhelm, and therefore consequenly to wash, we deny not, that being indeed not onely a way, but also the most effectual and usual way of washing: therefore 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is sometimes promiscuously used with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, both which ori∣ginally signifie washing, of what kind soever, whether that which is by dipping in water, or rubbing water upon the subject, when they are each applied unto the other, but as for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the one signifies to powre out onely, the other to sprinkle onely, but neither this nor that alone, and abstract from some other concurrent action, as rubbing the water on thats so applied (which was never done at any Rantizing that ever I saw) doth yet signifie so much as any kind of washing whatsoever: therefore though 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is rendred not onely by mergo, submergo to dip or plunge over head and ears, but also by lavo, abluo to wash clense or wash away, and very fitly sith baptizing or dipping is really and truly such a washing, yet'•…•… 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is rendred effundo to powre out and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by aspergo•…•… perfundo, irroro, to sprinkle or moisten, as it were with a small dew, but neither of them by lavo, abluo, nor do they signifie such a thing as to wash, nor are they such a thing as washing in any wise, so far are they therefore from bearing the name of baptism, that you may as well render baptizing by rantizing, and say to baptize is to sprinkle, which is a thing that all men in the world cannot shew to be so much as a remote sense of the greek word baptize, as render rantizing by bap∣tizing, that is to say that to sprinkle is to baptize, which likewise can never be shewen to be so much as a remote sense of the word Rantize: if therefore 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 come not so neer 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as to be idem with it in tertio to be latind with it into lavo, or to be englisht with it so much as by the name of washing, which is but a secondary sense of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, how will you ever reach your rantism into the name of baptism it self, whose prime signification is submergo i. e. to over∣whelm, out of which prime signification that it should be used continually, as you say the spirit uses it in Scripture, where all along you strain a point to have it eng∣lisht washing, and never overwhelming at all (for pray where shall it be englisht by the term of overwhelming? just no where by your good will) is a piece of simple slipslop to utter.

Rantist.

But Mr. Blake tells you another tale that I believe will make you eat these words you last declared, for whereas you talk so much of dippings being the prime sig∣nification of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 what then? he p. 2. saies in way of answer to that, that there is nothing more ordinary then to have words used out of their prime signi∣fication.

Baptist.

Nothing more ordinary then to have words out of their prime signification? what a strange extraordinary expression is that? I dare undertake to shew him something more ordinary then that, and venture to avouch that it is more ordina∣ry to have words used in their prime signification, then out of it, or else I know not how we should handsomely understand one another in any tongue: for how∣beit

there is now and then a word figuratized besides its proper meaning, yet that a secondary, borrowed, bastard, forraign sense should carry words so quite a∣way from their own proper, direct, prime, proxime, native signification that we must take them in no sense, no not in their genuine sense more ordinarily, then in those secondary senses, is such a peece of senslesse, as will hardly enter into the center of my understanding while I have one, yet so do you dote upon the farre fetcht senses of words, when they onely, though never so untowardly too, may be wrested in o serve your turn, that nothing is more ordinary among your selves in∣deed in such a case, then to shut out the aptest, the amplest acceptions altogether, and force the first senses from having to do at all with those words whose own, whose plainest, whose neerest, whose likeliest, whose chiefest, properest senses they are: and on this wise do you deal with the truest sense and signification of this word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which because it signifies sometimes onely, as Mr. Blake observes (which is however argumentum ad ho•…•…m) though I grant it signifies ever, yet onely secondarily to wish, therefore, if you may have the vote of it, it must ne∣ver sigaifie any thing else, and never be interpreted by its prime signification at all, it signifies i. e. usually, and for the most part and primarily (for who can take Mr Blake as meaning otherwise) to dip or drown &c. and sometimes, quoth he out of Scapula, to wash, but if I should ask Mr. Blake how often he would give it leave throughout the whole new testament to be taken in that sense, which his word sometimes annexed to the sense of washing shewes he takes to be the most usual and common sense of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 viz. to dip, plunge, or overwhelm, I am afraid he will change his note, and say it signifies alvvayes to vvash, and not allovv the sense of it to dip, or plunge so much as sometimes, no not yet so much as once throughout the gospel: yea I demand of him vvhere he dare give vvay to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to be construed in its prime sense, i. e. to dip, overvvhelm, or in vvhat one place he vvill be pleased to let us give it any other then the secondary, that onely some∣time signification of vvashing? I doubt it must be contented for him, and all the Rantists to be vvithout its neerest, to be stript of its plainest, to be banisht and forct for ever from bearing its truest sense, in all places of the book of God unlesse they may be forc't once to be vvithout their vvills, for in all the Scripture that I knovv of, where the vvord 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is placed, it is thus displaced from its principall signification by them, so that all our desires to them on its behalf that it may sometimes at least be granted the sense of dipping shall in no vvise prevail for its ovvn sense to be allovved it: I remember but these places at present vvhere the vvord 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is used, vvhere vvater baptism of persons is spoken of viz. Mat. 3. 6. 11. 13. 14. 16. 28. 19. Mark 14. 5. 8. 9. 10. and the 16. 26. Luke 3. 7. 12. 16. 21. L•…•…e 7. 29. 30. Iohn 1. 25. 26. 28. and the 3. 22. 23. 26. and the 4. 1. 2. A•…•…t. 1. 5. and the 2. 38. 41. and the 8. 12. 13 16. 36. 38. 39. and the 9. 18. and the 16. 15. 33. and the 18. 8. and the 22. 16. Rom. 6. 3. 4. 1 Cor. 1. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. Gal. 3: 27. Col. 2. 12. in vvhich of all these places dare they allovv us the prime signification of the vvord? not so much as one I dare say, yet Scapula quotes but tvvo places viz. Mark 7. Luke 11. vvherein it is taken to vvash, vve vvould be contented to allovv them that not sometimes onely, as they talk of, but that alvvayes it shall signifie to vvash, for dipping indeed being, a chief kind of vvashing it cannot be rationally gainsayed, onely (proh dolor) vve must not once english it dipping or overvvhelming, no not by any meanes in the world.

But Sirs, though you are so accustomed to that trick, so that it is to be feared you will be hardly brought off it viz. to have nothing more ordinary among you, then to carry vvords, and specially the vvord 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 clearly, and that not some∣times onely, but continually besides its prime sense of dipping, into its farre off sense of vvashing, and into its non-sense of sprinkling (for it signifies no such thing as that) yet vve have no such custome, nor the Churches of God, but to take

vvords ordinarily in the sense vvhich they most properly bear.

Rantist.

But Mr. Blake denies dousing over head to be the prime signification of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and tells you p. 3. that the great Criticks in the Greek tongue will not allow you your sence to douse over head and years, to be the prime, distingishing between 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, making the Latter to bear your sense, the former to be a dipping more light and overly, as Luke the 16. and the 24. it is evidently used.

Baptist.

O thats another matter he should have said so then at first, for because he talk∣ed that words are used out of their prime signification, and among the rest this word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, for the sake of which he saies the other, out of its prime significa∣tion of dipping, I took it for granted (and so I might well, for he allowes it to signifie washing in Scripture, and what sense is it that he pleads against by that speech, viz. that words are oft used out of their prime significations?) I took it I say for granted, and seriously a grant it is if he well examine it, that he took dip∣ping, or overwhelming to be the prime sense of baptism, unlesse almost a page of of his be pennd in vain, and dares he now deny it? that is worse then all the rest: but I wonder what is if that be not the prime? for I am sure the prime is not to wash: it is (quoth he) a dipping more light and overly then so.

To which I say let the persons baptizing dip the persons baptized as lightly and overly as they will so they dipp them, and not some of them barely, for then I know they must do it underly also, for what man is truly to be baptized, that man is to be put under water, not a part of him only, as also what part of a man lesse or grea∣ter, yea if it be but the tip of the finger, that he instances in as an overt dipping, is truly to be dipped, must not be dipped so overly as that it is not dipped underly, I mean put truly under water, for else it is not properly a dipping of that part: but I would I could hear some of those Criticks (for he mentions not one of them) that distinguish him so besides the way of God by their fair false glosses upon the words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, making 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 on∣ly to signify that we stand for i. e. a total overwhelming, and baptizing no more then some dribling kind of darting some part of the subject under water, for verily they are but crackt braind Criticks to me, if the Lexicons be at all to be heeded: for howbeit 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 doth signify the same that we saie 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies, viz. dip∣ping or being under water, and it may be more deeply then 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, for that is as it were Imum petere to go down to the very bottom, yet neither doth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signify any lesse then we say, and that primarily also, viz. at least to put under and overwhelm with water, which is enough for us, or else it would never be rendred by obruo ond submergo, which words if they do not as truly expresse as total a covering with water as subco, ingredior, which are the senses by which 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is rendred then I have as much sense in my heel as my head; but if those Cric∣ticks think this no right rendition, let them do the world that right as to take up∣on them to correct those Errata's in the Lexicons that are extant, and to turn Lex∣icographers themselves.

The third exception of Mr. Baxter against what hath been before said in proof of dippping is this, viz.

The thing signifyed is set forth by the phrase of washing or sprinkling and the sign need not exceed the thing signifyed.

And in this fashion argue both Mr. Blake, and Mr. Cook especially, out of whose larger drivings home of this head, a man that hath but half an eye may see Mr. Baxter borrowed most of that little he saies in exception against what we say for dipping; abridging two or three pages of Mr. Cook, viz. page 19, 20, 21. into these two or three lines of his, and coting the same Scriptures, and no other, and that in the self same order, and no other, then Mr. Cooke doth, viz. the 1 Cor. 6. 11. Tit. 3. 5. Heb. 10. 22. Isa. 44. 3. Ioel 2. 28. Ezek. 36. 26. 1 Pet. 1. 2. Heb. 12. 24.

To which I say it is true, some but not all the things signified, nor yet that which is most immediately signified, and therefore mainly to be resembled, are set forth by the phrase of washing, pouring and sprinkling, and it is as true that the sign need not exceed the thing signified, but the sign need be adaequate to the thing signified, and so is not any kind of washing, but that of dipping under wa∣ter, nor doth that exceed the thing signified, for that which is the main matter, the signandum or the radical matter to all the rest, is the death, burial and resurrecti∣on of Christ, and ours spiritually with him, which things are no way Analogized in sprinkling and pouring, but onely by a burial under water, and bringing up again, which yet are the only things that these three men plead to have left un∣signifyed, and unrepresented in the sign, but we must have them all not only sig∣nified, but also, as much as may be, lively pictured out in the sign of baptism, this cannot be by infufion or aspersion, for they are too narrow to resemble all, but they may be and are in submersion and immersion, for these are neither too narrow, nor too wide, but just adaequately resembling the signata, there must be a suffi∣ciency in the sign to the end saies Mr. Cook p. 20. namely to represent the spirituall grace, though yet p. 17. he knew not any word of God, wherein this represen∣tation is necessarily either expressed or implied.

Now the whole spiritual grace being the death, burial and resurrection of Christ, together with all the benefits thereof, viz. the washing of our souls from guilt as to justification, from filth as to sanctification, as by the blood of Christ sprinkled and his spirit poured, respect must be had that, as neer as can be, all these must be represented, and that the Elements and actions be neither so overmuch, as may take off the heart from the spiritual to the Corporal thing, as we might easily do if we should do more then dipp under, and raise up, or should hold so long under water as almost to suffocate the subject, nor yet so little, as Mr. Cook saies well, as not clearly to represent the spiritual grace the whole spiritual gracebeing therfore all these things forenamed, care must be had that they be all Analogized, as far as it is possible, and especially the main, which is fundamental to all the rest, viz. Christs death, burial and resurrection; for this however ought to be done, nor ought the other altogether to be left undone, but it sprinkling be the way then the main thing is left undone, for there is no representation of Christs death, buriall and resurrecti∣on.

Rantist.

And if Totall Dipping be the way, then many things are left undone, for there is no representation of the blood of sprinkling, and the Spirits powr∣ing.

Baptist.

Not so neither with your leave, for howbeit in bare infusion, and aspersion death, burial and resurrection are excluded, yet in submersion and emersion, both pouring and sprinkling are concluded, the greater wettings containing in, and un∣der them the lesse, but the lesse no way reaching to the other.

Moreover that remission of sins by the blood of Christ sprinkled is represented sufficiently in emersion, as well as in aspersion, not so the death, burial and re∣surrection in Aspersion consult a learned Author for this, that was for as∣spersion as well as your selves, though I believe he saw submersion to be the better way, i. e. Bucan, who in page 668. as I have hinted above saies thus, viz.

Illa in aquam Mersio, sive aspersio perspicue denotat Rantismon, id est, asper∣sionem sanguinis Christi in peccatorum remissionem, & justitiae imputationem; mora autem &c.

So that we see he counted submersion, though it exceed that one part of the thing signified, viz Christs blood sprinkled, yet to signify, & represent that vertually as well as other things; I conclude therefore notwithstanding any exceptions that Either Mr

Ba. Mr. Cook, or Mr. Blake hath put in hitherto against what hath been said by us in proof that baptism was by dipping in the primitive time, that that was the way of baptism then.

Rantist.

But Mr. Blake hath many more Arguments then those you have yet spoken to whereby he cleerly evinces it, that baptism was not only by dipping then: I hope we shall have your answer to them too, and the rather because they are of some weight, and therefore you are the more willing to slip by them: First (saith he) if the way of baptism were only dipping, then the Baptizer must put the bapti∣zed over head in the water, and after a space receive them up again, otherwise he could not say in your sense I baptize thee, but we read of no such thing any where in Scripture, we find Christ and the Eunuch going to the water and coming thence, but neither John nor Philip putting them into the water or taking them from thence p. 8.

Baptist.

I strange that Mr. Blake should grant as he doth above p. 6. that Philip and the Eunuch are fitly said to go into the water, and yet say so shortly after, we find no more then their going to the water, and from it again; how fitly can they be said to go into the water and out of it, that go but to and from it I have shew∣ed already, but tis more strange to me that he should so far forget himself, as to say we read of no such thing in Scrip•…•…ure as of Iohn and Phillips putting Christ and the Eunuch into the water, or taking them from thence, for we read plainly that Christ was baptized of Iohn into Iordan, and in Iordan, and we read that Phi∣lip and the Eunuch went down both into the water, and Philip baptized him, and that Christ came up out of the water, and that Philip and the Eunuch came up out of the water, if all this be not partly an expression, partly an implication of the same thing that Mr. Blake saies we no where read of, then I shall never trust my spectacles more, for what shall we think was done to Christ by Iohn when it is said he was baptized by him into Iordan, if he was not dipped, overwhelmed put under the water? was he sprinkled into Iordan? and what shall we think Philip did to the Eunuch when it is said he baptized him, after they were both gone down into the water, if he did not put him under it? did he no more then sprinkle, or pour a few drops of water on him? either of those might have been done as easily, and more if they had never gone into the water, yea •…•…f they had never went so much as to the water at all; and when it is said of Christ and the Eunuch that they came up out of the water, is it not necessarily implyed (and therefore what need it be expressed) that Iohn and Philip, who put them under the water did take them up again after a space, and not hold them alwaies under it? for if they had, how they could have come up out of it I know not.

Had Mr. Blake therefore more believed the Scripture, then he did Mr. Cook, from whom he borrowed this Argument (and lent it again to Mr. Simpson of Bethersden, or else Mr. Simpson stole it, for without any cotation of Mr. Blake he hath it word for word in that forenamed Letter of his, which he desired should be communicated) he would not have transpenn'd Mr. Cooks matter, who saies p. 16. of his there is not the lest hint that John doused, cast or plunged Christ into the water, and took him out of the water, into another phrase viz. we read of no such thing any where in Scripture that John and Philip put Christ and the Eunuch in∣to the water, and took them up again, but it is your fashion to follow by impli∣cit faith, and to take up things at a venture by tradition one from another as the people do from you.

Rantist.

Now you talk of dipping under water, and taking up thence again, I pray tell me how it is possible for the baptizer to dip the whole baptized under water,

and to lift him up again above the water? sith for this the strength of more men then one is necessary: perhaps you will say the person to be baptized may be an assistant, and an agent in the businesse so far himself as to go into the water, and stand there up to the middle, and then to yield the rest of his body to be put under •…•…y the administrator; but this is for a man for the most part to dip him∣self, and divinity doth not admit of se-baptism, and permits not the baptized to be agents, but in this act will have them to be patients, and baptized by o∣thers; is there any command for them to go into the water?

Baptist.

I think Mr. Simpson of Bethersden, and you have laid your heads together, you jump so right in one mind in this matter, for in this manner, and almost in the very same words doth he speak in that letter of his I spake of above, divinity admits not say you of se-baptism &c. what your sinodical divinity admits of as good baptism I weigh not, and what you call se-baptism I know not, but if you call that self-baptizing for the baptized to go with the baptizer into the water, and there submit himself to be overwhelmed in the water by the hands of the admini∣strator putting him under, the Scripture admits of such a se-baptism as this, and if we had no command for acting so far in order to our own baptism, yet we have president so plain as is equivalent, witnesse the Eunuch that went down with Phi∣lip into the water, and yet (saving your ignorance, which permits not the bapti∣zed to be agents) Paul had command to be so farre an agent in order to his bap∣tism as to do more then barely sit still viz. to arise, and put himself in a posture sui∣table to that purpose, neither can you totally deny him to be truly baptized and overwhelmed in water according to the will of Christ (and that is sufficient) that betakes himself not onely to the water, but also so farre into it, that the dispenser may conveniently put him under it, unlesse you suppose that the dispenser of old did carry the disciple in upon his back, and then dash him in against his will, and that were in the disciple the part of a proper patient indeed; besides doth the con∣demned mans being agent, and assistant so far toward the cutting off of his head, as toly down, and fit his neck to the block make him a se-slayer, or accessary so far to his own death that you can properly call him a murtherer of himself? what dribling Divinity is this?

Rantist.

Mr. Blake saies surther that if the Scripture way of baptizing were thus to dip or drown them, the baptizer and baptized must both put off their garments, and lay them aside for that businesse, but we find no such thing mentioned, we find saith he, one in the new testament stoned, and the laying aside of the gar∣ments of the witnesses is more then once mentioned, but among all the multitudes that were baptized there is not one word of un lothing for that end, nor yet of the putting on of garments after baptism, when yet sometimes there had been all reason for the mention of it, as in the case of Paul, of whom after he was bap∣tized, it is said he received meat, and was strengthned, but not that apparell was put on him, nor dry and warm clothes applied to him, which we should sure have heard of, if he had bin dipt over head in water.

Baptist.

If by putting off of clothes Mr. Blake mean, as it appears he doth by his talk of naked dipping in the same place, such a putting them off as is in order to putting on others fit for such a purpose in their stead, I know not onely no necessity, but no modesty also in such a divestment; nor yet does Mr. Tombes I dare say, though in his expressions viz. that informer dayes it was thought no immodesty, and that there is no necessity that persons be dipt naked, Mr. Baxter is so abominably un∣ingenuous as to wrest his words into such base and sinister senses, and to abuse him to the world as if he had meant it was no immodesty in old time to be dipt naked, and as if he held it lawfull to be dipt naked, though not necessary, when inge∣nuity

of judgement, and such love as he pretends to Mr. Tombes would have con∣strued his meaning to be this, viz. that it was counted no immodesty in former times, though it be now by Mr. Baxter, to be dipt in that way, wherein we are dipt, which is not naked, as Mr. Baxter bruits it, and that it is not necessary to be dipt naked, as Mr. Blake Mr. Baxter and Mr. Cook think it is, if persons be baptized by a totall dipping; and as for the Scriptures mentioning of the putting off, and on of their clothes in their addresses to, and dresses after baptism, there was not onely no necessity, but at all no expediency in the mention of such a mat∣ter: yea both reason and nature it self suggesting how needful that was to be done, it would have been very vain and superfluous to have talked on it: as for the double mention that is made viz. by Luke Acts 7. 58. of the witnesses that stoned Stephen laying aside their garments at the feet of a young man, whose name was Saul, who is said Acts 8. 1. to be consenting to his death, and also by Paul him∣self Act. the 22. 20. confessing to God his persecutions, and how when the blood of the Martyr Stephen was shed he was standing by and consenting to his death, and kept the raiment of them that shew him, Mr. Blake cannot be so silly as to think that that clause concerning those mens clothes was put in as a piece remark∣able, or worth recording of it self, or in any other respect in the world, save for this end onely as it was an expression of the malice, that Saul, who was afterward converted and called Paul, did at that time bear against the truth, for surely had there not been that good reason wherefore, the laying aside of their clothes had not been worth our notice, nor should it ever have been mentioned simply for it self sake; but now there was no such weighty end as this nor any end, or purpose at all in order to which it was needfull to mention the circumstance of their clothing, and unclothing about the administration of baptism, it is enough that we have record∣ed of the thing in the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 viz. that, and how, and why it was done, but it would have been frustraneous, and even every way endlesse to have minded us of such impertinent appertenances to baptism as the dressing and undressing of the disciples: if any one tell me a story that such and such infants were sprinkled at such places, is not that relation sufficient, and compleat unlesse he tell me how the infants were drest in their blankets, and what a fidling was made by the mid∣wife, and the minister about the unpinning and turning up of their face clothes? is not the story of Naamans washing himself seven times in Iordan full enough to our use, because there is no mention of his putting off and on? Christ washt his disciples feet, and wiped them, it may well be supposed they put off their shoes first, and put them on again, yet there is no mention of that: Mr. Blake thinks that among all the multitudes that were baptized there must have been some words about their unclothings, and clothings, and specially that there was reason that we should have heard that Paul had dry and warm clothes put on him after his baptism, as well as mention of meat given him, if he had been baptized by im∣mersion, because he had been weak; but what crude conceits are all these? it was related that he was weak through fasting three daies, and that was but pro∣per, and answering to the other to tell how after he eat his meat, and gathered strength, but the other must have come in (for ought I see) without either sense or reason: and sith he stranges that among so many baptized, no mention should be made of their preparations viz. the seponing, and resuming their garments, I wonder what mention he finds of the accommodations that those multitudes had that were circumcised in Ahrahams family in one day, and in the City of the Shechemits, and those thousands in the wildernesse, after the long cessation, both before and after circumcision? and yet that was such a tedious bloody, sore, and painfull piece of service, as required (no question) ten times more attendance with clothes and other accomplishments till it was whole, then this of baptism, even in that so troublesome way to you wherein we dispense it.

Rantist.

But pray give me leave a little: Now we talk of their Cloaths, I remember that no sooner was Christ come out of the water, but immediately the spirit drove him into the wilderness, the spirit of the Lord caught away Philip and the Eunuch went on his way rejoicing, Act. 8. whence I argue thus, viz. if they put off their Cloathes they did not stay to put them on, but went away naked, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 they had them on, then being as you say, dipped over head and ears, they must have worn them wet, but the first had been unseemly, the later prejudiciall to their health.

Baptist.

Well argued Mr. Simpson again: as sure as can be you have got his Arguments by root of heart, for these also are Mr. Simpsons very words in that letter of his above mentioned.

Rantist.

Whose Argument this is it matters not, I suppose it is past your answer, and here is reason enough in it to disprove Christ and the Eunuchs total dipping, as a meer groundlesse and reasonlesse conjecture, and crotch•…•…t of your own coining, or if you have any thing to say to it I pray let us have it out of hand.

Baptist.

Reason say you? it were well if there were so much as common sense in it, for my part I suppose it a senselesse fancy, but I am sure there is so little truth in the ground of it, that its stark rotten at the very roo•…•…: it is a dispute Ex falso su•…•…po∣sit is, tis taken by you for granted as necessary, when it shall never be yielded to by us for so much as probable, that Christ and the Eunuch were baptized either nak∣ed or else in the cloathes they ware immediately both before or after either: for both Christ (comming purposely to be baptized) and the Eunuch though not thin∣king of baptism till Philip met him, yet returning homeward from Jerusalem, where he had been for some time, were undoubtedly accomodated otherwise, and with change sutable enough to such a businesse.

Secondly, it supposes that both Christ, Philip and the Eunuch, posted all so immediately several waies from the water, that they staied not so much as to co∣ver themselves with other Cloathes, then those they went with into, and came up with out of the water: whereas, as nature it self •…•…orbids us to believe they went in, much more that they went away naked, for common sense forbids us to take the word immediately in so strict a sense, as to think they departed in such ex∣tremity of hast as was no way consistent with the shifting, and so fitting of them∣selves for departure: Immediately doth seldome sound forth such a suddennesse as admits of no intertime, nor invening action at all: yea sometimes it signifies no sooner then some howers, some daies, some years after, according to the nature of the matter asserted in the sentence wherein it hath its use, as Matth. 24. 29. nor doth it expresse any other in Mark 1. 13. where it is said Immediately the spirit drave Christ into the Wildernesse, then within a while after his baptism, as appears not only by Matth. 4. 1. where it is not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which wo•…•…d is there [per act is praedict is] ordinative of another story, but specially by Luke 4. 1. where i•…•…s said plainly that he was returned from Iordan, before it is said he was led into the wildernesse: and had you or Mr. Simpson, compared Scripture with Scripture, or heeded the harmony of the Evangelists, you had saved your selves the labour of all those lines, and lost nothing by it but what is worth nothing, viz. the Argument it self, for as if I should say immediately after the child was sprinkled the Gossips and friends went along with it home, it were absurd to understand me so, as if I meant that they did not stay so long af∣ter, as to wipe the childs face, and put the face cloathes over it, and lap it up a∣gain in the loose blanket to keep it warm: so no lesse absurdity is it to understand that speech, viz. And immediately the spirit caught away Philip, and imme∣diately after Christ was baptized he went into the wildernesse, so strictly as if

there was not staying so much as to reassume any garments they had laid aside, in order to the more conveniency of their baptizing.

One thing more I cannot but take notice of in this clause as tis Mr. Simpsons and that is what little proportion, if not contradiction, it holds with the words of Mr. Simpson (or rather of Mr. Blake used by Mr. Simpson) immediately pre∣cedent to these in his letter, for he will not give way to it at any hand that Christ and the Eunuch went into the water, or at least that they were put into the water by Iohn and Philip, or taken thence, but onely in the phrase of Mr. Blake, at the third hand of Mr. Cook, that they went to the wa•…•…er, and came thence, and yet here he forgets himself so far as to the confutation of himself and them to speak in the phrase o•…•… Scripture concerning Christ and the Eunuch, viz. that they came out of the water, which if they could do, and neither went into it, nor were put into it, then I know not how to understand plain English.

Rantist.

Well this is all but by the businesse, let us go on and consider what more Mr. Bl. brings to disprove dipping to be the primitive custome, he tells you further p. 9. it was the Apostles way to baptize disciples as soon as they were become Converts the same day, rather sometimes the same houre, as we see in the Eunuch, the Jaylor, and Lydia, and multitudes of others; but conversion of Disciples necessari∣ly happened when there was no season for dipping, the Element of water being o∣ver Cold for that service.

If any object that in those Conntreyes there was no danger in the coldest times.

He answers, the commission being for all Nations disciples were made in all Countreys; how soone saith he came the word to this Nation? &c. sometimes therefore saith he the water and weather was too cold for dipping.

Secondly, the Number of Converts were so numerous 3000, 5000. in one day that there was no possibility of baptizing in that Manner, Acts 2. 41. and the 44.

Thirdly, Sometimes the Baptizers were in that condition that they were un∣able for that work in that way, as Paul and Silas men newly taken out of the stocks in the Inner Prison, with such stripes that their Convert was fain forthwith to wash them, in this case they were unfit to wade into the water for that work, and had they made any such adventure the Scripture would not have been si∣lent.

Fourthly, Sometimes the baptized have not been in case for dipping and plun∣ging, which was Pauls case upon the Aparition of the vision he was lead into Da∣mascus, where he continues without meat or drink three daies, and upon A∣nanias his comming in, and instructing of him he is baptized, and when he had received meat, saith the text, he was strengthned, will any believe he went out in this case with Ananias into the water, over head in water before the taking of any sustenance?

Baptist.

That persons were baptized as soon as ever they became Converts, and could be discerned to be disciples, even the same houre commonly without delay is an undeniable truth, for that and no other was the very period of time at which, what ever their parents were, they were deemed to have true title to baptism: for neither if their parents were wicked were such excluded as were, nor if the parents were godly, were such admitted as were not converted upon the Account of the fathers goodnesse or badnesse, but as they believed or not themselves, and this makes me the more amazed at it, that it is come to passe since that the faith of the father can now intitle the child to baptism, though the child have no faith at all of his own, and yet I muse more sith you all count infants, at least of believers, to be disciples from the womb, why yet you delay their baptism so long, and do it not at the

same houre of their birth: for whether they be Discipulinati, or discipuli facti if they be disciples (as you falsly suppose they are) if the primitive rule were to baptize persons as soon as ever they appeared to be disciples, then (unlesse you have any special instinct, whereby you know them to begin to be disciples, and in the faith, as many of you count them, about that very houre you baptize them in, and not before) you will appear to be a little tardy in your dispensations by your own rule, though in truth you are too hasty for all this.

Now as to Mr. Blakes terrible conceit, concerning the coldnesse of the water, specially in some weather, when yet, if dipping were the way, there would by means of mens conversion, occasion be ministred to dip in, sith I see occasion will be mi∣nistred to discourse more of winter dipping, when I come to Mr. Baxters grand Arguments, with one of which this is coincident, I shall say nothing to it here, but there speak to both under one, save only that I must here tell Mr. Blake that conversion of disciples necessarily happened when there was no season for dipping without danger, the Climate being, by reason of persecutions that rose against that way, much more over hot then the Element of water can at any time be over cold, for the owning of that service, must it therefore be forborn for fear of ha∣zarding our lives? if no exemption from a hotter service, why from a colder for the lifes sake? which whoever will save shall loose, but whoever will loose for Christs name sake, and the Gospels shall preserve it to life eternal: as for the rest under that head I fully agree with it viz. that whatever that is, there is commission but for one manner of baptism for all nations.

As to the multitude of Converts three thousand, five thousand converted in one day, which shift word for word Mr. Simpson covers his nakednesse with, adding thus much the•…•…eunto, viz. could Peter and those few with him the dispensers of this ordinance have stayed so long in the water, or by dipping every one dipped so many in so short a time?

I answer how many and in how short a time does the man mean? as for the 5000 it is doubtful whether they were all converted in that one day, or whether he speaks not rather o•…•… the whole multitude that believed before, which were 3000 together with those that afterward were added, which might be some 2000 and so 5000 in all; but if there were fully 5000 that then believed, and that they were all at the same time baptized too, which is not said, and tis more probable (for done it must be) that twas done at another time, or else by other hands then by Peter and Iohns, for they were laid hold on in the Temple as they were speaking, but suppose I say that there be at any time full five thousand newly believing in so short a time as one day, if they could not be bap∣tized all in one day they must necessarily, they might lawfully for ought I know stay till the next, but yet 3000 we read were baptized in one day, neither is it such an impossible thing as you, who stumble at every straw, are slugg'd by every rub, and look on duty with such difficulty, as if a Lyon were in the way, would seem to make it, for 5000 to be baptized in one day;

• Multorum manibus Grande levatur Opus,
• Multorum manibus Grande levatur Onus,

Many hands of them that have love to Christ may both lessen, and lighten that service, and suffering that is sustained for him, and make but then some per∣formances, (and such I perceive it is to you tenderlings, that make provision for the flesh to fullfill it in the ease thereof, to dipp many, or be dipped your selves in cold water, or weather) possible, easie, and pleasant, and how many hands there might be at work at once at the dipping of the 3000 besides the hands of the 12. who as occasion was made use of others to dispense the ordinance, it being an inferiour work to their preaching, see Act. the 9. Act. 10. 1 Cor. 1. may be conjectured, when the number of disciples were a hundred and twenty, where if there were but forty dispensers, with what ease might they baptize a 100 a

piece, and do themselves no more wrong neither with abiding in the water, knee deep, or a little more for half an hour together, then he that stands deeper for al∣most a day together, and washes many a hundred sheep, as I have known some do, and that not by plunging onely, but longer padling with each of them by farre then need be in onely dipping persons, and so letting them go again; besides when once 3000 were baptized, how many hands there were ready to baptize not 5000 onely, but 5 times 5000 if occasion were, and that quickly too, is evi∣dent to any rational man that reckons it; for it is a work which when it is once ready to be done, is done in lesser time, then I have seen taken up by the Parish Priest in his dropping, and crossings, and other font fidlings about an infants face: and if you suppose it may ask so much hand for so many persons in so short a time as one day to make themselves ready for such a work, I hope the same time that serves one to undresse and dresse in, which may be some a quarter, or at most not above half an hour, may as easily serve ten thousand, for as if all set at once to sweep every one his own door, a whole City may be clensed in an instant, so e∣very one that is willing addressing himself to the work, a thousand may be rea∣dy as soon as one.

And as for that other conceit of Mr. Blake, which Mr. Simpson transcribes out of his book into his own letter in these words viz. that Paul when he was bap∣tized by Ananias was not in case by reason of his weaknesse to be plunged in wa∣ter over head and ears, as he was not by reason of his stripes to have gone in a deep river or pond, when he baptized the Iaylor, it is as wisdomlesse as any of the rest, for what if he were taken out of the stocks in the inner prison & had such stripes that his convert was fain to wash them, was he therefore so unfit, or was it such a strange adventure (as Mr. Blake proclaimes it) to wade in the water for such a work as the dipping a few persons? could that water that toucht his legs while he waded, be more mischievous to him, then the water that washed the blood of his stripes? and when he was baptized himself, what though he had fasted three daies from food in that sudden extasie of his mind, which time its like he spent in fa∣sting and prayer to the Lord, for behold he prayeth saith the text, yet I trow, as dainty of danger as our Clergy men are, that dare dip their fingers, but not their feet in cold water for Christ, that voluntary keeping under of his body did rather fit, then unfit him for burial with Christ in baptism, which his proud flesh would else not have stoopt to.

Surely Sirs you are men that make so much of every little for Christs sake, that Crosses and diseases your flesh, that you will hardly ever commend your selves as the ministers of Christ did of old 2 Cor. 6. 5. 6. &c. 2 Cor. 11. 26. 27. in much patience, in afflictions, yea in necessities, in stripes and imprisonments, in tumults, in crossings, in labours, in perils of waters, in wearinesse, in painful∣nesse, in watchings often, in hunger and in thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakednesse, in indurance of hardship as good souldiers of Christ 2 Tim. 2. which sith you decline with all the might you can, rather then expose your selves freely to for truths sake, therefore (the Lord have mercy upon your persons) your ministe∣riall capacity will be cashiered.

Rantist.

Well what if it was so in the primitive times, that total dipping was the cu∣stome, must it therefore needs be so now? will it follow that we must follow their fashion in that particular? there may be sundry reasons, whereupon they might baptize in such a manner then, and yet no reason at all why we should tie our selves to the same:

Baptist.

If it was so? what do you speak suppositively of it still? nay verily I hope you will not be so obstinate as to deny, for all your gainsaying it hitherto, but that it was so then, for sure enough it was otherwise then in that way of sprinkling, or

powring, nose dripping or face dipping either, which are in use amongst you; and, keep it out at swords point as long as you can, yet you will be forct to yield to it in the end, when you consider, that your own par•…•…y are fain to flag so far in this case, as to confesse it, for not onely Tilenus reacheth us, that heretofore submer∣sion was the way of baptizing, rather then aspersion, but Dr. Featley also furnishes us (as I have shewed above) with as much as we desire, and if it be once granted (as it is in a manner already by not a few, if not all but Mr. Blake, why else do they trouble themselves, and the world to render reasons why it might be by sub∣mersion in the primitive ages and places of baptizing, but not so now?) I know no reason worth a rush, on which we can be held excused from baptizing by submer∣sion as they did:

Rantist.

Tis true it is confest by some, and if it were granted by all that baptism was then by dipping it were not so material to your cause, nor would you get so much ground by it, sith both such as flatly agree to it, and such as see not cause to agree to it so fully as some do, are all agreed in the grand reason why it was so then, and why it may not be so now at any hand viz. the different temper of those climates, wherein baptism first began, and of ours, wherein it now is practised, theirs being so hot, that there could be no danger by dipping in the coldest times, ours so cold, that it cannot but be very dangerous, if not destructive to life and health.

I grant saith Dr. Featly that Christ and the Eunuch were baptized in the ri∣ver, and that such baptism of men especially in the Hotter Climates hath been, is, and may lawfully be used, but the question is whether no other baptizing is law∣full? or whether dipping in Rivers be so necessary to baptism, that none are accounted baptized, but those that are dipped after such a manner? usitatior olim fuit &c. submersion was more usual in Judea and other warmer Countreys saith Tilenus then aspersion, notwithstanding sith submersion may prove preju∣dicious to the health, specially of such tender infants, as for the most part are baptized now a dayes, we suppose the Church may use which she pleases, and saies Mr. Baxter, if it were otherwise in the primitive times, it would be pro∣ved but occasionall from a reason proper to those Hot Countreys; and saith Mr. Cook though it were granted that in those Hot Countreys they common∣ly washed by going down into the water, and being dipped there, whether in or∣dinary, or ceremonial, or sacramental washing, that will no moee inforce on us a necessity of observing the same in baptism now, then the example of Christ, and the Apostles gesture in the sacrament of the supper, ties us to the same; which was leaning, and partly lying, which was their usual table gesture then, now the ordinary table gesture which is usual among us, is most fit, so the usual manner of washing among us is most fit to be observed in baptism, and that is by powring as well as by dipping: so you see these men are all of a mind, that is was, or at least might be so possibly in the primitive times, but if it were, yet not so in ours, in regard of the coldnesse of our climate.

Baptist.

Then it seems we shall have it amongst you pro confesso that in the Apostles dayes the way was dipping, for though Mr. Cook keeps a loof off in his hypotheti∣cals, saying, though it were granted, and Mr. Baxter, who borrowes well nigh all he saies against dipping from Mr. Cook, Cookes it out but conditionally, say∣ing, if it were otherwise, yet Tilenus takes our part plainly, and the Dr. drawes neerer to us then so, giving it for gone that in those Hot Countryes baptism in ri∣vers was then used, onely whether such manner of dipping in rivers be so necessa∣ry to baptism in all countreyes, this we say saies he is false, and so for ought I see you say all.

But Sirs first, I pray tell me from the very bottom of your consciences, whether

you can conceive that Christ hath appointed two sorts of baptism viz. one kind of baptism for Iudea, and those regions round about Iordan, and another for England, Scotland, France, Spain, Italy, and all the regions round about of the Romish Christendom? whether he hath ordained two baptisms, or rather two different dispensations, whereof one is not baptism, to be used in different places, viz. baptism for the Hot Countryes; and Rantism for the Cold? or whether he hath not rather wild one onely baptism, and that a true one, to be used through∣out the world, Dr Featley, Mr. Cook, Mr. Baxter suppose the first, but where's Mr. Blake all this while their wonted Co•…•…diutor in the cause? verily he leaves them a little here, and lends us his hand, who hold that Christ gave order, and commission for no more then one way of baptism in all Nations; for howbeit he finds in his heart to let Rantism passe for currant baptism among them that take the liberty to maintain, and use it for fear of cold p. 4. yet whatever way of baptism the commission was given out for in those Hotter Countryes, whether submer∣sion or infusion, (for a spersion he ownes not to be it however) the very same way, and no other, he holds the commission to be for in the coldest Nations under hea∣ven; and this will appear if what he saies in his 9. p. be considered, where after he had used this argument to prove that total dipping was not the way of the pri∣mitive baptism viz. because the conversion of disciples, and so consequently their baptism hapned sometimes to be, when there was no season for dipping, the ele∣ment of water being over cold for that service, he speaks thus in way of answer to an objection viz. if any object that in those Hotter Countryes there was no dan∣ger in the coldest times, I answer saith he,

The Commission being for all nations, disciples were made in all Countries: how soon came the word to this nation? &c.

In which words he is void of common sense that doth not discern Mr. Blake siding with us, saying that the way of baptism should be one in all ages, and places, and asserting quite contrary to his fellow disputers against dipping, so far as to confute them to our hands, for whereas they all uno ore with one consent cry out that the reason why they baptized by dipping in the primitive time was because Judea and the regions round about were Hot Countryes, but England is a col∣der climate, and therefore we need not baptize the same way as they d•…•…d: he Tells them plainly that the heat of those Countries could be no reason why they should use totall dipping then, more then other nations, because the commission for bap∣tizing was one and the same, to all Nations, and disciples were then made in all Countryes, as well as in Iudea, in cold Countries as well as in hot, yea how soon saies he, came the word to England it self? baptism therefore in his account should be the same in England as in Iudea, not by dipping in Iudea more then in England because that was a hot Country and this a colder, but the commissi∣on is a like in all places cold and hot, this is the sense those words of his sound forth, but if Mr. Blake were silent in this case, the Scripture speaks loud enough, that there is but one baptism for all Nations, and no Rantism ordained for any, for then the commission must include Christs willingnesse to dispense with colder cli∣mates in this point, and in our understandings at least run thus viz. go and teach all nations, baptizing them that live in hotter countryes, and rantizing them that live in colder climates; he that believeth, and is baptized, if he live in Iudea, or any Hot•…•…er Countrey, or is but rantized if he live in England, or any cold Countrey shall be saved, in which silly unsound sense to understand those Scriptures is to be silly indeed, and without either sense or understanding: and yet thus it may be understood if this be the reason why they in Iudea must be dipt, and we in England must be no more then sprinkled for fear of danger viz. because Iudea was a warm Countrey, and England a cold one: for either Christ did ordain the thing to be done in this different manner in different regions, or he did not, if he did then it must be first some way or other intimated in the

commission, but there it is not, and secondly it must be done accordingly in this different manner in the execution, or else they are high transgressors that do but rantize in Iudaea, and they high transgressors (and so Mr. Blake and Mr. Cook say they are with a witnesse, but will never prove it) that baptize by total dipping in England; but if he did not ordain it to be done in such several waies in several Regions, according as they are hotter or colder, but in one way only in all pla∣ces, then that one way is by baptizing, i. e. dipping onely, or else by rantizing onely; and if by baptizing onely, then they are high undertakers that take up∣on them to correct Christs comm•…•…ssion saying tis better, and safer to rantize only in some places; if by rantizing onely, then (non tutum est ludere cum sacris) they were vain persons that made a M•…•…ygame, and matter of pleasure of the ordinances of Christ, that in Iudaea and the hotter Countreys would chuse to be bap∣tized for delight and coolnesse sake by totall dipping, and bathing in water, rather then otherwise, when Christ ordained no more then sprinkling, or infusi∣on.

Secondly, Sirs you grant so much as to say possibly, probably it might be done by dipping in Iudaea, and the Hot Regions round about, but may not be in these colder, pray tell me from the bottom of your consciences without stifling them, or shuffling with them, so as not to suffer them to speak, what constructions must be made of those Scriptures, which we have canvast to and fro, which relate the man∣ner of their baptizings that then were, viz. Matth. 3. 16. Mark 1. 9. 10. Act. 8. 38. where it is said of the people and Christ, that they were baptized in Iordan, into Iordan, went down into the water, and came up out of the water, yea were buried with Christ in baptism Rom. 6. Collo. 2. yea and of all the o∣ther Scrip•…•…ures, that tell us of the baptism that was dispensed in those Hot Coun∣tries as Iohn 3. 23. Act. 16. 13. 14. 15. 33. where it is said Iohn baptized in Aenon because there was much water, and Paul went out to a Rivers side, and sp•…•…ke the word, at which time Lidya and hers were baptized, and a while after the Jaylor and his, tell me I say what construction all these, and all the Scriptures that talk of baptism, as dispensed in those Hot Countryes, must consequently bear, if it be once granted that such total dipping was the manner of baptizing in the primitive times in those Hotter Countreys, must they not then needs have the senses we put upon them, viz. that Christ and the rest did really descend into the water, were buried under the water, and raised again, and not those forced sen∣ses, into which you would rest them to your own ends, viz. that they went but to the water, and there were wetted onely by sprinkling, or pouring, and from the water again without going into it, or being dipped in it? if you give us one for granted, viz. that in Iudaea and those Hot Countreyes, as Rome, Phillippi, and Collosse the manner of baptizing was by going down into the water, and be∣ing dipped therein in this Sacramental washing, you must necessarily give up also all the interest that you claim in those Scriptures for sprinkling, they being no o∣ther then the relation of what baptism was done in Iudea, and those Hot Coun-Countreys, and not what was done in cold; if then it be supposed that baptism by submersion, and not aspersion, was the custome in the Scripture times, it must semblably be supposed that the Scriptures themselves, that story out the baptism of those times do speak of that Manner of baptism that then was, and not of another, unlesse we suppose it must be interpreted as speaking of another thing, then that it only speaks of, and so consequently this Scripture, this Testament must be supposed to be wholly on our sides, and to speak only of mens baptism by submersion, and you must suppose out some New Testament of Christ, if you can tell where, for the exemplifying of your baby

• Baptizing.
• Rantizing.

And further had you chanced to be born, and bred in such Hot Countryes

where dipping is the Custome, as you happened to come out in such a cold Climate where for fear of cold, more then any thing else, that is to warrant such a pract∣ise, the custome is onely to sprinkle, I appeal to your own consciences, whether such a thing as rantizing would once have come into your minds upon the single search of those Scriptures?

Thirdly, whereas you talk of dipping as the way of baptizing in those Hot Countreyes, both Mr. Baxter and Mr. Cook also p. 15. assert that In those Hot Countrys waters for dipping were scarce and rare, and could not be had in some places in a great distance, and therefore, if sprinkling or pouring only must be used in some Countreyes, and dipping in other some, in all reason and likelyhood, if any places may be exempted from dipping, sprinkling should be dispensed with rather in those Hot Countreyes to save people the paines of travel∣ling so far as they must do for dipping, where the waters were at such a distance from them, and dipping rather appointed to be used in these Countreyes, where the Service, as it is not much more tedious then it was in Iudaea, at least in cold∣est, and sharpest seasons, so may it be moderated as touching the tediousness ther∣of, by being done and dispatcht through the vicinity of waters here not very far off from our own doors.

Fourthly, even those Hot Countryes of Iudaea, Rome, and the Regions ther∣about were not within the Torrid Zone, nor so hot, but that if cold water would have quenched love to Christ, and pretence of danger discharg'd from duty, they might have been as shy as your selves of being dipped in water, for even there the waters (saies Mr. Blake) was over cold for such a service, and also this Colder Countrey (as you count it) of England is under the Tepid Zone, and not so ex∣ceeding cold in summer Seasons, but that dipping may be as well digested then, as in Iudaea, or as it is by such as then washed themselves in way of plea∣sure.

This Hot Countrey catch therefore is an Argument that flashes fairly in the p•…•…n and makes a report with a powder, for almost every one lets fly at us out of this Engine, but verily it is an empty Engine, a piece discharged to keep Cold Coun∣trey Christians from killing themselves with Christs service, but charged with no great store of truth nor sense, nor reason: wherefore Sirs if the coldnesse of this service of total dipping do cause you to stand so coldly affected toward it as not to submit to it here in England, unlesse the Climate were a little hotter, yet at least let us, who by dipping as weak folks as your selves in winter have experienced how tollerable it is, through Christ strengthening us, for Christs sake to be with Paul in cold and perills of water, (so you suppose tis to be dipped) as well as in other hardship: Let us, I say, who are willing to venture on the way of dipping, pro∣ceed without your offence, and as for us we shall in order to your good be so far offended at your neglect of it, as uncessantly to call upon you and yours, to repent and be so baptized every one of you in the name of the Lord Iesus for the remission of sins, till you can shew us (as Iam sure you never will) his letters pattents for your Exemption.

Rantist.

But Mr. Cook forces this Argument further yet, and tells you that their custome of being dipped enforces us to the same, no more then the Gesture that Christ used at Supper binds us to the same, you are willing to overlook that per∣haps having little or nothing to say to it, but I pray take all along with you as you go, and be not so par•…•…ial as to pick out what is easiest to be answered, and let the rest alone.

Baptist.

As for that poor piece of sustenance, that Mr. Cook affords beyond all the rest toward the further improvement of this exception which from the heat of those Countryes you make against the Example of dipping in the primitive times, it

hath no substance in it, whereupon your cause can possibly live, for though he saies their going into the water then, and being dipped therein no more inforces us to ob∣serve the same in baptism, then the Example of Christ, and his Apostles gesture in the Supper, which was leaning and partly lying, ties us to the same: but as the table Gesture of sitting now in use among us is fittest for the Supper, so the usu∣all way of washing, which is by powring as well as dipping is fittest to be ob∣served in baptism.

Yet I desire Mr. Cook to consider these things,

First, that if the priesthood had but any such clear example of their being sprink∣led in the primitive times, as we have of their going down into the water, and being dipt there, they would inforce us with more then Arguments to an obser∣vation of the very same, yea how hardly have we escaped being inforced by them from dipping, though they have not an inch of instance for their sprink∣ling?

Secondly, there is a vast difference between an example in point of circum∣stance, and meer gesture about a service, and the very substance of the service it self, variation from Christs example in the first is naught enough, but in the other worse then nothing; yet even such is your degeneration from dipping to sprinkling, from baptism to rantism viz. not a variation from some certain circumstance in that one matter of baptism, but a variation from the ordinanance it self, a do∣ing, not what Christ did in another manner, but a doing of another matter then Christ did: dipping with the face upward, and with the face downward is the same thing still, though in a different gesture, and (to satisfie Mr. Simpson, who in his letter scarce thinks it a burial in baptism, if the face be not upward, and the water powred on, as the earth is on them, we burie with their faces upward) whether this way or that way is not so much material if there be a total covering and overwhelming with either earth or water, it is a true burial still notwithstan∣ding; but dipping and sprinkling are two such diverse things, that the first is both baptism, and burial in baptism, but the second neither the one nor yet the other.

Thirdly, and yet the gesture is so far to be heeded in every ordinance, that if we know any one to be better then another, and more ass•…•…redly to be that which Christ and his disciples used, I suppose we are bound, if not of necessity, not to de∣cline it to follow any other mens fashions whatsoever, and I believe Mr. Cook did think it worth contending for to exchange the Bishops kneeling at supper, for one more suitable to that Christ used.

Fourthly, the gesture Christ used was the same as ours i. e. sitting not leaning, nor yet lying, for though Mr. Cook asserts with such confidence that lying was used by Christ, tis undoubtedly utterly untrue: what ere was the usual table gesture then is nothing to the point, or if it be it is most evident it was sitting, as it is now, for if it was in some places the fashion to lean or ly on beds at great banquets (as some tell us) yet I am sure the table gesture was not lying nor lean∣ing neither any otherwise then as we do viz. on one elbowor both when we please: the Scripture saies all along that he sate: Mr. Cook greeking it out in the margent as he does viz. Mat. 26. 20. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Mark 14. 18. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Luke 22. 14. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Mat. 14. 19. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 will not help him in what he saies, for if any or all of these words viz. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 do signifie to lean or lie down, yet they all signifie to sit down also, for they are all rendred by discum•…•…o the plain english of which is to sit down, and therefore also our translators do so English them, and I would demand of him a∣gain as he does of A. R. p. 12. whether he thinks that our translators, that have englisht them thus viz. he sate down, and as they sate dovvn, and he comman∣ded the multitude to sit dovvn on the grasse, knevv not hovv to render the originall in its proper signification as vvell as he?

Nor yet fiftly is the usuall manner of vvashing among us, which you confesse is most fit to be used in baptism, by povvring as vvell as dipping, for povvring is (and yet but in some cases onely, as namely the vvashing the hands, and in that very case but sometimes and seldome onely, for mostly that is by dipping, and this too, but when the infusion is so large as totally to vvash the hands so vvashed) a preparative to such a vvashing, but a compleat true washing it is not of it self, vvithout some subsequent act of rubbing, vvhich you use not about infants faces; but swilling in water is the most usual way of washing, and a washing of it self some times, and some times used without any after rubbing at all, therefore this by Mr. Cooks own rule by right should be observed in baptism.

Sixthly, whereas he argues from the custom of the present times to an exempti∣on from the primitive customes and practise, he might as well take upon him to say thus, if any man contend for that faith, way of worship, way of baptism, that was in the primitive and purest times. and for a reformation of all things ac∣cording to the word; and example of the Churches the word speake of, it is true those Churches indeed worshipped thus, were congregated thus, ordered thus, baptized thus viz. by dipping when they believed, but sprinkling infants is the way, and fashion now adaies, and as for what was done of the Churches of old, we have nothing to do with it, and if any list to be contentions for it we have no such custom now, nor the Churches of God! of which sure Mr. Cook cannot but be ashamed, who hath covenanted to reforme according to the word fi•…•… a covenant keeper, and a Custom-monger cannot possibly be denominated both of one.

Rantist.

Nay stay a little, you'l forget your own words I think anon, did you not say your self even now that we must put difference between examples in substantiall mat∣ters, and in matters meerly circumstantial? we desire to keep as close as your selves can do to the primitive custom in things of weight, and that there may be no variation from it, without a violation of the will of Christ in any point that is positively commanded, but I hope you will not make such a matter of moment of the manner of baptizing, as if Chrst had injoined this way or that way of dis∣pensation of it, viz. dip•…•…ing so strictly as that sprinkling may not be used, nor yet sprinkling so as that dipping may not be used, nay rather its a meer ceremony, a prudentiall point, in which the Church may use her discretion so as to dispense it either way, as conveniency and charity may dispose her, and no lesse is very well observed by Mr. Baxter p. 135. Christ saith he hath not appointed the mea∣sure of water nor manner of washing, no more then he hath appointed in the Lords supper what quantity of bread and wine each must take, and as it would be but folly for any to think, that men must needs fill themselves with bread and wine, because it best signifies the fullnesse of Christ, so it is no better to say, that we must needs be washed all over, because it best signifies our burial with Christ, &c. Christ told Peter that the washing of his feet was enough to clense all, a lit∣tle may signisie as well as much, as a clod of earth doth in possession of much lands, and a corn of pepper fignifies our homage for much, and much to such a purpose are those words of Mr. Cook p. 20. some of which having been quoted, and spo∣ken to before, though not so satisfactorily, but that they sway with me still, I am almost loath to repeat them, yet sith they be so among the other, I can hardly decline the mentioning them once more, by your leave, in answer to the objecti∣on, that a little water doth not so fitly and perfectly represent as dipping and plung∣ing, sith in the one the whole body is washed, in the other the face or head on∣ly:

He saies first, that the Scripture no where requires the washing of the whole body in baptism.

Secondly, that with as good reason one may plead thus, that at the supper it.

is most convenient that every Communicant should receive his belly full of bread and wine, and take as long as stomach, and head will hold, to signify the full refreshment of the soul with the body and blood of Christ, but who, saies he, would endure such reasoning?

Thirdly, These outward Elements of water, bread and wine are for speciall use, and to signify special things, so that, if there be the truth of things, the quantity is not to be respected further then is sufficient for its end, namely to re∣present the spiritual grace, and that it be neither so little as not to represent, nor so much as to take of the heart from the spirituall to the corporal thing: not the washing away the filth of the body in baptism, nor the glutting or satisfying of the natural Appetite in the Lords Supper is to be looked after, but the wash∣ing and refreshing of the Soul, which may well be represented by the sprinkling of a little water, eating and drinking of a little bread and wine, In circumcision a little skin was cut of.

You see what these worthy men say you, need not be so hot as you are for the ce∣remony, if so be you keep the substance.

Baptist.

I have received as much as all this comes to long since in a loving letter from a worthy friend of mine, whose words shall sway me, where I see them suit with the word of truth (where not I must be excused) to the full, as much as Mr. Cook and Mr. Blake and Mr. Baxters sway you be they right or wrong;

Grant that dipping was alwaies used in those Hot Countreys, yet you know saith he, that necessity and charity dispense with Ceremonies even of Gods own institution, nor is the Nature of the Sacrament altered by this change, viz. from dipping to sprinkling, for seeing the whole vertue of the Sacrament is in signification perablutionem, it no more matters Quantum quisque abluatur then it doth in the Supper Quantum quisque comedat.

But verily I am not able to discern either in this, or in that you say above, or in that you cite out of Mr. Cook and Mr. Baxter the least warrant in the world for the way of sprinkling, or for waving the old wonted way of dipping, with all the wisdome I have to weigh it by at this instant: as for what you take notice of that I said my self above, viz. that there is difference between matters circum∣stantial, and substantial, so that we need not be so strict in the observation of the one, I will not eat any thing I then uttered, but me thinks you might as well, had you not been partial, have taken notice of what followed, as of that, which had you done, you would have seen how little accrues to your purpose out of that grant of mine, for I told you there and now tell you again, sith I see you so quick to catch at things by the halves, and slow to mind what in them makes against you, that howbeit it is not so material which way you baptize, so you baptize, yet if you Rantize onely, you vary not onely in a circumstance, but in the very sub∣stance of the Ordinance, doing quite another matter then that you should do, and not the matter, i. e. Baptism, in another manner onely; for we will bear with that, as a thing neither here nor there, whether you baptize, i. e. wash a per∣son by overwhelming or burying him in water in this gesture, or that, this form, or that, with his face up or down, yea be it by infusion of water on him, or im∣mersion, or putting him under it, which of the two is most proper, and easy, we weigh it not, so you see to it that you bury, and overwhelm him: for all this while you retain both the true outward sign, which is baptism, or burial under water in baptism, in its nature, and essentiall form, in its true Analogy and pro∣portion to the spiritual things signified, which are primarily the death, burial and resurrection of Christ, and secondly our being washed from sin by his blood; but if once you fall from baptizing to rantizing, from submersion to aspersion, from dipping to dripping, from a totall covering to almost a totall keeping him from the water, you vary from the very thing that is required, not from one manner of

baptizing to another, but from baptizing to another matter: There fore Sirs when you talk of our being hot for a ceremony, if by the word Ceremony you mean some petty, trivial, immaterial meer circumstance in baptism, which may indifferen∣tèr aut adesse aut abesse sine baptismi interitu, be or not be, and yet baptism be bap∣tism still, as dipping backwards or forwards in ponds or Rivers, you are much de∣ceived in us, we regard not such ceremonies; But a ceremony is a thing, which though it stand but for a time, yet stands by positive command for that time, wher∣in it is to stand, by no lesse then divine institution, nor know I any man, Church or Angell that can institute a Ceremony to be observed and imposed; and if by a Ceremony you mean thus, not the meer manner of baptizing, but the matter, even baptism it self, which of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 may altogether with the ordinances of the Gospel or new Covenant very properly be stiled Ceremonies, as well as all the Ordinances of Divine service under the Law, forasmuch as these last but for their time, viz. till the second appearing of Christ, as those of the old covenant Heb. 9. 1. lasted only till his first appearing, then I confesse we are somewhat stiff for the ceremony, nor can you blame us if you consider what we do, for in so doing we contend for no lesse then substance, as far as you can call any ordi∣nance of Christ so that hath a tendency, as a sign or otherwise, unto something yet more substantial; the rite of Circumcision, the Passeover, and all the other Sacrifices of the Law, though shadowes in comparison of what they pointed at, yet were ordinances so substantial, as instituted of God, and so strictly to be ob∣served, that who so should have taken upon him to alter, and shape them more to the model of his own mind, would have heard as ill from God for it as, without his leave, for omitting them altogether, & how ill that is he cannot be ignorant, that hears how sharply he speaks to them, that were too short but in tiths and offerings when in force, saying that a curse had therfore devoured their blessings Mal. 2. and also that neglected circumcision, saying every soul that is not circumcis'd, meaning of whom circumcision is required (but it was not of females then any more then bap∣tism is of infants now) shall be cut off from among his people, and I appeal to your own consciencies if any should have said, circumcision is a painful, a tedious, and dangerous piece of service, and dispensation to little infants (and so it was in∣deed much more then dipping in cold water) and thereupon in charity circumci∣sion being nothing, and uncircumcision nothing, but a new creature, we will on∣ly pare there nailes, and make that serve instead of the other, would the Lord have took it better at their hands? would either God or good men have held them guiltlesse, yet whether they had circumcised thus or thus viz. with a knife, a sharp stone, or a pair of shears, I suppose that circumcision had been dispenst with, and even thus may we say of baptism as nothing as it is, it being an ordinance of Gods institution, both they that omit it to whom it is commanded, and they that in charity take upon them to alter it, so as to make Rantism serve instead of it, preaching or practising no baptism at all, or another thing that is no baptism un∣der the name of it, were it the Apostles themselves, or an angel from heaven, that should thus alter the Gospell, shall equally be accepted, or rather equally accursed before God Gal. 1. can you blame us therefore if we contend for the right bap∣tism? for it is not another manner of the thing then you use, but the very thing it self we plead against you, who cannot be said to alter the right way of baptizing, but the rite of baptism it self; it is not a bare circumstance in the ceremony we differ in, but we differ in the substance i. e. in the ceremony, or rite it self, which you have changed, having no parts at all of the rite in your wrong practise, which your own party divide the rite of baptism into.

Ritus in baptismo est triplex saies Tilenus the rite or ceremony in baptism is threefold, immersion, or plunging into the water, continuance for a time un∣der the water, resurrection out of the water, in resemblance of Christs death, bu∣rial and resurrection and ours in him.

Which of all these three are to be found in your aspersion? unlesse you will all own Featleys fetch for good resemblance viz. the dipping, burial, and resurre∣ction of the ministers hand, when he sptinkl•…•… the infants face: sith therefore you have broken the law of Christ the Son, that Law-giver and Prophet, whose voice we are to hear in all that he saith, and changed the ordinances so far as to turn his baptism into rantism, you will as they that despised the Law of Moses the ser∣vant, be cut off from his people Acts 3. Heb. 2. Heb. 10. sith you make void his plain word under pittiful pretences viz. the coldnesse, the tediousnesse, the danger of dipping in these climates, as if the reason for dipping were proper onely to Hot Countries, no marvel if such as see from under the vail of priestly pretence, that hath darkned the whole earth, are hot to have a recovery to the truth, speci∣ally since it is a truth not unknown to us, nor yet so trivial tru•…•…h as these that inck is made of gum, and paper made of rags, nor yet such a Scripture truth as is not material to be known, as that about Pauls cloak and parchments, and that Abiam was the Son of Sacar as Mr. Baxter bables p. 218. 219. (a sign that paper is made of rags by his wasting it in such toies) for these we are not so strictly held to re∣veal, but a truth of such worth, that it is to be preferred before that truthles peace he pleads for, the disturbance of which he calls hell p. 2•…•…0, saying,

We are little beholding to those men that would have turned the Church into hell i. e. privation of peace, rather thensilence their supposed truthes.

To whom I say,

If that be hell which priests so call, Then truths true friends are hell-hounds all.

But a word to Mr. Baxter out of Mr. Baxter p. 218▪ in vindication of our loathnesse to betray this truth by our silence viz.

The Law commandeth us to do our duty, to preserve truth from being lost, so that if truth be lost, while I do my duty, tis no sinne of mine, if it be not lost while I neglect my duty, it is yet my sin, God disposeth of events, not we, ther∣fore what consequences may be occasioned, sith they are not caused by preaching the Gospel, I may not, for fear of them, nor shall shun to declare the whole coun∣sel of God.

I know necessity and charity do dispense with circumstances in ceremonies, and with ceremonies or ordinances themselves of Gods own institution some∣times,

But first, it is with the omission onely, but not with the alteration of them in∣to other, if a man converted on his death bed, or on the ladder, when ready to be executed, as the thief was upon the crosse, be willing to be baptized, if it may be, but cannot, in charity he may, and of necessi•…•…y he must be dispenst with dying unbaptized in such a case, but no man may dispense another thing to him i. e. Rantism in its room and stead, no more then he may give other things then bread and wine in the supper, to a stomach too weak to bear either of those, for that is to take upon him to make another institution, and Gods leave man never had so to do.

Secondly it must be by leave from the Lord implicit or expresse, upon which onely we can ground the lawfulnesse of omission, and necessity, and charity, but not charity mistaken, are leave enough no doubt to let a lone, though in no wise to alter what ever he ordaines, as when it neither can be at all, nor can be done conveniently, nor possibly without killing men indeed; whereupon we find no fault found with Israel in the wildernesse for forbearing to circumcise 40 years to∣gether, it is like least it should hinder them in their warfare, but sure I am they should have heard of it from the Lord if to forgo the sorenesse of that circumcisi∣on they had circumcised i. e. cut off onely the hair of their heads.

Let the Ranter therefore shew us Gods word for his omission; and the Rantizer for his mutation of Baptism, and we will fall in with either, as we see it evidenced therein.

Rantist.

If you do but mind the Testimonies I cited out of Mr. Cook and Mr. Baxter, and what you hinted your self as w•…•…tten to you in private, you cannot chuse but see word enough for our use of sprinkling, though dipping were used never so in the primitive times, for they tell you (but me thinks you do not much mind it) that the Scripture requires not totall washing, that Christ appoints not the measure of water nor manner of washing, more then the measure of bread and wine in the Supper, he hath left it ad libitum, and as they say very well, the whole vertue of the Sacrament lying in signification per ablutionem, it matters no more Quan∣tum quisque abluatur, then quantum quisque comedat, and as it is folly to think that men must eat in the Supper as long as head and stomach will hold, because it signifyes the souls refreshment, so that in baytism we must be washed all over, because it best signifies our burial with Christ: a little signifies as well as much, a clod of earth, a pepper corn, a little skin cut off in circumcision, so by a little bread and wine eat and drank, and by a little water sprinkled may the refresh∣ment of the soul be represented.

Baptist.

That which best signifyes is best to be done, and forasmuch as t•…•… at best signi∣fies, that both signifies and resembles the quantity of the Element, that manner of action which best resembles is best and fittest to be used undoubtedly in baptism, in which Christ hath undoubtedly appointed what is best, whereupon if Mr. Baxter grant (or if he do not he cannot deny) that overwhelming best resembles, and consequently best signifyes our burial with Christ, he never will give good rea∣son whilest he breathes upon this earth, why washing all over (as he calls it) should not be used; as for that reason that is given against it here by himself at second hand, and by Mr. Cook at first, of whom he borrowes well nigh every bit of what he saies against a totall dipping, save only his fearful, fairfowl flourishes up∣on it, viz.

First that the measure of water, and manner of washing the whole body is not appointed,

Secondly, That then in the Supper there must be a eating to the full,

Thirdly, That a little may serve as well as much, theres little weight as far as I see in any part of it.

The first hath so little reason, that it hath no truth in it for Christ hath appoin∣ted vertually in some measure the measure of water in that his very appointment of the manner of washing in the way of a totall overwhelming, as appears before in the signification of the word Baptize, which signifies a dipping or overwhelm∣ing of that subject, that is particularly denominated to be washed by it; whe∣ther it be the whole man, or but a part of him; if the tip of the finger only be said truly to be baptized, then that tip must be totally washed; if the hands be de∣nominated, without a figure to be baptized, then the hands at least are total∣ly washed; if the man be the subject properly predicated to be baptized, then that man also must be totally washed; but in Scripture the man is required, and ap∣pointed to be baptized; to the performance of which such a measure of water is consequently appointed, as may be at least sufficient for that end, and required it is that it be neither so little that it cannot totally wash him, nor yet so much as must necessarily drowne him, as an ocean would, but a proportion suitable to that purpose.

To the second I might answer, that there is not altogether the same reason, for such a totall filling, and swilling in the Supper, as there is for a totall swilling in baptism; sith the main and radical matter, that is to be resembled in baptism is Christs death, burial and resurrection, but the radical thing, that is resembled in that action of our eating and drinking in the Supper, is our faith, whereby we feed upon Christ, and accept him each to our selves as our Redeemer, without

which that he is a Redeemer will do us no good, for faith is the appropriating of of Christ the bread of life, e•…•…ch to our selves, who is set before us in common in the whole loaf, and as it will do a man no good to have bread and wine before him, which are elements most refreshing, unless he take them, and eat and drink, so neither us to see a Saviour set before us, unlesse we take of his salvation to our selves.

This is that which is most immediately signifyed, and particularly represented in the Supper, which businesse of bare taking Christ Jesus to our selves by faith, is represented truly in taking never so little, but a burial and resurrection not •…•…n never so little water; a few crumbs of bread and sips of wine taken do reptesent a taking of Christ in the Supper, but not so a few drops of water tisfled upon the face Christs death, buriall and resurrection: and sith you say the refreshment of the soul by the fullnesse is represented in our eating and drinking in the Supper, and yet that eating and drinking a little bread and wine not to fulness is enough in the supper to represent that, and so why not a little water, not deep enough to dip and bury in, applyed to us in baptism, the burial and resurrection of Christ?

I might answer that the refreshment of the soul by Christ is represented rather in the elements, then in the action of either, eating or drinking in the supper, by the bread which is a strengthner of mans heart, and wine which is for them of a sor∣rowful heart, and therefore there might not be altogether the need of representing our r•…•…freshing by eating and drinking much, at least so much as Mr. Cook and Mr. Ba. talkes of, viz. to the filling and glutting of our selves to the top as long as head and stomack will hold, that action would yield but a small resemblance of a refreshment, and were enough to make a sound man sick, but there is a rea∣son in all things, and a difference as we say between staring, and stark mad•…•… thus I say I might answer, and cut off your arguing for analogy, and a small portion of the element in baptism, as well as in the supper, between which there is not fully the same reason.

But verily I am of your mind that a refreshment of the soul by the fulnesse of Christ is very fit to be resembled and represented by the quantity of the elements, as well as by the elements in the supper also; and yet am I not of your mind that so little, as you ordinarily use, is so very fit as you dream it is to represent it, but of the mind rather that as you are in your baptism viz. not out of your ele∣ment, as you should be if you were baptized in truth by submersion, or putting clear under water, but out in your element rather i. e. in the measure of your wa∣ter, which is not adaequate to the true manner of washing, so you are also in the supper too poor in your provision of elements, for that which is the true and full purport of that sacred service; you have got together many littles to prove that so lit∣tle element as you use both in baptism and supper may do as well, if not better, then more, all which are very little to the purpose, a little may signifie as well as much saies Mr. Baxter, a clod of earth, a pepper corn: but what then? we are to sig∣nifie with resemblance, or else a sacrament is no sacrament, saith Austin, but saies Mr. Cook a little may resemble the washing, and the refreshing of the soul may well be resembled by a sprinkling of a little water, eating and drinking a little bread and wine, in circumcision a little skinne was cut off; what then?

First it was as much as God required to be cut off.

Secondly it was so much as made it circumcision.

Thirdly, as much as truly and clearly resembled the circumcision of the heart, which is signified, but such is not (for all Mr. Cooks conceit) that little water you sprinkle, nor yet that little becad and wine you distribute, it is neither so much as represents clearly the things signified, which are not onely the clearing of the soul by Christs dainties in the supper, which should be resembled by eating and drink∣ing it, but some more chearing and refreshing of the body, then that which is com∣monly in your communions;

But alas the burial and resurrection of Christ, in baptism should be resembled by submersion, and emersion; and therefore to answer Mr. Cook in the words of Mr. Cook, the outward elements of water bread and wine are for spirri∣tual use, and to signifie spiritual things, so that if there be the truth of things [but what I wonder if there be not (as I am sure in Rantism there is not) the truth of baptism] the quantity is not to be respected further then is sufficient for its end, namely to represent the spiritual grace [so far then it seemes it must be, and that is enough to confute Mr. Cooks Rantism, for it represents not the spiritual grace] and that it be neither so little as not clearly to represent it [yet so little is the quantity that you use, not of water onely in the one, but of bread and wine also in the o∣ther ordinarily] nor so much as to take off the heart from the spiritual to the corporal thing] content with all in my heart that it be not too much on this hand, provided that it be not too litle one the other, so but that it may reach to resemble the things signified, for the whole vertue of baptism lying in signification per ab∣lutionem i.e. per submersionem, per sepelitionem in aquâ, and the vertue of the supper much what in signification per recreationem, per representationem plenitu∣dinis: non multum interest, quantum quis{que} abluatur, modo obruatur, submer∣gatur, sepeliatur, nec quantum quis{que} comedat, modo comedendo repleatur.]

To conclude Sirs you are too short in that point of the outward element in the supper as well as baptilm, in the Church of Corinth there was so much bread and wine that if some hungred, others were drunken, as neither of these should have been, so the latter could not have been, but that the use then was to have more abundance of the elements, then you have in your parish passeovers, wherein the people are past over with so poor a pittance, that all may in likelihood be hungry enough, but none at all very easily drunken, such niggardly ships and sups; not at Rome onely, where the Priests expounding Christ as speaking to themselves, when of the wine, saying drink ye all this, and not to the people, saying drink ye all of this, do impropriate the liquor wholly to themselves, but in England also do the priests supp, I should say dine (for it is done at noon dayes with them) their poor patient dependant people at the Lords table.

Theres one thing among Mr. Baxters bedrow which I had almost quite past o∣ver without any answer, which if I had you would have said it is like I willingly forgat it; Christ told Peter saith he that the washing of his foet was enough to clense all; Mr. Blake gives us a touch here too through the persons of a popish par∣ty p. 10. of Peters mind saith he not to be washed in o•…•… part onely, which say some from the same place also viz. Iohn 13. 9. 10. is as sufficient as the wash∣of the whole.

As if that Scripture even therefore because it speaks of washing, doth speak of this ordinance of baptism: either it doth Sirs in your opinion or it doth not, if not, to what purpose do you quibble upon it here? if you say it doth, I much mar∣vel why youthink so, but more if in earnest you argue from it that a man need be baptized but in part onely, sith you all confesse practically that the face and head, but not the feet are the subject of baptism. yea verily you had as good have said Pi∣late took water and washed his hands before the multitude, therefore the ordi∣nance of baptism is no total dipping, for the story of Christs washing Peters feet speaks no more of the ordinance of baptism, then the other does; yea it is most e∣vident that the washing of the disciples feet was clear to another end and use viz. not to baptize them, much lesse to shew how they should baptize others, but meerly to teach them humility one toward another, and to condescend to the lowest offices that could be for loves sake to each other; this Christ expressed himself to be the direct meaning of what he did, v. 12. 13. 14. 15. &c. after he had washed their feet he saies to them: know you what I have done to you? you call me Lord and master, you say well, so I am; if I your Lord and Master have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one anothers feet, for I have given you an example that ye

should do as I have done unto you, this was Christs end therefore to learn them hu∣mility, which was done as well in washing their feet onely, as all the body, yea the feet only indeed, because the feet are the viler parts of the body, for us to stoop to wash, whereby to expresse our humility each to other, in which respect and no other it is that when Peter yet ignorant of what Christ was about to do, cryed out Lord my hands also and my head, Christ replies, that he that is washed, i. e. not in Baptism, but in this washing he was then about need not more i. e. ad rem substratam then to wash his feet, but is clean e∣very whit, i. e. as much as he need be to this intent, for which I now am wash∣ing you: besides that the washing of the feet only is not a sufficient washing to de∣nominate a man baptized according to Christs ordinance, is evident by the Eu∣nuch, that went into the water, and so was washed in his feet, and yet not bap∣tized for all that according to Christs will, till Philip had baptiz'd or dipt him there: it is a sign you are put hard to your shifts, when you use such impertinencies to help you as these.

Rantist.

Impertinency? I think all is imper•…•…enency with you still, though never so so∣lid, that is brought in disproof of your id•…•… dipping: but what say you I trow to those two last unanswerable Arguments of Mr. Cook against totall dipping viz. that it is against both the sixth and seventh Argument, both which Arguments Mr. Baxter also takes after him, and bangs you about with them a little better then Mr. Cook did, and laces your sides so handsomely therewith, that I be∣lieve you selves will be all sick of Mr. Baxter, and your cause scarce be whole of those two Gashes he hath thereby given it, salve it over as long as you will, for he proves it plain that your plunging practise is no better then flat Murther, and Adultery.

Baptist.

I say these are knocking Arguments indeed, if they be but as solid as they shew for, but for all that let us see a little for our money before we part with it, and hear what their Arguments are in words at length, and not in figures, if it chance to prove as you say they say, and as they say indeed in this particular, viz. that it is Murther and Adultery to dip as we do, I assure you in the word of a Minister and a Christian, that hopes to be saved in the way of innocency, as well as your selves, that dipping, as it is no idol of mine, for I adore it no otherwise then I ought to do every ordinance of our onely King, Priest and Prophet Christ Jesus, for his sake that ordained it, so it shall never be adored so much as to be owned more by me, but be abhorred rather with deeper decestation, then I dispense it with affection to this houre; but I believe that their proof will fall wondrous short of so high a charge, as they venture to charge us with, be pleased therefore since you mention it in gross, to repeat their Arguments more at large, which I dare say your memory is more tenacious of then of any other, and I shall examine them as exactly as you shall desire me.

Rantist.

First then let it be well considered what they say to the first thing.

This dousing over head and ears and under water saith Mr. Cook, that you plead for, as essential to baptism, seems directly against the sixth Commandment and exposeth the person baptized to the danger of death.

For first suppose the party be fit for baptism (as you account) in the sharp win∣ter as now believing, professing &c. he must immediately be taken to the River as your tenet seemes to hold, and there plunged in over head and ears, though he come forth covered with yoe. But if he scape perishing with cold, how can he scape being choaked and stiffled with the water, if he must be plunged over head to signify his death to sin?

Secondly be kept under water to signifie his burial?

And Thirdly be taken up again as A. R. and you seem to reason? But what∣ever be the danger of freezing or suffocation 〈◊〉〈◊〉 seems, this you hold the only bap∣tism and therefore must not be swerved from p. 21.

Thus he, but more largely and plainly Mr. Baxer p. 134.

That which is a plain breach of the sixth Commandement, Thou shalt not kill, is no Ordinance of God, but a most haynous sin, but the ordinary pract∣ise of baptizing by dipping over head in cold w•…•…er as necessary, is a plain breach of the sixt Commandment thereforè.

And Mr. Craddock in his book of Gospel liberty shewes the Magistrate ought to restrain it, to save the lives of his Subjects &c. that it is flat Mur∣der and no better, being ordinarily and generally practised, is undenyable to any understanding man, for that which directly tendeth to overthrow mens lives, being willfully done is plain Murder, but the ordinary or general dipping of peo∣ple over head in cold water doth tend directly to the overthrow of their health, and lives, and therefore it is murder: here several answers are made saith Mr Baxter some vain, some vile.

First Mr. T. saith that many are appointed the use of bathing as a remedy a∣gainst diseases.

To which I reply saith he, 1. though he be no Physitian, yet his own reason should tell him tis no universalremedy.

2. Few diseases have cold baths appointed them, I have cause, saith he, to know a little more then every one in this, and I dare say that in Cities like London, and amongst Gentlewomen, that have been tenderly brought up, and Antient people, and weak people, and shop keepers, especially women that take but little of the cold air, the dipping them in the cold weather in cold water in the course of nature would kill hundreds and thousands of them either suddenly or by casting them into some Chronicle disease; & I know not what trick a covetous Land lord can find out to get his tenants to dy apace, that he may have new fines and he∣riots, likelier then to encourage such Preachers, that he may get them all to turn Anabaptists; I wish that this devise saith be not it that countenanceth these men; and covetous Phisitians me thinks, saith he, should not be much against them; Catarrhes and obstrustions, which are the two great foúntains of most mortall dis•…•…ases in mans body, could scarce have a more notable means to produce them where they are not, or to increase them where they are, Apoplextes, Le∣thargies, Palsies and all comatous diseases would be promoted by it, so would •…•…∣phalagies, Hemicranies, Phthises, debility of the stomach, Crudities, and almost all Feavers, Dissenteries, Diarraeas, Colicks, Illiack passions, Conv•…•…si∣ons, Spasmes, Tremors, &c. all Hepatick, Splenetick, Pulmoniack persons and Hipocrandriacks would soon have enough of it, in a word, saith he, it is good for nothing but to dispatch men out of the world, that are burthensome, and •…•…o ranken Church yards.

But Mr. T. will salve all this, for he saith that there is no necessity that it be in cold water.

To which I reply, saith he, 11. But then he forsaketh the generality of his partners in this opinion, so much as we can learn, who usually baptize in Rivers and ponds.

2. And his warm bath would be very dangerous also.

3. Where should this bath be prepared? if in private, it will scarce be a solemn engaging act, if in the meeting place of the Church, then

1. It will take no small room, •…•…nd require no small stir to have a bat•…•…iag place, and water to dipp people over head.

2. And if they do not run home quickly before they are well ingaged, the hot bath will be turned to a cold one to them, and make them repent this badge of repentance, except they will have all things ready and be brought to bed also in the Church before the people.

3. And it will be long ere Mr. T. can clear out of his reading Antiquity what Church had such a bathing place in it; but me thinks they that call for Scripture for infant baptism, should also bring Scripture for their baptizing in warm water, but some say they may stay till the heat of summer, when the wa∣ter will be warm.

To which I reply, saith he, where is your Scripture for that? I have prov∣ed the constant rule, and Example of Scripture is clean contrary, and requires that men be baptized, when they are first made disciples, and not stay till summer.

But some desperately conclude that if it be Gods way, he will save our lives, how probable soever the danger may seem.

I answer, saith he, that this is to begg the question, nay I have shewed, and am shewing that it is not Gods way; God hath appointed no ordinances contrary to his great morall commands.

2. God must not be tempted, this was the devils trick to have drawn Christ under pretence of Scripture, and trusting God to have cast himself into danger of death.

3. So you might have said to the disciples, that if it were Gods command to keep the Sabbath then they might not rub the ears of Corn, for God could sustain them without.

4. If it were a duty, yet when it is inconsistent with a greater duty it is at that time a sin, for it is alwaies a sin to prefer a lesser duty before a greater, for the duty of self preservation is a morall, naturall duty, and baptizing is but po∣sitive &c. God hath not appointed ordinances in his Church that will destroy men ex•…•…ept they be preserved by Miracles, for then it were a tying himself to a constant working of Miracles &c.

So that I conclude saith Mr. Baxter, if Murder be a sin then d•…•…ing over head in cold water in England is a sin, and if those that would make it mens religion to murder themselves, and urge it on their consciences as their duty, are not to be suffered in a Common-Wealth any more then High way Murder∣ers, then judge how these Anabaptists, that teach the necessity of such dipping are to be suffered.

Thus you see what opinion these men are of concerning your totall dipping, and upon what ground; yea though Mr. Tombs, and others make so light of it, and wash it over as well as they can, yet Mr. Baxter wipes of all their varnish, and represents it in its proper colour to the world, in its own ugly hue, and maintains it to be no lesse then meer Murder, and you may prate a while, and practise to if you please, having your quiet advantages so to do in this distracted juncture of time, but I hope an order will we taken with you in time according to your de∣serts, if the right Kirk Government were once settled, though hitherto you have the hap to scape Scot-free.

Baptist.

If one were disposed to give no other answers, then Mr. Tombes viz. that bathing is a remedy against diseases, and that it is not necessary to be in cold wa∣ter, as vain as these are with Mr. Baxter, they may serve to salve the cause suf∣ficiently from any sore that Accrues to it from that much more vain, and pedling prit•…•…le-prattle in which Mr. Baxter reanswers him, e. g. his learned conjectures about Coveteous Land-lords, Physitians, and his wretched wishes that they, in hopes to have men dy apace, do not divise countenance for the way of dipping, and the divine verdit he vents on it, as good for nothing but to dispatch men out of the world, that are burthensome, and to ranken Church-yards; what Rotten Riff-Raff is all this? if one should answer him according to his folly, saying, and coveteous Clergy men should, me thinks, be not much against it, if it ranken Church-yards that the Parsons horse may have the bigger pasture, I wish

they have not a trick to favor it, &c. were it not as wise a wish as the other? but I spare him, lest I be like him, though if he be not answered according to his fol∣ly, I fear the man may be so wise in his own conceit as to suppose his folly to be wisdome.

Further what great store of small stir doth the man make about a warm bath, wondering much where it should be prepared in private or in the Church, and what stir it would require? [as if it were more difficult to build a bath a little wi∣der, and a great deal lower then a font, then tis to build a steeple house] and what room it would take? [as if the Church had rather retain her Rome then be rob'd of her room, in removing that Romish relique of infants sprinkling] and how dangerous this hot bath may prove too, and become such a cooling card as may soon make men repent of the baptism of repentance, unlesse they run home quick∣ly, or be brought to bed before the people [as if it were more impossible to bath in baptism without danger, difficulty, and immodesty, then it is to bath (as thousands do) in order to meer health and pleasure.]

What frivolous quibling is all this? what is the man made of brown paper, and fit for nothing, but to sit by the fire side in a pair of slippers, that his body may be baptized, neither in cold water nor warm, but it must needs be his death with∣out more ado?

I speak this not as intending to answer as Mr. Tombes doth, but to note Mr. Baxters fidlings, for whether bathing in cold water be a remedy against diseases or no, I am not so far a Physitian as to know; Mr. Tombes saies it is against some, and Mr. Baxter very wisely confutes him by confessing the same, saying onely,

First it is no universal remedy.

Secondly few diseases have cold bathes appointed them, it should seem there∣fore some •…•…ve, and whether there be necessity to baptize in cold water or no I say not, Mr. Tombes saies no, and indeed I see not how degrees of cold, and heat in the element can well vary the nature of the ordinance; but this I say at least, there is no necessity that I know to baptize in warm; for my part I am one, who, as grie∣vous as Christs commandement is to Mr. Baxter, do winter, and sommer usually baptize in rivers and ponds, nor shall I go about to scape his scrape, or Mr. Cooks either, (who as if a man were undone presently if but dipt in cold water and wea∣ther, cryes out of freezing, starving, choaking, stifling, death, murder &c.) by balking one bit of the truth in this point, or disowning the way of dipping in cold water and weather, for which dispensation sith tis, as I have proved, and Mr. B•…•…. cannot disprove, the ordinance of Christ for all Nations at all times, as people hap∣pen to be converted in them, I know no season unseasonable, no time at all untimely, save when it is dispensed to one in time of infancy, nor would it be then untimely, as tedious as it is, any more then circumcision, that was a farre more bloody businesse, were it strictly injoined to be dispensed to in∣fants as that was, and as this is to believers at riper years: as for all the paines Mr. Baxter bestows against it, Improving Mr. Cooks argument with all his might, it is all meer babble and bawbling, he tells us it is a desperate conclusion, and a vile answer to say that if it be Gods way hee'l save our lives, how probable soever the danger may seem, and that it is to begge the questi∣on.

I answer, for my part I beg no question of him, for I have proved the question already, and can prove to his face that dipping is Gods way, and will not be be∣holding to him to grant it, and being so if this be to be vile and desperate, to conclude that God will save our lives in his own way, Ile be more vile and desperate yet, and conclude with the three worthies, that for Gods way sake ven∣tured one a baptism more bitter then this viz. baptismum flaminis not fluminis with fire, not water, more hot then this is cold, our God is able to save our lives,

but if not, be it known unto Mr. Baxter and all men that we are willing, when we must, to loose them in, and for his way.

He tells us God hath appointed no ordinance contradictory to his great and moral commands, and that we might as well have said to the disciples if it were Gods command to keep the Sabboth (he should have said Sabbath, had he ei∣ther known the Hebrew, or remembred himself, for saboth is another thing, for sabbath is rest, but saboth, or sabaoth is hosts as we may see in these places Mat. 12. 8. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Rom. 9. 26. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) they need not have rub'd the ears of Corn, for God could have sustained them without, if it were a duty, yet when it is inconsistent with a greater duty, it is at that time a sin, for it is alwayes a sin to prefer a lesse duty before a greater, but the duty of self preservation is a natural, moral duty, and baptizing but posi∣tive.

As if circumcision were not as contrary to the duty of self-preservation as dipping in water, as if the Priests profaning the sabbath by servile work, were not as conadictory to the moral command (as your very selves call it) of Sabbath ob∣servation, as either of those to self-preservation, and yet when all is done all these were to be done, and none of these contradictory to the other neither, for in very deed God never commanded sabbath-observations so strictly, as that the ordi∣nance of the dayly sacrifice should be neglected, yea and the life not onely haz∣zarded, but utterly lost, and laid down for Christs name sake and the Gospels; he tells us that the duty of self-preservation is a moral natural duty, and baptizing but positive, I tell him again he saies as much in that, as I desire he should say, to the confirming of our tenet, for if baptizing be a positive duty, so far as tis posi∣tive it must take place against the other, a positive command being to be obeyed rather then self to be favoured in any wise, in any case whatsoever: God gave Abraham a positive command to slay his son, therefore that being positive, and the favouring and sparing of himself and his son, though moral and natural, yet but suppositive, i. e. to be lookt at so far onely as God lent him leave to injoy his son, it must be done, and the other let alone, God must be trusted, and his will obeyed, and the saving of his son must give way to the slaying of him: the positive duty of killing him being the greater, and to be preferred before the other, and the sparing him being inconsistent with this, though elsewise a duty, yet would have been at that time a sin. In that therefore he yields baptism to be a positive command, as if self-preservation were not so, he yields us more then we are wil∣ling to take of him, for how beit for the most part it is positive, and therefore, so far as such, to be observed, without respect to the ill consequences of it to the lifeward, yet verily I question my self, though I find no expresse exemption from baptism in any case, whether there be not (yea it is certain there are) some cases, wherein the forbearance of the dispensation may, yea and must be dispenst with, but those a•…•…e not the coldnesse of the water and weather, but the utter impossibi∣lity of the persons submitting to it, of whom else it is required, or his being bard from it, either as the thief on the crosse was, or by imprisonment, or by some such absolute sicknesse or weaknesse as confines persons necessarily to their beds, and puts them out of capacity and ability to betake themselves, where it may be done as it ought, I am willing to modify Mr. Baxters. rigid epithere of a positive command, whereby he denominates baptism, so far as to spare persons in these cases and respects, and to stile baptism a duty but suppositive i. e. a thing that ne∣cessarily must be done, if either possibly, or conveniently it may be done; but if it cannot, may be let alone: but this proves not that self-preservation must be alwaies prefer'd before baptism, for then it need never be obeyed at all, there being no time, wherein it can be done with so little seeming tediousnesse, and disease to a mans self, but that self will willingly excuse it self from obeying it, by pleading the duty of self-preservation.

This duty of self-preservation hath couzened as honest a man as Mr. Baxter ere now; and it couzens the whole Priesthood to this hour, who generally suppose that God is no further to be served, then self may be preserved, hence no pay no preach, no countenance from the magistracy, no continuance in their ministry, but for selfs sake they turn still with the times, but no faster; as if they durst trust God no further then they see him, and this was the plea, whereby Peter would fain have put Christ beside a duty that he foresaw would be dangerous, for Christ and himself too: but Christ gave him no great thanks for his labor, far be it from thee Lord quoth he, to go to Ierusalem and suffer; by no means let this be: he thought he did well to rebuke Christ for owning the Gospel in that case, wherein he must expose himself to suffer, but get thee behind me Satan saith Christ, thou art an of∣fence, thou savourest not the things of God, but those that be of men, thou think∣est as if he should say that self must be favoured, before positive duty be perform∣ed, that the life must be saved, and the gospel obeyed no further then is consistent with self-preservation, but I tell you saith he, that if any man will be my disci∣ple he must deny himself, and take up his crosse and follow me. for he that will save his life i. e. discharge no duty that may prove dangerous to his life, shall lose it, but he that will lose his life for my name sake, and the Gospel, shall save it, Mat. 16. 11. to 26. if Paul had stood so much upon the point of self-preserva∣tion, and counted his life so dear unto himself, as Mr. Baxter seems to do his, he would have harkned to such as besought him to favour himself, and not have gon up to Ierusalem, where he knew not what should befall him, save that he knew that bonds and afflictions did there abide him, if he would there testifie to the Gospel Act. 20. 22. 23. 24, 21. 22. nor would he have exposed himself to so many hazzards and perils by sea and land, perils by water, perils by hunger and thirst, and cold and nakednesse, none of all which things moved him, that he might witnesse to the Gospel:

He tattles to us that God must not be tempted, and that it was the divels trick to draw Christ under pretence of Scripture and trusting of God to have cast himself into danger of death, who doubts of all this, but is it tempting to perform a positive command of God, and expose our selves to danger and difficulty in the discharge of our positive duty to him, because it is so to indanger our liues by do∣ing that, which we have no call to, nor warrand for, and which is absolutely sin, and hath not the least dram of duty in it at all? it is true it would have been but pretence of Scripture, and trusting of God in Christs casting himself from the pinacle of the Temple, but dare he saie there is but pretence of Scripture and tru∣sting of God in submitting to his own ordinance of baptism? is there no more word to warrant us to be baptized, and to trust in God, and to expect his pro∣tection in the execution of that so absolute a command, then there is to warrand the execution of our selves, which God universally forbids, and that on no more ground then the bare bidding of the devil? who would think a mini∣nister should be so moped as to make these two alike warrantable? it was the di∣vels trick therefore to draw Christ under pretence of Scripture and trusting of God to self-execution against duty; and whether it be Mr. Baxters trick onely, or the divels in him to draw men under pretence of Scripture and tempting of God to self-preservation so far as not to trust God in the discharge of duty, is not amisse for Mr. Baxter to examine for that it savours not of spirit but of flesh it is so sure that it needs no examination.

If therefore it were indeed so dangerous to be dipt, as is imagined by Mr. Cook and Mr. Baxter, yet I see no word of Christ willing a declension of the dispensation.

But what if this be but a meer Chimaera of those mens coining, how much lesse are we then excused in our non-submission? and yet such and no other will it be found to be at last by then we have sounded this most murderous mater to the bot∣tom.

For as to Mr. Baxters dismall divination of the hideous consequences that are (if you will believe him) as it were entaild to this course of constant dipping, and his composed catalogue of Chronicall diseases viz. Catarrhes, obstructions, A∣poplexies, Lethargies, Palsies, all Comatous diseases, Cephalalgies, Hemi∣cranies, Phthises, debilitie of the stomach, Crudities, Feavers, Disentaries, Diarrhoeas, Colicks, I•…•…ack passions, Convulsions, Spasmes, Tremores, and all Hepatick, Splenetick, pulmoniack distempers, and Hippocondriacks al∣so.

All which to what end he hath Nomen-clattered together here I know not, un∣lesse to make himself, whilest he denies Mr. Tombs to be a Physitian, seem to be a smatterer in the Art of Physick; as to that pittifull piece of proof I say, to∣gether with that formidable lecture Mr. Cook reads us concerning freezing and suffocation, it is ridiculous and frivilous sibbling, to fray faint hearted folks with, from finding out that straight gate, and narrow way that leads to life: but a few will find it for all this, especially when they shall find their so much believed Mr. Baxter to be such a flat false accuser as he is of this way of truth.

Hear therefore o ye doters on Mr. Baxters deep divinity; he talks (if you will believe him) as if it were little lesse then impossible that persons should be dipped in cold weather in cold water, and not be killed suddenly by hundreds and by thousands, or at least not be cast into some Chronical disease, which within a while must be an occasion of their death; whereas there are hundreds if not thou∣sands alive at this hour even in this cold Countrey, as they call it, many if not most of which have past through that sharp service in the sharpest seasons, conversion falling out as ordinarily in winter as in summer, whose present health both proves the falsnesse, and reproves the madnesse of your prophet.

Yea I have cause to know a little better then every one, and a little more then Mr. Baxter in this, Expertus loquor, I speak by experience, against which no Argument of his availes, I have seen since my five or six years converse among the commonly called Anabaptists many a one baptized totally in cold water and wea∣ther too by others, besides toward two hundred by my silly self, many of which have come forth covered, though not with yee, as Mr. Cook phrases it out, yet with that water which yee truly covered but just before, yet never saw I any one so bap∣tized in all that time, who was not, if not better in meer bodily respects, yet at least as well after it as before; he tells you (if you will believe him) that totall dipping is for nothing but to dispatch men out of the world that are burdensome, but then I wonder how the Creature called Anabaptist, that is so burthensome to Mr. Baxter, doth not dy out of the way by hundreds and thousands, and so save him and others that labour of dispute against their growth, but rather grow from hundreds into thousands so fast that they are not likely to be dispatcht out of the world, till they are such a burthensom stone as will press them to death, i.e. the whole Priesthood, that is troubled with them.

He tells you (if you will believe him) that dipping will destroy men except they be preserved by Miracles, why else doth he say (speaking specially as to this ordinance of dipping) God hath not appointed ordinances in his Church that will destroy men except they be preserved by miracles; now if it be not so as hee sales viz. that it is a miracle to be dipped and not destroyed, then what a strange man is he to say so? but if it be so indeed, viz, a Miracle to be dipped and not destroyed, then •…•…o fools and slow of heart to believe the truth, though the Lord confirm it to you with Miracles, which are wrought day by day amongst the Disciples, who are dipped Winter and Summer as occasion is, yet are not de∣stroyed!

Yea whereas Mr Baxter dares say that in Cities like London, and amongst Gentlewomen that have been tenderly brought up, and antient people, and weak

people, and shopkeepers, especially women that take but little of the cold aire, dipping in cold weather would in the course of nature kill hundreds and thousands suddenly, or cast them into some Chronical disease, I dare say that in the City of London there is hundreds, if not thousands dipped in cold water, and as it happens, in cold weather too, many of which are Gentlewomen tenderly brought up, and antient and weak people, and shop keepers, and women that take but little of the cold aire, and yet by the course of grace they are preserved from perishing by either cold or suffocation: yea and out of the City of London too, for these hands have baptized of all these sorts in the Countrey, viz. Gentlewomen most tender∣ly brought up, very antient people, very weak people, shopkeepers, and specially two women both alive at this day, which I'l become a fool in telling you of them sith Mr. Baxter compells me, did take so little of the cold aire that one of them, if my memory fail me not, and if I were truly informed, was but once out of her house in 5 year before, by reason of a dropsy; and that was with much adoe, and but a little before her dipping, and to hear this doctrine, notwithstanding which weaknesse, and such swellings that she was wellnigh twice as bigg as now she is, and scarce able to betake her self to the water, she was dipped, and was rather better in body, then worse after it, and after sending for some elders of the Church to•…•… pray over her, and anoint her with oile in the name of the Lord according to his own institution in that behalf Iam. 5. was within a while so asswaged in her swellings, that she is now as sl•…•…nder as in former times, before ever he distemper took hold on her.

The other had scarce been out of her Chamber in two years together, and durst not dip her finger in cold water, and was ready to have her breath stopt with the least annoyance that could be yet was dipped, and was better after it (through Gods mercy) for a pretty while so as to go abroad: though she now is weak, and much what as she used to be before.

If then you will not believe the words of God, believe the works, believe the Miracles, for it is by Miracles that they are preserved who are dipt in cold water and not destroyed sa•…•…es Mr. Baxter, which if it be then God hath wrought very many Miracles among the men you nickname Anabaptists of late, for they are constantly preserved from perishing by either cold, or suffocation: yea I have known many a one better in body, but I nere knew any one, of whom I could safely say they were the worse in body or Soul for being dipt, save such as turned from the truth after turning to it, for the latter end with such indeed is worse then their begin∣ing.

Yet how rashly do these men shoot their bolts to the murdering of the truth, whilst they make the ordinary practise of it no lesse then flat murder it self, and that undeniably to any understanding man, unless there be a preservation by a miracle; for else it destroyes men quoth Mr. Baxter, it directly tendeth to overthrow mens lives in the course of Nature, it will kill hundreds and thousands of them; but if a man scape perishing with cold, yet how can he (i.e. how is it possible for him) to escape being choaked quoth Mr. Cook and stifled with the water, if he must be plunged over head to signify his death to sin?

2. Secondly kept under water to signify his burial?

How can a man escape choaking Sirs, if he be put and kept under the water? why I tell you that either he can, or else he cannot, if he can, why then he can, and so Mr. Cook is confuted; if he cannot in the course of nature, without mi∣racle, then it being certain that thousands do scape choaking, it should seem God by Miracle secures them, and yet for all this nor Mr. Baxter, nor Mr. Cook are convinced; whether it be the more shame for them or no not to be so, I leave it to themselves, and all understanding men to consider.

Or perhaps Mr. Cook means how can a man escape choaking if he be kept three daies under water, for so quoth he the disciple must, as Christ abode three daies

under water, if Christs burial be represented, but not onely his own party, for mora sub aqua quantulacunque saith Tilenus, quantumvis momentanea saith Bucan, abode under the water for never so little a while doth most lively resem∣ble Christs Burial, but his own practise confutes him clearly in this, for as the Ministers hand with which Dr. Featley resembles Christs burial is not dipt three daies together under water, so the infusion of water upon the face of the infant, which why may it not represent the burial as well as dipping quoth Mr. C. p. 17. doth not last for three daies together neither.

Thus you see how well Mr. Baxter and Mr. Cook have quitted themselves in their proof of our practise to be murder, and against the sixth commandement, and what high and mighty reason Mr. Baxter hath to accuse us to the magi∣strate as murderers, and to suggest it his duty to him out of Mr. Craddock, to restrain us to save the lives of his subjects, and not to suffer but to de∣stroy us.

Rantist.

But if you give way to Mr. Baxter to answer for himself, he clears himself of moving the magistrates to destroy you; I never moved Magistrate or peo∣ple, saith he p. 246. either to drive them out of the Land, or to destroy them.

Baptist.

What an egregious untruth is there? doth he not say here if those that make it Religion to Murder themselves, and urge it on their consciences as their duty are not to be suffered in a common-wealth any more then High-way Murderers, then judg how these Anabaptists that teach the necessity of such dipping are to be suffered.

Is not this to tell men that we are no more to be suffered in a Common-wealth then high way Murderers, which high way Murderers Mr. Baxters conscience I dare say desires that they may not be suffered, but may suffer no lesse then hang∣ing: and yet dares he say he stirs not up the Magistrate against us? I know not what is to excite the Magistrate against persons if this be not, to charge them to be as guilty as high way Murderers, which if he judges us to be indeed, he is bou•…•…d both in law and conscience to prosecute us to the very death, but if he in his con∣science judges us not to be such (as oh how after to the contradiction of himself in this doth he judge more charitable of us then so e. g. p. 310. where he saith who dare think their error to be such? and yet such is high way murder when lived and died in, as concludeth them from grace) then Imarvel how he dare charge us so high as to rank us with, and represent us as bad, and as unworthy to be suffered in a Commonwealth, as high way Murderers themselves, especially since it remains yet on his part unproved, that ever any disciple dyed in the time of dipping, or by occasion of submission to that dispensation.

Rantist.

If there be not such danger of death to the Baptized, yet the Baptizers may be murderers of themselves, for it is evident that if the Minister must go into the water with the party, it will certainly tend to his death (saies Mr. Baxter p. 137) though they may scape that go in but once, for weak Students to make a frequent practise of going into the water, it will cure their ich after novelties, and allay the heat of their intemperate zeal: therefore me thinks (saies Mr. Baxter) the Mi∣nisters should have regard to themselves.

Baptist.

Me thinks so too, or else they are not like their wonted selves, for self was ever yet for ought I see regarded by most Nationall Ministers much more then truth.

But I pray Sirs how certainly will it tend to your Ministers death, any more then it doth to the death of our Ministers that do dispense it, among whom I have known

men full as sickly, though not half so selfish as you, that have often dipped men in the sharpest seasons, and yet never lay by it so much as once, but your mini∣sters are weak students indeed, that are studyed no further in common sense and reason, and experienced no more in cold, and other Gospel hardships, which Paul was skilled in, then to think that genum tenus must certainly and unavoida∣bly make an end of them, unless the Lord by a miracle deliver them, and such as are fitter to make Curates of for Gentlemens chappels of ease then to take care of the poor afflicted Church of Christ.

Rantist.

Well, if it do not prove to be murder, and so against the eighth commande∣ment, yet I am sure it will prove to be adultery to dip naked, as they say you do, and so flatly against the seventh, for either you dip naked or you do not, if you do not, then you cannot dip the whole body: but if you do, if that be not so shame fully sinful as is scarce fit to be named among Christians, I know not what is: and this Mr. Cook and Mr. Baxter doth intimate to us, whose words I shall al∣so intimate to you at the present.

I would know with these new dippers saith Mr. Cook, whether the parties to be doused and dipped may be baptized in a garment, or no? if they may, then happily the garment may keep the water from some part of the body, and then they are not rightly •…•…baptized, for the whole man say they must be dip∣ped.

Again, I would ask what warrand they have for dipping, or baptizing gar∣ments more then the Papists have for baptizing bells? therefore belike the par∣ty must be naked, and multitudes present, as at Johns baptism, and the parties men and women at ripe years, being able to make confession of their faith and repentance; yet though they both sin against the sixth commandement indange∣ring life, and against all common honesty and civility, and Christian modesty required in the seventh commandement, they must have this way observed, because they fancy it the onely baptism: shall we think saith he, this was the bap∣tism of John, Christ and his Apostles? thus he,

And saies Mr. Baxter, Another wickednesse in their manner of baptizing is their dipping persons naked, as is very usuall with many of them, or next to naked, which is usuall with the modestest that I have heard of, against which I argue thus.

If it be a breach of the seventh commandement, thou shalt not commit adul∣tery, ordinarily to baptize the naked, then it is intollerable wickednesse, and not Gods ordinance, but so it is, therefore.

The Minor is thus evident saith he, that commandement forbids all in∣citements to uncleannesse, and all immodest actions, but to baptize women naked is an immodest action, and an incitement to uncleanness therefore, and to this he saies Mr. Tombes answered it was thought no immodesty in former times; but though it may seem no immodesty in Countries where they still go naked, yet among such as are not savages me thinks it should saith Mr. Baxter; if Mr. T. could baptize naked all the Maids in Bewdly, and think it no im∣modesty, he hath lost his common ingenuity, and modesty with the truth.

Thirdly, every good man is to watch over his heart, and to pray that he be not led into temptation, and would it be no snare and temptation to Mr. T. to be frequently imployed in baptizing maids naked? me thinks the very mention of it saith he, could I avoid it is immodest, and what it may be to all sorts of specta∣tors I stand not to expresse;

Besides all this saith he, it is likely to raise jealousies in Ministers wives and others, and so to foment continual dissentions, and it will make the ministry a scandal, and make the people look on them as so many vile incontinent men, if

auricular confession brought that infamy, no wonder if ordinary baptizing naked do it.

Further, it would debauch the people, and bereave them generally of all com∣mon modesty, if once it growes into custom to behold each others nakednesse, and sure that practise is not of God, which so directly tends to bereave men of all com∣mon civility, modesty, ingenuity and humanity:

Moreover, it would make the worship of God ridiculous, would not vain young men come to a baptizing to see the nakednesse of maids, and make a meer jest and sport of it?

Moreover the practise of baptizing naked would bring a general reproch up∣on the Christian profession among the enemies of it, and discredit the truth, for when Christians have the repute of Adamites, who will turn Christians? so∣ber men will be loath to take a woman to wife that hath the impudency to shew her self naked to an assembly, and would esteem it next to taking one from the stewes.

If they shall say to all this, as Mr. Tombes said in his Sermon, it is not ne∣cessary they be naked, I reply saith he,

First if it be next to naked the difference is not great, and the former inconve∣niences will follow, and God would not have the Iewes go up by steps on his altar, lest their nakednesse be discovered thereon, Cam was curst for beholding his fa∣thers nakedness, Christ tells us it is adultery to look on a woman to lust after her; the Scripture forbids filthiness, and uncleannesse, as not to be named among Saints.

Secondly, such as would have them wholly, or mostly covered differ from their partners, and to dip them covered will overthrow their own arguments, for the necessity of washing the whole body, for this will be no washing but a soak∣ing or steeping, if they stay in long enough, it may wash the garment, but the body will be but infused in all likelihood, and so I leave this unsavory practise, which were it not necessary to confute I should not meddle with it.

But in these last cases we dispute not against bare words, but against experi∣ences, and known practises, for their naked baptizing is a known thing, and the wickednesse that hath followed on some, and that some have died on't, and I would saith he, have others more wise, and escape both dangers, onely let me say saith he, thus much more that it is very suspicious, and to me unsavory that Mr. T. should say no more, bu•…•… that it is not necessary they should be baptiz∣ed naked, and in cold water, as if he took it to be lawful, but not necessary: me thinks he should rather have given his testimony against it, as sinful, and ex∣pressed some dislike, if he •…•…e do indeed dislike it, and judge it sinful, and if he do not, I dare say he is very far gone: one may see what you are by the words of these men, who have here set you out in your colours, so that I hope all, that read or hear what they say, will rather abhor then adore your dipping doings, and if you were not a people past all shame and sense of sin, me thinks you should abhorre your selves in dust and ashes, at the remembrance of your abhominable baseness in this particular; yea give me leave to say one word more to you, who were a minister once that did baptize infants, and it is the words of Mr. Baxter to Mr. Tombes p. 255. I conjecture that by that time you have baptized half as many maids and women naked in a cold River, as you have baptiz'd infants like an officiating Priest, your feet will either take cold, or your heart will take heat: if you would be ruled by me you should not indeavour to introduce into the Church a custome for every young minister or neighbour, so much as to look on a bathing Bathsheba or Susanna, least to those without, the name of a Church and a stewes, a Presbyter and a Pander, a Christian and a fornicator, do prove Synonimaes.

Baptist.

To those without? I wonder who those are? those without your Church must be out of the Nation too for ought I know, and cannot well see what is done by you in it: but to let that passe.

Here is thunder enough, but no lightning, a shrill sound but an empty barrel; such is Mr. Baxters book indeed, specially this twofold fardle about murder and adultery, in which whether there be more noise or non-sense I know not, but sure I am there is ten times more twittle-com-twattle then truth: this doctrine would make a terrible tumbling in a Country Church as they say, and make all the peo∣ple amazed to hear what manner of men these Anabaptists be, but he that sleeps there with his eyes open, will be stund no more at the hearing of this clamor, then by the barking of the bells in the steeple; I must needs confesse that this is matter of weight indeed, and a stone is heavy, and the sand weighty, but a fooles wrath is heavier then them both: this soon shot bolt is big enough to hure where it hits, but as it happens it hits not us: and so happens to hurt them most that mannage it; as for us, against whom it is managed, it rejoices us rather then otherwise, sith it reproaches and reviles, and saies all manner of evil against us falsely for Christs sake Mat. 5. 11. 12. 1 Pet. 4. 13. 14. 15. if our dipping were such evil doing i. e. murder and adultery as these men say it is, we had reason to hang down our heads indeed, and might well be ashamed in suffering from them in this particular, but sith as Paul said Act. 24. 13. they cannot prove the things whereof they ac∣cuse us, we are not ashamed, but glorifie God on this behalf.

Of these two accusers of the brethren Mr. Cook is more candid, and a little more modest then the other, and yet he utters so much that he hath much reason to be ashamed of it, for howbeit he does not so audaciously charge us with that foul fact of naked dipping as the other doth, yet by some simple supposals,

First, that persons cannot be rightly baptized by dipping with a garment on [as if they may not be put under, and covered and buried therein cloathed aswell as naked, and as if a soaking or steeping in water (Mr. Baxters bald conceit of our dipping) were not a washing or burying.]

Secondly that it is as unwarrantable to baptize garments, as tis for the Papists to baptize bells [as if those that baptize persons in garments, did as directly, and intentionally baptize garments, as the papists do baptize bells, or as if it were more unwarrantable for us to wet the cloathes, that persons are baptized in, when we baptize their bodies, then tis for the priests to wet the head cloaths of infants when they rantize their faces.]

By such silly supposals I say as these that there can be no true totall dipping, unless the persons be uncloathed, he subtly insinuates the world into a certain suppositi∣on, at least a shrewed suspition that dipping naked is the onely baptism dispensed among us, for which hee'l once be ashamed; but as for Mr. Baxter he is so un∣ingenuous, impudent and uncivilly foolish in this present parcel of his, you have here spread before us, that I professe against it as having in it much falsenesse, and more immodesty then I ever saw expressed at the totall dipping of any person that ever I saw dipped in my life: for he not only makes a long supervacaneous dis∣course of his dislike of dipping women and maids naked (in which is such a need∣lesse and over often nomination of those termes too, as tends more to the offending of chast, and corrupting of unchast consciences, then to any use of edifying at all) but also most rashly relates it to the whole world to be the usuall, ordinary known practise of a people, that are as abhorrent of such abominations as him∣self.

As for his Argument it is a fallacy called Ignoratio Elenchi, for he concludes not the point in question, for they, who stand most for baptizing by totall dip∣ping, are all (for ought that ever I heard of) as much against naked dipping as himself: yea so far are we all, (if any had been otherwise minded Mr. Baxter

would surely have assigned them, whose design was to vilifie us what he could, so far are we all from countenancing such a practise, that I dare, in the name of all the Churches of the Baptists through England, declare their unanimous utter detestation of it, in Mr. Baxters own words, viz that it is a breach of the se∣venth Commandment, an in•…•…ollerable wickednesse, an immodest action, an incitement to uncleannesse, likely enough to raise jealousies in Ministers wives, yea and other womens husbands too, and so to foment continuall dissention, a means to debauch people, and berea•…•… them of all common civility, modesty, ingenuity, and humanity, to turn Gods worship into contempt, and make it meer∣ly ridiculous, to bring a general reproach upon the Christian profession among all the enemies thereof, yea amongst the most sober and discreet, to discredit the truth, and prejudice men against it; yea verily tis scandal, reproach and discredit e∣nough, in that it is but belied by Mr. Baxter to be so base, how much more, and more justly would it be reproached, if his reports were as true as they are full of falsehood; we I say acknowledg the practise of naked dipping to be as bad, as Mr. Baxter proves it to be, therefore quorsum haec? to what purpose doth he with such prolixity proceed to prove, what no sober minded man of either party doth deny?

This is aliud a nogate; a plain absurd aberration from the question, which is not whether it be a sin ordinarily to dip naked or no? but whether we ordinari∣ly use that kind of dipping?

The first which none doubts of, he indeavours to make evident as one that light•…•… a candle, whereby to shew men that the sun shines.

The second, which is unknown utterly among us, he proclaims to be our usual' notorious, known practise: but he offers no proof of this at all.

Such silly Sophistry as this Mr. Baxter uses also in almost every of these Argu∣ments, whereby he professes to disprove our practise as unwarrantable, conclud∣ing all along another point than that in question; for whereas our tenet is that persons at years, professing to believe, of what parents so ever born, are to be baptiz∣ed, he most simply, and sinisterly concludes against us, as he supposes, in a mat∣ter of four or five Arguments that the children of Christians may not be baptized when they come to years, and that this practise of baptizing of Christians chil∣dren is utterly unconsistent with the Rule of Christ: as for us we say as much, neither is it our practise or opinion to baptize Christians children at age, upon that account meerly, as they are Christians children any more then the children of them that are no Christians, unlesse they professe to be believers and Christians them∣selves as their parents do, and upon that account, viz. as they professe to be∣lieve, we baptize hea he•…•…s children as soon as them.

Thus the man busies himself beyond measure in beating the aire, and wearyes himself ad ravim us{que}, and his reader ad nauseam in refuting non entities, about the proof of such things as no body denies, and per ignorationem Elenchi concludes that, which is as clear to his Antagonists as to himself, and leaves that utterly unde∣monstrated, which is the onely thing denyed by them, the absurdity of whose way he pretends it to be his businesse to discover.

For verily those, against whom he fights under the name of Anabaptists, are as clear in it as he can be, that no Christians child qua talis is to be baptized when he comes to years, saving upon the same account, on which an heathens child may be at years so baptized as well as he, viz. his own personal profession of faith, and desire of baptism.

Again they hold dipping naked to be intollerable wickednesse as well as he, yet these things he belabours himself not a little in making good, but that which is denyed indeed, viz. that it is our usual practise to dip women and maids nak∣ed, this he charges us with most stoutly, most desperately, and tells a tale of us most absurdly to the base abusing of himself, the true Church, and the whole

world also, but he is so impertinent, and impertinently imployed in proving naked dipping to be a sin, that he either forgets, or has no while to prove it to be practised by us at all,

But Si•…•… who, but he that sees the right eye of the idol shepheard to be u•…•…e∣ly darkned, would ever think that from such a man as Mr. Ba. desires to be ac∣counted, such a piece of paultry should proceed, that such a messe of balter∣dash as here is should ere be broached by him, that such a mad report of the walk∣ers in truth should be publisht by one that goes for a publisher of the truth among thousands of deluded people?

Me thinks I see Satan gone forth and become a lying spirit in the mouthes of the prime among their prophets, perswading and in the just judgement of God prevailing with multitudes of meer formal Gospellers to be strongly deluded, and to believe lies out of their mouthes that they may be damn'd, because they receive not the truth, that was troden down for 42 monthes, and now rises again and shines forth, in the love therof that they may be saved, but have pleasure in unrighteousness and super∣stition and have no pleasure in the truth.

Me thinks I see National Ministers of singular piety in peoples eyes prove men of singular pravity, singularly bewitched into an implicit belief of the base tales that vain fellowes raise of the way of truth, and singularly bewitching their peo∣ple into implicit belief of them, that so it is as they say, that neither Priest nor peo∣ple may obey the truth, but both stumble, and fall and be broken, and snared, and taken, and ashamed each of other in the end.

Good Lord how is the practise of the truth made a reproach unto thy people, and a derision dayly? for I have heard the defaming of many, report say they, and we will report it, possesse the pulpit and make the Priest believe it, and then all the Country shall ring out, and the people soon be diabolized into the faith on't; but hear ye rude reprochers of that people, that are reprovers of the wayes, whereby you run a whoring from the Lord, you shall not prevail by such sleights, such plausible pretences, you shall be greatly ashamed, you shall not prosper, and, unlesse you repent of your belying the truth of God, your everlasting confusion, shall never be forgotten.

It is too bad to be credulous to flying reports, worse so violently to vent them, worst of all malevolently to •…•…invent them, I dare not say, nor dare I deem Mr Ba. to be guilty of the last, but of the two first I cannot clear him, sith I perceive that he takes it for a truth that we ordinarily dip naked, and thereupon disputes a∣gainst it as our usuall practise, and then not confidently onely, but of a certain re∣lates to the whole world that it is no bare word, nor any doubtful thing, but an experience, a known practise: if he can clear himself he hath leave to do it for me, who also summon him in the name of Christ Jesus, whose true disciples he hath done such dispite to (the Lord keep him from despiting the spirit of grace) the people of whose love are the people of his wrath, to prove it our practise ordinari∣ly to dip naked, yea to produce but one instance of any women of maids that ever he saw dipt naked in all his daies, and Ile abate him much of that I now accuse him of in the court of my conscience, but if he say as indeed he does in effect that he never saw any dipt at all, whilst p. 134. he saies that all that ever he saw bap∣tized had water powred on them, how can he say Epertus loquor, it is his expe∣rience, he having never so much as seen such a thing, unlesse it were upon the bra∣zen fac't front of Featleyes book, where he fasly, feignedly, and filthily describes men and women dipping in that fashion, or else upon the Titlepage of Ephraim Pa∣git, who there paltrily pictures out this people practising, thus and there I believe he hath experienced it, or if he only hath it from the the mouthes of such as heard it from the mouthes of others, who never saw it, but receive it by tradition as well as he, and that originally •…•…o from the mouthes of some that made it, and in such a manner very likely it was first bruted, for I am perswaded there was never such a

thing done of late in England unless by some Arch Knave and Arrant Whore in way of mockage to the Gospel, which is rather a glory, then a shame to Christ his truth, then let Mr. Ba, bear the blame of his blind blaspheming tho people of the e∣verliving God.

Or if he know indeed that such a thing as baptizing maids and women naked hath been done in serious wise by any persons, I further challenge him to make some proof of it, and to print the names of such men as have done it; and such maids and women that have suffered themselves to be dipped naked, and the names of such credible eye witnesses as will testify it as in the fight of God, which if he can, though I shall not give place to him thereupon so as to be satisfyed ther∣by for his overlashing in asserting it to be our practise to dip naked, or for con∣demning and denominating a whole party, much more their cause, by the defects & abuses of some persons whom the cause disclaimes, for then there was 12. devils because one among the twelve, and then what an Augaean stable is your Church of England by many members of which notorious roguery is committed every houre? Yet I shall satisfy him so far as to undertake that the Church, or Churches where such are shall declare every such person as hath wrought such abomination, incommunicable without solemn repentance for that sordid practise, or be themsel∣ves incommunicable by all o her Churches.

But I believe he cannot do it, though I canno•…•… positively possibly prove a Ne∣gative, much more am I confident that he cannot make good his charge against us, viz. that it is our ordinary and usual practise: for besides no lesse then between one and two hundred, which in grosse I can ghesse at, which with these hands I have baptized, I have seen with these eyes many a one more baptized by others, yet never did I see male or female baptized naked to this hour, nor nex: to naked neither, if I understand Mr. Baxs. meaning in that bawbling phrase of next to na∣ked; Yea I suppose I may safely say my converse for these 5 years together and upward hath been with them that are commonly called Anabaptists, and my bu∣sinesse hath been for so long time at least among that people more then I perceive Mr. Baxs. hath, and much more then among any other people, being more or lesse acquainted with a score of their Congregations, yet howbeit Mr. Blake flings a little at us too, and hath his fingers so far in this spatter, as to say page 8. Those that have put a kind of necessity upon dipping have spoken much of being receiv∣ed naked •…•…n bap•…•…sm,

I never heard the least speech of such a thing, nor a syllable among them to such a purpose.

And if Mr. Ba. cannot prove it to be our ordinary known practise to dip naked then in the name of the Lord Jesus before whom he and I shall shortly both ap∣pear, I intreat Mr. Ba. who as concerning zeal yet persecutes the Church of God, & poures out reproach upon true Christians, giving his voice for them with as much modesty as Haman Est. 3. 8. as for high way Murderers, alias that they may all suffer execution being through blindnesse and excaecation exceedingly mad a∣gainst them, that of an ignorant Saul he would become a seeking, a searching, a seeing, a preaching Paul of the faith, which he hitherto destroies: and though he verily thinks with himself that he ought to do what he does against the truth, yet I beseech him to know that he is but as others have been b•…•…fore him, zealous of God, but not according to knowledg, sith it is but of the Traditions of his Fa∣thers Gal. 1. 14,

And sith he avers from his heart page 129. that for his part he neither knowes the day nor year when he began to be sincere, no nor the time when he began to professe himself a Christian, in which I believe him, if he mean a Ch•…•…istian in Scripture sense, I begg of him in the bowels of Christ Jesus, that he would now begin to be sine cerâ a Christian indeed, not by the halves, but altogether, for there is yet a mixture of much wax among his honey, and of much antichristi∣anism

in his Christianity, and as sure as he is ignorant when he began to professe to be a Christian, so sure I am that he never yet began to professe to be a Christian in truth, who knowes not that ever he was otherwise, but hath and holds his pro∣fession as the Turk and Jew do theirs viz. for the true one at a venture, because they were born and bred in it, and received it by Tradition onely from forefathers.

And as he will prove himself to be what he professes to be viz. a hater of igno∣rant violence, so I advise him to be a hater also of violent ignorance, of which hateful quallity in my mind he hath as much as any of the greedy gang, Gangraena it self onely excepted, not excepting Dr. Featley, Dr. Bastwick, Mr. Bayliff, Mr Pagit, not any among the proud pack of Prelates, that most perheminently prate against the Gospel.

And sith Mr. Ba. saies this much more that it is very suspicious, and to him unsavory that Mr. T. should say no more but that it is not necessary that they be baptized naked, as if he took it to be lawfull, though not necessary, and thinkes he should rather have given his Testimony against it as sinful, and expressed some dislike if he do indeed dislike, and judge it sinful, and if he do not he dare boldly say he is very far gone, let me say thus much more, that then it is as suspicious, and to me unsavory, that Mr. Ba. should say no more but that it is a breach of the seventh commandement, ordinarily to baptize the na∣ked, as if he took it to be lawful to do it sometimes, but not ordinarily: me thinks he should giue his Testimony against it as sinful, to do it at all, and express some dislike if he do indeed dislike and judge it sinful, and if he do not, I dare boldly say he is gone farther in filth, then Mr. T. or any baptized person ever went yet, save such as are gone quite off from the way of truth to the dishonour of it since they owned it, whose sin yet (the more shame for Mr. Ba.) he in his next ar∣gument, laies to the truths charge, and theirs, who both own and honour it by a biding in it, who are lesse gladly, and more sadly sensible of their sins, and villa∣nies then Mr. Ba. can be, by how much by reason of their lasciviuos wayes, which many follow, the way of truth they walk in is, as was foretold it should be 2 Pet. 2. 1. 2. 3. by Mr. Ba. and his admirers evil spoken of.

But if Mr. Ba. shall still say it is suspicious and unsavory for Mr. T. to say the one, but not for himself to say the other, and will none of the foregoing advice to repent and be baptized, but rather reject the counsel of God against himself being not baptized, because he hath experience (by hearsay) that we baptize females naked, then a rod and a rod for the back of Mr. Baxter, who pardons to himself the same defects, wherein he holds others guilty, who so slenderly takes up every tattle a∣gainst the truth, and proclaimes it for truth to the whole world, for the simple be∣lieveth every word, but the prudent man looks well to his going Prov. 14. 15 a prudent man foresees evil and secures himself, but the simple passe on and are pu∣nished Prov. 22. 3.

As for his next and last argument against us which he drawes from the judgments of God that ever follow us, wherein he jumbles all kinds of sectaries into the name of Anabaptists as the Antibaptists use commonly to do, witnesse Featley and others, and makes them bear the burden of all the mischiefs that were ever perpetrated by all the mad braind men in all the world, as Iohn of Leyden and all the rest of his ran∣ting strain, it is scarce current consequence to say Gods judgements are upon a people, therefore that people are none of his, for all things come alike to all, & none knowes love or hatred by what is before him here Eccl. 8. 14. and the 9. 1. 2. 3. yet sith he speaks of ruinating judgements, let the consequence passe as valid, but then his minor is utterly false, for the Anabaptists are not all ruinated yet, nor will be till the Clergy are quite cashiered, as evident as it is that they have every where withered and suddenly come to nought heretofore, and since he speakes of spiritual judgements e. g. that practise saith he hath never helped, but •…•…ndred the work of God where it comes, nor hath God blest their ministry to con∣version

of soules as he hath other mens, but rather they have been instruments of the Churches scandal and misery.

Secondly, that hath been the inlet to most other vile opinions, few stop at it but go much further, God hath usually given up their societies to notorious scan∣dalous wicked lives, and conversations more then others that professe godlinesse, and never prospered them so far as to have any established Churches, which should credit the Gospel. I grant that some of these are sad emblems of a people none of Gods, onely Mr. Ba. hath here saddled the wrong asse, for this way of bap∣tism hinders onely the work of mans Tradition, which would make void the commandement of God, but being it self the work and way of God, is hindred where ere it comes by Priestly malice, preaching Gods fear after precepts of men, nor hath God blessed the Nationall ministry to the true conversion of soules as he hath done theirs, but to the conversion of them to a Gospel of their own making, for repent and be baptized was the Gospel that Peter preached, and that is it that is now practised by us, and how many are converted and baptized accordingly is so evident, that it needs no proof at this hour, but repent and be not baptized is the Gospel the Priesthood preaches, and if you call that conversion, which indeed is confusion, we confesse their converts are more more then ours, such instruments of scandal and misery to the true Churches are the Priests in all places by their reproaches, nor is baptism the inlet of any vile opinions any more then the same was in the primitive times, wherein many that were baptized did turne hereticks, when they had done, as they do now, but what wise man then impu∣ted it to their baptism? and yet some of those opinions Mr. Ba. calls vile, will be proved to his conscience in due time to be the truth: yet many that are baptiz∣ed do run out to very vise opinions; and practises no better then their principles, and stop not there indeed as he saies, but go much further, and degenerate into wayes of wickednesse more abominable then ever in former time, and of these Ranters Mr. Copp is none of the least attainers, whom Mr. Ba. p. 148. hath very well set forth in his colours, for I believe God in Iustice hath given him up, and many other besides him to more notoriousnesse of error and enormity, then e∣ver any that profest godlinesse,

But what then? shall we impute that fault to his being baptized? I trow not; for howbeit M•…•…. Ba. so imagines, yet it was because he honoured not the truth, when he had owned it, nor walked in Christ after he had received him, in which case how often God gives over to strong delusions is evident, not only by the word, which declares that when men like not to retain God in their knowledge he oft gives them over unto vile affection,

But also by sad experience in the world in these last times, wherein 2 Pet. 2. 1. 1 Tim. 4 1. and the 2. 3. 1. doctrines of divels are rise among them, that once owned the faith, yet the faith not a whit in fault for all that, but departure from the saith before expressed.

And that the fall of these men is into worse then ever before, it is no argument against, but rather for the way they newly fall from, the sensuality of such as se∣parate themselves from the true Churches in the later times, i. e. congregatio∣nal after these are once separated from the false ones i. e. the nationall, being prophesied of 2 Pet. 2. Iude 19. of old, that it should be greater then that of all beastly men that were before them; besides corruptio op imi pessima, the higher the rise into reformation, the more desperate the fall into deformation, of those that reform and prove deformed again: that greater depth of hell therefore men fall into that fall from us, proves the hight of our Churches to be neerer heaven, then that of yours, for if after they have escaped &c. 2 Pet. 2. 20. 21. 22. when Cop was in his standing in the Church of England, I remember very well, for I knew him better then then ever since, he had some bounds from conscience to his corruption, but having been once inlightned higher then Mr. Baxter ever was yet

in the will and way of God, and tasted of the heavenly gift, and made a parta∣ker of the holy spirit, and obeyed the truth as it is in Jesus, and yet fallen away, his conscience is feard with a hot iron, and I have small hope of his renewing a∣gainst by repentance, who thus denies the Lord that bought him, and cruçifies the Lord afresh, and is twice dead, pluckt up by the Roots, a raging wave of the sea foaming out his own shame.

But what is all this to those that yet walk in truth of baptism, more then to warn them that they depart not from it, as he hath done, lest they come into the same condemnation with him? doth it prove baptism to be the cause of that gros∣ness that often followes, when a person is baptized? in no wise, for his non abi∣ding in the love of the truth and that doctrine of Christ gives God occasion to give over to the height of wickednesse.

I appeal therefore to the conscience of Mr. Baxter,

1. Whether the Pope may not by as good consequence charge all these errors that are upon Protestanism, saying Thus, the Protestants stop not there, but run out further from Episcopacy to Presbytery, and to Independency, and so to Anabaptism, and so to all? it is true, Protestanism is occasio•…•… or causa sine qua non, for such as sit still in the smoak of the Popes Traditions, are not ac∣quainted with the new found fancies of the Ranter, But Protestanism is not the true cause.

2: Whether Mr. Ba. be so well aware as he should be what time of day it is, when Peter and Iude point out these things so plainly; and yet he wonders at them as a Mystery?

3. Whether the few owning, and the few abiding in the true way of bap∣tism, doth not prove it to be the streit and narrow way that leads to life, which few find?

4. Whether he think we lay not to heart their misery and madnesse that run off from us as well as he, and strive not to warn and watch over them as much as he? and if so, why he blames us more then himself, that, do what we can, so many run to ruin? besides some he names were never baptized, though neer it, as Mr. Saltmarsh.

5. Whether it be just to load them that still stick to the truth, with the blame of all their blasphemies that go off from it? T•…•…s true the way of truth will be evil spoken of by the Priest, by reason of the madnesse of the false Prophet 2 Pet. 2. 2. but that is ought let every reasonable man examine: The Rantizer renounces his sprinkling, and is baptized in truth, and after renounces that, and runs on to be a Ranter, and then all is reckoned to his baptism: poor truth may say quum re∣mini obtrudi potest, itur ad me: every one shifts it off from himself, and truth must carry the scandal, and baptism bear the burden of all: the Priest and his people are they by whom, the false Prophet and his people they by reason of whom the way we walk in is evil spoken of but vae illis per quos, vae illis presertim propter quos, veritatis via blaspemabitur, quam optimum esset utris{que}, si nati non fuissent: Mat. 18. 7. & 26. 14. 2 Pet. 2. 2.

What force therefore is in this Argument to conclude against the truth of our way? yea what absurdity is in all Mr. Baxters Arguments against us you see, in all which he sits beside the cushion, yea and indeed the whole bulk of them is no∣thing but a thing full of emptinesse.

Rantist.

I would fain see you answer that book as nothing as it is, I believe it is more then ever will be answered by any to any purpose.

Baptist.

First, there is a great part of his book needs no answering from us, being such an absurd aberration from what we hold and practise in contradistinction to him, to other things, which he undertakes to disprove, though we (and who doth not?)

do join with him fully in them, and do hold as he does, as namely, almost all those 7 or 8 Arguments from page 125. to page 138. wherein he spends himself mostly in declaring against judgements and practises, that are no more ours, nor any ones else, that I know of, more then his own: for who holds Christians children quâ Christians children, i. e. without their own personal profession of faith, and Christianity, in which case heathens children may be baptized also, are to be baptized when they come to years, any more then the children of hea∣thens?

Again, who holds or practises such a thing as naked dipping of women and maids? not I, nor any man breathing under heaven I imagin, nor will any wise man be coxcombd into the belief of it that tis our practice I hope, because Mr. Ba. disputes against it as ours, yet these are the main matters argl'd against well nigh in all those pages, yea if he prove the baptism of Christians children at years or∣dinarily to be against rule, tis fully sufficient against the Anabaptists, faith he, if we had not a word more against them, the man feigns adversaries to himself, and finds himself work with them, and takes on and layes about him like a That∣cher, and fights, and fences against his foes when he hath none at all about him.

Secondly, much if not more then a third part of it, viz. from p. 262. to p. 286. consists almost universally in a particular private publike prate to Mr. Tombs in vindication of himself from Mr. Tombs's valedictory vindication of himself from Mr. Baxs. abuses of him, which tedious, mixt, blattering recrimination, and red∣argumentation, if any save Mr. Tombs himself, whom it so personally relates to, shall trouble himself with from better employment, and the world with any more reply to, then the Lord rebuke him, he hath more time then wisdom profitably to improve it.

Thirdly much if not much more then a third part of the residue, viz. from p. 289. to 338. he spends in division with other divines for pleading and practising baptism to infants from other grounds and principles and to other ends and purpo∣ses then himself doth, as namely, from Tradition, and yet in order to baptis∣mal regeneration, as Mr Bedford, who is fain to fly to tradition for proof of infant baptism, and yet holds that baptism doth really as an instrumental efficient cause confer, and effect the grace of regeneration of nature on infants, which Mr Bedford, Dr. Burges, Dr. Ward, together with Mr. Baxter himself, and I know not how many more Divines, in the meandrous multitudinous mist of whose pro and con opinions a man may sooner loose himself then find the truth, are all ore the tops of the boots in dissentaneous discourses about a businesse called baptis∣mal regeneration, the quiddity, quantity, and commodity of which non ens, of which nonsense, as to infants, is so curiously pryed into, and learnedly inquired after by them, that it is not for every ordinary body, that hath no more learning then Peter and Iohn had, who never Scholasticallized the plain Gospel out of the reach of plain men and poor folks, as our Rabbies now adaies do, to come within a mile or two of their meaning; some divining on this wise, some on that, some one thing, some another, some that baptism is instituted to work the first grace in infants, i. e. habitual, but not in men, in whom the first grace is prerequir∣ed, as Mr. Bedford, some thwarting that by this reason, that baptism cannot have two different uses to men and infants, and yet saying with all, that it may be for some ends to the Aged, for which it is not to infants, as Mr. Baxter, some saying that baptism is a Physical, some a Metaphysical, some a Hiperphysical in∣strument to convey real grace into infants, the spirit working it in them thereby naturally, or rather supernaturally, as Mr. Bedford who holds that it really conveyes grace on all infants elect, or non elect, and Dr. Burges, who yet differs and subdivides from him, holding that it conveyes grace on the elect infants only, and not on the non-elect, some that baptism is onely a moral instrument, and

the spirit neither a Physical nor Hyperphysical, but a moral Agent in baptism, sig∣nifying and so working on the souls, sealing and conveying no real grace, but re∣lative grace, i. e. right to the real, as Mr. Baxter, who saith that real true grace and change of mind is to go before baptism, as a condition both in the institution, and every example of baptism through all the bible, therefore not to be conveyed in it, this Mr. Baxter proveth by the institution Math. 28. 18. Mark 16. and by the examples of the Iewes, Samaritans, the Eunuch, Paul, Lydia, the Iaylor, the Corinthians, who all did gladly receive the word, repent and believe, and then and thereupon only were baptized p. 300. and because all this is exclu∣sive of infants, who have no faith nor grace (for to the utter confutation of the Ashford Disputers, who say infants in their infancy have faith and the spirit of grace, and that apparently enough, the Scripture making it plainly appear con∣cerning them)

Mr. Baxter professeth that it is utterly unknown to any man on earth and un∣revealed in the word, whether God give infants any inherent spiritual grace or not p 301.

Therefore to salve his baptism of infants that have not that grace, and faith in them, that is prerequired to be in persons to be baptized, as a condition, he very goodly tells us that by grace and faith being prerequired, as a condition, he means either in the party or another for him, so then though infants have no faith in themselves yet o mirandum! they have faith in the loines, i. e. in the hearts of their parents, and so are to be baptized, they are buryed in the dipping of the Ministers hand saith Featley, and believe by the faith of their Parents, saith Mr. Baxter.

Thus oh how these men, who more stink of the Schooles then skill in the Scriptures, are at variance about their own inventions, bending their brains some one way, some another, to botch up their businesse of infant-baptism, and yet, as fast as one builds up, another of them saves us a labour, and razes and pulls down to our hands; oh what stoch, what stuff, what stirs, what strife, what stickling, what striking flatly against each others principles, what a ditty, what a do is here among them? as if the Divines were all mad: so let all the fraternity of divines be divided o God, and fall out ever about their own fal∣sities, till they find thy truth, and never let them agree better among themselves on what account to baptize infants, till they (ashamed of themselves, and people ashamed of waiting on the Seers for determination of what is truth) be all driven to confesse as (blessed be thy name) Mr. Baxter doth already p. 301. That they find it a hard controversie to prove infant baptism it is so dark in the Scripture, much more a hard task to prove different uses of it to men and infants, as needs they must if they prove it to be of use to infants, for it signifies not at all to them as it does to men, and so to conclude, to the freeing of themselves from that puzzle and perplexity, and fire of contention that now they fry in, for their hatred of that one onely plain way of truth that leades to piece, that verily tis not thy will that any infant at all should be baptized; and let Mr. Ba. who was once in doubt of infant baptism, upon sight of the slender grounds that other divines did hold it from, till satan seduced him back again to the belief of it again, be perswaded, if it be thy will, on sight of the more weak and slender principles, which with much ado he hath found out, whereon to satisfy himself and others, and to sit still in the shadow of that superstition, to be not almost onely, but altogether, saving their sufferings from him, such as thy servants are, whom he yet vilifies what he can.

As then to Mr. Baxters Appendix of Animadversions on Mr. Bedfords, Dr. Burges, and Dr. Wards absurdities about baptismal regeneration of infants, tis no matter to us, yea I conceive it a likely means of it self to make wise men renounce Infants baptism, that read there at what ods they are, and how they wrangle among

themselves that own it; beside sith he that passing by meddles with a strife not belonging to him is like one that takes a dog by the ears Pro. 26. 17. ile passe by for my part, and not meddle with it at all.

Fourthly, another part of Mr. Baxters book is a small slender tract of about one leaf long penned in proof of baptisms a biding a standing ordinance of Christ to the worlds end, and therein so far am I from excepting and contradicting, that I rather approve it, & considering the high head of contradiction that in this last loose age already is, and within a while much more, and more headily will be made against it, and how the subtility of Satan is such that sith he can uphold his king∣dome now no longer by his old souldiers t•…•…e Rantizers, which changed the lawes and ordinances of Christs kingdome, he seeks to do it by erecting a new moddle, of men, I mean the seekers, and Ranters, who rase the very foundations of it, and how sith he can prevail no more to deceive the nations from the narrow way of truth by his old Spiritualty the spiteful Priest, he hath spit a new Spiritualty out of his mouth, from which as from a greater Carnalty then the other, the earth, that it may be ripe for the sickle as it must be at Christs coming, shall abound with abo∣mination i. e. they that separate themselves from the true Church after their sepa∣ration with them from the false, sensual having not the spirit, yet pretending more highly to it then ever any, considering all this, I •…•…ay, I seriously side with Mr. Ba. as to that subject, and to shew him, who simply supposes we are all a people posting to∣wards the pulling down of Christs ordinances, because some do, and because all of us, as we are sworn to it, seek what we are able to pull down mens, to shew him I say notwithstanding his conceits to the contrary, how close we keep ac∣cording to the counsel both of Peter and Iude in that behalf 2 Pet. 3. 2. Iude 17. to the commandements of Christ and his Apostles in these last daies, wherein they declare that others should depart from and despise them, to shew him also how little reason he hath to charge us with their evils, who are (to use his own phrase p. 26.) above ordinances i. e. above obedience to God, and so Gods them∣selves, I intend God willing before this work escape my hand, that is now un∣der it to bestow some few lines on the same subject, having been often requested to it by others in vindication to the truth.

Fifthly, as for the forepart of Mr. Baxs. book, for more then a fourth part of it is worn out in Pream•…•…ular passages, apologies, epistles to the Church at Kederminster, at Bewdley, which Churches alias parishes of Ked. and Bew. (for all the people, till of late that some few have separated themselves together to Mr. T. are Church-members with Mr. Ba. in those two places p. 280) which parishes I say howbeit, sowing pillowes that they may sl•…•…ep themore securely in superstition,

Mr. Ba. by a dedication of his doings to the C•…•…urch at Ked. to the Church at Bew. would fain flatter into a faith, that each of them is a Church of Iesus Christ, yet I must crave leave to inform those Churches from Christ, that as yet they are no other then Churches of the Popes calling and constitution; for the parochial posture of Christning, and so inchurching of all that are born within the bounds, and barely abide within the preincts of the parish, had its order from the head of those Churches viz. the Vicar of Christ; but not at all from Christ Iesus him∣self, yea and though there may be many honest men in both Ked. and Bewdley, among whom if Mr. Ba. be one it shall not grieve me at all, yet according to Dr. Featleys, nor yet according to Mr. Baxs. own definition, who say a true visible Church is a particular company of men professing the Christian faith, known by two markes viz. t•…•…e sin•…•…ere preaching of the word, and due administration of the Sacraments Dr. Featly p. 4. or a society of persons separated from the world to God, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 called out of the world &c. Mr. B. p. 87. neither of those two parishes are true visible Churches of Iesus Christ, for neither were they ever yet called out of the world, or separated from the world to God in that wise i. e: by such meanes, and in such manner as Christs Church is i. e. by the pure

preaching, of the word and pure power of God, but rather by the power of the word of man i. e. partly of the Pope, and partly of the civil sword in this nati∣on of old, under a penalty imposing upon them their present posture; nor is the word preacht to them to this hour sincerely by Mr. Ba. or any other parish minister, who unlesse he sing a new song will make them no more a Church of Christ then he found them, but with wonderful much mixture of mans invention; yea the fear of▪ God is taught by him according to the precepts of men, much lesse are the Sacraments rightly administred, for their baptism is no baptism at all.

And as touching separation, I know but three separations they have had since they stood under the name of Christian Churches, answerable to the different Christian Religions, of point blank Papism, prelatical Prostantanism, and pre∣sent Presbyterianism, which the parishes haue past under since they have been Parishes, viz. a Presbyterian separation by appointment of the present Parlia∣ment, who on pain of their displeasure commanded all to separate from the lesser superstitions of episcopall formes, ceremonies, services, to a finer and more di∣rectorian▪ kind of Protestant profession; a generall Protestant separati∣on by the Appointment of our english state under K. Ed. and Q. Eliz. who commanded all on pain of their displeasure to separate from the Romish grosser superstitions, Popes Supremacies, masse and other Marian opinions and professi∣ons, also a parochial and a paropopical separation, or distinct oppidal division of their particular selves from each other, and all other particular Churches i 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Towns besides themselves, by the appointment of the Pope and his Subs and Subsubs viz. Christian Emperours, Kings and Princes, who when they threw down their Crownes, and gave up all their power to make one beast called Christien∣dome, and themselves and theirs to be ruld and reignd over wholly by the whore at her wil, did both separate all Christendome from the world, and then sub-separate it into many smaller Christendomes, and constituted Churches i. e, national provincial, parochial: and thus Ked. and Bew. first began to be Churches, or societies visibly separated from the world viz. by the call of the Pope, who separated one parish from another; but Christs Churches had another separation i. e. by the word barely preached, and not by outward force imposed, they were called to faith in Christ, and baptism, not Rantism, into his name for re∣mission of sins, and after that continued in the Apostles doctrine, and in fellow∣lowship one with another, not forced, but free, and in breaking of bread and prayers: these are the Churches to which as then, so now the Lord adds dayly such as shall he saved, and therefore I must tell Mr. Ba. and the honest men in ei∣ther Ked. or Bew. that are of Mr. Bs. beg•…•…iling that except they repenting both for and from their dead works, and their vain conversation in point of baptism, wor∣ship, Church-fellowship &c received by Tradition from their fathers, and their unadvised zeal in siding to smite Christ with reproches thorow the sides of the true Churches, be baptized better then ever they have been, and do as those did in Act. 2. which as no infant then did so now none can do, they have neither the true matter nor the true form constitutive of the visible Church of Christ, yea so ma∣ny of them onely as shall gladly receive the word, which infants cannot do, and yet may do well enough too, neither that nor walking in fellowship being requi∣red of them, as it is of others, and be baptized according to his will, shall be owned as the true visible Church of Christ in these two parishes as Christs appear∣ing.

Sixthly, the residue of Mr. Bs. book which coutaines his arch argumentation from three principles for infants baptsm viz. their discipleship, Church-member∣ship and rightship of being dedicated unto Christ, is for the most part, to the sa∣tisfaction of any that are minded to own the truth, though not so intentionally in way of formal answer to Mr. Ba. so fully and effectually enervated before, where the same arguments, as they are used by others, are examined, that it could a∣mount

to no other then superfluity, and Tautologie to answer them over again, because they are urged in another, that is a more pedantick for me by him, whose work is not at all to produce any new principles from which to prove the point, but onely to improve more largely in a way of labor more long then strong, to man∣age more formally in a way of hipothetical syllogism, and to drive on more furiously these few old ones; therefore excuse me, specially since Mr. T. hath given reply some while since, who is more strictly concern'd in it, if I am loath, unless there were more need then Mr. B•…•…xs. new triming up of two or three old arguments ministers thereunto, to begin and play over the whole game again; I know a trick worth two of that viz. to refer you to what is already written by Mr. T. and what I have said my self above, and my friend thereby be admonished, for to make many books, much more upon one subject is to no end, and mu•…•…h study is a weariness to the flesh, yet a general return I may chance to give, and some brief reply to his arguments in particular.

The truest general verdict I can give of it, if I may speak my judgement without offence, is this, it is a three footed stool, the legs of which are all lame, and decrepid made by Mr. B•…•…x. for the people of Ked. and Bewd. to sit at ease on, in that po∣pish posture and practise, in which truth being hid for ages and generations, both they and all Christendome have been housed, and out of which Christ Jesus is now about to storm them; it is a tree shooting forth with three Trunkes against the truth, whereof the middlem•…•…st which is the main, runs out 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ramos, ra∣mulos, & ramus•…•…ulos so many smaller boughs, twigs, and twiggles, and layes it self forth at large into such a train of Trivials, so many littles to the purpose, that he will find himsel•…•… gre•…•…t store of small businesse, that does more then think his think to his own self of each particular odde conceit, that is in it, or that alkes to the world of it any more then in the general, and in the lump.

In the lump therefore I say in the sincerity of my soul, as in the sight of God, I see not what to stile it more suitably to it self in short, then a lump of Logical super∣fluity, a systeme of Syllogistical simplicity, wherein the man mannages his war like some fresh man that is newly metriculated into the faculty of Logicking in mood and figure, that delights to hear himself syllogize out every syllable, as he hath scribled it over afore hand, and treasured it up in his papers; so he comes out with a huge heap of hypotheticals, arguing at a vast distance from the business of bap∣tism, and some times ex suppos•…•… is non supponen lis too, as if he would fetch in∣fant baptism from far, sith tis so dark in Scripture, as he confesses it is, that he cannot have it •…•…igh at hand, proving more roundly then soundly, in a great cir∣cumference of consequence upon consequence, syllogism upon syllogism thus, if this then that, if this then that, if this then that, but this therefore that; when not seldome neither this nor that is true; but will you hear the conclusion of the whole matter? it is this.

ma. If some infants be disciples, and churchmembers, and to be devoted to God therefore to be baptized.

mi. But so they are,

Therefore to be baptized.

To which besides the sequel of the Major, which I shall shew to be utterly false, i'le prove the Minor false by the prosecution of this Syllogism.

If infants be neither disciples in any sense, much lesse that in Mat. 28 nor church members of a Gospel Congregation, nor are to be devoted to God in such a sense as the Jewish males, then not to be baptized;

But so they are not,

Ergo, not to be baptized.

As for his Mediums whereby he Argues infants to be disciples, they are so frivolous and foolish, that a very child may be ashamed of them.

The first, which is taken out of Act. 15. 10. is so abundantly declared to be

absurd before, that I need not clear it further, and therefore I'le say the lesse to it here, he argues thus viz.

Those i. e. all those on whom the false teachers would have put the yoke of cir∣cumcision were disciples,

But some of those on whom they would have layed that yoke were in∣fants.

Ergo infants are disciples.

The Major of which is a foundation so false and infirm, that I stand amaz'd at it that a man of Logick should dare to lay it, yet well nigh every one of you builders lay it as your basis, from whence you divine a discipleship to infants, and thereon build the businesse of their baptism, as Doctor Featley, Mr. Mar∣shall and others, yea who would think it? inter scribendum while I am a writ∣ing this very line in Answer to Mr. Bax. there is a triste brought to my hands of a sheet and a half, piping hot from the presse, penned by Mr. Simpson of Marden, son to that Mr. Simpson of Bethersden, whose private letters I answered above, stiled a soveraign preservative against Anabaptism, in which there is nihil novi, no newes at all, for tis a furtive collection of some few fraggments out of other men viz. Mr. Blake, the Ashfordian dispute and others, which all are also more then enough enervated before, whereupon I shall trouble my self no further then thus with that toy, the author whereof in his epistle to the Anabap•…•…sts, as he calls them, about Marden, tells strange stories of his being stormed on e∣very side, and almost tired out with onsets and oppositions from their private let∣ters, and among the rest he minds them how he had once to do with a host of them viz. September the tenth 1649. in which conflict my self, who was more then an eye witnesse, though much inferior to a worthy brother then in presence also, viz. Mr. Blackwood, and therefore far from arrogating to my self the title of Champion, with which he smites me in his Margent, can testify how uncivilly and shamefully the man stormed against the truth, insomuch that unlesse he re∣pent of the mad-blind, hare-brained zeal he then expressed, many, if not most of that Auditory he then interrupted, whether he remember them of it or no, will surely never forget it while they live.

In which book,, I say as there is no new Argument, so to be sure there is this old Argument, as well as some more, translated out of Mr. Bax. or some other, whereby to prove infants discipleship p. 20. because the false Teachers would have put the yoak of circumcision on them.

But Sirs what though they would have put the yoak on the disciples necks, will it therefore follow that they were all disciples on whose necks they would have put the yoake? me thinks it should not, if you look well about you, any more then this, viz.

Augustus Caesar put the yoak of Tribute on all the Jewes, i. e. taxed all the Jewes,

Ergo, all they were Jewes whom Augustus taxed.

Nay verily had it been said they would have put the yoake of circumcision on all the disciples, as it is not, yet would it not have held Retro that therefore all those on whom they would have put the yoak were disciples, but in very deed neither of those was true, for as it was not all the disciples on whom they would have put that yoake, for they did not teach that women should be circumcised, so all were not disciples on whom they would have put that yoak, for male infants not being capable to be taught cannot possibly be disciples at all, much lesse such dis∣ciples as are meant in that place, of whom it is most evident that they were taught verse 1.

Much more might be said in disproof of this foolish fancy but that enough is spoken to it before, yet this is the first Medium whereby Mr. Bax. bends himself to make it good that some infants are disciples, and his other are as mean to the

full as this, he proves it next by a disjunctive thus,

If infants be not disciples, it is either because they are uncapable so to be, or else because God will not shew them such a mercy.

But neither of these can be the cause,

Ergo, some infants are disciples.

To which I answer that tis not because God will not shew them so great a mer∣cy, for most undoubtedly the Lord shewes far greater mercie then that, though not that to infants that dy in infancy, for he saves them and gives unto them ever∣lasting life, and admits them into the Kingdome of Heaven, and as for that bare simple notion, outward account and denomination of disciples, what extraordi∣nary great mercy is that I wonder if it be abstracted from the other? tis not so great a mercy but persons may have it, and yet be damned for all that, nor so great a mercy, but that the mercy of God may be as great to them without it, nor so great as that they are capable of any more benefit by it from the Church, or from their parents, then they are capable of if they have it not, they may be prayed for by the Church and by their parents full as much, and be brought up by them in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, not onely as well, but much better, when they are capable of being disciples, and instructed, though in infancy neither counted disciples, nor baptized, as if they were supposed to be disciples before they are taught,

It is therefore because they are not capable to be discipled in their nonage, and the true reason why they are not capable, is that which Mr. T. alledged, and a∣las that it should not satisfy Mr. Bax. viz. because they cannot learn what is taught them.

Mr. Bax. knowing that, fetches a compasse about another way whereby to prove them capable to be disciples, viz. their being servants of Christ, and sub∣jects of Christs Kingdome, and thirdly their belonging to Christ, but what a pitti∣ful piece of proof, what a messe of miserable mistake is this, as if to belong to Christ, to be Christs subject, Gods servant, and Christ disciple were convertable, and alltogether one and the same, wheras howbeit it cannot be denyed but that e∣very disciple of Christ belongs to Christ, and is his Subject, and Gods servant, yet that every one who may be said to belong to Christ, to be Gods servant, and his Subject, is Christs disciple cannot be asserted without more absurdity, then Mr. Bax. is willing to take notice of in himself, for Mr. T. gives him an Item of it plain enough, for any reasonable man to consider of, but he is deaf to it through a mind forestalld against the truth.

He tells us that infants are capable to be Gods servants Levit. 25. 41. 42. and therefore consequently Christs disciples, and consequently to be baptized, for disciples and Gods servants signifie the same thing, denote the same persons, and that there is the same capacity requisite to both p. 18. 19. yea if there be a diffe∣rence saith he, there is more required to a servant then to a diseiple, but what wretched evidence is here, when as theres nothing more clear, and palpably evi∣dent, then this, that more is required to make a disciple then a servant, yea veri∣ly the consequence holds sound from Christs disciple, to Gods servant, but from Gods servant to Christs disciple, which is his way of arguing a very novice may see it rotten, and invalid: there is enough in all the creatures, the earth and hea∣vens, which as books, wherein we may read it, though not as men that make any verball narration of it, declare the glory of God Ps. 19. 1. to denominate them Gods servants Psa. 119. 91. Nebucad. Nezar had enough to denominate him Gods servant Ier 43. 10. as Mr. T. truly tells him, but not enough to denominate him Christs disciple.

Yea I appeal to Mr. Ba. own conscience, whether at that time, when Christ exercised his ministry among the Iews, the whole Nation of the Iews as well as those he mentions out of Levit. 25. 41. and in the self same sense with those, were

not, Iure Redemptionis by right of his Redemption of them from Egypt, the ser∣vants of God, had relatively a peculiar people to himself, yet how few of them were Christs disciples viz. those onely that attended to his law, in which respect though he stile all Israel his servants, yet he distinguishes those few onely from the rest that harkned not to his law, by the denomination of his disciples Isaiah 8. 16.

And whereas he saies of infants may they not be called Gods servants from the meer interest of dominion that God hath to them? p. 20.

I answer, who doubts of that? but may they thereupon be called disciples, and be baptized? if so then from the meer interest of dominion that God hath to all men, all men may be called Gods servants, as well as they, and so consequently be baptized as Christs disciples.

He tells us further p. 21. that infants are capable of being subjects of Christs kingdome, taking kingdome not in the larger sense, as it contains all the world, nor in the strictest as it containeth onely his elect, but in a middle sense as it con∣teins the visible Church, therefore consequently capable of being Christs dis∣ciples, and of baptizing; and to prove the antecedent viz. that they are subjects of Christs kindome i. e. members of the visible Church, he uses this medium, they are capable of being subjects in any kingdome on earth, and therefore why not of Christs kingdome saith he i. e. of the visible Church of Christ?

Now if this be a good consequence, they are capable to be subjects in any Kingdom on earth and therefore to be subjects of Christs Kingdom i. e. his Church, then the infants of heathens as well as these, being capable to be subjects in any Kingdom on earth, are consequently as capable to be subjects of Christs Kingdom and Church, and consequently to be Christs disciples, and in their in∣fancy to be baptized, but Mr. Baxter himself will say non sequitur unto this.

He tells us further that Christ would have some infants i. e. believers infants, for those he meanes, to be received as disciples, therefore some infants i. e. such are his disciples.

To prove the antecedent he jumbles together a number of places out of Mat. Mark and Luke viz. Mat. 18. 5. the 10. 42. Mark. 9. 41. Luke 9. 47. 48. in one of which places because Christ saies of a child, who so shall receive this child in my name receiveth me, by comparing this place with the rest, where Christ saies to his disciples, and of them also, not of infants, whoso shall give to you a cup of water in my name, because you belong to Christ, or as Matthew hath it in the name of a disciple, he shall not loose his reward, he gathers that some i. e. believers infants are disciples, and to be received to baptism, as such, for saith he, in Christs name, and as Christs disciple, and as belonging to Christ are all one in Christs language.

To which I answer,

First, by denying that in Christs name, and as a disciple, and as belonging to Christ are all one: for in Christs name is a Term of larger extent and latitude then the rest, so that we may be said to do good in Christs name to some persons, whom yet we cannot do good to as belonging to him in that neer relation of his disciples: in the name of Christ, besides severall other significations, which the phrase hath, is as much sometimes as for Christs sake, who requires it, and to do good to o∣thers in the name of Christ is to do good to them for Christs sake, and then we may be said to do good for his sake, not onely when we do good to them that are disciples of Christ, upon that account of their belonging to him as his, but also, when we do good to them that are none of his disciples, upon the meer account of his command, who injoines all persons as occasion is to do good to all, though especially to the houshold of faith: whereupon also I perswade my self varily, nor is it very unworthy of observation, that the spirit when it speaks of doing good

to profest disciples indeed Mar. 9. 41. he incourages to receive them, not onely in the name i. e. for the sake of Christ so requiring, but as belonging to him also as his disciples, in the name of a Prophet, in the name of a righteous man, in the name of a disciple; but when he speaks of our doing good to that child Luke 9. 48. he saies no more then barely in the name of Christ i. e. for the sake of Christ owning such an action, but expresses not the other notion, and account of discipleship, and Relation to him, as that on which he would have him to be re∣ceived.

Moreover were it otherwise, it would make little to the purpose of Mr. Ba. who brings it to prove some such sucking infants as men sprinkle, i. e. believers babes to be disciples, sith that it was a believers child of which Christ there speaks, or that he speaks of such children rather then of the children of other men, is much more then Mr. Ba. can ever clear, and that it was a child of such a stature as to come to Christ, when he cald him, and therefore no infant of a span long, nor such as is the subject of your sprinkling, is too clear for Mr. Ba. to gainsay, with∣out clear contradiction of the Scripture Mat. 18. 2.

These are far fetcht faddles, whereby Mr. Ba. backs his people in the blind belief of his fond and false opinion that all believers infants are Christs disciples, and thereupon to be baptized.

The mediums whereby he manifests their membership in the Gospel-church are many, more then a good many, and not more many then manifestly weak, and utterly unavailable to such a purpose.

Rantist.

Many more then ever will be answered easily by you or any other that set so light by them as you do.

Baptist.

That may possibly be too, for I think no wise body will immittere pecus in pratum vbi non est sepes busie himself beyond measure in such a bound∣lesse prate, and piece of sillogization about infant membership as it is, nor be so extravagant from Mr. Bs. own advice, who p. 12. tells us that we shall never be able to justifie it, if we lay out but the thousandth part of our time, study, talk, or zeal (yet if he have not spent the twenteth part of his own, I am must mistaken) upon this question it self, either for or against it, as to lose a moiety of his time in reply∣ing distinctly to such a mint of impertinencies as are handled at armes end here by Mr. Ba. for my own part I am not minded to tire my self to much with tracing at large after every new hare that starts in my way, nor to stand dancing the hay af∣ter Mr, Ba. into every corner of that laborinth of Logick, into which he leads me, and yet leaves me after view and Review as little ground for infant baptism as if he had said nothing at all: nor shall I bury my self up from better imployment in the bottomlesse pit of those absurdities, which this part of his book also is fully fraught with, partly because I find that most that he saies there is in effect answe∣red already in the book called Anti-babism, where the genuine sense of the main Scriptures he rests into his own use, is given out viz. Rom. 11. 1 Cor. 7. Mar. 9. 36. Rom. 4. 11. Mal. 2. 15. partly also because I perceive a vain of particu∣lar contest with Mr. T. to run thorow the whole, which Mr. T. according to the particular interest he hath therein, hath already taken notice of in Print, so far as its worth an answer, partly also because I am not so happy as to have the pa∣tience of many, scarce of any of the churches of Christ, whose servant I am, suf∣fering me hitherto, without such frequent avocations of me from this to ser∣vices of another nature abroad, as are inconsistent with my writing of much more at home.

Neverthelesse besides some animadversion of as much of its absurdity as may be with conveniency, I shall take the sting out so clearly that it shall not hurt, and that by both a clear, though general disproof of it all, and as clear though gene∣rall,

and brief demonstration of the contrary,

Take notice therefore of the most cardinal argument, upon which he grounds infant church-membership under the Gospel.

It was so once that infants were of the church, and it is not repealed, therefore it is so now.

To which I answer, by granting twas so from Abrahams time, and down∣ward to Christ (for before that time all the pairs he takes doth not, and all the braines he hath in his head cannot produce the least sollid proof of such a thing) for all that Church and the materials of it were a ceremony and a type, and never the viler for that, as Mr. Ba. foolishly fancies p. 59. of the church under Christ, twas so in that outward typicall covenant that God made concerning an earthly Ca∣naan with the natural feed of Abraham in the loines of Isaac and Iacob, not Is∣mael, Gen. 17. 20. 21. nor any of his seed by Keturah, Gen. 25. 1. 6. upon the performance of certain carnal ordinances as circumcision, and the rest of the ordinances of Divine service pertaining to that covenant, which circumcision bound them to till the time of reformation Heb. 9. but that therefore tis so now in the church under the Gospel-covenant, that was typified by the other, I utterly deny, whose heavenly inheritance and spirituall seed of Abraham, i. e. believers born of God by faith in Christ, answer as the Anti-type to that earthly Canaan, and fleshly seed of Abraham, and before which the type is fled away, for all the ceremonialls of that law are vanisht, among which this admitting of fleshly babes was one, and what it pointed at is shew∣ed abundantly in Anti-babism, which may serve as an answer also to his fourteenth argument, for their present membership, where if the law of infant-Church-membership were ceremonial, he bids us shew what it tipified: the mem∣bership therefore of infants, which belonged onely to that particular Church of the Jewes, which was also the whole universal visible Church that God then had upon earth, unlesse we shall dream with Mr. Baxter of more particular visible Churches then that of the Jewes during its standing, different from it in form, or∣der and constitution, which together with that made up some one universal visible of which infants were members first, as he dotes, and then secondarily of that particular; which conceit of his concerning such a universal visible, is a meer in∣visible chimaera, for who ever saw any visible Church, or people whom God visi∣bly inchurched, and gave his oracles to besides Israel? of whom it is said God dealt in that particular, as he did not with any other Nations, suffering all others to walk after their own waies Act. 14. 16. nor can there be now any universall visible Church, but what is made up of the particular visible Churches, so that a person must first be a member of some particular Congregation, before he can be of that universal: the Membership I say of infants that belonged to that Church onely, which was to be National, and tipical of that true holy nation i. e. all the saints, where ever scattered, is now repealed, nor can any of that Mr. Ba. syllogizes to us evince the contrary.

He tells us that if it be repealed then either in justice, or mercy to infants, but it is in neither saith he p. 38. Ergo. he falls a proving the Minor, but with his leave I shall make bold to deny the Major, it was neither better nor worse as to the whole species of infants, it was severity to unbelieving Jewes, goodnesse to believing Gentiles, but twas not done with any such special respect to infants in their •…•…onage, as that if it had stood the whole species of infants through the world would have been much the better, for such a meer titular thing as membership, in the Church, unlesse that membership would Ipso facto have more intitled them to heaven, nor now its taken away are sucking infants ere the worse, for saving the great dignity that you deem to ly in the bare title of being a member of the visible Church, whether they dy before your admission of them, or just af∣ter, if in infancy, their salvation is for that neither more nor lesse, and if they live to

years as they are then are no longer infants, and no neerer heaven for their being baptized, when they were infants, unlesse they repent and believe the Gospell, so repenting and believing it, they are as capable then of heaven, though they were not, as if they had been baptized, and in bare church-member ship from the womb: this therefore is petty reasoning indeed as Mr. T. calls it see Mr. Ba. 40.

His second, third, fourth, fifth, six Arguments are all out of Rom. 11. which place, as I have declared my sense of it before, so I testifie again is so clear against the standing of infants as members in the family of Abraham, or Church of God now under the Gospel, that he is as blind as a beetle, that sees any thing in it tending to the proof of it, for it seems plainly that the natural branches, or seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Iacob themselves, that stood the children of the Church before without faith, upon the meer account of being their naturall branches, cannot stand children of the Church now, unlesse they be also spiri∣tual branches, as Abraham, Isaac, and Iacob were; yea if being the fleshly seed of a believer could ingraft persons into the Gospel Church, as it did of old into the Jewish Church without faith, then the Jewes to this day, being asmuch believing Abrahams natural seed as ever, might by that birth stand Members as truly, as any Gentile believers seed, but they cannot, yea the same persons that were members of that Church without faith, were not admitted to passe from that Church to membership in this, for want of faith; but when very forraigners, that had no relation to, nor descent from Abraham, became his children in the Gos∣spel sense, and members of the Gospel Church by personal faith, the very natur∣all seed of Abraham, was cut off through unbelief, so that the standing before was by a fleshly birth of Abraham, of some believing proselited Gentile, but the standing now in the Church is not by a birth natural of any parent, no hot of A∣braham himself, unlesse there be faith in the persons themselves, as Mr. Baxter believes not there is in any infants, for to the confutation of the Ashford Pamph∣let, which pleads infant-faith, Mr. Baxter p. 98. Makes the very essence of faith to lie in assenting to it that Christ is King and Saviour, and consenting that he be so to us and whether infants do thus both assent and consent let Mr. Ba. be judge of it if he please.

Because of unbelief the natural seed were broken off, thence Mr. Bax. argues that infants stand still in the Church, but thence I argue they cannot stand, be∣cause those that stand now stand by faith ver. 20. i, e. personal, not parental; thou standest (saith Paul) by faith, i. e thy faith, not thy Fathers, for then we may as well say the just shall live by his fathers faith, not by fleshly descent, though of Abraham, Isaac and Iacob themselves, as of old they did, and infants cannot stand by faith unlesse they had it, and therefore not at all.

Mr. Baxter argues it was the Jewes own Olive tree or Church they were cut off from for unbelief, Therefore infants stand in it still, But the•…•…ce I argue that our infants cannot stand therein, for if god spared not the Naturall Branches of Abraham, but broke them off their own root, their own father Abraham and his family, so as to be counted no longer his children, their own olive tree the church so as to abide no longer in it, because they believed not, the terms of standing church-members being now no fleshly descent but faith, then much lesse will he admit any Gentiles, that are not naturall branches of Abraham, to be grafted into the good olive tree without faith, and therefore no infants that be∣lieve not.

Mr Ba. tells us that some branches only were broken off, therfore not infants, It is true all were not broken off, and why? because some believed, and so abode in the family, others and those the most believe not when they should, others and those all infants nor believed, nor yet could, and therefore could not abide, nor have a visible being, a visible membership, a visible standing in

that visible church, the termes of standing in which is only and alone by faith.

Mr. Bax. argues that Israel shall again be grafted into their own olive tree, and saved, even the children with the parents, and therefore infant-member∣ship in the Gospel church is not repealed.

I answer it is true that if they abide not still in unbelief, they shall be grafted into their own olive tree, the visible Church, and family of Abraham, that is so many as shall believe onely, this infants do not, but whether they believe or believe not, when the Redeemer, i. e. Christ Jesus shall come, all Israel shall be saved, and be owned, and made the most glorious people upon earth, and en∣ter into a flourishing state indeed, but not in this way of baptism, and member∣ship, Mr. Baxter speaks of, who I perceive is not a little ignorant of this my∣stery as yet, how long blindnesse shall happen unto Israel, and in what manner their calling shall be, of which I also have at this time as little list, as leasure to inform him.

Mr. Ba. argues from the samenesse of the Olive tree the Jew was broken off from, and the Gentile was graf•…•…ed into, that therefore as infants stood members then, so they must now.

I answer it is true there is some kind of indentity between the Jewish, and the Gospel Church, but not such as concludes an indentity of membership for infants, they are the same ingenere visiblis Ecclesiae, they agree in the common name of Church, and visible Church, elected and segregated from the world, but there's little else that I know of wherin they are the same, they differ in circumstantials, in their accidental forms, in their officers, ordinances, customs, constitutions, subjects, members, that being constituted of one whole nation of peo∣ple, or fleshly seed of Abraham, taken out from all other nations, this of a spiritual seed of Abraham, i. e. believers scaterred here and there, taken out of any nation as they happen to be called, almost every nation some, the ceremony of inchurching Abrahams own, much more any other mans meer fleshly seed be∣ing ceased.

Mr. Bax. peddles on a pace, and brings a company of Scripures in proof of infants Church-membership and baptism, which though he stile them, as indeed his whole book, Plain Scripture proofs for those two, yet a man that is not min∣ded to force the Scripture into the Service of his own fancy, because it does not serve it freely, may look till dooms day before he see in them any plain, perspi∣cuous proof of either one of these or of the other.

Christ saith he Mat. 23. 37, would have gathered Ierusalem oft, as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings▪ but they would not, therefore sure he would not have put them, or their infants out of the Church, the strength of the conse∣quence lies here, saith he, he would have gathered whole Ierusalem, and that into the visible Gospel Church, therefore infants also; Now that Christ does not speak of whole Ierusalem here, as he saith he does, both men and infants, the circumstances of the text do fully evince to us, for he speaks of the same persons he speaks to, and the same persons he complains of, saying ye would not, the same and no other are they to whom he speaks, when he saies, Oh Ierusalem how often would I have gathered &c. but those were men and women only, whom he called to believed in him, and not infants.

Again he gathered them by preaching of the word into baptism, and mem∣bership, and received all that came, and no more viz. sometimes the children and not the parents, sometimes the parents and not the children, so that a mans foes for the truths sake sometimes were they of his own family, his own flesh, therefore he offered not to gather infants, for he preacht not to them, nor called them at all, nor were any more baptized and added to the Church-fellowship in the Gospel, then they that gladly received the word, that did not infants, yea 3000 were

gathered into the first Gospel Church by preaching and baptism in one day, and never an infant among them all, for they surely did not continue in fellow ship, in breaking of bread and prayers Acts 2.

Therefore whereas Mr. Ba. in his Epistle to the parish of Bewdley challenges Mr. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. to name him one particular Church since Adam either of Jewes or Gen∣tiles, where infants were not Church-members, if they had any infants, till 200 years ago; I name him the first Gospel Church that ever was A•…•…t. 2. in which there was not one infant; yea there was three thousand baptized in one day, and it is a hazard but that those three thousand had many, perhaps no lesse than three thousand infants belonging to them all, and yet as Mr. Cotton thinkes, so think I, that none of their infants were baptized with them, much lesse were ad∣ded with them to the Church, or continued with them in fellowship, as the whole Gospel Church did, in breaking of bread and prayers; yea though-there was no infants in that Church, which was gathered at Ierusalem it self, to which Christ saies how oft would I have gathered thy children, &c. and therefore Mr. Baxs. sense is very sinister, so I challenge him again to shew me, not by such dubious, muddy, cloudy, circumlocutory, inconsequential consequences as he doth, but undeniable evidences any one of all the Gospel C•…•…urches of the primi∣tive times, either of Jewes or Gentiles, which we are all to re•…•…orm by viz. Ie∣rusalem, Rome, Corinth, Galatia, Philippi, Ephesus, Thessalonica, or any other to fellowship in which there was one infant baptized, added and admit∣ted, and I shall cry him mercy, and lay down the Cudgelis at his feet, and ac∣knowledge he hath broke my pate.

The next Scripture he uses is more impertinent then this, yet Mr. Ba. makes a certain shift to squeese an argument out of it, and to compel it invita minervâ not a little against its own intent, and meaning to corroborate his crooked cra∣zie creed concerning the inchurching and cristening of infants viz. Rev. 11. 15. whence he thus Syllogizes,

If the kingdoms of this world either are or shall be the kingdomes of the Lord, and of his Christ, then infants also must be members of his kingdom i. e. the visi∣ble Church, the Antecedent is the words of the text indeed, as he saies, but the sequel is so sure, and follows so firmly in his fancy, that he saies nothing can be said against it, that is sense or reason: but indeed it self is against both sense and reason.

Who would ever think, if the word did not declare that the things of wisdome are hid from the wise and prudent, that such a disputer as Mr. Ba. holds himself to be, should deduce the now membership of infants, f•…•…om such a premise as this viz. because the kingdomes of this world are, or else shall be the kindomes of God and Christ? whats this I trow toward the eviction of the other? much e∣very way saith Mr. Ba. yea so much, that for any thing he can see this▪ text alone were sufficient to decide the whole controversie whether infants must be Church members,

Amen so beit say I, let this Scripture decide it, and let's see what Mr. Ba. saies out.

If they can say, quoth he, by kingdoms is meant here some part of the kingdom, excluding all infants, such men may make their own creed on those termes, let the Scripture say what it will, I know in some places the word kingdome, and Ierusalem &c. is taken for a part, but if we must take words alwayes impro∣perly, because they are taken so sometimes saith he, then we shall not know how to understand any Scripture, so of necessity it must be understood properly i. e in its prime signification of the whole kingdoms, and whole Ierusalem with him, and not improperly for a part onely, though Mr. Blake to Mr. Black, saith upon occasion of our pleading for the proper signification of baptize, nothing more or dinary then to have words used out of their prime signification, whereby we may see

how these men wil needs have that signification that best serves their turnes, whe∣ther proper or improper, when the proper most fits them, then the improper cannot be meant there, when the proper makes against them, the improper is pleaded for as none more usual then that, thus the word houshold must include infants, when baptism is spoken of, but when the passover is spoken of then infants are ex∣cluded, because else we shall argue from thence to their eating the supper, as they from circumcision unto their bap•…•…ism, but this by the way that it may be noted how the men will have things their own way, by hook or by crook, not that I deny the word kingdomes to be taken properly for all the whole kingdome here, yea I grant it, but let us see what of that? why even this, if the whole kingdom be the Lords, then infants must unavoidably be members of Christs Church, and if we ask how comes this about? he will tell you two wayes,

First, as infants are all of the Kingdomes of this world, taken for the whole kingdom,

Secondly, as by the word kingdom of Christ is meant Christs church.

Now let us spell and put all together, and it is thus much,

First, by Kingdomes of this world is here meant the whole Kingdome of this world, or Kingdome taken universally, not for some part of it one∣ly.

Secondly, by Kingdomes of the Lord and his Christ is here meant Christs church onely.

Thirdly, infants are a part of the Kingdomes of this world, and so consequently of Christs church, for the Kingdomes of this world are become the Kingdomes of the Lord and his Christ i. e. Christs church, oh brave and plain Scripture proof for infant church-membership and baptism.

Let us examine what is true and what is false in this.

First, as above, I grant that here the Kingdomes of this world signifie the whole Kingdome, as he pleads it, but that here the Kingdome of the Lord and his Christ signifies Christs church, I utterly deny it, and am amazed that a reasonable man should affirm it, and so consequently I deny that it appears from this place that infants are now members of Christs church.

But he brings reason for it, such as tis, and that shall be a little exami∣ned.

First, if they say saith he that the Kindome of Christ is not here meant Christs church, they speak against the constant phrase of Scripture, which calls Christs Kingdome his Church, et conversim, Christ is King and saviour of the same so∣ciety, what is Christs Kingdom but his church?

To which I answer, Christs Kingdome is the whole world as well as his church. And

Secondly that he is King and Saviour of all men in some sense as well as of that same society. And

Thirdly, that it is not against the constant phrase of Scripture to say by Christs Kingdome here is not meant his church, for •…•…hough it is true by his Kingdome is sometimes exprest his church, et retro by his church is meant his Kingdome in a special and restrictive sense, yet not constantly, there being many places where the word Kingdome of Christ is taken in a larger sense, as signifying not the church, but the whole world O bad. 21 the Kingdome i. e. Monarchy of the whole earth shall be the Lords i. e. Christs so Dan. 7. the Kingdome i. e. Dominion, Mo∣narchy and greatness of the Kingdome under the whole heaven is given to the son of man, and the Saints, yea his Kingdom is over all, he shall rule the Nations, govern and judge the whole world in righteousnesse;

Oh saith Mr. Ba. the Kingdome of Christ is more large, and more speciall; but here it cannot be meant of his kingdom in the larger sense, nor as he ruleth common societies, and things for so saith he the Kingdomes of this world were

ever the Lords and his Christs, and it could not be said that they are now be∣come so.

To which I answer,

First, that in granting what he here does, that Christs kingdome is taken some∣times in a larger sense, then for the church, he contradicts himself above, where he saies it is the constant phrase of Scripture to call Christs Kingdome his church, and what is Christs kingdome but his church?

Secondly, whereas he saies the Kingdomes of this world were ever the Lords and his Christs in the larger sense, as taken for his Government and Rule, I grant de jure Christ hath been Lord of the whole earth a long time, but de facto he is not King, so as actually to reign over the whole earth, as ere long he shall do i. e. at his appearing 2 Tim. 4. 1. to this very day, but in that indeed i. e. when he comes he shall be King, Monarch over all the earth, and rule with a rod of i∣ron over the Nations, and judge the world in righteousnesse together with his Saints, who hath been judged in unrighteousnesse by the Nations and Rulers hi∣therto Zach. 14. Dan. 7. Act. 17. P. 2. Rev. 2. then he shall be in point of ex∣ecution, as before by commission, and really, and actually, as now intentio∣nally King of Kings, and Lord of Lords Rev. 19. but till then, as yet a little while, and his Kingdome comes to his hand, and the Kingdomes of the world do thus become his, for the work of recovery of his right is now very hot in fieri, and will not be long before it be in facto esse, till then he hath been an under∣ling, and other Lords besides him have had dominion over him in his, and also o∣ver the whole earth, which is his, and over the Kingdomes of this world, which de jure are his, but specially that servus servorum, dominus dominorum the Pope and CCClergy, that are the whore that hath reigned in three divisions over the earth, between whom and Christ the great justle now is in all christendome, whether he or they, that by permission have had it so long from Christ, who onely hath the commission for it, shall be King of Kings and Lord of Lords, hitherto Christ hath reigned in the world as Charles the second hath reigned in England, and no otherwise i. e. hath reigned in the hearts of a few of his friends and follow∣ers.

But I perceive the Gospel or good news of the Kingdome of Christ coming, which is to be preached more had more before the end, is yet a riddle to Mr. Ba. and though I hope it will be, if seeing he will see, yet tis not yet given him to know the mystery and manner of Christs Kindome.

Thirdly, whereas he saies that the Kingdom taken in the larger sense i. e. for the world cannot be meant here, but the church onely by this phrase the Kingdomes of the Lord and his Christ, I strongly assert that of all places in Scripture the word Kingdomes of Christ cannot here be construed for the church, that the church can∣not be meant in that phrase, but the Kingdomes in the largest sense i. e. the whole world, and directly oppositly to Mr. Ba. who saies it is the church, I disprove his opinion thus,

First, If by the kingdomes of Christ be meant the Church, then it must be thus read, viz. the Kingdomes of this world are become Christs Church, but what an absurdity must that be, specially with Mr. Bax. above all men, who so strenuously contends that by the word Kingdoms of this world is meant not in part only, but the whole kingdom? for to hold that by that phrase the Kingdomes of this world is meant all the kingdomes upon the earth, taken wholly, and not Synechdochically for a part of those kingdomes onely, and that by the kingdom of Christ the Church onely, is to make the sense thus, viz. the whole world is become Christs Church, therefore it cannot be so, but thus (and so all the circum∣stances of the text do evince, for it is spoken of Christs raign over all the world in the latter daies, after the seventh Trumpet hath sounded, and not over all his Church onely, and of Christs taking to himself ver. 17. that great Monarchy,

power, kingdome, or greatnesse and glory of his reign, which before he permit∣ted to be in the hands of the Dragon, beast and whore, so that they reigned over the whole earth, and the saints too in rigour, and unrighteousnesse Rev. 13. Rev. 17. ult: I say it must be thus viz. the Kingdomes of this world, the Kingdomes under the whole heaven, the Monarchy of the whole Earth is now come into Christs own hands, or the Government over all is now actually on his shoul∣ders.

Besides what will Mr. Bax. gain more by his sense of that Scripture towards the proof of his infant-membership then I for the membership of heathen infants, then for the Church membership of the whole world, if I were minded to plead for it, if the Kingdomes of this world wholly taken, none excluded, do become the Church of Christ then all men as well as infants must be Church-members on that account.

Besides he speaks as de futuro what shall be under the seventh Trumpet, there∣fore if it were to be taken as Mr. Bax. imagines that the Kingdomes of this world, infants as well as men, are now become Christs Church, then it would evince that it was not so from the beginning of the Gospel Church, for what effects are spoken of as falling out now newly under the seventh Trumoet, are things that never were in being before.

Besides observe Mr. Baxter how he pleads to have Kingdomes taken in the largest sense in the former part of the verse, and how angry he is if it be taken for lesser then all the whole kingdomes of the world, but in the latter part where Kingdomes must needs be, and is as largely to be taken (for it is the Kingdomes of the world are become Christs Kingdomes, i. e. dominion, not Christs churches) there he will needs lace it up into the narrowest acceptation that the word kingdom can possibly bear.

Oh therefore the grosse pieces of ignorance, that are in that Argument of his for infants membership in the Church, which he grounds from a Scripture, that will as well prove all the world to be Gospel Church-members as believers infants, if his very own false sense of it should be admitted, but in truth proves not the one nor the other; thus he argues viz. the Kingdoms of this world, i. e. all, and all in them shall become Christs kingdomes, therefore infants of only believers, not heathens, are Church-members under the Gospel.

He that saies this followes any better then the Pope follows Peter in the holy chaire shall never be counted, or voted mentis compos, whilest I am compos voti.

Mr. Bax. therefore had better have found 40 shillings, where he never looked for it, then have looked for infant-membership in this scripture, where he will never find it with his eyes open.

His three next Arguments, viz. the ninth, tenth, and eleventh run all upon one strain, and therefore as he need not have made more then one of them, so I need not make more then one answer to them all, yea, I need make none at all, having spoken to that point sufficiently before, yet a hint of it here may do no hurt.

They stand all upon one bottome, viz. the meliority of the times under the Gospel above the times of the Law, of this new covenant above the old, the summe of what he saies is this, if believers in fants may not now be members of the visible Church, then both Jewes and Gentiles are in a worse condition now then before Christ, and Christ is come to be a destroyer, and not a Saviour, and to do hurt to all the world, the believing Jewes, and the Church; yea and the very Gentiles thereby, in regard of the happinesse of their children, are in a worse condition then of old, but this is a vile doctrine, saith he, for Jesus is a Media∣tor of a better covenant established on better promises Heb. 8. 6. where sin a∣bounded grace much more abounded, Rom. 5. 14, 15. 20. and the love of

Christ love hath height, length, depth, breadth, and passeth knowledge Ephes. 3.

To which simple inconsequent conceits I answer by denying the consequence, it followes not that the world is in worse estate under Christ then before, because infants might be members of the Jewish church, but not now of any visible church of the Gospel, nay verily the world is in a far better condition then formerly, by how much they are under more clear, and plain promulgations, more fa•…•…re and u∣niversal tenders of salvation, then in the narrow or shadowy dispensation of the Law, and also under greater love, richer grace, better and more glorious pro∣mises, unlesse they fall short of them, through their own unbelief, then those which were made to the natural Israelites onely, all whose glory was but a type of the other, for the great favor, love and promises of God to them, as meerly Abraham, Isaac and Iacobs natural seed, unlesse they also believed, and then they, as now all the world might be heirs with Abraham of the grace and pro∣mises of the Gospel, did make them heirs of that earthly Canaan onely: but the Gospel grace makes all men heirs on termes of faith and obedience to Christ, of the glory of the heavenly Canaan for ever, the grace of God that bringeth salva∣tion unto all men now appears: and as for infants, albeit no infants now be baptized into fellowship with the visible Church, nor are priviledged as the Jewes infants once were with interest in the blessing of an outward earthly Ca∣naan, nor yet vouchsafed that meerly titular account, of sanctifyed and peculiar people of God, as in opposition to other infants, as by birth, accountatively sin∣ners, common and unclean, which distinction of a birth holiness and uncleaness Mr. Baxter had he but half an eye in his head might clearly see Acts 10. 28. is so taken out of the world and ended in Christ, that now no man however born, no not a Gentile may be called in that sense as the Gentiles were of old in reference to the Jewes, either common or unclean, and if no man can be called by birth common or unclean in reference to other, then none may be called by birth holy in reference to other, for this birth holinesse and uncleannesse are such Correlatives that the one cannot be supposed to be in the world without the other; albeit I say no infants have now such standings in such external happines and salvation, yet they are in no les capacity to be saved then the Jews children of old, & so neither their pa∣rents whoever they be, in any worse condition in regard of their comforts in their children, whether they dy infants, or live to years, then the godliest Jewes were in regard of theirs, for either infants dy in infancy, or else do not, if any mans infants dy in such nonage as in which they never committed actual transgression, our Ashford Pamphlet tells us they have not deserved to be exempted from the generall state of little infants declared in Scripture, viz. that of such is the Kingdome of heaven, yea I wonder what should damn such dying infants, as ne∣ver had iniqu•…•…y of their own, sith God himself assures us that the son shall not dy i. e. eternally for the iniquity of his father, but every soul that dyes shall dy one∣ly for his own iniquity, Ezekiel 18. and no better hopes could be harboured of the Godliest Jewes infants then this, that dying infants they were not dam∣ned.

But if any mans children, even his that is ungodly and prophane, do live to years, then if they believe and obey the Gospel, the tender of which is to every creature, they may be saved though their parents be wicked, when Iewes chil∣dren not doing so, shall be damned, for all their father Abrahams faith, and their own Church-membership for a time, and that with so much the greater condemnation: whereas therefore Mr. Ba. tells us such a story of a meliority of being in the visible Church rather then out, I tell him it is not universally true, but as it may happen, for besides that children may aswell be prayed for, and instructed by their godly parents, remaining unbaptized, and non-members in their nonage, as if in infancy they be admitted to both, it may so fall out, and

mostly it did among the Iewes, that a lifting up to heaven in respect of partici∣pation of outward priviledges and ordinances, may prove an occasion unhappily through their abuse of it, of their sinking deeper into hell.

His next Argument is drawn from Deut. 29, 10. 11. 12. a place that doth as well prove that all the wives and the servants, and the slaves, even all the hewers of wood and drawers of water are to be taken into Covenant with God, as his, and admitted into Church-membership upon the Membership of Masters, and Husbands, as little ones upon the membership of the Fathers; and so indeed it was in those daies, wherein the whole body of the Nation was inchurched to∣gether, though not so now, therefore though I might easily discover that (yea he is blind that sees it not in the same chapter, notwithstanding it is alledged in that allusion of Paul in the tenth chapter of the Romans to that place) to be no other then that covenant which was made with the nation in particular, which God brought out of Aegypt, yet I shall trouble my self to say no more to it then so.

His 13 Argument is from Rom. 4. 11. where circumcision is said to be a seal of the righteousnesse of the faith which Abraham had, is answer'd above, where I have given out the genuine sense of that place, and disproved that crooked construction, which is by others aswell as him commonly made of it, therefore ile say no more to it here.

His 14 Argument is also answered, but a little above, where I have shew'd the inchurching of that fleshly seed to be ceremonial, and also what it typed out, ther∣fore no more of that also in this place.

His 15. plain Scripture-lesse proof for infants present churchmembership and baptism is this viz.

If all infants, who were members of any particular Church, were also Members of the Universall Visible Church, then certainly the Member∣ship of infants, he means by vertue of the membership of their parents, is not re∣pealed.

But all infants who were &c.

Ergo.

The consequence saith he is beyond dispute, because the universal Church never ceaseth here, yea the whole Argument so clear, that were there no more it is sufficient.

To which as unanswerable as he judges it, I answer first by denying the consequence of his Maior, as most flatly false and inconsequent.

Secondly, by saying as Mr. T. did, whose answer is both solid and sufficient viz. that infants membership in the universal visible church was only by reason of their then membership in that particular national church, neither can Mr. Ba. while he breathes prove them to have bin members of that universal visible, as he calls it, but as they were members of that, and therefore when that particular, nationall church of the Jewes ceased, the standing of infants as members upon the meer ac∣count of their parents membership ceased also therewith, as one of the things that were not essentiall to a church, but circumstantial onely to that church, as one of the particular accidental ceremonies pertaining onely to that individual nationall church; for accidental ceremonies Mr. Ba. himself confesses, and must confesse did cease still with that particular church, to which particularly they related, otherwise he will be paid home with his own weapon, and in his own coin, yea if Mr. Baxters consequence be true, and if it be not so as we say, that accidentall ceremonies, and so this accidental ceremony, and circumstance of infants being members upon the membership of their parents, did cease with that particular church of the Iews, twill passe all the braines Mr. Ba. hath in his head to answer his own argument, if we retort it on him in proof of that which he de∣nies, as much as we do the inchurching of infants upon the fathers membership

viz. the inchurching of wives, and servants to this day upon the membership of their husbands and masters, for whereas he argues thus viz. if all infants who were members of any particular church were also members of the universal visible church, then certainly the membership of infants by vertue of their parents mem∣bership is not repealed, but all &c. Ergo

What answer will he make, if we answer him by arguing back upon him thus viz. if all wives and servants, who were members by vertue of their husbands and masters membership of any particular visible church, were also members of the universall visible church, then certainly the membership of wives and servants, hewers of wood, and drawers of water, by vertue of their husbands and masters membership, is not repealed, but all &c. Ergo.

I leave it to wise men to consider and examine whether Mr. Bs. argument doth not as fully tend to the proof of it that the wives and servants ought, as of old, to stand members in the visible church now, upon the husbands and masters membership, as infants upon the membership of their parents.

Several other palpable absurdities are obvious to every observant eye in his am∣plification of this argument, which whoever notes, will take heed of pinning his faith implicitly on Mr. Bs. sleeve, and of listning to his Logick, so as to be led by it besides all sense and reason.

To say nothing to his universall visible, which is little lesse then a visible bull, for sensus, adeoque visus est proprie solum modo singularium, intellectus universa∣lium, the proper object of sense, and so of sight is particulars onely, and universalls onely properly of the understanding, yet this universal visible church is the univer∣sal vision, and dream of the universal Clergy, but to bate them the baldnesse of that term, and grant that there is a Catholike visible church, is there any unver∣sal visible church, but what is existent in, and made up of all the particular visi∣ble churches? I trow not: yea that was wont to be good Logick, and Theology too heretofore, to say that all the particulars make up the unversal, that the uni∣versall visible Church, and all the particular visible Churches are adaequate, and convertible, yea Dr. Featley p. •…•…2. makes the universall visible church, and all the particular visible churches equivalent, the universal or formall church saith he i. e. all the assemblies of Christians in the world: the whole is not broader then all its parts collectively taken, nor without its parts, for omne totum ex suis partibus constituitur, ordinatur, mensuratur, determinatur, every whole con∣sists of its parts, is measured and determined by its parts, and so the whole univer∣sal visible Church, and all the homogeneall parts of it simul sumtae i. e. all the particular visible churches taken together, are of equall latitude; so that he that is of a any particular visible church must needs be of the whole, and he that is of the whole universall visible must needs be of some particular visible church, yea cui adimuntur omnes partes totius universalis, eidem etiam totum universale adimi necesse est, whoever is not a part of some part or other i. e. of some par∣ticular visible church, cannot be a part of the whole i. e. the universal visible: this I say is the Logick and Theology, which was wont to passe for currant among your selves, but Mr. Ba. learnes men a new kind of Logick viz. that all the parts put together are not so big as the whole, that the universall visible church is larger then all the particular visible churches in the world, of which yet it consists, so that there is room enough for a person to stand a member in the universal visible church, though he be of no particular visible church at all; I ever understood yet that he, who is removed and cast out of all the particular visible churches of the Saints, is consequently cast out of the universal visible church, but he tells me a tale that to be removed out of every particular visible church, is consistent still with a standing in the universal visible: so that excomunication out of all the particular visible churches in the world, is not excomunication out of the whole visible church with him.

Another thing worth noting, though worth nothing, is this, he tells us there that Keturahs children, when they left the family of Abraham, that they con∣tinued members of the universal visible church still, which compared with the clause above, where he tells us that it is a far higher priviledge to stand in the universal visible church then to stand in any particular whatsoever, amounts to thus much viz. that the Midianites, for they were some of Keturahs chil∣dren, had far higher priviledges, then those that the Israelites had by be∣ing members of that particular visible church of Israel, which if it were so, then we may say what advantage hath the Iew indeed, and what profit by circumcisi∣on, and by Gods commission of his oracles unto them? yea what necessity of circumcision of themselves, and their males at all for any strangers, or of joining themselves to that particular church of the Jewes, sith they might have had as high priviledges if they had joined themselves to the seed of Abraham by Keturah, of whose posterity circumcision, nor the strict law it bound to was not required, and so consequently what need of baptism, if persons might be of the uniuersal visible, which is the greater, though not of the particular visible church of the Iews, with∣out circumcision and keeping the law?

But it is a question with Mr. Bax. whether Keturahs children must leave their seed uncircumcisied p. 60. yet I tell him it is out of question, that unlesse it were in order to joining, and inchurching themselves with that individual Church of of the Iewes, to which pertained peculiarly the adoption, and glory, and cove∣nants, and law, and promises, and which was all the visible church, that I know God had then upon the earth, circumcision was not enjoined to any other of A∣brahams own posterity, not the Ishmalites, nor Midianites, but those onely that came of Sarah by Isaac and Iacob, for the covenant, of which circumci∣sion was a sign, was establisht with none of them, but with Isaac onely and with Iacob, and his seed after him, and so many as should join themselves unto them.

Many more odd conceits about this universal visible church, Mr. Ba. broaches, but I spare him, and hasten to what followes.

His 16. plain Scripture-lesse proof for infants church-membership and baptism is from a clause in the second command•…•…ment viz. I will shew mercy to 1000s of them that love me, and keep my commandements, a phrase out of which a man may as easily prove the Pope to be head of the church, as prove either of those points in proof of which he doth produce it.

Yet oh the miserable muddy, wretched, ragged, crooked, cloudy piece of disputation for infant baptism, which this man makes from that place!

For my part I mean not to wander after him in that wildernesse of worthlesse discourse, that he vents about mercy, Church covenant, promises, nor am I so wise as to wot what he means, nor so foolish as to believe he knows well what he means himself by much of that he there utters, or else he would never say that wicked men in the church are within the covenant, and so have this mercy spoken of in the second commandement stated on them by promise; as if wicked men in the church were in some special wise beloved of God, when yet they are more hate∣ful to him by far then heathens.

It is enough to serve my present purpose, that what proof Mr. Baxter pens in the head of this argumentation, his own pen dashes it all out again in the taile of it.

For first after a great deal of wiestling to make the mercy here promised to thou∣sands of them that love God, necessarily to include church-membership, he con∣fesses at last that it lies doubtful in the text what mercy in particular is there meant, which if he do, then tis not necessary that church-membership be implied in it, for there may be much mercy, yea special, yea eternal saving mercy shewed to

persons, to whom the mercy of membership in the visible church and baptism is not vouchsafed, or else what becomes of such infants, as notwithstanding your timely admittance, do yet dy without both membership and baptism? are they shut out of the kingdom of heaven?

Secondly, he confesses it is doubtfull in the text to how many generations God shewes mercy to the children of parents t•…•…at love him, whether it be to the remote or neerest progeny onely; and though he passe his judgement that it is onely to im∣mediate children of godly parents, that the promise in the commandment is made, yet thereby he contradicts his own sense of the place, and overthrow•…•…s all that he contends for, in that if the words were as he would have them read, viz. I shew mercy to a thousand Generations, or to the thousandth generation of them that love me, it were evident that he meant not the nex•…•… generation only, for that to a thousand generation should signifie no more then one generation to come is most irrational, and plain brutish to imagine; and if he say tis to a thousand ge∣nerations, if such children succeed their parents in godlynesse, that sense excludes infants quite from the mercy here promised, and extends it to such children o•…•…ely as are at years, and that on condition of being godly themselves, and on that condition of being godly themselves God shewes mercy to the immediate seed of the very wickedest parents, as well as of the Godliest parents in the world.

But in very deed to put him out of all his doubts at once about this place, viz. whether God mean the remote or immediate children, I desire Mr. Baxter to con∣sider that this promise is not made to any mans posterity at all, but only to all such individual persons as love him, and keep his commandements, for the words are not as he reads, and construes them, viz. I will shew mercy to a thousand gene∣rations of them, but to thousands of them that love me, i. e. to thousands of such people, such persons as love me and keep my Commandments; and so if the mer∣cy were that of membership, yet it were nothing concerning infants in their infan∣cy at all, but concerning thousands of such individual persons as love him and keep his commandments, or else God must shew mercy to all infants in their infancy to this day, meerly for their father Noahs sake, though the immediate parents be wicked, and if he he do not he shewes not mercy to the thousandth generation of believers infants, there being not a thousand generations from Noah to this day.

We may see what little plain proof these men can find for their false way of in∣churching and baptizing of infants in the New Testament, in that they are faine to fetch it so far off as the old, thus doth not Mr. Ba. onely but others also as well as he, who would certainly never look for it so far behind as •…•…he second comman∣ment, if they could easily find it neerer hand: among the rest this mindes me of one of more then ordinary note, viz. Dr. Channell of Petworth in Sussex, who Ianuary the first 1651. in a publique discourse with my unworthy self, being desired to assign some particular place of Scripture, where Christ commands the practise of infant-baptism, assigned the second commandment, to whom as I said then before hundreds of people, so I testify here again before the whole world, that if any man see infants baptism commanded in the second Command∣ment it is because his eyes are out: for though he tell me that the generall scope of the second Commandment is to command all Gods people to observe all Gods institutions from time to time, yet I tell him again, as also I did then, that infant baptism is none of those institutions, yea I tell him yet further, and Mr. Bax. also, that unlesse it can be made appear by plainer Scripture proofs then ever were yet brought by either of them, that Christ Jesus injoined the baptizing and in∣churching of infants, or that its any other then a tradition of man, and an addition to the Gospel, which was not so from the beginning, and that is more then ei∣ther of them will ever make plainly to appear, the second Commandement doth

rather forbid them both, yea (Ah si fas dicere•…•… sed fas) the second commande∣ment, the general scope of which, as their own selves expound it, is to p•…•…ohibit all will worship and superstition, all serving of God after our own invention, all customes, devices, innovations, Traditions of men, all addi•…•…ion to and altera∣tions of Christs will and Testament, all teaching other doctrine then is containedin the word, doth forbid, it, and therefore i•…•… haled in by head and shoulders to serve the turn of these men, and to help to uphold them in their rantizing of infants in∣to the same visible body with them, whom yet they deny to drink with them in∣to the same spirit, as all that are baptized into the same body are to do 1 Cor. 12. which infellowshipping persons by the halves into Gospel participation, if it be of Christ, what else is of man I plainly know not.

His 17 plain Scripture-lesse proof for infants Church-membership and baptism is drawn from Psalm. 37. 26. where it is said that the seed of the Righteous are blessed, whence he argues as before, and therefore need not have made a distinct Argument of this, if God have pronounced the seed of the righteous blessed, then certainly they are members of his visible Church, its absurd once to imagine quoth he, that god should pronounce a society blessed, and take them for none of his visible Church.

But I am ashamed of such trifling stuff, such straw•…•…, and stubble as he here builds upon, as if God himself can no way be said to blesse the seed of the righ∣teous, unlesse he require them to be baptized, and inchurched visibly in their infancy, as if God had but one blessing, even that of baptism and church-mem∣bership, upon which all other blessings are so eternally intailed, even to infants, that such of them as attain not to an actual interest in these are ipso facto accursed in all respects else & that for ever, wheras to say nothing how that phrase the seed of the righteous may be taken for the race of righteous ones, that succeed one another in righteousnesse, as well as a seed of evil doers Is. 1. 4. for the whole race of evill do∣ers, that succeed their fore-fathers in evil doing, for these indeed I take to be the seed to which the Scripture oft pronounces blessing and cursing, and not alwayes the meer natural seed of good men and bad, for the•…•… there is manifest falsehood in many promises and threats, the natural seed of righteous men often perishing, and being not counted their own fathers children, unlesse they be like them in righteousnesse as Iohn 8. 39. Christ denies Abrahams natural children to be A∣brahams children, and blessed with him, because they did not as Abraham did, and contrary wise the natural seed of the wicked prospering, when they do well, contrary to Prov. 2. 21. 22. Is. 20. 14. Ps. 37 20. if the word seed were there taken for the natural seed, where it is said the seed of evill doers shall ne∣ver be renowned;

And so the seed of the serpent, and the children of the devil expresses those that do his works, to say nothing I say of this, which yet is enough to blunt the edge of Mr. Bas. argument, grant the word seed here to be taken for the natural seed of the righteous, even those in infancy may be many wayes blessed though they neither be baptized in infancy nor inchurched, yea they may be blessed with eternal sal∣vation, dying in infancy, without either baptism or membership in the visible Church, for I hope you will not say those 1000s. of Jewes and belieuers infants, that have died before circumcision, baptism, and visible admission, are damned without any more ado, because they fell short of your admired membership, and if these be blessed with salvation to whom you delay baptism, why not those to whom we deny it? doth our denying baptism to an infant before he dies send him to hell sooner then your delaying it till he be dead?

But however the seed of the righteous may be blessed with many temporal bles∣sings, as provision, fruitfulnesse, multiplication, and yet not be taken into the visi∣ble Church, and to say the truth if Mr. Ba▪ had not been resolved to wrest this Scripture besides its true sense, to botch up his proofs into a multitude, he might

easily have seen by consultation with the verse before that it is not such a thing as membership, that is here meant by the word blessed, but meer matter of out∣ward sustentation; I never saw the righteous forsaken, nor his seed begging bread; he is ever merciful and lendeth and his seed is blessed i. e. provided for, and preserved from beggery, and considered by others in time of adversity, as he considered others in the like case.

And lastly, whereas he challenges us to shew where ever God pronounced any blessed, and yet took them for none of his visible Church? saying tis absurd once to imagine it that he did, I assert it is most absurd in him to imagine the contrary, for God himself by promise pronounced Ishmael blessed, saying as for Ishmael be∣hold I haved blessed him, and I will make him fruitful, and multiply him ex∣ceedingly, and make him a nation, because he is thy seed: and this at the ve∣ry same time when he denied to establish the Covenant with him, which he esta∣blisht with Isaac, and commanded that he should be cast out of Abrahams fa∣mily from sharing with Isaac in that very covenant, which Mr. Baxter con∣tends with all his might p. 64. 65. that whoever are not in it are not under the promise of the mercy, which Church-membership is with him a speciall part of.

In proof of this consider and compare Gen. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. with Gen. 21. 10. 11. 12. 13. as if there were no blessing but that of Church-mem∣bership, or atleast no blessing without this of Church-membership, whereas, as admired a mercy as this meer membership is with Mr. Baxter, persons may be blessed without it, and also (witnesse the Jewish Nation, which for the most part were reprobates) they may have admission to the meer mercy, and bare bles∣sing of membership, and yet perish and be accursed for ever.

The 18th. plain Scripture-less proof for infant Church-membership and bap∣tism is this.

If infants were Church-members before circumcision was instituted, then certainly it was not proper to the Iews, and consequently is not ceased, but in∣fants are, therefore. The Minor of which argument Mr. Baxter endeavours to prove as well as he can, and this he doth,

First, partly by perverting the sense of the text Mal. 2. 25. where it is said God made two one i. e. instituted the ordinance of marriage between man▪ and woman, that he might seek a seed of God i. e. a legitimate Issue, for legitimacy onely in the issue is the result of marriage, and that among what parents soever, even heathens as well as others, for whom as well as others that state of marriage is sanctified, yet Mr. Baxter saies he made two one, or ordained marriage that he might seek a seed of God in another sense, that better serves his turn i. e. to seek Church-members, as if Church-membership in the seed, were the direct result of the state of matrimony in the parents, which every simpleton knowes to be false▪ for marriage is honourable among all, and was ordained for all mankind as well as the Godly, and yet the seed are not therefore Church-members; besides marri∣age was instituted in the state of innocency, to this end that mankind might be propagated in a more modest way then other creatures, and not that the seed so pro∣pagated might be Church-members.

Secondly, partly by a heap of frivolous conjectures of his own, in which a man may warrantably enough chuse whether he will believe him or no, but whe∣ther his Minor viz. that infants were Church-members before circumcision was instituted be true or false it makes nothing to his purpose unlesse he had made surer work in his Major; for that is so inconsequent, and utterly unsound that had I happened to have heard his argument before it came in Print, I should have spared him all his paines about the Minor, and have put him to the proof of his Major, the consequence of which hee'l never make good by fair play while he breathes; for there were many things long before circumcision was in∣stituted,

which were proper, if not to the Jewes till the Jewes were in being, yet to the ceremoniall law that was after more clearly given to the Jewes, and to that old Testament of which Moses was the Mediator, and circumcision the sign, and the Jewes the subject, and yet were tipicall and ceremonial onely, and so ceased together with circumcision, as the keeping the seventh day, the sacrifices, the clean∣nesse and uncleannesse of certain creatures, and (if that were at all before circum∣cision, as Mr. Ba. does not plainly prove it to be) among the rest the Church-mem∣bership of infants.

His 19. plain Scripture-lesse proof is this.

If God be not more prone to severity then to mercy, then he will admit of infants to be members of the visible Church but God &c. therefore &c.

Oh the wit of this man how wonderfully doth it work, and wind to and fro, and wander far and neer to fetch in any manner of fewell, wherewith to feed that false faith men live in, concerning infant baptism, for fear it should be quite extinguished, and brought to nothing.

Ex nihilo nihil fit in an ordinary way, but such is the extraordinary eagerness of Mr. Ba. to have the game go his way, by either fair play or foul, that he is wise to extract something out of any thing, and any thing out of just nothing to his purpose: this that God is not more prone to severity then mercy, may serve, and that soundly to make against those that say God is willing to save but a few, and did peremptorily determine to damn personally an 100 men to one before they were born, and that without reference to their foreseen rejection of his grace, but how it seems to make a jot against such as suppose the salvation of all dying infants, de∣nying onely infants meer membership in meer gospell fellowship, I must professe my self too shallow to conceive, yea I am astonisht, saving that the word tells me the seers must be blinded for teaching Gods fear after mens precepts, that the the ministers should buzze such a businesse abroad in print viz. that if infants be not now Church-members, then God is more prone to severity then to mercy, and then back it so baldly too as Mr. Ba. does: it is evident thus saith he God hath cut off multitudes of wicked mens infants both from the Church, and from life for the sins of their progenitors viz. Dathan and Abirams, Achans, Ama∣lecks, the Midianites, Daniels accusers, the Hittites, Amori•…•…es, Canaanites, Perrezites, and Jebusites, therefore if he should not admit of some infants of faith∣ful men so much as to the visible Church, then he should be more prone to seve∣rity then to mercy.

I cannot but inwardly blush at Mr. Bas. blindnesse, as if God had no way whereby to vindicate the honour of his mercy, and clear himself from the censure of more severe then merciful, but one, that is by giving commission to us, which yet he no where gives us in any part of his will and Testament, to baptize and inchurch some infants: as if he had no way to recover to his credit again to his most merciful name of the Lord, mercifull, gracious, and slow to anger since his cutting off so many infants together with their wicked parents by meer temporal death, and to make amends as it were for all the slaughters, that he made of in∣nocent infants, with their rebellious fathers in the daies of the law, unlesse in liew thereof he grant some infants of faithful men to be members of his visible Churches, and in visible fellowship with them in the daies and ages of the Gos∣pel.

Who sees not the weaknesse, the wretchednesse of this consequence? yet so it is with Mr. Ba. that God is more prone to severity then mercy if he now admit no infants into the visible Church under the Gospel, except saith he, it be proved that God giveth them some greater mercy out of the Church. To which excepti∣on of his I say thus.

First, it need not be proved, and yet his consequence will prove false, for if the

meer admitting of some faithful mens infants into the visible Church will so make up the matter as to salve God from censure of pronesse to severity, rather then mercy, and magnifie his mercy so as to make it appear to be that he delights in more then judgement, notwithstanding his severity in slaying so many infants with the pa∣rents, then God magnfied his mercy in that kind of way sufficiently to make a∣mends for that severity in the very time of the law it self, forasmuch as then he did admit for 2000 years together not onely some infants of faithfull men, but in all that time innumerable infants of unfaithful and wicked men (for such were the Jewes for the most part in their several generations and yet such infants your selves would not now have admitted) to stand in the visible and national Church of the Jewes. And so there is no need of any admittance of infants now, in order to such an end as satisfaction for his severity to some infants of old, into visible fel∣lowship with Gospel Churches.

Secondly, to satisfie him further it may easily be proved that God giveth infants, if they die in their infancy unbaptized and not inchurched (for if they live to years they may be baptized all, and inchurched too, if they believe) a greater mercy then that of meer church-membership here on earth, for they having never committed any actuall sins whereby to deserve exemption, charity teaches us to believe, and hope thus much saies the Ashford Pamphlet of all such, that of such is the kindom of heaven.

One thing more I cannot but take notice of in this passage not in way of con∣tradiction to Mr. Ba. but in way of discovery how contradictory unto him some of his brethren are, who mannage the same cause with him, that they may either close more handsomely together, or else excuse us if we believe none of them till they be agreed more among themselves, for whereas Mr. Baxter layes it down as the manner of old that when the parents sinned and broke Gods covenant so as to deserve to be discovenanted thereupon, the children that had right to stand by the Quondam membership of their parents, were wont to be discovenanted, dis∣churched, and sometimes destroyed with them;

I find the fornamed Dr. Channell of another mind, for when in a second pub∣lique discourse with him at Petworth on Ianuary 5. 1651. I asserted his practise to be contradictory to his own judgement, forasmuch as his judgement was that believers infants onely were in covenant with God, and in right to Church-mem∣bership and baptism, and yet his practise to baptize all or most of the infants in his parish, not one of many of whose parents he judged to be believers, as appea∣ed by his refusing communion with them for many years together in the sup∣per,

He gave answer to this purpose, viz. that the parent, i. e. believing (or else the child hath no right secundum te O Presbyter) may sin himself out of covenant again, out of all communion in the Church, and be damned, and yet the child stand still in right to baptism and membership which he had by the faith of those parents; which as it thwarts the wonted wayof discovenanting, dischurching of children with the parents, so it contradicts himself more another way, though he evade his first contradiction by it, to say that believing parents (for such one∣ly say your selves give right to their infants to be baptized) may sinne themselves out of covenant, and be damned, for though as I then told him he preached it in saying thus, yet I am perswaded he holds no falling from grace.

More things I take notice that that Dr. and Mr. Bax. knock heads in, but I spare to do more then advise them to accord better with each other, but specially each of them with himself, or else as implicitly as men have believed them hereto∣fore, they will try them ere long, and scarce trust them any longer.

His 20 Plain Scripture-lesse proof for infant churchmembership and baptism he drawes as he saies from Deut. 28. 4. 18 32. 41. blessed shall they be in the

fruit of their body that keep the covenant, and cursed in the fruit of their body, i. e. that break the covenant &c. he may well say he drawes it, for theres no such thing as he draws flowes freely from that or any other Scripture he produces, he drawes indeed, but at such a distance, that I see nothing followes from thence at all: he does not fall flatly upon it, nor deal down rightly with the text alled∣ged, nor doth he interpret the blessing and cursing to be membership, and non∣membership, so as to say that by blessed shall be the fruit of thy body is meant thus, i. e. thy infants shall be inchurched, and by cursed shall 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of thy body thus, i. e. thy infants shall be dischurched, for that had 〈◊〉〈◊〉 •…•…lpably to pervert it, but he keeps a loof off from it, and doth not draw•…•… •…•…o the heart and center of it, but syllogizes in a circumference, and fetches it from far for fear, I think, least it should fly in his face.

The Argument that I fetch hence is this.

That doctrine, which maketh the children of the faithfull to be in a worse con∣dition, or as bad, then the curse Deut. 28. maketh the children of covenant breakers to be in, is false doctrine.

But the doctrine which •…•…denyeth the children of the faithfull to be visible Churchmembers, doth make them to be in as bad or worse condition then is threatned by the curse Deut. 28.

Therefore.

The Minor of which Syllogism is most false, for infants may be both unbap∣tized and no visible Church members, and yet be in a better condition then such as are under the curse, and the captivity threatned Deut. 28. and so are all these to whom baptism and admittance into the visible Church is delayed by your selves, who in the Church of England in old time were wont to defer the baptizing of all infants to two times in the year, viz. Easter and Whitsuntide, and so are all those also to whom we deny it, for both those to whom you delay it, and those to whom we deny it, dying in infancy without it, may be saved without it as well as if they had it.

And at the same rates as they dispute them to be under cursing to whom we de∣ny baptism, and visible Church-membership, and our doctrine to be false that denies it, may we dispute those infants to be under cursing, to whom they delay baptism and visible membership, though but for a week during the time of their delaying it, and their doctrine to be false that delaies it, if we retort the same Ar∣gument on themselves, which I shall do and leave it.

That doctrine which makes the children of the faithful in as bad or worse con∣dition then is threatned in that curse Deut. 28. is false.

But that doctrine which delaies baptism and visible Church-membership to the infants of the faithfull till the tenth, twelfth, or twentyeth day of their age, till Plumcake be made, maketh them during the time in which tis delayed in worse Condition then is threatned in that curse, Deuter. 28.

Ergo tis false.

Till then you have ingrafted your children into the Church by baptism they are it seems with you in worse state then if they were in captivity, and all the poor innocent infants of those parents that are in England, to which your selves (O Presbyters) deny baptism, unlesse the parent will confesse his faith before the •…•…ason, are in worse and more cursed condition then if they were in captivity.

And if an Indians infant should be born and bread up here in England, and be in never such a hop•…•…ful way of comming in time to the knowledge of the truth, yet all the time he remains unbaptiz'd, and not visibly added to your corrupt church of England, he is belike under a worse curse, and condition then if he were in sla∣very or captivity: I wonder where Christ or his disciples ever preached such kind of Gospel.

His 21 plain Scripture-lesse proof for infant-Church membership and baptism runs upon this disjunction, viz. Either they are in the visible Church of Christ or in the visible kingdome of the Devil, for there is no third state, saith he, in which they are, but if they be not in Christs visible Church they are visibly out of it, and if they be visibly out of that visible Church then they are visibly in Satans Kingdome.

This is the summe and substance of what he laies down, and the basis upon which he builds a necessity of admitting the children of the faithfull into, and reckoning upon them as in the visible Church of Christ, or else we must (saith he) say they are in the visible Kingdome of the Devill; which to say saith he is false doctrine; the rest is but amplification and augmentation rather then Argumentation of this position; now how be•…•…t a wise body that is not resol∣ved to trouble himself, and fill the world with curious pryings, long proofs, and prolix prates about matters, which the wisdome of Christ in the word of his Te∣stament, which was written to, for and concerning men and women, and not in∣fants, is pleased to be silent in, would surely have sat down satisfyed with that sober saying, which Mr. B. himself cotes out of Mr. T. Apol. p. 66. viz. that infants are neither in the Kingdom (i.e. visible church) of Christ, nor Satan vi∣sibly till profession.

For really so it is, and no otherwise properly, and quoad nos, who have no warrant to take cognizance of them as in either one or in the other visibly, but as at years they visibly appear to cleave to either, neither are these two, viz. the vi∣sible Kingdome of Satan, and the visible Church of Christ the adaequate dividing members of the whole world, but (excepting infants) of the adult ones in it only, which visibly obey either Christ or Satan; neither doth Satans visible kingdome consist of any infants visibly at all, but of such as visibly are acted by him, even the children of disobedience, in whom he works Ephes. 2. 2. nor Christs visible Church of any infants visibly at all, save when some were inchurched and inco∣venanted as a type for a time, but of such onely as visibly obey him, these I say are visibly the subjects, servants, disciples and children of each Rom. 6. his ser∣vants ye are, i. e. visibly, to whom i. e. visibly ye obey, whether &c. 1 Ioh. 3. 10. in this i. e. doing or not doing righteousnesse are manifest, i. e. visibly, the children of God, and of the dev•…•…l so Iohn 8.

They are visibly of their father the devil, who do the works of their father i. e. in Gospel account; for else in the lawes account they, as Abrahams seed, were then the Churches children, howbeit I say any one that is not willing to be wise above what is written, and to have vision of more then is visible, would rest in this, yet sith Mr. B. will put us positivly to prove a third state, denying that theres any medium asserting that infants, if they be not in the visible Church of Christ in their infancy, are in the visible kingdome of the devil, which to say is false doctrine, I shall bring Mr. Baxter to stop the mouth of Mr. Baxter and to convince him that either there is a third state, in which believers infants are in their infancy, which is neither of these two, or else to drive him to that Dilemma, to preach this false doctrine him∣self that believers infants are in the visible kingdome of the Devil.

To this purpose I first demand of him, which of these two viz. the visible church of Christ or the visible kingdome of the devil believers infants are visibly in before baptism?

First as for the visible kingdom of the devil he must say they are either visibly in it or out of it, if he say they are in it, then he himself preaches that false doctrine, which he saies is ours, and makes all infants, even of believers members of the vi∣sible kingdom of the devil; if he say they are out, and not in the visible kingdom of the devil, then that doctrine, which teaches men to leave them unbaptized, and de∣nies them to be admitted members of the visible church of Christ till they come to age, is not guilty as he saies it is, of making them doctrinally members of the visible

kingdome of the devil, for it is but a delay indeed till they can do what is requi∣red to baptism.

As for the visible Church of Christ he must say they are either visibly in it before baptism, or not in but out of it, if he say they are in the visible church of Christ vi∣sibly before baptism, then they cannot be said to be (as oh how oft ore and ore again are they said to be by Mr. Bax. p. 24. 25.?) admitted to be members, en∣tered, listed, added, initiated into it as into Christs School, and first stated in∣to it by baptism, for to be first entered into it by baptism, and yet to be visibly in it before baptism, these two are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 utterly inconsistent each with other, as to be let into a room when, and while one is already in the room is impossible, yet with Mr. B. persons are let into the visible church after they are in it, yea they must be in it, saith he, before they may be admitted to be in it, nor will his dis∣tinction of a member compleat and incompleat p. 24. which he used before to the tearm disciple, which I know he will make, help him at all here, sith with him∣self an incompleat member is one that hath but jus ad rem, not in re, ad Eccle∣siam, not in Ecclesia a right to onely, not a standing in the Church, a title to the relative change, and not a being yet in that relative change, that he saies passes upon him by baptism.

Besides, to say the truth they are but incompleat members after baptism, whom you baptize, sith when baptized and in the church they have not present right to other ordinances of the church, for you admit not your infant members to the Sup∣per: but if he say they are not visibly in the church of Christ before baptism, but out of it, as indeed they are, then either he must say they are in the visible King∣dome of the devil, which is false doctrine with himself to say of believers infants, or else say they are in some third or middle state, to the unsaying of what he said before by way of denial of such a third state, which let him say, and we will a∣gree with him, and such a third state there is, which all infants are in as well as some, whether he will deny himself so as to acknowledge it yea, or no.

His 22. plain Scripture-less proof for infant Church-membership and bap∣tism is this viz. That doctrine which leaveth us no sound grounded hope of the justification or salvation of any dying infant in the world, is certainly false doctrine, but that doctrine which denieth any infants to be members of the visi∣ble Church doth leave us no &c.

This argument I have spoken to sufficiently above, and thereupon might well passe it by here, and refer Mr. B•…•…. thither for an answer, where in answer to the Ashford Disputants, that urge the same argument, enough to satisfie is re∣turned;

But finding this to be that which of all things most gravels Mr. Baxter and makes him stick so stiffly to his plea for the baptism, and Church-membership of infants, because unlesse that be owned he can find no good ground in all the word whereupon to hope or believe that any dying infant in all the world can be saved, which if he could find, he would find the vanity of his venting so much concern∣ing a necessity of baptizing, and inchurching infants, and save himself a deal of puzzling himself about that, which the New Testament hath not one word of, and fearing lest I should be judged cowardly to slide by it, as if I saw Mr. Ba. handled it more unanswerably then any other, and partly because Mr. Ts. suspen∣sion of his judgement concerning the future state of any infants is puft at by him, and uneffectual to his satisfaction, unlesse he could assure him of the salvation of some dying infants, at least of believing parents, which if he could assure him of out of the way of their church-membership and baptism, it should satisfie him sufficiently, I perceive, to censure all other infants to hell, and to say all those millions of poor innocents, I mean the dying infants of other men, in respect of which these he is so pittiful to are scarce one of a 100. are all damned for ever,

with which harsh, cruel, bloody and mercilesse censure of his I am much more, and more groundedly dissatisfied, then he is about the denial of meer outward member∣ship, and bare ordinance of baptism to those few, on whose behalf he pleads them, and lastly hoping the Lord may lend him some ligh: whereby to see a con∣sistency between the non membership and baptism of believers infants, and the sal∣vation of the dying infants of, not believers onely, but all dying innocent infants in the world, I shall enter on an examination of what he saies to the contrary, and an explication of what apprehension in this particular I am begotten to by the word of truth, and though I shall decline sacerdotale delirium that common stock of divinity, which the Clergy have treasured up in their Theological Systems, out of which ocean of error, and dead sea of tradition the younger Rabbies use to draw into their common place books, and store themselves with arguments against Anab aptistical heresie, i. e. this trouble some truth, yet I trust I shall give a good account before all the world at the Tribunal of Christ Jesus.

In order hereunto therefore I first flatly deny the Minor of Mr. Bas. above ci∣ted syllogism, which by another Syllogism he proves viz. They that are not so much as seemingly or visibly in a state of salvation, of them so dying we can have no ground of Christian hope that they shall be saved.

But they that are not so much as seemingly or visibly of the Church, are not so much as seemingly or visibly in a state of salvation, therefore of them so dy∣ing we can have no true ground of hope that they shall be saved.

The Major of this second syllogism, which he sets himself to prove, I freely grant to be true.

The Minor I have many things to say to;

First, I take notice how he changes the termes from what they were in this pro-syllogism, which, had he been minded to deal fairly, and not to sophisticate and shuffle, I know not why he should do, and a sincere disputant whould not have done it.

In the Minor of the former syllogism the terms were thus viz. that doctrine that denieth infants to be members of the visible church, but here he writes, leaving out the word visible, foisting in the word seemingly and visibly to fill up the room of it, that it might not be mist, they that are not seemingly or visi∣bly of the Church, whereas he ought of right to have brought in the Minor, and conclusion thus viz. but they that are not members of the visible Church, are not so much as seemingly or visibly in a state of salvation, therefore of them viz. them that are not members of the visible Church, we can have no true ground of Chri∣stian hope that they can be saved, I say he should have exprest it visible Church in both places, else the word Church being understood by Mr. Ba, for the invi∣sible Church sometimes, i, e. them that are not onely seemingly sincere, and in state of salvation, but as really and truly in state of salvation as they seem, by this variation of his from visible Church to Church without the term visible the state of the question may be changed: and how beit he premises this and takes it for granted that to be a visible member of the church, and to be a member of the visible Church is all one, saying he that denies that will shew but his vanity, yet he takes it before it is granted him from me, who am one of those vain ones, that by his favour deny these to be all one, unlesse by the word Church in both places he means the visible Church, which though I do notsay he doth not, yet I say if he do, he should by right have exprest it, or else there may be fallacy in it, for I aver to Mr. Ba. and albeit I seem to him to speak paradoxes, and parables thorow the distance of our principles, yet I hope to make it clear to his conscience, that the visible Church doth not so contain the invisible in it, as he saies it doth p. 75. but that there are cases wherein persons may be both real and visible i. e. to us seeming members of the invisible Church, or mistical body of sincere ones, and in state of salvation, and yet not be real members of the visible Church; or else

(not to speak now of the state of believers infants, whom you rantize, before you rantize them) let him tell me what visible state believers themselves, whom onely, and not their infants Acts 2. 41. 42. the first Gospel ministry bap•…•…ized, were in immediatly before they baptized them? they were not visibly members, after profession of their faith, of the visible Kingdom of the devil, and therefore at least visible and seeming members of Christs mistical body, and of the invisible Church, and in state of salvation, and yet were they not members visibly of the visible Church of Christ till (though I hold not baptism it self neither to be the immediate formal entrance into the visible Church, yet necessarily previous to it) till I say they were (to use Mr. Bas. own phrase by baptism admitted, and stated in it: for to be admitted to be a member of the visible Church, and yet to be a member of that visible Church before that admittance are utterly inconsistent each with other, yea to enter in by baptism, and yet to be in before baptism, be∣side the contradiction that is in one of these to the other, it makes your baptism, which you call the sacrament of visible entrance, to be what you say the supper is, i. e. a sacrament rather of continuance: to be seemingly therefore and visibly a member, or to be a visible member of the church, unlesse we mean the visible Church, (and then it ought to be so exprest by them that hold there is an invisi∣ble) and to be a member of the visible Church are not all one: thus having first justly faulted the Minor for its fallacious faultring in the terms, and form of it, and varying from those of the first syllogisme and setting down the syllo∣gisme in the plain termes in which Mr. Baxter should have done it, viz.

They that are not so much as seemingly or visibly in the state of salvation, of them so dying we can have no true ground of Christian hope that they shall be sa∣ved.

But they that are not members of the visible Church, are not so much as seem∣ingly or visibly in a state of salvation, therefore of them that are not members of the visible Church, so dying we can have no true ground of Christian hope that they shall be saved.

In the second place I fault the Minor of this argument as most false and unsound in the matter of it, and therefore I lay down this for truth, which is directly op∣posite to it viz. that they that are not members of the visible Church may be seem∣ingly and visibly in a state of salvation, and so consequently that of them that are not members of the visible Church so dying, we may have true ground of Christian hope that they shall be saved.

These two positions with the consequence thereof are so contradictory each to other, that if this latter be truth then the former universally understood i. e. of all that are not of the visible Church, as it must be, or else it serves not Mr. Ba^s purpose, must needs be false: whereupon I need do no more toward the disproof of his then to prove my own, in order to which I shall premise what the visible Church is, and then examine whether it be not possible for some persons as Mr. Ba. it seems thinks it is not, to be seemingly and visibly in a state of salvation, and yet not be members of the visible Church.

The true visible Church now in the times of the Gospel, and so onely it con∣cerns our purpose to consider of it, is all those severall particular visible assem∣blies, and societies of persons in the world, or visible disciples collectively taken, which in all places and ages since Christ past, present and to come, being first separated, or called out of the world to personall prosession of repentance from dead works, and faith towards God, of remission of sins by Christ Iesus, of resurrection of the dead, and the eternall judgement, and baptized in water in the name of Christ for remission of sins, and together with imposition of hands, prayed for, that they may receive the holy spirit of promise, do afterward conti∣nue stedfastly in the doctrine of the Apostles, and in fellowship, and in breaking

of bread and prayers: all the true universall visible Church that I know of, if you will needs have an universal visible is that which doth exist in these par∣ticular visible societies, and is neither narrower nor wider then these particu∣lars.

Such was the visible Gospel Church in the primitive times, and the same and no other then that which was the visible Church then is the visible Church now, and in all times of the Gospell, wherein it is at all: the visible Church was that which did consist and was made up of all the particular Churches that then were viz. Rome, Corinth, and all the rest, which were societies and assemblies of persons thus called, gathered and built up an house unto God, upon the founda∣tion of the first principles of the doctrine of Christ, as the six above named are cal∣led Heb. 6. 1. as they are also called Eph. 2. 20. the foundation of the Pro∣phets and Apostles i. e. that form of doctrine as tis called Rom. 6. 17. which every beginner in Christ did own and obey, and which obeying he was fit matter for the visible church, and was after by mutual consent of the party offering himself, and their suffering him to join with them Acts 10. 26. formally added, actually admitted to visible fellowship with them in breaking of bread and prayers, for that with freedome on both sides such persons as had thus far been taught, and had learned these principles, this a b c, and owned it i. e. professing to believe what of it was matter of faith, and visibly practising what of it was practical, were visible disciples, new born babes Heb. 5. 13. and such babes being baptized, and, having laid this foundation as to fel∣lowship, were then accepted thereunto that they might grow up to perfection, in order whereunto unto this visible church Ephes. 3. 21. which though it exists in many several particular bodies, each of which is independent on any other head then Christ, and impowered from him to determine all its own affaires ultimately within it self, yet since it endeavours to keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace, is said to be but one body, because of one spirit, one call, one hope, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and father of them all, who is above all and through all, and in them all, God hath given officers gifted for its service, viz. some Apostles, some Prophets, some Pastors and teachers, for the perfecting of the Saints, for the work of the Ministery, for the edifying of this visible body of Christ, till we all come to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fulnesse of •…•…hrist Eph. 4. 3. 4. 5. 6. 11. 12. 13.

As for that Catholique visible church, I mean that voluminous body or part of the world commonly called Christ'ndome, which was once all as it were of one language and one speech, and is now rather three in one or a Triune treader of the truch viz. Papall, Prelaticall, Presbyterial, yet to this day exists in those particular visibles as were never thus seperated, and called, and constituted upon the foundation of the doctrine of the Apostles, but conglomerated by the lump by the Apostle Peters supposed successor into Nationall, Provinciall, Parochiall, (to call a spade a spade) I can call it no other then the C C Catholique Beast, that bears now in three parts a B B Babilonish C C Clergy Rev. 16. 19. i. e. indeed the very C C Catholique whore Rev. 17.

As for particular persons, though professing to be believers that yet are not baptized, and added to some such particular visible society or church, but are yet abiding in the capacity only of single though visible Saints, till they are both baptizd and added as members to walk in fellowship with some particular assembly, and congregation in breaking bread and prayers, as every such a one as supposes him∣self to be a saint ought to be, or else his saintship may be much suspected if he will not, they are no visible members of the visible church but onely fitter mate∣rials then they were before their faith, and in a neerer right to be both baptized and admitted to be members, then when they had none: they are better matter for the visible church, but not yet formally of the visible church, have jus ad re•…•…, not

in re, ad ecclesiam, not in Ecclesia a right to the church, but not actual standing in it till entered and admitted.

Nor yet are they immediate matter for, or in immediate right to membership, though believing, till baptized, but materia remota, and •…•…n •…•…re quodam con∣ditionali, & remoto, a certain remote matter, though neerer then when meerly men, and in a conditional and remote right.

For as believers are the immediate matter for, or in immediate right to bap∣tism, so baptized believers after laying on of hands in prayer are the immediate subject, i. e. in immediate right to be admitted, yet neither are baptized believ∣ers actuall members till admitted, the formality and most immediate entrance, and way of becoming a visible member of a particular visible Church, and so consequently of the generall visible (if I may so call it) which hath its existence in all the particular churches, which are the immediate matter, of which that is made up, being not simply the act of baptism, but the act of joining our selves after it Act 9. 26. and the constitutive form of a visible Church is not their being all baptized, but their free falling into fellowship with each other, and though we are said to be all baptized into one body, tis an expression of the necessity only of every ones being baptized in order to a being in the visible Church, for none hath right to be of the visible body unbaptized, but though the baptized have imme∣diate right to be of the body, yet are they not meerly of it because baptized, till added to it, and as one cannot be said to be actually under baptism, from an im∣mediate right to it by faith, till he have submitted, so neither can we be said to be actually in the body from our immediate right to it by baptism, till we are admit∣ted.

Self condemned sinners have a right to believe in Christ, believers a right to bap∣tism, baptized believers a right to the spirit of promise & to have hands laid on with prayer, that they may receive it according to the promise Asts 2. Acts 8. Acts 19. such as these to fellowship in the visible Church, yet not in fellowship till, assaying to join themselves, they are accepted, and yet in a visible state of salvation too both be∣fore baptized, as the thief, and after baptized before added to the, Church visible, as the Eunuch, who both were seemingly members of the invisible Church, and yet then when converted and baptized, neither one nor the other as yet actual members of the visible: stones though never so unhewn and ragged are remote matter, hewn and polished stones immediate and fit matter for a building, yet not a building, till built together; many sheep are fit matter to make a flock, yet not formally a flock till they come neer together.

Christs visible church is Christs flock, Gods house, Temple, building, se∣veral sheep, and single disciples, that hear his voice, believe in him, and are bap∣tized into his name for remission of sins, are pecious materials, and in potentiâ proximâ thereunto, yet be they never so many of them, not visibly, actually, nor formally a flock, an house, a Temple, a Building, his visible Church long∣er then imbodyed into fellowships, nor till fitly framed together they are builded an habitation of God through the spirit, Ephes. 2. 20. 21. 22. any more then many sheep that never came neer each other, are a flock, and a multitude of fitted and squared stones, lying a long way a sunder each from other make a buil∣ding.

Mr. B. shall be no Champion of my choosing to mannage the matter against the non-churchers of these times, for all he flourishes his sword so against them at the end of his book, if he plead the cause of them so, that sit down satisfyed in single fellowship between God and themselves onely, living up with him in the spirit, contenting themselves to believe onely, and renouncing all ordinances, forsak∣ing the assembling of themselves together, and all fellowship in breaking of bread and prayers; if he grant the denomination of the true visible Church to such as these, as well as to those that continue stedfast in the Apostles doctrine, and in fellow∣ship

in breaking bread and prayers: yet Mr. B. does not yet agree with me in this that the particular assemblies collectively taken are the only visible Church, for indeed he is aware that it overturns all his visibilities from the bottom, and layes this foundation of no salvation for infants without the visible Church, on which he frames his present Argument, flat on the ground, to allow the bounds of the visible Church to be no broader then all the particular visible societies that are a∣ctually baptized, and in formal fellowship in breaking bread and prayers, so as to say he is no member of the visible Church, that is not actually entred, and so∣lemnly stated in some particular congregation or other; therefore being politick, he premises this among the rest.

3. You must understand, saith he (but a man may understand a little better if he will) that to be a member of the visible Church is not to be a Member of any particular, or politick body or society.

Nay more to make his own matter good, and that he may find out a way of his own, whereby to hope well of all the infants of believers before baptism, that they may be saved (for let all other dying infants damn for him, he cares not for harbouring any hope of them) and finding no way but one, whereby to help himself to any hope of those, i. e. by feigning them to be of the visible church, he fet∣ches the visible church so far, that he makes it larger then the number of visible baptized ones, and holds all believers infants to be in the visible Church from the womb, and though in the last page but two of his book he disputes against twice entring into the visible body; he feigns them to enter first into the visible church, when they first enter into the world, besides and before their second first en∣trance into the visible Church by baptism: I wonder whether he hold those belie∣vers infants to be of the visible Church or no, that were once alive yet dy again in the womb?

But for all these flim-flames, Mr. Ba. will once know I hope that the true visible church is no other, then all those particular politicall assemblies, in whic•…•… baptized believers hold fellowship together, and that to be a member of the visi∣ble church is to be a member of some political society (or else how can such be ruld, admonisht, complained on to the church as Mat. 18. and excommunica∣ted, if need be, in case of obstinacy, if under no Ecclesiasticall Government?) and yet to hope well of the salvation of all infants that dy in infancy too without either baptism or visible membership in those visible societies.

And if he will not agree with me about it, that the visible church is all the visi∣ble assemblies of Christians onely, will he agree with Dr. Featley, who defines the true visible church to be where the word is truly taught, and the sacraments duly administred? where therefore neither word is taught, nor sacraments at all administred, as to unbaptized infants I judge they are not, nor baptized infants neither, theres no visible church;

Again, the universal visible church, that is saith he, all the assemblies of Chri∣stians in the world, the visible church and all the assemblies are adaequate with him, at least therefore unbaptized infants cannot be of it, for they were never en∣tred into the assemblies; but if Mr. Ba. will agree with neither of us, we shall perswade him I hope to agree in this with Mr. Ba. for nowbeit Mr. Ba. will needs reckon upon the very unbaptized infants of believers as not in right to the visi∣ble church onely, but of it, in it, visible members of it as as soon as born (for let him study his own book, how oft does he beat upon that, saying, there is but two states for them to be in, or members of the visible kingdome of the devil, or the visible church of Christ, but believers infants before baptism are not in the first, therefore in the visible church of Christ?) though I say he speak of them as in the visible church before baptism, as not knowing else how to hope their salvati∣on, if they dy without it, yet if any man living do deny infants, or any other to be of or in the visible church before or without baptism, Mr. Ba. denies it, with

whom how often is it exprest that baptism is the first visible entrance into it?

Yea (to say nothing of his own definition of the visible church, p. 75. to be such as were baptized and continued together in fellowship in breaking broad and prayers, which ought to conclude the whole church so, defined unlesse he have de∣fined it by the halves) in his plea for the continuance of baptism against the seekers p. 342. 343. he saies so, and saies moreover that we must not admit any to be of the body without it, that it is the appointed ordinary way of ingrafting all in∣to the body that are ingrafted, and p. 24. 25. he saies baptism still is to be at and not after persons are stated in the Church, at and not after our admission, at and not after our igrafting and entrance into the visible Church, making baptism and our first being in or of the visible church so simultaneous, that we may not, must not be supposed to be in, to be of, to be visibly members of the visible church before baptism, which if it be true, as indeed it is, that none can be counted to the body, as one of it, though in never such right to it first, before bap∣tism ordinarily, at least as he pleads, how doth all this hang together, and agree with what he pleads here and in the foregoing argument p. 71. where he saith it is not the deniall of baptism directly that leaveth infants in the visible kingdom of the devill? I would every one, and Mr. Ba. himself would consider this grant of Mr. Ba. for then, what ever necessity there may be of supposing them, as he doth, to be visible members in infancy, and even before they are baptized, we can suppose them in as good a state as he, yet at least there will be no need to bap∣tize them, whereby to put us into more hopes of their salvation if they dy in infancy, for if I can hope the salvation of some believers infants that die without Baptism, upon that account, what ere tis, I may as well hope the salvation of them all dy∣ing without Baptism, and so save the frivolous pains of baptizing infants at all, he goes on thus, tis true saith he, that many unbaptized are in the Kingdome of Christ, meaning his visible church, but no man who is known to be out of Christs visible church ordinarily can be out of Satans visible kingdome: I say how do these things square? hear what he saies, no entring into or being in the visible Church, but by baptism, and yet many unbaptized are in the visible Church viz. all believers infants before baptism viz. from the womb.

Either Mr. Ba. must hold two first entrances into the visible church viz. na∣tural birth and baptism, or else he must hold that baptism is not the first entrance, or else that believers infants are not entred, and if not so, not in the visible church before baptism, whether they have right to be so or no, which is another questi∣on; if he chuse to say the first, then he contradicts what he saies of entring the vi∣sible Church p. 343. if the 2d. he contradicts all he saies of baptisms being the onely entrance; if the 3d. that believers infants are not entred, and so not in not visibly of the visible church before baptism, then of these two things he must say one viz. either that all the infants of believers that dy before their visible entrance into the visible church by baptism are damned without hope, which he neither will nor can say, or else say that there is hope of dying infants salvation, and that they may be seemingly and visibly in a state of saluation, and yet not be visible members of the visible church, and then what need any further witnesse or disproof? for heel confute the Minor out of his own mouth, which I am to disprove, and save me the labour.

For if they may be in a visible state of salvation and yet not be visibly in the vi∣sible church; then tis so, and theres an end.

If to all this he saies that he meanes not more, but that believers infants before baptism have right to be baptized, and to be of it, and to deny them that right to it denies them salvation, I deny that infants dying without right to be of the visible Gospel church denies them to be in state of salvation, and shall shew

the contrary, neverthelesse Mr. Ba. might have spoken more properly, and plain∣ly, then to call a right to visible membership by the name of visible member∣ship it self, as he often, yea all along does, therefore we might wish him to mend his Minor before we meddle with it, and also he must confesse to the contradiction of himself, that there is a third state betwen the visible church of Christ, and the visible kingdom of the devil, in which infants must be sup∣posed to be by himself viz a right to the church, but not a present standing in it, which kind of right and middle state I acknowledge unbaptized believers to have, but as for infants, though they are in a present visible state of, and right to salvation as well as they, unlesse living longer they reject Gods grace afresh which dying infants cannot do, and so not in the visible Kingdome of the devil, yet are they neither in, nor yet in immediate right to the visible Church as men and women of years not yet baptized and yet believing are, but in medio abnegationis to∣gether with them, these things premised, I come now to the disproof of his Mi∣nor, in which ile take him in a fairer sense for himself then he expresses himself in, and yet make no question but to disprove it, in contradistinction unto which I say down my self thus;

Viz. That not only some men may be de facto no members, but all infants de jure in no right to membership in the visible Church of Christ under the Gospell, and yet both be possibly in state of salvation.

Now how far forth de facto persons may be out of an actual standing in the vi∣sible church, and yet in a visible state of salvation, ile not meddle much to examine, because the question is (though Mr. B. does not so fairly expresse it, but I take it in the way that is most to his advantage) whether denyal of the jus this imediate right to membership excludes them not from salvation? yet thus much I shall say to that viz. if persons must be seemingly, and visibly in state of salvation, before they are to be admitted members, they may be as yet no members of the visible church de facto, and yet in a visible state of salvation.

This is evident not only by the singular case of the theif, who never was actual∣ly admitted into the visible Church, nor so much as baptized at all for want of opportunity, and yet in a visible state of salvation, but also if we instance in all others that ever we read were baptized in the primitive times, who were first seem∣ingly and visibly in a state of repentance, faith and disposition to obey Christ in all things, and therefore in a visible state of salvation Heb. 5. 9. and then after this added to the church Mvt. 3. Mark. 16. 16. Act. 2. Act. 8. Act. 16. Act. 18. for a certain remote, and conditional right all persons have; thus de facto: and now de jure that the denyal of persons present and immediate right to member∣ship in the visible church doth not deny them universally to be in a visible state of salvation is evident also thus, viz.

If some persons both men and infants may appear to us to be in state of salva∣tion, and yet not in immediate present right to be joined to the visible Church, then the denyal of persons present and immediate right to membership in the visi∣ble Church does not universally deny them to be in a visible state of salvati∣on.

But some persons, yea both men and infants, may appear to us to be in a state of salvation, and yet at the same time not be in so much as immediate and present right to be joined to the visible Church.

Therefore.

The first proposition is most clear, the second I shall make as cleer.

First, briefly concerning men,

Secondly, More largely concerning infants, because the question mainly is of them.

Concerning men I instance in all the believers in the primitive times, of whom comparing Scripture with Scripture Act. 2. Act. 8. Act. 19. Heb. 6. 1. 2. its most

evident they had not an absolute immediate right to visible fellowship in the visible church, though converted to faith and repentance by the word, and so in a visible state of salvation, as the thief upon the crosse, so far as with him visibly repenting & believing, till such time as they were admitted after baptism, and •…•…aying on of hands with prayer, and of single disciples, as they were before, they were ad∣ded, and admitted in to the visible body, till of single living pretious stones, as they were before by their precious faith, they were built up visibly into a house, the whole building the whole body was fitly framed together, fitly joined toge∣ther, as well as shaped before, therefore they that were not actually added and joined were not of the body Ephe. 2. 21. the 4. 16. if the whole were compact∣ed by joints, and bands, then all the parts were actually added and joined, and those, that were not joined, were no part of the whole so Col. 2. 19. kn•…•… together.

Mr. Bax. argues 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or the Cart before the horse, they must be first supposed to be visibly members in the visible Church, before to be visibly in a state of salvation, but it is undeniably apparent they must have visible right to sal∣vation, and that by faith too, before visible right to membership in the visible church.

Mr. Bax. supposes persons must be first supposed to be members of the visible Church a priori before they can be warrantably supposed to be of the invisible, i. e. to be such as shall be saved, for if a person be of the invisible Church he must be thought to be of the visible much more, for the visible containes the invisi∣ble in it saith he p. 72. and ordinarily we may not judge any to be of the invisible Church, he means in real state of salvation, who are not, meaning first, of the vi∣sible p. 72.

But now I say and suppose the clean contrary viz. that persons must be first sup∣posed to be of the invisible Church a priori before they can be warrantably sup∣posed to be of, yea or so much as to have right to be of the visible; who backs Mr. Ba. in his sinister supposition I weig•…•… not, let him chuse his second if he will, ile chuse Mr. Bax. himself to back me, and to be witnesse to the truth of mine, whose words are altogether the same with mine p 73. viz. if we were fully certain by his own externall discourses that any man were not of the invisible Church, that man should not be taken to be of the visible. In order of time therefore persons were to seem to be members of the invisible church, and were visibly in a state of salva∣tion first before they could have any right at all so much as to be baptized, which with Mr. Ba. himself was the first entrance into membership in the visible church, but with me is not so much as an immediate entrance into it, but that which is ne∣cessarily to go before it, therefore persons may be seemingly in a state of salvation, and not yet in present right to membership in the visible Church, much lesse actu∣ally and visibly in it.

And now concerning infants, of whom Mr. Ba. asserts that they must be members of the visible Church, or else cannot be seemingly or visibly in a state of salvation, upon such slender grounds as these, he concludes it to be clear viz.

First, because it is the body that Christ is the Saviour of, and his people that he redeemeth from their sins, and his sheep to whom he gives eternal life, and those that sleep in Iesus that God will bring with him, and the dead in Christ that shall rise to salvation, and those that die in the Lord that rest from their labours and the Church that Christ will present pure and unspo•…•…ed, all which places I appeal to Mr. Bas. conscience whether they speak not of the misticall body, and invisible church of Christ, to which all and onely they square, and are adaequate, and not to the visible Church, which he was to speak to, or else speaks nothing to the purpose, to all which visible church, and to onely which these things agree not, for neither all those that are of the visible churchare saved, nor

onely those of the visible Church saved, witnesse many infants of believers whom Mr. Ba. dares not say are damned, some never living to enter the visible Church so farre as to baptism, and some, once alive, coming dead out of the womb, which he is blind that ever saw to be in the visible church, so that he sits here beside the sa•…•…dle.

Secondly, and Thirdly, because there is no divine revelation for the sal∣vation of any without the visible Church, that yields good ground of Christian faith, or hope that any such shall be saved, as notwithstanding he saies there •…•…s not, yet I shall shew there is by and by.

Fourthly, because it is said Acts the 2. 47. that God added to the visible church dayly such as should be saved, which though he did, yet twas not all nor onely such, but onely such men and women, not such infants, as should be sa∣ved.

Concerning infants in proof of the proposition above viz. that some infants may be in visible State of salvation, and yet not be in, nor yet in pre∣sent right to membership in the visible Church,

I argue thus downrightly.

First, if all infants are in infancy in a visible state of salvation, and no infants are members, or in any right to be members in their infancy of the visible church under the Gospel, then some infants may in infancy be in a visible state of salva∣tion, and yet not be in, nor yet in present right to membership in the visible church,

But all infants &c. and no infants &c.

Ergo, some infants ut supra.

The first proposition is most undeniably clear, the Minor hath two parts, which I shall prove successively one ofter another, and then I have done with this ar∣gument of Mr. Ba. Ile prove the last first, and the first last, and here I dare-say I might easily muster up scores, if not a century of solid arguments toward the fuller clearing of it, that no babes now, but the new born babes spoken of 1 Pet. 2. 2. 3. 4. 5. i. e. at least in appearance spiritually born babes, such as those 1 Iohn 1. 1 Cor. 3. 1. Heb. 5. 13. are to be baptized, and built upon the foundation i. e. doctrine of Christ and the Apostles, a spiritual house, a holy templ•…•… i. e. vi∣sible church unto Iesus Christ now in these daies of the Gospel•…•…, and that no mans fleshly seed or natural posterity, no not Abrahams own barely on such an account as being his bodily seed, much lesse any believing Gentiles, who hath not m•…•…re priviledge then his seed I think, but onely the (at least seeming) spiritual seed of Abraham i. e. those that are children of God, and Abrahams too by faith in Christ Gal. 3. 26. 28. as no infant is, have right to dwell in this family, the babes, the seed of Abraham circumcised in heart, the children of the heavenly promise pointed at, and typed out by the Iews babes, and that circum∣cised seed of Isaac, and those children of that earthly promise of the old Ca∣naan, these are the true sons of the free woman, the Gospel visible church, before whom the bond woman, and her son i. e. Abrahams meer fleshly seed, though by Isaac, are cast out, that they may dwell alone in the house, as Hagar and her son were cast out of Abrahams house of old before Isaac and his seed, that they might dwell alone, for look how Ishmael and his seed stood in reference to Isaac and his, that were the children by promise of the earthly Canaan viz. but servants that must not abide the house longer, when the other came in to stand, so Isaac the type, and his seed themselves, in reference to Christ the true Isaac and his seed i. e. believers viz. as servants that must be packing, when he comes in, and not abide in the house together with him see Iohn 8. Galatians 4. ult.

But that were to begin the work again, which I have finisht above, where I

have given a touch of these things, and but a touch in comparison of what might be said; And of multiplying Arguments, and making many books there is no end.

Therefore ile hint but a few, among which this shall be the first.

If the standing upon the root Abraham, i. e. the family or visible Church of God since Christ be by faith in the person onely so standing, and not by faith in the parent, as of old, then infants cannot now stand therein.

But so tis,

Therefore the other.

The consequence is cleared by the consideration of the incapacity of infants to believe, faith being assent to something propounded to us, faith comming by hea∣ring, and hearing by the word Rom. 10. so that who so thinks it possible for in∣fants 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 credere when it is said how can they believe in him of whom they have not heard, is wretchedly inconsiderate.

The Minor is evident out of Rom. 11. where it is said the very natural branches of Abrahams body, that did on that account meerly as the fleshly seed of that father of the faithfull stand in the olive tree, the visible Church, before time, yet now could stand no longer on that old account, why? were they not the seed of Abraham still, that stood without faith in the old visible Church to the very end of it? yes, but they believed not in their own persons, therefore could not stand in this house, but were cast out of their own olive, their own father A∣brahams family, i. e. the visible Church, now Christ came in, because of un∣belief, and thou (saith Paul to the Gentile) standest, how? by fleshly descent? no, that standing is gone from such as come of Abrahams himself, there∣fore is not to thee, nor to thine, but by faith, i. e. personal, and not pa∣rentall.

A Second this,

If all they that are baptized into one visible body under the Gospell are made in the supper to drink into one spirit, then infants, who cannot drink into one spirit with the body, secundum te may not be baptized into that visible body.

But this is true 1 Cor. 12. 13.

Therefore that.

So Col. 2. 19. All the body is knit together, and by joints, and bands hath nou∣rishment ministred, and increaseth by that which every joint, and member sup∣plieth Eph. 4. 16.

But infants are not capable to have Spirituall nourishment Minstired, and to grow in grace, as all the body ought to do at least, and this in the use of the Supper.

If you say they are capable of spiritual nourishment, I say as capable I think as of the spiritual birth, for where theres a birth theres a growth, but then me thinks they should be as capable of the supper, which is the Sacrament of spirituall nourishment, being capable of that, as being capable of spiritual birth, they are of baptism the outward Sacrament of the same.

But Mr. Bax. denies that page 114. 115. among other reasons for this, because though capable to be washed, yet not to eat bread, and drink wine in their first infancy.

Oh strange! they may have it then as they can eat and drink.

A third is this,

If no infants were baptized and added to the first Gospell visi∣ble Church, then surely they had no right so to be, for the Apostles would not do them that wrong as not to add them that had right,

But this is true,

Therefore that.

The Minor is plain out of Acts 2. where to the 120. men and women that without infants continued in fellowship Acts 1. there were added 3000. more in one day, and not one infant among them, but as many onely as gladly received the word, nor more nor lesse (for else Luke couzens us in his history) and continu∣ed after their baptism in fellowship in breaking bread and prayers, which no in∣fants did, and yet it is well nigh infallible, that those 3000 had some infants belonging to some of them, which would have been added with their parents, if the promise is to you, and to your children and them a far off, even as many as the Lord shall call would bear the sense divines drawes it to.

Yea Master Cotton himself conceives that no infants were baptized at that time, and when else either these or any other were, neither I, nor any one else ever found, since they began to read Christs Testament with their eyes o∣pen.

Yea Peter commanded no more to be baptized but the same persons whom he speaks to also to repent, which me thinks he should have done, saying be bap∣tized every one of you, and baptize your children also, if any such thing had been intended, and Christians infants were to have been seperated out of the world, and called to be saints, and baptized, as Mr. B. believes they are to be, but not I.

For what saies Paul in his Epistle to the Romans, chapter 1. I suppose he wrote not to infants, yet to all the called Saints, to all that be in Rome called to be saints.

So in 1 Cor. 14. the 23. If the whole Church come together, and all speak with tongues, and all Prophe-y.

So 26. Every one of you hath a Psalm.

So 31. Ye may all prophecy one by ons that all may be edi•…•…yed.

He writes, and so surely he seems to me to do all his Epistles, to the whole church, and speaks to the whole body, yet I cannot conceive that to any infants, who are uncapable to be edifyed and comforted.

Yea 1 Cor. 12. 25. 16. The Members of the visible body of Christ ought to have the same care one for another, so that if one Member suffer all the Members suffer with it, if one be honoured all rejoice with it.

This cannot infants do,

Therefore surely are not of this visible body of Christ.

Another Argument which Master Baxter himself mentions, and slights, as simply supposing that it excludes infants from salvation, is that of Mr. Tombs viz.

That the onely way now appointed by Christ to make visible church Members is by teaching the persons themselves, and that none else must be Members of the visible Church, but those that have learnt as infants have not.

This Argument is of great weight, and receives as trifling an answer from Mr. B •…•…or saith he, then it will much more follow that they are not, or at least that we may not judge them to be of the invisible Church at all i. e. to be such as so dying shall be saved.

The contrary to which, and inconsequence of which I have shewed above and shall shew more by and by.

Secondly (saith he) If they may argue from Matth. the 28. 20. that none, but those that are taught are true Disciples, and are to be baptized, why may they not as well Argue from Mark the 16. chap. 16. verse, who ever believeth not shall be damned, that all infants are certainly damned?

To which I say first I am one, who argues from Ma•…•…h 28. that none but such as are taught are disciples, and to be baptized, for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is teach ye, or make ye disciples by teaching, or cau•…•…e to learn, then which I testify to Mr. B•…•…. face that there is no other way, whereby we can make disciples of Christ, persons being properly called disciples of disco 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to learn, and I blush at that bald stuff, wherewith he strives, and streines his wits till he becomes ridi∣culous, to make the denomination of disciple appear to be due to infants p. 23. as namely,

Because they are taken into Christs school and Kingdome, i. e. his visible Church, [whereas tis before persons are taken into this School that they are dis∣ciples therefore not by it] also because they are not lesse docible then some bruits [as if some brutes are so docible as to deserve the name of disciples of Christ, ther∣fore much more infants] because Mothers, Nurses teach them by gesture, acti∣on and voice partly, and dishearten, and take them off from vices, and if not at first to know Christ, yet if any of the duty of a rationall creature it is somewhat [somewhat indeed but nothing to purpose, for as if mothers could take them off from vices in such meer nonage wherein you baptize them, as or if they could learn them any of a natural creatures duty so young as at eight or nine daies old, as if to learn the duty of a rational creature, which many a man learns, but no infants, could denominate disciples of Christ] because Christ can teach them immediate∣ly by his spirit if they can learn nothing of their parents by action, and voice] [from which Christ can teach them to denominate believers infants disciples of Christ, before we have any evidence that he does teach them any more then other infants, that must be no disciples, when Christ can teach these as well as those I can∣not conceive the foppery of it it is so great] because when a Philosopher was hired to teach a man, and his children those were children disciples of that Philosopher [as if ever any wise man did hire another wise man to teach him and his nine daies old infants] because infants can so quickly learn to know father and mother and what they mean in their speeches and actions [as if so quickly as you baptize them, and lastly as if this will be an accurate account for baptizing of infants, and accepted as an answer of Christs commission, who there bids us teach or make persons disciples to plead th•…•…s, viz. Lord we could not teach infants, nor make them thy disciples by teaching, yet seeing they could quickly learn to know father and mother, we sup∣posed upon this, and several such like reasons, that the name disciple of Christ was their due, and so that twas our duty to baptize them.]

Moreover Adhominem, as he saies of the word holy p. 82. So I of the term disciple, whose constant meaning is one that hath learnt as Mat. 11. 29. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 so Iohn 6. 46. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 every one that hath learned, we shall have better defence before the Iudgement seat of Christ for taking the term dis∣ciple in that sense as the Scripture uses it in scores of times viz. for persons learnt or taught then they that take it for indocible infants, a sense the Scripture never uses it in at all, but a hundred times otherwise, to say nothing of Iohn 8. 31. Luke 14. 26. 33. where Christ saies if we do, what (I am sure) infants do not we are, and if we do not what infants cannot do, we cannot be his disci∣ples.

Secondly, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is teach them i. e. the Gospel, so none are here bid to be baptized, but the very same individual persons, that are bid also to be taught: first baptizing them, and after teaching them again, whom? those persons in the Nations whom they have taught onely, and not their infants; for we may as well say the men that they never taught, as them, since Christ hath in precepto conjoined teaching, or our discipling and baptizing together, and in∣fants cannot by our teaching of them be discipled visibly.

The argument in its true form is this viz.

What Christ hath conjoined i. e. in his commission for baptizing that man

must not separate, i. e. in his practise.

But Christ hath conjoined our discipling persons and baptizing them in his commission, for baptizing, as a standing course to the end of the world as Mat. 28. 19. 200. shews.

Erg no man must separate these two in his practise.

If Dr. Featley were alive to answer this he would happily say tis no Topical, but a Sophistical Syllogism, for when A. R. makes much what the like from Mar. 16. 16. viz.

What God hath joined together no man ought to separate,

But faith and baptism God hath joined together Acts 8. 37.

Ergo faith and baptism none ought to separate.

He saies theres a double falacy in it viz. homonimiae, or ambiguity in the premises i, e. in the termes joined together, for it may be meant saith he, either in precepto, and that no man denyeth, or insubejcto the subject i. e. so as to say that all that are baptized have faith, and none have faith but the baptized, and in this sense it is apparently false saith he, whereupon to prevent Dr. Featleys fol∣lowers from charging the above syllogism with that fallacy▪ I have exprest in what sense I mean it, viz. in precepto, in which sense the premisses are granted to be true by the Dr. himself, and therefore I know no•…•… why they should be denied by Mr. Ba. or any else, and then the co•…•…lusion must be true: but saith Dr. Feat. there is a fallacy called ignoratio elench•…•… in the conclusion i. e. it concludes not the thing in question, but that which is not denied by us, for they that are for baptizing of infants, do not separate faith and baptism, for they baptize children into their fathers faith saith he;

Secondly they believe that infants of believers receive some hidden grace of faith in time of their baptizing, his followers say before baptism p. 3. of their pamphlet (oh how contrary are they each to other) therefore are to be baptized; but Mr. Ba. will say none of all this I hope, for he is against Baptismal regene∣ration, nor will he charge the syllogism with sophistry I hope, but deny either the Major, or the Minor, either of which if he do, he answers his own grand ar∣gument against the seekers p. 341, where word for word (saving a term or two put in here for explication) this very syllogism is his own, or else he will grant both these, and consequently the conclusion to be true, and then why will he dis∣pense baptism to persons i. e. infants, before they so much as seem to be∣lieve?

But it may be that which is a good syllogism, when used by himself, will be meer sophism with him too when urged by us:

Secondly the reason why we may not argue that all infants are damned from Mark 16. 16. though they believe not, is this viz. because that place speaks of persons at years onely, to whom the Gospel is preached, and not of infants, that are not capable to believe.

But then saies Mr. Ba. the same may be answered to the argument from Mat. 28. against infants being disciples, and to be baptized.

To whom I reply thus.

First, if he saies (as we of Mark 16. 16.) of Mat. 28. 20. viz. that go teach all nations baptizing them, is meant of men at years onely, and not of in∣fants, then he grants as much as we desire, and confesses that Christ, in his com∣mission to teach and baptize the nations, do•…•…s not mean discipling and baptizing infants, but men, and if the commission to baptize extend not to infants, as the subject, then what warrant to baptize them?

Secondly if that place be meant of men onely, and not of infants, then Mr. Ba. was well busied the while, when he brings that very place in the very front of his plain Scripture proofs, for his infant membership and baptism, its ill stumbling at the very threshold.

But I shall not multiply, nor improve as Mr. Ba. hath done to the utmost, but give one argument more against infant membership, and so come to the other mem∣ber viz.

If all that can be said in proof of the visible Church-membership of infants may be disproved as weak, and inconsequent utterly to that purpose, then sure there is enough, if one would stand upon it, to be brought against it.

But all that is said by Mr. Ba. in his two dozen of arguments, who improves himself to the utmost to say as much as can be said in proof of the visible Church membership of infants, is well nigh already, and will be altogether by and by dis∣proved as weak and inconsequent.

Ergo there must needs be enough against it: for contradictoriorum uno nega∣to statuitur, probatur alterum.

If all, that can be said on one side to the proof of this that infants ought to be members of the visible Church, will not avail to evince that to be the truth, then that infants ought not to be members of the visible Church of Christ is a thing will prove it self well enough.

And so I have done with one member of my proposition, that I may say a lit∣tle also to the other, which is this viz.

Though no infants have right in infancy to be baptized and joined to the visihle Church, as I have already proved, yet all infants in their infancy are in a visi∣ble state of salvation.

Mr. Ba. finds out or rather fancies to himself certain grounds whereupon to hope, that some dying infants are saved viz. some of the dying infants of the faithful, as in opposition to all the dying infants of the wicked, I say some of them, for he dares not say p. 78. that his own grounds yield a certainty, though a probability, of the salvation of all such neither, so doth he narrow up the grace of God to that innocent age of infancy, for all he would seem so merciful as to plead its cause against those cruel conceits which he conceives are conceived of it amongst us, yet he finds no good ground whereupon to hope the salvation of the dying infant of any godly man, but the same on which he conceives them of nece∣cessity to that salvation to have also a right to membership in the visible Church, but such a necessary dependance of them each on other, that suppose one to be no member, at least in no visible right to membership in the visible Church, of that person, so dying, there can be harboured no hope at all of his salvation: but what if I can make it good from one of those very grounds of Mr. Baxters own bringing that theres a ground to hope the salvation of one such dying infant, as of whom it is most palpably evident, that it was neither actually a member of the visible Church before it died, nor so much as in any visible right to membership in the visible Church if it had lived? Mr. Ba. will then I hope let go his wretch∣ed conceit of a necessity of dying infants membership in order to our having hopes of their salvation.

And in order to the making good of this, I instance in the very same child, which himself brings in as his fifth ground page 77. and alludes to, as his exam∣ple of the contrary viz. the child that David had by Bathsheba, while she was yet the wife Uriah, of whom I testifie the very same that Mr. Bax. does viz. that Davids comforting himself concerning his dead child, because he should go to the child, but the child not return to him, was an evident argument that Da∣vid was confident that that child of his should not be damned, and yet he could not hope so upon any such account as his childs dying a member of the visible Church, for the child never lived so much as to the 8th day, nor to be circumcis∣ed, and thereby entred into the visible Church, for its plain 2 Sam. 12. 18. that it died on the 7th. and if Mr. Ba. say it was a member de jure, though not de facto i. e. in a right to have been a member had it lived, I deny that with as

much confidence as the other, for a bastard was not to be admitted into the con∣gregation of the Lord unto the tenth generation, and its evident that that child was a bastard.

I conclude therefore contrary to that round Mr. Ba. runs about in like a horse in a mill, making a necessary concatenation between being in visible right to Church-membership, and in a visible state of salvation, proving the one by the other, concluding sometimes, that infants of believers are chil∣dren of the Gospel promise, & so visibly in a state of salvation, & therfore they must be baptized and in churcht, or else they could not, and others may not, sometimes that infants of believers are in visible right to be admitted into the visible Church, and therefore we may have sound ground to hope their salvation, so dying, as denying their right to membership we could not have, and of other infants we cannot, I conclude I say that there may be sound ground whereon to hope the salvation of some dying infants, that dye without actual membership in the con∣gregation, or visible Church of Christ, and without any right to it also in their infancy had they lived longer.

And if we may hope well of some infants that dy without membership, and without right to it also, I know not why we may not hope the like of all, for all Mr. Baxs. impropriating the unlimited and boundlesse grace of God, and ingros∣sing all hope of the salvation of dying infants, to the dying infants of none but faithful parents, specially considering, besides what grounds more of my own I shall add in proof of it by and by, two more at least of Mr. Baxters own grounds whereon to hope the salvation of believers infants are grounds, whereon to hope the salvation of other dying infants as well as them, the Scrip∣tures he refers to for them speaking, if of infants at all, then of the whole species, of the whole kind of that Stature called infants, and not of infants of one kind more then another.

For first whereas his 6th ground for the salvation of believers dying infants, and of being without any fear of their damnation is this viz. because it is said Psal. 127. 3. 4. 5. children are the heritage of the Lord, and the fruit of the womb his reward &c. if that be spoken of infants at all, as it seems rather to be spo∣ken of children that are grown up, that are the strength of their father and his fa∣mily, it is surely spoken of all infants as well as some, and he that particulari∣zes that indefinit term of children, and the fruit of the womb, where ever the Scri∣ture speaks hopefully of such, so as to understand it universally to expresse, and sound forth no more then those individualls viz. the seed of believing parents (and yet thus Mr. B•…•…. muzzles up all such Scriptures, and makes them sound no more then he would have them) doth little lesse then force the word to his ownfancy.

Secondly, whereas his 13th ground is from Mat. 18. 10. where he argues thus,

If little ones have their angels beholding the face of God in heaven then they shall be saved, for that is a mercy peculiar to the people of God.

I argue that if little ones litterally taken (i. e. if infants be there meant, as he saies, but never shewes, they are (saving per alios and not per se) then surely all infants as well as some, for he speaks not there of the little ones of believing parents in special, but of what kind of little ones soever he speaks, he speaks of that kind of little ones in general without exception, whether it be of infants, or of his disciples, and if yet it must needs be understood of infants onely, that they shall be saved, it is understood universally of them, and so much Mr. Ba. might have seen, and would have said had he consulted the 14. verse, but just below where it is thus said of all little ones that are lost, and so of all as well as some, viz. it is not the will of your heavenly father that one of these little ones shall perish.

And sith Mr. B. so suches it out below p. 104 105. &c. from Mark 10. 14. 15. saying that of such is the kingdome of Heaven must needs be meant, viz. by kingdome of Heaven salvation, which I grant, and by such (as ile grant al∣so

at this time however, sith thence I shall have another Argument ad hominem to give hope by of the salvation of all dying infants) not such as are like infants, but infants themselves, and that not of those individuals onely that were then brought, which whether they were children of believing parents or no too is more then Mr. B. ere can demonstrate, there being many that came to Christ for heal∣ing of themselves or theirs, as tis most evident that these did, of whom not more then one of ten were as they should be, for of 10 leapers clensed where were the nine?

I say not of those individuals onely, but of the very species of infants, yea how oft ore and ore and ore again does he inculcate this upon us in that place, saying, it was the species of infants, the very species, infants in specie, and not those in∣dividuals, whom Christ saies the kingdome of heaven, i. e. salvation doth be∣long to, I appeal to Mr. B•…•…. own conscience, whether there be not out of his own mouth a strong Argument of hope, if not of assurance from Christ himself that the whole species of infants, so dying, i. e. all infants, and not some onely shall be saved: for the •…•…pecies of infants expresses not some infants onely but all infants, or infants quâ tales, so that quatenus ipsum evermore including de omni, whatver belongs to infants inspecie i. e. to the kind or to infants as suchbelongs toall infants, quod convenit homini, purely qua est homo, convenit omni homini and so what ever belongs to any thing, as tis such, belongs also to all that is such.

But Mr. B. teaches us the truth in this, that the kingdome of heaven and salva∣tion belongs by Revelation from Christ himself to infants, not in individuo one∣ly, i. e. not to those infants onely that were then brought to Christ, nor any other, but to the kind, to infants in specie i. e. all infants as infants, therefore the king∣dome of heaven and salvation belongs to them all, and so did that kind of com∣ming to Christs person, while he was on earth, with infants, not for, nor by baptism, but for healing, belong to all infants that needed it as well as some, that were then on earth, as comming to Christ with infants by prayer to him to help and heal them, in whatever malady, since his person is absent, belongs to all in∣fants in the world, and not to believers infants onely; and yet not baptism, and a standing in fellowship in the visible Church, for they indeed are not fit for fellow∣ship.

Therefore though Mr. Ba. contracts the grace of God to infants, as concerning their everlasting salvation into little a little corner, yea good lord how few dying infants does he hope shal be saved, that hath hope of none but of some i. e. be∣lievers infants, which are but one of many, and also not of all, but onely some of them? yet (to conclude this in a way of resemblance to Mr. B•…•…. conclusion of his Argument from Mark 10. p. 107.) I blesse the Lord Jesus Christ King of the Church, though he gave no order to baptize, and inchurch infants here on earth yet for having a greater tendernesse towards the eternal state of all dying infants, then Mr. B. is yet aware of, and towards all that live to years such a tendernesse as to invite them to himself universally, and bid them wel-come, and so great a care to inform his Chutch in his Word and Gospel concerning his good will to all men, and to all insants also in that particular, so as to speak it so plainly, that plain minded men, that are not minded never to change their minds, as I hope Mr. B. is not, may well see his mind in this case, even as if he had therefore done this, because he foresaw that some would arise so carnally, and so cruely conceited, as to suppose it impossible to be, and but in vain to hope it almost, that Gods saving mercy should extend to any more dying infants then those few, and not all those few neither, of their own: and for my part I gladly accept Christs information, and submit to his discovery, let them resist it that dare.

And lastly, one more Argument of hope that I have within my self that all dying infants must needs be saved, is this yet, because I could never find since I lookt for it, as also none ever shall that look not without

their eyes, what should, nor what (save the Priesthoods divine kind of Do∣ctrine) does damn them, I mean any of them so dying, any more then one of them.

First as for sin, which onely damnes, I know none they have of their own, and to say that any infant dyes eternally for theiniquity of his father only, makes the word of God, which is truth it self, no better then a flat falsehood to me, who read in Ieremy 31. 29. 30. & Ezek. 18. 3. 4. 19. 20. & Deut. 24. 16. & 2 Kings 14. 16. that the waies of God who requires it strictly of man, not to put the chil∣dren to death for the sins of the father, but every man only for his own sin, are so equal, for all the false accusation of him by the wicked Jewes, that seeing he both saies, and also swears it, that men shall never have occasion to say, the childs teeth are edged by the grapes the father only hath eaten, and in way of complaint for injustice, doth not the son bear the iniquity of the Father? but that every soul that dies shall dy for his own iniquity onely, and that individu∣al soul onely that sinneth shall dy, i. e. eternally, for temporally tis true we all dy in Adam, as far as a to temporal death, God may, and often doth visit the sins of the Father on the children to the third and fourth generation of such as hate him not onely when children inherit, so as to imitate their fathers hatred of God, in which case only tis a punishment to those children, but also on infants, so as to take them out of the world with the fathers: as in the case of 'Dathan and A∣biram, Amaleck, Hittites, Amorites &c. yea Sodom and Gomorrah, and the old world, on which for ensamples sake to them that in after times should live ungodly, the flood, and the fire fell, not onely temporal but eternal to the adult ones that gave themselves over to fornication and followed strange flesh, though but temporal only to infants, who neither lived ungodly, nor gave themselves o∣ver to fornication as the other did, and therefore though passing hence with the rest to a temporal death by that fire, yet are not set forth as an ensample with the rest to all that should live ungodly, by suffering the vengeance of eternal fire 2 Pet. 2. 6. Iude 7.

But the same temporal death that may be in fury to one, as tis a passage to worse, may be a mercy to another, and so to those infants a passage from worse to better, as good Iosiah was slain in battell, as well as wicked Ahab, and that for going on his own head to war as well he, yet was it in respect of that eternall state that followed, as well for him, as ill for Ahab.

Sith therefore its said so plainly the son shall not die for the iniquity of the fa∣ther, and yet temporally they may be taken away with the father, it must needs be meant that eternally none die, nor lye for ever under wrath for no more then meerly the fathers fault, whereupon all dying infants having no trangression of their own, cannot be damned for their own, nor yet for their father Adams trans∣gression, and so are all, as well as those of believers, in a visible state of salvation, and while they live infants, unlesse hereafter they reject it, as Esau did the land of Canaan, in visible right to so dying to the heavenly Canaan.

Yea many thanks to my Ashford opposites for that clause of their pamphlet, which is assistant to me almost at all assaies, Christian charity it self, which doth presumere unumquem{que} bonum, nisi constet de malo, constrains us to hope all things, believe all things concerning the salvation of dying infants, and of all in∣fants as well as some, specially since these, more then those, i. e. the infants of unbelievers more then of believers, have not committed any actual sin, wher∣by to deserve to be exempted from the general state of little infants declared in Scripture viz. that of such is the Kingdome of heaven.

Secondly as for righteousnesse theres enough in Christ to take away, it being im∣puted, what ever unrighteousnesse is imputed for Adams sin, and why that righ∣teousnesse should not be imputed, if the Scripture had not said it so plainly as it does Rom. 5. 2 Cor. 5. 19. 21. 1 Cor. 15. 22. to all poor dying innocent infants

as well as some, I cannot imagine, unlesse you say not God the fathers love to all, but man the fathers faith, is that thing that must save some of those infants of believers, that are savd, by interessing that fruit of his body in the righteousnesse of Christ, as well as himself, for the taking away the sin of his soul, which faith a father wanting, the child shall perish for ever in default out, and yet be in no fault in the world about it:

Alas poor infants indeed, that descend from such parents as believe not, if it be so, that that the fathers faith onely does interest the infant in Christ, their fore∣father, the first Adam by his sin unawares to them damned them say they, and say I, if it did, theres righteousnesse enough in the heavenly father, and the second A∣dam to save them, but because not they themselves, for they have no more ability so to do then a new born infant hath to dresse its naked body, but their fa∣thers put it not on by faith for themselves, and theirs, which if the dying infants might live to years, as Christ said of Sodom, they happily would do, therefore mil∣lions of these poor innocents must perish: so then belike it is thus, and this is the covenant of the Gospel, the fathers faith saves him, and all his dying infants, and the fathers sin of unbelief damnes for ever not himself onely, but all his dying in∣fants also.

All infants that are damned then, are damned through the fault of two unhap∣py fathers, a remote father for sinning, and and immediate father for not believing, between which two the love of the heavenly father cannot come at them: a wise man may spend all he hath with looking, but never find such as this in all the Scripture: earthly inheritances are oft stated, and removed to and from posterity for fathers faith, and faults, as all Abrahams posterity by Isaac and Iacob did enjoy Canaan, and Esaus lost it, but the eternal inheritance is neither won nor lost by the children, through the faith or unbelief of the parents: and besides if Adams sin, though a remote parent, doth so damnifie all infants, that the righteousnesse of Christ cannot save them, without the fathers faith, me thinks he being their great grand father, Adams faith should recover him and all his, at least from that guilt his sin brought upon them; by interessing them in Christs righteousnesse, as well as his single unbelief at first destroyed them, if any fathers saith shall entitle his in∣fants to salvation; or else God seems not to be so prone to mercy as severity, yea indeed he that saies God is not more prone to severity then to mercy, and shewes it no other way, as to his dealing with innocent infants, then by saying he saves no more dying of infants then those few, i. e. some of the dying infants of believ∣ers, and from the Mothers womb damns eternally all the rest, may say over that his creed in my hearing 500 times and ten, before I shall learn to believe it after him once.

Thirdly, as to threatnings of damnation I find none at all to insants in their in∣infancy, from one end of the book of God to the other, but all that ever is spo∣ken as concerning eternal wrath, the second death, everlasting damnation, the Lake of fire, is declared as the portion of those onely that do, and do not that, which was never at all, much lesse in order to salvation, and on pain of eternal fire enjoined by infants either to be done, or forborn: yea this is the condemna∣tion, and nothing else that I know of, that light more or lesse comes to persons, and they love darknesse more then light because their deeds are evil, those that Christ speaks nothing at all to, as he does to heathens themselves Rom. 1. Rom. 2. but not to infants, that yet know not the right hand from the left, much lesse either good or evil, they have not sin, for sin is the transgression of that law, that is lent us to live by, whether a law within onely, or without also Rom. 2. but when he hath spoken and they obey not, when they know God, and glorify him not as God, then they are without excuse, and have no cloak at all for their sin: and the word he hath spoken to every one, being rejected that same word shall judge him at the last day.

I find it said no whoremonger, fornicator &c. no actual impenitent sinner shall •…•…ver enter, or hath any inheritance at all, but not no unbelievers dying infants in the kingdome of God or of Christ; and that the Lo•…•…d shall come in flaming fire taking vengeance on all them that know not God, and obey not the Gospel of Christ &c. and yet on no dying infants, though they neither know him, nor obey him, for if he should then believers infants should therefore to the pot as well as others, as who in infancy obey no more then their fellows; that the fearful and unbelieving, and dogs, and socerers, and murderers, and all liars &c. but not liars dying infants, shall have their portion in the lake of fire burning with brim∣stone, which is the second death; and that the unprofitable servant, that traded not with his talent, and not infants, that in infancy have no talent to trade with, shall be cast into utter darknesse; that those on whom Christ called, and they would not hear, and to whom he stretched out his hands, and they regarded him not, and would none of Christs councel nor reproof, shall call on him at that day and not be heard, and not infants on whom he never called; that the Lord added to the Church dayly such men and women Act. 2. not at all such infants, as should be saved; that he that believeth not the gospel shall be damned, but not infants to whom he never preached; that it shall be said to the wicked, go ye cursed into into everlasting fire, for I was hungry and you fed me not &c. among which, if there were any that died infants, they might justly reply indeed, as no wicked men at years can do, Lord when saw we thee in distresse, and neglected thee, and did not come and minister unto thee?

In a word the whole body of the new Testament or covenant in the promissory, praeceptory, and minatory parts of it (saving some two or three such gentle touches about infants, as those above named, whereby we may have hopes that none of them dying such, are for ever lost) was written and given to, and concerning men and women, and not infants, to declare unto them the way of everlasting salvati∣on, and in what wayes God would and would not accept of them, and he that with an unprejudiced spirit observes all this will trouble himself no more about his infants to inchurch and baptize them for remission of sins, which is the prime use of baptism to sinners, and utterly lost when di•…•…penst to infants that have not sins, not indeed to do more then instruct them as they grow up, and pray for them while they live infants, and hope well of them if they dy in their minority: but it pitties my heart for them to see what moyl and toil the Priests create to themselves and the people, and what much ado they make about their poor infants, even much more then about themselves.

As for Iacobs being Lovd before he was born (he means in contradistinction to Esau) w^t is Mr. B•…•…. tenth ground of hope that believers infants are from the womb in a hopeful way, I suppose he takes it to be so declared, but is miserably mista∣ken, if he think the ninth of the Romans saies so, for tis true the elder shall serve the younger, which relates to the posterity of those two, and not their persons (for Esau was mostly Jacobs Lord) was said before they were born by God, who foreseeing it might easily foretell how it should be and did so too, but for the wo•…•…ds Iacob have I loved, Esau have I hated, as they also were spoken of the two Nations, that came out of their loines viz. the Edomites and Israelites, and that not without respect to Edoms being the border of wickednesse, so far was it from being spoken of them before they were born, that twas hundreds of years after they were dead and rotten, Mal. 1.

But if it were just as Mr. B. understands it, that before they were born, and without any respect to their personal rebellion, and obedience in time it had been said Iacob have I loved, Esau have I hated, would it prove that article in Mr. B^s. creed that God hath promised to be merciful to Godly mens seed in general, in contradistinction to the seed of the wicked? in no wise, I suppose; since as god∣ly as Isaac was, even one of his Sons was hated from the womb; if Mr. B•…•…. con

ceit were true, aswel as the other of them from the womb beloved: but surely had not Esa•…•… sinned and set so light by the heavenly blessing, •…•…e had not lost it, much less if he had dyed from the womb.

Fourthly as for the universallity of redemption which is by Jesus Christs dying, as Mr. Ba. saies ttuely, for all, for every man, for the sins of the whole world, which he had meant to have drawn an Argument from, but did •…•…ot, he might ea∣sily have drawn one that would have served my turn in this place, viz. to have proved that very age, even the whole species of infants to be savd by Christ from wrath and ruine, except they live to rej•…•…ct his grace a fr•…•…sh, as in infancy they do not, but it utterly overthrowes his hopes by the halves of infants, for it is both a good ground, and as good a ground, whereon to hope the redemption from wrath to come of every dying infant, as of any one,

And lastly to conclude my answer to this 22 Argument of Mr. B. which I have insisted the longer on, in much hope of helping him to a better hope of all dying infants, that neither are, nor are to be added to the visible church, whereas I was once set upon by a Gentleman with this objection, who if ever this book came to his hands, and this passage to his eye, will remember it, though I forbear to name him.

Viz. Ob•…•…. If we may be assured of the salvation of all our dying infants, we may then in love to them knock them on the head in their infancy, and so be sure to prevent their per•…•…shing by condemnation.

I intreat that Gentleman to beware o•…•… so much as saying, that we may do such gross •…•…vil that so great good may come thereof, least his damnation for it be just, and then what little benefit will accrue to him all men may judge, that to save his infant damnes himself.

Theres but four Arguments of M. Bs. behind brought in proof of the right of membership to infants whereof two, viz. his •…•…4th and 26th are the one from 1 Cor. 7. 14. the other from Mark. 10. 13. 14. 15. Two Scriptures that I have talkt on so much in the book above, and given the genuine sense of, that I shall but tautologize to speak particularly to them again, seeing I see nothing new taken notice of in them by Mr B. but what is abundantly answered in effect above, where I have shewed the abr•…•…gation in Christ of that birth holinesse he means, and the uncleannesse consequently opposite thereunto, so that theres no man however born, though a barbarian, can be called, in opposition to others, as by birth ho∣ly, by nature a sinner in that ceremonial sense, from Act 10. Gal. 2. yea M. B. con∣fesses p. 8•…•…. the Commo•…•… s•…•…se of holinesse was one and the same in all. i. e. Priests and Levites under the Law &c. Temple, Altar, Sacrifices, children of be∣lievers, and believing yoak fellowes viz. a separation to God, so then if that ho∣linesse of Priests, Temple, &c. was ceremonial, so this is, and if that holinesse is abolished in all other things, why abiding onely the seed?

I have also proved that the other place, where it is not evident that the infants brought to Christ were ever baptized by his dis•…•…iples, or any other, doth more deeply disprove infan•…•…s-baptism and membership, then all the places ever brought by Mr. B. are capable to prove or make good ei•…•…her.

Yea as good a man might have said, as send me to those two places for infant-baptism, you may find it if you l•…•…ok in the bible.

Ile say no more therefore to them.

His other two viz. the 23th and 25•…•…h are both as he con•…•…esses but probable, and and by and by will appear not to be so much;

His fi•…•…st is this.

If an Infant were head of the Church then infants may be members.

But Christ an infant was head of the Church,

Ergo.

That cannot be half so much, as a probable Argument, whose premises are

neither of them true, yet such is the syllogism here brought by Mr. B. both the pro∣positions of which I deny, his consequence is true indeed, that infants may be members, if an infant were the head, i. e. are capable o•…•…t, supposing Gods will that it should be so now in the Gospel, which a man may suppose if he will, but shall never find to be so in his word; nor does his curious crotchet out of Irenaeus, that Christ went through every age to sanc•…•…ify it unto us, prove the other to be a truth, for theres no truth at all in it self, yea tis falsum pe•…•… falsius, for Christ did not passe through every age of man, that he might sanct•…•…fy that age, for he lived not to any old age here, though now he that was dead is alive again for evermore, for his life was soon cut off from the earth.

And as concerning his headship in his infancy, I admire a man of wisedome should assert it, for to say nothing how little this agrees with that above page 62. where he saies •…•…is disputable whether ever Christ was a Churchmember proper∣ly or no, (as if the head, because the principal that rules the rest, were no mem∣ber at all of the body) tis evident to me that as man be had not any of his Prero∣ga•…•…ives settled actually upon him, till after he had purchased them by his death; he was perfect first through sufferings Heb. 5. 9. and after his death and resurre∣ction he was made Lord and Christ Acts. 2. And exalted highly above all Phil. 2. and set fa•…•… above all principality, and given to be head over all things to his Church which is his body Ephe. 1. ult.

Moreover to me there is as much force in it, if Christ had been head of the Church in his infancy, and much more then in Mr. B•…•…. to argue thus, if Christ the head of the Church, that was circumcised in his infancy, yet was not baptized till he came to years, then, though under the Law the circumcised were circumci∣sed in thei•…•… infancy, yet under the Gospel none are to be baptized till they come to years.

His 25th runs thus.

If the Scripture frequently, and plainly tell us of the ceasing of circumeision, but never at all of the Churchmembership of infants, then though circumcision be ceased, yet we are not to judge their membership to be ceased.

but &c.

Therefore.

This is so far from a demonstration, that its not a Topical but Sophistical Syl∣log•…•…, in which there is fallacia homonomiae, or ambiguity in the middle term viz. t•…•…e Scrip•…•…ure tells us, which may be taken for an expresse, or for an implicit tel∣ling, or having a word for a thing, yet one of his propositions will be false let him understand it how he will, for if by the Scripture telling us, and having a word for it, he means an expresse telling of the cessation of membership in totidem ver∣bis, a Syllabical word given out of that particular by name, then his consequence is false, for it follows not because there is not an expresse particular prohibition in the New Testament for the cessation of things, that were under the old, there∣fore they are not ceased, for so we shall make most of the types and ceremonies, among which infant membership was one, as I have shewed, to remain in force still as well as that, as the dedication of the first born, and many others, the ces∣sation of which is not so syllabically spoken of.

But if he mean an implicit prohibition, or word for the cessation of Churchmem∣bersh•…•…p of infants, which is enough, then there is prohibition enough, yea the very command for the cessation of circumcision of infants any more Act. 21. 21. vertually is a command to cease inchurching of infants, for the very end and intent of cir∣cumcision was the inchurching of infants thereby, which thing was formally done then by circumcision, besides circumcision ceasing, the whole law ceased with it, the whole of which he was a debtor to keep that was circumcised also Heb. 2. 12. tis sayd summarily thus viz. that the priesthood i. e. of that testa∣ment being changed, there must be of necessity a change also of the law.

And so I have done with all his arguments for the church-membership of in∣fants, which is the second medium, and next to that of discipleship, by which h•…•… would prove but cannot, infant baptism.

His third medium which he onely names, and handles not, therefore I shall do the like in speaking to it, is drawn from the duty of parents to engage their in∣fants solemnly to God in Covenant, and runs thus viz. if it be the duty of chri∣stian parents solemnly to devote their children to God in covenant, then they ought to do it in baptism, but &c. therefore.

He proves his Minor from the practise of the old Testament, from the duty of pa∣rentsthen, from which time, as to that particular of dedicating, and solemn enga∣ging of their children, it will not follow to our doing the like in all respects now as they did, for then we must thus dedicate our first born, and that both of man and beast.

His consequence is also false of his Major proposition, for I may devote my children in a gospel sense to God according to my duty, I mean ingage my self to the Lord to bring them up in the nurture and a•…•…monition of the Lord, and also devote them to him in prayer, i. e. give them up to him as his right, and to him to teach by his word, and his spirit, when they come to years, and sundry other wayes, and yet no necessity of doing any of this in baptism.

But I shall make this as short as he does himself, and gather up the sum of what he hath said viz. infants are disciples, visible Church-members, and to be so∣lemnly engaged to God in Covenant as a holy seed &c. therefore are to be bapti∣zed, denying now the consequence, as to him, as I did the antecedent before, which I have been all this while in disproving.

For, Ad hominem, so long as he argues for baptism to be after the manner of circum∣cision, the consequence will not follow, if this were as true as tis false, that infants are now disciples, Church-members, and a holy seed, and in covenant, that there∣fore they must be baptized; for women under the Covenant whereof circumcision was a sign, were both disciples, and visible Church-members, and a holy people in the sense of the Covenant, and dedicated to God in Covenant as well as males, and yet not then circumcised, and why? viz. for want of a commission to do it, and the like I say now of infants if they were, as twill never be proved while the world stands, that they are disciples, in right to visible membership, and ho∣ly in his sense, and to be ingaged &c. yet of necessity it followes not they must be baptized, unlesse there be some command or commission for it, which no man ever shall find in the word of Christ: all the rest of his arguments wherein he un∣dertakes to disprove the practise of baptizing naked, and baptizing children of Christians of age, as I have shewed above, are ignoratio elenchi a dispute besides our practise, for we do not so, therefore though I see some grosse absurdity in them all, yet Ile meddle no more with them here.

Thus I have done with both that subject of rantizing, which partly at the mo∣tion of you Ashford disputants I was ingaged in at the end of your Review, and partly by that meer demi-reformation that is made in this point of baptism by a party of men in Lincolnshire, and elsewhere, (of whom I suppose there are several congregations) who having long since discovered the true way of baptism, as to the subject, viz. that professing believers onely, and not any in∣fants are to be baptized, but remaining ignorant of the true way and form of ad∣ministration of that ordinance are fallen into a frivolous way of sprinkling belie∣vers, which to do is as much no baptism at all, as to dip infants in no baptism of Christs ordaining: which people, for whose sakes as well as others I write this, will be perswaded I hope in time to be, as to the outward form, not almost onely, but altogether Christians, and rest no longer in that meer midway mongril reformation. I have done also with this book of Mr. Baxs▪ for infant baptism, the weak argu∣ments of which for it were enough, if I had no more, to convince me of the error of

it, & to make me doubt ofit, & renounce it, even as M. B•…•…. himself saies he had like to have done once, when he saw the weak arguments of others for it, which had he done, he had done no more then what is his duty to do now, and in order to Gods glory though it were as much to his own shame, as it will be rather for his honour, to deny himself, and imbrace the truth as tis in Jesus, I hope he may do yet in due time, if he do not shut his eyes against the Gospel, because I find him saying and unsaying again what he said before he had well studied itp. 113. and he is out in print for infant baptsm, and against the true baptism, for all his professions of so serious search after it, before he had well studied it to the bottom: if he do not recant his error, I am confident some of the people will, that have been deluded by him, and out of love to the Lord Jesus, that loved them as a Priest, and washed them from sin, in his own blood, and as a Prophet, and a King requires them so to do, arise and be baptized, as they ought, washing away their sins calling on the name of the Lord.

Thus my friends and you my Ashford Antagonists, you have my mind amongst you in this matter,

If any one of you answer, and I have satisfaction from him to the contrary, he shall hear of my recantation, if I have not, he shall see it by my silence, for Ile ne∣ver lose so much time, as I have done by the bare writing of this, from preaching to poor ignorant creatures the free love and rich grace of God in Christ to all that obey him in truth, and as I see I must, if I meddle more at the presse with this subject.

Notes

• a 1.1

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.2

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• c 1.3

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• d 1.4

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.5

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.6

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.7

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• i 1.8

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.9

  * 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.10

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.11

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• a 1.12

  In eundem in quem nostra nunc intendunt Scopum, et vetera illa spectarunt, nempe, ut ad Christum dirigerent, & pene manu ducerent, aut ipsum potius ceu imagines representarent, ac cognoscendum proferrent,
• b 1.13

  Eam pro∣mionem in evangelio datam per sacramenta nobis magis declarat Deus, nem∣pe per ana∣logiam sig∣norum cum rebus, quae per ea significantur, sicut similitudo declarat id, cujus est similitudo, haec enim quando intelligitur, etiam id cujus est similitudo fit perspicuum, et quidem magis quam fine similitudine, et ut vera similitudo non intelligitur, nisi analogia similitudinis intellegatur, ita nec sacramenta nisi Analogia signorum et rerum intellegatur: hoc sensu Apologia Augustanae confessionis aliquoties sa cramenta vocat picturas.
• * 1.14

  x See legh. crit. sac, p. 76. 77. where he ore and ore a∣gain confesses, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies to dip plunge under water &c. primarily, and properly, p. 76. it signifi eth primarily such a kind of washing as is used in Bucks, where linnen is plunged or dipt. Beza neque vero 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 significat lava∣re, nisi a cōse∣quenti, nam proprie decla∣rat tingendi causa mergere, also p. 77. the native & pro∣per significati∣on o•…•… it is to dip into water or plunge under water, Joh, 3. 22, 23. Mat. 3. 16. tan∣quam ad tin∣gendū mergo Causab. immer go, intingo, a∣bluo, Bucan. mergo, et tin∣go Bullinger, proprie signi∣ficat immergo, submergo, o∣bruo aquà Zanchius, vi∣detur copiam, abundantiam, perfectam quandam per∣fusionem de∣notate Aret.