IN his Epistle he telleth the Reader, that there needeth nothing to be said to overthrow the matter of the discourse, then what is contay­ned in it, and this he saith is in a matter wher­in the whole building consisteth, but what now if R. B. misse in this, and be found to be deceived, as he was in his former Baptismes, then the whole building may, nay must be granted to stand. It is in the perp [...]tuity of the Church-Estate under the New Testament, and so of Baptisme, by which I difference the matter thereof; The further saith, I make Baptisme to depend on the Church; but what then? then he inserreth that, unlesse I be able to shew the continuednesse of the Church of Christ till these dayes, I cannot be assured that the Baptis­me there is the Ordinance of God: But what if I can shew this, where is R. B. then? but he saith pag. 2, 3. I con­fesse [Page 2] I know none, nor doe I beleeve that any can shew a­ny such continuance,

But is worth the observing the evill dealing of the man, his willingnesse to deceive, hee knoweth and the Reader may observe, I produced Scriptures to prove the perpetu­tie of the Church in the World, such as he nor any other are able to avoyde, or shew another sence of them than that for which they were produced, I made an Inference from that in the 13. Heb. whereat he and others were much offended; Then I distinguished thus, that this Estate of Christs-Church continued under Antichrists exaltation, or else it continued somewhere else, as a part from under that deffection, for somewhere it must continue, that it continued any where else as in a pure way, I sayd I did be­leeve none could make it appeare, and therefore it must need continue under Antichrists exaltation; and that it did not continue other where than under the deffection of Antichrist, I alleadged those Scriptures of the Univer­salitie of the defection, and the Waldenses being the first fruites to God, which could not be if the Church had con­tinued any where pure, which it did not, but in defection it continued without being made null: what ever R. B. thinketh to the contrary, now what could be more plaine than this as in my discourse may be seen: With what face then doth R. B. feed his Reader with such a fable, and so abuse his opposite, and triumph in his owne folly, and cry victorie; truly he in this dealeth with his opposite as the Divell dealt with our Lord, keeps back a mayne part, and so shewing a mind to smother the truth and keep it in un­righteousnesse, I will appeale to any indifferent Iudge­ment, if it be not fully declared what is before said, and that I hold the continuednesse of the Church-Estate, un­der the defection but not in a pure way, and if R. B. or any other thinke this a new opinion, it will but shew their [Page 3] Ignorance, for as learned and godly men are my Leaders herein, as those hee catcheth at for advantage touching Baptisme of Children, being a humane Ordinance, namely Mr. Junius Duplices Lord of Morney, the harmony of the Churches confession and others.

The holy Scriptures I shewed did hold forth the continuation, and perpetuity of the visible Church, a plant of Gods owne planting, not to be rooted out for ever, as it had continued from Abraham to Moses, from Moses to Christ, so it should continue for ever, for proofe whereof I set forth sun­dry scriptures, as in my discourse may be seen.

To which R. B. in stead of granting or denying, enter­eth upon a discourse to prove a matter neither in question, nor yet ever by any denyed, and in the end without shew­ing any right sense or meaneing of those Scriptures, the better to informe his Reader, he flatly denieth the sense of his opposite, and calleth him false Prophet, and on that hath spoken presumptuously in the name of the Lord; a heavie charge: he onely instanceth in those two Scrip­tures that are propheticall, Esay 9. 7. 59. 27. happily hee might feare there might be something in the other, so he passed them by; But thus he proceedeth to reason, that if the visible Church of Chrrist hath not had a perpetuall, interrupted succession in the World, ever since the first planting of it till these dayes; though the Prophesie bee true, yet the sense of his opposite is false; here by the way I note how R. B. corrupteth his opponents conclusion with words of his owne coining, which words indeed are contradictorie, and plaine non-sense in regard of the thing in hand, the matter in hand is the perpetuity or con­tinuednesse of Christs Church in the world; he commeth with perpetuall interrupted succession; this succession he hath often in his answer, wherein hee just speakes like a Parret; perpetuity and succession cannot stand together, [Page 4] for where there is perpetuity of a thing there is no place for succeeding; succeeding or succession may be in regard of an Office, one giveth place another succeedeth, and tak­eth place, but cannot be so with the Church, as in my discourse may be seen: it may increase and decrease, but it alwayes abideth for ever, so as his succession is an Igno­ramus if not a Bull: But he commeth to answer, hee will Psal. 121. 1. make my owne matter confute mee, I said the defection was universall, I so say still; as said the Waldenses in regard of purity were the first fruits unto God: he saith so too: But it is much he will acknowledge them so to be (hee may wrong his cause ere he is aware, they were not Disciples by totall dipping, the French Churches proceeded of them R. B. might have been baptised by them, they were the first fruites as he confesseth, so as he and his toall dippers cannot be it or them: but where did I speake of, and prove the universality of the defection, not to prove the utter cessation of the Church-State. R. B. cannot be so blind, but to manifest that it continued not in a pure way as a part from the defection, but under the defection I said it must needs there continue: and the errour and absurditie of such an opinion I desired any to shew if they could, so as had not R. B. been a vain Caviler, he would not have left the plaine matter and drift, as he hath done, and by lea­ving out the distinction with the drift, made a part, as if it were some other thing; But now further as he granteth the largenesse of the defection, and the Waldenses to bee the first fruites to God, so he confidently denieth the con­tinuednesse of the Church-State in the World, especially under the defection, but let his reasons be weighed, first is because it was given to him, namely the man of sinne that sitteth in the Temple of God) to make Warre with the Saints, and Thes. 2. Rev 13. 7. to overcome them, a weighty reason thus: must needs die or cease to be, because overcome, a person is overcome [Page 5] when he yieldeth submitteth himselfe, so a Kingdome and a Citie▪ yet they cease not to be, Beside it was about parti­cular Saints that were overcome; what is this to the ceas­ing of the whole Church? this reason is so lame, it had need of another to support it, which he addeth to as little pur­pose, if to overcome then they could not cōtinue; wonder­full: so before: yet further he saith, if the Church continued he did not overcome them and kill them with the sword, Rev. 13. 15.

Answer, Some of the Members might bee killed Rev. 3. as Antipas was, that faithfull Martyr: the Church-Estate or all the Churches of Christ killed with the sword, and so overcome, is reason without sence, such as R. B. himself will not believe, when he hath better consi­dered of it, if some of the Members of R. B. Church were killed with the sword, yet he would thinke his Church might continue, yea if all of them were so killed, yet he cannot but think the Church might continue some where else, but belike feareing his reasons to be weake he hath a further reason to prove the Church did not so continue, Those that worshipped the Beast were such whose names were not written in the Lambes booke of life, therefore the Church Rev. 13. it could not continue, what the strength and force of this reason is, is beyond my capacity till it be explained: reprobate men worshipped the Beast, so they worshipped the Calves of old, and Idolls of Gold and Silver, and their Gods [...]se. 13 2. Psal 106. 36. 38. [...]er. 2. 28. were as their Cities, what is that to the ceasing of the Church? R. B. had need goe to Schoole to learne stron­ger reasons, it is no marvell he should be so confident: he fulfilleth the Proverb, none so bold as b [...]ind Bayard: but he goeth on further in this his perversenesse, and speaketh of the Greeks, and would make his Reader beleeve I hold no Church-Estate remaining among them, because I said there is little difference in their defection, and the Ro­manist, and they will stand and fall together; being measur'd by a like measure.

Answer, they will so stand together as that the Church-Estate will remaine in the one and other, whatsoever R. B. is able to say to the contrary, after this hee taketh no­tice of what else where, he consealeth of the Chuches continuance else where, might have added in a pure way: I said I supposed none was able to make appeare, such a continuednesse to have been in the World, if any could I said and say still, I should be glad; and were it not a matter to be glad of it, would not R: B. be glad also; hap­pily he would be sorry, because his new way would bee disparaged, yea indeed overthrowne, and he foreced to be baptised a fourth time: But having thus gone on, he saith who can beleive his exposition of Esay 9. seeing he to witt his opposite, testifieth that none is able to make the truth thereof (of what of the Church in purity her continu­ance? but in defection under the Greeks & Romanist it may be made appear, where will R. B. be then among those false Prophets he speaketh of: but further? here he saith it must follow (right or wrong) that I have given a false Inter­pretation of Esay 9. and also of all the Scriptures, to prove the perpetuity of the Church, and none shall bee able to cleare me. But where is that true Interpretation of R. B: that might informe his Reader? he hath not studied it yet, unlesse it be that the Church is ceased, let the Scripture say what it will, because otherwise his opinion cannot stand, so he proceedeth that thus having confuted my self, he thinketh it needlesse to spend time in the confutation of it; It was time spent indeed vainely for him to meddle; unlesse he had better understood what he tooke in hand, after he falleth a complaining of wrong done, for being blamed for not beleeving the Churches continuance in the World, then it seemeth they doe not beleeve the continuance, but the cessation they doe, they had need of better ground to beleeve against so many cleare Scrip­tures, [Page 7] then yet R. B. hath found out; but how ever I did not mistake their judgement, in that I said there was no ground for their practice, till they did beleeve such a cessation, which they doe, and so their practice is ground­ed on a grosse errour, and a flat denyall of the Scripture: cleare it if they can, but having so marvellously quited himselfe, as he thinketh, he complayneth further, for be­ing accused for making Christ a Widower;

Answ. If the visible Church was Christs wife, and it di­ed as you beleeve and, hold and remained without being: for a long season was not Christ a widdower then and all that time? if he would but be pleased to minde the 5th. of the Ephes. he would confesse it, Christ sometime had a Church but he lost it, is he then to day as hee was yester­day? observe what tautologie hee here useth, or non-sense, perpetuity and succession, which I would not mention, for I thinke he is no great Artist as well as my self, save only he ubraided me with it in his Epistle, he asketh me whe­ther [...] would have them to beleeve that I cannot beleeve my selfe.

Ans. I can beleeve and doe, the Churches continuance in the World, under the defection of Antichrist, if they did beleeve so too it would please me well, and sure there would be no place for their unwarranted proceed:

But this of being charged with making Christ a Wi­dower sticketh neere his stomack, hee cannot digest it, therefore he hath a lame consequence about it ere he let it passe: If Christ be a Widdower, if he have not alwaies a visible Church in the World, then hee inferreth that there is no salvation out of the visible Church, Indeed or­dinarily the learned have held there is not, but extraordi­narily there may: but what then? thinking belike there was litle in this, he addeth none can be saved which are not first united and made one with Christ, whether he meane uni­on [Page 8] of Faith or Order is hard to be said, suppose union of Faith what is that to the question in hand? and I would aske R. B. what shall become of Infants, but because he propoundeth it as an inconvenience, attending the hold­ing the perpetuity of the Church, and so asketh me the question which he might have spared, till he could resolve what should become of Children dying in Inf [...]ncy, I shall answer, that John Hus, and Ierome of Frague, and other holy Confessors of Iesus Christ, they had union with Christ by Faith, which is first and maine, yea they had relation to the Church, though in deep defection, so as he publish­eth his hope in vaine, he saith further if they were uni­ted to Christ, then Christ may have a spouse, although no visible Church in the World; but he doth but say it, wee may chuse whether we will beleeve him. It is as much non sense, as if we should say Christ may have a Spouse, though hee have none, sure R. B. grew dull and much forgot himselfe.

The next Section containeth for the most part tautology, the man delighting to sport himselfe like a foole with his owne bable, onely he had a minde to aske me a question which I shall answer in convenient place.

R. B. Proceedeth further, and hath another bout con­cerning the perpetuity of the Church, carrying along with him his devised fable which he still fathers on mee, without which he can say nothing, he tells his Reader that I say, seeing none can make it appeare elsewhere, he might have added in purity: he saith I say it is likely it conti­nued under Antichrist, so it seemeth he knew my drift, and did of purpose wrest and pervert my words.

But he here demandeth how it can bee probable, why, because a little before I spake of the universality of the deection, I did so to shew no Churches remained a part in a pure way, therefore I said there that which hee also [Page 9] mentioneth here, that in that regard the Waldenses, were the first fruits to God they comming first out of defection into purity, but the 2 Thess. 2. troubleth the man much, and that I alleadge it to prove the Churches continuance under the defection of Antichrist. This is a riddle to R. B. and he is as a in a maze, but hee answereth plainely here, that Temple here spoken of where the man of sinne sit­teth, and is worshipped cannot bee taken for the Church of God; but what is his reason, because it is said verse the 3. the man of sinne is not revealed, till first there be a departing: then v. 9, 10. he speaketh of his deceiveablenesse in the way of his comming, he asketh himselfe a question, and maketh himselfe answer such as it is, in whom saith hee not in the Church but in them that perish; as if many of the Church might not perish, sure he forgetteth the Pa­rable of the ten Virgins, that five were wise and five foo­lish; Mat. 25. but doth R. B. indeed thinke that the mystery of in­iquity rose, not in but out of the Church, that is a rare o­pinion and singular judgement, which I never heard of before, and most contrary to the truth, for the Churches might have continued till now in purity but for the working of that mysterie, and beside I would faine learne how it should be a mystery if simply in the World, not at all in the Church, I had like to have passed by his reason, the falling away is first, the revealing is after, what of this? when the man of sinne which began to worke in the Church in the Apostles time had got some strength, then he shewed himselfe more fully; but he saith it must needs follow, that seeing the persons the matter of the Church are departed from the Faith: therefore it must needs fol­low they are not in any wise to bee esteemed the Church of God he doth but say this also we need not beleeve him Psal. 106 28. E [...]ch. 16 unles we will, but sure this departing was not totall like their dipping, Iudah was departed from God and followed [Page 10] Idoles, yet with Iudah was Gods Church, so it may be and Eze. 16. is under the defection for all his saying, in no wise it can­not be, he would further inforce it from my judgement a­bout the Beast, and because they that wonder after the Beast, and follow him, are such as are not written in the Lambs booke of life: It may be I am dull, sure I understand not where the force of this reason lieth in regard of the matter in hand, what if I doe hold the Church may con­sist of such? many of whom may perish, I thinke the Scrip­ture will maintaine me in it.

But he hath a wonderfull conclusion, I doe not say it is presumptuous, but sure it is blasphemous: his exposition of 2 Thess. 2. He saith the Temple there is no more the Temple of God than Antichrist that sitteth there is God, nor no otherwise to be esteemed, nor hath any on more reason to affirme the one than the other, see if he doe not taxe the Spirit ir selfe, for the Spirit with more reason af­firmeth it, then R. B. hath reason so arrogantly to speak as he doth. It were good for all sober minded men to beware of such desperate contradictors of the word of God, weigh but the matter seriously; is there no more reason to affirme the one than the other, why doth the Spirit say he doth sit in the Temple of God, what Tem­ple hath God in the World but his Church? and that is called his Temple every where.

The mystery of inquity it rose up in the Church, how 2 Thes. 2. [...]. long it was before the Church was destroyed by it, R. B. cannot tell at the first, it was of the same nature being weake; as after when it was strong, and was exalted to that height, all which weighed it will appeare, that R. B. had little reason to speake presumptuously as he hath done: he taketh what he hath said for a full confutation, and that it cannot bee any such continuednesse of the Church, and most impudently fathering a lie upon me he [Page 11] concludeth this matter: It must bee as R. B. pag. 2. saith, that under the defection of Antichrist it could not conti­nue, but where are any such words in page 2. or in any part of my discourse, no marvell he that durst be so bold with the Scripture, should deale so by me, sure his Church if it continue till they know it, will deale with him for it, for without & not within is place for all liers, Thus I have Rev. 22. 15. followed him to and fro in this particular of the Churches perpetuity, and continuednesse in the World, particular­ly under the defection of Antichrist, I doubt not but it will appeare to be a truth for all R. B. hath said, or is able further to say to the contrary, that he beleeveth it not I suppose it doth plainely appeare, that they in their way have no ground to goe on till this beleeved, namely the cessation of the Church, that their practice is grounded upon the denyall of a truth, fully held forth in the Scrip­tures of the Churches perpetuity, let them shift it if they can, and in their next let them informe the Reader, the true sense and right meaning of those Scriptures by mee alleadged, and I only advise they take heed of falling into some familisticall straine, I have done.

Now he proceedeth to Baptisme and saith, suppose the Church hath continued, then Baptisme by which the mat­ter is difference't cōtinueth also, so it is probable his Bap­tisme is the Baptisme of Christ derived from thence, R. B. hath forgot his question, he asked me before, and mer­rily said it was a bull: but what thinketh hee, is not the derivation good and rationall? he would have it taken no­tice of, that the best ground his opposite hath is but proba­bility. But it were well if he would once leave his fab­ling: I said it was more than probable, and I thinke that is certaine if I mistake not.

But further he saith, seeing I hold Baptisme dependeth on the Church: he addes true; and so maketh a hinge for [Page 12] his doore to goe up on, I would faine know where he lear­ned in the Scripture this true and false with reference to the Church, and Baptisme, it will trouble him much to finde it: the Church is either the Church of God, or it is not, and so Baptisme is either Christs Baptisme or it is not, but of this by the way; in the next hee will happily shew it, then he proceedeth and taketh notice that I hold not the Church of Rome, the Church of God, but that State I hold to be the mother of fornicaetion, Sodome and Egypt: he thinketh it must needs follow that the Church of Rome hath not the Baptisme of Christ; he is so frequent in the change of Termes, as I might make a booke of it, I write of the Church and Baptisme, the Ordinances of God con­tinuing under that Roman State in that defection; hee is alwayes up with the Church of Rome, and the Baptisme thereof, hee cannot reach higher in his understan­ding but it must bee the same, and from that, that I hold the Church of Rome, not the Church of God, hee will make it follow, whether it will or no, that the Church of Rome hath not the Baptisme of Christ: will he make it ap­appeare that Baptisme doth not remaine the Ordi­nance of Christ under that State? who hath said the Church of Rome? This he will make to appeare by a lame Argu­ment, thus, if the Church of Rome hath not continued (what meaneth the man, it never was the Church of God, although God had a Church in the Citie of Rome) there­fore Baptisme by which the matter of the Church is diffe­renced, hath not continued in the Church of Rome, sure this is a bull, the Church I indeed hold continued in the defection, and under the Roman State, though R. B. fa­thered a lie upon me and said, I held it could not there continue, and as t [...]e Church, so Baptisme by which the matter of the Church is differenced, not pure matter from corrupt, but matter from that which is none at all; as for [Page 13] true and false they are words of his own coyning as before, not found in the word of God.

So as here hee taketh occasion to answer a passage in in my discourse, wherein I desired any to shew [...]he errour or absurdity, hu [...]t or damage t [...]a [...] commeth o [...], holdi [...]g the Church and ordinances to have continued under the defection, &c. as in my discourse may be seene. R B here saith, I may easily see it from wha [...] I have written my self: well, what is it? This it is that Baptisme differenceth the true matter from the false, notorious fabler and falsiner! againe in his inference, if the Bap [...]isme of Rome: instead of in the defection: and thus he goeth over and over in his termes, be the Baptisme of Christ, which differenceth the true matter from the false, yet more of this coyne: It should be, which differenceth the matter of the Church from that which is no matter, and the matter bejng so laid downe. Where then is R. B. his great absurdity, that I may so easily see, sure hee may more easily see his folly and base dealing, without true and false, and such words of his owne foysting in his inference, and pretended ab­surdity vanisheth in the ayre: but what Tautologie he here useth of this true and false, it is much to see men love the bratts of their owne braine. The summe of that great absurdity that R. B. can shew of holding as before is set forth, is only, this Baptisme under the defection diffe­renceth the matter thereof, the Church from that which is no matter at all, such as are the Iewes, Mahometans, and other Heathen, and doth it not? and this is his great ab­surditie: It were well for R. B. if no greater did follow of his holding the visible Church of Christ to be ceased out of the World, his close this Section a is seeming contra­diction he supposeth in my tenent, wherein he still abus­eth me and my Reader; he saith I affirme Rome is the Mo­ther of Fornication, I doe so: and also that Rome is the [Page 14] true Spouse of Christ; where have I said so in all my dis­course, he cannot end one Section without fathering some false matter on me.

But with the leave of R. B. for more full satisfaction to the Read [...]r, I shall shew that there is a different conside­ration to be had of the Church in defection, and that it may be minded diversly either in a good sense, or in an e­vill, though he happily cannot see it, so as in on conside­rasion according to the co [...]rupt defiled condition, it may be called Sodome, and Aegypt, the Mother of Fornication, and yet in some other sence, and minding the Church of God, R. B. will ho [...]d himselfe both a Saint and also a sin­ner, but this in a diverse consideration and respect, Iudah was the Church of God, and yet she is called Sodome and Gomorrah, and an Harlot, and Laodicea the Church of Christ, Esay 11. E [...]e. 16. R [...]v. 3. yet in an other weighing; such matter as was fit to be spu­ed out, the great absurdity before lieth in R. B. his lame understanding. And now he commeth after his great tra­vell to conclude this matter thus, that seeing true Baptis­me differenceth the true matter from the false, observe that without true and false he is aground and cannot stir, but he still impudently will father this on P. B. and yet further saith I say so in my Epistle, where there is no sylla­ble to any such purpose; he proceedeth in his conclusion, the Baptisme of the Church of Rome is not the Baptisme o [...] Christ that differenceth the true matter from the false; a very worthy conclusion, a bratt of his owne braine plea­seth him well, and so I leave him to hug his true and false; I shall now desire the indifferent Reader to mind whether R. B. hath said any thing to purpose against the perpe­tuity of the Church yea or no, or against the sence of the Scriptures by me alleadged to prove the said perpetnity.

And also neither I did not say right, that there is no ground for their practice, till they hold this that the [Page 15] Church is ceased and not to be found in the World, which it seemeth to be very playne by R. B. that they doe hold, and so lay for the foundation of their practice, and pro­ceed, a foule errour; no marvell they bee no more stable, and setled, but still in their changes, how forcible are right words? but what doth wrong reasoning profit? it will never satisfie any tender conscience certainly.

R. B. Proceedeth to Baptisme, and taketh notice of Iob. 6. 25. what I said, that if the Church be ceased then Baptisme is ceased: here now he is something more calme, he wants his true and false to help him out, to that he answereth, that although Baptisme were ceased, so as there were no baptised person in the World: yet as long as Baptisme is found in the word with a Commission to doe it, he doth but beg the thing in question never answering to what I objected in this case, here the 28th. Matth must be al­leadged but to what purpose, I suppose none can tell: Bap­tisme he saith may be obtained without any such speciall Commission as had Iohn, if an unbaptised person shall doe it. R. B. will excuse him of running before hee is sent, though God never speake one word to any such so to doe: But he saith it will follow no more to be unlawfull so to doe: then it will follow that because Abraham might Ier. 23. 21. 7. 22. not circumcise himselfe, and Males before circumcision was instituted, and he commanded so to doe, therefore the Israelites: see the weakenesse of the man in his Argu­ment, he should say therefore the Philistimes or other Heathen might not circumcise themselves after. Indeed so he had overthrowne himselfe: for they might not, though Circumcision was instituted and commanded: yet they must goe to Israel as I urged the going to Sion, and there lighting their candle, as the Heathen of old did to Israel which he passeth by with silence, here is R. B. his Argument, Circumcision is instituted and comman­ded: [Page 16] therefore the Philist [...]mes, Aethiopians, and other Hea­then might circumcise themselves and their Males, I suppose hee holdeth not so; if he doth hee holdeth contrary to the truth, and this is the very case, which R. B. pleaseth himselfe withall; but hee pro­ceedeth further, and argueth upon the point of neces­sity, It was necessary for John to have Commission, as it was necessary to have a patterne for the first building of the Temple; but here hee evadeth from the Commission to the Pattern, and so deceiveth the Reader: I would faine know of R. B. whether they had not a speciall Commission to build the second time.

It is sure they were not onely stirred up, but bid goe up Hag. 1. 7. 8. and build the house, and God would be [...]ercifull to them: But now R. B. tell me because there was a Temple de­scribed in the word, and that was ruined and overthrown, might they build it againe before God bid them? might they build it in any place? and which is more and indeed to the life of the matter, might any but those of Israel build it? I am sure it was said to others it was not fo [...] them so to doe, though the patterne was in the word, as in like manner it belongeth not to unbaptised persons to bap­tise, Esra. 4. 3. though the patterne be in the word, it is onely for such as are baptised.

To that objected that the Commission 28th. Mat. It was onely to baptised persons, and intendeth none other; R. B. answereth it requireth all persons as are made Di­sciples, or shall be to be baptised, if hee had inferred that it is most likely there shall bee a continuance of baptised persons in the World, that so his pleasure might bee ob­served he had said something: but he saith Christs voyce must be obeyed, therefore he concludeth a necessity, to doe as they doe: run before they are sent, baptised they must be, why have they not a little patience? baptised [Page 17] persons there are none in the World, yet another lie must be fathered on P. B. to make good the matter, hee believeth none in a pure way, but under the defection there might be some alwayes found, R. B. might know I reasoned from their ground and practice, and not from my owne judgement, if he were not blind or a vaine Caviller as I told him before.

But it appeareth to be true, that R. B. indeed holdeth so, that at some time lately there were no baptised persons in the World: And yet Baptisme might be raised againe well enough; there being none, how then? why saith hee in the. Time: 2. [...]6. The Scripture is profitable and serveth for instruction in all righteousnesse to perfect the man of God unto all good workes, as is there declared, if to all saith hee then to this of Baptisme: R. B. upbraided me for misapply­ing the Scripture, but it were well if he had first seene the beame in his owne eye, and cast it out▪ truly this is a wonder­full thing that so rare a practice should have no better ground: the Scripture did not furnish the Heathen to circumcise themselves to erect a Church among them­selves to offer Sacrifice, yet these were good workes: It was a good worke to build the Temple, yet the Heathen were not furnished to doe it as before, God is the God of order which when it is neglected, for breach of due order he is offended, he is displeased as in the case of Ʋzzah: it was not for Saul to offer sacrifice though it were a good 2. Sam. 6. 6. 1. Sam. 13. 12. worke as it is not for an unbaptised person to baptise: though R. B. doe foolishly inforce it by vaine confidence, the Iron was dull that he needed to put to his strength: But let us see what it is he thus confidently affirmeth, that as at the first Iohn Baptist at the command of God bapti­sed others, though unbaptised himselfe, even so accor­ding to his example written for our learning we are taught what to doe in like case of necessitie, he at length [Page 18] is arrived at a faire haven, necessitie hath no law, being in a great straite indeed, brought upon themselves by their erroneous ground, of holding no baptised persons in the world, after the example of disobedient Saul, being in great straite, they are bold to baptise others, being un­baptised themselves, our Lord did not so, though he were the King of the Church, as I told them before, which he tooke no notice of: but yet further he saith according to Rom. 15. 4. A disciple at the command of Jesus Christ, where is that command in the 28. of Matthew, this serveth at every turne, as true and false did before: it is foure times alleadged in this short section be like to fill up, that he might seeme to say some thing, but it may not be counted Tautologie: but doth the 28. of Matthew com­mand unbaptised disciples to baptise others, sure R. B. is mistaken and never able to make any such thing appeare.

If any say Johns example is extraordinary, and so not exemplarie: he answereth, theirs is an extraordinary case, truely so it is: without the rule of the Scriptures: but it may be Davids eating of the Shew-bread will stand them in stead. Indeed, in the case of extreame hunger to preserve life it might: in exstravagant courses, such as cannot be warranted by the Scriptures, some have done as here R. B. doth, catch at Davids example, upon some case of necessitie, to doe that which is not lawfull; this is their case he saith, and hereby he saith, they justifie their practise, but how well, let all men judge. But sure R. B. forgot himselfe in this, or otherwise he dissenteth from others of his judgement. There were baptised persons in Holland of a hundred yeeres discent and more, to have re­paired thither were more easie, then for the Eunuch to Acts 8. have gone to Jerusalem; as easie it was, for them to have gone thither, as for our Lord to have gone over Jordan to Matth. 3. 13. John. If R. B. question their baptisme, it is much: happi­ly [Page 19] he may, because they practise not totall dipping; then sure it is likely, the restoration is but of two or three yeeres standing, a very rare businesse, and how rare are baptised persons, he concludeth there needs no new com­mission to raise it againe, we may beleeve him if we will: All the rest of what I wrote concerning this matter R. B. passeth over, not finding as is likely what to answer, in speciall, that which I declared concerning corruption, not making a nullitie, he concludeth this matter with saying, their practise is not like that of Nadab and Abihu, and setting children against persons of yeeres, he would make as if his opponent, were against the baptising of be­leevers, or persons of yeeres, because he holdeth the baptising of Infants: a fallacie and fond conceit, as if such of old as should hold the circumcision of males at eight dayes, must needs be against the circumcision of men of yeeres. But I must tell R. B. that it was unlawfull to rir­cumcise those of the ten tribes, when they were of yeeres, that had beene circumcised, though in Apostacie in their infancie. And this is indeed the true case betweene R. B. and his opponent, if he could or would see it.

New things are very pleasing, and many are much taken with them, as is R. B. with dipping, about which he taketh great paines, produceth many Scriptures, and would seeme to be so strong, as nothing is able to withstand him: First, he saith, I am greatly offended, he doth but surmise, for he cannot gather it out of my discourse; he sheweth what dipping he meaneth, total dipping of the whole man over head and eares; he pretendeth this is the commande­ment of God, wherein the 28. of Matthew, this now must serue the turne, as true and false did before: but sure it is a rare thing to gather it thence, for if dipping were there injoyned, yet sure totall dipping cannot be: It is not said goe dip all nations totally, or over head and eares, cer­tainely, [Page 20] this totall dipping is some voluntary religion, Cor. 12. Rom. 6. Matth. 28. 10. Mar. 1. 9. Mat. 3. 16. Ioh. 3. 23. Act. 8. 38. having a shew of wisdome; as mens owne wayes have; he quoteth many places, and sundry examples, but sure the man is as one that looketh through a greene-glasse, he seeth all of the same colour, all and every of these Scrip­tures, and examples are for totall dipping, the whole man in matter and burying of him under water; and I appeale to the judgement of the indifferent Reader, whe­ther there be any the least syllable to any such purpose: no marvell he should check me for not beleeving of it; and so confidently to father his fancie, and erroneous con­ceit, on the holy Scriptures, and which is more to hold all the Churches, and Christians in the World to be un­baptised, but those two or three that have been thus to­tally dipped: he is in a high straine if he can keep it, I hold not dipping so necessary, but that a person baptised by sprinkling, must needs therefore be esteemed unbap­tised, I indeed acknowledge I hold washing the maine, as before I declared in my discourse, and washing by the way of dipping, or by the way of sprinkling, to have in them the substance of the Ordinance being wayes of wa­shing; he is pleased to take notice of the Reasons, I al­leadged, which is first that springling can be but a defect in the quantity of the Element; I said it is a wonderfull thing a nullity should follow thereof: and is it not? to this he saith that he wondereth any should esteeme that an Ordinance of Christ, which Christ never ordained; but this is only to beg the matter, unproved: but the 28. Ma. 19. serveth still; Christ hee saith never ordained sprinkling, but dipping; therefore sprinkling in Baptisme is none of Christs Ordinance, and so by consequence a nullitie; Thus easily in his conceit, and fully in his opi­nion he hath made the Baptisme of not a few persons in the world; If I should make the like against his totall dip­ping [Page 21] he would not receive it, though it be his owne, Christ never ordained totall dipping by an unbaptised person: Ergo it is none of Christs, but a nullity, and by consequence R. B. is yet unbaptised.

He taketh notice of a second reason I set forth, and that is of placing the substance of an Ordinance in the Cri­ticknesse of a word, to this he answereth, that he placeth the substance of every Ordinance in its conformity to the word; so as defect and corruption make a nulli­ty, I suppose he holdeth; but he propoundeth a case for discovery, sprinkling is no more to bee esteemed Gods Ordinance, then to prick the finger was to bee esteemed Circumcision, and he that would not take that for Cir­cumcision might as well bee accounted a Critick as hee that will not take sprinkling for Baptisme; sure R. B. hath but little aime in his paralell, sprinkling at the most is but a defect in the quantitie of the Element for all this, I will make a case and leave the Reader to judge of it, if any unskilfull Circumciser should have left some little part of the foreskin through oversight, should it have been a nullity and no circumcision? I suppose nay: so if any shall misse in washing by shortnesse in the quantity of the Element, yet it may bee Christs Ordinance notwith­standing, for that such a defect or corruption doth not make a nullity thereof, And if any dipper in R. B. his way should through some neglect or other accident, not dip the Crowne of the head as well as all the rest of the bo­dy under water, I suppose R. B. had but little reason, if he should not account it true Baptisme in his way, not­withstanding he proceedeth: and here I note how faire­ly I dealt with them, and how fouly hee hath dealt with me, I set downe their opinion so right, as that hee doth not goe about to mend it, he for the most part fathereth this, and the other falsity upon me, and by change of [Page 22] phrases altereth often the whole matter for dipping in Baptising, and against springling or washing they produce that Rom. 6. Collo. 2. 12. of Buriall with Christ, which sprinkling they judge cannot import or hold forth: To which I in my discourse answered, that sprinkling or powreing water on the face doth hold our Buriall and re­surrection also, and indeed I judge it doth, and so under­standing men will account whatsoever R. B. thinketh to the contrary, to this purpose I alleadged that in the 10. Corinth. of being baptised in the cloud and Sea: and the Scripture telleth us they went over on drie ground, to this R. B. answereth not, for indeed he could not, they were dipped, they were buried as saith the word: But here hee inferreth that by this reason they should not bee sprinkled; Why? because, they had not water on them: But R. B. may minde, how they had the Sea on either side, and the Cloud over them; and were in the Water: That the Spirit accounteth Baptisme, as it doth Sprinkling, and washing, as well as dipping; so, as Water is necessary for baptising, but the use of it may be divers, some more neere, and some more remote from the written manner, and full scope of the ordinance, and yet have the sub­stance of the Ordinance in it. And if R. B. could make the sea divi [...]e as Moses did and should carry one of his disciples into it they might be so Baptized as they were, I shall beare his derision and proceed, The Baptisme in the Cloud and Sea, urged, pleaseth him not, he there­fore seeketh by a question to intrap. first he would know whether I hold it the Baptisme of Christ instituted Mat. 28. I let R. B. know I hold it the Baptisme of Christ, as the spiritual meat and drink were that are there also spo­ken of, and that it held forth and had an eye to that Bap­tisme after ordained by Christ Matth. 28. as the spiritu­all bread and drink there did &c. And held forth the [Page 23] foode in the Lords supper the substance of all which was and is Christ, so as it is a verie pertinent instance and ex­ample what ever R B. thinketh, But he hath a farther demande wherein he abuseth himselfe, and me and the reader, with one of his accustomed Fables; fathering a thing which was never my iudgement nor practise about sprinkling. I let R B. know I hold water necessary in Baptisme, I [...] he can divide the sea let him so Baptize, I shall not finde fault with him, his inference is vain about voluntary Religion, and will not help his Baptisme gar­ments at all.

To that by me objected that the forceing Baptisme thus to hold forth buriall, we lose that which it holdeth forth equally with buriall: Namely, the sprinkling of the Consci [...]nce in the blood of Christ. Esay 52. 15. Heb. 10. 2 [...]. Ezek. 36. 25. Heb. 12. 24. And the Laver of Rege­neration and washing in the blood of Christ that blessed fountain Acts 22. 16. Heb. 10. 21. 1. Corin. 6. 11. Re. 1. 5. R. B. answereth, denying that sprinkling in the blood of Christ is required to be held forth in Baptisme, to which I say it is an easie thing to denie a matter never so plain. I shall refer the matter to the judgement of the Godly wise, whether the outward washing in Baptisme doth not hold out every way of cleansing of the soule in the blood of the Covenant. Baptisme is the outward way of washing away sin. It was said to Saul Acts 22. 16. Be baptized and wash away thy sin &c.

Now sprinkling with which R. B. is so much offended, is a way of inward washing away of sin as before, and if R. B. please to consider the Scriptures again in speciall that in the 36. Ezek. He may if he be not overswayed by preiudice, happily change his minde so as to see that sprinkling both outwardly and inwardly hath in it the nature of washing to cleanse, And though hee like an unwise man hath againe censured my iudgement & pra­ctise [Page 24] about this matter; he hath condemned me being in­nocent, for I tell him once againe I hold washing more fully according to the nature of the ordinance, but sprink­ling being a way of washing to cleanse cannot be altoge­ther reiected; he hath something further here, which be­cause I doe not understand his aime and drift, being un­willing to father any thing on him but what he holdeth I passe it by, and the rather because it is but the repeating of the scriptures before set forth, he being mightily ta­ken with his sence of them; pleasing himselfe with his owne conceipt that sprinkling for washing or cleansing is borrowed from the shadowes under the Law, and so no whit to the purpose, and so he would put by [...]he manner as no way significant but onely the matter, blood: sure the spirit knew how to teach if we knew how to learne: I will sprinkle cleane water upon them and they shall be cleane: againe the blood of sprinkling, and our Consci­ence sprinkled, Is there nothing in these and the like but onely so as to be borrowed from the Law, and that is all I suppose R. B. is deceived at the least.

But now to that other particular of washing in the blood of Christ, which I said was also lost by thus infor­cing dipping; He answereth that I am much mistaken: Why how appeareth it? in the iudgement of the spirit he saith dipping is washing; so I say in like manner is sprinkling also as before Ezek 36. But if dipping be wash­ing, then washing may be dipping: in a spiritual sence sure it is; where is R. B. then: But though dipping be a way of washing, yet all dipping is not washing, nor so inten­ded, a thing may be dipped in water for other ends: as for instance, a Smith dippeth his hot iron in water, and intendeth no washing, he saith to washing by the way of dipping much water is required: Indeed totall dipping must have some quantitie, but lesse then Iordan, or Enon [Page 25] rivers may suffice to dip a person over head and eares: he saith here it doth follow, that as dipping the whole man, &c. it doth lively represent our buriall &c. so doing it in much water, must import a full resemblance of our wash­ing in the blood of Christ, Zach. 13. 1. To which I say, sure our Lord did not thinke so of the quantitie of either water, or washing, as R. B. doth. Peter was indeed some way of his minde, it appeareth; our Lord tooke a Basen: and he told Peter that would needs be washed all over as they will be by dipping, that he that is washed, needs not but to be washed in one part &c. R. B. here sure forgot Iohn. 13. himselfe, the manner in the case of sprinkling though much inforced, he would have to import nothing, onely the matter; but in the case of dipping, he will have the maner as essentiall as the matter. And the quantitie of the element he will have as significant as the matter, to wit, water it selfe: But though he be partiall, it being his owne cause it must be borne: so he concludeth this par­ticular saying, they doe not lose by dipping, the hold­ing forth their washing in the blood of Christ, and againe, he must father a falsehood on me about sprinkling, ere he leave it: R. B. proceedeth, and taketh further notice of what I write, and setting down a part only, that doth not hold forth my meaning: but the contrary hee answer­eth thereunto as pleaseth him; I said all doe, or may know, that a thing dipped is not therefore washed, nei­ther is washing alwayes intended in the dipping of a thing in water, there is a washing by dipping I said: R. B. an­swereth, that much lesse is that which is sprinkled, there­fore washed; I argued to inforce washing as the maine thing, and dipping but an accident in the way of washing, as is sprinkling in like maner, for as there may be dipping without washing, so there may be sprinkling also; but he mindeth further what I said, that a thing dipped is not [Page 26] therefore washed and made cleane. I said washing is not alwayes intended, as before in the dipping of a thing, this I said to inforce washing, as most fully significant, and ac­cording to the nature of the ordinance. To this he an­swereth, that much lesse is that which is sprinkled, washed, and made cleane, I say, a thing may be sprinkled as well as dipped, and not washed, or made cleane, yet there is a way of washing and cleansing also by sprinkling, Ezek. 36. 25. he saith, he hath proved that is washing, so I have shewed that sprinkling is also; he saith, he that is dipped is washed, so is he that is sprinkled also; he saith by con­sequence he is made cleane, so far as the ordinance doth require, I say so also of sprinkling, according to that which is the life and substance of the ordinance, the cleansing of the soule in the blood of Christ, Ezek. 36. Surely R. B. will acknowledge that washing is the prin­cipall thing in baptisme, and that there are divers wayes or manners of washing. And that at the most dipping is but a way of washing; I say no more, but that to me it is an admirable thing, that any should lay such waight on that way of washing, as that all other wayes should be nullities in their account; especially, that washing the maine and principall thing in the ordinance, should not be baptisme, or the ordinance of Christ, when that so ful­ly holdeth forth our washing in the blood of Christ, that blessed fountaine, and cleansing thereby.

I declared what I thought the ordinary way of their washing to be by dipping the thing in water and rubbing or the like in those countries where baptisme was first in­stituted: I said it is yet the way, or manner of washing in some cases, as may be seene in the Diers washing their matterialls in the river Thames: R. B. applieth this to baptisme, as if I spake of that: sure he was dull of under­standing: he saith they doe practice so, namely dipping, [Page 27] and when I can prove he saith they dipped oft; they will dip often too; like enough so I say, for they are for all new things, right, or wrong: But R. B. tell me, did they not dip often to cleanse in the ordinary way of their washing? looke but on your owne example produced, to prove dip­ping, washing; was he not to wash seaven times? doe not those I mentioned dip, or plunge their materialls oft in water? R. B. carrying the matter in his assumed sence, as [...]eth me why I am offended with them for dipping but once? I told him that totall dipping was the thing I ex­cepted against, for dipping by way of washing, not totall but of a part, I told him it was a laudable way, especially in hot countries; R. B. saith further, that if they dipped by way of washing, at the first, then is dipping the good old way, Iere. 6. 16. a very poore conclusion. I reason in like case thus, if they eat the Supper in an upper Cham­ber, or at night, or leaning, the conclusion would be a­like to no purpose; hee asketh why I reproach their practice? I answer, because they urge that which they can never prove by one syllable of the scriptures, namely [...]otall dipping; and also lay such load upon one way of washing by dipping, when washing it selfe is rejected; but R. B. saith, he seeth I love to wrangle: I say, he sure loveth to pervert councell by words: he would not make his rea­der I [...]b 38. 2. believe I spake of baptisme, else when I spake of com­mon washing: That I love to wrangle, he saith, appeareth because in stead of dipping often and rubbing to cleanse, I now say a little water serveth to set forth our washing in the blood of Christ as well as a great deale, and the washing of one part as the face as the usuall manner is, as well as the washing of the whole man: I do acknow­ledge I doe so hold and am willing to be judged by the godly wise whether it be not so: For I reason thus, if a great deale of water be necessary in Baptisme, then a [Page 28] great deale of bread and wine in the Supper by like rea­son which indeed would carnallize the ordinance, and again if a great deale be necessary and the quantitie have such force in it, then the greater quantitie the greater force and more full holding forth the fulnesse of the blood of Christ; And so not some little brooke like old Foord, but rather the great sea, for this argument wolud carry men ad infinitum, But truely I thinke one dro [...] of Christs blood to be of that force and efficacie, that i [...] [...]e be but sprinkled with it, it will purge our conscience from dead workes: I would pray R. B. and all other to observe the place by me alleadged: not to prove Bap­tisme or the manner of it as he would seeme to take it, but to illustrate the thing in difference, touching totall dipping and washing but of a part, and a little water and much, For sure I thinke R. B. his answer will be counted weake and unsound in that he saith a little water serveth not to set forth our washing in the blood of Christ as doth a great deale; as for that place produced Zacha. 13. 1. The Lord aimeth at the purenesse of the blood of Christ and unexhaustiblenesse of it: rather then at the much­nesse of it, for then a sea the greatest of all waters, rather then a fountaine would have beene exprest, the which I leave to the judgement of the reader: R. B. his judge­ment concerning a part not answerable to the whole, is as weake as the former, he saith the washing of a part doth not set forth the cleansing of the whole; whom shall we beleeve, our Lord or him? our Lord told Peter in all [...]n 13. cases of washing (I do not say it was Baptizing as he would make the reader beleeve) that he that is washed, needed not but to be washed in one part, and is cleane all: in the 36. Ezek. sprinkling it cleanseth from all sinne and filthi­nesse: sure that place 2. Cor. 7. 1. R. B. misapplyeth in this case, here he yet againe fathereth a false matter on [Page 29] me but I must beare it; he in the end after some further impertinent matter, saith he supposeth I know Christ would teach his disciples humilitie by that act: But what then doth he teach nothing else? doth he not teach that he that is washed needs not but to be washed in one part according to his Masters will? and further also that he that is so washed is cleane all? and if so in this washing then sure in that mysterious washing much more; But in his conceit to wash a part is contrary to his own Institu­tion Ma. 28. The man is sicke of totall dipping, but it may be he may recover.

He saith further, my great objection is that totall dip­ping cannot be performed with modestie and shamefast­nesse; I say I judge it cannot, and I thinke such as are god­ly wise will thinke so also, But he saith I urged against them in the hot countreyes their dipping often and rub­bing to cleanse; Now he saith I cannot determine how it may be done once; If I had not met with such a per­verse opposite I should have spared my selfe and the rea­der much paines: did I say they dipped and rubbed in Baptisme? fie R. B. Did not Naaman dip or wash seaven times? do not those I instanced in dipping oft their ma­terialls, by which the way of washing is set forth; If R. B. have no more to say to save his course from Immodestie he is in a poore case: Going in his owne way he saith surely I will conclude they put on a linnen garment: I will rather conclude such are wise and modest above what is written, that shall hold totall dipping nad yet use a Covering, I suppose R. B. will hold so too, If he do not, some of his opinion doe I am sure? It will follow they baptize the garments into the death &c. of Christ, They doe so I iudge according to their opinion, here yet still he fathereth a lie on me about sprinkling; But he saith not their garments but the persons in the garments, I an­swer [Page 30] if totall dipping be Christs Command and Institu­tion; so far as covered, so far undipped: whether those gar­ments made for such use and so used are not as holy as Popish Vestments I leave the reader to judge. He sayth it must follow that they that sprinkle baptize garments al­so, I say it is onely accidentall if they doe, they have no devised garment for the use, they have onely common Cloaths; some conscientious men in R. B. were true to their principles that have beene baptized in such vestments, will see that the defect hath made void their Baptisme and that they are not to rest in it but to be Baptized againe.

What should be the cause R. B. hath laboured so much in this matter of dipping and taken notice of every parti­cular, I leave every man free to judge, for my part I take it to be as I said before, It is new and the man is mightily taken with it.

For I am sure the rest of the discourse is as much against him, and in speciall that which followeth, to which he saith nothing at all; There is one thing in the end of this matter of dipping which he doth not declare him­selfe about, Namely whether he learned this new way of dipping of the Romanist and Ignorant Welch, and whether he count their Baptisme the Baptisme of Christ, In his next I suppose he will doe it.

Now he hath done with the Negative part of my dis­course and so he commeth to the affirmative part, how he quitteth himselfe there may be seene by that which fol­loweth; before he cometh to it, he saith I have spoken my minde against the ordinance of Christ: Certainly he is greatly mistaken, I have spoken for the ordinance of Christ which he hath peremptorily condemned, and yet doth, denying the Baptisme of all the reformed Churches & separed Churches, & also of all other Christians either Reformed, [Page 31] or yet in defection, only those two or three excepted that have within these two or three yeeres, or some such short time, bin totally dipped for Baptisme, by persons at the beginning unbaptized themselves, An opinion so rare and singular, so high and presumptuous as I suppose all persons godly wise will abhorre the verie thinking of it:

Had not R. B so travelled through this matter of dip­ping I should not have challenged him for slipping, as now I shall in the rest of the matter remaining; Certain­ly dipping was none of the three particulars he would reduce my discourse unto, as he told his reader in the end of his Epistle, I must crave pardon if I declare my thoughts touching R. B. that he sure thought himselfe guiltie of what I so marvelled at, Namely that per­sons should thinke that every Corruption meeting with Gods ordinance destroyeth it forthwith, as if Sathan were stronger then God; And that also his thoughts tell him he is one of them that would pull up the tares with Ma. 13. 29. Eze. 43. 8. the wheate, and destroy Gods posts with mans, as in my discourse I observed it to be the veine of not a few, of which things he taketh no notice; But maketh mention of my first positive ground, and useth his skill of reducing it to a very narow compasse, and so shifteth it off without either answering the scope, the reasons or Scriptures, by me produced, so as I might take that ground unanswer­able, and say no more. But in as much as I tender the dis­coverie of light and some clearing to the truth I will a little travell here further; The first ground in my dis­course was the Covenant of Almightie God to Abraham and his seede after him in their generations Gene. 17. I shewed it was an everlasting Covenant both in the na­ture and in the extent made to a thousand Generations Psal. 105. Continuing to the time of Grace, being of [Page 32] force after the suffering of our Lord, that it did extend to the Gentiles, they being a part of the seed to whom this Eph. 3. 6 Covenant was made as in the discourse may be further seene, none of all which R. B. denieth, for indeed he could not, but something I further propounded, he catcheth and that is about the difference, I conceived to be be­twixt a Covenant and Testament. That there's two Te­staments of Almighty God and one Covenant, distinct in divers considerations, and in speciall in the manner of Confirming, which things R. B. refuteth not, though I desired that any one should shew the error that attends it; he after some confused and darke setting forth of the ground, Answereth he marvelleth I should urge Infants being in a Covenant not confirmed by the blood of Christ, to prove their Interest in Baptisme, and so conse­quently in the blood of Christ.

This matter he supposeth to be against me, To which I answer, the Covenant of Almighty God to Abraham Gene. 17. and his seede was confirmed in Christ, and by him, rather in his birth and comming into the world, then by his death and leaving the world. Gala. 3. 17. But not to wade in new things I further say that that Covenant Gen. 17. was made with Abraham and his seed the Church, The Testament by Moses was made with the same people, old and young. The new Testament confir­med in particular wise with the blood of Christ it was made with the same people also, the house of Israel and Iuda: so as the matter standing so, that the Covenants and Testaments whether so distinct or not (as before) be­ing to yong aswel as old, what cause had R. B. to marvell unlesse at his owne shallownesse? for indeede to any that hath but halfe an eye it is so far from excluding Child­dren as it doth wholly include them, and interest and in­right them in the Covenant and Testaments both old [Page 33] and new, and so in the seale now as of old, especially the Covenant being everlasting and by neither Testaments made voide. But further he saith, If Infants be not in the Covenant confirmed by the blood of Christ who saith they are not: Then can they he saith have no right to Baptisme. which serveth to set forth our blood of washing in the blood of Christ, But I answer if they have interest both in that Covenant and Testament also, then they may have right to Baptisme, But this is most certain as before is briefly declared, so as if R. B. can shew no other eror to attēd that distinction, it will also as the rest of the matter, passe for good, for any thing R. B. to purpose can say against it: But he saith this excludeth Children not only from Bap­tisme, but also from salvation by Christ; how it doth so I suppose he cannot tell. If he thinke thus because they are said to be in a Covenant, not confirmed particularly by the blood of Christ, Though Typically and Relatively it be so confirmed.

Then from such a conceit it will follow certainly, that those Israelites of old Parents and Children, were exclu­ded from salvation by Christ, they being in a Covenant not so confirmed: Indeed his opinion seemeth to be sicke of this disease, for how Children which he holdeth nei­ther within the Church, nor within the Covenant, nor doe beleeve, how they should have salvation by Christ, sure he cannot tell: This R. B. according to his judge­ment thinketh a sufficient answer, The scriptures which I produced to prove the extent of the Covenant of God to Abraham and his seed in their generations; and that the Gentiles they were a part of the seed to whom the Co­venant was made, Ephe. 3. 6. That children are included, and not excluded, so being in the Covenant and of the Church, have a writ now also to the Seale to be buried with Christ by Baptisme, all which I suppose R. B. gran­teth [Page 34] as true, and that he could not gain-say the same: And is therefore by just consequence guilty [...] offering wrong and violence to the Covenant of Almighty God, and to Abraham the Father of the faithfull; in excluding such as God hath not onely included, but expressed in that his Heb. 8. Covenant and also in both his Testaments, for these whe­ther so distinguished, or otherwise: were made with one and the same people, the house of Israel and Iuda, so as to Gal. 1. exclude Children alway included must needes be a chan­ging the Everlasting Covenant and a bringing in a new Gospel never learned of Jesus Christ, and let R. B. or any other cleare themselves of it if they can.

The second positive ground I set forth it was the sta­blenesse and perpetuitie of the Church, some change be­ing in forme and Administration, but not in matter and relation, as in my discourse is before fully proved; R. B. thinketh he hath disproved the same and so here passeth it by: And he onely mindeth what I did infer from this ground. Infants I said were lawfull members of the Church from Abraham to Moses, from Moses to Christ, what should let them from being a part of the Church and lawfull members yet still? seeing the Church or Kingdome is the same. Mat. 21. 43. I also there proved that the Gentiles they are fellow-heirs and of the same body. Ephe. 3. 6. To all which and that that further followeth in my discourse. R. B. answereth that though Infants were of the Church of old, yet the Lord hath manifestly declared they shall not be so now; It would amaze one to see the presumptuousnesse of the man; hath God so manifestly declared their putting out of his Covenant and cutting off from the Church, where is that manifest declaration? the scripture rather decla­reth their continuance Ephe. 3. 6. But let us see where is that manifest declaration, It is Gala. 4. There is menti­on [Page 35] in the scripture but of one Allegorie and that is all the proofe R. R. hath for the excluding of Children from the Church and cutting off their entayle from the Covenant, sure he is verie neare driven that hath no other proofe but this Allegorie to prove a matter of such great conse­quence as the altering of the unchangable Covenant of God and cutting of a part of the Church, And this Alle­gorie must be expounded, according to his owne sence and fancie or else all is lost with him in the cause, But let us see how he maketh the Allegorie speak to his purpose, for the putting of Infants out of the Church: Gala. 4. It is written Abraham had two sonnes one by a bond-maid an other by a free woman; he that was borne of the bond-woman (to wit Ishmael) was borne after the flesh, but he that was born of the free woman was born by promise, The sum of all this is that Ishmael not being the childe of promise, was put out of Abrahams family: Alas what is all this to the manifest declaration? O yes saith he it is an Allegory but sure R. B. had small judgement and lesse reason to say an Allegorie is a manifest declaration: But happily he may make something of it; I shall minde his sence, The bond-woman he saith shadowed out the old Covenant: and her son Ishmael which she bare to Abra­ham after the flesh by carnall generation: see what words R. B. here useth in setting out the generation of Ishmael sure there was some Allegorie in his thoughts about them; Rom. 4. 19. For I askt him, was not Isaac borne after a fleshly wise, and by carnall generation also? sure he was begotten and brought forth even as Ishmael was, R. B. is yet beside the white; hee further saith that Ishmael shadowed out the carnall Israelites which should proceede from Abraham in after generations, to what time he referreth Exo. 9. 6, Act 3. 25. this, it doth not appeare: As under Moses the Jewes are said to be a holy people, and Gods peculiar treasure, so [Page 36] after Christ the Apostle telleth us expressely they were the Children of the promise, If Ishmael being cast out of Abrahams house Gods Church for mocking; did Type out the unbeleeving Jewes that rejected the Son of God, as indeed it did, if R. B. held so, I agree with him but sure he meaneth some other matter, and therefore he goeth on further and sayth, The free woman Sarah pointing out the new Covenant and Hierusalem: But can R. B. put no difference betweene the new Covenant, and the Church in his judgement: that is from above and her Sonne Christ: Some of the Covenant or Church meaneth he; sure Christ came of the Church of the Jewes as it is writ­ten, Rom. 9. 5. R. B. will not account that Hierusalem from above, he will confound himselfe, and lose all if he take not heed before he get out of the Allegorie, or bring his manifest declaration to light; he addeth Christ the promised seed. Gala. 3. 16. R. B. doth not take Christ here personally, for then it must be exclusively, (I suppose Heb. 2. 13. to all others) but he taketh it, I judge, mystically and so in­clusively for him and all his, the Children which God hath given him whether Jewes or Gentiles, males or fe­males young or old.

For his saying in this place not to seeds as of many, but to seed, as of one that is Christ, Is as I conceive not of Iewes apart as on seed & Gentiles apart as another & so seeds, but both together in one to wit in Christ as it is written Rom. 4. 16. & I paralell this place with that in the 1. Cor. 12. 12. where the Apostle speaketh after a like manner & I leave the reader to judge of it; But to go on he saith as Christ verse. 2 [...]. the seed, so believers born from above or by promise; sure he meaneth actuall beleevers, so as to be capable of totall dipping, certainely Isaac was not so borne from above, when he came first into the world, and yet then he was the sonne of promise, and Abrahams spirituall seed. v. 29. [Page 37] 28. He further urgeth that we as Isaac was, are children of the promise, we Gentiles, we Galathians are as Isaac children of the promise: how was he by descending from Abraham of Sara Lineally? can any thing be brought more plaine for the manifest right of Children to be of the Church and within the Covenant, then that which R. B. would bring to exclude them? Isaac the sonne of of Abraham by Sara, before he came into the world, when he was an Infant of aday old was the childe of promise, aed so were all the seed of the Iewish Church of old, wit­nesse the Apostle Peter Acts 3. 25. In like manner we Gentiles are as Isaac so children of the promise and have Abraham for our father and the father of all our seed, the blessings of Abraham being common, the Gentiles through Rom. 3. 36. faith (as the Iewes lost it through unbeleife,) God to be the God of the Gentiles by speciall relation and Cove­nant and the God of all their seed, as of old he was to Isaac of Abraham & to all the generation that followed.

But R. B. supposing the matter not to be yet cleare enough travelleth further in the businesse and saith, that to close up the full intent of the spirit the Apostle ver. 29. 30. saith that the carnall and fleshly seed Ishmaell for persecuting was with his mother cast out; out of Abra­hams house the Church: Well now R. B. draweth nigh to his manifest declaration, which is that by their casting out was foreshewen, that when Christ the true Isaac should be born (here he seemeth to understand that place Gala. 3. 16. personally & so exclusively.) And the barren Esay 54 1 woman, the new Covenant or Gospell, A rare under­standing: The barren woman I had thought had been the Gentiles, and sure so it is, and not the Gospell or new Covenant; for did not the Gospel alwayes in the sence R. B. is now in opening his Allegorie alwayes, bare Children to God? sure it did witnesse the Catalogue of [Page 38] the faithfull Heb. 11. Further he saith then shall the bond-woman, which he calleth the old and carnall Cove­nant, with all the Carnall ordinances thereof: This is a very rare sence also the covenant of Almighty God by Mo­ses he calleth Carnall; certainly it is a Carnall expression and unsavorie so to call that gracious Covenant of Al­mightie God which hee of love and free Grace gave or made unto his people Deu. 33. 6. and to call those spiri­tuall ordinances of Gods own Instituting, how ever some way Ceremoniall, to call them Carnall after the man­ner of Carnall or Common Generation: But further he saith that all her sonnes the Carnall and fleshly seed Ish­mael and all because begotten and borne of the fl [...]sh, shall bee cast out of the house: It doth not say cast out Chil­dren out o [...] the Church for the matter so far travelled in, is where it was if not worse and further off.

Cast out Agar and Ishmaell, Abraham, out of thy house, for they shall not inherit with Isaac and Sara as indeed they did not, And therefore as the sum of all R. B. saith that though Children of old were of the Church and within the Covenant before Christ yet they are not now if we please to beleeve him, Children it seemes are great losers by Christ coming: But Alas is this the manifest declaration, that R. B. fathered so confidently on Al­mightie God, in rejecting Children from being of the Church. Truely I suppose he and such of his way, had more need to be pitied for their ignorance joyned with presumption, then to be envied for any rarenesse in their opinions; he further saith my exposition of this scripture page 22. in my discourse, is also to be rejected and cast out, and his rare exposition is to bee received and taken in: For hee saith in my discourse I make such onely to be the sons of the Bond-woman as actually refused and rejected Grace as Joh. 7. 35. 36. He meaneth Joh. 1. 11. and so be­came [Page 39] bound, I said there as the reader may see that these two sons which Abraham had by two women, were two Types, And the Apostle saith it is an Allegory and they did Type out two states of people, and had reference Mat. 21. 4▪ 3. to the time of Grace when Christ came unto his own and they received him not Joh. 1. 11. but to such as, did hee gave power to be the sons of God; But such as did not as the greatest number of the Iewes did not they became bond and were cast out; the kingdome being taken from them and given to others, namely the Gentiles &c. as fur­ther Iohn 8. 36. Gala. 4. 28. may be seene, which rejecting and casting out the holy Apostle so greatly bewayleth Rom. 10. 11. The Iewes for unbeliefe were cast out as was Ishmael and Agar for mocking, But such of the Iewes and Gentiles also that did beleeve were made free by the sonne that maketh men free indeed: I said thus this Allegorie is fulfilled and we Gentiles are as Isaac and as the Israelites children of the promise. This understanding must he saith be cast out al­so, and he supposeth he hath a speciall reason for it; for Ioh. 8 sayth he this implyeth as if they had beene free by na­ture: Sure the man dreamed, they were free as Isaac was by promise, being a part of the seed to whom the promise was made, the Israelites they were so free by promise as they could tell our Lord: but they were not so free, but that they must become bond, unlesse they were further Rom. 11. made free by the Sonne that maketh men free indeed: Rejecting of him they of free became bond, and are un­to this day and cut off, but shall be loosed againe when their hearts shall be turned to the Lord, and they grafted into their Olive tree againe: But this R. B. saith is a manifest contradiction of the Apostle, let that bee made appeare; thus hee doth it; The Apostle hee sayth by the bond-woman understandeth all them that were borne as Ishmael by fleshly generation, hee then as I [Page 40] said must meane Isaac also, for he as before is shewed was so borne by fleshly generation, though Abraham was old and Sara stricken in yeeres, the intent and meaning of the Apostle is far otherwise as before is shewed, though he see it not: and so rudely to father his erroneous conceit upon the holy Apostle: So hee concludeth that all that are not as Isaac by promise &c. the Galathians bein Gen­tiles were as Isaac by promise as before, the Gentiles being grafted into the stock of Abraham the Church their seed, though lineally descended is owned of God as of old, and after the manner of Isaac Children of the promise.

I suppose the indifferent reader will bee able to see how far R. B. is from making good, what he so boldely affirmed, And that the Children of the faithfull and such as are of the Church, are yet still true and lawfull Mem­bers, and such as are not to bee denied to come unto Christ of such being his Kingdome; The rest of what I set forth in my discourse touching this second positive ground in as much as R. B. happily was in his deepe re­ducing, to some of the three heads before mentioned, I shall hold him excused for passing it by: If any reader studious of this controversie desire to see further thereof, he may please to peruse the discourse. And so I proceed as doth R. B. saying my next ground is the Apostles ex­horting Parents to bring up their Children, in the nur­ture of the Lord, therefore by consequence they were of the Church and so baptized, I said indeed the Apostle writing to the whole Church distributeth the same into parts, and maketh one part Children which he willeth to be obedient, and these were young and to be brought up in the feare of God: Now the Apostle writing to the Church would not meddle with them if without, I allude­ing to that place 1. Cor. 5. whether the allusion were so proper yea or no I leave the reader to judge, But about [Page 41] this R. B. taketh paines and travelleth about it, and infer­reth this and that as absurdities, to little purpose, follow­ing thereof, in the meane time never clearing that which followeth of the Jewes Children, being left out when they shall be called and grafted into their stocke againe, as no more capable to be of the Church, which were greatly to lessen their comforts and to diminish of the grace of God to them, But minding his promise of reduct­ing he passeth over and commeth in his further proceed, to take notice that I said it was an uncomfortable do­ctrine, the excluding the Lineall seed of the faithfull from the Church estate and Covenant as of old, for from thence I said it will follow that Parents doe beget, beare and bring forth children to the devill &c. To this he an­swereth that by nature we are all the children of wrath, Ephe. 2. [...]. To which I say, that indeed the Ephe. were the the Children of wrath before their calling and ingraft­ing into the Church; And further it is true of the seed of the faithfull, and of the faithfull themselves, that na­ture considered according to their fallen condition and unregenerate part, they may be so minded, yea Isaac the particular son of promise was so also: But by Covenant and promise, neither Isaac nor yet the Israelites were the Children of wrath, as were the Gentiles and their seede, But were the people and children of God, Eze. 16. Hee sayth further that our being of the Church, dependeth on our regeneration; which I say is a Familistcall strain: But he further sayth, if all that are not borne members of the Church shall be damned. I ask who sayth so? Doth R. B. know no difference betwixt these two, that in his judgement, the one must needs follow the other, being out of the Church, and so Relatively without God in the world; then they must be damned and there is no other way, If it were so, children would be in a poor case, accor­ding [Page 42] to his judgement that excludeth them all the church: But his drift is to inforce some absurditie on me. I shall take notice of it: he saith there is in my judgement no true visible Church in the world. This fable we had enough of before: so he Argueth on thus, no church, no Children borne in the Church: no Salvation: He asketh mee if this doctrine of mine be not verie comfortable: he may take it to himselfe for sure he is the Master of it: And by this fayned retortion, he thinketh to heale and comfort the sad thoughts of Parents, against that dolefull conse­quence, that their children are not now as of old, the chil­dren of God; but are borne the children of the Devill: and so hee skippeth over what I inferred by way of que­stion, which it seemeth he had no list to answer.

R. B. taketh notice of another Argument, which hee sayth must needes be answered: for hee taketh it, I place great confidence in it, and indeed so I doe, he setteth it downe thus, Children of Beleevers are holy, therefore they may be baptized. 1. Cor. 7. 14. To this scripture ope­ned and applied, as in my discourse may bee seene, R. B. answereth, that the Apostle doth not say the children of beleevers are holy: sure he hath little modestie, he might as well deny the light at Noone day; doth not the Apo­say now are they holy, v. 14. But what then doth the Apostle say, that the unbeleeving wife is sanctified to the beleeving husband? that is to his use, so as his ox or sheep and other goods are, I suppose he so meaneth.

Could the Corinthians question that a poor Exposition, It is likely rather they questioned their lawfull continu­ance with them: because of old the Israelites were to put away their strange wives, and the children which were Esra 10. begotten of them: which children God did not own for his, so they might have conscience of doing so also; The partition wall being now broken downe, the case it was [Page 43] otherwise, and this R. B. in part confesseth as their scru­ple, but he seeketh to turne another way by multip [...]yi [...]g words, and in the end maketh this the sum of all, that their children so begotten (are Legitimate) that is, true borne not bastards, a wonderfull case and rare exposition! if one be a beleever then the children are true borne, but if nei­ther be, then the children are bastards; what a number of Bastards are there in the world, in R. B. his sence? hee addeth as a reason of his exposition, that the holinesse of the childe is not concluded from the beleeving of the pa­rents, but from their lawfull use each of other: which is utterly untrue and contrary to the sence of the scripture, that tearmeth the seed of those of the Church holy for their relation sake, but the seed of other not having re­lation, uncleane, though borne in never so true wedlock. But R. B. againe saying the same without any shew of proofe, that it proveth no more holinesse in the seed of the faithfull, then in the seed of the heathen borne in wedlock: But he doth but say it, we are not bound to be­leeve him unlesse we will; He intendeth brevitie he saith, and so referreth me further for answer of R. B. where the the matter is handled at large.

These he saith are the reasons I can shew for baptizing of children, which because they satisfie not some, but they require as well he saith they may, a precept or exam­ple for warrant. He saith I promise to doe that, but first requires a precept or example to be shewed of an unbap­tized persons; baptizing either himselfe or others, and also the like for rejecting children their member-ship in the Church, and right in the Covenant as of old. These two he hath sufficiently done: Indeede if hee might bee his owne judge he hath, but truely he must to work about it againe, or otherwise, men of judgement will count his cause lost, for R. B. to proove that an unbaptized person [Page 44] may baptize himselfe, or others, before he be baptized himselfe; brings Davids eating of the shew-bread, and the Alsufficiencie of the scripture to instruct the man of God in every good work, And for cutting of the Intayle of children from the Covenant, and putting them out of the Church: that one onely Allegorie mentioned in the scripture, Gala. 4. and this expounded aright, and not according to his erroneous sence, is so far from being for him; as it is cleare against him. It is no marvell he should say it is sufficiently done; It is well he is judge in his own cause, for sure others, no not those of his owne way will say any such thing for him.

Now he will take notice of the performance of my promise and so to the first thing by me set downe, he ha­ving cavelled at it before he passeth it by, Namely, chil­dren their being baptized into Moses in the Cloud and Sea: a verie cleare example.

He mindeth my next as the first, and that is of the bap­tizing whole housholds, as the Jaylers Lydiah, and the hou­shold of Stephanus by Paul himselfe. R. B. replieth to this and saith, he requireth an example of Baptizing Chil­dren, and not of housholds. It is worth the noting, what unequall dealing may be found in men, and how far men are from measuring to others, what they require of others to be measured to them, to prove that an unbaptized person may baptize. Davids eating the shew-bread is a verie cleare example and full proofe with R. B. And he may take himselfe wronged if any shall refuse it. If I had said to him I require an example, not of eating shew-bread, but of an unbaptized person, baptizing of himself, what would he have said, he it is likely would have mind­ed me of the substance of the thing, and the nature and agreement of the matter so parralled as he intended: I minde him so to minde this Instance and proceede.

I reasoned thus from these examples, If Children with their Parents entred not the Covenant Church, estate now, as of old they did: The Apostles would have spoken more particularly and not so generally, for sure hee minded the reproofe of our Lord to marke 10. 14. those Disciples, that hindred children from comming to him, for this reason amongst other, because the Church consists of such: It is an example for baptizing whole housholds however, wherin usually are yong children, It is as pertinent however, as Davids eating the shew-bread before: A family may be tendred, a whole family may be baptized, It lieth on the part of R. B. if I mistake not to declare by what right, they being a part should be put by: If he can shew no further discharge but that Allegorie, they will doe well enough. I told him if a houshold were tendered to Baptisme, and I will now put the case if hee was to be the Baptizer, and there should be an infant, two or three in it, and Pauls example should be alleadged to him; by what warrant would he put them by; or who should be his pattern? It seemeth he would rather chuse to follow the disciples which Christ blamed for hin­dring Mark 10. 14. Children in their comming to him, rather then the minde of our Lord or example of Paul: But what I inferred about this he passed by with silence, And think­eth to pay me home saying, this proveth no more the bap­tizing of children, then it proveth the baptizing of noto­rious drunkards, theeves and swearers, or whole hou­sholds have bin baptized in som housholds, there are such, ergo, If I should tell R. B. that Iohn Baptist did baptize such, and so the cause is by him unaware granted, he would Matth. 3. 7. Luke. 4. 7. Luke 4. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. tell mee they confessed their sins first, but the scripture telleth him and us all, that they were a generation of vi­pers, whose good fruits were not then brought forth: pleasing himselfe in the paralell he saith to me, who [Page 46] seeth not your folly: I may I suppose with more ground Retort it on R. B. againe for making such a paralell and Illusion, for would he have drunkards &c. to be baptized whether they would or no? And if these being in a fa­mily confesse their sinnes, though they forsake them not, sure R. B. (or otherwise he differeth from those of his owne way,) especially if they own but totall dipping, will thinke it meet to baptize them, upon that their confession and profession, though they were, and doe after appeare to remaine such drunkards, theeves and whores as hee speaketh of: who may not see R. B. his shallownesse thus to please himselfe with just nothing.

He commeth to the next, I said the whole Church of Collosse was baptized as the whole church of old were cir­cumcised; now a part of the Church which was thus bu­ried with Christ in baptisme were children. To this hee answereth our question is of Infants and not of children in the generall, some of which may be old. R. B. told me I loved to wrangle, but sure he is sore sicke of the disease himselfe. Infants and Children not come to understand­ding, I count one and the same & I suppose properly, and of such is our question, such were members of the Church of old & circumcised; such are members of the church yet still for ought any thing R. B. can say to the contrary, the Apostle Ephe. 6. speaking in like manner, speaketh of in­fants 10. 16. or children not growen in knowledge: such as our Lord tooke in his Armes and said of such were his king­dome. Ephe. 6. 4. Mark To little purpose unlesse to deceive the simple, doth R. B. set forth that old persons, relatively may be called Children. I could also shew that an infant of a day old hath the like expression. Ezek. 16. But he seemeth to have a lame argument, upon which he much relieth, the Apostle did not write to infants: I say he wrote to the whole and to Children Inclusively; as a part of the [Page 47] whole, yea to such as for present could make little use of what he wrote▪ holy men of old they wrote as they were guided by the spirit, in like manner the Apostle wrote. Now of old the Law and the prophets, the precepts and promise therein were to children inclusively: and secon­darily [...]ene. 17. 7. Exod. 19. Rom. 9. 4. Deu. 29. 1 in their order, the Covenant to Abraham, and that by Moses from God it was to young and old: to whole Israel pertained the adoption and the giving the Law, the service of God and promises; yea expresly Infants that could not expresse themselves verbally, enter Covenant with God, all which minded it will appeare, to be false which R. B. saith that the apostle did not write to Infants. But R. B. must have his veine, to take all things in the case of children exclusively, which concernes their right in the favours of God, with their Godly Parents. And in­clusively he will take Infants with unbeleevers and the wicked of the world, and so liable to the same wrath, let what will be sayd to the contrary, though he have not the least shew for it out of Gods word: so as to end this, If Infants or children not come to knowledge were of the Church, and the whole Church was buried with Christ by Baptisme, then were children Baptized. That they are let what before be minded. Hee concludeth with saying, these exampies will yeeld little satisfaction: To which I say and end they will yeeld more then his examples brought for the warrant of an unbaptized person Bap­tizing of others or himselfe; or for what he alleadged for childrens discharge from the Church.

I said there was a command for the baptising children: Matth. 28. 19. Goe &c Baptise all Nations; not one onely, as the Nation of the Jewes. I illustrated the sence by paralell reference to other places of Scripture, God ha­ving of old declared that Abraham should bee a Father of many Nations, all which Nations according to Christs [Page 48] command must be baptised, a part whereo [...] are Infants, or Children not come to understanding: as Infants were apart of that one Nation of the Iewes: It is likely R. B. cannot but must needs be angry, that I take this place of Scripture to prove that, which hee is so much against when it was the onely Scripture, that [...]he made to serve him at all turnes, and in every case about Baptisme, as before may be observed.

To this he answereth thus, Abraham indeed was to be a Father of many Nations, some whereof hee saith were his naturall and carnall seed, borne after the flesh, as Ishmael and the Iewes, but by the way can R. B. put no difference betwixt Ishmael & the Ishmaelites, and the Iewes; If he cannot he sure hath very small judgement; These he saith further for unbeliefe were rejected and cast off, but he doth not tell us, the Order of it, neither is it alto­gether true, which he speaketh of the cause, Ishmael was cast out first, and in him all the Ismaelites, and the cause was not unbeliefe, but making, and this which was first, was the type of that which followed, the casting of and rejecting of the Iewes for unbeliefe, at that time when Christ came unto them being his owne, and they received him not, this rejecting of the Iewes for unbeliefe R. B. denyed, and would not grant, and he thought hee had good reason for it, because he thought then in his deep judgement it would imply, as if they had been the peo­ple of God by nature, and free that way: but now of himselfe he is pleased to acknowledge some: further hee saith as those were cast off, so the old and carnall Cove­nant as before he saith, he shewed, I then and now again tell him, that was a carnall expression, so to call that gra­cious covenant of Almightie God: Abraham hee saith had other Nations, which were so reputed in regard of their Faith, and walking in his steps; I say surely these [Page 49] are the Gentiles Nations, Rom. 4. which place he alleadg­eth, in observing to whom Abraham was a Father to: and Math. 19 Eph. 16. saith marke, and so I say marke them Nations that be­lieve and walke in the steps of Abraham, and who saith otherwise. But to young and old compleat Nations, as was the Nation of the Iewes. He goeth on and saith Gala. 3. 29. such as are Christs, are Abrahams young Children, are Christ even as Isaac, of such he saith himselfe, are his Kingdome, the Gentiles are fellow heires &c. These lat­ter, Nations he meaneth, or else he deludeth in the case: are Abrahams spirituall seed, and are by expresse com­mand to be baptised, Math. 28. Mark. 16. hath not the man travelled farre to little purpose: unlesse to confute himselfe: The Nations of the Gentiles that beleeve, they are Abrahams spirituall seed, and are by Christs expresse command to be baptised, as R. B. acknowledgeth, and Infants are a part of these Nations, and so also to be bap­tised. But what saith hee? is all this to the baptising of Children that beleeve not? I aske how hee knoweth they doe not believe, if they believe not they cannot be saved: he againe saith, and therefore not believing are none of Abrahams spirituall seed, Isaack when a Infant could not beleeve after that way R. B. intendeth, yet he was Abrahams spirituall seed, so were the Infants of Israel of old, and now we Gentiles are as Isaack, so as I sup­pose it is much to the purpose, though he see it not: and therefore sayes that children not believing, are there­fore none of ABRAHAMS spirituall seed, who onely are to bee baptised, fie what poore matter is this; hee saith that which followeth is likewise nothing to the purpose, namely that the Nations that are made ABRAHAMS seed, the NATIONS that are saved, the Kingdomes that shall become the Kingdomes of the Lord, must needs receive Christs badg, [Page 50] and be baptised, this he saith is granted but proveth no­thing; that is a wonderfull thing if Children bee apart as before of those Nations, that he should grant the bap­tising of the whole, and yet denie one part; what is his reason that before, over againe, none are Abrahams seed, but such as are Christs, first Isaack and the Infants of Isra­el were first Christs, and the Gentiles are partakers of the same promise: But he urgeth further (like an unwise man) they walke in his steps, what did Jsaack so walke when he was an Infant? doe his workes? to apply these Scrip­tures to Infants sheweth great weaknesse and folly: yet he goeth on farther, and saith that no Kingdome doth become the Kingdome of the Lord, but those that feare and serve him kisse the Sonne, Psal. 101. Heare his voyce Acts 3. 22. and have him to reigne over them, all which he applyeth against Children, grossely abusing the Scrip­tures as any man that hath but halfe an eye may see: I [...]x. 19. 6 aske him did the Nation of the Jewes that was Gods Nati­on as well as Abrahams, and a peculiar people, their In­fants and all doe so? did those Infants so heare Gods voyce, seare and serve God kisse the Son; R. B. is in a Labyrinth sure. But yet further he urgeth that the Scriptures doe, not declare the salvation of any; but such as doe believe, so no children in his account, but his reckoning is utterly untrue: he goeth on, saying those that believe on the Sonne have life, but such as believe not (as Children hee saith doe not) the wrath of God abideth on them, a fear­full Mat. 2 1 [...] doom for Children, Herod was a great Enemy to the Children of Bethlehem, for he destroyed them all in one day, R. B. exceedeth he designeth all the children in the children in the world at once to utter destruction and the wrath of God; he concludeth thus, therefore in refusing Infants which beleeve no [...], but have as before the wrath of God abiding on them. A fearefull doctrine, R. B. saith [Page 51] for himself and the rest with him, if any please to beleeve him that they doe not curtaile the Nations which Abra­ham was to be a father of. If any will take his word for it they may; but beleeve him who list, I shall not, for as Herod did curtaile, that is cut off a part of Bethlehem when he destroyed the children of two yeeres, for which there was so great mourning in Ramah, and as Pharaoh did cur­taile Israel when he destroyed or did endeavour to de­stroy Exod. 1. their children: So in like manner to reject children from a nation or people in a relative way as R. B. doth, is to curtaile a nation or people what ever R. B. say to the contrary. When God changed his purpose of destroy­ing Nineve, he speaketh of the greatnesse of the people, Iona. 4. 11. and that there were sixscore thousand that could not di­scerne betwixt the right han [...] and the left, that is chil­dren, a part of the whole, that must be either be saved or perish together in the judgement: The infants of Israel were a part of the nation of Israel and such as shared both in mercies and judgements, which happily when R. B. hath better considered of hee may change also his thoughts about children and have more charitie toward them. I shall set downe the Argument againe, and leave the reader to judge of it, now he hath heard what is said of both sides. There is a command for baptizing of nations; Children or infants are a part of these nations, Ergo there is the command of Christ for Baptizing infants. But R. B. i [...] angrie about this 28. Matth. being alleadged against him, and saith, nothing can be said more contrarie possi­bly, for what it is alleadged, so sensuring me for vain jang­ler and one that understood not what I spoke nor where­of, I did affirme▪ he concludeth his answer, never saying any thing to that of the Iewish Nation being borne again in one day, whether then their infants shall be left cut is no more capable of the Grace of God, nor yet to what I [Page 50] [...] [Page 51] [...] [Page 52] further said about their being first taught & then baptized which I said was an adition of their owne coine, not found in the scripture, and being presumption in any to adde it to the 28. Matth. 19. I said in the end of my discourse also that distinction is to be put betwixt per­sons of yeeres and infants, that persons of yeeres are first to be taught, but not children, as of old the Proselites were, but not their infants. That it were unreasonable to require it of them now in Baptisme, it not being re­quired of them in Circumcision, that no Conditionall if, can be put in the case of infants. To all which R. B. saith nothing, for sure he granteth it all, and so taketh himselfe guiltie of that frowardnesse I observed in some, in setting children against their parents in the case of beleeving and interest in the Covenant of Almightie God: a thing they have taken up by tradition, and never learned it of the holy scripture: And yet in it lieth the great force and strength of these mens reasoning, oppo­sing young children to their godly Parents, making the one a beleever and the other an Infidell, making the In­fant of a beleever an unbeleever, to whom pertaineth the wrath of God, and so applying and opening all scriptures for the one against the other, when as it is verie cleare by the scripture, as in part may be seene by what is before declared. That children are alwayes taken and minded as included, and so sharing and having right with their Parents and not otherwise. I shall beare his censure pa­tiently which he layeth on me, and conclude this An­swer, saying as R. B. doth, and I thinke the reader will judge I say the truth; that R. B. his whole Answer is not onely weake and Impertinent, but that it doth declare the Authour thereof to be very erroneous, that it is full of fayned fables fathered unjustly on his opposite, and hath many things in it contradictorie to his owne prin­ciples, [Page 53] so as he that shall read the Answer discovered and laid open, will sure judge what ever R. B. intended hee hath rendered his cause and practise which hee endeavoured to defend, evill and naught, and an error to be deserted and shunned of all the people of God, which God give them wisdome to see aright.