yet seeing that Adoption of it into the Law was in Confirmation of the Promise the Abrogation and Cessation of Circumcision with the Law as now become a Part of it cannot be understood to be in any Diminution of the Promise It not ceasing as it was a Sign and Token of the Promise but as it was become a Member and Part of the Law And so much in Demonstration of the Third Particular viz. That the Duty and Incumbence to which Abraham and the same is said of his Seed was obliged as being in Covenant was by way of Restipulation to dedicate and give Himself and all His to God and in token of that Dedication of himself and of all his to put the Sign and Token of the Covenant as the Cognizance and Mark and Badge of God upon all his as well as to wear it himself It now remaineth that I manifest what I promised to do in the Last place viz. That from Abraham's Gift and Dedication of Himself and His to God there arises a Distinction of Holiness into Internal and External the Former positive and absolute the Latter relative And that this Distinction is Evangelical and as applicable unto our Times since the Law as to the Times before it and under it That from the Double Dedication the Covenant of Promise obliges to and which Abraham practised there arises such a Distinction of Holiness is evident for to be Holy being to be Separated or Dedicated to God as He is a God in Covenant For whether it be a Person or it be a People that is Holy still to be Holy is to be Dedicated to be Separated it is to Be to the Lord their God Deut. 14. 21. Thou art an Holy People unto the Lord thy God For a People to be Vnto the Lord their God is to be Holy for as to be Blessed or Happy the Lord must be a People's so to be Holy they must be the Lord's And Seeing also that a Person may be Separated and Dedicated to the Lord and so become His as He is a God in Covenant either by a Separation and Dedication which is the Persons Own Act as when Abraham or any other doth devote and give himself unfeignedly and cordially to God or else he may be so By a Dedication and Separation proceeding from Another's Act and not his own he being another's and consequently capable of being given and devoted by him This being so What can be clearer than that there are Two Kinds of Holiness of which the Former wherein the Person himself is Active and doth dedicate and give himself is Positive Internal and Saving the Latter in which he is Passive and is but dedicated assigned and given by another whose he is is External and Relative not a Holiness in the Person but a Holiness upon him With the Former kind of Holiness Abraham himself was Holy but with the Latter his Infant Children and Servants Who to shew that they were Gods had the Mark of God upon them as ours to shew that they are So have his Name And that this Distinction of Holiness into External and Internal Positive and Relative a Holiness that is saving and a Holiness that is not hath Place in Gospel-times is as evident as that it had One under the Law and before the Law To manifest which I will remind you of a Text that hath been much in discourse and on which for obvious Reasons I will a little insist It is 1 Cor. 7. 14. For the unbelieving Husband is sanctified by or in the Wife and the unbelieving Wife is sanctified by or in the Husband Where note One Person being Sanctified but not being Saved by the relation which it hath to another it can only be So Externally The Believer is a Saint and so Internally holy but the Unbeliever is but Sanctified or Sacred and that not as a Person a Man or a Woman but as a Person in such a Relation as a Husband or Wife by the relation which he hath to that So Athanasius makes or rather notes the Distinction The Design and Scope of the Apostle in the Text is to satisfie a Case of Conscience which it seemeth had been proposed to him and was Whether the Bond of Marriage contracted between Persons both at the Time of that Contraction in a state of Infidelity were obliging afterward if one of them became a Convert Or Whether the believing Husband were not obliged to put away the unbelieving Wife and the believing Wife to leave her Husband that believed not seeing the Apostle for this likely was the Occasion had advised them in a former Epistle not to keep company with Idolaters and prophane Persons and they comprehended not how Then a Believer a Holy Person could hold Communion in the Matrimonial State with an Unbeliever who is an Idolater and unholy This was the Case and to this the Apostle gives a plain and positive Resolution Vers. 12 13. But to the rest speak I not the Lord If any Brother hath a Wife that believeth not and she be pleased to dwell with him let him not put her away and the Woman which hath an Husband that believeth not if he be pleased to dwell with her let her not leave him Then he seconds the Resolution and Decision which he had made with a Reason that doth expresly obviate the Ground and Foundation of their Scruple and that in the former Part of the 14th Vers. For the unbelieving Husband is sanctified in or by the Wife and the unbelieving Wife is sanctified in or by the Husband In fine he Fortifies that Reason by a further Consideration taken from the Inconvenience and Absurdity that else would follow if it should not be as he affirmed and that in the latter Part of the 14th Vers. Else your Children are or would be unclean but now or whereas they are holy The Sense You give of the Apostles Reason for of his Resolution and Decision I know no Controversie is That the Bond of Matrimony still remains Religion makes no Alteration in Civil Bonds and Contracts The unbelieving Husband is as much clean or lawful that is say you sanctified to the Use of the believing Wife so that she may now as freely admit his Conversation in a Conjugal way as ever before And the like of the unbelieving Wife to the believing Husband For were it otherwise your Children must be Illegitimate and Bastards whereas they are not so but Lawfully Begotten and of clean Blood For this Sense you argue from divers Considerations One is That the Holiness of the unbelieving Parents must be of the same Kind with that of the Children and that of the Children the same with that of the unbelieving Parents and therefore can be only Civil Another That the Apostle when he saith The unbelieving Husband is sanctified doth not say by the Believing Wife but only by the Wife and when the unbelieving Wife is sanctified he saith not by the Believing Husband but only by the
Man and take him into Covenant and Sign him and take the Woman in but Inclusively as comprehended in Man and as an Appendix to him which he did in the Dispensation under Abraham and Moses But then afterwards as he took the Woman in the Creation out of Man so under Christ in the New-Testament-Dispensation he took the Woman in her own Name and put his Sign on her too Both Men and Women are Baptized A Second and perhaps no less effectual Reason is That the Woman had been first as the Apostle observes in the Transgression she had spoyled the First Creation and the Work of God in it What 's this that thou hast done saith God to the Woman Therefore as a Mark of his Divine Displeasure God would not in the Institution of his Covenant of Grace take her in her Own Name and Person or otherwise than by Inclusion in the Man into the Participation of it until by bringing forth the Lord Christ the great Foundation of the New and Better Creation she had made him as it were some Reparation and therefore Christ is emphatically said to be Made of a Woman Methinks the Apostle hath an Aspect towards both these Reasons in 1 Tim. 2. 13 14 15. But howsoever that is sure I am 't is out of question that before Christ there was no little difference between Male and Female in the Account of Scripture for if a Woman bore a Man-Child she was to be unclean but Seven days and to continue in the Blood of her Purifying but Thirty-three days But if she brought forth a Maid-Child then she was to be unclean Two weeks and to continue in the Blood of her Purifying Sixty-six days So much Difference Then there was between Male and Female for so we read in Exod. 12. 2 4 5 6. But Now the Case is alter'd For under Jesus Christ there is no Difference no more Now between the Male and Female than between the Jew and Greek for so the Apostle Gal. 3. 28. There is neither Iew nor Greek there is neither Bond nor Free there is neither Male nor Female for You are all one in Christ Iesus A plain Text wherein the Apostle as well implies there Was a Distinction and Difference before as he affirms that there Is none now As for mine Adversary though I do not take him to be the Greatest Clark in the World or as Learned in the Learned Languages and Human Authors as many others and though I take it to have been a piece of Vanity in him to tell me as he doth That as he remembred one of the School-men said c. because I have Reason to believe he understands the School-men as little Hebrew or Greek Yet I do not apprehend it any Disgrace as some would have it to have been engaged with him both for that he is a careful painful and industrious searching Person much conversant in the present Controversie and I believe can say as much for his Perswasion as any other what ever as also for that the Point in Controversy between us is not a Point of Human Learning Here for the main is no need of Greek or Hebrew or of the Subtilties of School-men or of Exactness of Criticisme It must be decided plainly by good Sense and by the Harmony of the Scripture and an English Bible to which he doth appeal suffices for that I do confess I believe that some of the Grounds which I have said will have no little Influence toward an Alteration in many received Schemes But whether I have laid them right or not I am no competent Iudge For though I am much confirmed in the Verity of Them by their undergoing of One kind of Test without any Loss yet before I do advance them from being Points of meer Opinion to be Points of some Degree of Faith I am willing they should undergo all Others And therefore Reader they are put into thy Hands for I have done with them to weigh and iudge them ERRATA PAge 2. line 4. add be p. 12. l. 20. read by p. 16. l. 20. dele it p. 49. l. 27. read to p. 53. l. 23. dele capable of it p. 54. l. 14. dele p. 99. l. 21. read in way of Covenant through Christ for Grace p. 102. l. 17. read of all the Faithful p. 103. l. 11. dele now p. 105. l. 18. read of Genesis p. 110. l. 5. add p. 115. l. 27. dele p. 128. l. 30. read be understood of that only p. 129. l. 5. read same p. 150. l. 20. read is meant AN ARGUMENT FOR Infants Baptism c. The First Letter Dear Sir I Cannot believe my self obliged by the Occasional Discourse which I held almost a Year and three Quarters ago about Infants Baptism to ingage any further in that Controversie much less deliberately and solemnly yet having received so large and so elaborate an Endeavour for my Satisfaction and so importunate and iterated Requests to give you the Result of my most cool and serious Considerations of what you have done in It I may not be so much wanting in Civility to your Desires and in Obedience to the Call I believe in them as to decline the Incumbence and Obligation under which They put me to answer And so either to receive my self a further Illumination in the Point or which is better and which I hope to give it Only let me have leave to tell you That I am sensible enough how difficult a Task it is in it self to Eradicate an Opinion grown inveterate by length of Time and perhaps confirm'd by frequent Spoyls and Trophies over weak Opposers of It and that 't is more difficult for one in my Circumstances subject to a thousand Avocations and Diversions and who at the Arrival of your Letter thought of nothing less in all the World than of being engaged in this manner against Anabaptism and with a Person a great part of whose time hath been imployed in Thoughts and Study about it And yet under Disadvantages so great against so great Advantages believing my self in the right in that Confidence I have made a Resolution to let you know my Sentiments and the rather because I take you and I wish I may not be mistaken in it to be so unfeign'd a Lover of Truth and so Candid a one that you will make Allowance for any Byass in your Mind in favour of your Opinion which a long Prescription may give it and that you will not Refuse any Light that may be offered if you have no other Reasons for doing So than either that It is New unto you or that you have not struck It your self As for my Sentiments on this Subject that you may conceive Them with the greater Clearness as also for Order sake I will reduce them unto Two Heads First I will let you see the Mistakes under which you are as to your Apprehensions of the Grounds of my Arguments for Infants Baptism as deduced from the Covenant of Abraham And Then
I will display the Argument it self in all its Evidence and Force as it is bottomed on that Basis And this without concerning of my self in Other Arguments insisted on by others and also touched and reflected on by you The Mistakes you are under in your Apprehensions of the Grounds of my Argument are Two and very great ones The First That you conceive me to raise my Superstructure of Infants Baptism on this Foundation That the believing Gentiles and their Posterity are in All respects to be blessed as believing Abraham was which say you is Absurd And well you may say so for indeed Abraham had peculiar Blessings appropriated to his Person as to be the Father of all the Faithful and particularly of believing Gentiles the Father of many Nations and therefore instead of Abram he was called Abraham But though All the Blessings believing Abraham had did not descend on his Spiritual Children or his Seed the believing Gentiles yet if Any Blessing of believing Abraham's did descend as That of the Promise did it must be understood that the Obligations and Duties arising from the Nature of the Blessing which did descend or that are annexed to it if there be any Such must descend too And so that the Seed in that respect in which it is equally blessed with believing Abraham must be equally obliged with him to all the Duties and Incumbencies that are the Consequents and Results of that Blessing Your Second Mistake is That you apprehend me to conceive That every Child of a believing Parent by vertue of his Birth Priviledge and as he is a Natural Descendant of such a Father or Mother is a true Child of Abraham or a Believer for that I mean or in your own words That the Natural Posterity of Believing Gentiles barely as such are all of them the Spiritual Seed of Abraham or Believers and consequently such as are entitled on the Account of being his Spiritual Seed or Believers unto Abraham 's Covenant and Blessing And in Opposition unto This you much enlarge shewing the many great Absurdities and ill Consequences of it even to Fifteen Arguments which truly as to any other who hath Sense I think and I am sure as to my self are all needless and might all have been spared Certainly I demand not half so much to enforce the Argument I used I think not every Child of a Believer to be a Believer himself in any Sense much less that Saving Grace is as Original as Sin or that it comes by Traduction All I postulate to build my Argument is That the true believing Gentile doth not forfeit by believing his natural Right to his Child but that the Children of True Believers now under the Gospel are as much theirs and in the same Right as the Natural Children of Abraham were his This is all the Question that I beg and this sure you will not deny me Only by the way I pray you to make no more of my Concession than I intend it for for when some Pious and very Learned Men have argued for Infants Baptism from the Children of Believers their being Abraham's Spiritual Seed they mean not I suppose by calling them Abraham's Spiritual Seed as I do and as you do that they are Actual Believers and consequently Children of the Faith of Abraham but only that they are Persons of a Religious Consideration and in some sense Holy and related to God And meaning but So though I acknowledge Children not to be Abraham's Seed in the Sense I mentioned as Abraham's Seed is taken for Actual Believers and you have proved by Fifteen Arguments that they are not nor can be Abraham's Seed in this Sense my Concession gives you no advantage nor do your Arguments signifie any thing against Them who using the Expression in Another Sense are nothing concerned for if They take Spiritual Seed in One Sense and You in your Arguments take it in Another you do not really oppose them though you may think you do nor are your Arguments pertinent and the Dispute between you as to that is indeed but Strife about Words Thus I have with all the Clearness and Fairness imaginable let you see your Two Mistakes about the Argument I urged and therefore seeing you do not apprehend aright the Grounds on which I go in it I am only obliged to you for your charitable Endeavours towards my Satisfaction but not in the least for any Effect of those Endeavours It now remaineth that I perform what I promised in the Second Place which is To lay out the Argument for Pedobaptism as it is founded on the Covenant or Blessing of Abraham in all its Force and Evidence which to do to some purpose I will demonstrate First That the Covenant of Abraham which is called the Blessing of Abraham or the Promise of the Spirit is still in being and is that Covenant of Grace the true believing Gentiles are under Secondly That in respect of that Covenant of Promise which is called the Blessing of Abraham and the Promise of the Spirit or the Spiritual Promise all the Seed that hath the Benefit of it are under equal Obligations to the Duty and Incumbence arising from it with Abraham himself Thirdly I will shew That the Duty and Incumbence to which Abraham was obliged arising from the Covenant or Blessing given to him was by way of Restipulation to dedicate and give himself and all his to God and in token of that Dedication of himself and of all that was his to wear himself the Signe of the Covenant and put it as a Cognizance and Badge and Mark of God upon all his that was capable of it Fourthly I will also shew That from Abraham's Dedication of himself and of all his to God there arises a Distinction of Holiness into Internal and External Absolute and Relative and that this Distinction of Holiness is Evangelical And having evidenced these Four things I will then proceed in short to form my Argument In order to the evidencing of the First Particular which is That the Covenant of Promise made to Abraham which is called the Blessing of Abraham and the Promise of the Spirit or the Spiritual and Evangelical Promise that this is still in being and is the Covenant of Grace into a Participation of which the true believing Gentiles are taken I only Premise That That is the Covenant of Grace the believing Gentiles are under Which is the true Ground and Foundation of all their Hopes and of all their Comforts and Which by having a Title to it and Interest in it doth give them a Title to and Interest in the Coelestial Inheritance the Heavenly Country the Everlasting Mansions in the Father's House and in a word to Salvation And This the mentioned Covenant the Blessing of Abraham and the Promise of the Spirit is and doth This is the true Ground and Foundation of all the Hopes of Gentile-Believers and of all their Comforts and a Title in This is the only Title they
do it also Solemnly by keeping of the Covenant in the Sign thereof our selves and by putting of it also on Them God loves Solemnity it makes for his External Glory He will be Owned to be our Lord and Owner and the Lord and Owner of our Children by our taking of his Name upon us our selves and by putting of it on them And whereas you have said with a Modesty as great as the Truth of what you say That if my Argument be truly stated and as without wresting it ought the proper Language of it will be this That Abraham being in Covenant was to be Circumcized both himself and Half his Family the same Covenant descends on believing Gentiles Therefore they are to be signed and the Whole of theirs But whether such an Argument as this This being you say the True State of the Case be convincing or no you refer to my Second Thoughts I answer That I have Reason to be at the utmost Degree of Despair of ever receiving of any good Answers from You as long as from what Cause I now enquire not you understand an Argument no better For Mine even in Your Terms of Half and Whole would run thus If Abraham and all his Seed must keep the Covenant in the Sign of it by taking it themselves and putting it on all theirs that are capable of it Then though Abraham and but Half his Family for so you compute it did keep it in the Sign thereof as long as Circumcision was that Sign yet the Seed of Abraham the true Believing Gentile and the Whole of theirs must keep it now Now that Baptism is the Sign the Sequel is evident For as but Half of Abraham's Family was capable of Circumcision the Sign of the Covenant Then All the Off-spring of the Believing Seed of Abraham are Capable of Baptism which is the Sign of it Now. And observe it I argue not from Circumcision as it is Circumcision to Baptism but I argue that because the Children of Abraham by vertue of the Covenant were signed with the Sign of it which then was Circumcision Therefore the Children of the Seed by vertue of the same Covenant must be signed with the Sign of it too which now is Baptism For the Immediate Obligation is not to keep the Covenant either in Baptism or in Circumcision but in the Sign of it Now the Sign of Old was Circumcision and the Sign Now is Baptism It is true had it pleased God to have abolished Circumcision the Sign before and not to have instituted Baptism which is the Sign now it would have been a high Presumption in any Person to go about to make One But when the Covenant remains and the Proper Obligation of the Covenant is to keep it in the Sign thereof and God though he hath taken away One Sign yet hath pleased to Institute Another What can be plainer than that as to be in Covenant is our Priviledge so that to observe and keep it in the present Sign thereof is our Duty Thus you have my Second Thoughts and make the most of them So much by way of Obviation to what you do object to my Argument I am now to reply to Yours and it is ad Hominem viz. Either the Children of Believers are in Covenant with their Parents or they are not If they are in Covenant as you say I affirm they are because I said the Children of Believers are Holy not without God in Covenant but given to God in Covenant then say you They are the Spiritual Seed and as such entituled to the Covenant and Blessing of Abraham which I formerly denied and which cannot be for fifteen Reasons But on the contrary if I say the Children of Believers are not the Spiritual Seed of Abraham and consequently such as are not You should have added On that Account any wise intituled unto Abraham's Covenant and Blessing then neither can they justly pretend to any Covenant Holiness by Vertue of their Birth Priviledge which yet You say but Mistakingly I make the Ground of their Admission to Baptism when I say That God becometh not related unto any nor is any related unto God in Scripture so as to be stiled Holy but in and through the Covenant Thus I am in a Dilemma and driven from Corner to Corner but safe in none But pray consider that I never said either directly or in consequence That the Children of Believers are Immediately and firstly in the Covenant of Promise and as their Parents are I only said and still do that they are dedicated and given by their Parents to God who is in Covenant with those Parents And yet for all this even in my Opinion They may pretend if that must be the word to Some Holiness by vertue of the Covenant of Promise and This too though they be not Abraham's Spiritual Seed For though they be not themselves the Spiritual Seed of Abraham yet being the Children of those that are they become thereby intituled to the Priviledge of being Dedicated and Sacred to God by vertue of the Covenant in the Same Right and all as much as the Slaves and Natural Children of Abraham were Abraham's Natural Children and Slaves were intituled on His Account and the Children of Believers are intituled on Theirs The true Spiritual Seed of Abraham are obliged to dedicate their Children not as His but as Theirs they give Theirs as he gave His. I pray were not the Natural Seed of Abraham and his Slaves also some way Holy in and through the Covenant by vertue of the Dedication and Signing which That obliged to And as His Children and Slaves were some way Holy so are Ours also And in this Sense of Federal Holiness as it is a Relative and External Holiness do I ascribe it to our Children in and through the Covenant namely as This obliges the Parent to assign and dedicate them and they accordingly are dedicated And to be Federally Holy in this Sense they need not sure be the true Spiritual Seed of Abraham seeing All even the Natural Children of Abraham though so Holy were not all accounted for Seed In fine Observe that if by vertue of the Dedication required of Abraham by the Covenant made with him his Children were Members of the Church Then Old-Testament-Church you call it it will follow that by vertue of the same Covenant making the same Obligation and Incumbence of Dedication if It be still in force as I have evinced it to be the Children of the Seed continue Members still even in the New-Testament-Church And well they may not only for that the Church is One and the same though the Testaments be not but for that Children were not only Members of the Jewish or Legal Church but of the Gospel-Church for above four hundred Years before the Law For it was Gospel that was Preached to Abraham Gal. 3. 8. And therefore Circumcision was at first a Gospel-Sign And remember I make not the Childrens being in Covenant the
Ground of their Baptism but the Parents being in Covenant the Ground of Their Holiness To be Baptized is the Children's Priviledge but it is the Parent 's Duty to Baptize them and to put the Name of God upon them in token that by their Assignment they are His. Well But you find not any Mention of Infants-Baptism in the Apostolical and Primitive Times nor any positive and literal Precept for it But do you find any mention that the Apostles themselves All of them were Baptized with Any or Any of them with the Baptism of Christ Or that Women were admitted to the Supper of the Lord Or any positive literal Precept for either And yet I hope you believe both that the Apostles were Baptized and that Women were not excluded from the Holy Communion And if you do not find in so many literal Expressions that Infants were then Baptized you may find it in sufficient Implication for you may find Whole Houses of which Ordinarily Infants are Constituent Parts affirmed to be so and that frequently and without any Exception of Infants which yet ought to have been made if it had been but for Caution on supposal that it were so dangerous a thing as you would have it be thought to understand them included Besides the Churches of Christ universally have had such a Custom and for ought appears Perpetually Sure we are from Immemorial Time which is enough to prescribe from and you cannot but know what Austin says in the Case Now Sir upon the whole I pray consider that in all the Scripture as there is no express and positive Text that Children must be Baptized so there is no express and positive Text that doth forbid their Baptizing And therefore it can be only consequence to Evidence either that they ought to be Baptized or that they ought not And let be weighed That Antipedo-baptism makes the Church of Christ but a Church Vnius Aetatis That it robs the Parent of a sensible Ground of Hope for his Child in case of Decease in Infancy which is That he hath solemnly given him to God and made him his Care And It deprives the Child of a solemn and powerful Motive when he is of Age to dedicate and give himself For this is a great One and this it deprives him of I am already solemnly given to God in Baptism by my Parents who had Right to give me I am His by their Dedication and that publickly made and attested and therefore I have Reason to become so by my Own I am not mine Own the Name of God is upon me I am marked for His and I must rob God of what is His own Already by many Rights and particularly by a Solemn Act of my Parents if I now refuse my Consent and do not also assign and dedicate and give my self to Him And let it also be weighed That Children are no more uncapable of Baptism than they were of Circumcision For if Baptism be the Sign and Seal of the Righteousness by Faith so was Circumcision If Then all were not Israel that were of Israel so it is Now all in Christ are not Christ If Then Circumcision which was of the Fathers or a Sign and Token of the Promise made to Abraham Isaac and Jacob were taken and put unto the Law Baptism which was of John the last Prophet and in use before John as a Rite of Initiating Proselytes and administred both to Male and Female Is taken by Christ and put to the Gospel And if Faith be made in the Gospel the Ground and Foundation of Baptism Believe and be Baptized It was at first the Ground and Foundation of Circumcision For Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him for Righteousness and he received the Sign of Circumcision the Seal of the Righteousness by Faith which he had being yet Vncircumcized And if the Children of Abraham were Holy Ours are not Unclean In a word As heretofore there were Jews outwardly and but visibly as well as inwardly and really so now there are Christians outwardly and but visibly as well as inwardly and really And is not Baptism it self as external and visible a Thing as Circumcision Yes there is a Baptism and Regeneration of Water which is external and visible to make Christians visibly and externally as well as one of the Spirit which is Internal and Invisible to make real and true Christians The Former that initiates into the External and Visible Church The Latter into the true Assembly of the First Born And the Subjects of the Two Baptisms are no more to be confounded than the Baptisms themselves Thus I have given you all the Satisfaction that under a great variety of distractive and surprizing Accidents I was capable of giving and I have done it with the Temper and Moderation that becomes a Seeker of Truth without the Common Pomp of Figures Insolence and Triumph a Thing searce pardonable in the Heat and Fervency of a Dispute but which doth very ill become a Writer And yet if I had used any Warmness in the Argument seeing it is in the Case of Infants that cannot speak for themselves it had been somewhat Excusable and the rather for that our Saviour was so Zealous for them Himself that when some it may be of your Perswasion would not have had them brought unto Him to be Blessed it is said He was much Displeased with Them But I am not so with You for that Occasion you have given of searching out the Truth to Bowdon Septemb. 19. 81. Ian. 27. 81. Dear Sir Your Affectionate Friend and Servant R. B. The Second Letter Dear Sir YOurs of March 16th came to hand the 20th in which the Declaration you begin with That notwithstanding all that I have said your Apprehensions concerning the Matter in dispute between us are the same they were and That rather you are the more confirmed doth no whit surprize me I assure you I never had the vanity to hope to convince a Man of your Perswasion I was not the first Aggressor I well knew the Confidence that goes along with Conceits of higher Administrations and I also knew that some Dyes and Tinctures of Mind of which I took and do take That of Yours to be One are as uncapable of being washed out as Those in the Skins of Leopards and Blackamoors After a Smoothing Preface you proceed to as you call them Sober and you hope Inoffensive Reflections which yet to deserve the Epithetes you give them must have been composed of Ethicks as well as of Logick must have been Reflections on Arguments only without any squinting on Persons and must have consisted of something else than of Ambuscadoes of words of bold Assertions without Proof of Evasions in stead of direct Answers of Partial Repetitions and of Triumphs before the Victory These are the Arts and Methods of Imposture used to deceive the Vulgar but very improper in Inquiries after Truth and of no Influence no Operation in the least on