A sober reply to the sober answer of Reverend Mr. Cawdrey, to A serious…

1. He observes,¹ I am diffident rather then confident of my opinion. Sir, I did write as a man who was troubled about it, my Arguments at present casting the scale on the negative side, though I had not such down weight as I desired: but truly Sir I see nothing as yet to ma•e me recall my opinion, for all that is said (excepting Mr. Cawdrey's notion of Adoption in which your self are not clear) I knew before. 2. I observe sometimes you dress my Argument with such a fashion that I cannot know it to be mine, but disclaim it, then you find fault: p. 439. where have I mentioned the power of godliness as a requisite in him who claims Baptism? but to bring up a child in it is a harder matter: I have not liberty to enlarge. 3. Sometimes your answer is a bare laying down your own Judgement, with a Similitude added for illustration. P. 441. We now c•ll for Scripture and reason from thence; Similia at pompam non ad puguam. 4. For my fi•st Argument for the negative, p. 449.450. which you say was Mr. Blackwood's. I never saw any thing of his, but I took it from our Brethren's practise, and it was that (with one thing more) which led me into my practise: for when I saw the Presbyterial Brethren keep back half or three quarters of their Churches from the Lords Supper, and that for divers years together, yet did so constantly baptise their children, I thought with my self, where have these men a ground for this practise? in all the New Testament I could not find one, nor reason for it, but rather against ⟨p. 53⟩it for the Old Testament, though I knew some were kept back for Ceremonial uncleanness from the passover, yet for Moral uncleanness to be kept back many years, and still to have their children circumcised, I found no text for that.

1. He observes,¹ I am diffident rather then consident of my opinion. Sir, I did write as a man who was troubled about it, my Arguments at present casting the scale on the negative side, though I had not such downe weight as I desired: but truly Sir I see nothing as yet to ma•e me recall my opinion, for all that is said (excepting Mr. Cawdrey's notion of Adoption in which your selfe are not cleare) I knew before. 2. I observe sometimes you dresse my Argument with such a fashion that I cannot know it to be mine, but disclaime it, then you sinde fault: p. 439. where have I mentioned the power of godlinesse as a requisite in him who claims Baptism? but to bring up a child in it is a harder matter: I have not liberty to enlarge. 3. Sometimes your answer is a bare laying downe your owne Judgement, with a Similitude added for illustration. P. 441. We now cll for Scripture and reason from thence; Similia at pompam non ad puguam. 4. For my fist Argument for the negative, p. 449.450. which you say was Mr. Blackwoods. I never saw any thing of his, but I tooke it from our Brethrens practise, and it was that (with one thing more) which led mee into my practise: for when I saw the Presbyteriall Brethren keep back half or three quarters of their Churches from the Lords Supper, and that for divers years together, yet did so constantly baptise their children, I thought with my selfe, where have these men a ground for this practise? in all the New Testament I could not sinde one, nor reason for it, but rather against