MR. Bakewell, There was a Letter, with your name subscribed, brought to Ely house the 24. of March, last (as I heard) and the same was afterwards de­livered unto me; whereupon I sent 4 times to your house, to have returned you an Answer, and either you were not at home (as the Messenger told me) or else you would not be at home: so that on the last Lords day, (7. April present) which you call the Sabbath or Palm Sunday, (which was the first time I was at Ely house since the Letter) I gave a publick Answer in the place where it was sent. There­fore you wrong your Friends, in possessing them, that you had defied Israel, and none durst answer you, as your Preamble im­ports. Nor do you well to charge me with a promise I never made. For you neither could tell whether I made any promise, (you, nor your Messenger, not having spoken with me,) nor could you so much as know whether I had received your Letter, it neither being delivered unto me, nor to any in my presence, nor yet left at my house. Nor truly, were you so civill as to send me a Copy of what you printed, and I had not known thereof, if another had not given me one.

You say further, that you were requested by some Friends to publish your Letter. I partly believe you are but the Catts Paw, by your dabling in Greek (p. 6. & last line) which probably you understood not; and by my Reverend Friend Mr. Downan's [Page 2]vouchsafing you an Imprimatur, and your own confession here of your Friends Request, yet I cannot but a little wonder at it. What? That your Ministers should allow a Lay-man to take upon him their Function! and to answer what they durst not! They knew (perhaps) none so bold. —

Well Mr. Bakewell, I shall not be so proud, as because you may be censured by your own party, out of your Element, (un­der which notion (perhaps) taking me, they permit you to do what you do:) therefore not to grant you an humble and loving Answer; however you are pleased to judge me proud of heart, and taking upon me the Title of Tyrus, &c. Truly I am sorry I cannot so behave my self as to have prevented you from any such rash censure, and do but you teach me greater humility, wherein the truth of Christ may not suffer, and I shall be glad to learn of you that meeknesse and humility, wherein you fol­low Christ before me. Which nevertheless in this you seeme not to do, in presuming to answer for Dr. Gouge, as supposing your self the abler man, or abler then any of your sprinkling Ministers.

I must passe by many impertinencies, and touch upon the most material passages of the Letter, that I may avoid the words of rayling, and onely return an Answer in love.

You except against my asking a question of Dr. Gouge, because he is ancient, Of whom should men enquire but of the ancient should not dayes speak, and multitude of yeares teach wisdome, Job 32.7. Of whom should we enquire, but of those that take up­on them the Office? should not the Priests lips preserve know­ledge? Malach: 2.7. Why man, I sent not to fight with Dr. Gouge, and so long the older the better: nor did I confine the question to him, but that others were also lovingly intreated to his assistance. Yet having sufficiently censured and chid me; you will not give me leave to state mine own Question; but pretend to know my meaning better then my self. My Questi­on was, WHETHER THE SPRINKLING OF INFANTS BE OF GOD OR OF MAN? It is the same question which Christ propoun­ded [Page 3]to the Pharisees concerning the Baptisme of John, Mat. 21.25. You have made a Question of your own, WHETHER SPRINKLING THE BAPTIZED BE OF GOD OR MAN, BE THEY INFANTS OR OF FULLAGE? do you mean by Baptized, Sprink­led? as in your 6 page and last line you intimate. Then you Tautologize and will sound thus in plain English, Whether sprinkling the Sprinkled be of God or Man? or would you have those that are baptized already, to be sprinkled also? I pray con­sult with your Teachers a little before you either state my Question, or state it in that manner. In the mean time I will suppose you speak sense, and that (at all adventures) you affirm that THE SPRINKLING OF INFANTS IS OF GOD AND NOT OF MANS INVENTION, which is quite contrary to what Dr. Gouge affirmed to some. For I have been informed by Mr. Edw. Barber, and have it under his hand since you printed your Letter, that at 2 severall times, both upon his being sent unto him by the Bishops, and one Marke Whitlock, to be satisfied for taking the Oath ex officio: Dr. Gouge did acknowledge (not onely Sprinkling) but that baptizing of Infants was a tradition of the Church, and used it as one Argument to take that Oath: But to your Arguments.

1. Arg. You would prove that Sprinkling of Infants is of God, because the Lord foretold that in the times of the Gospel his people should be sprinkled with clean water. Ezek. 36.25. Mr. Bakewell, it had been well if you had desired your Teachers to help you to make a Syllogisme of it, whereof they that will undertake to dispute, ought not to be ignorant; but because you may chance not know what belongs to it, aske them whether by SPRINKLING here be meant BAPTISME? Or whether by CLEAN WATER, be meant ELEMENTARY WATER? Or whether by the words (UPON YOU, which you interpret his people) be meant LITTLE INFANTS? Or whether by THEN be meant the TIME OF THE GOSPEL with THE GENTILES, as you likewise render it? Or whether this SPRINKLING allude not rather to the SPRINKLING UNDER THE LAW, ( Levit. 14.7. Numb, 8.7.) [Page 4]which they understood distinct from those many Baptismes mentioned in Heb. 9.10. which were amongst them, and did not understand Johns or Christs Baptisme, which as yet was not? And whether the PURE WATER be not rather the HOLY GHOST in the Language of our Saviour ( John 7.39?) And whether the time THEN and the People You, be not rather the glorious times of the CALLING OF THE JEWES?

I believe these mistakes will rather put them upon a more strict way of keeping the staffe in their own hands, and not suffer Lay-ignorance though never so zealous, Talketive, or Devout, to betray their Cause. For when you or any else have said all you can upon this place, IT IS A PROMISE OF WHAT GOD WILL DO, IT IS NOT A COMMAND OF WHAT MAN MUST DO.

Then you say (Mr. Bakewell) that the water in BAPTISME is A SIGNE OF THE BLOOD OF CHRIST: but where doth the Scripture say so? They had under the Law, the SPRINKLING OF WATER. Levit. 14.17. Numb. 8.7. distinct from the SPRINKLING OF BLOOD, Exod. 12.22. and 29.21. and both distinct from their BATHES AND WASHINGS, Levit. 15.5.6.7.8.10.11.13.18.21.22.27. And 16.26.28. and 17.15.16. and Numb. 19.7.8.19. and Exod. 19.10. and 29.4. and 30.18.19. and 40.12.31. Levit. 6.27.28. Deut. 21, 6. and divers other places. And we have under the Gospel BAPTISME distinct from the SUPPER OF THE LORD. And the Holy Ghost is punctuall, ( John 19.34.) that there came out of the side of Jesus both Water & Blood. Now should they have confounded the sprinkling of water with that of blood, or ei­ther with their washings, or one with the other under the Law, they could not but have neglected a great part of those Rights and Ceremonies wherein they were to be so exact: And if we also should confound those few Commands which our Saviour lest us under the Gospel, we should soone arrive to that spiritu­all Babel which is so rife in these dayes amongst many who suppose themselves spiritual. Forbeare therefore so boldly to [Page 5]affirme or inferre that the water in Baptisme is called in Heb. 12.24. The blood of sprinkling. But if you will needes finde Baptisme in that Text, find it in our coming to Jesus the Media­tour of the new Covenant, from the which the Blood of sprinkling is distinguished by a conjunction Copulative (AND). That also of the 10. of Heb. 22. must be kept from confusion, and then it comprehends the 2 compleat parts of Baptisme.

1. The work and promise of God in these words. Our hearts sprinckled from an evill Conscience, and the work and obedience of men in these words. Our Bodies washed with pure water. For IT IS NOT THE WORK OF MAN TO SPRINKLE THE HEART, NOR IS IT THE WORK OF GOD TO WASH THE BODY. 2. GODS SPRINKLING IS EQUIVALENT TO MANS WASHING, In which sense the phrase is used of GODS FINGER, Exod. 8.19.31.18. And these two parts are distinctly held forth in many places, Mat. 3. Mar. 1. Luke 3. I baptize with water, but he shall baptize with the Holy Ghost. And Act 1.5. John bapti­zed with water, but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost: So Act 2.38. Repent and be baptized, and ye shall receive the Holy Ghost. If either of these be wanting, Baptisme is not com­pleat. For Christ himself, who had not the spirit by measure, must be baptized to fulfill all righteousnesse ( Mat: 3.) Pe­ter by Cornelius his Companies receiving the HOLY GHOST, judgeth them thereby fit to be baptized with water: Act 10. Who can forbid water that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commvn­ded them to be baptized. And on the other side without fruits worthy of Repentance, the Pharisees shall not be admitted to the BAPTISME OF WATER. ( Mat. 3.7.8.) Nor probably the Eunuch, unlesse he had BELIEVED WITH ALL HIS HEART. Act 8.37. For it is not the outward washing away the filth of the flesh, but the inward answer of a good Conscience towards God through Jesus Christ, 1 Pet. 3.21.

2. Your second Argument or Article with the latter end of the first, layes down a Rule of Similitude between the signe (or Sacrament, in your phrase) and the thing signified. Consider your own Rule, with SPRINKLING OF A CHILDES FACE, [Page 6](which is a Ceremony but lately allowed, by the late Directory, and was not allowed (though practised) by the Book of Common Prayer. Consider I pray you, whether by your Rule you do not make a Face-Christian, yea a specled face-Christian, your SPRINK­LING being onely on the FACE, and that but here and there in DROPS; but if you allow BAPTISME to signifie the WASHING AWAY OF SIN, as all Catechismes imply, would you onely wash away the FACE and OUTWARD APPEARANCES OF SIN, to make an Outside-Pharisee-Christian? or would you have ALL SIN, even the whole body of Sin washed away? Therefore the washing of the whole Body, as was appointed by the Book of Common-Prayer, and was the COMMAND and PRACTISE of CHRIST and his A­POSTIES, and of those learned men whom they commonly call FATHERS, is the right way of administring the Sacrament, and not a new-invented way of SPRINKLING, which (though practised) was NEVER COMMANDED TILL OF LATE.

Compare it also with those other REPRESENTATIONS IN BAPTISME, would you have the Baptisme of the HOLY GHOST to be but in DROPS, and that but in APPEARANCE, on the FACE, or but one PART? Or would you be FILLED so as to have Rivers of living water flow out of your Belly? John 7.39. Would you have your FACE onely BURIED WITH CHRIST IN BAP­TISME, or have your FACE onely BAPTIZED INTO HIS DEATH, and have onely your FACE to RISE WITH HIM, or have one­ly an Outside-shew of Death to Sin, and Resurrection to life in Christ? ( Col. 2.12. Rom. 6.34. &c.) Or would you make CHRIST only a VISARD FOR YOUR FACE, to PUT HIM only ON UPON YOUR FACE? ( Gal. 3.27.) Lay your hand upon your heart, and consider seriously these things.

Then you insist upon the VISIBILITY OF THE SIGNE OF THE BAPTIZED, &c. First, consider your own Practice. Do INFANTS SEE THE WATER wherewith they are sprinkled? Are their EYES commonly OPEN or SHUT? Do any pluck them open? yea, if they were open, would not nature teach them to shut them when they felt the drops of water upon [Page 7]them? Or if they open their eyes, know they what water is, or what it meanes? Secondly, Whether is a Bason of Water, or a River most visible? Is not this like the old Woman that could see the needle, but not the Barne? Thirdly, whereas you say that he who is plunged doth not see the Signe, if you mean WATER, He doth not onely see it but feele it, and if you mean the Washing and Clensing of his Body, surely they are more likely to see their Bodies clensed that go into a RIVER, and afterwards drie themselves and wipe away the filth, then they that onely have their Face Sprinkled, which they cannot see without a Looking-glasse, (a thing of no use to New borne Infants.) And whereas you say that they cannot heare what is said, no more do Infants, nor do they understand if they hear the words; but the baptized according to the Scriptures do both heare the words and know them before they are plunged, al­though pronouncing the WORDS, do not the work, but the O­bedience of being Baptized into the Name of the Lord.

3. Your third Article saith, that many were Baptized in their houses, and you instance in Paul, Cornelius, and the Jaylor, for whom you quote Act 9.17.18. & 16.25.48. You do ill (Mr. Bakewell) to father so many untruths in print upon the Scriptures. The Scriptures say NOT that PAUL was BAP­TIZED in the HOUSE: but that Ananias entred into the House, and afterwards when the scales were fallen from his eyes, he arose and was Baptized without saying he was Bap­tized either in a Tub or Pond, (according to your roving lan­guage,) or in a River: or that he was Baptized without Wa­ter as the Drie-washing Book of the Doctrine of Baptismes will inferre. You may likewise read it again in Act 22.16. Paul was not to sit still to be sprinkled; but, now up, why tar­riest thou? arise and be Baptized, and wash away thy sinnes, &c. So Act 10. Peter after having reasoned the business about Cor­nelius and those with him, who can forbid water, &c? he com­mands them to be Baptized, but it is not said where, nor by whom. And if you allow any water to be used (as is expressed) you must either suppose it carried up and down with the A­postles [Page 8]in Aqua-vitae-Bottles, or Rose-water-Bottles, to dash them in the face as soone as they had been but taken confessing of Christ, or that wheresoever they came, they either found or called for a Bason of water in the first place (which we do not read they did) or else the same time that would serve to fetch water and bring it back, might serve them to go to the water. And in the 16. of the Acts, I perceive you do not so much as read the 30. verse, else you would never have put in print that the Jaylor and all his were baptized in the Prison, quite contrary to the Text, which saith, that the Jaylor came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas, and brought them out, at least out of the inner Prison, before it is said that he asked what must I do to be saved? and in the 33. verse, he took them the same houre of the night, and washed their stripes and was Baptized, he and all his straightway, before it is said that he brought them into his house, &c. Nor is it probable that they were Baptized with water, and the blood of the Stripes of Paul & Silas. Absurdities muct not be put upon the Scriptures, but the main being expressed, the rest ought to be understood, especially be­ing fully expressed in other places. All the following Questions therefore denote your extream ignorance both in the Scrip­tures & in that Ordinance. And your great partiality appears in that you asked not the same absurd questions about the wash­ing of Paul & Silas, & the Baptism of the Jaylor & his houshold. As what Vessel? Who should fetch it? How often emptyed? Did Paul stand in a Vessell? How many times went he in? or vvent he in at all? Wherefore all these Absurdities cannot but stick fast in your weak Imagination, till they be all dissolved in a RIVER, or SUFFICIENT QUANTITY OF WATFR.

4. In the 4. place, you say the SACRAMENT must be admi­nistred WHERE THE WORD IS PREACHED, because that Mat. 28.19. You say it is, Preach and Baptize. Here you also play the false Prophet in your false Interpretation and Repetition. For the word is not [...], Preach but [...], Discipline or make Disciples, nor is it [...], and baptize but [...], baptizing much lesse doth the Text [Page 9]either say or inferre that they must baptize in the same place where they preach: John Baptist, and Christ, and his Disciples went up and down preaching the Gospel in the WIL­DERNES, Mat. 3.1. and about all Galilee, Mat. 4.24. and up in a MOUNTAIN. Mat. 5.1. & 10.7. & 27. & 11.1. and in a CHARIOT. Act 8.4.31. & 35. &c. But they BAPTIZED in JORDAN. Mark 1.5. John 3.22. in AENON. Jo. 3.23. &c.

5. Upon the same score of ignorance you have the like troubled fancy as in the 3. Article, about a Rivers banck, or half way in the River, or 2 Persons at least to administer the Ordinance, from all which absurdities you sprinkle your self with Holy water, and rest in a contented ignorance.

6. Against supposed NAKEDNES you alleadge MO­DESTY, and against ClOTHING you would not have them sit DUNG-WET at meat, and against a Partiall Cloathing you al­leadge Aarons Briches, with many other weak things, even an­swered in the very readding. For by this you allow not Jesus, nor the Eunuch, nor all the rest to be nor Naked, nor Cloathed, nor half Naked and half Cloathed. And were your modest sup­positions true, what think you of CIRCUMCISION? Per­haps when you duly weigh these things, and deny your self-conceits and strange Imaginations, to submit them to the Truths of Scripture, your zeal may be converted into know­ledge, which truly is my Prayer for you. For I verily be­lieve you write not in malice to me, though in hard cen­sure.

7. Seventhly, Mr. Bakewell, you affirm another untruth of the Scriptures for want of knowledge of the Tongues, own­ing the error of the Translator. Mark 3.11. where John is made to say I baptize with Water, and not in water, and say you, the Scripture alwayes saith with water. Now if you your self were such a Grecian, as to be Author sufficient for the Greek word [...], as you undertake in the last line of the 6. page, you might also be credited here, having the translation [Page 10]on your side, which there you have not: but because I believe you are not, but speak by roat as you are taught, I pray aske your Teachers (who know the Tongues,) and they will tell you, that [...] signifieth in water, and not with water. And Ephes. 5.26. [...]: with the washing of water in the word. And Heb. 10.22. hath neither in nor with, onely the Dative Case, which our language will not render with any propriety. And truly it were well, if those errors which are caused for want of a more exact Translation, were taken away by a new Translation. And till you are able to be an Interpreter, it is good to be sober in making your own Conclusion upon matter of Interpretation; but yield the place to those that are better able, and better gifted: till when, I must leave you in the midst of all your absurdities which you have framed and affirmed, and not I, nor any one as I know but your selfe.

8. Eighthly, you began with a hard word Anabaptist, and you should do wel to know what that word meanes, and how to use it, and to whom it belongs, before you undertake to condemn any under that notion. And when you understand the true signification of Baptisme, you will not exact Brick, and allow no straw, you will not bid one cut meat without a knife, you will not expect that men should be baptized, and not suffer them to come into the water. And for your Hocus Pocus of saying that Infants are under water for being lower then that handfull of water held by your Ministers in sprink­ling, it is too ridiculous, as divers other passages, to be either answered at all, or at all seriously answered: nor would your Ministers have pleaded that for an Argument.

9. Lastly, you promise to shew that Sprinkling one part of the Body is sufficient: but you pull in your Arguments with Ropes of Sand.

1. One DROP of water is as truly water as the whole Ocean; what followes? Therefere one DROP of water is as SUFFICI­ENT as the whole OCEAN! For what? To feede Whales? To [Page 11]beare great Ships? To vvater the Earth? to vvash and bath? no nor to sprinkle neither. Or vvhat vvould you have to fol­low? That as one drop of vvater is vvater as vvell as the vvhole Ocean, so is one part of the body a Body, as vvell as the vvhole Body? This concludes nothing to your purpose. Or that as one drop of vvater is vvaetr as vvell as the vvhole Ocean; so if one part of the body be sprinkled all the body is sprinkled. The similitude vvil not hold nor follow: but trie the practise of it vvhen your face is foule, vvash your feet, and see vvhether your face vvill be any vvhit the cleaner.

2. You say there is no measure of water prescribed, onely it must be vvater. No more there is for your Bread, yet one drop vvill not suffize to make Dowe: nor vvill one drop serve to vvash your hands or feet, vvhen you go to knead it: and it vvere ridiculous for the Apostle to mention that John vvas bap­tizing in Aenon, BECAUSE THERE WAS MUCH WATER THERE, if one drop vvould have served the turne; but so there be enough it is no matter vvhether it be in Jordan or Aenon, or the Wil­dernesse. Act 8. or the River vvithout the City of Philippi. Act. 16.13.

3. You say (to as little purpose) that the baptized may be under one drop as vvell as under a Tunne; so he may be un­der a Tunne as vvell as one drop, and vve are daily under more in the Cloudes: but vvhat vvould you inferre there­on? That a man may be buried and plunged, or drowned vvith one drop, or by being under one drop, as vvell as by be­ing under a Tunne? He may indeed be as drie under a Tunne as under one drop, so the Vessell leake not: in the sense you mentioned last of the Childs being under the Ministers handfull of vvater, but not so soone buried or plunged vvith one drop as vvith a Tunne of vvater; and if the Sextone af­forded but one graine of earth upon each body that vvere to be buried, I believe each Nostril vvould soon complain there vvere not sufficient.

But 4. you as desperately attempt to clear this by the Con­ference of Jesus Christ with Peter about the washing of his Feet. Jo. 13.8. Read on to the 10. verse. He that is Washed (saith he) or he that is already Baptized, needeth not save to cleanse or wash his feete, &c: This shewes (say you, from the 8. verse instancing, in me for with me, as almost in all the Scriptures you quote, you mistake somewhat) this shewes that washing was sacramentall. If you mean it is a Sacrament, why do you not so practise it? If it be the Sacrament of Bap­tisme, why do not your Ministers wash the feet of Infants as Christ did his Disciples, rather then sprinkle the face onely, which Christ never did?

When you have spoken your last, you come with 3. OBIECTIONS for plunging, from Act 8.38. Mat. 3.6. & Rom. 6.4. To the first you answer, that every Pit or River in those hot Countries were not alwayes brim-full of wa­ter. Be it so Therefore every Pit (which you make a Synonyma to a River) was not chosen: but the chief River Jordan, and Aenon, because there was much water. You say they might go into the Pit, and not go into the water. The Lord deliver us from the Pit where there is no water ( Jer. 39.6. Zach. 9.11.) but the Text answers your Cavel, (if you would at all heed what the word saith) that in the Baptisme of Jesus and the Eunuch, where the manner of Baptizing is particularly mentioned, they went both down into the water, and they came up out of the water, not into the Pit, and out of the Pit. Mark 1.9.10. Act 8.39.

To the 2. you affirme, that the Greek word (which I suppose you can neither write nor read, which is [...] or [...] in the Infinitive) doth signifie as well to SPRINKLE as to PLUNGE, whereas all the Schollers in Europe cannot finde it so used in any Greek Author, nor others; but of late some Latine Authors (from the practise) have rashly printed what you here affirme. Which if it should be granted, and your Testament so interpreted, heare a little your own Ab­surdities. Mat. 3.1. In those dayes came John the SPRINKLER, [Page 13] preaching in the Wildernes of Jordan. Then went out to him Jerusalem and all Judea, and all the Region round about Jordan, and were SPRINKLED of him in Jordan the River. Mark 1.5. John 3.22. After these things came Jesus and his Disciples in­to the Land of Judea, and there he tarried with them, and SPRINKLED, verse 23. And John also was SPRINKLING in Aenon, BECAUSE there was MUCH WATER there, and they came and were SPRINKLED.

Mark 1.19. And it came to passe in those dayes, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was SPRINKLED of John ( [...]) into Jordan, verse 10. And straightway coming up ut of the water, &c. Act 8.30. And they went down both into the water; both Philip and the Eunuch, and he SPRINKLED him. verse 39. And when they came out of the Water, the Spirit caught away Philip. So Gal. 3.27. As many as have been SPRINKLED into Christ have put on Christ, and Col. 2.12. BURIED with him in SPRINKLING; wherein also ye are risen with him; But I confesse, this sort of bettering the Transia­tion, I shall not like in my Bible.

Yet not content with all these Absurdities, you say you might adde more of plunging in water, and danger of lives, and you condemn men of murther for having plunged in win­ter, yet name none that were murthered, nor executed for that murther, nor is there any proof save you own Authen­tick Imagination.

To avoid the hardship of Winter, the Common-prayer-Book will tell you in the preamble, that Easter and Whitsuntide were therefore appointed by the Ancients for fit times of Baptisme. And the Winter-Baptizing of Children in Wales, will suffici­ently testifie that you foist in your own untruths, by the strength of your own distracted Imagination.

In answer to the 3 Objection from Rom. 6.4. you would take a great advantage, because there is no mention of water, and will make it a drie Baptisme. When you bid your man wash your Cup, or Glasse, unles you bid him do it with water, doth it signifie [Page 14]nothing? But let him that is diligent read the Texts, Rom. 6.4. Col. 2.12. 1 Cor. 1.8. and satisfie themselves.

To as little purpose do you bring in all the other places of Scripture, and therefore I shall trouble my self no futrher in the particulars of them. Nor do I intend further to be at Charges of printing a satisfacti­on to every one that Scribles, after having spent and lost so much for the publick, and repayed with so much injustice and ingratitude. Nor will I meddle at present with the lawfullnesle or unlawfulnesse of your Ministry, which you bring in by head and shoulders.

Therefore you may well perceive by my patience in answering your weak Arguments, and by my waving all your words of provocation and censure, as of Pride, like Tyrus, Questions of strife, Janglings, that I know nothing (P. 2.) Popish Pilgrimage, (P. 4.) to abide in the Asse or with the Asse. (P. 8.) and his invention who was a murtherer. (P. 7.) Anabaptists. (P. 6.) mad and drunk. (P. 3.) Dippers plunged in a Sea of Absurdities (in the Title.) Renouncing of Baptisme, denying of God, Devills, Heaven, Hell, Grace, Glory, and the like; that I am not al ogether so proud as you censured me, but that I desire in meekness and lowlinesse of Spirit to win you and all of your opinion (not to mine, but) to the truths of God, which the Lord grant through Jesus Christ, Amen.