Truth prevailing against the fiercest opposition, or, An answer to Mr. Iohn Goodwins Water-dipping no firm footing for church communion wherein the invalidity of his twenty three considerations against withdrawing from those societies that want baptisme by the bodies burial in water is manifested, and the separation from such societies justified by the word of God : together with the discovery of his great mistakes in the exposition of eight chief Scriptures, wherewith he fighteth to overthrow Mr. Allens answer to his forty queries about church communion / by Thomas Lambe.

An Answer to Mr. Iohn Goodwins Considerations, against forsaking the embodied Societies of Beleivers: Notwithstanding the want of true Baptisme.

His first Consideration for substance this: THat the Morall Law hath a super∣intendency over the Law of Institu∣tions; so that whilst the positive Law of Christ cannot be practised without breaking the Morrall Law; In such case, the Law of Institutions must give place: which he proveth by many Scriptures.

This Doctrine is true, but ill applied as to us, in our case, because our separating is no breach of any part of the Morral Law; Mr. Goodwin indeed supposeth it is, and that

by so doing we are guilty of promise breaking, covenant breaking, &c.

To which I answer, That we ••••••••ised to walk together with Mr. Goodwin, and that Society, in the worship of God, according to the light given, we deny not.

But that our withdrawing from that Society, is any sinful breach of promise or Covenant, that we utterly deny, yea, so farre from any such thing, that it is indeed and in truth the performance of a most solemn Vow and Covenant, which Mr. Goodwin,* 1.1 with my self and divers of the Church, entred into, with hands lift up to the most high God, where∣in we vowed to go one before another in the work of re∣formation, mark well, TO GO ONE BEFORE ANOTHER, not to stay one for another till all were satisfied, and that both in doctrine and discipline, accord∣ing to the Word of God. Now that it was Mr. Goodwins own sense, as well as ours, that every man was to judge for himself, what was according to the Word of God, and not another for him, appeareth by his own practise upon it, shortly after; for notwithstanding all the obligations of love and friendship which the Parish of Coleman-street had put upon him, to continue fellowship with them in that old way, and notwithstanding all the promises of service, on his part made to them, upon their fetching him from Norfolk to Coleman street, yet because of this solemn Vow to the most high God, (with other reasons in conjuncti∣on) he thought himself bound in conscience to withdraw from them, and actually did so, and made this solemn Vow and Covenant, one argument that induced him there∣unto.

And did this solemn Oath, before the most High, justifie him in the like practise, and will it fail us?

Or will Mr. Goodwin be so monstrously disingenious, as to construe any after promise, to walk with the Church in contradiction to this solemn Oath? And yet thus he deal∣eth with us, (for which God forgive him) that we may look like normous transgressors.

Our after promise to walk with the Church in the way

we then was, must either be understood conditionally (that we found not the Word of God repro∣ving it) or else we supposed to make promises that should disable us from performing the matter of our solemn Vow, attended with so many dreadful circumstances, which a very little before we entred into, which surely no ingenious man that considereth will ever imagine, either that we did so, or that it was the sense of the body we should do so.

And how unreasonable a thing it is, and destructive to the honour and glory of God, that any such engagement should be understood absolutely, appeareth by the grosse absurdities that follow upon it, for then Men should be locked up from any further progress in the work of refor∣mation, let the light shine never so bright, and the call of the Scriptures be never so loud, and that upon the penalty of promise breaking.

Nay, if Mr. Goodwin himself hath not at another time said enough, and more than enough, to justifie our practise, and condemn himself in this rash and hasty charge of us, let the world judge.

In his fifth caution for Reformation, according to the Word of God, he hath this passage; They who would have this golden Motto, written as well in the heart as in the face of their Reformation, must be FREE from all collaterall engage∣ments unto other patterus, besides the Word of God.

Mark, Mr. Goodwin saith, they must be free, and yet calleth us, faith breakers, trust betrayers, promise breakers, be∣cause we use our liberty against a collateral engament to another pattern.

He addeth further in these words:

They meaning hearty reformers, must not encline not so much as a dust in the ballance amounteth unto, to any Reformation of any Church whatsoever, further than they are reformed accord∣ing to the same Word. Further thus:

Doubtless no man ever covenanted, to reform according to the example of any Church whatsoever, in opposition to the Word of God, or if they did, they have cause to abhorre them∣selves in dust and ashes for it: Why then do you force upon

us such a sense of promising, which standeth in such direct opposition to it.

Nay, in the Margin thus: To violate an abominable and accursed Oath, out of conscience to God, (as surely that would be, that kept persons from following Christ fully, and held them in a half reformation) is a holy and blessed perjury.

Good Reader, this is Mr. Goodwins Text; I leave thee to make the interpretation, and give judgement, whether we, by his own principles, deserve to bear the heavy burthen of faith and trust betrayers, which he loadeth us with, not onely in the beginning of his book, but very frequently almost to the end thereof, as if he took a kind of secret delight to mention us with dishonour.

Or whether Mr. Goodwin by making the charge, proveth not himself inexcusable altogether, both in the sight of God and Men and guilty to a high degree, of breaking the royall Law of love to his Neighbour, yea, his friends and brethren, of like pretious faith, that ever had him in double honour, and sought his good and comfort as their own, and that too, while he passionately complaineth of us for breaking the morrall Law.

His second Consideration for sub∣stance this: THat supposing our way to be the sole Baptisme Ordinance of Christ, the Churches which are not actually baptised with our very Baptisme, are yet according to the estimate of God, baptized our way with our very Baptisme, and ought so to be estemed by us, because they have a wil∣ling mind so to be.

To which I answer. First, it is a great and clear mistake, that the Churches, which are not actually baptised with our Baptism, are yet notwithstanding esteemed to have been so baptised by God, upon the accompt of a willing mind so to be.

Doth the righteous God of heaven and earth judge con∣trary to the truth? doth he judge men to have actually done that which they never did? 'Tis one thing for God to deal gratiously by men, as if they had been obedient, be∣cause of a willing mind, another thing for him to judge them actual obeyers of that command which they never did obey, because thereof. Though God accept the will (in some cases) for the deed, where doth he judge the will to be the deed.

In the 2 Corinth. 8.12. It is indeed thus written, as Mr. Goodwin alleadgeth: If there be first a willing mind, a man is accepted according to that he hath, and not according to that he hath not: But what then? Doth Gods accepting a man according to that he hath, prove him judging a man to have actually done that which he never did? which yet is the conclusion Mr. Goodwin maketh to follow these pre∣mises.

For his other instance, Math. 5.12. where he saith, VVho so looketh upon a woman to lust after her, hath committed adultery. Christ saith, it is onely in his heart, that is desire. Yet because there wanteth nothing but opportunities for actual adultery, the demerit of that sin may be imputed to him, but the sin of actual adultery in a formal proper sense is not imputed to him.

In the Phil. 2 11. he saith, God worketh in you both to will and to do, therefore to will is one thing, and to do is another, and are they two things in themselves, and doth God esteem them to be but one.

But secondly, Though it should be granted, that a through desire to obey a Command, which yet is not obey∣ed (for want of conviction that it is a duty) will render men judged obeyers of that command by God, yet will not any such desire to obey, when yet obedience is not per∣formed,

justifie MEN in any such judgement; because Christ hath no where given to the Church any such rule to judge by. Besides, except men could try the reines and the heart, as well as God, and know who willeth sincerely and who not, as God doth, it is unreasonable to conceive that mens willing things should be any rule for mens judge∣ment, though it should be conceived a rule for Gods judge∣ment. And further, the heart of man being deceitful above all things, it is not so easie as it may be some think, to know themselves, whether they will sincerely or no: the obedi∣ence of such commands, which they cannot but see, taketh them off the chair of publick esteem, and setteth them up∣on the dunghil of disgrace and scorn, and whether obe∣dience to Gospel-baptism doth not so, let the world judge, by your cruel mocking them that submit to it, and bit∣ter insinuations against them: To which we shall speak ful∣ly in the due place.

But thirdly and lastly, if we ought to judge you to be actually baptised our way, because you have a willing mind so to be, though indeed and in truth you are not. Why then, surely by the same rule you ought to judge us still walking with you, every one in his place, though indeed and in truth we are separated from you, because we also have a willing mind, upon Christian termes, to walk with you. And have you not as much reason to judge us sin∣cere in our profession of willingness, as we have to judge you so. I am certain you have much more reason so to judge, because your submission to baptism in Christs way, and Pauls way, which is our way, would be a pure piece of self denial to you,* 1.2 and that in many respects, you would be numbred amongst those poor brethren of the dip, which want releif; that petty handful of less knowing and less considerate men, as you call them, those ignorant Creatures, the generallity of whom know not what the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifieth, that for ought they know (upon their own account) it may signifie, to ride, or to run, or to build, as well as to dip, which are your scornful expressions con∣cerning them. Every man can find a will to seek the face

of the Ruler,* 1.3 but who findeth will to seek the face of the poor.

But for us to have continued still in fellowship with you in that way, was, and would be again (if we returned to it) matter both of honour and ease in comparison, whereas now with Christ and the holy Apostles, we are sooles for Christs sake, then we should be wise in Christ, now weak,* 1.4 then strong, now despised, then honourable.

So that we have more cause by farre to doubt your wills of COMING DOWN to us, though you should say never so much, how much you willed it, then you have to doubt our wills of GOING Up to you, if we did but whisper it. And yet you have declared us no Mem∣bers of your Body, and pour contempt upon us, for Church breakers, and Church deserters, and trust betrayers, and what ever you think may bring our persons and Christs holy way, which we profess, into dis-repute, because we have separated from you, though we have often affirmed, what trouble and sorrow it was to us, to withdraw from you, and our own conscience is as a thousand witnesses, how careful we were to make it as little offensive to you, as we could devise how to do, our obligation to you, as an in∣strument of much spiritual good to our soul, being alwayes before our face.

How untrue therefore have you been to your own prin∣ciples, in thus dealing with us?* 1.5 Happy is the man that condem∣neth not himself in the thing which he alloweth.

Your third Consideration for substance this: THat by faith Men become the Sons of God, That Christ owneth all true Beleivers for brethren: Therefore such of the Be∣leivers, who are in the right order of the Gospel, ought to receive them into the full Communion of the Church, upon that account simply.

That Men become the Sons of God by faith in Christ Jesus, is plain in the Scriptures, as you say, but that any ones faith would have pass'd with the Churches in the pri∣mitive times for the faith of Gods elect, that should have been found sticking at obedience to any of the commands of Christ, appeareth not in the Scripture, but much to the contrary, James 2.10. For whosoever shall keep the whole Law, and offend in one point, he is guilty of all. John 15.12. Ye are my friends if you do WHATSOEVER, I command you. VVhy call you me Lord, Lord, and DOE not the thing that I say. Luke 6.46. VVhat doth it profit, my bre∣thren, though a man say he hath faith, and hath not works: Can faith save him.

And although now in these days we have an honourable opinion of the faith of very many persons, that are unbap∣tised, yet it is much to be feared, that farre the greater part of those that are so, (pretending want of conviction that it is a duty) do not neglect it upon that ground, but the foolishness of the act it self, which to the earnal eye (that discerneth not the holy design of Christ in it) maketh it as offensive to them now, as the Gospel was at first to the

Greeks, 1 Cor. 1.23. In conjunction with that disgrace that attendeth it.

And ought not every one to be jealous over their own hearts, whether something of this nature do not bribe the judgement, that it is not at liberty to give sentence accord∣ing to the merit of the cause, or at least, whether it doth not indispose the soul to the impartial weighing those grounds, which serve to evince it to be a duty. That in disposition to things hindreth the true genuine working of the intellectual senses, appeareth by Christs words to the pharisees, John 8.43. Why do ye not understand my speech? Christ answereth himself in the next words, EVEN because you cannot hear my words. So that their disability to obey, (which is the sense of the word hear in this place) indisposed them to understand Christs words, in the 30. Deut. 17. But if thine heart turn away, so that thou wilt not hear. If the heart be against a thing, no wonder if the ear turn away from all the meanes of proving it to be the mind and will of God; and we are the rather induced to beleive, that this is the true ground of the non-conviction of many that are unconvinced of the duty of baptisme, because we find by experience, that all the persons that are of any degree of eminency in worldly respects, either for learning, parts or estate, that God hath perswaded to own the truth, do acknowledge their indisposition to the obe∣dience of it, made them indulge every weak argument to the contrary, and that they were never able to submit to the truth of Christ in the naked simplicity of it, till God gave them the command of their own spirits:* 1.6 till they became like Children weaned from the breast: In a word, till they were able to become fools for Christs sake, and resolve to de∣light their soules with that honour that cometh from God onely.

But whether the fault of non-obedience be chargeable upon the wills of men, or the want of conviction, notwith∣standing all good meanes used to come at it, that God onely knoweth, as also the truth and falshood of mens faith; but however the Church is not without ground to fear the

truth of that faith, that boggleth at obedience to Christ in those commands, which distinguisheth the Disciples of Christ from Moses his Disciples; it is not obedience to the morral Law doth that, that God is to be worshipped, was Moses his Doctrine as well as Christs, That men should be merciful and just, (which is the substance of the second Table) was as well the Doctrine of Moses as Christ, so that by obedience to the Law morral, a man may as well be said to be Moses his Disciple, as Christs, because they are both one in that: But by obedience to the iustituted Law of Christ, given for the ordering us in his worship, a man is truly said to be Christs Disciple, in distinction from Moses, whose Ordinances were far different (provi∣ded it follow repentance from dead works, and faith to∣wards God, without which I confess it signifieth nothing;) in which respect, doubtless, both Jewes and Gentiles are said in baptisme to put on Christ. Gal. 3.27.

But more especially hath the Church cause to suspect the truth of that faith that sticketh at obedience to the positive Law of Christ, because it is that chiefly that putteth men to shame, and casteth out their name as evill. 'Tis not the simple worshipping of God, that bringeth men disgrace (no not with carnal men, that have not sinn'd away their first principles of conscience) but honour rather, because every man by those principles is prompted to some worship, but that which offendeth, is the worshipping of God after his own way, which the world cannot bear; if men could be content with the Religion of Christ it self, corrupted, they might live at Rome and be applauded.

So for the other part of the morral Law, which consisteth in Justice and Mercy. Mercy and Justice offendeth not the generallity of men (but onely some particulars, where their own interest is struck at by it) and the reason clear, because the morral Law is written in every mans heart, so that he that liveth up to that, liveth to the conscience of every individual soul, and consequently compelleth revere∣ate, from all men that have not sinn'd away the light of na∣ture.

But for the Law of institutions, they being forreign to the hearts of men, found onely in the written word, and in themselves of a despicable complexion, and withal crossing the desires of the flesh, and consequently contrary to the religion of the world, which is formed by her worldly wise men, according to her carnallity, and to fit their own world∣ly interests.

It cometh to passe unavoidably, that whosoever will fol∣low Christ in the way of worship which he hath set up, in the naked plainness and simplicity of it, he shall be put to shame, scorned, contemned, disgraced, persecuted (at least by tongue and pen) especially by the learned, whose inte∣rest is struck at, by an effectual following the Lamb in his own way.

But suppose the faith of those that refuse Baptism to be as good as the best, yet I utterly deny, that it giveth them an immediate right to full communion with the Church, simply upon that account.

The reason this, because Jesus Christ himself, who is the God of Order, hath appointed the Communion of the Di∣sciples to be orderly, so that though persons be Disciples by faith, and so have a remote right to all priviledges of Church Communion, yet have not an immediate right thereto, till they desire it in that way which Christ hath appoint∣ed.

That Christ hath establish'd order for regulating the communion of the Disciples, is evident, from the Coloss. 2.5. where the Apostle hath these words, Joying and beholding your ORDER, and the stedfastness of your faith in Christ: As you have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him, or after him, as the Preposition in is ex∣pounded at the 8. verse: And not after Christ: now that by in him, or after him, he meaneth, after his teachings, ap∣peareth by the 7. verse: Rooted and built up in him, and sta∣blish'd in the faith as you have been taught.

And that the teachings of Christ respected their order in worship, as well as their faith, appeareth by the 8. verse▪ where he opposeth the Jewish Ordinances, which he calleth

the rudiments of the world, to Christs: and in the 12. verse mentioneth Baptisme by name, where in he affirmeth, they were buried with Christ.

Again, that Christ hath established order for the regu∣lation of the Disciples Communion, appeareth by the 1 Cor. 11. where the Apostle blameth the Church for dis∣order in their eating the Lords Supper, and that their sin of disorderly walking might appear the more hainous to them, he telleth them at the 23. verse, That which he d••livered them, that is, those rules which he had delivered them to order themselves by, in their communion, which they had sinfully transgressed, he received from the Lord.

And in the 1 Cor. 14 40. exhorteth them that all things in the Church be done decently and in order; and that mat∣ter of order is a thing strictly to be minded, appeareth by Titus 1.5. For this cause left I thee in Creet; that thou shouldest set in order.

Now if it be askt, how it appeareth a disorderly practise, for persons to be admitted into the Church, and sit down with them in full communion without Baptisme?

I shall first enforce some of my brother Allens Argu∣ments, and take off Mr. Goodwins exceptions against them; and then add one or two more.

The substance of his first Argument is this.

If Baptisin was the next thing immediately to be done by the order of Christ after being discipled,* 1.7 then to sit down with the Church in full communion before it, is a dis∣orderly practise.

But Baptism was the next thing immediately to be done by the order of Christ.

That Baptisme was the next thing immediately to be done, appeareth by the Commission, Math. 28.19. Go teach or Disciple all Nations, baptizing them; where we see Baptisme is the next thing to be done after discipling, and accordingly the Apostles practised it:* 1.8 (which putteth the matter out of all doubt to all ingenious men) as all the

instances of the Acts of the Apostles proveth.* 1.9

If you could shew any (saith Mr. Baxster) that did delay Baptisme (he meaneth to Disciples) since Christs Com∣mand,* 1.10 Math. 28.19 it would appear to have been sinfull, as through ignorance or negligence.

Again, That it is Christs rule, that persons shall be baptised without delay, when they are first made Disciples,* 1.11 I have fully proved already, both from the Commission for baptising, and from Scripture example, explaining that Commission, and from the end and use of Baptisme.

If any should be so impudent as to say, it is not the meaning of Christ, that baptizing should immediately follow discipling, they are confuted by the constant example of Scripture.

So that I dare say this will be out of doubt with all rationall,* 1.12 considerate, impartial Christians.

If this be so clear a truth, as every one with half an eye cannot lightly but see it, then is it not a plain case, that they that shall attempt to sit down with Church-bodies before Baptisme, or those Churches that shall admit unbaptised Disciples into full communion, that they all depart from the rule of Christ, and walk by a rule of their own devising, and instead of Law-obeyers, take the boldness to be Law∣makers.

Mr. Goodwin objecteth p. 64. of his water-dipping, that His proof, meaning my Brother Allens, is built upon a clear mistake of the word Teach in the Commission, Math. 28.19. for to teach, doth not signifie to teach men, so as to make them wiling to obey, which is my Brother Allens sense, but to do that which is apt to make Disciples, whether any he actually made Disciples or no.

That this sense of the word Teach is a part of the truth, I deny not, but that it is all that is contained in the word Teach, that I deny, for these reasons following.

1. Because then all persons whatsoever, to whom the

Gospel was at any time preached by the Apostles, were upon their bare hearing of it, whether they beleived or blasphemed, to have been baptised by them: For you say, the word Teach, doth not imply an actually discipled per∣son to Christ, but onely the having instructions proper to make men so. If that were all the sense, then the Apostles were bound by their Commission, to baptise in the Name of the Father, Son and Spirit, all they preached the Gospel unto, though they knew neither Father, Son, nor Spirit, or beleived a word they said, yea, those that commanded them to teach no more in that Name, and beat them for it, and imprisoned them, being filled with indignation, Acts 5.18.

Secondly, To shew, that this sense of yours hath not all the truth in it, it appeareth by the 2. Acts 41 which saith, not that all that heard the Word were baptised, but they that gladly RECEIVED the Word, which sheweth clearly enough what is meant by the word teach in the Commission, namely, such whereby persons became glad receivers of the Word, why else did he not baptise every body that heard him.

Sir, you say truly, it is a loud untruth to say, there is not one example of a person baptised barely upon his hearing of the Gospel preached unto him: but I pray Sir, whose cause do you plead by saying so, your own or ours; and here I heartily desire the Reader to consider, whether you have not in a few words destroyed your own sense of the word Teach, and established my Brother Allens; for if there be not one example throught the Acts, of a person baptised barely upon his hearing the Gospel, but all examples speak of their being Beleivers or Disciples first.

Why then, surely the Apostles understood by the word Teach, the making them actual Disciples, which is our sense, and not onely the saying such things to them, which were proper to make them so, which is Mr. Goodwins: or else they practised contrary to their own judgement.

But thirdly, that by teaching is meant actual discipling, is the judgement of our Adversaries; Mr. Baxter giveth

this for the sense of the word Teach in the Commission very frequently, in his plain Scripture proof, p. 15. Go ye teach, is go make me Disciples, in which exposition of the verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Mr. Baxter confesseth to agree with Mr-Tombes, I say as he, saith Mr. Baxter, that the verb signifieth, make ye Disciples.

Ʋrsinus upon these words, Go teach all Nations baptising them, The word which Christ useth, saith he, properly signifieth, make Disciples; thus it is expounded, saith he, by John,* 1.13 John 4.2. The Pharisees heard, that Jesus made and baptised more Disciples than John; and what Ʋrsinus meaneth by Disci∣ples, appeareth plainly p. 414. of his Catechisme, Teach all Nations baptising them, that is, all who by your doctrine come unto me: and p. 420. That unto the use of baptisme faith is required; and in p. 415. these discipled persons he calleth, converted persons. So that in this learned mans judgement, by teaching in the Commission, is meant discipling, by Disci∣ples Beleivers, commers unto Christ, converted persons, and not as Mr. Goodwin, that to teach signifieth not to make them actual Disciples, but onely the saying such things to them, which are apt to make them so.

But fourthly and lastly, the reason Mr. Goodwin giveth, why by the word teach must be meant as he saith, and not according to the common consent of Interpreters, I hum∣bly apprehend to be invalid, his reason is this, because if we understand the word Teach of actual discipling, these absurdities will follow.

• ...First, He must be conceived to commissionate them to do that which was not in their own power to do.
• ...Secondly, It would follow, that though they preached never so faithfully, yet they had falsified trust, and acted short of their Commission, if they had not at all times made those, to whom they preached, actuall Beleivers.

To which I answer: This Argument standeth upon an unsound bottom, which is this, That it is an absurd thing to conceive, that God should put more into a Commission

given to Men, then is in the Creatures own power to do. What is more frequent in Scripture, than to put that into the Commission both of Prophets and Apostles, which was not in their own power to effect, Isaiah 6.9, 10. Ge make the heart of this people fat, and make their eares heavy, and shut their eyes, least, &c. is not here more put into the Prophets Commission than was in his own power to do? could he make their hearts fat, or make their eares heavy, or shut their eyes? Nay, are not these effects attributed to God, though put in the Prophets Commission? John 12.40. He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart, that they should not see with their eyes; yea, these effects are at∣tributed to themselves in Math. 13.15. Their eyes they have closed least they should, &c. So that though these effects are put in the Prophets Commission, yet altogether out of his own power to do, without the joynt concurrence both of God and the Creature.

So also in the new Testament, Acts 26.17, 18. Deliver∣ing thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee, to open their eyes, and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God.

Is not here much more put into Pauls Commission than he was able without God to do? or will any body say, that Paul acted short of his Commission, or falsified his trust, if he did not actually open all the eyes of the Gentiles, and turn them from the power of Satan to God.

But Sir, to convince you that there is more included in the Commission than was in the Apostles power to effect, supposing the word Teach should signifie onely what you apprehend, namely, the speaking such things which are pro∣per to make Disciples.

Consider this, They are charged to baptise all they taught, and was that in their power? could they baptise any more than were willing to be baptised? or should they have been judged falsifiers of their trust, or acting short of their Commission, for not baptising all those that should take horses, and ride away from them when they had heard the Word. It appeareth therefore undeniably, that the

very principle whereupon you found the absurdity is not good, and consequently no force in your argument, but this being all you have levied against my Brother Allens Argument, built upon the Text, and being found weak, his conclusion lifteth up its head, and that is, that it is disorderly for persons to hold Church-Communion before Baptisme, be∣cause Baptisme by Christs order was the next thing to be done after discipling, and that immediately.

Secondly, A second Argument to prove it a disorderly Practise, for the Disciples to hold Church Communion be∣fore Baptisme, is this.

If the Scripture maketh Baptisme the gate or entrance into the visible Church or Body of Christ.

Then is it a most disorderly practise for persons to sit down in Church-society without it.

But the Scripture maketh Baptism the gate or entrance into the visible Church or Body of Christ.

Mr. Goodwin den••eth now (in effect) that Baptisme is the Ordinance of entrance into the visible Body of Christ; yea, he is so far from thinking so,* 1.14 that he thinketh the injun∣ction of it, is but after the manner of the free-will offerings under the Law; so that men may either obey, or not obey, without sin; yea,* 1.15 that a Church may be of as sound and worthy a constitution without Baptisme, as with it.

Now before I make particular answer to Mr. Goodwins Exception to the interpretation of the Scripture alledged to prove it, I desire to make one observation, which I would commend to the serious consideration of the Reader, which is this.

That notwithstanding the vast variety of differences in the judgement of Professors, about other matters of Chri∣stian Religion (both learned and unlearned) in so much, that setting aside some few famous fundamentals, it is a hard matter to find two men universally agreeing

Yet for this opinion, that Baptisme is the Sacrament of entrance into the visible Church of Christ, all the Professors of Christian Religion hath met in it as one man, as far as I

ever yet heard or read of, whether Papal, Prela∣tical, Presbiterial, or Independant, or Anabaptist, except some few persons lately, the most whereof are given to Seek∣erisme.

And is not that opinion justly to be suspected for an error, that crosseth the judgement of almost all the world reputed Christian, as well those that are under no tempta∣tion (by worldly respects) to baulk the naked truth, as those that are.

This Argument I confess amounteth not to a demonstra∣tion, but it justly provoketh an eye of jealousie over that opinion, that singleth a man out from all his brethren of like pretious faith, and rendreth him like the Widdow Paul speak∣eth of, desolate.

I shall now proceed to establish this truth, by shewing the invalidity of your great exception to the interpretation of the 1 Corinth. 12.13. which Text my Brother Allen in∣sisteth on to prove it; the words these, By one Spirit we are all baptised into one Body: my Brother Allen understandeth with Mr. Baxster, and the generally reputed Orthodox, the word baptised properly of water Baptisme.* 1.16 Mr. Goodwin will needs understand it just now of Spirit Baptisme; but why,* 1.17 because the Text saith, By one Spirit we are baptised, and as for water, it is not mentioned.

To which I answer. 1. The not mentioning of water is no Argument, that the Text is not to be understood of water Baptisme, because the word water is not mentioned in the Commission it self for baptising, which yet notwith∣standing is plainly enough interpreted by the Apostles, to be meant of water Baptisme, because of their practising it, by vertue of their Commission.

So also in the 1 Corinth 1.13, 14, 15. the word water is not set down, but no body in their right wits will under∣stand the words otherwise, Were you baptised in the Nume of Paul, I thank God I baptised none of you▪

But you say the Text speaketh of another Element,* 1.18 namely, the Spirit; 'Tis true, it doth mention the Spi∣rit as a concurrent cause, saith learned Baxsten, but

the Text speaketh of reall Baptisme.

2. How frequently are effects attributed to the Spirit in Scripture, in this sence? Is not Baptisme the Doctrine of the Spirit as well as other duties?* 1.19 and that which the Spirit exciteth to amongst other acts of obedience? did not the Spirit send Phillip to the Eunuch, as well to baptise him with water as preach to him? and did not the Spirit inspire Peter to command Cornelius to be baptised? and is not the proper office of the Spirit, to excite men to, and guide men in the performance of all dutie? why then may not reall Baptisme with water, being an act of obedience, be attributed to the Spirit,* 1.20 as well as any other acts of obe∣dience whatsoever.

3. To understand these words (By the Spirit) as a working cause, and Baptisme as the effect, agreeth to the context, from the first verse to the 12.

At the first verse, No man can say, that Jesus is the Lord, but by the holy Ghost; and is not that by the agency and working of the Spirit upon the heart, perswading it to think so honourably of Christ, as to call him Lord. The Spirits work is to raise the esteem of Christ in the soul. The soules calling him Lord is the effect of that work.

In the like sense (I humbly apprehend) all the gifts spoken of to the 12. verse, are attributed to the Spirit, namely, as so many effects of his operation, as the cause pro∣ducing them.

Which having treated on at large, he cometh in the 13. verse to tell them, that by the same Spirit, which enriched them with those gifts mentioned, they became enabled to stoop to the yoak of Chtist, and put him on by Baptisme, by which both Jews and Gentiles, receiving the Gospel, became incorporated into the mystical body of Christ, and so though many members, yet became now but one body: As with persons in civil Corporations, who of many indi∣viduals become one body, by solemnizing the rite of entrance, without which no man is counted a Mem∣ber.

But now not to understand the words, By one Spirit, and Baptised, the one as the cause, the other as the effect, would be to sense these words (By the Spirit) differently, from the sense of the same words divers times in the preceding ver∣ses, and enforce a metaphorical use of the word Baptised, without any necessity,

But fourthly, to make it clear, that by Baptisme here, he meaneth it, not of the baptisme of the Spirit, it appeareth by that which is attributed to it, namely, the entring of all persons into the mystical body of Christ, he saith, it is ••N∣TO ONE BODY, and we are ALL baptised into one body. So that it is the meanes sanctified by God, for all the members entrance into that body.

It cannot therefore be meant of the baptisme of the Spirit, because then working of miracles, and speaking with tongues, and prophesying, extraordinary (which the Scri∣pture meaneth onely by the baptisme of the Spirit) should be the initiating Ordinance into the body of Christ for all Church members, which I suppose every one will say is absurd to imagine.

I have onely to prove (for the making good this Ar∣gument) that when the Scripture speaketh of the Baptisme of the Spirit, it would alwayes be understood of working miracles, speaking with tongues, and the like, and not of common and ordinary gifts, as faith and love, &c.

It appeareth thus. 1. In that the holy Spirit never giveth to faith, or love, or any common gifts of the Spirit, the name of baptisme, for men to do so is unscriptu∣rall.

2. Because Christs speaking to his Apostles, who had a good degree of faith and love, yet he did not deem them for the present baptised with the holy Spirit, but onely tel∣leth them, Acts 1.4, 5. they should be so baptised, and adviseth them to wait at Jerusalem for it; whereupon they were baptised with it accordingly, upon the day of Pente∣cost, Acts 2.3, 4.

And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sate. And they began to speak with other tongues, &c.

Now in the 11. Acts 16. Peter calleth Cornelius his speak∣ing with tongues, the baptisme of the holy Ghost, which Christ promised. Then remembred I the word of the Lord (mean∣ing when he heard them speak with tongues, Acts 10 46) John indeed baptised with water, but ye shall be baptised with the holy Ghost

So that the meaning of John the Baptist, Math. 3.11. and Christ, Acts 1.4, where they speak of the baptisme of the Spirit, must needs be of such a being filled with the Spi∣rit, and pouring forth of the Spirit, as whereby persons do speak with tongues, and the like, because the Scriptures so interpreteth it, and to judge otherwise, were to be wise, not onely above, but against that which is written.

But thirdly and lastly, to put it out of doubt, you shall find the Scriptures putting abroad difference between that enjoyment of the Spirit, which the Scripture calleth the Baptisme of the Spirit, and that by which persons come to abound with faith, love, joy, peace, &c. as to the wayes of attaining the one and the other.

To attain ordinary fillings of the Spirit, in respect of these common fruits, we are exhorted to the use of meanes to get them, and blamed if we have them not,* 1.21 Luke 24.25.

So that the largeness of the possession of them depend∣eth ordinarily upon the Creatures industry, and in that way attained, and according to mens industry or sloath, they ordinarily have more or less of the Spirit

But as for the Baptisme of the Spirit, it is immediately conferr'd by way of extraordinary gift.

Consult the Scriptures, where the Baptisme of the Spirit is mentioned, and you shall find it so.

The first place is the 2 of Acts 2, 3, 4. verse, ••nd sud∣denly there came a sound from heaven, as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting: And there APPEARED unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the holy Ghost, and began to speak with tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance,

Now the Apostle Peter ••••lleth ••his ••he 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of the Spirit, Acts 11.15, 16. and also expresseth their attaining it by the falling of the boly Ghost upon them; As I ••eg•••• ••o speak the holy Ghost FELL on them, as on us at the begin∣ning.

So also in the 8. of Acts 16. Who when they were come down, prayed for them, that they night receive the holy Ghost: (meaning principally) the holy Ghost in that way which they had not before, for they had the holy Ghost to enable them to beleive, as appeareth at the 12. verse, but they had not the Baptisme of the Spirit, which now Peter and John came to be instruments in by prayer for them, with laying on of hands (though not exclusive of a further presence of the Spirit in a common way.)

But now how doth the Spirit express this kind of attain∣ing the Spirit? Mark at the 16. verse, For as yet he was FALLEN upon none of them, onely they were baptised in the Name of the Lord Jesus.

So in the 19. of Acts 6. And when Paul had laid his hands on them, the holy Ghost CAME upon them, and they spake with tongues and prophesied.

Doth the Sun shine clearer at noon-day than this truth, that the common fruits of the Spirit are one thing, and the baptisme of the Spirit another, namely, the gifts of speaking with tongues, extraordinary prophesying, and working mi∣racles, and if that be granted, and who can with reason deny it: It followeth then unavoidably, that the 1 Corinth. 12.13. speaketh not of the Baptisme of the Spirit, because then speaking with tongues, and working miracles, should be the Ordinance of entrance into the visible Church of Christ, for ALL Church-members, for it is plain, (whatever is meant by Baptism in that Text) that is the use of it we are all baptised INTO ONE BODY.

Fifthly and lastly, to prove, that by the word baptised, in the 1 Cor. 12.13. is meant, reall baptsme, and not, the bap∣tism of the Spirit. The scope and drift of the Apostle in mentioning it, saith a good say to it.

Which is to make an argument of it,* 1.22 to perswade to Christian love, care and tenderness one of another, as one may easily see that will consult the place.

Now for proper reall Baptisme, we find the Apostle make use of that often to the same purpose. Once before in the beginning of this Epistle, 1 Cor. 1.10, and 15. so in the 4. of the Eph. 4, 5. and to the Colossians also.

But we never read of working miracles, or speaking with tongues, made any Argument of union▪

I hope then enough, and more than enough, is said to satisfie any indifferent man, that the word baptised in the fore-mentioned place, is to be understood properly even of water Baptisme, and consequently the Argument from that Text, to prove Baptisme the door of entrance into the visible Church of Christ▪ unanswerable.

But besides this, 1 Cor. 12.13. to prove Baptisme the door of the visible Church, the 6 of the Romans 3. speak∣eth the same language, Know ye not, that so many of us, as were BAPTISED INTO Jesus Christ, were baptised into his death, &c.

Now to prove, that by Baptisme in the first clause; he meaneth it not of mortification (which some conceive the Baptisme of the Spirit) it appeareth thus: If the Baptism of the Text be used as an Argument to perswade to perfect mortification, and a new life, then is it not the thing it self. But it is used as an Argument to perswade to perfect the work of mortification, and a new life.

In the 2 verse▪ How shall we ••••••t are dead to sin live any longer therein? Now they were not already dead to sin in a proper sense, they were not already actually mortified, though the work was begun in them, for then there would be little fear of longer continuing in sin, to which they were dead, from which he now dehorteth them.

But in the 3. verse he mentioneth their Baptisme, and useth it argument wise, to perswade not to live any longer in sin. Know ye not, that so many of us, as w••••e baptised into Jesus Christ, were baptised into his death? And at the 4. verse, Therefore we are buried with him by baptisme into death,

that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we aslo should walk in newness of life.

So that his doctrine (in my apprehension is plainly this) that though for the present they were not attained to the perfect state of actuall mortification, yet by their baptisme they were under an effectual obligation to use all possible meanes to attain thereto, and if this be not the true sense of the place, I have lost my tast, good Reader judge.

Now to come home to the point, to prove Baptisme the entring Ordinance into the visible body of Christ. The Text saith plainly of Baptisme, that it was INTO JE∣SUS CHRIST: Now how into Christ, but into the mystical body of Christ the Church? which in the 1 Corin. 12.12. is ca••led Christ, for as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body being many, are one body SO ALSO IS CHRIST: meaning in respect of the Church, which is his mistical bo∣dy, where though there be many members, yet all make but one body, as 1 Cor 12.13. saith, the gate and entrance whereinto is by the door of Baptisme.

But in this point having the judgement of almost all the learned on our side, I need say the less; I shall therefore conclude, as to this, with offering the words of Ʋrsinus, and Mr. Baxsters Argument, with a word from the non-repeating it, as to the same person.

Ʋrsinus in his Catechisme, Baptisme is a Sacrament of en∣trance into the Church,* 1.23 whence it cometh, that the Supper is pre∣sented to none, except first baptised.

As a Souldier before listing, and a King before crowning and taking his Oath,* 1.24 so are we (he putteth in infants too) Church members before Baptisme. But as every one that must be ad∣mitted solemnly, into the Army, must be admitted by listing, as the solemn engaging sign, SO EVERY ONE THAT HATH RIGHT TO BE SOLEMNLY ADMIT∣TED INTO THE VISIBLE CHURCH, must or∣dinarily be admitted by Baptisme.

I prove it thus.

If we have neither precept nor example in Scripture since Christ ordained Baptisme, of any other way of admitting visible Members, but onely by Baptism; then all that must be admitted visible Members, must ordinarily be baptised.

But since Baptisme was instituted, we have no precept or example, of admitting visible Members any other way, but con∣stant precept and example for admitting this way.

Therefore all that must be admitted visible Members, MUST be baptised.

I know not what, in any shew of reason can be said to this, by those that RENOUNCE not Scripture.* 1.25

For what man dare go in a way that hath neither precept nor example to warrant it, from a way that hath a full current of both. Yet they that will admit Members into the Church without Baptisme do so.

And what can any man in reason imagine to be the ground, why Baptisme is but once practised, whereas pray∣er, and hearing, and breaking bread frequent? but onely this, that God in the Ordinance of Baptisme hath in some respect a different design (though in many other respects the very same, as I shall shew hereafter) and wherein can any one conceive that difference to lie, but here, that it is the Rite of entrance into the body of Christ, and conse∣quently no need of reiterating it, no more than there is of being twice made free of the City, or twice listed into an Army? Some I find make a question, whether Baptisme should not be repeated, in respect of the same person, which is strange, considering, that though Christ in the Commissi∣on ordereth the Apostles to Teach the Disciples again, there is not a word of baptising again,* 1.26 neither did the Apostles ever baptise any into the Name of Christ twice, that we find in Scripture, and surely they both knew and practised the mind of Christ,* 1.27 and we are charged to follow their example, and to mark those which walk contrary to avoid them.

From these premises it is clear enough, that Baptisme is, in the wisdom of Christ, the Ordinance of entrance into the visible Church, or Body of Christ, and consequently,

there can be no regular enjoying the priviledges due to the body before it.

The truth is, to admit unbaptised persons to all the pri∣viledges of Church communion, is as irregular and disor∣derly, as to admit the Mayor to the grand priviledges of the chair, before he hath been sworn to the faithful service of the City.

3. To prove baptised persons, sitting down in Church bodies with unbaptised, disorderly.

I prove it thus:

That practise which bringeth down the esteem of Baptisme, and maketh it slighted, is against the Order of Christ.

But for Disciples that are baptised, to walk together in a Church body, with unbaptised, bringeth down the esteem of Baptisme, and maketh it sleighted.

That it is against the Order of Christ, that any thing should be practised to prejudice the primitive esteem of Baptisme, appeareth:

• 1. By Christs joyning it with Teaching in the Com∣mission, without the least hint of parting them, Math. 28.
• 2. By promising the same presence, to the end of the world, as well to Baptising as Teaching.
• 3. By the singular use of Baptisme to all Beleivers in all ages (of which more hereafter) which I suppose maketh Mr. Baxster call Baptisme a great Ordinance.* 1.28

But for persons that are baptised, to sit down in a Church body with unbaptised, will make Baptisme sleighted.

I prove thus:

If unbaptised Disciples enjoy all the self same privi∣ledges of the Church that baptised persons do, which they do, if they sit down together in a Church body, then must the reputation of Baptisme needs be in danger.

• 1. Because it admiteth to no priviledge of the Church, but what may be had without it.
• 2. Because the act of Baptisme is irksome to the flesh, which if not ballanced by some considerable advantage,

• will upon that account suffer: if this be not reason, set them to judge that are least esteemed in the Church.

4 That practise which consulteth the loss and spiritual dammage of the Disciples, can never be an orderly pra∣ctise.

But for baptised Disciples to admit of unbaptised into full communion, is to consult their losse, and spiritual dam∣mage. That to admit Disciples to full Communion before baptisme, is to consult their loss, I prove thus.

If they are not baptised before joyning, in probability they are not like to be after, because such confused joyning secretly whispereth a low esteem of the Ordinance, even by the baptised themselves, otherwise they would not hold their communion without it, having no such president in the Word.

• 2. Because the act is unpleasing to the flesh.
• 3. because they are in possession of the priviledges of the Church without it, and consequently one great Argument of considering the grounds of it, is as it were over, so that it is a rare thing if ever they be brought to sub∣mit.

Now not to obey every Ordinance of Christ, must needs be a losse to the Creature, because in their institution, as well as in the creation, In wisdome he ordained them all, aim∣ing as well at the Creatures good, as his own glory: There∣fore the Pharisees, that reject Baptisme,* 1.29 are said to reject the Counsell of God AGAINST themselves.

5. That practice in the worship of God, which in rea∣son, is like to lay the foundation of j••rrs, discentions and discords in the Church, can never be of Christs ordering, because jarrs and discentions in the Church standeth in direct enmity to his interest, wherefore he would not have the Church onely be at peace amongst themselves, but as much as in them lieth live peaceably with ALL men.

But for persons that are baptised, to sit down in Church bodies with unbaptised, in all reason will breed jarrs.

Can two walk together except they be agreed?

I suppose he meaneth, that they cannot walk comfor∣tably together, for otherwise they may walk together after

a fashion, besides such Interrogations in Scripture, affirm with Emphasis the matter Interrogated.

So that when he saith, CAN two walk together, he would insinuate, not onely some degrees of improbabi∣lity, but that it is next to an impossibility, that they should maintain sweet communion; but those words (except they be agreed, must be understood warily, not of every light difference in opinion (for then there would be little sweet communion in the Church at all, there being few that agree in every thing.

But in matters of moment (as this will easily be appre∣hended to be, by any indifferent person that weigheth it) it cannot lightly be, but there must be jarrs, discentions, to the embittering their fellowship.

That difference about meats and dayes, what trouble did it work in the Church at Rome, Roman. 14.3. Let not him that eateth DESPISE him that eateth not, and let not him which eateth not JƲDGE him that eateth: yea, at the 10. verse, Why dost thou judge thy Brother? why dost thou set at NOƲGHT thy Brother? So that despising, judging and setting at nought, followed that poor difference about meats and dayes.

What difference then in reason would this about Baptisme work, when that one party, namely, the unbaptised, shall look upon the other as practising will-worship, and making their Religion ridiculous, and adhering to a gene∣ration of men scarce worthy to live, as now Mr. Goodwin thinketh of them.

And on the other hand, the baptised they shall look upon their brethren sprinkling childrens faces, presuming to call that the Ordinance of Baptisme, which in their judgements is a meer mockery, and doing it too, in the Name of the Father, Son and holy Spirit, which in their apprehensions is little less than blasphemy.

How should these two parties of Beleivers walk toge∣ther without sore differences; and the more, by how much the more zealous they are for the pure worship of God, a luke-warm Spirit will best befit Churches of that constitu∣tion:

this is so plain a case, that I think I need not proceed further in the demonstration.

6. That practise which in the worship of God is not onely beside the custome of the first Churches, which was settled by the Apostles, but directly contrary, can never be an orderly practise.

• 1. Because they did what they did therein by special Commission, 1 Cor. 11.23. 2 Cor, 10.8.
• 2. We have no reason to doubt the faithfulness of the Apostles in excuting it, for though they had frailties as other men, yet in what they did in settling the religion of Christ, they did by special direction and extraordinary assi∣stance, Math. 28.19. and so their example is as Lawes to us.

Excellent is Mr. Baxster to this point.

Moses being appointed to the forming of the old Church and Common-wealth of the Jews,* 1.30 to the building of the Tabernacle his precepts and examples in these works (though we could not find his particular direction) are to be taken as divine, so also the Apostles having commission to form and order the Gospel Churches, their doctrine and examples therein are by their ge∣neral Commission warranted, and their practise in stablishing the Lords day, in settling the Officers and Orders of Churches, are to us as Lawes (still binding with those limitations, as po∣sitives onely which give way to greater.)

The ground of this position is, because it is inconsistent with the wisdom of God, and faithfulness too, to set men to a work and promise to be with them, and yet to forsake them, and suffer them to erre in the building of that house which must endure to the end of the world.

That practise then in the worship of God, which is di∣rectly contrary to Apostolical custome, can never be or∣derly

And Sir, (if I mistake not very much) you have here∣tofore said as much to this point, as any man in the world can say, for you have these words in your fourth Caution for Reformation.

The best patternes and examples under heaven are but se∣ducers in what they fall short of or besides the Word of God: the injunction from heaven is very particular and express; See that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed thee in the Mount, Heb. 8.5.

And Ezek. 43 10. Thou Son of Man shew the house to the house of Israel, that they may be ashamed of their iniquity, and let them measure the pattern, viz. to build, say you (mark) with ALL POSSIBLE EXACTNESSE according to it.

Now whether the Disciples, sitting down in Church bo∣dies before Baptisme, be not directly contrary to the pat∣tern and consequently a disorderly practise, let the world judge.

• 1. By the Scriptures, where we have Christ commanding baptisme presently upon discipling, Math. 18.19 which we see the Apostles practised with much faithfulness, in the whole story of the Acts, to which we have spoken al∣ready.
• 2. Where we find the erection of the first famous Gospel Church, the manner is thus reported, Acts 2.41.
  • 1. They gladly received the Word.
  • 2. Were baptised: And
  • 3. They continued in the Apostles doctrine, and fellowship, and breaking bread, and prayer: but first you see, they were baptised, behold then the pattern in the Mount; and must not he be next to willingly ignorant that doth not see this, that is so plainly written, that he that runneth may read it.

Why then, if all other patterns be but seducers, and that our duty is, to build with all possible exactness according to the first pattern, have you not justified our separation from you, for resusing to build according to this pat∣tern.

2. Let the judgement of the learned,* 1.31 touching the pri∣mitive practise, be taken. This food we call the Eucharist, (saith Justin Martyr, one of the most ancient Fathers, from the practise of the primitive Church) to which ••o man is admitted, but onely he that beleiveth the truth of our doctrine;

being washed in the laver of Regeneration, for remission of sin••, which washing he expresseth thus; Then (meaning after faith and prayer) they are brought to the Water, and are BORN AGAIN OR BAPTISED, in the same way as we our selves were born again, for they are washed with water, In the Name of the Father, Son and Spirit. But that which is home to my point is, that no Disciple touched the Eucharist, as he calleth it, till first baptised indeed, after Baptisme, then he sitteth down with the body in full communion, but not be∣fore.

3. As we have the Scriptures of our side, and the judge∣ment of the learned on our side, that this was the Primitive practise, so we had you your self on our side at this point, when you writ your letter to Mr. Tho. Goodwin, p, 7. Co∣venanting is not lawful before Baptisme, is is evident, because it is not lawfull for a Church to receive the unbaptised into fellow∣ship with them, as Members of that body; neither is there ex∣ample or APPEARANCE of warrant in Scripture, for such a thing: And at that time you were as confident, as Confidence it self could make you,* 1.32 of what you then wrote, as you there affirm, or if you were not of other things, yet of this, because you say, and that according to truth, That there is neither example nor appearance of warrant in Scripture for such a thing: Yea, in that letter p. 5. Evi∣dent it is, that those that were added to the Church, were bapti∣sed, before this is affirmed of them.

So that upon Principles of your own (which is that we ought to build with all possible exactness according to the pattern) you are condemned.

• 1. By the Scriptures.
• 2. By the learned.
• 3. Out of your own mouth, all which speak Baptisme to goe before Church-fellowship, and con∣sequently, to walk otherwise a disorderly practise; answer who can: And the truth is, if we are not to follow the customes of the Primitive Churches in worship, in every thing, that we can follow them in, with this limitation, (Positive giving way to Morral) which they did under the Law, how are they a pattern to us, how shall we under∣stand where to follow them, and wherein to leave them.

Upon the whole matter then I conclude, that though by faith men become the Sons of God, and that Christ own∣eth all true Beleivers for brethren; yet they have not there∣by a present immediate right to full communion with the Church, simply upon that account, because the same God, that ordained faith, the meanes of adoption, hath ordained Baptisme to goe before visible membership into the Church of Christ, much more before a constant sitting down in full Church Communion, they then that walk otherwise cast off the Rule, and so reproach the wisdom of Christ, com∣plain of the Rule as imperfect, and become Judges of the Law.

Your fourth Consideration being of one heart and soul with the third, I shall have the lesse to say to it, it is for substance this: THat persons that have fellowship and Communion with God, are thereby im∣mediately fittted for communion with the Church, without Baptisme, otherwise it is not against us.

This Proposition Mr. Goodwin supposeth proved by the 14. Rom. 1, 2, 3. Him that is weak in the faith receive you. Again, let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; the reason, why he must be received and not despised, is, For God hath accepted him.

But how Mr. Goodwin, or any man else, can make this fol∣low from thence, that therefore all persons that have fellow∣ship with God, have a present right to Church communion without Baptisme, I understand not.

For 1. The weak in faith, that this Text speaketh of, were baptised persons, which appeareth by the sixth chapter, where he useth their Baptisme as an argument to mortifica∣tion, and a new life. That the words in the third verse (So many of us) is not partitive of the Disciples amongst them∣selves, which Brother Allen hath proved unanswerably from the scope, to which Mr. Goodwin hath made no reply; and to the further clearing whereof I shall speak something in due place.

2. Mr. Goodwin supposeth, that the object of receiving is into Church communion, (when the Text saith, Him that is weak in the faith receive you) which I humbly ap∣prehend, is an ungrounded conjecture, because the Apostle writeth to an establish'd Church, whereof those weak ones were a part, which by vertue of their membership were al∣ready in full communion with the Church.

Besides, is it a reasonable thing to imagine, that such a thought would enter into the heart of the Church, to cast brethren out of fellowship with the Church of Christ, that was regularly immembred, because they were more self denying than others, by eating hearbs, which they did un∣to the Lord, Rom. 14.6. Surely the Church wanted no exhor∣tation to that, so that this caution therefore serveth some other design, as I humbly apprehend, namely, the common respect of Christians, which strong ones can hardly vouch∣safe to the weak, for as the weak are apt to judge the strong, so the strong to slight and despise the weak, which is the words of the Text, Rom. 14.3. Let not him that eateth DE∣SPISE him that eateth not.

But by despising them, to understand, the rejection of them from Church communion, the Scripture saith no such thing, and for you to say it, it is to be guilty of that which you charge us with, namely, to take a half for a whole, and to indulge a light appearance, and to let it pass for an evident demonstration.

But 3. Suppose the word (receive) should respect the Communion of the Church, and the Argument this. That God having received the weak into communion with him∣self, it is the Churches duty to receive ••hem into her com∣munion: Doth it follow from thence, that it would be her duty to receive them, disorderly, into her communion? To come a little closer, Cornelius, the person you instance in, from Acts 10.25 being a fearer of God, and worker of righteousness, was ACCEPTED of God; yet when God had a purpose to adde him to the visible Church of Christ, he sendeth him to a Minister of Christ, and inspireth him, to command Cornelius to be baptized, in the Name of the Lord Jesus, Acts 10.48. Neither doth Peter, notwith∣standing he was convinced of his being a person accepted of God, hold any Church communion with him before it, what ever he did after.

4. If fellowship with God give immediate right to full communion with the Church, simply, upon that account, then not onely the godly of the Presbyterians have such a right, but the Episcopal party too, nay, 'tis probable, a ma∣ny in the darkness of Popery (for I suppose no body can be so uncharitable, as to think there are no persons there upright) nay, to shew the unreasonableness of this opi∣nion, I could go further and say,* 1.33 many amongst the Hea∣then, which in your judgement may be in the state of grace; These and all these have a present actual, immediate right to Church communion.

In a word, as this principle was contrary to your judge∣ment heretofore, so also hath your practise been ever since you took up the Church way; I remember not one man, that ever sat down with the Church, in the constant fellow∣ship thereof, but was orderly joyn'd, according to the Inde∣pendant principles. Nor one man that ever occasionally broak bread with the Church, but it was matter of offence to some, except they were members of some Church or other.

Who then may not see, whose eyes are not too heavy to open, what a strait your opposing us bringeth you too,

namely, to turn head upon the principles of the way you walk in, and your own constant practise (and what man is he, who doth not glory in men, whose faith and practise standeth not in the wisdome of men, but in the power of God,* 1.34 and that hath not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ with respect of per∣sons) but must conceive with jealousies as strong as death, that that cause which you now plead is not right, which putteth so learned a man as your self to so desperate a losse.

Your fifth Consideration for substance this: THat learned men are not agreed about the exact signification of the word BAP∣TIZO, whether it be to dip or not, therefore not fit for any, much less such illiterate ones, to determine it, and build so great a matter up∣on it.

To which I answer. 1. What considerable advantage would it be to us, to know the original at this point, it seem∣eth all the knowledge of the learned worketh not union in judgement about it, you confess they are not agreed for all that.

But 2. Whether learned men can agree about the signification of the word BAPTIZO or no, it is of little consideration to us in this case, because the Spirit of God hath interpreted it to our hand, in the holy Scripture else∣where, namely, in the 6. of Romans 4. and Colos. 2.12. Therefore we are BURIED with him by Baptisme. Again, being BURIED with him in Baptisme, where∣in also we are risen with him, besides many other places:

So that if these Scriptures speak of water Baptisme (which is but few mens question, That one of them doth. I have proved already, and would the other if need required it) there must be a buriall of the body in water, where the Baptisme of the Gospel of Christ is rightly administred, otherwise it is none of the Baptisme of Christ, and the Apostles, and Primitive Churches. The late Annotators are much to be commended for their honest and upright dealing with the Scripture herein, upon this 4 verse of the 6. Romans, these words, Buried with him by Baptisme, in this phrase, say they, the Apostle seemeth to allude to the antient manner of Baptism, which was to dip the parties baptised, and as it were to bury them under the water for a while, and then to draw them out of it, and lift them up, to represent the buriall of our old Man, and our Resurrection to newness of life. A∣gain, upon the 8. of Acts 38. these words, They both went down into the water, and he baptised him: They were wont, say they, to go•• down into the water, and dip the whole body: As in the 3. Math. 16. So that their judgement of the Text there also; And Jesus when he was baptized went up straight way out of the water. I say, their judgement is, that his body was dipt by John in Jordan, and who can think otherwise with reason, for to what purpose should he go to the River to be baptised, but because there would be a want of much water? And how clear is this apprehension to an unpreju∣diced mind, since that the abundance of water is given for the reason of Johns baptising at Enon. John 3.23. And John also was baptising in Enon, near to Salim, because there was MƲCH WATER there.

But besides, the 3. Math. 16. saith of Jesus, that when he was baptised he went Up straitway OUT of the water. And so Mark 1.9, 10. and how could he be said to go up out of the water, except he first went down into it? As the Scripture saith expresly of Phillip and the Eunuch, I say as expresly as they can speak, read else Acts 8.38 And Phillip and the Eunuch went both DOWN INTO the water, and he baptised him, and when they were come Up OUT of the water: And can any body with any

shew of reason conceive, that they went down into the water to be sprinkled of the face. Justin Martyr therefore telleth us, that in their Baptisme they were BORN of water, which he propoundeth as their practise from the Pri∣mitive custome.* 1.35 Now the whole man its coming out of the womb of the water, hath a perfect Analogy to a natural birth, to which he doth allude; but in the sprinkling of the face there is no likeness at all to any such thing as a birth. Calvin himself, as much a friend as he was to Infant-sprink∣ling, yet was so honest, as to affirm, its practise was not from the Word of God, but the CHURCH HER TA∣KING TO HER SELF THE LIBERTY, mean∣ing, to vary from the Apostolick practise, which was by plunging the body into the water, and this he acknow∣ledgeth from Acts 8.38. Phillip and the Eunuch going down into the water, and coming up out of it;* 1.36 and did not Calvin understand the original? And doth he not further plainly say, this practise was taken up since the beginning, for of old the rite was to put all the body into the water.

Or what if so be, that the words translated INTO and OUT OF, may from the Originall be rendred UNTO and FROM, doth it follow, that they must needs be so rendred in this place, or was they ever so translated by any one, since the new Testament was put into English? and indeed how can it be with any reason thought they should be so, since it is plain, they were come unto the water before this is affirmed of them, that they went down into it, by v. 36. which saith, they came unto a certain water, and the Eunuch said, lo here is water.

But 2. Suppose the words should be so translated here, would that force us to beleive they went but to the water side, and not into the water, and that they came but from the water side, and not UP out of the Element of water; besides, the cry of the Scriptures, lately mentioned, and the judgements of learned men upon them, which Mr. Baxster well knoweth; surely every body that goeth into the water goeth unto it first.

Mr. Baxster alloweth the custome of the Primitive times

are patterns to us, (with the limitation formerly spoken of) p. 135. of his plain Scripture proof, arguing against the necessity of dipping, saith:

1. It is not yet proved by any, that dipping was the Pri∣mitive practise, which is strange, since he himself giveth us the judgement of Justin Martyr as orthodox, who rela∣ting their way of baptising from the Primitive times, p. 129. of Saints Rest, saith, That they are brought to the water, and are BORN again, or baptised, doth not that imply their dipping? how else is there the least resemblance be∣tween an ordinary birth and their baptisme? and is not an Analogy therein aimed at? but I referre the Reader to what hath been said to this point already: but I cannot but much wonder, that Mr. Baxster should say, that the Jaylour was baptised in his house, doth the Scripture say so? read Acts 16.33. And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes, and was baptised he and all his strait way; but where he was baptised is not set down.

But the next words rather give us, that it was not in the house, because presently after the mention of his baptisme the Text saith, He brought them into the house, so that though this Text speaketh clearly, onely to his being baptised pre∣sently upon beleiving, not to the place where, or the manner how, yet it giveth more ground to beleive it was done out of doors than in the house.

But what need we grope in the dark? doth not the light shine bright from other Scriptures, why should we think the Jaylors baptisme to differ from all other mens.

But Mr. Baxster objecteth further, that the River Enon (where the Text saith was MUCH water, which also is given for the reason why John baptised there) Travellers say, is a small brook that a man may almost step over.

Whatever Travellers say, I hope Mr. Baxster, that hath written so much to prove the Scriptures truth, will beleive the plain Word of God, namely, that there was much water there then, when John baptised there, whatever there may be when the Traveller was there. There might be much water there when John baptised there, as doubtless there

was, or the Scripture would not say so, and yet little enough when the Traveller pass'd that way that Mr Baxster speak∣eth of.

Doth not the Scriptures say, Psalm 107.33, 34. He turn∣eth Rivers into a wilderness, and the water springs into dry ground, for the wickedness of them that dwell therein? Nay, doth he not threaten the Jewes, Psalm 42.15. That he would dry up their pooles, and promise, when he restoreth them, that he will make their thirsty lands springs? Isaiah 35 7. Their present driness then is no argument that there was not much water in Johns dayes.

But honest Reader, is not this an ugly suggestion, infinite∣ly disparaging the Scriptures? Is the report of Travellers any thing to us, against the express Word of God, and doth not Mr. Baxster urge the report of Travellers as conside∣rable to the contrary, of what is written in the Word? I offer not this as any Argument, that Mr. Baxster hath not a due esteem of the Scripture, No, no, I pray God strengthen my faith in them, and make it equall to his; he is a person that my soul honoureth, for his edge God-ward; but to shew the Reader what cause he hath to suspect that cause, that putteth such learned men, as Mr. Goodwin and Mr. Bax∣ster is, upon such strange adventures to make it good. In the mean time, thou canst not lightly but see, that we have the plain words of Scripture on our side, that their mouth is open, and their heart enlarged, to justifie our practise, but they will neither be courted nor forced to speak against us.

But Mr. Baxster further objecteth against the necessity of dipping, thus,* 1.37 The thing signified is set forth by the phrase of washing or sprinkling, and the sign need not exceed the thing signified: I confess the sign need not exceed the thing sig∣nified; but it is farre from the truth, that sprinkling, or any washing that is not by dipping can be any sign of all the holy thing signified in baptisme, which is plainly set down in the 6. Roman. 4 and Colos. 2.12. Being buried with him in Baptisme, wherein also you are risen with him: If the Baptisme of the New Testament, sealed in Christs hears

bloud, be the sign of Death, Buriall and Resurrection, then is not sprinkling, or any washing that is not by dipping, sufficient to signifie it, but the Baptisme of the New Testa∣ment is a sign of Death, Buriall and Resurrection, 'tis plain in the Text; Mr. Baxster acknowledgeth both these Scrip∣tures to be meant of water Baptisme, p. 342. Of his Scrip∣ture proof.

As for those Scriptures, namely, 1 Corrinth. 6.11. Titus 3.5. with some others,* 1.38 which Mr. Baxster instanceth in, as hinting the spiritual good things signified by Baptisme; I acknowledge they respect a part of the good things sig∣nified by baptisme, namely, the soules cleansing from sin by Christs bloud, but not all, nor indeed half what he intended to signifie by Baptisme.

But what should the reason be, that Mr. Baxsters design being to enumerate the Scriptures, speaking of the holy thing signified in baptisme, should leave out the two grand capital Scriptures to the point, namely, Colos. 2.12. Roman. 6.34. Is it not, because his opinion cannot look them in the face without blushing? there being no sign of Death, Bu∣riall or Resurrection, or any such like thing in sprink∣ling.

Oh that Mr. Baxster would lay to heart this one consi∣deration, and consider once again the high and holy design of Christ in Baptisme, which considered evinceth against all contradiction, that the form can be no other, but by dip∣ping, or burying the body in water: his design, what is it, but to make the Gospel word, and the Gospel figure to answer one another, as face answereth face in the water, and to be brother Preachers of the same doctrine,* 1.39 namely, the death of Christ for sinners, and the sinners duly to die to sin, and to suffer for and with Christ? Christs resurrecti∣on for the sinners justification, the sinners duly to rise to Christs life here, because of the blessed assurance of a glo∣rious resu••rection to eternal blisse with Christ hereafter; all which holy doctrine, which is the substance of the Gospel, is preached in baptisme,* 1.40 as well as the Word, which maketh Mr. Perkins say thus, The preaching of the Word, and the

administration of the Sacraments, are all one in substance, for in the one the will of God is SEEN, and in the other HEARD.

Now where is the will of God touching Christs Death, Buriall and Resurrection, and our death, buriall and resur∣rection with him, seen in the sprinkling of childrens faces? Oh that we had an impartiall Judge!

The Apostle affirmeth of the Gospel, 2 Cori••••h. 3.18 That we all with open face behold, as in a glasse, the glory of the Lord. And doth not the Apostle chiefly intend the Sacraments of the Gospel by the metaphor of a glass, be∣cause they respect the eye as a glass doth, whereas the Word preached respecteth the care? And if we do but consider why Christ would have the Gospel preached (namely, to affect the hearts and soules of men with the goodness thereof) It will easily appear, that the form of baptisme can be no other but by dipping, because in any other way the sign will no way answer the thing signified, and so the glass being defaced, the heart is not affected by the eye for want of a resemblance, whereas otherwise the Ordinances being administred, according to the last will of Christ, where there is a full correspondence between sign and thing signified, they goe hand in hand with the Word, excellently aiding and assisting the holy design of the Word preached, when administred upon the right Gospel subject, namely; a converted Disciple to Christ, which Mr. Baxster, p. 301. of plain Scripture proof, calleth, the most fully capab••e sub∣jects, the most eminent subjects, the most excellent subiects, and of whom the Scripture fully speaketh: In the same place complaineth of Infant baptisme, as dark in Scripture, and hard to find, notwithstanding his flourish of plain Scripture proof for it.

Be astonisht therefore oh ye heavens, and horribly afraid oh earth, that such a silly Worm as Man is, such a thimble full of dust, should dare to change Christs Ordinances, and deface that glasse, which representeth Christs glory, and blurre the last will of him before whose judgement seat they must all appear to be judged,* 1.41 and receive according to all the

deeds done in the body: Are ye stronger than he?

Your sixth Consideration being the very self same in substance with the first, I referre the Reader to my Answer to that, in which thou shalt find the Answer to this also, onely there is a remarkable passage in the beginning of it, which I shall have occasion to speak to, when I come to answer the 18th Consideration.

Your seventh Consideration for sub∣stance this: THat in the 6. of Hebr. 2. the word Baptismes, which is there reckoned amongst the foundations, or beginning doctrines of Christ, being in the plurall number, it is not easie to determine, whether by it be not meant variety of formes in baptising, or a variety of subjects of Bap∣tisme, rather than a variety of Baptismes.

To which I answer, why should that be hard to you or any man else which the Scripture hath made easie?

As for variety of subjects the Scripture is silent, we read of no subjects, but discipled persons, made so by teaching. For variety of formes of baptising Disciples, where is there any such thing so much as whispered? But as for variety of Baptismes, that the Scripture speaketh fully too, though but

one proper reall Baptisme, namely, that with water,* 1.42 which is the Ordinance of the Church, the other, namely, that of the Spirit and afflictions, being metaphorical, and by way of Analogy, to that which is reall and proper, is called Baptisme; yet Dr. Lus••ington upon the place saith, that the Siriac Translation rendreth the word Baptisme in the sin∣gular number: but be it otherwise, why should we take hedge and ditch, when the Kings high-way lieth just before us.

Your eighth Consideration for sub∣stance this: THat with-drawing upon this accompt, is a schismatical practise, and a sin of a high nature.

I confess with all my heart, that Scripture Schisme is a sin of a high nature, and of deep demerit, and that for the rea∣son you give: but that ours is that which the Scripture con∣demneth, I utterly deny.

Where ever Schisme is there is separation, but it doth not follow, where ever separation is that there is Schisme, 2 Corinth. 6.17. Come out from amongst them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord God, and I will be a Father unto you; No body will say this separation of the Text, is sinfull Schisme.

Sinful separation cannot be but from a body regularly united according to the direction of Christ, and the ex∣ample of the Primitive Churches, because we have a posi∣tive Command to with-draw from every brother that walk∣eth disorderly in the Church,* 1.43 much more every Society that

is not built upon the principles of the doctrine of Christ, I mean those, which (by Christs order) concern orderly joyning, but yours is such a one, and therefore separation can be no schisme, which onely respecteth Churches of a regular constitution, such as the Church of Corinth was, and the rest of the Churches mentioned in Scripture.

Sir, when you can shew us a rule from Christ to gather Churches without Baptisme, in all the new Testament, then what you say corcerning us will come home to us, and we shall be found guilty of that hainous sin: But Sir, if no such rule appear from Christ, nor any such Church appear in all the Word of God, then will not our separation from you be found that which the Scripture calleth Schisme, but a conscientious with-drawing to perfect the work of refor∣mation, according to our solemn vow to the most High, which yet would have been our duty, whether we had vowed it or no.

But 2. Why should our separating from you be count∣ed Schisme, more than your separating from the Parish Churches? is not our ground the very self same which yours then was? And what can you say to Mr. Baxster, who chargeth you with Schisme for with-drawing from the Nationall Church,* 1.44 which we cannot answer you with: He calleth you Church-Renter, as you do us, and an undone person, amongst others upon that account, that are as pillars of Salt in his eye. And is it not strange, that Mr. Goodwin should be so busie with the word Schisme, schismatick and schismatical, as to use them eight times in 30. lines, against his freinds, for doing that which himself hath given them an example in upon the same ground.

But 3. and lastly, As the fatall Apostasie from the pure Ordinances of Christ, and the example of the Primitive Churches in worship, was graduall, so hath the recovery of primitive purity been; now a little and then a little, as it hath pleased God to communicate light to his upright ones, that he hath used in the reformation, but it hath been won, as it were by inches, and still been made costly to the Names at least of the Instruments, they all bear this burthen which

now Mr. Goodwin chargeth us with, of schisme.

The Pope crieth Schisme and Heresie after the Church of England, for renouncing communion with the Church of Rome. The Pishops cry Schisme after some of the Pres by∣terians. The Presbyterians cry Schisme after Mr. Goodwin, and all Separatists from the National Church, which with∣drawings have been so many steps towards primitive purity: Now Mr. Goodwin crieth Schisme (pretty liberally too) after us, who have gone a few steps farther in the same path (which as yet his heart serveth him not to proceed in) that we may reach the things we have heard from the begin∣ning,* 1.45 1 John 2.24. That we may stand compleat in ALL the will of God, Colos. 4.12. And walk in ALL the Ordinances and Commandments of God blameless, as Zachary and Elizabeth did, Luke 1.6. And keep the Ordinances as they were delivered to the Churches of old, by the Apostles from Christ, which was matter of praise to the Church of Corinth, as long as they so kept them, 1 Cor. 11.2.

Which that we may doe, we find the same cause to re∣nounce the National Baptisme, which Mr. Goodwin hath done to renounce the National Church, which is the very basis and foundation of it, and that without which it is not easie to conceive, how it could come to passe at first, or how it should stand long.

Well Sir, its not long ere your work and ours will be tried, you have judged early, but our comfort is, that this is but mans day; Christ is not farre off, whose cause we plead,* 1.46 and then not he that commendeth himself is ap∣proved, but he whom God commendeth, then shall every man have praise of God, Come Lord Jesus, come quickly, 1 Cor, 4.5.

Your ninth Consideration is: THat it is but a carnal Ceremony, and so acknowledged by Mr. Lawrence, now Lord President, whom you stile one of the gravest Authors of the Antipaed•• baptisticall faith.

But Sir, though Mr Lawrence hath stiled Baptisme a car∣nal Ceremony, I pray Sir, where hath the holy Spirit called any of the Ordinances of the New Testament carnal Or∣dinances? 'Tis true; the Ordinances of Moses are called carnal Ordinances, by the holy Spirit, Hebr 9.10. which lasted untill the time of reformation, saith the Text, or Christs time, wherein the Church hath new Ordinances given by Christ himself, whereof Baptisme is one, and given by Christ, as a Reformer of what was carnal▪ therefore to call Christs Ordinances carnal, I humbly conceive, agreeth not to the form of wholsome words, and the rather, because beginning with the Gospel, as the Galatians did, who be∣leived it, and put on Christ in Baptisme, they are said to begin in the Spirit, Galat. 3.3. unto which the carnal Ordi∣nances of the Law are opposed under the word flesh, Are ye so foolish, having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?

But 2. When Mr. Lawrence calleth it a carnal Cere∣mony, it is onely in regard of the outward act, which re∣specteth the flesh or outward man, abstract from the spiri∣tual design of Christ in it, but otherwise in his judgement, as well as ours, an Ordinance very spiritual, and full of the wisdome and Spirit of God; for proof of this, I referre the

Reader to his book of Baptisme, but especially to his Di∣scourse, from p. 101. to 113.

3. And lastly, That the want of it rendreth beleivers unfit for any spiritual communion (I am farre from think∣ing so) but that it rendreth them unfit for that full com∣munion, which a Church of Christ, in the right order of the Gospel, enjoyeth; that I do beleive, and have given a full account of it already, in answer to your third Consi∣deration: And as for making work for a second Crucifixi∣on of Christ, I suppose Sir, that which made it at first, is most like to doe it the second time, and that was sin and disobedience, not righteousness and full walking with Christ, according to the rules received of him.

Your tenth Consideration for sub∣stance this: IGnorance in some things concerning the mystery of Christ, found either in a Church, or particular persons, hindreth not their lawful communion in a Church way, for then there would be none fit, be∣cause the best know but in part, therefore not to be looked for that they should be practised in full.

If by the word Church, be meant an orderly joyn'd Church, made of fit matter, according to the Command of Christ, 'tis most true that you say, that Ignorance in many things will not render their communion unlawfull, and your reason good and sound.

But this will not prove, that baptised Disciples may law∣fully sit down in Church bodies with unbaptised, because such conjunctions are disoderly (as I have proved at large) and consequently sinful, and so not to be in∣dulged, but corrected and set strait according to the Rule.

But why doth Mr. Goodwin tell us so often of judging our brethren unclean for communion? Is it we that judge you?* 1.47 or is it not rather the Rule of the Lord Jesus? All Christians are commanded to walk after Christ, and that in matter of Ordinances as well as faith, and if so doing, judge you, it is not we that judge you, but Christ: , Tis true, in a sense we judge you,* 1.48 as Noah by obedience judged the old world, but it is our grief, that there is occasion for it. But have we judged you any otherwise than you have judged the godly Presbyterians of Coleman-street? if we be sinners herein, you cannot be righteous, except the same action may be grace and holiness in one man, which is sin and unworthiness in another, and that too when done under much the like circumstances.

Therefore thou art inexcusable oh man, who ever thou art, that judgest, for wherein thou judgest another thou condemnest thy self, for thou that judgest another dost the same thing, Roman. 2.1. If you will needs find fault with us, you must repent, and return to the Parish again.

As to your odious foul language of sacrilegious Church-breakers; I answer,* 1.49 hereunto are we called, from the ex∣ample of Christ, when we are reviled, not to revile a∣gain, but to commit ourselves to him that judgeth righte∣ously.

Your eleventh Consideration followeth, and for substance this: THat Baptisme is no constituting principle of a true Church, yea probably, no part of Churchship, or the visibility thereof, and that the Apostles did not so look upon it as being ei∣ther. 1. Because in his inscription to the Churches, be mentioneth their sanctification, calling to be Saints, &c. but not their Baptisme. 2. It is not menti∣oned by way of commendation, either of Church or person, more than the observance of other Ordi∣nances.

That Baptisme is so essential to a right raised Church of Christ, that without it there can be none in the right order of the Gospel, I have proved already in my Answer to your third Consideration.

To the Reasons you give, why the Apostles did not look upon the Baptisme of the Churches as any part of their churchship or visibility thereof, I shall now address my self to make answer: Your first is, because in the in∣scription of his Epistles to the Churches, he mentioneth their faith, with divers other things, but not their Bap∣tisme.

If this be ground to presume, that the Apostles looked not upon their Baptisme, as any part of their-churchship or visibility thereof, then neither was their preaching, or hear∣ing the Word, nor breaking bread, nor watching over one

another, nor admonition in case of sin, neither is the great duty of prayer, any part of their churchship or visibility thereof, for there is none of all these mentioned by name in the inscriptions of his Epistles to the Churches; but I know it is farre from Mr. Goodwin to say, that these duties were no part of their churchship or visibility thereof, and if these were not, I marvell what were: This therefore is so farre from being a reason, that it hath scarce the appear∣ance of one.

But 2. You say, it is not mentioned in Scripture by way of commendation more than other Ordinances.

Here Sir, but (with respect to your gravity, and my own obligation of respects to you) I must crave leave, for the truth sake, to say, that our affirming there can be no true raised Church without Baptisme, doth not force us to find, that Baptisme must be commended in Scripture above other Ordinances, nothing lieth upon us, but to shew what service Christ hath appointed it to, and not what preheminence of commendation the Scriptures give to it above other Ordi∣nances; neither doth Christs choise of this Ordinance, for the service we speak of, necessarily imploy the super∣excellency of it above others; no more than faith, its justi∣fying us and not love, proveth faith to be a more noble grace in the nature of it than love, love is said to be great∣er than either faith or hope, 1 Corinth. 18.13. love being a giving grace, having the whole world for its object; but faith a receiving, yet notwithstanding the honour of that high and excellent service of our first justification is given to faith, and not to love, Rom. 5.1. Gal. 2.16.

So here, though Baptisme should be found a lesse noble act of obedience than some others, yet it will not follow from thence, that its not the Ordinance of initiation into the visible body of Christ. For a Souldier to behave him∣self worthily as a Souldier, more commendeth him to God and men than his listing himself, yet is he not reputed a member of the Army without it: Let this therefore suffice to be spoken against all the insinuations you give through∣out your book against Baptismes, having the honour of

entring persons into the visible body of Christ, because of the meanness of it, least you be found reproveable for objecting against Baptisme for the bodies visible incorpo∣ration, as the Jews was against faith for justification, because to them works seemed more sightly and agreeable to their reason.

Your twelfth Consideration for sub∣stance this: VVHen the Apostle Paul instructeth Christian Churches, what manner of persons they are, who are unmeet for Christian communion, he mentioneth fornicators,* 1.50 covetous, railers, and the like, but never unbaptised persons.

'Tis true, Paul was wiser than to write any thing in his Epistles to the Churches, by which he should suppose them guilty of that wherein he knew they were not in fault; doth he not write to the whole Church of Corinth, 1 Corinth. 1.13. Were ye baptised in the Name of Paul? nay 1 Cor. 12.13. Doth he not say, We are ALL baptised? And doth he not praise them, 1 Corinth. 11.2. that for the matter of Ordinances, they had kept them, AS he delivered them unto them? and he delivered them from Christ; 1 Corinth. 11.1. and we have proved already, that Christs Order was to baptise all the Disciples presently without delay.

And if all that hath been said in answer to your third Consideration, be not enough to this point, I heartily

desire the Reader to lay to heart that which follow∣eth.

To prove that no persons were reputed of the visible body of Christ before Baptisme, and consequently farre enough from sitting down in Church societies without it, I prove from the 4. of the Ephesians 4, 5. There is one bo∣dy, which at the 12. verse is in plain termes and in words at length called, the body of Christ: Now that by the word body he did not mean it onely of the particular Church of Ephesus, or any other particular Church of Christ, but of the universal body of Christ, it appeareth by that which he affirmeth concerning the body, which belongeth no more to the Church of Ephesus, than to any single Christian; yea, those many things wherein they are one, he affirmeth as belonging to them in common with all the Scripture Christians in the world: Now to accommodate his design of peace and love in the body, he proceedeth to mention the many things wherein that body is one, which he deli∣vereth as so many notable Characteristical marks, whereby all the members of that body may be known from all the world, upon these marks I would fix the eye of the Reader, behold then the Scripture marks of all the members of the visible body of Christ.

• 1. They have one Spirit.
• 2. One Hope.
• 3. One Lord.
• 4. One Faith.
• 5. One BAPTISME.
• 6. One God and Father of all, who is above all, and in all, and hath Christ linked their oneness in Baptisme, with their union in those other things, yea, placed it in the order of words, before their oneness in respect of God, who is the Father of them all, as being altogether the characters of a member of that body we speak of: and doth he speak ac∣cording to the form of wholsome words that saith, men may be visible members without it, or will Christ hold that man guiltless, that striveth to break this chain, which he in wisdome hath linked together?

That the Text speaketh of, reall proper Baptisme with water, and not of metaphorical, it appeareth:

1. As for that which some conceive (though untruly)

the Baptisme of the Spirit, namely, the common fruits of the Spirit, such as faith, that he spoke of before, as that wherein they were one, in distinction from Bap∣tisme.

Secondly, As for that which is in truth the Bap∣tisme of the Spirit, namely, speaking with tongues and the like, that cannot be meant, because the Baptisme here, is affirmed of all the members of the body; of whom that cannot be truly said: I understand therefore by Baptisme, in the fourth of the Epesians, the Church Ordinance of Bap∣tisme: with water, by which the Apostle affirmeth both Jewes and Gentiles put on Christ, Gab 3.27.

And further, how can any one imagine, with any shew of reason, that in the primitive times, there was any such confusion, as the sitting down of baptised, with unbaptised Disciples: Since its plain.

• 1. That Christ commanded their baptisme presently af∣ter discipling.
• 2. That the Apostles so practised it, as we find, in every example.
• 3. Where any backwardness appeared, the Servants of God hastened the Disciples to Baptisme, Arise,* 1.51 why tarri∣est thou? saith Ananias to Paul. And truly it is a remark∣able thing that though Paul had fasted three dayes, yet after his discipling he is hastened to Baptisme before he is permit∣ted to eat meat, Acts 9.18.
• 4. We read not of one discipled person that ever refused Baptisme.
• 5. Considering the judgement of the Spirit of God concerning those Rabbi men that did refuse Baptisme, or Johns Ministry, whereof Baptisme was a part, which was,* 1.52 that they rejected the counsell of God against themselves: I say, considering all this, with what is offered in Answer to your third Consideration, it is, I humbly apprehend, one of the most unreasonable apprehensions that ever was founded upon the Scriptures.

And now let the world judge, whose building is Babel, whether ours, that answereth the Rule to a hairs breadth,

or yours, which is quite besides it; and here Sir we challenge you, to make out your opinion and practise from the Scrip∣ture; as we make out ours, or else your great words, rhetori∣call flourishes, angry invectives, being in a manner the best of your strength, wherewith you fight with us, must all goe for tubbish and dirt.

But you say, in case you should releive the poor, and grant us (that the Sun shineth at noon-day) that in the Primitive times was no such confusion of baptised Disci∣ples holding communion with unbaptised, yet how we know, that in case there had been any unbaptised brethren, whether the Apostle would have prohibited communion with them, as well as with fornicators.

To this I answer, if by communion be meant that full communion which orderly Churches enjoy, I make little doubt but he would:

• 1. Because he was so full of this point of advising the Disciples to punctuality in the point of order, Col. 2.6. 1 Cor. 14.40.
• 2. Because he praised the Church of Corinth for keeping the Ordinances AS he delivered them unto them, 1 Cor. 11.2.
• 3. Because order he looked upon as a beautiful thing, and rejoyced to behold it in the Church of Colosse, Colos. 2.5.
• 4. Because he cautioneth the Church to take heed of Philosophers, that through vain deceit would bring them to disorder, Col. 2.8.
• 5. Because when any disorder grew in the Church, he took such care to have them corrected, Titus 1.5.
• 6. Because he saith, his word was not yea and nay, 2 Cor. 1.18. as fallible mens are now, being guided in his orders by an infallible spirit.

So that to ask, whether Paul would not have prohibited the Churches to hold communion with unbaptised persons, is to ask, whether Paul would not pull down with one hand what he buildeth up with another.

But good Reader, Mr. Goodwin asketh us one question, and I would ask thee another, and it is, whether thou dost not think in thy conscience, Mr. Goodwin hath the wrong end of the staffe in this controversie? and whether the put∣ting this question do not discover it? and who it is that buildeth upon light conjectures, loose suppositions, pre∣sumptuous self-imaginations, Mr. Goodwin, or his poor bre∣thren of the dip, as he calleth them?

Your thirteenth Consideration for sub∣stance this: BAptisme is at some seasons offensive, bur∣thensome and grievous to the flesh, and that for Men and Women, especially being weak and tender of constitution, to submit to it in winter and cold seasons, is as expresse a tempting of God, as passing through the fire would be.

To which I answer. 1. Experience hath proved this to be the vainest insinuation of all the rest, there being not one person, that I ever yet knew since we came into this way, young or old, though baptised in the depth of winter, that ever suffered any thing in their health, to the value of the least hair of their head; yea, some that have been aged and weak in body have professed, that since the time of their obedience to Christ in this Ordinance of his, they have not found those weaknesses that formerly they were troubled with, no question (but in case of sickness) God will have mercy and not sacrifice, and God will accept the wills of

such for their deed: but will that excuse those that are in health? or doth Mr. Goodwin think, that scores of persons, I might say hundreds of aged and weak persons, that have been baptised without dammage, might have pass'd through the fire with as little hurt, or if indeed Mr. Goodwin hath rea∣son to judge the danger to be so great?

Then 2. Is it not a notable Argument, to perswade Mr. Goodwin to cast in his lot with these men, because these God knoweth above all the Professors of Religion in the world besides, because though miracles are ceased, and dead as to others, yet it seemeth are alive to them, and they daily find the manifestation of Gods out-stretched arm for their pre∣servation, that as God took care of the Jewes, when they went up to worship at Jerusalem, that it should not enter into the heart of their enemy to invade their Land, so doth he order the element of water, that the worshippers of Christ, by being born of it, shall have no losse, their bodily health shall not be invaded by it.

But 3. It is very true, that the spiritual design of Christ in Baptisme, being partly to represent Christs death for ••s, and to oblige us to the death of all sin, it hath pleased him, and that in great wisdome, to order the buriall of the bo∣dy in the element of water, that the bitter sufferings of the Lord Jesus for sinners may be remembred, by the help of that sensible sign, wherein Nature hath a gentle taft of some suffering, though not at all to its inconvenience. And whereas you say, that Baptisme was ordained for Disciples of the first peep out of the shell, and greatest weakness in the faith, and from thence argue, that surely Christ intend∣ed it not to be so offensive to the flesh and the rather, because the other Sacrament, which yet is ordained for the strong, is of a more welcome import.

To this I answer. 1. 'Tis true, Baptisme was ordained for young Disciples, but that this is any Argument, why it should not be greivous to the flesh, I understand not, I am sure it is not scriptural; Christ saith to those that are young Disciples, Luke 9.23. and he said to them ALL, If any man will be my Disciple, let him deny himself, take up his

crosse daily and follow me: and to those that were looking towards Christianiy, Christ putteth the worst to them, and therefore would have them sit down and cast up the cost.

In the 8. of Math. 20. To the Scribe that said, Ma∣ster, I will follow thee whithersoever thou goest, Jesus saith to him, the foxes have holes, the birds of the air have nests, but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head.

But 2. Why you should say the other Ordinance is provided for the strong, as if it were so appropriately to them, and exclusive of the weak, (or otherwise where lieth any strength in the Argument) this is not onely unscrip∣turall, but anti-scriptural, Acts 2. They all both weak and strong, all that gladly received the word and were baptised, continued in the Apostles doctrine, and fellowship, and breaking bread, and prayer, and indeed more for the weak sake than the strong, who had less need; and so I appeal to the conscience of the judicious Reader, what weight there is in all this Argument against us, and whether these be not carnal complaints against the hardness of Christs yoak, and the fruit of such workings of heart as was found in Peter, Math. 16.22.

Your fourteenth Consideration for sub∣stance this: THat for persons to mistake in the matter of Baptisme, so as to judge they have no need to be baptised after beleiving, because they judge themselves sufficiently baptised in infancy, is a mistake of a veniall nature (because almost all the

judicious, learned and grave, all the zealous, faithful and best conscienced Christians and Servants of God, throughout the world, Fathers, Martyrs, Re∣formers and others, for sixteen Generations together, even from the dayes of the Apostles, until now) have been so mistaken.

To which I answer. 1. The Apostles did foresee in their time, that there would be an apostasie from the primitive practise in the worship of God, as well as the primitive faith for doctrine; the mystery of iniquity beginning to work very early, which was the reason of those items, to hold fast the Ordinances, 2 Thes. 2▪14. and Col. 2▪6. and to beware of Philosophers, that would carry them from the simplicity of the Gospel.

Accordingly it did fall out, many departures there were even in the Apostles dayes, 1 John 2.19. and more fore∣told, amongst which, this of Infant-sprinkling is one, where∣in there hath been a palpable deviation from the rule, which yet notwithstanding many worthy men suffered, supposing the Church to have power to make alterations in matter of Ordinances:* 1.53 Calvin himself acknowledgeth, that the li∣berty of sprinkling (whereas the antient custome was dip∣ping) the Church took to her self: And Mr. Bedford, as Mr. Baxster reporteth, p. 301. of plain Scripture proof, flieth to tradition for proof of Infant-Baptisme; One Doctor Eck, against the new Church Orders in the upper Marques∣dome and Territories of Noremburge, writeth, That the Ordinances, concerning the Baptisme of Children, is without Scripture, and is found to be onely a custome of the Church, with a cloud of other witnesses, yea, even Luther himself the great Reformer, in his book of Anabaptisme, acknow∣ledgeth, That it cannot be proved by sacred Scripture, that Childrens Baptisme was instituted by Christ, or begun by the first Christians after the Apostles, for many yeares since it

came to be in use in the Church, saith he, and was established by Pope Innocentius: And yet for all that he allowed of it, so that though he was a godly man, and a great Reformer, yet allowed of alterations in worship upon that ground, which Mr. Baxster abhorreth to doe: now Mr. Baxster thinketh he hath plain Scripture proof for Infants baptisme, or he would not own the practise, because he looketh upon the Scriptures as a perfect rule (as well he may) and all de∣viations from them in worship in ordinary cases, but so many complaints against the perfection of Scripture.

2. If the judgements of the learned and godly be of so much consideration, as that it may justly stop proceeding in the work of Reformation, why did it not curbe you from that frightfull tearing your self off from the Nationall Church, which had been in reputation with the godly many hundred yeares, and that in the face of the Sun, and that when such things were comparatively rare, to the scandal and great offence of your brethren of the Ministry, wherein, as I remember, you were pretty early, in leading the way of separation from the womb that bear you, and the paps that gave you suck; or doe you think one of fourty of those antiently godly and holy men, would have liked it, and yet for conscience sake you did it notwithstanding.

3. This Argument becommeth not you of all men living, because it is no new thing with you to leave the road, nay at this day, and in this book that I am now answering, you plead stifly for some things, which rendereth you more alone than we, in the point of denying Infant-baptisme, namely, in denying, though not in plain words at length, yet in effect, that Baptisme is the Ordinance of entrance into the visible Church of Christ, and that a Church may be of as found a constitution without it as with it, and ordained upon the termes of the free-will Offering under the Law,* 1.54 wherein I beleive you have no fellow, except some Seekers, and some few persons leaning that way; others that have gone before have stumbled at the same stone, and fell, and never rise more, which ought to be like pillars of salt in the eye of all good men, to take heed of slighting and undervaluing any

of the Ordinances of Jesus Christ, least because they receive not the truth in the love of it. I say, in the love of it, God deliver them up to a reprobate mind, and send them strong delusions, that they may beleive a lie.

But I hope better things of you, though I thus speak, and 'tis my earnest prayer to God for you, upon the bended knee of my soul, to shew you the evill of these arguings, that you may repent in dust and ashes before you goe hence, and be no more seen.

Your fifteenth Consideration follow∣eth. THat Baptisme how duly soever admini∣stred, is no Church-maker, and that it doth not commend us to God or Men more than other Ordinances.

To which I answer: Mr. Goodwin hath put his Considerati∣ons into many parts, so that they go for twenty three, as if he had abundance of reason on his side in this matter, wherein he argueth against us, whereas many of them run into one, and for substance are the same, so that a particular answer to every one must needs cause abundance of repetition, and going over and over the same thing. That Baptisme of it self is a Church-maker, I am as farre from thinking so as you are; no, men must repent from dead works and beleive to∣wards God, or else no fit matter for the Church, though baptised, but that there can be any orderly joyn'd Church without Baptisme, though men doe repent and beleive, is that I argue against, and have given a large account in my Answer to your third Consideration and twelfth; and as

for the other part of it, that it doth not commend us to God nor men more than other duties, in my Answer to your eleventh Consideration, you have a full answer to this plea also.

Your sixteenth Consideration for sub∣stance this: THat you have no need of Baptisme after Repentance and Faith (which you call new Baptisme) because your old sprink∣ling in infancy is as effectual to all ends and purpo∣ses of Baptisme, which you reduce to three heads:

• 1. For declaring persons the professed Disciples of Christ.
• 2. For obliging persons to be the loyall Di∣sciples of Christ, in which they covenant so to be.
• 3. For matter of edification and comfort to the inner man.

To which I answer, by denying utterly that Infant-sprink∣ling is as effectual to all or any of the ends and purposes of Baptisme, as the true baptisme of persons after faith and repentance, neither is there any weight in your Argument to that purpose.

1. You say it declareth you with more advantage than ours to be the professed Disciples of Christ to the world.

And that 1. Because yours the world knoweth, ours is a kind of Barbarian to the world.

2. The generality of men doe not look upon it as any thing more significative, of owning the Name and Faith of Jesus Christ.

To both which Arguments I answer. 1. To that plea, that the world is better acquainted with your way than ours.

'Tis most true, that yours being from the world, the world must needs know and love it better than ours, because it is her own, and ours being from heaven, to which the Spirit of the world is a stranger, no marvell if it be a barbarian to them, but whether the worlds natural liking and greedy fal∣ling in with yours, be not an Argument of its carnal, earthly original, and on the contrary, its disliking ours, be not on the contrary a probable though not demonstrative Argu∣ment of the heavenly pedegree of it, let the Scriptures judge, John 15.19. The world loveth her own; because ye are not of the world, therefore the world hateth you. Of this onely by the by.

But how cometh Mr. Goodwin to conclude from the dear acquaintaince the world hath with Infant-sprinkling, above what it hath with Beleivers baptisme, that therefore Infant-sprinkling is more efficacious, to declare persons the pro∣fessed followers of Jesus Christ, then Baptisme after faith, since in the baptisme of Infants, there is no profession made at all, by which the world should take any cognizance of the parties belonging to Christ, neither is the poor crea∣ture capable of making any? ('Tis true, the Bishops being ashamed of Baptisme without profession of faith, devised a remedy by allowing Sureties, who they called God-fathers and God-mothers, which being a piece of superstition too gross for the light of this day, it is gone off the stage with∣out much regret.) Whereas in the true Baptisme of the New Testament sealed in Christs heart bloud, the party himself; (and not another for him) being a beleiver, made a disciple by Teaching, maketh publick profession of his faith in Christ, as you see the Eunuch did,* 1.55 in his own person, and declareth

his willingness to accept of Christ, on his own terms, and to be listed in his army,* 1.56 and voluntarily putteth on Christ thereby (which is the Sctipture expression) as a servant put∣teth on his Masters Livery.

Who then (that is not bespoke) but will judge, that Baptisme into Christ after faith, at a mans own request (in the presence of God, Angels and men) is more to declare ones relation to Christ, than the passive, ignorant reception of it in infancy.

But to come closer, and to take light from the Scripture, what it is that both maketh a man called Christs Disciple, and what it is declareth him so? now 'tis plain by the Scrip∣ture, that as following the instructions and examples of Christ, maketh a man called his Disciple, Luke 9.23. John 8.31. So also doth it most significantly declare our disci∣pleship to Christ: The Scripture is as expresse for this as for the other, By this shall ALL men know that ye are my Disciples, if ye love one another AS▪ I have loved you: If they would take his counsell to love one another, especi∣ally if after his own example, AS he had loved them, then he saith, By that ALL MEN shall know, they shall not onely be his Disciples, but ALL MEN should know, that they are his disciples: So that we have a plain rule laid down in Scripture, to guide us, what it is that doth, with advantage, declare men the professed disciples of Christ, and that is the walking after him according to his word, what made the Jews known to be the disciples of Moses, but the following of his doctrine, and example: Have we then a∣ny thing more to do, to determine this, but onely to lay the two waies, to the rule; for how can any one imagine with any shew of reason, that walking contrary to Christ, should declare persons his disciples.

If then believers baptisme and that by burying the body in water; be that the Scripture speaks of, as that wherein we follow Christ, and are one with him, which I have pro∣ved already, and as for Infants sprinkling, not a word of it in all the New Testament, then out of all controversie, the

way to declare men the disciples of Christ,* 1.57 is to go our way, because Christ walked this way, as we have proved already, and therefore all that will be called Christs Disciples by Baptisme, must go this way and no other.

But you say the world looketh not upon beleivers Bap∣tisme by dipping as any thing more significative of owning Christ, but the contrary, even disobliging them rather, from what their first baptisme obliged them unto than other∣wise.

To that I answer, how willing you are to affirm things loosely, that is like to reproach this cause, is much more plain, then the truth of your affirmation, and whether it be not so, I leave the world to judge.

Further to this cruel insinuation against the poor people and way of God, whereby you seek to pervert the strait wayes of the Lord, I shall say little, but Lord lay not this sin to your charge.

Suppose they should do so, ought the errors of men to be indulged or corrected? onely let me mind you of your own words, which, as at many other times, so at this, rise up in judgement against you.

Sir, in one of your Letters to Mr. Tho. Goodwin, p. 11. you have these words, If we judged it any advantage to the truth and cause we maintain against you, we durst vye morrall im∣putations with you, and are confident, that we could assign and suggest against you, both as many and as likely indirect and fleshly grounds for your departure from us, as you can against us, for keeping our first standing and profession. BƲT the truth will never be made GREAT by such demonstrations or arguments as these on either side.

If Mr. Goodwin thinkes the truth will never be made great by such demonstrations as these, it is because he judgeth there is no reason why it should, and if so, as on the one hand it condemneth him for using them, so on the other hand it justly begetteth suspition of error, con∣cerning that opinion, that such Arguments are used to maintain.

But to proceed, you say; that as to another end of Bap∣tisme, namely, the obliging persons to be the loyal Disciples of Christ, you say, your Infant-sprinkling or baptisme is as operative that way upon the Conscience, as out Baptisme is upon ours, or would be upon yours, if you should come un∣der it.

Here is two things affirmed, but neither of them proved, nor indeed is it possible to prove them; one is, that your Baptisme is as bearing upon your conscience to become Christs Disciples, as our Baptisme is upon ours; this is a thing which you affirm at randome, not knowing how the baptisme of those, that are indeed rightly baptised, and that take up the wayes of God in uprightness, I say, how it hear∣eth upon them, nor ever are like to doe, because your pre∣judice is grown so great that you know not how to inter∣pret any action they doe charitably, nor scarce word they say.

Another thing you affirm is, that your Infant-baptisme is as bearing upon your conscience, as ours would be if you came under it, and how can you tell that without tryall?

Truly Sir, I should hope, that passing under that figure, wherein in so fully represented Christs death, buriall and resurrection, and your death, buriall and resurrection with him, being approached unto in the Name and fear of God, and in obedience to Jesus Christ, that it might be a meanes of killing that spirit of cruelty that haunteth your pen in many of your controvert all writings, to the dishonour of God, and discredit of the opinion you maintain in them: the strait wayes of truth, as they have no need of the crook∣ed wayes of sin to build them with, so they are never like to be built by them.

But thirdly and lastly, You say, your Infant-baptisme is as edifying and comforting.

To which I answer: You must first prove it to be of Christs appointing, or else you impose upon us to beleive, that the Spirit of God, which is the Spirit of edification and comfort, will take as much pleasure to concurre with mens inventions, as his own Ordinances, which is quite con∣trary

to the Scripture,* 1.58 In vain doe they worship me, teaching for doctrines the traditions of men.

But 2. You say your soules have thriven under that Baptisme. 'Tis probable so, but that doth not prove it was by the meanes of Infant-baptisme (of which you are igno∣rant, whether ever any such thing was done or no) onely that you have heard so (if this arguing be like Mr. Goodwin in other things I am much mistaken.)

Christ telleth the Jewes, John 649. That their Fathers did eat Mannah in the wilderness, and are dead: but can any body gather from hence, that their death was caused by the eating of Mannah? These are your own words, p. 44. Of Water dipping: And is not your reasoning in this place much af∣ter the same manner? you were baptised in Infancy, and thrive in godlinesse when grown up to yeares of discre∣tion; but it no more followeth, that your thriving in godlinesse was by the meanes of your Infant-bap∣tisme, than that their death was caused by eating of Man∣nah.

And is it likely, that ignorant worship of God should have any lively operation upon the soul, much lesse, that it should have as much as that which is done knowingly and voluntarily, and bel••ivingly, the soul having commu∣nion with God in it?

And why may you not as well say, that hearing Sermons in infancy is as edifying as at age? I know not; Infants would understand as much of the one as of the other; and when grown up, it might be told them what was (said) then, as well as now they are told what was (done) then in Bap∣tisme; is the darkness of the darkest night more void of light than this proposition is of truth? Reader judge.

Your seventeenth Consideration for sub∣stance this: IT doth not appear from Scripture, that any Church of Christ, or embodied Society of Be∣leivers was commanded by Christ, or the Apostles to be dipt, nor yet threatned or reproved for the non-practise of dipping.

I answer: It is very true, because the Apostles did not use to spend their breath in vain, they would not command that to be done twice, which Christ had ordered to be done but once, nor to reprove where there was no cause.

If you would have the Reader feel any weight in this Argument, you are bound to find us a Society of em∣bodied Beleivers undipt, which is a task too hard for you, but yet this light supposition is the very founda∣tion of your Argument, which being rotten and san∣dy, the building falleth of it self, I need say no more to it.

Your eighteenth Consideration for sub∣stance this: THat it is more than any of us will be ever able to prove, that there is any precept of Christ, whereby it is made sinful for any person whatsoever not to be baptised in one form or other.

• 1. Because it can be no sin to be undipt, whilst there is no legal Adminstrator.
• 2. Because the Commission to baptise is given to the Apostles onely.
• 3. Because they were not enjoyned to baptise any per∣son against their wils.
• 4. It is hard to know what is the Antecedent to the Pronoune THEM in the Commission, or whom, or what persons they are whom our Saviour here authorizeth his Apostles to baptise.
• 5. In the Commission is no Command laid upon any person to be baptised.
• 6. Neither doth it appear from those words, teaching them to observe whatsoever I have commanded you, that the Apostles did teach Beleivers to require Baptisme of them.
• 7. It appeareth not, that the Apostles in the course of their Ministry, did ever teach either

• ...Church or person to seek baptisme at their hand.
• 8. Though that should be granted, yet it followeth not, that it was a standing law for all Pastors and Teach∣ers to the worlds end.

1. Because it fully appeareth, that water-bap∣tisme was never intended by God, but either onely or cheifly, for an introductory or planting Ordinance, at its first coming unto a City or Nation, till it should get some considerable rooting and interest a∣mong them, not for a staple Ordinance in one and the same place, with many other such like Pleas as this is, to render it doubtful.

To which I answer, but with much grief of heart, to find such noble parts and abilities, as God hath endowed you with, so desperately engaged in so bad a cause.

But Sir, if I prove by the Scriptures, that it is sinful for Disciples to remain unbaptised, and that by the precept of Christ, then all your farre fetcht pleas will fall to the ground.

To prove then by the Scriptures, that it is sinful by the precepts of Christ, that his Disciples should neglect Bap∣tisme, I prove from the 2. Acts 37, 38. that the command∣ments of the Apostles are to be looked upon as the Com∣mandments of Christ, it appeareth, in that they had them from Christ, Acts 1.2. Ʋntill the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the holy Ghost had given commandments unto the Apostles whom he had chosen, Paul, 1 Corinth. 11.23. pleadeth, what he delivered them he had from the Lord. Peter therefore, 2 Pet. 3.2. saith, he wrote to them, mean∣ing the scattered Disciples, to stirre up their pure minds by way of remembrance, that they might be mindfull of the Com∣mandments of ƲS, saith he, the Apostles of our Lord and

Saviour: besides the foundation of Religion laid by Christ, and that laid by the Apostles, the Spirit in Scripture maketh one and the same, 1 Cor. 3.11. Other foundation can no man lay, than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ: Now the same Apostle to the Ephesians Ephes. 2 20. saith thus, And are built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets. So that to build upon Christs doctrine, and the Apostles doctrine, is the same, and that for the reason specified. I conclude then, that if the Apostles command every one to be bapti∣sed▪ then Christ hath commanded every one to be baptised.

But the Apostle Peter in the 2. Acts 38. when the Disci∣ples that were pricked at the heart by the word preached, asked him what they should do, He commandeth them to repent and be BAPTISED EVERY one of them for the remission of sins. So that here is a plain positive command to all and every of the persons, at whose heart the Word cometh, not onely to repent, but to be baptised. If sin then be the transgression of the Law (which the Apostle saith it is) and that the Apostles Commands are Christs, and that the Apostle hath commanded every one that repenteth to be baptised, then doth the conclusion lift up its head, that there is a precept of Christ in Scripture, whereby it is made sinful for some persons to remain unbap∣tised.

But it may be Mr. Goodwin will object, 'Tis true, this was a command which lay upon those new Converts as a duty, but doth that prove it lieth upon us?

I answer: Yes, if the duty of repentance lie upon us as well as on them, for they are both put together by the Apostle, and if the precepts of the Apostles to the primi∣tive Churches in any thing be precepts to us, then is Bap∣tisme as well as other things; for as Repentance and Bap∣tisme are both enjoyned to the first Churches by the Apo∣stles, so are they both put together in the Commission, Math. 28.19. Disciple me all Nations, baptising them: and Mark 16.16. Goe and preach to every Crea∣ture, He that beleiveth and is baptised shall be saved; and the same presence promised to the end of the world,

as well to baptising as to teaching: Mr. Baxster saith, by the end of the world to understand a period of time, is a peice of im∣pudent violence.

This then is my first Argument for the standing of the Ordinance of Baptisme, it is joyn'd with Teaching in the Commission, and Christ saith, what God hath joyn'd together let no man put assunder: But God hath joyn'd Baptisme and Teaching together, and for any man to presume to part them, what is it but to offer an affront to the great God, and God will surely reckon with them for it first or last, how many are there of such, that for slighting Christ in his Ordinances,* 1.59 which was the first stone they stumbled at, have had strong delusions sent them by God, that they might beleive lies, and since proved forlorn, wofull spe∣ctacles of Gods indignation.

But to set home this Argument for the standing of Bap∣tisme as long as Teaching, I shall use Mr. Goodwins own words, upon which I would fix the eye of the Reader:* 1.60 No Authority can discharge or dis-oblige, but that which is either greater than, or at least equall unto that which bindeth.

If so, then are you not bound by your own principle, to find us out an Authority, equall to Christs, that hath dis∣charged Baptisme, which is by so great an Authority en∣joyned, as is Christs the Lords, the great Judge both of quick and dead, which I am sure is impossible for you to do, and therefore Baptisme standeth in full force and vertue; and all your suggestions rendring it doubtful, must not, nor will not go for gold, but dirt, except with some, that in mat∣ters of Religion are neitheir hot nor cold, which luke-warm temper God abhorreth, and without repentance will one day spue them out of his mouth.

Good Reader let but thy esteem of Baptisme stand, till Mr. Goodwin shew us an Authority, equal to Christs, that hath discharged it, and I will promise thee, that mine and thine shall fall together.

My second Argument to prove Baptisme standing is this:

That opinion which tendeth to the destruction of all Religion can never be the truth, but to conceive Baptisme out of date, tendeth to the destruction of all Religion.

That to conceive Baptisme out of date tendeth to the de∣struction of all Religion, I demonstrate that thus:

1. By dividing Religion into two parts

• 1. That which is external, standing in the exercise of external Ordinan∣ces; and
• 2. That which is internal, standing in a holy frame of heart and life.

Now that to conceive Baptisme out of date tendeth to destroy the external part of Religion, I prove it thus:

If the standing of Teaching, and breaking bread, and other acts of Church fellowship, have no other foundation, but what Baptisme hath the same, then to conceive Baptisme out of date, is to disparage the standing of all the rest, as out of date also, because the same God, out of the same in∣finite wisodme, ordained Baptisme that ordained breaking bread, and all the acts of Church-fellowship, may, he hath cast some degrees of honour more upon Baptisme, then upon some other of the Ordinances, in as much as he sin∣gled out Baptisme from some others, and put it in the Com∣mission by name with Teaching, and ordained it in some sence or other, to serve the grand interest of remission of sins and salvation,* 1.61 and gave such a particular charge to have it done with so great solemnity, even, In the Name of the Fa∣ther, Son and holy Spirit.

Now what is the foundation of the standing of any of the Ordinances, but the unrepealed Word of God, which as much respecteth Baptisme as any other; therefore disparage Baptisme and disparage all, they live, they die, they stand, they ••all together.

But 2. That to conceive Baptisme out of date, tendeth to the destruction of the more spiritual part of Religion, namely, that which consisteth in a holy frame of heart and life: I prove thus,

If the use of Ordinances be the soules edification, then to dis-use them is the way to make havock of all our spiri∣tual treasure; but to conceive Baptisme out of date, is the way, not onely to disuse that Ordinance, but all others, be∣cause they all stand upon the same bottome, as I have proved already.

Now that the use of Ordinances is the edification of the soul, appeareth by many Scriptures, Ephes. 4.11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16. and that Baptisme by name hath a rich tenden∣cy to edification, I have proved already at large, by shewing the design of God in it, which is to affect the heart by the death, buriall and resurrection of Christ, in that Ordinance SEEN, as well as in the Gospel preached those truths are HEARD, with other respects of edification, which I shall not now mention.

But for more full satisfaction at this point, let me give Mr. Goodwins judgement concerning the edifying nature of Baptisme, p. 26. of his water dipping.

1. That it is operative to the engaging the judgement and conscience to become the loyall Disciples of Christ.

And 2. the building up of the inward man in grace and peace.

If so, how cometh so many suggestions from you, render∣ing the standing of Baptisme doubtful? Hath Christ ap∣pointed more wayes of teaching the Gospel, and building up the inner man in grace than needs? and might you not as well think, that God intended to make darlings of the Christians in the first times, and but step-children of all the rest of Beleivers to the end of the world, as to think, that he would take from them any part of the meanes of their edification and spiritual comfort, and not give them others in the room?

I conclude then, and I hope with evidence clear enough, that Baptisme was not onely intended by God for an in∣troductory Ordinance to last for a time, but for a staple standing Ordinance with Teaching to the end of the world, and that too ordained for the Creatures good, and conse∣quently as sinful a thing to neglect it, as it would be to neg∣lect ones daily bread.

If all that hath been said be not enough to satisfie the Reader concerning the standing of Baptisme, I referre thee to Mr. Baxster,* 1.62 who hath in his book of Baptisme offered ten Arguments, all grounded upon the plain Text of Scrip∣ture to prove it, and in the end concludeth thus, I will add no more because it is but on the by, and because this is sufficient to those that can judge of Scripture evidence when they hear it, and will be ruled by it, when they know it, and for others, it is not many words that can cure their disease.

And if any body think me over zealous in this matter, let them consider the words of Calvin, p. 208. of his Com∣mentary upon the Acts, though he doth most ingenuously confess, that since the beginning the Church did grant liberty to her self to CHANGE the Rites, meaning, from putting all the body into the water to sprinkling: Now the use saith, he is to sprinkle the body or the head. But though they took the boldness to do that which Calvin justifieth the Church in, yet for the continuance of Baptisme it self, we ought ra∣ther, saith he, to fight a hundred times to death for the ceremony it self of Baptisme, in as much as it was delivered us by Christ, then that we should suffer the same to be taken from us: But I say, that there is the same reason to fight a hundred times to death for the right subject, and the right form of admini∣string it. 1. Because God is wiser than men, and because any body with half an eye may see, that the change from dipping to sprinkling frustrateth the great design of Christ in the Ordinance it self, as I have shewn already, and in a manner maketh it useless; and because changing of the Ordinances we find to be a hainous provoking thing to God of old, Isaiah 24.5. The earth mourneth and fadeth away, the earth also is defiled with the Inhabitants thereof, because they have transgressed the Lawes, CHANGED the Ordinance. Mark, not for a totall laying aside of them onely, but for transgressing the rule, and changing them, yea, the 29.16. Mark, how hainously God taketh the wise mens turning things upside down; I say, mark all yee wise men and consider, Surely your TƲRNING things upside down shall be esteemed as the Potters clay: yea, he threat∣eneth

at the 14. verse for this very reason, that their FEAR (that is their worship) was taught after the pre∣cepts of men; The WISDOME of their WISE men should perish, and the understanding of the prudent should be hid: And if any one ask, why God was so severe upon this account? the conclusion of the 16. verse telleth all, Shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, HE HAD NO UNDERSTANDING? This then is the account God maketh of mens changing the Ordi∣nances, that it is a reflexion upon God, as if he wanted un∣derstanding, changing Gods Lawes is no other, but a char∣ging God with that weakness, which poor fallible men are subject unto, which maketh them many times upon expe∣rience to change theirs.

Come close then oh world, and discern the difference between us and our adversaries, and judge, whether our brethren, that hate us, and cast out our name as evill, have any just ground for what they doe; the difference is easily seen, they have changed the great Ordinance of Baptisme, thou seest Calvin honestly confesseth it, whereas we think Christ wiser than Calvin, or the Church he speaketh of, and have we not reason for it? and that instead of changing his Laws, it becometh us to be humbly obedient to his Lawes, and do not we do well in it? They think they have mended the Ordinances, we think they have spoiled them; and do plainly see, the ground of their first tampering with them, was pomp, profit and ease; and that it is our duty,* 1.63 on Christs behalf, to endeavour with all our might the reco∣very of them to their primitive purity.

As I have given thee, good Reader, the judgement of Calvin as to the form of baptising of old, so take his words about the subject, p. 207. of his Commentary upon the Acts, If Baptisme be given without faith, whose seal it is, It is BOTH A WICKED AND TOO GROSSE A PROFANING; 'tis true, for rea∣sons which were so to himself, he was for Infant-Baptisme notwithstanding; but the reason he giveth, is no more a proof to us, than Abrahams begetting Isaack proveth we

shall have new heavens and a new earth. Learn'd Ʋnsin advising when Baptisme is rightly and lawfully used, faith, It is,* 1.64 when the Rites instituted by Christ in Baptisme are not CHANGED; And saith further, that the Sacraments are no Sacraments where they are unlawfully administred. Now compare these two learned men together; Calvin saith, the Church hath changed the Rite from dipping to sprink∣ling; and Ʋrsin saith, that where there is change the Sa∣craments are no Sacraments.

If then Calvin say true (whereof there is no doubt) that is, that the primitive practise was dipping, then in Ʋrsins judgement, the Ordinance being changed to sprink∣ling, it ceaseth to be any thing, and so all sprinkled persons are unbaptised.

Further as to the subject,* 1.65 This condition is added (speak∣ing of beleiving) unto the promise, for they who are baptised cannot receive that which is promised and sealed in Baptisme, but by faith, so that without faith, neither is the promise rati∣fied, nor the Baptisme AVAILABLE: he goeth on, In these words is noted breifly the right use of Baptisme, in which right use the Sacraments are ratified to them, which receive them with a true faith; but in whatsoever corrupt and unlawful use and administration, the Sacraments are no Sacraments. Note well, BƲT ARE SACRAMENTS TO THEM ONELY WHO RECEIVE THEM WITH A TRƲE FAITH.

But if any body say, why but yet Ʋrsin was for childrens Baptisme, as well as Calvin: yes, he was; but mark the ground.

Whereas they say,* 1.66 (meaning the Antipaedo Baptists) that unto the use of Baptisme faith is required: We grant it, but yet distinguishing of faith, so that we say, saith he, actuall faith is required in those of understanding, but in Infants is required an inclination onely to this actuall faith: afterwards thus, Faith is in Infants potentially, and by inclination. Thus by the help of this distinction, he hooketh in the baptisme of Children: But will this satisfie the conscience of any con∣siderate Christian? where is an inclination to beleive made

the condition of Baptisme, for any body young or old, in Scripture? Is there such a word? and if there be none, as surely there is not, are these men ruled by the Word, or ra∣ther do not they rule it?

Or is there any such thing in Infants, as an inclination to beleive? Is it not the judgement of these men, that all Infants are born children of wrath by nature, dead in sins and trespasses, as dead to any thing that is spiritual, as a dead man is to natural? if so, how come they to conceive of such, their inclinations to beleive which is a spiritual thing? and who can tell of any inclinations in Infants no one thing or other? can any body tell by experience of any inclina∣tions they had in infancy? What a woful ground is this to administer Gospel-Ordinances upon.

Or is the next any better, though they have not faith actuall, yet they have potential faith, and is that any more than to say, they may beleive one day? and is not that the condition of Pagans and Infidels? and shall they be bap∣tised upon that ground? doth not this arguing savour of that Philosophy and vain deceit Paul warneth the Colossians of, by which they were in danger of being carried after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ? Good Reader, dost thou not perceive it, I know that thou per∣ceivest it?

But this is too great a digression, I should now return to Mr. Goodwins pleas, which render the standing of Baptisme doubtful, but that labour is saved, because I have proved al∣ready the continuation of Baptisme with Teaching, I hope, to the satisfaction of all unprejudiced minds: and because my Brother Allen hath lately published a Book, called, Sa∣tisfaction for Seekers, where the case, touching an Admini∣strator of Gospel-Ordinances in these times, is handled, with many other questions thereabout of near affinity to these pleas of Mr. Goodwins, or rather the Seekers, which Mr. Goodwin hath espoused, and put so great a countenance upon them, as if they had so much weight in them, as to make the matter difficult, whether the Ordinance of Bap∣tisme be standing or no.

Consider his words, We do not intend that any thing hi∣therto argued,* 1.67 should be taken for a demonstrative or positive proof, that the Ordinance of Baptisme is now extinct, or not administrable without sin in the world.

He confesseth they are not a (demonstrative) proof of the death of Baptisme; but it seemeth they goe a great way, and say a good say to it; the truth is, Sir, you fear not to make great adventures to come into your end, you seem willing, not onely to be content to part with Baptisme, which Calvin saith, one would fight to a hundred deaths rather than loose, but to hazard the reputation of all the Ordinances, rather than the true Baptisme of the New Te∣stament should advance in the minds of men (though the deceit of sprinkling be detected, that it can scarce look the light of this day in the face) what else meaneth your coun∣tenancing of the Seekers Arguments, which lie as well against all the Ordinances as Baptisme, and which hereto∣fore you have trampled on like dirt.

Sir, you say to Mr. Edwards, that his Gangrena made great joy in hell; whatever his Gangrena did in hell I know not, but I beleive, upon good grounds, that your water dipping, especially this eighteenth Consideration, hath made more joy on earth, amongst the Seekers, Ranters, and all sorts of non-Churchers, than ever they had in all their lives before, by how much you excell the most, in parts, learning, wit, &c. by so much the more is their con∣solation, that you seem to feel weight in their Arguments, HEARK HOW THEY CLAP THEIR HANDS AND SING.

But to conclude, Sir, may not Baptisme say to you, as Christ to the Jewes; for which of my good workes doe yo•• stone me? Hath not God made the Scriptures concerning Baptisme upright, why then doe you seek out so many in∣ventions.

Your nineteenth Consideration being of one heart and soul with the eighth, I shall wholly passe it over, referring the Reader to the Answer of that, in which he shall find the Answer to this also.

Your twentieth Consideration for sub∣stance this: PEter being questioned for holding communi∣on with Cornelius and his Company, by the Brethren of Jerusalem, he justifieth it, by telling them, they had received the holy Ghost, as a testimony of their faith, and doth not so much as hint any thing of their Baptisme in his justification, and with that account they were satisfied.

To which the Answer is ready: 1. It appeareth clearly, these persons the Text speaketh of, were baptised persons, Acts 10.47, 48.

2. The Communion Peter had with them, was after their Baptisme, for presently upon the testimony of their faith, by Gods giving them the gift of the holy Ghost, Peter commanded them to be baptised in the Name of the Lord, which was the manner of Peter, and the rest, in the course of their ministry.

Now if Mr. Goodwin could prove Peter broke bread with them between the time of their faith and Baptisme, which is the matter Mr. Goodwin would prove lawfull by it, then it

were something to favour his cause, but not home to the point neither, because an occasional act with some few persons will not justifie the constant proceedings of a Church.

But why doth Mr. Goodwin think, that this instance will prove mixt communion lawful?

Because Peter in his justification, when questioned for eating with Cornelius, insisted onely upon Cornelius, his having the holy Ghost, not his Baptisme.

To which I answer 1. The Scriptures silence doth not prove, that he did not mention his Baptisme, and insist on it too, because the Scriptures doth not contain all the Apostles sayings, Acts 2.40. With many other words did he testifie and exhort, saying: So John the Baptist, Luke 3.18. with many other words.

2. There was no necessity upon Peter, for the justifi∣cation of his eating with Cornelius, to mention his Baptisme by name, though he could not have communion with him without it, because in those dayes, a beleiving person and a baptised person was presumed the same.

Paul proveth they all beleived, because they were bap∣tised: Gal. 3.27.

And that 1. Because by the Commission of Christ all Beleivers were presently to be baptised, Math. 28.19.

And 2. Because none but such was the regular subjects of it, Acts. 8.37.

And 3. Because it was the constant practise of the Servants of God, to call the Beleivers to Baptisme without delay, Acts 22.16. So that the Apostles and Brethren un∣derstood him sufficiently, as to their Baptisme, by telling them of their having the holy Ghost as a testimony of their faith. If they did not take that for granted, it must be, either because they doubted his understanding of the Com∣mission of Christ, or else his faithfulness in executing it, or else their will to be baptised, but there was no cause to doubt either, nor Peters understanding the Commission, or faithfulness in executing it, because they had experience be∣fore of Peter, in the case of the three thousand, Acts 2.41.

who the same day that they gladly received the word were baptised; not their willingness,* 1.68 because Cornelius was so ready to obey God in every thing, that he had but a few fellows, so that the mentioning of his Baptisme would have been like a kind of an impertinency.

3. There was no necessity upon him to mention their Baptisme by name, in his justification of eating with them, though he could not have communion with them without it.

Because it is common both in Scripture language, and common converse with men to include all appurtenances, in the mention onely of some cheif part, see for this John 5.44. Galat. 3.23. Galat. 3.2. Roman. 10.8. Mat. 21.25. Acts 10.37. Johns Baptisme put for his whole Ministry, Luke 7.30.

Calvin calleth Baptisme an app••rtenance of faith, p. 207. of his Commentary of the Acts. And no doubt this lan∣guage was well enough known and understoood by the Apostles and Elders, so that having mentioned the holy Ghosts coming on them as a testimony of their faith, what need had he to draw it out in words at length, that they were baptised? and thus thou seest, good Reader, how Mr. Good∣win indulgeth every light appearance from the Scripture, being passionately desirous to make that strait which God hath made crooked.

Your twenty one Consideration for sub∣stance this: THat Pastors and Teachers were given by Christ, that all Saints, one or other should be perfected by them, and the whole body

of Christ edified, then certainly they have all right to Church-fellowship, inasmuch as they have their cal∣lings onely by and resident in Churches, neither are they in any probable way of perfecting them, but onely when and whilst they are incorporated with them in their Churches respectively, Eph. 4.8, 11, 12.

To which I answer. 1. Its true, that Pastors and Teach∣ers were given by Christ, that all Saints should be perfected by them; but it is as evident, the Saints this Text speaketh of, for whom they were given in speciall, to serve as Officers in the Church, and who had power to give them their call, they were such Saints as were of the visible body of Christ, who as they had other characteristical marks of the mem∣bers of that body, namely, to have one God, one Spirit, one Hope, one Lord, one Faith, so one BAPTISME; consult the 4. and 5. verses of this 4. of Ephesians, which Text Mr. Goodwin groundeth his Argument upon, and you will find it so, and although other persons that were disci∣pled by the word taught, but yet had not put on Christ visibly by baptisme into his Name. The gifts of Pastors and Teachers were given for the perfecting of them too, yet but secondarily, not primarily, those gifts primarily re∣spect the body of Christ so marked, as before is noted; 'tis plain in the 12. verse, For the edifying of the BODY of Christ.

That unbaptised persons were not then reputed of the visible body of Christ, I have proved at large already, and although they might be Saints before Baptisme in the sight of God, yet in the account of the Church none passe for Saints till then, because their faith it self in Christ, which maketh Saints, could not be clear to the Church till then, and that because Baptisme being one of the beginning do∣ctrines of Christ,* 1.69 and preached by the Apostles as a duty, with repentance and faith, and that in order to remission of

sins and salvation (in some sense or other) should any man have stuck at it, and refused Baptisme? what ground would the Church have had to look upon the faith of such as sound? nay, had they not all the reason in the world to doubt the soundness of it? because the character of a true lively saith would be found wanting, namely, universal obe∣dience, and they rejecters of the counsel of God.

Nothing in reason could appear as a ground to refuse it, but the danger of the crosse following it; I conclude then, that though the truth of their faith made them Saints be∣fore God, yet without publick profession of their faith by Baptisme, they were not owned for Saints by the Church, or any such persons whose faith was of the right kind, let their professions otherwise be that they would be.

This is clearly the doctrine of the 3. Galat. 27. Ye are all the children of God by faith; FOR (mark) as many of you as have been baptised into Christ have put on Christ; he proveth their faith in Christ to be true by this, that they were not ashamed to put on Christ, to bear his Name publickly, whatever it should cost them.

And then 2. Whereas he saith, AS MANY OF YOU as have been baptised into Christ have put on Christ. They and onely they, that were baptised into Christ, were judged by the Churches, as persons that had put on Christ, in distinction from Moses, and that had now embraced the Religion of the Lord Jesus.

And although it be very true, that beleiving persons are not in so-good a way of perfecting by the gifts of Christs pastors and Teachers, out of Churches as in Churches, yet that will not justifie the Church in breaking any of Christs rules for their admission, their suffering is through their own fault, the mouth of God being open, and his heart enlarged towards them.

And thus good Reader, how easily maist thou see, that the Scriptures complain of the yoak, wherein Mr. Goodwin forceth them to draw.

Your two and twentieth Consideration hath many parts, and for substance thus:

FIrst, we understand by books and writings of such authority and credit, that we have no ground as all to question their truth, that the generation of men, whose judgements have gone wandring after dipping and re baptising, have from the very first originall and spring of them, since the late reformation, been very turbulent and trouble some in all places where they have encreased to any numbers considerable, and wiser men than I are not a little jealous over the peace of this Na∣tion, lest it should suffer as other places have formerly done, from the tumultuous and domineering spirit of this sort of men, so numerously prevailing as they doe. There is a strong tide of report both from Ireland and Scotland, that as farre as the interest and power, so far the insolency, also, and importune haughtiness of that generation we speak of, extendeth in both these Nations, and that all persons, of what integrity or worth soever, who are not enlightned with their darkness, about their dipping, are trodden under foot like unsavoury Salt, and judged unmeet for any place of trust or power with them, being allowed onely the preferments of drawing water and hewing wood. One of this faction or party in England, (and he no small beggar neither) speak∣ing of a person, who though not of his judgement about the necessity of dipping, yet otherwise a man that had very well deserved of that way in severall respects, yet speaking of this person, he said, in the presence of

several persons of quality, that He deserved to be hanged; an Aphorisme consonant to a latter saying of a Preacher of that way about the City, who in discourse with a person walking in communion with me about his judgement, and being as it seemeth worsted in the skir∣mish, at last recovered the lost ground with this or the like Epiphonema, that she might find her Church at Tyburn and the Gallows. These words I regard but as muck, notwithstanding it may concern others to look after the fire. But surely these men, when they come into their Kingdome of authority and power, will execute judgement without partiality; if so, then he that de∣serveth to be hanged must expect no better quarter than that of the halter; and if Justice be administred with∣out partiality, all that are in the same condemnation of anti-dipping with him, may bear him company in the same expectation.

Before I make particular answer to this Consideration, I must say, it cannot passe my observation, how strangely Mr. Goodwins zeal in opposing us transporteth him, how it maketh him forget his old brave sayings, wherein he certain∣ly had the Spirit of God with him; he once said, The truth would never be made great by the suggesting of morral imputations against the enemies of it. Ye a, in his Cautions for Reformation he beginneth, as well he may, thus; They who intend a reformation, according to the Word of God, must take heed of admitting humane passions into their consultations, For in James his divinity, The wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God, that is, saith he, MARK, subjecteth a wan to an incapability of doing that which is truly agreeable to his will.

And doth not these words come home to Mr. Goodwin? for hath he not left calm reasoning from Scripture ground, and betaken himself to wrath, and the weapons of reflexi∣on? his spirit being as it were of a light fire, no marvell

then, if he manage this controversie upon termes so dis∣agreeable to Gods will, and that he come to shake hands with the old enemy of the truth, Gangrena, in many of his methods, and will heaven or earth like of it? He once said, Gangrena would be found a strumpet, of the race and lineage of the great scarlet whore, that the vine of the Author was as the vine of Sodome, and his grapes grapes of gall, his clusters bitter, his wine the poyson of dragons, and the cruell poyson of aspes: And hath not Mr. Goodwin now justified it?

But if the question be, How Mr. Woodwin hath justified Gangrena?

The answer is, by doing himself just as that Author did, which hath made some lift up their eyes to heaven and say, LORD, WHAT IS MAN, THAT THOU ART MINDFUL OF HIM? If the question be, wherein? it is answered.

1. By taking up disparaging reports against his brethren that never did him harm, and publishing them to disgrace their religion by. This was the great fault of Mr. Edwards, for which Mr. Goodwin reproveth him thus, p. 4 of Cre∣tensis, The form of those accusations Mr. Edwards hath levied against his brethren, is much more inexcusable than the matter of them. We do not read, that either Cham or Doeg, though sons of much unworthiness, ever traded with Satan for these black commodities, or compassed the earth too and fro, with their Eves-droppers, Agents or Factors, to gather up and furnish themselves with the sins or infirmities of the Saints, no, nor that they ever took up a report into their lip against any man, upon either the loose or malitious suggestion of others, BƲT ONELY (mark that) RELATED and informed what themselves SAW WITH THEIR OWN EYES, and that casually, without any waiting the opportu∣nity.

But Mr. Goodwin hath not onely taken up a report against a man, but against many, even the generation, as he calleth them, that he is now writing against.

2. He hath not onely taken up these reports into his lip,

but like Mr. Edwards he hath published them to the world in print, to be an everlasting monument of dishonour to them, which hainous sin of yours, against the royal Law of love, will he found agravated by these two notorious circumstances.

1. The matter of the story it self being utterly untrue, (though you did not think so.)

And 2. Against persons, many whereof have had ho∣nourable thoughts of you, and much love for you

Secondly, To convince you, that the same spirit or a worse acted you in writing this book, that inspired Mr. Edwards in his Gangrena, it appeareth by your drawing sore conclusions from words, upon suppositions, that are utterly false, viz. from hence, that a baptised person said of an unbaptised, he deserved to be hang'd (though it is not affirmed for what) much lesse is it affirmed, that he said, he deserved to be hang'd for not being baptised, and how un∣reasonable such a conceit is, I leave to any body to judge. Yet you conclude sorely, against the Baptists, upon that un∣charitable presumption, thus, in these words, if so, then he that deserveth to be hang'd must expect no better quarter than that of the halter, and if justice be administred with∣out partiality, all that are in the same condemnation of ANTI-DIPPING with him, may bear him company in the same expectation, which cruell conclusion, that if the baptised were in power, the undipt may look for the halter, all men may see you draw from that wrested supposition, that the baptised person should say of the unbaptised, he deserved to be hanged for not being baptised, the conclusi∣on otherwise being no wayes drawable from the premi∣ses.

Oh Sir, Truth is too noble a thing to desire such weapons to fight its battels.

3. Your likeness to Gangrena appeareth in this, that the faults of some that were the most unworthy of the Inde∣pendents, he charged upon the generality of them, for which you belabour him thus; Doe not all men know, that the composition of the world it self, and of all the parts of it,

consisteth, ex flore, & faece, of what is excellent and what is excrement, for Mr. Edwards to judge of Indepency by the miscarriages, whether in practise or opinion, of some few, that should make an estimate of Cheap-side by the channel that run∣neth in the midst of it, and give sentence against the holy and elect Angels by what is found in sin and wickedness in the de∣vill: The most accursed hypocrites that ever the earth bare have been of the profession of Christianity, and yet Christia∣nity the best of all professions, with a great deal more to the same purpose, both rationall and pleasant to read.

But yet as if no such words had ever proceeded from Mr. Goodwin, or else that he had repented of them, he can now find in his heart to argue against the Generation, as he calleth them, of the Baptists, upon the account of the wild expressions of two persons instanced in, But surely THESE MEN: Again, let no man think I doe not walk charitably to THESE MEN: Again, My conscience bears me witness, I have been freindly to THESE men: Well Sir, the time will come, when you shall look upon these men, whom you have peirced, and mourn

4. Mr. Edwards stirreth up the Magestrate to suppress the Independents, which you do not in so many words, but you foment jealousies against them, and endeavour a frowning brow towards them, by your bitter insinuations, let all the world judge else by the words following: That wise men are not a little jealous over the peace of this Nation, least it should suffer as other places have done formerly, from the tumuliuous and domineering spirit of this sort of men: and also after your two instances of persons here at home, thus These words I regard but a•• muck, notwithstanding it may concern others to look after the FIRE. Whereas amongst all the professors of Religion in the Nation, they are found to be as peaceable spirited, if not more, than any other sort of men, witness the Declaration of the Messengers and Elders of many Congregations, met in London, from many if not most parts of the Nation, published about eight or nine moneths agoe, speaking their peaceable disposition,

as all the world may see that will read it: besides, let but experience speak to it, what fire have these men kindled for this many yeares, that the Nation hath had experience of them? wherein hath their turbulency, domineering and tumultuousness of spirit appeared? nay, are they not bran∣ded this day by some for dulness in their generation, work, upon this very account, because they are not of a more stir∣ring spirit?

5. Your similitude to Gangrena appeareth in this, that as he urged the writings of other men against the Inde∣pendents to disgrace their Religion, so doe you against the Anabaptists, p. 64. of his Gangrena, being part of a letter to him sent out of the Country, We have a few Indepen∣dents in our Town, but we are more troubled with them, than some are with many, they are so TURBULENT and VIOLENT. Just what Mr. Goodwin writeth from other men, concerning the Anabaptists, the same doth Mr Ed∣wards write from men, concerning the Independents, which was, that they were proud, turbulent, and every wayes stop∣ping the progress of the work of Reformation. But Sir, will not after ages give as much heed to the writings of Mr. Edwards, and Mr. Jenkins, and Mr. Walker, in your dispa∣ragement, as you now do to the writings of Luther and the rest, &c. to the disparagement of the Anabaptists? if they do, what manner of man will you be in the thoughts of fu∣ture generations? Doth any of those Authors say worse of the Anabaptists than these men do of you? Doe not these men strive to render you one of the most odious men living? not onely a Schismatick, but an Heretick in grain, yea, a Blasphemer.

But are you ever the more so for all that? and would you hold them excused that should beleive the reports of cruel professed adversaries.

To come a little closer, I look upon your self as a man of as good a conscience, as the most, if not as the best of those famous Writers you speak of, yet so transcendent is your prejudice against us, that every light appearance you have taken for a reality, (as if your were greedily desirous to be∣leive

some ill of us) insomuch that you your self have given as unrighteous judgement of us, and printed it too, to the perpetual infamy of our persons and way, as the worst of them have done of you: I am sure what I say is true, and that you will find one day.

I conclude then, that the testimony of professed adver∣saries, though good men, is not to be depended on: And if Mr. Goodwin hath not as much need of the truth of this proposition as the poor Anabaptists, let the world judge.

To conclude then, the truth is, this two and twentieth Consideration, in most of the nine parts of it, is so like Gangrena, that one would think Mr. Goodwin had consulted that book in drawing it up, as the Reader may easily per∣ceive; which being made up of such dirty stuffe, without the least breathing of the Spirit from any word of Gods, I think I may take my leave of it without blame, and the rather, because of that floud of contempt which he let in upon the Author of Gangrena, for using such weapons to fight the Lords battels.

Onely what he saith in the ninth and last place I take my self bound to make some answer too, because I suppose I am principally aimed at in it: The substance this:

• 1. That you never heard of any that got any spiritual good by Baptisme.
• 2. But you have known, yea, you have known some, who have lost by it: (I suppose you mean my self, and my Brother and Companion in the Lords work, Mr. William Allen, with some few others, whom you had more cause to take notice of than any others.)

Now Sir, having first observed how in this way of ar∣guing you and Gangrena jump:* 1.70 They (saith Mr. Edwards) generally (meaning the Independents) walk loosely and at large, ever what they did before they turned Sectaries, and in comparison of the godly Presbyterians; I doe not know nor hear of a Sectary in England, that is so strict in his life as he was before, and as thousands of the Presbyterians are; they goe to bowles and other sports on dayes of publick thanksgivings. As

Mr. JOHN GOODWIN. This I premise to shew to your self, and confirm the Reader, that the same Spirit that ruled in Mr. Edwards, in whose strength he strives (but in vain) to hinder trembling soules from obedience to the truth, and to hold them under the dominions of Antichrist. The very self same spirit hath filled the hears of Mr. Good∣win, out of the abundance whereof he speaketh the same language, to fright humble soules from following their dear Lord and Master, who saith, The sheep (meaning his own sheep) follow him, for they know his voyce, and a stranger they will not follow, BƲT WILL FLEE from him, for they know not the voyce of strangers, John 10.4.5.

But Mr. Goodwin, through desire seperateth himself to all wisdome, even that of the Prophets enemies, Jerem. 18.18. Then said they, Come and let us devise devices against Jere∣miah, for the Law shall not perish from the Priest, nor coun∣sell from the wise, nor the word from the Prophet: Come and let us SMITE HIM with the tongue, and let us not give heed to his words. Judge else by what followeth: Ma∣ny have we known, who went into the water Lambs, and came out of it WOLVES and TIGERS; wany who went in Doves, and came out of it SERPENTS, as if they had met with the Spirit that ruleth in the air under the water, instead of the sweet Spirit of Christ; yea, we have known some, who soon after their dipping have done things so unworthy and unsuteable to their former Genius, which if any man had challenged them before their dipping, that they would doe after, we have reason to judge, they would have replied to the challenge, as Hazael did to Elisha, in somewhat a like case, But what is thy servant a dog, that he should do this great thing?* 1.71 (That thing was, He would rip up the women with child, dash their children, slay the young men with the sword, and set the strong holds of Israel on fire.) So many sad STORIES (they are stories indeed) and spectacles, wherewith our eyes and eares are filled from time to time, put us into some feares, least as God in his just, though secret judgement, giveth Satan a permission to haunt some houses, and to misuse and ter∣rifie those that shall lodge in them, so he should, for causes best

known to himself, have granted unto this enemy of mankind somewhat a like power ever the opinion and practise of rebapti∣sing.

Oh unmerciful Pen, that nothing will satisfie, but the very life of the reputation of those it dealeth against! There is this onely difference between you and Mr. Edwards in your war against the truth and people of the most High, he was your match in rage and fury, but he wanted your keen wit and roaring language to set it off with. Mr. Goodwin, all men know, delighteth in figurative speaking, if he be to praise men, then he will lift them up to heaven, and set them too near the Throne of God; if he be set to dispraise them, then down he throweth them as farre on the other hand, he hath words at will to serve both purposes: but surely to hiperbolize in the disparagement of any man, much less his brethren, let such straines be of what account they will in Rhetorick, I am sure they are nought in Christi∣anity, they will hardly look that Text in the face, Speak evill of no man, Titus 3.2. Reader what thinkst thou?

Or will Mr. Goodwin own these words for words of truth and soberness, That we went into the water Lambs, and came out such savage beasts, as Wolves, Tigers, Serpents, and that since we have done things something like Hazael, Who ript up women with child, slew the young men with the sword, dasht their children, and set the strong holds of Israel on fire? Is there truth in these words, and will not the righteous God of heaven and earth call you to an account for these hard speeches against your intimate friends, that was alwayes as tender of your reputation as the apple of their eye? were it not well for Mr. Goodwin, if it might be truly said of him, when he wrote this book, that which he mockingly suggesteth of us, that we are persons of a maimed fancy? would not his guilt be the lesse?

Honest Reader, the sense of guilt breedeth fear and trem∣bling in the soul, but on the contrary, the conscience of righteousness, innocency and uprightness, especially where absolutely perfect, as inparticular cases men may be, as it filleth the soul with courage, so it emboldeneth it in the

presence both of God and men, If our heart condemneth us not, saith the Apostle John, 1 John 3.21. then have we BOLDNESSE towards God. Mark, a full testimony of conscience emboldneth the soul before God, much more before weak mistaking men.

Again, The righteous are as bold as a Lion:* 1.72 How then shall we hold our peace, that can call God to record upon our soules, that we know not any one thing we have done, that should give Mr. Goodwin any just occasion thus to speak of us: so that if ever there were a pack of swelling words of vanity put together, they are here, that are every jot as vain and empty of truth, as they are swelling of poyson, inso∣much that if I had not had former and long experience of Mr. Goodwins holy bent in his Ministry and conversation (excepting the inordinate sharpness of his pen) of which I had rather speak (God he knoweth) a thousand times, than of any thing that looketh towards his dispa∣ragement.

But I say, if I should judge Mr. Goodwin according to the truth of what he here affirmeth concerning us, I should look upon him as a man void of all sense of conscience and fear of God, by taking liberty to say any thing to blast his adversary, that his luxuriant wit prompted him unto.

But to answer a little more particulerly what these things are, that we have done since our baptisme, which maketh you collect our great spiritual loss; I blesse God I know not any thing, and I am certain no body else doth know any thing, that will judge righteous judgement, and not take face for heart, shadow for substance; what our gain is, we think it becommeth us to speak modestly of that, and to strive to make it good by actions (wherein oh migh∣ty God help us) rather than words.

And now, good Reader, to convince thy conscience, that we were not like to doe any such strange things soon after our Baptisme, that should render us such savage beasts. Thou must know, that Mr. Goodwin and the Church were the dearly beloved of my soul; our relation thereto, and

fellowship therein, I reckoned one of the cheifest comforts of my life; I wanted not, but abounded with respects from them, above what my conscience told me I deserved, (and who that knoweth me knoweth not this to be true:) I doe profess in the fear of that God (whose I am, and whom I serve) that if I know my own heart, no body could have hired me from the bosome of that Church with hundreds a year: And when the time came, that for pure conscience I must be seperated from the embraces thereof, teares was my meat day and night; my greif was such at that time, that it made the thoughts of death sweeter to me, than ever they were in my life before: my study and secret workings of heart were, how to make my withdrawing as little offen∣sive to Mr. Goodwin, and the Church, as I could devise how to do with a good conscience: I perceived they were not able to bear any publick discourses to the point in diffe∣rence: Mr. Goodwins teares, at the mention of something relating thereto, went to my heart, and weakened my hand to those further applications which I had thought to have made to them. The truth is, my high (indeed undue) re∣spects to Mr. Goodwin kept me in a kind of bondage, that I was not at that perfect liberty to discharge all the parts of that duty which their respects obliged me unto.

So great was my respects to Mr. Goodwin and the Church, that besides my own frequent addresses to the Lord, for the communication of that light to them, which he had vouchsafed to me and some others, I got some time solemnly set apart by some godly friends, and for his cause cheifly did we bow our knee: this was the frame of heart we were in, honest Reader, soon after our baptising, and whether then we were like to perpetrate any such unworthy things, as Mr. Goodwin writeth of, I leave to thy conscience to de∣termine; or rather, whether this Water dipping therefore be not the very monster of ingratitude? Mr. Goodwin hath indeed calumniated us stoutly, supposing that something will stick on us, and I beleive doth; which if it cost him not teares here, I am sure will shame hereafter from that God that vindicateth the innocent, and then Mr. Goodwin will find the

vanity of sporting himself with the ruine of the good names and reputations of the people of God, which are as much his interest as their estates, health, or any dear injoyment they possess, and as much against the law of love to violate.

I consess the pleasantness of Mr. Goodwins wit-in writing is so lushious, that it is marvellously apt to tickle and please the flesh; but as the soul of any man groweth seasoned with the salt of heavenly wisdom, it is affected more with sollid matter than enticing words, it is ready to cry, what will great words do good at the judgement day; yea, I bless God I have lived to that day, to value more the breath∣ing of Gods Spirit, in a holy humble gratious soul, than the greatest words of the gallantest Rhetorician in the world, (and that I have got since my Baptisme:) I confess for Mr Goodwin, set aside these controvertal writings, and con∣sider him in the tenor of his conversation, I think him, nay, I know him to be a pattern of patience, humility, meekness, temperance; neither do I remember one Sermon that ever he made to the point of Tythes, or any consideration for preaching in all his dayes, though I lived under his ministry almost twenty yeares: and more than all this, all the Argu∣ments of the Gospel, and out of the Gospel, to preferre ho∣liness and close walking with God, I beleive there are not many men in his time, if any at all, that hath managed them with more authority, life and power, I say it, I say it again, and delight to speak it, and will persist in it to my last breath, though he grind us to pouder with his mill stone language.

Some change Mr. Goodwin may find in my Genius, I con∣fess it, for heretofore, having his person in admiration, it was to some degree a snare upon me, to call him Master in that sense, wherein the Lord Jesus dehorteth from it, Math. 23. whereas now that by the help of Gods Spirit and my own experience, I see clearly, that in the communication of light in the things of God, God tieth not himself to this or that man, I consult with Christ, and lean not to the under∣standing of any man I see by experience, that God taketh li∣berty to reveal to babes the truth, which at some time he hi∣deth from the wise and prudent:* 1.73 And the more self-sufficient

any man groweth in knowledge of the reason of things, the lesse is he led by examples.

'Tis more noble for a man to eschew evill and do good, because 'tis evill and good, then because such and such men that are good do so: And though I was apt enough to leane that way, and to those opinions Mr. Goodwin leaned too, (that under God had been the great meanes of any spi∣ritual comfort and edification) yet I blesse God I was not so rankly guilty of that evill, but when Mr. Goodwin came to open that text, Math. 28.19. and to give it for truth, that by the word Teach in the Commission was meant, not actu∣all discipling, but the saying such things onely, which was proper to make men so. I palpably discerned the Text wronged, and the interpretation was like gravell in my mouth, and not onely mine, but that persons also, of whom Mr. Goodwin said at his buriall, his worth was so great, that it was a temptation on him to break promise to speak of it, and enough to cast a man into an agony of sorrow to think of his death, I say, he was as much distasted as I at that stroke of the Text. Except in these respects, or some others like these, I know no change in my Genius, nor I am sure no bo∣dy else doth.

But I confess there was one unhappy mistake of a word of mine by one of the brethren, which gave me a visit soon after my baptisme, which hath more appearance of evill in it of my part, than any or all the things can be laid against me I am sure: to which I desire to give both you and all the Church satisfaction, and that was this, That brother spoken of before, giving me a visit at my house, where some part of the Church was wont to meet on munday nights, to edifie one another in faith and love: Amongst other discourse, which I cannot now remember, I affirmed, that the sight of them, meaning our friends, was a greif and burthen to me, which following some words of easie mis∣construction, he concluded they proceeded from an abso∣lute fall of affection to them, and so presented them to others of the brethren that were wont to meet there, which conceit got further rooting in the minds of the brethren,

by another unhappy circumstance: The brother appointed to speak the next meeting, before he began his Sermon, be∣gan with this story, making it the ground of no more meet∣ing at my house.

To which I answer, 1. Those words, The sight of the Church was a greif and a burthen to me: I said, but the prin∣ciple of them, was not the want, but the abundance of af∣fection to them, I say again, the abundance of affection to them (God is my witness) who had indeed obliged me much, which made parting with them the more gr••••vous, and the necessity of that made me willing to be estranged from them, that I might the better undergo the burthen; this is the perfect truth, which God the searcher of all hearts knoweth, and this also was one main reason amongst others, why I estranged my self from Mr. Goodwin after∣wards.

But if it be ask'd, why I did not reply to the brother, who understood just contrary.

I answer, I intended to do it, after he had done his Ser∣mon (for it was before his Sermon that he began to speak of it) but after his Sermon, falling upon some discourse with Mr. Goodwin relating thereto, I quite forgot, being pressed with trouble and grief at some high words Mr. Goodwin then gave me.

This is the truth, which the righteous God of heaven and earth knoweth, for whose sake we now suffer by Mr. Goodwins unmerciful Pen: To be injured by a common enemy 〈◊〉〈◊〉 no matter of wonder, but to be wronged by ones father, as it is a matter of more strangeness, so of harsher recentment: But it may be God hath bid you to cu••se me, to take me off all glorying in men, that I may be the more intire to him∣self; me thinks I now find that Scripture hath a fresh edge upon my spirit, Cease from man, whose breath is in his n••strils,* 1.74 for wherein is he to be esteemed, 1 Cor. 3.21. Therefore let no man glory in man

Your three and twentieth Considerati∣on is: THat there is no substantiall Argument produced to justifie such a practise, nor you beleive ever will be.

Whether we have not given Arguments to justifie it, more than one, and that grounded upon the Scriptures and your own principles, and indeed the principles of all the learned, I referre to the judgement of the Reader.

As for that which you say, by way of reply to my Bro∣ther Allens answer to your fourty Queries about Church communion, I shall leave him to answer, or be silent, as he findeth cause, onely it lieth much upon my spirit to shew unto your self (if may be) if not to your self yet to the unprejudiced Reader, the palpable suffering of many of the Scriptures engaged in that service.

The first is the 2. of Acts 41. which Text my Brother Allen urgeth to prove addition to the Church and fellow∣ship in it, to follow Baptisme, not goe before it: and that

• 1. Because the Text saith, they gladly received the Word.
• 2. Were baptised.
• 3. Were added to the Church.
• 4. Continued in the Apostles doctrine and fellowship.

Now Mr. Goodwin will have it, that Baptisme might be left out of the chain, and yet they might have been Church mem∣bers notwithstanding.

1. Because those who are said to have been baptised in the former part of the verse, are not said in the latter to have been added to the CHURCH, but simply, they

were added or added unto. Mr. Allen understandeth the Relative to those words, added to, to be (Them) accor∣ding to the present translation, and whereto both he and the Translators are guided.

1. By the mention of the hundred and twenty Disciples in the Chapter before at the 15. verse, to which these that were now converted were added, which in the 47. verse of this 2. chapter are called the Church in plain English, And the Lord added to the CHƲRCH dayly, &c.

And that the Relative to those words ADDED to were the (Church) or the hundred and twenty Disciples spoken of before, Mr. Goodwin himself in his fourty Queries (which I do not think were written above half a year be∣fore this Water dipping) so understood it, mark his words, It cannot be demonstratively proved from the Scriptures, that those hundred and twenty Disciples, unto which it is here said,* 1.75 that three thousand were ADDED, &c. which a little before he himself calleth the Church in the same page: But now all of a sudden Mr. Goodwin altereth his mind, and will not let the 47. verse expound the 42. though the context as fai••ly leadeth to it as heart can wish, but runneth us to the 11▪ of Acts 24. to know the Relative to the words (added to) in the 2. Acts 41. because there it is thus written, And much people was added to (the Lord.) Here again you insi∣nuate a difference in sense between those words, added to the Lord, and those, added to the Church, whereas in your Letter to Mr. Tho. Goodwin, p. 5. you expound the joyning to the Lord, spoken of Acts 11.24. of immembring into the Church, your words these, There is mention made of many that were added or joyn'd to the LORD, i. e. say you, were immembred into the CHƲRCH: Now what con∣struction can any rational, impartial, considerate man make of this your shifting too and fro in this manner, but as an evident demonstration, that in fighting against us you la∣bour to engage the Scriptures in a warre they have no mind too, and so you loose your way, and know not well where to set your foot, not what ground to stand on: The Lord make you sensible of it.

But again you say, 2. It is said, Acts 2, 47. And the Lord added to the Church: WHO, saith Mr. Goodwin, such as were baptised? No, but such as should be saved, or were saved, which was not by being baptised but belei∣ving.

Here Mr. Goodwin saith two things.

1. That those that the Text speaketh of, that were added to the Church, were not such as were baptised, but, &c. If this be not a strange proposition, and as contrary to the Scripture as light to darkness, I am under the enchantment Mr. Goodwin upbraideth me with so often; for though it be true, that those that were added to the Church were such as should be saved, yet it followeth not, that those that were added to the Church were not baptised; nay, it is plain they were by the 41. verse, Then they that gladly re∣ceived his word were baptised, and the same day (that is, that they received the Word and were baptised) there were ad∣ded unto them, or the Church, about three thousand soules, who continued in the Apostles fellowship.

But by this doctrine of Mr. Goodwins, Baptisme should be a crime rather than an act of obedience, because he ma∣keth the Church not to consist of such persons as have been baptised; is this doctrine according to the form of whol∣some words? Doth not the Apostle write to the CHURCH of Corinth,* 1.76 and CHURCH at Rome, and Church at COLOSSE, and the CHURCHES of Galatia, and were they not made up of baptised persons.

But 2. Mr. Goodwin saith, The Lord added to the Church such as should be saved, which say you, was NOT by being BAPTISED, but beleiving. Here Mr. Good∣win opposeth Baptisme to beleiving, in reference to salvation, but it is not by vertue of this Text, He that beleiveth, and is baptised, shall be saved. And by vertue of what Text of Scripture he doth it, I know not, for though Baptisme should not be looked upon as a condition of absolute ne∣cessity to salvation as faith is, yet sure it is some way necessa∣ry to salvation, it is plain in the Text, and therefore not to be put in opposition to faith in reference thereto: what a

wide difference there is between making Baptisme equa•• with faith, as conditional of salvation, which is the judge∣ment of many learned men, as you know, and making it stand in opposition to faith, in reference thereto, as you doe.

Sir, will that God that ordained Baptisme to be Faiths companion, to serve the same interest of the pretious soules of men, will he take it kindly, that you toil thus to make them look like enemies rather than friends? In a word Sir, this doctrine is altogether unscriptural, and as pleasant to the tast of a healthful soul, as vinegar to the teeth.

But 3. and lastly, you say, though it should be read thus, Then they that gladly received his word were baptised, and the same day there were added to the Church: yet the re∣cording their addition to the Church after their Baptisme, doth not prove their addition was BY their Baptisme.

The cause doth not require it, neither doth my Brother Allen affirm it from this Text, but onely that addition to the Church followed it, and did not goe before it (which was your own words heretofore, as I have shewn already) and we think it is safest to follow the Scripture pattern (partly because of what you said heretofore, that all others were but seducers) but cheifly because of the express Word of God.

But whatever the matter is, you think now one may goe another way and doe as well.

The second Scripture, which in my apprehension suffer∣eth under your pen is, Math. 28.19. which I have proved at large already, p. 13, 14, 15, 16. of this book, where I have laid down my Brother Allens Argument from the words, and answered Mr. Goodwins objections against it, in doing which, the Reader will easily perceive that Text com∣plaining of hard usage.

The third is the 1. Corinth. 12.13. which I have also discharged the service Mr. Goodwin employed it in, p. 18,

19, 20, 21, 22, 23. of this book, because the truth is, it is not pleased with it.

The fourth, which doth not onely whisper, but cry out of injury, is the 8. of Acts 27. And Phillip said, if thou beleivest with all thy heart, thou mayest. The words its evi∣dent are an answer to the Eunuch, who asked Phillip upon the sight of water, what hindred that he might not be bap∣tised.

Mr. Goodwin supposeth by these words, THOU MAY∣EST, he not saying to him, THOU MUST, is no∣ted a liberty, which he calleth an Evangelicall liberty con∣cerning external Ordinances, implying, he might be baptised if he would, he should not sin, or he he might refuse without sin.

This I take to be the most unnatural, unkindly, and in∣deed injurious stroke of the Text of any that hath been touched: Gird up therefore the loines of thy mind, and consider good Reader, that thou beest not hurt by this dan∣gerous gloss of the Text.

• 1. If Phillip should have propounded Baptisme to the Eunuch, upon such slight termes, not as a duty on him, but a thing indifferent, he should have done that he had no warrant for from Christ; Christ gave all his Commands to be obeyed, not to be trifled with, John 15.14. Ye are my friends if you doe WHATSOEVER I command you. Revel. 22.12, 14. Blessed are they that DOE his Com∣mandments, that they may have right to the tree of life. Acts 3▪ 22. A Prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you, him shall you hear in ALL things WHATSOEVER he shall say unto you: And it shall come to passe, that every soul that wil not hear that Prophet, shall be destroyed from amongst the people: (that by hearing is meant obeying in this Scripture, is your own sense) Luke 6.46. Why call you me Lord, Lord, and DOE not the things that I say. So that if Baptisme be one of the Commands of Christ,* 1.77 as I have proved from Acts 2.37. and might do it from ma∣ny others. And
• 2. that Christ gave all his Commands to

• be observed:* 1.78 And
• 3. that he counteth those no friends of his that baulketh any of them.
• 4. That he threateneth them with destruction, that observeth him not in whatso∣ever he commandeth, without exception of any thing, yea, that he distateth any ones calling him Lord that doth not obey him.

Then I think it followeth roundly enough, that if Phillip should have propounded Baptisme to the Eu∣nuch upon such termes of indifferency, he should have be∣trayed his trust, Reader what thinkst thou?

2. To evince, that Phillip by those words, THOU MAYEST, did not intend them by way of indifferency as to the Eunuchs obedience, appeareth by this, because then he should act by a differing Spirit from all the rest of his brethren, the Servants of Christ, that were imployed in the Lords work. But he was acted by the same Spirit. I shall take that for granted, that the Spirit that said unto Phillip, Goe near and joyn thy self, Acts 8.29. that it was the Spirit of the ever-living God which acted Phillip thorough that negotiation he had with the Eunuch.

Now that Spirit inspireth Peter to COMMAND Cor∣nelius and his Company to be baptised after faith, Acts 10.47. Peter did not say, you may, or you may chuse, but though they were deeply baptised with the Spirit, yet Peter com∣mandeth them to be baptised with water for all that, In the Name of the Lord Jesus, which was in full pursuit of his Commission, which also is a clear interpretation of it, that when Christ saith, Disciple me all Nations, baptising them, his meaning was, that they should, having discipled them, com∣mand the Disciples to be baptised, In the Name of the Lord Jesus; that they should lay it home to the consciences of the Disciples, and a duty, to be baptised into his Name, and so bear the Name and wear the livery of their Lord and Master.

The same Apostle to the same purpose, Acts 2 38. Even so did Ananias in respect of Paul, ARISE, WHY tarriest thou, be baptised and wash away thy sins, and that before he eat, though he had fasted three dayes.

I remember, Sir, an observation of your own upon these words, both rational and pleasant, from hence, that Ana∣nias importuneth Paul to baptisme by those words, Arise, Why? Behold, saith Mr. Goodwin, whosoever d••l yeth obedience to any of the Ordinances of the Gospel, will never be able to give a reason for it, WHY tarriest thou? This observation, who doth not tast the sweetness and goodness of the truth in it, that hath not lost their cast? But for those observati∣ons you now make of the like places, who can cast them but with sorrow of heart, or behold them with dry eyes.

Again, as Ananias hastened Paul to Baptisme after faith, so did Paul hasten the Jaylour, Acts 16 33. And was bapti∣sed he and all his: mark, ST••A ••WAY, even before his eating of meat. Paul was more set upon the Lords work, than feeding his own belly. HEAVENLY SOUL, though it was night, and he hungry (for after they came from baptisme into the house, the Jayler set meat before them) yet he first mindeth his Lords work, like Christ, John 4. who whilst the woman of S••m••••••a was present to preach too, the Disciples would not so much as offer him meat, but when she was gone, the Text saith, (IN THE MEAN WHILE) the Disciples said, Master eat, verse 31. but his content was so great ••n feeding soules, that he fed upon that as other men did upon meat and drink, verse 32. I have meat to eat that ye know not off.

But 3. To discover Mr. Goodwins great mistake of this Text, consider this, if Phillip should have preach'd Baptisme as an indifferent thing, would it not have been to disparage the wisdome of Christ in ordaining it, who not onely com∣manded it, but picked it out of all the rest of the Ordinan∣ces, to mention it by name with Teaching in the Commissi∣on,* 1.79 And 2 commanding it to be done with so great solemnity,* 1.80 and ordering the Apostles to propound it w••th Repentance and Faith, in order to remission of sins and salvation, having first been baptised himself to fultil all righ∣teousness: If Phillip after all this should have preached 〈◊〉〈◊〉 as an indifferent thing, would it not have been a great dispa∣ragement

to the wisdome of Christ, in thus instituting it, and thus gracing it; for what would the import of such a carriage have been, but that Christ repented of instituting it, that he had over shot himself in it, as men use to doe, and that experience proved it to be of no moment? Confi∣der and judge.

But fourthly from the Text it self; it appeareth clearly enough, that Phillip had other thoughts of Baptisme, than as a thing indifferent, by the high termes he putteth upon it: for upon the question put on the Eunuchs part, what hin∣dred that he might not be baptised? Phillip answereth, If thou beleivest:

• 2. With thy HEART
• 3. With ALL thy heart, thou mayest: should Phillip have propounded it as a thing indifferent, THAT would have spoken it a matter of small moment to the Creature.

But it is plain, he putteth high termes upon it, for if he did not beleive, and that with ALL the heart, it would hinder and stop his proceedings to that Ordinance; and therefore an un∣reasonable thing to imagine him propounding it as a mat∣ter of indifferency, for doth not all men judge it a senseless thing for any man to put high and extraordinary termes upon a poor and mean commodity, or doth so doing unbe∣come men? and can any body judge it becomming the wis∣dome of the Spirit of God?

The truth is, those words, THOU MAYEST (fol∣lowing those words, If thou beleivest with all thy heart, in answer to the Eunuchs question, What hindreth? being un∣derstood, as Mr. Goodwin would have them, that is, that he might if he would, or might refuse without sin) would ren∣der his Answer to have no more savour than is in the white of an Egg, because that sense of them is a plain contradicti∣on to the high termes he putteth upon it.

Besides, at the 12. verse in this 8. chapter of the Acts, it appeareth Phillip was very chary of the Ordinance of Baptisme: mark, BUT WHEN THEY BELEIVED, Phillip preaching the things concerning the Kingdome of God, and the Name of Jesus Christ, they were baptised both men and women, BUT WHEN THEY BE∣LEIVED,

not before; the truth is, not any one of the A∣postles, or Administrators of the Ordinances, shewed a more tender spirit of the honour of Baptisme than Phillip, most unlike therefore was he by those words, THOU MAYEST, to mean, he might, or he might not.

5. Phillip insisting upon the doctrine of Baptisme, as well as other doctrines of Christ, at that time to the Eu∣nuch, when he had but a little time to instruct him in in all, is that which mightily reproveth that conceit, that by those words, THOU MAYEST, should be meant, thou mayest, or thou mayest chuse; can any man imagine, that Phillip should spend any part of his little time with him, in the discourse of that, which he might neglect without sin or dammage. It seemeth Phillip opened the doctrine of Bap∣tisme to him, as well as other things, and that he understood it not onely as his duty, but a priviledge not to be admitted to absolutely but conditionally, why else should he say, WHAT HINDRETH? Doth not that imply, that he thought something might, and withall doubted his own fit∣ness, which made him put the question?

But if any object, that it appeareth not that Phillip insist∣ed at all on Baptisme.

I confess it is not said in words at length that he did.

But 1. We find the question put on the Eunuchs part upon his converse with Phillip.

2. We read of no other that instructed him in Christia∣anity.

And 3. It was the manner of the Apostles to preach Faith and Baptisme together, being the beginning doctrines of Christ, and belonging to the foundation of a Christian man. Heb. 6.2.

Thus did this Phillip unto the Samaritans in the begin∣ning of this 8. of the Acts, we read onely of his preaching the things concerning the Kingdom of God, there is no mention made of his preaching of Baptisme by Name, but no body will be so brutish as to imagine that Phillip would baptise them, before he instructed them concerning the nature, use and ends of Baptisme, because then they could

not worship God in spirit, but ignorantly and carnally, and where then would the difference be between the wor∣shippers under the Law and under the Gospel, herein lay a main part of the reformation by Christ, that he rendereth his worshippers more spiritual than under the Law: 'Tis such worshippers that he seeketh, John 4. In a word, the A∣postles admission, and the Beleivers submission to Baptisme, doth imply their being taught and instructed therein, and that by themselves too, least they should be found accessary to the profaning of the Ordinance of Christ, by administring it to such as might be unfit subjects.

Our late Annotators upon Acts 8.36. What hindreth me to be baptised? It appeareth hence, say they, that among other parts of Christian Religion, Phillip had preached to him con∣cerning Baptisme.

Consider Calvin. p. 207. of his Commentary of the 8. of Acts, But we see that Christ was preached to the Eunuch in such sort; that he knew that Baptisme was a sign of new life in him, and that therefore he would not neglect the same, be∣cause it was added to the Word, and such an addition as was in∣separable.

I conclude then from the premises, that the scope of the place is just the contrary to what Mr. Goodwin affirmeth, he would have those words of Phillip to the Eunuch, THOU MAYEST, to note indifferency: but I hope I have proved they note just the contrary, namely, the sacredness of the Rite, and high advantage of it to the Creature, and conse∣quently, the Eunuchs duty and all Christs Disciples to come under it, but with care and fear, therefore he must examine, whether he BELEIVE WITH ALL HIS HEART.

A fifth Scripture which liketh not your glosse is, Galat. 4.1, 2, 3. the words are as followeth, Now I say, that the heir as long as he liveth is a child, differeth nothing from a ser∣vant, though he be Lord of all, but is under Tutors and Gover∣nours untill the time appointed of the Father; Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world, but when the fulness of time was come, God sent forth

his Son, made of a woman, made under the Law, to redeem them that were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.

From the difference of the two states of the Church, under the Law and under the Gospel, which apppeareth in this Scripture, Mr. Goodwin inferreth, that the Church is not now to be looked upon as under the like rigor of subjection to Gospel Ordinances, as the Church then was to the Ordinances of the Law, and if it were, the two so different states of the Church mentioned should be con∣founded.

To this I say, the inference is not good: The Church now is as straitly bound to the observation of Gospel Or∣dinances, as the Church then was to those Ordinances of Moses. Neither doth the conceiving so confound the two different states of the Church.

1. That we are as straitly bound to Christs Ordinances, as the Church then was to Moses his. Consider Acts 3.22. for Moses truly said unto the Fathers, A Prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me, him shall you HEAR, or obey in ALL THINGS WHATSOEVER he shall say unto you: and it shall come to passe, that every soul which shall not hear that Prophet, shall be DESTROYED from amongst the people: If so, doth it not follow roundly enough, that we are all tied to obey Christ in his Ordinances, as much as the Jewes were of old to obey the Ordinances of the Law.

For.

• 1. Are not the Ordinances some of the things Christ hath said?
• 2. Are they not as plainly commanded, especially this of Baptisme? Acts 2.37. Mark 16.16.
• 3. Are they not exhibited with as high a penalty in case of neglect or contempt? was there any higher penalty put upon disobedience than destruction? How then saith Mr. Goodwin, we are not now so tied as then? Nay, are we not tied faster to the Ordinances of Christ? and shall not we contract more guilt, by contempt or neglect of them, than the carnal Church of the Jewes did by the neglect of Moses?

Considering the 2. Hebr. 1. Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things which we have heard, least at any time we should let them slip: Here he speaketh of the words of Christ the great Prophet. Now from the greatness and excellency of the Commander he argueth to their giving the more earnest heed, least at any time they should let them slip.

To this add Hebr. 12.25. See that ye refuse not him that spake, for if they escaped not, who refused him that spake on earth, much more shall not we escape, if we turn away from him that speaketh from heaven. How plain a case then is this from these Scriptures.

To these we might add the 8. of Mark 38. He that shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed when he cometh in the glory of the Father.

But it may be some may object, we are tied more to obey Christ in other things, because of the excellency of Christ above Moses, but not to the Ordinances of Christ.

To which I answer, the Scriptures saith, Whosoever shall be ashamed of HIS WORDS, without exception of any, of him will he be ashamed, &c. Nay, that none may plead excuse, Acts 3.22. The place touched before, Him shall yee hear in WHATSOEVER he shall say unto you. Now if Mr. Goodwin can bring us as plain Scripture any where, that Christ will dispense with disobedience, or neglect of some of his Commandments, as I have done that he would have none neglected, then let the world give ear to him, yea in particular, doth not the Command lie expresly as well to respect his Ordinances for worship, as faith or man∣ners otherwise; Col. 2.6. yea, are not the Churches com∣manded to hold fast the traditions which they had been taught, 2 Thes. 2.15.

To this add 1 Cor. 11.1, 2. Be ye followers of me as I am of Christ. Now I praise you brethren, that you remember me in all things, and keep the ORDINANCES AS I delivered them unto you.

Where it appeareth

• 1. That Paul had the Ordinances for the Church from Christ.
• 2. That it was a praise-worthy thing to keep them ALL.
• 3. To keep them pure also from mens inventions; mark, AS I DELIVERED them unto you.
• 4. His exhorting them to look to them, and his praising them that they had KEPT them, doth imply, it would be a hard matter to keep the Ordinances pure, from chan∣ges and mixtures of mens inventions, as now we find by ex∣perience.

But Mr. Goodwin supposeth, that if the Churches now be as straitly bound to Christs Ordinances, as the old Church was to Moses Lawes, then the two different states of the Church shall be confounded.

To which I answer, if the difference of the two states lie in no such thing as the difference of obligation to the Or∣dinances of the two Prophets, then the equall obligation to the Ordinances of the two Prophets will not confound the two different states of the Church, but the difference of the two states lieth in no such thing.

That the difference of the two states lieth in no such thing.

If the Scripture no where say any such thing, neither in plain words, nor by good consequence, then there is no such thing.

But the Scriptures no where affirm any such thing.

Now whereas Mr. Goodwin supposeth as much may be drawn from the 4. Galat. 1, 2, 3. That the Text doth sig∣nifie a farre different state of the Church is plain and clear but that that difference should lie in a less obligation to any of the Commandments of Christ, then the Church then was to the Ordinances of Moses, this is not in the Text, nor in∣deed in any other.

'Tis true: 1. This Text saith, We, when we were chil∣dren, were in bondage to the elements of the world, which at the 9. verse he calleth weak and beggarly, but they were no other but the carnall Ordinances of the Law of Moses,

those slavish customes of the Jewish Law, which he calleth the rudiments of the world, or beginnings of teaching suta∣ble to their dark state; but to argue from their redemption to those Ordinances, to our liberty from obedience to Christs in his, which Mr. Goodwin doth, (or else where is the countenance this Text giveth his cause) but in my poor ap∣prehension it is a horrid consequence.

Again 2. The Text saith further, That we are redeemed from under the Law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. But that the receiving the adoption of sons signifieth any such thing, as a less tie to obey the great Prophet in his Or∣dinances, than was on the Jews to obey their lesse Prophet in his, or that to suppose us to stand equally bound to Christ in his Ordinances as they were to Moses in his, that this will confound the difference of the two states of the Church, is onely said by Mr. Goodwin, not proved, nor attempted to be.

Now as I have shewn already, that the difference of the two states cannot lie in this, that Christs Disciples are lesse bound to Christs Ordinances, than Moses was in his, by Acts 3.22. Hebr. 2.1. Hebr. 12.25. Mark 8.38. But for the further clearing of this point, I shall offer breifly wherein the difference of the two states of the Church doth lie, and particularly.

1. In the matter of the Church; the matter of the old Testament Church was Abrahams carnall seed, without re∣spect to morrals, Acts 7.38. The whole posterity of A∣braham are called the CHURCH in the wilderness. But now under the new Testament, the matter of the Church is the spiritual seed of Abraham, such as follow him in faith and holiness, Math. 3.9. John 4.23, 24. 1 Peter 1.5. The Churches of the new Testament are or ought to be by constituation, called to be Saints, sanctified by Christ Jesus, 1 Corinth 1.2. and if any other be admitted, and prove otherwise, such are not to be endured in communion, 1 Corinth. 5.13. 2 Thes. 3.6, 14. Revel. 2.2. Christ affirm∣eth

it in the honour of the Church of Ephesus, that they could not bear them that did evil.

2, In respect of the Ordinances, The Ordinances of the old Church exceeding many. The Gospel sew.

• 2. The old ones costly and afflictive. The new comparatively not so.
• 3. The old ones carnal, the new comparatively spiritual, Gal. 3.2. especially Baptisme, which betokeneth the re∣ward of duty, namely, resurrection to glory with Christ, as well as our duty now, and present state of death and burial with Christ, Colos. 2.12. compared with Colos. 3.1.

3. In respect of a more abundant pouring forth of the Spirit, Luke 11.13. 2 Corinth. 3.8. the consequence whereof is:

• 1 More boldness in approaches to God, Galat. 4 6, Romans 8.15.
• 2. More light and knowledge touching the good will of God to sinners, and the way of their reconcilement to God, 2 Tim. 1.10. Ephes. 1.9. Titus 2.11. 2 Corinth 5.19, 21.

4. The Churches under the new Testament have richer grounds whereupon to raise holiness & conformity to God, Titus 2.11, 12, 13, 14. Hebr. 2.3. Rom. 8. from 32. to 39. 2 Corinth. 3.18. 1 Peter 1.16, 17, 18.

5. They have richer grounds of comfort, because clearer ground for faith and hope, 1 Peter 1.21. Rom 8 21. Rom. 4.25. therefore, 1 Pet. 1.8. Rom. 5.2, 3, they rejoyced with joy unspeakable and full of glory.

6. More peace of conscience, Hebr. 7.19. Hebr. 9.9, 14. Hebr. 10.1.

7. More full communion with God the Father and the Son, 1 John 1.3.

By all which it appeareth, that there are respects in abun∣dance to shew wherein the difference of the two states of the Church lieth, and consequently no necessity to con∣ceive, that if the Disciples of Christ be as straitly bound to obey him in all his Ordinances, as the old Church was to obey Moses in his, that then the difference of the two states of the Church would be confounded: I shall conclude this

with the words of Mr. Baxster; If when Gods worship was so much ceremonious, he yet layeth a charge to DOE WHAT∣SOEVER he commandeth, and to ADD NOTHING THERETO, NOR TAKE OƲGHT THERE∣FROM, That is, saith he, not to or from the words command∣ing onely, but also THE WORK COMMANDED; Is it likely then, that he will be lesse jealous in this now?

Sixthly, A sixth Scripture complaining of wrong, is the 1 Corinth. 11.24, 25, 26. There is an eye of Evangelical liberty concerning external observations,* 1.81 saith Mr. Goodwin, in the institution it self of the other Ordinances also, as the Apostle rendereth it, 1 Corinth. 11 25, 26. THIS DO YE, AS OFT AS YE DOE IT, in re∣membrance of me, for as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lords death till he come, Here is no in∣junction, how oft? (but a plain intimation of liberty touching this) onely the termes for the manner of doing it is set down, which is the direct calculation or manner of sanction of the institution concerning the free-will offering under the Law; this kind was imposed on no man as of necessity.

To which I answer: Your inference from the word, I humbly conceive to be just contrary to the design of our Lord Jesus in the instituting; you suppose he intended a liberty as to the use of the supper by not determining the time, how oft, they should eat that bread, whereas in truth, the undetermining of the time, how oft, following the positive command of its use, This doe ye, noteth rather the frequent use of it upon all convenient occasions, as supposing the determining of time for the performance of commands, is onely necessary where the matter commanded doth not nearly concern the party that doth obey, he sup∣poseth principles of self-love will carry men to frequent diligently the meanes of their comfort and safety; which also I take to be the reason why 'tis not set down punctu∣ally how oft we shall pray, or hear, or frequent the assem∣blies of the Saints: That precept (saith Dr. Ames) of an

undeterminate time, Doe this, admitteth no other limitation but want of opportunity, or some just impediment. But Ʋrsinus more plain from the words, AS OF T, The Supper therefore, saith Ʋrsin, is often to be reiterated, and that

• 1. Be∣cause of the words of the institution: and
• 2. Because of the end of the institution.

So that from the words of the in∣stitution, in conjunction with the end of the Ordinance, Ʋrsin gathereth, and that according to pure reason, that it ought often to be celebrated.

But to put it out of all doubt to the godly Reader, that these words, AS OFT as ye doe it, doth not imply any liberty to neglect it without sin, but the just contrary. Con∣sider that known general rule to judge of all doctrines. The true doctrine of the Gospel is a doctrine according to godliness, that is out of all dispute: Now then bring that interpretation to the standard, which saith, that those words of the institution, As oft as ye doe it, imply its not being imposed upon any man as of necessity, but much like the free-will Offering under the Law: Is this interpretation according to godliness, or rather ungodliness? may not Mr. Goodwin as well say, it is a doctrine according to health, for a man to neglect the food by which he liveth? The de∣sign of Christ in this Ordinance is to keep alive the memories of Christs death and passion for us, with all the benefits thereof, 1 Corinth. 11. to confirm faith, to convey succour∣ing vertue from Christ to releive the soul against temptati∣on, to quicken affection to Christ, and one another, as all agree, and would it be according to godliness, to be under a liberty to disuse it without sin? may not Mr. Goodwin as well say, we are under a liberty, not to honour Christ, or doe our selves or the world good? And as for any simili∣tude between the Ordinances of the Gospel, in particular this, and the free-will Offering under the Law.

Surely Sir you are under a wonderful mistake, because the free-will Offerings were not positively commanded, and therefore have the name of free-will Offerings, whereas the Lord Supper is positively commanded, 1 Corinth. 11.24, 25. And when he had given thanks, he said, take eat, this

is my body, THIS DOE in remembrance, &c. After the same manner also he took the cup, and said, THIS DOE, So that though there be not a determinate time, how oft they should doe it, yet here is a positive order to the Churches to doe it, and therefore could not be neglected without sin, but for the free-will Offerings under the Law, they were not bound to offer them at all; 'tis therefore true as you say, this kind of Offering was imposed upon no man by way of necessity, but it is because there was no Law positively enjoyning them, and consequently no sin at all to neglect them: What a vast difference then is there between external Ordinances under the Gospel, and the free-will Offering under the Law, even as much as between a matter commanded and that which is not.

Sir, you say our way hath a face of godliness, but a heart of errour and prophaneness. But Sir, should you live to these principles (which I am perswaded you are a better man than ever to do) our way would be before yours, though what you say were true of it, ours, you say, hath a face of godliness, though it hath a heart of error, but yours would have neither face nor heart: And though you your self never practise that looseness that these pleadings di∣rectly tend to, the Lord knoweth how many others may be ensnared by them, which in my apprehension you ought sad∣ly to lay to heart. Let us not therefore judge one another any more, but judge this rather, that no man put a stumbling block or an occasion, to fall in his brothers way, Rom. 14.13.

A seventh Scripture, which in my apprehension is a bro∣ther in the same complaint with those which are past, is Gal. 5.6. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but faith which worketh by love.

From hence you say, That the Apostle by shutting out Circumcision instance wise with Ʋncircumcision, and letting in onely Faith, the new Creature,* 1.82 with keeping the Command∣ments of God as available, he shut out BAPTISME also, and all ceremonial practications whatsoever.

This consequence is an absolute stranger to the premises, for though the Apostle shut out Circumcision and uncircum∣cision, and let in onely Faith, the new Creature, and keeping the Commands of God as available, it followeth not from hence, that he shut out Baptisme, as available.

If onely such things are shut out as available, which are no commands of God, then Baptisme is not shut out, be∣cause Baptisme is the command of God.

But onely such things are shut out as available, that are no commands of God.

That onely such things are shut out as unavailable, that are no commands of God, appeareth by their being oppo∣sed to those that are: Mark the Text, Neither Circumcision, nor Ʋncircumcision availeth, BUT KEEPING THE COMMANDMENTS OF GOD.

To inferre therefore from Circumcisions unavailableness (which is none of the Commandment of God) to Bap∣tisme its being so, which is the Command of God, and that serving the grand interest of the Creature, even that of remission of sins and salvation (in some sense) which must either be acknowledged, or the Scriptures renounced, Acts 2.38. Mark 16.16. I say, to make such inferences, is rather to say what one would have, than what is, and to intreat the Scripture to look towards what YOU would have, rather than in humility to be subject to what THEY would have; Reader judge else

But 2. If the Apostles intention was to shut out no∣thing at all by those words (NOR UNCIRCUMCI∣SION) then your apprehension of Baptisme, its being shut out as available, falleth to the ground, because you sup∣pose its exclusion lieth wrapt up in those words.

But the Apostle shut out nothing at all, nor intended the shutting out of any thing by those words, NOR UN∣CIRCUMCISION.

That he intended not the shutting out of any thing at all, one thing or other by those words, nor Ʋncircumcision, but onely the notifying, that being uncircumcised would not hinder the Gentiles acceptation with God now

under the Gospel, no more than circumcision would fur∣ther it.

It appeareth first, by comparing this Scripture with the 1 Corinth. 7.18, 19. the words as followeth, Is any man called being circumcised (that is, is any Jew converted to the Gospel) let him not become uncircumcised.

On the other hand, Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised; that is, is any Gentile converted to the Gospel? let him not make conscience of circumcision. The next words, which are the same with these in the Text, are the reason, why, a converted Jew should not be troubled that he was circumcised, nor the converted Gentile that he wanted it: Mark, CIRCUMCISION is nothing, and UNCIRCUMCISION is nothing; meaning, that now since the Orders of the great Prophet came forth, which all the world are bound to hear upon pain of death, Acts 3.22. by which the state of the Church is altered now. Circumcision is nothing, that is, availeth nothing to any mans acceptation with God, whatever it did heretofore; non Ʋncircumcision is nothing, that is, the want of circum∣cision, or being uncircumcised, is nothing to hinder the Gen∣tiles acceptation with God: but now under the Gospel, or in Christ Jesus, as we have it in this Galat. 5.6. that which now heareth sway is FAITH, Gal. 6.15. THE NEW CREATURE: And in this 1 Corinth. 7.19. THE KEEPING THE COMMANDMENTS OF GOD, meaning the Commandments of the Gospel, now in being, which is the character of the new Creature, in that 6. Galat. 16. As many as WALK ACCORDING TO THIS RƲLE peace be on them: So then, of the doctrine of these Scriptures this is the sum, That however Circumcision was a great priviledge heretofore, and a matter acceptable to God, and the want of Circumcision did debarre men from many priviledges which the Jewes enjoyed, yet now nei∣ther will the one doe the Jew any good, nor the want of it doe the Gentile any hurt, but now Jew and Gentile meeting in faith, the new Creature, and keeping the Commandments of God, now in being, shall both meet in the self same privi∣ledges

and respects from God, according to the 3 Galat. 28. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither mal nor female, mark, for ye are ALL ONE IN CHRIST JESƲS.

Upon the whole matter then I conclude, that by those words, NOR UNCIRCUMCISION, in all these three places, Galat. 5 6. Galat. 6.15. 1 Corinth. 7.19. the Apostle intendeth not the exclusion of any thing, but onely to note, that being uncircumcised, or the want of circumci∣sion would doe the Gentile no dammage, no more than the presence of circumcision would doe the Jew no good, now under the Gospel, and my reason for this apprehension is grounded upon the 19. verse of the 1 Corinth. 7. where those words, NOR UNCIRCUMCISION, are given for the reason why, if any Gentile was converted to the faith, they should not be circumcised, which words could be no reason, why converted Gentiles should not be cir∣cumcised, but upon supposition, that being uncircumcised would not prejudice them.

2, To understand the words, NOR UNCIRCUM∣CISION, of the shutting out of any thing, as it must be of some priviledge of the Gentiles, so it must be of some they had in distinction from the Jewes, because he includeth all belonging to the Jewes, under the word Circumcision, but they had none in distinction from the Jewes, therefore none to shut out; as for the Ordinances of the Gospel, they had them in common with the Jewes upon beleiving, and before the Gospel they had none at all, but lived without God in the world, Ephes. 2.12. To the Jewes onely were com∣mitted the Oracles of God, not any to the Gentiles, Romans 3.2.

3. The scope and drift of the Apostle in this Epistle, is to inveigh against the standing of the Jewish religion ONELY, and that because the converted Jewes were very apt to be intangled with a conceit of the old Religion, its being of force under the Gospel. Galat. 5.1. Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made you free, and be not entangled again with the yoak of bondage; meaning

the Jewish Ordinances, to which they were inclinable, he was not troubled with their over esteem, but their under esteem rather of the Ordinances of the new Testament, therefore farre enough from offering any thing to their disparagement, but on the contrary, every thing to encrease their esteem of them, that they might the more easily be brought off the old.

4. The words as they lie doe not enforce us by those words, Nor UNCIRCUMCISION, to understand the shutting out of any thing, consider them, In Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision. He doth not affirm the same thing of uncircumcision, that it doth not avail any thing, as he doth of circumcision; He saith indeed, nor uncircumcision, after his affirming that cir∣cumcision did not avail, which at first sight doth tempt to that understanding of them, but by comparing this Text with that other mentioned, namely, 1 Corinth. 7.18 19. where we have the same words used by the Apostle to another Church, and by a narrow inspection into them, it appeareth plainly enough, that his mind is not to suppose the Gentiles pos∣sess'd of any thing to exclude as available, but onely to affirm that: as Ciroumcision now under the Gospel would not avail, so neither on the other hand would being uncir∣cumcised unavail, as hath been proved already.

If any one think, that the supplying of these words, NOR UNCIRCUMCISION, in the Text, with the addition of these, DOTH NOT UNAVAIL OR HINDER, to compleat the sense, that this is harsh.

To such I answer, it is a most frequent thing in Scripture, for the holy Spirit to express himself so, that there is an ab∣solute necessity of making such supplies, which notwith∣standing the scope, context and clear reason of the thing leadeth to: but I shall instance onely in these words, in the 1 Corinth. 7.19. Circumcision is nothing; here is the same reason, indeed necessity of supply to compleat the sense, by these words, DOTH NOT AVAIL, as there is to supply the next words, NOR UNCIRCUM∣CISION, with these, DOTH NOT UNAVAIL:

He then that complaineth of harshness in the one, may as well complain of it in the other.

But if it be objected, No, because the

• 5. Galat.
• 6. giveth the sense of the words IS NOTHING, in the 1 Corinth.
• 7. to be availeth nothing, or doth not avail any thing.

I answer, so doth the Apostle his making those words, NOR UNCIRCUMCISION, in the 1 Corinth 7.19. the reason why converted Gentiles should not be circum∣cised, clearly give the sense of the words, in the 5. Galat. 6. to be, DOTH NOT ƲNAVAIL, because there∣by is a full reason given, why new Converts should not be circumcised, (to which we have spoken at large already:) By all which it appeareth, the Apostle intended not the exclusion of any thing (by those words) NOR UN∣CIRCUMCISION, so farre was he from shutting out any of the Commands of Christ by them, or setting some of them against others; but this untrue supposition being the foundation of Mr. Goodwins Argument from the Text, his whole building falleth to the ground, with all his scoffes at the end of it.

The eighth and last Scripture that complaineth of the service,* 1.83 is Galat. 3.27. For as many of you as have been bap∣tised into Christ have put on Christ: You say, questionless the Apostles meaning plainly and directly by the particle, As many As, is to part the Beleivers amongst themselves, and consequently noteth a mixture of baptised with unbap∣tised persons in full Church communion.

This cannot be the meaning of the place, that the words, As many As, doth not import All, because such a constructi∣on of them spoileth the sense, they being given as an ac∣count, why he presumeth them ALL the children of God by faith: Now for him to go about to prove them ALL the children of God by faith, because of what was done but to a part of them, had been to fall short in his demon∣stration, and consequently to loose his Argument, so that parting the Disciples amongst themselves, can never be the design of the Spirit in those words, AS MANY AS.

2. To confirme the Reader therein, I referre thee to that proof we have made in answer to Mr: Goodwins third Consideration, by which it fully appeareth, that there was no such thing in those dayes, as Church-fellowship before Baptisme, where I hope thou wilt have full satisfaction, as in divers other places of this Book.

3. Consider this, the same persons that in the 27. verse are noted under the words, As many As, in the 28. verse are called ALL, as well as in the 26. verse, for YE are ALL one in Christ Jesus, that the object of the word YE, is not a part of the Churches, but the whole, as well in the 28. verse as in the 26. there is no question, because there is nothing affirmed between to enforce, nay, not to invite to a restrain'd understanding them.

But if any one ask, what the reason should be, that the Apostle chuseth such words as these, which for the most part are partitive, and yet by them intend all, and every indi∣viduall?

I answer: (For variety) the scope and context neces∣sitating them to be understood universally, yea, the word MANY is upon that account (as I apprehend) often put in Scripture for ALL, as in the 9. Hebr. 28. He was once offered to bear the sins of many: Now the 1 Timot. 2.6. saith, He gave himself a ransome for ALL: and Mr. Goodwin understandeth the word ALL largely, as well he may: So in the 5. Romans 15. If through the offence of one many be dead: but by the 12. verse it appeareth, by this word MANY, he meaneth the whole posterity of Adam, for he saith, Death passed upon ALL men.

Now the words, As many As, served the Apostles de∣sign in this place, with as much advantage every jot as the word All would do. There being two sorts of persons be∣come proselites to Christian Religion, namely, Jewes and Gentiles, and the Gentiles being apt to think, that they should not be the children of God upon so good termes as the Jewes, because of the high respect God bear from the beginning to the Jewes more than the Gentiles, and that therefore onely, so many of the Church as were Jewes

should become heires of that priviledge through beleiving; the Apostle for their comfort doth assure them, that not onely so many of the Church as were Jewes became the Sons of God by faith, and put on Christ by Baptisme, but AS MANY as were baptised into Christ, though they were never so many, and of what rank, sex, condition so∣ever, whether they were Jewes, or whether they were Gen∣tiles, and though they were like the starres in the skie for multitude, they had all put on Christ, and were all members of the same body, according to the next words, verse 20. There is neither Jew, nor Greek, nor bond, nor free, nor male, nor female, but ALL one in Christ Jesus: So that there is a strain of Elegancy in the Apostles varying the word All to As many As, so farre are they from necessitating us to understand them, parting the Disciples amongst them∣selves.

So I have done with the Scriptures which Mr. Goodwin u∣seth to overthrow my Brother Allens Arguments, levied to prove the unlawfulness of mixt communion of baptised and unbaptised persons in Church-fellowship, besides these eight I doe not find any he useth to found any Argument on to answer him: if then it appear, that the Scriptures Mr. Good∣win buildeth on like not the service, but in truth bitterly complain of it, (and whether they doe not so, I referre to the judgement of the judicious Reader) and let him judge of Mr. Goodwins whole building, accordingly. And whe∣ther Mr. Goodwin find, that heaving at my Brother Allens Answer to his fourty Queries, be but like the heaving at a feather,* 1.84 which, he saith, is too childish a posture for a man? or rather, whether the truth in it be not like a mountain rather, which the greatest Giant heaving at (though Mr. Goodwin himself) cannot make to stir.

And now let all the world judge between us and Mr. Goodwin.

1. Whether we are as lie representeth us? Persons of a maimed fancy,* 1.85 having our reasons, judgements and under∣standings stupified, distraught and confounded, that all reason

opposing us is a Barbarian to us, that common sense is a mystery in accessible to our understandings, men of sound intellectuals are as men that speak to us in a strange tongue;* 1.86 that if they speak any thing against our way, we know not valleys from hills, nor hills from valleys, rivers from trees, trees from ri∣vers, halfes from wholes, nor wholes from halfes, precepts from promises, nor promises from precepts, ceremony from sub∣stance, nor substance from ceremony; every distinction that attempteth to shew us the error of our way, Ipso facto, becometh a Chaos and confusion. On the other hand, for the maintenance and defence of our way, the shadowes of mountains seem vali∣ant and arm'd men, stubble and rotten wood are turned into weapons of steel and iron before us, letter becometh spirit, face becometh heart, promise becometh precept, ceremony becometh substance, Apostles become ordinary men and women, disputables become demonstrations, and peradventures become all Yeas and Amens, in respect of these marvellous and sad distempers in our fancies and understandings, to reason with us about our way, or to endeavour our conviction, seldome turneth to any bet∣ter account than a beating of the air, or their Diogenes his beg∣ging applications to the statues of men.

2. Whether these expressions may not be justly num∣bred amongst those cruel mockings which the cruel perse∣cutors of old tried the worthies of the Lord with, Hebr. 11.36. even those of whom the world was not wor∣thy.

3. Whether such contemptuous revilings be not the way to harden fallen persons in their sin, there being no sign of charity in them, but hatred, rather than recover them, and as directly contrary to the rule, as flesh is to spirit, 2 Timothy 2.24. And the Servant of the Lord MUST NOT STRIVE, but be GENTLE TO ALL MEN, apt to teach, patient, in meekness instructing those that oppose themselves, if peradventure God will give them repen∣tance, to the acknowledging of the truth, and that they may re∣cover themselves out of the snare of the devill. So also Ga∣lations 6.1. If a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual restore such a one in THE SPIRIT OF MEEK∣NESSE,

considering thy self least thou also be temp∣ted.

4. Whether these expressions are not directly contra∣ry to the advice of the Spirit of God in these Scriptures following, Phillip. 2.3. In lowliness of mind, let each e∣steem other BETTER than themselves. Romans 12.9. In honour preferring one another. Titus 3.2. Speak evill of no man. Colos. 3.12. Put on therefore (as the elect of God) holy and beloved bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, long suffering, &c.

5. Whether there be not as palpable a breach of the royall law of Love, without which all profession of Reli∣gion is vain, 1 Corinth. 13.1, 2. James 1.26. (which Christ calleth the new Commandment, 1 John 3.14. His Com∣mandment, John 15.12. The scope of the Gospel, 1 Timothy 1.5. The Character of Christs Disciples, John 13.35. The mark of translation from death to life, 1 John 3.14.) as any can be imagined, considering what Paul saith, Galat. 5.14, 15. where he opposeth biting and devouring one another, to the great law of Love. All the Law is fulfilled in one word, Thou shalt love thy Neighbour as thy self, BUT IF YE BITE AND DEVOUR, &c. Again, considering what he saith, 1 Corinth. 13.4, 5. Charity suffereth long, and is kind, Charity VAUNTETH not it self, doth not behave it self unseemingly, is not easily provoked, THINK∣ETH NO ILL.

6. Whether these contemptuous rebukes be not con∣demned by the 14. Romans 10. But why dost thou judge thy brother, or why dost thou SET AT NOUGHT thy brother? and whether such that use them can expect to stand with comfort before God at the great day without repen∣tance, since the Apostle sub-joyneth these words, We shall all stand before the judgement seat of Christ, to those, Why dost thou set at nought thy brother? And considering the words of our Saviour, Math. 5.22. But whosoever shall say, THOU FOOL, shall be in danger of hell fire. And Math. 10.3, 4, 6. Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the Kingdome of heaven: whosoever shall

humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the Kingdome of heaven: verse 6. But who so shall offend one of these little ones, which beleive in me, it were better for him, that a mill-stone were hanged about HIS NECK, and that he were drowned in the depth of the Sea.

7. Whether then the good Spirit of God, which all good men are exhorted to be filled with, Ephes. 5.18. had any thing to do with Mr. Goodwin in the drawing up this book, which not onely in this one page, but frequently, even to the end thereof, is stuft with reproaches, either of the morrals or intellectuals of those he writeth against, and that without all bounds, and that too of such, that not long before he lift up as high towards heaven, as now he throweth them down towards hell.

8. Whether such like Arguments are ordinarily fled too, but in cases of extream necessity, when the cause is barren of Scripture evidence and demonstration? and lastly, whe∣ther Mr. Goodwin may not as soon prove the lawfulness of this way of writing from the holy Scriptures, as baptised persons sitting down in Church societies with unbaptised?

HEAVENS, EARTH, Judge.

FINIS.

Notes

• * 1.1

  At the time of the Nati∣ons cutring into the so∣lemn League and Cove∣nant.
• * 1.2

  As Peter and John was by the High Priest and Elders, Act. 4.13. Ignorant and unlearn∣ed men. And John 7.49.
• * 1.3

  Pro. 29.26.
• * 1.4

  1 Cor. 4.10.
• * 1.5

  Rom. 14.12
• * 1.6

  Pro. 25.28. Isai. 28.9. 1 Cor. 3.18 Ioh. 5.44.
• * 1.7

  P. 17, Of his Answer to Master Goodwins 40. Queries about Com∣munion.
• * 1.8

  Act. 2.41. Act. 8.12.
• * 1.9

  Act. 18.8.
• * 1.10

  P. 24. Of plain Scrip∣ture proofs.
• * 1.11

  P. 126. Of Scripture proof.
• * 1.12

  P. 127.
• * 1.13

  Note well.
• * 1.14

  P. 61: Of his Water dipping.
• * 1.15

  P: 48: Wa∣ter dipping.
• * 1.16

  P. 342. Of plain Scrip∣ture.
• * 1.17

  P. 68, 72. Of his water dip.
• * 1.18

  P. 342. Of Insânts Ch••rch-Membership
• * 1.19

  Acts 1.2. Acts 2.38. Act. 8.29.38. Act. 1.48.
• * 1.20

  1 Pet. 1.22.
• * 1.21

  Eph. 5:18.
• * 1.22

  1 Cor. 1••. from 1••.10 25.
• * 1.23

  P▪ 421▪
• * 1.24

  Plain Scri∣ture proof. P. 24.
• * 1.25

  Mark well, Mr. Baxster thinks they that bold men may be visible mem∣bers without Baptisme, renounce the Word of God for their rule.
• * 1.26

  Math. 18.20
• * 1.27

  1 Cor. 11.1 Phil. 3 17.
• * 1.28

  P. 302. Of plain Scrip∣ture.
• * 1.29

  Luke 7.30.
• * 1.30

  Saints Rest 212.
• * 1.31

  Mr. Bax∣ster Saints rest, p 179: from Doctor Preston.
• * 1.32

  Pag. 1.
• * 1.33

  Pagans debt and Dowry, p. 14.
• * 1.34

  1 Cor. 3.21 1 Cor. 2.5. James 2.1.
• * 1.35

  Mr. Baxster Saints Rest p. 179.
• * 1.36

  Com. upon the Acts p. 208.
• * 1.37

  P. 135. of plain Scrip∣ture.
• * 1.38

  P. 135. Of Scripture proof.
• * 1.39

  1 Cor. 15 3 Rom. 4.25. Compared with Rom. 6.2, 3, 4. Col. 2.12. Col. 3.1.
• * 1.40

  P. 177. Ca∣ses of Con∣science.
• * 1.41

  2 Cor. 5.10
• * 1.42

  Math. 3.11. Luke 12.5••
• * 1.43

  2 Thes. 3.6.
• * 1.44

  P. 193. Of his Scripture proof.
• * 1.45

  Which Rule Calvin con∣fesseth the Church took liberty to depart from.
• * 1.46

  1 Cor. 4.3.
• * 1.47

  Col. 2.6.
• * 1.48

  Heb. 11.7.
• * 1.49

  1 Pet. 2.20, 21, 22, 23.
• * 1.50

  1 Cor. 5.11 2 Thes 3.6.
• * 1.51

  Acts 22.16
• * 1.52

  Luke 7.29.
• * 1.53

  Com. upon Acts 8.
• * 1.54

  Water dip∣ping, p. 48.61.
• * 1.55

  Acts 8,
• * 1.56

  Gal. 3.27.
• * 1.57

  Col. 2.1••.
• * 1.58

  Mark 7.7.
• * 1.59

  Salt marsh and his fol∣lowers.
• * 1.60

  Water dip. p. 12.
• * 1.61

  Acts 2.38. Mar. 16.16 Mat. 28.19.
• * 1.62

  P. 542. Of plan Scrip∣ture proof.
• * 1.63

  Jude the 3.
• * 1.64

  P. 414. Catechis.
• * 1.65

  P. 414. Of Catechis.
• * 1.66

  P. 420. C••techis. Mark the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 slip∣peth out a••.
• * 1.67

  P. 31. Of Water dip.
• * 1.68

  Acts 10.33
• * 1.69

  Heb. 6.2. Acts 2.38. Mar. 16▪ 16.
• * 1.70

  P. 22, 72, 73. of Gan∣grena.
• * 1.71

  2 King ••.13.
• * 1.72

  Prov. 28.1.
• * 1.73

  Math. 11.
• * 1.74

  Isaiah 2.22
• * 1.75

  P. 6. Of 40 Queries. Acts 1.15.
• * 1.76

  1 Cor. 1.10 13. Rom. 6.3, 4 Col. 2.12. Gal. 3.27.
• * 1.77

  Mat. 28.19. Acts 2.37. Mar. 16.16.
• * 1.78

  John. 15.14. Rev. 22.14. Acts 3.22.
• * 1.79

  Mat. 28 19.
• * 1.80

  Acts 2.3••. Mar. 16.16.
• * 1.81

  P. 61. Of Water dip.
• * 1.82

  P. 81. Of Water dip.
• * 1.83

  P. 81. Of Water dip.
• * 1.84

  P. 55. Of Water dip.
• * 1.85

  P. 4. Of Water dip.
• * 1.86

  P. 41, 42.