TRUTH prevailing against the fiercest Opposition, OR, An Answer to Mr. john goodwin's Water-dipping no firm footing for Church Communion.  
Wherein the invalidity of his twenty three Considerations against withdrawing from those Societies that want Baptism by the body's 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 LAMB Merchant, once belonging to the Congregation whereof Mr. JOHN GOODWIN is Pastor, now a Servant to the Church of CHRIST meeting in Loathbury.  It was needful for me to write unto you and exhort you, that you should EARNESTLY CONTEND for the Faith which was ONCE delivered to the Saints, Judas the third. As ye have received Christ Jesus the Lord, SO walk ye in him, rooted and built up in him. Col. 2.8. Beware 〈◊〉 any man spoil you through Philosophy and vain deceit, after the traditions of men, and NOT AFTER CHRIST, Col. 2.8. I have found David the Son of Jesse, a man after my own heart, which shall fulfil ALL my will, Acts 13.22. Hebron therefore became the Inheritance of Caleb, because he WHOLLY followed the Lord God of Israel, Josh 14.14. 
London, Printed by G. Dawson, and are to be sold by Francis Smith, at his Shop in Flying-horse-Court in Fleetstreet, near Chancery-lane end. 1655.   

TO THE READER  
GOOD READER,  
GOD knoweth with what regret of spirit I publish this answer to Mr. goodwin's Book, called, (Water-dipping no firm footing for Church Communion) as pure conscience at first separated me from that Society, of whom he is Pastor, so now compelleth me to make answer to that Book (written for our reproof) not only to defend the truth therein opposed, but also to vindicate myself with some others from the heavy charge therein given to the whole world against us, of Faith and Trust betrayers, Promise breakers, sacrilegious Church breakers, etc. 

2. To make the world Judges, whether we are as Mr. Goodwin representeth us, persons of a misused and ●●stempered fancy, of stupefied judgements, to whose understanding common sense is a mystery inaccessible, with abundance more to the same purpose.  
3. To let the world see, that our Baptism hath not metamorphosed us from Lambs to Wolves, Tigers, or Serpents, which strange insinuations uttered in his haste, we hope confute themselves in the eyes of all rational unprejudiced men, that know us; but since books for the most part live longer than men, I thought it my duty, to make our Vindication as public as Mr. goodwin's Aspersion, except he had prevented us, and truly not for our own name sake, but for Christ's sake, whose cause we plead, and lest the blessed truth of the New Testament, sealed in Christ's heart blood should suffer by our total silence.    
Had not the truth been dearer to me than any man, I had rather choose to lose my right hand, than set it to a book that frowneth on him, whose credit always was, and still is, right dear and precious in my sight, so unhappy a thing it is for good men to be yoked with error in the things of Christ, that it maketh the most intimate friends, by opposition, look like bitter adversaries for the truth sake. Thus did Paul in respect of Peter, 2 Cal. 11. when before the whole Church of Antioch he withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed; he who spotteth the beautiful face of truth (though ignorantly) must expect a stain in his own credit, and be content to suffer so much as to make the truth whole: And he that contendeth FOR the truth, must be like to Levi, Deut. 33.9. Who said unto his Father, and to his Mother, I have not seen him, neither did he acknowledged his brethren, nor knew his own children, that he might observe God's Word and keep his Covenant. To acknowledge the good received from Instruments agreeth both to grace and nature, but to balk pleading the truth because thereof, argueth a distemper in the affections. The same person deserving at the same time both thanks and reproofs, to return the one is a point of gratitude, to administer the other in love, and in the majesty of God's Word, a point of faithfulness. And if in this contest thou findest any passages on my part savouring of too much sharpness, though in answer to Mr. goodwin's highest provocations, look upon me as disowning them, and mind only the reason of the place; Christ's counsel is, not to resist evil, 
Math. 5 39  But whoso shall smite me on the right cheek, to turn the other to him. But besides, it becometh me to bear much evil from that hand, by which I have received so much good. And so I commend thee to the serious consideration of the ensuing discourse, praying with all my soul the Father of lights to vouchsafe thee the spirit of discerning, that what therein is of God may be obvious to thy understanding, and readily embraced by thy will, and what is not of God (if yet there be any thing) may utterly perish from thy soul: this is the prayer of,  
Thy faithful Friend to serve thee to my power, THO: LAMB.   

To my Worthy Friends and Brethren, of like precious faith, walking with Mr. john Goodwin in the right Faith, though not in the right order of the GOSPEL.  
Holy and Beloved,  
I Have been long your debtor, it is fit I should now pay you your own with interest, which here I present you, by answering the substance of Mr. goodwin's Water-dipping no firm footing for Church Communion, which if you will in the fear of God, and without prejudice consider.  
I make little question, but the riddle of my departure from you, whose Society I prized (not a little) will be unfolded. That strange action of our Saviour's (so contrary to his natural genius) mentioned John 2.15. mightily affected the Disciples, and made them to cast about to find a ground for it: perhaps it may be so with some of you, in respect of me, because of my sudden breaking off from your Society, wherein you know I took much delight, I can say more, than in Corn, Wine and Oil, and where I had no want, but a surplusage of respects, above what I was able to merit at your hand. In a word, where my content was so great that it made departing from you more grievous to me than death itself would have been.  
And how contrary it is to my Spirit to make trouble or cause breaches I need not tell you, I take it for granted, that it is upon all your hearts, how much I abhor it: So that I conclude it cannot lightly but be a matter of some wonder to you, that I should thus break off from you, as well as Christ's strange action in the Temple was to the Disciples.  
Now whilst they were casting about to find a ground for this astonishing action of our Saviour, and searching in the right place, namely the Scriptures, at last they met with it, John 2.17. And they remembered that it was written, namely in the 69 Psalm 9 The zeal of thy house hath eaten me up.  
In like manner, Do you wonder? and are you casting about for a ground to fix my departure upon, then take the Disciples course, judge not according to appearance, but judge righteous judgement: do as they did, plough with the heifer of the Scriptures, and you will easily understand this riddle; harken not to Satan, the great enemy of all righteousness, who will suggest unto you some ignoble root or other to fix it upon: it was his way of old, when Christ cast out devils, the devil suggesteth he did it not by the power of God, but of Beelzebub the Prince of devils.  
The Apostle Paul himself, notwithstanding all his zeal, and faithfulness, and unparalleled self-denial, yet there was some even in the Church of Corinth, who he so dearly loved, who judged him as a man walking according to the flesh in all, 2 Corinth. 10.2. I think to be bold against some which THINK of us, saith he, as if we walked according to the flesh. Heavenly John, that bundle of love, met with a proud, hungerstarved, close fisted Diotrephes prating against him with malicious words, 3 Epistle John 10. 'tis an old trick of the Devil to bespeak the rejection of the truth, by working an ill opinion of them that maintain it. If this hath been the portion of such green trees, 'tis not for me to complain that am comparatively dry; my weaknesses are many, and no doubt but hath afforded many appearances of evil to you, but these heavenly souls were judged where there was neither evil nor appearance of any; the consideration whereof is no small consolation to me under all your mis-judging.  
But for the matter itself of my departing from you, as my record is on high, that no worldly thing should have separated me from the Church, so I have the witness within myself, that no carnal consideration whatsoever hath contributed to it, to the value of the least hair of my head: and how cometh any body to dream any such thing? When men's business lieth in the East, do men use to set out full West? or do men use to take up means in full contestation to their end? Alas, alas, I considered beforehand, that this way is every where spoken against, and the generality of the Professors of it of small esteem, for learning, parts, or any thing that commendeth men to the world: their garb and cast that of the Disciples, Luke 6.20. Blessed be ye poor: Now, that they were exclaimed on by the learned in their writings, and frequently in Pulpits at this day, their name cast out as evil, and hated in a manner of all men, that if times of persecution for conscience come, they are like to be the first sufferers: So that I had many struggle and wrestle with the flesh, before I could get the victory to submit to it; nay, the truth is, had not the truth concerning it struck my conscience, and the light shone into my judgement with that clearness, that I could by no means avoid it with peace, I had never forsaken my old standing, which was more honourable, easy, and every way more acceptable to the outward man.  
Now what those Considerations are that command my judgement to that point, whereat it now standeth in the business of Baptism, which is that only thing which separated between me and you, you have scattered up and down in this my Answer to Mr. Goodwin: But yet I think good to give you the sum thereof under a few heads.  
1. I considered the excellency of Jesus Christ above Moses, 
Hebr. 1. Heb. 3.3. Heb. 1.3.  from thence argued to the ungodliness, and danger of slighting him in any of his Commands.  
2. I found Baptism with Water to be one of his Commands, 
Mat. 28 19 Acts 2.37.  and joined with Teaching by name in the Commission of Christ, and the same presence of Christ promised jointly as well to Baptism as Teaching, to the end of the world, 
Mar. 16.16  and serving the grand interest of Remission of sins and salvation (in some sense) and commanded by Christ to be done upon all discipled persons, 
Mat. 28.19. Mar. 16.16.  and that with huge solemnity, In the Name of the Father, Son and Spirit, and that too amongst the last words he spoke on earth.  
3. I found that he intended not the reiteration of it by the same person, and that therefore there ought to be all due care of practising it without corruption.  
4. I found the design of Christ in the Ordinance itself to be exceeding rich and spiritual, namely, amongst many other ends. 1. To oblige the Disciples unto Christ, that as Circumcision bound men to keep the Law of Moses, so doth Baptism to keep the Gospel of Christ, therefore the Spirit borroweth the word Baptism, which respecteth Christ to express the obligation of the Jews to the Law of Moses, 1 Corinth. 10.2. And were all baptised unto Moses. Further, the design of Christ is to affect the heart by the will of God seen in the Ordinance of Baptism, as well as heard in the Word preached, therefore to present in a figure the substance of the Gospel to the eye, as the Word preached doth to the ear, namely, the washing away of sin by the blood of Christ, the death, 
Acts 22.16 Col. 2.12. Rom 6.34.  burial and resurrection of Christ for sinners, and the sinner's death to sin, suffering with Christ, resurrection to all newness of life here and glory hereafter.  
5. This being the plain design of Christ in the Ordinance, I considered Infant-sprinkling, which ordinarily goeth for Baptism, and found the great design of Christ in a manner frustrate by it, because there is no sign or figure of any such thing as death, burial and resurrection, and consequently not that Sermon of the Gospel, which Christ intended to make by it, as is most evident by the Scriptures, which palpably discovereth it to be a humane invention.  
6. I found, that as Baptism was by Christ instituted, and the Apostles practised, namely, upon discipled persons, made so by Teaching, as the Acts of the Apostles abundantly prove.  
The form being by burying the body in water, which Calvin and others honestly confess to be the old way.  
The worthy design of Christ therein is excellently served.  
The party being a Beleiver is capable of fellowship with God in the Ordinance, and voluntarily submitting thereto, out of conscience of duty, and knowledge of the intent of Christ in it, is like to feel their obligation to Christ by it, into whose Name they themselves desired to be baptised; whereas Infants are neither capable of desiring it, knowledge of the meaning of it, faith about it, or any such thing as fellowship with God in it, and when grown up, can only tell by hearsay, that ever any such thing was done at all upon them, most unlike therefore to feel the like obligation to Christ by it.  
Then for the form, it being by burying the body in water, and raising it out again thereof, there is a most exact representation between sign and thing signified, which Christ intended in (this) sign, as appeareth by the Scriptures (though not in all signs) which heavenly projects of the Lord Jesus, 
Col. 2.12. Rom. 6.4.  in the Ordinance, are totally frustrate in children's sprinkling.  
7. I find the Scriptures in all expressnese of letter are in many places for Beleivers Baptism, whereas there is not one such Text for children's, nor any instance of the Baptism of so much as one Child in all the new Testament, though the firmament of the Scriptures are filled with the stars of Beleivers Baptism, so that many learned men have acknowledged Infant-baptisme is not in God's Word, and those who go about to found it on Scripture, build all on consequences (ifs, may bees, and why notes) which Argument Mr. Goodwin hath often used to confirm the doctrine of general Redemption, and to draw the contrary opinion under the suspicion of error.  
8. I found the unregenerate world, naturally falling in with children's baptism, which is a shrewd sign it is a device of her own, The world loveth her own, John 15.19. And on the contrary, hating Beleivers Baptism with an inveterate hate, as she doth every Ordinance of Christ, administered in the naked plainness and simplicity of it.  
9 Infant-Baptisme disagreeth to the spiritual state of the Church under the new Testament, because Baptism being the initiating Ordinance into the Church, it letteth in a sort of members which the new Testament knoweth not, namely, such as cannot worship God in Spirit, whereas the Scripture saith, John 4 23. That God (now) seeketh SUCH, (meaning only such) because he maketh the Church's growth unto an holy Temple to be by the means of the building, its being fitly framed together, Ephes. 2.21. and again, he maketh the increase of the body unto its edification, and its growth up into the head to be, partly at least by the means of the WHOLE body its being FITLY joined together and compact, and (mark) according to the effectual working in the measure of EVERY part, whereas Infants are altogether uncapable of such effectual working, or of any fit conjunction with Beleivers: And though children might be Church members under the old Testament, when also wicked persons might, if Abraham's carnal seed, not so under the New; it is plain from the Scripture, that Christ will have the matter (thereof) be the spiritual seed of Abraham manifested by repentance and faith, Math. 3.9. Therefore, 1 Corinth. 1.1. giveth the matter of the Church by due constitution to be (called) Saints, and commandeth, that if any prove themselves otherwise by disorderly walking to withdraw from them, 2 Thes. 3.6, 14.  
10. I find the sharpest adversaries this way hath even in their writings on purpose to disgrace it, and to magnify the contrary, namely Infant-baptisme, God maketh them to let fall such expressions as justify it, and condemn their own. As for instance, Mr. Rich. Baxster, speaking of the full and proper ends why God instituted the Ordinance of Baptism, he saith, they are rather to be fetched from the Aged than Infants, and that because, MARK, The Aged: 

1. They are the most FULLY CAPABLE SUBJECTS.  
2. THE MOST EXCELLENT SUBJECTS.  
3. THE MOST EMINENT SUBJECTS.  
4. OF WHOM SCRIPTURE FULLY SPEAKETH.  
5. THE GREATER PART OF THE WORLD WHEN BAPTISM WAS INSTITUTED, who were to be partakers of it.    
But on the contrary, as for Infant-baptisme, he acknowledgeth in the same place, 
P. 301. Of plain Scripture Proof.  that the Scripture speaketh darkly of it, yea, that it is SO dark in the Scripture, that the controversy is thereby become not only hard, but SO hard, etc. as he saith he findeth it.  
Now if this learned and holy man, hath not in a few words said more for our way, than in his whole book against it, and that upon pure principles of reason and Religion, let the world judge, for if Infant's baptism be dark in the Scripture, and so dark as he complaineth.  
1. How doth this agree with the Title of the Book, and the superscription of every page, Plain Scripture proof for Infants, etc. Doth not plain Scripture proof, and dark Scripture proof directly oppose? And however Mr. Baxster thinketh he seethe such a thing, though it lie darkly, he knoweth many learned quicksighted men, that profess they cannot see it there at all no more than we. But if the case be indeed thus, as it is by Mr. Baxsters' own confession, that of Infant's Baptism the Scripture speaketh darkly, but of Beleivers or the Aged, that the Scripture fully speaketh, and besides, that they are the most capable, eminent, and excellent Subjects, with what conscience, either of duty to God, or comfort to the soul, can any Christian man cleave to Infant-baptisme, and despise Beleivers? If Infant-baptisme be a dark way, and so hard to find, is he a wise man that chooseth that way, when he may walk in the light? Doth any honest man, in his right mind, choose untrodden paths, when the beaten road lieth just before him? and doth not Christ say, he that walketh in the dark stumbleth, John 11.10? or doth it become the people of God to be so indifferent in matters of Religion, as not to care whether they walk in the light or in the dark? or can any man think to please God by choosing a dark way, hard to find, when a lightsome path, beaten by the feet of Christ and the Saints, looketh him full in the face: Or where is that man in all the world, that will give as much for land that the title too is dark, as for that which is clear and unquestionable? Doth not every one say, of Titles not clear, I'll not meddle? Hath not Mr. Baxster said to Mr. Bedford, it is good going the surer side of the hedge, p. 303. of Plain Scripture proof? and is not Beleivers Baptism the surer by his own confession? Or doth it become men to be more solicitous about their temporal estates than their spiritual? Or can leaving the light, and walking in the dark, be thought the way to the Saints everlasting rest?  
11. It agreeth not to the wisdom and goodness of Christ, that Baptism should be so dark in the Scripture as Mr. Baxster saith it is; not to his wisdom, because it is appointed for babes, and because he expecteth obedience, who that expecteth obedience will leave their Laws hard to find? Not to his goodness, because he hath put the Disciples under a sore penalty in case of disobedience to whatsoever he hath commanded.  
Now the way of Baptism after faith is clear and manifest, as Mr. Baxster acknowledgeth, most like therefore to be the Statute of Christ for his Babes to submit too, and not that which is dark. Besides, would it not be a good excuse at Judgement, for the neglect of any Law of Christ's, if men could say, the Command was dark, and so hard to find.  
12. As Beleivers Baptism agreeth to particular Churches, gathered out of the world by the Word, so doth Infant-baptisme agree to the National Church, and Communion therein, which you have renounced, because by Baptism they are immembred into the Church, and so capable of Church Communion; yea, ('tis their right) if their Baptism be reckoned valid, because according to Scripture, Acts 2.42. All baptised persons were added to the Church, and continued in the Apostles fellowship, breaking bread and prayer: by what rule then can the Parishes be withdrawn from, when they are esteemed duly baptised persons, till legally proceeded against for disorderly walking: If then you will reject their Church state as good, as you do, by withdrawing from them, you must not allow their Baptism, because their Baptism, if good, giveth right to it, Indepency then rejecteth the fruit, but letteth the tree stand that beareth it.  
If it be objected, that some (though not all of the Independents) disallow the Baptism of some children, namely, such whose Parents believe not.  
'tis true in words, but not deeds: where is there one man in all the Independent Churches, the truth of whose Baptism was ever called in question?  
13. Infant-baptisme agreeth to the carnal interest of those men, who take up preaching for filthy lucre, whereas Beleivers Baptism altogether frowneth on it.  
Infant-baptisme taking in high and low, rich and poor, into the Church, maketh both more and richer Customers to the Minister, Beleivers both fewer and poorer, because they are but few that believe, comparitively, and for the most part of the poorer sort; so that which way soever I looked on Infant-baptisme, I found the signs of a plant which the heavenly Father never planted; and on the contrary, Beleivers Baptism every way answering the breathe of the Spirit of God in Scripture, and consequently, that it became me, as a friend to Truth, and for the honour of Jesus Christ, not only to obey Christ by submitting to the Ordinance myself, but to strive the restoring it to its primitive puritity, to which I take myself obliged.  
1. By the Scripture, Judas 3. It was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you, that you should earnestly contend for the faith ONCE delivered to the Saints.  
2. By the example of holy men of old, that when they set upon reformation in the worship of God, 
Neh. 10.19 2 Kings 23 25. Jer. 6.16. Mal. 4.4. 2 Ch●on. 33.8.  had respect to ALL the Law in reforming, both before and after the Captivity, which also was according to the express Command of God.  
3. By God's high approbation of such his Servants, who did accordingly, as you may see in the instance of Josiah, 2 Kings 27.25. David is called, a man after Gods own heart, Acts 13.22. because a fulfiller of all his will: and Caleb so highly dignified, 
Josh. 14. from 8. to the 14.  because he fully followed the Lord his God. Solomon is disparaged by this, 1 Kings 11.6. That he went not FULLY after the Lord, as did David his Father.  
4. By the Covenant that the whole Church entered into with the rest of the Nation, to reform both in doctrine and discipline according to the Word of God.  
But you cannot think Baptism any part of Christ's Law, and so the practice rather a piece of will-worship, than fully following of Christ.  
To which I answer: When the doctrine of universal Redemption first sounded in your ear, it was as hard to bear as Beleivers Baptism is now, and as fare from your thoughts to be the mind of Christ, but that which was hard then is easy now, that which was darkness than is light now, and that which was wood, hay and stubble then, is gold, and silver, and precious stones now; yea those doctrines, that when time was, in your haste, you were ready to say, he deserved to lose his eyes that preached them, now for your joy could almost be content to pluck out your own eyes in gratitude to him that brought them: (Is it not true.)  
And again, concerning the Church way, mind Mr. goodwin's words to Mr. Thomas Goodwin when he was in Holland, Your authority, graces, learning, parts, judgement and example, have made the stone of separation amongst us so massy and heavy, that we are constrained to be at double pains and labour in removing and rolling it from the consciences of men. A great part of our employment is to staunch the issue of that fountain of blood, which you have opened in the womb of our Churches here.  
But yet since Mr. Goodwin hath found cause to build up that which then he threw down with so much zeal and industry, and I verily believe, if a man should have said to Mr. Goodwin at that time, Sir, the time may come when you may find cause to separate from the national Church, and gather a particular, he would have said, Am I a Dog, that I should do this great thing? Oh how he sweat at it then to roll that heavy stone of separation from the consciences of men, at last found it too heavy to be done at all, and so thought fit, rather to lie under the weight of it, than heave any longer at it. I writ not these things to shame Mr. Goodwin, it is no shame to a man, that he knoweth but in part, and that he is not Master of all knowledge at one and the same time; The path of the just, being as the shining light, 
Prov. 4 18.  which shineth more and more to the perfect day. If more spiritual light shine not into the judgement, if it not a sore sign, that the path of such men is not the path of the just? And if when it is come into the judgement, if it shall not appear in practice, than it is a sign of a heart glued to some carnal worldly interest or other, which causeth the person to withhold the truth in unrighteousness. 'tis not changing simply that the Scriptures find fault with, but being GIVEN to change. Changing, as the case may be, is so fare from being a fault, 
Prov. 24.21.  that it is a sign of a growing soul in grace, of walking after the Spirit, of a self denying upright soul, that lieth naked before the truth, unmarried to any secular interest. Truth's faithful friend, that so truth may get up, careth not though itself go down.  
This therefore is the glory, not the sha●e of Mr. Goodwin, that when the truth came into his judgement, as it is in Jesus, he consulted not with flesh and blood, but with Paul, preacheth the faith which once he destroyed, for which many glorified God in him.  
I beseech you therefore let no man mis-judge me in the ground of t●is relation, as if I intended hereby to cast the least disparagement upon him, whom (for the good I have received from God by his hand) I am bound above many to love and honour.  
But if you ask, wherefore then serveth this story? I answer, that you should not think of him above that which is meet; to let you see that Mr. Goodwin is but a man, and subject to like mistakes that others are and therefore his present superabounding confidence, though it rise to that height, as to think all others little better than mad, that is not of his opinion, is no demonstration that he is in the truth, 'tis so far from that, that if a man may judge what is like now to be, by what hath been, now is the time that Anabaptism should arise, life up itself, and be exalted in Mr. goodwin's judgement, because heretofore (in other cases) not long after such high expressions of confidence, he gave up the bucklers, and the truth took possession of his heart, which it never could get before. I cannot therefore be out of all hope, that Mr. Goodwin may one day fall down at the foot of that truth, which he now trampleth on without mercy. And though our Arguments seem weak and frothy to him for the present, and the fruit of a distempered fancy, it doth not follow that they are so; but this only, that Mr. Goodwin is fully persuaded in his own mind, which he is wont to be, as well when he is out of the truth as well as in it.  
The scope hereof is threefold. 

1 To show, that though you are not now of our mind, it doth not follow you never will be.  
2. To prevent rash and hasty judging.  
3. To admonish you against having, not only Mr. goodwin's, but any man's person in admiration.   The snare of admiring men is great, both to the admirers and admired.  
To the admirers. 1. It maketh them swallow what the admired say without due chewing, and so their faith will stand more in the wisdom and judgement of such men, who they deify, than in the power of God.  
2. It issueth an under esteem of, and scornful slighting of others, 
1 Cor. 1.12 compared with 1 Cor 4.6.  who yet are worthy instruments in the Lords work, this was the case of many in the Church of Corinth.  
To the admired, the snare is great upon them also, even to puff them up, and make them swell against their brethren, and so also to procure the displeasure of God against them, Acts 12.22. Oh what care therefore doth Paul take to keep both the World and the Church from undue attributions to him, Acts 14.11. upon his cure of the Cripple, The people lift up their voices saying, The GOD'S are come down in the likeness of men, and much ado they had to keep the people from sacrificing to them, which made the Apostles, Barnabas and Paul, rend their clothes, run in among the people, crying out, and saying, Sirs, why do ye th●se things? we are men of like passions with you; much after this manner is it with persons that God useth in converting and edifying souls, Gal. 4.15. especially when also found able in the wars of Christ for truth; so that if such men do not run in upon the people, and disown all undue reverence, they will have much ado to keep within the bounds of those respects, due to Instruments. They will be more apt to say what such a man saith, than what Christ saith, or Paul, or Peter, or James, or John, saith, nay in a manner to believe what such a man beleiveth in every thing.  
Now indeed we read of eminent persons, great benefactors, and that withal have served in wars to conquest, the people have made them judges in civils'. But this is too much to give to any mortal man in spirituals: There the Command is express, Math. 23.9, 10. Call no man Master, or Father, not in the besotted Quakers sense (by denying such titles to men) but Christ's sense, which is by accepting men for lords over our faith, which Paul disowneth as to himself in respect of the Churches, in the 2 Corinth 1.24. Nor for that we have DOMINION over YOUR FAITH, and that which Paul took such great to prevent in the Churches, 1 Corinth. 2.5. That their faith should not stand in his wisdom; though he doth own being their Father, 1 Cer. 4.15. in a sense, and Master too, 2 Thes. 3.12, 14. in subordination to Christ.  
But I fear I shall be too tedious in my Epistle, my heart being greatly enlarged towards you, I have much ado to stop the progress of my pen; but lest my Epistle prove to o bulky, I shall here break off, though abruptly, assuring you, that it's not the want of love to you, but the conscience of duty to Christ, who loved me, and gave himself for me, that separateth between you and me.  
As for your hard thoughts and speeches concerning my departure, as on the one hand I am provided against the dint of them, by the conscience of my own perfect innocency and integrity in that matter, and who is he that can make my glorying void? On the other hand my prayer is, they may never work to disaffect me to you, but to the doubling of my requests to God, to enlighten your judgements in the truth, and so make way for our meeting again never to part more.  
Yours unfeignedly, in the right way of the Gospel to serve you faithfully, according to my measure in the things of Jesus Christ, THO: LAMB.   

ERRATA.  
PAge 14. line 12. leave out the word not. p. 33. line 10. read● my for which. p. 33. line 20. read or for besides. p. 39 l. 2. before p. 135. add yet. p. 39 line 7. for Psalm read Isaiah. p. 40 line 30. and 32. for duly read duty. p. 41. line 31. leave out the words, hard to find. p. 50. line 21. for employ read imply. p. 64. line 18. beginning of the line add the word But. p. 113. line 11. read Ordinance for Ordinances. p. 113. line 24. read institution for instituting.   

An Answer to Mr. john goodwin's Considerations, against forsaking the embodied Societies of Beleivers: Notwithstanding the want of true Baptism.  

His first Consideration for substance this: THat the Moral Law hath a superintendency over the Law of Institutions; so that whilst the positive Law of Christ cannot be practised without breaking the Moral 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 Moral Law; Mr. Goodwin indeed supposeth it is, and that by so doing we are guilty of promise breaking, covenant breaking, etc.  
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 fare from any such thing, that it is indeed and in truth the performance of a most solemn Vow and Covenant, which Mr. Goodwin, 
At the time of the Nations cutring into the solemn League and Covenant.  with myself and divers of the Church, entered into, with hands lift up to the most high God, wherein we vowed to go one before another in the work of reformation, mark well, TO GO ONE BEFORE ANOTHER, not to stay one for another till all were satisfied, and that both in doctrine and discipline, according to the Word of God. Now that it was Mr. goodwin's 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 practice 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 conjunction) 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 thereunto.  
And did this solemn Oath, before the most High, justify him in the like practice, and will it fail us?  
Or will Mr. Goodwin be so monstrously disingenuous, as to construe any after promise, to walk with the Church in contradiction to this solemn Oath? And yet thus he dealeth 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 reproving 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 entered 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 gross absurdities that follow upon it, for then Men should be locked up from any further progress in the work of reformation, 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 justify our practice, 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 collateral engagements 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, because we use our liberty against a collateral engament to another pattern.  
He addeth further in these words:  
They meaning hearty reformers, must not incline not so much as a dust in the balance amounteth unto, to any Reformation of any Church whatsoever, further than they are reform according 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 abhor themselves 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. goodwin's Text; I leave thee to make the interpretation, and give judgement, whether we, by his own principles, deserve to bear the heavy burden of faith and trust betrayers, which he loadeth us with, not only 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 royal Law of love to his Neighbour, yea, his friends and brethren, of like precious 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 moral Law.   

His second Consideration for substance this: THat supposing our way to be the sole Baptism Ordinance of Christ, the Churches which are not actually baptised with our very Baptism, are yet according to the estimate of God, baptised our way with our very Baptism, and aught so to be esteemed by us, because they have a willing 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 account of a willing mind so to be.  
Doth the righteous God of heaven and earth judge contrary to the truth? doth he judge men to have actually done that which they never did? 'Tis one thing for God to deal graciously by men, as if they had been obedient, because 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 allegeth: 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 God's 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 premises.  
For his other instance, Math. 5.12. where he saith, Who so looketh upon a woman to lust after her, hath committed adultery. Christ saith, it is only 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 obeyed (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 performed, justify 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 reins and the heart, as well as God, and know who willeth sincerely and who not, as God doth, it is unreasonable to conceive that men's willing things should be any rule for men's judgement, though it should be conceived a rule for God's judgement. And further, the heart of man being deceitful above all things, it is not so easy as it may be some think, to know themselves, whether they will sincerely or no: the obedience of such commands, which they cannot but see, taketh them off the chair of public esteem, and setteth them upon the dunghill of disgrace and scorn, and whether obedience to Gospel-baptism doth not so, let the world judge, by your cruel mocking them that submit to it, and bitter insinuations against them: To which we shall speak fully 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 terms, to walk with you. And have you not as much reason to judge us sincere 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 Christ's way, and Paul's way, which is our way, would be a pure piece of self denial to you, 
As Peter and John was by the High Priest and Elders, Act. 4.13. Ignorant and unlearned men. And John 7.49.  and that in many respects, you would be numbered amongst those poor brethren of the dip, which want relief; that petty handful of less knowing and less considerate men, as you call them, those ignorant Creatures, the generality of whom know not what the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth, that for aught they know (upon their own account) it may signify, to ride, or to run, or to build, as well as to dip, which are your scornful expressions concerning them. Every man can find a will to seek the face of the Ruler, 
Pro. 29.26.  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 fooles for Christ's sake, than we should be wise in Christ, now weak, 
1 Cor. 4.10.  then strong, now despised, then honourable.  
So that we have more cause by fare to doubt your wills of COMING DOWN to us, though you should say never so much, how much you willed it, than you have to doubt our wills of GOING Up to you, if we did but whisper it. And yet you have declared us no Members 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 Christ's 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 instrument of much spiritual good to our soul, being always before our face.  
How untrue therefore have you been to your own principles, in thus dealing with us? 
Rom. 14.12  Happy is the man that condemneth 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 Beleivers, who are in the right order of the Gospel, aught 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 one's faith would have passed with the Churches in the primitive 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. Why call you me Lord, Lord, and DO not the thing that I say. Luke 6.46. What doth it profit, my brethren, 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 unbaptised, yet it is much to be feared, that fare 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 itself, 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 according 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 hindereth the true genuine working of the intellectual senses, appeareth by Christ's 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 Christ's 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 means of proving it to be the mind and will of God; and we are the rather induced to believe, that this is the true ground of the non-conviction of many that are unconvinced of the duty of baptism, 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 persuaded to own the truth, do acknowledge their indisposition to the obedience 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: 
Pro. 25.28. Isai. 28.9. 1 Cor. 3.18 joh. 5.44.  till they became like Children weaned from the breast: In a word, till they were able to become fools for Christ's sake, and resolve to delight their souls with that honour that cometh from God only.  
But whether the fault of nonobedience be chargeable upon the wills of men, or the want of conviction, notwithstanding all good means used to come at it, that God only knoweth, as also the truth and falsehood of men's 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 moral Law doth that, that God is to be worshipped, was Moses his Doctrine as well as Christ's, 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 moral, a man may as well be said to be Moses his Disciple, as Christ's, 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 Christ's Disciple, in distinction from Moses, whose Ordinances were far different (provided it follow repentance from dead works, and faith towards God, without which I confess it signifieth nothing;) in which respect, doubtless, both Jews and Gentiles are said in baptism 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 chief that putteth men to shame, and casteth out their name as evil. 'Tis not the simple worshipping of God, that bringeth men disgrace (no not with carnal men, that have not sinned 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 itself, corrupted, they might live at Rome and be applauded.  
So for the other part of the moral Law, which consisteth in Justice and Mercy. Mercy and Justice offendeth not the generality of men (but only some particulars, where their own interest is struck at by it) and the reason clear, because the moral Law is written in every man's heart, so that he that liveth up to that, liveth to the conscience of every individual soul, and consequently compelleth revereate, from all men that have not sinned away the light of nature.  
But for the Law of institutions, they being foreign to the hearts of men, found only 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 form by her worldly wise men, according to her carnality, and to fit their own worldly interests.  
It cometh to pass unavoidably, that whosoever will follow 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 interest 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 Disciples to be orderly, so that though persons be Disciples by faith, and so have a remote right to all privileges of Church Communion, yet have not an immediate right thereto, till they desire it in that way which Christ hath appointed.  
That Christ hath established 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 steadfastness 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 expounded at the 8. verse: And not after Christ: now that by in him, or after him, he meaneth, after his teachings, appeareth by the 7. verse: Rooted and built up in him, and established 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 Christ's: and in the 12. verse mentioneth Baptism by name, where in he affirmeth, they were buried with Christ.  
Again, that Christ hath established order for the regulation of the Disciples Communion, appeareth by the 1 Cor. 11. where the Apostle blameth the Church for disorder in their eating the Lords Supper, and that their sin of disorderly walking might appear the more heinous to them, he telleth them at the 23. verse, That which he delivered 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 matter of order is a thing strictly to be minded, appeareth by Titus 1.5. For this cause left I thee in Crect; that thou shouldest set in order.  
Now if it be asked, how it appeareth a disorderly practice, for persons to be admitted into the Church, and sit down with them in full communion without Baptism?  
I shall first enforce some of my brother Allens Arguments, and take off Mr. goodwin's 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, 
P. 17, Of his Answer to Master goodwin's 40. Queries about Communion.  then to sit down with the Church in full communion before it, is a disorderly practice.  
But Baptism was the next thing immediately to be done by the order of Christ.  
That Baptism was the next thing immediately to be done, appeareth by the Commission, Math. 28.19. Go teach or Disciple all Nations, baptising them; where we see Baptism is the next thing to be done after discipling, and accordingly the Apostles practised it: 
Act. 2.41. Act. 8.12.  (which putteth the matter out of all doubt to all ingenious men) as all the instances of the Acts of the Apostles proveth. 
Act. 18.8.   
If you could show any (saith Mr. Baxster) that did delay Baptism (he meaneth to Disciples) since Christ's Command, 
P. 24. Of plain Scripture proofs.  Math. 28.19 it would appear to have been sinful, as through ignorance or negligence.  
Again, That it is Christ's rule, that persons shall be baptised without delay, when they are first made Disciples, 
P. 126. Of Scripture proof.  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 Baptism.  
If any should be so impudent as to say, it is not the meaning of Christ, that baptising 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 rational, 
P. 127.  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 Baptism, 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 Lawmakers.  
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 signify 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 believed or blasphemed, to have been baptised by them: For you say, the word Teach, doth not imply an actually discipled person to Christ, but only the having instructions proper to make men so. If that were all the sense, than 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 believed 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 show, 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 showeth 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 hearty 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 through 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 only the saying such things to them, which were proper to make them so, which is Mr. goodwin's: 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mr. Baxter confesseth to agree with Mr- Tombs, I say as he, saith Mr. Baxter, that the verb signifieth, make ye Disciples.  
Vrsinus 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, 
Note well.  John 4.2. The Pharisees heard, that Jesus made and baptised more Disciples than John; and what Vrsinus meaneth by Disciples, appeareth plainly p. 414. of his Catechism, Teach all Nations baptising them, that is, all who by your doctrine come unto me: and p. 420. That unto the use of baptism faith is required; and in p. 415. these discipled persons he calleth, converted persons. So that in this learned man's judgement, by teaching in the Commission, is meant discipling, by Disciples Beleivers, comers unto Christ, converted persons, and not as Mr. Goodwin, that to teach signifieth not to make them actual Disciples, but only 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 humbly 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, actual 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. Goe make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes, lest, etc. is not here more put into the Prophet's Commission than was in his own power to do? could he make their hearts fat, or make their ears heavy, or shut their eyes? Nay, are not these effects attributed to God, though put in the Prophet's 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 attributed to themselves in Math. 13.15. Their eyes they have closed lest they should, etc. So that though these effects are put in the Prophet's Commission, yet altogether out of his own power to do, without the joint concurrence both of God and the Creature.  
So also in the new Testament, Acts 26.17, 18. Delivering 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 Paul's 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 signify only what you apprehend, namely, the speaking such things which are proper 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 Baptism, because Baptism by Christ's order was the next thing to be done after discipling, and that immediately.  
Secondly, A second Argument to prove it a disorderly Practice, for the Disciples to hold Church Communion before Baptism, is this.  
If the Scripture maketh Baptism 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 Baptism is the Ordinance of entrance into the visible Body of Christ; yea, he is so far from thinking so, 
P. 61: Of his Water dipping.  that he thinketh the injunction of it, is but after the manner of the freewill offerings under the Law; so that men may either obey, or not obey, without sin; yea, 
P: 48: Water dipping.  that a Church may be of as sound and worthy a constitution without Baptism, as with it.  
Now before I make particular answer to Mr. goodwin's Exception to the interpretation of the Scripture alleged 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 Christian 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 Baptism 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, Prelatical, Presbiterial, or Independent, or Anabaptist, except some few persons lately, the most whereof are given to Seekerisme.  
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 temptation (by worldly respects) to balk the naked truth, as those that are.  
This Argument I confess amounteth not to a demonstration, but it justly provoketh an eye of jealousy over that opinion, that singleth a man out from all his brethren of like precious faith, and rendereth him like the Widow Paul speaketh of, desolate.  
I shall now proceed to establish this truth, by showing the invalidity of your great exception to the interpretation of the 1 Corinth. 12.13. which Text my Brother Allen insisteth 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 Baptism. 
P. 342. Of plain Scripture.  Mr. Goodwin will needs understand it just now of Spirit Baptism; but why, 
P. 68, 72. Of his water dip.  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 Baptism, because the word water is not mentioned in the Commission itself for baptising, which yet notwithstanding is plainly enough interpreted by the Apostles, to be meant of water Baptism, because of their practising it, by virtue 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 understand the words otherwise, Were you baptised in the Nun of Paul, I thank God I baptised none of you▪  
But you say the Text speaketh of another Element, 
P. 342. Of Insânts' Church-membership  namely, the Spirit; 'Tis true, it doth mention the Spirit as a concurrent cause, saith learned Baxsten, but the Text speaketh of real Baptism.  
2. How frequently are effects attributed to the Spirit in Scripture, in this sense? Is not Baptism the Doctrine of the Spirit as well as other duties? 
Acts 1.2. Acts 2.38. Act. 8.29.38. Act. 1.48.  and that which the Spirit exciteth to amongst other acts of obedience? did not the Spirit send Philip 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 duty? why then may not real Baptism with water, being an act of obedience, be attributed to the Spirit, 
1 Pet. 1.22.  as well as any other acts of obedience whatsoever.  
3. To understand these words (By the Spirit) as a working cause, and Baptism 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, persuading 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 souls 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 producing 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 yoke of Chtist, and put him on by Baptism, 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 individuals become one body, by solemnising the rite of entrance, without which no man is counted a Member.  
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 verses, and enforce a metaphorical use of the word Baptised, without any necessity,  
But fourthly, to make it clear, that by Baptism here, he meaneth it, not of the baptism of the Spirit, it appeareth by that which is attributed to it, namely, the entering of all persons into the mystical body of Christ, he saith, it is ●NTO ONE BODY, and we are ALL baptised into one body. So that it is the means sanctified by God, for all the members entrance into that body.  
It cannot therefore be meant of the baptism of the Spirit, because then working of miracles, and speaking with tongues, and prophesying, extraordinary (which the Scripture meaneth only by the baptism 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 only to prove (for the making good this Argument) that when the Scripture speaketh of the Baptism of the Spirit, it would always be understood of working miracles, speaking with tongues, and the like, and not of common and ordinary gifts, as faith and love, etc.  
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 baptism, for men to do so is unscriptural.  
2. Because Christ's 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 only telleth 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 Pentecost, Acts 2.3, 4.  
And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat. And they began to speak with other tongues, etc. Now in the 11. Acts 16. Peter calleth Cornelius his speaking with tongues, the baptism of the holy Ghost, which Christ promised. Then remembered I the word of the Lord (meaning 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 baptism of the Spirit, must needs be of such a being filled with the Spirit, 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 only 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 Baptism of the Spirit, and that by which persons come to abound with faith, love, joy, peace, etc. as to the ways 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 means to get them, and blamed if we have them not, 
Eph. 5: 18.  Luke 24.25.  
So that the largeness of the possession of them dependeth ordinarily upon the Creatures industry, and in that way attained, and according to men's industry or sloth, they ordinarily have more or less of the Spirit  
But as for the Baptism of the Spirit, it is immediately conferred by way of extraordinary gift.  
Consult the Scriptures, where the Baptism of the Spirit is mentioned, and you shall find it so.  
The first place is the 2 of Acts 2, 3, 4. verse, ●nd suddenly 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 beginning.  
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 believe, as appeareth at the 12. verse, but they had not the Baptism 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 attaining the Spirit? Mark at the 16. verse, For as yet he was FALLEN upon none of them, only 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 spoke with tongues and prophesied.  
Doth the Sun shine clearer at noonday than this truth, that the common fruits of the Spirit are one thing, and the baptism of the Spirit another, namely, the gifts of speaking with tongues, extraordinary prophesying, and working miracles, 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 Baptism 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, real baptsme, and not, the baptism 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 Cor. 1●. from 1●. 10 25.  to persuade to Christian love, care and tenderness one of another, as one may easily see that will consult the place.  
Now for proper real Baptism, 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 satisfy any indifferent man, that the word baptised in the  place, is to be understood properly even of water Baptism, and consequently the Argument from that Text, to prove Baptism the door of entrance into the visible Church of Christ▪ unanswerable.  
But besides this, 1 Cor. 12.13. to prove Baptism the door of the visible Church, the 6 of the Romans 3. speaketh the same language, Know ye not, that so many of us, as were BAPTISED INTO Jesus Christ, were baptised into his death, etc.  
Now to prove, that by Baptism in the first clause; he meaneth it not of mortification (which some conceive the Baptism of the Spirit) it appeareth thus: If the Baptism of the Text be used as an Argument to persuade to perfect mortification, and a new life, then is it not the thing itself. But it is used as an Argument to persuade 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 Baptism, and useth it argument wise, to persuade 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 baptism 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 actual mortification, yet by their baptism they were under an effectual obligation to use all possible means to attain thereto, and if this be not the true sense of the place, I have lost my taste, good Reader judge.  
Now to come home to the point, to prove Baptism the entering Ordinance into the visible body of Christ. The Text saith plainly of Baptism, that it was INTO JESUS 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 mystical body, 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 Baptism.  
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 Vrsinus, and Mr. Baxsters' Argument, with a word from the non-repeating it, as to the same person.  
Vrsinus in his Catechism, Baptism is a Sacrament of entrance into the Church, 
P▪ 421▪  whence it cometh, that the Supper is presented to none, except first baptised.  
As a Soldier before listing, and a King before crowning and taking his Oath, 
Plain scripture proof. P. 24.  so are we (he putteth in infants too) Church members before Baptism. But as every one that must be admitted solemnly, into the Army, must be admitted by listing, as the solemn engaging sign, SO EVERY ONE THAT HATH RIGHT TO BE SOLEMNLY ADMITTED INTO THE VISIBLE CHURCH, must ordinarily be admitted by Baptism.  
I prove it thus.  
If we have neither precept nor example in Scripture since Christ ordained Baptism, of any other way of admitting visible Members, but only by Baptism; then all that must be admitted visible Members, must ordinarily be baptised.  
But since Baptism was instituted, we have no precept or example, of admitting visible Members any other way, but constant precept and example for admitting this way.  
Therefore all that must be admitted visible Members, MUST be baptised.  
I know not what, in any show of reason can be said to this, by those that RENOUNCE not Scripture. 
Mark well, Mr. Baxster thinks they that bold men may be visible members without Baptism, renounce the Word of God for their rule.   
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 Baptism do so.  
And what can any man in reason imagine to be the ground, why Baptism is but once practised, whereas prayer, and hearing, and breaking bread frequent? but only this, that God in the Ordinance of Baptism hath in some respect a different design (though in many other respects the very same, as I shall show 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 consequently 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 Baptism should not be repeated, in respect of the same person, which is strange, considering, that though Christ in the Commission ordereth the Apostles to Teach the Disciples again, there is not a word of baptising again, 
Math. 18.20  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 Cor. 11.1 Phil. 3 17.  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 Baptism 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 privileges due to the body before it.  
The truth is, to admit unbaptised persons to all the privileges of Church communion, is as irregular and disorderly, as to admit the Mayor to the grand privileges 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 practice which bringeth down the esteem of Baptism, 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 Baptism, and maketh it slighted.  
That it is against the Order of Christ, that any thing should be practised to prejudice the primitive esteem of Baptism, appeareth: 

1. By Christ's joining it with Teaching in the Commission, 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 Baptism to all Beleivers in all ages (of which more hereafter) which I suppose maketh Mr. Baxster call Baptism a great Ordinance. 
P. 302. Of plain Scripture.     
But for persons that are baptised, to sit down in a Church body with unbaptised, will make Baptism slighted.  
I prove thus:  
If unbaptised Disciples enjoy all the self same privileges of the Church that baptised persons do, which they do, if they sit down together in a Church body, then must the reputation of Baptism needs be in danger.  

1. Because it admiteth to no privilege of the Church, but what may be had without it.  
2. Because the act of Baptism is irksome to the flesh, which if not balanced 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 practice which consulteth the loss and spiritual damage of the Disciples, can never be an orderly practice.  
But for baptised Disciples to admit of unbaptised into full communion, is to consult their loss, and spiritual damage. That to admit Disciples to full Communion before baptism, is to consult their loss, I prove thus.  
If they are not baptised before joining, in probability they are not like to be after, because such confused joining 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 precedent in the Word. 

2. Because the act is unpleasing to the flesh.  
3. because they are in possession of the privileges 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 submit.    
Now not to obey every Ordinance of Christ, must needs be a loss to the Creature, because in their institution, as well as in the creation, In wisdom he ordained them all, aiming as well at the Creatures good, as his own glory: Therefore the Pharisees, that reject Baptism, 
Luke 7.30.  are said to reject the Counsel of God AGAINST themselves.  
5. That practice in the worship of God, which in reason, is like to lay the foundation of jars, dissensions and discords in the Church, can never be of Christ's ordering, because jars and dissensions in the Church standeth in direct enmity to his interest, wherefore he would not have the Church only 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 jars.  
Can two walk together except they be agreed?  
I suppose he meaneth, that they cannot walk comfortably 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 only some degrees of improbability, 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 apprehended to be, by any indifferent person that weigheth it) it cannot lightly be, but there must be jars, dissensions, to the embittering their fellowship.  
That difference about meats and days, 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 JUDGE him that eateth: yea, at the 10. verse, Why dost thou judge thy Brother? why dost thou set at NAUGHT thy Brother? So that despising, judging and setting at nought, followed that poor difference about meats and days.  
What difference then in reason would this about Baptism 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 generation 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 children's faces, presuming to call that the Ordinance of Baptism, which in their judgements is a mere 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 together without sore differences; and the more, by how much the more zealous they are for the pure worship of God, a lukewarm Spirit will best befit Churches of that constitution: this is so plain a case, that I think I need not proceed further in the demonstration.  
6. That practice which in the worship of God is not only beside the custom of the first Churches, which was settled by the Apostles, but directly contrary, can never be an orderly practice.  

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 assistance, Math. 28.19. and so their example is as Laws to us.   
Excellent is Mr. Baxster to this point.  
Moses being appointed to the forming of the old Church and Commonwealth of the Jews, 
Saints Rest 212.  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 general Commission warranted, and their practice in stablishing the Lords day, in settling the Officers and Orders of Churches, are to us as Laws (still binding with those limitations, as positives only 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 err in the building of that house which must endure to the end of the world.  
That practice then in the worship of God, which is directly contrary to Apostolical custom, can never be orderly  
And Sir, (if I mistake not very much) you have heretofore 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 patterns and examples under heaven are but seducers 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 shown thee in the Mount, Heb. 8.5.  
And Ezek. 43 10. Thou Son of Man show 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 EXACTNESS according to it.  
Now whether the Disciples, sitting down in Church bodies before Baptism, be not directly contrary to the pattern and consequently a disorderly practice, let the world judge.  

1. By the Scriptures, where we have Christ commanding baptism 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 already.  
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 pattern.  
2. Let the judgement of the learned, 
Mr. Baxster Saints rest, p 179: from Doctor Preston.  touching the primitive practice, be taken. This food we call the Eucharist, (saith Justin Martyr, one of the most ancient Fathers, from the practice of the primitive Church) to which ●o man is admitted, but only 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 ourselves 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 Baptism, than he sitteth down with the body in full communion, but not before.  
3. As we have the Scriptures of our side, and the judgement of the learned on our side, that this was the Primitive practice, so we had you yourself on our side at this point, when you writ your letter to Mr. Tho. Goodwin, p, 7. Covenanting is not lawful before Baptism, is is evident, because it is not lawful for a Church to receive the unbaptised into fellowship with them, as Members of that body; neither is there example or APPEARANCE of warrant in Scripture, for such a thing: And at that time you were as confident, as Confidence itself could make you, 
Pag. 1.  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. Evident it is, that those that were added to the Church, were baptised, 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 Baptism to go before Church-fellowship, and consequently, to walk otherwise a disorderly practice; answer who can: And the truth is, if we are not to follow the customs of the Primitive Churches in worship, in every thing, that we can follow them in, with this limitation, (Positive giving way to Moral) which they did under the Law, how are they a pattern to us, how shall we understand where to follow them, and wherein to leave them.    
Upon the whole matter than I conclude, that though by faith men become the Sons of God, and that Christ owneth all true Beleivers for brethren; yet they have not thereby a present immediate right to full communion with the Church, simply upon that account, because the same God, that ordained faith, the means of adoption, hath ordained Baptism to go 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, complain 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 less to say to it, it is for substance this: THat persons that have fellowship and Communion with God, are thereby immediately fittted for communion with the Church, without Baptism, 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 follow from thence, that therefore all persons that have fellowship with God, have a present right to Church communion without Baptism, 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 Baptism as an argument to mortification, and a new life. That the words in the third verse (So many of us) is not partitive of the Disciples amongst themselves, 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 apprehend, is an ungrounded conjecture, because the Apostle writeth to an established Church, whereof those weak ones were a part, which by virtue of their membership were already 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 herbs, which they did unto the Lord, Rom. 14.6. Surely the Church wanted no exhortation 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 vouchsafe 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 DESPISE 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 himself, it is the Church's duty to receive ●hem into her communion: 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 add him to the visible Church of Christ, he sendeth him to a Minister of Christ, and inspireth him, to command Cornelius to be baptised, in the Name of the Lord Jesus, Acts 10.48. Neither doth Peter, notwithstanding 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, than not only the godly of the Presbyterians have such a right, but the Episcopal party too, nay, 'tis probable, a many 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 show the unreasonableness of this opinion, I could go further and say, 
Pagans debt and Dowry, p. 14.  many amongst the Heathen, 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 judgement heretofore, so also hath your practice been ever since you took up the Church way; I remember not one man, that ever sat down with the Church, in the constant fellowship thereof, but was orderly joined, according to the Independent principles. Nor one man that ever occasionally broke 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 straight your opposing us bringeth you too, namely, to turn head upon the principles of the way you walk in, and your own constant practice (and what man is he, who doth not glory in men, whose faith and practice standeth not in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God, 
1 Cor. 3.21 1 Cor. 2.5. James 2.1.  and that hath not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ with respect of persons) 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 yourself to so desperate a loss.   

Your fifth Consideration for substance this: THat learned men are not agreed about the exact signification of the word BAPTIZO, 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 upon it.  
To which I answer. 1. What considerable advantage would it be to us, to know the original at this point, it seemeth 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 elsewhere, namely, in the 6. of Romans 4. and Colos. 2.12. Therefore we are BURIED with him by Baptism. Again, being BURIED with him in Baptism, wherein also we are risen with him, besides many other places: So that if these Scriptures speak of water Baptism (which is but few men's question, That one of them doth. I have proved already, and would the other if need required it) there must be a burial of the body in water, where the Baptism of the Gospel of Christ is rightly administered, otherwise it is none of the Baptism 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 Baptism, in this phrase, say they, the Apostle seemeth to allude to the ancient 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 burial of our old Man, and our Resurrection to newness of life. Again, 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 baptised went up strait way out of the water. I say, their judgement is, that his body was dipped 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 unprejudiced mind, since that the abundance of water is given for the reason of John's baptising at Enon. John 3.23. And John also was baptising in Enon, near to Salim, because there was MUCH WATER there.  
But besides, the 3. Math. 16. saith of Jesus, that when he was baptised he went Up straightway 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 expressly of Philip and the Eunuch, I say as expressly as they can speak, read else Acts 8.38 And Philip 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 show of reason conceive, that they went down into the water to be sprinkled of the face. Justin Martyr therefore telleth us, that in their Baptism they were BORN of water, which he propoundeth as their practice from the Primitive custom. 
Mr. Baxster Saints Rest p. 179.  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-sprinkling, yet was so honest, as to affirm, its practice was not from the Word of God, but the CHURCH HER TAKING TO HERSELF THE LIBERTY, meaning, to vary from the Apostolic practice, which was by plunging the body into the water, and this he acknowledgeth from Acts 8.38. Philip and the Eunuch going down into the water, and coming up out of it; 
Com. upon the Acts p. 208.  and did not Calvin understand the original? And doth he not further plainly say, this practice 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 Original be rendered UNTO and FROM, doth it follow, that they must needs be so rendered 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 believe 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 custom 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 Primitive practice, which is strange, since he himself giveth us the judgement of Justin Martyr as orthodox, who relating 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 between an ordinary birth and their baptism? and is not an Analogy therein aimed at? but I refer the Reader to what hath been said to this point already: but I cannot but much wonder, that Mr. Baxster should say, that the Jailor 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 straight 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 baptism the Text saith, He brought them into the house, so that though this Text speaketh clearly, only to his being baptised presently upon believing, not to the place where, or the manner how, yet it giveth more ground to believe 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 Jailor's baptism to differ from all other men's.  
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 believe 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 passed that way that Mr Baxster speaketh of.  
Doth not the Scriptures say, Psalm 107.33, 34. He turneth 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 Jews, Psalm 42.15. That he would dry up their pools, and promise, when he restoreth them, that he will make their thirsty lands springs? Isaiah 35 7. Their present dryness then is no argument that there was not much water in John's days.  
But honest Reader, is not this an ugly suggestion, infinitely 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 considerable 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 equal to his; he is a person that my soul honoureth, for his edge God-ward; but to show the Reader what cause he hath to suspect that cause, that putteth such learned men, as Mr. Goodwin and Mr. Baxster 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 justify our practice, but they will neither be courted nor forced to speak against us.  
But Mr. Baxster further objecteth against the necessity of dipping, thus, 
P. 135. of plain Scripture.  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 signified; but it is fare from the truth, that sprinkling, or any washing that is not by dipping can be any sign of all the holy thing signified in baptism, which is plainly set down in the 6. Roman. 4 and Colos. 2.12. Being buried with him in Baptism, wherein also you are risen with him: If the Baptism of the New Testament, sealed in Christ's hears blood, be the sign of Death, Burial and Resurrection, then is not sprinkling, or any washing that is not by dipping, sufficient to signify it, but the Baptism of the New Testament is a sign of Death, Burial and Resurrection, 'tis plain in the Text; Mr. Baxster acknowledgeth both these Scriptures to be meant of water Baptism, p. 342. Of his Scripture proof.  
As for those Scriptures, namely, 1 Corrinth. 6.11. Titus 3.5. with some others, 
P. 135. Of Scripture proof.  which Mr. Baxster instanceth in, as hinting the spiritual good things signified by Baptism; I acknowledge they respect a part of the good things signified by baptism, namely, the souls cleansing from sin by Christ's blood, but not all, nor indeed half what he intended to signify by Baptism.  
But what should the reason be, that Mr. Baxsters' design being to enumerate the Scriptures, speaking of the holy thing signified in baptism, 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, Burial or Resurrection, or any such like thing in sprinkling.  
Oh that Mr. Baxster would lay to heart this one consideration, and consider once again the high and holy design of Christ in Baptism, which considered evinceth against all contradiction, that the form can be no other, but by dipping, 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 Cor. 15 3 Rom. 4.25. Compared with Rom. 6.2, 3, 4. Col. 2.12. Col. 3.1.  namely, the death of Christ for sinners, and the sinners duly to die to sin, and to suffer for and with Christ? Christ's resurrection for the sinner's justification, the sinners duly to rise to Christ's life here, because of the blessed assurance of a glorious resurrection to eternal bliss with Christ hereafter; all which holy doctrine, which is the substance of the Gospel, is preached in baptism, 
P. 177. Cases of Conscience.  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 Christ's Death, Burial and Resurrection, and our death, burial and resurrection with him, seen in the sprinkling of children's faces? Oh that we had an impartial Judge!  
The Apostle affirmeth of the Gospel, 2 Cori●●h. 3.18 That we all with open face behold, as in a glass, the glory of the Lord. And doth not the Apostle chief intent the Sacraments of the Gospel by the metaphor of a glass, because 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 souls of men with the goodness thereof) It will easily appear, that the form of baptism 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 administered, according to the last will of Christ, where there is a full correspondence between sign and thing signified, they go hand in hand with the Word, excellently aiding and assisting the holy design of the Word preached, when administered upon the right Gospel subject, namely; a converted Disciple to Christ, which Mr. Baxster, p. 301. of plain Scripture proof, calleth, the most fully capable subjects, the most eminent subjects, the most excellent subjects, and of whom the Scripture fully speaketh: In the same place complaineth of Infant baptism, as dark in Scripture, and hard to find, notwithstanding his flourish of plain Scripture proof for it.  
Be astonished 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 Christ's Ordinances, and deface that glass, which representeth Christ's glory, and blur the last will of him before whose judgement seat they must all appear to be judged, 
2 Cor. 5.10  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 refer the Reader to my Answer to that, in which thou shalt find the Answer to this also, only 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 substance this: THat in the 6. of Hebr. 2. the word Baptisms, which is there reckoned amongst the foundations, or beginning doctrines of Christ, being in the plural number, it is not easy to determine, whether by it be not meant variety of forms in baptising, or a variety of subjects of Baptism, rather than a variety of Baptisms.  
To which I answer, why should that be hard to you or any man else which the Scripture hath made easy?  
As for variety of subjects the Scripture is silent, we read of no subjects, but discipled persons, made so by teaching. For variety of forms of baptising Disciples, where is there any such thing so much as whispered? But as for variety of Baptisms, that the Scripture speaketh fully too, though but one proper real Baptism, namely, that with water, 
Math. 3.11. Luke 12. 5●  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 real and proper, is called Baptism; yet Dr. Lus●ington upon the place saith, that the Siriac Translation rendereth the word Baptism in the singular number: but be it otherwise, why should we take hedge and ditch, when the King's highway lieth just before us.   

Your eighth Consideration for substance this: THat withdrawing upon this account, is a schismatical practice, and a sin of a high nature.  
I confess with all my heart, that Scripture Schism is a sin of a high nature, and of deep demerit, and that for the reason you give: but that ours is that which the Scripture condemneth, I utterly deny.  
Where ever Schism is there is separation, but it doth not follow, where ever separation is that there is Schism, 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 sinful Schism.  
Sinful separation cannot be but from a body regularly united according to the direction of Christ, and the example of the Primitive Churches, because we have a positive Command to withdraw from every brother that walketh disorderly in the Church, 
2 Thes. 3.6.  much more every Society that is not built upon the principles of the doctrine of Christ, I mean those, which (by Christ's order) concern orderly joining, but yours is such a one, and therefore separation can be no schism, which only 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 show us a rule from Christ to gather Churches without Baptism, in all the new Testament, than what you say corcerning us will come home to us, and we shall be found guilty of that heinous 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 Schism, but a conscientious withdrawing to perfect the work of reformation, 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 counted Schism, 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 Schism for withdrawing from the Nationall Church, 
P. 193. Of his Scripture proof.  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 busy with the word Schism, schismatic and schismatical, as to use them eight times in 30. lines, against his friends, for doing that which himself hath given them an example in upon the same ground.  
But 3. and lastly, As the fatal Apostasy from the pure Ordinances of Christ, and the example of the Primitive Churches in worship, was gradual, 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 burden which now Mr. Goodwin chargeth us with, of schism.  
The Pope crieth Schism and Heresy after the Church of England, for renouncing communion with the Church of Rome. The Bishop's cry Schism after some of the Pres byterians. The Presbyterians cry Schism after Mr. Goodwin, and all Separatists from the National Church, which withdrawings have been so many steps towards primitive purity: Now Mr. Goodwin crieth Schism (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 beginning, 
Which Rule Calvin confesseth the Church took liberty to departed from.  1 John 2.24. That we may stand complete 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 do, we find the same cause to renounce the National Baptism, 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 easy to conceive, how it could come to pass at first, or how it should stand long.  
Well Sir, it's not long ere your work and ours will be tried, you have judged early, but our comfort is, that this is but man's day; Christ is not fare off, whose cause we plead, 
1 Cor. 4.3.  and then not he that commendeth himself is approved, 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. Laurence, now Lord Precedent, whom you style one of the gravest Authors of the Antipaed● baptisticall faith.  
But Sir, though Mr Laurence hath styled Baptism a carnal Ceremony, I pray Sir, where hath the holy Spirit called any of the Ordinances of the New Testament carnal Ordinances? 'Tis true; the Ordinances of Moses are called carnal Ordinances, by the holy Spirit, Hebr 9.10. which lasted until the time of reformation, saith the Text, or Christ's time, wherein the Church hath new Ordinances given by Christ himself, whereof Baptism is one, and given by Christ, as a Reformer of what was carnal▪ therefore to call Christ's Ordinances carnal, I humbly conceive, agreeth not to the form of wholesome words, and the rather, because beginning with the Gospel, as the Galatians did, who believed it, and put on Christ in Baptism, they are said to begin in the Spirit, Galat. 3.3. unto which the carnal Ordinances 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. Laurence calleth it a carnal Ceremony, it is only in regard of the outward act, which respecteth the flesh or outward man, abstract from the spiritual design of Christ in it, but otherwise in his judgement, as well as ours, an Ordinance very spiritual, and full of the wisdom and Spirit of God; for proof of this, I refer the Reader to his book of Baptism, but especially to his Discourse, from p. 101. to 113.  
3. And lastly, That the want of it rendereth beleivers unfit for any spiritual communion (I am fare from thinking so) but that it rendereth them unfit for that full communion, which a Church of Christ, in the right order of the Gospel, enjoyeth; that I do believe, and have given a full account of it already, in answer to your third Consideration: And as for making work for a second Crucifixion of Christ, I suppose Sir, that which made it at first, is most like to do 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 substance this: IGnorance in some things concerning the mystery of Christ, found either in a Church, or particular persons, hindereth not their lawful communion in a Church way, for then there would be none fit, because 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 joined 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 unlawful, and your reason good and sound.  
But this will not prove, that baptised Disciples may lawfully 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 indulged, but corrected and set straight 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? 
Col. 2.6.  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, 
Heb. 11.7.  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 thyself, 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 Pet. 2.20, 21, 22, 23.  hereunto are we called, from the example of Christ, when we are reviled, not to revile again, but to commit ourselves to him that judgeth righteously.   

Your eleventh Consideration followeth, and for substance this: THat Baptism 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 either. 1. Because in his inscription to the Churches, be mentioneth their sanctification, calling to be Saints, etc. but not their Baptism. 2. It is not mentioned by way of commendation, either of Church or person, more than the observance of other Ordinances.  
That Baptism 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 Baptism of the Churches as any part of their churchship or visibility thereof, I shall now address myself to make answer: Your first is, because in the inscription of his Epistles to the Churches, he mentioneth their faith, with divers other things, but not their Baptism.  
If this be ground to presume, that the Apostles looked not upon their Baptism, as any part of their-churchship or visibility thereof, than neither was their preaching, or hearing 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 fare from Mr. Goodwin to say, that these duties were no part of their churchship or visibility thereof, and if these were not, I marvel what were: This therefore is so fare from being a reason, that it hath scarce the appearance 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 Baptism, doth not force us to find, that Baptism must be commended in Scripture above other Ordinances, nothing lieth upon us, but to show what service Christ hath appointed it to, and not what pre-eminence of commendation the Scriptures give to it above other Ordinances; neither doth Christ's choice of this Ordinance, for the service we speak of, necessarily employ the superexcellency of it above others; no more than faith, its justifying us and not love, proveth faith to be a more noble grace in the nature of it than love, love is said to be greater 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 Baptism should be found a less noble act of obedience than some others, yet it will not follow from thence, that it's not the Ordinance of initiation into the visible body of Christ. For a Soldier to behave himself worthily as a Soldier, 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 throughout your book against Baptisms, having the honour of entering persons into the visible body of Christ, because of the meanness of it, lest you be found reprovable for objecting against Baptism for the bodies visible incorporation, as the Jews was against faith for justification, because to them works seemed more sightly and agreeable to their reason.   

Your twelfth Consideration for substance this: When the Apostle Paul instructeth Christian Churches, what manner of persons they are, who are unmeet for Christian communion, he mentioneth fornicators, 
1 Cor. 5.11 2 Thes 3.6.  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 Christ's 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 hearty desire the Reader to lay to heart that which followeth.  
To prove that no persons were reputed of the visible body of Christ before Baptism, and consequently fare enough from sitting down in Church societies without it, I prove from the 4. of the Ephesians 4, 5. There is one body, which at the 12. verse is in plain terms and in words at length called, the body of Christ: Now that by the word body he did not mean it only 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 delivereth 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 BAPTISM.  
6. One God and Father of all, who is above all, and in all, and hath Christ linked their oneness in Baptism, 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 according to the form of wholesome 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 wisdom hath linked together?   That the Text speaketh of, real proper Baptism with water, and not of metaphorical, it appeareth:  
1. As for that which some conceive (though untruly) the Baptism 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 Baptism.  
Secondly, As for that which is in truth the Baptism of the Spirit, namely, speaking with tongues and the like, that cannot be meant, because the Baptism here, is affirmed of all the members of the body; of whom that cannot be truly said: I understand therefore by Baptism, in the fourth of the Epesians, the Church Ordinance of Baptism: with water, by which the Apostle affirmeth both Jews and Gentiles put on Christ, Gab 3.27.  
And further, how can any one imagine, with any show 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 baptism presently after 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 Baptism, Arise, 
Acts 22.16  why tarriest thou? saith Ananias to Paul. And truly it is a remarkable thing that though Paul had fasted three days, yet after his discipling he is hastened to Baptism before he is permitted to eat meat, Acts 9.18.  
4. We read not of one discipled person that ever refused Baptism.  
5. Considering the judgement of the Spirit of God concerning those Rabbi men that did refuse Baptism, or John's Ministry, whereof Baptism was a part, which was, 
Luke 7.29.  that they rejected the counsel 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 practice from the Scripture; as we make out ours, or else your great words, rhetorical flourishes, angry invectives, being in a manner the best of your strength, wherewith you fight with us, must all go for tubbish and dirt.  
But you say, in case you should relieve the poor, and grant us (that the Sun shineth at noonday) that in the Primitive times was no such confusion of baptised Disciples 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 rejoiced 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 men's 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 staff in this controversy? and whether the putting this question do not discover it? and who it is that buildeth upon light conjectures, lose suppositions, presumptuous self-imaginations, Mr. Goodwin, or his poor brethren of the dip, as he calleth them?   

Your thirteenth Consideration for substance this: Baptism is at some seasons offensive, burdensome 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 express 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 damage, might have passed through the fire with as little hurt, or if indeed Mr. Goodwin hath reason to judge the danger to be so great?  
Then 2. Is it not a notable Argument, to persuade 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 outstretched arm for their preservation, that as God took care of the Jews, 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 loss, their bodily health shall not be invaded by it.  
But 3. It is very true, that the spiritual design of Christ in Baptism, being partly to represent Christ's death for ●s, and to oblige us to the death of all sin, it hath pleased him, and that in great wisdom, to order the burial of the body in the element of water, that the bitter sufferings of the Lord Jesus for sinners may be remembered, 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 Baptism 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 intended 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, Baptism was ordained for young Disciples, but that this is any Argument, why it should not be grievous 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 cross 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, Master, 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 only unscriptural, 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 Christ's yoke, and the fruit of such workings of heart as was found in Peter, Math. 16.22.   

Your fourteenth Consideration for substance this: THat for persons to mistake in the matter of Baptism, so as to judge they have no need to be baptised after believing, because they judge themselves sufficiently baptised in infancy, is a mistake of a venial 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, Reformers and others, for sixteen Generations together, even from the days 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 apostasy from the primitive practice 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 days, 1 John 2.19. and more foretold, amongst which, this of Infant-sprinkling is one, wherein 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: 
Com. upon Acts 8.  Calvin himself acknowledgeth, that the liberty of sprinkling (whereas the ancient custom was dipping) the Church took to herself: 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 Marquesdome and Territories of Noremburge, writeth, That the Ordinances, concerning the Baptism of Children, is without Scripture, and is found to be only a custom of the Church, with a cloud of other witnesses, yea, even Luther himself the great Reformer, in his book of Anabaptism, acknowledgeth, That it cannot be proved by sacred Scripture, that children's Baptism was instituted by Christ, or begun by the first Christians after the Apostles, for many years 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 do: now Mr. Baxster thinketh he hath plain Scripture proof for Infant's baptism, or he would not own the practice, because he looketh upon the Scriptures as a perfect rule (as well he may) and all deviations 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 curb you from that frightful tearing yourself off from the Nationall Church, which had been in reputation with the godly many hundred years, 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 do you think one of forty of those anciently godly and holy men, would have liked it, and yet for conscience sake you did it notwithstanding.  
3. This Argument becometh 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 stiffly 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 Baptism 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 terms of the freewill Offering under the Law, 
Water dipping, p. 48.61.  wherein I believe 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, lest 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 believe 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 show you the evil of these arguings, that you may repent in dust and ashes before you go hence, and be no more seen.   

Your fifteenth Consideration followeth. THat Baptism how duly soever administered, 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 Considerations 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 Baptism of itself is a Church-maker, I am as fare from thinking so as you are; no, men must repent from dead works and believe towards God, or else no fit matter for the Church, though baptised, but that there can be any orderly joined Church without Baptism, though men do repent and believe, 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 substance this: THat you have no need of Baptism after Repentance and Faith (which you call new Baptism) because your old sprinkling in infancy is as effectual to all ends and purposes of Baptism, which you reduce to three heads: 

1. For declaring persons the professed Disciples of Christ.  
2. For obliging persons to be the loyal Disciples 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-sprinkling is as effectual to all or any of the ends and purposes of Baptism, as the true baptism 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 do 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 marvel if it be a barbarian to them, but whether the world's natural liking and greedy falling 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 Argument of the heavenly pedigree 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 only by the by.  
But how cometh Mr. Goodwin to conclude from the dear acquaintance the world hath with Infant-sprinkling, above what it hath with Beleivers baptism, that therefore Infant-sprinkling is more efficacious, to declare persons the professed followers of Jesus Christ, than Baptism after faith, since in the baptism 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 creature capable of making any? ('Tis true, the Bishops being ashamed of Baptism without profession of faith, devised a remedy by allowing Sureties, who they called Godfathers and Godmothers, which being a piece of superstition too gross for the light of this day, it is gone off the stage without much regret.) Whereas in the true Baptism of the New Testament sealed in Christ's heart blood, the party himself; (and not another for him) being a beleiver, made a disciple by Teaching, maketh public profession of his faith in Christ, as you see the Eunuch did, 
Acts 8,  in his own person, and declareth his willingness to accept of Christ, on his own terms, and to be listed in his army, 
Gal. 3.27.  and voluntarily putteth on Christ thereby (which is the Sctipture expression) as a servant putteth on his Master's Livery.  
Who then (that is not bespoke) but will judge, that Baptism into Christ after faith, at a man's own request (in the presence of God, Angels and men) is more to declare one's 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 Christ's Disciple, and what it is declareth him so? now 'tis plain by the Scripture, 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 discipleship to Christ: The Scripture is as express 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 counsel to love one another, especially if after his own example, AS he had loved them, than he saith, By that ALL MEN shall know, they shall not only 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 any thing more to do, to determine this, but only to lay the two ways, to the rule; for how can any one imagine with any show of reason, that walking contrary to Christ, should declare persons his disciples.  
If then believers baptism 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 proved already, and as for Infants sprinkling, not a word of it in all the New Testament, than out of all controversy, the way to declare men the disciples of Christ, 
Col. 2. 1●.  is to go our way, because Christ walked this way, as we have proved already, and therefore all that will be called Christ's Disciples by Baptism, must go this way and no other.  
But you say the world looketh not upon beleivers Baptism by dipping as any thing more significative of owning Christ, but the contrary, even disobliging them rather, from what their first baptism obliged them unto than otherwise.  
To that I answer, how willing you are to affirm things loosely, that is like to reproach this cause, is much more plain, than 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 straight ways 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? only 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 vie moral imputations 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. BUT the truth will never be made GREAT by such demonstrations or arguments as these on either side.  
If Mr. Goodwin thinks 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 suspicion of error, concerning that opinion, that such Arguments are used to maintain.  
But to proceed, you say; that as to another end of Baptism, namely, the obliging persons to be the loyal Disciples of Christ, you say, your Infant-sprinkling or baptism is as operative that way upon the Conscience, as out Baptism is upon ours, or would be upon yours, if you should come under it.  
Here is two things affirmed, but neither of them proved, nor indeed is it possible to prove them; one is, that your Baptism is as bearing upon your conscience to become Christ's Disciples, as our Baptism is upon ours; this is a thing which you affirm at random, not knowing how the baptism of those, that are indeed rightly baptised, and that take up the ways of God in uprightness, I say, how it heareth upon them, nor ever are like to do, because your prejudice is grown so great that you know not how to interpret any action they do 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 trial?  
Truly Sir, I should hope, that passing under that figure, wherein in so fully represented Christ's death, burial and resurrection, and your death, burial 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 means 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 straight ways of truth, as they have no need of the crooked ways 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 Christ's appointing, or else you impose upon us to believe, that the Spirit of God, which is the Spirit of edification and comfort, will take as much pleasure to concur with men's inventions, as his own Ordinances, which is quite contrary to the Scripture, 
Mark 7.7.  In vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the traditions of men.  
But 2. You say your souls have thriven under that Baptism. 'Tis probable so, but that doth not prove it was by the means of Infant-baptisme (of which you are ignorant, whether ever any such thing was done or no) only that you have heard so (if this arguing be like Mr. Goodwin in other things I am much mistaken.)  
Christ telleth the Jews, 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 after the same manner? you were baptised in Infancy, and thrive in godliness when grown up to years of discretion; but it no more followeth, that your thriving in godliness was by the means of your Infant-baptisme, than that their death was caused by eating of Mannah.  
And is it likely, that ignorant worship of God should have any lively operation upon the soul, much less, that it should have as much as that which is done knowingly and voluntarily, and bel●ivingly, the soul having communion 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 Baptism; is the darkness of the darkest night more void of light than this proposition is of truth? Reader judge.   

Your seventeenth Consideration for substance this: IT doth not appear from Scripture, that any Church of Christ, or embodied Society of Beleivers was commanded by Christ, or the Apostles to be dipped, nor yet threatened 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 embodied Beleivers undipt, which is a task too hard for you, but yet this light supposition is the very foundation of your Argument, which being rotten and sandy, the building falleth of itself, I need say no more to it.   

Your eighteenth Consideration for substance 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 only.  
3. Because they were not enjoined to baptise any person against their wills.  
4. It is hard to know what is the Antecedent to the pronoun 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 Baptism of them.  
7. It appeareth not, that the Apostles in the course of their Ministry, did ever teach either Church or person to seek baptism at their hand.  
8. Though that should be granted, yet it followeth not, that it was a standing law for all Pastors and Teachers to the world's end.   
1. Because it fully appeareth, that water-baptism was never intended by God, but either only or chiefly, for an introductory or planting Ordinance, at its first coming unto a City or Nation, till it should get some considerable rooting and interest among 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, than all your fare fetched 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 Baptism, I prove from the 2. Acts 37, 38. that the commandments of the Apostles are to be looked upon as the Commandments of Christ, it appeareth, in that they had them from Christ, Acts 1.2. Until 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, meaning the scattered Disciples, to stir up their pure minds by way of remembrance, that they might be mindful of the Commandments of US, 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 Christ's 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 baptised▪ then Christ hath commanded every one to be baptised.  
But the Apostle Peter in the 2. Acts 38. when the Disciples 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 only 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 Christ's, 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 unbaptised.  
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 primitive Churches in any thing be precepts to us, then is Baptism as well as other things; for as Repentance and Baptism are both enjoined to the first Churches by the Apostles, so are they both put together in the Commission, Math. 28.19. Disciple me all Nations, baptising them: and Mark 16.16. Go and preach to every Creature, 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 piece of impudent violence.  
This then is my first Argument for the standing of the Ordinance of Baptism, it is joined with Teaching in the Commission, and Christ saith, what God hath joined together let no man put asunder: But God hath joined Baptism 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, 
Salt marsh and his followers.  which was the first stone they stumbled at, have had strong delusions sent them by God, that they might believe lies, and since proved forlorn, woeful spectacles of God's indignation.  
But to set home this Argument for the standing of Baptism as long as Teaching, I shall use Mr. goodwin's own words, upon which I would fix the eye of the Reader: 
Water dip. p. 12.  No Authority can discharge or disoblige, but that which is either greater than, or at least equal unto that which bindeth.  
If so, then are you not bound by your own principle, to find us out an Authority, equal to Christ's, that hath discharged Baptism, which is by so great an Authority enjoined, as is Christ's the Lords, the great Judge both of quick and dead, which I am sure is impossible for you to do, and therefore Baptism standeth in full force and virtue; and all your suggestions rendering it doubtful, must not, nor will not go for gold, but dirt, except with some, that in matters of Religion are neither hot nor cold, which lukewarm temper God abhorreth, and without repentance will one day spew them out of his mouth.  
Good Reader let but thy esteem of Baptism stand, till Mr. Goodwin show us an Authority, equal to Christ's, that hath discharged it, and I will promise thee, that mine and thine shall fall together.  
My second Argument to prove Baptism standing is this:  
That opinion which tendeth to the destruction of all Religion can never be the truth, but to conceive Baptism out of date, tendeth to the destruction of all Religion.  
That to conceive Baptism out of date tendeth to the destruction 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 Ordinances; and  
2. That which is internal, standing in a holy frame of heart and life.    
Now that to conceive Baptism 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 Baptism hath the same, then to conceive Baptism 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 infinite wisodme, ordained Baptism that ordained breaking bread, and all the acts of Church-fellowship, may, he hath cast some degrees of honour more upon Baptism, then upon some other of the Ordinances, in as much as he singled out Baptism from some others, and put it in the Commission by name with Teaching, and ordained it in some sense or other, to serve the grand interest of remission of sins and salvation, 
Acts 2.38. Mar. 16.16 Mat. 28.19.  and gave such a particular charge to have it done with so great solemnity, even, In the Name of the Father, 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 Baptism as any other; therefore disparage Baptism and disparage all, they live, they die, they stand, they ●all together.  
But 2. That to conceive Baptism 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 soul's edification, then to dis-use them is the way to make havoc of all our spiritual treasure; but to conceive Baptism out of date, is the way, not only to disuse that Ordinance, but all others, because they all stand upon the same bottom, 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 Baptism by name hath a rich tendency to edification, I have proved already at large, by showing the design of God in it, which is to affect the heart by the death, burial 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. goodwin's judgement concerning the edifying nature of Baptism, p. 26. of his water dipping.  
1. That it is operative to the engaging the judgement and conscience to become the loyal 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, rendering the standing of Baptism doubtful? Hath Christ appointed more ways 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 stepchilds 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 means 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 Baptism was not only intended by God for an introductory 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 consequently as sinful a thing to neglect it, as it would be to neglect ones daily bread.  
If all that hath been said be not enough to satisfy the Reader concerning the standing of Baptism, I refer thee to Mr. Baxster, 
P. 542. Of plan Scripture proof.  who hath in his book of Baptism offered ten Arguments, all grounded upon the plain Text of Scripture 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 Commentary upon the Acts, though he doth most ingenuously confess, that since the beginning the Church did grant liberty to herself 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 Baptism itself, we ought rather, saith he, to fight a hundred times to death for the ceremony itself of Baptism, 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 administering 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 itself, as I have shown already, and in a manner maketh it useless; and because changing of the Ordinances we find to be a heinous 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 Laws, CHANGED the Ordinance. Mark, not for a total laying aside of them only, but for transgressing the rule, and changing them, yea, the 29.16. Mark, how heinously God taketh the wise men's turning things upside down; I say, mark all ye wise men and consider, Surely your TURNING things upside down shall be esteemed as the Potter's clay: yea, he threateneth at the 14. verse for this very reason, that their FEAR (that is their worship) was taught after the precepts of men; The WISDOM 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 men's changing the Ordinances, that it is a reflection upon God, as if he wanted understanding, changing Gods Laws is no other, but a charging God with that weakness, which poor fallible men are subject unto, which maketh them many times upon experience 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 evil, have any just ground for what they do; the difference is easily seen, they have changed the great Ordinance of Baptism, 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 Laws, 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, 
Judas the 3.  on Christ's behalf, to endeavour with all our might the recovery 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 Baptism be given without faith, whose seal it is, It is BOTH A WICKED AND TOO GROSS A PROFANING; 'tis true, for reasons which were so to himself, he was for Infant-Baptisme notwithstanding; but the reason he giveth, is no more a proof to us, than Abraham's begetting Isaac proveth we shall have new heavens and a new earth. Learned Vnsin advising when Baptism is rightly and lawfully used, faith, It is, 
P. 414. Catechis.  when the Rites instituted by Christ in Baptism are not CHANGED; And saith further, that the Sacraments are no Sacraments where they are unlawfully administered. Now compare these two learned men together; Calvin saith, the Church hath changed the Rite from dipping to sprinkling; and Vrsin saith, that where there is change the Sacraments are no Sacraments.  
If then Calvin say true (whereof there is no doubt) that is, that the primitive practice was dipping, then in Vrsins judgement, the Ordinance being changed to sprinkling, it ceaseth to be any thing, and so all sprinkled persons are unbaptised.  
Further as to the subject, 
P. 414. Of Catechis.  This condition is added (speaking of believing) unto the promise, for they who are baptised cannot receive that which is promised and sealed in Baptism, but by faith, so that without faith, neither is the promise ratified, nor the Baptism AVAILABLE: he goeth on, In these words is noted briefly the right use of Baptism, 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, BUT ARE SACRAMENTS TO THEM ONLY WHO RECEIVE THEM WITH A TRUE FAITH.  
But if any body say, why but yet Vrsin was for children's Baptism, as well as Calvin: yes, he was; but mark the ground.  
Whereas they say, 
P. 420. C●techis. Mark the 〈◊〉 slippeth out a●.  (meaning the Antipaedo Baptists) that unto the use of Baptism faith is required: We grant it, but yet distinguishing of faith, so that we say, saith he, actual faith is required in those of understanding, but in Infants is required an inclination only to this actual faith: afterwards thus, Faith is in Infants potentially, and by inclination. Thus by the help of this distinction, he hooketh in the baptism of Children: But will this satisfy the conscience of any considerate Christian? where is an inclination to believe made the condition of Baptism, 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 rather do not they rule it?  
Or is there any such thing in Infants, as an inclination to believe? 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 believe which is a spiritual thing? and who can tell of any inclinations in Infants not one thing or other? can any body tell by experience of any inclinations they had in infancy? What a woeful ground is this to administer Gospel-Ordinances upon.  
Or is the next any better, though they have not faith actual, yet they have potential faith, and is that any more than to say, they may believe one day? and is not that the condition of Pagans and Infidels? and shall they be baptised 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 perceivest it?  
But this is too great a digression, I should now return to Mr. goodwin's pleas, which render the standing of Baptism doubtful, but that labour is saved, because I have proved already the continuation of Baptism with Teaching, I hope, to the satisfaction of all unprejudiced minds: and because my Brother Allen hath lately published a Book, called, Satisfaction for Seekers, where the case, touching an Administrator of Gospel-Ordinances in these times, is handled, with many other questions thereabout of near affinity to these pleas of Mr. goodwin's, 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 Baptism be standing or no.  
Consider his words, We do not intent that any thing hitherto argued, 
P. 31. Of Water dip.  should be taken for a demonstrative or positive proof, that the Ordinance of Baptism is now extinct, or not administrable without sin in the world.  
He confesseth they are not a (demonstrative) proof of the death of Baptism; but it seemeth they go 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 only to be content to part with Baptism, which Calvin saith, one would fight to a hundred deaths rather than lose, but to hazard the reputation of all the Ordinances, rather than the true Baptism of the New Testament 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 countenancing of the Seekers' Arguments, which lie as well against all the Ordinances as Baptism, and which heretofore you have trampled on like dirt.  
Sir, you say to Mr. Edward's, that his Gangrena made great joy in hell; whatever his Gangrena did in hell I know not, but I believe, 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 excel the most, in parts, learning, wit, etc. by so much the more is their consolation, that you seem to feel weight in their Arguments, HARK HOW THEY CLAP THEIR HANDS AND SING.  
But to conclude, Sir, may not Baptism say to you, as Christ to the Jews; for which of my good works do yo● stone me? Hath not God made the Scriptures concerning Baptism upright, why then do you seek out so many inventions.  
Your nineteenth Consideration being of one heart and soul with the eighth, I shall wholly pass it over, referring the Reader to the Answer of that, in which he shall find the Answer to this also.   

Your twentieth Consideration for substance this: PEter being questioned for holding communion 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 Baptism 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 Baptism, 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 Baptism, which is the matter Mr. Goodwin would prove lawful by it, than it were something to favour his cause, but not home to the point neither, because an occasional act with some few persons will not justify the constant proceed of a Church.  
But why doth Mr. Goodwin think, that this instance will prove mixed communion lawful?  
Because Peter in his justification, when questioned for eating with Cornelius, insisted only upon Cornelius, his having the holy Ghost, not his Baptism.  
To which I answer 1. The Scriptures silence doth not prove, that he did not mention his Baptism, and insist on it too, because the Scriptures doth not contain all the Apostles say, Acts 2.40. With many other words did he testify and exhort, saying: So John the Baptist, Luke 3.18. with many other words.  
2. There was no necessity upon Peter, for the justification of his eating with Cornelius, to mention his Baptism by name, though he could not have communion with him without it, because in those days, a believing person and a baptised person was presumed the same.  
Paul proveth they all believed, because they were baptised: 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 practice of the Servants of God, to call the Beleivers to Baptism without delay, Acts 22.16. So that the Apostles and Brethren understood him sufficiently, as to their Baptism, 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 Commission 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 Peter's understanding the Commission, or faithfulness in executing it, because they had experience before 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, 
Acts 10.33  because Cornelius was so ready to obey God in every thing, that he had but a few fellows, so that the mentioning of his Baptism would have been like a kind of an impertinency.  
3. There was no necessity upon him to mention their Baptism 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 only of some chief part, see for this John 5.44. Galat. 3.23. Galat. 3.2. Roman. 10.8. Mat. 21.25. Acts 10.37. John's Baptism put for his whole Ministry, Luke 7.30.  
Calvin calleth Baptism an appurtenance of faith, p. 207. of his Commentary of the Acts. And not doubt this language was well enough known and understood 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. Goodwin indulgeth every light appearance from the Scripture, being passionately desirous to make that strait which God hath made crooked.   

Your twenty one Consideration for substance 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 callings only by and resident in Churches, neither are they in any probable way of perfecting them, but only when and whilst they are incorporated with them in their Churches respectively, Eph. 4.8, 11, 12.  
To which I answer. 1. It's true, that Pastors and Teachers 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 special, 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 members of that body, namely, to have one God, one Spirit, one Hope, one Lord, one Faith, so one BAPTISM; 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 discipled by the word taught, but yet had not put on Christ visibly by baptism 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 respect 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 Baptism in the sight of God, yet in the account of the Church none pass for Saints till then, because their faith itself in Christ, which maketh Saints, could not be clear to the Church till then, and that because Baptism being one of the beginning doctrines of Christ, 
Heb. 6.2. Acts 2.38. Mar. 16▪ 16.  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 Baptism? 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 obedience, and they rejecters of the counsel of God.  
Nothing in reason could appear as a ground to refuse it, but the danger of the cross following it; I conclude then, that though the truth of their faith made them Saints before God, yet without public profession of their faith by Baptism, 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 publicly, 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 only 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 believing persons are not in so-good a way of perfecting by the gifts of Christ's pastors and Teachers, out of Churches as in Churches, yet that will not justify the Church in breaking any of Christ's 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 mayst thou see, that the Scriptures complain of the yoke, 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 wand'ring after dipping and re baptising, have from the very first original and spring of them, since the late reformation, been very turbulent and trouble some in all places where they have increased to any numbers considerable, and wiser men than I are not a little jealous over the peace of this Nation, 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 do. There is a strong tide of report both from Ireland and Scotland, that as fare 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 enlightened 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 only the preferments of drawing water and hewing wood. One of this faction or party in England, (and he no small beggar neither) speaking 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 several respects, yet speaking of this person, he said, in the presence of several persons of quality, that He deserved to be hanged; an Aphorism 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 skirmish, 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 Kingdom of authority and power, will execute judgement without partiality; if so, than he that deserveth to be hanged must expect no better quarter than that of the halter; and if Justice be administered without 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 pass my observation, how strangely Mr. goodwin's zeal in opposing us transporteth him, how it maketh him forget his old brave say, wherein he certainly had the Spirit of God with him; he once said, The truth would never be made great by the suggesting of moral imputations against the enemies of it. Ye a, in his Cautions for Reformation he beginneth, as well he may, thus; They who intent 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 reflection? his spirit being as it were of a light fire, no marvel then, if he manage this controversy upon terms so disagreeable 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 Sodom, and his grapes grapes of gall, his clusters bitter, his wine the poison of dragons, and the cruel poison of asps: 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. Edward's, for which Mr. Goodwin reproveth him thus, p. 4 of Cretensis, 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 Eavesdroppers, 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 lose or malicious suggestion of others, BUT ONLY (mark that) RELATED and informed what themselves SAW WITH THEIR OWN EYES, and that casually, without any waiting the opportunity.  
But Mr. Goodwin hath not only 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 only taken up these reports into his lip, but like Mr. Edward's he hath published them to the world in print, to be an everlasting monument of dishonour to them, which heinous sin of yours, against the royal Law of love, will he found aggravated by these two notorious circumstances.  
1. The matter of the story itself being utterly untrue, (though you did not think so.)  
And 2. Against persons, many whereof have had honourable 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. Edward's 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 hanged (though it is not affirmed for what) much less is it affirmed, that he said, he deserved to be hanged for not being baptised, and how unreasonable such a conceit is, I leave to any body to judge. Yet you conclude sorely, against the Baptists, upon that uncharitable presumption, thus, in these words, if so, than he that deserveth to be hanged must expect no better quarter than that of the halter, and if justice be administered without partiality, all that are in the same condemnation of ANTI-DIPPING with him, may bear him company in the same expectation, which cruel 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 conclusion otherwise being no ways drawable from the premises.  
Oh Sir, Truth is too noble a thing to desire such weapons to fight its battles.  
3. Your likeness to Gangrena appeareth in this, that the faults of some that were the most unworthy of the Independents, he charged upon the generality of them, for which you belabour him thus; Do not all men know, that the composition of the world itself, and of all the parts of it, consisteth, ex flore, & faece, of what is excellent and what is excrement, for Mr. Edward's to judge of Indepency by the miscarriages, whether in practice or opinion, of some few, that should make an estimate of Cheapside by the channel that runneth in the midst of it, and give sentence against the holy and elect Angels by what is found in sin and wickedness in the devil: The most accursed hypocrites that ever the earth bore have been of the profession of Christianity, and yet Christianity the best of all professions, with a great deal more to the same purpose, both rational and pleasant to read.  
But yet as if no such words had ever proceeded from Mr. Goodwin, or else that he had repent 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 do not walk charitably to THESE MEN: Again, My conscience bears me witness, I have been friendly to THESE men: Well Sir, the time will come, when you shall look upon these men, whom you have pierced, and mourn  
4. Mr. Edward's stirreth up the magistrate 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, lest it should suffer as other places have done formerly, from the tumulivous 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 months ago, 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 years, that the Nation hath had experience of them? wherein hath their turbulence, domineering and tumultuousness of spirit appeared? nay, are they not branded this day by some for dulness in their generation, work, upon this very account, because they are not of a more stirring spirit?  
5. Your similitude to Gangrena appeareth in this, that as he urged the writings of other men against the Independents to disgrace their Religion, so do 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 Independents 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 Edward's write from men, concerning the Independents, which was, that they were proud, turbulent, and every ways stopping the progress of the work of Reformation. But Sir, will not after ages give as much heed to the writings of Mr. Edward's, and Mr. Jenkins, and Mr. Walker, in your disparagement, as you now do to the writings of Luther and the rest, etc. to the disparagement of the Anabaptists? if they do, what manner of man will you be in the thoughts of future generations? Doth any of those Authors say worse of the Anabaptists than these men do of you? Do not these men strive to render you one of the most odious men living? not only a Schismatic, but an Heretic in grain, yea, a Blasphemer.  
But are you ever the more so for all that? and would you hold them excused that should believe the reports of cruel professed adversaries.  
To come a little closer, I look upon yourself 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 believe some ill of us) insomuch that you yourself 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 adversaries, 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 perceive; which being made up of such dirty stuff, 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 flood of contempt which he let in upon the Author of Gangrena, for using such weapons to fight the Lords battles.  
Only what he saith in the ninth and last place I take myself 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 Baptism.  
2. But you have known, yea, you have known some, who have lost by it: (I suppose you mean myself, 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 arguing you and Gangrena jump: 
P. 22, 72, 73. of Gangrena.  They (saith Mr. Edward's) 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 do 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 go to bowls and other sports on days of public thanksgivings. As Mr. JOHN GOODWIN. This I premise to show to yourself, and confirm the Reader, that the same Spirit that ruled in Mr. Edward's, in whose strength he strives (but in vain) to hinder trembling souls 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. Goodwin, out of the abundance whereof he speaketh the same language, to fright humble souls from following their dear Lord and Master, who saith, The sheep (meaning his own sheep) follow him, for they know his voice, and a stranger they will not follow, BUT WILL FLEE from him, for they know not the voice of strangers, John 10.4.5.  
But Mr. Goodwin, through desire separateth himself to all wisdom, even that of the Prophet's enemies, Jerem. 18.18. Then said they, Come and let us devise devices against Jeremiah, for the Law shall not perish from the Priest, nor counsel 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: Many 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 unsuitable to their former Genius, which if any man had challenged them before their dipping, that they would do 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? 
2 King ●. 13.  (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 ears are filled from time to time, put us into some fears, lest as God in his just, though secret judgement, giveth Satan a permission to haunt some houses, and to misuse and terrify 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 practice of rebaptising.  
Oh unmerciful Pen, that nothing will satisfy, but the very life of the reputation of those it dealeth against! There is this only difference between you and Mr. Edward's 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, than he will lift them up to heaven, and set them too near the Throne of God; if he be set to dispraise them, than down he throweth them as fare on the other hand, he hath words at will to serve both purposes: but surely to hypberbolise in the disparagement of any man, much less his brethren, let such strains be of what account they will in Rhetoric, I am sure they are nought in Christianity, they will hardly look that Text in the face, Speak evil of no man, Titus 3.2. Reader what thinkest 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 ripped up women with child, slew the young men with the sword, dashed 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 always 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 less?  
Honest Reader, the sense of guilt breedeth fear and trembling 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 BOLDNESS towards God. Mark, a full testimony of conscience emboldeneth the soul before God, much more before weak mistaking men.  
Again, The righteous are as bold as a Lion: 
Prov. 28.1.  How then shall we hold our peace, that can call God to record upon our souls, 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 poison, insomuch that if I had not had former and long experience of Mr. goodwin's holy bend 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 disparagement.  
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 particularly what these things are, that we have done since our baptism, which maketh you collect our great spiritual loss; I bless 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 becometh us to speak modestly of that, and to strive to make it good by actions (wherein oh mighty God help us) rather than words.  
And now, good Reader, to convince thy conscience, that we were not like to do any such strange things soon after our Baptism, 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 chiefest 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 do 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 bosom of that Church with hundreds a year: And when the time came, that for pure conscience I must be separated from the embraces thereof, tears was my meat day and night; my grief 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 offensive 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 public discourses to the point in difference: Mr. goodwin's tears, 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) respects 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 chiefly 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 determine; 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 believe doth; which if it cost him not tears 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 ruin of the good names and reputations of the people of God, which are as much his interest as their estates, health, or any dear enjoyment they possess, and as much against the law of love to violate.  
I confess the pleasantness of Mr. goodwin's wit-in writing is so luscious, 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 solid 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 breathing of God's Spirit, in a holy humble gracious soul, than the greatest words of the gallantest Rhetorician in the world, (and that I have got since my Baptism:) I confess for Mr Goodwin, set aside these controvertal writings, and consider 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 Tithes, or any consideration for preaching in all his days, though I lived under his ministry almost twenty years: and more than all this, all the Arguments of the Gospel, and out of the Gospel, to prefer holiness and close walking with God, I believe 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 powder with his mill stone language.  
Some change Mr. Goodwin may find in my Genius, I confess 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 God's Spirit and my own experience, I see clearly, that in the communication of light in the things of God, God toeth not himself to this or that man, I consult with Christ, and lean not to the understanding of any man I see by experience, that God taketh liberty to reveal to babes the truth, which at some time he hideth from the wise and prudent: 
Math. 11.  And the more self-sufficient any man groweth in knowledge of the reason of things, the less is he led by examples.  
'Tis more noble for a man to eschew evil and do good, because 'tis evil and good, then because such and such men that are good do so: And though I was apt enough to lean that way, and to those opinions Mr. Goodwin leaned too, (that under God had been the great means of any spiritual comfort and edification) yet I bless God I was not so rankly guilty of that evil, 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 actual discipling, but the saying such things only, which was proper to make men so. I palpably discerned the Text wronged, and the interpretation was like gravel in my mouth, and not only mine, but that persons also, of whom Mr. Goodwin said at his burial, 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 body 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 baptism, which hath more appearance of evil 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 monday nights, to edify 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 grief and burden to me, which following some words of easy misconstruction, he concluded they proceeded from an absolute 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, began with this story, making it the ground of no more meeting at my house.  
To which I answer, 1. Those words, The sight of the Church was a grief and a burden to me: I said, but the principle of them, was not the want, but the abundance of affection 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 grievous, and the necessity of that made me willing to be estranged from them, that I might the better undergo the burden; 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 myself from Mr. Goodwin afterwards.  
But if it be asked, why I did not reply to the brother, who understood just contrary.  
I answer, I intended to do it, after he had done his Sermon (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. goodwin's unmerciful Pen: To be injured by a common enemy 〈◊〉 no matter of wonder, but to be wronged by one's 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 entire to himself; me thinks I now find that Scripture hath a fresh edge upon my spirit, Cease from man, whose breath is in his nostril's, 
Isaiah 2.22  for wherein is he to be esteemed, 1 Cor. 3.21. Therefore let no man glory in man   

Your three and twentieth Consideration is: THat there is no substantial Argument produced to justify such a practice, nor you believe ever will be.  
Whether we have not given Arguments to justify it, more than one, and that grounded upon the Scriptures and your own principles, and indeed the principles of all the learned, I refer to the judgement of the Reader.  
As for that which you say, by way of reply to my Brother Allens answer to your forty Queries about Church communion, I shall leave him to answer, or be silent, as he findeth cause, only it lieth much upon my spirit to show unto yourself (if may be) if not to yourself 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 fellowship in it, to follow Baptism, not go 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 Baptism might be left out of the chain, and yet they might have been Church members 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) according 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 CHURCH daily, etc.  
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 forty Queries (which I do not think were written above half a year before 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, 
P. 6. Of 40 Queries. Acts 1.15.  that three thousand were ADDED, etc. 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 insinuate 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 joining 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 joined to the LORD, i. e. say you, were immembred into the CHURCH: Now what construction can any rational, impartial, considerate man make of this your shifting too and fro in this manner, but as an evident demonstration, that in fight against us you labour to engage the Scriptures in a war they have no mind too, and so you lose 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 believing.  
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, etc. 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 received his word were baptised, and the same day (that is, that they received the Word and were baptised) there were added unto them, or the Church, about three thousand souls, who continued in the Apostles fellowship.  
But by this doctrine of Mr. goodwin's, Baptism should be a crime rather than an act of obedience, because he maketh the Church not to consist of such persons as have been baptised; is this doctrine according to the form of wholesome words? Doth not the Apostle write to the CHURCH of Corinth, 
1 Cor. 1.10 13. Rom. 6.3, 4 Col. 2.12. Gal. 3.27.  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 believing. Here Mr. Goodwin opposeth Baptism to believing, in reference to salvation, but it is not by virtue of this Text, He that beleiveth, and is baptised, shall be saved. And by virtue of what Text of Scripture he doth it, I know not, for though Baptism should not be looked upon as a condition of absolute necessity to salvation as faith is, yet sure it is some way necessary 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 Baptism equa● with faith, as conditional of salvation, which is the judgement of many learned men, as you know, and making it stand in opposition to faith, in reference thereto, as you do.  
Sir, will that God that ordained Baptism to be Faith's companion, to serve the same interest of the precious souls 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 taste 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 recording their addition to the Church after their Baptism, doth not prove their addition was BY their Baptism.  
The cause doth not require it, neither doth my Brother Allen affirm it from this Text, but only that addition to the Church followed it, and did not go before it (which was your own words heretofore, as I have shown 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 chiefly because of the express Word of God.  
But whatever the matter is, you think now one may go another way and do as well.  
The second Scripture, which in my apprehension suffereth 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. goodwin's objections against it, in doing which, the Reader will easily perceive that Text complaining 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 only whisper, but cry out of injury, is the 8. of Acts 27. And Philip said, if thou beleivest with all thy heart, thou mayest. The words its evident are an answer to the Eunuch, who asked Philip upon the sight of water, what hindered that he might not be baptised.  
Mr. Goodwin supposeth by these words, THOU MAYEST, he not saying to him, THOU MUST, is noted a liberty, which he calleth an Evangelicall liberty concerning 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 indeed injurious stroke of the Text of any that hath been touched: Gird up therefore the loins of thy mind, and consider good Reader, that thou be'st not hurt by this dangerous gloss of the Text.  


1. If Philip should have propounded Baptism to the Eunuch, upon such slight terms, 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 do WHATSOEVER I command you. Revel. 22.12, 14. Blessed are they that DO his Commandments, 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 pass, that every soul that will 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 DO not the things that I say. So that if Baptism be one of the Commands of Christ, 
Mat. 28.19. Acts 2.37. Mar. 16.16.  as I have proved from Acts 2.37. and might do it from many others. And  
2. that Christ gave all his Commands to be observed: 
John. 15.14. Rev. 22.14. Acts 3.22.  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 whatsoever he commandeth, without exception of any thing, yea, that he distateth any one's calling him Lord that doth not obey him.   Then I think it followeth roundly enough, that if Philip should have propounded Baptism to the Eunuch upon such terms of indifferency, he should have betrayed his trust, Reader what thinkest thou?  
2. To evince, that Philip by those words, THOU MAYEST, did not intent them by way of indifferency as to the Eunuch's obedience, appeareth by this, because than he should act by a differing Spirit from all the rest of his brethren, the Servants of Christ, that were employed in the Lords work. But he was acted by the same Spirit. I shall take that for granted, that the Spirit that said unto Philip, Go near and join thyself, Acts 8.29. that it was the Spirit of the everliving God which acted Philip through that negotiation he had with the Eunuch.  
Now that Spirit inspireth Peter to COMMAND Cornelius and his Company to be baptised after faith, Acts 10.47. Peter did not say, you may, or you may choose, but though they were deeply baptised with the Spirit, yet Peter commandeth 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, command 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 days.  
I remember, Sir, an observation of your own upon these words, both rational and pleasant, from hence, that Ananias importuneth Paul to baptism 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 taste the sweetness and goodness of the truth in it, that hath not lost their cast? But for those observations 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 Baptism after faith, so did Paul hasten the Jailor, Acts 16 33. And was baptised 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 baptism into the house, the Jailer set meat before them) yet he first mindeth his Lord's 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 souls, 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. goodwin's great mistake of this Text, consider this, if Philip should have preached Baptism as an indifferent thing, would it not have been to disparage the wisdom of Christ in ordaining it, who not only commanded it, but picked it out of all the rest of the Ordinances, to mention it by name with Teaching in the Commission, 
Mat. 28 19  And 2 commanding it to be done with so great solemnity, 
Acts 2. 3●. Mar. 16.16.  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 righteousness: If Philip after all this should have preached 〈◊〉 as an indifferent thing, would it not have been a great disparagement to the wisdom of Christ, in thus instituting it, and thus gracing it; for what would the import of such a carriage have been, but that Christ repent of instituting it, that he had over shot himself in it, as men use to do, and that experience proved it to be of no moment? Consider and judge.  
But fourthly from the Text itself; it appeareth clearly enough, that Philip had other thoughts of Baptism, than as a thing indifferent, by the high terms he putteth upon it: for upon the question put on the Eunuch's part, what hindered that he might not be baptised? Philip answereth, If thou beleivest: 

2. With thy HEART  
3. With ALL thy heart, thou mayest: should Philip 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 terms upon it, for if he did not believe, and that with ALL the heart, it would hinder and stop his proceed to that Ordinance; and therefore an unreasonable thing to imagine him propounding it as a matter of indifferency, for doth not all men judge it a senseless thing for any man to put high and extraordinary terms upon a poor and mean commodity, or doth so doing unbecome men? and can any body judge it becoming the wisdom of the Spirit of God?  
The truth is, those words, THOU MAYEST (following those words, If thou beleivest with all thy heart, in answer to the Eunuch's question, What hindereth? being understood, as Mr. Goodwin would have them, that is, that he might if he would, or might refuse without sin) would render his Answer to have no more savour than is in the white of an Egg, because that sense of them is a plain contradiction to the high terms he putteth upon it.  
Besides, at the 12. verse in this 8. chapter of the Acts, it appeareth Philip was very chary of the Ordinance of Baptism: mark, BUT WHEN THEY BELIEVED, Philip preaching the things concerning the Kingdom of God, and the Name of Jesus Christ, they were baptised both men and women, BUT WHEN THEY BELIEVED, not before; the truth is, not any one of the Apostles, or Administrators of the Ordinances, shown a more tender spirit of the honour of Baptism than Philip, most unlike therefore was he by those words, THOU MAYEST, to mean, he might, or he might not.  
5. Philip insisting upon the doctrine of Baptism, as well as other doctrines of Christ, at that time to the Eunuch, 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 choose; can any man imagine, that Philip should spend any part of his little time with him, in the discourse of that, which he might neglect without sin or damage. It seemeth Philip opened the doctrine of Baptism to him, as well as other things, and that he understood it not only as his duty, but a privilege not to be admitted to absolutely but conditionally, why else should he say, WHAT HINDERETH? Doth not that imply, that he thought something might, and withal doubted his own fitness, which made him put the question?  
But if any object, that it appeareth not that Philip insisted at all on Baptism.  
I confess it is not said in words at length that he did.  
But 1. We find the question put on the Eunuch's part upon his converse with Philip.  
2. We read of no other that instructed him in Christiaanity.  
And 3. It was the manner of the Apostles to preach Faith and Baptism together, being the beginning doctrines of Christ, and belonging to the foundation of a Christian man. Heb. 6.2.  
Thus did this Philip unto the Samaritans in the beginning of this 8. of the Acts, we read only of his preaching the things concerning the Kingdom of God, there is no mention made of his preaching of Baptism by Name, but no body will be so brutish as to imagine that Philip would baptise them, before he instructed them concerning the nature, use and ends of Baptism, because than they could not worship God in spirit, but ignorantly and carnally, and where then would the difference be between the worshippers 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 Apostles admission, and the Beleivers submission to Baptism, doth imply their being taught and instructed therein, and that by themselves too, lest they should be found accessary to the profaning of the Ordinance of Christ, by administering it to such as might be unfit subjects.  
Our late Annotators upon Acts 8.36. What hindereth me to be baptised? It appeareth hence, say they, that among other parts of Christian Religion, Philip had preached to him concerning Baptism.  
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 Baptism was a sign of new life in him, and that therefore he would not neglect the same, because it was added to the Word, and such an addition as was inseparable.  
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 Philip 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 consequently, the Eunuch's duty and all Christ's Disciples to come under it, but with care and fear, therefore he must examine, whether he BELIEVE WITH ALL HIS HEART.  
A fifth Scripture which liketh not your gloss 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 servant, though he be Lord of all, but is under Tutors and Governors until 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 fullness 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 appeareth in this Scripture, Mr. Goodwin inferreth, that the Church is not now to be looked upon as under the like rigour 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 confounded.  
To this I say, the inference is not good: The Church now is as straight bound to the observation of Gospel Ordinances, 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 straight bound to Christ's 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 pass, 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 Jews 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 Baptism? 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 Jews 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 spoke, for if they escaped not, who refused him that spoke 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, etc. Nay, that none may plead excuse, Acts 3.22. The place touched before, Him shall ye 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 expressly as well to respect his Ordinances for worship, as faith or manners otherwise; Col. 2.6. yea, are not the Churches commanded 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 praiseworthy thing to keep them ALL.  
3. To keep them pure also from men's 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 changes and mixtures of men's inventions, as now we find by experience.    
But Mr. Goodwin supposeth, that if the Churches now be as straight bound to Christ's Ordinances, as the old Church was to Moses Laws, than 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 Ordinances of the two Prophets, than the equal 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, than 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 signify a fare 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, than the Church then was to the Ordinances of Moses, this is not in the Text, nor indeed in any other.  
'Tis true: 1. This Text saith, We, when we were children, 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 carnal Ordinances of the Law of Moses, those slavish customs of the Jewish Law, which he calleth the rudiments of the world, or beginnings of teaching suitable to their dark state; but to argue from their redemption to those Ordinances, to our liberty from obedience to Christ's in his, which Mr. Goodwin doth, (or else where is the countenance this Text giveth his cause) but in my poor apprehension 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 Ordinances, than was on the Jews to obey their less 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 only said by Mr. Goodwin, not proved, nor attempted to be.  
Now as I have shown already, that the difference of the two states cannot lie in this, that Christ's Disciples are less bound to Christ's 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 briefly 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 Abraham's carnal seed, without respect to morals, Acts 7.38. The whole posterity of Abraham 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 aught 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 affirmeth 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 Baptism, which betokeneth the reward 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 rejoiced 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 abundance to show wherein the difference of the two states of the Church lieth, and consequently no necessity to conceive, that if the Disciples of Christ be as straight 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 God's worship was so much ceremonious, he yet layeth a charge to DO WHATSOEVER he commandeth, and to ADD NOTHING THERETO, NOR TAKE AUGHT THEREFROM, That is, saith he, not to or from the words commanding only, but also THE WORK COMMANDED; Is it likely then, that he will be less 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, 
P. 61. Of Water dip.  saith Mr. Goodwin, in the institution itself of the other Ordinances also, as the Apostle rendereth it, 1 Corinth. 11 25, 26. THIS DO YE, AS OFT AS YE DO IT, in remembrance of me, for as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lords death till he come, Here is no injunction, how oft? (but a plain intimation of liberty touching this) only the terms for the manner of doing it is set down, which is the direct calculation or manner of sanction of the institution concerning the freewill 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 do ye, noteth rather the frequent use of it upon all convenient occasions, as supposing the determining of time for the performance of commands, is only necessary where the matter commanded doth not nearly concern the party that doth obey, he supposeth principles of self-love will carry men to frequent diligently the means of their comfort and safety; which also I take to be the reason why 'tis not set down punctually how oft we shall pray, or hear, or frequent the assemblies of the Saints: That precept (saith Dr. Ames) of an undeterminate time, Do this, admitteth no other limitation but want of opportunity, or some just impediment. But Vrsinus more plain from the words, AS OF T, The Supper therefore, saith Vrsin, is often to be reiterated, and that 

1. Because of the words of the institution: and  
2. Because of the end of the institution.   So that from the words of the institution, in conjunction with the end of the Ordinance, Vrsin 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 do it, doth not imply any liberty to neglect it without sin, but the just contrary. Consider 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 do it, imply it's not being imposed upon any man as of necessity, but much like the freewill 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 design of Christ in this Ordinance is to keep alive the memories of Christ's death and passion for us, with all the benefits thereof, 1 Corinth. 11. to confirm faith, to convey succouring virtue from Christ to relieve the soul against temptation, 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 do ourselves or the world good? And as for any similitude between the Ordinances of the Gospel, in particular this, and the freewill Offering under the Law.  
Surely Sir you are under a wonderful mistake, because the freewill Offerings were not positively commanded, and therefore have the name of freewill 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 DO in remembrance, etc. After the same manner also he took the cup, and said, THIS do, So that though there be not a determinate time, how oft they should do it, yet here is a positive order to the Churches to do it, and therefore could not be neglected without sin, but for the freewill 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 enjoining them, and consequently no sin at all to neglect them: What a vast difference than is there between external Ordinances under the Gospel, and the freewill 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 error and profaneness. But Sir, should you live to these principles (which I am persuaded 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 yourself never practise that looseness that these plead directly tend to, the Lord knoweth how many others may be ensnared by them, which in my apprehension you ought sadly 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 brother's way, Rom. 14.13.  
A seventh Scripture, which in my apprehension is a brother 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 Uncircumcision, and letting in only Faith, the new Creature, 
P. 81. Of Water dip.  with keeping the Commandments of God as available, he shut out BAPTISM also, and all ceremonial practications whatsoever.  
This consequence is an absolute stranger to the premises, for though the Apostle shut out Circumcision and uncircumcision, and let in only Faith, the new Creature, and keeping the Commands of God as available, it followeth not from hence, that he shut out Baptism, as available.  
If only such things are shut out as available, which are no commands of God, than Baptism is not shut out, because Baptism is the command of God.  
But only such things are shut out as available, that are no commands of God.  
That only such things are shut out as unavailable, that are no commands of God, appeareth by their being opposed to those that are: Mark the Text, Neither Circumcision, nor Uncircumcision availeth, BUT KEEPING THE COMMANDMENTS OF GOD.  
To infer therefore from Circumcisions unavailableness (which is none of the Commandment of God) to Baptism 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 entreat 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 nothing at all by those words (NOR UNCIRCUMCISION) than your apprehension of Baptism, its being shut out as available, falleth to the ground, because you suppose its exclusion lieth wrapped up in those words.  
But the Apostle shut out nothing at all, nor intended the shutting out of any thing by those words, NOR UNCIRCUMCISION.  
That he intended not the shutting out of any thing at all, one thing or other by those words, nor Uncircumcision, but only the notifying, that being uncircumcised would not hinder the Gentiles acceptation with God now under the Gospel, no more than circumcision would further 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 man's acceptation with God, whatever it did heretofore; non Uncircumcision is nothing, that is, the want of circumcision, or being uncircumcised, is nothing to hinder the Gentiles 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 RULE peace be on them: So then, of the doctrine of these Scriptures this is the sum, That however Circumcision was a great privilege heretofore, and a matter acceptable to God, and the want of Circumcision did debar men from many privileges which the Jews enjoyed, yet now neither will the one do the Jew any good, nor the want of it do 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 privileges 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 JESUS.  
Upon the whole matter than 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 only to note, that being uncircumcised, or the want of circumcision would do the Gentile no damage, no more than the presence of circumcision would do 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 circumcised, but upon supposition, that being uncircumcised would not prejudice them.  
2, To understand the words, NOR UNCIRCUMCISION, of the shutting out of any thing, as it must be of some privilege of the Gentiles, so it must be of some they had in distinction from the Jews, because he includeth all belonging to the Jews, under the word Circumcision, but they had none in distinction from the Jews, therefore none to shut out; as for the Ordinances of the Gospel, they had them in common with the Jews upon believing, and before the Gospel they had none at all, but lived without God in the world, Ephes. 2.12. To the Jews only were committed 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 ONLY, and that because the converted Jews were very apt to be entangled 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 yoke 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 fare enough from offering any thing to their disparagement, but on the contrary, every thing to increase their esteem of them, that they might the more easily be brought off the old.  
4. The words as they lie do 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 circumcision 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 possessed of any thing to exclude as available, but only to affirm that: as Ciroumcision now under the Gospel would not avail, so neither on the other hand would being uncircumcised 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 complete 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 absolute necessity of making such supplies, which notwithstanding the scope, context and clear reason of the thing leadeth to: but I shall instance only in these words, in the 1 Corinth. 7.19. Circumcision is nothing; here is the same reason, indeed necessity of supply to complete the sense, by these words, DOTH NOT AVAIL, as there is to supply the next words, NOR UNCIRCUMCISION, with these, DOTH NOT UNAVAIL: He than 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 circumcised, clearly give the sense of the words, in the 5. Galat. 6. to be, DOTH NOT VNAVAIL, because thereby 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 UNCIRCUMCISION, so fare 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. goodwin's Argument from the Text, his whole building falleth to the ground, with all his scoffs at the end of it.  
The eighth and last Scripture that complaineth of the service, 
P. 81. Of Water dip.  is Galat. 3.27. For as many of you as have been baptised 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 unbaptised 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 construction of them spoileth the sense, they being given as an account, 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 demonstration, and consequently to lose 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 confirm the Reader therein, I refer thee to that proof we have made in answer to Mr: goodwin's third Consideration, by which it fully appeareth, that there was no such thing in those days, as Church-fellowship before Baptism, 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 restrained understanding them.  
But if any one ask, what the reason should be, that the Apostle chooseth such words as these, which for the most part are partitive, and yet by them intent all, and every individual?  
I answer: (For variety) the scope and context necessitating them to be understood universally, yea, the word MANY is upon that account (as I apprehend) often put in Scripture for ALICE, 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 ransom 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 design in this place, with as much advantage every jot as the word All would do. There being two sorts of persons become proselytes to Christian Religion, namely, Jews and Gentiles, and the Gentiles being apt to think, that they should not be the children of God upon so good terms as the Jews, because of the high respect God bear from the beginning to the Jews more than the Gentiles, and that therefore only, so many of the Church as were Jews should become heirs of that privilege through believing; the Apostle for their comfort doth assure them, that not only so many of the Church as were Jew's became the Sons of God by faith, and put on Christ by Baptism, but AS MANY as were baptised into Christ, though they were never so many, and of what rank, sex, condition soever, whether they were Jew's, or whether they were Gentiles, and though they were like the stars in the sky 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 fare are they from necessitating us to understand them, parting the Disciples amongst themselves.  
So I have done with the Scriptures which Mr. Goodwin useth to overthrow my Brother Allens Arguments, levied to prove the unlawfulness of mixed communion of baptised and unbaptised persons in Church-fellowship, besides these eight I do not find any he useth to found any Argument on to answer him: if then it appear, that the Scriptures Mr. Goodwin buildeth on like not the service, but in truth bitterly complain of it, (and whether they do not so, I refer to the judgement of the judicious Reader) and let him judge of Mr. goodwin's whole building, accordingly. And whether Mr. Goodwin find, that heaving at my Brother Allens Answer to his forty Queries, be but like the heaving at a feather, 
P. 55. Of Water dip.  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, 
P. 4. Of Water dip.  having our reasons, judgements and understandings stupefied, 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; 
P. 41, 42.  that if they speak any thing against our way, we know not valleys from hills, nor hills from valleys, rivers from trees, trees from rivers, halves from wholes, nor wholes from halves, precepts from promises, nor promises from precepts, ceremony from substance, nor substance from ceremony; every distinction that attempteth to show 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 shadows of mountains seem valiant and armed 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 Yea 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, seldom turneth to any better account than a beating of the air, or their Diogenes his begging applications to the statues of men.  
2. Whether these expressions may not be justly numbered amongst those cruel mockings which the cruel persecutors of old tried the worthies of the Lord with, Hebr. 11.36. even those of whom the world was not worthy.  
3. Whether such contemptuous revile 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, patiented, in meekness instructing those that oppose themselves, if peradventure God will give them repentance, to the acknowledging of the truth, and that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil. So also Galations 6.1. If a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual restore such a one in THE SPIRIT OF MEEKNESS, considering thyself lest thou also be tempted.  
4. Whether these expressions are not directly contrary to the advice of the Spirit of God in these Scriptures following, Phillip. 2.3. In lowliness of mind, let each esteem other BETTER than themselves. Romans 12.9. In honour preferring one another. Titus 3.2. Speak evil 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, etc.  
5. Whether there be not as palpable a breach of the royal law of Love, without which all profession of Religion is vain, 1 Corinth. 13.1, 2. James 1.26. (which Christ calleth the new Commandment, 1 John 3.14. His Commandment, John 15.12. The scope of the Gospel, 1 Timothy 1.5. The Character of Christ's 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 thyself, BUT IF YE BY'T AND DEVOUR, etc. Again, considering what he saith, 1 Corinth. 13.4, 5. Charity suffereth long, and is kind, Charity VAUNTETH not itself, doth not behave itself unseemingly, is not easily provoked, THINKETH NO ILL.  
6. Whether these contemptuous rebukes be not condemned 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 repentance, since the Apostle subjoineth 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 Kingdom of heaven: whosoever shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the Kingdom of heaven: verse 6. But who so shall offend one of these little ones, which believe in me, it were better for him, that a millstone 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 only in this one page, but frequently, even to the end thereof, is stuffed with reproaches, either of the morals 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 extreme necessity, when the cause is barren of Scripture evidence and demonstration? and lastly, whether 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.   

POSTSCRIPT.  
THere is one thing further observable in Mr. goodwin's Answer to my Brother Allen, which I take myself bound to give the Reader-notice of (lest he err through the ignorance of it) that is, that he doth with my Brother Allen, just as the six Booksellers did with him, p. 64. by leaving out the very word SUCH, (though I suppose through oversight) whereupon the stress of the Argument lieth: Consider else; My Brother Allens Argument runneth thus, If one Person may be admitted without Baptism, why not two, if two, why not ten, and so a hundred, or a thousand, and consequently SUCH, Gospel order, laid totally aside, meaning Baptism.  
Mr. Goodwin answereth thus, If a hundred, 
P. 64. Of Water dip.  or a thousand, or ten thousands should be admitted to Church Privileges upon a manifestation of their faith (which may be otherwise done, and so fare better satisfaction then by being baptised) with an exclusion of all others, who are able to give no such account of a work of faith in them, would this be a total laying aside of Gospel order? Good Reader consider and judge.  
My Brother Allen saith not, that it would be a total laying aside of Gospel order, but a total laying aside of SUCH Gospel order, which he was speaking of, namely, the great Ordinance of Baptism, as Mr. Baxster calleth it, and if the Reader be indeed good, and will obey your summons, to consider first and judge after, he must needs judge the truth in Mr. Allens Argument shining with its own light.