u 
 
& PRINCETON. N. J. <vf> 
 
 Presented by Mr Samuel Agnew of Philadelphia, Pa. 
 
 Agnciv Coll. on Baptism, No. 
 
 S<sB> 
 
DIFFERENCES IN JUDGMENT 
 ®Lbout BHatn^JJaptfem, no Bar to Communion : 
 
 TO COMMUNICATE WITH SAINTS, AS SAINTS, 
 PROVED LAWFUL. 
 
 In Answer to a Book written by the Baptists, and published by 
 Mr. T. P. and Mr. W. K. 
 
 ENTITLED, 
 
 " Some serious Reflections on that part of Mr. Btjnyan's Confession of 
 Faith, touching Church- Communion icith imbaptizecl Believers; " 
 
 WHEREIN 
 
 THEIR OBJECTIONS AND ARGUMENTS ARE ANSWERED, 
 
 AND THE DOCTRINE OF COMMUNION 
 
 STILL ASSERTED AND VINDICATED. 
 
 BY JOHN^BUNYAN. 
 
 SLIGHTLY ABRIDGED. 
 
 Should not the multitude of words be answered ? And should a man full of talk be 
 justified ? Should thy lies make men hold their peace P And when thou inocke9t, 
 shall no man make thee an answer ? — Job xi. 2, 3. 
 
 I am for peace : but when I speak, they are for war.— Psalm cxx. 7. 
 
 PRINTED FOR PRIVATE CIRCULATION, 
 BY R. HOWE, KINGSTON-ON-THAMES. 
 
TO THE READEK. , P SI K C ■ TOH 
 
 flEC, *rn i 
 
 Courteous Reader, 
 
 Be entreated to believe me, I had not set pen to 
 paper about this controversy, had we been let alone at quiet in our 
 Christian communion. But being assaulted for more than sixteen 
 years, wherein the brethren of the baptized way, as they had their 
 opportunity, have sought to break us in pieces, merely because we 
 are not, in then* way, all baptized first : I could not, I durst not, 
 forbear to do a little, if it might be to settle the brethren, and to 
 arm them against the attempts, which also of late they began to 
 revive upon us. That I deny the ordinance of baptism, or that I 
 have placed one piece of an argument against it, though they feign 
 it, is quite without colour of truth. All I say is, that the church 
 of Christ hath not warrant to keep out of their communion the 
 Christian that is discovered to be a visible saint by the Word, the 
 Christian that walketh according to his light with Cod. I will not 
 make reflections upon those unhandsome brands that my brethren 
 have laid upon me for tins : as that I am a Machiavclian, a man 
 devilish, proud, insolent, presumptuous, and the like : neither will 
 I say, as they, " The Lord rebuke thee ; " words fitter to be spoke to 
 the devil than a brother. But reader, read and compare, lay aside 
 prejudice, and judge. What Mr. Tviffin hath done in the matter I 
 forgive, and love him never the worse ; but must stand by my 
 principles, because they are peaceable, godly, profitable, and such as 
 tend to the edification of my brother, and, as I believe, will be 
 justified in the day of judgment. 
 
 Thine in all Christian service, 
 
 According to my light and power, 
 
 JOHB BUNYAN. 
 
DIFFERENCES IN JUDGMENfrfettr 
 
 Sir, 
 
 Your seemingly serious reflections upon 
 that part of my plain-hearted Confession of Faith, which 
 rendereth a reason of my freedom to communicate with 
 those of the saints and faithful who differ from me about 
 water-baptism, I have read and considered, and have 
 weighed them so well as my rank and abilities will admit 
 me to do. But finding yours (if I mistake not) far 
 short of a candid replication, I thought convenient, not 
 only to tell you of those impertinences every where 
 scattered up and down in your book, but also that in 
 my simple opinion, your rigid and church-disquieting 
 principles are not fit for any age and state of the church. 
 
 But before I enter the body of your book, give me 
 leave a little to discourse you about your preamble to 
 the same, wherein are two miscarriages unworthy your 
 pretended seriousness, because void of love and humility. 
 
 The first is, in that you closely disdain my person, 
 because of my low descent among men, stigmatizing me 
 for a person of that rank that need not to be heeded or 
 attended unto, p. 1. 
 
 Ans. What it is that gives a man reverence with you, 
 I know not, but for certain, he that despiseth the poor, 
 
reproacheth his Maker ; yet, a poor man is better than a 
 liar. To have gay clothing, or gold rings, or the persons 
 that wear them, in admiration, or to be partial in your 
 judgment or respects, for the sake, or upon the account 
 of flesh and blood, doubtless convicteth you to be of the 
 law a transgressor, and not without partiality, &c. in the 
 midst of your seeming sanctity. 
 
 Again, you say, I had not meddled with the contro- 
 versy at all, had I found any of parts that would divert 
 themselves to take notice of you, p. 2. 
 
 Ans. What need you, before you have shewed one 
 syllable of a reasonable argument in opposition to what 
 I assert, thus trample my person, my gifts, and grace, 
 (have I any,) so disdainfully under your feet ? What a 
 kind of you am / ? and why is my rank so mean, that 
 the most gracious and godly among you may not duly 
 and soberly consider of what I have said ? Was it not 
 the art of the false apostles of old to say thus ? To 
 bespatter a man, that his doctrine might be disregarded ? 
 Is not this the carpenter? and, His bodily presence is 
 weak and contemptible, did not use to be in the mouths 
 of the saints ; for they knew, the wind blew where it 
 listed. Neither is it high birth, worldly breeding, or 
 wealth, but electing love, grace, and the wisdom that 
 comes from heaven, that those who strive for strictness 
 of order in the things and kingdom of Christ, should 
 have in regard and esteem. Need I read you a lecture ? 
 Hath not God chosen the foolish, the weak, the base, yea, 
 and even things that are not, to bring to naught things 
 that are ? Why then do you despise my rank, my state, 
 and quality in the world ? 
 
As for my confession of faith, which you also secretly 
 despise, p. 1, if it be good and godly, why may it not 
 be accepted ? If I have spoken evil, bear witness of 
 the evil ; but if well, why smitest thou me ? If you and 
 the brethren of your way did think it convenient to 
 shew to the world what you held, if perhaps by that 
 means you might escape the prison, why might not I, 
 after above eleven years endurance there, give the world 
 a view of my faith and practice, if peradventure wrong 
 thoughts and false judgments of me might by that means 
 be abated and removed ? 
 
 But you suggest, I did it because I was so willing to 
 be known in the world by my singular faith and practice. 
 
 How singular my faith and practice is, may be better 
 known to you hereafter ; but that I did it for a popular 
 applause and fame, as your words seem to bear, (for 
 they proceed from a taunting spirit), that will be known 
 to you better in the day of God, when your evil surmises 
 of your brother, and my designs in writing my book, will 
 be published upon the house-tops. 
 
 And even now, before I go any further, I will give 
 you a touch of the reason of my publishing that part 
 thereof which you so hotly oppose. 
 
 It was because of those continual assaults that the 
 rigid brethren of your way made, not only upon this 
 congregation to rent it, but also upon many others about 
 us, if peradventure they might break us in pieces, and 
 draw from us disciples after them. 
 
 Assaults, I say, upon this congregation by times, for 
 no less than these sixteen or eighteen years : yea, myself 
 they have sent for, and endeavoured to persuade me to 
 
8 
 
 break communion with my brethren ; also with many 
 others they have often tampered, if haply their seeds of 
 division might take. Neither did they altogether fail 
 of their purpose ; for some they did rent and dismember 
 from us : but none but those of whom now they begin to 
 be ashamed ; the judgment of God so following their 
 design, that the persons which then they prevailed upon, 
 are now a stink and reproach to religion. Neither were 
 these spirits content with that discord they did sow 
 among us, but they proceeded to seize upon others. But 
 to pass these, the wild and unsound positions they have 
 urged to maintain their practice, would be too large here 
 to insert. 
 
 Now, Sir, to settle the brethren, (the brethren of our 
 community,) and to prevent such disorders among 
 others was the cause of my publishing my papers ; and 
 considering my concern in the house of God, I could do 
 no less than to give them warning, that every man might 
 deliver his soul. 
 
 You proceed, saying, "It is my liberty, as well as 
 others into whose hands it falls, to weigh what you have 
 said in truth's balance ; and if it be found too light, to 
 reject it whether you will or no." 
 
 Ans. Do but grant me, without mocking of me, the 
 liberty you desire to take, and, God helping me, I desire 
 no more to shift for myself among you. 
 
 As to your saying, that I proudly and imperiously 
 insult, because I say they are babes, and carnal, that 
 attempt to break the peace and communion of Churches, 
 though upon no better pretences than water ; you must 
 know, I am still of that mind, and shall be, so long as I 
 
see the effects that follow, viz. the breach of love, taking 
 off Christians from the more weighty things of God, and 
 to make them quarrel and have heart-burnings one against 
 another. 
 
 Where you are pleased to charge me with raging, for 
 laying those eighteen particular crimes to the charge of 
 such who exclude Christians from church-communion, and 
 debar them their heaven-born privileges for the want of 
 that which yet God never made the wall of division 
 between us, p. 116. 
 
 I say, when you can prove that God hath made water- 
 baptism that wall, — and the stress of the after eighteen 
 charges lies wholly and only in that, — then you may time 
 enough call my language such as wanteth charity : but I 
 question though that was granted, whether your saying 
 I rage, will be justified in the day of judgment. 
 
 My great noise, as you call it, about an initiating 
 ordinance, you say, you shall take no notice of, p. 3. 
 
 Ans. Although you do not, I must. For if baptism be 
 not that, but another ; and if visible saints may enter into 
 fellowship by that other, and are nowhere forbidden so 
 to do, because they have no light into water-baptism ; it 
 is of weight to be considered by me, yea, and of others 
 too who are unprejudiced. 
 
 2. How ignorant you are of such as hold it the 
 initiating ordinance, I know not ; nor how long you have 
 been of that persuasion, I know not. This I know, that 
 men of your own party, as serious, godly, and it may be 
 more learned than yourself, have within less than this 
 twelvemonth urged it. Mr. D. in my hearing, did from 
 Rom. vi. 1, 2. in the meeting in Lothbury, affirm it ; also 
 
10 
 
 my much esteemed Mr. D. A. did twice in a conference 
 with me assert it. 
 
 3. But whatever you say, whether for or against, it is 
 no matter ; for while you deny it to be the entering 
 ordinance, you account it the wall, bar, bolt, and door, 
 even that which must separate between the righteous and 
 the righteous ; nay, you make want of light therein a 
 ground to exclude the most godly your communion, when 
 every novice in religion shall be received into your bosom, 
 and be of esteem with you, because he hath (and from 
 what ground God knows) submitted to water-baptism. 
 
 I am glad, that in p. 4, you conclude with me what is 
 the initiating ordinance ; but withal give me leave to 
 correct, as I think, one extravagant expression of yours. 
 
 You say, " It is consent on all hands, and nothing else, 
 that makes them members of particular churches ; and 
 not faith and baptism," p. 4. 
 
 You might have stopped, at, " and nothing else/' 
 You need not, in particular, have rejected faith : your first 
 error was bad enough. What ! nothing else but consent ? 
 What ! not so much as a respect to the matter or end ? 
 Why then are not all the communities of all the high- 
 waymen in the land truly constituted churches of Christ, 
 unless you can prove that they hold together, but not by 
 consent. 
 
 What ! consent and nothing else ? But why do you 
 throw out faith ? Why, I throw out baptism ; which 
 because you cannot as to the case in hand fetch in again, 
 therefore out must faith go too. Your action is much 
 like that harlot's that stood to be judged by Solomon, 
 who because her own child was dead would have her 
 
11 
 
 neighbour's killed also. Faith, Sir, both in the profession 
 and confession of it, is of immediate and absolute 
 concern, even in the very act of the church's reception 
 of this or another member. Throw out faith, and there 
 is no such thing as a Christian, neither visible nor 
 invisible. You ought to receive no man, but upon a 
 comfortable satisfaction to the church that you are now 
 receiving a believer. Faith, whether it be savingly there 
 or no, is the great argument with the church in receiving 
 any : we receive not men as men, but the man immediately 
 under that supposition ; He hath faith, he is a Christian, 
 Sir, consent simply, without faith, makes no man a 
 member of the church of God ; because then would a 
 church not cease to be a church, whoever they received 
 among them : yea, by this assertion you have justified 
 the church of Rome itself to be to this day both good 
 and godly, unless you can prove that they did at first and 
 do now re-receive their unbelieving members without their 
 own consent. 
 
 The church hath no such liberty to receive men 
 without respect to faith : yea, faith and holiness must be 
 the essentials, or basis, upon and for the sake of which 
 you receive them : holiness I say, yet not such as is 
 circumstantial, but that which is such in the very heart 
 of it. Pray you in your next, therefore, word it better : 
 lest while you slight and trample upon me, you stand 
 before all blameworthy yourself. 
 
 The scriptures you speak of I did not, in my first 
 (p. 68) produce, to shew, persons unbaptixed might hold 
 communion with the church, (though I am fully convinced 
 they may,) but to shew, that knowledge of those persons, 
 
12 
 
 of their faith and holiness in general, ought first to be 
 shewed to the church, before she can lawfully receive 
 them. Acts ix. 26, 27. 1 Cor. xvi. 10. 2 Cor. viii. 23. 
 
 As to my answer to a question (p. 70) which you have, 
 at p. 5, of yours, corrupted, and then abused, I tell you 
 again, that a discovery of the faith and holiness, and a 
 declaration of the willingness of a person to be subject to 
 the laws and government of Christ in his church, is a 
 ground sufficient to receive such a member. 
 
 But you descant, " Is baptism none of the laws of 
 Christ?'' 
 
 Ans. It is none of those laws, neither any part of 
 them, that the church, as a church, should shew her 
 obedience by. For albeit that baptism be given by Christ 
 our Lord to the church, yet not for them to worship him 
 by as a church. Shew me what church-ordinance it is ; 
 and when or where the church, as a church, is to practise 
 it, as one of those laws and appointments that he hath 
 commanded his church to shew to him her obedience by. 
 
 Again, that submitting to water-baptism is a sign or 
 note that was ever required by any of the primitive 
 churches of him that would hold fellowship with them, 
 or that it infuseth such grace and holiness into those that 
 submit thereto, as to capacitate them for such a privilege, 
 or that they did acknowledge it a sign thereof, I find not 
 in all the Bible. 
 
 I find not, as I told you in my first, that baptism is 
 a sign to any but the person that is baptized. The 
 church hath her satisfaction of the person from better 
 proof. Col. ii. 12. Rom. vi. 1—4. 1 Cor. xv. 29. 
 Acts ii. 38, and xxii. 16. 1 Pet. iii. 21. 
 
13 
 
 I told you also, that baptism makes thee no member 
 of the church, neither doth it make thee a visible saint : 
 it giveth thee, therefore, neither right to nor being of 
 membership at all. Why, Sir, did you not answer these 
 things, but slip them with others, as if you were 
 unconcerned, troubling your reader with such kind of 
 insinuations as must needs be unsavoury to godly ears ? 
 
 You tell me, that in p. 93, of mine, I say, " None 
 ever received baptism without light therein." 
 
 What if I did ? as I did not ; but you grant it. And 
 now I will ask you, and pray deal fairly in your answer : 
 May a man be a visible saint without light therein ? May 
 he have a good conscience without light therein ? And 
 seeing that baptism is none of the worship that Christ 
 instituted in his church for them to practise as a church, 
 must he be kept dark about all other things concerning 
 the worship of God in his church, until he receive light 
 therein ? 
 
 You have answered already, p. 7, That they ought to 
 be ashamed, and to repent of that abomination, (their 
 sprinkling) before they come to have a sight of the pattern 
 of the house of God, the goings in and the comings out 
 thereof Ezek. xliii. 10, 11. 
 
 But, Sir, where do you find that want of light in 
 water-baptism, or because a man hath been sprinkled, that 
 he is to be kept dark in all other temple-institutions, till 
 he be ashamed and repent of that ? Pray produce the 
 texts ; for Ezekiel helps you nothing. He speaks only of 
 the pattern of the house, the goings out and coinings in 
 thereof. As for the coming in, you have already confessed 
 that baptism is not the entering ordinance. And as for 
 
14 
 
 the worship that Christ hath instituted in his church as a 
 church, I say, and you also have said it, p. 40, baptism is 
 none of the forms thereof, none of the ordinances thereof, 
 none of the laws thereof : for baptism is, as to the practice 
 of it, that which is without the church, without the house 
 of God. Then, by your own text, if a man do repent 
 him of his christening in his childhood, he may be 
 received into fellowship without submitting to baptism. 
 But I will not strain you too far. 
 
 You add, " Is it a person's light that giveth being to 
 a precept?" 
 
 Ans. Who said it ? Yet it is his light and faith about 
 it that can make him to do it acceptably. 
 
 You ask again, " Suppose men plead want of light in 
 other commands ? " 
 
 Ans. If they be not such, the forbearance of which 
 discapacitates him of membership, he may yet be received 
 to fellowship. 
 
 " But what if a man want light in the supper ? " p. 7. 
 
 Ans. There is more to be said in that case than in 
 the other ; for that is a part of that worship which Christ 
 hath instituted for his church, to be conversant in as a 
 church ; presenting them as such, with their communion 
 with their head, and with one another as members of him. 
 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion 
 of the blood of Christ ? The bread which we break, is it 
 not the communion of the body of Christ ? For we being 
 many, are one bread, and one body ; for we are all 
 partakers of that one bread ; 1 Cor. x. 16, 17. Wherefore 
 this being a duty incumbent on the church as a church, 
 and on every member of that body as such, they are 
 
15 
 
 obliged in that case more closely to deal with the 
 members, than in that wherein they are not so concerned ; 
 and with which as such they have nothing to do. No 
 man baptizeth by virtue of his office in the church ; no 
 man is baptized by virtue of his membership there. 
 
 " But what if a man want light in his duty to the 
 poor?" p. 8. 
 
 Ans. If he doth, God must give it him ; I mean to 
 know his duty as a church-member. Now I will add, 
 but what if he that can give a shilling giveth nothing ? 
 I suppose all that the church can do in that case is but 
 to warn, to exhort, and charge him, and to shew him his 
 duty ; and if he neglect, to shew him, That he that soweth 
 sparingly, shall not reap plentifully. 1 Cor. ix. 6. But 
 to cut a man off for this, as you forwardly urge, p. 8, 
 would argue that church (at least I think so) a little too 
 bold with so high and weighty a censure. I plead not 
 here for the churl, but seek to allay your heat : and 
 should it be granted, that such deserve as you would 
 have it, this makes no matter to the case in hand. 
 
 Now, whereas you suggest, " That moral evils are 
 but sins against men," p. 8, you are too much unadvised. 
 The moral evil, as you call it, whether you respect the 
 breach of the first or second table, is first and immediately 
 a sin against God ; and more insufferable, yea and 
 damnable, than for a man for want of light to forbear 
 either baptism or the Lord's supper. 
 
 But you say, " We have now found an advocate for 
 sin against God, in the breach of one of his holy 
 commands." 
 
 Ans. As if none of the moral precepts were his. 
 
16 
 
 But, Sir, who have I pleaded for in the denial of any one 
 ordinance of God ? yea, or for their neglect of it either ? 
 What I say is, that men must have light, that they may 
 not do it in darkness or, papist-like, live by an implicit 
 faith. 
 
 But I see you put no difference between an open breach 
 of the law, and a forbearing that which to him is doubtful. 
 But I will suppose a case : There is a man wants light 
 in baptism, yet by his neighbour is pressed to it ; he saith 
 he seeth it not to be his duty ; the other saith, he sins if 
 he doth it not. Now, seeing whatsoever is not of faith 
 is sin, what should this man do 1 If you say, " Let him 
 use the means ; " I say so too. But what if, when he 
 hath used them he still continueth dark about it, what, will 
 you advise him now ? If you bid him wait, do you not 
 encourage him to live in sin as much as I do ? Nay, and 
 seeing you will not let him for want of light in that, obey 
 God in other his institutions, what is it but to say, 
 " Seeing you live for want of light in the neglect of 
 baptism, we will make you, while you continue so, live, 
 though quite against your light, in the breach of all the 
 rest ? " And where you are commanded thus, you may 
 shew the place when you find it. 
 
 Now, where you urge, that you are one of them that 
 say, " The epistles were writ to particular churches, and 
 so serve nothing at all for our kind of communion ; " 
 urging further, "That it will be difficult for me to prove, 
 that they were also directed to particular saints." 
 
 Ans. I wish there were nothing harder that were good 
 for me to do. 
 
 But what should be the reason that our author, with 
 
17 
 
 others of his opinion, should stickle so hard to prove all 
 the epistles were * wrote to particular churches? Why 
 because those members were, as they think, every one 
 baptized : and so the epistles from which we fetch our 
 arguments for the love and concord of saints, to be only 
 proper to themselves. But if this be true, there is virtue 
 indeed, and more than ever I dreamed of in partaking of 
 water-baptism : for if that shall take away the epistles, 
 and consequently the whole Bible, from all that are not 
 baptized, then are the other churches, and also particular 
 saints, in a very deplorable condition. For he asketh me 
 very devoutly, " Whether any unbaptized persons were 
 concerned in these epistles ? " p. 9. But why would they 
 take from us the holy scriptures ? Verily, that we might 
 have naught to justify our practice withal : for if the 
 scriptures belong only to baptized believers, they then 
 belong not to the rest ; and, in truth, if they could 
 persuade us to yield them this grant, we should but sorrily 
 justify our practice. But I would ask these men, If the 
 word of God came out from them ? or if it came to them 
 only ? or, whether Christ hath not given his whole word 
 to every one that believeth, whether they be baptized, or 
 in, or out of church -fellowship ? John xviii. Or, whether 
 every saint, in some sort, hath not the keys of the kingdom 
 of heaven, which are the scriptures and their power ? 
 
 Would to God they had learned more modesty, 
 than thus to take from all others, and appropriate to 
 themselves, and that for the sake of their observing a 
 circumstance in religion, so high and glorious a privilege. 
 
 But we will come a little to proof. What church will 
 this author find in Rome, that time the epistle was sent 
 
18 
 
 to the brethren there, besides that Church that was hi 
 Aquila's house, although many more saints were then in 
 the city ? Yea, the apostle, in his salutation at the 
 beginning, embraceth them only as brethren, without the 
 least intimation of their being gathered into fellowship. 
 To all that be at Rome, beloved of God, called to be 
 saints, Grace to you, fyc. chap. i. 7. To all there, to all 
 in that city, beloved of God, and that are converted to 
 the Lord Jesus Christ. A church there was in Aquila's 
 house ; and that there were many more saints besides, is, 
 and that by the texts, manifest. Besides, considering the 
 rules that are given them in the 14th and 1 5th chapters, 
 about their receiving one another, doth yet strongly 
 suggest to me, that they were not yet in fellowship, but 
 as it were now about it, when Paul wrote his epistle to 
 them. 
 
 The first epistle written to Corinth was also wrote to 
 all them that in every place called upon the name of the 
 Lord Jesus Christ. 1 Cor. i. 2. But it will be hard 
 work for our author to make it manifest, that none in 
 those days did call on the name of our Lord but those 
 that were first baptized. 
 
 The second epistle, also, was not only written to the 
 church at Corinth, but also to all the saints which were in 
 all Achaia. To the Galatians and Thessalonians, indeed, 
 his salutation was only to the churches there : but the 
 three epistles before were as well to all other : as also that 
 to the Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians, in which 
 the faithful and saints in Christ Jesus were also every one 
 comprehended. Besides, to what particular church was 
 the epistle to the Hebrews wrote? or the epistle of 
 
19 
 
 James ? both those of Peter, and the first of John ? 
 Nay, that of John was wrote to some at that time «out 
 of fellowship, that they might have fellowship with the 
 church; chap. i. 1 — 4. So that these brethren must not 
 have all the scriptures. We have then a like privilege 
 with all saints, to use the scriptures for our godly edifying, 
 and to defend ourselves thereby from the assaults of those 
 that would make spoil of us. But to pass this, and come 
 to the next : 
 
 You object for that I said, " If water-baptism (as the 
 circumstances with which the church was pestered of old) 
 trouble the peace, and wound the consciences of the godly, 
 dismember and break their fellowship ; it is although 
 an ordinance, for the present prudently to be shunned. " 
 p. 86. 
 
 At this, as I said, you object, p. 10, 11, and say, "Did 
 I ever find baptism a pest or a plague to the churches ? 
 and did ever God send an ordinance to be a pest and a 
 plague to his people ? " 
 
 I answer, I said not that God did send it for any 
 such end at all : God's ordinances are none of this in 
 themselves ; nor if used as, and for the end for which 
 God sent them. But yet both baptism, and the supper of 
 the Lord, have (by being wrested out of their place) been 
 a great affliction to the godly both in this and other ages. 
 What say you to breaking of bread, which the devil, by 
 abusing, made an engine in the hands of papists, to burn, 
 starve, hang, and draw thousands ? What say you to 
 John of Leyden ? What work did he make by the abuse 
 of the ordinance of water-baptism ! And I wish this age 
 had not given cause, through the church-renting spirits 
 b 2 
 
20 
 
 that some are possessed with, to make complaint of this 
 matter, who have also had for their engine the baptism 
 with water. Yea, yourself, Sir, so far as I can perceive, 
 could you get but the opportunity, yourself, I say, under 
 pretence of this innocent ordinance, as you term it, would 
 not stick to make inroads, and outroads too, in all the 
 churches, that suit not your fancy, in the land. For you 
 have already been bold to affirm, " That all those that 
 have been baptized infants ought to be ashamed, and 
 repent, before they be shewed the pattern of the house." 
 And what is this but to threaten, that could you have 
 your will of them, you would quickly take from them 
 their present church-privileges, and let them see nothing 
 thereof, till those qualifications, especially subjection to 
 water-baptism, were found to attend to each of them. 
 
 And now, reader, although this author hath thus 
 objected against some passages in this my first argument 
 for communion with persons unbaptized, yet the body of 
 my argument he misseth, and passeth over, as a thing 
 not worth the answering ; whether because he forgot, or 
 because he was conscious to himself that he knew not 
 what to do therewith, I will not now determine. 
 
 1 . I effectually prove, " That baptism is not the 
 initiating ordinance." p. 71, 75. 
 
 2. I prove, " That though it was, yet the case may so 
 fall out, that members might be received without it." 
 p. S2, 83. 
 
 3. I prove, " That baptism makes no man a visible 
 saint, nor giveth any right to church -fellowship." p. 
 76. 
 
 4. I prove, " That faith, and a life becoming the law 
 
21 
 
 of the ten commandments, should be the chief and most 
 solid argument with the true churches to receive saints 
 to fellowship." 
 
 5. I prove, "That circumcision in the flesh, which 
 was the entering ordinance of old, was a type of 
 circumcision in the heart." p. 79, 80. 
 
 These things, with others, our author letteth pass, 
 although in the proof of them abideth the strength of 
 this first argument ; to which I must entreat him in his 
 next to cast his eye, and give fair answer ; as also to the 
 scriptures on which each are built : or he must suffer me 
 to say I am abused. Further, I make a question upon 
 three scriptures : Whether all the saints, even in the 
 primitive times, were baptized with water? To which 
 also he answereth nothing ; whereas he ought to have 
 done it, if he will take in hand to confute. The scriptures 
 are, 1 Cor. i. 14—16. Rom. vi. 3. Gal. iii. 27. Yet, 
 were they effectually answered, my argument is nothing 
 weakened. 
 
 You come to my second argument, drawn from Eph. 
 iv. 4 — 6, upon which a little more now to enlarge, and 
 then to take notice of your objection. 
 
 The apostle then, in that 4th of the Ephesians, 
 exhorteth the church there, with all lowliness, and 
 meekness, with long-suffering, and forbearing one another, 
 to endeavour to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond 
 of peace, verses 2, 3. This done, he presents them with 
 such arguments as might fasten his exhortation to purpose 
 upon them. 
 
 1. The first is, because the body is one : There is one 
 body ; therefore they should not divide ; for if the church 
 
22 
 
 of Christ be a body, there ought not to be a rent or 
 schism among them. 
 
 2. His second argument is, There is one Spirit, or one 
 quickening principle, by which the body is made to live. 
 For having asserted before, that Christ hath indeed a 
 body, it was meet that he shewed also that this body hath 
 life and motion. Now that life, being none other than 
 that nourishment, or spirit of life, from which the whole 
 body fitly joined together, and compact by that which 
 every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working of 
 the measure in every part, maketh increase of the body, 
 to the edifying of itself in love. Eph. iv. 16. Now this 
 spirit, being first, and chiefly, in the head, therefore 
 none other but those that hold the head can have this 
 nourishment ministered to them. Besides, this is the 
 spirit that knits the body together, and makes it increase 
 with the increase of God. Col. ii. 16. This is the 
 unity of the Spirit which he before exhorts them to 
 keep. 
 
 3. The third argument is, because their hope is also 
 but one : Even as you are called, saith he, in one hope of 
 your calling. As who should say, " My brethren, if you 
 are called with one calling ; if your hope, both as to the 
 grace of hope, and also the object, be but one ; if you 
 hope for one heaven, and for one eternal life ; then 
 maintain that unity of the spirit, and hope, while here, in 
 love, and the bond of peace. 
 
 4. The fourth argument is, There is one Lord, or 
 husband, or prince, to whom this church belongs : 
 therefore if we have husbands but one, lord and prince 
 but one, let us not rent into many parties, as if we had 
 
23 
 
 many husbands, lords, and princes, to govern us, as his 
 wife, his house, and kingdom. Is Christ divided ? 
 
 5. The fifth argument is, There is one faith, by which 
 we all stand justified by one Lord Jesus Christ ; one faith 
 by which we escape the wrath of God : one faith by 
 which only they that have it are blessed. Yea, seeing 
 there is but one faith, by which we are all put into one 
 way of salvation, let us hold together as such. 
 
 6. The sixth argument, There is one baptism. Now 
 we are come to the pinch, viz. Whether it be that of 
 water, or no ? which I must positively deny. 
 
 1. Because water-baptism hath nothing to do in a 
 church, as a church : it neither bringeth us into the 
 church, nor is any part of our worship when we come 
 there : how then can the peace and unity of the church 
 depend upon water-baptism ? Besides, he saith expressly, 
 it is the unity of the spirit, not water, that is here 
 intended; and the arguments brought to enforce it are 
 such as wholly and immediately relate to the duty of the 
 church, as a church. 
 
 2. Further, that other text that' treateth of our being 
 baptized into a body, saith expressly it is done by the 
 Spirit : For by one Spirit we are all baptised into one 
 body. 1 Cor. xii. 16. Here is the church presented as 
 under the notion of a body ; here is a baptism mentioned, 
 by which they are brought or initiated into this body : 
 now that this is the baptism of water, is utterly against 
 the words of the text, For by one Sjririt we are all 
 baptized into one body. And, I say, again, the baptism 
 in the sixth argument being urged precisely for no other 
 purpose but with respect to the church's peace as a body 
 
24 
 
 it must needs mean that baptism, by virtue of which they 
 were initiated, and joined together in one ; and that 
 baptism being only that which the Spirit executeth, this 
 therefore is that one baptism. 
 
 7. The other argument is also effectual : There is one 
 God, and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, 
 and in you all. If we are one body ; if to it there be but 
 one spirit ; if we have but one hope, one faith, and be all 
 baptized by one Spirit into that one body ; and if we have 
 but one Lord, one God, and he in every one of us, let us 
 be also one ; and let them that are thus qualified, both 
 join together, and hold in one. 
 
 But you bid me tell you, " what I mean by Spirit- 
 baptism." 
 
 Ans. Sir, you mistake me : I treat not here of our 
 being baptized with the Spirit, with respect to its coming 
 from heaven into us ; but of that act of the Spirit, when 
 come, which baptizeth us into a body, or church. It is 
 one thing to be baptized with the Spirit in the first sense, 
 and another to be baptized by it in the sense I treat of; 
 for the Spirit to come upon me, is one thing, and for that 
 when come, to implant, embody, or baptize me into the 
 body of Christ, is another. 
 
 Your question therefore is grounded on a mistake, 
 both of my judgment, and the words of the apostle. 
 Wherefore thus I soon put an end to your objections, 
 (p. 14). For the Spirit to come down upon me, is one 
 thing ; and for the Spirit to baptize, or implant me into 
 the church, is another : for to be possessed with the 
 Spirit, is one thing, and to be led by that Spirit is another. 
 I conclude, then, seeing the argument taken from that one 
 
25 
 
 baptism respecteth church-fellowship properly ; and seeing 
 water-baptism meddleth not with it as such, it is the 
 other, even that in 1 Cor. xii. 16. that is here intended, 
 aud no other. 
 
 But you add, " If nothing but extraordinary gifts are 
 called the baptism of the Spirit in a strict sense, then that 
 baptism, 1 Cor. xii., must be water-baptism, as well as 
 that in the Ephesians." 
 
 Hold : you make your conclusions before you have 
 cause. First, prove that in the Ephesians to be meant of 
 water-baptism, and that the baptism in 1 Cor. xii. 16. 
 is the baptism you would have it, and then conclude my 
 argument void. 
 
 That it is the baptism of the Holy Ghost, according 
 to the common notion, I say not ; for you to assert it is 
 the baptism of water, gives the lie to the text ; but that 
 it is an act of the Holy Ghost, baptizing the saints into a 
 body or church, you will hardly be able to make the 
 contrary appear to be truth. 
 
 But behold, while here you would have this to be 
 baptism with water, how you contradict and condemn 
 your own notion ? You say water-baptism is not the 
 entering ordinance ; yet the baptism here is such as 
 baptizeth us into a body : wherefore before you say next 
 time that this in 1 Cor. xii. 13, is meant of water-baptism, 
 affirm that water-baptism is the initiating or entering 
 ordinance, that your opinion and doctrine may hang better 
 together. 
 
 We come to my third argument ; which is " to prove, 
 it is lawful to hold church-communion with the godly, 
 sincere believer, though he hath not been baptized with 
 
26 
 
 water, because he hath the doctrine of baptisms. Heb. 
 vi." Which doctrine I distinguish from the practice of 
 it : the doctrine being that which by the outward sign is 
 presented to us, or which by the outward circumstance of 
 the act is preached to the believer, viz. The death of 
 Christ, my death with Christ ; also his resurrection from 
 the dead, and mine with him to newness of life. This 
 our author calleth, " one of the strangest paradoxes that 
 he hath lightly observed." 
 
 Ans. How light he is in his observation of things, I 
 know not ; this I am sure, the apostle makes mention of 
 the doctrine of baptism ; now that the doctrine of a man, 
 or ordinance, is the signification of what is preached, is 
 apparent to very sense. What is Christ's doctrine, 
 Paul's doctrine, scripture-doctrine, but the truth couched 
 under the words that are spoken ? So the doctrine of 
 baptism, yea, and the doctrine of the Lord's supper, are 
 those truths or mysteries that such ordinances preach 
 unto us. And that the doctrine of baptism in this sense, 
 is the great end for which that and the Lord's supper 
 were instituted, is apparent from all the scriptures. It is 
 that which the apostle seeketh for in that eminent 6th of 
 the Romans : Know you not, that so many of us as 
 were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his 
 death ? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism ; 
 that like as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory 
 of the Father, so we should walk in newness of life. For 
 if we have been planted together in the likeness of his 
 death, we shall also be in the likeness of his resurrection. 
 Rom. vi. 3 — 5. What is here discoursed but the doctrine 
 of, or that which baptism teacheth ; with an intimation, 
 
27 
 
 that that was the chief, for the sake of which that shadow 
 was instituted ; as also that they that have the doctrine, 
 or that which is signified thereby, they only must reign 
 with Christ ? 
 
 Again, This is that which he seeketh for among the 
 Corinthians, If the dead rise not at all, saith he, why then 
 were you baptized for the dead? 1 Cor. xv. 29. Why 
 then were you baptized 1 what did baptism teach you ? 
 what doctrine did it preach to you ? Further, Buried with 
 him in baptism, wherein also you are risen again with 
 him through the faith of the operation of God, who raised 
 him from the dead. What is here in chief asserted, but 
 the doctrine only which water-baptism preacheth ? with an 
 intimation, that they, and they only, are the saved of the 
 Lord, that have heard, received, and that live in this 
 doctrine. Col. ii. 12, 13. 
 
 But you add, " Under the law, all the sacrifices of 
 that dispensation, with their sabbaths, were types of that 
 Christ who was the substance of all those ceremonies. If 
 any of them, then, that professed faith in the Messias to 
 come, should upon scruples, or want of pretended light, 
 neglect the whole, or part of that typical worship ; why 
 may not a man say of them, as this advocate of the 
 practice under debate, They had the richer and better 
 sacrifice ? 
 
 Ans. First, that the brethren which refuse to be 
 baptized, as you and I would have them, refuse it for 
 want of pretended light, becomes you not to imagine, 
 unless your boldness will lead you to judge, that all men 
 want sincerity that come not up to our judgment. Their 
 conscience may be better than either yours or mine ; yet 
 
28 
 
 God, for purposes best known to himself, may forbear to 
 give them conviction of their duty in this particular. But 
 what, because they are not baptized, have they not Jesus 
 Christ ? or must we not be afraid to say, Christ is better 
 than water-baptism ? Yea, God himself, for the sake of 
 this better thing, hath suffered in his church a suspension 
 of some of his ordinances, yet owned them for his truly- 
 constituted congregation. What say you to the church 
 in the wilderness ? I touched you with it in my first ; 
 but perceive you listed not to meddle therewith. That 
 church received members the way which was not 
 prescribed by, but directly against the revealed mind of 
 God ; yet stood a true church, their members, true 
 members ; also that church, in that state, was such before 
 whom, among whom, and to whom, God continually made 
 known himself to be their God, and owned them for his 
 peculiar treasure. 
 
 And now I am fallen upon it, let me a little enlarge. 
 This church, according to the then instituted worship of 
 God, had circumcision for their entering ordinance, Gen. 
 xvii. 13, 14 ; without which it was unlawful to receive 
 any into fellowship with them : yea, he that without it 
 was received, was to be cut ofT, and cast out again. 
 Further, as to the passover, the uncircumcised was 
 utterly forbidden to eat it. Exod. xii. Now, if our 
 brethren had as express prohibition to justify their 
 groundless opinion, as here is to exclude the uncircumcised 
 from the communion of the church and the passover ? I 
 say, if they could find it written, " No unbaptized person 
 shall enter, no unbaptized person shall eat of the supper," 
 what a noise would they make about it ? But yet let the 
 
29 
 
 reader observe, that although circumcision was the entering 
 ordinance, and our author saith baptism is not ; yea, 
 though this church was expressly forbidden to receive the 
 uncircumcised, (and we have not a syllable now to forbid 
 the unbaptized) yet this church received members without, 
 and otherwise than by this entering ordinance. They also 
 admitted them to the Passover ; yea, entertained, retained, 
 and held communion with them, so long as forty years 
 without it. I say again, that the number of this sort of 
 communicants was not so few as six hundred thousand. 
 Moreover, to these uncircumcised was the land of Canaan 
 given, yea, a possession of part thereof, before they were 
 circumcised ; but the old circumcised ones might not enter 
 therein. I am the larger in this, because our author hath 
 overlooked my first mention thereof. And now I ask, 
 What was the reason that God continued his presence 
 with this church, notwithstanding this transgression ? 
 Was it not because they had that richer and better thing, 
 the Lord Jesus Christ 1 For they did all eat of that 
 spiritual bread, and drank of that spiritual rock which 
 followed them ; and that rock was Christ. 1 Cor. x. I 
 confess I find them under rebukes and judgments in the 
 wilderness ; and that they were many times threatened 
 to be destroyed : but yet I find not so much as one check 
 for their receiving of members uncircumcised. Further, 
 in the New Testament, where we have a catalogue of 
 their sins, and also of their punishment for them, we find 
 not a word about circumcision, nor the smallest intimation 
 of the least rebuke for neglecting the entering ordinance. 
 1 Cor. x. 5, 10. I will therefore say to them, as I have 
 also said of my brethren, "They had the richer and 
 better thing." 
 
30 
 
 But you object, " This putteth the whole of God's 
 instituted worship, both under the law and gospel, to the 
 highest uncertainties." p. 17. 
 
 Ans. This putteth our opposers out of their road, and 
 quencheth the flame of their unwarrantable zeal. For if 
 the entering ordinance, if the ordinance without which 
 no man might be added to the church, was laid aside for 
 forty years ; yea, if more than six hundred thousand did 
 communicate with them without it ; I say again, if they 
 did it, and held communion with God, that notwith- 
 standing ; yea, and had not, that we read of, all that time 
 one small check for so doing ; why may not we now 
 enter communion, hold communion, maintain communion, 
 church-communion, without being judged and condemned 
 by you ; because we cannot for want of light, be all 
 baptized before ; especially considering baptism makes 
 no man a saint, is not the entering ordinance, is no part 
 of the worship of God enjoined the church as a church 1 
 To conclude, although we receive members unbaptized, 
 we leave not God's instituted worship at uncertainties, 
 especially what he hath commanded us as his church : 
 we only profess our want of light in some things ; but see 
 no word to warrant the forbearance of our duty in all, 
 for want of persuasion in one. 
 
 You object, " I call baptism a circumstance, an 
 outward shew, I nick-name it." 
 
 Ans. Deep reproof! But why did you not shew me 
 my evil in thus calling it, when opposed to the substance 
 and the thing signified 1 Is it the substance ? Is it the 
 thing signified ? And why may not I give it the name of 
 a shew, when you call it a symbol, and compare it to a 
 gentleman's livery ? p. 52. 
 
31 
 
 But you say, I call it au outward shew. 
 
 Ans. Is it an inward one ? What is it ? 
 
 " It is a command." 
 
 Ans. But doth that instal it in that place and dignity 
 that was never intended for it ? 
 
 You object further, " They cannot have the doctrine 
 of baptism that understand not our way of administering 
 it." p. 18. 
 
 This is your mistake, both of the doctrine and thing 
 itself. But if you will not scorn to take notice of me, 
 I advise you again to consider, that a man may find 
 baptism to be commanded, may be informed who ought to 
 administer it, may also know the proper subject, and that 
 the manner of baptizing is dipping, and may desire to 
 practise it because it is commanded ; ai\dyet know nothing 
 of what water-baptism preacheth, or of the mystery 
 baptism sheweth to faith. 
 
 But say you, "Who taught you to divide betwixt 
 Christ and his precepts, that you word it at such a rate ? " 
 That he that hath the one, &c. 
 
 Ans. To say nothing of faith, and the word, verily 
 reason itself teacheth it. For if Christ be my righteous- 
 ness, and not water ; if Christ be my advocate, and not 
 water ; if there be that good and blessedness in Christ 
 that is not in water ; then is Jesus Christ better than 
 water, and also in these to be eternally divided from water, 
 unless we will make them co-saviours, co-advocates, and 
 such as are equally good and profitable to men. 
 
 But say you, " I thought that he that hath Christ had 
 an orderly right to all Christ's promises and precepts, and 
 that the precepts of Christ are part of the riches that a 
 believer hath in and by Christ." 
 
32 
 
 Ans. A believer hath more in Christ than either 
 promise or precept ; but all believers know not all things 
 that of God are given to them by Christ. But must they 
 not use and enjoy that which they know, because they 
 know not all ? or must they neglect the weightier matters, 
 because they want mint, anise, and cummin ? Your 
 pretended orderly right is your fancy : there is not a 
 syllable in the whole Bible that bids a Christian to forbear 
 his duty in other things, because he wanteth, as you term 
 it, the symbol, or water-baptism. 
 
 But say you, " He that despiseth his birthright of 
 ordinances, or church-privileges, will be found to be a 
 profane' person, as Esau, in God's account." 
 
 Baptism is not the privilege of a church as such. 
 But what ? Are tfcey all Esaus indeed ? Must we go to 
 hell, and be damned, for want of faith in water-baptism ? 
 And take notice, I do not plead for a despising of baptism, 
 but a bearing with our brother that cannot do it for 
 want of light. The best of baptism he hath, viz. the 
 signification thereof : he wanteth only the outward shew ; 
 which, if he had, would not prove him a truly visible 
 saint ; it would not tell me he had the grace of God in 
 his heart : it is no characteristical note to another of my 
 sonship with God. 
 
 But why did you not answer these parts of my 
 argument? Why did you only cavil at words? which if 
 they had been left out, the argument yet stands good. 
 " He that is not baptized, if yet a true believer, hath the 
 doctrine of baptism ; yea, he ought to have it before he 
 be convicted it is his duty to be baptized, or else he 
 playeth the hypocrite. There is therefore no difference 
 
33 
 
 between that believer that is, and he that is not yet 
 baptized with water, but only his going down into the 
 water, there to perform an outward ceremony of the 
 substance which he hath already ; which yet he is not 
 commanded to do with respect to membership with the 
 church, but to obtain by that further understanding of his 
 privilege by Christ, which before he made profession of, 
 and that as a visible believer." 
 
 But to come to my fourth argument, which you so 
 tenderly touch as if it burnt your fingers : " I am bold, 
 say I, to have communion with visible saints as before, 
 because God hath communion with them, whose example 
 in the case we are strictly commanded to follow : " Receive 
 ye one another, as Christ Jesus hath received you to the 
 glory of God. Yea, though they be saints in opinion 
 contrary to you or me. We that are strong, ought to bear 
 the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves : 
 infirmities that are sinful ; for they that are natural are 
 incident to all. Infirmities therefore they are, that for 
 want of light cause a man to err in circumstantials. And 
 the reason upon which Paul groundeth this admonition 
 is, For Christ pleased not himself : but, as it is written, 
 The reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen 
 upon me. 
 
 You say to this : (p. 20,) "That it is Paul's direction 
 to the church at Rome, how to receive their brethren 
 church-members." 
 I answer, 
 
 1 . What, are not the poor saints now in this city, are 
 not they concerned in these instructions ? Or is not the 
 church, by these words, at all directed how to carry it to 
 
34 
 
 those that were not yet in fellowship ? A bold assertion ! 
 but grounded upon nothing but that you would have it so. 
 
 2. But how will you prove that there was a chuch, a 
 right constituted church at Rome, besides that in Aquila's 
 house ? chap. xvi. Neither doth this epistle, nor any 
 other in the whole book of God, affirm it. Besides, 
 since Paul, in this last chapter, saluteth the church in 
 this man's house, but the other only as particular saints, 
 it giveth farther ground of conviction to you, that those 
 others were not as yet embodied in such a fellowship. 
 
 3. But suppose there was another church besides, it 
 doth not therefore follow, that the apostle exhorteth them 
 only to receive persons already in fellowship, but him, 
 even every him, that there was weak in faith, but not to 
 doubtful disputations. 
 
 4. Suppose, again, the receiving here exhorted to be 
 such as you would have it, yet the rule by which they 
 are directed to do it, is that by which we perceive that 
 Christ hath received them : but Christ did not receive 
 them by baptism, but as given to him by the Father. 
 Him therefore concerning whom we are convinced, that 
 he by the Father is given to Christ, him should we receive. 
 
 5. But what need I grant you that which cannot be 
 proved ? Yet if you could prove it, it availeth nothing at 
 all ; because you may not, cannot, ought not, to dare to 
 limit the exhortation to receiving of one another into each 
 others affections only, and not also receiving saints into 
 communion. 
 
 But you object, " To make God's receiving the rule of 
 our receiving, in all cases will not hold, p. 21." 
 
 Ans. Keep to the thing, man : if it hold in the case 
 
35 
 
 in hand, it is enough ; the which you have not denied. % 
 And that it holds thus, is plain, because commanded. 
 But let the reader know, that your putting in that way of 
 his receiving which is invisible to us, is but an unhandsome 
 straddling over my argument, which treateth only of a 
 visible receiving, such as is manifest to the church. This 
 you knew, but sought, by evading, to turn the reader 
 from considering the strength of this my argument. 
 " The receiving then," said I, p. 29, " because it is set 
 as an example to the church, is such as must needs be 
 visible unto them, and is best discovered by that word 
 that describeth the visible saint. Whoso then you can 
 judge a visible saint, one that walketh with God, you may, 
 nay ought to judge by the same word, God hath received 
 him. Now, him that God receiveth, him should you 
 receive." But will any object, they cannot believe that 
 God receiveth the unbaptized saints ? I will not suppose 
 you so much stupified, and therefore shall make no 
 answer. But you seem to be much offended because I 
 said, " Vain man ! think not by the straitness of thine 
 order in outward and bodily conformity to outward and 
 shadowish circumstances, that thy peace is maintained 
 with God." 
 
 But why so much offended at this ? 
 
 " Because you intend by this the brethren of the 
 baptized way ? " 
 
 Ans. If they be vain men, and set up their own order, 
 how strait soever they make it, they are worthy to be 
 reproved. " If they have rejected the word of the Lord, 
 what wisdom is in them?" And as you suggest the 
 first, I affirm the second. But if you would be justified 
 c 2 
 
36 
 
 in excluding those with whom yet you see God hath 
 communion, because they yet see not a shadow with you, 
 produce the scripture for such order, that we may believe 
 it is the order of God : but deal fairly, lest we shew your 
 nakedness, and others see your shame. 
 
 You tell me of the order of the Colossians, chap. ii. 5. 
 But if you can prove that that church refused to hold 
 communion with that saint whom they knew to be 
 received by Christ, and held communion with him ; or 
 that none but those that are baptized, are received by, and 
 hold communion with him ; then you justify your order. 
 In the mean while, the whole of my argument stands firm 
 against you : " You must have communion with visible 
 saints, because God hath communion with them, whose 
 example in the case we are strictly commanded to 
 follow." 
 
 As to the peace you make an objection about, p. 23, 
 you have granted me what I intended : and now I add 
 further, that for church-peace to be founded in baptism, 
 or any other external rite, not having to do with the 
 church as a church, is pure peace indeed. Church-peace 
 is founded in blood, and love to each other for Jesus' s 
 sake ; bearing with, and forbearing one another, in all 
 things circumstantial, that concern not church-worship 
 as such. And in my other I have proved that baptism is 
 not such, and therefore ought not to be urged, to make 
 rents and divisions among brethren. 
 
 My fifth argument is, "That a failure in such a 
 circumstance as water-baptism, doth not unchristian us : " 
 This you are compelled to grant, p. 25. And I conclude 
 with your words, persons ought to be Christians, before 
 
37 
 
 visible Christians, such as any congregation in the land 
 may receive to communion with themselves, because God 
 hath shewed us that he has received them : Receive him 
 to the glory of God. To the glory of God is put in on 
 purpose, to shew what dishonour they bring to him, who 
 despise to have communion with such whom they know 
 do maintain communion with God. I say again, How 
 doth this man, or that church, glorify God, or count 
 the wisdom and holiness of heaven beyond them, when 
 they refuse communion with them, concerning whom yet 
 they are convinced that they have communion with God ? 
 
 But my argument you have not denied, nor meddled 
 with the conclusion at all ; which is, " That therefore, 
 even because a failure here doth not unchristian us, doth 
 not make us insincere, and I add, doth not lay us open to 
 any revealed judgment or displeasure of God, (if it doth 
 shew where) ; therefore it should not, it ought not to 
 make us obnoxious to the displeasure of the church of 
 God." 
 
 But you say, "I rank gospel-precepts with Old- 
 Testament abrogated ceremonies," p. 25. 
 
 Ans. You should have given your reader my words, 
 that he might have judged from my own mouth. I said 
 then, (speaking before of Christianity itself, p. 94,) 
 " That thousands of thousands that could not consent to 
 water, as we, are now with the innumerable company of 
 angels, and the spirits of just men made perfect." What 
 was said of eating, or the contrary, may as to this be 
 said of water -baptism : Neither if I be baptized am I the 
 better, neither if I be not am I the worse ; not the better, 
 before God, not the worse before men : still meaning 
 
38 
 
 as Paul, provided I walk according to my light with 
 God. Otherwise it is false : for if a man that seeth it to 
 be his duty, shall despisingly neglect it, or if he that 
 hath not faith about it shall foolishly take it up, both 
 these are for this the worse ; I mean as to their own sense, 
 being convicted in themselves as transgressors. He 
 therefore that doeth according to this light, doth well ; 
 and he that doeth it not, for want of light, doth not ill : 
 for he approveth his heart to be sincere with God, even 
 by that his forbearance. A.nd I tell you again, it is 
 nowhere recorded, that this man is under any revealed 
 threatening of God, for his not being baptized with water, 
 he not having light therein, but is admitted through his 
 grace to as many promises as you. If therefore he be not 
 a partaker of that circumstance, yet he is of that liberty 
 and mercy by which you stand with God. 
 
 But that I practise instituted worship upon the same 
 account as Paul did circumcision, and shaving, is too bold 
 for you to presume to imagine. What ! because I will 
 not suffer water to carry away the epistles from the 
 Christians ; and because I will not let water-baptism be 
 the rule, the door, the bolt, the bar, the wall of division 
 between the righteous and the righteous ; must I therefore 
 be judged to be a man without conscience to the worship 
 of Jesus Christ ? the Lord deliver me from superstitious 
 and idolatrous thoughts about any of the ordinances of 
 Christ and of God. But my fifth argument standeth 
 against you untouched ; you have not denied, much less 
 confuted, the least syllable thereof. 
 
 You tell me my sixth argument is, " Edification." 
 Ans. If it be, why is it not embraced ? But my own 
 
39 
 
 words are these : "I am for holding communion thus, 
 because the edification of souls in the faith and holiness 
 of the gospel, is of greater concern than an agreement in 
 outward things ; I say, it is of greater concern with us, 
 and of far more profit to our brother, than our agreeing 
 in, or contesting for water-baptism ; John xvi. 13 ; 1 Cor. 
 xiv. 12; 1 Cor. xiii. 1, 2. Chap. viii. 1." Now, why 
 did you not take this argument in pieces, and answer 
 those scriptures, on which the strength thereof depends ? 
 But if to contest, and fall out about water-baptism, be 
 better than to edify the house of God, produce the texts 
 that we may be informed. 
 
 You say, " Edification is the end of all communion, 
 but all things must be done in order, orderly ; " p. 26. 
 
 Ans. When you have proved that there is no such 
 thing as an orderly edifying of the church, without water- 
 baptism precede, then it will be time enough to think you 
 have said something. 
 
 You add, " Edification as to church -fellowship being 
 a building up, doth suppose the being of a church ; 
 but pray you shew us a church without baptism ; " 
 p. 26. 
 
 Ans. See here the spirit of these men, who, for the 
 want of water-baptism, have at once unchurched all such 
 congregations of God in the world. But against this I 
 have, and do urge, That water-baptism giveth neither 
 being nor well-being to a church ; neither is any part of 
 that instituted worship of God, that the church, as such, 
 should be found in the practice of. Therefore her 
 edification as a church may, yea, ought to be attained 
 unto, without it. 
 
40 
 
 But you say, " Shew us a New-Testament church 
 without baptism." p. 26. 
 
 Ans. What say you to the church all along the 
 Revelation, quite through the reign of antichrist ? Was 
 that a New-Testament church or no ? 
 
 But you find fault because I said, " Edification is 
 greater than contesting about water-baptism." p. 27. 
 
 Ans. If it be not, confute me ; if it be, forbear to 
 cavil. Water-baptism, and all God's ordinances, are to be 
 used to edification, not to beget heats and contentions 
 among the godly, wherefore edification is best. 
 
 Object. I had thought that the preaching and 
 opening baptism, might have been reckoned a part of our 
 edification. 
 
 Ans. The act of water-baptism hath not place in 
 church-worship, neither in whole, nor in part ; wherefore, 
 pressing it upon the church, is to no purpose at all. 
 
 Object. " Why may you not as well say, that 
 edification is greater than breaking of bread ?" p. 27. 
 
 Ans. So it is ; else that should never have been 
 instituted to edify withal. That which serveth is not 
 greater than he that is served thereby. Baptism and the 
 Lord's Supper both were made for us, not we for them ; 
 wherefore both were made for our edification, but no one 
 for our destruction. 
 
 But, again, the Lord's-supper, not baptism, is for the 
 church, as a church ; therefore, as we will maintain the 
 church's edifying, that must be maintained in it ; yea, 
 used oft to shew the Lord's death till he come. 1 Cor. 
 xi. 22—26. 
 
 Besides, because it is a £reat part of church-worship, 
 
41 
 
 as such, therefore it is pronounced blessed ; the Lord did 
 openly bless it before he gave it ; yea, and we ought to 
 bless it also ; The cup of blessing which we bless. Not to 
 say more, therefore, your reasoning from one to the other 
 will not hold. 
 
 Object. " How comes contesting for water-baptism to 
 be so much against you ? " 
 
 Ans. First. Because weak brethren cannot bear it ; 
 whom yet we are commanded to receive, but not to 
 doubtful disputation ; doubtful to them ; therefore for 
 their sakes, I must forbear it. Rom. xiv. 1. 
 
 Secondly, Because I have not seen any good effect ; 
 but the contrary wherever such hot spirits have gone 
 before me : For where envy and strife is there is 
 confusion, (or tumults) and every evil work. James hi. 
 16, 17. 
 
 Thirdly, Because by the example of the Lord, and 
 Paul, we must consider the present state of the church, 
 and not trouble them with what they cannot bear, John 
 xvi. 13. 1 Cor. hi. 1—3. 
 
 I conclude, then, Edification in the church is to be 
 preferred above what the church, as a church, hath 
 nothing to do withal. All things, dearly beloved, are for 
 our edifying. 1 Cor. xiv. 5 ; xii. 26. 2 Cor. xii. 19. 
 Eph. iv. 26. Rom. xv. 2. 1 Cor. xiv'. 3. 2 Cor. x. 8 ; 
 xiii. 10. Rom. xiv. 19. 
 
 Before I wind up this argument, I present you with 
 several instances, shewing, that the breach of some of 
 God's precepts have been borne with, when they came in 
 competition with edification. As, first, that of Aaron, 
 who let the offering for sin be burnt, that should indeed 
 
42 
 
 have been eaten ; Lev. x. ; yet, because he could not do 
 it to his edification, Moses was content. But the law 
 was thereby transgressed : Lev. vi. 26. The priest 
 that offer eth it for sin, shall eat it. 
 
 To this you reply, " That was not a constant continued 
 forbearing of God's worship, but a suspending of it for a 
 season." 
 
 Ans. We also suspend it but for a season : when 
 persons can be baptized to their edification, they have the 
 liberty. 
 
 But, secondly, This was not a bare suspension, but a 
 flat transgression of the law. Ye should indeed have 
 eaten it. Yet Moses was content; Lev. x. 16 — 20. 
 
 But say you, " Perhaps it was suspended upon just 
 and legal grounds, though not expressed." 
 
 Ans. The express rule was against it : Ye should 
 indeed, saith Moses, have eaten it in the holy place, as I 
 commanded; Lev. x. 18. But, good Sir, are you now 
 for unwritten verities ? for legal grounds, though not 
 expressed ? I will not drive you further ; here is room 
 enough. 
 
 As for Eldad and Medad, it cannot be denied, but 
 that their edifying of the people was preferred before 
 their conforming to every circumstance; Num. xi. 16 — 26. 
 
 You add, " Tnat Paul, for a seeming low thing, did 
 withstand Peter." 
 
 Sir, If you make but a seeming low thing of 
 dissembling, and teaching others so to do, especially 
 where the doctrine of justification is endangered, I cannot 
 expect much good conscience from you. 
 
 We come now to my seventh argument, for communion 
 
43 
 
 with the godly, though unbaptizcd persons ; which you 
 say is love, p. 29. 
 
 My argument is this ; " Therefore I am for communion 
 thus ; because love, which above all things we are 
 commanded to put on, is of much more worth than to 
 break about baptism." And let the reader note, that of 
 this argument you deny not so much as one syllable, but 
 run to another story ; but I will follow you. 
 
 I add further, That love is more discovered when we 
 receive for the sake of Christ, than when we refuse his 
 children for want of water : and tell you again, that this 
 exhortation to love is grounded not upon baptism, but the 
 putting on of the new creature, which hath swallowed 
 up all distinctions. Col. iii. 9 — 14. Yea, there are ten 
 arguments in this one, which you have not so much as 
 touched : but thus object, " That man that makes affection 
 the rule of his walking, rather than judgment, it is no 
 wonder if he go out of the way." 
 
 Ans. Love to them we are persuaded that God hath 
 received, is love that is guided by judgment ; and to 
 receive them that are such, because God hath bidden us, 
 (Rom. xiv.) is judgment guided by rule. My argument 
 therefore hath forestalled all your noise, and standeth 
 still on its legs against you. 
 
 But you object, " Must our love to the unbaptized 
 indulge them in an act of disobedience ? Cannot we 
 love their persons, parts, graces, but we must love their 
 sins ? " p. 30. 
 
 Ans. We plead not for indulging. But are there not 
 with you, even with you, sins against the Lord your God ? 
 2 Chron. xxviii. 10. But why can you indulge the 
 
44 
 
 Baptists in any acts of disobedience? for to come 
 unprepared into the church, is an act of disobedience ; to 
 come unprepared to the supper is an act of disobedience ; 
 and to come so also to other solemn appointments, are 
 acts of disobedience. 
 
 " But for these things," you say, " you do not cast, 
 nor keep any out of the church." 
 
 Ans. But what acts of disobedience do we indulge 
 them in ? 
 
 " In the sin of infant-baptism." 
 
 Ans. We indulge them not ; but being commanded to 
 bear with the infirmities of each other, suffer it ; it being 
 indeed in our eyes such : but in theirs they say a duty, 
 till God shall otherwise persuade them. If you be 
 without infirmity, do you first throw a stone at them : 
 they keep their faith in that to themselves, and trouble 
 not their brethren therewith : we believe that God hath 
 received them ; they do not want to us a proof of their 
 sonship with God ; neither hath he made water a wall of 
 division between us, and therefore do we receive them. 
 
 Object. " I take it to be the highest act of friendship 
 to be faithful to these professors, and to tell them they 
 want this one thing in gospel- order, which ought not to 
 be left undone." p. 30. 
 
 Ans. If it be the highest piece of friendship to preach 
 water-baptism to unbaptized believers, the lowest act 
 thereof must needs be very low. But contrary-wise, I 
 count it so far off from being any act of friendship, to 
 press baptism in our notion on those that cannot bear it ; 
 that it is a great abuse of the peace of my brother, the 
 law of love, the law of Christ, or the society of the 
 
45 
 
 faithful. Love suffereth long, and is kind, is not easily 
 provoked ; let us therefore follow after things that make 
 for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another : 
 let every one of us please his neighbour for his good to 
 edification : bear you one another's burdens and so fulfil 
 the law of Christ. 1 Cor. xiii. Rom. xiv. 19, and xv. 2. 
 Gal. vi. 2. 
 
 But say you, " I doubt when this comes to be weighed 
 in God's balance, it will be found no less than flattery, 
 for which you will be reproved." p. 31. 
 
 Ans. It seems you do but doubt it, wherefore the 
 principles from which you doubt it, of that methinks you 
 should not be certain ; but this is of little weight to me ; 
 for he that will presume to appropriate the epistles to 
 himself and fellows for the sake of baptism, and that will 
 condemn all the churches of Christ in the land for want 
 of baptism, and that will account his brother as profane 
 Esau, (p. 20.) and rejected, as idolatrous Ephraim, (p. 32.) 
 because he wanteth his way of water-baptism ; he acts 
 out of his wonted way of rigidness, when he doth but 
 doubt, and not affirm his brother to be a flatterer. I 
 leave therefore this your doubt to be resolved at the day of 
 judgment, and in the meantime trample upon your harsh 
 and unchristian surmises. 
 
 My argument treateth of church-communion ; in the 
 prosecution of which I prove, 
 
 1. That love is grounded upon the new creature, Col. 
 iii. 9, &c. 
 
 2. Upon our fellowship with the Father and Son. 
 1 John i. 2, 3. 
 
 3. That with respect to this, it is the fulfilling of the 
 royal law, James iv. 11. Rom. xiv. 21. 
 
46 
 
 4. That it shews itself in acts of forbearing, rather 
 than in publishing some truths ; communicating only what 
 is profitable, forbearing to publish what cannot be borne. 
 1 Cor. iii. 1, 2. Acts xx. 18—20. John xvi. 17. 
 
 5. I shew further, That to have fellowship for, to 
 make that the ground of, or to receive one another chiefly 
 upon the account of an outward circumstance ; to make 
 baptism the including and excluding charter ; the bounds, 
 bar, and rule of communion, when by the word of the 
 everlasting Testament, there is no word for it ; (to speak 
 charitably,) if it be not for want of love, it is for want of 
 light in the mysteries of the kingdom of Christ. Strange ! 
 Take two Christians equal in all points but this ; nay, let 
 one go beyond the other in grace and goodness, as far 
 as a man is beyond a babe, yet water shall turn the 
 scale, shall open the door of communion to the less, and 
 command the other to stand back ; yet is no proof to the 
 church of this babe's faith and hope ; hath nothing to do 
 with his entering into fellowship ; is no part of the worship 
 of the church. These things should have been answered, 
 seeing you will take upon you so roundly to condemn our 
 practice. 
 
 You come now to my eighth argument, which you do 
 not only render falsely, but by so doing abuse your reader. 
 I said not that the Church at Corinth did shut each other 
 out of communion, but, for God's people to divide into 
 parties, or to shut each other from church-communion, 
 though for greater points, and upon higher pretences, 
 than that of water-baptism, hath heretofore been counted 
 carnal, and the actors therein babish Christians : and then 
 bring in the factions that were in the church at Corinth. 
 
47 
 
 But what ? may not the evil of denying church- communion 
 now, if proved naught by a less crime in the church at 
 Corinth, be counted carnal and babish, but the breach of 
 communion must be charged upon them at Corinth also 1 
 
 That my argument is good you grant, p. 32, saying, 
 " The divisions of the church at Corinth were about the 
 highest fundamental principles, for which they are often 
 called carnal ; " yet you cavil at it. But if they were to 
 be blamed for dividing, though for the highest points ; 
 are not you much more for condemning your brethren to 
 perpetual banishment from church-communion, though 
 sound in all the great points of the gospel, and right in 
 all church-ordinances also, because for want of light they 
 fail only in the point of baptism ? 
 
 As to your quibble about Paul and Apollos, whether 
 they, or others, were the persons, (though I am satisfied 
 you are out,) yet it weakeneth not my argument ; for if 
 they were blameworthy for dividing, though about the 
 highest fundamental principles (as you say), how ought 
 you to blush for carrying it as you do to persons, perhaps 
 more godly than yourselves, because they judge not with 
 you in a circumstance ? 
 
 That the divisions at Corinth were helped on by the 
 abuse of baptism, to me is evident, from Paul's so oft- 
 suggesting it : Were you baptized in the name of Paul ? I 
 thank God I baptized none of you, lest any should say, I 
 had baptized in my own name. 
 
 I do not say, that they who baptized them designed 
 this, or that baptism in itself effected it ; nor yet (though 
 our author feigns it,) " that they were most of them 
 baptized by their factious leaders." p. 55. But that they 
 
48 
 
 had their factious leaders, is evident ; and that these 
 leaders made use of the names of Paul, Apollos, and 
 Christ, is as evident ; for by these names they were 
 beguiled by the help of abused baptism. 
 
 But say you, " Wherein lies the force of this man's 
 argument against baptism as to its place, worth, and 
 continuance ?" 
 
 I answer, I have no argument as to its place, worth, or 
 continuance, although you seek thus to scandalize me. 
 But this kind of sincerity of yours, will never make me 
 one of your disciples. 
 
 Have not I told you even in this argument, "That I 
 speak not as I do to persuade or teach men to break the 
 least of God's commandments ; but that my brethren of 
 the baptized way may not hold too much thereupon, may 
 not make it an essential of the gospel, nor yet of the 
 communion of saints." Yet he feigns that I urge two 
 arguments against it, p. 36, and 38. But, reader, thou 
 may est know I have no such reason in my book. Besides, 
 I should be a fool indeed, were I against it, should I 
 make use of such weak arguments. My words then are 
 these : 
 
 I thank God, saith Paul, that I baptized none of you 
 but Crispus, fyc. Not but that then it was an ordinance, 
 but they abused it in making parties thereby, as they 
 abused also Paul and Cephas. Besides, said he, I know 
 not whether I baptized any other. By this negligent 
 relating who were baptized by him, he showeth that he 
 made no such matter thereof, as some in these days do. 
 Nay, that he made no matter at all thereof with respect 
 to a church-communion. For if he did not heed who 
 
49 
 
 himself had haptized, much less did he heed who wen- 
 baptized by others. But if baptism had been the initiating 
 ordinance, (and I now add) essential to church-communion ; 
 then no doubt he had made more conscience of it, than 
 thus lightly to pass it by." 
 
 I know your reply, " New-Testament saints are all 
 baptized first." 
 
 Ans. Suppose it granted; Were they baptized, that 
 thereby they might be qualified for their right to 
 communion of saints, so that without their submitting to 
 water, they were to be denied the other? Further, 
 suppose I should grant this groundless notion, Were not 
 the Jews in Old-Testament times to enter the church by 
 circumcision ? For that, — though water is not, — was the 
 very entering-ordinance. Besides, as I said before, there 
 was a full forbidding of all that were not circumcised from 
 entering into fellowship, with a threatening to cut them 
 off from the church if they entered in without it : Yet 
 more than six hundred thousand entered that church 
 without it. But how now, if such an one as you had 
 then stood up and objected, Sir Moses, What is the reason 
 that you transgress the order of God, to receive members 
 without circumcision ? Is not that the very entering- 
 ordinance ? Are not you commanded to keep out of the 
 church all that are not circumcised ? Yea, and for all 
 those that you thus receive, are you not commanded to 
 cast them out again, to cut them off from among this 
 people? Gen. xvii. 13, 14. Exod. xii. 24 — 26. 
 
 I say, Would not this man have had a far better 
 argument to have resisted Moses, than you in your 
 wordless notion have to shut out men from the church, 
 
 D 
 
50 
 
 more holy than many of ourselves ? But do you think 
 that Moses and Joshua, and all the elders of Israel, would 
 have thanked this fellow, or have concluded that he spake 
 on God's behalf? Or, that they should then, for the 
 sake of a better than what you call order, have set to the 
 work that you would be doing, even to break the church 
 in pieces for this ? 
 
 But, say you, " If any will find or force another way 
 into the sheepfold, than by the footsteps of the flock, we 
 have no such custom, nor the churches of God," p. 41. 
 
 Ans. What was done of old, I have shewed you, that 
 Christ, not baptism, " is the way to the sheepfold," is 
 apparent : And that the person, in mine argument, is 
 entitled to all these, vis. Christ, grace, and all the 
 things of the kingdom of Christ in the church, upon 
 the scriptures urged, is evident. 
 
 But you add, " That according to mine old confidence, 
 I affirm, That drink ye all of this, is entailed to faith, 
 not baptism : A thing, say you, soon said, but yet never 
 proved." 
 
 Ans. That it is entailed to faith, must be confessed 
 of all hands. 2. That it is the privilege of him that 
 discerneth the Lord's body and that no man is to deny 
 him it, is also by the text as evident, (and so let him 
 eat) because he is worthy. Wherefore he, and he only 
 that discerneth the Lord's body, he is the worthy receiver, 
 in God's estimation ; but that none discerneth the Lord's 
 body but the baptized, is both fond and ridiculous once 
 to surmise. 
 
 Wherefore to exclude Christians, and to debar them 
 their heaven -born privileges, for want of that which yet 
 
51 
 
 God never made a wall of division betwixt us : this 
 looks too like a spirit of persecution, (Job xix. 25 — 28, 
 &c.) and carrieth in it those eighteen absurdities which 
 you have so hotly cried out against. And I do still add, 
 " Is it not that which greatly prevaileth with God to 
 bring down those judgments, which at present we (the 
 people of God) groan under ; I will dare to say it was a 
 cause thereof : " Yea, I will yet proceed ; I fear, I 
 strongly fear, that the rod of God is not yet to be taken 
 from us : for what more provoking sin among Christians, 
 than to deny one another their rights and privileges to 
 which they are born of God 1 And then to father these 
 their doings upon God, when yet he hath not commanded 
 it, neither in the New Testament nor the Old. 
 
 But I may not lightly pass this by, for because I have 
 gathered eighteen absurdities from this abuse of God's 
 ordinances, or from the sin of binding the brethren to 
 observe order, not founded on the command of God ; (and 
 I am sure you have none to shut out men as good, as 
 holy, and as sound in faith as ourselves, from communion;) 
 therefore you call my conclusion devilish, (p. 43.) 
 Topfull of ignorance, and prejudice, (p. 41,) and me, one 
 ofMachiaveVs scholars, (p. 42.) also proud, presumptuous, 
 impeaching the judgment of God. 
 
 Ans. But what is there in my proposition, that men, 
 considerate, can be offended at ? These are my words ; 
 " But to exclude Christians from church-communion, and 
 to debar them their heaven-born privileges, for the want 
 of that which yet God never made a wall of division 
 between us : this looks too like a spirit of persecution : 
 this respecteth more the form, than the spirit and power 
 d 2 
 
52 
 
 of godliness, &c. Shall I add, is it not that which greatly 
 prevailed to bring down those judgments which at present 
 we feel and groan under? I will dare to say, it was a 
 cause thereof." (p. 116, 117.) 
 
 But, I say, wherein is the proposition offensive ? Is 
 it not a wicked thing to make bars to communion, where 
 God hath made none ? Is it not a wickedness, to make 
 that a wall of division betwixt us, which God never 
 commanded to be so 1 If it be not, justify your practice ; 
 if it be, take shame. 
 
 To conclude this ; when you have proved that water- 
 baptism (which you yourself have said is not a church- 
 ordinance, p. 40,) is essential to church-communion, and 
 that the church may, by the word of God, bolt, bar, and 
 for ever shut out those, far better than ourselves, that 
 have not, according to our notion, been baptized with 
 water, then it will be time enough, to talk of ground for 
 so doing. In the meantime I must take leave to tell you, 
 there is not in all the Bible one syllable for such a 
 practice, wherefore your great cry about your order is 
 wordless, and therefore faithless, and is a mere human 
 invention. 
 
 I come now to your Fourteen Arguments, and shall 
 impartially consider them. 
 
 Your first argument to prove it lawful to reject the 
 unbaptized saint, is, " Because the great commission of 
 Christ, Matt, xxviii., from which all persons have their 
 authority for their ministry, (if any authority at all) doth 
 clearly direct the contrary. By that commission ministers 
 are first to disciple, and then to baptize them so made 
 
53 
 
 disciples, and afterwards to teach them to observe all that 
 Christ commands them, as to other ordinances of worship. 
 If ministers have no other authority to teach them other 
 parts of gospel- worship, before they believe and are 
 baptized ; it may be strongly supposed, they are not to 
 admit them to other ordinances before they have passed 
 this first enjoined in the commission." 
 
 Ans. 1. That the ministers are to disciple and 
 baptize, is granted. But that they are prohibited (by the 
 commission, Matt, xxviii.) to teach the disciples other 
 parts of gospel-worship, that have not light in baptism, 
 remains for you to prove. Shall I add, this position is so 
 absurd and void of truth, that none who have ever read 
 of the love of Christ, the nature of faith, the end of the 
 gospel, or of the reason of instituted worship, which is 
 edification, with understanding, should so much as once 
 imagine. 
 
 But where are they here forbidden to teach them other 
 truths, before they be baptized ? This text as fairly 
 denieth to the unbaptized believer heaven and glory. 
 Nay, our author in the midst of all his flutter about this 
 xxviiith of Matthew, dare venture to gather no more 
 therefrom, but that it may be strongly supposed. Behold 
 therefore, gentle reader, the ground on which these 
 brethren lay the stress of their separation from their 
 fellows, is nothing else but a supposition, without warrant, 
 screwed out of this blessed word of God. Strongly 
 supposed ! But may it not be as strongly supposed, that 
 the presence and blessing of the Lord Jesus with his 
 ministers, is laid upon the same ground also ? For thus 
 he concludes the text ; And lo ! I am with you always, 
 
54 
 
 even to the end of the world. But would, I say, auy man 
 from these words conclude, that Christ Jesus hath here 
 promised his presence only to them that after discipling, 
 baptize those that are so made ; and that they that do not 
 baptize, shall neither have his presence nor his blessing ? 
 I say again, should any so conclude hence, would not all 
 experience prove him void of truth ? The words therefore 
 must be left by you, as you found them, they favour not 
 at all your groundless supposition. 
 
 To conclude, these words have not laid baptism in the 
 way to debar the saint from fellowship of his brethren, 
 no more than to hinder his inheritance in life and glory. 
 Mark reads it thus : He that belieueth and is baptized, 
 shall be saved ; but he that believeth not shall be damned. 
 Mark xvi. 16. Letting baptism, which he mentioned in 
 the promise, fall, when he came at the threatening. 
 
 God also doth thus with respect to his worship in the 
 church, he commands all and every whit of his will to 
 be done, but beareth with our coming short in this, and 
 that, and the other duty. But let us go on. 
 Your second argument is, 
 
 " That the order of Christ's commission, as well as 
 the matter therein contained to be observed, may easily 
 be concluded, from God's severity towards them that 
 sought him not according to due order. 1 Chron. xv. 13. 
 Was God so exact with his people then, that all things 
 to a pin must be according to the pattern in the mount, 
 Heb. vii. 16, andix. 11, whose worship then comparatively, 
 to the gospel, was but after the law of a carnal command- 
 ment ; and can it be supposed he should be so indifferent 
 now to leave men to their own liberty, to time and place 
 
55 
 
 his appointments, contrary to what he hath given an 
 express rule for in his word as before ? Ezek. xliv. 7, 
 9, 10. It was the Priest's sin formerly to bring the 
 uncircumcised in heart and flesh into his house." 
 
 Ans. That there is no such order in that commission 
 as you feign, I have proved. As for your far-fetched 
 instance (1 Chron. xv.) it is quite besides your purpose. 
 The express word was, that the Priest, not a cart, should 
 bear the ark of God. Also they were not to touch it, 
 and yet Uzza did. Exod. xxv. 14. 1 Chron. xv. 12 — 16. 
 Numb. iv. 15. 1 Chron. xiii. Now if you can make 
 that xxviiith of Matthew say, " Receive none that are not 
 baptized first, or that Christ would have them of his, that 
 are not yet baptized, kept ignorant of all other truths 
 that respect church-communion : then you say something, 
 else you do but raise a mist before the simple reader : 
 but whoso listeth may hang on your sleeve. 
 
 As for the pins and tacks of the tabernacle, they 
 were expressly commanded ; and when you have proved 
 by the word of God, that you ought to shut saints out 
 of your communion for want of baptism, then you may 
 begin more justly to make your parallel. How fitly you 
 have urged Ezek. xliv. to insinuate that unbaptized 
 believers are like the uncircumcised in heart and flesh, I 
 leave it to all gospel-novices to consider. 
 
 Your third argument is, 
 
 " The practice of the first gospel-ministers with them 
 that first trusted in Christ, discovers the truth of what I 
 assert. Certainly, they that lived at the spring-head, or 
 fountain of truth, and had the law of Christ's own mouth, 
 knew the meaning of his commission better than we ; but 
 
56 
 
 their constant practice in conformity to that commission, 
 all along the acts of the apostles, discovers that they never 
 arrived to such a latitude as men plead for now-a-days. 
 They that gladly received the word were baptized, and 
 they, yea, they only, were received into the church." 
 
 Ans. How well you have proved what you have 
 asserted is manifest by my answer to the two former 
 arguments. I add, that the ministers, and servants of 
 Jesus Christ in the first churches (for that you are to 
 prove), were commanded to forbear to preach other truths 
 to the unbaptized believers ; or that they were to keep 
 them out of the church : or that the apostles and first 
 fathers have given you to understand by their example, 
 that you ought to keep as good out of churches as 
 yourselves, hath not yet been shewed by the authority of 
 the word. The second of the Acts proveth not, that the 
 three thousand were necessitated to be baptized in order to 
 their fellowship with the church, neither doth it say they, 
 yea, they only, were received into the church. But 
 suppose all this, as much was done at the first institution 
 of circumcision, &c. yet afterwards thousands were received 
 without it. 
 
 Your fourth argument is, 
 
 " None of the scripture saints ever attempted this 
 church-privilege without baptism, (if they did, let it be 
 shewn.) The Eunuch first desired baptism before any 
 thing else ; Paul was first baptized before he did essay 
 to join with the church. Our Lord Christ, the great 
 example of the New Testament, entered not upon his 
 public ministry, much less any other gospel ordinance of 
 worship, till he was baptized." 
 
57 
 
 Ans. That none of the scripture saints (if there be 
 any un scripture ones) so much as attempted this church- 
 privilege first, remains for you to prove. But suppose 
 they were all baptized, because they had light therein, 
 what then ? Doth this prove that baptism is essential to 
 church-communion ? Or, that Christ commanded in the 
 xxviiith of Matt, or gave his ministers by that authority, 
 not to make known to believers other parts of gospel- 
 worship, if they shall want light in baptism ? The 
 Eunuch, Paul, and our blessed Lord Jesus, did none of 
 them, by their baptism, set themselves to us examples 
 how to enter into church-communion. What church was 
 the Eunuch baptized into, or made a member of; but 
 where is it said, that the unbaptized believer, how excellent 
 soever in faith and holiness, must, for want of water- 
 baptism, be shut out from the communion of saints, or 
 be debarred the privilege of his father's house? This 
 you are to prove. 
 
 Your fifth argument is, 
 
 " If Christ himself was made manifest to be the Sent 
 of God by baptism, as appears, Mark i. 9, 10 ; then 
 why may not baptism, as the first-fruits of faith, and the 
 first step of gospel-obedience, as to instituted worship, 
 be a manifesting, discovering ordinance upon others who 
 thus follow Christ's steps." 
 
 Ans. That Jesus Christ was manifested as the Sent of 
 God by baptism, or that baptism is the first fruit of faith, 
 and the first step of gospel-obedience, as to instituted 
 worship, is both without proof and truth ; the text saith 
 not, he'was manifest to be the Sent of God by baptism ; 
 nay, it saith not, that by that he was manifest to others 
 
58 
 
 to be any thing : you have therefore but wronged the text 
 to prove your wordless practice by. Yea, John himself, 
 though he knew him before he was baptized, to be a man 
 of God ; for, saith he, I have need to be baptized of thee, 
 and contest thou to me, and knew him after to be the Sent 
 of God; yet not in, or by, but after he was baptized, viz. 
 by the descending of the Holy Ghost, after he was come 
 out of the water, as he was in prayer ; for the heavens 
 were opened to John, and he saw, and bare record, 
 because he saw the Spirit descend from heaven, and abide 
 upon Jesus, after his baptism, as he was in prayer. Matt, 
 iii. 13—17. Lukeiii. 21, 22. Thus we find him made 
 known before, and after, but not at all by baptism, to be 
 the Sent of God. 
 
 And that baptism is the fruits of faith, or that faith 
 ought to be tied to take its first step in water-baptism, in 
 the instituted worship of God (this you must prove), is 
 not found expressed within the whole Bible. Faith acts 
 according to its strength, and as it sees, it is not tied or 
 bound to any outward circumstance ; one believeth he 
 may, and another believeth he may not, either do this or 
 that. 
 
 Your sixth argument is, 
 
 " If baptism be in any sense any part of the foundation 
 of a church, as to order, Heb. vi. 1, 2. it must have 
 place here or no where : why are those things called first 
 principles, if not first to be believed, and practised? 
 Why are they rendered by the learned the A, B, C, of a 
 Christian, and the beginning of Christianity, milk for 
 babes, if it be no matter whether baptism be practised or 
 no ? If it be said water-baptism is not there intended, 
 
59 
 
 let them shew me how many baptisms there are besides 
 water-baptism. Can you build and leave ont a stone in 
 the foundation ? I intend not baptism a foundation any 
 other way, but in respect of order, and it is either intended 
 for that or nothing." 
 
 Ans. Baptism is in no sense the foundation of a 
 church. I find no foundation of a church, but Jesus 
 Christ himself. Matt. xvi. 18. 1 Cor. iii. 11. Yea, the 
 foundation mentioned, Heb. vi. 1, 2. is nothing else but 
 this very Christ. For he is the foundation, not only of 
 the church, but of all that good that at any time is found 
 in her. He is the foundation of our repentance, and of 
 our faith towards God, verses 1,2. Further, Baptisms 
 are not here mentioned with respect to the act in water, 
 but of the doctrine, that is, the signification thereof: the 
 doctrine of baptisms. And observe, neither faith, nor 
 repentance, nor baptisms, are called here foundations. 
 Another thing for a foundation, is here by the Holy Ghost 
 intended, even a foundation for them all ; a foundation of 
 faith, of repentance, of the doctrine of baptisms, of the 
 resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. And 
 this foundation is Jesus Christ himself, and these are the 
 first principles, the milk, the A, B, C, and the beginning 
 of Christian religion in the world. 
 
 I dare not say, No matter whether water-baptism be 
 practised or no. But it is not a stone in the foundation 
 of a church, no not respecting order ; it is not to another, 
 a sign of my sonship with God ; it is not the door into 
 fellowship with the saints ; it is no church-ordinance, as 
 you yourself have testified, p. 40. So then as to church- 
 work, it hath no place at all therein. 
 
60 
 
 Your seventh argument is, 
 
 " If Paul knew the Galatians only upon the account of 
 charity, no other ways to be the sons of God by faith, 
 but by this part of their obedience, as he seems to import, 
 then the same we may judge of the truth of men's 
 profession of faith, when it shews itself by this self-same 
 obedience. Gal. iii. 26, 27. Baptism being an obligation 
 to all following duties." 
 
 Ans. This your argument, being builded upon no more 
 than a seeming import, and having been above ten times 
 overthrown already, I might leave still with you, till your 
 seeming import is come to a real one, and both to a 
 greater persuasion upon your own conscience. But verily 
 Sir, you grossly abuse your reader. Must imports, yea, 
 must seeming imports now stand for arguments, thereby 
 to maintain your confident separation from your brethren ? 
 Yea, must such things as these, be the basis on which you 
 build those heavy censures and condemnations you raise 
 against your brethren, that cannot comply with you, 
 because you want the word ? A seeming import. But 
 are these words of faith ? or do the scriptures only help 
 you to seeming imports, and me-hap-soes for your 
 practice ? No, nor yet to them neither, for I dare boldly 
 affirm it, and demand if you can, to prove, that there is 
 so much as a seeming import in all the word of God, that 
 countenanceth your shutting men, better than ourselves, 
 from the things and privileges of our father's house. 
 
 That to the Galatians, saith not, that Paul knew them 
 to be the sons of God by faith, no other way, but by this 
 part of their obedience ; but puts them upon concluding 
 themselves the sons of God, if they were baptized into 
 
61 
 
 the Lord Jesus, which could not (ordinarily) be known 
 but unto themselves alone : because, being thus baptized, 
 respecting a special act of faith, which only God, and 
 him that hath, and. acteth it, can be privy to. It is one 
 thing for him that administereth, to baptize in the name 
 of Jesus, another thing for him that is the subject, by 
 that to be baptized into Jesus Christ. Baptizing into 
 Christ, is rather the act of the faith of him that is 
 baptized, than his going into water and coming out again : 
 but that Paul knew this to be the state of the Galatians 
 no other way, but by their external act of being baptized 
 with water, is both wild, and unsound, and a miserable 
 import indeed. 
 
 Your eighth argument is, 
 
 " If being baptized into Christ, be a putting on of 
 Christ, as Paul expresses, then they have not put on 
 Christ in that sense he means, that are not baptized ; if 
 this putting on of Christ, doth not respect the visibility 
 of Christianity ; assign something else as its signification ; 
 great men's servants are known by their master's liveries, 
 so are gospel-believers by this livery of water-baptism, 
 that all that first trusted in Christ submitted unto, which 
 is in itself as much an obligation to all gospel-obedience, 
 as circumcision was to keep the whole law." 
 
 Ans. For a reply to the first part of this argument, go 
 back to the answer to the seventh. 
 
 Now that none have put on Christ in Paul's sense ; 
 yea, in a saving, in the best sense, but them that have, as 
 you would have them, gone into water, will be hard for 
 you to prove, yea, is ungodly for you to assert. 
 
 Your comparing water-baptism to a gentleman's livery, 
 by which his man is known to be his, is fantastical. 
 
62 
 
 Go you but ten doors from where men have knowledge 
 of you, and see how many of the world, or Christians, 
 will know you by this goodly livery, to be one that hath 
 put on Christ. What ! known by water-baptism to be 
 one that hath put on Christ, as a gentleman's man is 
 known to be his master's servant, by the gay garment his 
 master gave him. Away fond man, you do quite forget 
 the text. By this shall all men know that you are my 
 disciples if you love one another. John xiii. 35. 
 
 That baptism is in itself obliging, to speak properly, it 
 is false, for set it by itself, and it stands without the stamp 
 of heaven upon it, and without its signification also : and 
 how, as such, it should be obliging, I see not. 
 
 Where you insinuate, it comes in the room of, and 
 obligeth as circumcision : You say, you know not what. 
 Circumcision was the initiating ordinance, but this you 
 have denied to baptism. Further, circumcision then 
 bound men to the whole obedience of the law, when 
 urged by the false apostles, and received by an erroneous 
 conscience. Would you thus urge water-baptism ! Would 
 you have men to receive it with such consciences ? 
 Circumcision in the flesh, was a type of circumcision in 
 the heart, and not of water-baptism. 
 
 Your ninth argument is, 
 
 " If it were commendable in the Thessalonians, that 
 they followed the footsteps of the church of Judea, 
 1 Thess. ii. 24. who it appears followed this order of 
 adding baptized believers unto the church ; then they that 
 have found out another way of making church- members, 
 are not by that rule praiseworthy, but rather to be blamed ; 
 it was not what was since in corrupted times, but that 
 
63 
 
 which was from the beginning : the first churches were 
 the purest pattern." 
 
 Ans. That the text saith there was a church of Judea, 
 I find not, (1 Thess. ii. 14.) And that the Thessalonians 
 are commended for refusing to have communion with the 
 unbaptized believers (for that is our question), prove it 
 by the word, and then you do something. Again, that 
 the commendations (1 Thes. ii. 14) do chiefly, or at all, 
 respect their being baptized : or, because they followed 
 the churches of God, which in Judea were in Christ Jesus, 
 in the example of water-baptism is quite beside the word. 
 The verse runs thus : For the brethren, became followers 
 of the churches of God, which in Judea are in Christ 
 Jesus, for ye also who have suffered like things of your 
 own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews, fyc. This 
 text then commends them, not for that they were baptized 
 with water, but, for that they stood their ground although 
 baptized with suffering, like them in Judea, for the name 
 of the Lord Jesus, For suffering like things of their own 
 countrymen, as they did of the Jews. Will you not leave 
 off to abuse the word of God, and forbear turning it out 
 of its place, to maintain your unchristian practice of 
 rejecting the people of God, and excluding them their 
 blessed privileges ? 
 
 The unbaptized believer, instead of taking shame for 
 entering into fellowship without it, will be ready, I doubt, 
 to put you to shame for bringing scriptures so much 
 besides the purpose, and for stretching them so miserably 
 to uphold you in your fancies. 
 
 Your tenth argument is, 
 
 " If so be, that any of the members at Corinth, 
 
64 
 
 Galatia, Colosse, Rome, or them that Peter wrote to, were 
 not baptized, then Paul's arguments for the resurrection 
 to them, or to press them to holiness from that ground 
 (Rom. vi. Col. ii. 1 Cor. xv.) was out of doors, and 
 altogether needless, yea, it bespeaks his ignorance, and 
 throweth contempt upon the Spirit's wisdom, (Heb. vi. 
 1 Pet. iii. 12,) by which he wrote; if that must be 
 asserted as a ground to provoke them to such an end, 
 which had no being ; and if all the members of all those 
 churches were baptized, why should any plead for an 
 exemption from baptism, for any such member now ? 
 
 Ans. Suppose all, if all these churches were baptized, 
 what then? that answereth not our question. We ask 
 where you find it written, that those that are baptized, 
 should keep men as holy, and as much beloved of the 
 Lord Jesus as themselves, out of church-communion, for 
 want of light in water-baptism. 
 
 "Why we plead for their admission, though they see 
 not yet, that that is their duty, is because we are not 
 forbidden, but commanded to receive them, because God 
 and Christ hath done it, Rom. xiv. 15. 
 
 Your eleventh argument is, 
 
 " I f unbaptized persons must be received into churches 
 only, because they are believers, though they deny 
 baptism ; then why may not others plead for the like 
 privilege, that are negligent in any other gospel-ordinance 
 of worship, from the same ground of want of light let it 
 be what it will. So then as the consequence of this 
 principle, churches may be made up of visible sinners, 
 instead of visible saints." 
 
 Ans. I plead not for believers simply because they are 
 
65 
 
 believers, but for such believers of whom we are persuaded 
 by the word, that God hath received them. 
 
 2. There are some of the ordinances, that be they 
 neglected, the being of a church, as to her visible gospel 
 constitution, is taken quite away ; but baptism is none of 
 them, it being no church-ordinance as such, nor any part 
 of faith, nor of that holiness of heart, or life, that 
 sheweth me to the church to be indeed a visible saint. 
 The saint is a saint before, and may walk with God, and 
 be faithful with the saints, and to his own light also, 
 though he never be baptized. Therefore to plead for his 
 admission, makes no way at all for the admission of 
 the open profane, or to receive, as you profess you do, 
 persons unprepared to the Lord's table, and other solemn 
 appointments, p. 29. 
 
 Your twelfth argument is, 
 
 " Why should professors have more light in breaking 
 of bread, than baptism ? that this must be so urged for 
 their excuse. Hath God been more sparing in making 
 out his mind in the one, rather than the other ? Are there 
 more precepts or precedents for the supper, than baptism ? 
 Hath God been so bountiful in making out himself about 
 the supper, that few or none that own ordinances scruple 
 it? And must baptism be such a rock of offence to 
 professors, that few will inquire after it, or submit to it 1 
 Hath not man's wisdom interposed to darken this part of 
 God's counsel ? By which professors seem willingly led 
 though against so many plain commands and examples, 
 written as with a sunbeam, that he that runs may read. 
 And must an advocate be entertained to plead for so gross 
 
66 
 
 a piece of ignorance, that the meanest babes of the first 
 gospel-times were never guilty of? " 
 Ans. Many words to little purpose. 
 
 1 . Must God be called to an account by you, why he 
 giveth more light about the supper than baptism ? May 
 he not shew to, or conceal from this, or any other of his 
 servants, which of his truths he pleaseth ? Some of the 
 members of Jerusalem had a greater truth than this kept 
 from them, for ought I know, as long as they lived, (Acts 
 xi. 19,) yet God was not called in question about it. 
 
 2. Breaking of bread, not baptism, being a church- 
 ordinance, and that such also as must be often reiterated ; 
 yea, it being an ordinance so full of blessedness, as lively 
 to present union and communion with Christ to all the 
 members that worthily eat thereof; I say, the Lord's 
 supper being such, that while the members sit at that 
 feast, they shew to each other the death and blood of the 
 Lord, as they ought to do, till he comes, (1 Cor. x. 15 — 
 17, and xi. 22 — 26,) the church as a church, is much 
 more concerned in that, than in water-baptism, both 
 as to her faith and comfort ; both as to her union and 
 communion. 
 
 3. Your supposition, That very few professors will 
 seriously inquire after water-baptism, is too rude. What, 
 must all the children of God, that are not baptized for 
 want of light, be still stigmatized with want of serious 
 inquiry after God's mind in it ? 
 
 4. That I am an advocate, entertained to plead for so 
 gross a piece of ignorance, as want of light in baptism, 
 is but like the rest of your jumbling. I plead for 
 communion with men, godly and faithful ; I plead that 
 
67 
 
 they may be received, that God hath shewed us he hath 
 received, and commanded we should receive them. 
 
 Your thirteenth argument is, 
 
 " If obedience must discover the truth of a man's 
 faith to others, why must baptism be shut out ? as if it 
 was no part of gospel obedience. Is there no precept for 
 this practice, that it must be thus despised, as a matter of 
 little use ? Or shall one of Christ's precious commands 
 be blotted out of a Christian's obedience, to make way for 
 a church fellowship of man's devising ? " 
 
 Ans. 1. This is but round, round, the same thing 
 over and over. That my obedience to water, is not a 
 discovery of my faith to others, is evident ; from the body 
 of the Bible we find nothing that affirms it. 
 
 And I will now add, that if a man cannot shew 
 himself a Christian without water-baptism, " He shall 
 never shew either saint or sinner, that he is a Christian 
 by it." 
 
 2. Who they are that despise it, I know not ; but that 
 church-membership may be without it (seeing even you 
 yourself have concluded it is no church ordinance, p. 40. 
 not the entering-ordinance, (pp. 3,4.) standeth both with 
 scripture and reason, as mine arguments make manifest. 
 So that all your arguments prove no more than this, 
 " That you are so wedded to your wordless notions, that 
 charity can have no place with you." Have you all this 
 while so much as given me one small piece of a text to 
 prove it unlawful for the church, to receive those whom 
 she, by the word, perceiveth the Lord God and her 
 Christ hath received ? No : and therefore you have said 
 so much as amounts to nothing. 
 e 2 
 
68 
 
 Your last argument is, 
 
 " If the baptism of John was so far honoured and 
 dignified, that they that did submit to it, are said to justify 
 God ; and those that did it not, are said to reject his 
 counsel against themselves : so that their receiving, or 
 rejecting the whole doctrine of God, hath its denomination 
 from this single practice. And is there not as much to 
 be said of the baptism of Christ, unless you will say it is 
 inferior to John's in worth and use." 
 
 Ans. 1. That our denomination of believers, and of 
 our receiving the doctrine of the Lord Jesus, is not to be 
 reckoned from our baptism, is evident ; because according 
 to our notion of it, they only that have before received 
 the doctrine of the gospel, and so shew it us by their 
 confession of faith, they only ought to be baptized. This 
 might serve for an answer for all : But, 
 
 2. The baptism of John was the baptism of repentance, 
 for the remission of sins, of which water was but an 
 outward signification, Mark i. 4. Now what is the 
 baptism of repentance, but an unfeigned acknowledgment 
 that they were sinners, and so stood in need of a Saviour, 
 Jesus Christ. This baptism, or baptism under this notion, 
 the Pharisees would not receive, for they trusted to 
 themselves that they were righteous, that they were not 
 as other men, that they had need of no repentance : Not 
 but that they would have been baptized with water, might 
 that have been without an acknowledgment that they were 
 sinners ; wherefore seeing the counsel of God respected 
 rather the remission of sins by Jesus Christ, than the 
 outward act of water-baptism, ye ought not, as you do, 
 by this your reasoning, to make it rather, at least in the 
 
69 
 
 revelation of it, to terminate in the outward act of being 
 baptized, but in unfeigned and sound repentance, and the 
 receiving Jesus Christ by faith. 
 
 Further, a desire to submit to John's water-baptism, 
 or of being baptized by him in water, did not demonstrate 
 by that single act, the receiving of the whole doctrine of 
 God as you suggest. 
 
 Why did John reject the Pharisees that would have 
 been baptized ? and Paul examine them that were ? Matt, 
 iii. 7. Acts xix. 2, 3. 
 
 If your doctrine be true, why did they not rather say, 
 Oh ! seeing you desire to be baptized, and seeing you 
 have been baptized, you need not to be questioned any 
 further ; your submitting to John's water, to us is a 
 sufficient testimony, even that single act, that you have 
 received the whole doctrine of God. 
 
 But I say, why did John call them vipers ? And Paul 
 asked them, Whether they had yet received the Holy 
 Ghost ? Yea, it is evident, that a man may be desirous 
 of water, that a man may be baptized, and neither own 
 the doctrine of repentance, not know on whom he should 
 believe ; evident, I say, and that by the same texts, Matt, 
 iii. 7. Acts xix. 2 — 4. 
 
 You have grounded therefore this your last argument, 
 as also the rest, upon an utter mistake of things. 
 
 I come now to your Questions ; which although they be 
 mixed with gall, I will with patience see if 1 can turn 
 them into food. 
 
 Your first question is, 
 " I ask your own heart, whether popularity and 
 
70 
 
 applause of variety of professors, be not in the bottom of 
 what you have said ; that hath been your snare to pervert 
 the right ways of the Lord, and to lead others into a path 
 wherein we can find none of the footsteps of the flock in 
 the first ages ? " 
 
 Ans. Setting aside a retaliation, like your question, I 
 say, and God knows I speak the truth, I have been 
 tempted to do what I have done, by a provocation of 
 sixteen years long ; tempted, I say, by the brethren of 
 your way : who, whenever they saw their opportunity, 
 have made it their business to seek, to rend us in pieces ; 
 mine own self they have endeavoured to persuade to 
 forsake the church ; some they have rent quite off from 
 us, others they have attempted to divide and break off 
 from us, but by the mercy of God, have been hitherto 
 prevented. 
 
 A more large account you may have in my next, if you 
 think good to demand it ; but I thank God that I have 
 written what I have written. 
 
 Quest. 2. " Have you dealt brotherly, or like a 
 Christian, to throw so much dirt upon your brethren, in 
 print, in the face of the world, when you had opportunity 
 to converse with them of reputation amongst us, before 
 printing, being allowed the liberty by them, at the same 
 time for you to speak among them ? " 
 
 Ans. I have thrown no dirt upon them, nor laid any 
 thing to their charge, if their practice be warrantable by 
 the word ; but you have not been offended at the dirt, 
 yourselves have thrown at all the godly in the land that 
 are not of your persuasion, in counting them unfit to be 
 communicated with, or to be accompanied with in the 
 
71 
 
 house of God. This dirt you never complained of, nor 
 would, I doubt, to this day, might you be still let alone to 
 throw it. As to my book, it was printed before I spake 
 with any of you, or knew whether I might be accepted of 
 you. As to them of reputation among you, I know others 
 not one tittle inferior to them, and have my liberty to 
 consult with whom I like best. 
 
 Quest. 3. "Doth your carriage answer the law of love 
 or civility, when the brethren used means to send for you 
 for a conference, and their letter was received by you, 
 that you should go out again from the city after knowledge 
 of their desires, and not vouchsafe a meeting with them, 
 when the glory of God, and the vindication of so many 
 churches is concerned ? " 
 
 Ans. The reason why I came not amongst you, was 
 partly because I consulted mine own weakness, and 
 counted not myself, (being a dull-headed man), able to 
 engage so many of the chief of you, as I was then informed 
 intended to meet me : I also feared, in personal disputes, 
 heats and bitter contentions might arise, a thing my spirit 
 hath not pleasure in. I feared also, that both myself and 
 words would be misrepresented, and that not without 
 cause ; for if they that answer a book will alter, and screw 
 arguments out of their places, and make my sentences 
 stand in their own words, not mine, when (I say) my 
 words are in a book to be seen. What would you have 
 done, had I in the least, either in matter or manner, 
 though but seemingly miscarried among you ? 
 
 As for the many churches which you say are con- 
 cerned, as also the glory of God, I doubt not to say they 
 are only your wordless opinions that are concerned ; the 
 
72 
 
 glory of God is vindicated : We receive him that God 
 hath received, and that to the glory of God, Rom. xv. 16. 
 
 Quest. 4 " Is it not the spirit of Diotrephes of old, 
 in you, who loved to have the pre-eminence, that you are 
 so bold to keep out all the brethren, that are not of your 
 mind in this matter, from having any entertainment in the 
 churches or meetings to which you belong, though you 
 yourself have not been denied the like liberty, among 
 them that are contrary-minded to you ? Is this the way 
 of your retaliation? Or are you afraid lest the truth 
 should invade your quarters ? " 
 
 Ans. I can say, I would not have the spirit you talk 
 of, what I have of it, God take it from me. But what 
 was the spirit of Diotrephes ? Why, not to receive the 
 brethren into the church, and to forbid them that would. 
 (3 John 9, 10 ) This do not I ; I am for communion 
 with saints, because they are saints ; I shut none of the 
 brethren out of the churches, nor forbid them that would 
 receive them. I say again, shew me the man that is a 
 visible believer, and that walketh with God, and though 
 he differ with me about baptism, the doors of the church 
 stand open for him, and all our heaven-born privileges he 
 shall be admitted to them. But how came Diotrephes so 
 lately into our parts ? Where was he in those days that 
 our brethren of the baptized way, would neither receive 
 into the church, nor pray with men as good as themselves, 
 because they were not baptized ; but would either, like 
 Quakers, stand with their hats on their heads, or else 
 withdraw till we had done. 
 
 As to our not suffering those you plead for to preach 
 in our assemblies, the reason is, because we cannot yet 
 
73 
 
 prevail with them, to repent of their church -renting 
 principles. As to the retaliation, mind the hand of God, 
 and remember Adoni-bezek, Judges i. 7. 
 
 Let the truth come into our quarters and welcome, 
 but sowers of discord, because the Lord hates it, we also 
 ourselves will avoid them. 
 
 Quest. 5. "Is there no contempt cast upon the 
 brethren who desired your satisfaction, that at the same 
 time when you had opportunity to speak to them, instead 
 of that, you committed the letters to others, by way of 
 reflection upon them 1 " 
 
 Ans. It is no contempt at all to consult men more wise 
 and judicious than him that wrote, or myself either. But 
 why not consult with others ? Is wisdom to die with 
 you ? Or do you count all that yourselves have no hand 
 in, done to your disparagement ? 
 
 Quest. 6. " Did not your presumption prompt you to 
 provoke them to printing, in your letter to them, when 
 they desired to be found in no such practice, lest the 
 enemies of truth should take advantage by it ? " 
 
 Ans. What provoked you to print, will be best known 
 at the day of Judgment, whether your fear of losing your 
 wordless opinion, or my plain answer to your letter. 
 The words in my letter are, " As for my book, never 
 defer its answer till you speak with me, for I strive not 
 for mastery but truth." Though you did not desire to 
 write, yet with us there was continual labour to rend us to 
 pieces, and to prevent that which was in my first book 
 written. And let who will take advantage, so the truth 
 of God, and the edification of my brother be promoted. 
 
 Quest. 7. "Whether your principle and practice is 
 
74 
 
 not equally against others as well as us, viz. Episcopal, 
 Presbyterians, and Independents, who are also of our side, 
 for our practice, though they differ with us about the 
 subject of baptism. Do you delight to have your hand 
 against every man 1 " 
 
 Ans. I own water-baptism to be God's ordinance, but 
 I make no idol of it. Where you call now the Episcopal 
 to side with you, and also the Presbyterian, &c. you will 
 not find them easily persuaded to conclude with you 
 against me. They are against your manner of dipping, 
 as well as the subject of water-baptism ; neither do you, 
 for all you flatter them, agree together in all but the 
 subject. Do you allow their sprinkling 1 Do you allow 
 their signing with the cross ? Why then have you so 
 stoutly, an hundred times over, condemned these things 
 as antichristian ? I am not against every man, though by 
 your abusive language you would set every one against 
 me ; but I am for union, concord, and communion of 
 saints, as saints, and for that cause I wrote my book. 
 
 To conclude, 
 
 1 . In all I have said, I put a difference between my 
 brethren of the baptized way : I know some are more 
 moderate than some. 
 
 2. When I plead for the unbaptized, I chiefly intend 
 those that are not so baptized as my brethren judge right, 
 according to the first pattern. 
 
 3. If any shall count my papers worth the scribbling 
 against, let him deal with mine arguments, and things 
 immediately depending upon them, and not conclude he 
 hath confuted a book, when he hath only quarrelled at 
 words. 
 
75 
 
 4. I have done when I have told you, that I strive not 
 for mastery, nor to shew myself singular ; but if it might 
 be, for union and communion among the godly. And 
 count me not as an enemy because I tell you the truth. 
 
 5. And now, dissenting brethren, I commend you to 
 God, who can pardon your sin, and give you more grace, 
 and an inheritance among them that are sanctified by 
 faith in Jesus Christ. Amen. 
 
 Eighteen evils arising from the exclusion of Christians 
 from church-communion, and the privileges thereof, for 
 the want of adult water-baptism, which God never made 
 a wall of division between them. — Extracted from 
 Bunyan's " Reason of my Practice in Worship."" 
 
 1. It looks too like a spirit of persecution. Job xix. 
 25—29. 
 
 2. It respecteth more a form, than the spirit and power 
 of godliness. 2 Tim. iii. 5. 
 
 3. This is to make laws where God hath made none, 
 and to be wise above what is written ; contrary to God's 
 word, and our own principles. 
 
 4. It is a directing of the Spirit of God. 
 
 5. It bindeth all men's faith and light to mine opinion. 
 
 6. It taketh away the children's bread. 
 
 7. It withholdeth from them the increase of faith. 
 
 8. It tendeth to harden the hearts of the wicked. 
 
 9. It tendeth to make wicked the hearts of weak 
 Christians. 
 
76 
 
 10. It setteth open a door to all temptations. 
 
 11. It tempteth the devil to fall upon those that are 
 alone, and have none to help them. 
 
 12. It is the nursery of all vain jangliogs, backbitings, 
 and strangeness among the Christians. 
 
 13. It occasioneth the world to reproach us. 
 
 14. It holdeth staggering consciences in doubt of the 
 right way of the Lord. 
 
 15. It giveth occasion to many to turn aside to most 
 dangerous heresies. 
 
 16. It abuseth the holy scriptures ; it wresteth God's 
 ordinances out of their place. 
 
 17. It is a prop to Antichrist. 
 
 18. Shall I add, is it not that which greatly prevailed 
 to bring down those judgments which at present we feel, 
 and groan under ? I will dare to say it was the cause 
 thereof. 
 
 THE END. 
 
 R. Howe, Printer, Market Place, Kingston. 
 
lit