ministeriall or actually Baptizing should continue to the end of the world at least not in all parts or places in the world where the ministery of the Gospel should be continued For 1. Jerom conceiveth that the Apostles themselves are here said to live and so to teach and baptize to the end of the world viz. in and by their writings and other labours in the ministry and that the presence of Christ with them to the end of the world here promised importeth 1 his directing strengthening and incouraging presence whilest they continued in the body and 2 his assisting presence with them in their writings and other labours faithfully performed in the work of the Gospel whereby these should prosper and bring forth fruit to the end of the world This is no hard or far fetcht interpretation a Yet 2. be it granted that Christ here promiseth his presence not unto the Apostles alone but to all their successors in teaching and baptizing though a substantial proof of this requires more I fear then all the abilities of our Brethren of the Dip are able to perform yet neither will it follow from hence that they who should succeed them in both should baptize upon any other terms then the Apostles themselves did yea or are recorded in the Scriptures to have done Now as we lately observ'd it is no where reported of them or any of them that they ever Baptized in any place but onely at and upon their first bringing of the Name of Christ and the Gospel thereunto in case it found any competent entertainment and settlement there But Eightly and lastly Grant we all that can either reasonably or unreasonably be demanded from the words in hand on the behalf of those who were and are to succeed the Apostles in the work of the Gospel viz. Ministers and Teachers and that Christ promiseth his presence with them as well in Baptizing as in teaching yet what presence of his is here promised to private Christians in their Administrations of Baptisme Surely when they Baptize Christ is not with them in the work how much less when persons of this character shall put forth their hand to touch the Ark of Baptism who are not so much as Baptized themselves And yet a Baptism administred upon such polluted terms as these is the mother and Foundress of all those Baptizmall Administrations for which our Brethren so importunately magnifie themselves against us To plead that a person unbaptized may administer Baptism in a case of necessity is a sufficient plea indeed thus understood viz. 1. When God himself adjudgeth and determines the case of necessity and 2. authorizeth from heaven any person one or more for the work as he did John Baptist Otherwise Vzzah had as good or better reason to judge that a case of necessity in which he put forth his hand to stay the Ark then our first unhallowed and undipt dipper in this Nation had to call that a case of necessity wherein to the sad disturbance of the affairs of the Gospel yea and of the civil peace also he set up the Dipping trade We do not intend that any thing hitherto argued in the consideration in hand should be taken as meant for a positive or demonstrative proof that the Ordinance of Baptism is now extinct or not administrable without sin in the world but rather as a demonstration partly of the many Labyrinths and difficulties which they ought to overcom and clear who are so confidently positive and assertive of the contrary partly of the most unreasonable and importune practise of those who pronounce all men unworthy of Christian communion who are not as positive and assertive in matters of so doubtful disputation as themselves CONSIDERATION XIX {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} i. e. Variances Emulations Animosities Contentions Divisions or Seditions Sects are by the Holy Ghost himself adjudged works of a the flesh and such which are manifest Yea and are ranged in the middle between adultery fornication uncleanness wantonness Idolatry witchcraft hatred on the one hand and Envyings murthers drunkenness revellings and such like on the other hand Concerning all which joyntly and severally the Apostle denounceth this heavy Sentence Of which I tell you before as I have also told you in times past that they which do such things shall not inherit the Kingdom of God Gal. 5 19 20. 21. meaning without repentance Now how can men and women in any other way or upon any other account more manifestly or more directly incur the guilt of the said sins of Variances Emulations animosities Seditions Sects at least of some if not of the most of them and consequently the dreadfull doom of being excluded from the Kingdom of God then by labouring in the very fire to trouble disturb rend tear dismember break into sects and factions such Churches or bodies of Saints who until now were walking Holily and humbly with their God in unity love and peace edyfiing one another in their most holy faith with all good conscience observing all Ordinances of God made known unto them for such and ready and willing further to abserve all other that should in like manner be made known unto them Or can any pretence or plea whatsoever render the children of such high misdemeanors excusable before the Judgment Seat of Christ I draw out my whole heart and Soul in requests unto my God that he will graciously awaken the consciences of such persons who whilst they pull down what Christ hath built up and scatter what he hath gathered together think they do him service Certainly never were the sins of variance emulation wrath strife Church-seaition schism commited in the world by men nor can it be imagined how they should be commited if they who quarrel trouble rend and tear off themselves labour in the very fire to rend and tear off others from Christian Churches and Congregations only for dissenting from them in their private conceits about the ceremony of Baptism be not guilty of them The contentions rents and schisms in the Catholique Church so deeply complained of bewailed and opposed by the Fathers of old were according to a true estimate but as shadows of these sins and of light demerit in comparison CONSIDERATION XX When some of the Brethren of the Church at Ierusalem were unsatisfied about that which Peter did in going to the Gentiles at Cornelius his house in Cesarea and having communion with them Peter in order to their satisfaction and his own justification in holding communion with them doth not insist upon nor so much as mention or hint their being baptized but only the gift of the Holy Ghost given unto them by God in Testimony of their Faith For as much then saith he as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us who beleeved on the Lord Jesus Christ who or what was I that I could withstand God Acts 11. 17. Where by the way it is observable that Peter judged that a
of his Querie For though he should say which yet he doth not the Anti-querist making too bold here as too frequently elsewhere to mis-recite his words as the Reader may readily observe by comparing the Original all along with the transcript that under the Gospel Circumcision by a Synechdoche speciei is put for all external rites and ceremonies yet doth not such a saying as this necessarily suppose or imply circumcision to be a Gospel rite For rites or ceremonies being of two kinds some of Divine others of humane institution the Apostle may by the sayd figure Synechdoche mention only circumcision in stead of all other Divine rites without supposing it to be a Gospel rite inasmuch as there were far more rites of Divine institution under the Law then there are under the Gospel His following words And if for all kind then certainly for Gospel rites and ceremonies for they are some of all have neither goodness of sence in them nor pertinency to his business in hand For what though circumcision be put for all kinds of rites of Divine institution and consequently for Gospel rites also yet doth it follow from hence that it self must needs be a Gospel rite By what principle in reason is this consequence formed Supposing there are two sorts of men in the world rich and poor and I having occasion to speak of men in general should to give some light to my discourse instance in John Thomas or James I should not by my instancing Iohn for example in this case suppose him to be determinately either a rich man or a poor But these things I confess are scarce worth the examining excepting only that me thinks I perceive my Anti-querist in a little extasie of contentment by vertue of a conceit he hath that I have so ill behaved my self in the passage in hand that he can make large earnings by descanting upon it And I would wilingly awaken him out of his extasie For certain I am that there is nothing in the Query rightly understood but is exception-proof And the truth is that all things in his Answer to this Query from first to last duly considered together with that his contentment mentioned there seems to be a mixture of a kind of discontent against the Apostle for opposing Faith the new Creature keeping the Commandments of God unto circumcision and not Baptism rather For if it had been written thus In Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing nor uncircumcision but Baptism which is by dipping or plunging into water I beleeve he would have been as hard or heavy to be born as an hand maid that is heir to her Mistris Prov. 30. 23. And I understand that a Great Doctor of that way taking occasion not long since to open the said passage of the Apostle to his people made speciall treasure of this observation from it that although the Apostle saith That in Christ Iesus circumcision availeth nothing yet he doth not say that Baptism availeth nothing If he had understood the Apostle a trouble of mind not much incident to thâ—â— generation he must needs have known that however the Apostle did not in so many words say That Baptism availeth nothing yet constructively and in pregnancie and neer-handedness of consequence he said every whit as much yea and somewhat more too For by shuting out Circumcision instance-wise together with uncircumcision and letting in onely Faith the New creature the keeping the Commands of God it is a plain case that together with circumcision he excluded Baptism also yea and all other ceremoniall practications whatsoever But such an observation as that now specified is a competent instance or example whereby to estimate how unworthily the Scriptures are commonly handled in those Congregations But 6. My Anti-querist greatneth the pile of his former impertinencies by heaping all these words upon it Neither surely would any man much less the Querist be so impertinent as to assert no externall rite availeable under the Gospel because circumcision is not unless he held circumcision to be as much a Gospel rite as any other since it is against common sence to say That which is greater is not available to such or such an end because that which is less is not and yet more irrationall would it be to assert the non-availeableness of that which is from the non-availeableness of that which is not which yet would be the trip of the Querist if he should not think that circumcision had some manner of institutive being yea as eminent a being under the Gospel as any other rite of the Gospel hath Hereunto add we this vaine-glorious vapour in the following Paragraph Truly I cannot but think that cause hard bested that is fain to beg its bread out of such desolate places as is that of Circumcision for one whose foundation was long since rased by the hand of the Gospel to the very ground The long thread of all this discourse is spun of tow that hath touched the fire The basis and ground work of the whole Fabrick hath been already rased to the very ground For my friend al along supposeth 1. That I make the best and most conscientious observation of Gospel rites of no acceptation at all with God 2. That I argue that comparative non-availableness of Gospel rites which I assert and hold from the non-availableness of Circumcision simply considered Against both these I have sufficiently explained my self already and likewise vindicated the words of the Queree from any intimation or supposition of either Touching the former I shall add nothing to the premises relating thereunto For the latter I have likewise shewed in as plain English as I know how to write that neither do I nor the Queree argue the comparative non-availableness of Baptism which the Queree onely asserteth as the Anti-querist himself yeildeth as we formerly heard from the non-availableness of Circumcision simply considered this we have formerly shewed to be a palpable mistake but from Circumcision considered in that opposition which the Apostle maketh in the Scripture before us between it and Faith and again between it and the New Creature From this opposition it evidently appeareth that the Apostle by excluding Circumcision with uncircumcision from that availableness with God which he solely ascribes unto Faith the new creature and the keeping the Commandments of God intended together with circumcision to exclude all ceremoniall observances as well those of the Gospel as those of the Law This considered it had been more honour for the Anti-querist to have kept himself as free from the charge as the Querist is from the crime or trip of reasoning at any such rate of non-sence at this because that which is less is not available to such or such as end therefore neither is that which is greater available hereunto Or again because that which is not is not available therefore neither is that which is How can I but think that my Friend dreamt waking when such reasonings as these presented themselves
disgraceful or reproachful way then when men shall separate from them as unclean or defective in Holiness CONSIDERATION IV. Such persons whom God judgeth meet for communion and fellowship with himself and his Son Jesus Christ the reasons and grounds of this his judgment being visible in these persons especially being acknowledged also by men ought not to be judged unmeet for any holy communion with the Holiest of men especially not by those who do acknowledg those things in these persons which are the grounds of their acceptance into the said communion with God The Apostle instructing the strong in Faith in their duty towards the weak i. e. towards those who were at present ignorant of many things which the other knew saith thus Him that is weak in the Faith receive you And again Let not him that eateth i. e. the strong in Faith who understands his liberty despise him that eateth not i. e. the weak Rom. 14 1 3. The reason why God would have no despising of weak Christians on the one hand nor judging of those that were strong on the other is delivered by the Apostle in these words vers 3. For God hath accepted him i. e. as well the weak as the strong and again the strong as well as the weak the reason equally relating to both the preceding clauses in the verse clearly avouching Gods accepting of persons when discovered or acknowledged by men for an obliging ground upon these not to despise them or which is by the Apostle interpreted as the same to reject them from their communion Now the grounds of Gods acceptance of men and women as meet for communion with him and his Son Jesus Christ are from place to place in the Scriptures declared such which are owned and acknowledged by persons themselves baptized according to the new and late edition of this Ordinance so much corrected enlarged and amended in those Churches and their members who at present make use of the former edition only In every Nation saith Peter speaking of God he that feareth him and worketh righteousness is ACCEPTED with him Acts 10. 35. The Kingdom of God is not meat and drink but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost for he that in these things serveth Christ is ACCEPTABLE UNTO GOD c. Rom. 14. 17 18. If we walk in the light as he is in the light we have FELLOVVSHIP one with another c. to omit other places of like import which are many Now the Brethren of the New baptized Churches themselves at least such of them whose Judgments and Consciences have not been drowned by the dipping of their bodies do acknowledg all the said qualifications as the fear of God the working righteousness c. to be as visible in the members of bodies by them called unbaptized as in their own Yea some of them as yet retain so much Christian ingenuity as to confess that in our unbaptized Churches to please Jews we speak in the Jewish language we have persons of as great or greater worth for holiness righteousness the fear and love of God with all other Christian accomplishments as themselves have in the best of their Congregations notwithstanding the unimaginable advantage of their Baptism I wish in my Soul for their sakes that God would mercifully please to put it into their hearts seriously to consider of what insufferable height and insolency of spirit it strongly savoreth for men to judg those unworthy their communion whom the most Holy God the great and high Possessor of Heaven and Earth accepteth into his CONSIDERATION V. The main Pillar upon which the house of our new Dippers of Men and Dividers of Churches is built is the signification of the verb baptizo {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} translated to baptize as for others they are much more crazy although neither is this of any great strength But how few are there amongst those who with so much violence and height of confidence build troubles sorrows distractions and confusions of Christian Churches upon this Pillar that understand little or much what the said word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} meaneth or what it signifieth For ought they know upon their own account {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} may signifie either to tide or to run or to build as well as to dip So that all the Faith they have of the proper signification of the said word is built upon the authority and tradition of men And the truth is that men of greatest judgment and knowledg in the Greek tongue are not agreed about the adequate or exact signification of it Certain it is that the word which properly primitively and originally signifieth to dip is {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} nor {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} being only a frequentative as Grammarians speak and of a diminutive form from the original {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} as {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} is from the verb {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} and {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} from {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} with many others of like consideration in the Greek tongue And very considerable it is that the Scripture of the New Testament where ever it hath occasion to express the act of dipping constantly useth the word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} never {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} See Luk. 16. 24. Joh. 13. 26. Revel. 19. 13. as on the contrary where ever it hath occasion to mention or express the sacred action of Baptism it never useth the word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} but always {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Yea it is granted by the Dipping Grandees themselves that the word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} is often found in the New Testament it self where it signifieth nothing less or rather somewhat less then dipping Yea that when it is used in the Sacramental signification that it doth not signifie or import dipping unless it be said to signifie undipping or lifting out of the water also is to me evident from most if not all the places where the sacred action known by the name of baptizing is expressed by it I shall argue only that one at present Mat. 28. 19. The Apostles commission there as to the matter of baptizing is expressed by the said word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} c. Now if the word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} here signifies to dip and not to undip or heave out of the water then had the Apostles no authority at all or commission from Christ to perform the one half of the baptismal transaction we speak now according to the Dipping principles viz. that which consists in the lifting or taking up out of the water those whom they were to dip into or under the water but in case they did raise or help them out of the
writings of such authority and credit that we have no ground at all â—o question their truth that that generatâ—on of men whose judgments have gone wondering after Dipping and Rebaptizing have from the very first original and spring of them since the late Reformation been very troublesome and turbulent in all places where they have encreased to any numbers considerable and wiser men then I are not a little jealous over the peace of this Nation lest it should suffer as other places formerly have done from the tumultuous and domineâ—ring spirit of this sort of men so numerously prevailing as they do There is a strong tide of Report both from Ireland and Scotland that as far as the Interest and power so far the insolency also and importune haughtiness of that generation we speak of extendeth in both these Nations and that all persons of what Integrity or worth soever otherwise who are not enlightened with their darkness about their dipping are troden under foot like unsavory salt and judged unmeet for any place of trust or power with them being allowed only the preferements of drawing water and hewing wood One of this faction or party in England and he no small begger neither speaking of a Person who though not of his judgment about the necessity of dipping yet otherwise a man to my knowledg that had very well deserved of that way in several respects as well publique as private yet speaking I say of this person he said in the prefence of several persons of quality that He deserved to be hanged an aphorism consonant to the later saying of a preacher of that way about the City who in discourse with a person walking in communion with me about his judgment and being as it seems worsted in the skirmish at last recovered all the ground he had lost with this or the like Epiphonema that she might find her Church at Tyburn and the Gallows These words I regard but as muck notwithstanding it may concern others to look after the fire But surely these men when they come into their Kingdom of Authority and power will execute judgment and justice without partiality If so then He that deserveth to be hanged must expect no better quarter then that of the halter and if justice be administred without partiality all that are in the same condemnation of Anti-dipping with him may bear him company in the same expection Let no man think that because I write these things I do not walk charitably towards the persons of the men of whom I speak or that I bear in my spirit the least touch or tincture of any Sinister affection against the worst of them My principles I confess are too lofty and stiff to honour any mans unworthiness whatsoever so far as for the sake thereof to become his enemy Jesus Christ with the hand of his grace hath taken my gall out of my bowels and divided it between sin and Satan My Conscience beareth me witness in the Holy Ghost that as I have been cordially and christianly respectful and friendly unto these men as far as I have had opportunity to serve them so am I still ready to bow down and lick the dust at the feet even of the meanest of them and of him amongst them who ever he be that is my greatest enemy for their spiritual yea or temporal accommodation Nor do I deny or doubt but that as amongst the Pharisees though a generation of Vipers a there were some who beleeved in Christ b so among those who have been baptized in their own water some there are baptized into the Spirit of Christ and upright in the sight of God But the Israelites being mingled amongst the Heathen in time learned their works c and the Nightingale some say by conversing among Sparrows will forget her native notes and learn to chirp Moreover those things were not in Hazael's heart whilest he was yet a Subject which were afterwards ingendered there when he came to be King over Syria d Secondly There is scarce any of those worthy Instruments Luther Calvin Beza Bucer Peter Martyr Musculus Bullinger with others of like name and worth almost without number whose piety zeal and faithfulness in conjunction with their singular gifts and abilities of learning God was pleased to honour and use in the glorious Work of the Reformation and in the deseace and propagation of the reformed Religion unto this day but in their Writings Commentaries upon the Scriptures and others very frequently and upon all occasion take up most sad complaints against this generation of men as enemies to the progress of the Gospel and by their unchristian and unworthy carriages causing the good Word of God and the Reformed Religion to be evil spoken of and reproached by the Adversaries thereof in the world Thirdly We understand by the Records of former times and our own experience time after time informeth us in part that many of the best and most considerate persons who have been for some time engaged in that way after full tryal of it have forsaken it as not finding God or Christ in it Fourthly We understand by frequent and very credible informations some of us are able to testifie as much upon our own knowledg and experience that in some of thier religious Assemblies and Conventions there is no considerable presence of God with them that there is little taught amongst them with any evidence or demonstration of the Spirit with any Authority and Power that the Scriptures are very defectively and lamely opened and applyed ever and anon wrested to the countenancing and magnifying of their own private conceit and notion about Baptism and that the greatest part of the time during these Meetings is spent in fruitless altercations and vain janglings Nor know we any ground to beleeve that it is much better in those other Congregations of these men which we know not then it is in those which we know Fifthly Another thing of little less discouragement unto us then the former is that there have been and still are extant three or four several Editions or man-devised modes of Dipping every latter pretending to correct the insufficiency irregularity or inconvenience of the former In regard whereof some we understand instead of being once baptized have been dipped three or four times over thus committing that sin in Baptism which Christ prohibits in prayer the sin I mean of vain repetitions So that in case our Consciences did lead us to a baptismal Dipping yet should we be at a loss concerning the particular mode or form which is agreeable to the mind of Christ there being so many Competitors for this honour And for the Mode of the latest and newest Invention and which as we understand is of greatest esteem it is as far as we are able to conceive by the representation of it made unto some of us so contrived and so to be managed that the Baptist who dippeth according to it had need be
examples of that nature in the Acts of the Apostles do declare how loud an untruth is it There is not so much as any one example throughout the Acts of the Apostles of a person baptized barely or meerly upon his hearing of the Gospel preached unto him But how impertinently this piece of Scripture is alledged either to prove who or what kind of person is the proper and adequate subject of Baptism or a necessitie that all beleevers to the Worlds end should be baptized or otherwise be guilty of Sin hath been argued in the preceding Considerations 2. How little truth or pertinency there is in his second Proof of the aforesaid Position sufficiently appears by the examination of the first For though the Apostles did put the said Commission of Christ into execution according to his Command i. e. did both teach and baptize yet it doth not follow from hence either 1. That they baptized all that they taught the contrary hereunto is evident from the Story Act. 2. 41 43. and 5. 33. and other places Therefore the Teaching mentioned in their Commission was not the Rule of their Baptizing Nor 2. Doth it follow that because upon their first preaching of the Gospel in Jerusalem they baptized those who gladly received their Word and beleeved therefore they baptized in like manner all those or any of those who were converted to the Faith by their after-preaching in the same place We read of no such thing as this in any place of the Acts or elsewhere as we formerly observed Nor did the tenor of their Commission impose this upon them For he that is simply and only commanded to Teach and to Baptize as he is not hereby commanded to teach continually so neither is he commanded to baptize always when he teacheth But whereas he demandeth What is more plain then that the Commission of Christ to them was to teach and baptize first and to admit into Church-fellowship thereupon as is visible in that prime example of theirs Acts 2. 41 42. I answer This is much more plain viz. that they were not commissioned in that Commission we speak of to admit into Church-fellowship either upon terms of Baptism or any other there being not so much as the least mention or hint here about admission into Church-fellowship Nor is it said Acts 2. 41 42. either that the Apostles admitted any into Church-fellowship or 3. That any were admitted into Church-fellowship much less that they were admitted into this fellowship because they had been baptized But all that is here said as to the point now in hand is Then they that gladly received his Word were baptized and the same day {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} i. e. there were added or added to not to them as our Antagonist emphaseth or to the Church but rather to the Lord as it is Acts 15. 24 about three thousand Souls Neither is the addition here spoken of ascribed to the Apostles it is not said that they or any of them added so much as one Soul But if we will entitle him unto the addition here spoken of to whom the Holy Ghost ascribeth it vers. 47. we must say that it was made by the Lord And the Lord added unto the Church dayly such as should be saved Here where there is express mention made of adding to the Church there is no mention made of Baptism 3. His third and last Proof is as irrelative to his purpose as both the former For Christians are not said Rom. 65. to be planted together in it is not into as our Anti-querist takes a most unworthy liberty both here and elsewhere more then once or twice to mis-cite his Scriptures the likeness of Christs death by reason or means of their Water-Baptism for then it would follow from the latter clause of the Verse {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} that all who are thus baptized should be everlastingly Partakers of his Resurrection but we are said to be {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} complanted with Christ in through or by means of a likeness of his death when we are truly and really mortified and become dead unto sin and to the world Which is a kind of death holding some analogy with and carrying in it some resemblance of that death which Christ suffered upon the Cross And the Apostle informs us that by such a death as this we become planted together with Christ i. e. interested with him in that most stable fixed and unchangeable Councel and Purpose of God wherein he hath decreed the immortal Glory and Blessedness of all those that shall obey him This sence of the place considered how frivolous and impertinent is this supercilious Interrogatory which he builds upon it And may you not therefore as well suppose trees to grow together before they are planted together as to suppose Christians to grow together before they are planted together Yes surely as well the latter as the former but the mischief of the impertinency is that Christians may be planted together in Christ by a work of mortification and so grow together whether they be baptized or no and they may be baptized together and so be planted together as far as water can plant them and yet not grow together but some wither and dye whilest others grow and prosper Or however such a plantation which is by Baptism only is no way or means of growth unto any man And yet of the two it is a broader impertinency to make this demand in stead of a Proof that a Church cannot stand but upon Baptism And what house stands without its principles or is built without a foundation only upon occasion of this admonition of the Apostle to the Hebrews Leaving the Word of the beginning of Christ let us advance towards perfection and his making not the practise but the Doctrine not of any one Baptism determinately but of Baptisms plurally a part of the foundation i. e. of the body or systeme of that Doctrine which young beginners in the School of Christ were wont to learn in the first place as in building a foundation is first to be layd in order to a superstruction But what is there in this passage to prove that one Baptism or one kind of Baptism is the foundation of a Church more then another or that any kind of Baptism more then imposition of hands or that either imposition of hands or Baptism in one kind or other more then repentance from dead works or Faith towards God especially considering that these two are named in the first place as the principal parts of the Foundation he speaks of and first to be layd Yea supposing that the Hebrews to whom he writes were a constituted Church and that he had taught them the Doctrine of Baptisms under this Constitution it evidently follows either that they were a Church before they were baptized or that they had been baptized before they had been instructed in the Doctrine of Baptism I
known by his own fruit Luk. 6. 44. then is our Baptism no corrupt Baptism but the Baptism commended by Christ or however far from being a nullity For it is a true rule Nonentis nulli sunt affectus nulla opperatio Nullities or non-entities have neither affections nor effects or operations produce nothing which is proper to be produced by a real and truly excistent cause But that Baptism amongst us which our Brethren very inconsiderately and invita veritate vote to be a nullity is as efficacious as operative in respect of all the main ends of Baptism the Baptism I mean intended by Christ as theirs is or can be yea in respect of some of these ends if not all it hath the preheminency For 1. It doth as solemnly with as much authority and power with as express a signification to the understandings and apprehensions of the world about us testifie and declare us the profesed Disciples and followers of Jesus Christ as that Baptism practized by them can do Nay in this which is one of the most considerable ends of Baptism it is of the two more efficacious then theirs For their Baptism is comparatively a kind of Barbarian to the world nor do the generality of men interpret or look upon it as any thing more significative or assertive of their owning the Name and Faith of Jesus Christ then our Baptism which was also theirs untill they renounced it by substituting another in the place of it Yea the sence of the world and of the generality of persons amongst whom they live is so far from being either that by their Infant-Baptism they stood insufficiently declared the professed Disciples of Christ or that by their new Baptism they make any materiall addition unto that their Declaration that it inclines rather to this viz. That they betake themselves to a Re-baptism more to disobliege themselves from what their Infant-Baptism ingaged them unto then to strengthen or make valid that ingagement which at least as they apprehend cannot receive any addition of strength or validitie by any further Baptism but they are jealous that it may be disinabled or at least disadvantaged by such an after-Baptism Of which apprehension I wish they had not and yet much more that they may not in time have too just a ground But however nothing can be more evident then that that Baptism is most serviceable and efficacious to testifie or demonstrate a person man or woman to be a professor of and to own the Name and Faith of Jesus Christ in the sight of the world whose signification and import in this behalf is best known unto the world If so then is our Baptism as valid as efficacious in respect of this great end of Baptism as our Brethrens new Baptism can be and consequently is far from being a nullity 2. Our Baptism is altogether as operative as bearing as ingaging upon our judgments and Consciences to become the reall loyall and true Disciples of Jesus Christ as theirs can be upon theirs or could be upon ours should we come under it For out of the sence and conscience we have that we have been Baptized and still own and stand by that our Baptism we expect no other but the severest judgment and condemnation which belong to Covenant-breakers with their God from his hand if we shall be found unfaithfull under this our Baptismall ingagement And certain I am that our Brethrens new-Baptism can have no richer no fuller no more vigorous or potent an influence upon their judgements and conscience in this kind then so I wish that theirs may hold weight with ours in this ballance If our Baptism whilst it was theirs also had not the same weight of engagement upon their consciences which it hath upon ours have they reason to judge us for it and not rather themselves Therefore in respect of this great end also of Baptism ours is no whit more a nullitie then theirs 3. And lastly nor can we or they reasonably and upon ground judge that our Baptism as we call Baptism is less edifying strengthening comforting to the inner man then theirs Our souls through the grace and goodness of our good God unto us have prospered as much under that Baptism which we own and by means of it as far as we are able to compute as we can upon consultation had with al Oracles that are like to inform us in the point expect they would or should have done under that Baptism whose threshold our Brethren place so neer the threshold of Christ himself I beleeve there are thousands yet abiding under our Baptism who would not willingly exchange spirituall estates with the best of those who to better their estates in this kind have sought security under the wing and shelter of a new Baptism yea I make very little question but that if our Brethren of this new Baptism at least many of them would deal ingeniously and freely and what is this but Christianly with us in the point they would acknowledge and confess that they carried far the greater part of that spirituall treasure of which they are at present possest from under that Baptism which they forsook unto that which they have taken in exchange for it Yea I heartily wish for the sake of some of them whom I know that their New Baptism doth not help to diminish their Old grace Therefore in respect of this great end also and benefit of Baptism the building up of the inner man in Grace and peace our Baptism is no whit behind theirs but if experience will be allowed to umpire much before it I know no other end of Baptism but what is easily reduceable to one of these three Set them then to judg as the Apostle speaketh in another case who are least esteemed in the Church whether that Baptism be like to be a nullity which acts and performs and this with authority and power all the ends services purposes and intents of Baptism yea and in most of them if not in all quits it self at a more worthy rate of efficacy and success then that which pretends to the honour of being the sole reality and truth CONSIDERATION XVII It is no where to be found in Scripture that any Church of Christ or imbodied society of Beleevers was commanded by God or Christ or his Apostles to be Dipped nor yet threatened or reproved by any of them for the non-practise of Dipping If this be denyed let the Scriptures one or more be produced for as yet none have been for the justification of such a Denyal Is it not then presumption in the Highest and an assuming of an Anti christian power to impose Laws upon Christian Societies which the Lord Christ never imposed yea and to censure and scandalize them with the odious and reproachful terms of Anti-christian and unclean only for the transgressions of their own Laws Nor will it serve the turn to pretend that it is to be found in Scripture that particular members of Churches or
mention the unity of the Spirit For we by one Spirit are all c. he should rather have insisted upon the oneness or same-ness of water Baptism as he doth Ephes. 4. 5. 4. The unity or oneness of the body of which the Apostle speaks is not so much or so proper an effect of water-Baptism no nor of the oneness of this Baptism if it be any effect of either at all is of the Spirit by which this body is inspired animated acted and moved and the members of it knit together and kept from dissolution 5. Whether all the members of the body were baptized with water or no is uncertain The Apostle expresly professeth that he baptized viz. with water very few of them and who else should baptize them all no where appears whereas that they were all with or by the Spirit baptized into the same body i. e. perswaded and over-ruled in their judgments and consciences to imbody themselves in a profession of the Faith of Jesus Christ and of the Gospel is unquestionable 6 The Spirit is no where said to baptize men with water by or through the Spirit 7. Though there be no express mention in the vers either of God or of Christ who elsewhere the one or the other are said to baptize with the Spirit those who are thus baptived yet verse 6. God is named and this under the consideration of his unity or sameness as working all in all But it is the same God that worketh all in all And in the next verse it is said But the manifestation of the Spirit is given unto every man c. meaning by God mentioned in the verse preceding Besides There is nothing more familiat in the Scriptures then to express such actions which are proper unto God or Christ indefinitely and without the mention of either All Power is given unto me saith Christ meaning by God his Father in Heaven and in Earth Matth. 28. 18. Instances of this construction see Matth. 12. 37. and 25. 29. Philip 4. 12. besides many others Yea actions appropriate whether to Angels or men are sometimes thus expressed 8. The resemblance which the Apostle borrowed in the Verse next preceding that in hand from the natural body sheweth that the unity or oneness of that Church body of which he here speaketh is not such an oneness which accrueth unto it by Water-Baptism or any external Rite or Ceremony but by the oneness and sameness of that Spirit by which it is as it were inform'd inwardly and supported in life and spiritual Being For as the body saith he is one and hath many members and all the members of that one body being many are one body so is Christ intimating that as the natural body notwithstanding the plurality and diversity of its members yet is is made or becometh one intire body not by any external or accidental thing befalling or done unto every of these members respectively but by that spirit of life which diffuseth it self into all and every of these members proportionably and so by means of the oneness or sameness of it causeth a joynt coalition and natural consent in all these members to constitute and make one and the same entire body so is the mystical or spiritual Body of Christ made and doth become one and the same Body in its kind notwithstanding the great number and difference of the persons who are the members of it by means of that Spirit and his unity and sameness which communicates himself inwardly unto them all raising and begetting in them an holy consent to love and serve and accommodate one another much after the same manner as the natural members in that other body do 9. Nor is it any ways probable that in that clause {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} translated and have been made to drink into one Spirit the Apostle speaketh of the sacramental drinking in the Supper 1. Because drinking or the sup in this Sacrament is never found mentioned apart or without mention of the bread in the same contexture of Scripture with it 2. To say that they who have before this their drinking received the same Spirit are made to drink at the Lords Table for into or unto the same Spirit is very improper and not without very much ado so much as truth 3. Neither are Beleevers anywhere said to be made to drink or to have drink given them at the Lords Table in order to their obtaining the same Spirit 4. Learned Expositors give notice of several different readings of this clause found in Manuscripts and other Copies In a Manuscript saith Grotius upon the place this clause is thus read {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} i. e. and we all are one Body Oecumenius it seems did read it thus {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} i. e. and we all drank or were caused to drink one potion or one drinking for or unto one Spirit Some of the Fathers read the clause in their language Et omnes unum Spiritum potavimus i. e. and we all have drank one Spirit with which the Syriac also accordeth 5. The meaning of the clause if the reading we have be judged authentique construed with the former seems to be this We have by the same Spirit not only or simply been baptized into one and the same Body i. e. received such a proportion or measure of the Spirit given us which is sufficient to make us one Body but we have also been made to drink unto one Spirit i. e. have received of this Spirit of God so liberally so plentifully that we may very well become one Spirit hereby amongst our selves and walk together without either divisions in judgmēts or distances in our affections This construction of the preposition {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} might be exemplified from the Scriptures and however there is no hardness or unpleasantness in it And this Exposition of the clause receives countenance from all those passages in both Epistles wherein the Apostle signifies the more then ordinary pourings out of the Spirit in variety of gifts and graces upon these Corinthians But 10. and lastly Suppose it should be granted 1. That the Apostle in this Verse speaks of Water-Baptism 2. That his meaning is that by this Baptism they had been all baptized into one Body Yet 1. It doth not follow that this must needs be understood constitutively but declaratively only and that all implyed hereby should be that by their Baptism they did declare or signo tenus pretend unto the world that they were one Body not that they were constituted or really and actually made one Body by their Baptism 2. Both the said particulars admitted yea and this also that they were in a sence by Water-Baptism baptized constitutively into one Body yet will it not follow from all these put together either 1. But that they might have been yea and now were the same Body which they were by another Constitution and Constitutor one or more
more then the other But the Grand untruth here is that I should have disclaimed communion with these Churches because there is no example in Scripture of such Church-Constitutions c. my Anti querist is very much mistaken in this for I disclaim no action whatsoever upon this account because there is no example of this action in the Scripture as neither do I perform any action simply because there is an example of such an action here But the adequate ground of my disclaiming any action and so of communion with any Church whatsoever is that I find no sufficient ground in the Scriptures for my doing it But I may and do find sufficient grounds in the Scripture for my doing of many things of which I find here no examples However upon this mistaken ground of my disclaiming communion with these two Churches he goeth on his way merrily and builds as securely as he that mistakes the sand for a rock 4. He advanceth supposing yet further that I hold communion with Churches built upon Infant-Baptism Surely here is a pair of mistakes one about his own another about my practise For 1. Himself disclaims communion with those Societies of Saints which here he calls Churches meerly upon this account because they are no Churches 2. Whereas he chargeth me with holding cammunion with Churches built upon Infant-Baptism the truth is that I hold no communion with such Churches nor do I know any Church one or other built upon any Baptism whether Infant-Baptism or Beleever-Baptism The Churches with which I hold communion are BVILT upon the Foundations of the Apostles and Prophets Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone Ephes. 2. 20. 5. Neither is it at all pertinent to the business before him to inform his Querist or others that there is example in abundance in Scripture of Churches of a better Constitution he means then of Churches built upon Infant-Baptism such as he supposeth I hold communion with and that this is of Saints baptized after they had beleeved We do not beleeve that Baptism whensoever or howsoever administred is any part of or ingredient into a Churches constitution more then the Gospel it self or the preaching hereof or the service of the Lords Table A Church may be of a very ill constitution though all the members of it have been regularly baptized and on the contrary of a good and sound constitution though there have been some defect or irregularity in their Baptism Baptism is extrinsecal to Church-constitution as the washing of a mans face or hands is to the constitution or complexion of his natural body 6. Another mistaken ground upon which he builds very high is that the Querist and others of his Judgment plead the Precept os circumcising Infants under the Law as virtually requiring the baptizing of Infants under the Gospel I confess if we should plead thus we should plead much after the rate of those who plead the unlawfulness of Church communion with the Saints because they jump not in conceit with them in every circumstance about Baptizing We are far from either saying or thinking that the precept of circumcising Infants under the Law virtually requires the baptizing of them under the Gospel We hold that had there not been a precept given in or under the Gospel for baptizing the precept of circumcising Infants under the Law could not have justified us in our baptizing them under the Gospel We do not go about to prove the lawfulness much less the necessity of baptizing from the precept of circumcising this is a Grand mistake in the Antiquerist about the sence of his Adversaries but we receiving a precept from God under the Gospel for baptizing without any determination of or limitation unto any certain age of the persons to be by vertue of this precept baptized and finding the Councel of God to have pitched upon Infancy as the most meet age for the reception of a former Ordinance of like spiritual signification and import with Baptism judg our selves bound in conscience rather to be directed to the proper subject of Baptism by the Councel of God in a case of like nature then to consult the wisdoms or wills rather of men in the business This considered 7. How not impertinent only but importune and unsavery is that insultation If it be not good reasoning from circumcision to Baptism let the Pedobaptists bid adieu to their cause of Infant Baptism which is built and bottomed thereupon Alas good man the cause of Pedo-baptism is not at all built or bottomed upon any reasoning from circumcision to Baptism but upon the good Word of God it self Neither have we any reason or need to bid adieu to this cause although to please our friend the Antiquerist we should take our leaves of our reasoning from the subject of circumcision to the more appropriate subject of Baptism Yea this our good freind himself being so well acquainted with us cannot be ignorant but that we have many other pillars hewn out of the Rock of the Scriptures whereon we build our cause of Pedo-baptism besides what we argue from the subject of circumcision Yea himself hath of late been hewing and hacking at some of them whereof notice may be taken in due time but his attempts against them have rather proved them to be strong then any ways weak 8. How impertinently weak is that insulting demand also in the process of this answer And now which of the horns of this Dolemma will the Pedobaptists suffer themselves to be gored by Here the Anti-querist it seems turns Querist himself But if he hath not an happier stroke in Anti-querism then in Querism he had better harken unto the Proverb Manum de tabulâ and leave his paper as white as he found it The Pedobaptists need not fear goaring by either of the horns of his Dilemma they stand so staringly wide that there is roomth enough and enough for seaven men to pass abrest between them For first the mans Dilemma taketh it for granted that uncircumcised persons were excluded surely he means always not sometimes or in some cases only for this would sink the saying too far beneath his cause from acts of Church Communion whilst circumcision was in force Will he say that women were circumcised or that they were excluded form acts of Church-communion because they were uncircumcised or that all those who were not circumcised in the Wilderness were excluded from all acts of Church communion for Forty Years together 2. The said Dilemma very weakly supposeth that the Author of it may from the exclusion of uncircumcised ones under the Law from acts of Church-communion then as well argue to the exclusion of unbaptized or unduly baptized ones under the Gospel from Church-communion now as we reason from the subject of circumcision to the subject of Baptism I wonder upon what principle or ground in reason such a supposition or conceit as this standeth For what the Antiquerist offereth upon this account is no better then
beleeve it is much harder for the Anti-querist to escape goaring as he calls it by one or other of the horns of this Dilemma then we found it to make an escape from both the horns of that Dilemma which was prepared by him to do the mischief 12. Concerning the Text 1 Cor. 12. 13. where the Apostle saith not as our Anti-querist citeth the words shorter by the head that they were all baptized into one Body but BY ONE SPIRIT they were all baptized c. this Scripture I say we argued somewhat at large in the last of our Considerations and found war in the heart of it against Church-constitution by Water-Baptism And running is no posture for repetitions Only whereas my Friend the Anti-querist challengeth me that some while since I interpreted this Scripture comportingly with his notion the truth is that I do not find such a line in any fragment of the history of my life extant at present in my memory yet because I dayly find so little stedfastness in my memory as I do I had rather in the business trust my Friend and his memory then mine own But this I well remember that long since I learned this Christian Principle from an Heathen Philosopher {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} A man must be content to sacrifice even his own sayings and opinions upon the service of the Truth This kind of sacrifice I have oft offered and if my Antagonist and some others could be perswaded to consecrate themselves Priests of this Order with me the water of Baptism would be no longer a fire to divide between Friends and Friends But they rather chuse to be Priests of that Order whose Hierourgy or Priestly Function mainly stands in sacrificing the body upon the service of the rayment or the substance upon the service of the shadow 13. Whereas he demands Ought not that which was a reason to them he means the Apostles in the primitive times not to admit Church-members into Church fellowship we pardon the impropriety without Baptism to be a reason unto us likewise to steere the same couâ—se c. doth he not very impertinently and groundlesly suppose that they had a reason not to admit the admission he speaks of He hath not hitherto so much as intimated unto us any reason at all of such a non-admission in the Apostles as that now mentioned If that should be granted him which he will never be able to prove viz. that the Apostles did not admit into Church-fellowship without Baptism yet it will not follow from hence that therefore they had a reason to admit none without it especially if the case were so as the Anti querist seems to suppose it viz. that no unbaptized person ever desired such admission of them And suppose for argument sake that they had de facto admited into Church-communion only unbaptized persons it would not follow from hence that therefore they had reason to exclude all others as all that were baptized in case they had desired it If all who desired Church-fellowship and consequently all who were admitted unto it were baptized is this any argument or proof that therefore in case others had desired it they must needs have been rejected If a man should go a fishing upon the Seas and should catch only of one sort of Fish as suppose Whiteings would it follow that therefore he had reason to catch no other 14. How importune and impertinent are these words also If so then farewel all Gospel obligations For if we may take liberty to cast away one Law of Gospel Order and Worship then why not two and so three and in the end all c. For doth he not here suppose that separating from Churches or persons unbaptized though esteemed in the world and by all but himself and his baptized is or was a Law of Gospel Order binding Christians of the first age Surely this Law is written on the back-side of some of Pauls Epistles where no man did ever read it And they that take liberty to cast away this Law are more like to bid all Gospel obligations welcome then to bid them farewel Secondly he supposeth that those rules by which the Apostles ordered themselves in their times were binding to Christians of that age which is broadly importune and truthless For the truth is that no rule whatsoever by which the Apostles ordered themselves as Apostles and certainly they ordered themselves by many such rules as these was binding unto any other Christian of that age but unto themselves only Thirdly and lastly he supposeth it a grand absurdity and tending to a dissolution of all Gospel Order to imagin that there were any Gospel rules binding only to Christians of the first age of the Gospel Doth he think that when Christians of the age he speaks of sold their possessions lands and houses and brought the prices of them and laid them down at the Apostles feet they did this irregularly or without rule or without a rule binding unto them If this latter then it follows that either Christ himself or his Apostles prescribed some rules which were not binding no not unto Christians of this first age Or doth he think that that rule by which those Christians acted in the case specified is binding unto us now Yet that Rule respected charity and self-denial and so in reason should be more binding unto us now then rules respecting only an outward rite or ceremony Again it was a rule binding unto those Christians he speaks of that their women praying or prophesying should have their head covered and that men on the contrary should have their heads uncovered Doth he judge this rule binding unto us now Or do all men sin who Prophesy i. e. joyn with him that preahcheth the Word in the act of hearing with their heads covered I beleeve there are many who should sin much more if they should Prophecy with their heads uncovered viz. all those who by reason of weakness or tenderness are like to suffer in their healths if they should sit uncovered for an hour or two together in a cold place and cold season There is the same confideration of a frosty-dipping to persons that are valetudinary of a crazy and infirm constitution though it were supposed that there was a rule binding Christians of that age and of those warm Countries to dip at all times immediately upon their beleeving Instance might be given in several other Gospel rules which were binding unto Christians of the first age at least unto those particular Christians to whom they were prescribed and yet are not so unto us now The rule which prescribed the Holy kiss which prescribed the speaking in an unknown tongue by two or at the most by three 1 Cor. 14. 27. which prescribed the holding of the peace to him that was speaking in the Church in case any thing were revealed unto another 1 Cor. 14. 30. which prescribed abstaining from meat offered to Idols and from blood c. were
binding unto those Christians of the first age to whom they were given but are they all binding unto us now Or in case they were all now binding but one or more of them not so apprehended by Christians now and upon this account not observed by them doth it follow from hence that they must needs bid farewell to all Gospel Obligations If my Anti-querist not seeing or minding a Friend of his passing by him in the street should omit the salutations accustomed between Friends doth this tend to the abolishing or casting away all friendly commerce or expressions between them otherwise Or in case a man gathering his Apples overlooks one that is more covered with leaves or boughs then the rest and so leaveth it ungathered doth he hereby either dispose tempt or encourage either himself or others never to gather Apple more What frivolous and empty reasonings are these Let me here observe this one thing more The Apostles were not so uniform in imposing Ordinances upon Churches in their days but that what upon occasion they imposed upon one sometimes they relaxed unto another They imposed abstinence from meats offered to Idols and so from blood upon the Church at Antioch simply and indefinitely Act. 15. 29. whereas the Apostle Paul enjoyneth the former abstinence unto the Church of Corinth only in the case of scandal unto weak Brethren and of encouragement to Idolaters 1 Cor. 8 7 9 10. compared with Chap. 10. 23 27 28 c. and concerning the latter he seemeth to relax it unto the generality of Christians those haply excepted to whom it had been enjoyned together with others lying under the like circumstantial obligations thereunto in that passage to Timothy 1 Tim. 4. 1 2 3 4. where he saith that every creature of God is good and nothing to be refused if it be received with thanksgiving yea and which is more considerable maketh it a character of men giving heed to seducing spirits and speaking lyes in hypocrisie to command to abstain from meats which God created to be received with thanksgiving c. 15. Whereas he saith that it is said in effect in 1 Cor. 12. 13 and the like Scriptures lately quoted by him that all of all sorts ranks and degrees that were of the Body were baptized into the Body c. it is indeed said as we heard that they were all by one Spirit baptized into one Body But how impertinent yea and voyd of truth is it to ascribe that unto Water-Baptism which is so expresly attributed by the Apostle to a baptizing in or with the Spirit But this Scripture hath been argued more at large 16. And lastly for this Answer He saith that the same ground which did satisfie Beleevers then in the Apostles days in not joyning in Church fellowship with persons unbaptized though they did beleeve will serve to satisfie baptized Beleevers now touching the lawfulness of the same practise which is the will and appointment of Jesus Christ that so it should be c. But to how little purpose is this said For 1. He hath not yet proved nor I beleeve ever will that baptized Beleevers in the Apostles days did not joyn in Church-fellowship with persons un-baptized though Beleevers And how impertinent is it in arguing to suppose that without proof which a man knoweth is denyed by his adversary 2. In case he had proved or could prove such a thing I mean that baptized Beleevers did not joyn in Church-fellowship with unbaptized Beleevers yet would it not follow from hence that therefore they did not thus joyn with such upon any such ground as this viz. because it was the will and appointment of Iesus Christ that so it should be Christians in these times as in all other did and especially did not many things upon other grounds then this as viz because they have no occasion opportunity or necessity to do them They did not joyn themselves in a Team with Horses or after the manner of Horses to draw Carts or Wains they did not at least many of them did not joyn with Merchants where they lived in their Adventures by Sea Did they omit the doing of these things and twenty more like unto them upon this ground or motive because it was the will and appointment of Iesus Christ that so it should be How uncouth sapless and without savor are such conceits and reasonments as these The baptized Beleevers he speaks of might possibly not joyn in Church-fellowship with unbaptized Beleevers only upon this ground viz. because no such desired this fellowship with them But will this ground serve to satisfie baptized Beleevers now touching the lawfulness of such a practise when as there are Beleevers whom they call unbaptized who desire this fellowship with them But it is no great marvel that the Carver though a good Artist can make no better a Mercury the wood he hath to work upon is not for it 3. And lastly The nonjoyning of baptized Beleevers in Church-fellowship with Beleevers unbaptized could it be proved would serve to satisfie baptized Beleevers now touching the lawfulness of the same practise But not to joyn and to break off or separate after joyning are two very different practises That ground which would satisfie a beleeving man or woman for their not joyning in marriagewith an Infidel or Unbeleever will not serve to satisfie them touching the lawfulness of the practise of separation from him or her after marriage Therefore my Anti-querist doth not argue pertinently at this turn neither He pleads another Cause in stead of his own For a cloze to what at present I reply to his Answer given unto my first Query it is very observable that he doth not at all his long Answer throughout so much as touch upon one thing which the said Query asketh after with as great a desire of satisfaction as after any thing besides The Query thus saluteth him Whether is there any Precept or Example in the Gospel of any person how duly soever baptized who disclaimed Christian Communion either in Church-fellowship or in any the Ordinances of the Gospel with those whom he judged true Beleevers upon an account only of their not having been baptized ESPECIALLY AFTER SUCH A MANNER AS HE JUDGED IT NECESSARY FOR THEM TO HAVE BEEN These last words especially after such a manner c. which are as emphatical as any other in all the Query and with which he found his Cause harder pinched then with any thing besides he prudently dissembles in his Answer as if they were not To give a just and competent Answer to the Query he should not only have attempted to prove that there are examples in theGospel of baptized persons who disclaimed Church communion with Beleevers upon the only account of their not having been baptized which indeed he hath attempted though successlesly but also that they disclaimed this Communion with them upon the account only of their not having been baptized after such or such a particular mode as they
to his imagination as the arguing of his Friend the Querist Either he complements profoundly in his private address by Letter unto him wherein he pretends to give him the right hand of himself in abilities to manage a discourse or else he renders himself weak indeed in such affairs by making himself an underling in abilities to a man the tenour and strain of whose reasonings is so far beneath the line of the most irrationall of men By this time we suppose that the vapour also mentioned is wholly vanished into the ayre The cause he speaks of cannot well at least needs not beg the bread of it's support out of desolate places there being very few places especially in the new Testament but which yeild this bread plentifully A taste hereof is given in the premised Considerations But concerning the place which he calls desolate it hath been proved over and over that there groweth a strong staff of bread for the support of the cause depending in the very midst of it 7. And lastly whereas he demands But why also doth the Querist oppose the rites and ceremonies of the Gospel or under the Gospel to the keeping the commands of God c. he should rather have demanded a reason why the Apostle doth it But whether it be the Apostle or the Querist or both who makes this opposition a plain reason hath been given of it and the sense declared wherein this opposition is to be understood Yea I suppose the Anti-querist himself can hardly be so enormously extravagant in his opinion or notion about Baptism as not to judg but that an habituall and constant course of obedience to the rest of the Commandements of God doth much more highly commend a person unto God then one single act of an externall submission unto Baptism If so then is there a manifest ground for an opposition between Baptism and a keeping of the Commandments of God yea though a subjection unto Baptism be supposed to be an act of keeping one of these Commandments yea and available also to a degree for a commending of men unto God For as little may very regularly be opposed unto much and so less unto more so may that which is less acceptable unto God be very properly and according to the strictest rules of opposition be opposed unto that which is more Neither is there so much as a face or the lightest appearance of a contra-diction between denying the observation of the Ceremonies of the Gospel to be available comparatively to any mans acceptation with God and an affirming that a keeping the Commands of God is highly available to such a purpose But enough of this with a surplussage formerly Thus we see plainly and without a Parable that no Answer hath as yet been given by the Anti-querist to the two first Queries unless by Answer we understand any thing which he that makes it is pleased so to cal Nor is it any disparagement to any mans abilities or worth that he isnot able to make an egg stand end-ways upon a smooth table without cracking it though such an undertaking may I confess somewhat reflect upon him My Friend my Anti-querist hath susteyned no loss at all in my esteem of his parts and abilities by drawing up so insufficient an answer to the Queries as he hath don For I well know and consider how far a mistaken province will oppress abuse and belye any mans learning knowledg parts and abilities whatsoever I suppose there is no need of any further ingagement of mine against the said Answer the first fruits being polluted the whole Lump is hereby sufficiently proved to be unclean Only I shall take notice from his Answer to the fourth Query how impertinently he citeth and upon no better account vindicateth this of the Apostle 1 Tim. 6. 1. Let As MANY servants as are under the yoke count their own Masters worthy of all honour to overthrow this assertion of his Querist that this particle as many as in such constructions as those Rom. 6. 3. and Gal. 3 27. is always partitive When the Apostle saith he saith Let as many servants as are under the yoke count c. doth he thereby suppose or imply that there were some servants that were not under the yoke or who were not to count their Masters worthy all honour Yes my good friend the Apostle doth here suppose that there were some servants not under such a yoke as that whereof he here speaks as is most evident from the opposition which he makes in the very nex words verse 2. speaking of servants of another kind But those who have Beleeving Masters {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} let them not despise them c. And the best expositors generally acknowledg and give notice of a distribution or partition of servants into two kinds in this context of Scripture yet not into two such kinds neither as my Antiquerist notioneth in his objection which he so favorably frameth against himself that he may plaufibly at least answer it Servants are not here distributed into beleeving and unbeleeving but into such who are under the yoke viz. of unbeleeving Masters and such who are free from this yoke as being servants to Masters who beleeve Both the one and the other kind of servants are plainly enough supposed by the Apostle to be beleevers Nor was it his manner in any of his Epistles to give directions about the carriage or behavior of Infidels or to prescribe matters of duty unto them How impertinent then is that which he pretends in the answer which he draweth up to his own objection viz. that these expressions as many as used Rom. 6. 3. Gal. 3. 27. intentionally only respect those at Rome and so in Galatia who did beleeve and were baptized and therefore are partitive in respect of others the inhabitants of those places dividing those of these Churches from others dwelling in the same places c. For what can be more evident then that the Apostle by the particle {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} as manyas in the Scriptures before us did not intend to divide the beleeving members of the Churches of Rome Galatia from the unbeleeving party of men in these places but only beleevers themselves amongst themselves the baptized from the un-baptized considering that in the former of the said places he expresseth himself thus Know ye not that so many of Us as were baptized into Jesus Christ c. and in the latter thus For as many of YOV as have been baptized c Is it worthy any mans belief that Paul writing thus to the beleeving members of the Church at Rome Know ye not that so many of us that were baptized c. should either in the pronoun Us include Nero with all the rabble of pagan Idolater in Rome as if he wrot to these as well as to the Saints or that he intended to signifie unto them that himself was one of those who dwelt in Rome Or