towards them that sought him not according to due order 1 Chron. 15. 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. 7. 16. 9. 11. whose Worship then comparatively to the Gospel was but after the Law of a Carnal Commandment and can it be supposed he should be so indifferent noâ— to leave men to their own liberty to time and place his Appointments contrary to what he hath given in express Rule for in his Word as before Ezek. 44. 7 9 10. It was the Priest's Sin formerly to bring the uncircumcised in heart and flesh into his house Answ. That there is no such Order in that Commission as you feign I have proved As for your far-fetch'd Instance 1 Chron. 15. 't 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. 25. 14. 1 Chron. 15. 12 13 14 15. Numb 4. 15. 1 Chron. 13. Now if you can make that 28th 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 who so listeth may hang on your sleeve As for the Pins and Tacks of the Tabernacle they were expresly 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. 44. 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 from Christ's own mouth knew the meaning of his Commission better than we but 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-dayes They that gladly received the Word were baptized and they yea they only were received into the Church Answ. How well you have proved what you have asserted is manifest by my Answer to the two former Arguments I adde 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 your selves 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-priviledge 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 joyn with the Church Our Lord Christ the great Example of the New Testament entred not upon his publick Ministry much less any other Gospel-Ordinance of Worship till he was Baptized Answ. That none of the Scripture-Saints if there be any unscripture ones so much as attempted this Church-priviledge 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 28th of Matthew 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 Priviledge of his Fathers 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 1. 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 Answ. 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 to be any thing thereby 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 comest thou to me and knew him after to be the SENT of God yet not in or by but after he was Baptized to wit 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 Mat. 3. 13 14 15 16. Luk. 3. 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 first fruits of Faith or that Faith ought to be tyed 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 tyed 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 sence any part of the foundation of a Church as to order Heb. 6. 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 rendred by the learned the A.
it must be thus despised as a matter of little use or shall one of Christ's precious Commands be blotted out of a Christians Obedience to make way for a Church-fellowship of man's devising Answ. 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 your self have conoluded it is no Church-Ordinance p. 40. not the entering-Ordinance p. 3 4. standeth both with Scripture and Reason as mine Arguments make manifest So that all your Arguments prove no more but 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 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 justifie 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 Answ. 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 1. 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 acknowledgement 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 revelation of it to terminate in the outward act of being baptized but in unfeigned and sound Repentance and the receiving of 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 Matth. 3. 7. Acts 19. 2 3. If your Doctrine be true why did they not rather say Oh! seeing you desire to be baptized 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 ask'd 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 nor know on whom he should believe evident I say and that by the same Texts Matth. 3. 7. Acts 19. 2 3 4. You have grounded therefore this your last Argument as also all 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 I can turn them into Food Your first Question is I Ask your own heart whether popularity and applause of variety of Professors be not in the bottom of what you have said that hath been your snare to pervert the right wayes of the Lord and to lead others into a path wherein we can find none of the foot-steps of the Flock in the first Ages Answ. 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 when-ever they saw their opportunity have made it their business to seek to rend us in pieces mine own self they have endeavoured to perswade to forsake the Church some they have rent quite off from us others they have attempted and 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 Answ. 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 your selves have thrown at all the Godly in the Land that are not of our Perswasion in counting them unfit to be communicated with or to be accompanyed with in the 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 Prineed 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 who 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
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 let them shew me how many Baptisms there are besides Water-baptism Can you build and leave out 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 Answ. Baptism is in no sense the Foundation of a Church I find no foundation of a Church but Jesus Christ himself Mat. 16. 18. 1 Cor. 3. 11. Yea the Foundation mentioned Heb. 6. 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 vers 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 your self have testified pag. 40. So then as to Church-work it hath no place at all therein Your seventh Argument is If Paul knew the Galatians ONLY upon the account of Charity NO other wayes to be the Sons of God by Faith but by this part of their Obedience as he seems to import then the same way we judge of the truth of mens profession of Faith when it shews it self by this self same Obedience Gal. 3. 26 27. Baptism being an Obligation to all following Duties Answ. 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 perswasion upon your own Conscience But verily Sir you grosly 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 our selves from the Things and Priviledges of our Fathers 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 the Lord Jesus which could not ordinarily be known but unto themselves alone because being thus baptized respecteth a special Act of Faith which onely God and him that hath and acteth it can be privy to It is one thing for him that administreth to Baptize in the Name of Jesus and 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 mens Servants are known by their Masters Liveries so are Gospel-Believers by this Livery of Water-baptism that all that first trusted in Christ submitted unto which is in it self is as much an Obligation to all Gospel-Obedience as Circumcision was to keep the whole Law Answ. 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 Gentlemans Livery by which his Name is known to be his is fantastical 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 I known by Water-baptism to be one that hath put on Christ as a Gentlemans man is known to be his Masters 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 have love one to another John 13. 35. That Baptism is in it SELF obliging to speak properly it is false for set it by it self 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 denyed 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 foot-steps of the Church of Judea 1 Thes. 2. 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 praise-worthy but rather
to be blamed it was not what was since in corrupted times but that which was from the beginning the first Churches were the purest Patern Answ. That the Text saith there was a Church OF Judea I find not 1 Thess. 2. 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 Thess. 2. 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 have suffered like things of your own Countrey-men even as they have of the Jews c. 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 Countreymen as they did of the Jews Will you not yet 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 Priviledges 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 Galatia Coloss 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. 6. Col. 2. 1 Cor. 15. was out of doors and altogether needless yea it bespeaks his ignorance and throweth contempt upon the Spirits Wisdom Heb. 6. 1 Pet. 3. 12. by which he wrote if that must be asserted as a ground to provoke them to such an end which had no beeing and if all the Members of all those Churches were baptized why should any plead for an exemption from Baptism for any Church-Member now Answ. 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. 14 15. Your eleventh Argument is If unbaptized Persons must be received into Churches onely because they are Believers though they deny Baptism Then why may not others plead for the like priviledge 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 mâ—â— be made up of visible sinners instead of visible Saints Answ. I plead not for Believers simply because they are Believers but for such Believers of whom we are perswaded 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 allo though he never be baptized Therefore to plead for his admission makes no way at all for the admission of the open prophane or to receive as YOU profess YOU do Persons unprepared to the Lord's Table and other solemn Appointments pag. 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 Is 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 very few will inquire after it or submit to it Hath not man's wisdom interposed to darken this part of God's Counsel By which Professors seem widingly led though against so many plain Commands and Examples written as with a Sun-beam that he that runs may read And must an Advocate be entertained to plead for so gross a piece of ignorance that the meanest babes of the first Gospel-times were never guilty of Answ. 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 another of his Servants which of his Truths he pleaseth Some of the Members of the Church of Jerusalem had a greater Truth than this kept from them for ought I know as long as they lived Acts 11. 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. 10. 15 16 17. 11. 22 23. 24 25 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 enquire 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 ferious 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 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-Obediance Is there no Precept for this Practice that
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 Text as manifest Besides considering the Rules that are given them in the 14 and 15 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 Chap. 1. 2. But it will be hard work for our Author to make it manifest that none in those dayes 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 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. 1. 1 2 3 4. So that these Brethren must not have all the Scriptures we have then a like priviledge with all Saints to use the Scriptures for our godly edifying and to defend our selves thereby from the assaults of those that would make spoyl 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 pestred of old trouble the Peace and wound the Consciences of the Godly dismember and break their Fellowships it is although an Ordinance for the present prudently to be shunned pag. 86. At this as I said you object pag. 10 11. and say Did I ever find Baptism a Pest or Plague to Churches And did ever God send an Ordinance to be a Pest and 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 hand 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 that some are possessed with to make complaint of this matter who have also had for their Engine the Baptism with Water Yea your self Sir so far as I can perceive could you get but the opportunity your self I say under pretence of this innocent Ordinance as you term it would not stick to make in-roads and out-roads 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 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-priviledges and let them see nothing thereof till those qualifications especially subjection to Water-Baptism was found to attend each of them As to the Persons you speak of Who have rent Churches in pieces by making Preaching by Method Doctrine Reason and Use to be Antichristian Or because they could not have other Ministrations performed after their fancies pag. 11 12. the imprudence of such with your selves hath been heart-breaking to many a gracious Soul an high occasion of stumbling to the weak and a reproach to the wayes of the Lord. That it may be prudently shunned I referred you then for proof to what should be offered after but at this you cry out and so pass it 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 pag. 71. 75. 2. I prove That though it was yet the case may so fall out that Members might be received without it pag. 82 83. 3. I prove That Baptism makes no man a visible Saint nor giveth any a right to Church-Fellowship pag. 76. 4. I prove That Faith and a Life becoming the Law of the Ten Commandments should be the chief and most solid Argument with true Churches to receive Saints to Fellowship 5. I prove That Circumcision in the Flesh which was the entring Ordinance of old was a Type of Circumcision in the heart c. 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 intreat 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. 1. 14 15 16. Rom. 6. 3. Gal. 3. 27. Yet were they effectually answered my Argument is Nothing weakened You come to my second Argument drawn from Eph. 4. 4 5 6. Upon which a little more now to inlarge and then to take notice of your Objection The Apostle then in that Fourth 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 vers 2 3. This done he presents them with such Arguments as might fasten his Exhortation to purpose upon them The first is Because the Body is ONE There is one Body therefore they should not divide For if the Church 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 quickning 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 fuly joyned together and compact by that which every joynt supplyeth according to the effectual working of the measure in every part maketh increase of the body to the edifying of it self in love Eph. 4. 16. Now this Spirit being first and chiefly in the Head therefore none other but those that hold the Head can have this nourishment ministred to them Besides This is the Spirit that knits the Body together makes it increase with the increase of God Col. 2. 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 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 expresly It is the Unity of the Spirit not Water that is here intended and the Arguments brought to inforce 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 expresly it is done by the Spirit For by one Spirit we are all baptized into one body 1 Cor. 12. 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 Spirit are we all baptized into one body besides if the Baptism here be of Water then is it the initiating Ordinance but the contrary I have proved and this Author stands by my Doctrine So then the Baptism here respecting the Church as a Body and Water having nothing to do to enter men into the Church nor to command them to practise it as a Church in order to their Peace or Communion or respecting the Worship of God as such And I say again the Baptism in the sixth Argument being urged precisely for no other purpose but with respect to the Churches peace as a Body it must needs be THAT Baptism by virtue of which they were initiated and joyned 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 joyn together and hold in one But our Author against this objecteth That now I imploy my Pen against every man and give the lye to all Expositors for they hold this one Baptism to be none other than that of Water pag. 13. Answ. What if I should also send you to Answer those Expositors that expound certain Scriptures for Infant-Baptism and that by them brand us for Anabaptists must this drive you from your belief of the Truth Expositors I reverence but must live by mine own Faith God hath no where bound himself to them more than to others with respect to the revelation of his Mind in his Word But it becomes not you to run thus to Expositors who are as to your notions in many things but of yesterday To the Law and to the Testimony For out of the mouth of Babes the Lord hath ordained strength But you bid me tell you What I mean by Spirit-Baptism Answ. 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 imbody or baptize me into the body of Christ is another Your Question therefore is grounded on a a mistake both of my Judgment and the words of the Apostle Wherefore thus I soon put an end to your Objections pag. 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 Baptism respecteth Church-Fellowship properly and seeing Water-Baptism medleth not with it as such it is the other even that in 1 Cor. 12. 16. that is here intended and 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. 12. 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. 12. 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 lye 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. 12. 16. 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 Water because he hath the DOCTRINE of Baptisms Heb. 6. 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 Answ. 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 ns And that the Doctrine of Baptism in this sense is the great end for which that and the Lord's Supper was instituted is apparent from all the Scriptures it is that which the Apostle seeketh for in that eminent sixth 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 be also in the likeness of his Resurrection Rom. 6. 3 4 5. What is here discoursed but the Doctrine of or that which Baptism teacheth with an intimation 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. 15. 22. Why then were you baptized what did Baptism teach you What Doctrine did it preach to you Further Baried 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. 2. 12 13. The same may be said of the Lord's Supper it also hath its Doctrine But against this our Author objecteth saying That this is called the Doctrine of Baptism I am yet to learn Answ. Your ignorance of the Truth makes it not an Error But I pray you what is the Doctrine of Baptism if not that which Baptism teacheth even that which is signified thereby As that is the Doctrine of Christ and the Scriptures which he and they teach as the mind of God But you say I took the Doctrine of Baptism to be the Command that a Believer should be baptised for such ends as the Gospel expresseth Answ. To assert that a figurative Ordinance of God is one thing but the Doctrinal signification of that Ordinance is another A man may preach the Command yet none of the Doctrine which Baptism preacheth The Doctrine lyeth not in the Command but the mystery discovered to Faith by the act You object If the Resurrection be the Doctrine of Baptism why doth the Apostle make that and the Doctrine of Baptism things distinct in Heb. 6. Answ. The Resurrection simply considered is not the Doctrine of Baptism but Christ's and mine by him Besides there is more in it than the Mystery of this Resurrection there is my death first and then my rising with him 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 aud better Sacrifice Answ. 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 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 now 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 faln upon it let me a little inlarge This Church according to the then Instituted Worship of God had Circumcision for their entering-Ordinance Gen. 17. 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 off and cast out again Further As to the Passeover the Uncircumcized was utterly forbidden to eate it Exod. 12. Now if our Brethren had as express prohibition to justifie their groundless Opinion as here is to exclude the Uncircumcised from the Communion of the Church and the
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 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 Priviledge 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 I. We that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak and not to please our selves 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 pag. 20. That it is Paul's direction to the Church at Rome how to receive their Brethren Church-Members pag. 20. 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 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 Church a rightly constituted Church at Rome besides that in Aquila's house Chap. 16. 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 as in this Mans house but the other only as particular Saints it giveth farther ground of Conviction to you that those others were not as yet imbodyed 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 the 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 pag. 21. Answ. Keep to the thing Man If it hold in the case in hand it is enough the which you have not denyed 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 stradling 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 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 judg a visible Saint one that walketh with God you may nay ought to judg 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 straightness 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 A. If they be vain Men and set up their OWN Order how straight 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 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 left we shew your nakedness and others see your shame You tell me of the Order of the Colossians Chap. 2. 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 justifie your Order In the mean while the whole of mine 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 But you ask me If outward and bodily Conformity be become a crime pag. 23. Answ. I no where said it But know that to glorifie God with our bodies respecteth chiefly far higher and more weighty things than that of Water-baptism Whatsoever is not of Faith is sin and to set up an Ordinance though an Ordinance of God that by it the Churches may be pull'd in pieces or the truly visible Saints excluded Communion with their Brethren I say again To make Water-baptism a bar and division betwixt Saint and Saint every-whit otherwise gracious and holy alike This is like fasting for strife and debate and to smite with the fist of wickedness and is not to be found within the whole Bible but is wholly an order of your own devising As to the Peace you make an Objection about pag. 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 poor Peace indeed Church-peace is founded in blood and love to each other for Jesus 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 But you ask Is my peace maintained in a way of disobedience and conclude if it be you fear it is false pag. 24. A. If the first were true you need not to doubt of the second but it may be thought he hath little to say in the Controversie who is forced to stuff out his Papers with such needless prattles as these My fifth Argument is That a failure in such a Circumstance as Water-baptism doth not un-Christian us This you are compelled to grant pag. 25. And I conclude with your words Persons ought to be Christians before visible Christians such as any Congregation in the Land may receive to Communion with themselves because God hath shewed us that he hath 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 glorifie 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 medled with the Conclusion at all which is That therefore even because a failure here doth not un-Christian 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 pag. 25. Answ. You should have given your Reader my words that he might have judged from my own mouth I said then speaking before of Christianity it self pag. 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 as Paul Provided I walk according to my Light with God otherwise 't 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 doth it according to his Light doth well and he that doth it not for want of Light doth not ill for he approveth his heart to be sincere with God even by that his forbearance And I tell you again It is no where recorded that this man is under any revealed threatning 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 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 the Ordinances of Christ and of God But my fifth Argument standeth against you untouched you have not denyed much less confuted the least syllable thereof You tell me my sixth Argument is Edification A. If it be why is it not imbraced But my own 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 't is of greater concern with us and of far more profit to Brother than our agreeing in or contessing for Water-baptism Joh. 16. 13. 1 Cor. 14. 12. 2 Cor. 10. 8. Chap. 12. 19. Ephes. 4. 12. 1 Cor. 13. 1 2. Chap. 8. 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 edifie 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 pag. 26. Answ. 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 Chuh without Baptism p. 26. A. See here the spirit of these Men who for the want of Water-baptism have at once un-Churched 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 and ought to be attained unto without it But you say Shew us a New-Testament-Church without Baptism pag. 26. A. What say you to the Church all a-long the Revelation quite through the Reign of Antichrist Was that a New-Testament-Church or no Again If Baptism be without the Church as a Church if it hath nothing to do in the Constituting of a Church if it be not the door of entrance into the Church if it be no part of Church-worship as such then although all the Members of that Church were baptized yet the Church is a Church without Water-baptism But all the Churches in the New-Testament were such Therefore c. Again If Baptism respect Believers as particular Persons only if it respects their own Conscience only if it make aman no visible Believer to me then it hath nothing to do with Church-membership Because that which respects my own Person only my own Conscience only that which is no Character of my visible Saintship to the Church cannot be an Argument unto them to receive me into fellowship with
but to all scattered Saints that in every place call upon the Name of the Lord that Jesus Christ is theirs that Paul and Apollo and Cephas and the World and all things else was theirs But you answer We take from them nothing but we keep them from a disorderly practice of Gospel-Ordinances we offer them their priviledges in the way of Gospel-Order Answ. Where have you one word of God that forbiddeth a person so qualified as is signified in mine Argument the best Communion of Saints for want of Water There is not a syllable for this in all the Book of God So then you in this your plausible defence do make your Scriptureless Light which in very deed is darkness Isa. 8. 20 21. the Rule of your Brothers Faith and how well you will come off for this in the Day of God you might were you not wedded to your wordless Opinion soon begin to conceive I know your Reply New-Testament Saints were all baptized first Answ 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 denyed 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 all that were not circumcised from entering into fellowship with a threatning to cut them off from the Church if they entered in without it Yet more than six hundred thousand entred 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 entring-Ordinance Are not you commanded to keep out of the Church all that are not circumcised Yea and for all those that you thus received are you not commanded to cast them out again to cut them off from among this people Gen. 17. 13 14. Exod. 12. 24 25 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 more holy than many of our selves 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 Sheep-fold than by the footsteps of the Flock we have no such custom nor the Churches of God pag. 41. Answ. What was done of old I have shewed you that Christ not Baptism is the way to the Sheep-fold is apparent and that the person in mine Argument is intituled to all these to wit Christ Grace and all the things of the Kingdom of Christ in the Church is upon the Scriptures urged as evident But you add That according to mine old confidence I affirm That drink ye all of this is intailed to Faith not Baptism A thing say you soon said but yet never proved Answ. 1. That it is intailed to Faith must be confessed of all hands 2. That it is the priviledge 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 the worthy Receiver in God's estimation but that none discern 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 Priviledges for want of that which yet God never made the Wall of Division betwixt us This looks too like a Spirit of Persecution Job 19. 25 26 27 28 c. and carrieth in it those eighteen absurdities which you have so hotly cryed out against And I do still add Is it not that which greatly prevailed 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 Priviledges to which they are born of God 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 our selves from Communion Therefore you call my Conclusion devilish pag. 43. Top-ful of ignorance and prejudice p. 41. and me one of Machiavels Scholars p. 42. also proud presumptious impeaching the Judgment of God Answ. 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 Priviledges 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 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. A was in my Copy instead whereof the Printer put in the for this although I speak only the truth I will not beg of you belief besides the Bookseller desired me because of the Printers haste to leave the last sheet to be over-looked by him which was the cause it was not among the Errata's 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 If it be not justifie your practice if it be take shame Besides the Proposition is universal why then should you be the chief intended But you have in this done like to the Lawyers of old who when Christ reproved the Pharisees of wickedness before them said Master thus saying thou reproachest us also Luk. 11. 45. But you feign and would also that the World should believe that the Eighteen Absurdities which naturally flow from the Proposition I make to
be the Effects of Baptism saying to me None but your self could find an innocent Truth big with so many monstrous Absurdities pag. 42. I Answer This is but speaking wickedly for God or rather to justifie your wordless Practice I say not that Baptism hath any Absurdity in it though your abusing it hath them all and many more while you make it without warrant from the Word as the flaming Sword to keep the Brotherhood out of Communion because they after your manner cannot consent thereto And let no man be offended for that I suggest that Baptism may be abused to the breeding such monstrous Absurdities for greater Truths than that have been as much abused What say you to This is my Body To instance no more although I could instance many are not they the words of our Lord are not they part of the Scriptures of Truth and yet behold even with those words the Devil by abusing them made an Engine to let out the heart-blood of thousands Baptism also may be abused and is when more is laid upon it by us than is Commanded by God And that you do so is manifest by what I have said already and shall yet say to your Fourteen Arguments My last Argument you say is this The World may wonder at your carriage to those Unbaptized Persons in keeping them out of Communion Ans. You will yet set up your own words and then fight against them but my words are these What greater contempt can be thrown upon the Saints than for their Brethren to cut them off from or to debar them Church-Communion And now I add Is not this to deliver them to the Devil 1 Cor. 5. or to put them to shame before all that see your acts There is but one thing can hinder this and that is by-standers see that these your Brethren that you thus abuse are as holy men as our selves Do you more to the open Prophane yea to all Wizards and Witches in the Land For all you can do to them I speak now as to Church-acts is no other than debar them the Communion of Saints And now I say again The World may well wonder when they see you deny holy-men of God that liberty of the Communion of Saints which you Monopolize to your selves And though they do not understand the grounds of Profession or Communion yet they can both see and say these Holy-men of God in all visible acts of Holiness are not one inch behind you Yea I will put it to your selves If those many yea very many who thus severely but with how little ground is seen by men of God you deny Communion with are not of as good as holy as unblameable in life and as sound if not sounder in the Faith than many among our selves Here only they make the stop they cannot without Light be driven into Water-baptism I mean after our Notion of it but what if they were 't would be little sign to me that they were sincere with God To conclude this when you have proved that Water-baptism which you your self 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 our selves that have not according to our Notion been baptized with Water then 't will be time enough to talk of ground for so doing In the mean time 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 meer Humane 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 Matth. 28. 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 Disciples and afterward to teach them to observe all that Christ Commanded 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 injoyned in the Commission Answ. 1. That the Ministers are to Disciple and Baptize is granted But that they are prohibited by the Commission Matth. 28. 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 that have ever read 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 28th 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 skrewed 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 alwayes even to the end of the World But would I say any 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 believeth and is baptized shall be saved but he that believeth not shall be damned Mark 16. 16. letting Baptism which he mentioned in the promise fall when he came at the threatning 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 another Duty But let 's 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
Passeover 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 Reader observe that although Circumcision was the entering-Ordinance and our Author saith Baptism is not yea though this Church was expresly 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 Passeover 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 over-look'd 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 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. 10. I confess I find them under rebukes and judgments in the Wilderness and that they were many times threatned 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. 10. 5 10. I will therefore say of them as I have also said of my Brethren They had the richer and better thing But you object That this putteth the whole of God's Instituted Worship both under the Law and Gospel to the highest uncertainties p. 17. Answ. 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 notwithstanding 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 injoyned the Church as a Church 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 perswasion in one You object I call Baptism a Circumstance a shew an outward-shew I NICK-NAME it Answ. Deep reproof But why did you not shew me my evil in thus calling it when opposed to the Substance and the thing signified 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 symbole and compare it to a Gentleman's Livery pag. 52. But you say I call it an OUTWARD shew Answ. Is it an Inward one What is it It is a Command Answ. But doth that install 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 administring it pag. 18. This is your mistake both of the Doctrin and Thing it self 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 and yet know nothing of what Water-baptism preacheth or of the Mystery baptism sheweth to Faith But that the Doctrine of Baptism is not the Practice of it not the outward act but the thing signified and that every Believer hath that must argue you more than too bold to deny it 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. Answ. To say nothing of Faith and the Word verily Reason it self teacheth it For if Christ be my Righteousness 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. Answ. A Believer hath more in Christ then either Promise or Precept but all Believers know not all things that of God are given to them by Christ. But must not they use and enjoy what they know because they know not all Or must they neglect the weightier matters because they want Mint and Annise and Commin 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 symbole or Water-baptism But say you He that despiseth his Birth-right of Ordinances our Church-priviledges will be found to be a prophane Person as Esau in God's account Baptism is not the Priviledge of a Church as such But what are they all ESAU'S 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